The Daytona Beach Nuisance Abatement Board continued a hearing on Jan. 15 concerning Jay Food Store, 600 North Ridgewood Avenue, over alleged nuisance conditions including repeated trespassing, unlawful window obstructions and failures by contracted security to meet the board's requirements.

The hearing opened with the board taking roll, approving minutes from a prior meeting and then resuming case number 2024-NAB-41. Assistant City Attorney Melissa Diaz and Deputy City Attorney Anthony Jackson participated for the city; Raymond Sayeed, who identified himself in the record as the owner of J Food Store, testified for the respondent. The city introduced a summary of police call logs and questioned Sayeed about compliance with the board's prior order.

Why it matters: The board's order requires the store to maintain unobstructed windows, register and participate in the Trespass Initiative Program, and provide a security guard from a licensed, reputable company during business hours. The city's evidence and the owner's testimony bear on whether the store complied and whether further sanctions or conditions are warranted.

Sayeed told the board, "My name is Raymond Sayeed. I'm the owner of J Food Store," and testified he had attempted to follow the board's prior restrictions. He said he retained a security firm identified in the record as SC Protection Agency, and that security expenses over the covered period were "close to $70,000." Sayeed acknowledged individual incidents documented by city staff: he said one guard had been asleep in a vehicle after reporting that his wife had a newborn, one was temporarily sent home after police determined the guard was ineligible, and one left the site because of illness. He said he called the security company to replace guards and had, on at least one occasion, closed and locked the store until replacement security arrived.

The city distributed a police-call-summary during the hearing that, according to city counsel, showed 199 calls in the past year for incidents associated with the location and that "of those, only 27 were initiated by the security, employees" and that of those 27, "only 15 were trespass," a point Melissa Diaz introduced as impeachment evidence of the owner's prior testimony about the number of trespasses. Diaz told the board the summary "basically shows out of this past year, There was a 199 calls. Of those, only 27 were initiated by the security, employees." Sayeed replied that some reports used the store address as a landmark for other nearby incidents and said he approximated the number of trespasses in the past year as "less than 20, 30 maybe" or possibly higher.

Board members and city attorneys pressed Sayeed on compliance with specific paragraphs of the board's order: maintaining a licensed security guard during open hours, keeping windows unobstructed beginning Feb. 12, 2024, and paying an assessed cost of $5,000. Sayeed said most windows were clear and that he promptly removed window signage when Officer Blauer (reported in the record) or others objected. On the unpaid cost he said, "I'm working on it" and that he had not yet paid the $5,000. On security staffing, he repeatedly characterized lapses as "human error" and said the company replaced guards when notified.

Several law-enforcement personnel and city attorneys questioned Sayeed about operational details: whether store staff or security had attempted to photograph trespassers (Sayeed said he had a cellphone but had not consistently taken photos), whether security or employees flagged officers at the nearby substation (Sayeed said he or his staff had done so "4, 5 times" but city records did not show calls flagged down there), and whether guards on at least three inspected occasions lacked state licenses (the city identified three such visits). Sayeed acknowledged two early incidents occurred soon after the board's order took effect and said the security company ultimately supplied replacements.

The record on the transcript excerpted here contains no final board determination on the case. The only formal board action recorded in the provided excerpt was a motion to approve minutes from Feb. 5, 2024, which the board approved at the start of the meeting. The hearing then proceeded with testimony and documentary evidence; the board indicated it intended to hear additional rebuttal testimony (Sergeant Connolly was announced as a planned rebuttal witness to authenticate the police-summary). The transcript ends without the board announcing a final ruling or new sanctions in the excerpt provided.

Sayeed and his counsel repeatedly asked the board for clearer communication with city investigators; Sayeed said he believed some enforcement contacts were hostile rather than cooperative. City counsel focused on the documented call logs and instances when security or the store did not follow the order's terms. The board signaled it would consider the city's evidence and further witness testimony before rendering a decision.

Ending note: The hearing on case 2024-NAB-41 continued after the testimony and introduction of police logs; the board did not announce a final disposition in the supplied transcript segment.