##VIDEO ID:WTgrXOg4mQM## how you go for for you for for for for for for [Music] welcome uh this is the um September 25th 2024 U special magistrate hearings um starting at 2 o' um and the purpose and function of the Jacksonville Beach special magistrate Hearing in accordance with Florida Statutes chapter 162 in the city of Jacksonville Beach code of ordinances is to reach an equitable expedition to enforce the codes the city presents the violation and evidence to the special magistrate next the property owner is sworn in and responds to the violation and evidence both the and the property owner may call witnesses to provide s testimony relevant to the case this is a quas Judicial hearing not a public forum individuals not called as sworn witnesses will not be heard thank you very much um so I see we have three cases um are all of those still to be heard today yes and it looks like we have present today T Gregory yes um m Thomas okay um so Joseph benza we can move him to the last and he's not present go and do the ones that are present okay that's fine um could we start with Mr Thomas um we'll swear in her first and then we'll swear on you um do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give us SP is truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you God yes please keep you in position enforement um yes this is um case 2373 property owner Samuel Thomas violation address is8 South 11th Street Jacksonville Beach Florida 32250 violations was accumulation of trash litan debris um any condition that provides harbage of rats might snakes and other perment and section 271 which is um having a commercial dumpster in a residential Z as you can see this was the dumpster with the different um items trashing debris throughout the dumpster this is on a vacant lot I did do a final inspection and the violation has been complied is there still a commercial what is the recepticle on the left U those are vehicles on the left okay and that's a couldn't quite see yeah in the middle you'll see a trailer that has a that is a um a lawn more okay zero okay on there but the commercial dumpster has been remov okay great um what about the accumulation of trash and that was included in the dumpster yes okay um before we get to your could you give us your recommendation please um the city recommend says this case be closed okay Mr Thomas do you want to say anything yes go ahead and swear you now if you can raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you out please take your name and address Samuel Thomas my address is 2249 South Beach Parkway Jackson Beach fla 322 so so one thing I have to say is I didn't know that the reason why we had that dumpster there was simply as this we had trash and stuff on side of the road it's been there for a while we had trash on the road the city would not come out didn't come out and pick it up so we got a dumpster put it in there and just kept accumula the trash we have problem problem we did have the guy to come remove the dumpster I didn't know that he had a certain size dumpster on on my vacant property and I only that whole block in there so I didn't know that I prob in some kind of Ru or anything like that my goal is to try to keep that section of our neighborhood clean and we put a dumpster there trying to get that we get the dump move but now I know that you can't have a dumpster so in the future what I'm going to do I hate to do it I'm just going to pile trash inside the road and whenever the city feel like it's time for them to come pick it up then they apparently will on side of the road and they still haday called downtown see if they come pick it up they won't pick it up yet so I don't know what to do um is there thank you very much um is there a smaller size dumpster that that is allowable not not in a residential area um one thing I do want to include when you have a vacant lot and the way this vacon lot sits is between two main structures two other properties um which now yes and you're technically you're not allowed to store like the vehicles but the way the property sits is almost like they're on the side of the the house of that's your mother's house that's on the left hand side okay so um when I initially cited this I thought it was all one property and then when I did talk to Mr Thomas then I looked on Jack GIS you can see that it's actually a separate lot um so that kind of changes things that you what you can and cannot store on the VAC lot like I said the cars are parked there but most of the cars appear to be tenants of the houses where the structures are if it if it so are you saying that if it was not a vacant lot it could be this would not be if it no no no not as far as the dumpster the commercial dumpster only time you can have a commercial dumpster and a residential zone is if you have an active work permit so if there is construction going on those type of things that's when a commercial dumpster is allowed but not in a residential area okay what was the distinction that the vacant lot made then the the actual dumpster no the you said that it when you realized it was a vacant lot because no I was just saying the stuff that's being stored on the vacant lot as far as the vehicles and the trailer and all that stuff but I decided for the actual dumpster okay okay well um is there can you direct Mr Thomas to anybody in particular who can assure that when there is trash to be picked up in the area well Mr Thomas is retired from City at Jacksonville Beach so he's familiar like he stated that when he does put items out on the side of the road there are both pickup days um that's scheduled for each um area so he can put those items out and they'll be picked up he can also always contact public works okay so perhaps Mr Thomas if you can remember when the both pick up days are would have to app thank you for being here today and problem thank you very much thank okay I'll I see I believe Mr Mr no I'm just here to watch oh okay okay all right so we're going to move back back to um a yes on the agenda which is um case number 23130 1121 North Third Street Incorporated property address is at 1121 North Third Street um this was in regards to um commercial merchandise being displayed outside correct um so it's so this is wrong as I'm looking at it right this is wrong it should have been the section 34342 which is also listed on the notice of hearing I did not catch that I had put the wrong um section on the PowerPoint but the section is 34 342 b c and d um permitted accessory and conditional uses the use of outside cells and display of merchandise which is not listed which is not listed use in the C1 zoning district and also section 34- 3116 of the Land Development code that states the exclusive exclusivity of the uses in zoning districts the permitted uses and conditional uses in the zoning districts established in article 7 zoning districts are and shall be permitted subject to the standards and procedures of the Land Development code so in short the outdoor display in sales of merchandise is not permitted in Jacksonville Beach okay and um I know that in not sure finished yes okay and could you tell us what your oh this is from 2023 yes so the case was initially um signed for the outside display of sales in merchandise from T Gregory Imports as you can see merchandises being set outside also um items were being placed in the parking lot this was A-frame sign that was set outside the um business is not located in the central business district and that was where the A-frame sign was also an issue because they're not located it's only Central Business issue excuse go ahead you can object when it's you can object to everything that you want to object to when you're at thei and after you don't the evid presented excuse me I'm asking I'm sorry I'm asking it's my understanding she presen evidence and if she presents evidence that is subject to objection understand no we shoulder OB yes that's what I asked you can speak after youve been SW in and you can bring any objections at that time you're not even in front microphone so this has to be recorded and we're not in a court of law we're in a special magistrate hearing that is has different you know slightly different rules it's not necessary that you object stand up and object at the say something okay thank you okay so have you been miss have you been um I can't quite read what it is that you're showing me on oh on these pictures this was just showing um the A-frame sign that was out front of the door on the right hand side and then um on the other pictures it was just showing the merchandise that was outside in the parking lot and around the front door entrance area and so the merchandise was outside near the front door and in the parking lot and and in their parking lot correct okay can you tell me the dates of those um these the case started September 21st of 2023 and over the year several pictures have been taken but because this was a continuance I didn't include all the pictures from each one but the ones that I'm showing today um are from May 2nd um yeah and then June 25th and June 7th and are there more recent ones is are the most recent ones the June the June 25th um there was no change even when I did a followup inspection there was no change so um they have been in compliance since our last hearing they've been what in compliance they've been in compliance since June 26 yes and then what would be your recommendation at this time my recommendation um would be that they remain in compliance with the city ordinance that there is no outside display for sales of merchandise and also with the A-frame sign or any other signage they would have to apply for a sign per because they are not located in the central business district however I don't see that there's been a notice of violation regarding that a frame sign there was a notice of violation of the A-frame sign that was separate that was not included in the special magistrate because they had complied they had removed it so it was never included but they were originally they were Sight board but there's been no hearing there has not been no hearing on the sign okay then I'm not going to okay that's could you tell me just for my information when what was the DAT of the notice of violation for the a frame sign I don't have that in front of me right now can you tell me approximately it would have been close to the May 22nd the day that I took this picture okay so I'm going to just say approximately May June okay so we're back just to the one um violation section 34- 342 b c and d because the outside sales and display merchandise is not pered use in any of those in section 34 3116 right that is 342 is just for clarity the commercial limited C1 zoning district is that correct correct [Music] 34-31 16 um outlines the yes okay is there anything else you want to add at this time not this time thank you add that you're here on behalf of Gregory and also your company LLC and then you thank you my name is Patrick I am here on behalf of T Gregory Imports um which is the business name of the business that is operating at the subject address and that business is owned by P Moon Imports LLC I believe we're at the evidence introductory stage so I want I guess it's time to ask a question go ahead if you could if you coulde also the because you're really coming in and out is this better I think so thank you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony about to given this matter is a truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you go yes please St your name and address Pon Patrick Po and I am an owner member of pink moon Imports LLC which is the corporate entity that owns T Gregory Imports the business that operates at the sub property may ask thank you very much questions and steers well you can proceed in any man that thank you um I guess I'll give a very brief procedural posture this is the third time that we're at this hearing or at a hearing um related to the underlying issues and alleged violations uh the first time was in May and we took we and that was based on an alleged violation of uh the prohibition against the business about the avertising we argue that that statute was not applicable that the city had not shown any violation of that ordinance um that hearing was continued and the city was instructed to bring a witness to explain how that ordinance was violated the city's Witness second hearing they acknowledged that that ordinance was not applicable and instead pivoted to argue that there had been a violation of different ordinance 34 342 b c and d so over objection the court allowed the uh City to drop essentially the initial allege violation amend and add the new alleged violation and uh set a new hearing which is what we're here for today is the third Hearing in that context and if I me it was uh consent consented to by you that if the city issued a an amended notice of violation by certain date which I believe was July 11 let me confirm that [Music] actually it was no later than July the 17th that uh you stated that that amount of notice would give you adequate time to prep for the hearing today with all due respect and I don't have the I don't have the record exactly in front of me my recollection is you asked if I would have adequate time to repair and I said essentially that I imagined I expected I would but I did not know what they were going to perent or whether I would actually have adequate time to prepare but I'm not saying at this time that I don't have adequate time to prepare I'm saying that I objected at that time to allowing the city to amend and put forth a whole new basis of of violation at that time that was what was objected to and and but the court allowed it and I'm just stating that as part of the procedural posture so we're now here on hearing the order itself states that you and miss beever both agreed that if an amended notice of hearing was issued within 21 days from June the 26th then the hearing in this matter could be continued to September 25th 2024 which would give Mr Po time to prepare and I I that was a specific question on my part because I wanted to be sure that you had adequate time to prepare and so we discussed that very issue and I and I appreciate that and I'm not arguing that I didn't have adequate time for prepair following receiving the the amended notice I'm just stating that I had objected to them being allowed to amend the notice because I don't think that was proper and I'm not saying that I did not have adequate time to prepare for today I'm not making that argument one way or the other I'm saying that I objected to the amendment in the first place but anyway that's a matter of the the procedural posture we are now here on a allege of violation of 34 34 342 b c andt and I believe uh the city has just presented their evidence and I think sort of next if and she said she has no further Evidence presented this time if the city is rested on presenting their actually I would like to ask a couple questions about the evidence she has the right to in my opinion she has the right to your your testimony so if something does come up that she has not addressed I think that she I would certainly allow her to testify in regards to anything that you ra procedurally is it appropriate now for me to ask Mr questions about the evidence she presented is it is it proper for you to do what to ask Miss beavers about the evidence that she presented you can yes you can ask questions has Miss be been swor in if you were sworn before I don't know didn't or you were proba sworn as part of the prior here proceeding that happened just before this one if she was then I take it that she was um you put a few pictures up there of that were were each of the pictures that you shown taken by you personally yes can you go back to the first picture and we'll go through each one of them one at a time please September 23 this is prior to the violations that we're talking about here is this sort of for background information and show that you believe there been a previous violation that had been dealt with with a prior order is that what this one's related to it's stated September 21 2023 markings of the day the property had previously been cited for outdoor display and in that order it was stated that if the violation occurred again that it would be back to the special magistrate for a fine up to $250 per day the violation was observed this picture was taken and the property was cited so my question is is this picture from a citation that happened before the citations that were're here about today if I may um it's you're asking whether this was from regarding an earlier citation correct I think she answered the question okay she said it's from an earlier citation no this picture right here was when yes this picture was when the case initially was started correct from the previous violation correct the same property for yes my point was this isn't part of a new violation this is backr a previous violation that had been signed is that right and in that order that again when that order was issued it is for the violation of outdoor display in sales objection to responsiveness of the answer I'm really just trying to get to the point of this picture I'm not asking for an interpretation of I believe she stated that this isn't a regular court hearing this is a special magistrate un so so it's my understanding and and maybe we can cut to the chase here the prior order and and the city law and the state law both allow that if there are successive violations um for the same response to the same violation that that's considered a a subsequent violation and therefore it is relevant to this heing because there was a prior um there was a prior violation for the same for the same it was a prior hearing and order on the same viation now what I will say is since you received the amended violation the property has been in compliance so and I and I stated that as well for my July picture so if you're asking if this picture is from the previous citation that was issued yes it is but since then the property has been inviolate in compliance excuse me with what the new section 34342 b c and d States so the violation no longer exists so no other pictures were taken showing that you were in violation under 34- 342 BC and D you are now in compliance but these pictures are showing the previous violations of why we are here today this is a continuance this is not a new hearing showing old pictures this has been a continuance since the amended violation was asked I'm going to object um on the grounds of relevance I'm going to object on the grounds of hear sight I'm going to object on the grounds um what is the he say these are my pictures I'm raising the objections my understanding is no be very clear sure please what are your objections my objection is that her testimony about what the order says and means from the from the prior citation is irrelevant and it's hearsay and it's not best evidence and it's not what best evidence and so I would like to be able to note those objections and I would like and please explain the objections so that I will understand what your objections are her interpretation Miss beavers with all due respect Miss beaver's summary interpretation of what an order that is of record with the court says is irrelevant um and should be excluded her opinion of what it says her summary of what it says is irrelevant should be excluded it is also here say she's not presenting the document the document has already been presented at a prior hearing but she's not presenting it now she's talking about say she's not pres on the screen part oford that's a picture is there were on the screen part of the record I'm sorry she's she's interpreting the order from a prior hearing that happened in 202 I heard that I heard that I heard that objection I'm talking now about thear that you're saying that you're saying that these pictures you just stated that these pictures are not part of the evidence today and um why do you say that I don't think that I said that the pictures are not part of the evidence today I was talking about the order that she keeps referring back to and the testimony that she keeps giving about what the order means and what the the law is and her summaries and opinions about those sorts of things are all objectionable irrelevant and your side um so I'm trying all of this is all those are based upon the order not the photographs that are in evidence today but simply the order itself it's based on the testimony that she's giving other than the evidence that she's putting forth which my understanding is and I'm trying I'm trying to be I'm trying to follow the process we've kind of made an opening statement each side she's presented some evidence my understanding is the evidence she presented as these photographs in the context of presenting the photographs as evidence she has also made lots of statements about um what happened in a prior proceeding and those sorts of things so I'm objecting to everything other than the photographs at this time and then I would like to ask her about the photographs the point of my question about the photographs or a a point of my question about the photographs and I want to be limiting is I want to understand to the extent we're here about violations that allegedly occurred since the 2000 since 2023 hearing this previous hearing happened in I think it was November 2023 I might be wrong about the month but it happened in 2023 since then she has some photographs that I believe start in May of 2024 that are the subject of the alleged violation that we're he about today I understand from what we just discussed that this picture of 200 not this picture I'm sorry of the picture she showed if you would back it out to the 2023 picture is this may this is 21 September of 23 so correct okay so what you're saying is I'm bringing pictures he has the floor okay he has the floor you'll get your done thank you very much your I'm I'm trying to do it not not in a fashion where we're having a combative conversation I'm trying to do my presentation ask the questions that I want to ask and then once everyone has presented their evidence we'll present argument and be done as quickly as possible here but I'm just trying to sort of Follow that process so she presented these photographs and I wanted to ask her about the photographs my first question was about the 2023 photograph if you could put it back to the 2023 photograph Miss viewers I want to get clarity for the record to the extent we're here for anything other than a single day violation that is being alleged that this is not part of the violations that are currently being alleged but this September 21 2023 photograph is um being introduced to show that there had been a prior violation that has already been addressed by the court is that correct this picture shows when the property was originally cited for the violation once that violation occurred again which brings us to this is the answer my question I I don't understand what you're asking cuz you're talking in circles so we're going to be here for another two hours because we don't understand what you're asking you asking me about this picture I think I think my question is quite clear it's a very simple question it's really a yes or no okay this I'm sorry we're not going to do this okay Miss bie sit down Mr Co please I'm sorry please um it's my understanding that if you would I believe I understand your question and I believe that it um to my understanding that it was part and parcel of this hearing because it did show a um it was used in a prior hearing regarding the same Pro property regarding a similar uh issue with outdoor display of merchandise Miss is that correct the way that I've described it correct okay thank you thank you very much for putting it that way and that's really where I'm trying to get to I'm actually trying to craft my questions carefully so that she could answer yes or no or correct of course she's free to explain doing so but it be up to me I will decide what she's of course okay granted but I'm trying to craft my questions in a way that the answer is fairly simple and the point of the question is that's not the subject of a violation today it's the subject of an alleged violation that has already been addressed by the court that's what I'm trying to clarify for the record and is that correct I think the questions been asked and answered okay so it is correct thank you is is this the next picture after the 2021 picture Miss beers could you identify the picture the picture that's on the picture that's on the screen as exhibit B shows some chairs on the front stoop of the subject property immediately outside the front door is that correct I think the pictures excuse me Mr P I think the pictures describe What It Is Well talking about you know the best evidence I think they describe exactly what it is um she's already testified that these pictures show chairs and other merchandise outside the front door of T Gregory I'm confused by why you are asking that question again if there's an objection to my question I'm happy to try to explain it but I think I'm free to ask questions in cross-examination that go to what I believe are relevant points if I must explain the point of my question these chairs are on the private property they're not on public property I guess I could ask that question also but that would have been my next question that's a different question yes that I understand why you'd be asking Miss beers do you have any reason to believe that the chairs that are shown on the picture of exhibit or on any property other than the private subject property or the or the they yes or no and the chairs that are posted are chairs that are listed on the private property of 1121 3rd Street North located at T Gregory Imports [Music] pleas we excuse me was there anything in regards exit oh I would ask if there is she flipped through the questions very quickly so I want to go through them and make sure that I know what exhibit a b c and d are so if I have a question about it I will ask is that okay you just asking her to show yes and if I have a question about the picture I will ask so you had no questions about the photos not time not this time can you exib please are is it your contention Miss fever that there is a violation shown in exhibit e no as prior stated exhibit shows that the property is now in compliance and has been in compliance since exibit e was taken I believe the prior testimony was that it had been an incompliance since the last hearing which was on June 26 so that's why I wanted to clarify the purpose of this picture is this picture being presented to show a violation or not I believe her answer is no is that correct it is showing it is in compliance so no violation is and what was and what was the date June 25th 2024 oh those are dated the photographs are dated what date um June 7th was just showing a the notice of hearing June 25th is showing that the property was in compliance okay so the June just shows the posting of the notice corre and was that notic for um which violation which violation June 7th photo that the June 7th one was for the previous one it was hand delivered um for the June 20 it was hand delivered in June that date and then the a photograph on the left is dated June 25th June yes that was before the June 26 heing and that shows that there's no violation as of June 25th correct June July 15th and yes July 15th is when the notice of hearing was um given for this sent certified mail and delivered to the property okay so on juneth there was no violation there was no violation and there no violation has been since that I excuse me when when there was no violation that was no violation of the outdoor display correct and then I okay at this point they've been to you Mr Po okay now do you have any any other questions about exibit e if I can explain where I'm going with this and maybe this will make a little bit more sense my recollection might be off I do not recall from the prior hearings that I've attended in June and may of this year um the photographs that were related to May 2nd I don't think those were shown before I think it was only May 7th so what I'm trying to do and what I would like to do in a very clear way on the record is confirm each of the dates that we are talking about that are the subject of alleged violation now from what I've seen she has shown a picture from September 21 2023 which was related to a citation that has been addressed by the court and it's only being presented to show that there had been a prior violation that's my understanding and then and then there's a photograph or maybe two photographs from May 2nd and then one or two photographs from May 2 was it May 22nd I believe based on you're off for May second we do have the prior special magistrate hearing PowerPoints if you want to see if any other wait please could we just say what are the dates of the Exhibit C photos please May 2nd 2024 both of them yes and the same is true for the exhibit two photos in exhibit B are also both second okay so is that clarify for exhibit B and C the dates do you want to go to exhibit V Mr Paul or did you want to ask about C what I'm trying to do is draw Circle the evidence that's being presented and to know which dates we're talking about very clearly my understanding is May let's go to exhibit D then and see what the data is to be clear okay so on exhibit D there's a photograph that is May 2nd again and then on the right there's a photograph that looks appears to be dated May 22nd is that correct that is May 22nd correct the one on May 2 you can see there is a chair in the background underneath the flag you'll see there is a chair on May 22nd there was no chairs present so and then e does not show a violation so the vi the violations that we are here about the alleged violations that we are here about is this correct are shown by Exhibit C and D correct and that is the totality of the evidence that you're presenting today as for clarity what about which ones b c and d Does it include B Mr let's go back to the I suppose it does is it's up to miss Bieber are b c and d your exhibits b c and d the evidence of violations that you're presenting here today I think that's the clearest way I can ask that question correct that's the totality of the I think that's that's you've answered that question b c and d exhibits are the evidence of the violation that you're alleging here today all right Mr Po I would also say that testimony is also that she's presented um in in her presentation correct to the extent that she has testified about what the law is I object to that on the grounds of relevance to the extent she testified about what documents say that aren't being presented that aren't presented to us here or that were written by else um I object to as here say and irrelevant soan okay [Music] it's he has a right to object no need to no I was just trying to get an understanding he said I'm stating something that was written by somebody else is he referring to the ordinance that was written by somebody else cuz I didn't write the ordinance I'm going to enforce the ordinance I think refering to the order okay well and also her summary of what the ordinance may or may not say to the extent she's sum that's what I thought he was referring to me about the ordance right thank you I understand it's the order that he's referring to the order and the law speak for themselves and so I'm saying to the extent okay she has summarized those things that that's the subject of the objection is there is there any other evidence to present no sir okay so I take it that the city of Jacksonville Beach has presented all the evidence they have to present on the issue it's my turn to present eths is that correct well I do believe that this is a continuing hearing so the evidence that's been presented in the past is part and parcel of the whole page the hearing that started on in May of this year is that correct yes this has been a continu this is the third uh basically the three-part series that we're doing we came in may we came in June and now we're here today I understand there this is a continued matter as part of the these three hearings this is the third understood and so I'm trying to be clear that we're wrapping up the presentation of evidence at this point mindful of what's been presented at at other hearings since in May 2024 and June 2024 and now this being the third hearing at issue that's my understanding thank you so if the city has presented all their evidence it's my turn to present evidence and youve said that the city will have an opportunity to reut if I present evidence that they wish to reut is that correct I believe that would be I have no further evidence to present which means I there's no rebuttal so evidence is concluded and we can make legal arguments is that correct is does that mean that the remainder of your presentation is going to be argument correct I think that she would be able to respond to your argument also with evidence well her testimony is evid so my understanding of the process and if it's different here you can explain it to me is we've made essentially opening statements we've presented evidence evidence is closed now we make arguments about the evidence and it conclus way if we open the evidence back up then that just turns into a mobious ring so I'm trying to TI R around the evidence I understand you're trying to do allow allow the hearing to be a fair hearing and if there is uh beever think is appropriate for her to respond to I'm going to let her do that if you feel like there's something that further that you end up wanting to respond to I'm going to let you do that too so you know tying the ring around the evidence is you know probably more than what we actually have to do at this stage at the end of the hearing then that will obviously be the end of any evidence but I don't think that we have to here and and you know force a situation that oh she can't talk about that because that constitutes evidence I I don't think that's appropriate for this level special magistrate hearing we have a violation an alleged violation of city code so you I appreciate that and respect for Mr I'm just trying to avoid the back and forth banter that has like prior hearings and trying to just process to it but if that's how you'd like to do it judge it is your your pro um and then I think it is Miss beaver's turn to make a concluding argument if she wishes to and then I will take my turn no it's your turn this is your turn Miss beavers can have a a rebuttal if she wishes I've already told you that you can speak again but I think it's appropriate for you to go forth and present your argument at this time she's the plaintiff and it's her they RO with proof and my argument is they have not proved that there is a violation and I can go into the details of that but you haven't said why you just objected on the basis to certain to one photograph from September 23 you've objected to that but I haven't heard any OB to um I haven't heard any argument why now you just said you don't think there's a violation I've heard no no no testimony from you as to why it doesn't need evidence or testimony it's literally legal argument on the face of the law again and I'll make the argument your honor like here we are again quite frankly with the city arguing that there's been a violation of ordinances that are not applicable to the facts in hands she said that you are in compliance that you've been in compliance since I wrote down I wrote down June 26 now that think not be accurate um but that you've been in compliance and that her recommendation actually I don't think I wrote down the recomendation Miss was there a recommendation yes it was apologize trying to keep up with the not my recommendation was that the case was in compliance and that the um property owner remain in compliance any further um violations would be a $250 per day fine my understanding that no Finance being at this time Excuse me yes actually that's exactly where I was going Mr um that the property inance now under the new violation remain in compliance and that the property would be subject in the future if there was another violation of the same correct or the same violation in the future that would be subject to a fine a daily fine of $250 per day and what about now is the city recommending any F to be placed against t t Greg at this time has been cited under the correct violation there has not been any further violations that occurred under since the um ordinance was correctly cited okay thank you very much for clarify okay Mr Po and for me to I'll explain why well let me say this first I do appreciate that the city is not seeking a fine that's appreciated and I don't want that to go unnoticed but again like the first hearing it is oposition that there should not be a finding of a violation so there's there's this assumption that that there's a VI for for there to now be compliance there's an assumption that there's been a violation and our position is again there has not been a violation and the evidence presented by the city does not show a violation of the ordinance that are cited in the notice so while I I do very much appreciate that the city's not seeking a fine they do seem to be seeking an order um indicating there was a violation in that in that uh that that affects future conduct to remain in compliance and not violate but there has not been a violation of 34 342 B C or D those are since the evidence presented does not show a violation of 34 342 BC D which is the ordinances noticed in the notice so to back up and I'll try my best to be successful maybe I can cut to the chase here for you you're saying that because the the amended notice was dated July whatever was the date of the amended notice the amended notice was um given on July 15th July do you agree that the date is July 15th Mr the notice of ering is dated July 15 2024 that's the date that it appears to have been written and I also have return and unsigned notice here as well that was sent certified me thank you so uh back to what I think and you correct me if I if I'm misdating it but you're saying that because there's been no violation since July 15th the date of the amended notice that there has that now the city um should not or I should not agree with with the city's recommendation to find that that the that the photos taken in May are were taken before and therefore not relevant to the current notice of violation is that correct well I agree that that that is correct but that is not what I was about to say okay go ahead so I agree that is also a reason that the court should uh dismiss the case without finding a violation but when I was about to say is if you read this is much much more like the very first hearing when they cited for a violation of the business of outdoor advertising and it became very clear that the ordinance the business of outdoor advertising prohibition was not applicable and was not violated likewise 34 342 b c and d have not been violated At All by anything we've been shown here today ever not in not you don't let me ask very clearly you don't believe that the pictures show outdoor storage the pictures taken in May Show outdoor display of merchandise so if I could I don't believe that the statute speaks to outdoor display of merchandise again it's very much like the first time this statute is not applicable can I if I if I could if I could it is answer it is applicable can I explain why I believe that it's not sure thank you this statute 34 342 talks about uses of pro of the property and it goes on to say that there are permitted uses which is B and then C concerns accessory uses and D concerns condition uses let's look at b b talks about one Business and Professional offices two bakeries and Manufacturing three jewelry and leather let's go down to six retail trade establishments as follows building materials hardware and garden blah blah blah blah blah Home Furniture miscellaneous retail T GRE Imports is always has been in compliance with 34342 to B6 it is a permitted use under this ordinance to have a retail furniture store this ordinance 34 34 342 does not talk about that I see anywhere particularly not in B C or D merchandising marketing signage or any of that rather it says you can have uh a store that sells Optical Goods you can have a place a business that is a travel agency you can have a restaurant it doesn't say whether or not the travel what the travel agency can do for merchandising of its business it doesn't say what the travel agency can do with displays of its merchandise it doesn't say what the travel agency may or may not do for advertising or signage it says what kinds of businesses are permitted uses on the property that's what ordance is about so to extrapolate that into to try to make this in ordinance that is talking about signage and where you can put shares on your property is completely not correct so then we go to so we see that t Gregory inputs is a permitted use under 34342 B6 it is a retail Furniture Store clearly within the permitted use provisions of that statute and then we go over to C which is the next thing I said that's a violation of and that's accessory uses and it says that it permits any use customarily accessory to the permitted and conditional uses which means C looks back at B if you're permitted use under B which T Gregory Imports clearly is a permitted use at B6 then you also can do whatever you can use the property in a way that is customarily customar which which is any use customarily accessory to that permitted use so one I believe and our position is that the placement of merchandise in or outside the store and signage and flags and everything else we're here about is not addressed At All by B C or D but if it were then C says that if you got a permitted use like a retail furniture store then you can do the things that are customarily accessory to that like placing your merchandise to invite people in or having an open sign or having things of those of that nature so it's either not applicable or it further clarifies that what T Gregory is doing is permitted under the statute now let's go to d d is conditional uses and that lists out other kinds of businesses kinds of businesses that were not included in B permitted uses because D conditional uses requires that you check the box on some some um conditions before you can get allowance to do these things like a packaged liquor store or a camps and recreational vehicle Parks or a car wash or a funeral home or a drive-in Motion Picture theater we're not doing any of the things listed on D because we're clearly a permitted use as shown by B6 so D is plainly not applicable C is not applicable in my opinion but to the extent it is um it just says that if you have a permitted use under B then you can do the stuff that's that's customarily accessory to that which is all T Gregory is doing so there is no violation of B in fact the evidence shows the only evidence that has been presented to the court shows that t Gregory Imports is in compliance the property is in compliance with 34 342b because it's a permitted use of retail Furniture Store there's no violation of c and there's no violation of D and that's what we're here about and here's another point I would point out is to the extent they try to argue that signs and that sort of merchandising is somehow include in B which we can there's no reason to read him to the record because it's a matter of law what what sign if there if there's a contention that a sign or a flag or a chair is are we talking about signs or are we talking about chairs what are you do you raise the I've heard no okay notice of violation regarding a sign okay so I'll try to finish making my point then and hopefully it'll be clear my point is this my point is B talks about various uses in terms of kinds of businesses that can be on the property C says certain customarily access accessory uses are permitted D has conditional uses of other kinds of businesses that require some you know Hoops to jump through in order to have that business there and then if you flip down to I I talks about signage and my point there is things like signage and Merchandising and whatever else are not intended one they are clearly not on the face of that addressed by BC or D and they're not intended to be addressed by BC or D B and D talks about the kinds of businesses can it be a jiffy store can it be a drive-thru uh restaurant can it be a pharmacy can it be a retail Furniture Store the answer is yes it's your permitted use chairs or a flag on the property is not addressed by these ordinances that is the basis of the violation now so just like we were back in May my argument is the city is is is trying to site issue citations for something that they don't have a foundation in the law to issue a citation for and I understand their plight I do they're operating under decades old ordinances that probably need a refresh to be caught up with the times and they're trying to figure out a way way to make you know to make things work the way they want them to work but that's not the way the process needs to go they have to actually adopt laws that do what they want in order to enforce those laws there's there still haven't cided a law that's being violated here and we can't just interpret that into being B on ordinances that are clearly not applicable and I also understand their struggle because frankly what they're trying to do is anti- business so it would probably be pretty difficult to get the ordinances that they wish existed actually adopted but there's not an ordinance that says you can't do what they're saying T Gregory has done as a violation and so while again I'm very appreciative that the city is is is saying that they're not asking for are fine we disagree with the underlying proposition that there's been a violation of these ordinances at all for the court to then order that there must be compliance of T Greg orts is and already always has been as far as I know and as far as any evidence presented that I've seen is in compliance with 34 342 and hasn't violated it so that's that's the Crux of argument on that um if I may um I'm going to ask you about the um the provision that um that is also included in the notice of violation which is 34- 3116 what how do you account for uh your argument is that you've addressed 34 342 BC and D how do you uh what is your argument about 3316 as I read it as I read this it doesn't appear to be alleging a violation of 34 3116 rather I think it's being cited as some sort of authority to broadly you know to broadly interpret 34 what what 16 says and I can read it to you I don't know if you as as you read what as I read the notice and as I read the statute itself I I can't tell you what anybody's thinking other than myself but I'm looking at the notice I did not read the notice as alleging a violation of 34 3116 rather I thought that that was some in some some reason they were citing that as some sort of enabling but maybe I'm wrong about that I don't know but all it says is this it says at 16 exclusivity of uses in zoning districts the permitted uses and conditional uses in the zoning districts established by article 7 zoning districts are exclusive and shall be permitted subject to the standards and procedures of the LDC right so okay that's basically says that b c and d that we talked about the permitted and conditional uses or the exclusive uses right it's um a medical Dental Laboratory a child daycare a travel agency a retail Furniture business then it's not among the permitted uses but our store is among the permitted uses and that's use is referring to kind of business it's not referring to how you merchandise there's nothing to suggest that that's what use means it's not it's just not there so you're saying that you don't think the description of outdoor get this right uh you don't believe that outside sales and display of merchandise is in use where are you where you is that what you're saying where are you talking about outdoor sales and outdoor merchandise is that in the ordinance I'm I'm that's the that's in the ofation correct that is correct I do not that that that's the kind of use they're talking about that's that's if anything if it's applicable at all it would be under but I don't think it's applicable at all because this is talking about the kinds of businesses use is referring to the kinds of business not anywhere does it talk about what a travel agency may or may not do on the property not anywhere does it talk about what a jewelry store may or may not do on the property and not anywhere does it talk about what a retail furniture or may or may not do on the property it it it it doesn't go there because it's completely not applicable you think you again are you saying you don't think it's a use no I do not think it is a use of the property as being addressed by these ordinances that is correct and then we Circle back to the business of outdoor advertising which is what the original violation was I really don't don't really need to talk about that at this point and my point was perhaps you could argue that that would be a use but we've already determined that's not applicable the city is trying to make this Ordinance do something that it is clearly not written to do and they don't have an ordinance that's applicable so they're trying to say well we have really broad Authority so we can say it says that anyway but that's not consistent at all with the state of the law and if they want a law that says that we can't that retail stores can't merchandise certain ways then that's something that they should adopt as a law in writing that people will be unnotice of this does not give that notice in any way whatsoever okay is there anything else I reserve my rights to a robot I suppose anything else at this point time not at this time M bie could you tell me whether whether you know your testimony is that outside sales and display of merchandise constitutes a use under the Jacksonville Beach Land Development code as it states the use of outside sales and display of merchandise that is listed under 34 42 B CN D if it's not listed it is not a permitted use the code is interpreted by the director of planning and zoning and that is her interpretation along with the the ordinate St and and therefore the outside sales and display of merchandise constitutes a use as far as the city is that's the position of the city correct as as shown in the um pictures there are and I don't know if you can where's the light okay right here you can barely see it but there's a price tag that's right there and then also on this one is showing that this chair is being as it so these are not just chairs that are being set out they actually are merchandise that are being displayed for sale okay thank you think there's a point of clarification I think there's a point of clarification that might clear something up because she was reading from the notice of hearing may I ask you something M scooters you were reading from the notice of hearing and you read the use of outside sales and display of merchandise is not listed you do you understand that that sentence in the notice of hearing is not part of the ordinance this was taken from the city ordinance city of jille beach ordinance this if it is not a listed used that mean it is not permitted this ordinance gives a citation of 34 342 b c and d and and then it puts quotes permitted accessory and conditional uses which is essentially what that provision is about but then that next sentence is this notices summary of the law that is not that sentence does not appear in the law anywh but it it is used that is listed so that means it's not permitted I I understand that's what the notice is saying and that is the interpretation that came from the plan and installment director who inter who interprets the code I'll address that I'll address that in just second but I'm going to do very I'm going to be very careful because I know that it's kind of prong things for us to step on each other's words I will not interrupt you let's try to let's try to just take turns talking my question is do you re do you understand that that sentence that you're reading as if it's part of the stat part of the code is not part of the code that is just a summary statement in this notice of of legal analysis of whoever wrote this thing but it is not the code you want you follow me I clearly just said the director is the one who interprets and the use of out outside sales and display of merchandise is not list and all those things that you st was listed in there it's not listed so if it's not listed that mean it's not permitted okay and so my objection to that okay so my objection to that is and again with all due respect Miss people's summary and or opinions of what the law says is not relevant to the extent she's saying that the director to the extent she's saying that the planning and development director has interpreted the code that's hearsay the planning and development director is not here to testify about that and I object to this being continued yet again for for such a purpose we won't be continuing the hearing um okay so can I I I I'm going to say that the addition of that that language sentence the use of outside sales and display of merchandise is not a listed use in the C1 zoning district is simply an exp explanation in the notice so that you the recipient will understand what the violation is uh it's an explanation it doesn't need to be included in the the verbatim language it's an explanation of what the vi why you're receiving the notice of violation um I I understand I I I think this whole discussion that you've raised about is it not part of the Land Development code that sentence is simply an explanation and that's the way that I read it and that's the way that I'm going to rule so I agree with that except for I would like to make this point is that nothing in the cited code sections talks about the use of outside sales and display merchandise nothing say that again nothing nothing in 342 I'm sorry in 34 342 b or c C or D talks about the use of outside sales and display of merchandise doesn't address I believe that that's precisely the point and the position of the city that it's not listed anywhere and therefore pursuant to 34- 3116 it's a violation in C1 zoning District to allow to have the use of outside sales and merchandise that's a use respectfully I I mean I I suppose I see where you're going with this but I just agree that that's a use the uses that are laid out are types of businesses not not and and and we've already talked at length about how outside of advertising is not the business of to Imports that's not its business that's why K wasn't applicable because it's not in the business of outdoor advertising it's your retail furniture store so it is in compliance with sex but and I will also say that the statements about what the planning and development director's opinions are and interpretations are are hears and if he's issued an interpretation or rendered an interpretation we on this issue we don't have that for us is there anything else can I add my recommendation for the per [Music] that I'll look at my notes while she says what she has to say and if I have something else I'll let you know is that okay your honor yes thank you I would like to add to include in my recommendation if T Gregory um wants to have outdoor Sals they can apply six times a year for three days each time a for a tent permit and that's and the planning and zoning department that's only the only time the city will allow any type of outdoor sales and display is that the same as the seasonal sales no that is not the same are seasonal sales allowed in this District it is but that's for like Christmas trees pumpkins those types of things firewood would it be possible to have seasonal sales in see one that for for a for this type of use not that I'm aware of the only time is when they apply when a company or business applies for the tent permit okay um and is there a reference to the code regarding the tent permit yes I don't have it directly in front of me right now in regards to you find that before we conclude today okay thank you anything else so for example you're we sell we sell amirs we sell um other sorts of accessories that that go with Furniture this could does it talk about those kinds of uses whether you're allowed to sell chairs as a retail furniture store or beds as a retail furniture store or um or outdoor furniture or indoor furniture it doesn't go into it's it says that the use allowed permitted is a retail Furniture Store it doesn't talk about I've made this point I guess I'm being redundant it doesn't talk about what jewelry stores can or cannot do with their merchandising that's not the kind of use that this is addressing so um I fully understand that the city is trying to make this work where it doesn't but it is it is not an applicable ordinance and there isn't an applicable ordinance that I'm aware of which is why we're back here for the third time if you don't think it's a use what do you think it is it is part and partial of the business of retail Furniture Store merchandising it's it's what merchandising I suppose inviting inviting the public as customers to come into the store making people aware that you're open um those are all things that every one of these businesses are permitted to do even though it doesn't say so what are those things that I mean how do you classify that just like they have with the signs if they wanted to have an ordinance that addressed I don't I'm asking you a very specific question about the outdoor sales and display of merchandise and I'm being very specific I should be committed to answer the question I'll answer the question I I'm asking the question I'm trying to answer it yes your are if you don't you don't you have said you don't think it's a use what do you think it is just like I don't think having a sign is a use of the property that that the ordinances address signage separately because sign AG is is marketing or displays anel to the um permitted business use at at most right so they could have just like they have sign ordinances that say this is the kind of signs you can't have and this is the kind of signs you can't have and this is how big the signs can be if they wanted to enact an ordinance that addressed outdoor um having some merchandise outside then they could have an ordinance that addresses that as well they don't have that ordinance so they're trying to say this ordinance somehow encapsulates that but it clearly does not it's not talking about that sort of abuse to the extent you're trying to say advertising Outdoors as a use they've addressed that with the with the with the what we talked about before which was the initial I guess it was 3 342k the business of outdoor advertising and they said you can't do that they said you can't do the business of outdoor advertising but as we discussed when we shared that that ordinance was not applicable that the that the legislative intent behind it was so that local businesses could advertise their own business without being cluttered up by Billboards from third party advertisers so they can address it separately they have addressed it separately they have not addressed whether or not stores can have a chair outside in and and and it's not wrapped up into this kind of a use it's separate like science and like Outdoor Advertising which they've addressed by several ordinances you still haven't answered my question I believe I have but I'll try better if you let me know what you think I'm missing what do you think it is if it's not a use use in this context is talking about the kinds of properties it's just like we have we have restrooms is having a restroom at the store a use does that need to be defined in 34 342b it's not applicable there's having a we have a um a um point of sale we have a cash Reg we have shelves we have lots of things on we have I mean we receive and deliver shipments of furniture that's also not listed here or those by that broad broad definition of use you get how do you classify those I don't think it's incumbent upon me to figure out how to classify I'm asking if you're the one who's saying it's not a use then what is it I I think I've bestly answered it's part and parcel of the type of business that is permitted so you have permitted businesses like a jewelry store and they can sell jewelry and they can have a cash register and they can have signs that advertise that they're selling jewelry and if it's a sign now you got to look to the sign ordinance because the city has actually addressed s okay um you wanted is there anything else you were asking a question so I didn't I don't have any questions thank you please tell me if you were able to find Cod provision for the T there they did not bring me the code provision but this is the um city of Jackson City of Jacksonville Beach private commercial event policy okay don't that's part of my recommendation in regards to allowing the outdoor sales outdoor sales pursu to some other ordinances that are already available to every other business I'm sorry I'm reading something at the moment okay I'm I'm looking at some documents I'll I'll entertain your further comments in a moment so just for clarity um Miss beavers of you've given me a the city of Jacksonville private commercial event policy uh it was um established in November of 2023 and it says that the purpose of the policies outline the guidelines to hold events that privately own commercial properties um and it talks about events may be approved up to six times per calendar year for no more than three days per event um goes on to talk about other items yeah so the tent permit that you see listed on there is where for tent sales like special sales events football games so in a business wants to display and bring their merchandise outside they would apply for the tent permit for that use okay um do so is the it's a policy it's not set forth in the ordinance code from my understanding okay and U do you have another copy of this no but I can get a copy um I'm going to hand this back to you I'd like you to end up making it a part of the record okay um and I'd like for you to provide it to Mr this copy to Mr Po to allow him to review it and then got can can let me know than I will the relevance my understanding is that the relevance is that she that the city has requested that it be made part recommendation to me uh that uh it would be part and parcel of the recommendation uh that this be included in my order on this matter to um to inform the business that this is an option that's available so I on the grounds of on the grounds of relevance of I understand being offered simply as as City's requesting that I put it into the order as as you know information uh in my to this application to any of the issues the relevance would be allowing the outdoor sales of your merchandise that's the relevance so as I understand it from what you just discussed this is not part of any ordinance this is a policy that somebody I'm also I don't know it from compl it's official it's so all those in terms of I object I think the official objection would be lack of foundation and relevance and um but it actually probably F goes to the point that they've adopted some some policy that is not really some accommodation that has been um put together to bolster the idea that there's some restriction that really isn't isn't provided for in all it's not addressed okay um so at this time I'm going to uh rule in favor of the city um I will issue an order that um finds that that the issue has been that the violation has been corrected and that um City well the city I'm issue an order as recomended by the city that find that you are in compliance that that if there are future violations of the same uh that there'll be a $250 fine per day uh that at this time no fines will and I will take under advisement whether or not to include the policy form I will receive violation I'm sorry violation can you please are we going to start the whole hearing over again Mr Paul no I'm not trying to start okay what is your I I've rule have something to say no I'm I'm fine thank you thank you I don't I think that we're done with this particular item Let's see we still have well actually we do have one more case but I'm sorry B yes case number 23-46 Mr yes what my clicker isn't okay all right this is um listed as B on the agenda case number 2346 Joseph benza 1023 North 14th Avenue um this case was in in reference to a building permit not being obtained at the time that work was being done a stop order stop work order was issued um the permit is set to expire on I want to say the 30th where it has expired and my recommendation is that the property owner obtain a final inspection and get a certificate of completion so in May I believe um I issued an order in that order said that um a permit was issued by the city in September 23 and for the work addressed however certificate of completion had not yet been issued by the city correct and that that the respondent was to obtain a certificate of completion by today correct so um is there uh is there any further report about the extent of work that still needs to be completed as of today from the information I got under the building department the final inspection had not been completed and so no specific completion had been obtained do you know do you is there still work to be done do you know I'm not sure all the work was internal um there was really no external work other than the garage that was removed and no permit is required for the removal of the um garage it's all internal so I'm not clear on what else other than the final inspection okay well and that had not been scheduled yet I would continue it for 30 days to notify the property owner to schedule the final inspection October 23rd there's a special hearing but the 30th we're doing it at the end is that still acceptable yes thank you um I'm just concerned that we are continuing to do this over and over again um I think that for the next hearing I would like to see um something from the building department if if the certificate of completion has not issue um I'd like to understand from the city why it hasn't been what what is happening because I'll give them another till 30th but I think past that leaving this open and is is inappropriate I believe the work is finished I just a lot of times with final inspections contractors will like once they finished they're done in the permit expires um and that's just from my experience seeing where a lot of final inspections were not completed but being that this was a stop work order that's why the city is requesting um that the final inspection and certificate of completion um is obtained um you said that the permit has expired yes when did it expire um I my note says that a permit was issued in September 23 and it's good for 180 days okay well it can be longer than yeah because they can't extend it um let's confirm that the perit has expired okay okay so you will confirm that the permit is expired we will bring this back for October the 30th uh and the requirement will be for final inspection and certificate of completion be issued by October 30th okay I'm sorry are you saying that the hearing was on October 30th is that is that October 23rd get Chang remember we changed it um both of us was going to be I'm going to be yeah I'm sorry I yeah I think that it went through theer chel the chambers were available you can confirm that again okay thank you uh is there anything else for today no that concl that conclud I cannot talk today that concludes all of the cases we have for today okay thank you very much the hearings are closed thank you very