Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seawall Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate orders fines as Deltona property owner fails to correct unpermitted seawall
Summary
At a Feb. 26 hearing, the City of Deltona won an order finding property owner Fred A. Kelly II in violation for an unpermitted seawall at 1114 Cambridge Street. The magistrate found the property remained noncompliant and ordered $25 per day to continue, with $1,175 already accrued.
Special Magistrate John Van Laningham found that a seawall at 1114 Cambridge Street remains in violation of a prior order and imposed daily fines after city witnesses said no permit had been issued.
The city’s code compliance officer, Joe Samar Jimenez, told the hearing that notices had been sent and posted and that the owner had been given a 180-day compliance period beginning with an earlier ruling. Jimenez said the owner failed to obtain an after-the-fact permit or to demolish the structure and that photographs and inspection records were entered into evidence.
Chad Tate, the city building official, said a permit for a seawall requires a lake survey and engineered plans and that the city would not issue a permit for a seawall built off a property owner’s lot. “You cannot apply for a permit to build something that is not on your property,” Tate said, explaining what is needed to approve an after-the-fact permit.
Attorney Arthur Huggins, representing the property owner, argued that the owner had attempted to apply for permits multiple times but was denied the opportunity to submit applications. Huggins said his client planned to pursue civil litigation to resolve property-boundary questions. Dr. Kelly told the magistrate, “I was not even allowed to submit the application,” and said he had contacted his city commissioner about the issue.
Magistrate Van Laningham limited the hearing to whether the prior magistrate’s compliance order had been met. He concluded that it had not and ordered that the previously accrued fine of $1,175 (calculated at $25 per day since Jan. 10, 2026) remain in place and that fines continue at $25 per day until compliance is verified.
The magistrate noted that arguments about permitting procedures and property ownership were beyond the scope of the present compliance hearing and said those matters could be pursued through the appropriate administrative or judicial appeal processes.
Next steps: the city will prepare and submit a proposed order reflecting today’s decision; the fines will continue to accrue until the city verifies compliance.
