[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM]
[00:00:03]
>> BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU HAVE QUORUM?
>> GREAT. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND BLESSING.
LORD, THANK YOU FOR GIVING US A WONDERFUL PLACE AND WONDERFUL DAYS LIKE THIS AND PLEASE HELP US AND GUIDE US DURING OUR DELIBERATIONS. AMEN.
>> THANK YOU. HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW
[3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
THE MINUTES OF THE LAST CODE BOARD HEARING ON MAY 9, 2024?>> YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE MINUTES?
>> OKAY. GREAT. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT?
>> THANK YOU. APPEARS THAT THE MOTION HAS PASSED.
ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA, MADAM SECRETARY?
>> YES. ITEM 4.2 CICILA DAVIS TAYLOR CAME INTO COMPLIANCE.
>> THANK YOU. BOARD ATTORNEY, ARE YOU THE BOARD ATTORNEY FOR THIS EVENING, SIR?
>> WELL, NOT FOR THE ENTIRE EVENING. JUST FOR THE FIRST CASE.
>> GREAT. WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS?
>> SURE. GOOD EVENING, HARRISON POOL FROM POOL AND POOL, FILLING IN FOR MISS BACH ON THE FIRST CASE.
FOR THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS THIS EVENING.
THAT WILL BE A EVIDENTIARY HEARING, SO YOU'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION BY STAFF, AND THEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE OWNER OR THE REPRESENTATIVE TO ALSO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE.
NOW, TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE CAN BE PROVIDED EITHER THROUGH ORAL OR SWORN TESTIMONY AND ALSO DOCUMENTS.
EACH WITNESS TESTIFYING WILL NEED TO BE PLACED UNDER OATH, AND ANY PARTY THAT FEELS AGGRIEVED OR DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION OF THE BOARD WILL HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THAT IN THE NASSAU COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT AND THAT 30 DAYS WILL BEGIN UPON THE SIGNING OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE ORDER.
ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN EFFECT TONIGHT? NO. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. BOARD SECRETARY CAN YOU, EXCUSE ME, ARE THERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO ANY OF THE CASES ON THE AGENDA?
>> I DID DRIVE BY EACH ONE OF THE SITES.
>> MR. BRODSKY, ON THE FIRST CASE OUT OF 51, HE CONTACTED ME ASKING HOW TO SUBMIT INFORMATION TO THE BOARD, AND I STEERED HIM TO CRYSTAL EACH TIME.
I HAD NO COMMUNICATION REGARDING ANY ISSUE.
BOARD SECRETARY, PLEASE SWEAR IN ALL WITNESSES WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING IN THIS CASE, PLEASE.
>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY AND OR EVIDENCE THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE AND OR PRESENT IS THE TRUE, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> THANK YOU. THE FIRST CASE IS 4.1 DAVID BURT AUSTIN 522 S TRUMA DRIVE, CASE 2020 4-007,
[4.1 DAVID BERT AUSTIN, 522 CITRONA DR., CASE 2024-0077]
VIOLATION OF THE CITY AFFIRMATIVE EACH CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 58.9, USE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, ETC AS LIVING QUARTERS, PROHIBITED.THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH IS REQUESTING BOARD DETERMINATION OF THE CASE.
DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD?
>> YES. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT ALL EVIDENCE AND MY TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. THE CITY MAY NOW BEGIN.
>> ON FEBRUARY 23, THIS YEAR, THE CITY ENGINEER, CHARLES GEORGE SENT OUT A MEMO REGARDING A LARGE STRUCTURAL RESIDENTIAL FIRE AT 522 CITRONA DRIVE.
MARCH 26, 2024, AFTER RECEIVING A COMPLAINT ABOUT A GENERATOR RUNNING ON AND OFF 24/7, AND TWO TRAILERS RVS PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD BEING USED FOR LIVING QUARTERS, A POLICE OFFICER ESCORTED ME TO THIS ADDRESS TO INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINT.
WHEN WE APPROACHED, LADY CAME OUT OF ONE OF THE TRAILERS AND WENT TO GO GET MR. AUSTIN FOR US TO TALK TO.
THE POLICE HAD ALREADY TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE NOISE COMING FROM THE GENERATOR,
[00:05:01]
THE NEIGHBORS DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE GENERATOR, SO WE FOCUSED ON THE TRAILERS.I EXPLAINED TO MR. AUSTIN THAT THE TRAILERS COULD NOT BE PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD AND USED FOR LIVING QUARTERS.
HE TOLD ME THAT ONE OF THEM WAS BEING USED AS A CONSTRUCTION TRAILER DURING DEMOLITION.
I ASKED HIM IF WE COULD LOOK INSIDE TO CONFIRM THIS, AND HE SAID THAT THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS STAYING THERE WAS AT WORK, AND IT WOULDN'T BE PROPER.
I CONFIRMED WITH HIM THAT IT WAS INDEED BEING LIVED IN AND NOT A CONSTRUCTION TRAILER.
HE ADMITTED THAT SOMEONE WAS INDEED STAYING IN THE TRAILER.
I TOLD HIM THAT BOTH TRAILERS NEEDED TO BE REMOVED WITHIN THREE DAYS, HE TOLD ME THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM TO MOVE THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE.
I GAVE HIM A NOTICE OF VISIT WITH A VIOLATION AND REMEDY LISTED ON IT.
MARCH 27TH, 2024, STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF INVESTIGATIVE FORENSIC SERVICES, DETECTIVE REGAL SENT HIS REPORT OF THE STRUCTURAL FIRE LOCATED AT 522 CITRONA DRIVE.
APRIL 4TH, I RE INSPECTED THE PROPERTY NOTHING HAD CHANGED.
THERE WAS STILL TWO TRAILERS AND HE WAS STILL IN VIOLATION.
MAY 3RD, A NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER WAS MAILED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
ON MAY 10, THE RETURN RECEIPT CARD FOR CERTIFIED MAIL THAT WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE.
I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW UP INSPECTION.
ON MAY 21ST, ONE TRAILER HAD BEEN REMOVED, ONE REMAINED.
MAY 29, I PERFORMED A PRE AGENDA INSPECTION THE REMAINING TRAILER WAS STILL THERE.
I WENT OUT THERE AGAIN YESTERDAY, STILL THERE WENT OUT AGAIN TODAY, IT'S STILL THERE.
SINCE MY ORIGINAL CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ON MARCH 26, I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM MR. AUSTIN.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 58-9, USE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AS LIVING QUARTERS OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AND THAT THE REMAINING TRAILER BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY.
THE RESPONDENT HAS TO PAY ALL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ACCRUED UNTIL COMPLIANCE IS REACHED, ASSESS A $50 FINE PER DAY FOR VIOLATION BEGINNING JUNE 17, 11 DAYS FROM TODAY, IF NOT COMPLIANCE BY THE SAME DATE. CITY RES.
ONE TRAIL HAS BEEN REMOVED IT WAS EMPTY, THE SECOND ONE IS THERE AND SOMEONE'S LIVING IN IT?
THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I WENT OUT.
>> IS THERE A RESPONDENT HERE TO DISCUSS THE CASE?
>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO DISCUSS THE CASE?
>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO PRESENT IN THIS CASE MISS MICHELLE?
>> PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK FOR OR GETS THIS CASE?
>> IT APPEARS THAT PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT CLOSED.
BOARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? THOUGHTS?
>> I RECOMMEND WE ACCEPT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FINES, VIOLATIONS, AND EVENTUAL LIENS.
>> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> THAT'S MY MOTION. I'M SORRY.
>> IS THERE ANY DELIBERATION BEFORE THE MOTION?
>> DOES THIS VIOLATE ANYTHING OTHER THAN CODE ENFORCEMENT, SOMEONE LIVING IN THIS?
>> AS FAR AS SOMEBODY LIVING IN THE RV, THE TRAILER, THAT'S THE 58-9.
THAT'S THE CODE THAT IS IN VIOLATION FROM SOMEBODY LIVING IN THAT TRAILER.
>> IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING IS BEING DEMOLISHED?
>> AS FAR AS THE DEMOLITION, YES, IT WAS, AND THEN THERE WAS MATERIAL PUT BACK ON THE ROOF.
THERE'S A STOP WORK ORDER ON IT.
>> I SEE. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT WAS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED? WAS IT THE FIRE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS ISN'T THIS CASE, BUT IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE UNINHABITABLE,
[00:10:05]
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT WORD.THE WHOLE THING WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED.
>> MR. AUSTIN'S THE PROPERTY OWNER?
>> YOU SPOKE WITH HIM ON MARCH 26TH? [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT HE'S NOT LIVING IN THE TRAILER?
>> HE IS NOT THE ONE THAT'S LIVING IN THE TRAILER. NO, SIR.
>> THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME.
THIS RESIDENCE HAS BEEN BROKE CODE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH, I THOUGHT SO. GREAT. ANY OTHER DELIBERATION OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
>> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT MOTION SINCE WE HAD DELIBERATION IN THE MIDDLE?
>> SURE. I SO MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION FOR FINES, ADMINISTRATION FEES, AND EVENTUAL LIEN AS STATED IN THE EVIDENCE.
MAKE A MOTION FINDING THE PROPERTY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCES AND THEN ASSESSING THE COSTS AND THE FINES TO ACCRUE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>> I'D LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION THEN. [LAUGHTER]
>> TO REFLECT WHAT HE SAID? [LAUGHTER]
>> IF YOU GOT THAT, MS. CRYSTAL.
>> OKAY, GO AHEAD. I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN VIOLATION, AND THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITY OF FINES, ADMINISTRATION FEES, AND LIENS BE IMPOSED IF THE PROPERTY DOESN'T COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE TIME-FRAME STATED IN THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> YOU'RE SECONDING? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I SECOND THE MOTION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SECOND? OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? BOARD SECRETARY WOULD RESTATE THE MOTION AND CALL THE QUESTION. YES.
FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 58-9, USE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, ETC AS LIVING QUARTERS PROHIBITED AND THAT THE REMAINING TRAILER TO BE MOVED FROM THE PROPERTY.
THE RESPONDENT HAS TO PAY ALL OF ENTRY TO FEES ACCRUED UNTIL COMPLIANCE IS REACHED, ASSESS THE $50 FINE PER DAY PER VIOLATION BEGINNING ON JUNE 17TH, 11 DAYS, AND IF NOT COMPLIANCE BY THE SAME [INAUDIBLE] SO BASICALLY IT'S JUST OKAY.
>> CAN YOU CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE?
>> YES. THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
>> NOW, I'LL TURN YOU OVER TO THE VERY CAPABLE HANDS OF MS. BARB.
>> MS. BARB. THANK YOU, MR. FOOL. APPRECIATE IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MADAM CHAIR, IF I MIGHT JUST EXPLAIN FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW.
WHENEVER CITY STAFF HAS DISCUSSED THIS CASE WITH ME AND ASKED FOR ADVICE, AND SO I TECHNICALLY HAVE A CONFLICT BECAUSE I'M STAFF'S ATTORNEY WHEN I GIVE THEM ADVICE, SO WE CALL MR. FOOL IN TO COVER THAT CONFLICT.
>> WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP.
>> MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, CHAIR. HAVE A WONDERFUL EVENING. THANK YOU.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO SIT THERE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN I CHANGE ROUTE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> [INAUDIBLE] EVERYONE. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> LET'S MOVE ON TO OLD BUSINESS.
[5.1 MICHAEL BRODSKY, 502 STANLEY DR., CASE 2023-0271]
502 STANLEY DR. CASE 2023-0271.PROPERTY OWNER IS PETITIONING FOR FINE REDUCTION AS REQUESTING OR DETERMINATION OF THE CASE.
WHERE'S THE CITY GO? DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO PRESENT THIS EVENING?
>> NO. I'LL ASK MR. BRODSKY IF HE'D COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND MAKE HIS CASE TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD.
>> MR. BRODSKY? OH, TWO MR. BRODSKYS? [LAUGHTER]
>> ALL RIGHT. TWINS. [LAUGHTER]
>> YOU HAVE TO BE SWORN IN FIRST OR YOU HAVE TO STATE YOUR NAME.
>> THEY DID THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> DID THAT ALREADY? [OVERLAPPING] OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> HI. MY NAME IS MIKE BRODSKY, AND I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE IN FERNANDINA BEACH FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS AND VERY MUCH ENJOYING IT.
UNFORTUNATELY, OVER THE LAST YEAR, I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH COMPLICATIONS FROM CANCER TREATMENT THAT ARE ONGOING AND HAVE REALLY TAKEN UP A LOT OF MY TIME AND WHATNOT.
I'VE GOT MY PARTNER, ALAN DILLARD HERE WITH ME, WHO MET WITH MICHELLE,
[00:15:03]
AND TAYLOR WHEN WE HAD A MEETING, AND HE'S BEEN HELPING ME WITH THE WHOLE SITUATION, AND HE'D BE ABLE TO GIVE A MUCH MORE SUCCINCT RECAP OF THE SITUATION WITH THE FENCE.>> I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. [OVERLAPPING]
>> GLAD YOU'RE GETTING BETTER. [OVERLAPPING]
THANK YOU. THIS IS ALAN DILLARD.
>> STEP UP TO MIC. [OVERLAPPING]
>> ALAN DILLARD. I'M AT 314 SOUTH 14TH STREET HERE IN FERNANDINA BEACH.
CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
AS MIKE MENTIONED, HE'S HAD SOME COMPLICATIONS WITH SOME HEALTH ISSUES, AND SOME OF THE MEDICATIONS AND THINGS THAT HE'S BEEN GOING THROUGH GIVE HIM, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, EXTREME BRAIN FOG, AND SO I WANTED JUST TO RELAY TO YOU IN A VERY SHORT, CONCISE MANNER, NOT TRYING TO DISPUTE ANYTHING THAT THE CITY HAS WRITTEN OR ANYTHING THAT IS WRITTEN UP, TIMELINES MATCH UP PERFECTLY ON EVERYTHING.
THE LONG AND SHORT OF THE SCENARIO THAT WE'VE RAN INTO IS THAT AT THE VERY FIRST OF MARCH, WHENEVER HE WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE FENCE WAS OUT OF COMPLIANCE, AND IT WAS A BRAND NEW BEAUTIFUL FENCE.
WELL BUILT, WELL CONSTRUCTED, LOOKS AMAZING, AND IT WAS COVERING UP A DILAPIDATED FALLING APART FENCE.
HAVING SAID THAT, IT STILL WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES FOR FENCING.
IT WAS MIKE'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ISSUE WAS WITH THE LATTICE PIECE THAT WAS AT THE TOP THAT EXCEEDED THE SIX-FOOT HEIGHT BARRIER, AND SO MIKE REMOVED THAT AND HAD IT REMOVED BEFORE THE TIME-FRAME THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE CITY.
HE SENT THAT EMAIL AND THAT COMMUNICATION IN WHICH THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGED.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WAS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE WAS THERE.
AFTER MULTIPLE COMMUNICATIONS GOING BACK AND FORTH, AND Y'ALL HAD ALREADY HAD A MEETING AND ASSESSED FINES, STARTED THAT PROCESS, AFTER I READ ALL THE DOCUMENTATION WITH HIM AND SIT DOWN AND TALK WITH HIM AND GOT HIM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS HAPPENING, WE CAME DOWN AND MET WITH MICHELLE AND TAYLOR.
THEY WERE VERY KIND TO MEET WITH US.
THEY VERY KINDLY EXPLAINED THIS IS THE PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED.
ON THAT FRIDAY, THAT DATE WAS ACTUALLY, JUST SO THAT I GET IT RIGHT, I CAN TELL YOU THIS 19TH OF APRIL, ON THAT SAME DAY, WE WENT AND TOOK A PICTURE OF A THE FENCE VERY SIMILAR TO THE AREA, BROUGHT IT DOWN.
TAYLOR SAID, WE TOTALLY APPROVE THAT.
COMPLETED. EVERYTHING BROUGHT UP TO CODE.
PICTURES WERE TAKEN, EMAIL WAS SENT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT, WHICH THEY ACKNOWLEDGED AND SAID, EVERYTHING LOOKS GREAT.
WE'LL INSPECT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S RIGHT.
ALL I'M TRYING TO BRING TO YOU IS THAT YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS NOT TRYING TO TEAR DOWN FERNANDINA, BUT ACTUALLY BEAUTIFY IT.
HE PUT IN A WONDERFULLY CONSTRUCTED, BEAUTIFUL FENCE THAT WAS OUT OF CODE.
HE DID WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO BRING IT INTO CODE ONCE HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.
THERE WAS GAPS IN HIS UNDERSTANDING.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LONG TIME PERIOD.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT APRIL 7TH, APRIL 19TH, AND AS SOON AS HE FINDS OUT 19TH THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, HE ACTED QUICKLY, HIRED SOMEONE.
THEY GOT OUT THERE THAT WEEKEND. THEY DID IT.
HE WASN'T TRYING TO NOT COMPLY, AND SO WITH THAT, ALL WE CAN DO IS COME TO YOU AND KINDLY ASK THAT AS HIS NEIGHBORS AND CITIZENS THAT YOU WOULD BE SO KIND AS TO SET ASIDE OR RESCIND THE FINES THAT ACCRUED DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, AS HE DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND REALLY WHAT WAS GOING ON, WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE WAS NO MALICE OR ANYTHING ON HIS PART TO TRY TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE CITY OR THIS BOARD.
>> THANK YOU. WOULD THE CITY LIKE TO CROSS EXAMINE AT ALL?
>> OKAY. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENTS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN YOU JUST WALK ME THROUGH THE DATES AGAIN?
>> THE RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN UNTIL APRIL THE 6TH AND THE FINES WERE TO START ON APRIL 7TH IF THEY WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY THAT DATE.
ACCORDING TO OUR RECORDS, THE DATE SPAN FOR THE FINES FROM APRIL 7TH TO APRIL 22, WHICH IS A TOTAL OF 15 DAYS FOR $50 PER DAY, SO THE FINES ARE $750 AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ARE $234.92 FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF $984.92.
>> OFFICER WELLS, THE VIOLATIONS FOR BOTH THE PERMIT NOT BEING PULLED IN ADDITION TO THE LATTICE BEING ON TOP?
>> BASED ON THE PERMIT IN THE FILE,
[00:20:02]
IT LOOKS LIKE AT LEAST THEY GOT HALF OF IT DONE.>> THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVED THIS PERMIT ALONG WITH THE INSTALLATION ON THE 22ND, OR MAYBE IT WAS THE 23RD.
BUT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THEY DID THE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION OF THE PHOTOS AND ALL THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENT.
>> THEY'RE FULLY IN COMPLIANCE?
>> WAS WAS THE PERMIT CLEAR THAT THEY COULD NOT PUT LATTICE UP OR WAS THAT A GRAY AREA?
>> THAT WAS MORE OF THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION WHEN WE CITED HIM INITIALLY THAT FIRST, THERE WAS NO.
I THINK HE HAD APPLIED FOR A PERMIT WAY BACK WHEN AND THEN I THINK THAT HE REACTIVATED THAT PERMIT TO GET THAT PERMIT AGGRAVATED.
BUT THIS FENCE THAT HE PUT UP, IT HAD THAT LATTICE THAT WAS ON TOP, WHICH TOOK IT INTO VIOLATION ALONG WITH HIM NOT, APPLYING FOR A FENCE PERMIT.
>> THE LATTICE WAS REMOVED PRIOR TO THE APRIL 6TH DATE WITH THE FINE STARTING ON THE 7TH.
THE LATTICE WAS REMOVED ON APRIL 4TH WITH PICTURES SENT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF IT.
THAT'S WHY HE THOUGHT HE WAS IN COMPLIANCE.
IT WASN'T UNTIL THE 19TH, THAT WE FOUND OUT THAT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY ALSO WANTED THE BACK SIDE OF THE FENCE IN A MANNER THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY AS BEING A FINISHED FACING TO THE OTHER SIDE.
THAT WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD AT THAT TIME.
WE WENT AND TOOK A PICTURE OF OF ANOTHER FENCE.
THEY SAID, YES, IF YOU DO THAT, IT'S IN COMPLIANCE, AND HE GOT THAT ACCOMPLISHED.
THAT WAS REALLY ABOVE AND BEYOND AND ADDITIONAL EXPENSE, BUT HE SHOULDERED IT.
HE DID IT IMMEDIATELY. NO PUSH BACK ON IT.
THE GAP OF TIME BETWEEN THE FINES STARTING ON THE SEVENTH AND 22ND WAS ALL OVER SOMETHING THAT REALLY WASN'T UNDERSTOOD PRIOR TO THE FINES BEING ISSUED.
WHAT WAS UNDERSTOOD WAS TO REMOVE THE LATTICE AND HE HAD THAT DONE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> WELL, I GUESS MAYBE JUST SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT.
THE LATTICE WAS DOWN BEFORE THE SEVENTH.
THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED BEFORE THE SEVENTH.
>> WELL, THE COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY APPROVED WHICH DID THE FINAL INSPECTION ON THAT DEFENSE PERMIT, WHICH SHE APPROVED IT, WHICH THAT MEANS THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THAT CASE AT THAT POINT.
SHE'S THE ONE THAT DOES ON THE I THINK IT WAS TAYLOR HARTMAN.
>> SHE'S THE ONE THAT APPROVED THE PERMIT AND ALSO APPROVED THE INSTALLATION AND MARKED IT IN COMPLIANCE.
>> I'VE GOT AN EMAIL FROM HER THAT SAID PERFECT.
THIS IS JUST WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
>> YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT, MR. WELLS.
>> CAN MR. PROWSKI SUBMIT THAT AS EVIDENCE TO THE CITY?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE YOU TALK ABOUT ON THE SEVENTH OR I DON'T KNOW IF I.
>> WE CAN. THERE'S AN EMAIL THAT WE HAVE. I NEED TO PULL IT.
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT EMAIL, I'M VERY SORRY, WITH ME.
>> THAT WAS THE APRIL 10TH EMAIL FROM TAYLOR, THANK FOR THE PHOTOS ON THE FENCE, PASS TO BE ISSUED? THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 22ND WAS THE SECOND.
>> YOU HAD TWO THINGS THAT OCCURRED?
ON APRIL 22ND, TAYLOR RESPONDED THANKING ME FOR THE PHOTOS, STATING THAT FOR PLANNING THIS SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS AND I WAS IN COMPLIANCE.
>> PROBABLY WAS THE FIRST ONE ON APRIL 10TH.
SHE DID SEND EMAIL SAYING THAT THE LATTICE WAS DOWN AND THAT WAS IN COMPLIANCE.
THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE OF THE FACING, WHICH WASN'T REALLY UNDERSTOOD ON THE FRONT END.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO THROW ROCKS OR ANYTHING.
IT'S JUST THAT WHAT WAS UNDERSTOOD WAS THAT, HEY, IT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE BECAUSE OF LATTICE, SO THE LATTICE CAME DOWN AND THEN IT WAS, IT'S STILL OUT OF COMPLIANCE BECAUSE OF THE BACKSIDE.
SOON AS HE UNDERSTOOD THAT, HE ACTED WITHIN 48 HOURS AND HAD IT COMPLETED.
IT'S NOT A SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY WAS TRYING TO PUSH BACK OR NOT DO WHAT WAS ASKED.
>> IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE? ANY PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.
IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHES TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE CASE AT HAND? BOARD DISCUSSION, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[00:25:04]
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD'S PART?>> AT WHAT POINT WERE THE ADVENT FEES?
>> CHAIRMAN, YOU CAN SIT DOWN.
>> WELL, WHEN YOU FOUND HIM IN VIOLATION, ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT FROM MARCH 7TH, THAT'S ACTUALLY WHEN THE CD JOHN, LET'S SEE.
YOU SAY WAY OUT HERE SO I CAN SEE IT.
>> IT DOES SAY TO ASSESS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AT THAT TIME.
THE FEES WERE PART OF THE VIOLATION.
>> BUT DID THEY CONTINUE? I THINK THAT NUMBER 40 IS ASKING, DID THEY CONTINUE BEYOND THE HEARING DATE?
>> NO. THESE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES WERE AS OF MARCH 7TH, 2024.
>> IT APPEARS THAT THEY TRIED VERY HARD TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, WHICH PROBABLY IS VERY MINUTE WHERE MY MIND IS HEADING WITH THIS ANYWAY.
I THINK YOU SAID THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES WERE 234.92?
BUT I SEE THAT THERE IS A $23.5 FINE FOR FEE FOR RECORD FINDINGS OF FACTS.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHICH ONE IS ACCURATE.
IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, BUT FOR THE RECORD, I'D LIKE IT TO BE THE RIGHT ONE.
>> WELL, ACCORDING TO WHAT I HAVE, THE 234.92 IS WHAT I HAVE.
NOW, ONE THING TO STAKE IN MIND ABOUT THIS CASE.
THIS CASE STARTED BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S OUT OF REASON.
>> DO YOU WANT TO ASK ABOUT THIS TREATMENT? HE'S TALKING ABOUT CANCER TREATMENT. DO YOU WANT TO ASK THAT?
>> ANY OTHER DELIBERATION FROM THE BOARD?
>> GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, AND TWO OUT OF THE THREE VIOLATIONS WERE SATISFIED WITHIN IT.
I GUESS I'M FEELING THAT, A THIRD OF THE FEES WOULD BE REASONABLE RATHER.
>> TO REDUCE BY THIRD OR WHAT DO YOU SAY?
>> REDUCE BY TWO THIRDS AS OPPOSED TO $750 FOR THE FINES, IT WOULD BE $250, THEN THE ADMIN FEES. THAT'S HOW I'M FEELING.
>> I JUST WANT TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THIS WAS REMOVED, THE RECORDING FINDINGS OF FACTS BECAUSE HE IS IN COMPLIANCE AND HE WAS GOING TO TRY TO GET IT ALL SETTLED UP.
AS OF NOW THIS ONE WAS REMOVED FOR THAT, THIS WOULD BE.
>> WHICH ONE WAS REMOVED, CRYSTAL? I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.
>> WE DID RECORD THAT. THE 234.92 IS THE LAST, THAT'S THE ADMIN FEES.
IT WENT DOWN BECAUSE OF THAT BEING REMOVED.
>> BUT NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED NOW.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FINES.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO FIND THE VIOLATION AND TO DISMISS ALL FINES AND FINE THE ADMIN FEES DUE OF 234.
>> THAT MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I CAN'T SECOND, CORRECT?
>> NO. UNLESS YOU CAN PASS GAVEL WILL SECOND AND THEN THE VICE CHAIR KEEPS GAVELS IN THE END OF THE CASE.
>> IT APPEARS THAT MOTION HAS NOT FALL THROUGH.
DO I HAVE A SECOND WITH ANOTHER MOTION?
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REDUCE THE FINES RATHER BY TWO THIRDS.
I FIND THE DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION, AND INCLUDE THE ADMINISTRATION TO RESOLVE THE CASE.
>> THAT MOTION HAS NOT GOTTEN A SECOND.
>> EXPLAIN THE FEE, THE FINES AGAIN.
>> I GOT THE END. WE GET THAT.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THE PERCENT OF THE FINES.
>> I THINK IT'S $750 AT THIS POINT, TWO-THIRDS REDUCTION WOULD BRING IT DOWN TO $250 PLUS THE ADMINISTRATION FEES.
[00:30:03]
>> WHAT I SEE, BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION, IS THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT REALLY ARE NOT OF OUR BUSINESS IN SOME REGARDS, I BELIEVE.
I ALSO THINK THAT IT APPEARS TO ME THAT A LOT OF EFFORT WAS DONE TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
IT WASN'T A MATTER OF NOT RESPONDING WHEN WE REACHED OUT.
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF JUST DUCKING OUT ON THINGS NOT BEING AVAILABLE.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO FIND THEM IN VIOLATION, ADMINISTRATIVE FEES OF $100, FINES REMOVED.
>> THAT ALSO FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
>> GUYS, I DIDN'T MEAN TO SAY THAT.
THAT WAS TOO INFORMAL. BOARD MEMBERS, MY ADVICE TO YOU IS TO START CHATTING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING.
>> WHAT CAN YOU GUYS AGREE ON? WHAT CAN THIS BOARD AGREE ON?
>> WHAT DO WE AGREE UPON WITH ADMIN FEES?
>> ADMIN FEES, [OVERLAPPING] DON'T TOUCH IT.
>> NO. I THINK I AGREE WITH THAT.
>> HOW ABOUT THE DAILY FINES OF $750. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT?
>> IT APPEARS WE HAVE CONSENSUS BY TWO.
>> IS ANYBODY UP FOR ANOTHER MOTION?
>> THEN MEMBER CRESCI, IS THERE ANY COMMENT?
>> I KNOW WE DON'T HEAR FROM HER. MEMBER CRESCI, CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS?
>> I CAN HEAR, BUT THE AUDIO IS NOT EXCEPTIONAL.
>> WE'RE LOOKING AT KEEPING THE ADMIN FEES AND REMOVING THE DAILY FINES OF $50, THE $750. DID YOU HEAR THAT?
>> THIS WAS THE FIRST MOTION, RIGHT?
>> NO. WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT MOTION AT ALL.
>> WE'RE KEEPING THE FEES, WAIVING ALL THE FINE?
>> WE HAVE NOT MADE THAT MOTION, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO FIND THE PROPERTY [OVERLAPPING] IN VIOLATION TO CARRY OVER THE FEES OF $234.92 AND TO WAIVE THE FINES.
>> BOARD SECRETARY? WOULD YOU CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE?
>> DO YOU NEED THAT REPEATED, MS. CRYSTAL?
>> FINAL PROPERTY IN VIOLATION, ASSESSMENT ADMIN FEES, AND WAIVE THE DAILY FINES.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. YOU JUST COME TO SEE TAYLOR HERE AND ALL?
>> NO, IT'S NOT. LAW ENFORCEMENT'S OFFICE.
>> DO I GO FORWARD OR DO I COME DOWN?
>> WE CAN DO THAT, OR YOU JUST COME DOWN AND WE'LL GET YOU SEE [INAUDIBLE] ON THERE.
>> BUT WE'LL WORK WITH YOU. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND THANK YOU, COUNCILORS.
>> THANKS FOR COMING. GREAT. OUR NEXT CASE.
[5.3 JAMES JOHN O'CONNER TRUST, 703 GARDEN STREET, CASE 2024-0029]
ITEM 5.3, JAMES JOHN O'CONNOR, TRUST 703 GARDEN STREET, CASE 2024-0029.VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCE.
>> EXISTING SECTION 42-117, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE.
MAINTENANCE BOARD DETERMINATION TO IMPOSE DAILY FINES IS REQUESTED.
DO YOU HAVE ANY PRESENTATIONS, MR. GEORGE?
IF YOU RECALL, YOU GUYS DECIDED TO NOT FIND THE BOAT IN VIOLATION, SO WE'RE REALLY ONLY TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPAIRS TO THE EXTERIOR SIDING AS OF THIS MORNING.
[00:35:05]
I HAVE TRIED TO REACH HIM AND LEFT HIM VOICEMAILS.I THINK CRYSTAL HAS A PICTURE OF THAT PICTURE THIS MORNING.
[OVERLAPPING] THEY THE JUNK CASE.
>> THAT'S OKAY. WE CAN HANDLE THIS ONE.
I'M AWARE. I WAS GOING TO GET CHAIR BACK.
>> THAT'S OKAY. WE GOT IT RIGHT THERE.
THE TESTIMONY IS THE PROPERTY IS STILL IN VIOLATION.
THIS IS THE HOUSE IN WHICH YOU REMEMBER ON THE RIVER, THE TWO STORY HOUSE THAT WAS MISSING THE SIDING.
AND MR. WELLS IS SAYING THAT NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE.
THE BOARD DETERMINED IN ITS MOTION, I BELIEVE THAT WE COME BACK TO THIS MEETING IF IT'S STILL IN VIOLATION THAT YOU ALL WOULD CONSIDER.
>> GOT IT. IS THE RESPONDENT PRESENT TO REPRESENT THIS CASE?
>> MAY I ASK A QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR?
>> YES, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
HAS THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE BENEFICIARIES OR TRUSTEES OF THIS TRUST, HAVE THEY BEEN IN CONTACT WITH YOU?
>> INITIALLY, WE WENT BACK AND FORTH.
I WOULD CALL HIM, HE WOULD CALL ME.
I'D BE OUT OF THE OFFICE, HE'D LEAVE ME A MESSAGE.
THEN I'D CALL HIM AND LEAVE HIM A MESSAGE.
JUST LIKE, I THINK IT WAS MONDAY, I CALLED HIM AND LEFT A MESSAGE FOR HIM TO CALL ME.
>> WHO WERE YOU COMMUNICATING WITH?
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD. I DID DRIVE BY THE SITE, SO I DID HAVE AN EXPERT.
>> YOU MENTIONED THAT EARLIER, SO THANK YOU.
>> PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO REPRESENT THE CASE? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BOARD MEMBERS, YOU GOT ANY DELIBERATION ON THIS CASE?
>> CAN YOU JUST GO THROUGH THE DATES AGAIN REAL QUICK.
>> THE BOARD FOUND IN VIOLATION OF 42-117, EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION.
YOU DECIDED THAT A FINE OF $50 PER DAY WOULD BEGIN ON JUNE 9TH TO BE ACCESSED HERE AT JUNE 6TH MEETING.
LIKE I SAID, THERE'S BEEN NO REPAIRS MADE TO THE STRUCTURE WHATSOEVER AS OF TODAY.
>> ANY OTHER DELIBERATION? MS. CRESCI, YOU GOT ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M IN 882 SO I WROTE UP EXACTLY THE REST OF THE REPORT.
>> DO I HAVE A MOTION FROM COURT?
>> JUNE 9TH, THE FINE BEGINS, $50 A DAY?
>> YES. BEGINNING ON JUNE 9TH, 2024.
>> THAT'S THREE DAYS FROM NOW.
>> I GUESS MY FEELING IS OFFICER WELLS HAS TRIED HIS BEST TO CONTACT THIS INDIVIDUAL.
HE WAS GIVEN EVERY NOTICE AND EVERY CHANCE TO APPEAR BEFORE US, ACTUALLY TWO CHANCES TO APPEAR BEFORE US.
>> LET'S FINE HIM. LIKE MS. MOCK MENTIONED EARLIER AT THE LAST MEETING, THIS IS A VERY PROMINENT FAMILY, AND I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S BEEN NO COMMUNICATION BACK TOWARDS OUR OFFICE ABOUT THIS CASE.
>> THERE ARE NO EMAILS OR ANYTHING?
>> THEY JUST CALLED, LEAVE MESSAGES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT WAS ALL THROUGH PHONE CALLS.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN VIOLATION.
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY OF $50 A DAY STARTING ON JUNE THE 9TH AND ADMINISTRATION FEES BE APPLIED UNTIL THE PROPERTY COMES INTO COMPLIANCE.
>> WHAT ARE THE ADMIN FEES AGAIN?
>> THE ADMIN FEES I HAVE ARE 250.26, BUT IF I GUESS WE'RE TAKING THAT 23.50, Y'ALL, THEN IT WOULD BE.
>> OKAY. THE ADMIN FEE, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, $250.26.
>> DO YOU GET THAT, MS. CRYSTAL?
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU CALL A VOTE, PLEASE?
[00:40:03]
>> YES. THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
[5.2 LINDA F. HOWISON, 213 N 3RD ST., CASE 2024-0014]
NOW, GO BACK TO THE CASE THAT I JUMPED OVER, AND I DO APOLOGIZE, ITEM 5.2, LINDA HOWSON, 213 NORTH 3RD STREET, CASE 2024-0014, VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 42-117, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE.BOARD DETERMINATION TO IMPOSE DAILY FINES IS REQUESTED.
MR. GEORGE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO PRESENT?
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE GIVE THIS RESPONDENT AN EXTENSION.
MS. HOWSON'S SON SENT ME A VERY HEARTFELT EMAIL YESTERDAY AND IT'S RATHER LENGTHY.
>> HE'S ALSO ON ZOOM, SO HE COULD PROBABLY SPEAK.
HE'S ALREADY STARTED THE REPAIRS.
ACTUALLY, HE'S DONE THE MAJORITY OF THE REPAIRS EXCEPT FOR THE GARAGE THAT HAS THE SIDING THAT NEEDS TO BE TREATED FOR RUST AND BE RE-COATED.
I HAVE FULL ASSURANCE THAT HE IS GOING TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT, SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE GIVE THIS RESPONDENT AN EXTENSION TO HOWEVER LONG YOU FEEL FOR THAT.
I FEEL THAT IT WILL BE IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE.
I KNOW THAT HE'S HAVING SOME MEDICAL DEALINGS WITH HIS MOTHER, AND THAT MAY TAKE UP SOME OF THIS TIME FOR THE END OF JUNE, BUT I WOULD SAY WITHIN AT LEAST 60 DAYS HE'LL HAVE THIS DONE.
HE DID SPEAK TO THIS BECAUSE HE'S ON.
>> WHAT ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE FEES?
>> WELL, ANYTIME YOU GUYS FIND HIM IN VIOLATION, THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ARE APPLICABLE.
YOU-ALL DID VOTE TO FIND HIM IN VIOLATION AND TO ASSESS THE ADMIN FEES, BUT THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION ON THAT.
I WOULD WAIVE ALL FINES WHATSOEVER BECAUSE THIS GENTLEMAN HAS DONE A MAGNIFICENT JOB WITH THIS, AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT HE'S GOING TO COMPLETE THESE REPAIRS.
I CAUGHT THE MOST OF THAT OR OF COURSE OR THE TAIL END OF THAT.
WE DO HAVE EVERYTHING 90% COMPLETE.
ALL OF THE ITEMS WE WENT THROUGH I WORK THAT WORKED OFF, AND THEN I JUST RAN OUT OF TIME BETWEEN VISITING MY MOTHER IN THE HOSPITAL AND GETTING THE GARAGE PAINTED.
I WENT BY AND GOT CORRECT PAINT FOR THE METAL.
WHEN I COME BACK DOWN A FEW WEEKS FOR MY MOTHER'S NEXT APPOINTMENT, THEN I'LL GET THAT PAINTED UP AND FINISHED OFF.
I APOLOGIZE FOR EVEN HAVING TO BE HERE.
THE MESSAGE WAS NOT RECEIVED WITH MY MOTHER THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AND AND SHE'S IN THE HOSPITAL, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR EVERYBODY'S TIME BEING WASTED, HAVING TO TELL US TO DO WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO EVERY YEAR ANYWAY. THANK YOU-ALL.
>> THANK YOU. MR. WELLS, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> NO OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT I KNOW THAT HE WILL COMPLETE THE REPAIRS AND THAT WOULD BE UP TO YOU AS FAR AS THE ADMIN FEES.
>> HOW LONG WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE GIVE THIS?
>> DO YOU HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT?
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK, MR. ROSS?
>> IN THE FUTURE, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR, DON'T INTERRUPT THE CHAIR WHEN SHE'S ASKING A QUESTION OF STATUS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. WOW. THAT'S A FIRST.
>> I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU WERE HAVING A CONVERSATION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] NORTH 3RD STREET. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET.
AFTER THE HEARING LAST MONTH, WHENEVER IT WAS, I WENT ACROSS THE STREET AND TALKED WITH LINDA.
IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT ALL WAS NOT WELL WITH HER AND SHE ENDED UP IN THE HOSPITAL HAVING MAJOR BRAIN SURGERY.
THAT PROBLEM THAT WAS THERE, I THINK IMPEDED HER UNDERSTANDING OF GETTING THE CERTIFIED LETTER,
[00:45:02]
AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.OVER THE WEEKEND JUST THE SON WHO'S BEHIND ME, WAS DOWN THERE FIXING THE HOUSE UP AND DOING A VERY GOOD JOB TAKING CARE OF THAT.
I WOULD URGE YOU TO NOT ONLY WAIVE THE FINES, BUT TO WAIVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES BECAUSE I DON'T THINK SHE HAD A CLUE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE IF SHE HAD, OR IF THE SON HAD KNOWN, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE AND TAKEN CARE OF THE PROBLEM.
I THINK THERE WAS A LARGE MISCOMMUNICATION BASED UPON HER MEDICAL CONDITION.
I WOULD URGE YOU TO NOT ONLY GET RID OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
I'M SPEAKING AS THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET, WHO'S KNOWN THEM FOR A LONG TIME, AND THEY'VE BEEN EXCELLENT NEIGHBORS. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? MR. ROSS.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO PUT EVERYTHING ON ICE FOR ANOTHER MONTH.
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH US EXTENDING.
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WAIVING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
>> WE STILL HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
>> COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> IT'S OKAY. RUTH HOWSON DUNCAN, I'M HER DAUGHTER.
AS HER CHILDREN, WE WERE UNAWARE OF ANYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON.
NOW WITH HER SURGERY AND EVERYTHING, WE ARE MORE INFORMED ABOUT THINGS.
SHE WILL NOT BE LEAVING THE HOSPITAL UNTIL THE 14TH, AND THEN SHE WILL BE STAYING WITH SOMEONE TO HELP HER CARE.
SHE WILL NOT BE BACK IN THE HOME FOR AT LEAST A MONTH THAT WE KNOW OF.
MY BROTHER LIVES IN VIRGINIA, SO AS MUCH TIME AS WHAT YOU CAN GIVE US WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
>> MS. RUTH, DO YOU LIVE IN TOWN?
>> THANK YOU. I'M SORRY ABOUT YOUR MOM. THANK YOU FOR COMING UP.
>> IF I MAY, DUE TO THE FACT THAT, WITH MY MOTHER'S SITUATION, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH CRYSTAL AT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE, AND THEY'VE ADDED ME AS THE CONTACT FOR THE RESIDENT.
>> SO THE MAIL AND EMAIL, THE PHONE NUMBER DON'T GO TO HER, ENDED UP ON DEAF EARS.
I'LL ANSWERED AS THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU, DAN I'M SORRY ABOUT YOUR MOM.
>> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? GREAT. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
BOARD MEMBERS, ANY DELIBERATION? WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT?
>> WE WERE THINKING 60 DAYS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THESE?
>> I WOULD THINK SO. I THINK THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE.
DOES HE HIRE PEOPLE, OR COME DOWN AND DO IT HIMSELF?
>> WELL, I THINK HE DID THE WORK HIMSELF BECAUSE LAST TIME, I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE STATED.
>> NOW WHAT'S LEFT IS THE PAINTING OF THE GARAGE.
OF COURSE, I KNOW HE WANTS TO REPLACE THAT SIDING THAT HE REPLACED, EVEN THOUGH IT LOOKS GOOD FROM THE STREET, BUT HE'S GOING TO TRY TO GET SOMETHING TO MATCH THE SIDING THAT WAS ON THERE ORIGINALLY.
HE'S GOT THAT TO DO, BUT THE SIDING THAT'S ON THERE LOOKS REALLY GOOD.
IT MATCHES. TO ME, LOOKS VERY WELL.
>> IN THE BOARD'S DELIBERATION, HOW MANY DAYS WOULD YOU THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE?
>> SIXTY OR MORE, 60 OR 90? SIXTY?
>> IF THAT'S ALL THE WORK THAT'S LEFT.
>> THANK YOU. WHAT ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE FEES? DO WE WAIVE THEM, KEEP THEM?
>> I THINK WE MAKE A DETERMINATION AT 60 DAYS.
>> BUT THEY ACCUMULATE. DO THEY ACCUMULATE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN? THEY DON'T.
>> THEY WILL INCREASE THOUGH IN ANOTHER 60 DAYS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THERE'S NOT TOO MUCH ACTION THE BOARD COULD DO FOR THAT, SO I DON'T SEE IT
>> I THINK I'M MORE INCLINED WITH BOARD MEMBER FOTIS TO PUSH UNTIL THE NEXT TIME PERIOD WITH THE FEES, BUT WITH THE FINES, I THINK SHOULD BE WAIVED.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE 60 DAYS IS ADEQUATE, BUT IF 90 WOULD WORK BETTER, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM EITHER WAY THERE WITH GOING 60 OR 90. THAT'S MY FEEL.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THE FINES TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT 60 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE WORK,
[00:50:03]
IN WHICH TIME WE'LL REVISIT BOTH THE ADMINISTRATION FEES AND FOR ALL THE WORKS COMPLETED, WAIVE THE FINES.>> MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU RESTATE THE MOTION AND CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE?
>> POSTPONING ACTION AND WE TABLING FINES AND ALLOWING 60 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE WORK.
>> [INAUDIBLE] TABLE WITH POSTPONE.
>> POSTPONE ACTION FOR 60 DAYS?
>> THE ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONAL FINES.
THERE 60 DAYS FOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED.
>> THERE ARE STILL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES?
>> YES, STILL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AT THIS TIME.
STILL, WE SUSPENDED THE FINES AS OF TODAY.
THEN AT 60 DAYS, AT LEAST AS THE MOTION IS, THAT 60 DAYS, WE WILL REVISIT THE CASE AND MAKE A DECISION ON FINES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
>> MS. CRYSTAL, DID YOU GET THAT?
>> I GOT THE MOVERS, MEMBER POSTMA, AND THEN SECOND BY MEMBER FOTIADES TO POSTPONE ACTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONAL FINES AND ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS TO COME IN COMPLIANCE.
THEY WILL FOLLOW UP AT THE NEXT HEARING FOLLOWING?
>> CALL THE QUESTION WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU. WE WISH YOUR MOM WELL.
>> SORRY, I GOT CONFUSED THERE.
[5.4 EUGENE HOOVER JR, 1717 BEECH ST., CASE 2024-0058]
EUGENE HOOVER JUNIOR 1717 BEACH STREET, CASE 2024-0058, VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 42-173, WRECKED OR INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DECLARED A NUISANCE AND PROHIBITED.BOARD WILL DETERMINE WHETHER TO IMPOSE DAILY FINES AND IF THAT IS REQUESTED.
MR. WELLS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO PRESENT?
>> BOY, I HAVE [LAUGHTER] FOUND OUT MORE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION THAN I THINK ANY CASE TO DATE.
I HAVE TALKED TO MORE NEIGHBORS AND PEOPLE THAT ARE RELATED BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED THAT HE WAS IMPAIRED IN A WAY THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE SAYING.
BUT I GOT A CHANCE TO TALK TO, SHE SAID IT WAS HIS WIFE, BUT IT COULD BE HIS PARTNER.
SHE STATED THAT HE WAS PERFECTLY ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION ABOUT THE CAR THAT THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT GETTING RID OF THE CAR AND APPARENTLY FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND AND TRYING NOT TO GET TOO MUCH IN THEIR BUSINESS, I THINK THEY BOTH HANDLE EVERYTHING SEPARATELY AND SHE LEFT THAT IN HIS COURT FOR HIM TO DEAL WITH THE CAR.
I TALKED TO HIM MONDAY AND HE SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO GET THE TAG AND PUT IT ON THERE [INAUDIBLE] WAS TUESDAY AND THE SAME 2022 STICKER'S STILL ON THE VEHICLE.
NOW, HE DRIVES, HE GETS AROUND.
I BELIEVE THAT HE DOES HAVE DEMENTIA AND I THINK THAT COMES AND GOES [NOISE] BECAUSE LIKE THAT VERY FIRST TIME I MET HIM, HE LOOKED CLEAR AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT LOOKED LIKE THAT MAYBE HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I WAS SAYING.
BUT LIKE I SAID, I'VE TALKED TO HIM SEVERAL TIMES AND I'VE TALKED TO BOTH THE NEIGHBORS, AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO.
>> MR. WELLS, HE'S NOT DRIVING THE CAR IN QUESTION, IS HE?
>> WELL, NO, IT'S NOT. [OVERLAPPING] IT'S NOT EVEN OPERABLE EVEN THOUGH HE SAYS IT WILL CRANK UP, BUT IT WON'T CRANK UP RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE BATTERY'S DEAD.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS HIS MOTHER'S CAR, BUT I'M NOT 100% SURE OF THAT.
I THINK THERE WAS SOME SENTIMENTAL REASON WHY HE WAS TRYING TO HANG ONTO IT.
THIS CASE IS REALLY UP TO YOU GUYS, HOW YOU WANT TO RULE ON IT.
[00:55:01]
GIVE HIM MORE TIME.I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO GET US ANYTHING.
I THINK YOU GIVE HIM 60 DAYS, BUT I THINK THE SAME OUTCOME WILL COME.
I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM.
>> AS CRAZY AS IT SOUNDS, DOES IT SOUND LIKE FINING HIM WILL DO ANYTHING?
>> I DON'T THINK SO TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
NOW, THE WIFE, SHE IS FULLY COGNITIVE OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN TELLING HIM THAT HEY, LISTEN, WE NEED TO GET RID OF THIS CAR OR YOU NEED TO GET A TAG FOR IT.
BUT I THINK THEY LIVE SEPARATE LIVES AND I HATE GETTING INTO THEIR PERSONAL BUSINESS, BUT SHE DID MAKE ME AWARE THAT THAT CAR WAS HIS BUSINESS AND HE WOULD BE HANDLING IT.
LIKE I SAID, THE WIFE OR THE PARTNER, SHE IS [NOISE] FULLY COMPETENT AND SHE'S FULLY AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> BUT SHE CAN'T MAKE THE DECISION TO DO ANYTHING ON THIS?
>> YEAH. BECAUSE SHE SAID THAT HE HANDLES THE VEHICLE AND WHATEVER.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.
IS ANYBODY HERE TO ADDRESS THIS CASE? IT APPEARS NOT SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY BOARD DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE?
>> I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE BUT TO FINE.
>> I DON'T THINK THE MESSAGE IS GETTING THROUGH.
>> I THINK OFFICER WELLS HAS SPENT, WELL, AS HE RIGHTLY SAYS MORE ON THIS CASE THAN ANY OTHER ONE AND HAVING KEEP SPINNING WHEELS IS RIDICULOUS AT THIS POINT.
>> I THINK YOU PROBABLY MAKE A GOOD OBSERVATION, OFFICER ABOUT IT'S PROBABLY A SENTIMENTAL THING. I THINK ABOUT THIS CAR.
I'M A CAR GUY, AND THIS CAR WAS MADE ONLY FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE ONE OF THESE IN THAT CONDITION.
>> WELL, HE DOES HAVE A GARAGE.
[OVERLAPPING] HE COULD PUT IT IN THE GARAGE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE PARTNER OR WIFE WANTS HER CARS OUT OUT IN THE OPEN.
>> I DON'T KNOW, CITY ATTORNEY, IF THIS IS ANY OF OUR PURVIEW?
>> DO WE KNOW WHO OWNS THE HOUSE OR IS IT JOINT, OWNED?
>> YOU'LL SEE WHEN THE CASES ARE BROUGHT TO YOU, WHOEVER ARE THE OWNERS WILL BE LISTED IN THE CASE.
THAT'S NORMALLY HOW IT'S KNOWN.
>> I THINK THE FINING, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
WE CAN IMPOSE FINES, BUT TO WHAT END DOES THAT GO? IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT IT'LL GET ANYTHING DONE.
>> ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS IF WIFE OR PARTNER GETS INVOLVED AND SAY, LISTEN, WE'RE GETTING FINED.
YOU'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS AND YOU EITHER NEED TO GET RID OF THE CAR OR YOU NEED TO PUT IT IN THE GARAGE OR YOU NEED TO GET A TAG FOR IT AND AIR THE TIRES UP AND I THINK SHE NEEDS TO STEP UP AND PLAY A BIGGER ROLE IN WHAT THE PART SHE'S PLAYING RIGHT NOW.
>> BUT SHE WON'T EVEN SEE ANY CORRESPONDENCE.
>> WELL, I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE PROBABLY GETS ALL THE MAIL AND EVERYTHING.
LIKE I SAID, I HAD A LENGTHY CONVERSATION WITH HER A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ABOUT THE ENTIRE CASE.
SHE'S AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND I EVEN TOLD HER THAT THE HEARING WAS TONIGHT AND THERE WAS POSSIBILITIES OF FINES THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED.
>> IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, OFFICER WELLS, IF HE HAS A NEW STICKER THAT SAYS, I DON'T KNOW, 2024 IS HALFWAY OVER, BUT IF HE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TAG AND IF THERE'S AIR IN THE TIRES.
WELL, THEY BOTH SAY THE CAR RUNS SO IT'S NOT INOPERABLE, OTHER THAN IT DOES HAVE FLAT TIRES AND LET HIM AIR UP THE TIRES AND PUT A NEW TAG AND HAVE A NEW REGISTRATION.
CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT HAS NO ISSUE WITH THAT.
>> CAN WE CC HER ON EVERYTHING GOING FORWARD INSTEAD OF JUST VERBALLY TALKING TO HER?
>> I DO HAVE A PHONE NUMBER FOR HER BUT I THINK HE INTERCEPTS HER CALLS.
>> I WAS TRYING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HER.
I THINK SHE CLEANS HOUSES, AND SHE'S GONE THE MAJORITY OF, SHE LEAVES EARLY IN THE MORNING AND DOESN'T COME BACK TILL LATE LATE, SO I WAS TRYING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HER MONDAY TO SEE HOW THIS WAS GOING TO PLAY OUT, BUT LIKE I SAID, HE ANSWERED THE PHONE [INAUDIBLE].
>> WHEN WOULD THE FINES BEGIN?
[01:00:02]
>> I THINK YOU GUYS SAID THE FINES WOULD BEGIN ON JUNE 7TH, $50 PER DAY ALONG WITH THE ADMIN FEES.
>> [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] YOU'VE ONLY VERBALLY SPOKEN WITH HER.
YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN HER ANYTHING OR YOU CAN'T?
>> NO, NOT REALLY. I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT SHE, EVEN THOUGH SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS THE WIFE.
THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TOLD ME EITHER YESTERDAY OR TODAY, THAT SHE FEELS THAT THAT IS NOT HIS WIFE, THAT SHE'S A PARTNER.
>> WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> SORRY. PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.
SHE SAID, SHE CLOSED THE HEARING, BUT HE CAME IN A LITTLE BIT LATER.
>> WE'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING [INAUDIBLE].
>> [INAUDIBLE]. MY QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH SOMEBODY WHO MAY BE INCOMPETENT? THAT'S A VERY SERIOUS QUESTION.
I'M JUST LISTENING. I DID THIS FOR 40 YEARS.
THIS GUY, INCOMPETENCY HEARING, I'M NOT SO SURE HE WOULD MAKE IT.
>> NO, BUT I'M JUST LISTENING TO YOUR TESTIMONY.
>> WELL, IF HE'S DISCUSSING WITH [INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE COMPETENT?
I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS TOO, AND SINCE YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, IF THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I CAN ANSWER.
>> NUMBER 1, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT CRIMINAL.
THESE FINE'S ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY, NOT THE PERSON.
IT LIKELY COULD BE WHERE THE FINES RUN, THE CITY FILES A LIEN, AND IT'LL BE HANDLED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
I JUST HAD THIS, I WANTED TO SEE, DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR RECORDS IF IT WAS HOMESTEADED?
>> WE CAN'T FORECLOSE ON A HOMESTEAD OF PROPERTY.
THE LIENS WILL SIT THERE AND RUN, AND THEN WE'LL GET SOME DAYS.
DOES THIS SOUND RIGHT? JUST BASED ON YOUR LAY PERSON KNOWLEDGE.
I LOOKED HIM UP 83-YEARS-OLD, DOES THAT SEEM RIGHT?
>> SOMETHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT SOME POINT AND EITHER SOMEBODY'S GOING TO NEED TO REFINANCE THAT PROPERTY, SELL IT, OR SOMETHING, AND THAT'S USUALLY WHEN THESE LIENS POP UP.
THEN AT THAT POINT, WE WILL WORK ON IT.
MOST LIKELY, IF IT JUST KEEPS RUNNING AND BEING IGNORED, THE CITY COMMISSION WILL SEE A REDUCTION OF FINES REQUESTS.
>> WHICH IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO AVOID.
>> I THINK COMMISSIONER ROSS BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR ROLE.
WE CAN'T DETERMINE COMPETENCE.
WHEN YOU'RE ASKING YOU HOW DO WE KNOW, SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO COME FORTH AS A PROFESSIONAL.
JUST SAY THEY'VE TALKED TO THIS PERSON.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE TESTIMONY THAT'S BEEN GIVEN, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THIS PERSON HAS A GOOD RUN AT NOT BEING COMPETENT.
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICES OTHER THAN TO GET A PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE OTHER THAN DOING THAT.
>> I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION.
>> CAN THE FINES BE OVERTURNED AT SOME POINT BECAUSE SOMEBODY TOOK THIS TO COURT? MAYBE.
>> IF HE'S NOT MOVING THE CAR, IT'S PROBABLY UNLIKELY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FILE AN APPEAL, AND THEY ONLY GET 30 DAYS.
>> I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS AVOID PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD.
>> I THINK UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS ANOTHER IDEA, I THINK THE CHOICES ARE IT IS AN OPTION; DO NOTHING AND LET IT STAY THERE WHEN OTHER PEOPLE ARE HAVING TO MOVE THEIR VEHICLES.
MS. FORSTER, IF YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, I'M SURE YOU CAN.
OR DO WHAT STAFF'S SUGGESTING.
WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK LATER AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE FINES.
>> IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT I'M GOING TO A CONFERENCE NEXT WEEK.
ONE OF THE CLASSES THAT I'M TAKING IS ON THIS.
>> MAYBE I'LL COME BACK WITH SOME INFORMATION. I DON'T KNOW.
I'VE TAKEN SOME OTHER STUFF AND WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF POWER.
AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU'D HAVE TO GET AN EXPERT UP HERE THAT SAYS THAT THAT IS WHAT HE IS.
ONE MOMENT, HE'LL BE OKAY, THE NEXT HE WON'T,
[01:05:02]
BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S FOR US TO DETERMINE.I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT LIKE I SAID, MAYBE I'LL COME BACK WITH SOMETHING BETTER.
I'LL TALK TO SOME OTHER FOLKS AND SEE HOW THEY'RE HANDLING THIS.
NOW MORE THAN EVER, THERE'S A LOT OF MENTALLY CHALLENGING PEOPLE OUT THERE.
THAT'S JUST ALL I GOT. I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT I'M GOING TO TAKE A CLASS ON THIS.
>> I HAVE THE PROPERTY CART UP HERE.
IF MR. HOOVER IS 83, THEN HE'S NOT REALIZING HIS FULL HOMESTEAD BENEFIT EITHER.
HE'S ONLY GOT A $25,000 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.
>> I THINK IF MR. HOOVER COULD HAVE PRESENTED HIMSELF, AT LEAST WE'D HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD SEE AND MAY MITIGATE.
>> THAT'S WAY BEYOND OUR BOARDS.
>> CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPETENCE BOARD.
>> YES. SURE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION BY CHANCE?
WE'RE NOT SOCIAL WORKERS, I GET THAT.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO COMMUNICATE ONE MORE TIME WITH THIS WOMAN WHO WAS HIS WIFE, WHO IS COMPETENT, EXPLAIN TO HER THE SITUATION ONE MORE TIME?
>> I COULD DO THAT. I WOULD HAVE TO CATCH HER AT THE HOUSE BECAUSE HE INTERCEPTS ALL THE CALLS.
I'M WILLING TO DO WHATEVER THE BOARD'S PLEASURE IS ON THIS.
>> IS THIS EVEN FEASIBLE WHAT I'M SAYING?
>> WELL, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO DRIVE A CAR AND YOU DRIVE ALL OVER THE CITY AND YOU CAN GET BACK HOME, YOU HAVE TO BE CONFIDENT IN SOME WAY, OR YOU THINK HE'D NEVER GET BACK HOME?
>> HE'D NEVER REMEMBER WHERE HE LIVES.
>> THE THING IS IF WE DO THAT WITH MR. HOOVER, WE HAVE TO OFFER THAT TOO WITH OTHER CASES.
HOW FAR DO WE WANT TO STRETCH OUTSIDE OUR BOX? I'M NOT SURE. IT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL OF YOU.
>> IT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. I NEED A MOTION, PLEASE.
>> MOTION TO FIND MR. HOOVER IN VIOLATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE CAN DO.
WE GOT TO START WITH THE FINES, BUT GETTING ON THE SEVENTH, ADMINISTRATION FEES, AND WE CAN COME INTO COMPLIANCE, WE CAN REVISIT OR NOT.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? LOOKS LIKE MOTION FAILS DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND.
DO I HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION?
>> I WAS OUT IN THE HEAT A LOT TODAY.
>> YEAH. WE CAN MOVE TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE FINES, BUT WE CAN ALSO MOVE TO REVISIT, CORRECT? BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE GOING TO A SEMINAR, JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHAT YOU WILL BRING BACK FROM THAT IF IT IS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASSESS HERE GOING FORWARD OR IS THAT NOT?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.
>> WELL, AND WE'RE PUTTING A LOT ON CODE ENFORCEMENT BY ASKING THEM TO DO A LOT MORE WORK, AND SO WE WOULD HAVE TO OFFER THAT TO EVERYBODY, ALL THE CASES. THAT'S MY THOUGHTS.
>> BUT I WILL REPORT TO YOU NEXT HEARING JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT I FIND OUT.
>> WE CAN CHANGE WHATEVER WE DECIDE OR MODIFY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MOTION?
>> YES. YOU CAN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION. SURE.
>> CAN YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION AGAIN?
>> I'D LIKE TO FIND THE DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION AND THAT WE BEGIN FINES STARTING ON THE SEVENTH, $50 A DAY AND INCLUDE ADMINISTRATION FEES, WITH THE HOPES THAT MR. HOOVER COMES INTO COMPLIANCE, AND THEN WE CAN REVISIT ADMINISTRATION FEES AND FINES AT THAT TIME.
>> BOARD SECRETARY, CAN YOU RESTATE THAT MOTION AND CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE?
>> IS MS. CRESCI [PHONETIC] STILL ON?
>> NO. I WAS HOPING THAT IT WOULD COME UP WHEN SHE CALLED THE VOTE.
>> MS. CHAIR, CAN WE ASK THAT YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE MIC?
>> MS. CRESCI, ARE YOU STILL WITH US?
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE IF SOMEONE WHO'S CLOSE TO THE MIC COULD TELL ME WHAT THE MOTION IS BECAUSE I CAN'T HEAR CRYSTAL CALLING IT.
[01:10:05]
>> CRYSTAL, DO YOU WANT TO DO IT AGAIN?
>> NO. THE ONE IN FRONT OF YOU.
>> THAT'S WHERE THE MICROPHONE IS.
>> RESTATE THE MOTION, MADAM CHAIR.
>> THE MOTION IS TO FIND MR. HOOVER IN VIOLATION AND ASSESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A DAILY FINE AMOUNT OF $50, BUT ALL OF THIS COULD BE MODIFIED WHEN MISS MICHELLE GOES TO HER CONFERENCE. WAS THAT IT?
>> THE FINE IS TO BEGIN TOMORROW.
DID YOU HEAR THAT BETTER? MS. CRESCI, DID YOU HEAR THAT A LITTLE BETTER? WAS THAT A THUMBS UP? I THOUGHT IT WAS HERE. NOW WOULD YOU CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE?
>> YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
>> JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW I WILL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO GO BACK OUT THERE AND TALK WITH THE WIFE SLASH PARTNER TO TRY TO GET THIS SOME RESOLUTION TO IT.
>> WHY DO YOU PUT IT IN THE GARAGE? FIXES THE PROBLEM. THANK YOU.
YOU'RE DOING A LOT OF WORK. WE'LL TRY NOT TO ADD TO YOUR WORKLOAD.
>> WHEN WE WALK WITH CLIENTS, WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO FINE PEOPLE, BUT SOMETIMES THAT'S WHAT WE GOT DO TO GET WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
>> LAST CASE TODAY IS ITEM 5.5.
[5.5 WILLIAM DUENAS, 1608 PENBROOK DR, CASE 2024-0042]
WILLIAM DUENAS.>> HE'S BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME.
>> 1608 PENBROOK DRIVE, CASE 2024-0042, VIOLATION OF CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FENCES AND WALLS.
BOARD DETERMINATION TO IMPOSE DAILY FINES IS REQUESTED.
MR. WELLS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO PRESENT?
>> MISS JENKINS, AS YOU KNOW, IS THE PARTNER OF THE RESPONDENT.
SHE HAS DONE HER DUE DILIGENCE, SHE HAS WORKED HARD.
SHE HAS GOTTEN THE SURVEY AND SUBMITTED THAT TO PLANNING.
I'M NOT SURE IT'S BEEN APPROVED YET, BUT I KNOW THAT IT WILL BE BECAUSE SHE HAD HER SURVEY DONE JUST LIKE SHE SAID SHE WAS GOING TO HAVE DONE, AND THE FENCE IS INSTALLED CORRECTLY.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GIVING THIS RESPONDENT AN EXTENSION.
>> HOW LONG WOULD YOU SAY? I WOULD SAY MONDAY, BUT I DON'T WANT TO PROMISE SOME THINGS THEN SOMEONE IS OFFENDED.
[OVERLAPPPING] WHAT WAS THE ACTION AT THE LAST MEETING? THEY VOTED AND FOUND PROPERTY VIOLATION OF 5.01 0.10 TO ACCESS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND IF NOT COMPLIANCE BY JUNE 8TH, THE BOARD WILL DETERMINE THE ASSESSMENT OF DAILY FINES OF $50 PER DAY BEGINNING ON JUNE 9TH.
SO NO FINES HAVE STARTED RUNNING IT? MY NAME IS JILL JENKINS, AND I LIVE AT 16:08 PEMBROOK DRIVE, AND I HAVE BEEN TRYING VERY HARD TO GET THE PERMIT, WHICH IS WHAT OUR VIOLATION WAS THAT WE DID NOT GET THE PERMIT PRIOR TO REPLACING OUR FENCE.
SO MR. PEACOCK, WHO WAS WITH COASTAL LANDSCAPE, DID GIVE ME THE SURVEY THIS PAST MONDAY, SO THE THIRD.
IN THE AFTERNOON, TUESDAY MORNING, I TOOK A COPY TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
TUESDAY AFTERNOON, TAYLOR CONTACTED ME AND SAID THAT THE FENCE WAS ONE TENTH OF A FOOT, SO ONE INCH OVER THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE BACK.
AND SHE PROVIDED ME WITH THE NAME OF THE OWNER TO GET APPROVAL TO LEAVE IT SINCE IT'S SUCH A SMALL AMOUNT.
HOWEVER, THAT PERSON APPEARS TO BE DECEASED.
SO I CONTACTED MY CONTRACTOR, AND HE MOVED THE FENCE IN SIX INCHES, SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY DEBATE.
AND MR. PEACOCK TOLD ME THIS MORNING THAT HE WOULD BE BACK OUT IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO.
THAT COULD BE LONGER THAN A DAY OR TWO.
HE PROMISED ME FOR WEEKS HE WOULD BE THERE AND KEPT PUSHING IT,
[01:15:02]
PUSHING IT, PUSHING IT.THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR AT LEAST A WEEK BECAUSE THAT'S ALL.
TAYLOR SAID SHE'S GOT IT ON HOLD. SHE HAS NO ISSUES.
SHE WOULD APPROVE IT AS SOON AS IT GOT MOVED ONE INCH.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MISS JENKINS? ARE YOU PARTIAL OWNER OF THE HOME? I AM NOT. I'M HIS FIANCÉ.
AND HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE BUT HE HAD A MEDICAL PROCEDURE THIS MORNING BUT I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS.
YOU'RE PUT OVER BY THE BECAUSE WE'RE, THANK YOU.
I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS, HOWEVER, AND HE WAS CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THE SITUATION WAS.
AND THEN I HAD SURGERY, AND WE MISSED PAPERWORK, AND HE WOULD JUST PAPER CLIP IT AND PUT IT IN THE FILE, AND HE DIDN'T TALK TO ME ABOUT IT.
SO LIKE, MONTHS AGO AND THEN HE WAS LIKE, I THINK WE HAVE TO GO TO THERE, I WAS LIKE, [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S HOW WE GOT A LITTLE BIT PIND.
AND THEN I COULDN'T FIND A SURVEY COMPANY.
MR. PEACOCK WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT SAID, YES, I THINK I CAN DO THIS IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT IT TOOK HIM THREE WEEKS JUST TO GET OUT THERE.
AND THEN IT TOOK HIM FIVE DAYS TO COMPLETE IT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY BEHIND IS VERY OVERGROWN.
IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO GET AROUND.
AND LIKE I SAID, I TALKED TO HIM THIS MORNING, AND HE SAID I WILL BE OUT THERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS, SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
THE SURVEYS ARE VERY BACKWARD.
THEY ARE, AND LIKE I SAID, I WANTED HIM TO HAVE IT MOVED SIX INCHES IN, SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY KIND OF [LAUGHTER] HOW FAR.
WHAT A MESS. GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? THANK YOU SO MUCH. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. GEORGE? NO, I JUST THANK MISS JENKINS FOR HER COMMITMENT TO GETTING THIS IN COMPLIANCE AND APPLAUD HER FOR ALL HER EFFORTS.
GREAT. THANK YOU. MR. ROSS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
BUT WE MENTIONED MR. PEACOCK IS A GOOD SURVEYOR DO YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE MIC, MR. ROSS? BREAKING THE RULES.
WHILE HE'S MAKING HIS WAY UP, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO OUT ON A LIMB, JUST BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT HOW MUCH WORK, CODE ENFORCEMENT DOES.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OR A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS, I'M SORRY, TO GIVE MORE TIME, THEN MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO POSTPONE ANY FINE ASSESSMENT FOR 30 DAYS.
THAT RUNS RIGHT INTO YOUR NEXT MEETING.
THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE MR. WELLS GO OUT AT, 15 DAYS, SPENDING TIME AND ALL OF THAT.
MR. PEACOCK IS A VERY GOOD MAN.
BUT HE SOMETIMES GETS A BIT BEHIND.
I WOULD GIVE THEM AT LEAST 30 DAYS TO GET THIS WHOLE THING STRAIGHTEN OUT WITH BECAUSE SIMPLY HE MEANS WELL, BUT SOMETIMES THINGS DON'T GO.
I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION IS A GOOD ONE.
I WOULDN'T HAVE SAID ANYTHING IF YOU HADN'T ASKED.
WELL, I MISSED YOU LAST TIME SO, YOU'D LIKE TO BE ON TV.
BOARD MEMBERS, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? MS. CRESCI, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CAN YOU HEAR WHAT WE'RE SAYING? I CAN HEAR YOU. NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, THANK YOU THANK YOU. ANY DELIBERATION BY THE BOARD? ANY THOUGHTS? I THINK 30 DAYS IS, THE DEFENDANT HAS WORKED HARD TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION.
ONE OF THE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO MAKE IT REALLY EASY SINCE YOU ALREADY TOOK ACTION AT THE LAST MEETING, IS JUST MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO THE JULY CODE BOARD MEETING OR THE SOONEST CODE BOARD MEETING THEREAFTER.
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE CASES, WE MAY NOT BRING IT BACK. JUST FOR THIS.
GOOD IDEA. GOOD IDEA HOW ABOUT A MOTION FROM ONE OF YOU, PLEASE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINES OR ADMINISTRATION FEES FOR 30 DAYS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
ONE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. ANY DAILY FINES? NO.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
GREAT. THANK YOU. BOARD SECRETARY, DID YOU CAPTURE THAT MOTION? YES.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE IT AND CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE? WHO SECONDED THAT? SORRY. PLEASE FOLLOW THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY DAILY FINES OR AMENITIES UNTIL THE NEXT HEARING.
[01:20:03]
SOUNDS GOOD.I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH MS. CRESCI, SHOULD SHE GET HERE.
WHERE IS SHE, DO YOU KNOW? NO, I DON'T.
IS SHE OVERSEES? USUALLY FAR AWAY.
YES GREAT. THE MOTION CARRIES.
I'M SORRY, YOU HAD IT TO THE END.
MR. GEORGE, DON'T HESITATE TO RECOMMEND RE-SCRAMBLING OF THE SCHEDULE TO GET PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE EARLIER.
YEAH, WE COULD HAVE DONE THAT. IT WAS VERY INCONSIDERATE OF ME.
WELL, WE'RE JUST LEARNING [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE LEARNING.
WHEN THERE'S NOBODY HERE, WE PUT THEM AT THE END, WHEN THERE'S PEOPLE HERE.
ANY BOARD MEMBERS GOT ANY DISCUSSION?
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
THERE'S ONE THING I WANTED TO BRING UP REALLY FAST.BECAUSE USUALLY OUR HEARINGS FALL ON THE FIRST THURSDAY OF EACH MONTH, SO NEXT MONTH WILL BE JULY 5TH, YES, THE 10TH OF JULY, SO IT'LL BE THE SECOND THURSDAY.
NEXT HEARING IS JULY 11, 2024.
THANK YOU, ALL. MR. WELLS
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.