All right. 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 a 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 any 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'll 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? Thank you. You guys may all be seated.
I have um received and I've already gone ahead and reviewed the uh July 14, 2025 minutes. Everything uh appears to be in order, so we'll go ahead and deem them to be approved. Um we'll move on to the hearings. I'm going to do things a little bit out of order today. So, I
want to go ahead and first is are any other parties here represented by council. >> All right. I'm going go ahead and take you first so that you guys can uh you know stop the clock running on those hourly those hourly fees. Um so this is
uh case 25-48. >> Hi, my name is Kadija Sullivan. I represent Pop Florida Properties LLC in this matter and we've been trying to uh work with the tenant to go ahead and get the violation fixed. If you want, I have copies of the quotes that we've gotten
sent in. >> Let me get let this let me let the city um go first if you don't mind and then you can respond. Uh and then anything else you want to provide, you're more than welcome to do so. Um, but yeah, I don't know anything about the case yet. So,
>> good afternoon. I have three exhibits to submit. The first one is the affidavit and notice of hearing. The second is the affidavit and notice of violation. And the third is our cost recovery statement in the amount of $216.58. Thank you.
So once again, this is the initial hearing for case number 25-48. Our respondent, POP Florida Properties LLC, and our registered agent is Corporate Creations Network, Inc. The violation address 3675
Cheney Highway, Titusville, Florida. And we have two mailing addresses, 4515 Lynden B. Johnson Freeway, Dallas, Texas, and 801 US Highway 1 in North Palm Beach, Florida. We have one
violation this afternoon. It's 30-305. This is continue maintenance required for landscaping. So the initial inspection was completed on November 14th, 2024. A uh copy of the notice of violation was handd delivered
to employees on property. They were given till January 14th, 2025 to come into compliance. Uh we have proper service on both the notice of violation and the notice of hearing.
So, a complaint was received from Titusville Development Services concerning the required landscaping not being maintained on the commercial property. I received a copy of the approve approved landscape plan and completed an inspection of the property.
Um, we had multiple missing um plants within the vegetation and landscape uh areas. uh pictures were taken and the notice of violation was handd delivered to pro um the manager on duty. So I've had
multiple on-site visits with two different district managers, uh the store manager on multiple occasions and a land landscape contractor to discuss the ordinance, the review the landscape plan as well as discuss the uh
irrigation system. As of an inspection done this morning, we don't have any work started to replace the missing violation or vegetation, sorry. So, this is a uh bird's eye view of the property
and this is just a portion of the approved landscape plan just outlining what's supposed to be on the site. A combination of ground vegetation, bushes, and trees. So these are all pictures taken July
29th um 2025 when I was posting the notice of hearing. Uh there is very few plants around the exterior of the building the restaurant itself and then all the vegetation that's supposed to be along the uh edge of the
land uh parking lot is missing. So again, the conclusions of facts in this case uh for section 30-305, the property is missing plants as required by the approved landscape plan. So, we are requesting an order be issued
to uh correct the violation on or before noon of September 5th, 2025. Um to come into compliance, we are asking that plants are installed to meet the requirements of the approved landscape plan. If the respondent does
not comply by September 5th, >> is there something wrong with the irrigation system as well? the irrigation system. It's on the reclaimed water system. On one of my visits there, the irrigation system was just spraying water straight out um of a couple of missing heads. So,
they had shut the irrigation system down. I was out to the property last uh Friday on the ETH. A contractor was on site working on the irrigation. I've not seen it functioning, but they were working on the irrigation.
>> But that is part of the repairs that they need to do. >> It is it to maintain the health of the plants, the irrigation system needs to be functional. >> Okay. >> So, uh requesting a fine in the amount of $100 per day per violation be issued
and requesting administrative costs be assessed in the amount of $216.58. once all the corrections are made to contact myself uh for a reinspection. >> Sounds good. Thank you, >> Miss Sullivan. It's Miss Sullivan,
right? Okay. >> The addresses that we've been or that the city has been mailing the notices to, are those the correct addresses for the company? Okay. >> All right. So, you represent Pop Florida Properties, right? Okay. Not the not the Okay. >> So, we have been in contact with tenant
per our leasing agreement. it is their responsibility, but we understand that as the owners, it calls on us. But we have quotes if you would like them um to do with the irrigation system as well as pictures and quotes for the plants that we need >> um because we are in the process of
getting it done, but it couldn't be done by today, but we are in the process of being in compliance with the violations and we were just hoping for a 30-day extension to get everything done. >> The city is requesting that it be done by September 5th. Do you anticipate it being done by that point?
>> It's not quite 30 days, but it's like 25. >> We hope so. Um, but yeah, we're in contact with them. They have the quotes and the quotes are good for 15 days. So, I'm assuming within >> Is there is this one of those things where you would have to as the landlord
go come out of pocket and then charge it to them or are they going to hire the contractors? >> So, they have hired the contractor. >> They have. Okay. I feel like September 5th is enough time then. >> Okay. >> Um, is there anything else or Let me see
the quotes by the way. Sorry. You brought them so good look. Thanks. >> So, the tenant has already uh signed the estimates or accepted the estimates I >> Yes. >> I don't know nothing about landscaping. Is this everything that needs to be
done? Um, anyway, >> the only thing that I would need to double check on is the the Jasmine as a replacement for the winter creeper, but >> Okay, >> we can check with development services
before she leaves today. >> Okay, perfect. All right. Well, um, okay. I'm ready to make a ruling unless there's anything else you want to add or fine. Okay. I've accepted and considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff. I find that
respondent pop Florida Properties LLC is the owner of the property with the address 3675 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
evidence presented, I find that violations of section 30-305 of the Civic Code, which uh requires um continuing maintenance um exist upon the property and respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations, but either failed or refused
to do so. The corrective actions for these violations shall be to install uh new plants to meet the uh requirements of the approved landscape plan and complete the repairs to the irrigation system. Um, additionally, I find that the city has incurred costs in the amount of $216.58.
Um, such amounts shall be included with this order. Respondent shall be given until noon on September 5th, 2025 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 uh by noon on September 5th, 2025, a fine will be entered in the amount of $100 per day until the violation comes into compliance. A any further and future violations of the same sections shall be classified as a
repeat violation. A certified order may be recorded in the public records of Bvard County. It is so ordered. Thank you. >> Keep those billing entries low. >> All right. We'll get back on to our agenda in order then. Um I think there was no uh we're moving right on to the
lean reduction hearing. So the first one is uh item B1 on the agenda which is for Sky Investments. Uh there's no case number I see here. Okay. 4B1 is what I have. All right.
>> Are you here for that? >> Yes. You you may come up. >> Officer Flanigan, you may proceed. >> There we go. Again, this is for Sky Investments. Uh the address, current owner address is 200 Cheney Avenue. This
is for 195 Roosevelt Street in Titusville, Florida. And the original charges were for the dead trees on the property. Uh this one was kind of kind of got confusing. On March 11, 2025 at the regular city council meeting, uh the
staff presented the request for the reduction in the owner who was present at the meeting. Uh after reviewing the request and hearing testimony of Mr. Myers, the code enforcement recommended the reduction of fine to $0 and the city cost the amount of $216.58
must be paid within 90 days or would go back to the original amount of $13,100. Uh on June 10th, code enforcement department verified that the 90 days had expired and the city cost of $216 had not been paid. Additionally, it was found that the property had been sold to
a no new owner Sky Investments on March 6 prior to the code and for I'm sorry, city council meeting to request uh so Mr. Myers at the time didn't have standing to request a lean reduction on something he didn't own. Basically, >> he had already sold it by that date.
>> He had already sold it. Yeah. Um on June 18th, 2025, the legal department sent a demand letter for payment um and was in default of the city approved for the reduction of the lean. On June 25th, code enforcement received a application
as well for a lean reduction from the new owner, Sky Investments. Um yeah, and on July 23rd, 2025, received an email from Sky Investments that they would be present for the hearing. And they also Sky Investments
who requested the lean is also or reduction has also deed the property over to Athens LLC which my understanding is the same owner just different corporate name. Um and I don't know if you need the gist of
it 13,100 and they're requesting the reduction of the lean again under the new ownership name. And this is uh the original picture of all the debris that was on the property and the dead trees. That's just another overall picture of
it. I'm sorry. That's the uh cleanup of the lot. And since that picture was taken, there's a newer picture that he did do a lot better job with clearing the lot and different underbrush of the trees and stuff. So, it does look in good condition. >> Was it was the condition like that prior to this? Oh, yes. This is February. Okay. So,
>> yeah, that was back in February. But since since that picture, I thought I put a more current picture in there, but I didn't. But he's cleaned out more underbrush and stuff and it all the dead trees and everything's gone, so it does look good. >> But he gave me this gentleman here. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I assume someone did it.
>> All right, >> sir. >> And what was your name? >> Vern Daniels. >> Vern Daniels. >> And do we have do we have the correct address for you? It's 195. Well, that's that's the property address. Do we have the correct mailing address for you?
2000 Cheney Highway, sweet 103-170, Tisville, Florida 32780. >> Glenn, do you have that? >> All right, cool. >> All right, Vern, what do you have for me? >> I'm just the new owner. I didn't I had
no idea that this was going on. Um, I just cleaned up the property on my own and I found out about it later. uh I was want to switch one thing from one LLC to the other, but uh I just want to make sure that I'm I'm very compliant to the
city and I don't want to be in the middle of any violations. So, I I take good care of that property. There's nothing on it, but you know, I I make sure that I go by and uh clean it up all the time.
This never came up at all during your entire title and escrow process because I see you I mean you went through a title company? >> No. No, I didn't. I didn't know anything about it. I just wanted to hurry up, clean it up, and I pretty much brought it down to sand, you know. >> Do you know if a municipal lean search was ordered at the time that you closed?
>> No, I was just totally was I wasn't aware. I just I just trusted, you know, the system and you know, I just wanted to clean it up. If I would have known that, I think it came out to like $20 and something dollars, something like that, I would have been more than happy to pay it. It's interesting because I remember this
case cuz I was the one that rejected their first lean reduction request. um they weren't present at the time, but I remember looking at the files like I don't I don't see a basis for for reducing the lean. And so it's surprising to see that the city council
saw fit otherwise to reduce it to zero, which kind of uh uh uh uh leads us to this predicament that we're in. Um, >> and I don't think that's your fault, but I also don't think that it's uh, again, I I I I didn't see the basis for the
reduction of the lean in the first place, but that has nothing to do with you because the lean was imposed on your predecessor. And I believe everything you're saying as far as, you know, how you came to find out about and everything. I'm I'm surprised this never came up at all during your uh, uh, closing because it looks like you went
through a pretty reputable title company. Um, you have title insurance, but actually no, the lean was never Our lean was recorded, right, Glenn? >> No, our lean wasn't recorded. Okay. >> No, we never received a request for lean check on that property.
Give me a second. Let me look at all the factors that we have here. How much did you purchase the property for? >> 30,000. I I I honestly feel that there are during the closing process, there are certain sellers affidavit and everything that
you receive that the seller has to disclose to you anything that they know that may affect or impact the property. and you know, either it was disclosed and you didn't read it just because you received the mountain of paperwork or they didn't disclose it at all. Um, I
would definitely suggest you take a look back at at some of those things. Um, because I'm not going to reduce it to zero. I'm going to reduce it some. Um, but I don't think that uh uh the factors uh uh justify reducing it all the way to
zero. I know I again I'm not going to question what the city council did, but I'm I'm surprised that they uh granted such a a reduction on a case where I didn't see like where the factors really justified that. Um is there anything else you want me to make take into consideration before I make a ruling?
>> No, it's just it took me um it took me like at least a month to clean it up. I spent about I would say about what the lean is. I spent that much little bit over that to clean it up. It was it was it was a mess. It was a it was a huge you know.
>> No. And I I believe everything you're saying. Yeah. I I really do. Um >> I just I just had no idea that um I was thrown into such you know I was thrown into the fire and I had no idea. >> I'm not saying that you may have a claim against anyone else that was you know on
the other side of that transaction. It should have been brought up to you. That's >> I I apologize for not knowing or you know I I don't know. I trusted uh the system. >> Uh Officer Flanning, do you have anything else you want to add or
>> No, I like I said when the when it first came to you, he was made aware. The original owner, Mr. Myers, was made aware. He didn't show up for the hearing, but he did show up for the council meeting >> for the lean reduction request. So, >> I still don't understand. >> I I All right. I'm with you. The the
only thing I can say for Sky Investments is once the property did change hands and they took it over, they did immediately start. >> No, I understand. Then everything that Mr. Daniels is saying, I fully believe and Yeah. >> I I just don't I guess I do need to speak to Mr. Myers, but if it was
reduced to zero, why wouldn't he tell me? >> Why? >> Well, it wasn't reduced. It was reduced to zero and then $216 for the cost. >> Even 216, why not tell me? >> I don't know. what what would go through? >> Well, well, actually that that that
hearing where they they agreed to reduce the lean was after he had already sold it to you. >> So, he shouldn't even been at that meeting speaking on behalf of the property. He had no authority to speak on the behalf of the property owner, which at that time was you, not him.
>> Uh gosh. Okay. So, actually at the time he sold it to you, he was well aware that there was a $13,000 lean on the property and then maybe he told you, "Hey, I'll get it taken care of by the city. You don't have to worry about it." I don't know. >> And and this is this is from trees
dead trees and overgrowth. >> My gosh, why would he >> It's just $100 per day. So, it keeps stacking up, stacking up, stacking up. And you have a however many months he had to to fix it because it was under the first the other special magistrate before I got involved. That's how long it had been going on, which is why it acrewed to that point. Um, but again, it
should not have been reduced because he was not the owner at the time. It was you, which I mean is is good because now you're here, but either way, you're living with the consequence of it. So, >> yes. >> Yeah. >> Yes.
>> Glenn, did you have anything? >> Oh, no. Okay. >> You had any further question? >> All right. Uh, I'm ready to to make a ruling. I've reviewed their lean reduction application and the city code provision that is applicable and have considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn testimony
relating to this matter from city staff and respondent. Um, I will recommend that city council reduce this lean to $1,000 based on several factors that's provided by the city code, including the gravity of the violation. Um,
the actions taken by the applicant to correct and time it took to bring into compliance. Um, the acred amount of the lean compared to the market value. um your how you came about to know about
the lean and the violation. Um I think those were all mitigating circumstances to justify a reduction, a considerable reduction. Um in addition to the lean amount of $1,000, the lean will include um all costs incurred by the city in the amount of $216.58.
It is so ordered. You'll receive a written order from today's hearing, which will just be a recommendation to city council. you will have notice and opportunity to attend the city council meeting where the recommendation will be considered. So again, as long as you still own the property, you can talk to city council
about it. But >> can can I just real quick I just request that Athens LLC is included on that order because it's the he changed it over to Athens LLC. >> Oh, he already title already changed to Athens LLC. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> But it's the same that way. >> So should we refer to the applicant?
Well, we'll refer to the ANA as Athens LLC as successor to or whatever. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a um Sky Investment >> question. Where do I go to pay? Uh >> you can you can talk to these gentlemen here. >> I'm sorry. >> All right. Thank you.
>> I'd say it gets easier, but it doesn't. The next one. >> All right. The second item on the agenda is uh 508 Lucky Street. Okay. Uh, the current owner applicant is Bianca Bland. I don't believe anyone's
here for that case. Uh, their current address is 3690 Buttonwood Drive and it's 508 Lucky Street. Um since uh I don't know if what you want to do is this is a lean reduction and they're not here if you want to continue or do you want to
>> um you want go over all the notices and stuff like that and and we'll go ahead and hear it now. I mean >> well they're yeah they're the ones that were aware of the hearing. They were notified of it. They requested this date. Uh this case actually started back in 2007 when the owner of Daisy Mitchell
uh didn't respond to meeting to the meeting apparently according to the notes was given till September 5th to correct the violation. The fines at the time were $25 a day. Um and the administrative cost of $384.32. Um it was for I'll I'll give you the
cliff notes because there's a lot of writing on here. It's junk and debris overgrowth. Uh and then in 2019 there was another code hearing for danger structure and junk and debris. Um and at the time there was a different owner of the property.
Um on May 13th um the fines were started at $150 per day for the violations and administrative costs were imposed. Uh and on July 23rd at the regular city council meeting, item 9D authorized the
demolition of the structure located on 508 Lucky Street. Um and that was taken care of. The total daily fines accured is $154,000 and the city cost of 4,000 for the total fine of $159,151 and the applicant was requesting a
reduction of 155,500 which would have been minus the city cost. Um and on May 30th we did receive the applicants for a lean reduction and on July 25th uh Mr. Bur acknowledge the
receipt of notice of hearing for today. Um those are just the quick facts. These are the before pictures before they demoed the house. Um that's what it looked like after they demoed the house and that's the current status as of today.
So, it's definitely no no violations on the property as of today, but and again, the applicant's not here to state anything. >> All right. Do you Did you give me the mailing affidavit and everything or
>> No, no, >> I think it's in the packet that you gave me. I couldn't bring it up. Sorry. >> Typically, it's in these it's the these hearings are at their request. >> Oh, I got you. I got you. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. Okay. That's only verify the receipt of today's hearings.
>> They did acknowledge the receipt of the notice of hearing. I see on Jul Mr. Bur acknowledged u on July 25th. He called me himself. >> Who is Mr. Bur in relation to Mrs. Bla? >> U her husband. >> Okay. >> And business partner.
Well, the the basis that they were claiming, I guess, uh uh for their production application was that they I guess they took it on from a prior owner, but I was looking at some of the deeds that you sent me. It
just looks like they've been >> deeding it back and forth between family members. At least they have the same last name. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> That's correct, sir. at least um top of my head I would say four different occasions they they've changed ownership to each other. >> Yeah. You know how I feel about that. I
don't think you can bury your head in the sand and claim you didn't know except quick claim deeds and send quick claim deeds and then get waiverss of what you owe the city because you say you didn't know. So I'm not a fan of that. But, uh, well, since they're not here to bring up
any other, uh, factors or anything, I guess there's nothing else I can really consider, >> um, as far as their lean reduction application. So, um, I guess this will go before the city council for recommendation. Then, >> I've reviewed the lean reduction application in the city code provision
as applicable. I've considered documentary evidence, including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter, from city staff and respondent. I will recommend that city council not reduce this lean um as none of the factors set forth in the um lean
reduction application justify a reduction of the lean and the respondent was not present to um bring up any other mitigating circumstances. Um therefore the lean stands it's so ordered. You will well we'll send a written order from today's hearing which
will be a recommendation to city council. Um the respond the applicant will have a notice and opportunity to attend a city council meeting where the recommendation will be considered. >> All right. The next one is
1229 First Avenue. >> Yes. >> And the register's agent is present today. Uh before we get started, sir, uh this property was a tax deed sale. >> Okay. >> And with that
>> there was access funds of 9,83382 retained I guess by the clerk's office. >> How much was that? >> 9,83382. >> Okay. >> And they had 120 days for claims to come in to see how that would be dispersed.
>> That time has not passed. Okay. >> Be September 5th. Uh but with that being said, uh on this particular property, there's $28,179.39. And I just got this after the agenda. I'm going I'm going to present this to you, sir.
>> Okay. All right. You had me write down a lot of numbers. >> And there's an additional storm water lean in the amount of $2,7255. Okay. >> For a total of 30,2494. >> Thank you. >> So, so with that without
>> these I'm sorry. Oh, okay. So those are all add in together. I see. Okay. Sorry. >> Yep. Yes sir. So with that we can either which would make it ineligible actually for a lean reduction. However, we can go ahead and hear it just as long as registered agent knows
that that 30,249 94 and the 5,87487 which is our hard cost would have to be paid within the 90 days before the lean reduction. So regardless of the fines on
there, that 30,000 plus >> 5,000 in cost is going to remain anyway, >> right? It's not negotiable for a lean reduction. >> Do you understand that, sir? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. >> I I just wanted that to to to come to the forefront.
>> Okay. Understood. All right. All right. Are you presenting, Glenn, or Oh, officer Flanig. Okay. Uh again, this is 1229 First Avenue. It was for junken debris and overgrowth at the time. This case was originally heard
on August 11th, 2008. Uh was owned by William and William and M. Sanchez residential lot. Uh they were given till September 5th to correct it. Um violations the amount of $100 per day started on September 5th and continued.
and the administrative cost of 394 was also imposed. Um the fines said the fines continued on from the '08 case on May 9th, 2016. A Massie herring testimony presented by the city with overgrowth unsafe
structure. Uh I believe there was debris on there and there was a fines were $100 per day starting on that one as well on April 8th, 2016. And on July 23rd, 2019, at the council meeting again, they
authorized the demolition of the structure that was on 1229 1st Avenue. And the structure was removed on February 25th, 2020. um res the total daily fines all add it together uh came up to $1,19,100
and the city cost of I had 5,874 but I believe has that changed or is that addition to what you have >> that the 5,874 A7 is the lean amount for code enforcement
leans on. >> They're 30,249. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're just talking about the the costs. >> This is just talking about in this PowerPoint is just our cost. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. >> That would be a total of 1,114,974
for the total. Um that's just the conclusion and the daily fines, the city costs and everything. Uh he's requesting a lean reduction of 1,19,000. Uh, but we also have the city cost of 5,874,000
to deal with. Um, this is the before pictures, the structure that was on the property. Um, two pictures that were on there. This is them after they demoed the property. Um, and it's there's nothing
on the property today other than several times we've had to had to cut the grass cut and cut named the property for the grass cutings. A little confusing, but >> all right. Uh, sir, what was uh I had your name, Mr.
Dilva? Yes. >> Is that correct? >> How are you today? >> I'm good. And you, sir? >> Not too bad. Not too bad. Okay. We're representing the prices for you. uh we got the property tax lean tax deed and we did our due diligent but uh we
went to public records from the county from the city and we didn't find those code enforcements to be honest. Um then when we receive all those papers saying the amount we try to find harder looks like there is a third party company
taking care of the the code enforcements that's why we didn't see those amounts but uh we have a project we are small business in the area that that was going to be our first project and we have a partnership with a local builder to
build a affordable house for that lot you know and we try to negotiate a amount that's about the >> 1.3 million >> the the value of the that that's way greater than like if I work my entire life probably not going to put that
money together honestly and uh >> sorry um sorry to interrupt you but you said there was a third party handling the code enforcement what are you referring to >> because usually when we go to the tax deed uh action we find the code enforcement uh links on public records
from the county or the city >> did do your search manually or did you actually request a title commitment or title report from a third party? >> Unfortunately, here in Titusville, we did over the Breford County and also the Titusville city and we didn't find them.
You know, looks like uh there's a third party company can provide those informations. Uh uh uh uh that's my first time with Titusville, so I cannot tell if like so well. But like I said, my my goal is get lots, build affordable
homes, and try to put on the market as soon as possible to make the the the place better livable and things like that, >> right? Because, you know, I I've represented several investors who purchase properties from tax deeds
auctions, and I always tell them make sure they're ordering a title uh an ownership and incumbrance report or a title report, title commitment from a title company just to avoid stuff like this. And I'm looking here and it was recorded in Bvard County um against the
former owner's name. >> Um that being said, the former owner does have a very common name. So maybe, you know, the search individually would have been harder. Um, again, I I I just I just bring that up just because again, I don't like uh uh
lack of knowledge in and of itself wouldn't be a determining factor because I think you could have found out about it. Um, now that being said, I do think that this is right for being reduced just because of the sheer amount of it. >> Um, how big is the lot? Uh
if I'm not wrong, that's 70,000 square feet. >> 70. How many uh how many homes are you looking to build on there? >> Uh one >> just one. >> Yeah, just one. And there's a builder, a local builder. He already built a few houses in the area and we already have the project uh two or three bedrooms
just depend what's approved and we want to move forward. Uh their name is Pro Restore Services and you know that's my first >> what is the market value of of a home on that lot in that area? What would that be? >> The lot uh itself
>> if it was if it was built >> 25 >> if it was built out with a home itself >> 250 250 270 >> probably. When when did the violations actually get fixed? Do you do you gentlemen refer recall? It must have been a long time
ago, right? >> Yes, sir. We did a demolition I want to say in 2017. >> Okay. Also, since we got this lot, sir, uh we already did a clean up >> in the whole lot. I have a landscape already taken care of. we don't have
more violations, you know, and like I said, uh it's not a lack of knowledge, but uh probably I skipped something and you know, we are human beings sometimes. >> I get it. I get it. I saw in your
application you had listed out a proposed resolution. >> Yes. >> Uh do you want to describe what that how that resolution? proposed that yeah, >> I proposed that because I I noticed you guys had cost for clean the lot for the
demolition and I noticed you guys had cost for it and I want to pay for it, but uh I cannot get all the fines, all the fees and everything because that's going to be way beyond the lot cost, you know, and we're not going to be able to
do anything honestly. >> Right. So you heard what officer Tolson, Glenn Tollesen here said. Um the utility services and the storm water leans are not subject to any reduction today. So
those are $28,177.39 and then $2,7255. Then also the hard costs, the cleanup cost, everything that the city has incurred, that's 5,800 something. That's also not subject to reduction. So you have those um I'm going to just do
really rough math. That's about 36,000. That's going to be your base that you're going to have. On top of that, what you're asking me to reduce is this additional $1.15 million fine. And I'm very um looking very favorably on on reducing
that. Um not really sure. I've never considered such a large reduction before. I don't want to affect the city's, you know, budget there. I mean, was that is that something you were expecting to have in cover some expenses for the city or?
>> Yes, that again that is a large amount of money and we and we understand that. Um, but the the property has been vacant, has been vacant since we demolished the residence that's on it. U, city would
like to see a new structure, affordable housing put on the property. Mhm. >> Uh but with with that taking in consideration of everything uh again that would be up to Mr. Dilova
what to make his offer simply to you what he he would feel would be appropriate and then base it from there. >> So given that 36,000 is already going to be that's for everything else that's for all the hard costs and everything. We don't have the authority today to reduce any of that. >> Okay.
um >> just one >> but then we also have like he said earlier there's 9,800 still in surplus. So assuming the city of Titusville has highest priority on that which I would assume that we do that's going to be hopefully dispersed when the timeline
comes up to the city to reduce the amounts that are owed on the property. Okay. Again I can't guarantee that but that's the intent of that 9800. Given that in mind, is there a dollar amount you would be comfortable paying in lie of paying $1.15 million?
>> Sir, if the 36 got to be paid no matter what, honestly, my I was ask for a division for zero because I already receive a bill from from the water of 111
that's going to to to be due today. So the lot's vacant, nothing's being used, and uh the bill is already 111. That's almost the same amount of the bill in my house, and I have four people living it, you know. So I don't want to question, but that's not going to stop, you know.
If you can have the reduction, uh probably I can deal with them even if the amount is larger than I expected, but uh and I can move forward with the project. You know, the thing is now I don't want to just have the the profit. I want to get this thing done properly,
you know, build the house. If the profit is not that great, okay, we're going to move to the next one and get the experience of this one. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, regardless, the uh utility and the storm water leans are going to cut into any profit margin you would
have had anyway. Um, but I don't feel like I can reduce the 1.1 million all the way down to zero. Um, all right. Um, Okay. So then all right. I have reviewed the lean reduction
application in the city code provision that is applicable and considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff and um applicant. I will recommend that city council reduce this lean to I'm going to say $5,000 based upon
several factors as provided by the city code including the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by applicant to correct and the time it took to bring into compliance which is actually irrelevant. Sorry. the acred amount of the enforcement lean compared to the market value. That's the big one. Uh any previous or subsequent code
violations, your prior knowledge of the lean um and the other circumstances that you've discussed today. So what that means is for the lean, the fines itself would be $5,000 plus all of these other stuff that we talked about, which is the
28,000 for utility services, 2,000 for storm water leans, and then 5,800 for costs. Officer Tolson. Yeah. Yes, sir. And and any of that that was held by the >> the tax deed surplus. Yeah.
>> Does come in, would we be able to to reduce that number? >> Yeah. Do I need to state that in the order? >> Yes. Yes, sir. If you would, please because that's not due until September 5th. Then, right, >> he would have 90 days for today. So I mean it would play into the same but we
would need the authority to to reduce it by >> any amounts that the city receives from the surplus from the tax deed auction will operate to will be a credit to or be credited to um the fine amounts and the lean amounts here. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Um so again just to be clear the fine is $5,000. The city's costs are I had it $5,800. Do you have the exact >> $74
$5,87487 >> for the code? >> Right. So that's the city's costs. Um then in addition you will still have the utility service of 28 28,177 and $39 and $2,000 and $2,7255
for storm water leans. Okay. >> Okay. >> And again any amount from the tax surplus which approximately $9,800 would operate to reduce all of those amounts. Okay. >> Okay. >> You receive a written order from today's hearing which will just be a recommendation to city council. You'll have notice and opportunity to attend
the city council meeting where the recommendation will be considered. It is so ordered. Thanks. >> All right. >> Thank you so much. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I think that concludes all of the lean reduction hearing. So we can go ahead and move to our one Massie hearing that we have on the agenda which is for
160 Park Lane and Titusville, Florida 32780. I have to prevent present to you the notice of hearing and the cost affidavit for $216 58. Made sense. >> Go ahead.
>> Good. >> Again, this was 160 Park Lane. This is a Massie hearing. Uh the mail two address is the same. It was Sir Juncan Debris. Uh the notice of respondent was first class and certified in July 21st and it was posted on the property in city hall
on July 28th. Uh this case was originally here heard on July 14th and the respondent was not present. They were given until noon on August 8th, 2025 to correct the violation if not a fine of $100 per day commencing on August 9th and continuing until the
violations corrected along with the administrative cost of $216.58 were imposed. As of today, no action or permits to correct the violation have been completed and no contact has been made with the respondents. They go, uh, these were the original
pictures just to refresh your memory. Um, we have the junk and debris, the vehicle as well on there. Um, this was the follow-up pictures back in June with the appliances and the junk cars in the driveway and the debris is as well.
um same back in June. Um these are in July 28th. There's been no corrective actions to try to clear up the property at all. Um now there's two vehicles on there that are inoperable as well. And they are present as there
today as I went by. And again, no corrective action. And I don't believe anybody's here for that case either. >> Did we check out in the hallway? Make sure no one's up there. >> Sergeant-at-Arms.
>> I find based on the evidence and testimony presented that notice was properly provided to the respondent and the respondent did not appear. The evidence demonstrates that the property located at oops lost it again
160 Park Lane, Titusville, Florida 32780 remains in violation. Uh specifically uh they are in violation of city code section 12.23 uh regarding junk and debris and the property is not in compliance with the
previous order dated July 18, 2025. Therefore, I find that the city has established a continuing violation of the uh aphroet provision. Accordingly, a fine of $100 per day is imposed commencing,
let's see what day, August 9th, right? Yes, today's the Yeah. All right. Commencing on August 9th, 2025 and continuing daily until the violations are corrected. Additionally, the costs of $216.58
have not been paid um and will be made part of the order. 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. Thanks. Um are all these gentlemen here for the same matter? Yes. Is there they're here for uh >> Okay.
>> Is there anyone else here waiting for a hearing or should I go ahead and take them to their >> We could go ahead and go next. >> Let's go ahead and move to that one. That is 25-44. They've had to sit through all of these already. So, let's get them up.
So I have three items to submit. Uh the first one is going to be the affidavit and notice of violation. The second is going to be the affidavit and notice of hearing. And the third is the cost recovery statement in the amount of $146.14.
Thank you. So once again, this is the initial hearing for case number 25-44. Our respondent is Richard Manzo or a violation in mailing address is 2655 Ali
Drive in Titusville, Florida. We have two violations. First is section 28-365. That's the storage of shipping containers and vehicles on residential in residential districts. And the second is 28-373B.
It's the temporary storage units. So the initial inspection was completed June 9th, 2025. A copy of the notice of violation was handd delivered to the owner. They were given um until June
19th, 2025 to remove the container. Uh certified and first class mail was sent on June 10th. Uh certified return receipt was returned unclaimed on June 30th. Uh notice of hearings were mailed out July
11, 2025. Certified copy of the letter has yet to be signed for or returned. So, we received uh multiple complaints um concerning a shipping container being placed on the Park Preserve HOA track 2
uh behind 2655 Ali Bird Drive. I spoke with HOA board member Lori Jones who stated on June 7th a contractor delivered the shipping container um to the sub uh subdivision and placed it on track 2 without the board's consent.
uh review of building department records for properties along Ellie Bird Drive. I found no temporary storage container um permits issued and a completion of the inspection found a 52 foot shipping container was placed
on track 2 behind 2655 Alleyird Drive. So during my initial inspection on June 9th, I did speak with Richard Manzo um who confirmed his Senate hired uh a
had the I'm sorry had the container delivered over the weekend and the plan was to move it into their backyard uh to be used for storage. Um he explained that it was his understanding of Florida state statutes that the right of
homeowners to use shipping containers for storage purposes in the state of Florida was protected. Uh we discussed the code sections that deal with shipping containers here in Titusville um and the prohibition for them being
placed in residential zoning districts. um and asked that the container be removed from the HOA property since they did not have permission for it to be there. I also advised uh the owner to speak with the building and planning department with Titusville before moving
the container onto their property so that they can discuss the city statutes and the state statutes. Like I said, a notice of the violation was handd delivered and I provided also contact information for the building and
planning departments. So, um it was indicated in several conversations with the owner that him and his son had visited city hall and spoke with the building and planning department staff. Um, emails were provided to the building department
staff with those Florida statutes and um, their understanding of them. And I do have a copy of that email if you need it. Um, email response from building department and planning department staff was sent to the owner on July 1st. Um,
specifically from building official Steve Adams, he stated code section um, is stated clearly. myself nor any other member of city staff has the authority to override or exempt the um adopted ordinances.
Same thing with planning staff. Um Miss Tabitha Armstrong stated the board of adjustments is unable to authorize a variance for the use the code statement that the placement or use of any shipping container as an accessory building, storage building, or living
unit on residentially zoned land uh is prohibited. So on June 18th, 2025, a reinspection was completed. The storage container had been removed from the HOA track 2 and
had been moved into the backyard of 2655 Ali Drive. At the time of today's meeting, um the shipping container remains in the backyard and there has been no permit issued for the temporary placement.
So I did include um the two code sections 28365 um two again states that shipping containers used as an accessory building, storage building or living unit on residentially zoned land uh used
for residential purposes is prohibited. And then there's a lot in here, but 28373, it does allow for the temporary placement, but there's some restrictions to that placement and its size. Um, and
a limit of 30 days for the unit to be on on the property >> without a permit. >> Without a with a permit. >> With a permit. Okay. >> Yep. So, and and that was written for the um when pods and and similar storage units were becoming popular.
So, this is a uh inspection photo taken July 29th, 2025 when I delivered the notice of hearing for today. So, this is the shipping container in the backyard. So the conclusions of facts for this
case um for 28-365 the shipping container remains on a residentially zoned um piece of property. And for the temporary storage units 28373, uh the shipping container exceeds the
maximum length allowed for temporary placement and no permit has been issued allowing the container to stay on the property. You said you had an email. >> Uh I have both the um building departments and then the um one from
Richard Manzo concerning the state statutes. >> Let me see both. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. >> Okay. You can continue. So, we are asking that the respondent be
ordered to correct the violation violations on or before noon of September 5th, 2025 by removing the shipping container from the property. If the respondent does not comply by September 5th, we are requesting a fine of $50 per day per
violation um be imposed for each day the violation continues. We are also asking that the administrative costs in the amount of $146.14 be assessed and they need to contact
myself uh to confirm compliance. Thank you. Give me one second. All All right, sir. What is your name? >> Hi, my name is Richard Manzo as well and u good afternoon Mr. Whim.
Now, excuse me quick. So, um, first I'd like to thank you, you know, for the opportunity to speak today. And I would like to first start off by saying that, uh, there is no violation on our part. And um the city is in violation of state
law and Florida building code cuz we own a storage unit and a shed recognized as such by both Titusville and Bvard County, not a shipping container as they allege. Now, Titusville's own definitions undermine its position
because uh as as you heard uh Titusville defines a storage unit as a transportable unit designed and primarily used for the storage of building materials, household household goods, etc. And a shed is defined as a
freestanding residential structure used for storage of items such as lawn equipment, washer, dryer, etc. So clearly our structure meets both the definitions and the city's contradictory uh contradictory labeling calling it a shipping container in the prohibition
yet referring to the same structure as a storage unit elsewhere underscores that classification is based on use and not origin. And the Florida building code clarifies this. Uh Florida Building Code section 302.1 states classification of buildings and structures is based on
occupancy and use and continues occupancy. Classification is the formal designation of the primary purpose. So if we had the same structure built out of wood or aluminum, the city would recognize it and allow it as a shed. The
only difference is that ours is made of a different material and that is uh enforcement discriminatory which state law forbids material-based discrimination. Statute 553.73 PN4 PNB B2 states that local amendments
to the Florida Building Code must not discriminate against materials, products or construction techniques of demonstrating capabilities. And statute 5537 or 55338 sorry states that local building rules must be reasonable and
uniformly applied regardless of whether a structure is conventionally constructed or manufactured. So it's pretty clear that the ban the city's ban based solely on material which is steel rather is rather than a safety function violates these core principles.
Now, I also would like to talk about the public safety as well because our shed far exceeds the uh Florida building code standards. Uh so, the city unjustly attempting to ban our shed is creating a
public safety hazard in and of itself. Sheds such as ours, they are much safer method to store your household items or possessions. Because if any of us in this room had something that we wanted to store, you know, keep safe, family things, memorabilia, any any stuff like
that, you know, why would you not uh not choose the safest and most secure method and also cost-effective method. Now, as I said, you know, these storage units are made of steel, let in no leaks. And not only that, but they not only meet, but exceed the Florida Building Code standards. Our shed can withstand winds
of over 180 miles per hour, category 5 hurricanes, which is well above the standard for Florida sheds at 150 mph. In a state such as Florida, we experience the harshest of conditions between humidity, hurricanes, tropical
storms, tornadoes, floods, etc. So sheds made out of plastic, vinyl, wood, and other weaker materials, they rot, degrade, and get destroyed in these conditions. And this is not only a public safety hazard to the homeowners such as us, but also to the entire surrounding neighborhood because each
year sheds made out of these uh materials, you know, they fly into the yards of people. They fly into houses, breaking windows, walls, cars, even risking and injuring the lives of people every year. Imagine being struck by a piece of wood, you know, from a shed or
the roof of a shed flying at 80 miles per hour. So, our shed is the most structurally sound and can comfortably withstand the harshest developments, including category 5 winds as stated, and provides much uh more safety and peace of mind. They are also inherently fire resistant, non-combustible, and
impervious to termites, mold, and rodents. Most wooden sheds are highly flammable and degrade uh faster in Florida's humidities. Ours is also more durable and cost-effective than sheds half their size. Now, Bvard County also passed a law in 2019 allowing homeowners
to use storage units such as ours. Numerous other uh Florida municipalities have also recognized the advantage that these have and have ruled against discriminatory actions. Such uh mun municipalities include, but are not limited to St. Petersburg, Tampa,
Lakeland, and many others. And I also have legal precedent supporting preeemption and uniform enforcement. Orange County versus sign 2019. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that local ordinances cannot conflict with state law and must yield if inconsistent.
Uh, another case, Phantom of Bard, Inc. versus Bvard County, 2007, went on to say that local governments may act in unpreed areas but cannot conflict with state law. Case Zukarelli III versus Barfield III 2016 recognizes that
selective enforcement treating similarly placed parties differently violates equal protection. In this case, the same structures permitted under one label as a shed or storage unit and banned in another as a shipping container. Uh so that is selective enforcement.
Additionally, the case of Skirlock versus the city of Linhaven also supports the Florida Building Code's authority to preempt local ordinances if such ordinances are discriminatory of structures based on material and building methods used. And we also have a legal principle regarding vagueness
and arbitrary enforcement. The case of now I may be uh mispronouncing this one, but Papacristu versus the city of uh Jacksonville. The Supreme Court struck down a vague vagrancy law encouraging arbitrary enforcement. Here, Titusville's
terminology of container versus shed fails to give clear guidance, leaving homeowners subject to unpredictable and unfair application of the law. Now, you know, we we have acted in good faith and we have uh wanted to cooperate fully with the city and we've been
working with uh agent May and you know, who's awesome, very helpful through this whole process, as well as uh Bradley Flack of the building department who also has helped us a ton through this process and he's the one who u allowed us to move the shipping container into our yard and give us the time that we do
now. So, they they've been great. Besides them though, we do feel like the city of Titusville has let us down. Uh we as as she mentioned have tried to you know request a variance hearing which uh legally you know we feel entitled to as the state law does conflict with the
local ordinances but multiple times from multiple representatives we have been refused that uh due process and we have committed again no violation. Our storage unit is legally recognized as a shed in a storage unit, not a shipping
container. And the city uh prohibit prohibition is discriminatory use contradictory material-based and conflicts with the Florida building code and state statutes. This uh false allegation of a violation is reliant also on an unconstitutional amendment to
the uh Florida building code, which we have no way of confirming was actually enacted properly. And at the end of the day, homeowners have the right to store the possessions in the most safest way possible because, you know, as I said, we live in Florida, which is uh, you
know, not the most fairest of conditions weatherwise. And, uh, you know, and we shouldn't have to worry about selective or unreasonable enforcement from local ordinances. And the legal precedent that uh, you know, I've uh, displayed here today also affirms that such discriminatory or vague enforcement
should not stand. And I would like to formally uh request to the city that uh they acknowledge that we are no violation and that our structure is a legal storage unit and shed. Uh I would also like for them, you know, to eventually amend their ordinances to align with state law and Florida
building code and allow us to continue using it as the state of Florida intended. Since installing it, we have not negative uh negatively impacted our community at all. And really, we've only created, you know, higher safety through our whole entire neighborhood. There are
other uh, you know, neighbors in our area that have sheds made out of plastic and vinyl. And again, you know, those pose much larger safety concerns if we get another hurricane or something like that. So, uh, sorry for the long- winded.
>> Good. >> But no, thank you for listening and, uh, thank you for, you know, your consideration. >> Do you have the cases or anything that you're cited? >> Yep. Obviously, I'm not going to have time to read them all today. Um, >> I was looking through
uh the ordinances. Oh, you don't have the actual cases print. Okay, that's fine. >> No, no, sorry. Yeah. >> Um, that that that one I just handed you. That is a more because since then, you know, we've had a lot more time to go over. So, that's a more refined uh copy. And also, if you'd like, I can give you a copy of what I just read as
well, depending on >> what are you currently using the structure for? >> Storage. >> Storage. Yep. And so basically you're saying it should not be defined as a shipping container. It should be defined otherwise. >> Yes. Yeah. >> I mean it's difficult uh position you're not just put you know uh uh all the
officers and code enforcement officers in because they they don't write the ordinances or anything like that. >> Um same same with me. are just looking at the ordinances and we can't really say, "Oh, this is a a conflict here or advise to the city council to change an
ordinance here or there." I'm not I was looking through the ordinance to see if there was a definition for what constituted a shipping container. Um there was a lot of information you gave me there. What what what argument did you have that it is not a shipping container? Is it because of the use of
it? >> Yeah, m multiple. So the use of it exactly that you know the Florida building code states that the primary uh definition the classification of a structure or building is through the intended use of it and not through the
origin. So just like you know you have people who renovate cars or renovate other things that it was it was a car now it's a house now it's a boat now it's a whatever. So you know things it's it's classified by use. And the other as
well is you know in its current state it is impossible to use as a shipping container. So it can't be used. It needs things and certain criteria that it simply doesn't have. And also across the entire state as well you know like I said uh people are using these storage
units and sheds as legally it fits all the definitions squarely and its intended use is for storage. Right. But it's still a shipping container, right? I mean, that is what it is, right? Is re repurposed shipping container. Correct.
>> But legally is, you know, is what I'm saying is that the Florida Building Code says that you cannot discriminate based on the origin of it. >> But I'm not and again, I'm not I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm I'm just saying, you know, as far as the Florida Building Code goes,
>> I'm not in authority on that, right? I'm looking strictly at our ordinances and you know there it is a black and white prohibition especially when you're talking about a uh a shipping container on residential property you know >> um
something too that um you know we we we talked about as well with the city as well with Bradley Black as well is uh you know we again we want to act in good faith because really at the end of the day all we want to do is just be able to store our stuff in the safest way possible in the you know most cost-effective way possible.
And so we are, you know, more than comfortable with making, you know, uh, visual modifications if, you know, it would make the city more comfortable to, you know, resemble certain types of sheds or such, you know, but again, you know, we we just feel
confident that, you know, and we tried to try to, you know, get a variance hearing because that's, you know, kind of what exactly what you're saying is that, you know, >> right, the the code says what it says, right? Like,
and I I don't think there's any uh u wiggle room for me to accept the definition of it as a classified as something other than a shipping container. So, I'm literally just looking at what what the code says as far as non-conforming structures. Um but
it's not being used as a residential structure. No, >> just I I I don't um let me see you cited a lot of cases. >> No, I apologize. I don't know anything about um
I'm not so much sold on the argument that the use of it makes it not a shipping container because no one that places a shipping container onto their house is using it for shipping. like that by your argument that renders the
entire city ordinance moot. Um I don't I don't know about like the conflict or purported conflict between the Florida building code and Titusville ordinance. I I honestly don't know anything about that. Um,
I don't know if the city has anything to add about, you know, purported conflicts with the Florida building code or there's any position that you guys have taken in the past with regard to that. >> I I instructed the owners to go to Steve Adams, the building official, because he
would be the ultimate, >> you know, to make a determination since he administers the the building code. Um and he referred back to um the prohibition under the 28 um the
code's not in my head >> 28 365 >> 365 with the prohibition. >> Um I I can't make that determination between state law. I the building official be ultimately over the building code to make those determinations.
>> And is this the same individual that he would have to request a variance from? The variance um is administrated through the planning department. >> Um and again, planning staff came back after reviewing the ordinances and
descriptions stating that >> they wouldn't be able to do a variance for the use. >> Yeah. Um is this intended to be a permanent structure? Uh well what we spoke about as well when I talked to uh uh Bradley Flack because
um Bradley is also one of the heads of the bu uh the building department correct or sorry he's a building inspector and >> building inspector. Okay. >> So yeah um because I I was trying to uh speak with Steve Adams but I uh ended up speaking to him. Um, and what he told me
is, you know, he asked, well, you know, if it's a permanent structure, you know, or maybe if it's a temporary, you know, for, and we spoke about three years possibly for having it on the property. So, something to that effect, possibly.
the the codes are very clear on anything above 110 square feet of permit is required be it a made out of stick matches or out of a shipping container. So it would have to have a permit regardless.
>> And no permit, no variance. No denial of a permit. There's no variance there. Our zoning codes are very clear. It's not allowed. And until that changes, our zoning codes would run in favor of the city, which
says that sugar caner is not allowed on the property at this time. Mr. Manzo, what was your uh uh had you gone through the process of submitting for a permit or you're taking a position that a permit should not be required period?
>> To Yes, to that effect because uh to me it also doesn't really make sense if we were to apply for a permit as you said, you know, to get a variance. We need a permit, but if they're saying we can't get a permit, but our position is that the state doesn't require it. The state
allows us to have it. So, you know, how how we can't really get a variance if they won't let us uh get a permit as well. I just don't think that I am I have any vested authority in me to deviate from what the the code says. I'm not making
any uh uh representations as to, you know, a lot of the stuff that you brought up and I'm sure you have other avenues. Um, I see you are attorney as well, so I'm sure you're >> fully aware of, uh, of what your options may be. Um,
uh, uh, I just don't think I can deviate from the black and white language of the of the code. And I appreciate your, you know, your thorowness. Uh uh quite frankly I do and I wish this was something I can like dive in deeper in and actually do you know a full-on
memoranda on but you know that's probably not what they're paying me to do up here is just to see whether or not a violation of the ordinance exists. Um >> is it um is it possible to have like a continuence or something to that effect
done on this? Right now, the uh city has asked for the violation to be corrected by September 5th. Um it's up to the city if they mind pushing that back a little bit more time for you to explore >> the permitting option, the variance
option. I know that the v the adjustment board has already said no, but I I don't really know um if that changes after this hearing or not. >> Um I don't know if you guys would be willing for 60 days. I'm sorry. or or anything like that just to give them additional time. But
>> what what time kind of time were you looking? >> Well, um the the time just to, you know, be able to sit with because I I've tried to sit with Steve Adams and meet with him that I haven't had the opportunity to. So, you know, time for that and time to, you know, just prepare that way.
Maybe we can see about having a variance hearing on the matter. Well, well, well, again, the variance would have came into play had they denied your building permit. That that would have been the variance would have gone after that. >> I understand. Yes. But >> but with that being said, um
till the meeting in October, would that be fine? >> Yeah, I think I think that would Yeah. >> But again though, it also should be noted that there are HOA restrictions in play at this. So, I'm not sure how they're going to feel about the additional time.
>> Right. Well, I mean that they have their own >> we would be >> Yeah. >> And I just wanted that on the record that that we would support till October for those meetings to happen. >> I always I represent uh HOAs all the time and I always tell them if you're expecting code enforcement to act
quicker than the HOA can, then you're that's uh that that that's really on the HOA to move forward at their own pace and they should understand that you know government. Um, all right. So, basically I'm going to say again, all I can do is is there a
shipping container on whatever the use is, that's not my charge count, you know, everything position. Yeah. >> So, I I I have to say that it's still there. I mean, the evidence shows that it's there on the property. We're going to push back the time for you to explore your options, everything like you said. You know, if looking for a permit,
trying to get that conversation with Steve is the best way to do so. And then whatever comes from that, you have two months almost to kind of figure that out um before we come back here before any like penalties start to occur. Um and again this, you know, I mean what you're trying to bring up is much larger issues
that go beyond anyone here. Um and so um maybe when you talk to Steve or whatever that does go up the ladder some, but did >> Yeah. Yes, sir. That I was just going to make note that that would move the Massie here till the October 13th meeting >> and that's fine with me. Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. All right. Um, okay. So, I've reviewed the lean Oh, no, sorry, wrong one. Introduction. Yeah, I'm just I'm just repeating myself every time. I've accepted and considered documentary
evidence, including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff. I find that respondent Richard Manzo is the owner of the property with the address 2655 Ali Bird 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 based on the evidence presented. I find that violations of sections 28-365 and 28-373 subsection B uh which are regarding
storage of shipping containers and temporary storage units exist upon the property and respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations but either uh failed or refuse to do so. The corrective actions for these violations shall be either to remove the shipping container or as we
said get a permit or a variance uh to allow that to be there. Additionally, I find that the city has incurred costs in the amount of $1464 $146.14. Such amount shall be included with this order. Respondent shall be given until
October 8th. Is that correct? >> 13th >> or 13th is the hearing. So >> yes on the 13th. So 8 would be the Friday before yesterday. >> Okay. So Friday October 8th um 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 uh by uh October 8th, huh? >> Friday would be the 10th. >> I'm sorry. Okay. >> 8th would be a Wednesday.
>> Okay, >> that's correct. >> So should we move it to the compliance date October 10th then? All right. Sorry. Respond should be given to October 10th. All right. If respondent fails to correct the violation by October 10th, a fine will be entered in the amount of $50 per day per violation, which is two
violations, so $100 per day until the violation 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 Bvard County. It is so ordered. Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time.
>> Yeah. >> Thank you. Did you provide a hand out? >> He gave me just these are like the statutes that he's citing to in cases. But >> were you licensed, Mr. Mano? >> Actually, so I I was going to say, sorry, I don't want to cut you off, but it's it's actually my father who's the
licensed attorney. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. All right. There's another attorney we work with a lot in Orlando named Isaac Manzo. Any relation or >> No, but you know, I get his mail. I got check me a lot. estate.
>> Yeah, he does. We we we refer work between each other. So, >> I've got a good guy. >> All right. Well, all right. Well, if you're ever looking for a job at Manzo and Associates, let me know. I can >> All right. Sounds good. Hook you up with >> Thank you so much.
>> All right. >> All right. Okay, >> you guys made it a difficult day today. >> All right, we still have two more initial hearings. Uh, we'll get back on the agenda. It's
25-36 419 Wager Avenue. >> Yes, sir. I have notice of violation, notice of hearing affidavit, and the cost reimbursement of $251.80 for you, sir.
Good. Again, this is 419 Wagger Avenue. The mail to address on file was 975 Nova Terrace. Uh was for junk and debris, 1223 IPMC 302.7 accessory structure for the fence and 304.7 for roof and
drainage. uh notice was posted on the property in April 7th. It was given till April 27th. It was mailed on April 7th, first class and certified. Uh for the hearing notice, it was mailed on July 8th,
certified and first class, and it was posted on the property in city hall on July 28th. On April 7th, 2025, I observed several violations during proactive checks of the area. Observed debris in the front yard and the side of the house. Uh fence sections falling and missing and
sections throughout the property and the roof needing repair and had a tarp on the one section of the roof. Uh no contact has been made with the property owner. No corrective actions have been made. Uh these are the original pictures back in April. Uh you can see the fence
is falling on the side. That' be the left side of the house. Uh this is the right side of the house. More debris in the fence sections that's missing. And that section over the door there is also where the uh roof is damaged and has a tarp on top.
Uh this is just another picture. This was back in July uh 28th when I posted the property of the fence still not in repair and in debris with the debris in the front yard as well. And it's kind of a picture. You can see the tarp on the roof on the side there
indicating it does need to be fixed and repaired. This was previously brought up before with the roof damage. Um, but it had not been taken care of and there's still debris in the yard. Um, and you got the wheelbarrow with different
debris items and things and the fence falling, etc. Just close up of the wheelbarrow. That's the property notice. Sorry. The conclusion of facts, the junk and debris of outdoor storage and debris items in the front and sideyard. Uh the accessory
structure for the fence. The fence sections are falling and damaged in several sections on the property. And the roof and drainage. The roof has a tarp on the side of the property. Uh it's not properly covered, not considered a proper roof. Um the recommendation, remove all junk and
debris from the property or store it inside. Uh re repair remove all damaged sections of the fence and the roof and drainage. Uh remove the tarp from the roof and make the proper repairs as required and obtain a permit as needed.
And order to respondent be to assess the administrative cost of $251. Respondent does not comply with the violations by September 5th. We are requesting a fine of $100 per day for each violation until the violations are
all corrected and to contact me for reinspection. >> Thank you. All right. I've accepted and considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn testimony relating to this matter from city staff. I find that respondents Eric Hampton and Katherine Jefferson are the owners of
the property of the address 419 Wager Avenue, Titusville, Florida 32796. 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 the following violations of city code exist
upon the property. sections 12-23 regarding junk and debris, section 6-109 regarding accessory structures, oh I'm sorry, IPMC section 302.7 and then um IPMC section 304-7 regarding roof and
drainage um exist upon the property and respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations but either failed or refused to do so. The corrective actions for these violations shall be to remove all drunken debris from the property, repair remove the damaged fence sections, and
remove the tarp from the roof or or and make the proper roof repairs. Additionally, I find that the city has incurred costs in the amount of $251.80. Such amount shall be included with this order. Respondent shall be given until September 5th. Correct.
uh 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 September 5th, a fine will be entered in the amount of $100 per day
per violation or is $100 per day for each violation until the violations come into compliance. Further and future violations of the same sections shall be classified as a repeat violation. A certified order may be recorded in the public records of Bvard County. It is so ordered. All right, moving on to our
last one for the day. Officer Lewis, I don't know if I've Oh, man. I'm excited. All right. >> All All types of unique ones today. >> Okay. First, I'd like to enter into enter in as evidence the affidavit for the notice of hearing
and our uh notice of violation and the cost summary cost recovery statement. Thank you sir. Okay. Again, this is case uh 2537, initial hearing uh for property at 3700
Miriam Drive. Respondent is a Jessica Cassell. Uh we mailed the notice to 3655 Valley Forge Drive here in Titusville, which is the address in the Bvard County Property Appraisers Office. All the mail came
back is unclaimed, unsigned for. Uh violations are 1223 junk and debris. Uh 6109 2018 IPMC sub subsection 302.4 overgrowth and weeds. Uh section 303.2
enclosures swimming pools and section 303.1 swimming pools. Uh the initial inspection was on 62425. Uh date given to comply was uh July the 3rd, 2025. Uh certified and first class were sent
to the listed owner on 62525. Certified mail was returned unmoved. No forwarding 7725. Uh the notes of hearing was posted at city hall and on the property where the violation exists. On 71625, certified mail and first class mail were
mailed. On 71025, certified mail sent to listed owner was returned unclaimed, unable to forward on 6424. Uh, this house has been vacant for some time. Uh, an inspection was uh completed in
response to a complaint received about a vacant residential structure with an unsanitary pool. The inspection found a pool containing stagnant discolored water and an unsecured pool enclosure. The enclosure is damaged and able to be secured to prevent access to the pool
area. There is not a fence on the property either on the property at all. There's overgrowth on the property with junk and debris scattered throughout the property was uh posted with a notice of violation. Uh we did have some contact with the owner. We were able to find a number for
her through another document. uh she is a realtor and she stated that she is not going to do anything with the property that she's going to sell it. U >> and then the new owner is going to say I didn't know. >> Yeah. Uh to date none of the violations
have been corrected. Uh there's the code for junk and debris. Uh code for the overgrowth which is over 12 inches in several several areas of property. Uh the enclosures in the swimming pool, like I said, that the the
enclosure the enclosure, if you don't have a fence, it's supposed to be self-latching and locking. It it is not. Uh the enclosure itself is damaged to the extent where you can just pretty much walk through it at several spots.
And the swimming pool has several feet of very dark water, as you'll see in the pictures coming up. Uh there's some overgrowth on the side. This is the side here that actually faces Carpenter Road. Property is at the corner of Miriam Drive and Carpenter
Road, South Carpenter and it went away. Okay, here is the pool enclosure right here. As you can see, it's a little bit hard to see, but the door is a jar. It cannot be secured. Uh most of the screen
is missing in the enclosure. Uh that's some of the junk around it. You can see there that the screen is missing in the enclosure and we're gone again. Oh, I don't know where the rest of my pictures went.
But the conclusion of the facts in the case is uh there's still junk and debris on pro on the property. There's still overgrowth. Uh the enclosure has not been repaired and the pool still has several feet of very
nasty dirty water in it. >> Um, >> we good. >> I thought it's very hard to see, but if you'll look to the right side of the picture, right above that crossar back there, that's where the pool is. >> I see how gross it is. I wouldn't swim
in there. Um, >> any reason you're asking for $150 per day as opposed to $100 per day? this this structure has been vacant for several years and it's just been I mean I've had to ride it several times. Uh
how she came upon it I do not know but uh like I said you know I contacted her hoping something would happen and she pretty much said I ain't doing anything. So sounds like a realtor. 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 respondent Jessica Cassell is the owner of the property with the address 3700 Marryiam Drive, Titusville, Florida 32796. Sorry. 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 evidence presented. I find that the following uh violations exist upon the property. Section 12-23 junk and debris. section 6-109
um 2018 IPMC subsections 302.4 overgrowth and weeds, subsection 303.2 regarding swimming pool enclosures and subsection 303.1 regarding swimming pools. Um respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations but have either failed or
refused to do so. The corrective actions for these violations shall be to remove all junk and debris from the property, mow and trim um remove all weeds and grass over 12 in. Uh repair the screen enclosure and the door enclosure to
prevent unauthorized access to the pool and to return the pool water to a sanitary condition. Additionally, I find that the city has incurred costs in the amount of $12853. Such amount shall be included with this order. Respondents shall be given until
September 5th, 2025 to correct the violations. Respondents 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 September 5th, 2025, a fine
will be entered in amount of $150 per day per violation until the violations come 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 Revard County. It is
so ordered. All right. Thank you. Going back to our agenda, I think the only thing left we have is the code enforcement manager report. >> No report this month, sir. >> All right. Then I think we are adjourned here at
3:39 p.m. Thank you.