Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board amends multiple prior orders after staff cites scrivener's errors and due-process concerns
Summary
Daytona Beach code staff and the board identified clerical errors in previously issued orders that listed incorrect compliance dates; the board amended those orders and extended compliance deadlines (often to Feb. 5, 2025) to avoid due-process challenges.
At the Jan. 9 Daytona Beach Code Enforcement Board meeting, staff flagged a recurring clerical problem: multiple prior orders transcribed incorrect compliance dates. City attorneys and inspectors told the board the inconsistent dates could create due-process vulnerabilities if the city later sought fines or liens, so staff recommended amending the orders and extending the compliance deadlines.
City Attorney Ben Gross and multiple code inspectors explained that when a previously issued order contains a wrong compliance date (a scrivener’s error), and the respondent did not have clear notice, concluding enforcement could expose the city to legal challenge. Gross told the board the amendments were intended to preserve respondents’ due-process rights while keeping enforcement on track.
The board approved motions to amend previous orders and extend compliance deadlines in numerous cases on the agenda. Examples explicitly discussed at the meeting included case numbers CEB09-24-157 (Harold Wayne Benjamin, 549 South Keach Street), CEB10-24-165 (James Robinson, 1137 Madison Avenue), CEB10-24-167 (Beatrice Sims Estate, 873 Madison Avenue), and CEB10-24-161 (Gloria Dickinson, 623 State Street). In each instance staff asked the board to amend the prior order and extend the compliance date to Feb. 5, 2025; the board granted those extensions.
Why it matters: the pattern of identical transcription errors across many orders led the city to avoid immediate enforcement in affected cases and instead correct the record to ensure subsequent enforcement actions would withstand judicial review. The board emphasized that these extensions are procedural remedies intended to protect both the city’s enforcement authority and respondents’ legal rights.
What the board did: for each case flagged by staff the board voted to amend the previously issued order of noncompliance and extend the compliance deadline (typically to Feb. 5, 2025). Staff told the board they would review internal notice procedures to reduce future clerical errors.
Next steps: affected respondents were given the new compliance cutoffs specified by the board; staff will reissue corrected orders and continue case monitoring. Legal staff said enforcement can proceed later if corrected notice is provided and respondents fail to meet the revised deadlines.
