Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palm Coast code board approves compliance orders, levies fines and grants extensions across multiple property cases
Summary
At a March 31 hearing the City of Palm Coast Code Enforcement Board issued multiple compliance orders and fines (including a $1,400 repeat‑violation order), suspended fines while a permit process proceeds in one land‑development case, and granted short extensions and no‑fine orders in several parking and nuisance cases.
The City of Palm Coast Code Enforcement Board handled a large docket of property code cases on March 31, imposing compliance deadlines, accepting corrections and in some repeat cases assessing fines and administrative costs.
One of the more contested matters was a repeat parking/commercial‑vehicle case brought against Alyssa Hughes and Justin McMorrow at 14 Whitestone Lane. The city recommended a repeat‑violation fine of $100 per day for 14 days (total $1,400) plus $70 administrative cost. Alyssa Hughes told the board the family had been moving, had notified staff and was trying to sell the house; she said an earlier, now‑released lien had been applied without justification and urged dismissal. “We just want this dismissed. We can’t afford to pay $1,400 fines,” she said. City attorney Jeremiah Blocker responded that the city has not placed liens that would affect the sale and that the current matter is a code violation, not a lien. The board voted to accept the city’s recommendation; the final order assessed the $1,400 fine with a 7‑day compliance period noted in the transcript.
In a land‑development enforcement case at Five Porsche Lane, staff said the property had been in violation for 134 days with fines accruing at $50 per day (totaling $6,700). Owner Melvin Tisdale said engineers are updating survey and permit materials; staff agreed to suspend fines while the permit process proceeds and the board accepted that recommendation, giving the owner 30 days to advance the engineering submittal.
Other board actions included a no‑fine standing order with $53.50 administrative costs for several corrected repeat parking cases (e.g., 9 Plum Tree Place; 21 Yule Turn Trail; 63 Luther Drive), a 20‑day compliance window for a boat trailer at 19 Wren Lane after the respondent said he needed time to repair his truck, and a two‑week extension in one commercial‑vehicle case while staff and the respondent arranged for a form‑fitted cover required by the ordinance. The board dismissed an abandoned‑property case after the owner filed the required abandoned‑property registration.
Most motions were adopted by voice vote after staff presentations and brief respondent testimony. The board repeatedly urged respondents to contact code enforcement early to request short, temporary allowances when moving or servicing vehicles rather than allowing matters to become repeat violations.
The hearing closed with the board taking lunch, having heard the full docket and recorded several follow‑ups for staff to verify compliance and, where appropriate, to begin fine accrual if deadlines are missed.
