Special magistrate fines multiple short-term rental hosts in Daytona Beach; penalties range from $150 to $2,500

Special Magistrate Robert Riggio issued orders in a sequence of short-term rental code-enforcement cases at a Daytona Beach hearing, imposing fines or other remedies for properties the city said were advertised as short-term rentals in zoning districts that do not allow them. City attorneys and code inspectors told the magistrate the city considers online advertising of short-term rentals to cause benefits and neighborhood impacts that cannot be undone once posted, and requested monetary fines under state law.

The cases were heard under the city land development code provisions cited by staff (Article 4, Section 4.1.a and Article 5, Section 5.2.8.2) and the statutory standard the city referenced for irreparable/irreversible violations (Florida Statutes section 162.091(d)). The hearing record shows the city typically sought $1,000 for quickly cured listings, larger penalties in other circumstances, and up to the statutory maximum for repeat or severe violations.

Votes at a glance (cases and outcomes announced from the bench):

- RTL 012501 — 113 Grand Burwick Court, Kahi Owen Trust / Kachi Vanessa Trust: fine $1,000; compliance date recorded as Nov. 21, 2024. (Order entered by Magistrate Riggio.)

- RTL 012502 — 126 S. Oleander Ave., E Ola Enterprise UT LLC: fine $1,000; compliance noted Nov. 22, 2024.

- RTL 012503 — 145 Boysenberry Lane, Tibor and Ildico Benke: fine $1,000; compliance noted Dec. 12, 2024.

- RTL 012504 — 276 Brookline Ave., Lisonbee/Kristen Miller: magistrate reduced the fine to $750 (magistrate cited quick compliance and lack of prior reviews).

- RTL 012505 — 350 Auburn Drive, Michelle J. and Daniel D. Carter: fine $1,000; the respondents said they removed listings immediately and asked for leniency.

- RTL 012506 — 500 Jimmyann Drive #111, MP Lake Forest LLC: continued to Feb. 25, 2025, by agreement so the parties can confirm the listing is removed and the property is in compliance.

- RTL 012507 — 921 Gardenia Drive, Portmore Construction LLC: fine $2,500; evidence in the record included more than 60 online reviews and photos tied to the address; the magistrate noted the posting was removed Jan. 15, 2025.

- RTL 012508 — 2426 Tulane Ave., Julie Borges: fine $1,000; listing removed Nov. 14, 2024.

- RTL 012509 — 834–836 N. Oleander Ave., Noah Dunford: magistrate ordered a reduced fine of $150, noting rapid compliance and the property owner’s prompt removal of listings.

What the city alleged and the legal basis

City staff and the deputy city attorney, Anthony Jackson, repeatedly told the magistrate these were zoning violations generated by field inspections and online advertising the city said created an irreparable and irreversible effect: listings appear online, can be copied and reposted, and may cause safety, taxation, and competitive impacts the city cannot fully undo. Staff referenced Florida Statutes chapter 162 and the portion the city uses for higher penalties in irreparable-or-irreversible cases.

Respondents’ responses and mitigating factors

Several respondents said they removed listings promptly after being contacted and asked the magistrate for reduced fines on that basis. In a few cases respondents said they relied on homeowners association rules or third-party managers and did not realize city zoning prohibited the advertised activity. Magistrate Riggio said those factors could support a reduced penalty in some matters but that they do not negate the zoning violation itself.

Enforcement pattern and next steps

Magistrate Riggio noted that the city initially sought larger fines in earlier cycles of enforcement but, in cases where a respondent cured the listing quickly, regularly directed fines in the $1,000 range. He repeatedly warned that repeat violations could result in repeat hearings and fines up to the statutory maximum (the magistrate and city cited the $15,000 ceiling available under state law for certain occurrences).

Provenance (selected): the hearing record for these cases begins in the transcript when the magistrate opened the new cases (transcript segment starting at s=1960.215) and continues through the magistrate’s final read of these orders (segments through s=9404.71). The city attorney and code inspectors presented the city’s standard permission and statutory references in multiple cases; respondents’ statements of immediate removal and requests for mitigation are recorded in the individual case segments cited above.

Ending: The magistrate closed the slate of short-term rental enforcement matters after reading his orders into the record and instructing respondents how to pay fines or follow up with the city attorney’s office. Several matters were continued or reduced when the magistrate found quick compliance; repeat or high-evidence cases drew higher penalties.