Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special Magistrate orders Sunshine Ventures to fix perimeter fence within 10 days or face $250-a-day fine
Summary
The City of Daytona Beach Special Magistrate found Sunshine Ventures and Management LLC noncompliant on fence repairs, ordered the respondent to fully repair or replace the chain‑link fence within 10 days and set a $250 daily fine to begin if the work is not completed.
Special Magistrate (presiding officer) ordered Sunshine Ventures and Management LLC to repair or replace the chain‑link perimeter fence at the property within 10 days or face a $250 per day fine that will continue until the fence is in compliance or the statutory maximum is reached. The magistrate also set the case for a progress report at the July meeting.
Why it matters: The magistrate found persistent public‑safety and nuisance conditions tied to unsecured fencing and told the respondent to install a permanent, neighbor‑satisfying solution rather than a short patch.
City inspector John Stinson testified that the fence remained “unsecure in multiple locations,” describing chain‑link removed from supports and segments “almost laying on the ground.” Respondent Dennis Bair said his client had provided “before and after” photographs and that workers had made repairs; Bair said window replacement delivery timelines and an asbestos remediation issue were delaying building permits.
The magistrate rejected arguments that window work or other building permit issues justified leaving the fence unrepaired. “I want that fence built, repaired, replaced, whatever to satisfy every one of the objections asserted by Mr. Stinson,” the magistrate said, granting 10 days for the work and warning neighbors’ complaints informed the urgency. The magistrate said the fine would commence automatically at $250 per day if the fence remained noncompliant and that the case would return in July for a progress report.
Clarifying details: The inspector estimated one day would be sufficient to attach chain link to its supports once the respondent performed the work. The respondent reported an asbestos finding in floor‑level pipes that required abatement before permit reapplication for other exterior repairs; the window contractor had a 10–12 week delivery estimate from June 9. The respondent offered to provide the inspector’s photographs from the morning reinspection to the magistrate by email.
Ending: The magistrate emphasized neighbors’ complaints and directed that the repair should be thorough enough to satisfy all code objections. The case will be revisited at the July hearing to confirm compliance and next steps.
