Daytona Beach code board orders fines, grants multiple extensions at June 11 hearing

The City of Daytona Beach Code Enforcement Board on June 11 voted to impose fines and grant compliance extensions across a large docket of property cases, including an order of $300 per day for one property and repeated $100-per-day fines for others, while also electing Mrs. Himmes to serve as chair through the end of the year.

Inspector Lewanda Tamingo, presenting case CEB052687, told the board a reinspection showed the property remained in noncompliance and asked the board to impose a fine of “$300 a day up to $15,000.” The board moved and voted to order that fine to start June 11 and continue daily until the property is brought into compliance or the $15,000 cap is reached.

Several other cases produced similar outcomes. Field staff recommended a $100-per-day fine with a $10,000 cap in case CEB032650 (Amy L. Haynes) after a June 10 reinspection found no progress; the board approved the fine. In case CEB042663 (Kimberly Mount), Inspector Sarah Kirk reported only minimal progress and the board approved a $100-per-day fine with a $10,000 cap beginning June 11. Staff also requested, and the board approved, continuances or amended compliance dates for numerous respondents — commonly setting July 1 as the “cutoff” compliance date and returning matters to the July hearing if compliance is not achieved.

Property owners who spoke described a mix of delays and remedial steps. Robert Warbeck, the owner in case CB012601, said recent medical setbacks slowed his work but that the trash and debris had been cleared and he had an outstanding fence permit; the board amended his previous order to allow compliance by July 1. Respondent Alvin Patton (CEB052683) showed inspectors before-and-after images and the board amended his case to the next cutoff after staff reported “considerable progress.”

Board members and staff clarified procedural changes to how motions and orders are read aloud. Members debated a revised packet language that includes a more detailed “chair readback” of motions; staff said the longer phrasing is intended to make the motion and the consequences clearer to respondents. The board also handled a large batch of field- and citizen-generated cases (cases 11–24), finding many in noncompliance and scheduling follow-ups, with a few cases given later cutoffs in August when additional time was requested and granted.

A later exchange turned personal when board member Mr. Gonzalez raised concerns about comments he perceived as disrespectful and suggested they had racial undertones. Miss Roby and others responded, denied racist intent, and several members offered apologies for procedural interruptions. The chair and staff reviewed the new motion language and clarified that the chair’s readback is meant to reflect the motion passed by the body; no formal disciplinary action was taken.

The board concluded the agenda after approving the motions and orders. Many cases will return to the board’s July 9 hearing if compliance is not achieved by the July 1 cutoff; in several instances staff said a passing reinspection before the cutoff will close the case without further board action.