Apr 02, 2026 Code Enforcement and Appeals Board

[00:00:03]

THE APRIL 2ND, 2026 HEARING OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH CODE ENFORCEMENT AND APPEALS BOARD IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.

BOARD SECRETARY, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MEMBER THOMPSON? HERE. MEMBER POSTMA? HERE. VICE CHAIR FOTIADES? HERE. CHAIR STINES? HERE. WE'LL START OFF THE MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

AND THEN IF MEMBER THOMPSON CAN GIVE AN INVOCATION AFTERWARDS.

THANK YOU. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

LET US PRAY. OUR FATHER GOD, WE COME TO THEE, O LORD, AND WE SAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR MANY BLESSINGS.

WE THANK YOU FOR WAKING US UP THIS MORNING, STARTING US ON OUR WAY.

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR MANY BLESSINGS, FOR YOUR MULTITUDE OF TENDER MERCIES.

WE THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO LIVE HERE IN FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.

NOW, LORD, WE INVOKE YOUR PRESENCE IN THIS MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT APPEALS BOARD OF FERNANDINA BEACH.

LEADING GUIDE AS YOU WOULD HAVE US HAVE IT TO BE.

WE GIVE YOU THE PRAISE, THE HONOR, AND THE GLORY, AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD SAID AMEN.

AMEN. AMEN.

[3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

OKAY. MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS BOARD PROCEDURES, DISCUSSION FOR APPROVAL.

[4.1 The Board Procedures are presented for approval.]

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BOARD PROCEDURES.

MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

THANK YOU. BOARD PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

BOARD SECRETARY, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BOARD ATTORNEY, COULD YOU GO OVER THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE HEARINGS TONIGHT ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY ARE NOT TO THE LEVEL OF A COURT HEARING, BUT THEY HAVE CHARACTERISTICS OF BEING A COURT PROCEDURE.

EVIDENCE MUST BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. IT MUST BE COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND RELATED TO THE MATTER AT HAND.

ANY OPINIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED EVIDENCE AND WILL NOT BE ENTERED INTO THE CASE.

THE STAFF HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THROUGH COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE RESPONDENT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL OR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CITED THE RESPONDENT. ANY OF THE VIOLATORS THAT ARE HERE THIS EVENING MUST ALSO DEMONSTRATE, THROUGH COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE CODE.

IN OTHER WORDS, THAT YOU ARE NOT IN VIOLATION AND THE EVIDENCE IN WHICH YOU CAN PRESENT TO PROVE THAT.

THE BOARD WELCOMES COMMENTS FROM ALL WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDING.

BUT FLORIDA LAW REQUIRES THAT THE BOARD'S DECISIONS IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD DURING THE HEARING ON THE CASE.

COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS DEFINED AS SOMETHING THAT A REASONABLE MIND WOULD ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION YOU ARE PRESENTING.

THERE MUST BE A FACTUAL BASIS IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE TESTIMONY FROM EITHER EXPERT OR NON-EXPERTS.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS WITHOUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE.

COMPETENT EVIDENCE. THE ONLY MATERIAL OR RELEVANT RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS THAT WHICH ADDRESSES THE STATE STATUTE OR THE CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED VIOLATED.

EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED UNTIL THE TIME OF THIS MEETING ARE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE HEARING, BUT ARE NOT WITHOUT MORE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

THE RESPONDENTS IN TONIGHT'S HEARINGS ARE ENTITLED TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

IF ANY RESPONDENT DESIRES A CONTINUATION TO OBTAIN COUNSEL, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND MAKE THE REQUEST AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. SEEING NONE, THE PROCEDURES WILL BE THAT STAFF WILL BE SWORN IN AND ANYONE ACTUALLY PRESENTING TESTIMONY TONIGHT WILL BE SWORN.

STAFF WILL PRESENT THE CITY'S CASE AND PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.

THE RESPONDENT WILL BE GIVEN TIME TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THIS BOARD.

PARTICIPANTS, ALL PARTICIPANTS WILL BE SWORN IN AND HAVE THREE MINUTES.

IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER TESTIMONY TO BE GIVEN, THEY'RE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO PROVIDE THAT.

YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SHARE TIME BETWEEN PEOPLE GIVING TESTIMONY.

THE, THE RESPONDENT MAY CROSS-EXAMINE OR PROVIDE REBUTTAL EVIDENCE.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN QUESTION STAFF ON HOW THEY CAME TO THEIR CONCLUSIONS.

[00:05:03]

I'M THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. I REPRESENT THE BOARD AND PROVIDES COUNSEL TO THE BOARD AT THIS HEARING AND NOT TO THE RESPONDENTS.

THE STRICT RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE TO COURT PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT BE UTILIZED.

HOWEVER, THE BOARD, WITH THE ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHICH IS MYSELF, MAY EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE CODE CRITERIA AS SET FORTH IN THE APPLICATION IN THIS CASE, OR IS REPETITIVE IN NATURE.

IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. SEEING NONE, MR. CHAIR, I LEAVE IT BACK TO YOU.

OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THEY NEED TO DISCLOSE REGARDING THE CASES WE'RE GOING TO HEAR TONIGHT.

OKAY. IF YOU DO PLAN ON SPEAKING, YOU WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN.

AS WAS MENTIONED. SO ALL WITNESSES WHO WILL BE SPEAKING NEED TO STAND.

AND IF WE CAN SWEAR IN OUR WITNESSES, PLEASE.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPEAKING, GET A STAND FOR ME. OKAY, EVERYBODY.

OKAY. 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? YES.

YOU MAY BE SEATED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE CASE IS THE FIRST ONE WE'LL HEAR TONIGHT IS ERIN RENEE KRATKY, 1536 COVENTRY LANE, CASE NUMBER 2023-0323.

OFFICER RIMES. I DO HAVE ONE REQUEST. MRS. CLARK IS HERE, AND MISS KRATKY IS NOT.

IS IT OKAY IF WE ALLOW THAT RESPONDENT TO BE PRESENTED FIRST?

[5.2 FRANCES CLARK, 2942 RIVERBEND WALK, CASE 2024-0323.]

2942 RIVERBEND WALK. CASE IS 2024-0323. THAT'LL BE OUR FIRST CASE.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS CRYSTAL RIMES. I'M THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. I'M GOING TO DO MY PRESENTATION FIRST AND THEN ONCE I'M DONE, I'M WRAPPED UP.

YOU WERE TALKING TO ME? YES, MA'AM. YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT.

YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT RIGHT UP THERE. YES, UNTIL WE'RE READY.

SO TODAY I WILL BE PRESENTING CASE NUMBER 2024-0323.

AT THIS TIME, STAFF MOVES TO ENTER ALL PERTINENT EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.

SO MOVED. THANK YOU. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2942 RIVERBEND WALK.

THE OWNER OF RECORD IS MISS FRANCES CLARK AND THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FOR R-3.

THIS SHOWS THAT OWNERSHIP HAS BEEN VERIFIED THROUGH NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER RECORDS. AND PROPER PARTIES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATE STATUTE CHAPTER 162. VIOLATION DETAILS. SO THE VIOLATION IS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 5.01.10, FENCES AND WALLS. THE FENCE MUST MEET THE HEIGHT LIMITS BY ZONING AND LOCATION.

IT MUST BE PROPERLY PLACED AND CONSTRUCTED AND COMPLY WITH MATERIAL RESTRICTIONS.

A FENCE WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND IT WAS INSTALLED AT EIGHT FEET TALL, AND IT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT.

AND IN THIS ZONE IT HAS TO BE SIX FEET OR LESS IN THE BACKYARD.

THIS SHOWS PHOTO EVIDENCE OF MEASUREMENTS. IT'S A LITTLE SMALL HERE, BUT IT DOES SHOW WE WERE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND THE FEET AT EIGHT FEET. THESE ARE OTHER PHOTOS TAKEN AT VARIOUS TIMES.

WELL, I GUESS YOU CAN'T SEE MY MOUSE. RIGHT HERE ON THE LEFT SIDE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT IS THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE, AND THEN IT DROPS DOWN TO ABOUT SIX FOOT, GIVE OR TAKE.

AND THE OTHER PHOTO WAS A PICTURE TAKEN OF THE POSTING.

SO DUE PROCESS IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE CASE AND DELIVERY WAS ATTEMPTED AND IT WAS DENIED BY A MALE RESIDENT.

THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER WAS POSTED ON THE FRONT DOOR AT THAT TIME AT THE PROPERTY AND COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN MADE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.

ALL RIGHT, SO A TIMELINE OF THE CASE. THIS CASE BEGAN DECEMBER 9TH 2024.

THERE WAS AN OWNERSHIP CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER TO THE CURRENT OWNER, AND IT TOOK PLACE DECEMBER 18TH, 2024. THE ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE DATE WAS, SORRY, NOVEMBER 19TH, 2025. MULTIPLE EXTENSIONS HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN GOOD FAITH.

[00:10:01]

THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED TO OR A PERMIT WAS ISSUED TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER.

HOWEVER, THE CURRENT OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 107 DAYS AND SIX REINSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED. THIS IS VERIFICATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT THEY COULD NOT PASS AN INSPECTION IN THE ZONING REVIEW PROCESS.

THIS WAS THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED TO THE PREVIOUS HOMEOWNER AND IT HAS NOW EXPIRED.

THIS SHOWS OUR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND THE CITY HAS INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF 260.21.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE CITY HAS PROVIDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS NOW NECESSARY.

AT THIS TIME, THE CITY REQUEST THE BOARD TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF LDC CHAPTER 5.01.10.

ORDER COMPLIANCE WITHIN 90 DAYS. AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND IMPOSE A FINE OF $100 PER DAY PER VIOLATION AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE.

THANK YOU. CRYSTAL, CAN YOU PUT THE PERMIT BACK UP AGAIN, PLEASE? SURE. CAN YOU MAKE IT BIGGER? CAN I MAKE IT BIGGER? THE APPLICANT FREDERICK CRUESS. WHEN I LOOKED IT UP, THAT WAS A CONTRACTOR.

AND THEN MATTHEW KUNTZ WAS THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

BOARD, AND IF I MAY. MARCO AGUILERA, CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PERMIT, IT IS FOR A SIX-FOOT-TALL FENCE, NOT AN EIGHT-FOOT-TALL FENCE.

AND THAT PERMIT HAS SINCE EXPIRED. AND THAT'S WHY.

IS THIS A SINGLE VIOLATION? THE FAILURE FOR THE PERMIT? YES. IT'S ONE VIOLATION. OKAY. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? YES. OKAY. IF YOU COULD GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS WHEN YOU GET UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND COULD I GET A COPY OF THIS? BECAUSE I NEVER HAD IT. OKAY. YES. MY NAME IS FRANCIS CLARK.

I LIVE AT 2942 RIVERBEND WALK, AND APPARENTLY MY FENCE IS TOO TALL.

I HAVE AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE AND APPARENTLY THE CODE SAYS IT SHOULD BE A SIX-FOOT FENCE.

I BOUGHT THIS HOUSE. IT WAS BRAND NEW, NEVER LIVED IN.

WHEN I PRESENTED THE CONTRACT FOR CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS NO FENCE.

THERE WAS ONE WHEN I. AFTER I GOT THROUGH SETTLEMENT.

I ASSUMED IT WAS JUST PART OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.

I DID NOT REALIZE THAT ONE, IT WAS DONE BY A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR.

IT HAD AN INSPECTION REQUIREMENT. I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF IT.

THE FIRST TIME I KNEW THERE WAS A PROBLEM WAS.

DID YOU CALL ME THE FIRST TIME? YES. OKAY, WHEN YOU CALLED ME AND IT TOOK ME COMPLETELY BY SURPRISE.

IN FACT, I DIDN'T THINK ANYTHING WAS WRONG BECAUSE MY NEIGHBOR HAS A FENCE THE SAME HEIGHT THEY THERE COME TOGETHER, SAME HEIGHT. SO I FIGURED IT WAS JUST PART OF THE DEAL.

AND SO AFTER YOU FIRST CALLED, WE, AND WE WERE IN, IN TEXAS FOR A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME.

WHEN I GOT BACK, I STARTED TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.

AND IT TOOK A PRETTY STEEP LEARNING CURVE FOR MY POOR BRAIN TO HANDLE.

AND, BUT THIS IS WHAT I HAVE DONE. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS APPLY FOR A VARIANCE, BUT I AM PREPARED TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE SIX-FOOT LIMIT.

AND I HAVE, I MADE FIVE COPIES BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE GOING TO SHOW UP AND HOW MANY STAFF WERE GOING TO SHOW UP. SO I'VE GOT FIVE. I'LL LET YOU KNOW.

AND THEY'RE MOSTLY JUST PICTURES. AND I'VE GOT LOOSE LEAF ON IT.

SO YOU CAN MAKE MORE COPIES OF IT THERE TOO. THE FIRST CHART IS MOSTLY IS JUST FOR

[00:15:03]

IT'S THAT THAT THING THAT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE AN ELONGATED M THAT'S THE FENCE.

IT COMES UP AGAINST THE FENCE LINE OF 2938. IT IS ALSO AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE.

THE SIDE FENCES ON 2938 ARE SIX-FOOT FENCES. SO I ASSUMED THAT SINCE WE WERE THE SAME HEIGHT, THERE PROBABLY WASN'T A PROBLEM. NEVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

MY NEIGHBOR ON 2946 ON THE OTHER SIDE IS ABOUT READY TO COME IN AND ASK FOR A FENCE TO BE INSTALLED.

SHE ALSO WOULD LIKE AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE. THE REASON SHE WOULD LIKE AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE IS SHE LIVES ALONE.

THERE'S NO PERIMETER FENCING OR WALLS, AND PEOPLE ARE WALKING INTO HER PROPERTY AND WANDERING AROUND, AND SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.

IN ADDITION, SINCE WE BORDER ON AMELIA ISLAND PARKWAY, IT'S VERY NOISY AND YOU GET A LOT OF LIGHT INTERFERENCE IN THE EVENING AND THEY'RE SHINING INTO THE WINDOWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I TOO WOULD LIKE AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE IF IT'S AT ALL POSSIBLE TO HAVE A VARIANCE FOR THAT.

AND THAT WOULD PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS LINE BETWEEN THE THREE PROPERTIES.

SO THAT, THAT'S MY REASONING FOR ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.

THE OTHER PICTURES ARE JUST FOR, SO YOU GET A VISUAL OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE FIRST, THE FIRST PICTURE IS A PICTURE OF THE FRONT OF OUR HOUSE AND, AND THE FENCE COMING OUT FROM THE SIDE, THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE THAT IS NOT MINE.

THE ONLY FENCE I HAVE IS IN THE REAR. AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE ON THE NEXT PICTURE WHERE THEY COME TOGETHER AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE THE SAME HEIGHT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE A VARIANCE OR NOT, BUT IT WOULD SEEM IF WE COULD CONTINUE THAT LINE TO THE NEXT PROPERTY BECAUSE APPARENTLY IN TALKING WITH THE PLANNING PEOPLE, MY NEIGHBOR ON THE OTHER SIDE HAS BEEN GIVEN SOME INDICATION THAT BECAUSE OF HER SITUATION, SHE PROBABLY COULD GET A VARIANCE.

SO IT WOULD BE A STRAIGHT LINE FOR ALL THREE PROPERTIES.

IF NOT, IT WOULD BE EIGHT-FOOT, SIX FOOT AND THEN BACK UP TO EIGHT-FOOT.

CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? SURE. SO IF I UNDERSTAND THIS RIGHT, THE FENCE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS SIX FEET.

ONLY THE FENCE IN THE BACK IS EIGHT FEET. THAT'S CORRECT.

AND IT'S ALSO CORRECT FOR THE NEIGHBORS. IT'S THE SAME.

IT'S THE SAME THING. AND FROM MY READING OF THE REGS, THE SIDES HAVE TO BE FOUR FEET AND THE BACKS CAN BE SIX FEET.

WHAT IS THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE? I DON'T KNOW, I'VE BEEN.

I COULDN'T FIND IT IN THE REGULATIONS. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IF THERE WAS A VARIANCE.

BUT APPARENTLY SOME PEOPLE GET THEM. SO I. YEAH, UNDER CHAPTER 10 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THERE IS A VARIANCE PROCEDURE.

IT IS ON OUR WEBSITE AS WELL. AND THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE WOULD BE TO APPLY, THERE'S A CALENDAR FOR DEADLINES.

THE NEXT DEADLINE WOULD BE APRIL 8TH TO APPLY FOR THE MAY 20TH VARIANCE BOARD.

THAT DOES HAVE A FEE RELATED TO IT, A FILING FEE.

AND THEN IT IS ALSO A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, AND IT TAKES FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBERS TO VOTE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE.

BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE MEMBERS AFTER THIS MEETING, CORRECT? NO, THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT BOARD. IT IS. OH, OKAY.

I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU HAD MULTIPLE BOARDS. I THOUGHT YOU TOOK ONE ISSUE AND CARRIED IT THROUGH FROM START TO FINISH.

NO, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HEARS THE VARIANCES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND YOU WOULD BE, AND ALSO THE CITY'S CODE. AND SO YOU WOULD BE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT FOR THE SIDE AND THE REAR.

AND IF I GO TO CHAPTER 10, I'LL BE ABLE TO FIND IT AND.

YES, AND WE CAN, I'M SURE WE CAN GET SOME. WE DO HAVE THIS APPLICANTS, THIS, WE HAVE YOUR INFORMATION?

[00:20:07]

OKAY, GREAT. AND I DID LEAVE MY EMAIL TO SOMEBODY, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO.

AND THE REST ARE PICTURES OF THE FENCE IN QUESTION.

AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S JUST OUT THERE ALL BY ITSELF.

THERE'S NO SIDES OR ANYTHING. IT'S JUST THAT NOW.

AND I DID DO A BACK ONE JUST TO SHOW YOU HOW EASY IT IS TO GET INTO THE PROPERTY FROM THE ROAD.

AND I DID THAT MOSTLY BECAUSE OF MY NEIGHBOR THAT DOESN'T HAVE A FENCE YET.

AND WITH THE NEW SIDEWALK OR WALKWAY THAT THEY HAVE PUT IN ON AMELIA PARKWAY, IT'S REALLY EASY TO JUST WALK ONTO THE PROPERTY.

AND, THAT'S IT THERE. THE LAST PICTURE IS OF ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT IS ALSO EIGHT FEET INSTEAD OF SIX IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO I WASN'T SURE. WHEN I STARTED THE EXPLORATION, FIGURING OUT WHAT THE, WHAT I, WHAT MY RIGHTS WERE, WHAT THE RULES WERE, ALL THAT KIND OF THING. IT CONFUSED ME A BIT THAT THERE WERE A BUNCH OF EIGHT FEET BACK FENCES AND MINE WAS IN VIOLATION, AND EVERYBODY ELSE SEEMED TO BE LEADING A PLEASANT LIFE WITH THEIR EIGHT FOOT FENCE.

SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, A VARIANCE, I APPLY FOR IT AND THEN I GET IT OR I DON'T.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ANSWER? YES, PLEASE. YES.

SO TONIGHT'S HEARING, THIS BOARD WILL MAKE A DECISION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT YOU MORE TIME OR HOW TO HANDLE THIS CASE.

AFTER TONIGHT'S HEARING, YOU CAN APPLY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, AND IT IS DONE BY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS THE ONE THAT GIVES THE VARIANCE. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GIVES THE VARIANCE. IT MEETS IN THE SAME ROOM ON WEDNESDAY NIGHTS AT 5 P.M..

AND THEY ALL DO, DON'T THEY? YES. AND YEAH, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S A TIMELINE YOU WOULD HAVE TO APPLY.

AND IT IS DONE ON A PROPERTY BY PROPERTY BASIS, JUST LIKE THIS BOARD IS HEARING THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, THIS PARTICULAR FENCE TONIGHT. AND IS THERE, ARE THERE DELAYS IN HEARING IT? FOR EXAMPLE, IF I APPLIED TOMORROW AFTER, YOU KNOW, AFTER YOU'RE FINISHED, BUT YOU'VE GOT SO MANY OTHERS THAT I FALL INTO A FOLLOWING MONTH OR SOMETHING. IF YOU APPLY BY THE DEADLINE OF APRIL 8TH AND IT IS DEEMED A COMPLETED APPLICATION, THEN GENERALLY IT WOULD MAKE THE AGENDA. THERE IS A CALENDAR OF DEADLINES.

AND SO APRIL 8TH IS THE ONE FOR THE MAY 20TH AGENDA.

OKAY, AND HOW DOES HOW DOES THE JUXTAPOSITION, JUXTAPOSITION OF GETTING IT REDUCED TO A SIX-FOOT FENCE WITHIN 90 DAYS RELATE TO THE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE? IS IT SUSPENDED UNTIL THIS DECISION IS.

BOARD WILL CONSIDER, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE BOARD AND THE STAFF WILL DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO GIVE YOU A PERIOD TO DO THAT OR CORRECT THE VIOLATION.

SO THAT'LL BE SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD WILL DECIDE.

OKAY. AND YOU'LL LEAVE HERE TONIGHT KNOWING THE ANSWER TO THAT.

CORRECT. OKAY, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS VARIANCE, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU DO TONIGHT, I CAN APPLY FOR. AND IF I MAKE THE DEADLINE, I AM ON THE LIST FOR THE NEXT GENERAL MEETING OF THE BOARD. IS. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ALL THE COMBINATIONS AND PERMUTATIONS THAT COULD ARISE.

AND YOU SAID YOU PUT A CAVEAT ON WHAT IF I FELL INTO A CERTAIN CATEGORY OR NOT.

WHEN I MADE THE THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

OH, THE CAVEAT WAS, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE PUT IN AN APPLICATION AND IT DOESN'T HAVE EVERYTHING IT NEEDS, RIGHT? IT'S NOT PROPERLY SIGNED. IT DOESN'T HAVE OWNERSHIP.

YOU KNOW, SO IF IT IS DEEMED A COMPLETE APPLICATION.

OKAY, A COMPLETE APPLICATION. YEAH. SO IF I'VE GOT ALL THE ITEMS YOU TELL ME I HAVE TO HAVE, THEORETICALLY I'M OKAY UNLESS IN REVIEW, I ANSWERED IT INCORRECTLY OR I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION OR.

[00:25:02]

BUT AND THERE'S A PROCESS THAT STAFF CAN WORK WITH YOU ON.

IT'S ALSO ON THE WEBSITE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS I'VE GOT TWO MORE THINGS THAT I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR WITH. THE CONTRACTOR THAT PUT THE FENCE UP, I CONTACTED HIM, I FINALLY FOUND HIM, AND I PREFER WORKING WITH HIM BECAUSE HE KNOWS HOW IT'S ALL CONSTRUCTED AND HE CAN TAKE IT DOWN AND MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS PROPERLY.

HE SAID HE CAN'T EVEN START BEFORE MAY. IS THAT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IF I HAVE TO GET IT DOWN TO SIX FEET? THE BOARD CAN TAKE ALL THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

AND ALSO YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD WORK WITH THE TIMING OF THE VARIANCE.

SO IT MAY BE I DON'T THAT THE CHAIR AND THE BOARD MIGHT BE DISCUSSING SOME ITEMS AND MAKING SOME DECISIONS THAT COULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

IF YOU WANT TO GIVE US SOME TIME TO DELIBERATE, GIVE US SOME TIME TO DELIBERATE.

BUT YOU SAID YOU HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. YEAH, MY, THE CONTRACTOR CONTACTED ME A DAY OR SO AGO AND HAD GOTTEN AN EMAIL. HE WANTED TO KNOW IF I HAD GOTTEN A COPY OF IT AND I HADN'T.

AND IT SAID THAT I HAD MADE AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE.

THE REVIEW HAD BEEN CONDUCTED AND IT, THEY AGREED WITH GIVING, GRANTING ME THE VARIANCE, BUT IT WOULD COST ABOUT $5,000 IF I WOULD WIRE IT. I'M A BIT CONFUSED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE CONTRADICTORY TO THIS PROCESS BECAUSE I DIDN'T MAKE AN APPLICATION. SO, MR. CHAIRMAN WHAT THE WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED HERE IS WE'VE HAD THIS HAPPEN ONE OTHER TIME THAT I'M AWARE OF.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU. THE CITY'S WE'VE BEEN HACKED BASICALLY AND FALSE INVOICES HAVE BEEN SENT.

THERE WAS ONE THAT HAPPENED IN PLANNING WHERE IT WAS SENT OUT AND IT WAS $10,000 TO BE WIRED.

SO IT WAS, I DID RESPOND TO YOU WHEN YOU SENT THAT EMAIL TO ME, I REPLIED TO YOU AND.

NO, I THINK THAT WAS THE OTHER ONE. THIS IS THE THIRD ONE.

OH, THIS IS THE THIRD ONE. OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS YOURS.

OKAY. SO THAT YOU SHOULD DISREGARD THAT CAME IN.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT.

IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. YEAH. IT WAS CONTRADICTORY TO THIS PROCESS.

IT WAS CONTRADICTORY WITHIN THE. AND I'LL TRY AND SPEAK LOUDER, BUT WE DO NEED TO GET YOU INTO THE RECORD.

SO IF YOU WANT TO GO, I'LL RAISE MY VOICE. I KNOW I CAN TALK LOUD.

BUT YES BOARD AND MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'VE HAD IT HAPPEN A FEW TIMES.

IT IS AWARE OF IT AND FAKE INVOICES ARE GENERATED.

YEAH. AND THE CONTRACTOR ASKED FOR VERIFICATION. HE SAID YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

IT'LL GO AWAY IF YOU JUST GIVE US FIVE GRAND.

I'M, I AM TRUNCATING THE MESSAGE, BUT THAT BASICALLY IS WHAT IT SAYS.

AND SO NOW YOU'RE THE THIRD PERSON I'VE HEARD THAT THAT'S HAPPENED TO IN THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

SO WE ARE TRYING TO GET NOTIFICATIONS OUT ON OUR WEBSITE AND, AND HANDLE IT.

THE CITY MANAGER IS AWARE OF IT AND IT SIMPLY IS AI GENERATED.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY'S DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIX IT.

JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, IF SOMEBODY SAID, OH YEAH, THIS LOOKS LIKE A BIG DEAL, I'LL WIRE IT IN.

WHAT HAPPENS THEN? I MEAN, THE PERSON'S OUT THE MONEY AND YOU AND YOU DISAVOW IT.

AND I'VE GOT YOU HAVE THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE LEGALITIES OF IT, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT RELEVANT FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. I MEAN, SO WE COULD DISCUSS IT. WAS KIND OF OUT OF THE BLUE, RIGHT? AND THEY HAD TO, WHOEVER IT WAS HAD TO GO TO SOME WORK TO FIND THE CONTRACTOR AND THEN FIND ME.

SO IT WAS PRETTY. ELABORATE SCAM. IT TOOK ME ABACK, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.

OKAY. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS CLARK OR FOR OFFICER RIMES? I'M JUST CONFUSED HOW YOU BOUGHT THIS HOUSE WITHOUT A FENCE.

WE NEED YOU BACK AT THE. WHEN I NEED YOU AT THE PODIUM, PLEASE, SO WE CAN HEAR YOU.

THANK YOU. SO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU BOUGHT A HOUSE WITHOUT A FENCE.

AND WHEN YOU MOVED IN, THERE WAS A FENCE, YOU SAID.

WELL, APPARENTLY, UNBEKNOWNST TO ME, THE ORIGINAL OWNER HAD DECIDED TO PUT A FENCE IN, AND I.

AT THE TIME OF THE CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THAT.

PRIOR, AND IT DIDN'T SHOW UP IN SETTLEMENT. AND THEN MY REAL ESTATE AGENT SAID, OH, BY THE WAY, HE WAS GOING TO CANCEL IT, BUT HE DIDN'T. AND YOU'VE GOT YOU'VE GOT A.

[00:30:04]

CORRECT. AND I THINK THE REASON WAS NOISE SUPPRESSION, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S ALSO TRUE BECAUSE I NEVER TALKED TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER ABOUT THE FENCE.

SO AT THE CLOSING, DID IT MENTION THAT? NO, IT DIDN'T COME UP AT ALL.

IT DIDN'T SHOW AN OPEN ITEM. NOTHING. AND WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE, THERE'S A PERMIT FOR EVERYTHING.

YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THE WHOLE BUILDING PROCESS AND WHAT WAS SEPARATE.

I DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE. AND NOR DID I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT I DID.

I JUST ASSUMED IT WAS A COMPLETED HOUSE THAT HAD PASSED INSPECTION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOPE. MEMBER THOMPSON? NO.

OKAY. WELL, THE OPEN SECTION OF THE CASE IS CLOSED NOW, AND WE'LL DISCUSS AND DELIBERATE.

OKAY. AND THEN. AND THEN ABOUT HOW LONG BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION SO I CAN FIGURE OUT? IT'LL BE MINUTES. MINUTES. MINUTES. MINUTES. OKAY, BUT WE ARE HERE.

WE ARE HERE FOR THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR SUPPLYING THIS.

THIS IS VERY HELPFUL. I'M VISUAL, SO I FIGURED IF I GAVE YOU PICTURES, YOU COULD SEE WHERE THE FENCE HEIGHTS AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING AND THE JUXTAPOSITION OF THE HOUSES WITH EACH OTHER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR YOUR DELIBERATION. YOU KNOW, THERE IS A PROCESS IN THE CITY AND MOST CLOSING AGENTS YOU KNOW, THE TITLE COMPANY WILL REQUEST AN OPEN PERMIT REVIEW SO THAT, DURING THAT DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD, ALL THE OPEN PERMITS CAN BE IDENTIFIED. SO THERE IS A PROCESS WITHIN THE CITY TO OBTAIN THAT INFORMATION BEFORE YOU CLOSE.

JUST SO YOU KNOW. THANK YOU.

VICE CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? IT'S JUST THE WHOLE THING IS CONFUSING TO ME.

WHY WOULD A BUILDER ADD A FENCE IF IT WASN'T IN THE CONTRACT? HE'S THE ONE LIABLE, NOT THE FENCE GUY. I THINK.

WE'VE GOT TO GIVE HER A CHANCE TO RECTIFY IT, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT. SHE'S IN THIS SITUATION THROUGH NO FAULT OF HER OWN.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST GIVE HER AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ELSE FURTHER.

WHEN IS THE JUNE MEETING? NO, IT'S A MAY 20TH MEETING.

IT'LL BE IN APRIL 8TH, VARIANCE DEADLINE, CORRECT? AND THEN MAY 20TH WOULD BE THE NEXT MEETING IN WHICH THAT VARIANCE POSSIBLY WOULD BE HEARD IF IT IS A COMPLETED.

AND THEN THE NEXT DEADLINE IS MAY 6TH FOR THE JUNE 17TH MEETING.

SO THOSE I THINK BY MAY 6TH CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION COULD GET IN.

BUT APRIL 8TH IS THE SOONEST, WHICH I BELIEVE IS NEXT WEDNESDAY.

AND WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THE SECOND ONE? IS MAY 6TH FOR THE JUNE 17TH MEETING.

17TH. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHEN THE MAGISTRATE IS HERE.

SO IF SHE'S ABLE TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE TO THIS CODE, HAVE TO ELIMINATE A VIOLATION, CORRECT? RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD IF THIS BOARD WANTED TO GIVE HER TIME, YOU WOULD GIVE AN AMOUNT OF TIME BEFORE ANY FINE WOULD INCUR.

VARIANCE WOULD FIX THE HEIGHT. THAT'S THE. NO PERMIT.

RIGHT, YES. AND THEN SHE'D HAVE TO GET AN AFTER THE FACT PERMIT.

BUT I THOUGHT SHE WAS ONLY BEING CITED FOR ONE IS WHAT I HEARD ON THE RECORD.

IS SHE BEING CITED FOR BOTH? THE QUESTION WAS, WAS SHE BEING CITED FOR THE HEIGHT? SO IF THERE'S ONLY ONE. THAT'S. MY APOLOGIES.

THAT'S OKAY. WELL, IT'S ONE VIOLATION THAT INCLUDES TWO CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO LOWER THE FENCE HEIGHT AND GET A PERMIT.

OKAY. YOU CAN'T GET A PERMIT WITHOUT LOWERING THE FENCE HEIGHT. SO SHE WOULD BE NEEDED.

SHE WOULD NEED TO BE GIVEN TIME TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE IF THAT IS YOUR WILL PRIOR TO BEING FINED.

AND THEN PART OF THAT WOULD ALSO BE HAVING TO GET A PERMIT AND AFTER THE FACT PERMIT FOR THE HEIGHT.

YOU KNOW, FOR THE EIGHT-FOOT FENCE. AND WHAT TIME FRAME ARE WE LOOKING AT CITYWIDE FOR PERMITS BEING APPROVED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? FOR PERMITS WE GENERALLY ASK 30 DAYS. OKAY. BUT CITY IS AMENDABLE TO PROVIDING 90 DAYS FOR THIS PROCESS.

AND FOR THE RECORD, SHE DID COME INTO OUR OFFICE THE OTHER DAY, AND WE DID AGREE UPON A 90-DAY COMPLIANCE DEADLINE AS FAR AS HER BEING AMENDABLE TO IT,

[00:35:09]

OBVIOUSLY UP TO THE BOARD, BUT WE BOTH DID AGREE TO 90 DAYS.

OKAY. I CAN LIVE WITH THAT. YEP. YEAH. I MEAN, IF IT SLIPS OFF THE AGENDA, YOU DON'T WANT TO.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS, PARTICULARLY.

MA'AM? HOLD ON. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS. MA'AM.

WAIT. WAIT. I'M SORRY. OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THIS UP AGAIN.

SO IF YOU WANT TO THAT'S YOUR PLEASURE. YES. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT.

OKAY. MY CONCERN IS IF I GO THROUGH AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE, THEN I MAY NEED MORE TIME TO TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND THEN GET IT. IF THE ANSWER IS NO, TO GET IT FIXED. AND ALSO, GETTING A HOLD OF A CONTRACTOR TO MATCH THAT SCHEDULE MIGHT BE DIFFICULT.

SO THAT'S MY CONCERN ABOUT THE 90 DAYS. BECAUSE IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT DATE YOU'VE DECIDED FOR THE VARIANCE, BUT THAT PUSHES IT OUT. 60, YOU KNOW, 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS, DEPENDING ON WHICH TRANCHE I END UP IN.

DID YOU SAY HE COULD DO IT IN MAY? DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT BEFORE? RIGHT.

WHAT ABOUT MAY? YOU. THE CONTRACTOR SAID HE COULDN'T GET STARTED UNTIL MAY, RIGHT? CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL BE THROUGH THAT PROCESS BY THAT TIME.

WELL, THE VARIANCE PROCESS, THEY WOULD DECIDE THAT THAT EVENING, CORRECT? RIGHT. THE VARIANCE WOULD BE DECIDED THE NIGHT THAT YOU THAT YOUR HEARING WAS HEARD.

AND MOST OF WHAT YOU NEED TO APPLY IS PROOF OF OWNERSHIP.

YOU HAVE TO SIGN THE APPLICATION. YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU WANT THE VARIANCE.

SO MANY OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT TONIGHT, YOU WOULD PUT THAT IN, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO SIGN IT AND SUBMIT IT AND PAY THE APPLICATION FEE. OKAY. SO A LOT OF THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE ALREADY FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN AND HEARD TONIGHT.

I HAVE, I THINK EVERY TIME I TALK TO SOMEBODY, THERE'S SOMETHING NEW THAT POPS UP.

SO I'M NOT AT ALL COMFORTABLE THAT I'VE GOTTEN ALL THE BELLS AND WHISTLES IDENTIFIED.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS YOU WANT TO DO A VARIANCE, RIGHT? AND YOU HAVE THAT'S THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF IT, RIGHT.

AND WHAT I SEE RIGHT NOW ON THE ON THE RADAR MAP IS AN APRIL 8TH DEADLINE, WHICH IS CLOSE AGAIN, PRETTY QUICKLY TO GET A VARIANCE IN. BUT IF YOU DON'T MAKE THAT, THE NEXT ONE IS MAY 6TH, I BELIEVE. BUT THEN WE'RE 60 DAYS OUT. WELL, OKAY, THE VARIANCE IS WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. OKAY. RIGHT.

SO ARE EITHER ONE OF THOSE DATES A PROBLEM FOR YOU AS FAR AS.

NO THEY AREN'T. IT'S THE GETTING WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE, GETTING BY IN IN 90 DAYS.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING. I'M ASKING IS APRIL 6TH OR MAY 8TH A PROBLEM DEADLINE WISE FOR YOU TO GET A COMPLETED VARIANCE APPLICATION? AND DO YOU THINK. OKAY, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

OKAY. BUT GETTING OFFENSE CHANGED IN THAT PERIOD.

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. AND THAT'S IT.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE OPEN SESSION NOW.

OKAY. 90 DAYS SHOULD BE ADEQUATE. I'LL GIVE HER TWO BITES AT THE APPLE TO GET IT IN.

YEAH. AND IF NOT, THEN THE FENCE GOES DOWN TO SIX.

BUT WHAT SHE IS SAYING IS THAT EVEN IF SHE GETS THE MAY 6TH VARIANTS, SHE MAY NOT HAVE TIME TO HAVE THE FENCE GUY MAKE THE CORRECTIONS. WELL, SHE GETS A VARIANCE, THEN THERE'S NO VIOLATION. SHE'S GOT A VARIANCE, RIGHT? SO SHE KEEPS THE EIGHT FEET. YEAH. I MEAN SHE DOESN'T GET IT.

IF SHE DOESN'T GET IT, IF THEY DENY HER, WELL, THEN SHE HAS ANOTHER MONTH AND A HALF TO GET THE FENCE CORRECTED.

AND HE'S AVAILABLE IN MAY AT THE EARLIEST, RIGHT? JUNE DEFINITELY. SO I THINK WE MAY WANT TO WORK OFF OF THE SECOND SET HERE WHERE THAT'S THE VARIANCE DEADLINE. AND THAT IS A BOARD MEETING.

YEP. RIGHT. YEAH. THAT WOULD BE THE MAY. IF SHE MISSES THIS THIS DEADLINE, SHE MISSES THE APRIL SUBMITTAL.

YEAH. AND SHE'LL BE JUNE 17TH. OKAY. AND 90 DAYS WOULD GET HER INTO JULY 2ND.

OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. MEMBER THOMPSON, ARE YOU GOOD? I'M GOOD. OKAY, OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF LDC. CHAPTER 5.01.10.

[00:40:04]

PAYMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND FINES WILL BEGIN ON JUNE 3RD AT $100 PER DAY.

IF THE FENCE HAS EITHER BEEN. YEAH. JULY. I'M SORRY.

JULY 2ND. THANK YOU. IF THE FENCE HAS NOT BEEN SHORTENED OR A VARIANCE HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED.

I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. SO JUST TO REITERATE, THE ORDER WOULD BE TO FIND THE PROPERTY IN AND VIOLATION OF LDC. CHAPTER 5.01.10 GRANTING 90 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.

ASSESSING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $100 PER DAY THEREAFTER.

THE 90 DAY PERIOD OF TIME IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE.

SO MEMBER THOMPSON? YES. SHOULD IT BE NOTED ABOUT THE VARIANCE IN THAT AS WELL VERSUS JUST COMPLIANCE OR VARIANCE WOULD INDICATE COMPLIANCE. RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. SORRY.

OKAY. SO. MEMBER POSTMA? YES. VICE CHAIR FOTIADES? YES. CHAIR STINES? YES. PASS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. DID YOU HEAR WHAT HAPPENED? DO YOU MIND? I DON'T THINK I COULD HEAR HER SAYING SHE COULDN'T HEAR. DO YOU MIND REPEATING WHAT YOU DECIDED ON? YES. CAN YOU REPEAT THE MOTION THEN WHAT HAS BEEN AGREED UPON? SURE. THE MOTION IS TO FIND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF LDC CHAPTER 5.01.10.

THEY'RE GRANTING YOU 90 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, TO GET YOUR VARIANCE AND YOUR PERMIT, AND THEN THEY'LL ASSESS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $100 PER DAY AFTER THE 90 DAYS IF YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN THE VARIANCE AND THE PERMIT.

OKAY. BUT IF I HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE ON THE ON THE PERMIT.

I DON'T THINK WE, WE CAN'T KEEP HAVING A CONVERSATION WITHOUT YOU AT A MIC AND WE NEED YOU TO GO BACK UP, PLEASE. AND WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE SOMEONE CONTACT YOU TOMORROW AS WELL.

BUT LOOK, IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU COULD JUST GO BACK UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

WE'LL OPEN THIS UP AGAIN. OKAY. SO IF YOU DON'T MIND ADMINISTRATOR, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? OKAY, SO THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IS TO FIND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF LDC CHAPTER 5.01.10 GRANTING 90 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, ASSESS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $100 PER DAY AFTER THE 90 DAYS IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE.

OKAY, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, BUT IT WAS THE, WHEN YOU THROW THE VARIANCE IN, IF IT NEEDS MORE THAN 90 DAYS, I GET A VARIANCE AND AN EXTENSION TO GET IT. I DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING RIGHT.

IF IT'S IF YOU SAY, OKAY, TO THE EIGHT FEET, THAT'S IT.

WE'RE DONE. YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE. YES. OKAY. AND ANOTHER QUESTION.

IT'S JUST A PROCEDURAL ONE. I AM ALSO CONSIDERING PUTTING IN SIDE FENCES.

CAN I DO ONE PERMIT FOR ALL? IF I, IF. OR DO I HAVE TO SEPARATE.

ARE. THEY SEPARATE ACTIONS AND I HAVE TO TREAT THEM AS SEPARATE? YOU'D HAVE TO REACH OUT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THAT.

OKAY. YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, NOT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

YOU WOULD GO TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THAT, AND THEY WILL HELP YOU APPLY FOR A PROPER FENCE PERMIT.

OKAY. BUT IF I HAVE TO REMEDIATE, CAN IT BE ONE PERMIT OR CAN IT.

DOES IT AGAIN, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL ANSWER THAT. I DO BELIEVE IT WOULD BE ONE PERMIT TO INSTALL A FENCE OR AND TO REMEDIATE, BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO DO THE SIDES AS WELL. YES.

AND WE'LL BE IN CONTACT WITH YOU. OKAY. AND FEEL FREE TO CALL US ANYTIME YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

I'VE WANDERED AROUND HERE FOR THE LAST TWO WEEKS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WERE.

YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LET ME CLOSE IT UP AGAIN.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE UP AND IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DISCUSS? I THINK WE'RE DONE. WE'RE DONE WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING AGAIN. WHAT'S THAT? I THINK YOU HAVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING AGAIN. WHY WOULD I CLOSE THE HEARING? BECAUSE SHE TESTIFIED. I DID CLOSE IT.

OH. YOU DID? I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. YOU DID IT TWICE ALREADY.

I THINK YOU GOT TO DO IT. OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. CASE 2024-0323. OKAY. OUR NEXT ONE WILL BE CASE

[5.1 ERIN RENEE KRATKY, 1536 COVENTRY LANE, CASE 2023-0323. ]

[00:45:05]

CHAIR STINES, I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE WHO IS PRESENT.

OKAY. ARE YOU NOT WITH THE CASE? NO. OKAY. YEAH.

NO. WE'RE JUST. SHE HAS A REPORT SHE'S GOT TO WRITE ON.

OH, I LOVE IT. OKAY. FANTASTIC. ALL RIGHT. GREAT.

FANTASTIC. YES. WELCOME. JUST WANTED TO BE SURE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO.

JUST TAKE IT FOREVER.

GO. ALL RIGHT. SO AGAIN, MY NAME IS CRYSTAL RHYMES CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA, AND I WILL NOW BE PRESENTING CASE 2023-0323. IT IS LOCATED AT 1536 COVENTRY LANE.

AT THIS TIME I MOVE TO ENTER ALL EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.

SO MOVED. THANK YOU. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1536 COVENTRY LANE.

THE OWNER ON RECORD IS ERIN. SORRY, ERIN RENEE KRATKY AND THE PROPERTY IS ON R-1.

OWNERSHIP HAS BEEN VERIFIED THROUGH NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S AND THE PROPER PARTIES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATE STATUTE CHAPTER 162. VIOLATION DETAILS. SO THE VIOLATION IS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 5.01.10, FENCES AND WALLS.

FENCES MUST MEET LIMITS BY ZONING AND LOCATION, BE PROPERLY PLACED IN CONSTRUCTED AND COMPLY WITH MATERIAL RESTRICTIONS.

THIS FENCE WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT. IT IS EIGHT FEET AND EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT.

ONLY SIX FEET IS ALLOWED IN R-1. THE FENCE WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH SUPPORTS THAT ARE FACING OUTWARDS.

SO ESSENTIALLY IT WAS. IT'S INSIDE OUT. HERE IS PHOTO EVIDENCE OF HISTORICAL IMAGERY THAT I PULLED THAT CONFIRMS THAT THE INSTALLATION.

IT WAS AFTER JANUARY 2019, BUT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2023.

AND DURING THIS TIME, NO PERMIT WAS PULLED FOR THIS.

AND I'LL ZOOM IN JUST A LITTLE BIT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT BETTER OF AN IDEA, IF IT WILL ALLOW ME.

HERE YOU CAN SEE THE NEW FENCE OFF ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT SCREEN.

AND THEN HERE YOU CAN SEE HOW IT IS AN OLDER FENCE.

ALL RIGHT. HERE IS SOME MORE PHOTOS OF THE OPPOSITE SIDE.

THESE ARE PHOTOS THAT I TAKE, TOOK ON MY INSPECTION.

AND YOU CAN SEE HERE WHERE THE SIX-FOOT PORTION IS AND THEN WHERE THE LATTICE BEGINS, THE LATTICE MAKES IT TO AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE. THERE'S TWO FEET OF LATTICE AT THE TOP.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE I WISH I HAD A LASER POINTER.

OH I DO LOOK AT THAT RIGHT HERE. RIGHT HERE IS WHERE IT'S FACING OUTWARDS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS, THE STRUCTURE, IT'S THIS WAY. THERE'S LITTLE QUESTION. DO YOU NEED A PERMIT TO REPLACE A FENCE? YES. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN SO ON THIS ONE YOU CAN SEE OKAY, THIS WAS INSTALLED INSIDE OUT FRONT SIDE IS OKAY, BUT THEN IT EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT LIMIT.

FRONT SIDE ON THIS IS OKAY. IT'S ACTUALLY PERFECTLY FINE.

IT DOESN'T EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT AT THE TOP, BUT OVER OFF TO THE SIDE ON OVER HERE, IT IS FACING INSIDE OUT ESSENTIALLY.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED AS WELL. HERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOS WITH THE MORE RECENT INSPECTIONS.

[00:50:01]

DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH FOR THIS CASE.

NOTICE OF VIOLATION. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT CERTIFIED MAIL AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, MISS KRATKY, SIGNED THE RETURN RECEIPT, AS INDICATED IN THE PHOTO, AND COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN MADE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.

SO AS A TIMELINE, THE CASE BEGAN ON OCTOBER 30TH, 2023.

THE ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE DATE WAS NOVEMBER 29TH, 2023.

THERE HAS BEEN MULTIPLE EXTENSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN GOOD FAITH FOR THIS CASE.

DIRECT COMMUNICATION AND QUITE A FEW COORDINATED MEETINGS HAVE TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE RESPONDENT.

AS OF TODAY NO FENCING PERMIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED.

AND THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 800 DAYS PLUS.

THE CITY HAS INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF 249.24.

AND WE DO FEEL AS THOUGH WE PROVIDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO, FOR VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

ACTION IS NOW NECESSARY. AT THIS TIME, THE CITY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF LDC CHAPTER 5.01.10.

ORDER COMPLIANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS. AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

AND IMPOSE A FINE OF $100 PER DAY, BEGINNING AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE IN THE CITY REST.

OFFICER RIMES, WHO IS KELLY GIBSON? SHE WAS THE PREVIOUS PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DIRECTOR.

OKAY. DID ANYONE RESPOND TO THE EMAIL THAT YOU HAVE IN THAT SHE WAS ASKING IF AVAILABLE FOR A FEW MINUTES THE MORNING OF MONDAY, APRIL 8TH OR TUESDAY, APRIL 9TH. DO WE KNOW? YES, I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID GO OUT, BUT THEY DID MEET AFTER THIS. THERE WAS A RESPONSE.

I CAN TRY TO FIND IT. I DON'T HAVE IT ON ME RIGHT NOW.

OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I CONTACTED PLANNING AND THERE WAS AN OPEN PERMIT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ISSUED BECAUSE SHE DID NOT COME INTO COMPLIANCE AT THAT POINT. AND THAT WAS AROUND THE 2024 TIME FRAME, BUT THAT'S ALL WE KNOW AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. THAT SUGGESTS THAT IT WAS PROBABLY RESPONDED TO, BUT THERE IS THERE WAS AN OPEN PERMIT THAT WAS NEVER COMPLETED.

OKAY. SO ALSO WE DO HAVE A RESPONSE FROM MISS KRATKY.

SHE COULD NOT BE PRESENT FOR THIS HEARING, BUT SHE DID SUBMIT AN EMAIL THAT YOU GUYS CAN TAKE A LOOK AT.

AND THE SECRETARY CAN HAND THEM OUT TO YOU. OH, SURE.

AND THESE ARE THE ATTACHMENTS YOU SAID? YES. I'M GETTING THIS, THE WHOLE ROW HERE.

YEAH. THERE'S SIX COPIES. THEY'RE IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS BECAUSE THERE'S MORE THAN ONE PAGE PER EMAIL.

I MEAN, LIKE THIS IS ONE COPY. OH, I SEE. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? I GOT YOU. THIS IS A LOT OF COMPANIES. YOU SAY YOU TAKE AND THEN YOU GOT IT.

GOTCHA. OKAY. ONE ATTACHMENT. GOTCHA. AND THEN THIS IS THE OTHER ATTACHMENT.

GOT IT. CORRECTLY. OKAY, 800 DAYS. I THINK THAT'S A RECORD, COULD BE? OH, THAT'S THE FAKE INVOICE. I DON'T KNOW WHY.

THAT'S ANOTHER ONE. IS IT A FAKE INVOICE? IT WAS THE ATTACHMENT TO HER EMAIL, I GUESS.

OH, SO SHE GOT ONE AS WELL? YEAH. YEAH, THAT'S WHO I WAS THINKING OF.

YOU DID WANT ME TO PASS THAT? YEAH, IT WAS ATTACHED.

OKAY. SORRY. NO. YOU'RE FINE. THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID.

SO. WHAT IS THIS? FAKE INVOICE, IT'S BEEN GOING OUT.

OKAY, FAKE INVOICE. AND THIS IS RELATED TO THIS CASE.

OKAY. HERE YOU GO.

I JUST WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK AT THE EMAIL THAT WAS SENT OUT.

[00:55:41]

BUT THAT IT WASN'T. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. BUT WE DID HAVE A MARCH MEETING.

SO IS THERE CONFUSION WITH ALL THIS AND THAT THE APRIL MEETING, SHE SAID SHE CAME TO THE APRIL MEETING, WHICH IS TODAY. THIS WAS LAST YEAR. OKAY. BECAUSE I'M JUST SEEING A DATE UP HERE OF 2026.

GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT. MARCH 30TH. WE HAD HER ON THE.

THE SCHEDULE TO COME TO THE APRIL 7TH, 2025 HEARING AND.

I SEE 2025. THANK YOU. YES. ALL RIGHT. AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE GENERALLY WOULDN'T TAKE EVIDENCE THIS WAY, BUT THE OWNER, THE PERSON WHO WROTE THIS EMAIL, DID SEND IT TO CRYSTAL AND ASKED HER TO PRESENT IT TONIGHT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO KNOW IT'S THE RIGHT PERSON SENDING IT.

BUT I SPOKE WITH OFFICER RIMES AND YOU SPOKE WITH HER DIRECTLY.

SHE SAID SHE SENT YOU THIS EMAIL AND ASKED YOU TO PRESENT IT.

YES. OKAY. AND WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE ONE I WAS THINKING OF EARLIER.

THIS CAME INTO MY OFFICE AS WELL BECAUSE THIS PERSON ALSO RECEIVED THE FAKE INVOICE.

AND NOW YOU CAN SEE IN THE PACKET THAT WAS HANDED OUT TO YOU HOW REAL IT LOOKS.

FANTASTIC. YEAH. REALLY. AND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN TELL IS THE EMAIL IT COMES FROM ISN'T QUITE RIGHT.

AND THEY'RE EVEN GETTING BETTER AT THAT. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

IN THIS PACKET IS A, A FAKE INVOICE. I DID CONTACT THIS PERSON TO ADVISE THEM NOT TO PAY IT.

AND IT ADVISED THEM THAT WE WERE HAVING THE HEARING TONIGHT AND THAT THE MANAGER OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE REACHING OUT TO HER.

SO ALL OF THE SCAM ARE COMING THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT, PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING SINGLED OUT IN CODE ENFORCEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? AND NOT JUST CODE ENFORCEMENT, PLANNING AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY IN THE CITY, OTHERS IN THE CITY YET, BUT PEOPLE APPLYING FOR ACTUAL BUILDING PERMITS, PEOPLE APPLYING FOR ACTUAL PLANNING APPLICATIONS.

AS SOON AS IT HITS THE PUBLIC RECORD AND YOU CAN FIND IT.

I THINK WE CAN FORGET THE INVOICE. YEAH, I THINK SO.

SO, CRYSTAL, WAS SHE INFORMED OF TONIGHT'S MEETING? OBVIOUSLY, YES. SHE COULD MAKE IT. YES. SHE IS OUT OF TOWN.

ALL FOUR OF US WERE HERE IN 2022, AND I DON'T REMEMBER THIS CASE AT ALL.

YEAH. SO CAN YOU VERIFY THAT WE HAD OR DID NOT HAVE MEETINGS ON THOSE MARCH AND APRIL? YES. IN MARCH THE CASE WAS POSTPONED, I BELIEVE YOU.

THE BOARD WANTED TO POSTPONE IT. OKAY. AND THEN APRIL, THERE WAS NO APRIL HEARING.

AND AFTER THAT THE, OUR DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE HAD TO SEND A NEW NOTICE.

OUR DEPARTMENT WENT THROUGH SO MANY CHANGES AROUND THAT TIME.

I ONCE I REESTABLISHED IT AND GOT IT TO WHERE IT IS TODAY.

SO ESSENTIALLY SHE WAS ABLE TO GAIN MORE TIME DURING THAT PERIOD.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I CLOSE THIS? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS CRYSTAL. MEMBER THOMPSON, ANY QUESTIONS? SHE MAKES REFERENCE HERE TO MULTIPLE OTHER HOUSES HAVING THE SAME FENCE, IS THAT TRUE? IT'S VERY POSSIBLE. AND WE ADDRESS THEM AS WE AS WE CAN, AS WE GET COMPLAINTS, AS WE SEE THEM.

BUT I CAN ONLY DO WHAT WE HAVE, WHAT WE KNOW OF.

[01:00:02]

SO IT WASN'T A LIKE IN-KIND REPLACEMENT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS SIX FEET.

LOOKING AT THE BACK OF THAT LOUNGE CHAIR. YEAH.

WHICH IS PROBABLY 4 OR 5FT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I COULD ALSO DIRECT YOU TO CHAPTER 10 FOR A, EVEN IF IT HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN EIGHT FEET, I CAN READ THAT SECTION OF THE CODE TO YOU IF IT WOULD HELP.

IF THERE WAS A STRUCTURE THAT WAS EIGHT FEET PREVIOUSLY AND IT WAS NON-CONFORMING AND PREVIOUSLY PROPERLY PERMITTED THAN IF THERE'S MORE THAN 50% DAMAGE.

THAT FENCE COULD BE REPLACED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT LAWS AND ORDINANCES, INCLUDING THOSE ENACTED SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL FENCE.

SO THAT IS 10.01.01E AS IN ELEPHANT, AND THAT'S JUST RELATING TO HER CLAIMS OF THE STORM DAMAGE AND FULLY REPLACING IT.

SO EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN EIGHT FEET BEFORE, IT WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. VERY HELPFUL. ALL RIGHT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE FIND THIS RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF LDC CHAPTER 5.01.10. THAT THE BOARD ORDERS COMPLIANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE 830 DAYS TOTAL. AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATION COSTS AND THEN IMPOSE FINES OF $100 A DAY BEGINNING AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE. I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. OKAY, SO THE ORDER WILL BE TO FIND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF LDC CHAPTER 5.01.10 GRANT 30 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, ASSESS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $100 PER DAY THEREAFTER.

IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE.

MEMBER THOMPSON? YES. MEMBER POSTMA? YES. VICE CHAIR FOTIADES? YES. CHAIR STINES? YES. PASS. PASSES, SO MOVED.

DIDN'T CLOSE THE HEARING AGAIN. OKAY, OUR NEXT CASE WILL BE

[5.3 FAYE RICHARDSON EST. C/O EDITH R. BROWN, 730 DIVISION STREET, CASE 2025- 0595.]

THANK YOU CHAIR. FOR THE RECORD, I AM CRYSTAL RIMES, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

I WILL BE PRESENTING CASE NUMBER 2025-0595 LOCATED AT 730 DIVISION STREET.

AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ENTER ALL EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.

SO MOVED. THANK YOU. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 730 DIVISION STREET.

THE OWNER ON RECORD IS FAYE RICHARDSON ESTATE, CARE OF EDITH R.

BROWN. AND THIS IS LOCATED IN R-2 ZONE. THE VIOLATION DETAILS IS 42-117 EXTERIOR STRUCTURE (MAINTENANCE). EXTERIOR MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A GOOD, SAFE AND SANITARY CONDITION.

THE CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE SUPPORT POST ON THE SIDE CARPORT AND THE FRONT ENTRY DOOR.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PHOTOS THEY REVEAL A LEANING AND IMPROPERLY SUPPORTED CARPORT POSTS THAT IT WAS OBSERVED AT THE FRONT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THE SUPPORT MEMBERS APPEAR DETACHED AND NO LONGER PROVIDING ADEQUATE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT TO THE ROOFING SYSTEM.

AND THIS WAS ALSO, LET ME GET MY LASER BACK, THIS WAS ALSO THE DOOR HANGER THAT WAS INITIALLY LEFT ON THE FIRST INSPECTION.

HERE'S SOME MORE PHOTOS. THIS WAS THE PHOTO THAT WAS TAKEN TODAY.

THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY PERMITS OBTAINED AT THIS POINT OR ANY PROGRESS MADE.

I DID SPEAK WITH MISS EDITH BROWN TODAY, AND SHE DID MAKE MENTION THAT THEY DID THEIR BEST TO MAKE REPAIRS TO THE STORE, BUT IT WASN'T 100% COMPLETED, AND I NOTICED THAT IT DIDN'T HAVE A BIG GAP AS IT DID THE FIRST.

[01:05:06]

SO DUE PROCESS WAS PROVIDED IN THIS CASE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AS A HEARING LETTER WAS POSTED ON JANUARY 20TH, 2026. AS INDICATED IN THE PHOTO AND COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN MADE WITH MISS BROWN.

THE CASE BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025. THE ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE DATE WAS OCTOBER 30TH, 2025.

LIKE I SAID, NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR. AS OF TODAY, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 177 PLUS DAYS.

THE CITY HAS INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND THE AMOUNT OF 249.21.

THE CITY IS REQUESTING THAT YOU FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF 42-117.

ORDER COMPLIANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS. AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND IMPOSE A FINE OF $50 PER DAY, BEGINNING AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE. TELL ME ABOUT THIS POST ON THE LEFT SIDE.

IS ONE, THERE'S TWO POSTS THAT ARE WORKING IN.

ONE IS MISSING. THAT IS WHAT. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE ARE TWO BRICK POSTS.

WHEN I SPOKE TO MISS BROWN, SHE DID NOT GIVE ME THE FULL STORY, BUT THERE WAS A MENTION THAT IT WAS HIT.

THAT IS REALLY ALL I KNOW. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY BRAISED THAT UP THERE AS A TEMPORARY BUT LONG TERM THAT COULD LEAD TO SOME SERIOUS DAMAGE.

THAT IS THE PHOTO THAT I TOOK TODAY.

AND THAT POST HAS JUST KICKED INTO THE SOIL. I MEAN, THERE'S NO FROM.

WHAT I CAN TELL. YEAH, YEAH. THAT CORNER OF THE HOUSE OFF.

OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS? MEMBER THOMPSON? GOOD. MOTION.

DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS ONE? MAKE A MOTION. THE CASE 2025-05957, 730 DIVISION STREET. THAT THE PROPERTY BE FOUND IN VIOLATION CODE 42-117. HERE WE GO. RECOMMEND THAT THE RESPONDENT BE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE FINES WILL BEGIN OF $50 PER DAY.

AND WHAT'S 30 DAYS FROM TODAY? WE'LL CALL IT MAY 2ND.

YEAH. MAY 2ND AND FIND THE BEGINNING OF $50 PER DAY.

OKAY. SO THE BOARD IS FINDING THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF SECTION.

WE HAVEN'T HAD A SECOND. I'M SO SORRY. YEP. I'D LIKE TO AMEND.

IF I COULD. THAT WE WOULD AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.

YES. OF COURSE, ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. OKAY. OKAY, SO WE'RE GOOD.

OKAY, SO THE BOARD IS FINDING THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION.

WE'RE ABOUT TO. SHE'S GOING TO READ IT BACK. OKAY.

OF SECTION 42-117. GRANTING 30 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.

ASSESSING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $50 PER DAY IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE AFTER THE 30 DAY PERIOD, WHICH WOULD BE MAY 2ND. SECOND. THANK YOU. MEMBER THOMPSON? YES. POSTMA? YES. VICE CHAIR FOTIADES? NO. CHAIR STINES?

[01:10:02]

YES. TO BE CLEAR, A THREE OF FOUR DECISION WILL PASS.

OH, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE WE KNOW IT WON'T, WILL IT? YEAH. OKAY. SO. OKAY, SO IT'S NOT PASSED. I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T HEAR SEVEN. THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SEVEN.

SO I THINK WE DETERMINED THAT THE FIRST TIME I WASN'T. I'M SORRY.

YEAH. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN ALL FOUR OF YOU. I'D LIKE TO AMEND THAT.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? YES.

YES. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY. I WILL FIND A PROPERTY VIOLATION AND ADMINISTER ADMIN FEES.

GIVING THEM 30 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, WHICH WILL BE MAY 2ND, AND THE DAILY FINE OF $25 PER DAY IF NOT ACCOMPLISHED.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. YEAH, I CAN HELP WITH THAT.

OKAY. OKAY. I'M GOING TO READ BACK. WE'RE A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER.

THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOTED ON, AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE MADE YOUR NEXT MOTION.

SO IF WE WANT TO CLEAN THAT UP, YOU MADE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

YOU SECONDED IT. WOULD YOU LIKE, CHAIR TO CALL A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER? WE'RE GETTING FIRED ANYWAY. I KNOW, BUT WE MIGHT AS WELL DO IT RIGHT THE LAST TIME.

OKAY, SO WE CAN CALL THE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

IT WAS SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. YOU SURE CAN.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE THAT PASSES.

NOW THE MOTION THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE FLOOR. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? YES, I SECOND THAT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. SO PROPERTY IS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF 42-117.

GRANTING 30 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.

ASSESS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $25 PER DAY IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY MAY 2ND, AFTER THE 30 DAY PERIOD PASS. I THINK YOU GOT A CALL.

YOU HAVE TO CALL AGAIN. OH, YOU GOT TO CALL THEM BOTH. OKAY.

MR. THOMPSON? YES. MEMBER POSTMA? YES. VICE CHAIR FOTIADES? YES. CHAIR STINES? YES. OKAY. CASE 2025-0595 IS CLOSED.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT NEXT WE HAVE CASE NUMBER 2025-0337.

[5.4 GEORGE PATSY SUE EST. C/O JAMES GEORGE, 128 N. 13TH TERRACE, CASE 2025- 0337.]

THANK YOU. I FORGOT HOW TO DO IT, SORRY. THIS IS ALL NEW TO ME.

ALL RIGHT. SO, FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS CRYSTAL RIMES, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.

I'LL BE PRESENTING CASE 2025-0337. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ENTER ALL EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.

SO MOVED. THANK YOU. SO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 128 NORTH 13TH TERRACE.

THE OWNER OF RECORD IS GEORGE PATSY SUE ESTATE, CARE OF JAMES GEORGE.

AND THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FOR MU-1, WHICH IS JUST BASICALLY MIXED USE OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

WHAT JUST HAPPENED? ALL RIGHT, VIOLATION DETAILS.

A VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORDINANCES.

EXTERIOR STRUCTURE. THE EXTERIOR STRUCTURE MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A GOOD, SAFE AND SANITARY CONDITION.

THE CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS TO REPAIR AND REPLACE ALL ROTTEN WOOD ON THE EXTERIOR.

SCRAPE, SEAL AND PAINT. ALL PEELING PAINT ON THE EXTERIOR REAR ROOF IS COVERED IN VEGETATION.

REMOVE ALL VEGETATION AND REPAIR DAMAGED ROOF.

AND JUST ALSO TO ADD ON THIS, DEMOING WOULD CORRECT ALL OF THIS AS WELL.

IT WOULD REMOVE ALL THE VIOLATION. SO THE OTHER VIOLATIONS DUTY TO MAINTAIN PROPERTY, MAINTAIN VEGETATION TO PREVENT GROWTH HAZARDS AND ENCROACHMENTS.

SO THE CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS TO CUT AND CLEAN UP THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, REMOVE ALL VINES AND VEGETATION GROWING UP ON THE HOUSE AND ROOF.

LET ME GET MY LASER POINTER. CRYSTAL, IS THERE ANYONE LIVING IN THE HOUSE NOW? NO. ALL RIGHT, SO IN THIS PHOTO, YOU CAN SEE OVERGROWTH ON THE ROOF.

IT WAS OFF TO THE SIDE ON THIS ONE. HERE'S JUST A PHOTO OF THE FRONT.

REALLY THIS HEART, THIS ADDRESS. YOU CAN'T HARDLY REALLY GET A GOOD VIEW LOOKING AT IT FROM THE ROAD.

THERE'S A LOT OF GROWTH FROM THE ROAD. SO YOU CAN SEE THE DETERIORATION THAT'S ON THE PORCH.

[01:15:04]

THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN JANUARY 20TH. ALL RIGHT.

LET'S SEE. SO TODAY'S INSPECTION IT DID. I ACTUALLY GOT PERMISSION FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER TO GET AN EXTRA SIDE VIEW ANGLE.

AND IT REVEALED THAT JAMES GEORGE DID DO SOME CLEANING UP ON THE PROPERTY AND REMOVED QUITE A BIT OF VEGETATION.

YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THIS BIG PILE RIGHT HERE IS YARD DEBRIS TO BE PICKED UP.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS STILL INVASIVE VINES AND QUITE A BIT OF GROWTH THAT'S ON THE STRUCTURE.

SO I CAN'T REMOVE THE VIOLATION OF 42-116 VIOLATION.

SO IN MY EYES, IT WOULD STILL REMAIN IN VIOLATION OF THAT.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN QUITE SEE THIS, BUT FOR THE FIRST TIME I GOT REALLY A GOOD VIEW.

THERE'S THIS PORTION IS MAJOR. OH, YOU CAN'T SEE MY MOUSE.

WHERE THE ROOF DIPS OFF. THERE'S A MAJOR COLLAPSE IN THE BUILDING RIGHT THERE BEHIND THAT THAT BUSH AREA.

THERE WILL BE A BETTER PHOTO IN A MOMENT. RIGHT HERE IT KIND OF TAPERS AND DIPS DOWN.

AND THE NEIGHBOR ACTUALLY POINTED THIS OUT TO ME AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE IT HERE.

AND THEN OVER HERE YOU CAN SEE THE GROWTH ON THE BUILDING.

DOES THE OWNER LIVE HERE? NO. PATSY SUE, OR PATSY SUE GEORGE USED TO LIVE HERE AND HAD A ROOMMATE AT ONE POINT INTIME. AND SHE IS NOW DECEASED, AND THE PROPERTY WAS LEFT TO HER SON, WHO DOES NOT LIVE HERE, WHO DOES NOT LIVE HERE.

OKAY. HE HAS A KINGSLAND MAILING ADDRESS. OKAY.

BUT THIS PRETTY MUCH REFLECTS THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY AS OF TODAY.

TWO PROCESS HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER WAS POSTED ON MARCH 9TH AS INDICATED IN THE PHOTO.

AND I HAVE HAD PLENTY OF COMMUNICATION WITH MR. GEORGE. AS THE TIMELINE GOES, THE CASE BEGAN ON JANUARY 9TH, 2025.

THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE DATE OF MARCH 15TH, 2025.

MULTIPLE EXTENSION HAS BEEN GRANTED IN GOOD FAITH.

THE PROPERTY OWNER DID OBTAIN A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR THIS PROPERTY ON MARCH 25TH, 2025, AND IT EXPIRED THIS YEAR, JANUARY 27TH AND NO COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED.

SO WHEN THAT WHEN THE DEMO PERMIT EXPIRED, THE CASE WAS BASICALLY REINITIATED AND BACK TO SQUARE ONE AND WE NOTICED.

SO AS OF TODAY, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 374 PLUS DAYS.

THE CITY HAS INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $289.82, AND WE FEEL AS THEY'VE HAD PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO VOLUNTEER VOLUNTARILY COMPLY. AND THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

JUST SO YOU KNOW AS WELL, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AND IS GOING TO BE GOING OUT THERE THIS MONDAY, BUT THAT HAS REALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW AND HE MAY I THINK HE ACTUALLY HAS SEEN THIS PROPERTY BEFORE, BUT SO. THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF 42-117 AND 42-116 ORDER COMPLIANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND IMPOSE A FINE OF $100 PER DAY PER VIOLATION.

SO IT WILL BE $200 PER DAY BEGINNING AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE AND THE CITY REST.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, BUT COULD THE CITY CONDEMN THE PROPERTY? CITY. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN DEEM IT AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE.

THERE IS A WHOLE PROCESS FOR THAT, BUT IT IS KIND OF SEPARATE FROM WHAT WE WERE DOING ON IT TODAY.

I FIGURED. BUT JUST, YEAH. YEAH. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN DEEM IT AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE, GIVEN A PERIOD OF TIME TO BRING IT INTO REPAIR AS WELL, OR THEN BE SUBJECT TO DEMOLITION. SO IT IS A WHOLE PROCESS, AS MISS RAMSEY SAID.

OFFICER RHIMES GOTCHA. WHO APPLIED FOR THE DEMO PERMIT.

JAMES GEORGE, THE PROPERTY OWNER. SON. THE SON.

YES. AND YOUR CORRESPONDENCE WITH HIM, DID HE GIVE ANY REASON WHY THE STRUCTURE STILL STANDS? HE DID MENTION THE LAST CONVERSATION.

[01:20:06]

HE WORKS OVER IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THERE AND I GOT, I WAS ABLE TO GET IN CONTACT WITH HIM AND HE HE TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS CONTRACTORS. HE WAS HAVING TROUBLE WITH CONTRACTORS.

SO. I THINK YOU JUST NEED TO COME ALONG. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. YEAH. THANK YOU.

I THINK A YEAR TO DEMO THIS STRUCTURE IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE.

THAT, YOU KNOW ANYBODY WITH A DEMOLITION DERBY CAR COULD TAKE THIS HOUSE DOWN.

IT JUST KIND OF FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE CODE HERE IN TOWN, AND I'M AMAZED THAT HE'S AN ACTUAL BUILDING INSPECTOR.

OKAY, ANY MOTIONS? I'LL DO IT. MR. CHAIR, MAY I ADD SOMETHING? PLEASE. YES. JUST ONE SECOND. I'M SORRY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE. HOW LONG DOES THE PERMIT LAST ONCE YOU GET IT? 60 DAYS OR 90 DAYS OR. THIS ONE WAS WHAT LENGTH OF TIME? I THINK IT WAS ONE YEAR. YEAH. IT WAS A LITTLE LESS THAN A YEAR, I BELIEVE, THOUGH.

SOUNDS LIKE A NINE MONTHS. YEAH, BECAUSE. HE OBTAINED THE PERMIT MARCH 25TH AND THEN IT EXPIRED JANUARY 27TH OF THE NEXT YEAR. SO TEN MONTHS.

ISH. I JUST WANTED TO ADD, I DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM HIM TODAY.

COMMUNICATION HAS IMPROVED A LITTLE BIT SINCE RECENTLY WITH THE RESPONDENT.

BUT HE HAD A LAWN SERVICE COMING TO THE PROPERTY ON 3/31.

HE HAS NOW APPLIED FOR A NEW DEMO PERMIT. HE'S AWAITING APPROVAL.

HE HAS A NOTICE OF INTENT READY TO BE FILED AS SOON AS THE PERMIT IS APPROVED AND PAID FOR.

AND HE'S HOPING TO HAVE POWER DROPPED IN ALL SERVICE DISCONNECTED WITHIN A WEEK OF RECEIVING THE APPROVED PERMIT.

SO THAT IS THE MOST RECENT UPDATE THAT I DID RECEIVE AS OF TODAY. YOU RECEIVED THAT TODAY? YES.

WE KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET A DEMO PERMIT, APPROXIMATELY? PRETTY QUICK, THE LAST TIME HE APPLIED FOR THIS, HE WAS ABLE TO GET IT ISSUED FAIRLY FAST.

I THINK THE ONLY TROUBLE IT'S USUALLY IF IT'S IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THIS DOES NOT FALL IN THAT CASE.

OKAY. I GUESS I'D FEEL AMENABLE IF WE GAVE HIM 45 DAYS, BUT KEPT ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND THE FINES $200 A DAY.

DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION THE DEMO PERMIT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR? I CAN VERIFY THAT RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. IT'S NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ELSE.

RIGHT. I HEAR YOU. SAY THAT, GIVE ME JUST A SECOND TO TRY TO GET THERE.

IT'S LIKE LIVING NEXT TO YOU. MY HOUSE BEING THIS HOUSE.

I JUST, I JUST PULLED IT UP AND. THERE YOU GO. YOU GOT IT.

THANK YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A. 3/24.

YES.

IT LOOKS LIKE HE APPLIED. 3/25/2026 BUT IT HAS WENT NOWHERE AT THIS POINT.

IT LOOKS LIKE PRETTY MUCH. IT WAS AN ONLINE APPLICATION THAT HASN'T WENT THROUGH ANY CITY EMPLOYEE REVIEW AT THIS POINT.

OKAY. AT LEAST A WEEK. YEAH. OKAY.

[01:25:12]

THE BOARD AUTHORIZES ALL ADMINISTRATION COSTS AND IMPOSE A $100 PER DAY PER VIOLATION FOR A TOTAL OF $200 PER DAY, BEGINNING AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE. OKAY.

JUST TO REITERATE, THE BOARD HAS FOUND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 42-117 AND 42-116.

GRANTING 30 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.

ASSESS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $100 PER DAY PER VIOLATION IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE. THAT'S WHAT I MOVED. I THINK WE NEED A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY. MEMBER THOMPSON? YES. MEMBER POSTMA? YES. VICE CHAIR FOTIADES? YES. CHAIR STINES? YES.

PASS. CASE 2025-0337 IS CLOSED. IS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD BUSINESS

[6. BOARD BUSINESS]

IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE SERVING WITH YOU GENTLEMEN AND ALL THE PREVIOUS MEMBERS DEDICATED THEIR TIME TO THIS BOARD AND YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, OUR WISDOM WILL GET PASSED ON TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE.

MAGISTRATE. THAT'S IT. I'D LIKE TO, JUST FOR THE RECORD, MAKE A COUPLE OF CLOSING COMMENTS.

AND I KNOW THAT MEMBER THOMPSON, YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AFTER THE ADJOURNMENT.

IS THAT CORRECT OR DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO. SPEAK TO YOU PRIVATELY.

FINE. THANK YOU. OKAY. AS WE CONCLUDE OUR FINAL CODE ENFORCEMENT AND APPEALS BOARD MEETING, THAT IS A CONSTITUENT BOARD. I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY DEEPEST GRATITUDE AND TO EACH AND EVERY BOARD MEMBER AND TO THE CITY SUPPORT STAFF. THIS BOARD HAS BEEN MORE THAN A REGULATORY BODY.

IT REALLY IS A GROUP OF PASSIONATE AMBASSADORS FOR OUR CITY.

MEMBER FRANK POSTMA IS MY PARLIAMENTARIAN, AS YOU PROBABLY NOTICED.

AND I'M THANKFUL. MEMBER THOMPSON IS TRULY A RESPECTED AND VALUED MEMBER OF THIS BOARD.

AND PASTOR THOMPSON'S HEART IS FILLED WITH COMPASSION FOR THOSE WHO'VE COME BEFORE US.

AND YOUR INVOCATIONS OF ALWAYS BROUGHT US WISDOM AND THOUGHTFULNESS, AND I'M VERY THANKFUL FOR THAT.

VICE CHAIR FOTIADES IS THE REASON I'M A MEMBER, SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

HE LOVES FERNANDINA BEACH JUST LIKE ALL OF US DO.

AND HE'S ALSO VOLUNTEERS FOR THE AUXILIARY POLICE.

THEY DO A FANTASTIC JOB DURING ALL THE MANY EVENTS THAT WE HAVE.

I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T GIVE THANKS TO SOMEBODY WHO ISN'T HERE.

NICOLE KRESSY, WHO WAS ON THIS BOARD FOR MANY YEARS AND PROBABLY UNDERSTOOD THE MACHINATIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS ANYBODY I EVER MET. ON THE CITY SIDE. I WANT TO GIVE THANKS TO A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WHO ALSO AREN'T HERE, FORMER DIRECTOR MICHELLE FORSTROM AND FORMER CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER GEORGE CHIP WELLS, WHO I HOPE ARE ENJOYING THEIR RETIREMENT.

WELL DESERVED. TO CRYSTAL RIMES, WHO IS NOW THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

AND WHEN I FIRST JOINED THE BOARD, SHE WAS VERY HELPFUL IN TELLING ME TO WRITE.

WAY TO GET THINGS DONE AROUND HERE. AND ALSO TO CHERYL CARFAGNO.

AND I HOPE I SAID YOUR NAME CORRECTLY, WHO IS THE NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR.

AND ALSO TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY, TERESA PRINCE, WHOSE EXPERTISE WE HAVE ALL RELIED UPON DURING THIS TIME TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS.

I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THROUGHOUT THIS CITIZEN BOARD TENURE, OUR CHARGE WAS ENSURING THAT OUR COMMUNITY'S VOICE WAS HEARD AND IT WAS CENTRAL TO EVERY DECISION THAT WE MADE. AND WHILE THE CITY IS NOW MOVING TO A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, AND THAT WILL STREAMLINE THE PROCESSES, THE LEGACY OF THE COLLECTIVE WORK DONE NOT JUST BY US, BUT THOSE WHO PRECEDED US, IS THE FOUNDATION FOR WHICH THEY WERE BUILT.

SO THANKS TO ALL OF YOU. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

AND WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

OKAY. I DO WANT TO GET MY. $0.50 WORTH IN. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE

[01:30:08]

I LOOK AT IT AS AN EXTENSION OF MY MINISTRY. I LIKE TO THINK WE'VE DONE SOME GREAT THINGS.

WE'VE HELPED SOME PEOPLE. I'M THANKFUL TO HAVE WORKED WITH EVERYONE IN HERE WHO I HAVE WORKED WITH, AND EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HERE HAVE ALL MADE AN IMPRESSION ON ME.

AND FOR THE MOST PART, VERY POSITIVE. SO I AM THANKFUL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY I'VE HAD TO SERVE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS SERVICE. YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A SERVANT'S HEART TO DO THIS WORK.

AND I'M THANKFUL FOR IT. AND BEFORE WE LEAVE, WALTER, WOULD YOU COME AND TAKE A PICTURE OF ME SITTING UP HERE? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO SIT UP HERE ANYMORE.

I'M NOT GOING TO RUN FOR CITY COMMISSION, SO I DON'T THINK I'LL GET A CHANCE TO SIT UP HERE AGAIN.

SO IF YOU WOULD TURN, TURN, TURN AROUND AND GO.

WAIT A MINUTE. IS IT. DO YOU SEE ME OR IS IT BACKWARDS? YEAH. ONE OF YOU OR YOU? BOTH? BOTH. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, IT'S A GOOD SIGN.

YEAH. YOU BETTER SELL THAT ONE. LOOK OVER HERE.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO GET. MY FUNERAL PROGRAM. THERE'LL BE A PICTURE OF ME SAYING.

THANK YOU. HEY, BEFORE WE ADJOURN. THANK YOU TO OFFICER STURGIS FOR BEING HERE EVERY NIGHT.

EVERY SINGLE TIME. THANK YOU. SIR. BEFORE WE ADJOURN, DO YOU MIND IF I ADD SOMETHING? PLEASE. THANK YOU. SO, MEMBER THOMPSON AND VICE CHAIR FOTIADES, YOU GUYS WERE HERE WHEN I DID MY VERY FIRST HEARING AS A LITTLE ITTY BITTY ADMIN AND BOARD SECRETARY, AND I WAS VERY, VERY GREEN.

I'M STILL VERY GREEN IN MANY WAYS. AND THEN TARA STINES CAME ALONG ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A YEAR END, GIVE OR TAKE. STILL HAD A LOT OF LEARNING TO DO.

AND THEN MR. POSTMAN CAME ALONG. ALL YOU GUYS JOINED FOR THE RIGHT REASONS AND I COULDN'T THANK YOU MORE, BUT ALL OF YOU AND THEN SOME OF THE RETIRED, NOW RETIRED MEMBERS ON THE BOARD HAVE ACTUALLY TAUGHT ME SO MUCH ABOUT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT I DO WANT TO BE AND HOW I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING'S EQUAL AND FAIR AND RIGHT.

SO JUST THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, CARRYING THE TORCH FOR THE DEPARTMENT, WE'RE GOING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN DO. WE HAVE A LOT OF NEW HAPPENING.

AND I'LL REMEMBER A LOT OF WHAT I'VE LEARNED FROM YOU ALL OVER THE YEARS.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR SERVING FOR FOR THE BOARD.

AND IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO JUMP IN ONE MORE TIME WITH LEGALITY.

YOU READY? YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY DISSOLVED UNTIL MAY 1ST, SO DON'T DISCUSS ANY CASES AFTER TONIGHT.

BUT YOU ARE OFFICIALLY DISSOLVED MAY 1ST. SO IF ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, GOSH, IF WE HAD TO RECONVENE YOU FOR ANY REASON, BUT THAT IS WHEN YOU ARE EFFECTIVELY DISSOLVED AND THEN YOU CAN TALK TO EACH OTHER ABOUT ANYTHING YOU WANT TO.

OKAY. WE DO HAVE SOMEONE NEW HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF? OH, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. AND STATE WHY YOU'RE HERE.

YES, YES. AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, MICHELLE HAS THE PLEASURE OF RETIRING.

I AM MICHELLE'S REPLACEMENT. I JUST REALIZED MY MIC WAS OFF THIS WHOLE TIME.

BUT I'M VERY GLAD THAT I WAS ABLE TO SEE YOU GUYS AT LEAST ONCE BEFORE YOU GUYS SUNSET.

I HAVE BEEN IN CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR A LONG TIME.

I'VE SEEN MANY DIFFERENT METHODS. THE WAY YOU GUYS RAN THE SHOW TONIGHT WAS VERY GOOD, VERY PROFESSIONAL.

I, I HOPE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO CONTINUE ON THAT LEGACY THROUGH OUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

AND LIKE I SAID, IT WAS A PLEASURE TO MEET ALL OF YOU AND, AND I'LL BE WORKING WITH CRYSTAL AND CHERYL AND EVERYONE ELSE TO KEEP THE SHOW RUNNING FORWARD. GREAT. FOR THE RECORD, THAT IS MARCO AGUILERA.

YES. CORRECT. OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SO MOVED. SECOND HERE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THE MEETING IS CLOSED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.