[00:00:01] >> THE MAY 9, 2024 HEARING OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. [1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM] CODE ENFORCEMENT AND APPEALS BOARD IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER. BOARD SECRETARY, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER POSTMAN. >> HERE. >> MEMBER FOATES? >> YEAH. >> MEMBER THOMPSON? >> YEAH. >> VICE CHAIR SIGNS. >> HERE. >> MEMBER PARSIE. >> CHAIR KENT. >> WE HAVE ENOUGH FOR FORUM, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YES. >> WE'LL STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND AFTERWARDS, REVEREND IF YOU COULD GIVE AN INDICATION. I APPRECIATE IT. >> >> LET'S PRAY. OUR FATHER OF GOD, WE COME TODAY LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR BEING OUR GOD. WE THANK YOU FOR ANY WE LIVE, MOVE, AND HAVE OUR BEING. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR MANY BLESSINGS, FOR YOUR MULTITUDE OF TENDER MERCIES. NOW LORD, WE INVOKE YOUR PRESENCE IN THIS MEETING OF THE COURT ENFORCEMENT AND APPEALS BOARD, FATHER, WE PRAY YOU WILL LEAD AND GUIDE IN A MANNER THAT'S PLEASING AND THAT SIGHT WE GIVE YOU THE PRAISE OF THE HONOR AND GLORY. THE PEOPLE OF GOD SAID, AMEN. >> HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST ENFORCEMENT MEETING? [3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] >> YES. >> DID I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS PASSED. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? >> NO. >> BOARD ATTORNEY, IF YOU COULD PLEASE EXPLAIN THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS? >> YES. TONIGHT, WE HAVE FOUR CASES UNDER NEW BUSINESS THAT WE WILL CONDUCT QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS. FOR EACH CASE, FIRST, THE CITY STAFF, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HANDLING THE CASE, WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. IT'S GENERALLY NOTHING THAT SURPRISES THOSE OF YOU THAT KNOW WHAT THE NOTICES LOOK LIKE AND THE REPORT FROM STAFF. ANY RESPONSES FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS? CAN BE IN WRITING AND/OR GIVEN RIGHT HERE. AFTER THE OFFICER TESTIFIES, THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE WE'RE RECORDING THIS VIDEO AND AUDIO. THEN YOU GET TO WITHOUT BEING LIMITED BY THE TIME YOU GET TO SPEAK, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD AS WELL. TONIGHT BEFORE ANYBODY SPEAKS OR TESTIFIES, THE CHAIR WILL ASK IN JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES FOR THE RECORDING SECRETARY TO GO AHEAD AND ADMINISTER AN OATH BECAUSE YOU WILL BE TESTIFYING UNDER OATH TONIGHT, BOTH OFFICERS FOR THE CITY AND ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR PROPERTY OWNERS. THE BOARD, AFTER YOU HEAR ALL THE EVIDENCE, YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF ANYONE TESTIFYING. THEN YOU'LL MR. CHAIR CLOSE THE HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING, AND THEN THE BOARD WILL GET TO DELIBERATE AND THEN MAKE ANY MOTIONS AND VOTES THAT YOU WISH. IF THERE'S A DECISION TO BE APPEALED, ANY OF THE DECISIONS MADE TONIGHT IN THESE CASES, IF THOSE DECISIONS ARE TO BE APPEALED, THEY MUST BE APPEALED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE BOARD'S DECISION, AND THAT APPEAL GETS FILED WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, SIR. >> THANK YOU. WERE THERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING ANY OF THE CASES ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA? >> NO, SIR. >> BOARD SECRETARY, COULD YOU SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES, PLEASE. >> PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. >> ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT SURE, YOU MIGHT AS WELL. >> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE 100%, IS THE TRUE THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> YES. >> YOU MAY SIT. >> FIRST UP, WE HAVE SOME OLD BUSINESS CASE [4.1 MICHAEL BRODSKY, 502 STANLEY DR., CASE 2023-0271:] 2023-0271, MICHAEL BRODSKY. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE NEEDED TO ADD TO THIS? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH YOU GUYS. ARE YOU ALL WITH THAT CASE? >> NO. >> OKAY. >> HE'S NOT HERE. >> WELL, HE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE HE'S HERE. AND WHEN I LOOKED AT THE AGENDA, I I DON'T HELP THE STAFF PREPARE THE AGENDA. I REPRESENT Y'ALL. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE AGENDA, I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT SAYS IT'S A REDUCTION OF FINES. I WAS JUST AND IT'S A RELATIVELY NEW ORDINANCE AND PROCESS THAT WE HAVE FOR JUST A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. I WENT INTO THE CODE TO LOOK AT THE PROCESS AND MICHELLE'S GOING TO. >> I GET THE SLIDE. BECAUSE MY FIRST THOUGHT WHEN I SAW THIS ON THE AGENDA IS, WHY IS THIS ON THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AGENDA? BECAUSE THE PROCESS READS THAT ONCE THE BOARD ISSUES AN ORDER, [00:05:02] THEN IF IF THE PERSON THAT HAS THE FINE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT REDUCED, THEY WOULD GO TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE CITY AND THEN GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION. >> NOT UNTIL A LIEN IS FILED. >> OKAY. >> JUST TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE BOARD. A FEW YEARS AGO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE NOT A PART OF THE BOARD AT THE TIME, DECIDED THAT THAT'S WHERE THE 45 DAYS COMES IN FOR US TO FILE THE LIEN. THE STATE SAYS THAT WE CAN DO IT AFTER 30 DAYS. THE BOARD A FEW YEARS BACK DECIDED TO GIVE THEM AN EXTRA 15 DAYS BEFORE WE FILED SO THAT IT COULD COME BACK BEFORE YOU INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE COMMISSION FOR A REDUCTION OF FINE. THAT'S WHERE THE WHOLE 45 DAYS CAME IN. AT THE TIME, THEY JUST FELT THAT I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THEY'D HAVE A BETTER CHANCE WITH YOU GUYS THAN THE COMMISSION, I DON'T KNOW. BUT THEY WANTED THAT ABILITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THAT'S WHERE THAT COMES IN AND THAT'S WHY HE FILED TO GO BEFORE YOU. HE'S NOT HERE, SO I DON'T KNOW. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR PROCEDURE? >> SINCE HE IS NOT HERE, DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE OFF OF THIS UNTIL NEXT? >> NO. YOU CAN TAKE NO ACTION. >> OKAY. >> WE HAVE SOME NEW BUSINESS. [5.1 LINDA F. HOWISON, 213 N 3RD ST., CASE 2024-0014:] FIRST CASE, LINDA HOWSON CASE 2024-0014. IS ANYBODY READY TO PRESENT ITS CASE? YES. >> MY NAME IS GEORGE WELLS. CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. THIS CASE, LIKE YOU SAID, IS 202-04-0014 FOR LINDA F HOWSON AT 2:13 NORTH THIRD STREET? THIS WAS AN OBSERVED VIOLATION THAT I NOTICED ON JANUARY 18 OF 2024. THE HOUSE HAD SEVERAL ISSUES ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE ALONG WITH THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THERE WAS A LOT OF ROTTEN WOOD ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE BY THAT BUSH. ALSO ON THE GARAGE, ALL THAT METAL SIGNING IS RUSTED, SO IT NEEDS TO BE RECORDED AND RETREATED. I POSTED A DOOR HANGER ON THE FRONT DOOR GIVING THE RESPONDENT 30 DAYS TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS, I RECORDED PHOTOS OF THE DOOR HANGER POSTING. FEBRUARY 19, WE DID A SECOND INSPECTION. THERE WAS NO CORRECTIONS. FEBRUARY 20, WE MAILED A CERTIFIED LETTER OUT TO THE OWNER GIVING THE RESPONDENT UNTIL MARCH 21, '24 TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. ON MARCH 18, OUR OFFICE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE SIGNED RETURN RECEIPT BACK, SO WE POSTED OUR SECOND COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER ON THE FRONT ENTRY DOOR GIVEN THE RESPONDENT UNTIL APRIL 18, 2024 TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. I RECORDED A PHOTO OF THE POSTING AND I ALSO FILLED OUT A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, 4-18, I PERFORMED A SECOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICE OF HEARING INSPECTION. NO CORRECTIONS WERE MADE, 4, 23 2024, I CALLED THE RESPONDENT AND LEFT A VOICEMAIL FOR THEM TO GIVE ME A CALL CONCERNING THEIR CASE. THEY DID NOT RETURN MY PHONE CALL. APRIL 26, 2024, THE RESPONDENT PICKED UP THE FIRST CERTIFIED LETTER FROM THE POST OFFICE. BECAUSE WE GOT NOTIFIED BY THAT. THEN MAY 2, 2024, PRE AGENDA INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED, SHOWING NO CORRECTIONS HAD BEEN MADE. CONCLUSION, THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN VIOLATION AS OF 2024. THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS NOT RETURNED OUR PHONE CALL. THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 42-117, GIVEN THE OWNER 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY JUNE 9, 2024. CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE THAT ALL ADMIN FEES BE PAID OF $263.82 BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT AND A FINE OF $50 PER DAY PER VIOLATION TO BEGIN ON JUNE 10, 2024, NOT COMPLIANCE BY JUNE 9, THE CITY REST. >> THERE'S NO RESPONDENT HERE FOR THAT PARTICULAR CASE. >> WELL, JUST TO CLARIFY YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, 30 DAYS BY 69 ADMIN FEES OF 260, WHAT? >> 26382. [00:10:03] >> A FINE OF $50 PER DAY START AGAINST 610. >> JUNE 10. >> YES, SIR. >> I WOULD SAY THAT BECAUSE OF THE INACTIVITY THAT OFFICER WELLS HAS HAD FROM THE HOMEOWNER, I DON'T THINK WE REALLY HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE HERE. TO TAKE THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOVE FORWARD. APPARENTLY, THE URGINGS WERE NOT ENOUGH TO ASK HIM TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE. I THINK UNTIL WE PUT SOME FIRE INTO THIS THING, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET A RESPONSE OUT OF IT. >> GEORGE, OF SIX INTERACTIONS WITH THIS HOMEOWNER, YOU HAD ONE RETURN PHONE CALL? THEY PICKED UP THE LETTER. >> THEY FINALLY PICKED UP THE LETTER FROM THE POST OFFICE. >> THEY'RE MORE THAN AWARE. >> YES. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS POSTED ON THE FRONT DOOR ALSO. >> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATIONS. >> IS THAT A MOTION YOU WANT TO PUT FORWARD? >> PLEASE. I'D LIKE TO PUT FORTH A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS THAT INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, MOVING FORWARD WITH $50 A DAY STARTING ON JUNE 10TH, AND SEE HOW MANY DAYS THEY LIKE TO TAKE THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON WITH THE LIEN. >> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? >> BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE, WOULD YOU ADD INTO YOUR MOTION SECTION 42-117? >> CERTAINLY. >> COULD YOU CITE THE CODE? >> YES. I FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 42-117, GIVING THE OWNER 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY JUNE 9, 2024. ASSESS ADMIN FEES OF $263.82 TO BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT AND A FINE OF $50 PER DAY PER VIOLATION TO BEGIN ON JUNE 10TH IF NOT COMPLIANCE BY JUNE 9TH, 2024. THAT SOUND CORRECT? >> THE HEARING IS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER ROSS IS A NEIGHBOR. DOES THE BOARD WANT TO HEAR FROM AN AFFECTED PARTY? >> IF THERE'S A REASON, SURE. >> THEREIN LIES THE QUESTION. IS THERE A REASON? ALWAYS. >> IT'S ACROSS 210 NORTH STREET. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON. MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET IS USUALLY A VERY REASONABLE PERSON WHO'S LIVED THERE PROBABLY 30 OR 40 YEARS. I'M SURPRISED THAT SHE HASN'T RESPONDED. I THINK ASKING HER TO GET THIS DONE IN 30 DAYS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN KNOWING THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I THINK SHE PROBABLY COULD GET IT DONE IN THREE MONTHS, MAYBE. I'M SURPRISED THAT SHE WOULDN'T HAVE. I'M GOING TO KNOCK ON HER DOOR TOMORROW AND LET HER KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. BUT I WOULD ASK, I GUESS, THAT YOU GIVE HER MORE TIME THAN 30 DAYS TO GET THAT DONE. SHE LIVES ALONE THERE. I SHOULDN'T BE SAYING THAT. SHE OWNS THE HOUSE. SHE'S BEEN THERE MANY YEARS. SHE'S AN EXCELLENT NEIGHBOR. THE YARD'S ALWAYS CUT. FOR SOME REASON LAST MONTH, I HAVEN'T SEEN LINDA AROUND. I DON'T KNOW WHERE SHE IS. I WILL GO NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO HERE AND SEE IF I CAN FIND HER AND TELL HER WHAT'S GOING ON. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU GIVE HER MORE TIME THAN 30 DAYS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES. >> TO BE CLEAR, COMMISSIONER, ARE YOU HERE AT HER BEHEST? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. SHE DOESN'T KNOW I'M HERE. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THIS UNTIL I LOOKED AT YOUR AGENDA THIS AFTERNOON. I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE HER NAME THERE. I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. ANYHOW, I GUESS THAT'S JUST BEING NEIGHBORLY, ASKING THAT YOU GIVE HER MORE TIME THAN 30 DAYS. [00:15:05] KNOWING THAT METAL NEEDS TO BE PAINTED AND THE BOARDS NEED TO BE REPLACED, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN 30 DAYS. >> I WOULD RECOMMEND WE GIVE HER ADDITIONAL TIME IF SHE CONTACTS YOU WITHIN TWO OR THREE DAYS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS. >> I THINK WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN HER 100 DAYS OR MORE, AND WE'RE GIVING THEM ANOTHER 30. >> NO. I'M NOT SAYING GIVE HER AN ADDITIONAL MONTH. IF SHE CONTACTS YOU, THEN CAN WE RECONSIDER THAT? IF SHE DOESN'T CONTACT YOU BY MONDAY, THEN OUR ORIGINAL DEAL WILL STAND. >> WHY DON'T WE DO THIS, IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER THIS. THE MOTION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. WE DON'T KNOW WHY, NOR DOES COMMISSIONER ROSS, HER NEIGHBOR, KNOW WHY SHE'S NOT RESPONDING. SHE COULD BE ILL. SHE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO GET BACK TO US BY MONDAY. OUR NEXT MEETING IS, I'M BRINGING UP THE CALENDAR, I THINK BEFORE JUNE 9TH, WHICH IS THE EXPIRATION. >> IT'S JUNE 6. >> IT'S JUNE 6. WE'LL HAVE OR POTENTIALLY HAVE ANOTHER MEETING DEPENDING ON CASES THAT ARE COMING UP. WE COULD EVEN CONVENE JUST FOR THAT CASE. >> TAMMY, I HAVE A QUESTION. THIS MOTION WAS PUT FORTH AND IT WAS SECONDED. HOW DO WE DELETE THAT? >> THAT'S EASY. >> OBJECTION TO THE MOTION. >> THE EASIEST WAY IS YOU CAN JUST VOTE IT DOWN, OR YOU CAN PUT A SUBSTITUTE OR AMENDED MOTION RIGHT IN ITS PLACE. >> HAVE WE EVER DONE WHAT I SUGGESTED OR NO? >> YOU CAN DO ANY NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE. I JUST, IN THIS CASE, HONESTLY, BASED UPON WHAT COMMISSIONER ROSS SAID, HE LIVES ACROSS THE STREET, HAS TO LOOK AT THIS EVERY DAY. I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. IF HE'S SAYING GIVE HER MORE TIME, AND HE PROBABLY JUST IS NOT GIVING US ALL THE DETAILS OF HER PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES HE MAY BE AWARE OF. >> SHE MAY BE INTIMIDATED. >> SHE COULD BE SICK, SHE COULD BE FINANCIALLY IN A SITUATION. >> KNOWING THAT THE COMMISSIONER IS GOING TO REACH OUT TO HER AS A NEIGHBOR, PERHAPS WE COULD JUST MOVE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. >> OR BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE DON'T ALWAYS HAVE CASES AND IT SEEMS SILLY TO COME HERE FOR FIVE MINUTES, IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER, YOU CAN AMEND YOUR MOTION. IT'S NOT BEEN VOTED ON YET. YOU CAN AMEND YOUR MOTION IF YOU WANT TO GIVE HER EXTRA TIME TO DO WHAT COMMISSIONER ROSS SUGGESTED, IS PUT 90 DAYS IN THERE INSTEAD. SURELY, WE'LL HAVE UPDATES BEFORE THEN. IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S GOING TO GO AND GIVE HER THE MESSAGE THAT THEY'RE SERIOUS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIX THIS. IT'S NOT JUST MOVING A JUNK CAR OUT OF YOUR DRIVEWAY. SHE'S GOING TO HAVE TO HIRE SOMEBODY AND HAVE THEM DO THE WORK, I WOULD THINK. YOU ALL CAN VOTE THIS IN AND IN 30 DAYS, SHE'LL HAVE TO. IF WE HAVE A CASE, WE'LL MAKE SURE TO UPDATE YOU. YOU CAN UNDO. YOU HAVEN'T AUTHORIZED US TO FILE ANY LIENS, SO THERE'S REALLY NOTHING PERMANENT OTHER THAN THE RECORD THAT REMAIN HERE. >> CAN WE LET THIS ORIGINAL VOTE STAND AND THEN REVISIT IT IN 30 DAYS? >> I THINK HE'S ASKING YOU ALL. >> I GUESS MY OPINION IS THERE'S BEEN 100 DAYS, YOU GO 90 DAYS, NOW WE'RE UP TO A HALF YEAR TO CORRECT THIS ISSUE. IF WE KEEP A SHORT TIME LINE AND THE RESPONDENT COMES IN AND EXPLAINS THE SITUATION OR AT LEAST HAS CONTACT WITH THE OFFICER. >> OR SENDS A REPRESENTATIVE. >> OR SENDS A REPRESENTATIVE, I THINK I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO REVISIT IT AND EXTEND IT IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENTED. BUT AN EMPTY CHAIR IS AN EMPTY CHAIR. >> PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. AT THE SAME TIME, TRYING TO SHOW SOME COMPASSION, BUT I FEEL THAT A PROCESS HAS BEEN SET INTO MOTION. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO WITH THE PROCESS. THEN IF SHE COMES IN OR SENDS A REPRESENTATIVE, WE CAN REVISIT IT AND MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS AT THAT TIME. >> I AGREE. I THINK WE MOVE TO A VOTE AT THIS POINT, CORRECT? [00:20:02] >> YEAH. >> MEMBER POSTMAN. >> YES. >> MEMBER FOTIADES. >> YES. >> MEMBER THOMPSON. >> YES. >> VICE CHAIR STINES. >> YES. >> I'M NOT SURE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I DID SUBMIT THIS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD. I DON'T REMEMBER IF I SAID IT OR NOT. >> THANK YOU. NEXT CASE [5.2 EUGENE HOOVER JR, 1717 BEECH ST., CASE 2024-0058:] IS CASE 2024-0058 EUGENE HOOVER. >> AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD FOR CASE 2024-0058, 1717 BEACH STREET. THIS IS A CASE OF AN INOPERABLE VEHICLE THAT'S IN THE BACK YARD. IT HAD FLAT TIRES AND THEN IT HAD AN EXPIRED TAG. JANUARY 22ND OF 2024, I STOPPED BY AND SPOKE WITH THE HOMEOWNER ABOUT THE VEHICLE PARKED IN THE BACKYARD WITH AN EXPIRED TAG DISPLAYED ON IT WITH MULTIPLE FLAT TIRES. HE STATED THAT HE HAD A CURRENT TAG FOR THE VEHICLE AND HAD NOT PLACED IT ON THE VEHICLE. HE SAID HE WOULD AIR UP THE TIRES AND I DIDN'T OPEN A CASE AT THAT TIME BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD BE AT HIS WORD AND HE WOULD DO WHAT HE SAID. ANYWAY, WE REVISITED IT MARCH 5TH, 2024, OBSERVED THE OWNER HAD NOT PUT THE NEW TAG ON THERE, AND ALONG WITH NOT AIRING UP THE TIRES. I RECORDED THE PHOTOS OF THE VIOLATION. THE NEXT DAY, MARCH 6TH, WE MAILED A CERTIFIED LETTER TO THE OWNER, GIVING THEM UNTIL MARCH 16TH, 2024 TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. 3:14 2024, OUR DEPARTMENT RECEIVED THE SIGNED RETURN RECEIPT BACK BY MR. HOOVER'S CONFIRMING PROPER SERVICE. MARCH 18, 2024, I CONDUCTED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICE OF HEARING INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY CONFIRMING THE TAG WAS STILL EXPIRED ON THE VEHICLE. ON APRIL 23RD, '24, I CALLED MR. HOOVER AND ASKED HIM IF I CAN MEET WITH HIM ABOUT THE INOPERABLE VEHICLE. I MET WITH THE OWNER AT THE PROPERTY. HE SEEMED CONFUSED STATING THAT THE NEW TAG WAS ON THE VEHICLE. I TOLD MR. HOOVER, I SAID, MR. HOOVER, THAT TAG IS 07, '19. I SAID IT'S BEEN EXPIRING FOR SOME TIME. THEN HE LOOKED BEWILDERED AND HE SAID, WELL, THE TAG IS IN THE TRUNK AND HE COULDN'T GET IN THE TRUNK. I TOLD HIM, WELL WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET EITHER A NEW TAG OR WE GOT TO HAVE A CURRENT TAG DISPLAYED ON THIS VEHICLE WITH THE TIRES AIR DONE. WHERE WE STAND IS NOW HE HAS PUT ANOTHER TAG ON THERE THAT EXPIRES JULY OF '22. [LAUGHTER] WE'RE STILL IN VIOLATION. WE DID A PRE-AGENDA INSPECTION, LIKE I SAID, THE VEHICLE'S AS IT SITS. THE VEHICLE STILL IN VIOLATION OF 42-173. THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 42-173, GIVEN THE OWNER 10 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO COME IN COMPLIANCE BY MAY 19TH, 2024. THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE THAT ALL ADMIN FEES OF $250.26 BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT AND A FINE OF $50 PER DAY PER VIOLATION TO BEGIN ON MAY 20TH, 2024, IF NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY MAY 19TH, 2024. CITY RESTS. >> CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE EXACTLY THE VEHICLE IS PLACED? >> THE HOUSE ACTUALLY FACES THE BEACH AND HE HAS A FENCED BACKYARD AND IT'S IN THE BACK RIGHT CORNER BY THE DOGHOUSE. >> OFFICER WELLS, I GUESS THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME RIGHT NOW, ARE YOU CONFIDENT IN HIS MENTAL FACULTIES THAT HE REALLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S GOING ON? >> WELL, I CAN'T SAY 100% ABOUT THAT. I HAD A DIRECT CONVERSATION WITH HIM. HE SEEMED LIKE HE WAS OKAY. BUT THEN WHEN HE SAID, THE OTHER TAG'S ON THE VEHICLE AND I TOLD HIM, I SAID, WELL, THAT TAG'S BEEN EXPIRED FOR FOUR YEARS. HE JUST LOOKED AT ME. HE SAID, WELL, IT'S IN THE TRUNK. I GOT IT RENEWED AND IT'S IN THE TRUNK WITH THE REGISTRATION. [00:25:02] HE SAID, I PAID $40 FOR THE NEW TAG. I SAID, WELL, WE NEED TO GET THAT ON THE VEHICLE. ANYWAY, I DID SPEAK TO HIS NEIGHBOR TODAY, AND THE NEIGHBOR, HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING TOO MUCH NEGATIVE ABOUT HIM, BUT AS FAR AS HIS MENTAL CAPACITY. HE SAID HE MAY HAVE HIS MOMENTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY HE WOULD GO OUT THERE AND PUT A '22 STICKER ON THERE OVER THE '19. >> PROBABLY GOT INTO THAT VEHICLE. THIS VEHICLE HAS NOT MOVED SINCE 2019, BASICALLY, RIGHT? >> WELL, I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE. >> WAS THAT JUST A DIFFERENT STICKER OR IS IT A DIFFERENT TAG ALTOGETHER? >> SHE CAN PULL UP THE PICTURES OF THE TWO DIFFERENT [OVERLAPPING] >> 7, '19. THAT'S A IB1 '22. >> THAT'S AN IB1 ALSO. [LAUGHTER] >> SAME PLATE DIFFERENT TAG. I GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO COMPLIANCE, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING. I THINK IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT STEEP BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S OTHER ISSUES, BUT SEEMS PRETTY CUT AND DRY. IF HE CAN GET THE TIRES AIRED UP AND CURRENT TAG ON THERE IN 10 DAYS, THAT'S JUST A WALK DOWNTOWN. >> I THINK IT'S WISHFUL THINKING. [OVERLAPPING] >> THE VEHICLE IS, IF THE TIRES ARE AIRED UP, EVEN IF IT'S IN HIS BACKYARD, IT HAS TO BE [OVERLAPPING] >> IT MUST HAVE A CURRENT TAG ON IT. YES, SIR. >> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHEN I SEE THAT HE'S CHANGED THE STICKER. I DON'T THINK HE'S TRYING TO GET ONE OVER ON ANYBODY. I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A STATE OF CONFUSION. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'M SEEING AND I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SURE WHAT OUR BEST WAY TO APPROACH IT IS. I UNDERSTAND THAT HE'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE, AT THE SAME TIME. >> WELL, HE DOES HAVE A WIFE THAT LIVES WITH HIM. >> HE DOES. HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH HER? >> I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO HER. ALL MY DEALING WITH THEM WAS MR. HOOVER. >> THAT'S WHERE I WISH THESE RESPONDENTS WOULD [INAUDIBLE] SO WE COULD ACTUALLY ASK THEM QUESTIONS, RATHER THAN US TRYING TO ASSESS A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE BASED ON A 10-MINUTE CONVERSATION THAT OFFICER WELLS HAD. >> WHAT ARE YOU RECOMMENDING, AGAIN, OFFICER WELLS? >> THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THE FINE OF VIOLATION OF 42-173, GIVE THEM 10 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY MAY 19TH, 2024. THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE THAT ALL ADMIN FEES OF $250.26 BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE FINE OF $50 PER DAY FOR A VIOLATION TO BEGIN ON MAY 20TH, IF IT'S NOT COMPLIANCE BY MAY 19TH. >> IF YOU USUALLY GIVE SOMEBODY A MONTH, WHY IS HE ONLY GETTING? >> WELL, USUALLY FOR INOPERABLE VEHICLES, GRASS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE NORMALLY GIVE THEM 10 DAYS. NOW, IF IT'S TO DEAL WITH THE STRUCTURE OR THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE PERMITTED OR THINGS LIKE THAT, WE NORMALLY GIVE THEM 30 DAYS. BECAUSE REALLY ALL HE'LL HAVE TO DO IS, IF HE DOESN'T HAVE INSURANCE ON THE VEHICLE, HE'LL HAVE TO GET SOME TYPE OF INSURANCE AND THEN HE CAN GO DOWN AND GET THE NEW DECAP. BUT I THINK THAT CAN BE DONE IN 10 DAYS. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IF WE ACCEPT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION FOR A SECOND. >> I WILL SECOND THAT WITH ONE PROVISION IF THAT'S PERMISSIBLE THAT OFFICER WELLS WOULD IT BE OUT OF YOUR REALM OR IMPROPER OR WHATEVER TO TRY AND GET IN TOUCH WITH HIS WIFE BECAUSE I'M STILL CONCERNED THAT I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD HATE TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THIS MAN AND HE'S NOT MENTALLY UP TO WHAT'S GOING ON. IS IT POSSIBLE TO SPEAK TO HIS WIFE, TO LET HER KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE BECAUSE SHE MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN KNOW. >> WE CAN DO ALL EFFORTS TO TRY TO BRING THIS RESOLUTION. WE'RE NOT ABOUT TRYING TO GET THE FINES OR ANYTHING. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET COMPLIANCE. >> I WILL SET THEM. >> IF I COULD ADD JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT. [00:30:05] I THINK THAT IF WE GET MR. HOOVER ACTUALLY OR HIS WIFE TO MAKE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING, WE ALWAYS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FOREGO FINES. I THINK THE ADMIN FEES ARE WE SHOULD KEEP THOSE SET IN STONE, BUT THOMPSON'S POINT, IF THERE IS ISSUES AT HAND, AT LEAST WE CAN GIVE HIM SOME RELIEF. IF WE COULD WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD THEM TO THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT HEARING? >> WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE DATE FROM 520-6969? >> WELL, I THINK WE STILL KEEP THE FINES BECAUSE THE HAMMER IS THERE, BUT WE CAN FORGIVE THE FINES AT THE NEXT HEARING. IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. >> YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE KEEP IT IN PLACE BUT EXTEND THE DATE TO 69? >> YEAH. WELL, AT LEAST THE FINES. WE FOREGO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FINES ON PHIL 69, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> YOU WANT TO KEEP THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES IN PLACE? NOT EXACTLY. I'D SAY WE KEEP THE FINES AND THE ADMINISTRATION FEES, BUT IF WE CAN GET A LIVE BODY BEFORE US TO EXPLAIN IF THERE IS AN ISSUE, THEN AT LEAST WE CAN PROVIDE SOME RELIEF. >> BUT THIS IS GOING TO ENACT FINES EFFECTIVE IN 10 DAYS, WHICH IS THE CONCERN. >> OKAY. >> IF YOU'D LIKE TO AMEND ME TO AMEND THE MOTION TO WAIT TO THE NEXT HEARING TO START ASSESSING FINES. I'D BE AMENABLE TO THAT. >> I'LL MAKE A NEW MOTION THEN. >> ALL RIGHT. >> MAKE A NEW MOTION TO FIND IN VIOLATION, AND WE EXTEND. >> I'VE GOT TO INTERRUPT YOU JUST FOR A SECOND BECAUSE I BELIEVE YOU MADE THE MOTION INITIALLY, SO CHRIS CAN'T REPLACE IT. YOU JUST WOULD AMEND YOUR MOTION. IT'LL BE THE MOTION MAKER. >> I'LL GIVE A SECOND ON THAT ONE TOO. ALL RIGHTY. DID YOU STILL WANT TO SECOND SECOND? >> YES. I'LL SECOND. >> DO WE NEED A VOTE FOR THAT FIRST NAME? NO. JUST THIS AMENDED ONE. IT'S GOING TO END UP BEING ONE MOTION. HE'S JUST NOT CHANGING. >> MY MOTION WOULD BE TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF 42-173 DIRECTOR AND OPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION FINES WILL REMAIN IN PLACE. BUT THE FINES THE ACTUAL FINES WILL NOT BECOME ACTIVE UNTIL FOLLOWING OUR NEXT HEARING. 6969. I GUESS I NEED A SECOND ON THAT. >> I'LL SECOND. >> GIVE ME JUST A SECOND. WE'RE STILL GIVEN THE 10 DAYS. >> TEN DAYS TO COME COMPLIANCE. >> BY MAY 19? >> YEAH. >> THEN THE FINES? >> THE FINES WILL BEGIN AFTER THE NEXT HEARING IF THE RESPONDENT DOESN'T RESPOND. >> GOT YOU. START ON JUNE 6? >> START ON JUNE 7 SIDE OPTIONS. >> WHAT I GOT IS FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE OF SECTION 42-173, GIVING THE OWNER 10 ADDITIONAL DATES TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY MAY 19, 2024. ALL ADMIN FEES TO BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT AND A FINE AT $50 PER DAY PER VIOLATION TO BEGIN ON JUNE 7, 2024 IS NOT COMPLIANCE BY MAY 19, 2024, THAT SOUNDS CORRECT. >> INITIALLY, I HAD MR. THOMPSON SECOND IT, TAMMY. >> THE ORIGINAL MAKER OF THE MOTIONS, CHANGING HIS MOTION AND THE ORIGINAL SECONDER SHOULD ACCEPT IT, OR WE HAVE TO START OVER. >> I WILL SECOND IT. >> ALL RIGHT. MEMBER PERISMA? >> YES. >> MEMBER THOMPSON? >> YES. >> MEMBER 38? >> YES. >> VICE CHAIR SIGNS >> YES. >> NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER 2024-0042 OFFICER WELLS? [5.3 WILLIAM DUENAS, 1608 PENBROOK DR, CASE 2024-0042:] >> AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT OUR EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD FOR CASE 2024-00-42-1608 PENBROK DRIVE. THIS IS THE CASE WHERE I [00:35:01] OBSERVED A NEW FENCE HAD BEEN INSTALLED ON THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT A PERMIT, FEBRUARY 19 OF 2024. I SPOKE WITH MISS JILL JENKINS. SHE'S THE PARTNER OF THE OWNER ABOUT THE VIOLATION AND LEFT HER A NOTICE OF VISIT, GIVING THEM TEN DAYS TO OBTAIN A FENCE PERMIT. I RECORDED PHOTOS OF THE VIOLATION. FEBRUARY 26, 2024, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM MISS JENKINS. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD APPLY FOR THE PERMIT ONLINE AND CALL US WHEN IT HAD BEEN ISSUED. MARCH 4, 2024, A SECOND INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED BUT NO PERMIT APPLICATION IN THE SYSTEM TO DATE. MARCH 5, 2024, WE MAILED OUT A CERTIFIED LETTER TO THE OWNER GIVING THE OWNER TEN ADDITIONAL DAYS TO OBTAIN THE FENCE PERMIT. MARCH 14, 2024, OUR OFFICE RECEIVED SIGNED RETURN RECEIPT BY MISS JILL JENKINS, THE PARTNER. MARCH 19, 2024, NOTE VIOLATION, NOTE FOR HEARING INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED. NO PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THIS POINT. APRIL 23, 2024, I SPOKE WITH MISS JENKINS. SHE STATED THAT SHE APPLIED FOR THE WRONG PERMIT AND REAPPLIED FOR THE RIGHT PERMIT. I DID NOT SEE THE APPLICATION IN THE SYSTEM THAT DAY. APRIL 23, SAME DAY, OUR OFFICE RECEIVED A CALL. SHE REQUESTED AN EXTENSION. THE OFFICE DID NOT GRANT AN EXTENSION AT THAT TIME, 4, 26 '24, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR A FENCE PERMIT 4,29, 2024. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SENT THE OWNER AN E MAIL REQUESTING A COPY OF THE SURVEY WITH THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE TO BE INSTALLED. MAY 1, 2024, A SECOND EMAIL SENT BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO THE HOMEOWNER REQUESTING THE SAME INFORMATION. MAY 2, 2024, A PRE AGENDA INSPECTION SHOWED THAT THE FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION IS ON HOLD, WAITING FOR A CURRENT SURVEY. THE CONCLUSION I PUT IN THE STAFF REPORT IS I BELIEVE THE OWNER IS TRYING TO GET THE PERMIT ISSUED. THERE IS SOME CONFUSION BETWEEN MISS JILL JENKINS SHE IS THE POINT OF THE CONTACT BUT NOT THE OWNER. THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.01 0.10, GIVING THE OWNER 10 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY MAY 19, 2024. THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE THAT ALL ADMIN FEES OF $250.26 BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT, AND A FINE OF $50 PER DAY PER VIOLATION TO BEGIN ON MAY 20, 2024, IF NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY MAY 2024. I BELIEVE AND THEY CAN TESTIFY TO THIS WHERE THEY'RE AT IN THE PROCESS. WHOEVER IS GOING TO SPEAK ON ALL'S BEHALF, COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND GIVE US AN UPDATE WHERE WE'RE AT. >> HI. MY NAME IS CHILL JENKINS, AND THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OTHER IS THE OWNER, THE EMAILS WERE GOING TO HIM AND HE DOESN'T CHECK HIS EMAIL. I WASN'T AWARE. ON TOP OF THAT, I HAD SURGERY AT THE END OF FEBRUARY. HE DIDN'T BOTHER ME WITH THE NOTICES THAT WERE COMING IN, SO I WASN'T AWARE UNTIL I ONE DAY SAID, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE FENCE PERMIT, AND I CALLED AND SPOKE TO CRYSTAL AND SHE WAS VERY HELPFUL TO GET ME ON THE WAY. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT FIND A SURVEYOR TO EVEN COME OUT AND THE FIRST ONE, MR. PEACOCK, CL SURVEY IS THE NAME OF HIS COMPANY, HE SAID HE COULD PROBABLY MAKE IT BY NEXT WEEK. EVERYBODY ELSE IS TELLING ME THEY'RE THREE WEEKS OUT. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR EVEN A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. WE'RE PERFECTLY HAPPY TO GET. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO VIOLATE. WE DIDN'T KNOW. WE STARTED OUT JUST REPAIRING ONE SIDE THAT WAS KNOCKED DOWN FROM THE HURRICANE AND WICKY AND I HAD PROPPED IT UP, BUT WE STARTED OUT WITH THAT AND THEN THERE WAS A MAN HELPING US WITH THINGS AROUND THE HOME. HE SAID HE WOULD DO THE WHOLE FENCE. THAT'S REALLY, WE JUST HAD NO IDEA WE NEEDED A PERMIT OR A SURVEY OR ANYTHING. WE CERTAINLY WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING. WE JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME SINCE THE SURVEY COMPANIES ALL SEEM TO BE BEHIND SCHEDULE. JIM PEACOCK TOLD ME HE WOULD BE THERE BY NEXT WEEK TO DO THE SURVEY. THANK YOU. >> WHO BUILT THE FED? YOU DID OR YOU HAD SOMEONE DO IT? >> NO. WE HAD SOMEONE DO IT. HE WAS OUR HANDYMAN. HE WAS DOING WORK AROUND THE HOUSE. I CAN GIVE YOU HIS NAME. I ONLY KNOW VALENTINE. I DON'T KNOW HIS LAST NAME, BUT HE PUT IT IN THE EXACT SAME EXACT HOLES THAT ALREADY EXISTED FOR 20 YEARS. IT WAS ROTTING ALL AROUND. IT REALLY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. BUT LIKE I SAID, WE STARTED OUT WITH JUST, HEY, WE NEED THIS ONE SIDE. [00:40:02] THAT WAS GOING ON THE NEIGHBOR'S BUSHES. THEN HE SAID, WELL, I'LL JUST DO THE WHOLE FENCE. WE WERE LIKE, OKAY, SO THAT'S HOW THAT HAPPENED. THAT WAS IN JANUARY WHEN HE FINISHED THAT WORK. THEN LIKE I SAID, I HAD SURGERY AT THE END OF FEBRUARY, SO I WAS RECOVERING AND HE DIDN'T BOTHER ME WITH ANYTHING THAT CAME IN THE MAIL OR ANY PHONE CALLS OR ANYTHING, SO I'M JUST CATCHING UP. >> IN YOUR FENCE EXPERTISE, WOULD YOU SAY THE FENCE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITHOUT A PERMIT? >> NO. IT NEEDS A PERMIT. >> NO. WHAT I'M SAYING OR EXCLUDING THEM. >> THE HEIGHT SETBACKS. OTHER THAN THE PERMIT, IT LOOKS GOOD. >> SHE'LL JUST HAVE TO GET THAT SURVEY AND TO KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE INSTALLED AND SUBMIT THAT THROUGH PLANNING. >> WHAT WAS YOUR TIME FRAME YOU HAD RECOMMENDED? >> I THINK I PUT 10 DAYS ON THERE TO GET THE SURVEY DONE. SHE HAD INDICATED, I THINK, CRYSTAL, THAT SHE THOUGHT SHE COULD GET IT DONE. THAT CAME INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE 10 DAYS. >> YES. WHEN I CALLED HER, I SAID, ABSOLUTELY, I'M ON IT TODAY. I CALLED FIVE COMPANIES. >> WE WERE THINKING THAT THE SURVEY COULD GET DONE AND THIS COULD BE EXPEDITED RATHER QUICKLY, BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM GIVING ADDITIONAL TIME. IF SHE FEELS SHE NEEDS IT, THAT'S MORE THAN FINE BECAUSE WE JUST WANT THE PERMIT ISSUED AND INSPECTED AND WE'LL MOVE ON. >> THE PROCESS IS IT GETS INSPECTED BY THIS FENCE COMPANY. THEY APPLY FOR THE PERMIT AND WE'RE DONE? >> THE SURVEY COMPANY WILL COME DO THEIR SURVEY AND THEY'LL GIVE ME A REPORT AND I'LL TAKE IT TO THE PLANNING OFFICE. THEN THEY CAN MARK OFF THAT THE SURVEY IS DONE. >> DO THEY DO THE SURVEY SPONTANEOUSLY? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION SINCE I'M SO UNSURE OF THE PROCESS. I LEARNED EVERYTHING FROM CRYSTAL AS TO WHAT I NEEDED TO DO. >> WELL, I'M ON MY FOURTH SURVEY NOW FOR MY HOUSE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. THEY ARE TYPICALLY PRETTY QUICK WITH THE GENERATION OF THE PLAN. USUALLY WITHIN 3-5 DAYS AFTERWARDS. I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE TO GIVE ANOTHER 30 DAYS FOR THIS TO HAPPEN BECAUSE I ALSO USED MR. PEACOCK, AND I LIKE THE MAN, BUT HE'S A ONE MAN SHOW, BUT THREE, FOUR BALLS IN THE AIR. >> HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS TRYING REALLY HARD TO FIT ME INTO A SCHEDULE QUICKLY BECAUSE HE KNEW I WAS COMING TO THE BOARD MEETING. >> ANOTHER 30 DAYS WOULD BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE? >> YES, PLEASE. >> I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE HAVE A RESPONDENT THAT'S HERE THAT HAS MADE POSITIVE PROGRESS. THIS IS THE THING THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND NOT PUNISH. >> WELL, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GIVING THEM MORE TIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> CLOSE THAT ABOUT NOW. WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON IT? >> NEED A MOTION. I THINK YOU HAVE TO GO TO AT THIS POINT. >> WHAT IS THE CASE NUMBER? OUR RECOMMENDATION IS CASE NUMBER 2024-0042 THAT WE EXTEND AN EXTRA 30 DAYS TIME FOR THE SURVEY AND TO GET THE INFORMATION TO THE CITY WHEREIN THEY CAN GET THE PERMIT. IS THERE A CODE NUMBER ON THIS? LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 5.01.10, FENCES AND WALLS. GIVE THEM AN EXTRA 30 DAYS. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> I WOULD HAVE YOU ADD THAT YOU WOULD FIND THEM IN VIOLATION. >> WE WILL NOT FIND THEM IN VIOLATION. >> THAT YOU WILL FIND THEM. >> WE WILL? >> YES. >> WE WILL FIND THEM. I'LL USE IT. >> WE REALLY CAN'T GO FORWARD WITHOUT FINDING THEM IN VIOLATION. >> YOU'RE RIGHT. >> THE 30 DAYS COMMENCES ON WHEN? >> THIS IS WHAT I GOT. I GOT TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.01.10, GIVING THE OWNER 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE IN 2024. [00:45:03] DO YOU ALL WANT ADMINISTRATIVE FEES TO BE ASSESSED? >> NO. >> WELL, LET'S HOLD IT IN ABEYANCE FOR THE NEXT ONE. WE'LL DECIDE ON THAT PORTION AT THE NEXT HEARING. >> WE'RE HOLDING THE FINE? I'M GETTING CONFUSED NOW. >> FINES AND ADMINISTRATION FEES WILL BE HELD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL THE NEXT HEARING. >> YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO RETURN BACK AT THE NEXT HEARING? >> CORRECT. JUNE 6. >> THANK YOU FOR TAKING CARE OF THE PROPERTY. >> CAN YOU ALL TELL ME WHO SECONDED THAT? >> THAT WAS ME. >> SORRY. >> NO WORRIES. >> MEMBER POSTMA. >> YES. >> MEMBER FOTIADES. >> YES. >> MEMBER THOMPSON. >> YES. >> VICE CHAIR STINES. >> YES. >> I'LL SEND YOU GUYS A LETTER OUT AND WE'LL HAVE A WRITTEN ONE, AND THEN I'LL SEND ANOTHER ONE OUT THE NEXT HEARING. >> ARE YOU GUYS CLEAR ON WHAT THEY DETERMINED? >> WE HAVE ONE MORE CASE ON THE AGENDA. [5.4 JAMES JOHN O'CONNER TRUST, 703 GARDEN STREET, CASE 2024-0029:] IT IS CASE 2024-0029. OFFICER ROSS. >> THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT OUR EVIDENCE INTO RECORD FOR CASE 2024-0029 FOR 703 GARDEN STREET. THIS WAS ANOTHER OBSERVED VIOLATION. THIS HOUSE IS IN OLD TOWN, 703 GARDEN STREET. FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024, I OBSERVED THIS HOUSE ON THIS PROPERTY AND IT HAD SOME SIDING MISSING ON THE GARDEN STREET SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THERE WAS ALSO A BOAT PARKED ON THE ADDRESS SIDE OF THE HOUSE ON GARDEN STREET. I LEFT A NOTICE OF VISIT ON THE SIDE ENTRY DOOR, GIVING THE OWNER 30 DAYS TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS. I RECORDED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VIOLATIONS. MARCH 4TH, 2024, I PERFORMED A SECOND INSPECTION TO THE PROPERTY. THE VIOLATIONS HAD NOT BEEN CORRECTED. MARCH 5TH, THE NEXT DAY, WE MAILED A CERTIFIED LETTER TO THE OWNER, GIVING THE OWNER UNTIL APRIL 5TH TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. ON MARCH 14TH, OUR OFFICE RECEIVED THE SIGNED RETURN RECEIVED BY JAMES O'CONNOR, GIVEN PROPER SERVICE. ON MARCH 27TH, 2024, I RECEIVED A VOICEMAIL FROM SHANNON O'CONNOR ASKING FOR A RETURN CALL. 4/10/2024, I PERFORMED A NOTICE VIOLATION OF HEARING INSPECTION. NO CORRECTIONS HAD BEEN MADE. ON 4/11/2024, I RETURNED MR. O'CONNOR'S VOICEMAIL, AND I HAD TO ACTUALLY LEAVE A VOICEMAIL FOR HIM TO GIVE ME ANOTHER CALL. WE PHONE TAG FOR QUITE A BIT. WE ACTUALLY HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY SPOKEN BECAUSE I'D LEAVE HIM A VOICEMAIL, HE'D LEAVE ME A VOICEMAIL. ANYWAY, ON MAY 2ND, WE PERFORMED THE PRE-AGENDA INSPECTION. NO CORRECTIONS OF THE VIOLATIONS HAD BEEN MADE. AS OF TODAY, THE PROPERTY IS STILL IN VIOLATION OF 42-117 FOR THE EXTERIOR SIDING THAT'S MISSING, AND ALSO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 7.01.059 OR D FOR THE BOAT THAT'S PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD. THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES 42-117 AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 7.01.05D, GIVING THE OWNER 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY JUNE 8TH, 2024. THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE THAT ALL ADMIN FEES OF $250.26 BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT AND A FINE OF $50 PER DAY PER VIOLATION TO BEGIN ON JUNE 9TH, 2024 IF NOT COMPLIANT BY JUNE 8TH, 2024. >> QUESTION FOR YOU. THIS IS ALUMINUM SIDING HOUSE, VINYL SIDING? >> VINYL SIDING. >> THERE WAS REPAIR WORK DONE OR THE WIND BLEW OFF SIDING? >> THE WIND BLEW THAT OFF. YES, SIR. >> DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG AGO IT WAS? >> WELL, WHEN I FIRST NOTICED, IT WAS FEBRUARY 1ST. >> DID YOU VISUALLY SEE THIS, OR A NEIGHBOR CALLED, OR YOU CAN'T TELL? [00:50:02] >> IT WAS AN OBSERVED VIOLATION. >> YOU HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH THE OWNERS. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATUS IS ON ANYTHING? >> NO. I'VE CALLED HIM NUMEROUS TIMES, AND HE'S CALLED AND LEFT ME MESSAGES. OF COURSE, I CALL HIM BACK AND THEN I LEAVE MESSAGES FOR HIM TO CALL ME. THEN JUST WE HAVE NOT TALKED. >> OFFICER WELLS, HELP ME UNDERSTAND WITH THE BOAT. YOU SAID IT'S PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD. IF IT MOVED SIX FEET OVER, IS IT IN THE DRIVEWAY? >> WELL, ACCORDING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE BOAT HAS TO EITHER BE IN THE SIDE OR REAR YARD. THE SIDE YARD ACTUALLY BEGINS ON THE FRONT LINE OF THE HOUSE. IF YOU DREW A LINE ACROSS THE FRONT LINE, WHAT YOU SEE HERE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON EITHER SIDE OR IN THE REAR BEHIND THAT FRONT LINE. THE BOAT TOTALLY WOULD HAVE TO BE BEHIND THAT FRONT LINE. THE WAY THESE LOTS ARE PLATTED OUT THERE, EVERYTHING IS ADDRESSED ON THE GARDEN STREET SIDE ON THESE LOTS HERE, EVEN THOUGH HIS HOUSE FACES THE RIVER. BUT IT'S ADDRESSED TO 703 GARDEN STREET, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE FRONT OF HOUSE, BY THE DEFINITION. >> I THINK THAT PRESENTS US A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM. I GOT INTO WHAT A FRONT YARD WAS AND SIDE YARD IS AND SUCH. I PULLED UP THE CODE. THE FRONT YARD MEANS A YARD ACROSS THE FULL WIDTH OF THE LOT EXTENDING FROM THE FRONT LINE OF THE BUILDING TO THE FRONT LINE OF THE LOT. THAT CODE IS, TO ME, SO AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE THE FRONT OF HIS HOUSE IS FACING THE RIVER. >> THERE'S NO ENTRY IN THE SIDE EITHER. >> NO. IT'S JUST GARAGE DOORS ON THERE. WE SHOULD ADD THIS TO THE LIST OF THINGS WE SHOULD BE REVISITING WHEN WE OPEN UP THE CODE AGAIN BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER FOR OFFICER WELLS TO DO HIS JOB IF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS YOUR STREET ENTRANCE. THEN IT WOULD BE CLEAR AS DAY. BUT THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN, IF YOUR FRONT DOOR IS FACING THE RIVER, TO ME, THAT'S THE FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE, AND THE FRONT LOT LINE WOULD BE THE RIVER. IT PUTS US IN THIS REALLY WEIRD POSITION AS TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF WHERE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS. >> GOOD POINT. WHERE COULD HE PUT THE BOAT? >> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE MOST LIKELY ON THAT LEFT SIDE WHERE YOU SEE THAT 93.2. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ACTUALLY ON THE RIVER SIDE OF THAT HOUSE. >> BUT YOU COULDN'T JUST MOVE THE BOAT DIRECTLY. >> THE WAY THAT HOUSE IS ADDRESSED, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT CONVENIENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR OWNER, THE FRONT OF THAT HOUSE IS ACTUALLY WHERE THE GARAGE DOORS ARE. THAT'S RIGHT HERE. THAT'S ACTUALLY THE WAY THE CODE WORKS, THE WAY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS ESTABLISHED THIS ADDRESS, IS THAT'S THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. NOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE FRONT ACTUALLY FACES THE RIVER, BUT ACCORDING TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED FRONT. >> WHAT IF HE BACKED THE BOAT UP TO THE RIGHT OF THE HOUSE? >> WELL, IF HE COULD FIT IT OVER THERE, AS LONG AS HE CAN GET THE ENTIRE BOAT, COUPLER AND EVERYTHING BEHIND THAT FRONT LINE, IF YOU DREW THAT IMAGINARY LINE ACROSS THERE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON EITHER SIDE ALL THE WAY BACK, BEHIND THAT FRONT LINE. >> THERE'S ACTUALLY AN ELEVATION DIFFERENCE THERE WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT ON GOOGLE STREET VIEW. >> THE FRONT YARD IS FROM THE ENTIRE SIDE LOTS, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE VERY FRONT LOT LINE, AND THEN IT GOES TO, LIKE I SAID, THE FRONT LINE OF THE HOUSE, IS THE ACTUAL FRONT YARD. >> OFFICER WELLS, DID PLANNING COME UP WITH AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE THAT THEY'VE BEEN USING? THAT'S WHAT I'M STICKING ON. >> YES. THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY'VE INTERPRETED IT THIS WAY. THIS IS THE WAY WE'VE BEEN INTERPRETING IT. >> WELL, THERE'S NOT ANOTHER STREET ON THE RIVER SIDE OF THE HOUSE FOR IT TO HAVE A NAMED ADDRESS. >> AGREED. >> FRONT HAS TO BE ON THE SIDE WHERE THE STREET IS. >> I'M NOT DENYING THAT AT ALL. ALL I'M SAYING IS, THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN, IT'S SO AMBIGUOUS THAT IF I DECLARE ANY SIDE OF MY HOUSE THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE, THEN I CAN CALL THAT LOT LINE THE FRONT LOT LINE. IF PLANNING MADE THIS AS AN INTERPRETATION, I THINK IT'D BE INCUMBENT UPON THEM TO CLEAN THIS UP. >> WELL, I THINK THESE LOTS WERE INITIALLY DESIGNED TO BE WHERE THIS IS ACTUALLY THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. ALL THESE LOTS ALONG HERE ARE DESIGNED FOR THE HOUSE TO FACE GARDEN STREET. [00:55:05] >> GOT YOU. THAT GARAGE THERE MAY BE AN ADDITIONAL THING? >> IT'S HARD TO SAY. >> CHIEF, WE HAVE NO COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE BOAT? >> NO OFFICIALLY FILED. >> I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE ONLY, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. >> I THINK I'M PROBABLY ON A LITTLE LOW BLOOD SUGAR HERE, BUT I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE BOAT IS AN ISSUE. >> IT'S NOT. >> I REALLY DON'T. NOBODY'S COMPLAINED ABOUT IT. I DON'T SEE WHY WE CARE THAT THAT BOAT IS SITTING RIGHT WHERE IT IS. >> I AGREE. >> I THINK THE SIDING IS THE ISSUE. >> THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IF YOU ALLOW THIS CITIZEN TO DO THIS, THEN THAT GIVES EVERYBODY ELSE LEEWAY TO DO THE SAME THING BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE FRONT OF HIS HOUSE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT THEN THEY'LL SAY, WELL, IF YOU LET THIS GENTLEMAN DO IT, HOW COME I CAN'T DO IT? HOW COME I CAN'T PUT IT IN MY FRONT YARD? >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE HAD A SPADE OF JUST GOING ON IN FERNANDINA BEACH, BUT THE ONLY REASON THIS IS EVEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION IS, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU OR SOMEBODY ELSE DROVE BY AND SAW IT. >> CORRECT. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE A CASE OF A BUNCH OF PEOPLE FOLLOWING WHATEVER THIS GUY IS DOING. >> I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE A MOTION EXCLUDING THE BOAT. >> I AGREE. >> THEN YOU JUST FIND THAT THERE'S NO VIOLATION. >> ON THE BOAT, BUT THERE'S A VIOLATION OF THE SIDING. >> SIDING IS CLEAR. >> WHEN I SAID FIND NO VIOLATION, THAT WOULD BE THE WAY TO ARTICULATE IT. THAT'S NOT MY OPINION. >> YOU'RE NOT INCORRECT, OFFICER WELLS. I JUST DON'T SEE WHY THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE I AGREE WITH THE SIDING AND IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT. >> CAN I MAKE A MOTION? >> PLEASE. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, THE HOUSE IN THIS CASE, FIND THEM IN VIOLATION WITH THE SIDING. HOW DO I SAY IT WITH THE BOAT? NO ACTION ON THE BOAT? >> NOT IN VIOLATION. >> NOT IN VIOLATION ON THE BOAT, AND THE SIDING IS TO BE REPLACED WITHIN 60 DAYS. >> I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION WAS 30 DAYS. IS THAT RIGHT, OFFICER WELLS? >> YES. >> YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY COMMUNICATION ALSO. THIRTY DAYS. >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD SAY WE WOULD ADD THE 42 DAYS SO THAT WE BE VERY ON CLEAR WHAT WE DO. >> ARE YOU CONSIDERING FINES OR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES? >> ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. I THINK IT SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY APPLIED. THEN FINES, IF HE DOESN'T MEET, TO MAKE EVERY DAY. >> WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE FINES? >> FIFTY DOLLARS PER DAY. >> IN 30 DAYS? >> THE BEGINNING OF JUNE 9TH 2024. >> THIS IS A TRUST. I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF A MOTION. >> IF I CAN HELP YOU, THIS IS A FAMILY TRUST. THEY ARE VERY PLUGGED IN IN THE COMMUNITY, VERY COMMUNICATIVE. THIS IS NOT A FAMILY THAT IS ALL OVER THE PLACE. NO. >> THAT'S MY MOTION. THEY FIND THE SIDING IN VIOLATION, DON'T FIND THE BOAT IN VIOLATION. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES BEGIN AT 30 DAYS WITH A FINE AFTER THAT OF $50. >> ADMINISTRATIVE FEES WILL JUST BE ASSESSED AFTER 30 DAYS. YOU MADE THE MOTION. WHO SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> MEMBER POSTMA. >> YES. >> MEMBER FOTIADES. >> YES. >> MEMBER THOMPSON. >> YES. >> VICE CHAIR STINES. >> YES. >> CHAIR KENT. >> YES. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT UP TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? [6. BOARD BUSINESS] >> I WAS GOING TO TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT JUST RESCHEDULING THE EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP THAT WE WANTED TO DO. THERE'S A FEW DATES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE END OF MAY, AND I JUST FEEL WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT. I HAVE MAY 21ST, 20TH, 24TH, 30TH, [01:00:02] OR WE CAN GO INTO JUNE. DOES ANY OF THOSE DATES NOT WORK FOR ANYBODY? >> 21ST WILL BE TOUGH. 30TH WOULD BE BEST FOR ME. >> 30TH WOULD BE BEST? >> OR ANY TIME THEREAFTER. >> THAT'S ON THURSDAY. >> WERE WE DOING THE THREE O'CLOCK OR WHAT WAS THE TIME? >> WE CAN DO WHATEVER WORKS FOR YOU ALL. >> WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY TRAINING BEFORE. >> [INAUDIBLE] FIRST. >> I WASN'T HERE. I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD IT ANYWAY. 30TH, WILL THAT WORK? >> THAT WORKS WITH ME. >> THAT'S FINE. >> HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE? >> TWO HOURS. >> TWO HOURS, HOUR AND A HALF. >> WHAT TIME? >> TWO HOURS PROBABLY, GIVE OR TAKE. >> GET SOME SNACKS. >> IS 3:00-5:00 OKAY? >> SURE. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> MEET HERE? >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? >> THREE O'CLOCK. >> WE MEET HERE. WAS THAT A YES? >> YES. I'LL SEND YOU ALL AN EMAIL AS WELL. >> IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> MOTION TO ADJOURN. NEXT MEETING. >> SECOND. >> I'LL SECOND AGAIN. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.