Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special magistrate fines repeat violator Daytona Universal Trucking $50,000
Summary
The special magistrate imposed a repeat-violation fine of $5,000 per inspection occurrence on Daytona Universal Trucking Inc., finding 10 occurrences and a total fine of $50,000 after multiple inspections showed repeated outside storage and vehicle-parking violations.
The Daytona Beach special magistrate on Jan. 14 found Daytona Universal Trucking Inc. in repeated noncompliance and ordered a $5,000 fine per occurrence, citing 10 inspection occurrences and a total fine of $50,000. The magistrate’s finding followed testimony from city inspectors documenting a long-running pattern of vehicles, trailers and pallets stored on vacant lots without required approvals.
The magistrate said the company had a history of prior enforcement actions dating to 2022 and cited two earlier repeat-violation cases that resulted in escalating fines. “Taking into consideration the response awareness of the will-find given in the past history and the repeat violations, I’m finding the respondent to a sum of $5,000 per occurrence, finding that there have been 10 occurrences,” the magistrate said.
City inspectors told the panel they conducted multiple inspections between November and January and found the same conditions recurring. Staff recommended the $5,000-per-occurrence penalty for repeat offenses. The magistrate noted prior code actions, including fines ordered in 2023 and 2024, and said the new sanction reflected the ongoing pattern and prior enforcement history.
The magistrate’s order will remain in effect until the city receives documented proof that the property is brought into compliance; the magistrate said the city may seek lien review if the fine remains unpaid. The magistrate also urged the respondent to meet with city staff to address permitting and zoning barriers that have accompanied past enforcement actions.
The case record shows repeated citizen complaints and successive city inspections at multiple parcels associated with the respondent. The magistrate said the severity of repeated violations justified the high per-inspection penalty. The special magistrate hearing is an administrative proceeding; the magistrate’s order can be appealed only through the process outlined in city procedures for code enforcement appeals.
City staff instructed the respondent to come to city hall to resolve permitting and zoning questions and to document corrective actions; failure to do so will allow fines to continue to accrue against the company.
