The special magistrate continued all three alleged violations at 1018 Giovanni Street after the city and the property owner disagreed about whether the site was being used for a business, whether dumpsters on the property violated residential-storage rules and whether commercial vehicle access across the city right-of-way required a permit.

Why it matters: the hearing raised legal questions about which code sections apply to mixed-use or commercial properties, whether a permit is required to access the property from the right-of-way, and whether stored dumpsters on private property constitute a home-occupation or other zoning violation.

Jeff Scott, city code compliance officer, presented three alleged violations: failure to maintain the right-of-way (City of Deltona Ordinance section 38-113(a)), improper use of the right-of-way without consent (section 58-31(a)), and storage of stock and trade on residential property (section 110-807). Scott said notices had been posted and mailed and that the violations remained as of the hearing. He asked the magistrate for 30 days to comply or a $20.25-per-day fine per violation.

Owner Jose Pereira said he had stopped renting dumpsters on Deltona streets last year after enforcement and that the dumpsters on his property were privately owned and used to clean his yard. He described the cost differential between hiring a municipal vendor and using his own trailer. Pereira also told the magistrate he had been working to improve the right-of-way and that recent photos showed progress.

City staff explained the right-of-way access concern: commercial trailers and repeated driving across the right-of-way tear up the surface; staff said the city prefers applicants to obtain a formal apron/driveway permit so the right-of-way is protected. The magistrate said she needed a legal basis in the code to find that the use of the right-of-way was not an intended purpose, and suggested the city consult with the city attorney. She also noted section 110-807 (cited for stock-and-trade storage) predated recent state law changes on home-based businesses and recommended staff seek legal advice before pursuing that allegation.

Outcome: the magistrate continued all three violations to the next hearing to allow staff to confirm the correct code sections, consult the city attorney about potential preemption or applicability, and to permit further discussion with the property owner. The magistrate encouraged Pereira to work with code officers to resolve the dispute and avoid returning to magistrate.

Next steps: case continued; staff to consult legal counsel on code applicability to commercial dumpsters and right-of-way access and to explore remediation steps that avoid further enforcement if possible.