[00:00:02]
>> [NOISE] THE NOVEMBER 6TH, 2025 HEARING OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, CODE ENFORCEMENT AND APPEALS BOARD IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.
BOARD, SECRETARY, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM]
>> VICE CHAIR FOTIADES. CHAIR SINS.
>> WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS WE'LL START OFF WITH A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND THEN IF YOU DON'T MIND, PASTOR, IF YOU COULD A FEW WORDS FOR US.
THEN, MICHELLE, I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME WORDS YOU'D LIKE TO SAY SO AFTER THAT.
IF YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE MIC, WE'D APPRECIATE IT.
IF EVERYONE COULD STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE?
>> LET US PRAY. OUR FATHER, GOD, WE COME TONIGHT OF LORD, AND WE SAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR MANY BLESSINGS, FOR YOUR MULTITUDE OF TENDER MERCIES.
LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR LIFE, HEALTH, AND STRENGTH, FATHER.
WE THANK YOU TONIGHT FOR ALLOWING US TO BE HERE TO REPRESENT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT APPEALS BOARD OF FERNANDINA BEACH, LORD.
WE INVOKE YOUR PRESENCE IN THIS MEETING, LEADING GUIDE IN A MANNER THAT'S PLEASING IN THAT SIGHT.
WE GIVE YOU THE PRAISES, THE HONOR, AND THE GLORY, IT'S IN JESUS NAME, WE PRAY, LET EVERY HEART SAY.
>> MICHELLE FORSTROM, CODE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY, WE HAVE A NEW EMPLOYEE, A NEW ADMIN, A NEW SECRETARY, CHERYL CARFAGNO.
TADA. SHE IS OFFICIALLY A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER NOW.
TONIGHT WILL BE THE ONE NIGHT THAT SHE SITS, AND CHERYL WATCHES, AND THEN CHERYL WILL BE IN HER SEAT THE NEXT TIME.
WE'VE GOT CRYSTAL OUT IN THE FIELD NOW WITH OFFICER WELLS.
EVENTUALLY, THEY'LL GET A REPLACEMENT FOR ME.
OFFICER WELLS IS RETIRING AT THE END OF THIS YEAR, AT THE END OF DECEMBER, AND I'M RETIRING AT THE END OF MARCH.
THERE'S SOME CHANGE, BUT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS CHANGE AND DOING A LOT OF TRAINING.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU GUYS A HEADS UP AND TELL YOU WHY THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE UP THERE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, I BELIEVE KATIE NEWTON, MY LEGAL ASSISTANT HAS OFFERED TO COME WITH YOU AND SIT WITH CHERYL AT THE NEXT MEETING WHILE SHE TAKES HER FIRST STAB AT DOING EVERYTHING.
AT LEAST THERE WILL BE TWO TRAINING SESSIONS.
NOT THAT YOU NEED TWO, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S NICE TO HAVE A LITTLE BACKUP.
WE WILL HAVE SOME BACKUP HERE AS WELL FOR THAT MEETING.
>> WE'D LOVE TO SEE KATIE BACK. [LAUGHTER]
>> MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES,
[3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
AND IF SO, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE, OR CAN I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE FILES?>> CAN I JUST ASK WHY DID WE HAVE CHANGES IN HERE THE WAY THEY ARE? WERE THEY CROSSED THROUGH IN RED FRONT?
>> DUE TO MY STUTTERING. I THINK I REDID A MOTION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S HOW WE'RE REFLECTING IT.
I HAVEN'T NOTICED THAT BEFORE.
>> MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA?
>> IF WE COULD HAVE THE BOARD ATTORNEY, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE QUASI-JUDICIAL ASPECT OF THIS.
>> YES. A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING BY STATE AND CASE LAW IS DIFFERENT THAN A REGULAR HEARING CONDUCTED BY THIS BOARD, BUT THIS ONE NORMALLY HEARS QUASI-JUDICIAL.
IT'S LESS FORMAL THAN A COURT PROCEEDING, BUT IT'S SIMILAR IN NATURE TO ADMITTING EVIDENCE AND SOME PROCEDURAL ASPECTS.
THE STAFF HERE WILL HAVE THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THROUGH THE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE RESPONDENT ON HERE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE.
THE RESPONDENT MUST DEMONSTRATE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE CODE.
THE BOARD WELCOMES COMMENTS FROM ALL WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS PROCEEDING.
[00:05:03]
FLORIDA LAW DOES REQUIRE THAT THE BOARD'S DECISION IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THIS BOARD DURING THE HEARING, AND REGULAR CITIZEN TESTIMONY DOES NOT SUPPORT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.THERE MUST BE FACTUAL BASIS IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT OPINION TESTIMONY FROM BOTH EXPERTS AND NON-EXPERT WITNESSES.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS WITHOUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE EVIDENCE.
THE ONLY MATERIAL AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS THAT WHICH ADDRESSES THE STATUTORY OR CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THE HEARING PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS.
THE STAFF WILL BE SWORN IN, STAFF WILL PRESENT THE CASE.
THE RESPONDENT WILL ALSO BE SWORN IN, AND ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO GIVE TESTIMONY WILL BE SWORN, THEN STAFF WILL PRESENT THE CITY'S CASE AND PRESENT THE EVIDENCE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
THE RESPONDENT, WHO I BELIEVE IS HERE TONIGHT OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT, WILL BE GIVEN A TIME TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THE BOARD.
THEN ANY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, I'M NOT SEEING ANY THIS EVENING, WILL BE SWORN IN.
WE'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THE BOARD.
WITH WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE, I REPRESENT THE BOARD AND PROVIDE COUNSEL TO THE BOARD, NOT STAFF, AND NOT THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT OR THE VIOLATOR.
WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK EACH OF YOU TO HAVE YOUR EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.
>> HAVE THERE BEEN ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION REGARDING THIS CASE? WE'RE HERE TONIGHT?
>> THANK YOU. [NOISE] IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK TONIGHT, I'LL ASK YOU TO STAND AND IF WE COULD HAVE THE BOARD SECRETARY SWEAR IN ALL THE WITNESSES.
ANYONE WHO WILL BE SPEAKING TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE CASE THAT WE'LL HEAR. [NOISE] PLEASE STAND.
>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY AND OR EVIDENCE YOU WE ARE ABOUT TO GIVE AND OR PRESENT IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED.
>> THE FIRST CASE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR TONIGHT IS [NOISE] LET ME JUST WAIT.
[5.1 DONNA J. MITCHELL LIVING TRUST PURPLE CREEK LLC, 608 N. 14TH STREET, CASE 2025-0571.]
LET THAT GO. THERE WE GO.THANK YOU. IS 5.1 DONNA J MITCHELL LIVING TRUST, PURPLE CREEK, LLC, CASE NUMBER IS 2025-0571.
THE CITY RECOMMENDS THAT WE FIND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 42-117 TO GRANT AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS UNTIL DECEMBER 6TH OF THIS YEAR TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.
ASSESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $100 PER DAY TO BEGIN DECEMBER 7TH 2025, IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY'D LIKE TO BRING INTO.
>> I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT ALL OF OUR DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE AND PHOTOS INTO THE RECORD.
I'M GEORGE WELLS, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
>> SO DONE. CITY, IF YOU COULD NOW BEGIN YOUR PRESENT, OFFICER WELLS.
ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2025, I OBSERVED A VIOLATION AT THIS PROPERTY AT 608 NORTH 14TH STREET.
I NOTICED THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE ROOF WAS COVERED WITH TARPS.
THIS IS A MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
IT IS LISTED AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2025, WE SENT OUT A CERTIFIED LETTER, NOV NOH LETTER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING 30 DAYS TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 4TH, 2025.
SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2025, THE RESPONDENT SIGNED AND RECEIVED THE CERTIFIED LETTER FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT GIVING US PROPER SERVICE.
THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION OF 42-117.
OCTOBER 29TH, 2025, WE DID A PRE AGENDA INSPECTION.
THE PROPERTY STILL REMAINS IN VIOLATION, AND NO BUILDING PERMITS HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR OR OBTAINED.
OCTOBER 30TH, 2025, I SPOKE BY PHONE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER DONNA MITCHELL, AND THE PROPERTY MANAGER OF BUDDY HOPKINS.
CODE ENFORCEMENT ADVISED THAT AN EXTENSION COULD BE GRANTED IF A ROOFING PERMIT WAS OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER 6TH HEARING.
CONCLUSION IS, MULTIPLE TARPS ARE COVERING THE ROOF, INDICATING THAT THE ROOF REPAIRS HAVE NOT BEEN INITIATED.
THE STRUCTURE IS A MULTI FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED WITHIN C1 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
THE CONDITION OF THE ROOF POSES A RISK OF CURRENT AND ONGOING WATER INTRUSION, WHICH MAY RESULT IN LONG TERM STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION AND POTENTIAL SAFETY CON-TERMS FOR MULTIPLE OCCUPANTS.
[00:10:01]
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD 36 DAYS SINCE THE INITIAL NOTICE TO OBTAIN QUOTES OR SECURE A ROOFING PERMIT FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.AS FOR THE LAST INSPECTION AND PHONE CONVERSATION, NO MEASURABLE PROGRESS HAD BEEN MADE TOWARDS COMPLIANCE.
THE PROPERTY AT 608 NORTH 14TH STREET REMAINS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY'S CODE, ORDER OF ORDINANCES 42-117 DUE TO THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY REPAIR AND MAINTAIN THE ROOF.
NOW, I DID MAKE A INSPECTION TODAY.
ALL THE TARPS HAVE BEEN REMOVED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS ONE HERE.
I BELIEVE THAT IS THAT WHERE THE ROTTED TRUSSES ARE? YOU'LL HAVE TO GET UP AND SPEAK TO THAT.
BUT ANYWAY, EVERYTHING ON THE ROOF, AND I'LL ASK YOU TO GET UP AND TESTIFY AS FAR AS WHAT YOU'VE DONE AND WHAT'S LEFT TO BE DONE.
BUT ANYWAY, THIS IS WHAT'S LEFT, THIS TARP THAT'S ON THE ROOF.
IT STILL REMAINS IN VIOLATION.
OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CITY MAKE A MOTION TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF CODE AND BOARDS SECTION 42-117, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE, GIVING THE OWNER 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY DECEMBER 6TH, 2025.
THE CITY ALSO RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE THAT ALL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT AND A VIOLATION FINE OF $100 PER DAY TO BEGIN ON DECEMBER 7TH, IF NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
>> DOES THE RESPONDENT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OFFICER WELLS BEFORE WE ASK THE RESPONDENT IF HE WANTS TO TESTIFY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE A QUESTION FOR LATER.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.
YOU SAID THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE?
>> PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING THERE ARE THE OWNER TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
>> WOULD THE RESPONDENT LIKE TO STEP UP AND GIVE THE THE MICROPHONE OVER HERE AND JUST [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WOULD LIKE TO JUST EXPLAIN.
>> THAT'D BE TERRIFIC. THANK YOU. JUST GIVE YOUR NAME.
>> DO YOU GET UP TO THE MICROPHONE? GOT IT.
>> I'M DENNIS RILEY. THE LETTER WAS SENT TO BUDDY AND DONNA AND I TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTIES.
>> 56049 NASSAU OAKS DRIVE, CALLAHAN, FLORIDA, 32011.
THE LETTER THAT SHE RECEIVED, I WAS GIVEN THE FIRST PAGE, WHICH HAD THE VEHICLE REMOVAL AND TRAILERS IN THE FRONT. I TOOK CARE OF THAT.
I DIDN'T RECEIVE THE SECOND PAGE OF IT UNTIL LAST WEEK.
I KNEW THE TARPS WERE THERE, AND I KNEW THEY HAD A LEAK, AND THE GUYS WHEN I SENT THEM OUT TO LOOK AT IT, COULDN'T TELL ME WHAT WAS LEAKING, SO I SAID, TARP THE WHOLE THING.
THEN I JUST HADN'T BEEN BACK OVER THERE.
SINCE THEN, I FOUND IT WAS THE TURBINES ON THE ROOF, AND I HAD TWO HOLES WHERE A LIMIT HIT.
THOSE HAVE BEEN REPAIRED AND FIXED.
BUT ON THE END WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING HERE, ON THE PORCH, THERE'S TWO RAFTERS, AND I'VE BEEN WAITING TO GET AHOLD OF MR. PARSONS AND FIND OUT WHAT I HAVE TO DO TO GET A PERMIT TO REPLACE THOSE RAFTERS, IF THERE'S SOMETHING STRUCTURAL, OR IF I CAN JUST REMOVE THAT PORCH.
ONCE I DO THAT, ALL OF THAT SHOULD BE OFF.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE THE REST OF THAT OFF TODAY WHERE I COULD SEE WHAT WAS UNDERNEATH IT.
BUT I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT. I JUST NOT TAKE CARE OF IT.
I SPOKE WITH GEORGE AND HE'S GOING TO BE EMAILING ANY COMPLAINTS BECAUSE WE HAVE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES SO THAT I'LL HAVE THOSE INSTEAD OF JUST GETTING A LETTER THAT'S SECOND HAND TO ME.
I'LL GET AN EMAIL FROM, AND I CAN JUMP ON IT RIGHT AWAY.
BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE THE 30 DAYS YOU'RE GIVEN ME, AND I WILL GET THE REST OF IT TAKEN CARE OF.
I'VE GOT A FEW OTHER THINGS OVER THERE THAT I'M WORKING ON TOO.
JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. [NOISE]
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN?
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ASPECT?
>> MAY I ASK? WHY ARE WE HEARING THIS? WE TYPICALLY HEAR THINGS A LITTLE LONGER TO TURN AROUND.
THIS IS THIS IS THE QUICKEST TURNAROUND THAT I THINK I HAVE SEEN.
>> WELL, WITH THE SEVERITY THAT WE SAW WITH THE LIKE HE SAID, WITH THE TARPS COVERING ALMOST THE ENTIRE ROOF, AND WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE EXTENT OF THE LEAKAGE INSIDE AND THEN YOU'VE GOT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TENANTS LIVING THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THREE TENANTS, BUT HOW MANY APARTMENTS ARE THERE? YOU GO TO SPEAK?
[00:15:01]
>> TWO APARTMENTS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WAIT A MINUTE. WOULD YOU PLEASE COME BACK UP?
>> THERE'S FOUR APARTMENTS IN THAT BUILDING.
ONE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN EVICTION, AND THE OTHER THREE ARE THEY'RE THERE.
>> BUT WITH THE URGENCY THAT WE SAW, WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW SEVERE THE LEAKS WERE INSIDE AND THEN, YOU HAVE TO I HAD ONE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I HAD ONE LEAK THAT SHOWED UP IN UNIT C IN THE BATHROOM, AND THAT WAS THE LEAK THAT REALLY SHOWED UP.
ONCE I SAW IT, AND I TOLD HE FIND IT AND THE GUYS I SENT OVER THERE COULDN'T TELL ME WHERE IT WAS.
I TOLD THEM TARP THE WHOLE THING.
WHEN I OPENED IT UP, THE TURBINES THAT YOU HAVE ON THE ROOF, WERE THEY WERE RUSTED OUT.
I'VE REMOVED THOSE AND PUT NEW TURBINES ON.
THEN ON THE OTHER END OF THE BUILDING, THERE WERE THREE HOLES WHERE A LIMB HAD FALLEN AND POPPED THREE HOLES IN, BUT THEY NEVER GOT WATER IN THERE.
IT WAS TARPED OFF BEFORE WE GOT ANY LEAK DAMAGE FROM THAT.
THE LEAK DAMAGE INSIDE HAS ALREADY BEEN FIXED.
THAT WAS DONE WHILE THE TARPS WERE ON THE ROOF SO THAT THE PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE, A FALLEN DOWN CEILING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND? YOU NEED TO WORK WITH THE ESTATE, THE TRUST?
>> TO CONFIRM WHAT YOU CAN DO TO DO THE REPAIRS PERSONALLY?
>> [FOREIGN] IT IS A CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD.
>> GREAT. THAT IS ONGOING, BUT YOU ARE WAITING CLARIFICATION FOR HOW THE HOMEOWNER WANTS YOU TO PROCEED WITH THE REPAIRS THEN DETERMINE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN TERMS OF PERMITTING. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> WELL, I NEED TO GET WITH MR. PARSONS AND FIND OUT HOW MUCH PERMITTING I NEED.
IN OTHER WORDS, I'M ALLOWED TO DO FIXES AND REPAIRS, BUT IF IT'S A STRUCTURAL THING, I NEED TO KNOW WHETHER I NEED TO GET ENGINEERED DRAWINGS, WHAT HE NEEDS ME TO DO BEFORE I START PUTTING THAT BACK TOGETHER.
THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE PORCH COMPLETELY AND JUST HAVE A DECK THERE.
I NEED TO FIND OUT, WHICH WAY TO GO WITH THAT, WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE BEST WAY TO GO SO THAT I CAN HAVE IT DONE BY DECEMBER 6TH.
LIKE I SAID, I ONLY STARTED ON SATURDAY.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
>> WELL, YEAH. NOT A QUESTION FOR HIM, BUT FOR CLARITY, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE BY DECEMBER 6TH.
HE HAS TO AT LEAST HAVE A PERMIT.
>> WELL, THE BOARD [NOISE] CAN GIVE, ANY TIME FRAME.
BUT AS FAR AS WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO, WE'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO DO 30 DAYS AT THE TIME.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE'LL CLOSE THIS PART; THE PUBLIC HEARING.
LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION OF WHY THIS IS COMING TO US IN SUCH AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER.
I CAN SEE THE POTENTIAL PUBLIC SAFETY ASPECTS OF THAT.
IT ALSO LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS A DEGREE OF MISCOMMUNICATION, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN RECTIFIED AND THERE ARE ACTIONS BEING TAKEN.
HOPEFULLY, THIS PROPERTY WILL COME INTO COMPLIANCE VERY SOON.
I AM CERTAINLY OPEN TO A REASONABLE TIME FRAME.
>> I THINK THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS SHOWN POSITIVE PROGRESS AND IS SEEMS COMMITTED TO COMPLETING THE REPAIRS.
OF COURSE, HIS HANDS ARE A BIT TIED WITH THE BUREAUCRACY WITHIN THE CITY, BUT I'LL KEEP MY FINGERS CROSSED FOR YOU.
>> JUST FOR REFERENCE, SIR, WE RECOGNIZE ON THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE CONTINGENT ON CITY PROCESSING THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN.
IF SOMETHING WAS UNCOVERED AS THE WORK WAS BEING DONE, THAT RECOMMENDED COMING BACK BEFORE THE BOARD TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION, WE ARE TYPICALLY OPEN TO THAT.
FROM THE BOARD STANDPOINT, WE JUST WANT TO SEE PUBLIC SAFETY AND THINGS IN COMPLIANCE.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN UNKNOWNS IN THE SENSE THAT IF WE
[00:20:08]
PROPOSE A TIMELINE THAT IS DEEMED NOT FEASIBLE FOR LOGICAL DOCUMENTED REASONS, WE WOULD POTENTIALLY ENTERTAIN AN EXTENSION IF IT WAS NECESSARY.BUT WE ONLY DO THAT AGAIN, WHEN THERE ARE CASES BEYOND AN INDIVIDUAL'S MANAGEABLE CONTROL.
DID THAT MAKE SENSE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, FROM AGAIN, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND NOW THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A PROPERTY OWNER LIVING IN THEIR OWN HOUSE RATHER THAN HAVING IT COME BACK IF YOU WANTED TO DO SOME REASONABLE EXTENSION FOR THE FINE TO THEN BE LEVIED, RATHER THAN HAVING IT NECESSARILY COME BACK.
I MEAN, I KNOW THE PICTURE THAT'S THERE, BUT THE OTHER PICTURE THAT PROMPTED IT WAS A DIFFERENT PICTURE.
>> I'M JUST I KNOW AT THE LAST TIME, MY VERY FIRST MEETING, YOU DID ASK THEM TO COME BACK.
BUT IN THIS SITUATION, IT MAY BE PRUDENT TO JUST SET A TIME FRAME WHERE THE FINE COULD START TO CONTINUE PROGRESS FORWARD BECAUSE WE HAVE TENANTS AND BUILD HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERN AS THE BOARD MEMBER HAS RECOGNIZED.
THAT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS.
MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN YOUR NORMAL CASES WHERE IT'S A PROPERTY OWNER AND THEIR OWN LIKE I THINK IT WAS THE FENCE LAST TIME AROUND A DUMPSTER OR SOMETHING.
THIS DOES HAVE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS OF TENANTS.
>> YES. I'M INCLINED TO HAVE THAT FINE BE $50 A DAY, RATHER THAN 100.
I DO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION, BUT WE HAVE HAD PEOPLE WHO HAVE THUMB THEIR NOSE AT US FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS, AND WE CHARGE THEM NO MORE THAN $50 A DAY.
GENTLEMAN SEEM LIKE HE'S FORCED TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND HE'S COME TONIGHT TO ADDRESS IT.
IN THE EVENT SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN, I DON'T THINK THE FINE SHOULD BE $100.
>> NOTED. MR. CHAIR, I GOT TO BE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR OUR ATTORNEY AS MR. FINKELSTEIN IS GOING TO BE RUNNING AWAY FROM US IN SHORT ORDER.
WHAT IF WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM NEXT TIME, AND THE FINES ARE DUE TO BEGIN ON THE SIXTH?
>> WELL, AS WAS DISCUSSED, I THINK MAYBE THE OFFICER WAS INTIMATING AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WHO COULD GIVE MORE TIME, 45 DAYS, 60 DAYS, TO ALLOW US TO PROPERLY, I MEAN, TO GIVE HIM THE PERSON.
I THINK WOULD GET YOU THERE AND GET YOU PAST WHATEVER IMMINENT PROBLEM WE MAY BE FACING.
THAT WAS TO WHERE YOU WERE LEAVING.
>> NO. WE DON'T HAVE ALTERNATES.
>> THAT WOULD BE ONE SOLUTION.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, IF THERE WAS NO QUORUM, THEN THE CASE COULD IF THERE WAS NOT A PROPER QUORUM, WE COULD NOT HEAR THE CASE.
>> VOTE TONIGHT TO IMPOSE THOSE FINE.
THEY WOULD JUST HIT REGARDLESS, RIGHT. WE DIDN'T HAVE A QUORUM.
>> IF YOUR HESITANCY IS THE SIXTH, YOU COULD YOU COULD PICK A DIFFERENT DATE.
LIKE 60 DAYS WOULD GET YOU TO JANUARY 6 THEN PAST THE HOLIDAYS.
THAT COULD BE A WAY YOU COULD SOLVE THAT IS GIVE MORE TIME.
>> I COULD ASK A QUESTION, CHERYL.
HOW MANY PEOPLE RESPONDED FOR A JANUARY MEETING? IN THE AFIRMATIVE, I SHOULD SAY.
>> EVERYONE RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I THINK THERE'S ONE THAT IS UNABLE, WE HAVE FOUR CAN MAKE IT.
AND REMEMBER FINKEL SENS NOT HERE IN JANUARY WE 4444. CORRECT.
>> ALL OF YOU EXCEPT EXCEPT FOR MR [INAUDIBLE] THAT WOULD BE.
>> JUST TO CONTINUE WITH THE CLARIFICATION, THIS IS ALL UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT ISN'T DONE BY THAT TIME.
BUT IF IT IS DONE BY THAT TIME, DOESN'T MATTER.
ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS LATER IS NOT HAVING PEOPLE COME BACK IN HERE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THERE'S NO REASON FOR IT.
ONCE WE MAKE A RULING, THAT'S IT.
IT'S UP TO CODE ENFORCEMENT THEN TO JUST WITH IT BASED ON OUR RULING.
[00:25:01]
I DON'T KNOW THAT I WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT THE QUORUM ASPECT OF IT.IF WE CAN AGREE ON WHAT WE WANT TO PUT FORTH AND IT'S UP TO THESE GENTLEMEN TO GET IT DONE IN THAT TIME, AND IF OFFICER WELLS SAYS, I'VE DONE IT, SO BE IT.
>> I THINK IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE WHERE.
>> I KNOW, FOR SURE, THERE'S BEEN TIMES WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE A FORUM.
I THINK AT WHENEVER YOU HAVE THE NEXT ONE, YOU CAN RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT, WELL, YES, WE SAID 30 DAYS, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE AND THEN YOU JUST ADJUST.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED ANYWAY.
>> BOARD MEMBER, THOMPSON, YOU'VE ASKED THAT YOU'VE RECOMMENDED THAT INSTEAD OF $100 FINE WHEN FINES WOULD BE ENGAGED, IT WILL BE $50 AND SAID, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS OR MOTION THAT WE WANT TO PUT FORWARD BASED ON THAT? ARE WE OPEN TO TWO MONTHS THEN INSTEAD OF WELL, UNTIL JANUARY 6, WHICH WOULD BE TWO DAYS BEFORE OUR NEXT JANUARY BOARD MEETING? IS THAT WHAT ON THE CITY TIMELINE FOR ANY TERM THERE WAS NECESSARY BEFORE THE BOARD MEETING?
>> THAT'S MY THOUGHT IS TO GIVE THEM TO THE NEXT BOARD MEETING OR 6 JANUARY, RATHER.
THEN, IF WE DO FALL SHORT IN DECEMBER, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO CLARIFY THE RECORD AGAIN WITH FORGIVING FINES.
>> I'M FULLY IN FAVOR OF NOT REQUIRING PEOPLE TO COME BACK ANY MORE THAN IS NECESSARY.
MY COMMENT BEFORE WAS IF THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE UNFORESEEN, WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE BEING PENALIZED WHEN THEY ARE MAKING EVERY GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND THERE ARE THINGS BEYOND THEIR MANAGEABLE CONTROL.
IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, THEN WE WOULD ENTERTAIN SOMEONE COMING BACK TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION SO THAT WE CAN RE EVALUATE AND IN TURN WORK WITH THEM TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE ABLE TO.
I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED UNLESS.
>> GO AHEAD. PERFECTLY PLEASE.
>> GEE, HOLD ON. CASE. I CLOSED OUT THE THING.
NEVER MIND. I WAS READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
THERE YOU GO. THERE'S A GAS SUMMER. THANKS.
>> IN THE CASE OF 2025-0571, I MOTION THAT WE FIND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION, WE GIVE UNTIL JANUARY 6 TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
WE ASSESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, AND IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY JANUARY 6 OF 2026, WE ASSESS FINES IN THE AMOUNT OF $50 PER DAY TO BEGIN JANUARY 7, 2026.
>> I HAVE FIND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 42-117, GRANT IN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS UNTIL JULY 6, 2026 TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, ASSESS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $50 PER DAY TO BEGIN ON JANUARY 7, IF THE PROPERTY IS NO COMPLIANCE?
>> NEXT UP ON THE AGENDA WILL BE JUST BOARD BUSINESS.
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
I DON'T KNOW I SEE THAT WE HAVE THE NEW BOARD SECRETARY UNDER THAT HEADING.I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A QUICK OPPORTUNITY MAYBE TO DISCUSS SOMETHING THAT REGARDING MOTIONS AND HOW MOTIONS ARE PUT FORTH.
ALSO, I KNOW THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY, YOU MADE A COMMENT PREVIOUSLY ABOUT A TIME LIMIT ASPECT.
I DON'T KNOW IF TONIGHT'S TONIGHT, WE WANT TO TRY TO TIGHTEN THINGS UP A LITTLE BIT OR HOW EVERYONE'S FEELING ABOUT THAT.
BUT IT'S NOT A LONG DISCUSSION.
IT'S JUST TO MAKE IT UNIFORM, PROCEDURAL.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO PUT FORTH WHAT YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT BEFORE?
>> SURE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE CAN ADOPT AND HAVE ADOPTED,
[00:30:02]
LIKE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THIS PAST HEARING THAT WE HAD.TIME LIMITS FOR EACH SIDE, LIKE 15 MINUTES PER SIDE, FIVE MINUTES WORTH OF REBUTTAL, THE THREE MINUTES TO THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK.
I KNOW THAT LIKE THIS EVENING WE HAD ONE AND WE CAN USUALLY BE VERY RELAXED, WHERE IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THESE POLICIES AS NUMBER ONE.
THE CODE SAYS YOU WILL ADOPT THEM, AND THAT WE'LL WORK BY THEM.
THAT WOULD BE A GOOD REASON TO DO IT.
THEN SECOND IS WHEN WE DO HAVE A MORE CONTROVERSIAL WE DON'T LOOK REACTIVE.
WE DON'T LOOK LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO PENALIZE OR DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF DUE PROCESS.
IT'S BETTER TO JUST MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
IN A CALM NATURE WHERE WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST, AND THEN WE CAN APPLY IT WHEN THIS SITUATION OCCURS.
I WAS JUST GOING OFF THE TIME LIMITS THAT THE COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD USED BEFORE IT WAS NO LONGER IN PLACE.
THEN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, WE GIVE 15 MINUTES PER SIDE TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION, FIVE MINUTES FOR CROSS EXAMINATION.
YOU CAN GIVE 10 MINUTES FOR A CONCLUSION, AND THEN THE THREE MINUTES TO THE PUBLIC.
THAT WOULD THAT WOULD REALLY ADDRESS IT IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS, SO I COULD PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT TOGETHER UNLESS YOU HAD SOME OTHER IDEAS.
AGAIN, IT SEEMS EXTREME UNTIL YOU NEED IT.
THEN OF COURSE, THE CODE DOES SAY IN CHAPTER 2 FOR ALL THE BOARDS THAT THEY SHALL CREATE THEIR PROCEDURES.
WE'RE JUST HELPING YOU DO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS ANY COMMENT.
I DIDN'T REALLY SPEAK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT THIS.
>> IT'S FINE WITH ME. SOUNDS GOOD.
>> CAN I ASK ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION THEN? THE TIME LIMITS THAT YOU MENTIONED ARE ALL PER CASE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE THREE MINUTES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IS PER PERSON, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT WOULD BE PER PERSON, AND THEN EACH PERSON COULD GET UP FOR EACH CASE.
IF I CAME AND WANTED TO BE ACTIVE THAT NIGHT AND HAD OPINIONS ON ALL OF THEM, I COULD GET MY THREE MINUTES EACH TIME.
SURE. BUT IT IS PER PERSON, CORRECT?
>> THEN THE OTHER ONES THAT ARE PER CASE.
IT WOULD BE 15 MINUTE PRESENTATION EACH SIDE AND THEN FIVE MINUTES EACH CASE.
>> IT'S PER CASE UNLESS THERE ARE WITNESSES.
IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS MORNING IN MY HEARING, I HAD TWO WITNESSES.
IT'S USUALLY, THEY CAN CROSS THE WITNESSES CAN HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO TESTIFY, AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE CAN HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS EXAMINE.
THAT WOULD BE PER WITNESS IF YOU ACTUALLY CALLED WITNESSES.
>> IS THIS SOMETHING YOU CAN PUT TOGETHER WITH THE VISUALLY LOOK AT?
>> MAYBE PUT IT ON AS A DRAFT FOR YOUR NEXT MEETING.
>> I HATE TO NOT KNOW THIS ANSWER.
FORUM IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY MAKE A DECISION WOULD BE THE FOUR, BUT CAN WE CONVENE TO MAKE ANY LIKE.
MY OTHER BOARDS CAN DO THREE AT LEAST DISCUSS.
WE CAN AT LEAST OPEN A MEETING AND DISCUSS.
WE JUST COULD NOT MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON CASES.
I COULD HAVE A DRAFT READY IF WE DO MEET IN DECEMBER, AND IF NOT, I CAN HAVE A DRAFT READY FOR J.
>> SIGNS DECEMBER RIGHT NOW DOES LOOK ON THE SIDE.
IF YOU DON'T HAPPEN TO HAVE IT READY, IT MIGHT NOT BE A BAD IDEA TO DO JANUARY.
>> IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO RIGHT NOW BE A LONGER NIGHT FROM WHAT I CAN TELL.
>> YOU WON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES THAT HAVE COME TO THIS CITY.
THAT HAVE BEEN LONG AND DRAWN OUT AND WE REALLY NEEDED PROCEDURES.
>> I MEAN, I'VE DEFINITELY BEEN THERE ALREADY WITH SEVERAL OTHERS, SO JUST NOT THIS BOARD YET.
IT'S JUST A GOOD THING TO HAVE IN PLACE.
THEN WE'RE JUST BEING EVEN HANDED WITH EVERYBODY.
PEOPLE KNOW BEFORE THEY COME, IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE PART OF THE PACKAGE.
IT CAN BE PUT UP AT THE FRONT SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE THEM THE [INAUDIBLE] JUDICIAL PROCEDURES, TOO, THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE THEM A LITTLE SHORTER.
THEY CAN BE LEFT UP FRONT FOR PEOPLE TO GRAB AND SEE WHEN THEY COME IN.
WE'LL WORK ON GETTING THAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE USED TO. IT'D BE GOOD TO HAVE A BACKUP.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION TO THE CHAIR TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
IF WE HAVE A RESPONDENT THAT WAS FOUND GUILTY A YEAR AGO AND THEY WANT TO SHOW UP TO THE HEARING AND ADDRESS THEIR SITUATIONS THAT HAS NO BEARING ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT ARE PRESENTED, ARE THEY GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO PUBLICLY SPEAK.
>> I THINK THAT IT WOULDN'T BE AN IF ANYTHING, IT WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION DOES, WHICH IS ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
>> YOU CAN'T REALLY TAKE ANY ACTION.
[00:35:01]
IT WOULD NOT BE PROPERLY NOTICED FOR YOU TO TAKE ANY ACTION.BUT NOW I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT 162 TO SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY LIMITATIONS ON THAT. BUT YES, GO AHEAD.
BUT OTHERWISE, THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD BE.
IT WOULD NOT BE UNDER I SEE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ON HERE NOW.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION ON THIS?
>> THERE'S NOTHING I'VE EVER SEEN THAT ALLOWS PUBLIC COMMENT.
I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT, I BELIEVE I DO.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT MATTERS.
I THINK WHAT MATTERS IS PROCEDURAL.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS BOARD IS HERE TO HEAR CASES.
NOT TO HEAR SOMEBODY JUST RANT AND RAVE AND SHOW A PRESENTATION.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS THE VENUE FOR THAT.
I THINK THE COMMISSION IS THE VENUE FOR THAT.
>> I CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS DO, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.
EVEN AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL, EVEN IF THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL, IT'S RESTRICTED TO THE THREE MINUTES.
THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THE PRESENTATION AHEAD OF TIME.
I DO KNOW THAT THIS BOARD'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO HEAR CASES, UNLIKE A COMMISSION OR A PLANNING BOARD THAT HAS OTHER REASONS TO EXIST.
I CAN LOOK AT THAT AND HAVE A LEGAL DECISION READY FOR IT.
BUT CERTAINLY, IF IT WERE ALLOWED THEN IT WOULD JUST SOLELY BE.
WE PROBABLY SHOULD DECIDE TONIGHT IF WE WANT TO RESTRICT ANYTHING TO THREE MINUTES.
I READ THAT INTO THE RECORD THAT WE WERE ONLY GOING TO GIVE THEM THREE MINUTES.
THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES, IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> BUT TO ME, THE PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD BE STRICTLY WHAT THEY'RE HEARING AND NOT SOME WHATEVER.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE A SHOWCASE FOR SOMEBODY'S OPINIONS ABOUT WHATEVER.
I THINK THAT THAT'S THE COMMISSION.
I THINK THAT TO SAVE EVERYONE'S TIME AND ENERGY.
THEY SHOULD ONLY BE LISTENING TO CASES.
>> I CAN LOOK AT THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND BE READY AND TRY AND GET SOME INFORMATION OUT TO ALL OF YOU FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
I WASN'T ASKED THAT BEFORE TONIGHT, SO I JUST WAS COMING UP WITH SOME IDEAS BASED ON THE OTHER BOARDS AND HOW THEY OPERATE.
I CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THE COUNTY, LOOK AT ST AUGUSTINE AND WHAT THEY DO.
I CAN CALL ISABELLA, AND I'LL LOOK AT 162 AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY LIMITATION TO THAT.
>> I'VE READ IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR MULTITUDE OF REASONS LATELY.
I SAW NOTHING. AGAIN, IF IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE CASE. THANK YOU.
>> CAN I PROPOSE SOMETHING? IF WE THINK THAT LEADING INTO THE DECEMBER HEARING IS A REASONABLE TURNAROUND, ARE WE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING FROM YOU THAT WE CAN REVIEW AND HAVE THAT AS A VOTE, FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS? THEN IT IS OUR ESTABLISHED POLICY GOING FORWARD.
IT GIVES YOU TIME TO DOCUMENT IT AND REVIEW ALL OF THESE POINTS FOR THE TIME LIMITS AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE CAN BE PUBLIC COMMENT.
THEN WE GET IT IN BEFORE THINGS KICK OFF WITH THE HEARINGS THAT WE'LL HAVE.
>> WE COULD PUT IT FIRST ON THE AGENDA.
I COULD SEND IT TO YOU AHEAD OF TIME TO LOOK AT.
WE NEED TO DELIBERATE HERE, OBVIOUSLY.
BUT IT IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT CAN BE ADOPTED RIGHT ON THE SPOT WITHOUT BRINGING IT BACK.
YOU COULD EACH SHARE YOUR COMMENTS.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE COULDN'T DECIDE IT THROUGH EMAIL, AS YOU KNOW, BUT YOU COULD BRING YOUR COMMENTS.
IF WE WANTED TO MAKE CHANGES ON THE FLY, WE WOULD JUST APPROVE IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE DOCUMENT THAT HAS TO GO BACK AND FORTH.
IT'S AN ORDINANCE, AND THEN I COULD PUT IN ANY LIMITATION ON PUBLIC SPEAKING IF IT'S NOT ALLOWED.
THEN WE COULD HAVE IT AS THE FIRST AFTER YOUR PLEDGE, AND WE COULD CALL IT OLD BUSINESS, BECAUSE NOW IT WILL BE.
MAKE IT NUMBER 4 AND ADOPT THEM AT THAT POINT, AND THEN THAT'LL APPLY TO THAT MEETING. IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
>> I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST SOMETHING ELSE, TOO.
WE MAY WANT TO ADD TO OUR AGENDA.
I ALWAYS WONDER ABOUT THE CASES WE'VE ALREADY HEARD.
EVEN THOUGH WE COME UP WITH AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE AND IT GOES INTO THIS WELL, BACK INTO OFFICER WELLS' WORLD.
I JUST HAPPENED TO BE DRIVING CLOSE TO THE BEACH IN ONE OF OUR PREVIOUS CASES, THERE HADN'T BEEN ANY COMPLIANCE.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE COULD JUST GET A QUICK ASSESSMENT OF THE RECENTLY CLOSED AND STILL OPEN ENFORCEMENT ISSUES THAT ARE STILL ON OUR DOCKET.
[00:40:04]
>> WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THAT INFORMATION?
>> IT GETS TO THE POINT WHERE IF SOMEBODY'S STILL RECALCITRANT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE BACK IN FRONT OF US, BUT IT KEEPS OUR MIND.
>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, TOO, BUT OKAY. THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
>> IF WE DID THIS, AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DOING IT.
HOW FAR BACK WOULD YOU WANT TO GO?
>> I'M HOPING NO MORE THAN A YEAR, BUT YOU'RE GIVE ME A SMILE LIKE IT'S GOING TO GO WAY BACK.
>> WE HAVE AN AVERAGE OF 100 CASES AT ONE PHASE OF THE PROCESS OR ANOTHER, SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING, HOW FAR BACK DO YOU WANT TO GO? IF YOU JUST WANT TO GO BACK A COUPLE OF YEARS OR A YEAR, THAT'S FINE.
WE JUST NEED TO KNOW SO THAT WE CAN GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT.
>> I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT WE WOULD DO WITH THAT INFORMATION.
>> ARE YOU ASKING FOR ALL OR ONE SPECIFIC CASE?
>> FOR INSTANCE, YOU HAVE A DEFENDANT THAT COMES INTO COMPLIANCE, AND WE NEVER SEE ABOUT IT, AND MAYBE WE DON'T INCLUDE THAT ON THERE.
BUT ON SOMEBODY THAT'S RECURRENT OR COMPLETELY RECALCITRANT TO THE ENTIRE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS, UP AND LIKE, WHEN DO WE PULL THE TRIGGER AND SAY, IT MAY BE TIME TO THROW OUT THAT LIEN LETTER.
THAT THINGS ARE GOING TO GET REAL UGLY REAL FAST.
>> A LIEN TYPICALLY, IF THEY HAVEN'T PAID OR ANYTHING STILL IN VIOLATION, MOSTLY HAVEN'T PAID.
TYPICALLY, ABOUT 45 DAYS, SO THAT IF THEY NEED TO COME BACK TO YOU, TO REDUCE THEIR FINES, THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THEM.
IT'S A SHORT WINDOW, BUT IT'S AVAILABLE TO THEM.
IT'S A LIEN AGAINST THEIR PROPERTY, AND THAT'S IT, AND THE LIEN IS THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.
WE HAVE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY.
I COULDN'T TELL YOU OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT WE HAVE SEVERAL THAT HAVE COME INTO COMPLIANCE, BUT THEY HAVEN'T PAID.
WE HAVE SOME THAT HAVE NEVER COME INTO COMPLIANCE, AND THERE'S HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
IN FINES, WHICH IS RIDICULOUS, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.
FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS AN EXEMPTION IN THEIR HOME, WE CANNOT FORECLOSE ON THEM.
WE HAVE ONLY FORECLOSED SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, MAYBE TWICE IN ALMOST 20 YEARS.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE DO WILLY-NILLY.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY.
BUT AS FAR AS THE LIEN, THAT'S JUST PART OF THE PROCESS.
>> WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THE LIEN DOESN'T COME BACK TO YOU.
>> JUST THE NOTIFICATION THAT YOU'VE DONE IT, STATUS OF THE CASE.
>> THAT'S FINE. WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT US TO DO AS FAR AS GIVING YOU FEEDBACK, JUST LET US KNOW.
IF YOU WANT TO EMAIL ME AND LET ME KNOW, WE CAN DO IT ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
WE CAN DO IT ANY WAY YOU WANT.
WE CAN JUST SEND YOU AN EMAIL AND LET YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE CASES.
OR WE CAN BRING THEM BACK HERE AND GIVE YOU A RUNDOWN, HOWEVER WAY YOU WANT TO DO.
>> GETTING BACK TO WHAT WE WERE STARTING OFF WITH, AND I KNOW THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL PRESENT FOR US AN OUTLINE OF THE MINUTE, THE STRUCTURE TO HELP US OUT WITH OUR NEXT MEETING, CORRECT? THEN ONE OF THE THINGS, I THOUGHT YOU DID A GREAT JOB, MEMBER KRESSE, WITH THE WAY YOU PUT FORTH A MOTION, WE JUST WANT TO BECOME MORE UNIFORM IN THAT, SO THAT IT REALLY DOES.
IT'S EASIER FOR US, IT'S EASIER FOR THE BOARD SECRETARY.
HOW IT WENT TONIGHT, I THOUGHT WAS VERY WELL.
YOU JUST PUT FORTH WHAT THE CASE NUMBER IS.
READ OUT THE RECOMMENDATION IF YOU WANT TO DO THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK YOU DID CRYSTAL WITH PUTTING DOWN WHAT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION WAS OR ANY CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE, SUCH AS CHANGING IT FROM $100 TO $50.
THAT WAY, WE CAN HAVE A REAL CLEAN MOTION THAT GOES THROUGH, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE BOARD.
>> WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS [OVERLAPPING].
>> THIS WEEK OR LAST WEEK. I KNOW.
WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS.
>> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE I WAS ON THE FENCE FOR EVERYBODY TO GET THIS, AND YOU CAN STILL MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.
THERE WOULD BE BLANKS, BUT CRYSTAL HAS ALREADY BEEN WORKING ON IT, SO WE CAN HAVE THAT AVAILABLE TO YOU.
>> NOW, IT WILL BE MS. CHERYL.
WE CAN HAVE IT THERE AT YOUR SEATS.
[00:45:04]
>> EVERY MEETING, EVERY HEARING.
>> THE NEXT POINT I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT WITH THE BOARD IS WHEN WE HAVE THESE CASES THAT COME UP BEFORE US, SO WE HAD A NUMEROUS TIMES WHERE PEOPLE KEEP COMING BACK, AND THEY KEEP COMING BACK.
IT'S LIKE DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN. IT'S GROUNDHOG DAY.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONCE WE HAVE MADE A RULING, THAT'S IT.
THERE'S NO REASON FOR PEOPLE TO COME BACK, REALLY.
WHATEVER WORK THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS GOING TO BE THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT.
WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO RULE ON SOMETHING, WE MAKE A RULING, AND I WANTED TO GET OPINIONS ON WHAT ARE THE REASONS WHY PEOPLE SHOULD KEEP COMING BACK.
ARE THERE ANY? ONCE WE HAVE RULED.
>> PERSONALLY, I WOULD SAY, EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE CITY ISN'T COOPERATING, SOMETHING OUT OF THEIR CONTROL.
IF THEY'RE JUST NOT DOING IT, THAT'S NOT GO TO ENOUGH.
IF THEY'RE TRYING, THAT MAY BE BUT I WOULD THINK, IT'S GOT TO BE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> MADAM ATTORNEY, I HAVE A QUESTION.
FOR INSTANCE, AND I DON'T WANT TO INVOKE ANYBODY'S NAME OF A PREVIOUS CASE.
BUT LET'S SAY THERE'S A CASE WHERE THEY KEEP COMING BACK.
LET'S PRETEND IT'S A CASE WHERE MAYBE THERE'S A SWIMMING POOL THAT HASN'T BEEN FENCED IN OR SOMETHING, AND WE MAKE A JUDGMENT.
THEN THIS KEEPS COMING UP, SHOULD THAT PERSON BE ABLE TO COME BACK TIME AND TIME AGAIN? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO, WHICH IS FINE, OR IS IT SOMETHING WHERE WE REALLY ARE SAYING, LOOK, WE'VE MADE OUR JUDGMENT.
THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FOR US TO HEAR.
YOU CAN TALK TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OFFICE, BUT WE'RE DONE.
>> AS LONG AS YOUR MOTION WAS AS IT WAS TONIGHT, WHERE YOU ARE DONE.
YOU MADE A DECISION, YOU GAVE DIRECTION, JANUARY 6, THE TIME WILL BE UP, JANUARY 7, WE ALL KNOW WHAT TO DO.
AT THAT POINT, IF IT'S THE SAME VIOLATION, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO BRING THEM BACK AS A REPEAT OFFENDER.
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON IT SHOULD COME BACK TO YOU.
IS IF THEY FIXED IT, AND THEN IT'S BROKEN AGAIN, OR THEY HAVE A NEW VIOLATION ON THE ROOF.
OR IN THE SITUATION OF OFFENSE, IF YOU VIOLATED THEM FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OFFENSE, BUT THEN THERE'S ANOTHER VIOLATION.
I WOULD SAY IT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU IF IT WAS A VIOLATION THAT WAS DIFFERENT.
IF IT WAS A REPEAT VIOLATION BECAUSE THEY FIXED IT, AND THEN ANOTHER AREA OF THAT ROOF.
BECAUSE THAT ROOF LOOKS LIKE IT COULD HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM ANYTIME SOON.
SITUATIONS LIKE THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY TIME IT COMES BACK TO YOU.
THE REPEAT MEETING AFTER MEETING, I WOULD ONLY IMAGINE IS YOU CONTINUING IT.
THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR IT TO COME BACK UNLESS IT HAD A NEW VIOLATION, A NEW NOTICE, AND ALL THAT.
I'M OBVIOUSLY NEW TO THE PARTY, SO I'M NOT VERY SURE WHERE THE QUESTIONS COMING FROM.
IT'S ONLY IF YOU DON'T MAKE A DECISION THAT IT WILL HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK AND BACK ON YOUR CALENDAR.
OR THEY HAVE A NEW VIOLATION, A REPEAT VIOLATION, THOSE THAT HAVE DONE THIS M2 MEETINGS, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR IT TO COME BACK.
>> YOU ALL HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE, YOU'VE ASKED FOR THEM TO COME BACK.
THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE BY ALL MEANS, BUT WE CAN GIVE YOU THOSE UPDATES.
YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE THEM KEEP COMING BACK.
THAT'S A LOT OF TIME FOR EVERYBODY.
WE CAN JUST SHOOT YOU AN EMAIL AND OR GIVE YOU A STATUS UPDATE AT THE NEXT HEARING.
IT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU GUYS, BUT JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, A REPEAT WHEN THERE'S A REPEAT VIOLATION THAT MEANS IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME VIOLATION THAT KEEPS HAPPENING.
WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED, AND WE DON'T GIVE THEM ANY TIME TO CORRECT.
IT COMES RIGHT BACK TO HERE, AND THEN IT'S UP TO YOU TO ORDER WHATEVER YOU WANT.
KEEP THAT IN THE BACK OF YOUR HEAD THAT YOU'LL SEE NO TIME FOR COMPLIANCE.
IT JUST COMES DIRECTLY HERE, AND THAT IS OUT OF 162, WHICH IS THE STATUTE THAT WE WORK ON.
IT'S IN THE CITY'S CODE [INAUDIBLE] ITEM 162.
>> I THINK IN ONE OF THESE CASES, WE'VE HAD A RESPONDENT COME BACK MORE THAN WE HAVE REQUESTED.
THE CASE THAT COMES TO MIND FOR ME, FELL UNDER THE HDC, AND SO THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A BIT MORE TIME TO WORK OUT WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THAT CRITERIA.
[00:50:05]
WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO BE LENIENT TO ALLOW TIME TO RECTIFY THAT.THEN COME BACK AND LET US KNOW HOW LONG WAS NEEDED SO THAT WE COULD MAKE THEN A DETERMINATION IN LINE WITH THE CRITERIA.
I THINK WE'VE DONE THAT, MAYBE A COUPLE OF OTHER CASES OVER MY YEARS, WHERE WE JUST [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT WAS THE LONGEST THAT WAS CRAZY LONG.
YOU'VE DONE IT QUITE A FEW TIMES, NOT TO THAT EXTENT.
BUT YOU'VE DONE IT AS A BOARD A LOT.
>> THEN WE STOPPED DOING IT, THOUGH.
>> YOU'VE GOTTEN MUCH BETTER. YES.
>> YES, BECAUSE I THINK THAT FROM THE BOARD'S PERSPECTIVE, WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION, THAT DOES OFFER FINALITY.
IT OFFERS CLARITY, AND THEN WE CAN ALWAYS FIX IT.
IF, FOR SOME REASON, STAFF ACTED COMPLETELY UNREASONABLY AND ON THE PRECIPICE OF A BUILDING PERMIT BEING ISSUED, STARTED FINDING THEM.
OR IF IT JUST HAD TO BE DONE, BECAUSE THE ORDER SAID THEY WILL BE FINED ON THIS DAY.
AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE COULD LOOK AT IT, THERE'S APPEAL PROCEDURES.
THEY COULD ALWAYS APPEAL WHAT HAPPENED IF THEY BELIEVED THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FINED.
MAKING A DECISION, I THINK, DOES ALLOW THE BOARD TO OPERATE, MOVE FORWARD.
THEN WHEN PEOPLE COME BACK ON THEIR OWN VOLITION AND WANT TO BE REHEARD, THERE'S NO BASIS FOR THAT. I GET IT.
PUBLIC COMMENT WAS SOMETHING I WAS WILLING TO LOOK INTO.
BUT A CASE BEING REOPENED WITHOUT NOTICE AND BEING PUT ON AN AGENDA THAT NO.
ESPECIALLY ONCE YOU MADE A DECISION ON IT?THERE ARE APPEAL PROCEDURES THAT CAN BE EXHAUSTED.
>> AS FAR AS PUBLIC COMMENT, I JUST WANT TO SAY FROM MY POSITION, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
THIS IS FOR PEOPLE WHO COME IN FOR ANY CASES THAT WE WANT TO HEAR.
ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO RUN TO RAVE OR HAVE A DISCUSSION.
THEY CAN CALL THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD.
THEY CAN TURN IN A COMPLAINT, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME IN AND HAVE A PLACE TO COMPLAIN.
ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANY BOARD MEMBER? I THINK SO FOR THIS EVENING. GOOD MEETING.
OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON DECEMBER 4 AT 5:00 P.M., I BELIEVE.
>> THE BOARD HAS ADJOURNED [BACKGROUND].
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.