Special magistrate fines multiple Daytona Beach properties for short-term rental violations, continues one case

Special Magistrate Robert Riggio found multiple Daytona Beach properties in violation of the city’s Land Development Code on May 27, 2025, ordering fines in enforcement hearings that addressed online vacation-rental listings and related neighborhood complaints.

City code enforcement and counsel presented tenets of the city’s position — that advertising a property as a short-term rental in a zoning district that does not permit other accommodations is an irreparable, irreversible violation — and sought fines ranging from $1,000 to $15,000. The magistrate incorporated the city’s statement of irreparable harm (citing Chapter 162, Florida Statutes) into each record and issued written findings against property owners after noting the properties were brought into compliance on various dates.

Case outcomes included: a $1,000 fine for the property at 509 Eastwood Lane (case RTLO42521), assessed after the city said the rental was field-generated, first observed March 19, 2025; a $1,000 fine for 210 Bonner Avenue (case RTLFive-2526) after a violation observed April 15, 2025; and $1,000 fines in cases for 524 Rebow Avenue, 108 Lakewood Village Circle and 552 Wells Street after each was shown to have advertised short-term rentals and subsequently removed listings. In one case at 400 Auburn Drive (case RTLFive-2529) the city sought $5,000 after a 14-day response delay; the magistrate reduced that penalty to $2,000. One contested matter involving 507–509 Jessamine Boulevard (case RTLFive-2530) was continued for 90 days at the respondent’s request while the city pursues platform records and other evidence; the magistrate set the next date for Aug. 26, 2025.

City code staff (Mr. Yates) gave case particulars for each file — the first-observed dates, the dates postings were removed, posted nightly rates, review counts, and advertised check-in/check-out times — and requested enhanced fines when listings showed repeated advertising or prior complaints. Respondents and their representatives offered a range of defenses on the record: prompt removal following notice, lack of rental activity or income, tenant postings without owner knowledge, mistaken identity or account compromise, and constitutional and state-law arguments about preemption and commercial speech. Property managers and brokers also told the magistrate they had served seven-day notices to tenants and would pursue lease remedies against tenants for unauthorized postings.

The magistrate explained his approach: he has historically seen a wide range of fines and has reduced the maximum statutory fine where respondents promptly complied; at the same time he said he must be consistent and treat similar cases alike. He ordered liens or fines to be placed on properties, noted that fines become a lien on title and need not be paid immediately, and warned that repeat violations could be scheduled for hearings with potential fines up to $15,000 per occurrence under Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. The magistrate encouraged continued outreach to platforms and realtors but said the city has limited staff resources to police postings.