Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Titusville magistrate issues corrective orders across multiple property cases, sets deadlines and fines
Summary
A code‑enforcement magistrate heard a packed docket in Titusville, finding multiple properties out of compliance, setting deadlines (mostly 30–90 days), assessing administrative costs, and warning per‑day fines if violations are not corrected; the hearing included a major multi‑violation property and a marina clubhouse where a permit is pending.
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Don Wynn, the city‑appointed magistrate for Titusville code enforcement hearings, heard a full docket of property cases and issued orders prescribing corrective work, administrative costs and deadlines.
City staff opened the session by summarizing evidence and photographs in multiple cases. For case 26‑116 (4749 South Washington Ave, Kennedy Point Marina clubhouse), staff said an inspection found eight open violations — junk and debris; electrical hazards; deteriorated stairs, decks and porches; damaged windows and doors; failing exterior walls; roof leaks and drainage problems; interior surface damage; and plumbing issues — and asked that corrections be completed by Sept. 11, 2026 and that administrative costs of $153.89 be assessed. The magistrate found the violations and ordered the respondents to correct the violations, assessed the $153.89 cost and set a 90‑day compliance period; if the property is not compliant by Oct. 9, the magistrate said fines of $100 per day per violation will be imposed.
Representing Applewood Apartments LLC at that hearing, Dylan Hauck, who identified himself as the marina general manager, told the magistrate the property owner has contracted ESJ Construction Group and that an alteration permit was submitted July 10 but had not yet been processed. “We have a licensed general contractor under contract now, ESJ Construction Group,” Hauck said, and said the work involves partial demolition and substantial utility coordination that could take months.
Other cases on the docket produced similar orders: - Case 26‑109 (935 Loretta Drive): The magistrate found overgrowth and a deteriorated wood fence, assessed $312.38 in costs, and ordered correction by Aug. 7, 2026; a $50 per‑day fine per violation will begin if the property is not brought into compliance. Brian Lauer, who appeared for the respondents, testified the lawn would be cut and the fence repaired or removed. - Case 26‑112 (310 South Dixie Ave): Staff reported fence and plumbing issues had been resolved but a junk‑and‑debris violation remained. The magistrate assessed costs of $206.72 and ordered removal of debris by Aug. 7, 2026; failure to comply will trigger a $100 per‑day fine. - Case 26‑113 (3240 Westwood Drive): Staff documented 15 separate violations, including inoperative vehicles, parking on the front yard, junk and debris, unpermitted accessory structures and electrical hazards. The magistrate found the violations, assessed costs of $206.72, and ordered correction by Sept. 11, 2026 with $100 per‑day fines thereafter. - Case 26‑114 (19 North Park Ave): Owner Arturo Briones Jr. testified he removed trees for safety and had an arborist assessment and mitigation plan. The magistrate found an irreparable violation for cutting trees without a permit but exercised discretion and imposed a $500 fine plus $241.94 in city costs while allowing the owner to pursue permanent approvals.
The magistrate also closed a compliance matter (case 26‑10) after the owner obtained a demolition permit and paid required fees.
All respondents were ordered to notify code enforcement when corrections are complete so staff can reinspect. The magistrate repeatedly emphasized that if testimony at the follow‑up hearing shows insufficient progress (for example, permits not obtained or work not mobilized), daily fines will begin as stated in each order. Written orders will be mailed to the parties and, where applicable, may be recorded in Brevard County public records.
The hearing ran through the scheduled docket and was adjourned at about 2:39 p.m.

