Magistrate sets Aug. 29 compliance date for demolished Highway 55 site in Yulee; fine hearing scheduled for Sept. 9

On April 8, 2025, Nassau County Special Magistrate Harrison Poole found that a partially demolished commercial property at 463809 State Road 200, Yulee (former Highway 55 site), remains in violation of the Florida Building Code (2023, Eighth Edition) and Nassau County Code Section 7‑93. The magistrate set a compliance deadline of August 29, 2025 and scheduled a fine assessment hearing for September 9, 2025; if the property is not in compliance by Aug. 29 the county may assess fines up to $5,000 per day beginning Aug. 30, 2025.

Code enforcement Officer Jerry Hutto summarized the county’s case, saying the property had an expired construction permit and that demolition activity left the slab in place rather than fully removing it to dirt and regrading the lot as required to close the demolition permit. Hutto said the county issued an earlier order and a repeat‑violation notice and is seeking a compliance timetable: “If the property is noncompliant before 08/29/2025, a fine of up to $5,000 per day may be assessed,” he testified.

Nassau County Building Official Charles Barn explained that earlier construction permits were reinstated at one point, a contractor later removed himself from the permit and no substantial vertical construction occurred. Barn said demolition of the vertical structure occurred but “the slab is still there” and the site does not meet the county’s demolition standard because the slab and related protruding plumbing and electrical infrastructure remain.

Sam Colson, who represented property owner NLA Uley LLC, and other representatives described efforts to market the property and an active letter of intent with a prospective developer. Colson told the magistrate the property is under a letter of intent with a buyer and that the prospective buyer’s feasibility and entitlement timeline could take several months; he said the LOI’s indicated sales price was $1,100,000 and that the owners have invested roughly $1.8–$1.9 million in the site. Colson asked the county to consider documented progress from a potential purchaser when the magistrate reconsiders the matter in September.

The county said it would withhold a request for immediate fines because an active demolition permit exists and because the owner has engaged with the county; instead it requested a compliance date aligned with the demolition permit expiration (Aug. 29, 2025) and a fine assessment hearing on Sept. 9, 2025. The magistrate adopted the county’s recommendation: he ordered compliance by Aug. 29 and set the Sept. 9 hearing, warning that fines up to $5,000 per day would commence on Aug. 30 if compliance has not been achieved.

The magistrate also noted public‑safety concerns related to exposed plumbing and electrical conduits in the slab and encouraged the owner to address those hazards as part of cleanup. The county and the owner agreed to remain in contact; the magistrate said he would consider any new documentary submissions or evidence of progress at the September hearing.