Daytona Beach Code Enforcement Board imposes fines, schedules compliance deadlines and waives one lien

The Daytona Beach Code Enforcement Board on Feb. 13 held a full docket of property-maintenance and permit cases, voting to impose daily fines, continue compliance deadlines and, in two notable actions, reduce a previously assessed fine to $5,000 and waive a lien entirely.

The board considered dozens of individual cases — ranging from unpermitted work and damaged roofing to overgrown lots and unsecured pools — and mostly adopted the city’s staff recommendations. Several respondents were granted short continuances for inspections or permit work; others were ordered to pay fines or return to the board if they did not reach compliance by the stated cutoff dates.

Votes at a glance

- Case involving Innovative Factor Corporation (owner: Davidson Saint Ford): Board accepted the city recommendation to reduce a previously assessed fine to $5,000, payable in 30 days; if not paid the fine returns to the original amount. (Motion to accept city recommendation made by Ms. Roby; second Mr. Harrington; outcome: approved.)

- Lien review (Blue Palm Property Management / 724 Colfax Drive; representative Steve Cooney): Staff recommended and the board voted to waive the lien (reduce the amount to $0). (Motion by Mr. Gonzales; second Mr. Harrington; outcome: approved.)

- Case CEB10-24-163 (669 Kingston): Imposed a fine of $250 per day, up to $15,000, effective immediately and continuing until compliance. (Motion approved.)

- Case CEB10-24-164 (723 White Street): Imposed $250 per day up to $10,000; board accepted staff recommendation (motion approved; one member abstained from the vote because absent for part of discussion).

- Case CEB01-25-01 (624 Mulberry Street): Imposed $100 per day up to $15,000; motion approved.

- Case (724 Colfax Drive was the lien-waiver item noted above; subsequent lien items): see below.

- Case CEB01-25-03 and CEB01-25-04 (1329 Gulfview Drive and related): For these unoccupied properties with no contact, the board imposed $200 per day fines up to $10,000 and continued enforcement until compliance; motions approved.

- Multiple cases (cases with continuances to allow permit work or inspections): The board repeatedly amended prior noncompliance orders to allow respondents until March 5, 2025 (the board’s next cutoff) or April 2, 2025 in cases where demolition/abatement planning or asbestos surveys were in progress. Examples include cases where permit final inspections were pending (Coast To Coast Promotional Marketing, James Robinson, others). Motions to continue or amend to the next cutoff were approved.

- Case CEB01-25-11 (Nguyen family / address pronunciation clarification): Staff requested and the board amended noncompliance deadlines to March 5; motion approved.

- Case CEB01-25-12 (1356 Continental Drive): Staff recommended, and the board adopted, a $500 per day fine up to $10,000 because the property had been a repeated nuisance; motion approved.

- Case involving Gloria Dickerson properties (MLK and other addresses): After extended discussion about estate/guardianship and funding, the board voted to impose the staff-recommended enforcement steps (including fines where staff recommended them) and also required the respondent or representative to provide documentation; motions carried (some roll-call votes recorded where members split 4–2 on specific items).

- Repeated pattern across docket: where respondents demonstrated active progress (permit applications filed, contractor engagement, or city programs scheduled for roof repair), the board typically amended previous orders to continue to the next cutoff and asked staff for a progress update at the March or June hearing; where no contact or progress existed, the board typically imposed daily fines with caps as advised by staff (common caps: $10,000 or $15,000 depending on homestead status). Motions in those cases were approved.

Why it matters

These code-enforcement rulings affect property owners’ obligations and create liens or fines that can attach to properties. Several continuity decisions reflect permit-review timelines or pending city-funded repairs; the board repeatedly balanced the need to push for compliance with practical delays caused by permitting, probate or funding approvals.

What’s next

Most cases without immediate compliance were continued to the board’s next cutoff (March 5, 2025) for progress reports; several property-specific items — notably roof repairs tied to a city program — were listed for a June update. Owners or representatives who were granted continuances were instructed to remain in contact with the assigned code inspector and to produce permit paperwork or other documentation before the next hearing.

Votes, motions and formal outcomes listed above are drawn from the board’s Feb. 13 public minutes and the on-record motions taken during the hearing. Respondents who were ordered to come into compliance were told that failure to meet the stated deadlines may result in fines reverting to their previous amounts or liens remaining in force.