Palm Coast Code Enforcement Board issues routine orders; several long-running fines continue

The Palm Coast Code Enforcement Board convened Nov. 5 and resolved a full docket of code cases, largely approving city recommendations that ranged from no‑fine standing orders with administrative fees to continued daily fines for properties that remained out of compliance.

Chair opened the meeting, the board took roll call, and the attorney administered an oath to parties who planned to testify. City code enforcement officers presented evidence and photographs for each case; most respondents either accepted the findings or told the board they would correct the condition.

In several recurring parking and overgrowth cases the board issued no‑fine orders while assessing administrative costs. For example, the board granted a no‑fine order and required a $53.50 administrative cost in the case against Kenneth Rosa (AI 48) for parking a commercial vehicle in a residential district; Rosa told the board the condition had been corrected. Officer Nunez presented the evidence in that matter.

Code officer Romeo reported repeated notices in a series of commercial‑vehicle and trailer cases; many landlords and tenants said they had moved or would move equipment to comply. Anna Perdigotto, owner at 3033 Pony Lane (AI 40), said tenants had assured her they would not leave landscaping equipment visible overnight; the board accepted the city recommendation and ordered a no‑fine standing order with a $53.50 administrative cost.

The board reduced a repeat‑violation penalty in one case after hearing hardship testimony. Thomas Wasinger (AI 38) said medical issues and broken equipment prevented timely lawn care; the board reduced the city’s requested continuing fine and imposed a total fine of $300 plus a $69.50 administrative cost.

Several long‑running cases remained subject to continuing fines. Code officer Riley summarized a protracted inoperable‑vehicle matter at 4 Rainbow Lane (AI 21); the board approved a continuing $50‑per‑day fine covering 113 days (totaling $5,650) plus $69.50 in administrative costs. Marina Chalova, the owner, said she had been attempting to resolve the matter with a tenant who had not removed the vehicle; she told the board, “It was a surprise for me,” and said the tenant had not communicated consistently. The board urged the owner to resolve the tenant issue promptly.

A separate building‑permit/permit‑issuance case (AI 16, Ishkan Onanian) was ordered to remain in violation; the officer reported more than 254 days of noncompliance and a continuing fine totaling $12,700, with fines to continue until the property is brought into compliance.

Across the docket the board repeatedly accepted city recommendations for no‑fine standing orders on recurring parking or minor violations but required respondents to address the conditions or face further penalties. Administrative costs commonly assessed were $53.50 (for many parking/no‑fine orders) or $69.50 (in cases with longer enforcement histories); a handful of cases carried higher per‑day fines where repeated or prolonged noncompliance was documented.

Votes at a glance (selected outcomes): • AI 1 (55 London Dr.) — property in compliance; no continuing fine; admin cost $69.50 — motion passed. • AI 48 (72 Sloganier Trail, Kenneth Rosa) — no‑fine order; admin cost $53.50 — motion passed. • AI 43 (5 Portia Ln.) — 3 days to comply or $50/day fine; admin cost $69 — motion passed. • AI 13 (75 Carris Trail, Walter Bailey) — $50 (one day) fine; $69.50 admin cost — motion passed. • AI 38 (2 Piermont Ln., Thomas Wasinger) — fine reduced to $300 total; $69.50 admin cost — motion passed. • AI 54 (55 Utica Path) — $75 (one day) fine; $69.50 admin cost — motion passed. • AI 21 (4 Rainbow Ln., Marina Chalova) — continuing $50/day for 113 days ($5,650); $69.50 admin cost — motion passed. • AI 16 (7 Zebra Ct., Ishkan Onanian) — continuing fines to remain until compliance; $12,700 total to date — motion passed.

Directives and next steps: the board repeatedly told owners and landlords to contact tenants and resolve issues promptly; staff advised property owners to verify lease terms if they expect tenants to cover fines. The board announced a special session on Nov. 14 focused on short‑term rentals and scheduled its next regular meeting for Dec. 3 at 10:00 a.m.

Reporting notes: items in this summary rely on statements and evidence presented by city code enforcement officers and by property owners or tenants who spoke at the hearing. Where respondents did not appear, officers noted that proper notice had been given and the board acted on the evidence presented.

The board adjourned after finishing its docket.