Good afternoon. Uh, we're going to go ahead and call to order. Uh, my name is Don Wyn. I'm a Florida bar attorney specially appointed by the city of Titusville to serve as the magistrate for today's code enforcement hearings. These public hearings are quasi judicial in nature. While formal rules of
evidence do not apply, fundamental due process will be observed. Everyone with the case today will have the opportunity to present testimony. You may also present evidence or call witnesses to testify on your behalf. Please note that there is no public comment portion during code enforcement hearings. To
speak on a specific case, you must either be the respondent or a witness called to testify. Everything said today will be recorded. All testimony will be given under oath. When you are sworn in, please state your name and provide your current mailing address so we have an updated record for sending any orders.
The city will present its case first. Information may be displayed on the screens and documents may be provided by the city as evidence. The city's PowerPoint presentation will also be entered into evidence unless there are objections. After all evidence and testimony have been presented, I will
make a ruling. My ruling will be reduced to writing and mailed to you. Uh we'll go ahead and move forward with swearing in any witnesses. So at this time um if you intend to testify for your case, please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> All right. Thank you. You may be seated. Um we're going to go uh move forward with the lean reduction hearing that's
on the agenda and that is for uh 3700 Miriam Drive. >> Good afternoon sir. I'm going to enter in the uh lean reduction application and the cost recovery the other deed etc accompanies it.
Thank you. Uh this is uh originally was the uh case number 2537. Uh the current owner uh is different than the uh original case owner. Uh
and uh it's a it's a a living trust uh with a Michael Sarco as trustee who is here today. Uh the respondent original case was Jessica Cassell. Uh violation address 3700 Miriam Drive.
Uh the violations were junk and debris, uh overgrowth and weeds, uh swimming pool enclosure, and the pool itself. Okay. Originally heard uh was needed to correct all the violations on or before
September the 5th, 2025. If not, the final $150 per day per violation would commence. Uh administ administrative cost of $12853 were imposed. Uh on January 27th, 2026, an inspection
of property found a compliance with uh 1223 junk and debris and uh uh subsection 302.4 overgrowth and weeds and the daily fines were stopped. Uh on January 30th, 2026, the property was
found to be in compliance with uh subsection 303.1, the swimming pool, and subsection 303.2, two, the pool enclosure and daily fines were stopped. And uh on February 5th, 2026, the code
enforcement department received the uh application for lean reduction from Michael Sraco who represents the trust. And like I said, he is here today and the application is presented with a court title city of code or ordinance is section 1371
for a special match for consideration. Total daily fines acrewed were $87,8853 with the administrative cost of12853 included. Uh the applicant is requesting a reduction in amount of $86,82853. And this shows the uh latest report on
the owner and the assessed value. I'm sorry, I can't make that any larger. Uh this is an after the an after picture of removal the overgrowth. The front of the house was completely totally overgrown.
Uh that's some of the weeds on the back side that were uh part of the overgrowth. Uh the enclosure right there, the screen was missing and the door was damaged. That has been boarded from the inside to prevent entry into the pool area.
Uh this is a little bit different. This is a before of the pool. And you can also see in this that the hard enclosure was not secured. And this is afterwards. You can see what what the uh Mr. Shraco has done has
covered the pool and secured that enclosure. Uh that was how nasty the water was before. And this is some of the junk and debris that was up around the front door and in the backyard. It was just all over the
property. And that was it. >> The neighborhood greatly appreciated it. >> All right. And sir, you mean come up? >> Good afternoon. Go ahead and state your name and your mailing address for the record. Michael Sarraco 526 Boulevard
Avenue, Coco, Florida 32922. >> Are you the trustee of or are you the owner of 180 Aracore Drive LLC? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. >> I'm the manager. My wife is the owner, but >> Gotcha. All right. Tell me more. >> Yeah. So, we Miss Leverand was lent
money on this property years and years ago. She had went through the judicial foreclosure process. We purchased as she got certificate of title, we had already had an arrangement where I would purchase the property from her. Um, she had made me aware that there were violations. It was beginning of January.
There wasn't that the actual leans weren't recorded until shortly after I had taken property, but I was aware that there were violations. I wasn't aware as to the actual amount or what the specific violations were, but looking at the property prior to purchase, I had a general understanding. within two weeks
of owning the property, we made sure that we had complied with all the violations and reached out to code enforcement as soon as we possibly could. >> There were no uh pictures of like the enclosure or anything that you had, officer, were there? >> Yeah, >> I've got plenty of pictures if you need me to.
>> Yeah. Do you mind bringing them up? >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's good. >> They're on my phone, so I'm not sure. This is uh >> I remember the before because I remember hearing
>> that that that's before he tried to do it that way and it wouldn't and it wouldn't work. So he came back and that was before how it was >> the a lot of most of the screen on the door was gone. The big panel there to the side that was gone. Uh the rest of
it was fairly cured. Secured door the other end was locked and that was after he boarded that on the inside. >> Drain the pool and everything. >> Oh, okay. >> I got to the point where I can do everything that doesn't need a permit.
>> Just show me a couple real quick up the back and then I'll probably need you to email it to >> Sam so we can add that to evidence later. >> Yeah. Yeah. I don't just swipe this way. I don't I don't want to go through your >> Yeah. I don't know what you got in
there. So, >> okay. What's >> And then what we did was we're redoing the entire enclosure, but there could be access to the board. >> Oh, this is what that
>> Yeah. So, under six feet where there need to be a fence, we just boarded everything up so no one could get access to the enclosure at all. It's all since been cleared. The pool's completely drained. And like I said, we got to the point where we've done all the work we can demolition wise where we don't need permits. Now we just need waiting on a roof permit and then to get the rest of
the general renovation permits before we can move forward. But we satisfied all violations immediately and I was in contact with the officer to make sure that I understood what he needed me to do and I did it as soon as I possibly could. So the
Evelyn Ever Leverance Simeon, she was the lender on the property. Uh she or her trust foreclosed on the property and you guys had an arrangement basically to purchase it from her after the foreclosure cuz Yeah, I'm looking at
the property appraiser site and it doesn't have any purchase price listed out there. Uh >> yeah, so she actually foreclosed on two properties at the same time. We bought both of them and then to be frank with you, some of the purchase price is contingent upon the amount that's reduced in in this as well. So, we're
waiting to go back and and um >> address that. >> I see that the market value um by the property appraiser is $38,510. Um obviously, you know, county appraisals is always a little bit less than what actual market would be, but
let's just just use that for right now. um when I look at your application and one of the factors that we look at is obviously the relative uh value of the uh uh lean versus the the property value. So
obviously that's a substantial amount. Um in the application itself, I know you stated that you were aware there were violations but not aware of the amounts. Correct. >> Um you know obviously anytime there's a foreclosure and obviously if you take title via quick claim deed, there's a certain buyer beware aspect. Yes.
>> To it. Um, >> if I may tell you, a lot of guys wouldn't have taken that house for free. So, you can call it 300,000 if you want. >> No, I I I get it. I I get it. I get it. I get it. But I can only, you know, go with the data that I have in front of me. Right.
>> Understood. Um, no, I mean I I I I am inclined to to reduce it considerably just again because of the relative dollar amounts and and actually I'm very um happy to hear that the neighbors are appreciative of the efforts and um you know officer
uh uh not you sorry u is uh uh I guess we're we're satisfied with the condition of this but is there still more work to be done, right? >> Yes. He'll have some more things to do on his end, but as far as he's good, >> I'm compliant, but it's not exactly
livable. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Um bear with me one second. I'm just looking at the payoff because what you have here >> that the foreclosure was 250
>> 275,000. Yeah. >> But you're talking about a lean that's $86,000 which is obviously a substantial portion of whether you call it 275, whether you call it 300 or even less given the condition it is. It's that's probably the biggest factor and that I would consider alongside your efforts to
clean things up since then and in reducing it. But you have admin costs uh for the city which I'm not going to reduce. Lot cleaning fees which the city has had to incur which I'm not going to reduce. Recording fees um which aren't
very much. All those together probably like 300400. Then the big bulk of the fines is basically 21,450 per Ford violations.
Um given that I mean I think you stated before you were aware that violations were on there. You were certainly aware um that there were maybe some sort of monetary amount there but you didn't
know how much. Um I think it's only fair that some of the fines remain. um if we reduced it to just instead of the multiplier of four so it's 21,450* 4 it's just one of them plus all the admin
costs and everything is that something the city >> that would be approximately 25% overall which is about what the city was looking for as far as reduction yeah ceiling >> or floor I should say >> four yeah so we're just 24% away from
having a You're not negotiating with me, man. I'm sorry. No, I mean, but again, you know, there again, there's a there's While I am appreciative, I'm sure the city's appreciative, there is an element of buyer beware, and it sounds like you accounted for that with the purchase
price or whatever business arrangement you have with the trustee that foreclosed. And I think you guys recognize that. And obviously, you know, you're you look like and you sound like a a businessman. You're not doing this to lose money, but at the same time, I think you you you you came in knowing
that there was some risk. >> Yeah. No, I was shocked when they were 87, I'll be honest with you, because it wasn't even recorded yet. So, in that short period, but if you got multiples, then just kind of adds up. >> So, um yeah, I'm going to go ahead and issue that. And again, my my my the
order that I issue was just going to be a recommendation to the city council. So, it's up to them to approve it or not. And I think you have an opportunity there to to be present there when they discuss that as well. Um but yeah, so I've reviewed u the lean reduction application in the city code provision
that is applicable. I've considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn testimony relating to the matter from city staff and the respondents. The factors um that I've considered are um the actions taken by applicant to correct uh and time it took
to bring into compliance. um the acred amount of the unfortunately compared to the market value of the property. Um I don't think you have any financial hardship that you're um claiming. Um I don't think this is your homestead. Um and I do think you had
prior knowledge of the existence of the violations. Maybe not so the lean because it wasn't on there. Um, I will recommend that city council reduce this lean to a total of 21,450 plus let me just use my calculator real quick. Sorry.
So 225 plus. So that would be a total amount of uh $21,83853. Does that look correct? Okay. Uh based on the factors I stated before. Um and that lean will include all the
costs incurred by the city. Um all the admin cost, the lot cleaning fee, and the recording fee. Uh it is so ordered. You will receive a written order from today's hearing which will just be a recommendation to city council. You will have noticed an opportunity to attend the city council meeting where the
recommendation will be considered. And one more thing, if you can email those photos that you showed me um that would be made exhibits um to defile so the city council can see the efforts that you've made. >> Okay. I can send some updated ones as well. >> That'd be great. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> And then is there a set time? Sometimes
I know some municipalities will have like you'll have 60 days or 30 days after the order. So Glenn, yeah, >> actually after he goes to council, you have 90 days. >> Oh, perfect. >> And we'll send you once you send those I will then take the case forward from here. >> All right.
>> And get you the date when we're set. >> Okay. Good. Thank you so much for your help. >> Thank you. Excuse. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. We will move forward the non-compliant hearings. The first one is 25-74
which is 218 Ojiway Avenue. I present to you the affidavit notice of hearing for today and the cost affidavit. of $18911. Thank you, officer. All right. Uh again, 218 Ojiway. Uh the
mail to address was the same. It was also mailed to the California address and for the hearing today uh there were some discrepancies I guess in January uh that it was sent to Pink Trust in Puerto Rico as well of the notice of hearing. Uh this is for the accessory structure
for the fence and the enclosure for the swimming pool. Uh this case was originally heard for non-compliance on January 12th. Uh, sorry. Um, you'd requested that the Sun Trust Mortgage, which is in Puerto Rico,
get notified. I'm sorry, Pink Trust is that listed as didn't get notified of the hearing. So, we sent them a notification of the hearing, which they did sign um, and received notice of that. Um, I spoke with Linda Sanchez of Sun West Mortgage. Um, emailed her a
couple times back and forth. Um, she advised that the tenants received the 90-day do not notice to vacate on November 7th and it expired on February 5th. Uh, and their council was moving forward for an eviction process. And when I checked the other day on February
19th, they did start a proper eviction process for the tenant on this matter. As if you remember, they wouldn't do anything with the property until the tenant was gone. Um, again, this t this case was originally heard in November. um they were given until December 5th uh
if compliance was not obtained and receive a fine of $100 per day per violation till the violation was corrected an administrative cost of $189. Um last week I was notified that the contractor was out there and uh they did show up and correct the problem on
Thursday which was the I'm sorry the date what was Thursday the 5th on the 5th is when they all they all came into compliance. Um, they fixed the fence. The pool is damaged to unrepairable condition. So, it's still there, but it's not deemed a hazard because it's
not going to retain water at any point. Um, but here's a picture of the updated where they fixed the fence. Um, and that's just the other side where the fence was damaged that they fixed as well. So, at this point on the 5th, it was put in the complaints and the
respondent is here today to discuss. Was that all the Was the fence the only violation or >> was the fence in the pool? They either had to put a fence up or take care of the pool. The pool is damaged to where it's no longer considered a pool. There's no >> no way it's going to hold water. Um I
apologize. I didn't get a picture put into that. Um >> so that one's pretty much complied as of the 5th and the fence was taken care of then fixed the damage. So we're we're good to go on both on the fifth. >> Um what about the overgrowth and weeds? That's all taken care of as well.
>> We evaded that. So, we weren't I think that wasn't in the original order. I think it was just the pool and the fence. >> Okay. >> But they did cut it while they were out there on the fifth. So, >> so from the city from the city's uh standpoint, there is no active violations. >> Correct. Okay.
>> All right. And gentleman is here. >> Good afternoon. Um he pretty much said everything I was going to say. >> What was your name again? The >> Bobby Mims. Sorry. Yeah. Bobby M. 794 Birham Place, Lake Mary, Florida. >> Okay. All right. >> What's your relation to the to the owner, by the way? >> I'm representing uh Sun West or their
asset management. I got you. Okay. >> They just put it across my desk uh yesterday evening. So, told you to be here. >> She wanted Yeah. She highlighted an email and Mr. Jim, I believe, >> he pretty much said everything that they wanted me to say. So, um they just are curious on what the fines are going to
be. And, um also, there was some issue with it. the initial notice, I think back in December, went to the uh >> yeah, there was there was a a timing issue when the notice was sent out versus when the certificate of title was issued because I think the
notice went to the mortgage E, which was Sunwest, but the certificate of title was >> Pink Trust, which is an arm of Sunwest, but >> technically if they're the owner, they should have gotten notice. So that's why we pushed it back, but I think that's I see that's been rectified now.
Um, >> yep. Yes. And I've got like a 52page report with all pictures. They cut everything. Everything is uh should be in compliance and looking good. And that tenant once the eviction is is done, we plan on getting it on the market and fixing.
>> So, do you know what the status is on the eviction? >> Uh, I believe that was filed on the 19th 19th. And I I do not know. Like I said, this just came across my desk literally 9:00 p.m.
last night. So, uh I'm not really sure on that. I I know I did uh actually have a cash for keys agreement signed with that at one point in time >> and uh that ended up falling apart right at last minute.
And I've got the eviction filings as well or the complaint for eviction. >> Officer Jim, do you know when the uh when the property was brought into compliance? >> Uh on the 5th of March. >> Last week. >> Last week. Okay.
>> Okay. >> Yes. The original order said the fence needed to be fixed by noon on December 5th or
we may impose a fine of $100 per day commencing December 6. But even at that time we knew there were issues with the mailing and the tech the technicalities involved. Um, so I don't think it would be fair to calculate out
$100 per day uh for the last 3 months. Um, >> and the the current occupant has been pretty tough to deal with. >> Yeah, understood. Understood. >> Um, I'm not going to impose a fine, but we
will have to recover the costs um that were imposed uh which is only $189.11 um as long as you know obviously I understand the difficulties with as far as like the eviction and not really
technically being able to enter the property to do these fixes and then you you you tack on all the potential notice issues as well, I don't I don't think it's uh fair and proper to impose those fines. Um so, um the fact that you you guys were able to, you know, pursue the
eviction and also uh get the fence fixed during that interim period, I think that uh speaks volumes. So, um I'm going to make my ruling. I find that based on the evidence and testimony presented that notice was properly provided to the respondent and respondent did appear. Can you make sure they have your name
and address? and we got to make sure we have it documented who appeared on behalf of the trust. Um the evidence demonstrates that the property located at 218 Ojiway um is no longer in violation and um the property is in
compliance with the previous order from November 13th, 2025. Um a no fine will be imposed. Um, however, the cost of $189.11
um have not been paid and will be due from um Pink Trust. Certified copy of this order will be recorded in the public records constituting a lean on the subject property. The respondent is required to notify code enforcement. Oh, sorry. No. Um that's not applicable. Um
so once you get a copy of the order, you know, make sure you guys pay the fine. We're not fine. The >> charge responsive. They're good. >> And uh All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. >> Give me one second. Let me organize here a second.
All right. Okay, we'll move ahead with 26-03 which is 1235 Theorough Street. I didn't know if you needed to do the final order on that last case. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Do you not want me to?
So I have two exhibits. First is the notice of hearing and affidavit for today's hearing and the second is the cost recovery statement uh $15389. >> Thank you. So once again, this is the non-compliance hearing for case number
26-03. Our respondents are BAF Asset 6 LLC and Corporation Service Corporation, the registered agent. Our violation address is 1235 Toro Street and we have mailing
addresses of Austin, Texas for the owner and Tallahassee, Florida for the registered agent. Um, let's see. >> Are they present by the way? >> No. >> Okay. So, I've got five violations right now
that are in um are remain in violation. Um that would be section 6-56 for a building permit required. Uh 30413 for the windows, skylights, and doors. 304.6
exterior walls. Uh 506.2 sanitary drainage. and 603.1 for the uh mechanical appliances, the electrical section 605.1 and then
roofs and drainage 304.7 was placed in compliance on Friday, March 6th. So, our certified and first class letters were mailed on February 4th, 2026. Certified mail for the registered
agent was signed for on February 9th and the property owner signed for theirs on February 10th of uh 2026 and copies were posted at city hall and uh deliver handd delivered to the new tenant of the
property on February 24th, 2026. So this case was originally heard January 12th, 2026. Uh no one was present for the respondent. Uh they were found to be in violation
of 6-56 605.1 30413 304.6. Okay. >> And they were ordered to correct the violations on or before noon of March 6, 2026. A fine in the amount of $100 per
day per violation to be imposed commencing on March 7th and continuing daily. and administrative costs in the amount of $153.89 were imposed. So while posting the notice of hearing
at the property and that should say March uh or February 24th, 2026, uh I observed a new tenant have moved into the property. uh knocking on the door, I was able to speak with Miss Thorne um about the open code case and
the open violations, and she had advised me that um those repairs had yet to be made. On February 3rd, 2026, the administrative costs were paid in full. On March 3rd, 2026, I received an email
from Kim Lewis with Main Street Renewal. That is the property maintenance company. um with photos of work done at the property. I requested an on-site meeting to view the repairs
and um the final date selected for the reinspection with Main Street Renewal was March 11th, 2026. Um, Miss Lewis was made aware that the compliance hearing was this last Friday and that um there
would be a non-compliance hearing today. I did stop by the property on March 6th. Uh, Miss Thorne was home and she did provide access um to for me to do an inspection. Um, two violations were
placed into compliance. Um all the other five were remaining and a review of building dep department records. As of this morning, there was been no permit filed for the mechanical system.
So this is the compliance photo. We had a light in the living room um dining room area that was not functioning. It was functioning on Friday. And then on our roofs and drainage, they did go ahead and add a rain cap and a chain, a
rain chain to act as the downspout for the gutter at the front of the uh at the front door. So this was the repair of the sanitary system. This is a temporary repair. This is not a permanent repair and as such I did not place it into
compliance. Um, also they did not address all the erosion um in the yard. So, the only piece of the exterior that was repaired was the frame around the sliding glass
door. Um, the rest of the boards, as you can see on the photo on the right, is still rotten and deteriorated. Uh, no work started on the west side of the building. Uh again, no permit application has been
made for the mechanical system that was installed. Um no work has been done inside the house to address any of the um damaged interior surfaces at the doors and um no other work has been done to
address um weather sealing the doors. So, as of today, um 6-56, we do ha do not have a a permit applied for or issued. Uh for subsection 30413,
um we do not have the doors being weatherproofed and the interior surfaces repaired. For 306 uh 304.6, the exterior walls, we still have deteriorated uh materials on the exterior of the house.
uh sanitary drainage. Uh the drain line needs a permanent repair and the erosion addressed. And then 603.1, we need the um mechanical system
permitted and all inspections completed. >> So, Miss Thorne is the tenant there. >> She's the new tenant. >> She hasn't moved in yet, though. >> She moved in. >> Okay. there. Um, as of February 24th, she said she had moved in approximately
two weeks prior. >> Okay. So, they moved in and then Lewis was the contractor. >> Miss Lewis was the um regional director uh for Main Street Renewal, the property company. >> Um, I met with one of her
representatives January 20th, >> but they're not related to the owner. They're a vendor of the owner, right? They're they're a vendor of the owner. I have had zero um contact with the owner themselves, just the management company. >> All right. Okay. Can you Oh, yes. Le
there. I find based on the evidence and testimony presented that notice was properly provided to the respondent and respondent did not appear. The evidence demonstrates that the property located at 1235 Theorough Street remains in violation. Um,
and the property is not in compliance with the previous order dated dated January 15, 2026. Therefore, I find that the city has established a continuing violation of the following provisions. Section 6-556
for building permit. Section 6-109 regarding windows, skylights, and door frames. se I'm sorry that's subsection 304.13 uh subsection 304.6 regarding exterior walls subsection 506.2 regarding sanitary drainage system maintenance and
subsection 603.1 regarding mechanical appliances. Um, accordingly, a fine of $100 per day per violation, and there should be five, uh, commencing >> March 7th, 2026,
and continuing daily until the violations are corrected. The city's costs of $153.89 have already been paid. Correct. >> Yes, >> they have already been paid. Um, a certified copy of this order will
be recorded in the public records constituting a lean on the subject property. Respondent is required to notify code enforcement once the property is brought into compliance so that code enforcement can verify and confirm. All right. Thank you.
Before we move forward, can I ask what matter these uh groups are here for? We can send them on their way. That'd be nice. I'm sure they have other stuff they'd rather be doing. Sure. Uh they are here for
2607 would be the couple to the left and 2610 I believe Mr. >> both under initial hearings. >> Okay. Um let's just skip ahead to the initial hearing part just so we can get
them on their way. I know they they were here before I was. So, you know, we'll move move ahead to theirs. And that that's for 905 Clover. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and go to that one. Sorry, making you go out of order. Here
it is. Okay. I have three exhibits to submit. The first is the notice of violation. Okay. Oh, okay. >> All right. Try that again. Uh, the first exhibit is the notice of violation and
affidavit. The second is the notice of hearing and affidavit. And the third is the cost recovery statement in the amount of $153.89. >> Thank you. So, this is the initial hearing for case number 26-07.
Our respondents are Michael Trip. He's the current resident and registered listed owner of the um mobile home. Melvin Zimmerlin and Marian Zimmerman. They are the listed tangible property owner. The violation address is 4905
Clover Lane, Titusville, Florida. We have a mailing address of 4905 Clover Lane and then as well as 7262 Oakbrook Circle in Portage, Michigan. The violation is section 30-39
uh tree removal permit required. So the initial inspection was um completed on January 6th of 2026. The notice of violation was handd delivered to Mr. Trip on January 9th of
2025. Uh sorry that should say 2026. Uh date given to comply was January 28th of 2026. certified in first class mail was sent to um both addresses on January 13th of
2026. Um the current resident signed for theirs on the 16th. Um but we have not received the tangible property owners information back. Hearings were sent out on February 4th.
Um copies were posted at city hall and hand delivered to the property. I'm sorry again I missed that date. was February 24th, 2026. Uh certified mail for the current resident was signed for on February 2nd
of 2026, and the tangible property owners um letter has not been signed for or returned. So, a complaint was received for a tree being removed in the Whispering Pines mobile home park without a permit. I
completed a inspection on January 6th of 2026 and verified a pine tree had been cut down on the southwest corner of the trailer located at 4905 Clover Lane. While on site, I did speak with owner
Michael Trip, who stated he received permission from park staff to have the tree removed. spoke with park staff who confirmed sun up to sun down um bobcat and tree service was the vendor that had that did the work and they had received a text message stating that they had
gotten approval to remove the tree without a permit. Uh no other document was provided to the park. When I contacted development services um they confirmed they had not had any contact concerning a tree removal permit
at that location. I did speak to uh Harry with Sunup to Sundown Bobcat and Tree Services that same day on the 6th. Um he was not aware of this um this work, but he was going to follow up with the employee handling
the contract to find out what was done and what approvals uh were acquired. On January 8th, I confirmed with development services no one had contacted um the city about a tree removal permit. Initial notice of
hearing was issued to Whispering Pines Mobile Home Park under code case 26-0010. After receiving a copy of the violation, regional manager for Parakeet Communities questioned why the park had received the violation as the trailer owner was responsible for hiring the
contractor and having the tree removed. Uh this assistant city attorney did review the details of the case and determine the notice of violation should be issued to the owner of the trailer. Um as provided by the Bvard County Tax
Collector's Office, case 2610 was closed and this new case was open. On January 9, 2026, I did meet with Michael Trip and hand delivered a copy of the violation notice. We uh discussed the determinations made about the case, the
timeline of the project, and conversations he had with park staff. While on site, we did um call um James was sent up to sun down to um again go over the timeline, what work was done,
and the requirement for a permit within the city of Titusville. Um James advised that they had completed the bid without the review of the company's arborist as the tree was under 36 in and the bid was for residential use. Contact information for um Jacob
Biggley with uh development service was provided um so that the contact contractor could speak with them and get guidance as to that permitting process. On January 20th, 2026, development services determined that the tree
removal permit cannot be issued in this case and that uh a hearing with the special magistrate should move forward. I contacted Mr. Trip by phone to let him know of the determination in today's hearing.
So 36-39 is the requirement to obtain a tree removal permit prior to the tree being removed. So this is the Whispering Pines um mobile home and RV park on Cheney
Highway. Um at the lower um right hand corner, the yellow circle is where the um 4905 Clover Lane is located. So this is uh 4905 Clover Lane. These were the photos of the tree being removed or um
post cutting down on January 6th, 2026. So uh this violation is irreversible in nature as the tree has been removed um and the trailer owner had the tree removed without the required tree removal permit.
So we are requesting that at the time of this meeting um the trailer owner is found to be in violation of code 30-39. We are asking the administrative cost in the amount of $153.89
be imposed and we're asking for a fine of $1,500 as the violation is irreversible andor irreparable in nature. And I do have um Mr. Trip here.
>> I do see give me one second. Um, I think I would have had the same question that it looks like the assistant city attorney answered before. Um, because the property owner is actually the mobile park operator. Do you What is the Bvard code that you that
you researched and found, Mr. Molita? >> Yeah. So, there's some uh strange language that doesn't map up super cleanly with 162 in chapter 723.024 that governs notice within mobile home parks for code enforcement violations. So it becomes the the becomes
responsibility of the trailer owner, not the >> Yes. Not the park owner. >> Okay. >> And the reason that we referenced the um tax collector's uh website in there is because they had the trailer park owner and the 16212 says you can serve either subject to property appraiser or tax
collector. >> Okay. All right. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Go ahead and state your names for the record. >> Michael Truck, 4905 Cove Lane, Ty, Florida. >> Mrs. Trip, Crystal Trip.
>> Same residence. >> And what was your first name? Sorry, miss. >> Crystal. >> Crystal. Okay. How do we spell Crystal? Do we have the right? >> C H R Y S T A L. >> Right. You guys hear that? All right. Okay. All right. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Um, it all this all started with their sink holes under my trailer expose all the roots to the tree. Tree tipped quite significantly.
They cut the roots out in order to fill the sink holes under the trailer which was caused from an air septic system which leaked severely and caused the sinkhole which exposed the roots under
the trailer which they cut and filled in the hole. I went to the park. The park had people come out, see their people and agreed the tree had to go. >> Who? Who is this? Sorry. >> The park people management.
>> The park. >> And then >> parakeet. >> They told us to go ahead and call a we did. And the arberest came after the hole and the roots were cut and
everything was filled. They had to rele the trailer and do all that. He and we asked the tree guy, state license by the state of Florida. He said a permit wasn't required. Now,
we didn't cut the tree because >> it's tree. We cut tree because there was a sinkhole under the trailer. They cut the roots to fill the sinkhole.
Therefore, I felt as though it be a pine tree. It was weakened even more. It was already leaning. And when we bought the trailer two years ago, it was straight and trailer sunk 2 in.
And >> that was after that rainstorm we had. >> That's how our leg got sight. I went for park today. >> We have told here that we do not need permits right here. The arborist said we
do not need permits because it's so close to the house and leads are coming off the tree over our home and considered a threat to our property. So, it said we did not need it. And then if you look up here, it says Florida status, Florida state statue local
permit is not required if property owner has written notification from a certified arborist or floor Florida licensed landscaper. Sorry, I'm very nervous. Stating that the tree possesses poses an unacceptable
risk. That's why we didn't get a permit. took the tree down because there was a sinkhole under the trail. We're in fear of our life that time, sir. >> His bedroom was under the tree. >> The park even acknowledged that the tree
had to go, but they would failed to respond, do anything except telling us to get an outburst. Other than that, we would have got a permit cut to tree. >> Definitely, we would have got >> We do not know we need a permit to cut
to tree. >> Who Who is this art or who is the contractor that told you you didn't need a permit? >> Sign up until sunown tree service. >> Have you talked to them afterwards and told them, "Hey,
>> you told gave us wrong information." What? No, he's >> Well, the enforcement officer talked to him. >> Well, that's what they told us. We didn't need a permit. >> And I'm not I'm not saying you guys weren't um acting reasonably in your
shoes. If an expert or whatever told me or a purported expert told me I didn't need a permit, this is the vendor I'm supposed to use, I would believe them as well. Um but that's not the case. And this person
gave you improper information and would you have a complaint against him? That's not for me to say. I would be in your shoes pretty upset with him. Um I would be upset with the park that makes you use them. Um but
I don't have jurisdiction over any disputes you may have with them. It's sort of a black and white thing for me where all I can say is whether or not a permit is required and I do believe that it is
and whether one was obtained and I don't believe that one was all the other circumstances around how you guys ended up in this situation and again I sympathize with you but that's I can't I can't rule and say that there is no violation. You see what I'm saying? I
looked it up and it said when I looked up what I had to do to require what required a permit. >> Officer May, do you want to reiterate to them what the >> Yes. This Florida statute for 16345
references single family dwellings. >> Yeah. >> And the trailer is located within a mobile home park. It is a commercially zoned property. So, um, as, um, explained to me by development
services and our arborist, Jacob Biggley, this property does not fall under that exemption under 16345. >> Can you explain to me how you came about the calculation of 1500? So, I see in the original packet, the original
recommendation was significantly more. Um, I see you've now reduced it to 1500. And I was just curious if there was a science to it or you did out of consideration for their situation or >> Yes, sir. for for their situation. >> Okay. So, the original recommendation
for the city was a $5,000 fine. >> It's obviously significantly less, but you know, telling someone that 1,500 is affordable is not what I'm here to do. Uh but I I am I I I I I'm I'm unable to do a ruling
other than a permit is required and it was not obtained. Okay, >> that's true. >> All I have any discretion on is the uh uh whether or not I agree with the city's recommendation
to impose the fine of 1500. Um, and again, uh, it sounds like the reason why you wanted the tree removed wasn't because, hey, you just thought it would look prettier
without a tree or you were trying to circumvent the process in any way. So, I do sympathize with you. I do think you have a valid complaint about >> I do have photo I do have photos to show you how close it was to the trailer. didn't realize
the wording that we wasn't residential that we're >> right >> commercial >> right >> that too >> um but again I think all that all that research and stuff you probably did after the fact you just relied on the word of another person um
>> oh yeah >> can I also state that I'm a retired medical assistant he's a retired union electrician we understand permits and regulations we do. We would have never gone against this. We would have gotten
the permit. We would have done what we had. I read this and thought my butt was covered. And again, he did say we did not need a permit. All right. Um Okay. So, um, I've accepted and considered
documentary evidence, including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter, from city staff. I find that, uh, respondent Michael Trip, um, is the owner of the trailer on the property located at 4905 Clover
Lane. I find that all required notices were provided in accordance with chapter 163, Florida statute and city code, and notice was met for this hearing. Um, based on the evidence presented, I find
that a violation of section 30-39 of the city code, which is which requires a permit for tree removal exists upon the property. Um, and that the nature of the violation is such that it is irreversible.
Um, I find that the city has incurred costs uh in the amount of $15,389. Such amount shall be included with this order. I'm going to
reduce the city's recommendation of 1500 to just a flat 1,000. Um and respondent shall be given 90 days to to from the date of the order to pay the fine. Um respondent shall be responsible
for notifying officer May or code enforcement officer of the payment of such fine. Um a certified order may be recorded in the public records of Bvard County. It is so ordered. Um I didn't like having to do that because I really
do sympathize with you guys. I do think that having this put into writing gives you something you can go back to your park operators and say, "Hey, >> your people have some liability for this. I'm not
going to I can't I'm not in a position where I can give you legal advice on that, but there is certain >> legal concepts of detrimental reliance. you relied on their statement reasonably and justifiably and uh >> yeah that's that's that's the best I can
do. So >> thank you sir. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> All right. And this gentleman right here, we're going to move on to his >> Yes. We're going to move to case 26-10. >> Okay. And that is 4745 Apollo Road. All
right. So, I have three items to submit. The first is the notice of violation and affidavit. Second is the notice of hearing and affidavit. And the third is the cost recovery statement in the amount of $26.72.
>> Thank you. So again, this is the initial hearing for case number 26-10. Our respondent is Mark Howell. Our violation address is 4745 Apollo Road, Titusville, Florida.
Our mailing address is 4141 JD Drive in Mims, Florida. And we have two sections um in violation. It's 6-109 subsection 304.1 for general exterior
maintenance and 301.3 for vacant structures and land. Initial inspection was completed uh May 29th, 2025. The notice of violation was posted on September or sorry, June 5th, 2025.
Uh the respondent was given until August 5th of 2025 to come into compliance. certified and first class mail were mailed uh June 6th of 2025 with the certified copy being signed for on the 18th of June. The notice of today's
hearing were mailed on February 4th of 2026 and the certified copy was uh signed for on February 9th, 2026. Um notices were also posted at the property
and at city hall on February 24th, 2026. So, the Titusville Fire Department responded to a call for a ve vehicle on fire inside a building on the property on May 25th of 2025. While on site, the fire department requested the building
department be notified for a possible condemnation of the building. On May 29th, I completed a inspection of the area, observed the metal building with the front door hanging off its hinges.
The exterior walls and windows and roof were in an advanced state of deterioration. I contacted Oh, and I did not see any sign of the fire from the roadway, nor did I see any placards from the building
department on a visit to the property. Um, the site was overgrown and there were signs of transient activity including graffiti and trash and debris on the property. I did contact the building department to follow up on the
fire call. I was told that a building inspector would be out to evaluate the structure and they would notify me when they um made a determination on the building. I did also speak to Mr. Howell by phone to let him know of the fire and
the pending building department inspection. June 5th, 2025, I received call back from Deputy Building Official Martin Ael um concerning their inspection. They determined that there was no imminent danger to the public as the gate to the
property was locked and the building was set back from the road. um and they indicated that code enforcement should move forward with um a case addressing the current conditions of the property. I did return to the property and post the notice of
violation. So, I've been in contact with uh Mr. Howell all the way since last May. Um I did meet with him August 6, 2025 on the property um to discuss um the plans uh
for um resolving the violation and the next step on the case. Um he indicated that he would be meeting with the building department to discuss alterations and guidance on um the minimum requirements to bring the structure into a safe condition. In
October 2025, Mr. Howell indicated um over the phone that he was moving forward with obtaining an alteration permit to repair the structure. So, a signed permit application was submitted on February or December 4th of
2025 for um an alteration permit. Uh there were review comments emailed back to the applicant on December 12th, 2025 requesting that plans for the repairs as um submitted on the application be um
turned in for review. At the time of today's meeting, no supporting documents have been submitted on that permit application. Um so the results of the building, there hasn't been any work to the building itself. Um graffiti was look is that was
on the building has been covered and it's been maintained. Um there's no new graffiti. Um the door remains open. The exterior walls remain um damaged. Um my
inspection on Friday the um 6th um trash and debris um continue to accumulate. I did see an individual on the property um and he did run off before I had a chance to um speak with him and the property is
also overgrown at this time. So this is an aerial view of the property located at the south end of Apollo Road. Um this is uh the gate as determined by the
building official. It does stay locked. Um, this is a closeup of the front door in the side of the property of the exterior wall. This is the south side. And this is a photo of the interior
taken during my August 6 visit with Mr. Howell. So conclusions in this case for 304.1 exterior walls, roof assembly, doors, windows are deteriorated um with holes and there's many missing
materials and the structure is not sufficiently secured against entry and is continuing to be used as a place of harborage. Um trash and debris continues to accumulate and there is overgrowth at this time.
So, we are requesting that the respondent be ordered to correct the violation on or before noon of May 8th, 2026. Uh to come into compliance, we are asking that a permit be obtained to uh
return the building to structural a structural sound condition capable of preventing elements, rodents, vagrants from entering it. um or a permit to demolish the building and returning the
site to uh natural topography. And then for section 301.3, we are asking that the property be maintained with the removal of overgrowth, trash, and debris and um continually um inspected to make sure that it is not
being used as a place of harborage. the respondent does not comply, we are asking a fine of $100 per day per violation be imposed commencing on May 9th of 2026 and continuing until the violations are corrected.
And we're asking for administrative costs in the amount of $26.72 um are imposed and Mr. Howell is here to speak on behalf of the property >> for compliance. Are you looking to have
the permit issued or the work done? >> Permit issued. >> Okay. >> All right. Mr. H. Um, basically we're just here today uh because there was a fire and then we're moving forward with that. Um, on
February 21st uh I wasn't as she had said she had let me know about a fire on my property, everything else. Um, recently on February 21st, there was another fire. I have pictures of that where there was a fire on my property and the state's property. I still yet to not be notified by anyone by the city or
anyone else. Um, that's just something that I wanted to point out in this situation. Um, just as she stated, the state and the building department said that the structure is far far enough and it's gated away that it doesn't need to be demolished or anything like that. Um,
so I didn't know what else needed to be done. I had asked before um with the city or may uh to help put some of these things into clients with the building itself. Um, what if I put a fence around it? Would that help from people going into it? Um the doors, the structure
because the back of the building and so forth. Um as she had stated, uh do I need to put multiple fences around my property in the structure? I mean, because there's already one, do I need to put another one behind it to justify
or satisfy those situations? Um >> tell me this. So, I see you've owned the property since 2014. How long's it been in the condition that it's been? >> Um since 2014. And I put I brought there was probably $110,000 worth of leans and fines with the property because there was uh a trailer and a lot of things
that I have pictures here from today that I cleaned up and did the property within three weeks. Um every time there's something that's noted or um a isore distraction or something that it needs to be taken care of, I usually do that and take care of the situation
accordingly amount of time. um since this last thing that has been done. Uh I mean my goal was to pay off the property within this past year. I paid off that property and and did that. So I was trying to move forward with the next goal and then a fire on a Saturday night happened um by some kids and I was called by neighbors um that's how all
this came within since 2014 and it's 2026 about this building. Um again the city didn't say that it needed to be well the building department didn't say it needed to be knocked down or anything because the structure or anything else. that only happened because of a fire that occurred in the middle of the night. Um, I'm asking to try to get a
six-month uh leeway to try to move forward with the plans of either most likely demolishing the building and um having all those things in compliance and taken care of. So, by September 9th, I would say.
>> So, you did submit an application though >> to re rehabilitate the building. I was going to try to put the building back in because it's not um demolished. It hasn't been uh ordered to be condemned or anything else like that in that nature. So, I was going to try to rehabilitate the building and then once
going further within the past six months once the fire happened and everything else and accumulating cost and talking to contractors and getting people to go out there and trying to figure out the things. I don't know if it's costefficient enough to move forward and put 150 to $200,000 into a building
that, you know, we might be able to use the seven acres of property to help with the city and other aspects than just rehabilitating a building for personal use or anything like that. >> Right. But understood, but is not the other option than to demolish it?
>> That's what I'm going to do. Yes, sir. So that's why I'm asking for six months to have the permits, the demolished, everything in compliance instead of the until May. >> Why? Why six months? >> To get things done in accord amount of
time for funds and everything else to de demolish a 16,000 square well 14,000t building, >> right? I'm not saying this to, you know, to to be a jerk or anything like that, but didn't you already have funds allocated before when you had >> the
rehabilitate >> investors. Yes, sir. >> Not personally. >> And then once talking to the city and going further with the rehabilitation, it takes more than whenever you rehabilitate the building, you can't actually it goes into another part. Um,
and I spoke to other people that are running into the same problem. Um, on 405 with a building, once you rehabilitate the building, it's not in conditional use or up to it's technically to code. Um I'm trying hard to explain. Basically once you fix the
building there's you have to jump through other hoops to get to be able to actually use the building. >> Of course. >> Yes sir. >> Right. >> Right. Um >> so under that >> I know you posed a question to to me before and I don't think it's my perview to answer about what other things you could do maybe other fencing. I think
that's a building department question or I don't know officer May if there's any other options but I I that's not for me to decide right. So my my decision is whether or not there's a violation and clearly there's a violation. Um but were there other options for him other than
full demolition of it or re rehapping the property? Was he had mentioned something about more fences or I I wouldn't even know anything about that. >> So for securing the structure, yeah, >> I had just asked as a part of this order that um regular visits are done to the property
as he is correct. There is a gate. There is a fence around the exterior, but people do continue to enter in >> course >> and we still have people accessing the building. Um, I have not discussed an additional fence uh with Mr. for howl.
But if he wanted to install a fence around the perimeter of the building, I would not have any issue with that being a method for securing um provided he continues to do maintenance on the property, mowing, removing any trash and
debris. As far as getting a permit to install a fence around the perimeter of the building, that is indeed a building department question, and I don't know what they're going to require. Right. I had to pull a permit to put the initial
fence in first. So, I'm assure that there would have to be a permit to be pulled to go around the building. >> Yeah, that's >> my gut says yes to take it down. That's the main thing that I'm going to end up doing is just take it down and make it not make it safe and then move forward
with any other plans that I entitled to. And not that it's your concern or anything else, but uh the beginning of May and trying to get that done before my two kids start summer. I would rather try to do that at the end of summer, just like it was harder to plan
vacations during Christmas time and get things done in compliance. What was the time frame recommended by the city? >> Two months. May 9th. I was asking for September 9th. Get summer to get over, school to start, and me to have my stuff finished.
Um I'm not necessarily inclined to to to agree to 6 months um just because I mean again the the time that this has been on your radar at least as something to take care of. Um the fact that you know I
mean you've owned it well over a decade at this point and obviously I know there's other priorities and other financial obligations that you're dealing with but >> my goal is just to pay it off. I did that this past year. >> I I understood but you know there's certain >> responsibilities that come with owning property and these
>> pictures look I mean there I mean obviously it's not a condition you would want it to be in either right like you wouldn't have invested any money into it at all. >> The roof came in and stuff like that. So then I was devastated when that situation happened and then just trying to move forward with that. >> The the the worst thing that could happen is to to to give someone six
months and then they wait until the fifth month to do something and then they're back again saying we submitted uh the permit application. We just haven't heard back. Um and so >> that's why I was saying over the decade that >> there hasn't I haven't not um taken care of situations in the decade that I've
owned it. Um, >> I mean this is the first thing and >> and again, you know, the the other aspect too is the city is only asking that the the the permit be issued by then, not necessarily that the work be completed. >> Yes, sir.
>> And I I I I understand, you know, the timing concerns with family and everything, I don't see it being an issue to get a permit application in. I don't think that should interfere with your vacation plans. Um,
so I will give you 3 months instead of the two that's requested by the city. Now, let's say 3 months from now a permit application is in. Took you a little bit longer to get it in because now you decide, hey, I do have funds from investors to rehab it. I need to
change gears and stuff like that. we come back here in a compliance uh uh or a non-compliant hearing and you say, "Hey, it's all being processed right now. I've been in regular communication with Officer May. I've been removing the debris, everything like that and mowing
the lawn." Then of course, at that time, it wouldn't make sense. Hey, we'll give you an ext, you know, additional time to get that done. It's just I don't want to commit to 6 months because I know that as soon as you give someone that amount of time, they take that amount of time. >> Yes, sir. So, um, Officer M, you look
like you're itching to say something. >> Just wanted to make you aware that as of right now, the June 2026 hearing will not take place. >> Yeah. Who's Why is that? Oh, yeah, that's right. Um, so I mean, but we'll put it down. So,
that's good for you. So, technically, you need to be done by that that June hearing, but I won't be in town to hold this meeting. But, let's let's not officially put that down. So, you have time to get this done and yeah, please give it the attention it deserves because
>> you know, I was looking at Google Maps and some of the pictures of it historically and it's it's looked pretty bad for for a while. So, >> Oh, yeah. No, I fully agree and I'm not disagreeing. So, I'm going to move forward and uh hopefully fix all those problems. >> I've accepted and considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn
testimony relating to the matter from city staff. I find that respondent Mark Howell is the owner of the property with the address of 4745 Apollo Road. I find that all required notices were provided in accordance with chapter 163 Florida statute and city code and notices met
for this hearing based on the evidence presented. I find that violations of sections is it all four of these sections that are on this notice here? >> No sir, just two. It's going to be the exterior walls and the vacant structure.
>> Make sure I quote the right ones. >> Okay. The vacant structure and the exterior walls. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. Sorry. uh sections 6-109 subsection 304.1 regarding general exterior maintenance and subsection
301.3 regarding vacant structure and land exist upon the property and respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations but have either failed or refused to do so. Um the corrective action at this time shall be submitting and having issued a permit for either the
rehabilitation or demolishing of the property. um or if there's an alternative that you are able to work out with the building department. Either way, permit needs to be issued to fix it. >> Yes, sir. >> Additionally, I find that the city has incurred costs in the amount of I had it
out here $26.72. Such amount shall be included with this order. Respondent shall be given um until Do we have that date? That's three months from now, sir. >> G give me one second, sir. >> Yeah, sorry. That's my fault. I didn't
have that up. >> June 5th, 2026 to correct the violation or to have the permit issued. Respondent shall be notified for uh responsible for keeping the code enforcement officer updated on the progress. Um, if respondent fails to correct the
violation by June 5th, a fine will be entered in the amount of $100 per day per violation until it comes into compliance. Further and future violations of the same section shall be classified as a repeat violation. A certified order may be recorded in the public records of Bvoulevard County and is so ordered. Thank you, sir.
>> Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. >> Why don't we get back to our regular schedule programming or >> Yes, sir. That would take us to case number 2604. >> Yes. 1780 Golf View Drive. A
non-compliant hearing. sir of the notice of hearing for this today and the cost affidavit for $26. >> Thanks. Remember this name. What was this one again? This 1780 Golf View Drive. Uh
there's five violations on the property. the exterior sanitation, overgrowth, the general exterior maintenance, interior surfaces, and the general interior. >> Oh, this was the cat house. That's right. >> This will be the cat house. Yes, sir. >> All right. >> Um, >> are they here? Are they here? Have you communicated with them at all?
>> No, I haven't. All right. >> No communication, no nothing. Nothing's been done. Uh, the only thing I can say is the gentleman that was staying there has moved out, >> but the condition of the house remains the same. >> Yeah. Good. All right. >> I don't know if you want to see the
pictures again or not. Okay. This is like a nightmare. >> That's all I got for you, sir. >> Um, yeah. I'm just looking through the agenda packet. You just amazing.
All right. I find based on the evidence and testimony we presented a notice was properly provided to the respondent. Respondent Patricia A. Tuming did not appear. Evidence demonstrates that the property located at 1780 Golf View Drive
remains in violation. Specifically, it looks awful. Um, but more specifically, let me make sure I have the right five ordinances that were uh not on the screen. Okay, we have
subsections 302.1 exterior sanitation. Subsection 302.4 4 overgrowth and weed. Um 304.1 general exterior maintenance. 305.3 interior surfaces and 305.1
general interior maintenance. Accordingly, a fine of $100 per day is imposed per violation. Uh those fines commence on March 7th, 2026 and will continue daily until the
violations are corrected. Additionally, costs of $26.72 have not been paid and will be made part of this order. A certified copy of this order will be recorded in public records
constituting a lean on the subject property. respondent is required to notify code enforcement once the property is brought into compliance so that code enforcement can verify and confirm. I'm sure this person will one day file a lean reduction application to say she didn't know.
>> Probably the new owner. >> All right. Um for 3446 Tino Circle, we still need to hear that to have an order issued. Correct, Officer Glenn? Yeah. >> Yeah, that was correct, sir. >> Okay. All right. It was corrected two
days after the hearing, so we're good. >> Okay. Um All right. So for 26-05, which is Solomon Family Trust at 3446 Tina Circle, I find that based on the
evidence and testimony presented that the property has been brought into compliance. Have they paid the uh the city's costs? >> No, sir. >> Okay. What's the city's costs? >> 17150. >> Okay.
However, the cost of 17150 um have not been paid. Um that doesn't become a lean, right? How does that work? They just get invoiced for that. How does that exactly work if there's no like fine or anything? Who keeps calling?
I'm not entirely sure. I don't think I've encountered that before. It would be a let me see >> result of the violation. >> Let's see what 162 >> is the cost only imposed if they are non-compliant after the >> let me see >> I believe at the original hearing
she was provided six months to pay cost. >> Yeah. Uh we do record those as leans. >> Okay. All right. So >> All right. So the costs of 171 whatever 501 17150 is that what it was? >> Yes sir.
>> Have not been paid um and will be due uh from the owner. Certified copy of this order will be recorded in the public records and may constitute a lean on the subject property. Respondent is required. That doesn't make sense. Okay. All right. It is so ordered. All right.
I think that brings us to All right. 2608 is done. That's removed. And then so we just have 2611, which was uh 4480 Byron Avenue, I believe. >> Yes, sir. So, I have three items to
submit. The first is the notice of violation and affidavit. The second is the notice of hearing and affidavit. And the third is the cost recovery statement in the amount of um $26.72. >> Thank you. >> Once again, this is the initial hearing
for case 26-11. Our respondent is Edward C. Baker. This is the estate of our violation address and mailing address is 4480 Byron Avenue here in Titusville. And we have two violations section 12-23 for junk and
debris and 13-26 for overgrowth. So the initial inspection was completed August 7th, 2025 and the notice of violation was posted at that time. Date given to comply was August 22nd of 2025.
Certified and first class mail was sent on August 12th of 2025. Um the certified mail for the listed owner has not been signed nor returned. The notice of hearing was posted at city hall and on the property on February
24th of 2026. The certified mail was mailed on February 4th and returned sender deceased on February 17th of 2026. So
while I was driving in the area, I uh observed grass and weeds in the yard over 12 inches in height. There was a large accumulation of trash and debris as well as furniture in the driveway and along the front of the house. Photos were taken for the property and a notice
of violation was posted on the front door. At the start of this case, um I had confirmed that Mr. Barker or Baker was had passed away, but his partner Kenneth White had been seen at the property by neighbors. Um all attempts
to contact u Mr. White and Mr. Barker's estate have been unsuccessful. Um there's been no change to the condition of the property. Uh so this is a photo of the front yard and the junk and debris.
Um this is another um photo of the front yard. This is the trash and debris. So I have seen the trash cans move. Some of the trash get picked up and moved around. That was my indication that there was people still um coming to the property
in February. Um the mail carrier um on the 24th did stop and say um he has been made aware that Mr. White has is also deceased in the last several months. Um I had made contact with HUD. um they had
taken over the loan, the mortgage, and as of my last contact with the representative, they were trying to do a reinspection of the property to take c uh over custodial care as they hadn't officially started the foreclosure
procedures. So, I do believe the neighbors may be the ones that are moving the items around the yard. So, the conclusions for this case, um, there is a large amount of furniture, trash, junk, and debris on the property.
Um, vines, bushes, trees are growing up against the house, and the grass in the yard is well over the 12 in of violation height. I'm requesting that the property um come into compliance on or before April 10th
of 2026 by removing the trash and cutting the grass and removing the vines, trees, and bushes. We're asking the administrative cost in the amount of $26.72. And we are asking for a fine of $50 per
day per violation be imposed on April 11th, 2026, continuing daily until violations are corrected. >> So it's true. You really do just drive around and violate >> just randomly just find violations. Yes, sir.
>> This is You must be popular. >> Oh, I make friends every day. >> All right. I have accepted and considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff.
I find that respondent Edward Baker is the owner of the property of the address 4480 Byron Avenue. I find that all required notices were provided in accordance with chapter 163 Florida statute and city code and notice was met
for this hearing. Based on the evidence presented, I find that violations of sections 12-23 regarding junk and debris and section 13-26 regarding trash, dead trees, and overgrow overgrowth um exist upon the property and
respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations but have either failed or refused to do so. Um, additionally, I find that the city has incurred costs in the amount of $26.72. Such amount shall be included with this
order. Respondent shall be given until what was the date? What was the date we gave? Sorry, I need to know these better. >> I think it was April 11th. >> April 11th. Okay. >> April 10th. >> Let me see.
>> I wrote down 11. April 10th is a Friday, 11th is a Saturday. So 10th >> April 10th for compliance comp 11th for the imposition of the lean. I mean the fines. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Respondent shall be given to April 10th, 2026 to correct the violations.
Respondent shall be responsible for notifying the code enforcement officer of completion of such corrections who shall then confirm the status of the violation. If respondent fails to correct the violation by April 10th, a fine will be entered in the amount of $50 per day per violation until they
come into compliance. Further and future violations of the same section shall be classified as a repeat violation. Certified order may be recorded in the public records of Bvard County. It is so ordered. Okay. Uh,
I think that's it right here. Okay. Uh, do we have a report from the code force? >> No, sir. Just wanted to thank you for uh coming Saturday and helping us with our event. >> Thanks for the food. That was great. >> And Mickey for uh coming today as well.
>> All right. Um, I did hear that we are actually moving forward with foreclosing on some leans. >> Yes, >> that sounds exciting. Is that a >> We have a couple in the pipeline that we're uh looking at. Make sure you know, no homesteads and get all our ducks in a row, all that fun stuff. >> All right. Yeah, that's good. And I
mean, I think obviously that's the most powerful tool for uh collecting on leans. So, all right. Well, um other and if there's nothing else, I guess we're ajourned for today. All right. Thank you.