Special magistrate orders Deltona homeowner to remove or permit lakeside seawall, dismisses right-of-way charge

A special magistrate at a City of Deltona code hearing on June 25 found Fred Kelly II in violation for failing to obtain a building permit before constructing a seawall at 1114 Cambridge Street and ordered him either to obtain a permit and complete permitted work or demolish the structure by Jan. 9, 2026. The magistrate set a continuing fine of $25 per day if Kelly does not meet that deadline and dismissed a separate city allegation that the seawall constituted unauthorized use of city-owned land.

Why this matters: The ruling resolves the code-enforcement question the city brought over a seawall that city staff say extends into Shelby Lake and across the owner's surveyed property line. The decision requires Kelly either to relocate the structure onto land he owns and secure proper permits or to remove it, while leaving questions about aquatic-littoral rights and land ownership for separate civil proceedings if parties pursue them.

The hearing focused on two alleged violations. Jo Samar Jimenez, a Deltona code compliance officer, testified that staff found a retaining/seawall constructed outside Kelly's property boundary and that photographs and surveys show the wall lying beyond the owner's lot line. Jimenez told the magistrate the city requested either demolition or an updated boundary and riparian survey plus permit applications in order for the structure to remain legally.

Gemma Torsivia, Deltona's city attorney, argued the city had provided proper notice and pressed that the wall was built without engineering, permits or coordination with environmental authorities. Torsivia said St. Johns River Water Management District and the city engineer had not been involved before construction and warned that work in a lake requires engineering and additional regulatory approvals.

Attorney Arthur Huggins, representing Kelly, disputed the city's position and cited Florida cases he said support landowner littoral rights in some circumstances. Huggins and a structural engineer for Kelly said the owner has tried to obtain surveys and engineering and that some work (helical piers for foundation stabilization) was permitted and inspected. Kelly and his counsel said city staff repeatedly told them they could not submit a permit because the survey showed the seawall lying off the parcel.

Special Magistrate (who presided) said the court's role was limited to the building-permit issue. The magistrate concluded the city had proven violation A (failure to obtain a building permit) and ordered Kelly to either obtain and complete a building permit for the seawall or demolish it by Jan. 9, 2026. The magistrate dismissed violation B (unauthorized use of city right-of-way/public land) because the city had not carried the burden of proof that the land is city-owned within the proceeding.

The magistrate admitted the city's case file, photographs and PowerPoint into evidence and several documents supplied by the respondent (including helical-pier permit materials). The magistrate explained that ownership or quiet-title disputes are civil matters beyond the special magistrate's authority and said the calendar extension was intended to allow the parties time to resolve ownership or seek judicial relief.

Key details from the hearing: city staff say a survey and planning records show the seawall is outside the parcel's ordinary high-water and property lines; Jimenez testified the city first opened the case May 24, 2024, and staff have worked on the matter for about 13 months. Kelly and counsel said surveys were prepared (updates noted in April 2025) and that the owner was denied the opportunity to apply for a permit because the survey did not show ownership of the area where the wall sits.

What happens next: Kelly must notify code compliance to verify compliance. If he does not comply by the magistrate's deadline, fines will accrue at $25 per day. The magistrate permitted a longer compliance window to let the parties attempt to resolve ownership disputes or for Kelly to pursue civil remedies; the city may proceed administratively if the structure remains in place past the deadline.

Ending note: The magistrate's decision splits the dispute: it enforces local permitting rules for unpermitted construction while leaving the question of lake ownership and littoral rights for other legal fora if the parties continue to contest the shoreline boundary.