DeLand special magistrate issues orders, fines and continuances across multiple code-enforcement cases

The City of DeLand special magistrate hearing on Feb. 27, 2025, resulted in findings of violations across multiple properties, orders setting compliance deadlines, daily fines if properties fail to comply, and one continuance request granted.

The magistrate, Christina Epperson, opened the quasi‑judicial hearing and heard City of DeLand staff present evidence on several outstanding code enforcement cases. Staff recommended and the magistrate entered orders for violations ranging from an unpermitted front door and unpermitted renovations to overgrown lots, unsafe accessory structures, dilapidated fences and abandoned vehicles. The orders typically set compliance deadlines in late March 2025 and specified daily fines to begin if the properties remained out of compliance.

Why it matters: These rulings affect property owners and nearby residents through public‑safety and neighborhood‑maintenance requirements and can result in liens and daily fines if work is not completed. Several cases also involve the city’s historic‑preservation rules, which require property owners to obtain a certificate of appropriateness before making exterior changes on properties listed on the local register.

Key outcomes and contested points

- 326 South Parsons Ave. (Case CE240346): City staff reported the property had used plywood as a front door and lacked the required permit. Respondent Daravius (Darius) Grayson acknowledged ownership and said his son had been handling repairs; Grayson said he would take responsibility. Magistrate Epperson found the property in violation and entered an order requiring the owner to obtain the necessary permit and come into compliance, with a $100 per day fine to accrue beginning 03/25/2025 if not corrected. Grayson said, “I’m the owner,” and confirmed he was not contesting the violation.

- 507 West Hogel Ave. (Case CE24‑1318): A previous order had required compliance by February 24. Staff reported partial progress but said some violations remained. City staff requested a continuance; the magistrate granted a continuance to the next hearing date of March 24, 2025. The magistrate and staff noted that whether fines accrue during the continuance will be determined at the next hearing.

- 229 West Ridge Ave. / 221 West University Ave. (Cases CE25‑0020, CE25‑0019 and related prior orders): Multiple matters involving properties owned by Blanche and Dwayne Weldon were heard. For 229 West Ridge (CE25‑0020), city staff said work had been done without a certificate of appropriateness required by the Historic Preservation Board and no certificate had been applied for; staff recommended a finding of violation and a $250 per day fine beginning 03/25/2025 if not corrected. The respondent, Dwayne Weldon, said he was “just pressure washing and painting” and disputed that a certificate was required. A city staff member summarized the city’s position: “it’s really not a case about getting a permit… right now, it’s about a certificate of appropriateness that he’s required to get from the Historic Preservation Board.” The magistrate found the property in violation and entered an order with a $250 per day fine to begin 03/25/2025 if the violation is not corrected.

Separately, for work at 221 West University (a previously‑addressed property), staff asked the magistrate to impose fines as a repeated violation; Deputy Building Official Bill Lawton explained that Section 110.3 of the Florida Building Code requires in‑progress inspections for exterior siding and soffit work and that permits (and historic‑board review where applicable) are part of the process. The magistrate entered an order imposing fines and a lien at $500 per day beginning 01/22/2025 for the previously found violation.

- 1455 North McDonald Ave. (Case CE2041317): Staff presented photographs showing grass and weeds in excess of 12 inches and accumulations of debris that impaired sight lines on North McDonald Avenue. Staff recommended compliance by March 24, 2025, and a $250 per day fine beginning 03/25/2025 if not corrected. The magistrate found the property in violation and entered the order.

- 435 West Walts Ave. (Case CE25‑0015): Staff reported significant interior and exterior renovation work (new windows, electrical runs, structural beams) without permits. The magistrate found the property in violation and ordered compliance by March 24, 2025, or a $250 per day fine beginning 03/25/2025.

- 225 North San Susie Ave. (Case CE2041588): A prior order had found the accessory structure unsafe and dangerous. Staff reported the structure remained unrepaired. The magistrate entered an order imposing fines and a lien of $250 per day beginning 02/25/2025.

- 32 East Ridge Ave. and 532 East Ridge Ave. (fence and abandoned vehicle cases): For a dilapidated fence at 32 East Ridge, the magistrate entered an order imposing a $100 per day fine beginning 02/25/2025. For 532 East Ridge (CE24‑1690), staff reported an unregistered vehicle; the magistrate entered an order imposing a $100 per day fine beginning 02/25/2025.

- 1397 Hensley Drive (Case CE24‑0587): Staff reported this property had come into compliance on 02/03/2025; the magistrate recorded compliance and found no fine due.

Process notes and next steps

Magistrate Christina Epperson noted that the proceedings are quasi‑judicial, recorded, and that any appeals require obtaining the record of the proceeding per section 286.0105, Florida Statutes. The next scheduled special magistrate code enforcement hearing is March 27, 2025, at 5 p.m. Several orders issued at this hearing will appear on that docket as compliance dates and fines are monitored.

Quotes in context

“I’m the owner,” — Daravius (Darius) Grayson, when asked his relation to the 326 South Parsons property.

“It’s really not a case about getting a permit… right now, it’s about a certificate of appropriateness that he’s required to get from the Historic Preservation Board,” — staff member (City of DeLand) on the Weldon property matters.

“Section 110.3 of the Florida Building Code says [exterior siding and soffit require an in‑progress inspection],” — Bill Lawton, Deputy Building Official, explaining why permits/inspections were required for exterior work.

Ending

The magistrate entered findings of violations and associated orders on multiple properties; compliance deadlines and the start dates for daily fines were set in the orders recorded on Feb. 27. Property owners who received orders were instructed to obtain required permits or certificates and to correct the violations by the dates ordered to avoid fines and potential liens.