to verify. >> We're live. >> Very good. Well, good morning everyone. My name is John Van Laningham. I am the uh special magistrate for code enforcement for Fort Myers Beach. And we are convening this morning at 9:00 a.m.
as scheduled on September 2nd, 2025 for a set of hearings on uh on the agenda prepared for today's meeting. Uh before we begin calling individual cases, uh we have a
few preliminary matters to attend to. The first being the approval of the minutes from our last meeting on August 5, 2025. Are there any objections to approval of the meetings from last month's hearing?
>> No objection, your honor. >> All right. And without objection, the minutes are approved. Are there any other preliminary items that we should look at before we begin going through the cases? >> Um, no, your honor. Uh, just for your
information, we are currently meeting this morning at the Bay Oaks Recreation Center. Um, next month we will finally be in our new town hall. Um, so if you can see the murals and the murals and configurations a little bit different
today than in in the past. >> Um, >> okay. And also we do have um one of our property owners will be has asked to participate by Zoom today. Um and we have talked to our AV technicians and
they um are able to accommodate him. That would be the First Baptist Church. >> All right. Very good. um one and we can then move into um the
compliance cases. It looks like we've got several on the agenda today. We go ahead and move through those. >> Yes, your honor. Well, go ahead. >> Sure. Um, your honor, today I have providing testimony. Today I have Officer Yazo and if he could be sworn
in, he um has done the investigation on these various cases on that are on today's agenda. >> Very good. Officer Yazo, if you raise your right hand for me, please. Do you swear an order from the testimony of your body? Give me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, your honor, I do.
>> All right. You may proceed. >> Your honor, the first case on the agenda today is case number 20241095. Um, the property owner is Tano Deilo Trust and Lynn Jackson Demilo Trust. The property address is 5790 Eststero
Boulevard. The violation was for a non-compliant structure and I will defer to officer Yazo to provide testimony regarding the uh status of compliance. >> Your honor, in case number 20241095,
that property is now in compliance. The property has removed any of the non-compliant structures. >> All right. Very good. So, we can go ahead and dismiss this case due to compliance. And uh if the town would
submit on this one the others uh that may be similarly disposed just submit a proposed order to me and go ahead and get those dismissed. >> Yes. And your honor um the town has determined that uh when our property owners are able to come into compliance. We would not be seeking an
administrative fee. So, so we we're not asking for any type of administrative fee on this one, nor on the others that are coming before you. >> Okay. Um, your next case, your honor, is 2025264.
The property owner is Constantini uh Edmund D. Jr. and Constantini Patricia A. The property address is 8387 Boulevard. The violation was for a shipping container and I defer to
officer Yazo. >> Again, your honor, referring to case number 20250264. The property is now uh come into compliance. The the non-compliance structure has been removed from the property. So, we're seeking dismissal as well >> with no
>> with no administrative fee. Please, >> we already identify the property is is in compliance. I might dismiss this one as well due to the work compliance. It's pretty good. >> Our next case is um case number 20241102.
The property owner is MHC Fish LLC, Care of Croll. Property address is 7295 Eststero Boulevard. The violation was also for a shipping container. The recommendation is dismissal due to compliance. Officer Yazo. Again, your
honor, referring to case 20241102. We are uh recommending dismissal because the property has come into compliance. The storage containers have been removed from the property, your honor. We're not asking for any administrative fee as well. >> All right. Very good. Now, we'll dismiss this one as well. And uh again, good to
see several cases in compliance. Great news. >> Your next case, your honor, is a violation case. This is the first time this case is coming before you. The case number is 2025286. The property owner is Brazo Allen Adrien
and Brazo Millie Hala Bern. I apologize for mispronouncing. The property address is 277 Ibis Street. The violation is a non-compliant structure, a uh shipping container. Your honor, there is no one
present here today. However, um I will defer to uh we we believe notice was proper of today's hearing based on the documents in the record. Um however, I want to go ahead and uh skip over to Officer Yazo to advise you of the status
of this one. >> Officer, your honor, again referring to case 20250286, uh 277 I Street. Uh the property has now come into compliance as of yesterday. I've completed an affidavit of
compliance as of September 1st. Uh we have been in contact with the owners. They did bring everything into compliance before the prescribed time for the magistrate. Uh we will be sending and forward I'd like to address that now with this affidavit of compliance. I've already turned it over to the clerk and they will be sending a
copy to you electronically. If I can enter that in the evidence now, sir. >> All right. Very good. You'll see that notice of 220 277 ID Street is in compliance. >> Yes, sir. And the recommendation is that we dismiss the case at this time with no
fee, your honor. >> All right. Very good. I'll dismiss this one as the others. Uh and again, if you could just submit me a proposal on that we're accept. >> Yes, sir. >> Um your honor, so the next two cases um the next one is the First Baptist Church
of Fort Meyers. However, um the second case is your certification of lean. We do have representatives present regarding the property owner for um 2815 AA Boulevard. So um I know that uh
electronically or technology wise, we would have to add um our property owner for First Baptist Church. So if we could take those out of order, would that be okay with you? >> I'm sorry. Which one do you want to take up? Um, I would prefer to go ahead and
take the certification of the lean in advance of the First Baptist Church simply because we have individuals present today and um our the representative for the First Baptist Church will be joining them by um by
Zoom and that one may take a little bit longer time. >> Oh, he is up there. >> Yeah, they're here. >> Um well, >> hello Reverend Chris Pritser. Um, are you opposed to coming after the Hestein
matter or >> That makes no difference. That's no problem. >> Either either way is fine. Whichever way you want to present them. >> Just find out. >> Yeah. If we can, your honor, let's go ahead and hear the Hamilton case. >> All right.
>> Okay. This is um Fort Meyer speech case number 2024994. The property owner is Pendlestein Associates LLC. The property address is 2815 Eststero Boulevard. The violation was for a non-compliant structure which
was a storage container. Um I will defer to officer Yazo to present the um the following uh the continued sequence of the case. >> All right. Just for who do I have on behalf of the handles and associates? Uh
me, your honor, my name is Jeff Walker. I'm the property manager. >> This is the microphone here if you guys want to join. >> Yes. >> How are you? >> And and you also have the property owner himself, Mr. Hamilton, here as well, please. >> Yes.
>> Yes, Robert Hamilton. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Fine. I apologize. Um, your honor, I think we need to swear them. >> Yes. All right. If you all raise your right hand strongly, please you swear or affirm that the testimony I'll give today will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. >> We just we >> very good. Please be seated. Your honor, again, regarding case number 2024994, this is a certification of a lean uh with a property that did come into
compliance post an order that you directed. Uh the the order was the original trial commenced in January 7th, 2025. you then uh created an order regarding the non-compliance structures
uh with a certain time frame. We allowed for the time frame that you gave and on May 5th of 2025, we we came back and the prop we were advised that the property was in compliance at that time by the property owners. We uh took photos at that time
and we did a compliance affdative compliance at that time. That being said, there was a uh term between the order uh description and when we came to compliance and that was a total of 65 days with a total of with a $250 daily
fine set from 312025. You gave them to 552025 and it comes to $16,500 >> and that's including the admin >> and that's including the administration fees, your honor.
So your honor, the town's request is for certification of the lean uh for the non-compliance of 65 days uh 250 per day in accordance with your order which there is a copy on page 260
um of the agenda materials today and um the $250 fine for a total of $16,500. Let me hear from the uh from the respondent. >> Hello, your honor. Um, we have a a timeline for this and we tried to meet
the timeline that the the city provided. Our original permit to restore the the building that we're working on uh was to include those containers as part of our uh warehousing in a in a manner that was uh
uh approved by FEMA, raised and and anchored. Uh we had them, but they had to be moved put in a location and we got a temporary permit for them to locate them where they were. uh at which time FEMA decided to change that everything had to come off the beach. Uh they were
loaded with material. Um so it was not very feasible to move them. We then uh decided to up our timeline to locate them where they had to be. So we applied to the city for a permit. We got a permit uh application in and it was on
the portal as of February 14th. uh we were going to have them uh raised up uh by the time the uh timeline that you had given us. Unfortunately, uh in working with the city, we found out that it was not feasible at that
point. As soon as we found out that was not feasible, we um got rid of the containers and moved the uh the material out of them. Um since we owned them and did not rent them, it was a little harder to get rid of as quickly because we had to sell them. we had no other
place to to put them. Uh so that's where that's where we're at right now. We got rid of them as soon as we possibly could. Um we tried to work with it to put them in our location that we originally had applied for that was on our original permit. Um which did not
work. So uh we were asking for any any leniency that we can possibly do uh get today uh for we we did incur severe losses in having to get rid of the containers. um and and some of the uh uh
some of the supplies within it. >> Hi, I'm Robert Hamiltonstein. >> Uh thank you, your honor. I just want to let you know that when we sold these containers, we lost $11,000. Again, we own these containers. They were part of our project. uh even when we got original permit for our project, these
uh containers were going to be mounted uh actually mounted so that they would actually be uh part of our project. Then once the FEMA issue was raised, we actually were going to raise them above uh the FEMA base level and build a platform for them for them, but we never
got a we never got a permit for that. And eventually we, you know, before hurricane season, we did what we had to do, which was we lost $11,000 to sell them. So, I was hopeful that you would actually wave any type of fees to us. Thank you. >> Mr. Tan, have any questions for either
of these gentlemen? >> Um, we don't have any questions, your honor. Um, the town believes that this item is properly before you for the imposition and certification of the lean itself. um based on the fact that your
order did require the removal of the container um on March the 1st. It was not removed until May the 5th. Um, I have had conversation with the property owner and uh their representative regarding an alternative process that is
available under the code of ordinances that would allow them to go to the uh town council and request a um an not an abatement but a reduction of of any lean that you were to impose.
I was just going to ask what the town's procedure was for any clean fine reduction request. So that goes not to the special master directly to the town council. >> That is correct. That is the process here in um Fort Myers Beach. I I do
recognize that other jurisdictions allow the magistrate to uh reduce the leans. Um I don't think that's the case here in Fort Myers Beach. Um, that's that's our position. >> Uh, if I could just say one more thing.
Uh, I I would request that you actually wave the fee. Uh, we couldn't get the permit from the town. We worked hard to try to get the permit for these containers and that's not our fault. I I would like to avoid going back to city council because, as you know, we've got a rid of Cersei that's actually being
heard tomorrow for other issues that that regard uh town council, FEMA. Uh there's a pool built that we've challenged that's next to one of my other properties. >> Your honor, I I object to this testimony because that is not the matter that's
before us today. The matter before you is the shipping container and not any other issues that the town may have with the property owner. And just to refresh my recollection, did we have a status hearing in March or did
we defer that until later? >> I believe we did have a status meeting. Um, and I think that uh there were advised you that uh they were working on it. >> We had a permit in on the portal. We were working with the city to get it.
>> Correct. And your honor, we don't believe that there's any bad faith on their part. We think that yes, they were working towards it. Um however, as you know, um because of our uh situation with FEMA, um it's pretty much a no zero
tolerance um situation with the shipping containers. Um and when your order says removal, it says removal, >> right? Um All right. Well, I will um I'll go ahead and and certify the lean
um because I think the the uh the information presented by the by the respondent uh uh is really in the nature of a uh lean reduction or mitigation request which uh I'm advised in in uh in
in the form of my speeches is addressed not to the special magistrate. I do hear those types of cases in other places, but apparently here it goes to town council where I'm assuming that the matter would be placed on their agenda and you would present the same
information to the town council and request that there be a reduction you based on the circumstances. I mean, it's really a matter of, you know, who has the authority to do that. Um and uh and from what I'm hearing and I haven't gone through the the the code of ordinances
carefully to to double check that, but I'll I'll accept that representation that that process exists, but it it goes to the town council and I think that will be the place to address these arguments uh and uh and and seek a reduction uh for for those reasons. you
know, basically make the presentation that you work diligently with Jiren with some, you know, some importance beyond your control, etc. Um, uh, but, uh, I think, uh, here today, um, uh, lacking that authority, although he had a
certified lead since the compliance time frames have been established and there's doesn't seem like that's in dispute. It does sound like there may be some grounds to, you know, look at the amount of fine, uh, but, uh, It appears that that's better addressed to the town council. They're going to have the
authority to make that reduction. Anything else on this one? >> No, your honor. >> No, I'm I'm very disappointed, your honor, but thank you for your time. >> I I obviously this is not prejudice to you going to the town council. I think
there's apparently there's a procedure for that and I think that's where those are the should be addressed and again I'm I'm certainly not prejudging that issue. It sounds like you've got some things to say there uh that uh are are you know worth taking into account. I
just don't have the authority to make that production but the town council does. >> Thank you your honor. >> Thank your honor. >> Thank you. Okay, your honor. And that brings us to the last case on today's agenda, which
is Fort Meyers Beach case number um 20241086. The property owner is First Baptist Church of Fort Meyers. Um the property address is 134138 Connecticut Street. Uh the violation is
for a non-compliant structure. Um your honor, we did have a um a clerical issue where this matter was omitted from your um agenda initially. Um and looking at the minutes from your prior case, you
had requested that it come back to you today. Um we did have communication with the um property owner and his attorney. Um and we requested that they wave any type of notice deficiency uh which they
agreed to um simply to be able to move this this matter forward. Um with that said, I will defer to officer Yazo to bring you up to speed as to uh the nature of the continuing non-compliance.
Your honor, again referring to case number 20241086 which was heard before you. Uh we the status of compliance is still non-compliance as of yesterday, September 1st. Uh the non-compliance structures are still in place at that
and I've forwarded copies of said non-compliance to the clerk which will be referred to your case file here uh within the next hour or two. Uh, I know that we have a representative from the property owner, uh, F First First
Baptist Church of Fort Meyers, 134-138 Connecticut Street, partial strap number 294624 W1000151 001A. And again, I've presented this into evidence now as well, sir, for your perusal.
>> All right. If you would just remind me, I know that we had this uh case up uh previously. Um why why didn't we complete the hearing? There was some issue some. >> So there was an issue, your honor. Um there were two initially there were two
violations on the property. One was for the presence of a shipping container um which has been removed. Um and however there is a remaining structure there. Um at our last hearing we had um the town's
uh flood plane uh administrator present uh who testified basically that uh the remaining structure was appeared to be um in violation. Um that she had not received a certification of elevation.
Um and because of that she um could not determine if it had been in compliance. Um, and that's where we were. We were diligently waiting to receive that from the property owner. However, it has not been forthcoming.
>> So, we were waiting for the certificate of elevation to determine whether the flood plane >> was in compliance as as the uh property owner um alleged at the hearing. Um, the town's opinion was that it was not in compliance.
Uh and so uh I guess ultimately uh officer Yaza's testimony is that the property remain that structure is not in compliance and it remains in violation of flood plan regulations. >> That is >> yes sir that is correct.
>> All right. And who's going to speak on behalf of the church? I think uh Pastor Christo we had you one time before. Are you speaking? >> Yes, sir. Yes, sir. >> Go ahead. Um, so yeah, there I think there's just
a big misunderstanding in communication. We went back and had the minutes of the meeting revised and looked or not revised but reviewed. Um, and I can't say her last name, so can I just call her Miss Kelly and be okay with that? The flood administrator. Um, she was uh
the question was she didn't know the flood plane on the property and that she thought we should get an elevation certificate. But at that meeting, we said out loud that we had turned in an LDO that had the most current flood plane elevation certificate for the
property because of the ongo development. And she stated to me and took my email address that she was going to go and look at that elevation and then just tell us how tall the trailers need to be put in. So that's where we left it. Uh, and you know, if it was our
fault that we didn't follow up, it was because the town got engroiled in this FEMA matter again and word got around and we got a letter that stated um, you were no longer even going to be able to be in compliance. U, so we we felt like
we were in limbo and couldn't get a straight answer. I think we were told by the town we were going to get straight answers um, coming forth. Um, lo and behold, two days ago, I got an email from somebody at the town that said, "It doesn't look like your structure is going to be able to be put into
compliance." And so, we just asked them to put everything on hold until we got before you to say, you know, we've got an online code case, you know, how can we how can in between such dates, we told them we shouldn't even be worried about putting them up, moving them, or anything like that. So, you're on our
masking. We're ready. It is. Tell us how tall they've got to be at the spot where they've got to go to and we'll move them. We're ready. Our developers are standing by. We have, you know, the equipment. We know the people that we have to call and say go and they'll simply just move them and raise them to
the elevation that the town's happy with. Literally, the problem we have is that we can't give an answer from the town is what they're happy about. Are are you saying that you agree that the the uh structure and just remind me to look at the pictures? The structure that we're talking about is what
exactly? It's three worship trailer, three trailers put together to make the church. Uh so they are tied down sitting on blocks, you know, like a regular uh that they say temporary, but they're permanent temporary. So they're strapped to the ground uh just like the trailers
we were sitting in that we uh previously had a meeting at the town. So those type of trailers so they're 90 or >> they're kind of a white and a white light color. They're sitting on these blocks. >> Yes. They're gray trees,
>> right? >> They were used to be an FPL training facility. So they hold 150 people. Yeah. She does. >> And so, you know, we agreed with the town that if that's the case, they just need to be raised up more blocks, you
know, and at that meeting, Miss Kelly thought, you know, possibly another 3 ft would do it, but she was going to clarify that. And we just never got the clarification. You know, adding 4 ft of block is not a problem. You know, having them restrapped and and put back where
they three or four feet, they're going to be up pretty high on blocks. That's it. >> You know, your honor, I I argue that with the, you know, with Hurricane First place, the, you know, a flood coming through with those trailers where they're at now is way better than
putting them 6 ft in the air. But if that's what the town thinks that FEMA is okay with and that's where they want them, we'll do it. You know, I I you know, I firmly believe flooding is going to be worse with 6 ft of block than it is with 3 ft of block. But they are strapped to the ground, so they can't go
anywhere. Uh but once again, we're not arguing that. It's just tell us how tall you are to be happy and and we're great. Let me go back to the town real quick here just to again maybe to refresh my recollections. I know we had all this
testimony at a prior hearing and some of the details are a little you know fuzzy and you know it's been a while. Um, is it the town's position right now that the only remaining issue is the elevation of these trailers?
>> I believe that that is correct. The uh the remaining issue is the elevation um in order to come into compliance with FEMA regulations. >> So, and again, Mr. I I guess as things stand today, there hasn't yet been an
order with a finding a violation. >> No, sir, there's not. So, uh, if I made a I could make a filing of violation, set a compliance date, and somewhere in between that date and the date of the order, the church
could, at least in theory, find out from the building department or whomever has ultimately the decision-m authority just how high they've got to raise the trailer and decide whether they want to do that or come into compliance some other way. Is is that kind of where we are bottom
line? I believe so, your honor. Unfortunately, um Miss Kelly was not able to be here today uh to respond. I know that um pastor has also made reference to an email that he recently received from the town. Um we don't have a copy of that. I
don't know what he's referring to. >> And the email, just to go back to you, uh pastor is was coming again. What did the email say? the email received uh just the other
day. >> Who was it? >> It was from one of I thought it was from the town lawyer to it was from a law firm um that was stating that it didn't look like we were going to be able to even become compliant. Um, but you know,
but I got to say also included in that email was some threatening uh verbiage because we have an order or a appointment with the LPA next week. And it sort of said if you can't come into compliance, we're going to have to
probably recommend denial at the LPA, which you know, to me that just that just reaped of that's we shouldn't be doing that. uh with this a totally separate totally separate issue especially when we're working and trying and we're just simply not getting the
information. So >> yeah, that email just said we don't and I thought also they sent us a uh a certified letter. Nobody's at the building through the week, so we had to get it this past weekend. And that same letter was, you know, it doesn't look
like we're going to become compliance, but or we're not going to renew permits. And I think there's also some confusion because the church had multiple temporary permits for for RVs because we also had housing units on there. And so
for a while, we had some temporary RVs. We don't want those renewed. And so I think maybe the town's got some confusion as far as what permits we're we're in violation of or what code enforcement we're in violation of. This is the only code enforcement we have to
deal with. Um and like I said, there is no there's no argument with it. It's just information we need to get done. Your honor, I am I know what uh email he is referring to and this was an email that um I believe I had sent over to his
attorney asking uh for the waiver of the notice uh for today's hearing in view of the fact that he does have um a land use matter coming before the uh land development code or the uh local
planning agency uh next week. and we just wanted to kind of have clarification of if he was uh willing to wave the notice or not. Um, the
email that he is referring to is on page looks like page 93 of the agenda materials 93 of 263. And I object to the representation that the language in it is threatening. I do
not believe it is. I think it was just stating forth what the options are on the second paragraph. um and states, "If you're willing to wave notice, we can notify the special magistrate that we will be adding this case to the agenda on September the 3rd." That was an
error. It should have been the second. If you are not willing to wave notice, we will still proceed with review by the LPA on September the 9th. However, in my opinion, the unresolved code enforcement matter may delay a decision by the LPA.
Um I do not find that to be threatening. Um, and that is not a um consideration, but it will most likely come up um in in conversation. >> It's the following paragraph also that
states that I don't think your client will be eligible since any extension of existing permits requires my client flood. >> That is correct. The next paragraph is referring to, if I may, the next paragraph is referring to the recent policy decision that was made by the
town council to provide extensions uh to uh individuals who had received an emergency temporary placement permit or a temporary placement permit to allow them additional time to come into
compliance. However, um one of the uh or excuse me, not to come into compliance, but to continue to use that particular structure or unit, which is not currently authorized by the code except for the temporary
uh emergency temporary placement permit ordinance that we do have in effect. That would only give them an extension of time to do it. Um, however, one of those requirements is that they do become uh compliant with FEMA
regulations. Um, an example of of my comments would be um an individual whose home uh was damaged by Hurricane Ian um who has a travel trailer on their property. um as long as the travel
trailer is able to be moved by a pickup truck um in compliance with FEMA, the town is willing to allow that travel trailer to remain on the residential property even though the residential zoning code does not typically allow um
travel trailers to be in a residentially zoned um area. So, um that was just my comment to try to advise that. Um and I believe that my email was directed to um
pastor's attorney. Um, >> so again I maybe some of that is um sort of collateral but if the the issue boils down to the elevation of the structure and how high it needs to go in order to
be compliant if that's really all that's necessary. It seems pretty straightforward. I mean, but that's why I'm asking. Maybe there's more to it. Is that what I'm saying? If he raises it up to whatever the height is, 3 ft more,
whatever, then his structures would be compliant. >> Yeah. Yes, your honor. If you raised it properly to the uh base flood level plus one with proper strapping, then he would be compliant in that manner. uh that
would have to be come through with an engineer's report that that is engineered to say that it's strapped properly at the proper elevation. Other than that, they have to be removed. >> And uh Pastor Ker, you're you're saying
that you're willing to do that. >> Absolutely, honor. And let me apologize may not have had good words as far as threatening go, but it it did feel like it would be a hell overhead for the LPA. And I don't think this was the only email they got about it. So if Miss Nancy here in the room, there was a
bunch of lawyer emails going around and I have no idea who they are. So I apologize. I >> So for the record, your your apology is accepted and let the record. Next to last paragraph also states that it would be helpful as well to know if their
client provided the town's flood reviewer with a copy of the elevation certificate which may resolve the matter which is where I really got confused is because it was the last magistrate hearing that I talked to the flood reviewer who stated she knew that we had
turned in an LEO and that she had the town should have had our flood certificate. So yes, we provided it back in June as far as we were concerned. So when the hold up happened or when you know this keeps coming up that we need to do something, I just got really
confused because the towns had all of our paper matter, but they had paper. you know, we weren't going to get a whole another um surveyor to do a floodation when we just had one done and turned it in with our
LO. >> Um your honor, Miss Federichi, >> hi there. >> Sorry, Miss Kelly is here. Um if you could swear her in, she's willing to provide testimony um on behalf of the town concerning this matter. >> All right. Would you raise your hand for
me, please? Do you swear to affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, sir. >> And would you say your full name for us, please? >> Kelly Deferiches. >> All right. You may proceed. >> Give your testimony.
>> Oh, is is Mr. Chryster? Sorry about that. Is he is he finished? Because he was still talking. So, >> one, we're kind of going back and forth, but if you want to fill us in or fill me in in particular, as I understand it,
>> uh, the violation, which seems not to be in dispute concerning the elevation of the these trailers, these structures, uh, it's kind of boiling down to needing to know how much higher they need to be ready in order to meet the uh, flood
point uh, uh, regulations. Um, I know we we spoke at some length about it at a prior hearing. Um, uh, the pastor says they've submitted an elevation certificate in in in connection with some other paperwork. Um, maybe you kind
of help me understand where where things stand in terms of what they might need to do in order to get into compliance. >> Okay. So um a surveyor is the only one who can advise how many feet of um like per se off the ground that they need to
go. So as discussed previously, he needs to hire a surveyor to go out there and mark where those trailers need to go. The um if the mechanical or any machinery servicing that structure is to the underside. Sometimes they put duct
work under there. That underside has to be base flood elevation plus one foot. and that would equate to 12. But a surveyor is the only one who can go out there and mark that elevation. So if he hasn't had a surveyor out there to determine how much higher he needs to
elevate those structures, there's nothing from the town that can be done. >> Well, I think he's saying that they submit an elevation certificate, but you're saying that you don't think that they've done that? >> Well, no. So right now if we have an elevation certificate on record that
doesn't that doesn't tell us that that's an outdated elevation certificate because he needs that underside elevation to 12. So right now he needs a surveyor probably the same one that provided the current one that we have on record to go out there and
tell him how much higher he needs to put that structure. A surveyor is the only one who can mark that elevation. Right. You're you're talking about underside elevation which is uh any dust work or anything under the structure.
>> Yes. So sometimes on those manufactured trailers or whatever what we're calling trailers um structures they have their mechanical and duct work under the underside. I don't know about this one. I'm just saying if it is the underside
would have to be BF+1. If it is not, then the finished floor has to be BFE plus one. But I don't know that is a surveyor can go out there and determine that. Would that wouldn't that have been in the elevation certificate that was
previously gone? >> The existing elevation certificate is the existing floor where it sets now. Since the ground fluctuates, the surveyor has to go out there and show them where 12 is in relation to what is existing there. I don't know if it's 3
feet, 4 feet. I'm I'm not sure. But the existing elevation certificate is the existing finished floor that needs to be elevated. But a surveyor is the only one who can mark that elevation. So he can have somebody go out there and
jack up the jack up the structure, but without a surveyor going to mark that exact spot it needs to be jacked up to, nobody knows where it's supposed to go. Only a surveyor can. I can tell you 12 feet and 12 feet, but only a surveyor
can mark that 12 feet. >> Go ahead. >> We This sounds like an exact conversation that we had when I went back and looked at the video. Um, you know, we we said this exact same thing. Um, and then the town stated that if we
had a flood elevation certificate, then they could tell us literally they said we could tell you how tall finish floor needs to be because there isn't anything underneath the trailer. It's just in trade. Um, so finished floor level base flood plus one. We have the flood
elevation certificate for the entire property in your hand. every 10 ft is marked how what the elevation of the of the actual land is. So I don't understand we didn't use a survey to put it in the first time. >> Well, and that's
>> town just simply said your elevation is 3 ft. So you need to be at least three more feet at that time. Now it's changed. I understand where the trailers were going is specifically marked on the elevation certificate of what these level hit or what the
ground level is. You simply take that plus whatever it needs to be and that's how tall the finished floor needs to be. And then a simple measuring stick tells us if we're right or not based on each individual location on the land. I mean a surveyor never came back out after a
structure has been put in and stated that the that the finished floor has a specific height. That's the contracting. In our case, it would be the mover/contractor who will put it up and certify. We put the bottom floor at this level over the
ground where the elevation says it's 14t. You said only we need to be at 12. So now the floor is at seven. I get it. I understand it. Everybody has the numbers. All I need somebody to do is say make sure your finished floor is
X and it will be. >> Yes. And so that is correct. So you do have to put your finished floor at 12 and a surveyor is the only qualified person to go out there and mark that elevation. We can count that many feet up from the ground but again a surveyor is the only one who can pro prepare an
elevation certificate and that is the only document to confirm what that finished floor elevation is. So we can do math and I agree with you 100%. But a surveyor is the only person who can prepare that document and tell us what that finished floor is. What are you did
that you got? But are you saying that you need an elevation certificate to to to certify uh to the town how high the structure is after it's been raised? >> Correct. >> Right. Right. I mean, in other words, he
needs somebody to come back and say, "We've done this survey and taken these measurements and now the finished floor is x ft above the base floor or what whatever they certify is. Am I saying that correctly?" >> Correct. If he wants to take the chance
and and try to guess where 12 is and if the surve elevation certificate comes back at 11.9, it won't be compliant. So, it is recommended to have the surveyor mark 12 feet. So it is accurate across throughout the whole property because
the ground does fluctuate. >> When you say 12 ft, that's is that 12 ft 12 ft from where? >> So in in the we'll just say in the flood world, that's 12 NAVD, which means North America vertical datim. And when FEMA determines base flood, they start out at
zero, like in the middle of the water, and then they come into 12. So if the ground is at 4 feet 8 n you you have it's seven feet above that. So so but a surveyor is the only one who can do that measurement. Again the ground could be 3.9 ft and they they
come back a tenth of a foot below that 12. That's that's not going to be compliant. So if he wants to to install the trailer without a surveyor that is 100% on him. The final elevation certificate must say 12 NAVD for the
finished floor. >> All right. And and so again, if I understand you correctly, Miss Kelly, you're saying that the elevation certificate that they have submitted measures the elevation of the existing structure.
>> Correct. >> Correct. And that what you need from them is an elevation certificate that measures it as raised. >> Correct. >> And and that all you can tell them is it needs to be 12 ft NAVD. >> Correct.
>> And they need to get a a a surveyor to come out and tell them or tell the contractor where that mark is so that they can raise it to that mark and then take an elevation certificate and give it back to you. And if it shows that it's at 12 ft NAB, then it's in
compliance. >> Correct. And the survey is >> at 11 and a half. It's not >> correct. And if the the surveyors don't measure from the ground, they actually have certified benchmarks they use and satellites and lasers. So it's really not just taking a tape measure and measuring up from the ground. So there's
equipment involved. So it's >> Yeah, I get it. So like taking a tape measure. >> Yeah, there's more to it than that. But I mean that's why you need to have a professional that knows what they're doing to do it right. So I get that. >> Um so
again if I can you know if I'm oversimplifying you let me know. But if I understand what the town is saying it is that the current structures are too low. >> Yes. >> They're inside the 12 ft NAV.
uh if he raises them and properly straps them down to 12 ft NABD, they'll be in compliance and then this case can be, you know, can be closed as compliant. Uh um he's got an elevation certificate that shows where the existing structures
are, but that just shows they're in violation. >> Correct. >> And you're telling him where it needs to be. It's 12 ft NABD. He just needs to have a surveyor get that spot and get the contractor lifted to that. Right. That's that's the town's position.
>> Correct. >> Yes, your honor. >> So, if I go back to you, pastor. Um, and again, I it it sounds to me like you can bring it into compliance. The town's saying you don't need another elevator certificate until you raise the
structure and you raise it to 12 ft. NABD, I guess, is what what they're saying. I mean is that's Yes sir. >> Is that something you can do >> if they will send me in writing then you will be in compliance if your structure
is at 12 ft above sea level I mean above sea level which is what we're talking about. Yes, I'll have it done stamped by either a contractor or a surveyor. My surveyor told me they don't do structure
elevations. They do ground elevations and then a contractor does literally from the point on the ground that they state is 3.9. You uses a tape measure and goes from 3.9 up to 12 and that's your floor. So
you take your surveyed stamp papers and the contractor certifies that we went 8.3 ft above that spot that the surveyor marked on the ground. And we have all those marks. So literally anyone can
check it. A code compliance officer can go out and check to make sure that the flood that the floor is at 12 ft by using a flood plane elevation and a ticket. Everybody needs everybody should be happy.
>> Well, the town is saying again, if I understood correctly, that you would need an elevation certificate for the structure after it's raised. >> Correct. >> I hear what they're saying. That doesn't make any sense because surveyors do land. They don't do elevation
certificates of the structures. The contractor does that. I mean, if that's what I have to do, I'll hire the surveyor to come back out, but it's not usually in the scope of the surveyor's job. >> So, um, with regard to that, the elevation certificate is a FEMA document
prepared by the federal government and the ele and a surveyor is the only one who can certify that document and it can be found online. So if you do have questions um there is a document online to confirm that but a surveyor is the only one who can complete it >> and that is the only document that FEMA
will accept also as a final elevation of a finished floor. >> Oh anything else pastor I'm assuming the floor has to be at 12 ft at the lowest point from the ground. Is that correct?
So since the ground does change probably a foot overall, it needs to be 12 foot from the highest point. >> No, no, that's that's where survey comes out. A surveyor uses a benchmark and it
will be even across. Just because the ground fluctuate doesn't mean your finished floor is going to fluctuate. So again, the surveyor can mark the height of the finished floor with his benchmark and his lasers and his satellites. Okay.
>> Yep. Absolutely. 12 feet. You got it. We stamp it or my survey. >> All right. Why don't uh So, >> but I do need something in writing because it's going to cost me $12,000 to do. And your honor, I I'm sorry. I don't
have a lot of confidence. I if I spend $12,000, move the traders, have them stamp the trophy, and then have something else come along, we're gonna be sunk, and we just can't afford it. >> Right. Well, I I think the order that might be the the right that you're
talking about, I mean, I'll receive the county's exhibits. I'll make the finding violation because I know that's a dispute. Um I I would like to ask the county about, you know, time frames for compliance. Uh what is the the county suggests is a reasonable time frame for
bringing any compliance at this point? >> Well, of course, we would want 30 days. Uh however, um I do and Kelly, you may know more than I. I don't know what the workload is on surveyors currently in
the town. Um I know that we have had to get surveys on other projects and there's been a backlog. Um, do you think that 30-day period would be reasonable or should it be 45 days? >> I think um that the M Mr. Chryster,
sorry if I mispronounced that, should advise us when um he has scheduled for the trailers to be moved and elevated. That's the first step. So, what is your schedule with regard to elevation? When do you plan to have that done? Well, >> I'll make a call this afternoon to the
roofing company. Uh, and then we'll sort of kind of be at their on their schedule as well. But I would definitely say within 30 days be able to have a move and and up >> to where we know we're above flood. Um, and you're right, surveyors are probably
at least 6 weeks out for a certification. I mean, even mine and I'm usually one that is, you know, is working on this main project. So, they're still six weeks out for some week. Well, I think the first step because if they're being moved and elevated, I
think we have our finished. >> So, we'll be able to tentatively all together be able to see 12 ft easily, but just waiting on that stamp piece of paper. You know, we can wait it to take us a bit.
Also, the trailers are moving. They're not just going up. They're moving out of the way because of our LDO. the trailers are moving forward on a different plot of land which doesn't really involve what we're talking about the LPA. So,
I'd also like some assurance from the town that they're going to state to the LPA. This really doesn't have anything to do with the development. It's two separate parcels now. >> Does it have a different address than what we're discussing currently? >> Say that again.
>> Does it have a different address than what we're discussing currently? Uh, I don't know that the addresses have changed yet. We just You should y'all seen where we split the parcel and the front is part of the new development. The church is sitting where the actual
new building is going to go. So, the temporary trailers are moving forward of that lot. So, they're going to be out of the way. >> I'm going to um object and ask that we don't mix the LPA the land use issue
with the code violation issue. Um the two are really separate processes and um the code violation is what is before you today. >> Thank you. >> All right. Do do you want to uh have a like a two-stage compliance deadline
where we have uh plus 30 days to uh to move and elevate the trailers and and another period of time plus 60 or something to get the elevation certificate on file. Your honor, I think we just want the 30 days and um if he's
not able to um to come into compliance within that period of time, we will come back to you um and ask for certification of the lean based on non-compliance. Thank you. >> I mean, if he needs to have the elevation certificate to be fully
compliant, it sounds like you might not have it in 30 days if the surveyors can't get that done that quickly. That's my concern. I can at least provide the town with the schedule that they tell us they'll have it done because I can get
on their schedule very quickly. Okay, >> your honor, I think we have, your honor, if I could please uh offer Yazo, uh I would I would ask that we do 30 days for compliance uh or 30 days for evaluation
with compliance and then we would go to 60 days for final compliance. uh do the re-evaluation at the 30-day mark if we could. Please >> do a 60 days for final compliance. >> Yes, sir. That I think that gives enough
uh work room for everybody involved to square this away, but with a 30-day uh >> status check >> status check. So we know that there at least is forward motion on this and it's not just a a a push out for to just keep
continuing this process on and on and on. >> So the status review of 30 days to uh ensure that the structures have been moved and elevated with a final review at 60 or final comp.
>> Yes sir. That's what the town would like to see. >> How's it going? It will be what they say. Pastor, >> that was the reason Joe, I think your name is Joe Brown. I'm sorry. That was the reason I stayed. They have to move in. This is not a push effort by the church. They're in the way of our
building. So, we're we're just as eager to get them out of the way and us to be in compliance and keep having church as you all make sure they're in. I assure you. >> All right. one of the uh so I'll I'll make the final violation. We'll set a
status let's set the the uh um compliance date at 30 days out with a status review at the same time. So you know probably there's more capital next year as a calendar moment and then uh we can uh um have the uh
have the um have the ability status conference decide whether we'd start running fines, but we'd have a final review in 60 days. If the trailers hadn't moved in 30 days, then you know, that would be one thing. You're telling me that that's not going
to be the case, but uh if we confirm they've moved and elevated, then things will be on track at 30 days out. Uh we'll have a final review of 60 days, by which time the elevation certificate should be available. If everything checks out, then uh should be deemed compliant. If not, we have to again
reevaluate the issue of the fines. Um, >> is that consistent with the the town's requesting? >> It is, your honor. However, the clerk, the town clerk has advised me um or his motion that your next hearing will be in
29 days rather than 30. So if we could just simply um have it at your next hearing which one day less if if >> that's the next hearing is 29 days not 30
>> correct your honor the next year this is Amy Baker town clerk um the next hearing is on October 1st which is 29 days from today. Okay. So, not quite 30 in other words. Okay. Well, we'll probably have Why don't we go ahead and send it on the
next, you know, next agenda for that 30-day review. I mean, I'm assuming that uh you're within 24 hours. You can probably tell us, but it sounds like you're you're going to have it done by then by first.
>> So, we'll just do that. Call it a 30-day review. It's not quite, but it's probably close enough. Um but yeah, let's hear it next month. So we'll go beyond that. Um anything else that the town is looking forward at this point on the order? Your
>> your honor, uh the flood plane administrator would like to uh make something clear to the respondent. >> Yes. And also also to you as well. Um, with looking at the map, the current location of those structures, I was unaware that they would be moving from their current location and the flood
zones do fluctuate throughout that property. And so depending on where he's go or where the trailers are, the structures are going to be moved could change the the required finish floor because there is a flood zone boundary that runs through the property that
increases the flood zone from 11 to 12 which would require the finished floor to go to 13. So I don't know where the the current loca the future location is proposed and without that information I cannot advise what the finished floor is
because there are actually one two three three flood zones on that property. >> We're staying in the AE zone. We're we're going due west 100 ft. >> Yeah. That that doesn't that doesn't
really help me out because they are all AE zones. So, I I need it marked and shown on a survey to ensure that it's not going to encroach into any of the higher flood zones or or as long as they're in the same zone that they're in right now.
>> Yeah. If it's it's a if it's an if it's an obvious situation, then we wouldn't need a survey. But if it's somewhere where we can't tell on an aerial if it's encroaching into the higher flood zone, we would need an actual survey with the flood zone boundaries. >> We can look. You've got the actual
survey. We've got the actual flood plane surveying that shows where the trailers are going to go. They don't show where the trailer's going to go, but they show the whole property, the whole three and a half. >> Okay. If they have the flood zone boundaries on it, we just need to know where the proposed is so we can advise
accordingly. >> Yes, ma'am. I'll send you a picture of it uh via email. >> Thank you. >> Is it staying in the same zone? Do you know? >> Yes. Yes, it is staying in the same zone. And >> you think it's clear? >> It is very clear. >> Okay.
All right. All right. Anything else passed yet? >> No, sir. >> All right. So, let me ask the town there if you would if you could just submit a along with the others a proposed order. I'll take a look at it again at the end of the day. It's fairly straightforward.
Uh but uh we have some findings on this one and uh uh hopefully uh in in the next 60 days we can get it closed out. >> Yes, sir. Can we get copies on that you're asking? >> Yes. When we submit to the court, we'll
we'll provide you with a copy as well. >> All right. >> Anything else be on this case now? >> No, your honor. >> All right. Thanks for coming in. >> See you again. >> And let me ask uh do we have any other
business? It looks like the other line items are empty other than adjournment. >> Um, no, your honor. I just take the opportunity to ask officer Yazo um what does next month look like for the judge?
>> Your honor, we have uh at least six that are going to be coming forward to you next month as new cases. Uh, as always, we hope for compliance before that, but they're going to be noticed uh properly with due process, further hearings coming up here very soon. So, we will
get that out to you as soon as possible so you can start reviewing it. >> All right, sounds good. Maybe you'll get some of them yet in compliance before we have to hear them, but uh but maybe not. >> Um, and if not, we'll be ready to hear them. >> And your honor, just so you know, we are
going through a CRS audit with FEMA now. So, uh, we may ask for an extra day at some point, uh, with you if we could because we would like to put anything that's involved with the CRS audit for you, um, in in those cases and that they that could be a substantial number and
we will have more correspondence with you about that. >> Okay. >> Can you remind me the CRS >> community rating system program? >> Yeah, that should be >> and the CRS is a community rating system. It's about our uh it comes back
to how we're we're rated within the uh National Flood Insurance Program. Uh we've come off we've come off suspension now within that case and now we're working towards getting our rating back and that's part of what this audit is about as well. So those cases will also
come to you as we come to them and then once we cannot get to come into compliance with that we'll come before you your honor. >> All right, that sounds good. But again, if we need an extra day, we can do that. All right. Very, very good. Well, uh,
looks like we've worked through everything. So, uh, if you will, uh, if you can send me some proposed orders on today's cases, I'll just turn around for you as quickly as I can. And, uh, we are. I will see you in October. >> Thank you, honor.