All right, everybody. Let's go ahead and get started. Um, good afternoon. My name is Don Wyn. I'm a Florida bar licensed 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. At this time, I will swear in all witnesses. 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 all. You may be seated. Um, we'll go ahead and move forward to the hearings portion of the agenda. Um, our first one will be a non-compliant hearing, uh, matter 26-02
regarding the property at 554 Leno Avenue. Good afternoon sir. >> How are you? Let enter into exhibits notice of hearing call for covery
and your order from the initial hearing. >> Thank you. Okay, this is uh case uh 2602, the non-compliant hearing. Uh violation address is 554 Lenor Avenue here in Titusville. Uh the charges were uh uh
section 6-109 2018 IPMC subsection 304.1 general exterior maintenance and 304.7 roofs and drainage out of the same code. U the notice of non-compliant hearing was
posted at city hall and on the property where the violation exists on 1226. Certified mail and first class mail were mailed on uh 12126. Uh certified mail was returned
returned unclaimed unable to forward on and that's the wrong date in there again. I still missed it as of yesterday had I mean Friday had not been returned yet. Okay. The case was originally heard on
January the 12th, 2026. the respondent did not attend the hearing. Uh was found to be in violation of the code sections and in order to correct the violations on before noon on February 6, 2026. Uh if compliance was not achieved, a
fine of $100 per violation per day would commence on February the 7th continuing until the violations are corrected. Lean imposed an administrative cost of 150 to $15389 were imposed. Uh, none of the violations
have been corrected to date. Uh, contractor for the property contacted me and said they were getting a permit. The permit for the repair of the property was issued January the 26th of 26. >> It has been issued.
>> It has been issued, but no work has been done at all. >> Your notes say no permit has been issued. Uh it didn't get the permit didn't get issued till after I was through with this. >> Okay. Gotcha. All right. >> Yeah. Uh it still looks that way as of this
morning around around 10:00. Yep. That that's still there. They have posted a u a job box on site. Uh there's no tapole temporary electrical pole sitting out there or anything.
It was the same. It is the same company that originally was working with the owner the last time. >> All right. No other contact other than the one contractor reaching out to you. >> That's it. None. None from the owner of the property. >> Okay. All right. Um I'll go ahead and
make my ruling then. Um I find that based on the evidence and testimony presented a notice was properly provided to the respondent and respondent did not appear. The evidence demonstrates that the property located at 554 Lenor Avenue, Titusville, Florida 32796 remains in violation. Specifically,
um sub uh uh sorry, sections 6-109 2018 IPMC subsections 304.1 and 304.7 regarding general exterior maintenance and roofs and drainage respectively um remain in violation. Uh the property is not in compliance with
the previous order dated January 15, 2026. Therefore, I find that the city has established a continuing violation uh the after provisions. Accordingly, a fine of what was the requested amount? >> 100 per day for violation.
>> Okay. 15. >> Well, what do you want? Let me see. >> Well, we the packet that you get sent to me says a recommendation of $100 per day, but there are two violations. So, we're going to do um we're going to keep
it consistent with the recommendations. Um accordingly, a fine of $100 per day per violation is imposed. uh commencing um the compliance deadline I believe was February 6, right? So commencing uh February 7th. Um how does it work with
the weekends or does it move to the business day? >> I don't think it's specified to I would think it can just go I mean we gave them plenty of time to comply I would think from seven. >> I agree. All right. Uh commencing February 7, 2026 and continuing daily
until the violations are corrected. Additionally, the cost of $153.89 have not been paid. Um, a 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 once the property is brought into compliance
so that code enforcement can verify and confirm. Thank you. All right. Okay, that wraps up everything for the non-compliant hearings. Um, so we can
move on to um our initial hearings and the first one of those will be uh 26-04. This is for 1780 Golf View Drive, Titusville, Florida 32780.
>> Yes, sir. We do have three exhibits for you today on this case. A notice of hearing and notice the violation and the cost recovery for $26.72. >> Thanks, Uh, as you said, 1780 Golf View Drive. The violations are 302.1 exterior
sanitation, 302.4, 4 the overgrowth uh 304.1 the general exterior maintenance 305.3 interior surfaces and 305.1 general interior maintenance all of the IMPC codes. Um
on September 3rd 2025 a notice of violation was posted on site g date given to comply was by September 24th. Notice of violation was mailed on the 3rd of September, certified and first class. And the notice or notice of this hearing
was mailed out on January 5th, certified in first class. And the notice of hearing was posted at city hall and on the property on January 27th, 2026. Uh on September 2nd, 2025, I received a complaint from Officer Kelly in reference to the conditions of this
location. She responded to the location at the tenants request. uh condition for condition of the property and animal issues. Upon arrival, she observed several issues of concern. She also contacted animal control about the numerous cats that
were on the property. Uh when I went out there, I observed or I'm sorry, I obtained several photos from the condition of the property from her body camera um that she took pictures of and I went to contact the Kent. I went to the location on December 3rd,
tried to contact the tenant. No contact was made. Notice violation was posted on the property. Uh I did find that there were numerous cats that coming and going from inside the house. The cats have um had litter litters of kittens. There is
fecal matter throughout the house and the smell of urine throughout the house and the smell of the cats. The exterior of the property is overgrown with grass and weeds and the vegetation. The condition of the exterior is um debris and trash outside from several
items including cat cages, old food, um the fecal matter and the cats causing unsanitary conditions. The interior surfaces are covered with fecal matter and other debris uh not being maintained in a sanitary matter. Uh there's been no
contact with the owner. Um the tenant wise they haven't seen the owner in about in several months. The tenants's actually living in a separate part of the house. He has access to the full house. Um so he's only has to deal with this once in a
while. He doesn't live in that area. He was in the process of trying to move out. Hopefully by now he's done so. Um these are some of the pictures of the exterior um up by the front door. Um this is some of the overgrowth that's
going up on the roof. The vegetation and everything's just out of control. It's going to cause deterioration on the roof as well. Uh, this is another picture up by the front door. Just the debris and maintenance. There's barely enough room to walk to get up to the front door.
Uh, another picture by the front door. And this is a backyard. Apparently, they had some sort of chicken coupe or something back there that she was working on and she left it. It's deteriorating as well in the corner. And you can see other debris and the overgrowth back there.
Uh these are pictures from the original the original pictures that I was notified of just the condition of the house and it surfaces. As you can see, it's unkempt, unsanitary. Um definitely a trip hazard for him trying to get
through the house. And there's another picture. Doesn't show well, but shows the cat droppings and fecal matter throughout the house and the smell. Um, these are updated photos. Um, this is just looking in the front door. You can see it's still still in rough
condition. Just another picture I took with the same issues. This is the interior of the property as well. Another picture that was originally taken of the interior. Um, in conclusion of the violation, the
exterior sanitation, the numerous cats are causing sanitation issues. the property I'm sorry the overgrowth the property is not being maintained and the overgrowth of grass and weeds and like I said the vegetation growing up on the roof line and going to cause issues to the roof general exterior maintenance
the exterior is not being cleaned of old cat food and other debris uh the interior surfaces are not being cleaned in a safe condition u in the general interior maintenance the interior condition of the walls of paint peeling lack of maintenance and
deteriorating of the interior period unsanitary point of living in the property. Um, and I I will say I can't bring it in, but the smell inside the house was horrible. Uh, the recommendation, uh, remove all
the debris items from the property, cut and m the tain the grass and weeds and the overgrowth, remove all sanitary items, including the fecal matter and the old food. uh clean the interior by removing all the fecal matter and urine smell along with all the other debris and repair all the
walls and surfaces in a safe and secure condition. order a respondent pay the administrative cost of $26.72 and if the respondant does not comply by March 6 requesting that the fine of $100
per day per violation be imposed until the violations are corrected and to contact me for a reinspection and I've had no contact with the owner. >> Go back to slides. No, it doesn't say on this one right here um on the notice of
violation that you sent them in September. There's also the 5-46 regarding animals. Is that not Should there be six violations instead of five? >> Animal control took care of that. >> Okay. Gotcha. All right. So, we don't need to address that. >> Something animal control is taken care of. >> Okay. I just want to make sure. All
right. >> Yep. >> Can we go back to the first one? The address is wrong on this slide. It's actually this the next case >> that needs to be corrected for the record. >> So the mail two addresses
>> 1780 golf you not >> Tino address did the affidavit reflect it was mailed correctly? Yes. >> It's just a slide. Okay. Um >> the tenant that's living in there right now, you said he's only renting a part of the the property or he's only staying
in a part of >> little studio room in the back that he's >> okay. >> Um renting. Like I said, he was in the process of moving out. I haven't seen him in the last couple days, so I'm hoping he found somewhere else to live. >> Go to the one slide again. Sorry. With
the the five violations. Okay. I just want to make sure we have all the corrective items. Corrective actions needed. Um, correct. Let me look at this one more time. 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 Patricia A. Tuming is the owner of the property with the address of 1780 Golf View Drive, Titusville, Florida 32780. 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. uh based on the evidence presented I find that there are uh violations of sections uh 6-109 2018 IPMC subsections 302.1
302.4 304.1 305.3 and 305.1 um upon the property and respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to uh of time to correct the violations but have either failed or refused to do so. Um the corrective actions for these
violations shall be uh for sub for section 302.1 to remove all debris items from the property. Uh for 302.4 to cut and maintain grass and weeds. For 304.1 to remove all unsanitary items including fecal matter and old food um from the
exterior. Um for 305.3 is to clean the interior removing all fecal matter and urine um smell from um along with all other debris from the interior. For 305.1 um repair walls and surfaces to a safe
and uh secure and I would imagine a clean condition. Um, additionally, I find uh that the city has incurred costs in the amount of I always forget to look at this >> 206
>> 200 $26.72. Such amount shall be included with this order. Respondent shall be given until um we said March 6th, yes, >> 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 March 6, a fine will be entered in the amount of $100 per day per violation until the violations come into compliance. Further and future violations of the same
section shall be classified as repeat violation. A certified order may be recorded in the public records of Bvard County, Florida. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. And then we will move on to the next one. Uh, and this
one is for 26-05 for 3446 Trevino Circle, Titusville, Florida. Again, on this one, I have three items to present to you. It is the notice of violation, notice of hearing, and the
cost recovery affidavit for $171.50. Okay, wonderful. >> Give me one second. Sorry. >> All right, you can go ahead. >> Okay. Uh again the respondents uh properties listed as Solomon Family Trust 3446 Trevino Circle mailed to
address was the same and this is for violation of 28-365 the storing of shipping containers in a residential zone. Uh notice and I'm sorry the initial notice of violation was handed actually should have been handed to her on October 8th. I spoke with her. Uh date
given to comply was was by the end of October. uh notice of violation was mailed to certified and first class mailed. Uh the respondent's initial hearing was mailed certified and first class mail on the 6th of January and it was signed for on the 14th of January
and the notice of hearing was posted at city hall in the property on the 27th of January of this year. Um on October 8th, 2025, I received a complaint about a shipping container at this location while I was investigating another complaint. I observed the violation from the front yard. her to
make contact with the resident. I explained to her that the violation about the storage container. Um she advised she was using it for storage. Advised her per city code that she could not have it on the shipping container on the in the residential property. She advised she was unaware and that the
container would be gone by the end of November. Um as of today, February 9th, 2025, the shipping container is still on the property and no permit has been applied for or approved. And this is the shipping container on the side of the house. Um, that was the original date.
Oops. Should have had other pictures. My apologies. I didn't put my follow-up pictures on there. Uh, the only difference is the container still on the side there. The there's a fence that's blocking part of the the view, but the shipping container is still there. It's a larger like 50 foot shipping
container. Um, conclusion. Uh, the shipping container is being stored on the property against code. doesn't have a permit either. Um, and the recommendation, the shipping container needs to be removed from the property since it is not allowed in the residential area.
Order to responded to us for the administrative cost of $171.50 if the respondent does not comply by March 6. It is being requested that a fine of $50 per day be imposed until and continue, sorry, until the violation is corrected and to contact me for followup
to let me know what's gone. Thank you. And you said >> chaser. >> Cheers. All right. You may come. >> Hi, Elizabeth Parker, 3446 Trevina Circle. >> I'm sorry, what was your name again? >> Elizabeth Parker. >> Okay. Elizabeth Parker. >> What is your relation to the Solomon
Family Trust? >> Uh, I'm the beneficiary. >> Okay, got it. Uh technically myself and my disabled adult daughter. >> Um I also am disabled. Um so I guess what I should do is start off by explaining that I'm the beneficiary of a loan from the city for a low
low-income home improvement. I was told I needed to have four rooms of my house emptied. In order for the work to be performed under the city contract, in order to accomplish that, I hired the shipping container so that I could put the household items into the shipping
container, not knowing that the shipping container was not allowed. Uh, the contract got delayed, the work got delayed, I couldn't move the materials back into the house, the hurricane came through, I lost a 60oot oak tree. Um,
I'm a low-income household, as I've said, so I have to budget very carefully to have people help. I have Parkinson's and a back injury, so lifting is out of the question for me. Uh, anyway, uh, when I was advised that the
container was not allowed, I had every intention of getting rid of it within the two months, but I couldn't get workers in to finish the work that needed to be done to get the materials out of the shipping container. Uh at this point in time the shipping container is empty. Uh the driveway
which had been precluded or oluded by other materials has been cleared so that I can actually have it removed. I have uh four individuals lined up to come out and get it out. One of them should have it out within the week. Uh what I would ask is, you know, the project ran longer
than I expected and I wasn't at all intentionally non-compliant. I I would ask that you know you dismiss the fines or at least reduce them because our household is living on a really thin budget and um just I need a week or two and it'll be
gone. >> Okay. Um there are no fines or anything on on it right now. Then I think the um officer Jim here has said that uh as long the recommendation that he's made to me is to give you 30 days to do it before any fines will start to be
imposed. Um, however, there is, you know, the hard costs that the, uh, city has incurred as far as mailing and all the notices and and stuff like that. So, um, I can't I don't really have much, uh, leeway there to dismiss those, but there are no fines, per se.
>> I noticed that the the hard costs were significantly less than the three previous cases that were presented. I'd like to know why mine are significantly more. >> I don't think that they were. Yours are $171. The other ones were in the 200s. Okay, maybe I misunderstood.
>> That's fine. Um, but there are um invoices and affidavit that show all the postage costs and everything like that as well. And so there's slight variations on those, but um yours actually of the three that we've heard today, yours is actually the the the least. >> Um
>> it may be the least, but they just increased my insurance $100 a month and my drugs $200 a month. So I am struggling just to make ends meet. So every dollar counts in our household. No, I I I certainly understand that. Um, but you you you already have the
contractors or whoever lined up to remove the shipping container within the next week. >> Four different lined up one after the next. So, I am expecting that one of them will be able to get it out. The problem is it's very close to the house. >> Oh, I see. >> So, I I've had one come out already and
they they wouldn't pick it up. So, I'm trying again today at four o'clock and I've got another one coming out tomorrow if the one at four doesn't pick it up today. I have an image if you'd like to see what the challenge is with getting it out. >> Right. Um, again, you have a month to
get it out. Sounds like you will have no issue in getting that done with that frame. >> Anticipate, correct? >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so what that means is I have to enter an order today. So as of today, the violation does exist. That's all it's going to say. But it's going to say that no fines are going to incur unless you
don't have it removed by March 6. Okay. Um, again, there's nothing I can really do with regards to the, you know, the hard cost that the city incurred. Um, unfortunately, um, that's just going to have to remain on there. But again, you will have, what's it, 30 days to pay that. Um so
that would just be made part of the order. Um assuming it all gets removed within the next week or even two weeks. Um you know nothing further will occur and then everything will be resolved and taken care of. >> Is it is it possible to split the fees into like four monthly payments?
>> That's up to the city to consider. Um >> it's not a request I've seen before, but it's certainly something we can look into. I think we have contact information. >> Yeah. Um I mean instead in the I guess in the order I can say it can make make it payable within 90 days or assuming
that the uh assuming that the violation is cured within this time frame then the the cost incurred can be paid over 90 days or I'll do 120 days. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Um all right. Let me go through my
formalities here. All right. I've accepted and considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn testimony relating to the matter uh from city staff. I find that uh respondent uh Solomon Family Trust um is the owner of the property with the
address of 3446 Trevino Circle, Titusville, Florida 32780. 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 uh based on the evidence presented.
I find that violation of section sections 28-373 and 28-365 of the city code exist upon the property uh which is temporary um storage containers or shipping containers. Um,
in response, we're given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations, but have not done so as of this date. The corrective action is simply to remove the shipping container. Um, I find that the city has incurred costs in the amount of $171.50. Such amounts shall be included with this
order. Respondent shall be given until March 6, 2026 to correct the violation. Respondent shall be not 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 March 6th, a
fine will be entered in the amount of $50 per day until the violation comes into compliance. The the costs that were incurred by the city uh uh shall must be paid within 120 days of this order.
Further and future violations of the same section shall be classified as repeat violation. A certified order may be recorded in the public records of Bvard County. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Let's go ahead to 26-06.
This is for the property at 1355 Cheney Highway, Titusville, Florida, 32780. >> And I have three items to submit. The first is the affidavit and notice of hearing. The second is the affidavit and notice violation. And the third is a
cost recovery statement in the amount of $136.28. You can go ahead. There it is. Okay, here we go. Uh, again, this is the initial hearing on case number 26-06. Our respondent is Indian River City
Methodist Church Incorporated. Kelly Mcester is our registered agent. Our violation address and mailing address are the same, 1355 Cheney Highway here in Titusville, Florida. And we have one code section in violation that's 30-214
for storm water um management. So the initial inspection was October 28th, 2025. A notice of violation was handd delivered on November 4th, 2025. The date given to comply with was January 5th of 2026.
Certified and first class mail was sent on November 5th of 2025 with the registered mail being signed for on November 11th. Our certified first class mail for the notice of hearing was mailed on January 9th, 2026. And the
certified mail was signed for on January 14th. Uh copies of the hearing notice were posted at city hall and handd delivered um to the property on January 28th of 2026. So, I was contacted by a parent of a
student attending the kids place at the Indian River Methodist Church. Heavy rains over the weekend had flooded the playground areas located to the east and south of the fellowship hall. Uh, the parent had concerns um after being told
that the playground equipment um were located in the storm water retention areas for the church. I spoke with development uh Titusville development staff and planning department staff concerning the playground equipment and
the complaint. Um they completed a review of records and permits associated with 1355 Cheney Highway. So the staff was unable to find any records approving the playground equipment in the retention pond but
noted um several of the following. There was an approved site plan for the multi-purpose building in August of 1998 um confirming the storm water retention pond on the uh south and east or southeast corner of the property. Uh the
concept plan um associated with continue uh conditional use permit 7-1988 for the daycare did indicate an existing playground area um on that eastern property line. We have a fence permit
from 2000 that um that was issued for fencing around where the playground equipment is located at the south end of the property. Um and then also we had a conditional use permit um issued in for I'm sorry
conditional use permit permit 5-20-22 in a variance approved uh 2-2024. Um and there were surveys submitted showing the retention pond um multiple buildings on the the
property. Um, but there was no notes about the playground equipment in either of these documents. So, community development staff determined that the playground equipment was not approved and shall be removed from the storm water um pond.
We've got the potential for biochemical exposure, a drowning event during a event, um, and the continuous use of the area causing compaction and disturbance of the underlying soil. Um, and the loss of
infiltration, um, capacity, um, equipment taking up volume and impervious surface within the pond. and then potential damage and interference with wear skimmers and grates within the pond.
So on November 4th, 2025, I stopped into the main office and spoke with uh the church administrator as well as um school staff um concerning the complaint, the research um that was completed and then the determination
made by city staff. Um they indicated that it was their understanding that the playground equipment was grandfathered as they have been in those locations for over 25 years. Um and they also shared future expansion um
plans that included um relocating the playgrounds to a different portion of the property. Um, I did advise them that the equipment was not allowed to stay um and provided that contact information for the development staff um should they have any questions on that determination
made. So, as of today, the playground equipment does remain in the storm water retention area. So, this is a eagle view map of the the church property. The yellow circles indicated the two um areas where the
playground equipment is located. This is a photo of the playground equipment along the eastern um side of the property. And this is the playground that's along the south property line.
So going back through um this is the master plan for the multi-purpose building showing the storm water retention pond. Um this is from the conditional use permit again in the lower right hand corner. That is where um existing
playground equipment was noted and this map was a part of that approved conditional use permit. Uh this is from the uh 2000 fence permit um showing the location of the fence that is still there today.
And this is from uh this is exhibit A of variance 2-2024. Again, the storm water pond and other structures are shown um on the survey, but the playground equipment is not shown and was not a part of either the
variance or the CUP. So, the conclusions of facts for section 30-214, the playground equipment is installed in the storm water retention pond. Uh we are requesting that the respondents be ordered to correct the
violation by removing all structures and equipment and playground equipment from the storm water retention area on the property and restoring the area so it functions as per the approved drainage plan. Uh we are requesting that this is
done on or before noon of April 10th, 2026. And if the respondent fails to comply, impose a fine of $100 per day starting April 11, 2026 and continuing until the violation is corrected. We are also
asking that the administrative costs in the amount of $13628 uh be imposed and that um I am contacted once the violations have been corrected. And we do have um staff here or um our pastor and uh
our administrator here to speak on behalf of the church. >> Wonderful. >> I'm Pastor Steuart Bodin, uh residing at 3885 Hickory Hills Boulevard here in Titusville. And uh come on up, Kelly. >> Stewart, what's his last name?
>> Odin. B O D I N. How do you spell Steuart, by the way? >> S U E. Okay. All right. >> Kelly Mcluster. I reside at 107 Mason Drive, Titusville, Florida. >> And I'm the church administrator. >> Okay.
>> All right. Tell me your guys's perspective on what's >> Well, first of all, we're always grateful for the hard work that the city does maintaining the the beauty and the safety of our community. We're always thankful for that. And uh I think uh we have a excellent record of uh making
sure that our property is safe and well cared for and and uh serving our community in all many different ways. So what we're here to talk about today is I I I just learning some of this today as we're seeing some of the documentation and it might be helpful for our sake if we back up on a couple of those slides.
You had one that indicated a variance and you showed a uh one playground that was seemingly approved and then one uh there there's two red areas that are indicating playgrounds. We have three, right? So, could you run back to that slide and maybe explain that one a little bit better? That'd be helpful for
us. >> Sorry to make you. >> Do we have copies that we can provide to them as well? >> So, could you explain what's going on here with that one? So this is the conditional use permit from um 1998 for
the school itself. In the lower right hand corner is um a area that's um indicated as existing playground equipment. On the uh left hand side of the slide in that red box that's where
the proposed school and playground um equipment or playground area is indicated. And like I said, this is the map associated with the conditional use permit from 1988. >> So, uh,
>> 1998. >> 98. >> Sorry, 1998. My bad. >> No, you're doing good. It's, uh, it goes back a ways, let's put it mildly, and we're trying to resolve the problem. Why? That's why we're here today. So, it indicates to me that, yeah, there was some awareness back in 1998 that
playground on the left and playground on the right were there. uh the one below that is not indicated in this particular drawing. So it just gives us a framework of understanding uh where we're at on this particular project. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Yes, sir. >> So um I think uh the resolution is this.
The good news is is that we do have uh in the process of developing plans for uh our new playgrounds and new school. And that's a work in progress. And it'll be a minute before we get there, probably two to three years before it's actually completed. We serve over 500
families at this at the school and church each day. And the hardship that it is for us to move these in the short term is pretty overwhelming. Uh not only the cost involved in them, but the time and the disruption to the to the school which is usually year round pretty much. We're open seven days a week or six days
a week. Uh that being the case uh they are going to get moved and it was even before we got the code violation that was the plan because we with the expansion of our school uh we planning to move them in the future. But what we're asking today is that we just take into consideration that they they have
been around for a very long time. There's probably been playgrounds on the site back in the 60s. So uh I think that's what Kelly was referring to is they've been there forever and we've never had a problem with them. There's almost uh zero chance of danger. It's always there more likely a kid's going
to trip over a tree than have a problem with a water hazard on our property. First of all, they're always supervised. Every child is supervised. Those areas are fenced in always. So, there's almost no chance. Again, I say that no chance and some will happen. Uh uh unlikely uh
opportunity for any incident to happen in that case. uh the kids are so well monitored and supervised and it's been improved by uh the state for its safety and so there's really not an issue of that. I completely understand the the waste management or the water management portion of this because we are dealing
with that as we design the new school. We understand the nature of having to have enough impervious space or pvious space. So we're well aware of what's happening there. But as I think the city would recognize is that they drain just fine. Been draining fine for 30 plus years. uh even with the items that are
on there. So, what do you think about this uh that we submit our plan uh to the city for our new building and if they approve it, then of course that's going to happen within a a couple of years. In the meantime, um we'll
continue to maintain and monitor them to make sure that they're they're not causing any problems for anybody. >> And we do I do have drawings available, preliminary drawings, >> um showing where they would possibly move if you would you have those. Go ahead. Why don't you go ahead and show them that? So, yeah. So, we're actively
in the process of doing this. >> It's just a timing issue really. >> And you'll see we're working with Honeyut Associates and currently we're waiting on surveyors. And if you know anything about surveyors, you'll know that there's a delay in that. You'll see
that the yellow is the current retention ponds and in the gray boxes are proposed areas where the new >> You have a copy you can provide officer right as well or so all the playgrounds are going to be out of the retention ponds as part of the new development.
>> Yeah. >> Again, this is preliminary. are still certain things out, but you can see that the future >> future of those retention ponds, in fact, they're probably going to be expanded once we put the new building on there. >> Um, >> things like that. So,
>> is the kids place is that a school that's operated by the church >> ministry? Since that's been there 35 plus. >> Okay. No, I was just confused because I saw that name in there and just wasn't sure what the relationship was with Indian River Church. Um, >> and I would just like to add one thing.
Yeah. The only time that those retentions actually hold any water is when there's a name storm or a flooding event like that happened. Yeah. Um last year and they usually drain within 48 hours. >> Yeah. >> Um and pastor, you you touched on this
as well. I guess the main concern isn't whether or not, you know, um you know, we can't predict whether or not any injuries or anything can happen. I mean, it sounds like you guys maintain it. Well, looks good for for for for a playground of that age. And I'm sure, you know, you guys have a lot of oversight over the children that are out
there, but I'm more concerned, so to speak, with, you know, the whole storm water retention system as a whole because, you know, it doesn't exist in isolation, right? They all work together >> um, you know, control flooding and, you know, deal with runoff and pollution and
everything like that. And so, you know, I not speaking for the city, I would, but if I were the city, I would be very concerned about, you know, those issues when you're asking for a one to two-year lead period. I feel like that's
when you're thinking about safety, you know, and everything. And as you guys know, like name storms, everything seems to be more frequent these days. Um, I'd hate to be in a position where, you know, we grant that time frame and, you know, the worst happens and you, like you said, nothing's happened over these, you know, uh, so many times, but we we
should probably knock on wood to make sure it doesn't. And I'd hate to be in a position that we are saying, "Hey, that's okay." But, you know, granted, I I can certainly understand the the fact of the matter is you were anticipating planning on moving it
>> anyway. Uh maybe two months is a little bit too escalated con especially considering your schedule. Um are you guys a year round school or >> we serve the community year round with our schooling? >> It's a school and daycare so it has >> but also it's blisteringly hot in the
summer right who's out in the >> good news there's a lot of shade in those particular >> Okay. All right. I'm just trying to think of an alternative where maybe more time can be granted to for you move it and be less disruptive cuz right now the city is asking for April which you know
um is obviously you know 2 months and you were talking about probably the nicest weather that we have all year. >> Yeah. would the city consider extending it a little bit further? You know, but still doesn't get you to the timeline you're looking at, but it gives you some more time. Um, and you know, that jumps
into the time that you probably don't want kids outside getting heat stroke anyway. But, um, I don't know. I I'm I'm just spitballing ideas that we can do. I don't know if if the city wants to interject in any way. >> Um, so I mean the the timeline that was
mentioned is two to three years. Yeah. Um but I mean even if we were to grant an extension of of six months is that something that would even be feasible because two to three years is definitely >> I I not >> we all see the problem obviously. Uh >> um I think that's pushing it a little
bit too just by the time you we have to clear land. You got to do all the you think of all the processes we have to do to even create something new. It just takes time as you well know. So um maybe a compromise date would be in order. Uh six is too soon. Three years is too much. Maybe we could find something in
the middle that would uh keep everybody happy. >> Um I'm willing to work on that, but I mean six months is already a compromised date. >> Um perhaps we could get an extension today and we could sit down and have a discussion about that and uh a little clearer plan of what we can do and when
we could do it. Would that would you be amiable to that? Um, I'll let them talk and and consider it. But yeah, I think the the issue with doing that is that, you know, we're back here and, you know, another waste of not
waste, but, you know, now we're spending time and resources renoticing and having it come out again and they have to do all their formalities. And so I'd rather reach some sort of resolution that we can put something in writing today um as opposed to retabling it and you know we'll be in the same place that we were
we are 30 days from now. Um did you guys have something that you wanted to add or >> um so our suggestion at this point would be to set the sixmonth time and then we can work in the interim and if we need to address after that time I'd like to have six months on the books.
>> Yeah. I mean I I I think there's there's a way we can do it where let's say six months from now you guys are just you know you're again you're at the mercy of a lot of third parties. I know dealing with surveyors are they're the sleiest people I have to deal with well them and engineers and I guess you have to deal
with both. Um so um getting them to to to to move fast can be difficult. Um, but again, I think there's very real, you know, potential health hazards and everything like that, not just for you and and and the children and families that you service, but you know, um, the
city and its entire storm water uh system as a whole. Um, I I I I am curious, but do you guys have other like uh recreational um amenities or like an indoor gymnasium that that you could
>> use for like recess and everything? I know nothing nothing really replaces, you know, outdoor time, but I'm just curious if you know and >> that's where they burn off the energy uh is on the outside playgrounds for sure. >> Yeah, of course. >> So, as I understand your proposal, I appreciate that very much is that we'd
have six months and then perhaps during this six months if we can come back with a solid plan, you'd be open to for some discussion with that if we actually have some approved plans from the city and likes of that. Would you consider that as part of our uh discussions today? Uh, so I mean ideally we'd be working to
see plans starting to move prior to that six-month period. You know, between now and the sixth month is when things would start, but we would like to see at least something submitted by that six-month period. >> I think that's a reasonable reasonable expectation. >> Usually what happens is when I come to these hearings and let's say we set a prolonged timeline and then the uh um
the owner of the property um or the representative says to me, "Oh, we can't get a permit in time." And I talk to the city and say, "We haven't heard them since the last hearing." Right? and it turns out that you know the permits and everything were applied for you know a week ahead of time I'm less sympathetic whereas if you are in constant
communication with officer officer May there and then yeah I believe you guys when you say that and I I I think >> if there's a scenario where you guys have been in constant communication and 6 months passes and it just isn't ready um to be removed and stuff like that obviously um we do have some discretion
you know I mean I I have some discretion to say hey you know they they've acted reasonably and and and and you know um everything that they could but it would be unduly you know burdensome to have them remove it now. Um whereas the alternative is you know five and a half
months from now is the next time officer right hears from you and uh you know they come to me and say hey it's time to impose fines on the property. >> We will honor our end of it make sure that we handle it professionally and that they're totally in the loop of what we're doing and and you should see these
plans there. We're just waiting on a tree survey to so we can submit the plans. That's what we're waiting on today. So, which was due back in November. So, we're we're getting there, though. >> Okay. Um, give me one second. So, are we and and by we, I mean the the city officer,
right? And uh are are you are you okay with revising the recommendation to the six months instead of the two months frame we've given them? Okay. All right. And I guess just for for clarification, the six months would be for permit application submittal, not removal.
Correct. >> Well, how strict do you guys want to be? I I I was going to say for the removal of it, but you know, that's >> I mean it sound if >> I mean I I was thinking removal, but I I I recognize that that was probably an an
unlikely scenario that that would be accomplishable in 6 months. Um, so but if the city is also willing to recommend just that the you know an application be in or permit issued I I don't know how you what what standard you guys are looking for to feel again we have
competing interests. We don't want to be unduly burdensome on them but we have you know safety priority as well. So >> yeah I mean just just kind of in the spirit of compromise yeah submission of an application within six months. >> Okay. >> Okay.
All right. I've accepted and considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff. I find that Indian River Church Incorporated is the owner of the property with the address 1355 Cheney Highway, Titusville, Florida 32780.
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 violation of section uh 30-214
of the city code, which is regarding the storm water management enforcement, um exist upon the property, and respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations, but have not done so as of this date. Um the corrective action at this time shall be
to submit a full and complete application for the removal of the playgrounds from the storm water retention areas. Um respondents shall be given uh 6 months to correct the violations which should take us to uh August
>> 6 >> August 6 2026 um to submit that application. Um, respondent shall be responsible for keeping officer Wright
updated on the progress of the plans and the uh permit application. Um, and uh she will then confirm the status of compliance uh on or before um August 6th. If respondent fails to correct the violation uh by August 6, a fine will be
entered in the amount of $100 per day until the violation comes into compliance. Additionally, a find that the city has incurred costs in the amount of $13628. Such amount shall be included with this order. Further and future violations of the same section shall be classified as
repeat violation. A certified order may be recorded in the public records of Bvard County. Um, but again hopefully uh I mean I would imagine we're going to be here in August or September to discuss progress. Uh I think it's going to be uh pretty ambitious for me to expect it to
be removed at that time, but I'm sure I'll see see you guys that day. >> I'm sure we'll have an update. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. Appreciate it, guys. Thank you. God bless you. Have a good day. Um, that's it for all the hearings. Do we have a manager's report, Officer
Glenn? >> No. No, sir. >> All right. uh other than the fact that you had mentioned uh with June, we will not have a meeting in June. >> Fantastic. I appreciate that and appreciate you accommodating my schedule. Um and with that, it is 156
and we are adjourned. Thank you.