City of Deltona Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearing - September 24, 2025

The City of Deltona held a special magistrate hearing on September 24, 2025, presided over by Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Kristen Ike. The hearing addressed several cases involving alleged violations of the Deltona City Code, including property maintenance, fire safety, and land use issues. The magistrate heard testimony from city code compliance officers, fire safety inspectors, and property owners. Rulings included findings of violations with continued fines, continuances of several cases, and one dismissal.

Consent Calendar & Preliminary Matters

• The following cases were declared in compliance and withdrawn: Fire 027-2025 (271 Fort Smith Blvd) and DEL 25-037B (960 Shorecrest Ave).
• Two cases were continued to October before testimony began: DEL 25-086 (679 Vicksburg St) and DEL 25-089 (1556 E Normandy Blvd).
• Case Fire 037-2025 (1200 Deltona Blvd) was withdrawn just before the hearing as it came into compliance.

Public Comments & Testimony

Special Magistrate Ike stated that this was a public meeting but no general public comment would be accepted. Only respondents and city staff were permitted to present evidence and testimony regarding their specific cases.

Code Enforcement Cases Heard

DEL 25-087A & B (3182 Overdale Street)

• Violations: Missing fence panel (A) and vehicles parked in the front yard on an unapproved surface (B).
• Key Testimony: Code Officer Enrique Rios stated the property remained in violation despite multiple notices and a promised timeline for repairs from respondent Megan Carr.
• Outcome: Continued to the next month due to concerns raised by the magistrate over the sufficiency of the notice of hearing, which appeared to be mailed on September 17th, potentially lacking the required 10 days' notice.

Fire 015-2025 (1698 Diane Terrace) - Massey Case (Harmony Clinic)

• Violation: Failure to obtain required permits for construction work.
• Key Testimony: Fire Inspector Lisa Nadeau confirmed no permits had been issued, though a plan review was submitted and is pending. Respondent Frank Carrero stated he was awaiting results from the city and his engineers.
• Key Outcomes: Magistrate found the respondent had failed to correct the violation within the originally ordered 90 days. The existing fine of $50.00 per day since August 27, 2025, totaling $1,450.00 (29 days), was ordered to continue until compliance is achieved.

DEL 25-054 A-C (916 Shorecrest Ave) - Massey Case

• Violations: Unpermitted structures including a shed, pergola, and concrete area.
• Key Testimony: Supervisor Todd Mead presented the case. Respondent Michael Beery described significant difficulties with contractors and engineers, stating plans are now almost ready.
• Key Outcomes: Magistrate found the respondent had failed to correct the violation within the 90 days ordered. The existing fine of $150.00 per day since August 26, 2025, totaling $4,350.00 (29 days), was ordered to continue.

Fire 040-2025 (2772 Elkcam Blvd Suite D)

• Violation B: Unpermitted magnetic locking system.
• Key Testimony: Inspector Nadeau described the violation. Property owner Christina Serafine stated she was unaware of the violation until the notice of hearing, as the notice of violation (NOV) was not properly mailed to her. The city acknowledged a scrivener's error.
• Outcome: Continued to the next month to allow for proper notice and for the respondent to work toward compliance with the city's permitting requirements.

DEL 25-088 (682 Deltona Blvd)

• Violation: Storage of building materials (cited under residential code section 38-114).
• Key Testimony: Officer Jeff Scott presented the case. Respondent Delphia Blackburn argued the property is commercial and currently under active renovation, and the materials are for the construction work.
• Outcome: Dismissed. The magistrate ruled that the cited code section applies to residential uses, and the city did not prove a violation under that specific section.

DEL 25-090 A-C (1018 Giovanni Street)

• Violations: Right-of-way maintenance (A), unauthorized use of right-of-way (B), home occupation violation for storing commercial dumpsters (C).
• Key Testimony: Respondent Jose Pierre stated his business is closed and the dumpsters are for personal use clearing his property. The magistrate questioned the applicability of the home occupation section (Violation C) given current state law and the lack of evidence of active business, and also questioned the evidence for Violation B.
• Outcome: All three violations were continued to the next month to allow the city to review the citations with its attorney.

DEL 25-066 (3259 Shingler Terrace) - Massey Case

• Violation: Sofit (soffit) on the garage not repaired.
• Key Testimony: Officer Janice Pelasic confirmed the violation remained.
• Outcome: Magistrate found the violation persisted past the 30-day order. The existing fine of $25.00 per day since August 22, 2025, totaling $850.00 (34 days), was ordered to continue.

Fire 038-2025 (605 Courtland Blvd / Shopping Center)

• Violations: Missing backflow inspection report (A), missing no-smoking sign on LP tank (C), fire alarm deficiencies (E).
• Key Testimony: Inspector Nadeau presented the case. For violation E, the magistrate ruled that the evidence (a contractor report) constituted hearsay and the inspector lacked personal knowledge of the deficiency.
• Outcome:
  • Violations A and C sustained. Respondent was given 30 days to comply, subject to a fine of $50.00 per day per violation ($100 total per day) if not met.
  • Violation E was continued to allow the city to present additional testimony if desired.

Key Outcomes Summary

• Fines Continued: The magistrate affirmed ongoing daily fines in three Massey cases (Fire 015, DEL 25-054, DEL 25-066), totaling several thousand dollars already accrued against the properties.
• New Ruling: One case (Fire 038 A & C) received a new 30-day compliance order with substantial daily fines ($100/day combined).
• Continuances: Six cases or sub-violations were continued to the next month, largely due to procedural concerns regarding notice, applicability of cited codes, or evidentiary rules regarding hearsay (Fire 038E).
• Dismissal: One case (DEL 25-088) was dismissed because the cited code section did not apply to the property's use.
• Compliance: Three cases were closed as the properties came into compliance.