Nassau County magistrate finds Callahan commercial property in violation; gives owner until June 9 to comply

Special Magistrate Harrison Poole found that a commercial property at 545819 U.S. Highway 1 in Callahan was in violation of Nassau County code and set a new compliance deadline of June 9, 2025, with a fine-assessment hearing scheduled for June 10, 2025.

The county’s code enforcement officer, Jerry Hutto, presented inspection reports, mailed and posted notices and photographs as evidence that the property remained unsafe and in violation of Nassau County Code of Ordinances section 7-93, subsection 1(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). Hutto said, “On 01/27/2025, I issued a notice of violation, which requires compliance no later than 02/27/2025,” and described repeated postings, re-inspections and follow-up photos showing the condition remained unchanged.

The county asked the magistrate to find the property in violation, set a compliance date and schedule a fine-assessment hearing. Hutto told the magistrate the county is seeking “an order finding violation, setting a fine assessment hearing and setting a compliance date for 06/06/2025” (the magistrate set a June 9 compliance date and June 10 hearing).

Property owner Sergio Sandoval, who said he resides in Douglas, Georgia, told the magistrate he was unaware he remained part owner of the site and described steps he had taken since learning of the violation: listing the property for sale with a realtor, arranging contractors to fence and clean up dumped debris, and speaking with a contractor about removing the collapsed roof. Sandoval said he had only recently learned of the matter and asked for more time, saying, “I need some time.”

Nassau County building inspector Fred Mendez (referred to in the record during the hearing) told the magistrate the building department had not entered the property and could not verify whether the existing walls were structurally sound without a structural engineer’s evaluation. He said a written opinion from a structural engineer confirming the walls can stand and support a rebuild would allow the county to consider the structure secured; otherwise, demolition or full removal would clear the violation. As Mendez stated, “We have not been on the property because we’re not allowed on there. ... We would have to have a structural engineer tell us whether it was structurally sound.” He also advised that openings must be closed so people cannot get inside.

After hearing the evidence and statements, Special Magistrate Poole found the property in violation of section 7-93, subsection 1(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) and set a compliance date of June 9, 2025. He scheduled a fine-assessment hearing for June 10, 2025; the magistrate said that if the property is not in compliance by then the hearing will consider imposing a fine of $50 per day until compliance is achieved and assessing the county’s administrative costs.

The magistrate and county staff advised Sandoval to keep in contact with the code enforcement office and the building department, to provide evidence of progress (for example, contact and work by a contractor or a structural engineer’s letter) and to request additional time at the June 10 hearing if substantial efforts toward compliance are shown.

Votes at a glance: No formal roll-call vote was recorded; the magistrate issued the order himself as part of the quasi-judicial hearing process.

The next scheduled proceedings on this matter are a compliance deadline of June 9, 2025, and a fine-assessment hearing on June 10, 2025.