Special magistrate finds Main Street Station out of compliance over seating plan

Special Magistrate Robert Riggio found Florida Pacific Leasing Company LLC’s Main Street Station at 316 Main Street in noncompliance with the Daytona Beach Land Development Code on Feb. 8, 2022, following a contested hearing about outdoor seating and whether the property had followed an approved seating plan.

The ruling stemmed from an inspector’s photos and testimony showing tables and patrons outside the layout the city said was approved. The city asked for a finding of noncompliance; the magistrate ordered the respondent to come into compliance or return for further proceedings on March 7, 2022.

Why it matters: The case drew extended legal and technical argument about what parts of the Land Development Code apply to outdoor seating, whether a separate “seating plan” is required, and how beverage licensing and zoning intersect with outdoor service. That matters because the ruling affects other Main Street businesses that use outdoor seating and because similar disputes about enforcement and notice have recurred at other downtown properties.

Inspector Clervance “JB” Jean Baptiste testified that he observed seating outside the approved markers during an evening in October 2021 and posted a notice of violation. The notice cited Section 6.1 of the Land Development Code — the city’s general provision limiting outside activities — and photographs in the city’s file. The inspector said the property had been re-inspected and remained noncompliant.

Attorney Michael Moore, representing the property owner, pressed the city witness on which specific subsection of 6.1 had been violated and argued the code allows outdoor seating as an accessory use under other provisions (notably Section 5.3(c)(17) and 6.1(c)(8)), so the city must point to a specific code requirement and to the procedures it expects the owner to follow. Moore said the night of the photos was not a special-event permit situation and argued the owner had a restaurant license and a retail beverage license on the premises.

Deputy City Manager Jim Morris, testifying as the city’s planning and licensing expert, told the magistrate that while Section 6.1 is a general prohibition on outdoor activities, other code provisions and the beverage-licensing process create a linked administrative requirement for an exterior seating/site plan. Morris said the city’s beverage licensing and planning staff review outside service and seating when licensing beverage sales as an accessory to a restaurant and that the city routinely keeps a seating/site plan on file and photographs documenting compliance.

Magistrate Riggio said the inspector’s testimony showed the seating plan in place at the time had not been followed. Riggio found the property in noncompliance and ordered the operator to conform with the approved seating/site plan and return if they could not do so by the compliance date. The magistrate did not levy a daily fine at the Feb. 8 hearing but warned the owner that repeat violations could trigger enhanced fines under Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes.

What remained unsettled: The hearing exposed practical and legal confusion about how the city labels and enforces “seating plans” — whether the requirement is explicit in the LDC text or a procedural step tied to beverage licensing and zoning clearance — and whether earlier similar cases (including a prior magistrate ruling) preclude this citation. The owner’s lawyer signaled an appeal would be considered.

The case will be back before the magistrate on March 7 unless the city files further action or the property demonstrates compliance beforehand.

Ending: The magistrate’s ruling underscores the interplay of local land-use rules, beverage licensure, and enforcement practice. Business operators and landlords who use outdoor seating on Main Street should confirm they have the precise approvals and that the footprint used during service matches the city-held seating/site plan.