Um it states that um my last order was dated the 3rd of April. Um and that the RHC was the current owner where non-conforming poll signs located pursuant to 34-450.
Under certain circumstances, poll signs must be removed. Um and that um that the sign been damaged for more than 190 days, but the building is occupied and the Dunkin Donut business is ongoing
and has not ceased. Correct. And at that time there was no evidence was profered by either the city or the respondent as to the cost of repair or cost of replacement of the sign. And that Mr. Patel testified he's in
negotiations with the um with the respondent with the owner to purchase the property and that the sign may be removed under the new ownership, but he was uncertain when that would occur. That's correct. So um
So it's not the business is ongoing. Um and I understand that there's a desire to eliminate, you know, non-conforming signs. Um I'm trying to identify the
I I picked up the wrong book. Do you have all the uh is this all a four 450 that's here? Yes. So where's this part about uh the um the cost of repair? What
section is that in please? Is that under C? Christian is with the planning department. He's going to go get that. It says any non-conforming sign shall be removed or rebuilt in conformity uh if it's damaged or allowed to
deteriorate to such an extent that the cost of repair or restoration is 50% or more the cost of replacement. So that's um so I think that that's what I was looking for. Okay. For testimony
regarding that. Okay. So you're waiting for testimony. Well, you're saying the city is saying that Stein has to be removed, correct? Um uh but that the cost of this the repair
We were needing that from the actual owner to find out. I think that was part of from our last hearing. They needed to let us know what the cost of replacing the sign was going to be. Okay. Because otherwise the sign can
continue. I'm sorry. the sun can continue can continue unless um that the cost of repair restoration is 50% or more of the cost of replacement of the sign. Okay. Once
Christian comes back with that information. Okay. About it and the cost to repair Um either the city or the the applica I mean the uh respondent can can talk to this but I
the city wouldn't know what the actual cost would be. The respondent would have to provide that information. Okay. Because I mean they would have had to get some estimates from um the sign companies stating how much
it What's your basis for requiring it to be removed then? What what section of the code up under the 344? Under what subsection? Um, hold one second. And I can show you a copy of the
violation notice that was actually sent to them that was highlighted. Yes. Lord, would you mind starting? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. I do. Please state your name and your position. Christian of Holy City Plenior, excuse me. Uh if I can jump in real quick. Um can you speak into the mic just so that I can hear?
That's fair. Thank you. Um okay, so we are under Uh 345 or 44 450. Correct. Right. Okay. Legal non-conforming signs. Yeah. So um
signs rendered non-conforming uh which is number two. It says, "Non-conforming sign shall not be reerected, relocated, or replaced unless it is brought into compliance." I'm sorry. I'm not either. I'm not understanding you are not. Are you reading from a section? Correct. This is
Okay. Could you tell me what section you're reading from? 34450 number two. Yep. And then I was going through letter B. Two to what? B. B. Okay. says, "Non-conforming sign should not be
reerected, relocated, or replaced unless it is brought to compliance with the requirements of this division. A non-conforming sign that conforms in size and height elimination standards, but otherwise non-conforming may be relocated. Um, but in this case, we're talking about a pole sign, which is a
non-conforming sign and actually a prohibited sign." Um, and then we have uh signs discontinued. It says a sign structure that remains vacant, unoccupied, or devoid of any message or display of a message pertaining at to at
the time or event purpose no longer applies or for a period of 180 days shall be deemed discontinued. A non-conforming sign deemed discontinued shall immediately terminate the right to such a sign to maintain such a sign. After a sign structure has been named
discontinued, it shall be the responsibility of the property owner or property owner's authorized agent to remove the discontinued sign and pageant conceal any damage to the structure or from the removal of the sign. Right. I think that we decided that 4 A doesn't apply because they've kept a message on
the sign the entire time. That's correct in their Is that correct? Yes. So I don't think that 4 A more so 4 C would apply to it. 4C. Well, that's if once it's been deemed
discontinued and to be deemed discontinued, it has to be without any kind of message for 180 days. That's why my last order as far as it being dee deemed discontinued is because it's a non-conforming sign. Well,
non-conforming signs are allowed to stay until something happens, right? And this one has been damaged. And what? This one was damaged. The actual sign that was above where the message is. That's right. So that's why 4C applies.
It's damaged. Right. But also under um 2B, it says the non-conforming sign shall not be reerected, relocated, or replaced until it is brought in compliance with the requirements of this division. And the only way it could come into compliance
is by no longer being a pole sign. Right. But they're not asking to reerect it, relocate it, or replace it. How would they not be reerecting it if they have to add the entire cabinet back to the top? That what? They would have to add an entire electrical cabinet back to
the top of the sign to be able to be able to use the sign as it was. So, well, no, you're telling them that they have to take down the current sign. If they wanted to cut the poles and turn that into a monument sign, potentially that's an option. But is that an option? I don't know that it's a cost effective
option, but this is moving really really slow, but above there was another sign above the marquee part where the wording there was a whole Dunkin Donut sign that
was up there that is now gone. Yeah, you got it the right way. And so in theory, the changeable message portion could be kept If it was brought down to be a monument sign and then they could add brought down or can it just be can
those poles just be cut off? Uh it would depend on the height and the distance between the ground and the sign. There's a limitation on airspace. Well, we're not talking about making it a conforming sign. We're just talking about changing. But as I see it, there are the options
of bringing the sign into conformance, which would be basically under 2B, or removing the sign because it was discontinued, which is your argument that the entirety of the sign was not discontinued. I'm not sure that that was the intended code. They're
not I don't Well, first off, I don't know that they're asking to reerect the sign above. They're not asking to relocate the summary. and they're not asking to replace the sign above. I don't think B is applicable.
Maybe we should hear from Yes. So, first off, well, let's let's finish on the city side because the whole reason that I focused in the prior order on this part about the uh um
to such an extent that the cost of repair restoration because you were saying or the city was saying that they had to remove the sign or they have to rebuild it in conformity. But that provision provides that if it's
damaged, which we know it was damaged or allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that the cost of repair restoration is 50% or more of the cost of replacement of such sign and there was no evidence. The prior order says no evidence was
profered by either the city or the respondent as to the cost of repair. Um the building continues to be occupied and the Dunkin Donuts business is ongoing and has not ceased. So um and
they continue to utilize the sign. So, we were under the impression that they were going to replace the top half of the sign. Okay. Well, let's find out what they want to do. Okay. Um I I was under the impression
that they may get rid of the whole sign and you know, the sale was going through, Mr. Patel was going to actually go forth uh and purchase the business. So, let me get clear from the city's
perspective. You're saying what what what are you asking for? That they cannot replace the top half. Okay. Of the sign that was damaged. Okay. That is no longer there. Cannot
replace the top half. Anything else? Because it is a non-conforming sign. It is a poll sign now. So, And then anything under B, which would basically require to be brought into compliance if it under
what? Under what section? Uh, number 2B. Um, well, I don't think they're asking to Well, we're going to find out whether they're asking to reerect anything, relocate anything. For the sake of argument, if they if the desire is to make the sign conforming, then it would
have to meet the requirements for the code to be a conforming monument sign, which are outlined based on the zoning and a bunch of other I don't think that that's necessarily true, Christian, because yes, it's non-conforming, but um they're not asking to reerect it. Well,
we don't know that. I'm saying under the assumption that they were. If they are asking to reerect it, then I would agree B would be um uh uh because we didn't want a situation where we come in and then there's a sign
up there now, right? And you see there's a difference between B and C. B is when the signs being reerected, relocated, or replaced. Um C requires a non-conforming sign to be
removed or rebuilt in conformity with the terms of the LDC if it's damaged or allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that the cost of repair. So we don't know. It doesn't sound like you uh the city
has come forth with any evidence on that. So, um, so I don't think that C because that you have the that you have the evidence necessary to require them to remove or
rebuild in conformity under C. So, um, let's find out what B, um, let's find out what the, um, what the respondent wants to do at this stage.
Did you want to say before I call anybody else up, do you want to say anything more? Okay. Um, is somebody here from RHC Associates? And if you will please state your name for the record and then and the clerk
will swear you in. All right. Please raise your right hand. Can you state your name and address? Valter Ammeral and your address, please. Uh uh 601 First Street South, Jacksonville Beach, uh Florida 32250.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? I do. Thank you. I'm sorry I didn't catch your name. Walter Amarl. Okay. You were
here before. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um after the first hearing, we um had agreed to well we had the best option for us would be to put the sign back together to rebuild the sign because it
would be far less expensive to rebuild the sign than it would be to demolish a sign and put up a monument sign. So let me ask you, when you say you want to rebuild the sign, you want to put the old sign back up. Yes. the or the the sign above this one. You want to put it
back? Yes. Okay. Um that would be the that would be the best situ scenario for us. That would be the least expensive way to go for us than to take it down
and put up a monument. Put Say that again. than to put it down and put up a monument that putting a new u sign on top would be far less expensive. Which one would be more less expensive
to put a new sign there in above the existing sign by a lot? Okay. At least expensive. What about this option do you of just living with the sign as it is with the poles above
it taken away that is an option. Uh and we could um uh that could always be converted to the Dunkin Donut sign. the the reader board could always be converted to the Dunkin Donut sign. Um, when you say the Dunkin
Donut sign, you mean one with a um like with the actual logo with the logo? Yes, ma'am. So, you could do that. Is that right? Theoretically, yes, ma'am. Okay. And I know that last time
that there was discussion you there was testimony regarding you were in the process of negotiating with Mr. Patel. Yes. And where I'm not asking for any kind of
confidential information, but that was two 60 days ago. Yeah. Or I guess that we held that hearing on March, so it's actually been 90 days. Has this sale been consummated. It's We're probably weeks away now. You're
what? Probably weeks away from finishing the deal. Don't the corp corporate still. So you're far enough alone that you know what you want to do. You and Mr. Patel know what you want to do with the sign. We're kind of in limbo with the sign.
Okay. Do do you want Mr. Patel to speak also at this time? Sure. Okay. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? I do.
Please state your name and address. Car Patel 11657, Beachwood, Jacksonville, Florida, 322 46. And um so
I heard from Mr. Um that he would be willing to um uh not put up the second sign and just go with the sign that you've got there
with uh changing the fa face so that it's got the Dunkin Donut logo. And um I think the city would require you to cut away those um poles that go
up above that is that Mr. Ammerald testified that that would be okay with with him. Um and I just want to know because it sounds like you're in negotiations with the company.
Is this going to be okay with if that was the outcome? Yes. as long as it's possible. Um, theoretically, yes, it is possible. But that's something that we have to ask sign vendors. Do you have to ask sign vendor? Um, theoretically, yes,
it's possible. Removing the existing sign where it says Duncan runs on the $6 mill, we can convert that into a actual Duncan logo. Um, but that's something that confirmation we have to get from the uh sign vendor whether it's um for them to be, you know, the the structure
is fine. you know, there's nothing wrong with the structure. We're just talking about face, the changing the face of what existing right now it is to Duncan logo. So, that's something that as long as it's doable, we're totally fine. I mean, like I had said last time, the end goal here is to, you know, be in
compliance. Um, you know, and well, according I mean to to um make it totally in compliance, it needs to be a monument sign, right? which needs to be lower to the ground and basically the
same kind of shape basically that you got there that rectangle but just lower to the ground. Am I saying that correctly, Miss Beavers or Mr. or Christian? There are obviously specific requirements for what a monument sign is and it depends on the
size of the property and there'll be a number of things we'd have to look at to determine whether just cutting the poles off would make it a monument sign. There might be other alterations that are needed. Um but in essence it would become a conforming monument sign however makes makes the most sense.
Well um did you one other question and maybe you're not the right either both of you uh did you bring any information regarding the cost of repair or cost of replacement of the sign?
Yeah, we having having done, you know, many sides. Um, converting this, you know, pole sign to a monument, it's going to be we're looking about six to seven times more than than just putting a face up there.
Um, you know, I mean, we're talk, you know, roughly If you're to, you know, estimate a figure just to change your face of that um sign, we're looking at somewhere about four 4,000 to $5,000. Whereas compare, you know, converting it completely to monument, you know, it
could go up to, you know, 30 $40,000 easily. Well, that that's not okay. So, what the code calls for is that it's um if it's a if the sign is damaged to the extent that the cost of repair or restoration
is 50% or more of the cost of replacement. So, what did you say the cost of the a new sign would monument side 30? Yeah. 30 is 30,000 30,000 to 40,000 somewhere we're looking at because we have to you know uh
consider our you know engineering. Okay. Um and what did you say the cost to typically changing a phase for any existing you know sign like that would could go up to 4,000 to 5,000 and that includes everything four or 5,000. Yes.
So that definitely is not 50% of the cost of replacement. Um uh Miss Magistrate, um just a quick question because I think that this might complicate things a bit. Um under 34
449, which is 449 signed permits. Um it says that uh we won't issue a permit for a sign that's a prohibited sign. Um and that it defines what um
customary repairs including replacement of blast plastic panels or glass without a sign permit. Um however if such sign be structurally altered uh in any manner a new sign permit should be required. Typically we've interpreted that to mean that if they simply replace the plastic
as it were that that's considered copy. We don't regulate that as a that's normal maintenance repair. If it requires a permit for electrical work, change of lights, new cabinets, all of that would be considered. Uh basically,
what's the term? Um improving a non-conforming sign, adding to making structural changes because you have to do wiring, you have to do new cabinets, those kind of things, the things behind the the plastic sheet. So, I don't know exactly how um they could do much more
than just put a Duncan logo on that and not a foul of the ability of us to even issue a permit for it. So, you think that they could um do the Duncan logo and and you would also want them to take down
the or cut off the the is that a metal I assume so. Yeah. Is that a metal could and cut those off? I mean, ideally, yes. But if there was a
um I'm not sure what benefit there would be to leaving them if they can't use them as a sign, but um if they were to simply replace the plastic on that portion of the sign, that would fall under normal maintenance. If they want to put a piece back up, that would be a
structural change. So, um, if they want to spend the least amount of money, in theory, uh, they could put the Duncan logo where the changeable copy is, and that would be it. That would be acceptable to the city. I think that
would be the bare minimum that they could do that we could uh, even technically allow under our permitting process, but I don't know that that's the ideal solution to leave those things up there. Again, I'm not a signed expert. So, do you are you saying you
think it would be better for them to leave the the No, not at all. I'm saying that if they choose to and we're not going to make a determination that it's a non-conforming sign that should be removed, then the easiest answer that
would solve their problem would be to just change the sign face. The city would still like to see the sign completely replaced or brought into conformity, but I'm just trying to uh hedge our bets on what the determination is going to be because it
doesn't seem like we're getting closer to find a solution that um I that meets with the code and I don't think that C I don't think under 2C um
that we that the city has the basis to require for the sign to be removed under 2C without any type of estimates. We just heard an estimate. That's just a verbal estimation. I mean, a written
estimate stating the the actual cost. I mean, anybody numbers, Miss Bever, is the only evidence that you've brought to me or that I've heard today. It wouldn't be for us to provide the estimates of how much it would cost. I disagree with
that. If your position is that the sign needs to be removed under four under 2C, then then you should be come to me and say that you know it's going to cost this much to we the city would not go and get
estimates for someone's business. I understand. But you're the city brought the problem. The city is saying the has to be removed. So, I've been asking under what
provision do you believe that the city has the right to require this owner to remove the sign? Because the sign is considered a nonconformant sign. It's been damaged. More than 50% of the sign is gone.
And so now that it's been damaged. So did they come? So I haven't heard anything about them wanting to um put the sign. Uh I don't think any business would want
to once their logo portion of their sign has been damaged, they would want to put that especially if it's, you know, for, you know, potential customers to see riding by and not knowing what business that is because the business
sits off from the actual storefront, the road, them having that actual sign at the top is what lets customers know this is Dunkin Donuts. That sign is gone now. That's 50% of the sign. So, I find it
hard to believe that any business would leave that completely gone now. Well, I just we just heard testimony that they'll just use the one that they've got and put the logo on the one that they've got. Right. What he has stated is that they would would remove and put
the face of the logo on that portion. So, they still would have to take what you're looking at now out and replace it with something else that actually is the Dunkin Donuts logo. That's what he's It's just the face.
It's just it's just what's you know it's just the plastic correct that's put up there. It's I mean it would be if it changed from Dunkin Donuts to Chick-fil-A. Correct. As long as the sign itself is
not being altered. There's nothing about the message that's on the sign or the or the you know that they put in a new piece of plastic. Okay. And that was just that information was just relayed today. Okay. So we're making So that was
not stated back in March. Okay. So we're making progress. Good. I appreciate that. So I think that I'm hearing a solution. I have to issue an order on this. and
basically from the testimony that I've heard from the city and the testimony that I've heard from the owner and potential owner. Um,
it sounds like everyone would be satisfied. not, you know, pleased as punch, if you will, but satisfied that this sign can stay. They can put in a new
thing that says Dunkin Donut. They have to remove the vertical poles that from the point of the existing sign, the
top of the existing sign above. have to remove both of those and the sign would continue to be technically a non-conforming sign but under the code it would be allowed
to stay but the other all these provisions um would continue to apply. So if there was future work that needed to be done or future changes or you know something more that
you wanted done. You wanted to fill in the space below the sign. You know, you're not going to be able to do any of that because it's not also stated if the cabinet, you know, needed to be changed as far as the size, all of that. When you say the
cabinet, you mean the rectangle, the actual part that the plastic sits inside. Okay. that typically it's the part that attaches to the poles and has all the I can't sorry typically it's the part that attaches to the pole has all the electronics inside of it the plastic
sits over it so it would be everything behind that face would be the cabinet it would be all the things inside the sign the the structural element or the electronics or the wiring those are all part of the cabinet and then the face is the thing that the light passes through
that makes up the copy so what we would be talking about would that Would they be able to make any change to the electronics on the inside? Uh, I mean, if it's changing bulbs, yes, if it's changing what? Like if it has light bulbs in it, but if they wanted to switch to say LEDs, that would be a
different cabinet altogether most likely. But it would require an electrical permit, which I don't think we could even issue. And would that cause it that wouldn't be considered a normal um reasonable repair alteration? Uh no,
because it that would the sign would perpetuate forever if they could continuously update the technology. Okay. It goes against the basic science under the circumstances that uh the city is speaking to now. And I I I'd like you to come back up because I feel like I
should be talking to both of you because you're still the current owner. Um, you wouldn't be able to make any changes to the inside of the box or the cabinet's called inside. You'd be allowed to change the the the face the
plastic part and bring in a new plastic part that um has the logo on it. But you'd have to keep what's inside the cabinet. What are your thoughts about that? I mean,
not ideal. Not sure if it's possible um you know changing just the face of it you know without having anything to do with you know any electrical work inside because all these new signs are pretty much going to be configured with LED.
So well, Nikki, do you think that we should before we before I issue an order along these lines that we should um know for sure that it's a
possibility. Otherwise, we're just going to be back in here. We would need to come back during our July hearing with actual estimates of what it would cost to do
either option. Okay. Either one. And when you say that, you mean as far as removing the sign and turning it into a monument or replacing just the existing of what's left face.
Yeah. Okay. So, and that next hearing is scheduled for June. I mean, not June, but July. I believe it's the 23rd. Is it the 23rd? Yes. July 23rd.
Um, I'm willing to let that happen. But, um, this time I want to make it very very clear that, um, there's only two reasons to, uh, allow for the only two reasons that I
would agree to an extension of 30 days. One or to the next hearing. One is to um allow you to um determine whether you can just change the face
so that no changes on the inside of the cabinet. Um and and uh whether that's uh realistic. And so you'll need to come back between now and then. You'll need to come figure out
what does the sign company say? What can be done? Can I just put the plast new plastic in without making a lot of changes to the in uh inside of the cabinet? Um or if there are some very
minimal changes to the inside, we're going to need to know exactly what those are so that the city can say that's acceptable or it's not. The other thing that you if you if you
uh uh want to um pursue the concept that you know it doesn't need to be removed. Um then you would have to bring to us, you
know, a written estimate of the cost of the repair or the restoration and um and uh compare that to the cost of replacement of of the whole sign.
So, just like you said, you estimated it 30 to 40,000 for the new sign or four or 5,000 for the um uh the uh repair.
So, let's see what um and we're only talking about this part now. We're not even talking about up above um at this point. We're just talking about this. Now, you could come back and say, "I could repair that. I could put restore the sign that was above that."
Um, and it's all all new sign above it, and it could be, you know, I don't know, $20,000. Um, and but the cost to replace it is 30 or 40,000. The distinction has to be the
50%. It's in the rule. It's under -450 and we're talking about uh subsection two. So, um we can't really say that this
um uh that the sign the we can't really say that this sign is discontinued because obviously it's you're still got a message up there.
I guess we're going to call that, you know, that I'm going to call those two metal beams, um, you know, the sign support in the order. So, okay. Well, um,
before I close this hearing, I want to make sure, do you have any questions? Yes. Okay. So you're saying both options are we can look at both options putting a new um new face on top and secondly
the other option replacing the lower portion with just the the Duncan frame. Yes. Now when you say replacing it up above Yes. that's where that 50% rule comes in. That would also fall up under
4 D then um where it says removal of discontinued non-performance signs shall include all sign support components, angle irons, poles, and other remnants of the discontinued sign that are currently not in use or proposed for immediate reuse as evidenced by a sign
permit application for a permitted sign. So for that top portion, that's the portion that's no longer in use. And for them to replace that up there, they would then have to obtain a signed
permit. So that falls up under section D. Section D for that top portion. Well, that's if it's been disc if it's been discontinued.
The sign's not been discontinued. It's still there. I I don't think it a portion of the sign is still there. The whole sign is not there and not in use. Only a portion only half of the sign is still there and
being in it's in use. If I can, I'm just going to read the definition of sign from the previous code and I believe it lines up the new code as well, but um this may help. Sign means any device, fixture, placard or structure including its components, parts which draw
attention to an object, product, place, activity, opinion, person, institution, organization or place of business or which identifies or promotes the interests of any person which is to be viewed from any public street, road, rideway, parking area collectively parking area. For the purpose of these
regulations, sign shall include the structural members. A sign may be uh construed to be to display a surface. Uh sign shall be construed to be a display surface or sign or device containing organized and related elements composed
to form a single unit in the case where a matter where a sign is displayed in a random. And can you tell me the the uh citation what what this is under uh 3441 which is general and then these are the
terms and definitions and we're under the definition of sign which I don't have page numbers so that's not going to be helpful okay I guess the question is is the sign the entirety or is the sign a component or part or uh fixture
attached to the structure is the part on top its own sign. And I feel like that's what the code is trying to say because if you have um you know multiple tenants in a shopping center, they each get their own sign.
Those each have their own limits. The building can have a sign per customer, not for the whole building. And those are all piece parts. So if the sign on the top is considered its own sign then I think that would count as
discontinued. If the sign is its entirety then not. So let's let's think about the example to me that's the sign structure that has multiple
uh businesses in it. Right? So the structure is the whole sign. This talks about four under 30 34 450 talks about sub paragraph 4 is signed structures that
remain vacant. I think for four to come into play the whole thing would have to have been gone not just to be to be considered discontinued. So, it is an odd. It's a little bit
different, Nikki. You're right. It's a little bit different, but I think that it would be the whole structure. Um, not just the each individual component. Um,
so I want I want to come back to your question to make it clear that The only way that I see any possibility for you to be able to put that sign up above
is uh is if you can qualify under one of the provisions uh in 34-450 and you know um So that um I I would advise you to look
carefully at that and um and come back with your with your evidence. I'm not I think that will be the last time that we take it up will be July what was the date? 23rd. 23rd. Can you both be here? July 23rd.
Please please check. I do have one question. If we're talking about that 50% it says um the cost of repair and restoration, are we speaking strictly the cost to
purchase the product or is that going to include the engineering and installation and permits? Don't you think it would be everything? I I would and I just again I'm not a building inspector but um it says the cost of repair or restoration.
I don't know how much more those might add to the process of putting it back because right there may be some engineering that needs to be done or things like that. So what what he's saying is that you'd have to come back to us with an a
an estimate to do everything that's necessary to put that sign back up. And then compare that to the cost of when I say put that sign back up, I mean just that up upper portion versus the cost of
doing, you know, taking this completely down and replacing it with a conforming sign. So, and I totally understand city
um but you know um uh the the intent of the city is that they don't want poll signs anymore. And so, you know, when and um
and so the idea of trying to eliminate those kinds of signs is is certainly um you know, they're tasked. These these people right here are tasked with doing that. That's their job. So, um and I
understand that we have to look at the code and determine whether or not, you know, um this idea about um removing the whole thing is required. I think the city has
offered a very reasonable option for you to go and 30 more days for you to go and consider that. So that's how I'm going to the next order my next is going to be temporary. We're going to be back here July 23rd and we
will um see what your evidence is and your estimates. Okay. And um like I said, I think the city has is trying to work with you and um you know
hopefully um that option works and um um that you can just replace that and then you know you buy the business and five years from now you decide okay I'm going
to build a new monument site. So once you get you know uh have a better uh you know some operational experience under your belt.
So okay I think any other questions? Um I have a question. Uh for some reason let's say if you are to go into completing doing a monument sign Now the question that I have related to that is a time frame that we're talking
of. Um because that requires engineering work. We have to put drawings together. We got to submit it to city for permitting. Then the whole the the monument you know construction sort of you know we have to rebuild the old structure and everything. So that's so
you have to get a permit first. Correct. Correct. The permit is good for 180 days. Yeah. Typically we can consider it starting the work if they would be a let's say you were going to do come in just do a brand new software. How long do you think you would need to
get the um materials ready for you to submit the application? Well, I mean the the basic the start off is pretty much you know having that civil engineering you know engineer you know gets involved and sort of put a drawing together and
that gets over to city and then the number of days that city takes you know to sort of give us back with the permit and from that point now we have to look into hiring possibly a GC that can you know help us rebuild or change that structure to she said that the building
permits are good for 180 days right as long as you start within 180 days. So if they come back on July 23rd with the estimates and say, "Okay, we've decided to go with the monument sign or whatever you guys decide to go with," then we're
fine with that because then once a permit is um but we would tell them that that they'd have to submit the application for the permit within right, you know, 60 days. But if they come with the estimates and say
compared to the the cost of repair for this sign compared to the monument sign, they will be then, you know, made a decision on what they chose to do. So then from that point, we're good with that because now we know what their
plans are for the sign. Okay. And you'd have an order and you can't violate the order. Yeah. So just to come back with the estimates and what they've decided to go with, right? Yeah. just I mean the bottom line that we want to make sure that once we have order in
place that we don't want to you know we want to work with our time so that we know what we're working you know as long as we come back because I don't want to take over a store and then within 30 days or I have a timeline to meet where it's possibly not you know nearly you
probably be required to submit the application okay for the new sign within I I was going to say 60 But we'll determine that once we come back on the 23rd with what they like to
do. Okay. And just a comment for the um owner the not I'm sure not every but a majority of the sign companies that I've dealt with do all of the engineering installation and everything. So you should be able to get a quote just for from one company. Yeah. Sure. Thank you. Yeah. With all the in you know
everything that would be required. Okay. Um, then I'm going to continue the hearing until July the 23rd at 2 o'clock here in these chambers and with the instructions that
uh you are going to um you the owner and potent future owner going to come back uh with uh evidence of cost and your determin
whether or not the existing sign uh whether it can just work with just the face being changed and not anything on the inside. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Um,
so we want to move on to item number two or B as in boy. Case number 25-31A, Austin Surf Shop. All right, your honor. This is case number 25318,
Austin Surf Shop, located at 615 Third Street South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. This is also a case in regards to a nonconforming sign that had been damaged. Um, as you can see, um, this
picture was taken May 7th of 2025. The pole is hard for me to Is the sign just that that pole? So you see the pole with the vertical thing. Yes. Okay.
Okay. So this would be um where the sign has been damaged for more than 180 days and would need to be removed. So, I did speak with the owner
and the top portion of that sign, the wooden portion had been removed. Is the wood portion when you say that's the horizontal horizontal piece that that's what was left of the actual sign that was there. So, you've you've asked them to take down the pole. Yes. And they
don't want to take down the pole. When I went and spoke with the owner, when I gave the notice of hearing, he advised me that the sign had been taken down, which was correct. But that is when I advised him that the pole also
would need to be removed. And so when I went back on June 24th, this is what was there. The pole was still there. The wooden portion had been removed, but the pole was still there. Okay.
Okay. Um and so um so this one is definitely um falling under under four sub paragraph 4. It's um
it's 34-450 sub paragraph 4 signs discontinued. Yes. And clearly This sign has um it would fall up under 4 a sign structures that remain vacant, unoccupied, or devoid of any message or
display a message pertaining to a time, event, or purpose that no longer applies for a period of 180 days shall be deemed to be discontinued. And when was the when was the first time that you saw that the sign was gone? Or what's your
evidence exhibit? I don't have the photo of when the actual sign was there because it's been gone for so long, but it happened during one of the recent storms when it was last when it was.
Okay. So, as best as I can tell from the Google Street View because it's handy. Um, the sign was there in February of 2021 and was gone by April of 2022. And that's based on what? The Google Street View. You can go, you know, year by year
as they drive through and from 22 of a April of 22 to present day, there has not been a sign there. I can also say that that's a Google Google Earth view. Yeah, street view from Google Maps. Okay, Google Maps. Also, I don't recall
there being a sign there since I started working here, which is roughly about the same amount of time. Okay. So, under that, you've asked him to take this down. He's he's Correct. He removed the horizontal part, but he has not moved removed the metal
part. Correct. Okay. Um, is anyone here from Austin's Surf Shop? Okay. So, we'll need your names and to and addresses and then to be sworn in. Please, please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you God. Please state your name and address. My name is Robert Playick. 724 First Street South. I apologize. I could not catch your last
name. Robert Playick. P L A C E K. Thank you. And how are you connected to the Austin? Very long time. So you're here as a friend. Here is a friend and also he's not. We almost lost. Okay.
And do you want to step up forward and right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I'll help you got I do. Please state your name and address. Uh James Austin, 615 South 3rd Street,
Jacksonville Beach. Thank you for being here. Um is there I'm just going to go right to it. Is there a reason that you haven't taken down the um poll? I was just notified like two, three weeks ago. Okay. So you learned about it two or
three weeks ago. June June 6. Yes. This was served his served while he was in the hospital. We didn't find this till after he'd been out of the hospital. What is that? That when you say this is that what date is that? June
February 6. February 6th. And he was in the hospital. And he was in the hospital May 8th. So, he never saw I didn't even find this till after he'd been back for three weeks. Well, I need I need a little more specific. Don't don't get
upset. I'm sorry. So, February 6, you're saying that Mr. Austin was in the hospital? Yes, ma'am. At that time. And then you're saying that when did he Can you give me an idea about when he returned from the hospital? The first
of May. The end of May. Yeah. sometime in May. You came home in May. I'm glad that you were able to come home. Um Okay. And then what happened after you when And then when did you find it? She
s she she brought this to the the business and s and gave it to me on June 6th. Okay. Saying it had been discontinued. Right. Okay. and she said she said uh she said I had to take down the pole. That's that's the
first thing I've heard about that. So So the sign the sign the actual sign you know that part that has the message on it it's been gone a long long time. That was the removed city's request
and it was removed the wood the actual sign itself the wooden part of it. Well, I took the frame I took the frame off of so it wouldn't fall down because that's what I thought they that's what I thought they meant, you know. I think they meant the pole. Yeah. When did you
do that with the with the Well, just before this just before this here last year, but before that, we know that there was no base now. Well, it was a it was a notification like that and I thought she meant the frame. So, I took the frame
down. I did it didn't say anything about the pole. When did you um take the frame down? Well, the the sign was damaged during during a tornado that we had, you know. Okay. That's, you know, just that's been
a couple kind of fell down. I mean, all the signs the tornado was a couple years ago. Yeah. Well, I think what he's trying to say is when he got the first notice, um my letter, my first letter that I sent was back on March 5th. When he got that
notice, he took the wooden portion down, right? Oh, the horizontal part. Yeah, it was a frame, you know, frame on top and bottom. Then I came back and sent another notice stating that it was still in violation. And then on In
June, I served the notice of hearing. Okay. So, yeah. So, um but I didn't So, I think that you know, I don't know if you were listening to what we talked about, uh in the other case, but the sign struct the sign structure includes
the whole the poles and all the parts of it. Yeah. So when and and I understand that you might not have understood that, but it includes more than just the portion that's got the message on it that's got the name of your business on
it. It was a 4 by8 sign and the me the name the message is on both sides, right? And compate on both sides. Yeah. I mean so that all the signs have been there for 41
years. 60 years and it's fully compated to grandfather. We don't have to redirect. It's there. But this but the poll needs to come out. So this is that's v virtually sentencing
this man to death. He got no business as soon as that g sign was gone. There's no frontage there to see so far going by that way. He sat silent store for two years. He thought he was forgotten. He got no business, nothing. He thought he was just isolated and people were
just not coming to see him. Nobody stops because nobody can see it because there's a pawn shop and a massage parlor on each side, right? Instead of being a big surf shop side, the people see both ways like it's been for 40 years. So we would do speak on behalf of the community local
business owners who very graciously offer to pay all expenses to do whatever it takes to make it come in your honor's decision to make it compliant. Um the only I might also add the pole right
across the street from beaches thing is almost twice as tall covered with rust has been that way for very long time. built well. It's been there since 1966. It's illuminated. It's illuminated to code,
you know. So, taking the pole down, we can do that if you want to, but we're still have limited. We don't have the space for people to see facing both ways between Is there um a monument sign for a monument sign? There's no space for a
monument sign. It's got five feet between sidewalks on the property. Yeah. Does it come over? It doesn't come over the sidewalk. It does not. Nikki, is there are there any other photos that could help us? I can't tell where the sto I see the pole
way over there on the left side, but I don't if you look at where these orange cones are, the s the pole is literally in right behind those sign I mean those orange um barriers. So that kind of gives you an
idea from where the grass in the sidewalk is how much space they have. Um, so he would have space to put a monument sign in that same location. I beg to differ. That perspective is
thoroughly inaccurate. What you need is a parallel of saying looking at the space between the sidewalk and in front of the store. That perspective is misleading to say the least. That is not the way it looks from walking down the sidewalk or looking down in the city. So
from where the sidewalk is and the the grass area to the building, you're saying that's the sign does not come to over the sidewalk. Does not it's on the property the sidewalk edge to the front of the house. What you going to put a
monument sign and then people they're going to see it going by and then people that's going to be So look at it doesn't look like much around but okay. So look at where the two orange cones are in the front. If you had a monument sign that
was pretty much that same width apart, you still have enough space in the grass area to place a monument. Okay. Then we still have the perspective part. You're looking at it like this. It's not that wide. This white. If you
look at it down this way with those green space like that, this is not that. Have you looked at brunch house. How their monument sign is across the street. I live there. I'm at the shop every day. Wait, sir. I'm sorry. Okay.
Um, can we possibly Okay. Can we get a continuence on this so Mr. Austin can have the prop have a proper legal representation on this?
We also have attorneys who donate their time. This all happened so quickly. We thought all the people, all the all the labor, let me talk, energy, everything to do whatever it takes to come with whatever you decide we need to do. We have to take it down. We'll do that.
What we're asking is not to say that. If we ask you, we will. But search and those pictures make it look like it's very wide. There's a wide space between the the front of the And the back of the sidewalk there is not at all. Okay. Well, the pole the pole will still have
to be removed. The sign is completely gone. So, and then Okay. When it says on the grandfather's end, the thing first thing I looked at it says not reerected. I know. But this sign is I mean it's very clear that there's no there's no
sign there. There hasn't been a sign there since a tornado from a couple years ago, right? And and so it's clearly past the 180 days that there's been no sign. I thought it would be 180 days of notice.
I thought it was fe from February the 180 days. No. No. From when the sign was before that when the sign the the message part was no longer there. Yeah. It's been over 180 since then.
Right. So it's a discontinued time. under that classification as a discontinued sign then it has to be the whole structure has to be removed now there's nothing there but a pole my sign and frame is gone right but it
needs to be removed all the it's part and parcel of the sign structure all the signs sign needs to be up high where people can see it so it fits it yeah it was it was all the way up to the top so that's what but But understand in
Jacksonville Beach, you're not the only pole signs that continue to exist are those that um are because they are non-conforming and the only ones that continue to exist are the ones that lucky enough that they didn't get
damaged or or destroyed in a storm or something else happened to them. Okay. So that pole, all the signs have been erected on that pole before me. They're all four all four by eights. I know. And they don't they're in fully compliant.
Why do you want to keep the pole? Been up there by 45 years. Yeah. I want to keep the pole. Because he has no money. I want I want to keep the pole. Yes. Why do you want to keep the pole? So I can erect one at a time. So I can erect a new sign. Oh, well, you're not going to
get to erect a new sign? You can't erect a new sign? No, sir. Since at least 2011, probably before that, pole signs have been allowed. No new pole signs have been allowed since decades. You can't put a new one up and this would be considered putting a new one up. So, you can do a monument
sign. Grandfather not allowed to reerect reerecting and keeping the same pole. You'd be putting a sign back up. So, yes, we can't put a sign back up. No, you cannot put a new sign on that pole. Okay. But put another pole there and do
the I mean, I don't No, a monument sign can't be a pole sign. So, it would have to be on the ground like all the other monument signs in the area. Okay. So, I just got most recent signage.
Well, I mean, this is the new one and this is the old one and they say exactly the same thing. Okay. Okay. Well, it's been erected. It's been erected for 60 years. I mean, the poll's been there for 60 years. I've been there for over 40 and it's always been in fully compliance when the sign was was
sign was up there. It got damaged by a hurricane and then it got damaged by the tornado kind of knocked it knocked it down and uh you know just screws holding up. But it's always been it's always been on that pole. So even the signs
before me have been there. Had he understood that he needed to be something that told him that it needed to be worked on or approved within 180 days two years ago, then he probably might have done that. But nobody tells him until all. I mean, it looks like
it's sticking out over the sidewalk, but it's not because most of the sign is back this way toward the building, right? So, it's fully compliant where, you know, not going to fall on anybody. I understand it has been up. We've got
plenty of people who donate time. I thought when she when she said uh she was talking about the frame, you know, falling down and hitting somebody. So that's what I thought she meant, you know, the first time. And so I I I got
the frame off of there so it wouldn't fall. Some of some of it did fall. It almost hit me one time. But that's what I thought she meant. I I never heard anything about the poll until Jim doing any work on it. Well, no. I mean, I was
kind of surprised when she told me, you know, you got to take the poll down. I think it boils down to no matter what the poll is going to have to go. And um if you
So, if we I'm not clear on this issue about not having space about uh to do anything else there. So, I I would be um willing to give you till July the 23rd if you
want, but the purpose would be for you to bring back, you know, maybe an old survey, something that shows the distance between the building and the rideway, right? Would that be right? Our code has no setback requirements from the right of way. Our code has no setback requirements from
the right of way. So, literally whatever space is between the structure and the street is allowable. And I can tell you just looking at the pictures, it's that's what I'm saying. Grass area, there's plenty of space to put a That's what I'm thinking. I mean, based upon
this picture, I'd say you got space for my son. Once again, repeat from based on that picture perspective, that is not Well, that's why I'm willing to give you, you know, you you take your own pictures and bring them in. We'll see. But it's got cement holding it in. Based
upon this, I would say there's probably going to be space. So, more than likely, and I, you know, I'm I'm willing to give you to the next hearing. So, you can bring in pictures to show us, you know,
the exigent circumstances that you're saying might prevent you from building. Pole would still need to be removed by the next year. Well, let's what they're talking about is having space to put a
new ground. I'm not going to rule that they have to remove the poll today, you know. No, they have 30 days. I'm I'm asking that by July 23rd the poll be removed. That's 30 days. They cannot put anything
else on the poll. So, the poll needs to be removed. I know. I'm not going to do that. I'm gonna let them come back and then I'll rule on both the poll and really that's the only thing that I'm either way the poll is going to have to be removed. I want to see I want to see
what they're saying is their circumstances and I I understand master the poll's been there the poll's been there a long time so I don't see the the
mandate to have it removed in 30 days. We're only talking about a 30 days. They've noticed since February February I was in the hospital for like three months. Madam if I may. Can I just get a word in real quick? Out of time to
speak. I didn't know anything about it. Regardless of how long it takes to take the poll out, there's no situation under which the poll can be used for a sign or the poll can remain. I agree. Giving them more time to comply is fine. Having them come back with surveys and designs is really going to result in nothing more than just making this a longer
process for them seems and and if if you know and we'll just address it then. Um, I think that, you know, given the whole thing, um, it's it 30 days is not going to matter. What I was
saying is you could simply give an order and give them 30 days, 60 days, 90 days to comply, but there's no situation under which the poll would stay, right? So, having them come back for another hearing seems like a waste of their time as well. Do you understand what what I
do? But being said, yes, but we have 30 days to cut it down or we have 30 days to come back and show you the exies and extenduating circumstances of why that goal is vital to him having signal.
No, you're not going to ever be able to replace the pole sign. Okay. Right. Okay. I mean, come back. Can I ask a question? There's a pole across the street from me. is a lot taller than mine. It still has a sign way up top.
So, if my sign had to come down, I could still keep the pole. Their sign is not damaged. You're talking about the tile and floor flooring place across the street. Yeah. That sign isn't damaged. So, until that sign has been damaged,
they'll be able to keep that sign up there and keep that pole. But once it's damaged, they cannot replace it or repair it. So, so with yours, yours was damaged and now it has to come down. But if it never would have been damaged, you
still would have had your PS, you know, hurricane hurricanes and tornadoes. I understand. Yeah. You know, that's what damaged it. Okay. So, I'm giving you a 30. I'm going to continue the hearing till July the 23rd.
one reason only to allow you to come in and show us about what you're saying that there's no space for a monument sign. But that has nothing to do with the what Christian was trying. That's right. But I'm only going to do one. I'm only going to talk about it. That'll be
another decision. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. Anything else on the agenda? Nope. That concludes. Okay. Thank you. The hearing is is closed.