Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Smyrna Beach magistrate sets compliance deadlines and daily fines for multiple properties
Summary
At a July 23 special magistrate hearing, the city ordered compliance deadlines and set or threatened per‑day fines for several properties — including 309 Murray, 206 Flagler, North Orange Street, Marker 33 (520 S. Peninsula Unit 2C8) and 1998 State Road 44 — and scheduled follow‑up hearings for Aug. 27, 2025.
The special magistrate for the City of New Smyrna Beach on July 23 reviewed multiple code‑compliance cases and set deadlines and potential fines for properties found out of compliance.
The magistrate modified staff’s recommendation in case CCSM 04802024 (309 Murray Street), noting landscaping was brought into compliance but the permit and exterior paint violations remained. “So what I’m going to say is that we are going to give you until August 20 to close out the remaining 2 violations,” the magistrate said, and warned that a $50‑per‑day fine would be imposed if the property was not in compliance at 1 p.m. on Aug. 20; the matter will return to the magistrate on Aug. 27 to memorialize any fine.
Why it matters: the orders set enforceable deadlines and per‑day financial penalties that can accumulate quickly; property owners bear the burden of requesting reinspection to clear violations.
Staff reported the status and recommendations on several other properties. In CCSM 0712025 (206 Flagler Avenue) staff said the permits needed to resolve the listed violations are in a review status and recommended continuing the case to the Aug. 27 hearing to allow time for permit issuance. If permits are not obtained, staff recommended a $100‑per‑day fine (not to exceed $20,000).
On a North Orange Street case (CCSM 06382024103) the magistrate found the property not in compliance as of the compliance date (July 11, 2025) and ordered a $50‑per‑day fine for the permits violation commencing July 11 until compliance, up to a $20,000 maximum.
A more complex matter involved CCSM 03522025 (520 South Peninsula Ave, Unit 2C8, Marker 33), cited for structural defects and IPMC 304.6 (exterior walls). Staff described recent contractor engagement and a permit issued July 22 to remove stucco so engineers could inspect. Owner testimony detailed years of damage and delay; the magistrate found the property not in compliance and gave the owner and association until 1 p.m. on Aug. 20 to show progress or achieve compliance, and set an Aug. 27 follow‑up for engineering and permit updates.
In CCSM 02442025 (1998 State Road 44) staff presented evidence of accumulated rubbish (IPMC 308.1). The magistrate found the property in violation and ordered compliance by 1 p.m. on Aug. 20, warning that a $100‑per‑day fine may be imposed for each continuing violation until the property is brought into compliance; reinspection will be scheduled and the case will return Aug. 27.
What happens next: multiple cases were continued to the Aug. 27 meeting for reinspection results or to memorialize fines. The magistrate reminded respondents that it is the respondent’s responsibility to request reinspection to verify compliance.
Authorities cited in testimony included municipal code section 26‑171(a) (permits required), IPMC section 304.2 (protective treatment for paint), IPMC section 304.6 (exterior walls), and IPMC section 308.1 (accumulation of rubbish).
