At a glance

The May 7, 2026 City of Atlantic Beach Code Enforcement Special Magistrate hearing featured five active cases — one returning from Old Business and four new. The most legally tangled case is the Parrish property at 1251 Carnation St (Case 25-176), where a $250/day fine has been running since November 18, 2025 and the prior order omitted a co-owner; the city brought it back specifically to correct the record. The Hobbs case at 410 Sargo Rd (Case 25-259) is a procedural re-do: city staff sent a notice with the wrong hearing date, causing the respondent to drive from Orlando to an empty chamber. The 1880 Atlantic Beach LLC case at 0 Mealy St (CE26-0002) involves a Jacksonville-based LLC using a vacant residential parcel as an unpermitted construction staging yard with trailers, containers, and an unpermitted chain-link fence — no minutes recording outcomes were supplied, so final dispositions are unknown for all May 7 items. No minutes from this meeting were provided; the only minutes in the packet are the draft March 5, 2026 minutes submitted for approval.

Newsworthy items

Item 2.A: Approval of March 5, 2026 CESM Minutes

• Recommended: No committee or staff recommendation recorded; ministerial approval item.
• Decided: Minutes do not record the outcome of the May 7 meeting itself; the March 5 draft minutes were placed on the agenda for approval.
• Vote: No roll call recorded.
• Confidence: Low — no May 7 minutes provided.

The draft minutes cover the March 5, 2026 session, presided over by Special Magistrate Suzanne Green, with Angela Irizarry (GIS Coordinator/PW Inspector) and Michelle Weippert (Records Management Specialist) also present; that meeting adjourned at 2:15 PM.¹² Of note in those minutes: Case 25-257 (Hobbs Willie P, 410 Sargo Rd) was continued to the May 7, 2026 hearing date after the respondent failed to appear at the March 5 session.³

Item 4.A: Parrish — 1251 Carnation St, Case 25-176 (Old Business)

• Recommended: City recommends fine enforcement and record correction to add omitted co-owner.
• Decided: Minutes do not record the May 7 outcome.
• Vote: No roll call recorded.
• Flags: deferred-again
• Confidence: Low — no May 7 minutes provided.

Case 25-176 was filed August 20, 2025, against Brent and Patricia Parrish at 1251 Carnation St, with the original complaint citing heavy overgrowth, trash and debris, and trash dumpsters.⁴ At the November 6, 2025 hearing, the city testified that the property represents a safety hazard because excess grass coverage hides trash and holes, and requested 30 days to come into compliance, with failure to comply resulting in a $250/day fine.⁵ The respondent appeared at that hearing and stated he is in the middle of a dissolution with a court order prohibiting him from spending money on or physically assisting with the property.⁶ A January 8, 2026 order imposed a $250/day fine commencing November 18, 2025.⁷ The case enforcement officer's statement ahead of the May 7 hearing notes that all violations have since been corrected and the property is in full compliance, but that upon review of the previously issued order, the order was written to Brent Parrish only, excluding the additional owner, Patricia Malagrino Parrish.⁸

Item 5.A: Hobbs — 410 Sargo Rd, Case 25-259 (New Business, rescheduled)

• Recommended: No committee or staff recommendation recorded; first full hearing after procedural reschedule.
• Decided: Minutes do not record the May 7 outcome.
• Vote: No roll call recorded.
• Flags: deferred-again
• Confidence: Low — no May 7 minutes provided.

Case 25-259 was filed December 15, 2025, with the initial inspection by Officer Gonzalez finding multiple violations: three accessory structures, a fence in disrepair overtaken by weeds, overgrowth behind the sheds, outside storage of furniture, trash bags, tires, and four junk/abandoned vehicles.⁹ By the February 13, 2026 reinspection, violations were only partially corrected — vehicles were brought to operational capability and/or updated tags, overgrowth was addressed, but the fence remained in disrepair, outside storage of tires/trash remained, and only one of three sheds was removed.¹⁰ The case was rescheduled to the May 7 hearing due to officer error: the Notice of Hearing had the wrong date, and the violator drove from Orlando to attend the hearing on the incorrect date.¹¹

Item 5.B: 1880 Atlantic Beach LLC — 0 Mealy St, CE26-0002

• Recommended: No committee or staff recommendation recorded; first magistrate hearing.
• Decided: Minutes do not record the May 7 outcome.
• Vote: No roll call recorded.
• Confidence: Low — no May 7 minutes provided.

Case CE26-0002 was filed February 10, 2026, against 1880 Atlantic Beach LLC for an unpermitted fence, unpermitted land use (accessory uses and structures), and outside storage of construction equipment at a parcel identified as 0 Mealy St (RE 172356 0000).¹² The initial inspection found the property zoned "RG" but with a primary use of "vacant" per the Property Appraiser's office — the parcel was being used as equipment storage/staging, with multiple trailers, two containers, several work pick-up trucks, multiple pallets of pavers and other construction materials, and a chain-link fence erected after Google Maps' last drive-by in May 2024.¹³ State records show the LLC's registered agent and authorized manager is William M. Easton, 2650-2 Rosselle Street, Jacksonville.¹⁴ A March 17 reinspection found no permit for the fence filed, trailers and boats remaining, and pallets of construction material still on site.¹⁵

Item 5.C: Markaj — 86 Forrestal Cir, CE26-0006

• Recommended: No committee or staff recommendation recorded; first magistrate hearing.
• Decided: Minutes do not record the May 7 outcome.
• Vote: No roll call recorded.
• Confidence: Low — no May 7 minutes provided.

Case CE26-0006 was filed February 24, 2026, triggered by a formal neighbor complaint on behalf of an 86-year-old woman who has lived adjacent to the property for over 50 years; the complainant reported excessive trash and debris throughout the yard, multiple dead chickens producing a strong persistent odor, and photographic evidence of both live and deceased chickens.¹⁶ The initial inspection was conducted from the neighbor's backyard, with access granted by the owner's son Jason Davis; the inspector observed multiple dead chickens, trash/junk/debris throughout the backyard, a lot of trash bags, tree debris, bottles, and household items in the front, and one live hen running free.¹⁷ As of the March 20 reinspection, violations included free-roaming chickens, outside storage of junk/trash/debris, trash containers not having the lid closed and filled past capacity, and not following the pick-up schedule.¹⁸ Some violations (dead animals, outside furniture) were corrected by that date, but outside storage and free-roaming hens remained.

Item 5.D: Weber — 364 11th St, Case 26-015

• Recommended: No committee or staff recommendation recorded; first magistrate hearing.
• Decided: Minutes do not record the May 7 outcome.
• Vote: No roll call recorded.
• Confidence: Low — no May 7 minutes provided.

Case 26-015 was filed January 12, 2026, at 364 11th St (owner Gay Weber), with the initial violation being a temporary storage unit (POD) on the driveway with no permission from the Zoning Director on file.¹⁹ A reinspection on February 6 found the property owner had since filed a Temporary Storage Unit permit that was approved by the Zoning Director; the inspection was rescheduled to meet the permit's expiration date.²⁰ A third reinspection on February 24–25 found violations only partially corrected — overgrowth appeared to have died during winter freezes, but the container remained on the property, and the case was referred to the Special Magistrate.²¹ The Notice of Hearing was returned to sender marked "unclaimed, unable to forward."²² Notably, the Weber property at 364 11th St has a just market value of approximately $3.3 million — an unusually high-value homestead for a code enforcement matter.

Consent agenda

No consent block on this agenda.

Skipped

Call to order (Item 1), administration of oath (Item 3), and adjournment (Item 6) were procedural and not covered. The bulk of the 112-page packet consists of repetitive certified mail receipts, USPS tracking screenshots, property appraiser detail pages, and boilerplate code language appended to each case file — none of which were separately newsworthy. The March 5 minutes being presented for approval (Item 2.A) were summarized only to the extent they bear on the May 7 docket. Critical caveat: no minutes from the May 7, 2026 hearing itself were provided in this packet. All "decided" fields above reflect the absence of outcome documentation — reporters should obtain the May 7 minutes or magistrate orders directly from the City Clerk before publishing any outcome claims.

References