[00:00:04]
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM]
>> WE'LL START OFF WITH A STANDING AND HAVING A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THEN BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON GIVE AN INVITATION TOO.
>> THAT'S NOT ALL OF THEM, IS IT?
>> OUR FATHER GOD, WE COME TO NIGHT OH LORD, AND WE SAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR MANY BLESSINGS, FOR YOUR MULTITUDE OF TENDER MERCY, FATHER.
WE THANK YOU FOR HOW YOU HAVE KEPT US SINCE THE LAST MEETING.
NOW LORD, WE INVOKE YOUR PRESENCE IN THIS MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND APPEALS BOARD, LEAD AND GUIDE IN A MANNER THAT'S PLEASING IN SIGHT.
WE GIVE YOU THE PRAISES, THE HONOR AND THE GLORIES IN JESUS NAME, WE PRAY, LET EVERY HEART SAY AMEN.
>> THANK YOU. HAS THE BOARD HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES?
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
>> ANYBODY WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES?
>> OPPOSED. MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA?
>> WE KIND OF SKIPPED OVER, MR. CHAIRMAN ITEM 3.1.
UNLESS IT'S NOT ON EVERYBODY ELSE'S AGENDA.
>> NOPE. MINE I DON'T HAVE A 3.1.
THEY'RE REQUESTING THE ADOPTION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT APPEALS BOARD PROCEDURES.
WAS THAT NOT ON EVERYBODY ELSE'S?
>> IT WAS ON MINE, BUT THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO SAY LET'S CONTINUE THAT.
WOULD YOU LIKE AN UPDATE ON THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN BEFORE WE PROCEED.
>> WE DID CIRCULATE SOME PROPOSED RULES FOR OPERATING AND STUFF UNDER CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ADOPT YOUR PROCEDURES.
THIS MORNING, WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD STAFF, AND WE HAVE SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES.
WE'LL CIRCULATE MAYBE A RED LINE VERSION FOR YOU TO LOOK AT, AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT IN MORE DEPTH AT THE NEXT MEETING AND MAKE SURE IT'S ON EVERYBODY'S AGENDA IF THAT IS OKAY WITH THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.
>> DO WE NEED TO GO OVER THE QUASI-JUDICIAL.
THE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS, IF THERE WERE ANYONE HERE. THERE'S NO ONE HERE.
IT'S DIFFERENT FROM A REGULAR, AS YOU KNOW, FROM A REGULAR BOARD MEETING, BUT NOT QUITE AS FORMAL AS COURT.
YOU'LL BE HEARING EVIDENCE, AND YOU NEED TO MAKE YOUR DECISIONS ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
WITH NO ONE BEING HERE THIS EVENING, YOU'LL BE HEARING YOUR STAFF GIVE YOU EVIDENCE, AND THEY ARE CONSIDERED COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU CAN BASE YOUR DECISIONS ON.
WE'LL STICK WITH THOSE ABBREVIATED ONES SINCE THERE'S NO ONE HERE. DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYONE?
>> I GUESS WE'LL SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES OF THOSE WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING TONIGHT.
IF WE COULD HAVE THAT, PLEASE.
>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY AND OR EVIDENCE YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE AND OR PRESENT IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED.
>> OUR FIRST CASE IS SUSAN VELTRI,
[6.1 SUSAN VELTRE, 1401 HIGHLAND DR., CASE 2025-0529.]
1401 HIGHLAND DRIVE, CASE 2025-0529.>> THIS CASE HAS ACTUALLY COME INTO COMPLIANCE DAY.
HAS ANYONE HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.
>> EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO WHISPER.
[LAUGHTER] THAT CASE HAS COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
THE SECOND CASE UNDER NEW BUSINESS DONNA PERKINS,
[6.2 DONNA K. PERKINS 2673 GREGOR MCGREGOR BLVD. CASE 2025-0630.]
2673 GREGOR MCGREGOR, CASE 2025-06630.>> DO YOU HAVE TESTIMONY ON THAT?
>> AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT MY CASE DOCUMENTS,
[00:05:03]
PICTURES, EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.>> THANK YOU. ON NOVEMBER 3, 2025, I COMPLETED INITIAL INSPECTION REVEALING THAT AN UNSECURED POOL WITH A TEMPORARY BARRIER WAS DOWN, CREATING A SAFETY HAZARD.
AT THAT TIME, THE HOMEOWNER WAS NOT PRESENT, BUT PHOTOS WERE DOCUMENTED.
NOVEMBER 6, 2025, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED AND HAND DELIVERED TO MS. DONNA PERKINS, WHO DID ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT.
ON THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER, IT DID STATE WITHIN 24 HOURS TO SECURE THE TEMPORARY FENCING.
THEN WENT WITHIN 27 DAYS TO OBTAIN PERMITS AND INSTALL A PERMANENT POOL ENCLOSURE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 5.0111.
AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS COMPLETED AND THE HEARING DATE WAS SET FOR DECEMBER 4, 2025.
NOVEMBER 7, 2025, THE 24 HOUR COMPLIANCE INSPECTION DID FAIL AT THAT TIME, AND THE POOL REMAINED UNSECURED.
ON NOVEMBER 25, 2025, THE PRE INSPECTION SHOWED THE TEMPORARY FENCING WAS IN PLACE, BUT NO PROGRESS TOWARDS TO PERMANENT ENCLOSURE HAD BEEN MADE.
THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION, NO PERMANENT APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED.
THE CONCLUSION IS THE INITIAL UNSECURED POOL POSED AN IMMEDIATE SAFETY HAZARD.
TEMPORARY FENCING WAS LATER SECURED, BUT THE REQUIRED PERMANENT BARRIER HAD NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.
PROPER NOTICE AND SUFFICIENT TIME WERE PROVIDED, VIOLATION REMAINS UNSAVED.
THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 5-0111, GIVING THE OWNER AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY JANUARY 4, 2026.
THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE THAT ALL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES TO BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT IN A FINE OF $200 PER DAY TO BEGIN ON JANUARY 5, 2026.
AND ALSO, JUST MY NAME IS CRYSTAL RIMES, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH THE THE CITY OF BERNARDINO.
I DIDN'T STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
IN THE BEGINNING. TODAY, I COMPLETED AN INSPECTION.
THESE ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I GOT THIS AFTERNOON.
THIS IS THE HOUSE, AND JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, IT IS VERY CLOSE TO THE BEACH RIGHT HERE ON SOUTH LETCHER.
IT'S ON THE CORNER OF OHIO AND GREGOR MCGREGOR.
THIS IS ONE SIDE THAT HAS THE PLASTIC TEMPORARY FENCING UP.
A PHOTO OF ANOTHER, IT'S NOT GREATLY SECURED TO THE POST.
THIS SECTION AND THE SECTION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DOWN THAT CAUGHT OUR ATTENTION WAS PUT BACK UP.
THERE IS A TEMPORARY BARRIER AT THIS TIME.
MS. DONNA PERKINS DID CALL OUR OFFICE TODAY.
SHE STATED THAT SHE COULD NOT BE HERE TONIGHT, BUT SHE DID TOUCH BASE AND LET US KNOW THAT SHE WANTED TO BE HERE, AND I ADVISED HER TO SEND AN EMAIL AND SHE WAS NOT COMFORTABLE USING EMAIL.
SHE SAID THAT SHE COULD SEND A TEXT MESSAGE AND PROVIDE AN UPDATE TO YOU GUYS, BUT I NEVER RECEIVED A TEXT MESSAGE FROM HER TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU GUYS. CITY REST.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? IS THIS THE SAME?
>> [LAUGHTER] THAT MAKES YOU ALL CRAZY NOW.
>> SINCE IT IS THE SAME, WHY IS IT A NEW CASE NUMBER?
>> IT IS A DIFFERENT VIOLATION.
THE PREVIOUS VIOLATION WAS 42-117 EXTERIOR STRUCTURE.
JUST TO JOG YOUR MEMORY, A PART OF THAT WAS FOR HER TO REMOVE THE DILAPIDATED FENCE, AND THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE, THE HOUSE STRUCTURE THAT HAD THE DAMAGE.
SHE DID REMOVE THE FENCE AND DISPOSED OF THAT, BUT THIS BEING PUT UP IS NOT A PERMANENT SOLUTION ACCORDING TO FLORIDA BILLING CODE.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PERMANENT LOCKING SAFETY FEATURE.
>> BUT THIS CAME TO US BEFORE AS THE SOLUTION THAT WE ACCEPTED BECAUSE WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS WAS DOABLE,
[00:10:01]
EVEN THOUGH IT WAS TEMPORARY IF I RECALL DIRECTLY.I MAY BE MISRECALLING BECAUSE IT WAS A COUPLE OF MONTHS BACK.
>> WELL, I RECALL POOL BEING A VERY BIG DEAL FOR US.
I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AT IT AS WELL.
>> IF THE TEMPORARY FENCING WAS UP AND REMAINED UP, IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE CAUGHT MY ATTENTION SO MUCH, BUT SEEING THAT HOW EASY IT IS TO COME DOWN WHEN I DRIVE BY, INITIALLY, IT WAS COMPLETELY DOWN AND EXPOSED.
>> I THINK MAYBE THE KEYWORD IS TEMPORARY.
>> MS. CRYSTAL WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT WAS SECURE ENOUGH SO THAT A CHILD COULD NOT SQUEEZE THEMSELVES UNDER IT OR AROUND IT?
>> DID YOU ALSO SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF TRESPASS? OBVIOUSLY, A CHILD IS NOT GOING TO TRY TO SNEAK INTO AN EMPTY POOL, BUT IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF WHAT WE DID SAY IN A RISK ASSESSMENT WOULD BE CHILDREN ACTIVITY IN THE AREA?
>> I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A LITTLE OUT OF MY SCOPE HONESTLY.
WHEN I WENT BY AND WITNESSED THIS COMPLETELY WIDE OPEN, THAT MADE ME UNCOMFORTABLE.
TAKING THE LOCATION AND EVERYTHING INTO CONSIDERATION.
I DO FEEL LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE COULD EASILY WALK BY HERE.
>> MS. CRYSTAL, IN BETWEEN NOVEMBER 3 AND YOU SPOKE WITH HER ON YESTERDAY?
>> TODAY. HAS SHE GIVEN YOU ANY INDICATION THAT SHE PLANS TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS?
>> THE ONE THING THAT SHE DID TELL ME WAS SHE DID ATTEMPT TO GET A QUOTE TO HAVE THE POOL FILLED AND THAT WAS $12,000 AND THAT WAS NOT DOABLE.
SHE DOESN'T PLAN TO GET IT FILLED, BUT SHE ALSO DID INDICATE THAT HER HUSBAND WAS IN TOWN AND WHILE HE WAS IN TOWN, HE WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT, AND THEN HIS TOOLS UNFORTUNATELY GOT STOLEN AND WASN'T ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.
IT DID NOT SOUND LIKE THERE WAS ANY MOVEMENT GOING TO HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON.
I DO THINK SHE IS MORE INTERESTED AT THIS POINT IN SELLING THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S MORE THAN SHE CAN MAINTAIN.
>> COUNSEL, IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY TO BE READ BACK?
>> YOU MEAN SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SAID PREVIOUSLY?
>> YOU CAN'T CONSIDER THAT AS TESTIMONY, BUT IF YOU WANT TO REMIND YOURSELVES, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WEIGHT YOU COULD GIVE IT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, BUT IF IT'S JUST TO HELP YOUR MEMORY OR HELP THE BOARD MAKE A DECISION THAT NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED.
YOU CAN READ IT IN. I THINK THAT'S FINE.
BUT IT'S NOT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
ARE YOU TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT YOU DID AND WHY YOU DID IT AND JUST REFRESH EVERYBODY'S MEMORY?
>> I SEEM TO REMEMBER, AND I COULD BE MISTAKEN.
>> I THINK YOU CAN READ THAT IN.
THEN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY IS WHAT I THINK EVERYBODY'S DANCING AROUND.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THIS IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK.
IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHO WALKS BY AND CAN KIDS GET IN.
BUT I THINK THE REAL IT'S HEALTH AND SAFETY, IS IT AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE? WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO GO IN THERE AND PLAY OR ANYONE? YES, YOU CAN READ IF WE HAVE IT.
YOU CAN CERTAINLY REMIND YOURSELVES OF WHAT HAPPENED.
AS LONG AS CHAIR IS COMFORTABLE WITH IT?
>> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO RECALL?
>> LIKE I SAID, I DON'T WANT TO IN ANY WAY IMPINGE ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE DEFENDANT HERE, BUT I SEEM TO REMEMBER THERE WAS A DIFFERENT MARITAL STATUS IN HER PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, AND THAT GOES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING.
>> I SEE. WELL, THEN BECAUSE THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT CRYSTAL AND NOT THAT CRYSTAL MS. RHINES WOULD EVER MISREPRESENT, BUT IT WAS A CONVERSATION.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING. MEMORIES COULD BE WRONG.
[00:15:02]
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT PARTICULARLY.IT CERTAINLY COULDN'T BE USED.
>> WELL, AND JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THE PREVIOUS CASES, THAT WAS SECTION 42-117, AND THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REGARDING THE 1112.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
>> NO, THANK YOU FOR LETTING US KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING.
>> THEY'RE STILL IN VIOLATION 42-117 ALSO, THAT OTHER CASE STILL.
>> THERE IS ANOTHER CASE ON THIS PROPERTY.
THERE ARE TWO OTHER CASES ON THIS PROPERTY THAT HAVE LIEN FILED AGAINST THEM.
>> THE LIENS ARE FILED AGAINST THEM.
>> FRUSTRATING CASE. I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> I AGREE THIS. WE'RE OBVIOUSLY COGNIZANT OF THE SAFETY ISSUE.
I KNOW THE CITY HAS TO RECOMMEND 30 DAYS OF STANDARD PERMIT AND WORK DONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REALISTICALLY FEASIBLE.
YOU KNOW ME, I'M NOT INCLINED TO CREATE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON PEOPLE, BUT I DO RECOGNIZE THE SAFETY ASPECTS HERE.
THEY HAVE AT LEAST TEMPORARILY SECURED IT AGAIN.
I AGREE WITH URGENCY TO FIX IT.
I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT 30 DAYS IS REASONABLE, TO ACTUALLY GET DONE.
>> IS THE POOL EMPTY RIGHT NOW?
>> I CANNOT TELL FROM WHERE I AM STANDING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT.
>> DO YOU GET THE FEELING THAT AT THIS POINT, SHE'S NOT SO MUCH INTERESTED IN GETTING THE POOL BACK UP AND RUNNING AS A POOL THAT WOULD BE, SHE'S MORE CONCERNED ABOUT COVERING UP THE WHOLE, SO TO SPEAK.
>> FROM THE CONVERSATION, THE ONLY CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH HER REGARDING THIS ISSUE, I DID NOT GET THE FEELING THAT THE SOLUTION WAS EVEN CLOSE AT THIS POINT.
SHE DID MENTION FILLING IT IN, BUT IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE SHE WANTS TO OPERATE, AND SHE DIDN'T ALSO DIDN'T MENTION THE FENCING AS WELL.
>> IT'S CRYSTAL. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO ZOOM IN BETWEEN THE TWO TREES HERE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD I CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD?
>> THE VIOLATION IS FOR A PERMANENT FENCE TO BE ERECTED.
IF A PERMANENT FENCE WAS ERECTED, WOULD THERE BE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE POOL? FILLED, UNFILLED, WATER, NO WATER? IT'S REALLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A FENCE GETS PUT UP, CORRECT?
>> YEAH. ACCORDING TO FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, IF POOL DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S FILLED OR NOT, IT MUST HAVE A FENCE PROPER FENCING AND A PROPER SAFETY BARRIER AROUND IT.
>> IF A FENCE WAS PUT UP, THE VIOLATION WOULD BE CURED AND THERE WOULDN'T BE A CONCERN.
YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT'S PERSPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S WATER IN IT, OR THERE'S DIRT.
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU.
>> WOULD YOU PAN DOWN, PLEASE? WHAT I'M SEEING IS AT LEAST TWO STAIRS THAT ARE DRY.
IF THERE IS WATER IN THERE, THERE'S TWO HAZARDS.
THERE'S ACROSS THE FALL, AND THEN THERE'S THE THE DROWNING.
IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER CASES THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS, AND I AM INCLINED TO GO ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT'S COMING FROM STAFF AS TO WHAT WE SHOULD DO HERE. I WOULD AGREE.
>> DO YOU WANT TO PUT FORTH A MOTION?
>> I CAN. WHERE'S THE CHEAT SHEET? [LAUGHTER]
>> I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO FIND, GO BACK TO THIS PROPERTY
[00:20:02]
HERE AT 2673 GREGOR MCGREGOR BOULEVARD, CASE NUMBER 202-05-0630 IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 50111.THE RESPONDENT BE GRANTED AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS ON A COMPLIANCE DATE OF IT WAS IT 105.
>> JANUARY 4TH TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE ASSESS ALL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $200 PER DAY TO BEGIN THAT TODAY OR TOMORROW?
WE HAVE A MOTION THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED AND SECONDED. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND CALL.
WE ALL HAVE TO VOTE IN FAVOR FOR IT TO CARRY.
>> I THOUGHT [INAUDIBLE] ANSWERED IT.
>> YES. MOTION WAS CARRIED FORWARD.
OUR LAST CASE OF THE EVENING IS EUGENE T HOOVER, 1717 BEACH STREET.
[6.3 EUGENE T. HOOVER JR., 1717 BEECH ST., CASE 2024-0276.]
THIS SEEMS LIKE ONE THAT HAS COME BEFORE US BEFORE AS WELL, BUT MAYBE NOT.>> GEORGE WELLS, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT ALL MY EVIDENCE AND PHOTOS AND DOCUMENTS INTO PUBLIC RECORD.
YES. THIS CASE HAS BEEN BEFORE YOU BEFORE.
>> WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOME CLEANUP OF OUR OLD CASES AND THINGS LIKE THIS.
WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE THIS ONE THROUGH.
WE OPENED ANOTHER CASE WELL, LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY BEFORE THIS.
YOU FOUND THIS PERSON IN VIOLATION PREVIOUSLY FOR 42-173 RECORD.
THIS IS NOT THE TAG THAT'S ON THIS VEHICLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT I'LL EXPLAIN THAT.
BUT ANYWAY, YOU FOUND HIM IN VIOLATION, AND WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME THAT YOU GAVE HIM, HE PUT A TAG ON IT, A CURRENT TAG, AND IT WAS ONLY GOOD FOR LIKE 10 DAYS, AND THEN IT WENT BACK INTO VIOLATION AGAIN.
BUT ANYWAY, SO WE SAT BACK AND JUST SEE WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO.
BUT ANYWAY, WE DECIDED WE GO AHEAD AND BRING IT BACK BEFORE YOU AGAIN.
ON OCTOBER 15, 2025, OUR DEPARTMENT INSPECTED THE PROPERTY TO CONFIRM THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE BACK YARD WAS STILL IN VIOLATION OF 42-173 WITH AN EXPIRED LICENSE TAG.
OCTOBER 17, 2025, OUR DEPARTMENT MAILED A CERTIFIED INTERVIEW NOH LETTER TO MR. HOOVER, GIVING HIM 30 DAYS TO BRING THE INOPERABLE VEHICLE INTO COMPLIANCE.
OCTOBER 20, 2025, OUR DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SIGNED GREEN RETURN CARD BY MR. HOOVER GIVING ITS PROPER SERVICE.
NOVEMBER 18, 2025, OUR DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICE FOR HEARING INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY.
THE VEHICLE IN QUESTION IS STILL IN VIOLATION.
NOVEMBER 25TH, 2025, OUR DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED A PRE-AGENDA INSPECTION AND THE VEHICLE IS STILL IN VIOLATION.
THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 42-173 REC OR INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, DECLARED A NUISANCE AND PROHIBITED.
GIVING THE OWNER ADDITIONAL 14 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY DECEMBER 28, 2025, THE CITY RECOMMENDS A MOTION TO BE MADE THAT ALL ADMIN FEES BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT IN A FINE OF $50 PER DAY BEGIN ON DECEMBER 29, 2025, IF NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY DECEMBER 28TH.
THIS IS HIS CURRENT TRUCK THAT HE DRIVES RIGHT HERE, AND IT HAS A CURRENT TAG ON IT FOR JULY OF 26.
THIS IS THE INOPERABLE VEHICLE THAT'S GOT THE TAG FOR JULY OF 2024 ON IT, THE ONE THAT THEY HAD FROM THE LAST TIME.
WELL, THE ONE HE PUT ON THERE RIGHT TO PASS FOR 10 DAYS.
BUT ANYWAY, THE VEHICLES STILL IN VIOLATION.
OFFICER RIMES AND MYSELF PROBABLY HAVE WENT BY THERE PROBABLY FIVE TIMES TO TRY TO MAKE CONTACT WITH MR. HOOVER.
[00:25:03]
HE WILL NOT ANSWER THE DOOR.HIS SIGNIFICANT OTHER, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HIS WIFE OR HIS PARTNER, BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
SHE DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY INPUT ON ANY OF THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS.
HE TAKES CARE OF HIS OWN BUSINESS.
LIKE I SAID, WE'VE CALLED THEM.
WE'VE DONE JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING WE CAN DO OTHER THAN DRAG HIM OUT OF THE HOUSE AND JUST WE MADE EVERY ATTEMPT TO TRY TO CONTACT HIM AND AND HAVE SOME COMMUNICATION WITH HIM, BUT HE'S NOT JUST NOT COMING TO THE DOOR OR ANSWERING THE PHONE.
>> THE CAR, IS IT IN THE SAME SPOT THAT IT WAS.
IT'S STEADILY SINKING INTO THE GROUND.
IF HE WAITED LONG ENOUGH, IT MIGHT COVER UP.
>> WASN'T IT IN THE SIDE YARD BEFORE THE FRONT YARD?
>> WELL, IT'S IN THE SAME PLACE.
YOU COULD SAY IT'S IN THE SIDE REAR YARD.
WELL, HIS PARTNER DID SAY THIS WAS ON THE PREVIOUS CASE THAT HE WAS LOOKING TO GET RID OF IT.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S STILL THERE.
I THINK IT HAS SOME SENTIMENTAL VALUE TO HIM.
BUT REMEMBER THAT'S IT REGARDLESS.
LIKE I SAID, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLEAN THESE CASES UP AND BRING THEM TO A HEAD AND GET THEM INTO COMPLIANCE IF WE CAN.
>> I THINK THIS IS ABOUT AS SLAM SHUT AS WE CAN POSSIBLY HAVE.
OUR HAS BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE.
IT'S ALMOST UP TO ITS UNDERCARRIAGE.
I APOLOGIZE THAT IT MAY AFFECT THE SENTIMENTALITY OF THE VEHICLE, BUT IT HASN'T MOVED.
THE RECALCITRANT OF THE DEFENDANT IS CERTAINLY WEIGHING ON ME THAT HE WON'T EVEN INTERACT WITH OUR STAFF.
I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> YOU DON'T WANT ME TO DO THAT. I SCREW IT UP EVERY TIME.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD ADD SOMETHING WHILE YOU'RE GETTING YOURSELF TOGETHER TO MAKE THAT MOTION.
I WAS JUST ASKED ABOUT THE VOTE, AND SINCE THERE'S ONLY FIVE OF YOU, IT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE THREE.
I'M SORRY. I KNOW THERE'S SEVEN, BUT THERE'S TWO ALTERNATES.
>> BUT IF A FIVE MEMBER, YOU ONLY NEED THREE, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
I WAS ASKED IF IT WOULD TAKE ALL FOUR YESES TO APPROVE THAT.
>> IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A SEVEN, REMEMBER?
>> WELL, I'M JUST SEEING THAT YOU HAVE FIVE AND TWO ALTERNATES.
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAW ON THE WEBSITE.
THEN FOUR IS CORRECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I JUST WAS COUNTING ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE WITH TWO ALTERNATES.
IF IT IS SEVEN, THEN IT IS FOUR.
IF IT IS FIVE, THEN IT IS THREE.
>> I'LL DO MY BEST HERE. I MAKE A MOTION.
THE RESPONDENT IS IN VIOLATION OF CODE ORDINANCE SECTION 42173, RECTOR AND OPERABLE VEHICLE.
FIVE OR POVERTY DECLARED NUISANCE AND 14 ADDITIONAL DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY DECEMBER 28, 2025.
ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT ADMINISTRATIVE FEES BE PAID AND RESPONDENT BE FINED $50 PER DAY PER VIOLATION TO BEGIN ON DECEMBER 29, 2025, IF NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
>> IT'S PRETTY GOOD. [LAUGHTER]
>> THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MEMBER POLSTMA, SECONDED BY MEMBER THOMPSON.
ANY BOARD BUSINESS THAT WE WANT TO GO OVER?
[7. BOARD BUSINESS]
YES, PLEASE.>> MICHELLE FOLSTROM, CODE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
I JUST WANTED YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT THIS WILL BE OFFICER WELLS LAST CODE HEARING.
[00:30:04]
>> YOU GET PROMOTED TO RETIREE.
>> DON'T MAKE A MOTION TO FIRE ME TODAY? [LAUGHTER]
>> HE IS RETIRING AT THE END OF THIS MONTH.
SAY YOUR GOODBYES AND APPRECIATION, PLEASE, AS YOU LEAVE.
>> I APPRECIATE EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE.
I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW SOME OF YOU VERY WELL, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE DONE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR THIS BOARD, AND IT'S BEEN AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE FOR ME TO WORK WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, OFFICER WELLS. JOB WELL DONE.
>> CONGRATS ON THE [INAUDIBLE]
>> MOTION. THAT'S IT. [LAUGHTER]
>> MADAM ATTORNEY, COULD YOU GO OVER AGAIN WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS STAFF CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD AND RECOMMENDATIONS [OVERLAPPING]
>> SURE. WE CIRCULATED THIS CODE BOARD RULES OF PROCEDURE.
SECTION 2-391B OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PROVIDES THAT YOU WILL CREATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
WE TOOK THESE DIRECTLY FROM THE CITY COMMISSION ONES THAT HAD BEEN FLESHED OUT AND APPROVED, AND WE MODIFIED THEM.
WE JUST STARTED WITH WHAT THEY USE.
WE MET WITH STAFF THIS MORNING BECAUSE I SENT HIM OUT WITHOUT EVEN RUNNING THEM BY ANY OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SECTION, WHICH WAS ALL ME, I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE.
BUT ONE THING THAT IS AN EASY FIX THAT MISS FOLSTROM POINTED OUT IS MEETINGS ARE HEARINGS REALLY.
UNDER 162, WE HAVE HEARINGS, WE DON'T HAVE MEETINGS.
THAT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE FIX THAT WE'RE THINKING OF CHANGING.
THEN WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN HERE IS THE CHAIR'S DUTIES.
IN FORMALITIES, GENERALLY, YOU ASKED QUESTIONS THROUGH THE CHAIR.
WHEN STAFF LOOKED AT IT, THEY THOUGHT IT WAS AWFULLY CUMBERSOME AND MAYBE A LITTLE ODD.
THAT IS JUST BECAUSE THE CHAIR IS THE HEAD OF THE MEETING AND SO WE JUST SAY THROUGH THE CHAIR.
IF THERE WAS SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE, YOU COULD SHUT IT DOWN OR ASK.
WE DON'T HAVE A POLICE OFFICER HERE, BUT IN THOSE TIMES, IF YOU EVER HAD ONE OF THOSE CONTENTIOUS MEETINGS.
[LAUGHTER] HE COULD TAKE CARE OF THINGS.
IT'S JUST THROUGH THE CHAIR, WE WANT TO ASK THIS.
MISS FOLSTROM WAS JUST WORRIED BECAUSE ANY BOARD MEMBER CAN ASK A QUESTION, SO SHE DIDN'T WANT IT TO FEEL LIKE YOU GUYS THOUGHT YOU COULDN'T ASK A QUESTION.
BUT THAT'S MORE OF A PROCEDURAL THROUGH THE CHAIR, I'M GOING TO ASK THIS.
THE COMMISSION DOESN'T EVEN FOLLOW THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE CLARIFIED.
WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING WHAT OTHER CODE BOARDS DO WITH CITIZENS SPEAKERS.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE WERE TRYING TO HAVE SOME PROCEDURES TONIGHT IN CASE WE HAD A LOT OF CASES.
WHAT WOULD THOSE LIMITATIONS BE? WOULD THIS BOARD WANT TO ALLOW, OR WAS IT EVEN APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BOARD TO HAVE COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA? SOMEONE COMES IN AND JUST WANTS TO COMPLAIN OR EXPLAIN.
I'M NOT COMPLAINING, I'M JUST EXPLAINING.
[LAUGHTER] BUT BRING COMMENTS TO YOU, CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA.
THAT WAS ON, I DIDN'T NUMBER THESE PAGES, WE'LL CERTAINLY DO THAT NEXT TIME.
BUT ON PAGE 3, CITIZEN SPEAKERS.
STAFF HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, WE'RE LOOKING INTO THAT.
THAT WAS THE TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ON PAGE 4.
THAT IS OBVIOUSLY RELATED TO ANY CITIZEN THAT'S SPEAKING ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA OR IN A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, SAY A NEIGHBOR WANTED TO COME.
THAT WOULD BE A LIMIT ON SOMEONE THAT'S NOT GIVING TESTIMONY.
BUT THAT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WE NEEDED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE THESE ARE QUASI JUDICIAL, AND SO IT WOULD BE BETTER, WHICH I DIDN'T THINK OF BEFORE I CIRCULATED THEM, THAT WE PUT IN THE QUASI JUDICIAL, LIKE THE FIVE MINUTES FOR THE PRESENTATION OR THE 10 MINUTES FOR THE REBUTTAL, AND THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THAT IN THERE AND THAT WAS VERY GOOD OF STAFF TO POINT OUT TO US.
WE WERE GOING TO REFRESH THEM, UPDATE THEM.
I THINK THOSE WERE THE MAIN CONCERNS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON PAGE 3 REGARDING THE SPEAKERS TO REGISTER.
>> THAT'S VERY GOOD. IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO HAVE SPEAKERS AT THE FRONT, THERE'S A SPEAKER COMMENT FORM.
REGISTER IS AN ODD THING TO SAY.
BUT THAT IS SO THEY FILL OUT THE FORM AND PROVIDE IT TO YOU.
ONE, YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MANY SPEAKERS.
TWO, IF IT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE RECORD THEN
[00:35:01]
THE RECORDING SECRETARY HAS THE NAME AND ADDRESS.ALSO, WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES IS THEY MADE A POLICY THAT CITIZENS GET TO GO FIRST IF THEY'RE SPEAKING ON ITEMS. THAT ALSO HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THE FORM AT THE FRONT HAS A LITTLE BOX TO CHECK IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT.
BUT AGAIN, WE THOUGHT WE'D LOOK AT SOME OTHER CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AGENDAS TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY COMMENT EVER ALLOWED.
THERE'S CONCERN THAT PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO JUST COME AND SPEAK ON ANYTHING.
BUT WE ARE IN AN OPEN MEETING, AND IF PEOPLE CAME AND HAD CONCERNS, A BIT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BOARD TO HEAR IT.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THAT SECTION IS ABOUT.
IS IF THEY WANT TO SPEAK, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY ALLOW IT, WHEN WE BRING THESE BACK, THEN THEY WOULD FILL OUT THE FORM IN THE FRONT.
REGISTER TO VOTE SOUNDS PRETTY OMINOUS, DOESN'T IT? WE COULD SAY, FILL OUT THE SPEAKER FORM.
[LAUGHTER] THAT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE DIRECT.
BUT THAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
>> WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO INCLUDE IN ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM? MUCH LIKE COMMISSIONERS MEETING.
IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK ON WHATEVER THE PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE HERE, THE PARTICULAR COMPLAINT THEY MIGHT HAVE WITH THE EXPERIENCE THAT THEY HAD, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO A CASE BEFORE US?
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
I THINK THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD ONLY BE MATTERS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU.
SHOULD THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND SPEAK? NOW, I THINK THE CONCERN OF STAFF IS, IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHAT CAN YOU ACTUALLY DO? YOU CAN'T DIRECT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO NOT ENFORCE.
SHE OR HE HAS TO BRING YOU THE CASE.
IF THIS BOARD WAS TO ALLOW, AND I LOOK INTO IT A LITTLE FURTHER AND SEE THAT IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO ALLOW IT, WHAT WOULD THEY ACTUALLY DO? WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF HAVING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA? BUT TO YOUR POINT, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE.
HOW DOES THE BOARD FEEL? BUT I'M GOING TO GO LOOK INTO IT.
CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN SPEAK TO IT, BUT THEIR THOUGHT IS, KEEP IT TO MATTERS THAT ARE JUST CASES THAT WE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU, THAT'S YOUR JURISDICTION.
AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT OTHER CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARDS DO, AND IF THEY ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF IT'S FOUND THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD CONSIDER, MR. CHAIRMAN, DOES THIS BOARD EVEN WANT TO ALLOW IT IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO? JUST FOR PEOPLE TO COME, AIR THEIR GRIEVANCES OR SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT'S RELATED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT.
WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT?
>> IN MY FAMILY, WE NEVER HAD THE AIRING OF GRIEVANCES, [LAUGHTER] SO I WOULD PREFER NOT.
>> BEST OF THIS. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THAT?
>> YEAH. BECAUSE IF YOU WOULD PREFER NOT, THEN THAT WOULD MAKE OUR JOB EASIER WHEN IT COMES BACK. IT JUST WON'T HAVE IT.
>> PERSONALLY, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON FOR US TO HAVE THAT.
>> NO. THE COMMISSIONERS TAKE IT ON THE TEETH, AND IT DOES HAPPEN.
>> AGAIN, WE ARE A PUBLIC BOARD, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. BUT THERE IS THAT SIDE.
BUT WE ONLY RULE ON CASES THAT ARE PUT BEFORE US.
WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER FUNCTION AS THE BOARD AT LEAST AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD.
THEN WHAT IS THE PURPOSE IF THERE'S NOTHING FOR US TO?
>> I ALSO PUT TO THAT, NICOLE, THAT I'VE ASKED A COUPLE OF TIMES.
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE ANY PART OF THE CODE, LIKE WHEN WE FOUND HOLES.
IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS TO ACTUALLY CHANGE THE CODE.
WE'RE NOT EVEN A BOARD THAT CAN EFFECTUATE THAT.
>> YOU CAN POINT OUT AREAS THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN TAKE BACK TO TRY AND FIX IF IT'S NOT RELATED TO STATE STATUTE, IF IT'S JUST IN OUR CODE. BUT YES, YOU'RE RIGHT.
THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT UP AND AGREE WITH IT.
ALSO, IF YOU'RE HERE AND YOU'RE A NEIGHBOR TO THAT FENCE THEN YOU CAN SPEAK DURING THE HEARING.
IT'S NOT AS IF THESE ARE JUST ITEMS THAT AREN'T ON YOUR AGENDA.
IF IT'S ON YOUR AGENDA, AND THEY HAVE AN INTEREST, THEY CAN GET UP IF THEY'RE THE AFFECTED PARTY.
THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT AS WELL. I'M FINE WITH IT.
IT FEELS BETTER TO JUST LEAVE IT TO THE CASES,
[00:40:02]
AND WE'LL BRING THESE BACK WITH THE MEETINGS CHANGE TO HEARINGS, AND THEN JUST THE QUASI JUDICIAL 10 MINUTES, WHATEVER IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT LIMITS.I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CASES, BUT SOME TIME LIMITS, MOST BOARDS, QUASI JUDICIAL BOARDS, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARDS EVEN HAVE TIME LIMITS ON TESTIMONY AND STUFF.
THAT WAS THE PLAN, WAS JUST TO TWEAK THEM, MAKE SOME OF THESE CHANGES WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED.
WE'LL GIVE YOU A RED LINE OR A BLACK LINE JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGES FROM THIS TIME TO NEXT TIME AND BRING THEM BACK IF THAT'S THE PLEASURE.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION.
I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE AND AGAIN, EVEN A PUBLIC COMMENT.
ENTIRELY SURE WHAT IT WOULD BE HERE.
BUT IF THE ALTERNATIVE IS YOU NEED TO TAKE THIS PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER EITHER.
>> THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. WE DON'T EVER KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT.
>> WELL, THANK YOU. ANDY WAS A BIG HELP IN THAT TOO.
>> ANDY'S JUST OUT RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?
>> WE HAVE NO PROSPECTS FOR OTHER MEMBERS OR ALTERNATIVES.
>> YOU HAVE TO FILL ALL [INAUDIBLE] SORRY.
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO FILL THE TWO SEATS TO BRING IT UP TO THEN THE SEVEN-MEMBER BOARD, AND THEN, OF COURSE, TWO MORE FOR THE ALTERNATES.
THEN WE WOULD HAVE A COMPLETE BOARD, WHICH HASN'T HAPPENED IN A VERY LONG TIME.
BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE ARE NO PROSPECTS.
AT THE NEXT HEARING, ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE ON THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR? CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 8.
>> YEP. THE NEXT HEARING IS HELD ON JANUARY 8, 05:00 P.M. WILL BE HELD THERE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> SECOND. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> THIS HEARING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.