Daytona Beach magistrate orders fines across dozens of short-term rental cases; one company hit with $15,000 penalty

Daytona Beach — On Oct. 22, 2024, Special Magistrate Robert presided over a marathon hearing on short-term rental enforcement and related lien reviews for the City of Daytona Beach, finding multiple property owners in violation of the city’s Land Development Code and issuing fines or lien reductions.

The magistrate reduced a long-standing lien for the property at 312 Francis Terrace (respondents Neil and Cora Hitchman) from $15,000 to $5,000, payable within 30 days, and closed a separate lien review for 433 Pelican Bay Drive (respondent Harpreet Sodhi) after staff accepted invoices and the city agreed to zero out the lien.

Most zoning-enforcement cases involved field-generated findings that properties advertised nightly or short-term stays in zoning districts where such rentals are prohibited (citations invoked: Land Development Code Article 4 §4.1.a and Article 5 §5.2.8.2). City Attorney Anthony Jackson repeatedly urged the magistrate to treat advertising as “irreparable and irreversible” because online postings remain available and can confer a competitive benefit to owners. Jackson said, “Once the properties are advertised, they are never truly unadvertised.”

Magistrate Robert said he has historically assessed the maximum $15,000 fine allowed under the statute for the most serious violations but has reduced fines to $1,000 for respondents who promptly took listings down and cooperated. He ordered $1,000 fines in a string of cases where owners removed listings after notification and presented varying degrees of documentation or explanation. Those ordered fines and compliance dates included:

- RTL-102491 (265 Columbus Ave, respondent listed as Pepe l Gabor): found in noncompliance; came into compliance Sept. 12, 2024; $1,000 fine imposed. - RTL-102492 (263 Williams Ave, Jennifer Uribe and Richard Garrity): came into compliance Sept. 19, 2024; $1,000 fine imposed. - RTL-102493 (117 S. Halifax Ave, Sekula and Ashley Jovanovic): came into compliance Oct. 3, 2024; $1,000 fine imposed after respondent declined a continuance to gather corroborating documentation. - RTL-102494 (273 Lexington Dr., Sergei and Irina Gricev): came into compliance Oct. 18, 2024; $1,000 fine imposed. - RTL-102495 (121 Flamingo Ave, Natasha Katrina Griego): came into compliance Oct. 1, 2024; $1,000 fine imposed; respondent told the magistrate she had no booking revenue and offered to provide records. - RTL-092486 (100 Kingbird Circle #1, Anne Denise Moore; continued case): previously removed listings and had come into compliance Sept. 24, 2024; $1,000 fine ordered. - RTL-092484 (402 N. Wild Olive Ave, Chestnut LFTY0329 D A O, LLC / owner Calix Dufault): after an extended hearing on a shared-ownership/DAO business model, the magistrate recorded compliance Sept. 17, 2024 and imposed a $1,000 fine but advised the owner to work with city planning on whether his ownership structure would allow the activity he described.

The most substantial penalty in the session was assessed against Opulent Home Healthcare LLC (RTL-102496), the city’s sixth-filed case at 1249 Suwanee Road. City staff documented three prior notices for that address earlier in 2024 and evidence of guest occupancy in mid-October; staff recommended the maximum $15,000 fine. Magistrate Robert found noncompliance and entered an order for a $15,000 fine, noting the property had a history of repeat violations even though the ad and occupancy were taken down by Oct. 22.

Respondents offered explanations that ranged from pandemic-era access issues to confusion about allowable “30-plus day” or owner-only stays. Harpreet (Sodhi) told the magistrate the property’s tenants and COVID travel restrictions complicated repairs and provided repair invoices; Rachel Gabor and other respondents described immediately unlisting their properties when notified. The magistrate and city staff repeatedly told owners that to obtain a reduction below the standard $1,000 they needed corroborating, verifiable documentation that could be assessed by staff (for example, platform records or financial statements). The magistrate said he could continue a case for additional evidence but declined reductions based on uncorroborated assertions.

Each order the magistrate issued cites Florida Statutes section 162.091(d) and the city’s Land Development Code provisions that prohibit advertising or offering short-term rentals in districts not zoned for them. Anthony Jackson told the magistrate that advertising confers an unfair competitive advantage to unlicensed operators and can undermine tax and regulatory requirements for licensed lodging businesses.

What’s next: the magistrate signed the orders and staff will send invoices and recorded orders to respondents. The magistrate repeatedly advised respondents who contend their business model may be lawful (for example, shared-ownership or time-share-like structures) to consult with city planning and, if necessary, the city attorney’s office to seek formal guidance or code amendments rather than rely on today’s hearing to resolve structural legal questions. The session adjourned at about 3:34 p.m.

Representative quotes from the hearing appear in the official record and were provided on the public transcript.