Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Procedures And Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fernandina Beach code enforcement board reappoints leaders and tightens hearing evidence rules
Summary
At its Feb. 5 meeting the Fernandina Beach Code Enforcement and Appeals Board reappointed Chair Stines and Vice Chair Fotiades, approved prior minutes and discussed written quasi‑judicial procedures clarifying how phone calls, emails and photographs are recorded and admitted as evidence.
The City of Fernandina Beach Code Enforcement and Appeals Board on Feb. 5 reappointed its chair and vice chair, approved its prior meeting minutes and reviewed proposed written procedures aimed at clarifying how evidence is handled in quasi‑judicial hearings.
The board voted to accept the minutes as written and then approved a motion to keep the existing chair and vice chair in place. Chair Stines presided over the meeting and confirmed the next hearing date as March 5.
The central discussion of the evening focused on a proposed set of written procedures for the board’s quasi‑judicial hearings. A staff advisor said the document would be read at the start of contested hearings and would set expectations about the order of evidence, the respondent’s rights and the board’s role as finder of fact. The advisor told the board that, under the applicable standard, "the law requires that the evidence be competent and substantial." The advisor also said property owners have the right to be represented by counsel and to request continuances to secure representation.
Board members and staff pressed staff on how informal contacts are memorialized. Code Enforcement Officer Michelle Forstrom said staff generally logs phone and in‑person contacts in the case file and attaches emails to the case record. "We even do it with emails," Forstrom said. "We'll copy the email and put it in our system. So we try very, very hard to keep good, good notes and put them in the system."
Members proposed clearer rules for the timing and admissibility of emailed material. One member asked whether the procedures could require that emailed evidence be received "by noon of the date of the hearing" in order to be considered for that hearing; the staff advisor agreed that late submissions would remain part of the city's record but might not qualify as competent evidence for the instant hearing.
The board also discussed safeguards for photographic evidence. A member suggested requiring the submitter to verify that a photo is unaltered; the staff advisor noted that, in court practice, a person who took a picture would sometimes sign an affidavit attesting to its authenticity. The advisor said a similar verification could be added to the board’s procedures so that photographic evidence is accompanied by on‑the‑record verification or a sworn statement when higher evidentiary weight is needed.
Separately, staff noted that agenda Items 5.1 and 5.2 had been granted extensions and would not be heard that night. The board corrected a scrivener’s error in the address for the Donna J. Mitchell Living Trust (case 20250571), changing the recorded direction on 14th Street, and agreed to revisit the proposed procedures for formal approval at the next meeting. The meeting adjourned after the board called an approving voice vote.
The board will return the revised procedures for formal consideration at its next scheduled hearing on March 5.
