Daytona Beach special magistrate orders multiple property owners to comply or face fines, sets compliance reviews

The City of Daytona Beach special magistrate on April 4, 2025, found multiple property owners noncompliant with city code, ordered a series of compliance deadlines and in several cases imposed daily fines that will continue until violations are corrected or caps are reached.

The hearing covered dozens of field-generated and noticed cases involving overgrown lots, unsecured buildings, unpermitted work, boarded windows and trash and debris. The magistrate repeatedly set May 7, 2025, as the next compliance cutoff for many cases and continued several larger redevelopment matters for progress reports and plan reviews.

Why it matters: code enforcement actions are intended to address blight, public-safety risks and repeated nuisance complaints in residential and commercial neighborhoods. Several respondents were ordered to obtain permits or face escalating fines; in other matters the magistrate continued cases to verify contractors’ plans and permit status.

The magistrate opened the hearing by taking certain cases out of order and swearing in city inspectors and respondents. In one detailed matter, the magistrate ordered the owner of the property listed as Nora Properties LLC to obtain the supplemental permit needed to cover framing and related work by May 7 or return to the magistrate for possible fines. Inspector Alexander Garcia, permits and licensing, testified that what began as siding and porch work had expanded to closing windows and reframing a back wall, work that required inspections.

Respondent William Behar (Nora Properties LLC) said he had performed the exterior repairs and was trying to finalize permits. “I did everything in the violation. I cleared the grass,” Behar told the magistrate, while acknowledging he had done some work before adding scope to his permit.

The magistrate repeatedly emphasized that the stop-work order remained in place and that no further work should be done until permits were revised and finalized. “You go get it. You’ve got until May 7 to get it,” the magistrate said, giving the respondent a single, focused compliance deadline tied to the narrow scope of work required to address the notice of violation.

Several larger redevelopment matters were continued for plan review. The owner of the Sunshine Ventures and Management LLC property (an older hotel the respondent says will become a boutique hotel) told the magistrate architectural and engineering plans had been submitted and that a permit application (permit number C2504-040 was given in the hearing record) was in process; the magistrate continued that matter to May 13 for the owner to present plans and the permit status.

Multiple field-generated cases involving overgrown lots, trash and unsecured buildings resulted in similar orders to comply by May 7 or face fines of up to $1,000 per day thereafter. The magistrate found respondents noncompliant in the absence of respondents at the hearing in numerous instances and set identical compliance cutoffs where inspectors reported no contact or remediation.

The magistrate also imposed daily fines in several cases where staff recommended more serious enforcement:

- Pinewood Cemetery (case noted for an unmaintained retaining wall): magistrate ordered a fine of $100 per day commencing April 3, 2025, with a cap raised by staff to $20,000.

- Uzair Shuja (case involving multiple exterior and structural violations): magistrate ordered $200 per day commencing April 3, 2025, with a $20,000 cap.

- Multiple failed-compliance cases (including several field-generated lot properties and small rental units) were assessed fines ranging from $100 to $250 per day with caps generally in the $15,000–$20,000 range, dependent on staff recommendation and the history of the property.

The magistrate also fined a repeat violator, Victory Temple of God Inc., $1,000 for each of three recent site visits (March 17, March 25 and April 7), resulting in a $3,000 total fine determined at the hearing. Inspectors described repeated unsecured buildings, damaged roofs and continued trash and debris on that property.

Neighborhood groups and residents spoke on several cases. Emily Nice, chair of the Seabreeze Neighborhood Watch, told the magistrate the long-vacant property at University and A1A (the Sunshine Ventures matter) had attracted graffiti, trespass and public-safety concerns, and urged the magistrate to press for firm timelines. “This property has never been in compliance since the owner bought it,” Nice said.

Several respondents who represented ongoing renovation projects reported permits had been applied for or that full construction documents were being prepared. Where the city and respondents agreed on progress and a timetable, the magistrate amended current noncompliance orders to allow more time (commonly to the May 7 cutoff or in some cases June 4) rather than immediately imposing fines.

Ending: The magistrate returned several major rehabilitation matters for progress reports at the May 13 or July 8 meetings and warned owners that lack of demonstrable progress by the next cutoff would lead to fines or escalated enforcement. For many of the smaller, field-generated cases the same message was issued: obtain the required permits, remove debris and secure the property, or face daily fines until compliance.