Aug 06, 2026 Code Enforcement Hearings

SO, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THESE CASES

[4.9 629 MBC GROUP LLC, 629 S. 8TH ST., 2026-0127. (Part 1 of 3)]

OUT OF ORDER, AND WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ITEM 4.9 ON THE AGENDA.

THAT IS 629 MBC GROUP, LLC, 629 SOUTH 8TH STREET.

THAT'S CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE 2026-0127.

AND BEFORE WE PROCEED ANY FURTHER ... I JUST FORGOT.

IF WE COULD HAVE ANYONE THAT INTENDS TO GIVE ANY TESTIMONY OR PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE TO PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN BY THE CLERK.

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.

SORRY.

SIR, IF YOU'D LIKE TO, GO AHEAD AND COME FORWARD TO THE PODIUM AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

I AM MATT HARE.

I'M THE OPERATIONS MANAGER OF MOCAMA BREWING COMPANY, AND THE ADDRESS IS 629 SOUTH 8TH STREET.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. HARE.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

AND JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW THIS WILL PROCEED, THE CITY IS GOING TO PRESENT THEIR CASE AND ANY TESTIMONY.

YOU'LL HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF THEIR WITNESSES, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE YOUR SEPARATE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR OWN EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY SHOULD YOU DESIRE.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA ASK MS. PRINCE TO BEGIN WITH THE CITY'S PRESENTATION OF THIS CASE.

THANK YOU, MAGISTRATE POOLE.

WE HAVE A 15-PAGE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT WILL BE PRESENTED BY OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

IT INCLUDES OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, PROPER SERVICE, AND THE VIOLATIONS THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TODAY AND THE REQUESTED RELIEF.

AND MR. HARE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT POWERPOINT BEING MADE AS PART OF THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS? NOPE. ALL RIGHT.

WITHOUT OBJECTION WILL BE RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD AND MISS PRINCE, PLEASE PROCEED.

I'D LIKE OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO PRESENT THE CASE.

HI THERE, MY NAME IS CRYSTAL RIMES. I'M THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE CITY FOR FERNANDINA BEACH. I WILL BE PRESENTING CASE NUMBER CODE 2026 0 1 2 7 THE REGARDING THE PROPERTY THAT'S LOCATED AT 629 SOUTH 8TH STREET. ALL RIGHT, SO LIKE I SAID, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 629 SOUTH 8TH STREET FOR FERNANDINA BEACH FLORIDA. MAILING ADDRESS IS THE SAME. THE OWNER OF RECORD IS 629 MBC GROUP LLC AND THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO KNOWN AS MACAMA. ALL RIGHT, SO, OWNERSHIP WAS VERIFIED THROUGH NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER RECORDS, SO THE VIOLATION DETAILS, WE HAVE...

BOTH HAVE COMPLIED SECTION 82464A DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS TO STORMWATER SYSTEMS AND IN 4242 NUISANCES PROHIBITED.

LEACHATE FROM THE DUMP TRAILER THAT THEY HAVE WERE BEING DUMPED INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY AND THEY WERE IRREVERSIBLE IN NATURE. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE DUMP TRAILER THAT WAS PARKED INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY. LET ME GET MY LASER POINTER GOING. YEAH, SO THE TRAILER, UM, THEY WERE TAKING, UH, THE, THE HOPS, THE LEFTOVER HOPS. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT RIGHT HERE ON THE PAVEMENT OR ROAD. UM, AND THEN WHEN THAT IS PUT IN THERE, THIS LEACHATE BASICALLY WAS PRESENTING ON THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND THEN NOT FAR FROM HERE IS A STORM DRAIN, AND YOU CAN SEE IT WAS DRAINING BASICALLY DIRECTLY INTO IT RIGHT HERE. WE HAD STORM WATER OPEN THE DRAIN TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE OF IT BEING IN THERE, AND IT WAS. UM, THE WHITE PORTION THAT YOU'RE

[00:10:01]

SEEING HERE AND THEN RIGHT HERE, THERE WAS RESIDUE THAT WAS LEFTOVER. AND ALSO THERE WERE, BASICALLY FROM THAT LEACHATE LEAKING INTO THE STREET, THERE WERE A LOT OF REMNANTS OF IT ON THE, THE ROAD ITSELF.

SO IN ONE OF OUR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, WE ASKED THEM TO CLEAN THE ROAD UP WITH NO WATER NOTHING THAT COULD PUT, PUT ANYTHING MORE BACK INTO THE DRAIN. THE OTHER CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS TO REMOVE ANY OF THE CONTAMINATED GRAVEL THAT WAS RIGHT HERE IN THIS AREA, SO BASICALLY SCRAPE IT. WE ALSO HAD STORM WATER COME OUT AND ASSIST US WITH EXPLAINING THE CORRECTION AND HOW DEEP IT NEEDED TO BE SCRAPED TO REMOVE THE CONTAMINATED AREA. SO YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PHOTO, THIS WAS AFTER IT WAS COMPLETED. AND THEY ALSO DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF CLEANING THE ROAD BACK UP AS WELL, AND THIS WAS AFTER IT WAS COMPLETED. SO THEY DID, THEY COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE ASKED THEM TO WITHIN THE TIME FRAME THAT WAS ALLOTTED. BUT WITHIN THE VIOLATION CODE ITSELF, IT DOES SAY THAT THERE IS A FINE OF $500 THAT NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED FOR THE IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE TO THE STORM DRAIN.

SO RIGHT HERE IS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION / NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER. IT WAS SENT CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE REGISTERED AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND IT WAS ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. WE ENDED UP HAVING A MEETING WITH MR. MATT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL A FEW DAYS AFTER THIS LETTER WAS POSTED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH BOTH OF THEM.

SO THE INITIAL INSPECTION WAS JUNE 26, 2026. IT ACTUALLY WAS OBSERVED BY AN INTERNAL DEPARTMENT IN OUR STORMWATER DEPARTMENT, AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. THEY SEEN ACTIVE LEAKING AT THAT TIME COMING FROM THE TRAILER. SO THE ORIGINAL COMPLY-BY DATE WAS JUNE 29, 2026. WE DID GRANT ONE EXTENSION WITH THE COMPANY FOR THEM TO OBTAIN THE EQUIPMENT THEY NEEDED TO GET THE JOB COMPLETED. SO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS IN VIOLATION WAS 41 DAYS, AND THREE INSPECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED. NOTICE FROM SETH SAYS PROPERTY REMAINS IN VIOLATION. IS THAT A, THAT IS A, THAT IS A SCRIPTURE? I DO, I MEAN, I UNDERSTOOD FROM YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THEY ARE, THANK YOU, YEAH.

SO THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE, AND THIS IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES THAT WERE INCURRED BY THE CITY. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF 82-462(A), THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS TO THE STORM WATER SYSTEMS, IMPOSE A FINE OF $500 FOR THE IRREVERSIBLE OR IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE CITY STORM WATER SYSTEM, AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST. AND THE CITY RESTS.

THANK YOU. MR. HARE, ANY QUESTIONS OF OFFICER RIMES? NO.

NO, SHE, YEAH, WHEN THEY CAME OUT A COUPLE DAYS LATER AND EXPLAINED EVERYTHING AND IT WAS, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY THERE AND LEAKING WATER ON THE ROAD AND NO ARGUMENT.

WE FIXED IT AS SOON AS I POSSIBLY COULD THAT FOLLOWING WEEK ONCE I COULD GET A, GET A SKID STEER AND SOME CLEAN GRAVEL AND TOOK ALL THE OLD STUFFE OUT AND RECYCLED IT AND PUT IN SOME FRESH STUFF DOWN, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS REQUIRED.

OKAY, ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY? NO.

ALL RIGHT, MR. HARE, ANYTHING FURTHER TO HEAR FROM YOU? WELL, I TRIED TO PRINT A COUPLE PICTURES, BUT SHE ALREADY TOOK MOST OF THEM THAT I, KIND OF SAME THING. WE ALSO, THE DUMP TRAILER IS NOW LINED WITH A THICK, LIKE TEFLON PLASTIC, AND THE DOORS ARE SEALED UP SO IT DOESN'T LEAK ANYMORE. BUT IT WAS ONLY OUT, IT WON'T BE ON THE ROAD ANYMORE. IT WAS ONLY OUT THERE BECAUSE THE GATE WAS BROKEN AND WE COULDN'T GET IT INSIDE THE GATES. IT'S NOW FIXED AND BEHIND THE GATES AND SEALED UP, SO WE SHOULD NEVER SEE IT AGAIN.

I GUESS I HAVE QUESTIONS, AND THIS MIGHT BE, I NEED THE ASSISTANCE OF MISS PRINCE, BUT WHAT EVIDENCE DO WE HAVE BEFORE US THAT IT WAS IRREPARABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE? CERTAINLY WE'LL HAVE OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER ANSWER THAT.

OKAY, I AGREE, I'LL AGREE.

I HAVE MY THOUGHT. SO THE WAY THE STORMWATER SYSTEM WORKS, THAT WATER DOES NOT GET TREATED BEFORE IT GETS DISCHARGED INTO THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY. SO ANYTHING THAT MAKES IT INTO THAT STORMWATER SYSTEM MAKES ITS WAY OUT INTO THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY SYSTEM. SO WHATEVER WAS, WHATEVER THE CHEMICAL MAKEUP

[00:15:04]

OF WHATEVER WAS INTRODUCED IN THAT STORMWATER SYSTEM CANNOT BE RECOVERED. SO WHATEVER WAS PLACED IN THERE IS GONE FOREVER.

SO, IT IS IRREPARABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE, IN OUR OPINION.

UM, THAT'S IT.

CAN I ALSO ADD ONE THING, TOO? UM, AND IN THE CODE, IT DOES STATE THAT UM NO MATTER IF IT'S ORGANIC MATERIAL OR NON-ORGANIC MATERIAL, EITHER WAY, THAT'S HOW IT'S SEEN. IT DOESN'T MATTER THE MATERIAL.

IT'S ONCE IT'S ENTERED, IT'S IT CAN'T BE RECOVERED.

RIGHT. AND SO THE CODE SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY NOTHING EXCEPT FOR RAINWATER CAN ENTER THE STORM DRAIN.

RIGHT, AND OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM IS MOSTLY FOR FLOODING, AND WE DO NOT HAVE A TREATMENT, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, BUT FOR THE RECORD, THERE IS NOT A TREATMENT FACILITY. SO, IT IS MOSTLY TO KEEP THINGS OUT OF THE WATERWAYS. WE NEED TO HAVE ONLY RAINWATER ENTERING THE SYSTEM.

I DID ACTUALLY ASK THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT HOW FAR IS THIS DRAIN FROM WHERE IT LANDS INTO THE RIVER? AND RIGHT RIGHT THERE WHERE MACAMA IS, IS GUM STREET THAT LINES IT. UM, THAT STORM DRAIN BASICALLY ALMOST JUMPS ACROSS THE RIVER OR JUMPS ACROSS THE ROAD RIGHT THERE AND THEN SHOOTS STRAIGHT OUT TOWARDS THE THE MILL AREA, BASICALLY. SO, IT'S REALLY NOT VERY LONG TRAVEL, RIGHT? YES, AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, THOUGH: DO I NEED TO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT WHATEVER WAS IN THE BACK OF THE TRUCK WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD CAUSE DAMAGE? I WOULD UNDERSTAND LIKE LOGIC WOULD STATE THAT SOME ORGANIC MATERIAL IS GOING TO ENTER INTO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM, LEAVES, DEBRIS, ET CETERA.

AND I DON'T IMAGINE THAT WOULD IMPACT THE RIVER OR THE SYSTEM.

I MEAN, OUR CODE SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING, OR BASICALLY IT'S EXCLUSIVE AND ONE CAN BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM. BUT I SEE A DISCONNECT SAYING THAT THIS CAUSED AN IRREVERSIBLE OR IRREPARABLE CONDITION TO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM, TO THE RIVER, TO THE ECOSYSTEM BASED ON WHAT WAS DISCHARGED. AND I THINK IF IT WERE AN AUTO SHOP AND IT WAS MOTOR OIL BEING DUMPED DOWN THERE, THAT'D BE A LOT EASIER KIND OF A COMMON SENSE CONCLUSION. I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS WAS IRREPARABLE BECAUSE IT ENTERED THE SYSTEM, BUT THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE THAT CAUSED ANY HARM.

AND I GUESS WE COULD ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE AND HAVE THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT SHOW UP AND TESTIFY US TO THE HARM.

I HAVE THEM ON STAND-BY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT STORMWATER WOULD BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN OF IT. I MEAN, STORMWATER CAN DEFINITELY TESTIFY AS TO WHERE IT ENDS UP, BUT AS FAR AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN, I MEAN, IF SOMEONE TOOK A CONTAINER OF WHATEVER THAT LIQUID WAS AND DECIDED TO JUST DRIVE TO THE INTERCOASTAL AND DUMP IT INTO THE INTERCOASTAL. THAT'S THE SAME. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME ISSUE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S DESIGNED TO BE PUT INTO THE WATERWAY. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT THERE'S PROBABLY SOME SORT OF REGULATION WITH FDEP AS FAR AS WHAT CAN BE PUT INTO THAT WATERWAY.

BUT IT IS DEFINITELY NOT.

STORMWATER WOULD TESTIFY TO IF WE NEEDED IT.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TOO.

IN MY PRESENTATION, I DID FAIL TO SAY THIS: WHAT MADE ME FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE NEEDED TO GO WAS THERE WAS SUCH A STRONG FOUL ODOR FROM THIS THAT TO ME, I MEAN, BIRDS, ANIMALS, ANYTHING THAT COULD GO AND GET INTO IT, THERE WAS EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF FLIES THAT WERE AROUND ALL OF THAT AREA TOO.

THAT'S WHERE TO ME, IT FELT LIKE IT REALLY NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED AND IT BECAME AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE.

I TRIED TO GET PICTURES OF THE FLIES, BUT THAT IS HARD TO DO.

THEY DON'T REALLY SIT STILL FOR YOU.

NO.

CAN I SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT? I MEAN, I'VE ALWAYS WHEN YOU CAME AND WE WERE OUT THERE LOOKING AT EVERYTHING, IT IS A NATURAL GRAIN THAT WE USE IN THE BREWING PROCESS THAT IS KILN-DRIED OATS AND WHEAT AND BARLEY. WE BOIL IT, BASICALLY, AND THEN THAT'S THE WASTE PRODUCT. IT'S JUST THE EMPTY HULLS OF THE GRAIN. THE TRAILER IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY A COW FARMER THAT PICKS IT UP, TAKES IT TO HIS COWS, AND FEEDS IT TO HIS COWS.

AND THE WATER THAT WAS COMING OUT WAS RAINWATER THAT, YES, LEACHED THROUGH THE GRAIN, DRIPPED OUT THE BACK. SO, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A SUGAR WATER ALMOST.

IT'S A LITTLE IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF THE CARBOHYDRATE FROM THE FLOUR AND THE GRAIN, THE SPENT GRAIN, AND BECOMES STICKY. SO, IT IS COW FOOD, BASICALLY. HE TAKES EVERY WEEK HE COMES AND PICKS UP 20,000 POUNDS

[00:20:02]

OF IT AND TAKES IT TO HIS COWS AND FEEDS IT OUT IN CALLAHAN. SO, IT IS WHICH, I DON'T DISAGREE THAT IT WAS HAPPENING, IT WAS DRIPPING, AND THE WHITE PART IS ACTUALLY LIKE WILD FERMENTATION, 'CAUSE IT STILL HAS A LITTLE BIT OF WILD YEAST ON IT. SO, THAT'S KIND OF THE SMELL THAT YOU SMELL.

IT KIND OF WILDY FERMENTS.

I SEE.

AND THEN, UM, THE COW FARMER COMES AND PICKS IT UP AND GETS HIS COWS A LITTLE BIT DRUNK ON IT.

WELL, IN IN SECTION 82-464, TALKS ABOUT DISCHARGE INTO STORMWATER SYSTEM, AND AND DOES EVEN TALK ABOUT... WHAT DID I SEE HERE A SECOND AGO THAT LOOKED...

IT SAYS, "ANY ORGANIC OR INORGANIC MATERIAL, AND THAT'S INCLUSIVE OF LAWN CLIPPINGS AND LEAVES, ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER THE STORM DRAIN." WHAT'S THE USERNAME FOR THESE? BOARDS. HERE, I CAN DO IT.

BOARDS.

JUST BOARDS? THAT'S OKAY.

464, 82-464. OKAY, HERE WE ARE.

AND THAT LIST IS AN IS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO.

RIGHT. YEAH.

I GUESS, I MEAN, WITH THAT DEFINITION, IT SAYS ANY ORGANIC OR INORGANIC MATTER WHICH CAUSES OR TENDS TO CAUSE POLLUTION.

AND THAT'S WHY I SAID, YOU KNOW, I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'D EITHER NEED A CONTINUANCE IF YOU WANT TO PURSUE IT AND HAVE, BECAUSE WHILE I DON'T MEAN TO DISAGREE WITH OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER, WE HAVE VERY, OUR SANITATION DEPARTMENT, THEY ARE VERY WELL-VERSED IN WHAT IS A POLLUTANT, AND THEY COULD PROVIDE THAT TESTIMONY.

AND THAT WOULD BE UP TO MY CLIENT IF THEY WANT TO PURSUE THE PHONE.

WE COULD ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE AND HAVE THEM AT THE NEXT HEARING.

IT COULD MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY.

BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IT IS CORRECTED, SO WE'RE NOT LEAVING AN OPEN VIOLATION.

I KNOW THAT IT WOULD LEAVE OUR PROPERTY OWNER IN SUSPENSE.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT INTEREST IS, YOU KNOW, NOTHING WOULD BE ACCRUING.

I DO KNOW THAT OUR STORMWATER DEPARTMENT IS PLANNING TO GO OUT THERE AND CLEAN THE DRAIN ONCE THEIR BACK TRUCK IS UP AND RUNNING AGAIN.

SO, THAT'S UP TO YOU.

SO, THAT'S ONE THING THAT IS SCHEDULED TO DO, BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE TRUCK ACTIVE AT THIS TIME.

AND WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO A CONTINUANCE.

I JUST, I REALLY FEEL THAT THE DEFINITION IS PRETTY CLEAR.

THAT IT'S ANYTHING ORGANIC OR INORGANIC EXCEPT FOR RAINWATER.

IF LEAVES ARE CONSIDERED POLLUTING, I WOULD ASSUME THAT LIQUID COMING FROM A DUMPSTER THAT WE CAN'T VERIFY WHAT WAS IN IT WOULD BE MORE POLLUTANT THAN LEAVES.

AND I GUESS THE DISCONNECT THAT I SEE, I AGREE THAT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, IT WOULD SUPPORT THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE.

THE DISCONNECT I'M GETTING TO IT'S IRREPARABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE BECAUSE, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING THAT IT HAS EITHER CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR TO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM ITSELF.

AND SO, THEREFORE, I WOULD ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE.

I'VE WORKED WITH OUR STORMWATER DEPARTMENT.

I THINK THEY COULD TESTIFY AS TO THAT AND MAKE YOU MORE COMFORTABLE, MAKE THE ORDER MORE SOUND.

AND WE CAN HAVE THAT AVAILABLE AT THE NEXT HEARING.

MS. PRINCE, DO YOU MIND IF I ADD SOMETHING? IF YOU WANT, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD DO THIS, BUT WE DO HAVE A STORMWATER REPRESENTATIVE ON THE WAY.

YEAH, BUT.

OH, ON THE WAY HERE? BUT SO, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR TESTIMONY FROM THE STORMWATER REPRESENTATIVE AS TO WHAT WAS DAMAGED IN THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN IT MADE IT INTO THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY?

[00:25:02]

I MEAN.

I THINK IT'S THAT.

I HAVE.

MY DECISION HAS TO BE BASED ON COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

AND AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, I'M GOING TO BE HONEST.

I DON'T REALLY SEE.

THERE'S A DISCONNECT FOR THE.

IT'S NOT THE VIOLATION.

IT'S THE IRREVERSIBLE.

IRREPARABLE NATURE OF THE VIOLATION.

AND IF THEY HAVE SOMEONE ON THE WAY, IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE IT, GO ON TO THE REST OF THE CASES AND HEAR IT TODAY.

I GUESS WE COULD.

I'D LIKE A SECOND TO TALK TO THE PERSON AND MAKE SURE THAT I'M GOING TO HEAR WHAT I NEED TO HEAR.

OR WE COULD MOVE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.

MR. HARE, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS? I MEAN, YOU UNDERSTAND, FOLLOW KIND OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AT THIS POINT.

I DON'T MEAN TO EXCLUDE YOU.

NO, NO, THAT'S FINE.

I MEAN, I KIND OF.

OBVIOUSLY, IT HAPPENED.

THINGS WERE LEAKING INTO THE STORM DRAIN.

I KIND OF AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT'S NOT A PERMANENT.

IT'S A FIXABLE THING OR IT'S ALREADY WASHED AWAY WITH THE RAIN.

AND IT'S NOT, TO ME, A POLLUTANT.

IT'S A NATURAL SUGAR.

IT'S SUGAR WATER TO ME.

BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO PROLONG THIS FOREVER.

I HAVE A MILLION OTHER THINGS TO DO.

WE HAVE SOMEBODY ON THE WAY, APPARENTLY, WHO MAY HAVE JUST WALKED IN THE DOOR? POTENTIALLY.

SO WE COULD TAKE A BRIEF FIVE-MINUTE RECESS AND I COULD SPEAK TO HIM QUICKLY.

AND THAT WOULD NOT DELAY OUR OWNER OR MANAGER TOO LONG.

IT WOULD GIVE ME A MINUTE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THE TESTIMONY WE NEED.

MS. PRINCE, THAT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST.

WOULD YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO MY CONTINUING ON THE OTHER ITEMS OF THE AGENDA? WE WILL NOT HAVE, APPARENTLY, ANY RESPONDENTS HERE.

NO OBJECTION.

AND WE CAN JUST HAVE MS. RIMES ENTER EVERYTHING INTO THE RECORD.

AND I'LL STEP OUT.

AND SPEAK WITH OUR STORMWATER PERSON.

MR. HARE, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? YES, SIR.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO WAIT A FEW MINUTES.

I WAS TRYING TO GET YOU OUT OF HERE EARLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO WAIT A FEW MINUTES.

AND I'M GOING TO TAKE SOME OTHER CASES.

AND WE'LL MAKE SURE WE HAVE EVERYONE HERE BEFORE WE RECONVENE.

ABSOLUTELY.

SO WE ARE GOING TO.

WE WILL TAKE THAT ACTION.

SO I'M GOING TO SHIFT GEARS.

AND WE'RE GOING TO PUT A PAUSE ON ITEM 4.9 ON THE AGENDA.

AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 4.4.

[4.4 DGS LIVING TRUST, DAVID J. SCANDALIATO TRUSTEE, 319 S. 6TH ST., CASE 2022- 0660.]

THIS IS DGS LIVING TRUST.

DAVID J. SCANDALIATO.

TRUSTEE.

319 SOUTH 6TH STREET.

CASE NUMBER 2022-660.

MAY I ASK IF TIME-WISE.

THAT ONE'S GOING TO BE LONGER PRESENTING COMPARED TO THE NEXT ONE? I DON'T KNOW IF.

WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THIS ONE.

I DON'T THINK.

I MEAN, THERE ISN'T A RESPONDENT.

AND SO I'LL START WITH MS. RIMES.

ARE THERE ANY DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE YOU'D LIKE TO BE RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD? YES.

AT THIS TIME, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENTER ALL PHOTOS, TESTIMONY, ANY EVIDENCE IN THE POWERPOINT.

THERE ARE 19 PAGES ON THIS PRESENTATION.

SO THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF 19 PAGES WILL BE RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD WITHOUT OBJECTION.

I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES AT THIS MOMENT WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET MY PRESENTATION UP.

I'M GOING TO SEE IF THAT WILL WORK FOR ME FOR SOME REASON.

WE WERE WAITING ON OUR IT.

CAN YOU PULL IT UP? PUT IT ON YOUR SCREEN.

APPARENTLY, THIS HAS BEEN A RECENT PROBLEM.

[00:30:16]

ALL RIGHT, MY NAME IS CRYSTAL RIMES.

I'M THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, AND I WILL BE PRESENTING CASE NUMBER CODE.

2022-0660.

REGARDING THE PROPERTY THAT'S LOCATED AT 319 SOUTH 6TH STREET, THIS IS A LEGACY CASE, AND IT HAS BEEN OPEN SINCE 2022, AND IT HAS EVOLVED MUCH OVER SEVERAL YEARS.

SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 319 SOUTH 6TH STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA, 32034.

THE OWNER OF RECORD IS DGS LIVING TRUST.

DAVID J. SCANDALIATO, HOPEFULLY I SAID THAT CORRECTLY, IS THE TRUSTEE.

FIVE CODE VIOLATIONS WERE IDENTIFIED DURING THE INSPECTIONS AND OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEARS.

THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND TO HAVE A DETERIORATED EXTERIOR STRUCTURE, OVERGROWN VEGETATION, OUTSIDE STORAGE, AN ACCUMULATION OF RUBBISH AND DEBRIS, AND ALSO AN INOPERABLE VEHICLE.

THE INOPERABLE VEHICLE IS IN COMPLIANCE AS OF JUNE 19, 2026, AND THAT MEANS THAT THERE ARE FOUR VIOLATIONS THAT REMAIN AND EXIST AS OF TODAY'S HEARING.

THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN BY CITY STAFF, AND THEY FAIRLY ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE VIOLATIONS.

SO LET ME GET MY LASER POINTER ONCE AGAIN.

THIS WAS TAKEN IN THE VERY FIRST INSPECTION DONE BY OFFICER WELLS, WHO IS NOW RETIRED.

AT THIS TIME, HE HAD SOME SCAFFOLDING THAT WAS INSTALLED ALONG HERE, ON THIS SIDE, ON BASICALLY ALL SIDES OF THE PROPERTY, TO HELP HIM UP AND DOWN AS HE WAS DOING SOME OF THE WORK AT ONE POINT IN TIME.

THIS IS THE LAST PHOTO THAT I'VE TAKEN ON MY LAST INSPECTION, AND WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF PHOTOGRAPHS THAT COULD BE PRESENTED, SO I HAD TO BE CAREFUL ON MY SELECTION.

HE DOES HAVE A RAMP HERE THAT IS NEEDED.

HE CLEANED THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE, AND IF YOU LOOK RIGHT UP HERE ON THIS LINE, THERE'S A LOT OF STAINING ON THE WHITE TRIM OF THE FASCIA, AND WE NOTICED THAT WAS ALSO ON THE SIDE STRUCTURE.

ONCE HE DID THE CLEANING OF THE SIDE, IT ACTUALLY DID CLEAR UP ALL THAT, SO I EXPECT ALL THAT TO BE GONE.

THIS GENTLEMAN DOES HAVE MANY HEALTH CONCERNS AND ISSUES THAT HE HAS BEEN VERY FORTHCOMING ABOUT WITH US, AND HE IS LIMITED IN HIS ABILITIES OF WHAT HE CAN DO.

IN THESE PHOTOS, YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS THE ADDITIONAL SCAFFOLDING.

THIS IS AN OLDER PHOTO AS WELL THAT JUST SHOWS SOME OF THE OUTDOOR STORAGE.

HE DID, AT ONE POINT IN TIME, COMPLY WITH THIS, AND THEN IT DID END UP RIGHT BACK IN VIOLATION.

AGAIN, THIS IS A PHOTO THAT WAS TAKEN FROM THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE VIEW, AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S REALLY NO SEALANT THAT'S PROTECTING THE STRUCTURE ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY IS THE LAST TIME I'VE SEEN THE BACK SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO GET BACK THERE AT THIS TIME, BUT THE LAST TIME I'VE SEEN IT, THIS IS THE CONDITION IT WAS IN, WHERE IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY RUST ON THE ROOF, OPEN GAPS WHERE THE FASCIA AND TRIM SHOULD BE ALONG THE ROOF LINE.

THAT'S THE HOUSE, NOT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? IT'S ATTACHED.

THIS WAS THE LAST CONDITION AS WELL THAT I DO.

I WAS ACTUALLY HERE UPON THIS INSPECTION.

THERE WAS A LOT OF ROOTS AND GRASS GROWING UP INSIDE THE STRUCTURE, GROWING

[00:35:01]

OVER INTO THE NEIGHBORING FENCE AREA, BUT THESE WERE TAKEN IN 2023, SO PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.

THESE WERE TAKEN IN 2025 FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE VIEW STANDING UP ON AN ELEVATED DECK AREA, SO YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A LOT OF OVERGROWTH.

THIS PHOTO SHOWS THE STRUCTURE.

YOU CAN SEE SOME GAPS AND HOLES IN THE BACK SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AS WELL.

HERE ARE MORE PHOTOS.

THIS WAS TAKEN IN 2025.

FROM THE STREET VIEW, THE ROOF LOOKS FAIRLY WELL KEPT.

THEN ON THE BACK SIDE, YOU CAN SEE THIS, WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL METAL ROOF THAT'S RUSTED AND ALL THAT, WHERE THERE'S SOME WEAR AND TEAR.

THIS IS THE STRUCTURE YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT HERE THAT'S NOT PAINTED.

RIGHT HERE, YOU CAN SEE MORE HOLES IN THE STRUCTURE AS WELL.

THIS WAS WHEN I STARTED WORKING REALLY CLOSELY WITH MR. SCANDALIATO.

THIS YEAR, IN MARCH 2026, I TOOK THIS PHOTO.

REALLY, THE FRONT RIGHT HERE, THIS RAILING, I'M TRYING TO THINK IF I CAN ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT, BUT IF YOU CAN SEE THE RAILING ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE HOUSE, HE DID REPAIR THAT FAIRLY QUICKLY AFTER WE SPOKE ABOUT IT.

I TOLD HIM THAT WAS ONE THING THAT CAN GET CORRECTED QUICK AND CAN BE DROPPED OFF, SO NOW THAT WAS DONE.

HE DID SOME STRAIGHTENING UP AROUND, BUT HE'S GOT THESE PIECES OF JUST OUTDOOR STORAGE IN VARIOUS AREAS OF THE YARD THAT HE IS WORKING ON MOVING.

SOME LITTLE BIT OF OVERGROWTH.

THEN THIS WAS TAKEN ON MY LAST INSPECTION.

A LITTLE BIT UP CLOSE WHERE YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, LIKE, OKAY, THERE'S STAINING THERE.

ORIGINALLY, WE WERE SAYING TO REPAINT IT, BUT NOW I KNOW THAT THAT CAN BE CLEANED AND THOSE STAINS SHOULD BE REMOVED.

THIS IS THE MOST RECENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

THIS IS A HEARING LETTER THAT WAS SENT.

IT WAS POSTED AT THE PROPERTY, AND IT WAS ALSO SENT CERTIFIED MAIL.

HERE IS A COPY OF THE POSTING, CERTIFIED MAIL, AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE.

THIS WAS DONE JUNE, IT WAS POSTED JUNE 29TH, 2026.

SO, QUICK TIMELINE.

CASE OPEN MARCH 7TH, 2026.

ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE DATE WAS APRIL, SORRY, MARCH 7TH, 2022.

I APOLOGIZE.

THE ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE DATE WAS APRIL 18TH, 2022.

WE HAVE GRANTED MULTIPLE EXTENSIONS.

I ACTUALLY WENT BACK TO TRY TO SEE AND FIND HOW MANY, AND I COULD NOT COUNT.

I COULD NOT KEEP COUNT OF THEM BECAUSE I KNEW THERE WAS MORE.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU EVERY TIME THAT WE WOULD HAVE THEM ON A HEARING AND HAVE THEM ON NOTICE, WE WOULD GET CLOSER TO THE HEARING, AND THERE WOULD BE EXTENSION WOULD BE REQUESTED, AND IT WAS PRIMARILY DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS ALMOST EACH TIME THAT I'M AWARE OF.

SO, WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO WORK WITH THEM.

WE'VE DONE OVER 16 PLUS INSPECTIONS.

IT'S BEEN IN VIOLATION OVER 01,600 DAYS.

WE HAVE WORKED REALLY HARD AT ASSISTING THE RESPONDENT IN GAINING VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST FOUR YEARS, INCLUDING WE'VE LINED UP COMMUNITY RESOURCES TO THE OWNER.

I'VE REACHED OUT TO COUNSEL ON AGING WITH HIM IN THE PAST, PROBABLY A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, GIVE OR TAKE.

BUT MOST RECENTLY, WE WERE ABLE TO COORDINATE WITH A LOCAL CHURCH IN A MEN'S GROUP WHERE THEY ARE ESTABLISHING THIS MEN'S GROUP TO HELP WITH SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WITH LOCAL RESIDENTS THAT NEED HELP THAT ARE AGING THAT MAYBE COUNSEL ON AGING CANNOT GET TO.

AND WE'VE ALSO CONTACTED LOCAL HARDWARE STORES, LOCAL PAINT STORES TO TRY TO HELP WITH ASSISTING BUYING, YOU KNOW, PURCHASING THE PAINT AND SEEING IF WE CAN GET ANY DONATED.

AND WE'VE HAD SOME GOOD RESULTS.

SO, WE DID LINE UP AND COORDINATE A MEETING WITH MR. SCANDALIATO AND THE MEN'S GROUP OF THE CHURCH.

AND WE MADE AN INTRODUCTION OF THE TWO.

AND THE LAST UPDATE THAT I HAD AFTER THE INTRODUCTION WAS THEY CAN GET TO THE WORK, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE IN SEPTEMBER.

IT WAS WAY TOO HOT WHEN WE HAD THIS MEETING.

AND HE SAID SOME OF THESE GENTLEMEN ARE OLDER, SO HE WANTS TO MAKE IT SOMEWHAT MORE BEARABLE FOR ALL PARTIES.

SO, RIGHT NOW, THEY THINK IT'S GOING TO BE IN SEPTEMBER.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE.

THEY BELIEVE IT LANDED BECAUSE MR. SCANDALIATO DID NOT WANT ME TO GO AROUND TO THE BACK SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

AND I DON'T BLAME HIM.

SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO ENTAIL AS FAR AS REPAIRS GO WITH THE GROUP.

BUT IT COULD BE OUT OF THEIR ABILITIES.

I HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD.

SO, THE CITY INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $469.07.

AND AT THIS TIME, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING:

[00:40:01]

FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION.

42-117, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE.

42-116, OVERGROWN VEGETATION.

42-119, RUBBISH AND GARBAGE.

5-0109, OUTSIDE STORAGE.

WE WOULD LIKE TO ORDER COMPLIANCE BY MONDAY, OCTOBER 5TH, ALLOWING 60 DAYS FOR COMPLIANCE AND ALLOWING THE MEN'S GROUP TO HELP THEM GET IN COMPLIANCE.

SO, WE'RE ASKING TO AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND THEN IMPOSE A FINE OF $100 PER DAY PER VIOLATION BEGINNING AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE OF OCTOBER 5TH.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I'M GOING TO FIND THERE'S CONFIDENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN VIOLATION.

IT'S BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR NEARLY FOUR AND A HALF YEARS.

THAT THERE ARE SOME RENEWED EFFORTS TO GET IT INTO COMPLIANCE.

AND SO, WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO ORDER THAT THE PROPERTY BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE BY OCTOBER 5TH.

IF IT'S NOT BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE BY THAT TIME, THEN WE WILL IMPOSE A 100-DAILY FINE TOTAL UNTIL IT DOES ATTAIN COMPLIANCE.

AND THAT FINE WILL START ON OCTOBER THE 6TH.

AND I WILL AWARD THE CITY THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $469.07.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

SO, DAILY, SO NOT PER VIOLATION, RIGHT? RIGHT, JUST DAILY.

IT NEEDS TO BE EITHER COMPLETELY IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT.

FOR ALL OF THOSE WE'VE GIVEN THEM THE FULL 60 DAYS BENEFIT OF DOING THAT.

AND THEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, IS IT OKAY IF IT WAS TO INCREASE OVER TIME? WELL, I MEAN, IT HAS TO BE BASED ON CONFIDENCE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

SO, IF WE HAVE TO SEND MORE MAILING, IT'S OKAY FOR THAT, THE AMOUNT, IF IT WAS TO INCREASE OR IF IT WAS TO CONTINUE GOING ON FOR YEARS.

AND I HAVE TO COMPLETE MORE INSPECTIONS.

WELL, I KNOW THAT.

IT'S JUST THE AMOUNT NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED BY, YOU KNOW, COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

UNDERSTOOD.

AND SO, I'M JUST NOT, NOT THAT I DON'T, I KNOW YOU WOULDN'T JUST WILLY-NILLY ADD COST TO IT.

BUT I THINK IN FAIRNESS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, WE'LL SET THAT, BUT THAT WILL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO A FUTURE HEARING.

WITH NOTICE TO SEEK ADDITIONAL COSTS BASED ON ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN INCURRED.

DID WE WANT TO CHECK WITH MS. PRINCE TO SEE IF SHE WAS READY OR WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE? I CAN GO OUT AND CHECK.

[00:45:01]

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO CONTINUE? OKAY.

WELL, SINCE WE'RE STILL WAITING,

[4.5 EXACT INVESTMENTS, LLC, PARCEL 00-00-31-1760-0005-0010, CASE 2026- 0075.]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 4.5 ON THE AGENDA, EXACT INVESTMENTS LLC, PARCEL 000031-1760-0005-0010, CASE 2026-75.

MS. RIMES, ARE THERE ANY DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE YOU'D LIKE TO BE RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD? YES.

ALL EVIDENCE.

PICTURES, TEST 20, THE SLIDESHOW OR POWERPOINT SLIDESHOW OF 11 PAGES, PLEASE.

AND THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION CONSISTING OF 11 PAGES WILL BE ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD WITHOUT OBJECTION.

SO MY NAME IS CRYSTAL RIMES, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, AND I AM PRESENTING CASE NUMBER 2026-0075 INVOLVING A PARCEL THAT'S LOCATED ALONG FRONT STREET.

AND...

THE CITY IS REQUESTING A FINDING OF THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 4242, PUBLIC NUISANCES DUE TO THE DETERIORATED DOCK THAT CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

SO THIS SLIDE IS ESTABLISHING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER 000031-1760-0005-0010, AND IT IS LOCATED ALONG FRONT STREET IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.

OWNERSHIP HAS BEEN VERIFIED THROUGH NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS.

THE OWNER OF RECORD IS EXACT INVESTMENTS LLC WITH A MAILING ADDRESS OF 1610 MADISON AVENUE, TIFTON, GEORGIA.

THE REGISTERED AGENT IS, FOR THE CORPORATION, IS ECKLER CPA LLC, AND THEY ARE LOCATED IN FITZGERALD, GEORGIA.

AND THIS INFORMATION THAT IS STATED WAS USED TO ENSURE THAT ALL NOTICES WERE MAILED TO THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES.

DURING MY INITIAL INSPECTION, I OBSERVED TWO VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CODE.

THE FIRST ONE WAS...

SECTION 4242, PUBLIC NUISANCE DUE TO A DETERIORATED DOCK THAT POSSESSES A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.

THE SECOND VIOLATION WAS SECTION 4217B, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE FOR A CHAIN-LINK FENCE THAT WAS IN DISREPAIR, AND THAT WAS DOWN.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE RECORD THAT THE FENCE VIOLATION WAS CORRECTED ON JULY 8, 2026, AND IT'S NO LONGER COMING BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TODAY.

SO THE ONLY REMAINING VIOLATION IS THE 4242.

SO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN BY ME DURING MY INITIAL INSPECTION ON MAY 1, 2026, AND THEY FAIRLY INACCURATELY DEPICT THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY ON THAT DATE.

THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THEY SHOW THE DETERIORATED DOCK AND THE CHAIN-LINK FENCE THAT WERE DOWN.

YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE THERE'S A WIDE OPENING.

RIGHT HERE THERE'S A BIG HOLE.

IT REALLY IS A GENERAL SAFETY CONCERN TO THE PUBLIC AT THAT POINT SO ON MAY 28TH 2026 THE CITY MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL AND POSTING AS WELL TO THE REGISTERED AGENT AND TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THE NOTICE DID PROVIDE 30 DAYS FOR COMPLIANCE ON JUNE 1ST 2026 THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS COMPLETED PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN AND RECORDED ON JUNE 10TH 2026 THE PROPERTY OWNER DID CONTACT ME AND ADVISE THAT THE CHAIN-LINK FENCE HAD BEEN REPAIRED AND WAS REQUESTING A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND THAT DID THAT INSPECTION CONFIRMED THAT THE 42 117 B WAS COMPLIED AT THAT TIME AN EXTENSION INSPECTION NOT AT THAT TIME. I'M SORRY, AN EXTENSION INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED WHEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN JUNE 29TH 2026, WHICH SHOWED THAT THE DOCK DID STILL REMAIN IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE CODE.

SO A LITTLE RECAP.

CASE WAS OPEN MAY 1ST 2026 WITH ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE DATE OF JUNE 27 2026. AT THE OWNERS REQUEST A 30-DAY EXTENSION WAS GRANTED TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE TIME TO OBTAIN A CONTRACTOR AND A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND THEY FELT THAT WAS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TIME AT THAT TIME. THE CITY DIDN'T CONDUCT FOR FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS AND AS OF TODAY'S HEARING THE PROPERTY STILL REMAINS IN VIOLATION AND IT'S BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR 97 DAYS AND DOCK THAT IS DETERIORATED HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED. ALRIGHT, CITIES INCUR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $182.28 AND BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THE CITY RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 42 42 PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ESTABLISH A COMPLIANCE DEADLINE SEPTEMBER 08, 2026, THIS WOULD ALLOW 33 DAYS AND IT WOULD ALLOW THE INSPECTION TO HAPPEN

[00:50:01]

ON A WORK DAY.

PLEASE ASSESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND AUTHORIZE A DAILY FINE OF $250 SHOULD THE VIOLATION REMAIN AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DATE.

AND I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT $250 AMOUNT IS BECAUSE THIS IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, ESSENTIALLY.

SO, THAT IS WHERE THAT COST IS COMING FROM.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

WOULD THE DEMO PERMIT HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE HTC? BECAUSE IT'S IN THE CRA.

IF IT'S IN THE CRA, THEN YES, IT WOULD.

I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE CRA MAP RIGHT NOW, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS IT COVERS ALL.

YEAH, WE JUST DID ONE FOR THE BLUE BUILDING, SO I KNOW THAT IT HAS TO GO TO THE HTC.

SO, I GUESS MY QUESTION BEING IS 33 DAYS, EVEN IF THEY APPLIED TODAY? NO, THEY'VE ALREADY MISSED THE DEADLINE.

SO, WE'VE GOT THE CALENDAR HERE.

LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIND IT.

I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM A MEANINGLESS DEADLINE.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH.

AND WOULD THEY NEED A DEMO PERMIT FOR A DOCK? WOULD THAT COUNT AS A STRUCTURE? I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CALENDAR.

IS IT JUST A DOCK? IT IS JUST A DOCK.

OKAY, I WASN'T DOWN FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION. SO...

I'D HAVE TO LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE, BUT LET ME FIND THEIR DEADLINES FIRST.

HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OWNER ABOUT REMOVING THE DOCK SPECIFICALLY? YES, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT.

CORRECT.

BUT IF IT'S IN THE CRA.

CRA, THAT'S THE THING.

THE DEMO PERMIT IN THE CRA HAS TO GO BEFORE HTC.

UNDERSTOOD, OKAY.

SO, YEAH, WHEN HE CALLED AND HE TOLD ME THAT, I EXPLAINED, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU CAN DO IS YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND FIX THAT CHAIN LINK FENCE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE KEEPING THE PUBLIC FROM MOSEYING ONTO THAT DOCK AND GETTING HURT.

AND AT THAT TIME, WE HAD A VERY, WHAT FELT LIKE A VERY PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION OF MOVING FORWARD TO GET THIS AND SECURING A CONTRACTOR, AND I DID EXPLAIN AT THAT TIME TO ENSURE TO KEEP COMMUNICATION OPEN BECAUSE I UNDERSTANDINGLY KNOW THAT THERE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, HOOPS THAT HAVE TO BE JUMPED THROUGH. BUT EVER SINCE THAT CONVERSATION, AND THAT WAS BACK AROUND, GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT.

YEAH, SO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 8 SAYS, ANY APPLICATION FOR A COA FOR ANY DEMOLITION OF A PRIMARY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE CONTRIBUTING OR NON-CONTRIBUTING LOCATED WITHIN THE HTC OR THE CRA, SHALL WE SUBMIT IT TO THE HTC? SO, I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE, IS IT A STRUCTURE? STRUCTURE.

I'M STILL LOOKING FOR THE DEADLINES.

I HAVEN'T EVEN MADE IT TO WHERE YOU'RE AT.

I HAVEN'T POSTED IT ON MY WALL, BUT I DON'T, THEY'RE HARD TO FIND, YOU HAVE TO BE APPLYING TO FIND IT IN THE APPLICATION.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS AT THE END OF JUNE, THE LAST CONVERSATION WE HAD.

I KNOW IT'S USUALLY TWO WEEKS AHEAD, BUT, OKAY.

OH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

NOW I'VE GIVEN UP ON THE DEADLINE, AND I'M LOOKING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A STRUCTURE.

OKAY, SO.

STRUCTURE MEANS ANYTHING CONSTRUCTED, INSTALLED, OR PORTABLE, THE USE OF WHICH REQUIRES A LOCATION ON A PARCEL OF LAND.

IT INCLUDES A MOVABLE STRUCTURE WHILE IT'S LOCATED ON LAND, WHICH CAN BE USED FOR HOUSING, BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE, OR OTHER PURPOSES.

ALSO INCLUDES FENCES, BILLBOARDS, SWIMMING POOLS, POLES, PIPELINES, TRANSMISSION LINES, TRACKS, AND SIGNS.

I THINK.

YEAH, AND PLUS WE CAN CERTAINLY GIVE ENOUGH TIME, SO THAT WHEN WE VERIFY, I MEAN, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM TO SET THE TIME LIMIT FAR ENOUGH OUT, SO IF THEY DO NEED TO GET TO HDC AND WE CONFIRM THAT THEY NEED TO BE THERE, THAT THEY CAN DO THAT.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M GETTING AT, MS. PRINCE.

I THINK THAT'S, WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THAT.

AND I GUESS THE FACT THAT THE FENCE HAS BEEN REPAIRED ELIMINATES OR ALLEVIATES SOME OF THE CONCERNS AS FAR AS DANGER TO THE PUBLIC, IF IT IS FENCED OFF AND CLEARLY MARKED, AND SO GIVING MORE TIME, I THINK, RATHER THAN GIVING THEM AN IMPOSSIBLE DEADLINE, I THINK IS WARRANTED WITH THAT.

[00:55:06]

THEY MAY NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO MAKE THE SEPTEMBER 17TH HDC, DEPENDING ON, I MEAN, CONSIDERING WHERE WE ARE IN AUGUST, SO THEN THE MEETING THAT THEY COULD ACTUALLY GET TO WOULD BE OCTOBER 15TH.

WOULD BE THE MOST REASONABLE DEADLINE.

AND I WAS OUT OF THE ROOM WHEN THIS STARTED.

THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THE FENCE IS CORRECTED, RIGHT? CORRECT, YES.

OFFICER RIMES, THANK YOU.

LET ME SEE, OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, SO BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I'M GOING TO FIND THERE'S COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO FIND AND SUPPORT A FINDING OF A VIOLATION OF OUR CODE.

ANYTHING FURTHER? NO.

NO.

I'M GOING TO AWARD THE CITY THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, THE AMOUNT OF $182.28.

I'M GOING TO ORDER THE PROPERTY BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE BY NOVEMBER THE 9TH.

AND IF IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY NOVEMBER THE 9TH, THEN A DAILY FINE OF $250 A DAY WILL BEGIN ON NOVEMBER THE 10TH.

UNTIL THE PROPERTY OBTAINS COMPLIANCE. AND MS. RIMES, THAT 9TH IS A MONDAY.

ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING FURTHER ON THIS CASE? NOT FOR ME.

APPRECIATE YOU.

NO, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, WE WILL ENTER A WRITTEN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THAT PRONOUNCEMENT.

AND MS. PRINCE, ARE YOU

[4.9 629 MBC GROUP LLC, 629 S. 8TH ST., 2026-0127. (Part 2 of 3)]

PREPARED, READY TO PROCEED, CONTINUING IN ITEM 4.9? WE CAN PROVIDE YOU AN UPDATE ON ITEM 4.9.

IF WE NEED THE TESTIMONY OF OUR ENGINEER, AND HE CANNOT BE HERE TODAY, SO WE WOULD REQUIRE A CONTINUANCE.

YOU KNOW, I SPOKE WITH HIM AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER WHO USED TO BE A MANAGER OF A WATER DISTRICT.

WELL, EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE THE MANAGER OF.

THE CHIEF WATERWAY OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE.

AND THEY DID CONFIRM THAT ANY SUBSTANCE THAT COMES OUT OF A DUMPSTER AND GOES INTO THE WATER, YOU KNOW, INTO OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM, IT WOULD BE A POLLUTANT.

BUT WE WOULD NEED A CONTINUANCE TO HAVE OUR ENGINEER HERE UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE TESTIMONY OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER.

BECAUSE WE CANNOT GET ANDRE DESOLET HERE.

AND THE NICE MAN WHO IS HERE NOW IS NOT OUR ENGINEER, SO.

BUT, YOU KNOW, ANY SUBSTANCE THAT GOES INTO THE SYSTEM IS CONSIDERED A POLLUTANT.

WE HAD MR. DESOLET BRING UP THE CODE, BUT I CANNOT GET HIM HERE TODAY.

SO I WOULD NEED A CONTINUANCE TO HAVE HIM TESTIFY.

MR. OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER, FEELS CAPABLE TO TESTIFY BECAUSE OF HIS BACKGROUND.

AND HE COULD ELABORATE ON THAT FOR YOU AND SEE IF YOU WANT TO TAKE HIS TESTIMONY OR WE WILL TAKE A CONTINUANCE.

WE WOULD ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE TO OUR NEXT MEETING.

AGAIN, THE VIOLATION HAS BEEN CORRECTED.

I KNOW IT'S SOMEWHAT OF AN INCONVENIENCE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT THERE'S NO ONGOING VIOLATION.

THERE WILL BE NO DAILY FINES.

AND IT WOULD ALLOW US TIME TO PREPARE SO THAT YOU COULD RENDER A DECISION.

JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR A SECOND HEARING, THOUGH.

MR. HARROD, DO YOU MIND COMING BACK UP TO THE PODIUM? WE WANT TO...

SO.

I KNOW YOU'VE GOT A LOT ON YOUR PLATE.

RUNNING A BUSINESS, PROBABLY THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO IS HAVE TO COME BACK HERE FOR ANOTHER HEARING.

SO, I GUESS I WOULD ASK, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE FINE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING? ARE YOU COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO IT? ARE YOU ASKING FOR IT TO CONSIDER A LOWER FINE? I GUESS I JUST, I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF ALL OF THE PARTIES' TIMES.

I DON'T WANT TO DELAY THIS UNNECESSARILY AND INCUR MORE EXPENSES FOR ANYONE, RIGHT.

BECAUSE I'M SURE THERE'S THINGS YOU'D MUCH RATHER BE DOING, AND ABLE YEAH, I MEAN, I WAS THE OWNER WASN'T ABLE TO BE HERE. HE'S IN, UM, CANADA RIGHT NOW, BUT HE ASKED ME TO COME REPRESENT AND TRY NOT TO PAY A FINE. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. RIGHT. UM, IF WE DO A CONTINUANCE, THEN IT'S COSTING US MORE MONEY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO ANOTHER ONE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I'VE WORKED THERE FOR FOUR YEARS, WE OPENED IN NOVEMBER OF 2020. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN ANY OTHER CODE VIOLATIONS TO THAT BUILDING SINCE THE BUSINESS WAS OPEN.

SO, THERE'S WE DON'T MIND PAYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES

[01:00:01]

OR WHATEVER, BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN REDUCE THE FINE AND JUST HAVE IT DONE TODAY, LIKE EVERYTHING IS FIXED, WE WON'T BE LEAKING ANYTHING ELSE INTO THE...

AND MAGISTRATE POOLE, UM, THE CITY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO REDUCING THE FINE TO $250, UM, AND THE REASON, YOU KNOW, TO NOT HAVE TO COME BACK, BUT ALSO WE WE DO BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO ESTABLISH THAT DISCHARGING INTO OUR SYSTEM IS AN IRREPARABLE VIOLATION. AND, YOU KNOW, A CONTINUANCE WOULD ALLOW US TO ESTABLISH THAT FOR THE RECORD, BUT WE WOULD ALSO TAKE A REDUCTION. WE WOULD AGREE TO A REDUCTION IN THE FINE TODAY IF THAT'S WHAT THE PARTIES WANT TO AGREE TO. AND THEN WE COULD YOU KNOW, I'M PROPOSING $250, BUT OBVIOUSLY IT'S THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION.

WELL, BECAUSE WASN'T IT $500? REQUEST WAS FOR $500.

I IF THE PARTIES WANT TO AGREE ON THAT, I'M PERFECTLY CONTENT TO ENTER AN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH WHATEVER THE PARTIES AGREE.

AND THEN AS FAR AS REDUCING THE AMOUNT, UM, YOU KNOW, HE SAID THE WORD "REDUCTION," SO I...

RIGHT, RIGHT. UM, WELL, HOW ABOUT THIS? I'LL I'LL GIVE THE CHOICE TO TO MR. HARE, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I HAVEN'T DECIDED ON THIS CASE YET. I MEAN, YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS A VIOLATION, THERE WERE SWIFT ACTIONS TAKEN TO CORRECT IT AND TO PREVENT IT. UM, SO IT KIND OF LEAVES IT IN WAS IT IRREVERSIBLE, IRREPARABLE? WE COULD FIND OUT. UM, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE FINE THAT WOULD ALL BE FOR A LATER DAY. SO, I'LL OFFER THIS TO YOU: THERE'S AN OFFER ON THE TABLE TO IMPOSE A $250 FINE, WHICH WOULD PREVENT YOU HAVING TO COME BACK AND LEAVE THE BREWERY AND THOSE ROLES, UH, TO COME HERE AND VISIT WITH US AND SPEND MORE TIME WITH US. UM, OR HAVE THEM, YOU KNOW, COME BACK WITH THAT CONTINUANCE. I MEAN, SO DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE? WHAT I MEAN, MY PREFERENCE IS TO PAY ZERO FINE. I KNOW THAT'S WHAT THE OWNER IS GOING TO WANT, RIGHT? I LEAVE IT UP TO YOU, IT DOESN'T MATTER. I BROUGHT A CHECK, WHATEVER WE NEED TO PAY. LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING NEW, LIKE BUT RIGHT, IF WE COME BACK, IT WON'T BE ME COMING BACK, IT'LL DEFINITELY BE THE OWNER COMING BACK, AND HE IS NOT NOT AS NICE AS ME. HE WILL ARGUE EVERY IF YOU SAY THAT THAT FLAG IS RED AND WHITE, HE WILL SAY, NO, IT'S NOT. SO, I'D RATHER JUST GET IT DONE AND NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH ANOTHER TWO MONTHS OF HIM ASKING ME, WHAT'S GOING ON? WHAT'S GOING ON? I'M GONNA...

MS. PRINCE, CAN I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION? YES.

DO YOU THINK YOU COULD TALK TO MR. HARE SEPARATELY? WE'VE GOT ANOTHER CASE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS ON THE AGENDA, AND MAYBE SEE IF YOU CAN COME TO SOME RESOLUTION WITH HIM ON AN AMOUNT OF A FINE. UM, AND THAT'LL ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO MOVE, AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET A RESOLUTION. IT SHOULDN'T TAKE VERY LONG, I DON'T WANT TO KEEP DELAYING THIS, BUT, UM, ARE YOU AGREEABLE TO THAT? SURE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, MR. HARE, WE'RE GOING TO STEP ASIDE ON THIS ONE REAL QUICK, ALLOW YOU TO SPEAK TO MS. PRINCE. IF YOU TWO CAN WORK OUT A RESOLUTION FOR TODAY, GREAT. OKAY, I'LL BE HAPPY TO BLESS THAT. UM, IF NOT, THEN IT LOOKS LIKE WE WOULD BE GOING TOWARDS A CONTINUANCE, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE COULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED MORE TIMES. SO, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

[4.8 GEORGE J. PLIML TRUST, GEORGE J. PLIML TRUSTEE, JAMES M. PLIML TRUSTEE, 812 S. FLETCHER AVE., CASE 2026-0100.]

ALL RIGHT, SO WE ARE GOING TO AGAIN STEP ASIDE TO ITEM 4.8. THIS IS GEORGE J. PLYMOL TRUST, GEORGE J. PLYMOL, TRUSTEE, JAMES M. PLYMOL, TRUSTEE.

812 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE, CASE 2026-0100.

MS. RIMES, ARE THERE ANY DOCUMENTS OR ITEMS YOU'D LIKE TO BE RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD? YES, THERE IS A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF 12 SLIDES THAT CONTAIN PICTURES AND EVIDENCE OF THE CASE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD, PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT, AND THOSE WILL BE RECEIVED, THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION CONSISTING OF 12 PAGES WILL BE RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD WITHOUT OBJECTION.

THANK YOU. SO MY NAME IS CRYSTAL RIMES, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, AND I AM PRESENTING CASE NUMBER 2026-0100.

THIS IS INVOLVING A BEACHFRONT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 812 SOUTH FLETCHER.

OH, I CAN'T MOVE MY MOUSE.

SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS, LOCATED AT 812 SOUTH FLETCHER, FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA, 32034, AND THE MAILING ADDRESS IS THE SAME.

THE OWNER ON RECORD IS GEORGE J. PLYMOL, TRUST, AND AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE,

[01:05:02]

WE DID VERIFY THE OWNERSHIP THROUGH NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS.

I'M SORRY, GUYS, GIVE ME JUST A SECOND.

I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OFF.

ALL RIGHT, SO AS SHOWN ON THE TABLE, THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN VIOLATION OF THREE CODE SECTIONS, THE FIRST BEING THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING.

THAT IS THE VIOLATION THAT INITIATED THIS CASE DURING A NIGHTTIME INSPECTION.

AND THEN THE DAYTIME INSPECTION.

DURING THE DAYTIME INSPECTION, I ALSO DOCUMENTED DETERIORATED EXTERIOR WALL MATERIALS AND DETERIORATED WINDOW AND DOOR TRIM REQUIRING SOME REPAIRS.

THERE WERE ALSO MISSING, STREET NUMBER SIGNS THAT WERE ADDED ON THERE, WHICH NOW IS IN COMPLIANCE AS OF JULY 10TH, 2026.

SO THAT LEAVES THE THREE OUTSTANDING VIOLATIONS OF OUTDOOR LIGHTING, EXTERIOR WALL MAINTENANCE, AND WINDOWS, DOORS, AND WEATHERPROOFING.

SO PHOTOGRAPHS, THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE LEFT, THAT WAS DURING OUR NIGHTTIME INSPECTION.

THE FIRST ONE BEING THE FIRST ONE OF THE SEASON, MAY 4TH, 2026.

YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A BRIGHT LIGHT COMING FROM THE, WHAT IS THAT? SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN ALSO ON OUR LAST INSPECTION, JULY 20TH, 2026, IT STILL REMAINED IN VIOLATION.

ON THE THIRD AND RIGHT SIDE PHOTO, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE LIGHT SOURCE DURING THE DAYTIME INSPECTION.

THERE'S A LITTLE ARROW POINTING TO WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.

IT IS JUST A PLAIN WHITE LIGHT BULB WITH A CLEAR GLASS FIXTURE THAT'S SURROUNDING IT.

SO THAT IS ALSO MOUNTED UP ON THE UPPER DECK, AND IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE BEACH, ALLOWING THE ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING TO PROJECT TOWARDS THE NESTING HABITAT ON THE BEACH.

SO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, THEY DOCUMENT THE EXTERIOR WALL MAINTENANCE VIOLATION THAT WAS OBSERVED DURING THE FIRST DAYTIME INSPECTION.

AS SHOWN, THE EXTERIOR SIDING, THEY EXHIBIT DETERIORATION, INCLUDING AREAS OF WEATHERING, DISCOLORATION.

THESE CONDITIONS INDICATE THAT THE EXTERIOR SURFACES HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED, IN A WEATHER-TIGHT CONDITION, AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY'S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.

THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS DIRECTED TO REPAIR OR REPLACE DETERIORATED WALL MATERIALS AND RESTORE SURFACES IN A WEATHER-TIGHT CONDITION.

AND AS OF MY MOST RECENT INSPECTIONS, THESE VIOLATIONS DO REMAIN UNCORRECTED.

YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE UNDER THE WINDOW, THERE'S THE WINDOW SEAL IS ALMOST JUST COMPLETELY MISSING, BASICALLY, AND THERE'S A LARGE HOLE.

THERE'S A LOT OF PEELING, FLAKING PAINT.

IF YOU NEED ME TO ZOOM UP ON ANY OF THESE, I CAN.

A LOT OF WEATHERING RIGHT THROUGH HERE ON PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE WINDOWS AREAS.

ALL RIGHT, SO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, THEY WERE TAKEN DURING MY MOST RECENT INSPECTION, JULY 30, 2026.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE LIGHT FIXTURE STILL REMAINED THE SAME, JUST THIS WAS TEN DAYS AFTER THE NIGHTTIME INSPECTION, SO I DID WANT TO VERIFY THAT.

AND THEN REALLY NO CHANGES WERE CORRECTED, BUT THEY DID ADD THE ADDRESS NUMBERS THERE, SO THAT DID HELP.

NOW, THIS IS JUST A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED JUNE 2, 2026.

THIS PROVIDED 30 DAYS FOR COMPLIANCE.

AND THIS NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER WAS SENT CERTIFIED MAIL, AND IT WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY JUNE 5, 2026, AND THEN AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS COMPLETED.

CASE TIMELINE.

THE INITIAL INSPECTION, MAY 4.

THAT WAS AT NIGHT.

THE INITIAL INSPECTION DURING THE DAYTIME WAS MAY 15, 2026.

THE ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE DATE, JULY 2, 2026.

THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR 94 DAYS.

AND IT DOES REMAIN IN VIOLATION AND FIVE INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

THE TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE COST THE CITY'S INCURRED IS $141.96.

AND BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE, TODAY THE CITY IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT YOU FIND IT IN VIOLATION OF THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE UH, THE EXTERIOR WALL MAINTENANCE, WINDOWS AND DOORS. AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND THEN THIS HAS TO KIND OF BE A TWO-PART... RIGHT.

OKAY. SO, UH, FOR THE VIOLATION 3.006.01, WE'RE REQUESTING IMMEDIATE FINES TO BEGIN TOMORROW ON AUGUST 7TH, 2026, AND RUN UNTIL OCTOBER 31ST, 2026, FOR $250 PER DAY.

AND THEN FOR THE OTHER VIOLATIONS, 42-117(E), 42-117(L), THE CITY IS REQUESTING 30 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, AND FACE OR FACE FINES OF $150 PER DAY PER VIOLATION.

UM, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

[01:10:04]

OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

HAS THERE BEEN ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER? NO. I DID, UM, ATTEMPT TO REACH OUT TO THIS IS A RESORT RENTAL PROPERTY? AND I I ATTEMPTED TO REACH OUT TO ERA AND DID NOT GET A RESPONSE.

SO...

I'M SORRY, YOU REACHED OUT TO SORRY, ERA.

OH, OKAY.

IN OUR, UM, MEETING BEFORE THE AGENDA WAS POSTED, UH, WE'VE FOUND OUT WHO THE, UM, MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY WAS AND REACHED OUT TO THEM TO SEE IF WE COULD GET GET IN TOUCH WITH SOMEONE. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE SERVED THE PROPER NOTICE.

AND DO YOU, I MEAN, IS DO THEY HAVE A RENTAL PERMIT, SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT? I DIDN'T CHECK.

I CAN VERIFY THAT RIGHT NOW.

MM-HMM.

AND IT'S ZONED R-1, SO IT'D HAVE TO BE A GRANDFATHERED...

YEAH, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE, IT COULD BE A VIOLATION THAT...

SINCE WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT COMPLAINT BEFORE US...

WE ARE A COMPLAINT-DRIVEN CODE ENFORCEMENT.

OKAY, SO IT WAS VERIFIED.

EXCEPT FOR THERE'S A ROVING SEA TURTLE-LIKE PATROL.

THAT'S TRUE. IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED, AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT. I MEAN, IT IS ABSOLUTELY A SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT IS MANAGED BY ERA, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT SHOULD BE A GRANDFATHERED-IN PROPERTY.

THEY HAVE MULTIPLE YEARS' WORTH OF KEEPING THAT RESORT RENTAL PERMIT UP. OKAY. JUST CURIOUS.

OKAY, SO BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I'M GOING TO FIND THERE'S COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF OUR CODE, AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION, AND AWARD THE CITY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE COST, THE AMOUNT OF $141.96. I'M GOING TO ORDER THAT FOR THE VIOLATION OF 3.0601, THAT COMPLIANCE BE OBTAINED BY TOMORROW, AUGUST 7TH, AND IF IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY THAT TIME, THAT THERE BE A $250 DAILY FINE, AND THAT WILL ACCRUE THROUGH EACH DAY UNTIL OCTOBER 31ST, 2026, WHICH WOULD BE THE END OF THE TURTLE SEASON.

FOR THE OTHER VIOLATIONS, NAMELY 42-117, SUB E AND SUB L, I'LL GIVE THEM UNTIL SEPTEMBER THE 7TH TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE FOR THOSE, AND IF IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE, IMPOSE A $150 DAILY FINE BEGINNING ON SEPTEMBER THE 8TH. OKAY.

AND I'LL ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THAT PRONOUNCEMENT, AND THEN WITH THE TURTLE FINE VIOLATION, AGAIN, IF THERE ARE ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS FOR NEXT SEASON OR SEASONS BEYOND, THEN IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A REPEAT VIOLATION.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT

[4.9 629 MBC GROUP LLC, 629 S. 8TH ST., 2026-0127. (Part 3 of 3)]

CONCLUDES ITEM 4.8, SO BACK TO 4.9. WELCOME BACK, MR. HARE.

THANK YOU, MAGISTRATE POOLE AGAIN, IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE PROTECT OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM, AND THE CITY DOES FEEL LIKE THEY COULD PRESENT THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD FIND THAT IT WAS A POLLUTANT, BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF SETTLEMENT, MY CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER HAS OFFERED TO SETTLE THIS CASE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ONLY, AND NOT APPLY ANY FINE ON THIS MATTER.

MS. PRINCE.

AND THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE RECORD.

THAT IS NOT SET A PRECEDENCE.

YOU KNOW, POLLUTANTS THAT GO INTO OUR STORMWATER ARE IRREPARABLE IN NATURE AND WOULD NEED TO BE ENFORCED, AND WE WILL JUST MAKE SURE TO HAVE THE PROPER WITNESSES HERE NEXT TIME.

MR. HARE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, JUST.

YOU JUST HEARD MS. PRINCE.

ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT AS SHE'S ANNOUNCED IT? YES.

SO BASED ON THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AND THEN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THIS HEARING, I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THERE'S.

CONFIDENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF OUR CODE, THAT THAT VIOLATION HAS BEEN REMEDIED, AND THAT THE COURT, THE CITY WILL BE AWARDED THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, THE AMOUNT OF $243.38, BUT THAT NO FINE WILL BE IMPOSED.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE THAT? YES, SIR.

THE MATH DOESN'T ADD UP TO $243 ON THAT TABLE.

[01:15:05]

I JUST NOTICED THAT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT.

LET ME SEE.