Yes, I can. >> We can. [clears throat] >> I can't see you yet. There you That's me. [snorts] There we are. Well, good morning. Are we ready to get
started? >> Yes, I am. >> Yes, your hunter. [clears throat] >> Well, let's uh let's go on the record then and we'll call this proceeding to order. This is the town of Fort Myers Beach Code Compliance special magistrate hearing for January uh 6, 2026 getting
underway at 9:00 a.m. uh as scheduled. Uh my name is John Van Lanningham and I am the town's uh special magistrate for code of compliance. I'll be presiding in today's hearings. Um we have a couple of uh preliminary
matters to uh to take care of here. Uh starting with the approval of the minutes from last month's meeting on December 4th, 2025. Are there any objections to the approval of those minutes? No, your honor.
>> Without objection, then those minutes are approved. Um, we have uh looks like one violation case continued from last month and then several cases involving status updates. Um, are we ready to
proceed with the violation case involving Mr. Lewis and Miss Thomas? >> Let me just note for the record on the violation cases B, C, and D. Um town is requesting those be rescheduled to March hearing. Um they are working with the
town on getting permits and and correcting the violations at this time. >> All right. Would have those been rescheduled or do you need orders of continuence on them? >> Um orders of continuence would be appropriate. >> Okay. All right.
We'll do that. All right. Should we take up the uh 2025 1060 case. >> Yes, please. >> Yes, your honor. Um that'd be 151 Miramar Street. Um we began this case last month um where evidence was
presented for service, the violation notice, ownership and um permit records. The respondent also submitted a um evidence submitt packet. Um it was referenced I believe 1 through 12 and you are sent that as well
as additionals 13 and 14 exhibits um this week. >> Yes, I do have all the exhibits >> and we just want to note for the record um response exhibits 1 through 14. Um
just noting for the record an objection that this evidence could not be I don't show any authentication for the permit records and um evidence in the packet. Um we don't mind that it be looked at but we don't show the um any kind of authentication for the permit records.
>> All right. And I believe there was discussion last time about the flood plane manager reviewing the uh the property uh or reviewing the records to see whether that property might be a lawful pre-existing condition. Is there any any
update on that front? >> Yeah, sure. Give me one second. >> Hello. Good morning, >> Kelly. We have the respondent. Do we have the respondents? Are they here? Yes, I'm my husband and I are here. >> Oh, you okay? Okay, you're singing actually. All right, very good. Um, so
let me get uh let's go ahead then and we'll hear from the flood plane manager. >> Uh, good morning, Kelly Deferiches, town of Fort Myers Beach flood plane manager. And >> we get everybody sworn in just for >> Yeah, let me get you all sworn in. >> Um, anyone else going to testify in this one? We've got the flood claim manager.
Um, we've got uh >> myself as Carol as Carol Thomas. And I do have a witness that is appearing via Zoom from New Jersey. >> Um, she is also appearing. I don't know if she's linked in yet or not. I was sent the uh the link for her on Monday.
So, I did the best I could to make sure she could appear. >> I'll just swear each witness in that testify. Then, let me go ahead and u swear in the flood plan manager here. You raise your right hand for me, please. >> Yes, sir. Do you do you swear it will faint the testimony you're about to give be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? >> Yes, sir. >> And can you state and spell your name for us, please? >> Uh, Kelly ke L L I last name defed. D E F is in Frank. E D E R I C I S is in Sam, town of Fort Myers, Flood Plane
Manager. >> Very good. Miss Fericious, why don't you proceed? Um, so as a followup to your question, no, we haven't received or I haven't found any records indicating that the ground floor is lawfully legally permitted um down there.
>> All right. Is there any process that the town goes through to officially recognize uh pre-existing uses that are deemed to be legal? Any kind of registry that's kept at those properties? Uh yeah, that's through well as you're
aware we became our own entity in 1998 97 I believe and so a lot of records prior to that are kept with Lee County directly and if they don't have the records then we don't have the records and prior to that um will use property appraisers records. So properties
property appraiser will tax accordingly if you have this many bathrooms, this many bedrooms on a house. And so if the tax assessors doesn't have that information recorded on theirs and we cannot find any records in the permitting department from Lee County or
our records, then we can we don't have any indication that it was ever legally permitted. But those are our resources. We use our records, Lee County's records, and uh Lee County Property Appraiser records. All right. And but the bottom line is
you don't have any records indicating that the property was a lawful pre-existing use. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. And were there other matters miss the federal agency you were wanted
to testify about? Um, with regard to their permit, um, they did receive a permit to do doors and windows, uh, back in 2023 and that I was have the stuff pulled up here on my computer and then they did a revision, but the revision to remodel the ground floor was never
issued as an approved permit. So, they did submit a revision, but if the work was done, then it was done without a permit because there was no approval of that revision. >> Okay. The region was also in 2023. >> Yes, correct.
>> October of 2023. >> All right. Anything else? >> Um, that's all for now. >> All right. And Miss Thomas, did you have any questions for uh Miss Deferis? >> No. >> Let me come back to the town. Is there
any other evidence the town wants to present or any other testimony? >> Not this time. Um, if you want to let the respondent have their witnesses um testify, then we can make reserve the right to respond to that. >> Okay. Why don't we do that then? And Mr.
Thomas, if you want to proceed. >> Yes. Do I need to be sworn in, your honor? >> I will. So, are you going to testify now? >> Yes. >> Raise your right hand, please. You swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do.
>> All right, you may proceed. >> Okay. >> And would you state your name again for the record? >> My name is Carol Jean Thomas. At the outset, I wish to introduce the two additional exhibits that are prior to exhibits 12 or I mean after in
addition to the 12 exhibits I submitted earlier, which would be exhibit 13, which is the 2007 permit. It is a 75page document and they have been individually numbered in the upper right hand corner. I'm also exhibiting uh entering exhibit 14 which is the pre-firm building
description as provided by FEMA. So at this time you're pardon me. >> Let me just uh stop right here and make sure I have all I've received all the u all of the documentation but I just want to make sure I've got it here. Um >> yeah, >> as you're describing it
just recently the three separate sets of documents. >> Yep. And I will be calling on specific pages within that document. Hopefully you can see that as the very first page. I'm I'm going to be referring to page
32, 38, 60, 67, and 69 of exhibit 13. >> Is exhibit 13 in one of those document files that was just recently submitted? Yes, I just submitted it. Um, uh, I believe I submitted it yesterday afternoon and I think she forwarded it
to you. I >> I do have it. Is it doc one, do two or do three? There were the three packages. >> There were Well, because it's 75 pages. I don't have a scanner that will scan in 75. So, I had to send it in three different
I had to scan it into my computer three different times because my computer doesn't have the capability to do 75 pages. This is also the same 75page permit that I had with me on December 4th and offered it to the court for them to have and review. But I would assume
since the um the um I would I would assume they'd have access to this permit themselves without me having to provide it. >> And I see you've got some you've got handwritten you've got handwritten numbers. That's what you're referring to. >> Yes. Just to make it easier for the
court as we go through this. All right, I'm with you. Just tell me where you're looking. >> Okay. Well, the first, your honor, briefly. I wish to call our witness via Zoom. Her name is Patty Smith. She is
currently lives in New Jersey. And she we filed her affidavit as exhibit 3 on December 4th. And you had um she's here today via Zoom prepared to testify to the accuracy and the truth of the document that we submitted for her.
Okay. Um, well, I'm I'm not in actually in control of the Zoom. So, if she joins the hearing, we could certainly take her testimony. >> I spoke with her this morning to make sure she was available and she said she was, um, she made time for us today because obviously she works and is very
busy. Are we able to find her? >> [clears throat] >> She hasn't logged in yet. Um, would you be able to hold off on her testimony towards the end to see if she logs in? >> Um, yes. In fact, I'll h I'll have my
Okay. Yeah, I have somebody that's helping me contact her to see if she's having trouble zooming in. Okay. >> Yeah. I'm happy to [clears throat] take the testimony once she's joined in the meeting. >> Okay. I appreciate that, your honor. At this time, I'd like to call Kelly Def
Frederus to the stand. >> Good morning. >> Just just so we're clear, I'm happy to get this testimony, too. Um, did you have anything else you wanted to testify to, Miss Thomas, or do you want to come back to your testimony? >> Um, my testimony is is included in
everything that I'm about to ask and say. >> Okay. I mean, you also have the uh opportunity, if you'd like to to testify without doing it through the questioning of other witnesses. It's up to you. >> I'm sorry. Could you could you say that again?
>> Yeah. I mean, you can if you would like to testify, you know, on on your beha on your own behalf, you can do that without doing it through the questioning of M. Deferis or any other witness. In other words, you don't have to
examine Mr. Federius to make your testimony if you want to testify. >> Well, I think there's some things that I need to bring to the forefront um prior before I actually state the facts. >> That's fine, too. I mean, that's fine, too. We can we just warn Miss Deferi,
she's still on her oath. If you want to uh question her, you can go ahead and do that. >> Okay. Can you please state your current role with the town of Fort Myers Beach? >> Manager. >> Okay. And how long have you been in this role? I've been with the town of Fort
Myers Beach since January 6. >> I've been with the town of Fort Myers Beach since January 6 of 2025. >> What is your prior work history with flood zoning and flood plane issues? >> I was with Marco, the city of Marco Island for 9 years from 2016 to 2025.
>> Okay. Are there historical documents applicable to our property available? >> I have not found any and you've been given the opportunity to obtain some as well. >> Yes. Yes. You've made that very clear. Um, why aren't there any documents, historical documents regarding my home? >> That's that's something you're going to
want to ask colle or excuse me, Lee County because your house was constructed under Lee County and that's been advised as well. >> And do you agree that our home is a pre-firm home? >> It is absolutely a pre-firm home. It was constructed in 1971. The pre-firm um, anything constructed prior to 1984 is a
pre-firmed structure. >> What is a What is a pre-firm home? A pre-firmed structure as I just specified is anything constructed before 1984 for the town of Fort Myers Beach. Okay. >> Do you know what year our house was built at its present location?
>> As I just specified, 1971. >> And how do you know this? >> Property appraiser. >> Okay. You are claiming that our downfall bathroom was not legally permitted in 1977. What were the permitting requirements for our property in 1971? >> As I specified, I I did not say it
wasn't approved. I'm just saying we don't have any documents to confir uh to confirm that it was legally permitted. So, if you can find someone, >> how do you know that it wasn't legally permitted if you we can't find any documents dating back to 1971? >> It is standard process for the town of Fort Myers Beach to use property
appraiser um or Lee County records to to to prove that something was legally permitted. So unless we have records as the whole house is legally permitted because there are records for the entire structure. There are records for the second and third floor construction but
there are none for the ground floor. >> Okay. So you're saying that there were no rules. You would know of no rules from 1971 for permitting for our house. Correct? >> No, I did not say that at all because your house was permitted because you do pay taxes and it is on property
appraiser that it was permitted. We do not have record of the ground floor being habitable with a bedroom or a bathroom. The rest of the house is legally permitted. >> So you've you've already currently stated that the town of Fort Myers Beach formed a municipality after 1971.
>> No, >> I did not. Your house was constructed in 1971 under my question. My question was you're saying that the town of Fort Myers Beach was not its own legal municipality prior to 19 during 1971. Correct. They became a municipality I
believe you said in 1998. >> Is it 98? >> I thought it was April of 1995. >> It could be 95. I somewhere in the 90s. Yes. Correct. So prior to that it was Lee County. >> April of 1995. >> So prior to that was Lee County. >> So Lee County was responsible for the
permitting process and the construction of the construction of our home. >> Yes. As I specified. >> So when is it that you think the ground floor bathroom of with our plumbing was installed in our home? When do you think that? >> That's not for me to decide. >> Okay. What does the Lee County card say?
>> The Lee County Property Appraiser says you have a three-bedroom, two and a half bath, but with the bedroom and the ground floor bathroom, that makes it a 43. >> Okay. How can you claim a violation of the permitting process when you don't know when the bathroom was installed? >> Because again, property appraiser has it
as a 32 and a half and with the ground floor bedroom and the ground floor bathroom, that makes it a 43. And we don't know of any permitting processes that were in place in 1971. If you don't know when it is stall it was installed, how do you know what the legal requirements were at the time?
>> As specified, we use property appraiser to provide information if we cannot prov uh find information from Lee County. We have two sources, Lee County Records Department and Property Appraiser. If we do not have the records it um for the town of Fort Myers Beach because it was
constructed prior to us, we have Lee County Property Appraiser and records. >> Okay. The Lee County property card indicates a finished lower level in 1971. Correct. >> I a finished lower level doesn't indicate a bathroom just as the records indicate a two and a half bathroom house.
>> Okay. So, I took the time and I called two construction companies in Florida. one of which is the company that actually constructed the third floor or the second upper level of our house. I also called the Carpenters Regional Council. I called a real estate agent and I called an appraiser for their
identification for a finished square feet. And in Florida, finished square feet finished square footage typically includes all heated/cooled at and above grade level living spaces with finished walls, ceilings, floors, and typically
containing bedrooms, kitchens, living rooms, and bathrooms, but excludes garages, unfinished attics, and basements, storage areas, and screen porches unless they meet specific HVAC/finishing criteria. Appraisers follow ANSI
standards when doing all appraisals. >> Okay. So, I'm not sure where you got that definition and um what that is, but from a flood plane standpoint, that's it's not relevant. So, and again, if you have records, if you have a permit or if you have anything proving document
recorded with Lee County of any kind that that bathroom is there, we'll gladly accept it. As of right now, property appraiser has it as a 32 and a half. >> Where are the building records for our home? I again they were your house was constructed under Lee County and you have the opportunity and option to go to
Lee County >> and ask those and did you find them? >> Did first of all um Lee County told me that they when the city of Fort Myers beca beach became a municipality they turned over all records to Fort Myers Beach. Do you know where they are since
they were turned over to Fort Myers Beach? >> That's I don't think that's a true accurate statement. Well, do you have something that states that I'm wrong? >> Well, because I've received other records from them for other properties on Fort Myers Beach. >> Did the city of Fort Myers Beach lose several records during the storm of
Hurricane Ian? >> I cannot attest to that. I was not here. >> Okay. Again, I was told that you have said that no plans or permits indicate the presence of a ground floor ba bathroom and plumbing. Have you personally reviewed the 2007208 permit
as well as the 2023 permit for our home? >> Just a note for the record objection. Um several of the comments were um speaking for other people. So it would be hearsay just for the record. >> All right. That this and that that is actually correct there. You did make a
lot of statements here uh Miss Thomas that would were attributed to others who aren't here testifying but uh but but go ahead. Yeah, the one paragraph about finished square feet is is the only thing that I've said so far that has anything to do with something that somebody else said
to me. >> Right. >> So, you have said that no plans or permits indicate the presence of a ground floor bathroom and plumbing. Have you reviewed completely reviewed the 2007208 permit as well as the 2023 permit for our home?
>> I did not review them for approval, but I have reviewed the documents. Yes. >> Yes. because you said in an email to me that you have actually looked at the 2007208. I have a copy of that email. >> Okay. >> I would like to direct your attention now to exhibit 9. Can you look at that? In the packet I delivered on November
17th, it is a Lee County property card. >> Okay. I I've got them memorized. So, go ahead. >> Okay. So, if you have it memorized, that's great. At the top center of the page under building sub area details, does it indicate there is a finished lower level for our home in 1971? >> Yes. And you have to understand a
finished lower level in the Florida building code is also any area with drywall and walls. It doesn't technically mean you can have a bathroom in a habitable area. So I just want to put that out there as well. >> Do you agree that this is contained in Lyle County property card? >> It does reference finished lower level.
Correct. >> Are you telling me that a finished lower level does not include a bathroom, shower, and possibly a kitchen? I can tell you that property appraiser does not have record of you having a lower bathroom because it does not say that you have three bathrooms, you have two and a half bathrooms. >> So, it doesn't specifically say where in
the record does it say this? >> I I actually I feel like we're arguing right now and this isn't going to go anywhere. Yes, it says finished lower level. However, your record does indicate you have a three and two and a half with the ground floor bathroom and the ground floor bedroom. That makes it a 43. >> Okay. >> It we do not have record for it.
>> Okay. Under what basis? Okay. You've just explained under the basis that you um have determined that from 1971 there is no plumbing in our lower level. Do we know if I'm >> indicating that property appraiser has your house as a 32 and a half?
>> Okay. Thank you. Is Patty available yet? Have we heard from her? She's here. Patty is here. And >> I'm here. >> Yeah. >> Can you hear me? >> This Yes, I can hear you. >> This is Patty Smith from New Jersey. She has um given a statement um that was
taken into record, but she's here to prove her statement. >> All right. Were you finished with your examination of M Federichi? >> No, I have some other things that I need to go over, your honor. >> All right. Well, you want to finish with
that witness first before we take the next one. >> Patty, do you have time to stay for about 10 minutes? >> Uh, sure. >> Okay. Okay. Thomas, you were referring to a an exhibit of yours. Can you tell me what
the number of that is so I can pull it up here? I've got all your documents, but >> exhibit number nine shows the Lee County property card. And at the top in the middle of the in the middle of the page of number nine, um I ha I highlighted it on some of them. I'm not sure, but it
says um building sub area and then it says the base um 1971 and it gives the square footage. And then it says finished lower level 1971, 552 ft. It talks about the open porch. It talks about the carport and it talks
about uh an unfinished garage. >> I've got I've got the exhibit nine. Uh >> I've got it here now. >> Okay. So, um did you review the affidavits in the exhibits one through four prior to coming to court today?
>> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. So, is it your testimony that you have better knowledge or information than the people in these affidavits who actually lived on Fort Meyers Beach and in fact on St. on Myar Street? >> The only information I have is the records that property appraiser provides.
>> Okay. Um, so Patty is about to testify. Um, we'll I'll circle back to that. Have you read and reviewed the 2007 permit that the Crumbies made application for >> the prior owners? 2007 >> the permit that's on record in Lee
County. >> Maybe not. Probably not. >> Okay. Well, in your email you said that you did. You told me that in your email you told me that you did review the permit from 2007. >> Okay. And then what was the rest of the comment because I don't have that here in front of me so I can't
do would you like me to read your email to you? Is that what you're asking? >> Oh, I can pull it up myself. That's But what was the comment? What was it? >> [snorts] >> It says, um, I have received and reviewed the submitted packet which includes neighbor affidavits and plans from the 2008 remodel.
>> Yes. >> And then you go on to say the 2008 plans are consistent with Lee County property appraisal records which reflect the residence as having two and a half bathrooms. There is one full bathroom on the first floor along with the half. There is a second half uh bathroom on
the second floor installed in 2008 and that um in 2008 there's no reference to a second half bath on the ground floor. >> Okay. >> And then you say the town of Fort Myers Beach relies on historical records and property appraiser data to verify the authorized use of ground floor areas in
elevated structures. So that's what you said to me. Okay. So I'm glad that you had the opportunity to review that 2007208 permit. Do you agree that as a part of that application for permit number 20007-1091, a diagram of the lower level was
provided showing a bathroom and kitchen? >> I stand by my email saying that there's no record of it. >> Okay. Well, then I direct your attention to exhibit number 13, please, which I delivered yet we delivered yesterday. It is and again you have it yourself
because as you stated, you look at all the records. It's exhibit number 13, pages 67 and 69. >> Okay. >> Okay. They are dated January 8th of 2008 and signed into records by Judy Judy Starns at 11:08 in the morning. Do you
know Miss Starns? >> No. >> Have you ever spoken to Miss Darns? >> No. >> Do you agree that the permit application in 2007 also included an architectural dry diagram of our lower level of our home showing the presence of a bathroom, kitchen, and laundry area. all having
plumbing. >> As I stated, I stand by my email where it still references two and a half three. >> Okay. Well, these are a part of the record. Please look at page 38 of exhibit 13 so you can see what was submitted and accepted in as record in 2007 and 8.
>> Okay. >> What are your handwritten numbers on those pages? So, I'm >> um 67 and 69 are the pages, your honor, that show the handwritten drawing. And at the very top, you can see um January 8th of 2008 at 11:08 a.m. Judy Starns
took that into record. And they have their drawing there on and for some reason, the county actually took it in twice. They they repeated that drawing on page 67 and on page 69 of that permit application. Then again, Woodland Homes did an architectural drawing as a part
of the permit process, and that is on page 38. On page 38, it is a much more defined description. Shows a a bath, a kitchen, and a laundry area on page 38. That was submitted by
Woodland Homes as a part of the permitting process, the 2007. Are you okay if I continue, your honor? >> Yeah, I have it here. >> Okay, go ahead. >> In 2007, the 2007 permit application required a
uniform residential app appraisal report. Correct. >> I'm I'm not again I did not do the review for 2007. Okay. And again, let's understand when when somebody else signs off on stuff, it's it's unfortunate if it was signed off with the
misunderstanding that that bathroom was legally permitted. So, I can attest to past permits. I can attest to any of that. So, if it was signed off like that, there's literally nothing I could do. I could go off of what property appraiser has as >> Let's get back to the residential
appraisal report. Then it is required because the improvements the Crumbies wanted to make could not exceed 50% of the value of the home. So the appraisal is an important tool for the city to determine the value of the home to allow the improvements.
The appraisal has has to completely and accurately reflect the home and the value of the house prior to the addition. I direct your attention to page two of the uniform appraisal report for this permit which is actually found
on page 32 of exhibit 13. Give everybody a chance to get to page 32. >> Is is this a private appraisal? >> This is an appraisal that that was approved. >> Okay. So, this is a uniform residential appraisal which is not an approved FEMA
appraisal. So, I would not use that as a FEMA 50% threshold. >> Okay. Well, all right. At the bottom of page two, under improvements, does it indicate the property had an area above grade of five bedrooms, two bathrooms, one and a half baths, and that the
ground floor has a onebath efficiency apartment. It goes on to say, "This is grandfathered in legal non-conforming use as defined in future land use plans and in ordinance 34-3201."
And I do have a copy of that ordinance. >> Yeah, absolutely. Provide that ordinance, but also understand that this is a an appraisal to sell a structure. So I >> it was not to sell a structure. >> This is this is not a 50% threshold FEMA appraisal. This would not be used.
>> Okay. So >> So what I'm telling you is that I cannot attest to this. This is not a permit I reviewed and approved. But right now, this document doesn't mean anything to me because it doesn't mean that 50% threshold. I now direct your attention to exhibit or page 60 of exhibit 13
>> and it does say like it sales comparisons and so I'm not sure. >> Yeah. So, but again, you reviewed this appraisal. You reviewed this before. >> But this but this means but this doesn't mean anything to me because I can't use this to justify the 50%. >> So, Frank Shaki worked for the city at
the time. Did Frank Shaki approve the permit? >> I do not know who Frank Shocki is. >> Okay. >> Again, we're talking about past history. I can't do anything with the approval of these. >> Okay. Well, I just allow me to finish. Did he he did admit to having reviewed the appraisal as a part of his permit
approval of the permit. Isn't a review of the appraisal critical to how much of the work can be done. And this appraisal he spec is he specifically talks of the finished lower level with a one bath efficiency apartment being grandfathered in. And in the permit application was a drawn
sketch and an architectural drawing of the lower level bathroom, kitchen, and laundry. And the appraisal report said the lower level kitchen and bath were grandfathered in. The city never disputed the sketching sketches or drawings or the grandfathered language.
I now direct your attention to exhibit 7, which is the 2023 permit revision 232518. I direct your attention. M >> Where's the grandfathered language? >> The grandfather language is is in accordance with the ordinance that the
appraiser referred to. >> Where what page is it on? >> Uh the the language is I believe on page 32 down at the bottom. It was also exhibit 12 where I had blown up an enlarged portion of that. And just to know for the record that
reference to being grandfathered in is on a private appraisal form. Um not directly from the county that or the town that I can see. >> But again, Mr. Shaki, >> what what year is the appraisal? Can you tell me that? >> 2008, I believe. 2007 or 8. I've read
this thing so many times I can't remember what happened on what days because they the years overlapped. >> And what what was the per do you know what the purpose of the appraisal was? I haven't had a chance to read it all. >> Okay. So, the purpose of the appraisal is because according to FEMA rules, Crumbies would not have been allowed to
build the extra floor on our home if they were above the 50% rule for the valuation of the home. So, an appraisal has to be done and it has to be accurate to totally reflect what is exists in the home. It gives a a numeric value to the
home and they cannot go above 50% for their improvements they met. >> She she's she's absolutely not wrong with that and I'm just reviewing this and they do have the box check that this is for a 50% threshold uh FEMA uh
appraisal. So I do want to correct myself on that. Also, I do need to see um the ordinance 343201. Where where's that ordinance? >> Well, I have a copy of the ordinance. I'm surprised you don't. >> Well, why? >> But unless that's provided to me, I wouldn't have it because that's not our
record. >> All right. I'd like to see that, too, Miss Thomas. But first, this appraisal that was done for purposes of the 50% rule back in 2007 or 8, uh, which makes the reference to the grandfather, you know, piece of the property. Um, what
was that? Why was the 50% threshold rule being invoked at that time? And the crumbies wanted to do what to the ground floor? >> They weren't going to do anything to the ground floor. We have a ground floor. Prior to the addition, we had a ground floor. We had a first level above grade
and they wanted to add a second level above grade which would add a bedroom and a bathroom. At that time, they also changed the configuration of a deck. They put the patio door in on the ground finished ground floor. And they put a obviously as a part of the appraisal
they also put in a a sliding glass patio door on their on their um >> again just so I can understand the the chronology because remember I'm not as familiar with all these details as you are. The the Crumbies who were the then owners of the home in 2007 or 2008
sought to make to to have an addition constructed on the home that would add a second level. >> Yes. second level above grade >> above grade. And uh so what you're telling me is that at that time the downstairs enclosure that we're talking
about was already in place and the appraisal obtained made reference to it as being grandfathered. >> Correct. >> As of that Okay, I got you. >> Correct. >> And there's a reference in there to a Lee County ordinance under which the property or the downstairs enclosure was
purportedly grandfathered. Right. That's the ordinance that we're talking about. >> Correct. And I do have a copy of the ordinance. I can submit it to the court for you or I can read it out loud. >> Is the ordinance otherwise part of your packet? You've got a lot of documents here. Is it
>> I did not include this. I I did not include this as a part of my packet. I apologize, your honor. >> Do you know if this ordinance 34-3201 is a Lee County ordinance? Do you know if it's still >> It's from the I'm sorry, I didn't mean
to interrupt. I took it from the Fort Myers Beach >> um Florida code of ordinances. I went to their I went to the Fort Myers Beach website which provides um uh the code of ordinances and it took me a little while but I was able to find it.
>> Okay. Well, I mean if is it still an ordinance is is 34-3201 >> Yes. And >> still exist? >> Yes. >> Yes, it does. you pulled up. So, you've got the current copy of the ordinance, >> correct? I just did this yesterday.
>> Okay. Um, very well. I mean, to the extent we need to look at the history of it, if that becomes an issue, we could do that. But the ordinance, in other words, still exists. It's still 34-32. It deals with grandfathered structures. >> Correct.
>> Uh, is it long? Um, well, it's very long, but I only copied the parts that were applicable to my property. I only I only took those because that would be that would have been another I don't I can't even remember over 35 pages, but I only took the parts that pertain to my
property. >> Well, I might have to look at it. Do you know from your review of it whether there's a county process for recognizing or registering pre-existing lawful non-conforming uses?
>> It clearly states in it is the purpose of this article to set forth rules and regulation regarding those non-conforming buildings uses or lots which were created by the adoption of this code or amendments thereto.
And then it goes on to say um three there are there are three types of nonconformities non-conforming building uh um non-conforming use and then of course it talks about the lots my property falls under non-conforming use for this for
the purposes of this article the term non-conforming use means a use or activity which is which was lawful prior to the adoption of any ordinance from which this code was derived or the adoption of any revision or amendment to
this code or the adoption of the amendment to the comprehensive plan but which fails by reason of such adoption revision or amendment to conform to the use requirements where the property is located. >> Okay. >> And then it says that's our current or
that's our ordinance. So all the property or all the appraiser is doing is justifying why he is deciding that it's an nonconforming structure. So he's just using that as a definition in his description. It is not up to the up to
an appraiser, a private appraiser to decide if a structures legal or non or illegal non-conforming. So right right there he's just saying this is why I believe is he believes it falls under that ordinance that land development code. Actually it's not the
ordinance land development code. And so that's that's what he because it states this is a grandfather in legal non-conforming use as defined. So he's really just defining it. He's not saying that it is. >> He's saying it's defined by the ordinance. And then it also goes on to
say >> hold on hold on M because Mr. Federic raises an important point. I think we touched on it last month and let me be clear right up front. I haven't read that ordinance yet. Um, sometimes [clears throat] they're very involved, those non-conforming use ordinances, but
uh it's not uncommon for those types of ordinances to provide for procedures for determining or adjudicating disputes regarding whether a use or a structure is a lawful non-conforming use.
Usually that issue isn't decided in the first instance in a code enforcement proceeding because there's another vehicle or another process for having that decided. And sometimes the jurisdictions register those uses, which is why I've asked that question a couple
of times. If you had some, you know, documentation from the county um that uh showed the property was registered as a lawful perform as of a certain date. that might be important information. Um,
but uh, apart from that, the issue of whether this property falls under that ordinance and qualifies as a lawful non-conforming use, uh, is an issue that if it hasn't been adjudicated, might need to be adjudicated in another
proceeding. I don't know because I haven't seen I haven't read the ordinance yet. But um it does are you aware, Miss Thomas, of any records uh or documentation concerning any determination by Lee County, for
example, that the property meets the qualifications of that ordinance to be deemed a lawful non-deforming use? Has there been any official designation to that effect? I do not have anything from the county that specifically states what you're asking, your honor. I do have the
ordinance and again I will go back to the fact that Mr. Shaki reviewed all of this. He reviewed the appraisal. The appraisal was done and gave evaluation to the house so they could put the second elevated level onto our house. It
says in the appraisal in the appraisal report that Mr. Shocki read and approved that there was one and a half baths on the upper level offgrade and there was one bath on the ground floor. I also again have Patty Smith here to testify
to >> just so just so I understand again there have been a lot of names and and and projects referenced here but when you talk about Mr. shock you. You're talking about someone with either the county or the town that approved a permit in 2007
or 8 for the above grade second >> correct >> level edition. >> Correct. Yeah. >> I also want to clarify when um an inspector or a plan reviewer reviews a um plans for a permit, we do not re they do not review areas or go into areas
that are not for inspection or approval. So, if that ground floor is not referenced as a remodel or part of the alteration, our reviewer would have not seen that area down there, would have not reviewed it and or um the inspectors don't go in that area and they're not there to to look at that area. We we
can't go in and say, "Oh, this the inspector can't go in and look at other areas besides what they're specifically there to inspect." >> This actually makes it a really easy flow to exhibit 7, your honor. Exhibit 7, which is the 2023 permit
revision number 232518. >> Correct. Which that that one wasn't approved. >> I direct your attention to the page two of exhibit 7. Page two is the site plan worksheet that was provided for that permit showing the lower level with a bathroom, bedroom, and kitchenet.
>> Um, so now I would take your >> Hold on. Hold on. I I know I've got exhibit here. This is the 2024 permit revision. 20. Yeah, it was actually done in 2023 with the inspections being done in 2024. If you look at exhibit seven,
your honor, it does say on this, it says adding lower level to the scope of work like for like and then the drawing shows exactly what I have said. >> Correct. But there is no permit issued for that. An application was submitted
but there is no permit. >> Okay. So then let's go to exhibit. Let's go to exhibit number eight, your honor. Exe exhibit number eight, which is permit 2025-0721. If you look at the very first page of
that, at the top where it says case information, it indicates the work has been completed, the status has closed and it is closed with no violations. that was issued in an air and there is an um information in our record that
that was rescended. >> Okay. On September 10th in that same permit under site inspections on September 10th of 2025, the revision includes lower level
realtor.com layout which includes bedroom and kitchenet. These plans were approved in revision and the permit has been finalized. >> Which permit? >> This it's on that same page, your honor. It's on the right hand side about
halfway down under activities all the way back to 2025. >> I thought this was the one that did the witness just testify that this was rescended. The permit wasn't rescended. The certificate of completion was rescended because that was issued in an error
because there is a revision but the revision was never issued. >> It was applied for but it was never issued. So yes, the certificate of completion and there's a note in our system that the um the revision's been submitted but the certificate of completion should not have been issued.
>> I'm at a loss, your honor, because they were there. They inspected it. They saw everything. they were there and in the bottom at the very bottom under the activity section it says >> you can't clearly state that we are adding the lower level like for like
that was clearly it was clearly stated >> yeah like for like doesn't mean that it was originally permitted either and if it was inspected prior to the revision being issued it shouldn't have been inspected and that's so that the revision permit was never approved
That is all news to us given the fact that we followed every single rule. The inspectors were there. They looked at everything. They signed off the day they were standing in my lower level. They signed off on everything. So to be able to revoke that now seems absolutely
ludicrous to me. This was we did these things in 2023 and the inspections were done then. how it can be revoked in 2025 is is beyond >> well if the the inspections would not have been done for the lower level
because you did not submit a revision until 2023. So again, the revision was never approved or issued. >> Well, certainly it was to us because we wouldn't have asked for inspections had had the permit not been approved.
Let's let's move on. The county did not dispute at the time of the permitting or doing during any of the inspections in 2007 or 2008. The county and the city did not dispute any of the drawings. They during their inspections. They certainly did not um
deny or say that those things did did not exist. These permits in 2007 and 2008 were they were all approved. They were inspected. They were finalized and closed. I would like for Patty to testify now before I move on to my final
comments. >> All right. Where did Mr. Excuse me? M the Federi go. She's She's I don't see her now. Is she gone? >> She did the Are you finished examining
her, Miss Thomas? >> Yes. >> Yeah, I do see her. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, I was going to say, does the town have any questions that it wants to ask as part of a cross- examination? >> No, your honor. I'm just here to answer questions. >> I do see her on Zoom ready when ready.
We just need to get her sworn in. >> All right, we can go ahead and move to the next witness then. Uh it's uh her name is Patty. >> Patty Smith. She is from New Jersey. or her sworn statement is um exhibit number three.
>> All right. Well, let's go. Miss Smith, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> All right. Thanks for waiting. We're going to get you sworn in and Miss Thomas will get your testimony. So, if you would uh raise your right hand for me, please. Do you swear or affirm the testimony give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Yes, sir. >> And could you state and spell your name for the record, please? >> Uh Patricia Smith. P A T R I C I A S M I T H. >> All right. Uh thank you, Miss Smith. You're under oath. And Miss Thomas, you
may proceed. >> Patty, I would ask for you to um uh verify your statement that I submitted as evidence number uh exhibit number three. Is it not true that in 1980 your
mother owned a the cottage at 80 Myar Street and she was elevating pardon me? >> 81 Miramar >> 81 I'm sorry 81 Myiramar and in 1980 she was elevating the home adding a I believe you told me it was a a bathroom
um and a laundry area and remove and moving the water heater down there. Is that correct? bathroom, storage, laundry, and the water heater. Correct. >> Okay. And that was in 1980. So during that time frame, you had reasons where
you weren't able to use the plumbing in your own home. Can you please tell the court where you did use plumbing? >> Um, at Odet's home down the well, uh, towards the bay, 151 Myimmar. >> Okay. And what type of plumbing did you
use at that time in 1980? bathroom, toilet, sink. >> Okay. >> Shower. >> Yep. And did you Thank you. And did you notice while you were there that the lower level was finished or was it just a bathroom that was scabbed in and no walls or floors?
>> No, no, no, it was finished. It was a space. It was finished. >> So, in 1980, you and possibly your family members were in that bathroom. You used the plumbing, the shower, the sink, the stool, and you witnessed and saw a finished lower level. Correct.
>> My mom, my siblings. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Correct. Yes. >> I just have one question. If you're done, are you aware of any permits or approvals for that plumbing and bathroom that you were just discussing? >> No, I would have had no idea. I was 20
years old. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Patty. Thank you very much for your patience and thank you for appearing here today. All right. May she be excused? >> As far as I'm concerned, do you have any questions for her, your honor?
>> I do not. >> Okay. >> Thank you for coming in, Miss Smith. Before you go, appreciate your time and your testimony. >> I would just like to say that I think this is just very, very sad. I've been coming to this beach since I was a kid, 1960.
And the fact that there are so many more important things that we should be spending our taxpayers money on and we are spending all this time and energy on a silly bathroom. It's really It's really a shame. It's
really a shame and people should stop fighting such ridiculous silly little things and work on street lights because somebody's going to get killed on a sterile boulevard and things that really matter and that's all I have
to say. That town is my home. >> Okay. Well, thanks for coming in. Appreciate that. >> Thank you, Patty. >> Thank you. Okay. All right. Your I'm I'm ready to proceed to the end. Your honor, in summary, go
ahead. >> I believe we have proven these facts. It is a fact that in 1980 the plumbing existed in our lower level. As testified by Patty Smith, it is a
fact that neither the city, the county, or myself can find any records for our home going back beyond 1986. Number two, the county property card. It is a fact has on record that our house
was built in 1971, making it a prefirm. It also has recorded that in 1971 there was the existence of 552 square feet in the lower level finished. That is a fact. It is a fact that in
2008 the city and county took into record a hand drawing of the lower level and an architectural drawing of our lower level showing the presence of a kitchen, bathroom, and laundry area. The permit was granted, it was inspected, it
was closed, and it was finalized. Number four, in 2008, the appraisal report, which also was a part of the record, uh, recorded information regarding our house. It factually states, "Prior to the addition of our home, there was one
and a half bathrooms above grade and a one bath efficiency apartment on the ground floor. The appraisal was required to establish the value of the home prior to the addition. So clearly the the finished lower level added value to the
home. The appraisal was reviewed by Mr. Shocki. All of it was approved including the appraisal report and he granted the permit. In 2023, we followed the requirements sec to secure a permit. We made re to secure a permit to repair our
lower level following Hurricane Ian. We re we clearly stated we were doing this like for like. No one ever told us we didn't have a permit. No one ever said anything other than the fact that they came, they inspected, they they came, they inspected, they were there. My
husband was with them when they were inspecting. We replaced like for like we didn't add anything. We didn't hiding hide anything. We clearly even in our own drawings said there was a bath and laundry. Our lower level was inspected. It passed all inspections and our permit
at that time was closed and finalized. That's actually documented again in number eight. I feel we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of our lower level plumbing going all the way back to 1980. I have done
exhausting research to find any and all historical and/or recorded data regarding our home. I have provided the c the court with all of the information that I have been able to attain. It is not my fault that there is nothing
regarding permitting for my home going all the way back to 1971. It is not my fault that there's nothing recorded with the county or the city in regards to my home prior to 1986. With that being said, your honor, I ask
that the court rule in our favor and deny the city's request to have us remove the plumbing. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, M. Thomas. Is there anything else that you wanted to present in addition to this testimony we've heard from yourself and uh
>> Mr. Vidices and uh Miss Smith. >> I would add that I didn't I didn't also include that in my exhibits. I do have it. I sat down and on Myar Street alone, I sat with every single house and I wrote down the year that they went on
tax roll and I rent I wrote down the year that the very first permit of any kind was recorded for me. I only did this for Myar Street. I didn't have time to do it for the entire city. And the earliest the earliest permit
recorded for Myiramar Street is 1981. I took the time to go through to make sure that it wasn't is my house the only house. Am I an anomaly that my house is the only house that doesn't have a permit record that goes back to 1971? Well, certainly I can't speak for the
entire island, but I can certainly speak for Myiramar Street. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Miss uh, Miss Thomas. Does the town have anything else that it wants to present on this case? >> Yes.
>> Um, this Kelly, I wanted to clarify that this property was defined by FEMA and FEMA is the one asking us for the records of these. We didn't go pick this house out directly. We didn't go and do this intentionally. FEMA asked us for the proof that this ground floor can be
converted and has habitable space. And unless we can provide FEMA with documentation, this still keeps us on what I like to call the naughty list with FEMA. I believe we've all passed everything with FEMA and we have been granted the city has been granted their
FEMA status again of the 25%. I'm sure that my my one little I don't know how FEMA if they were here would say that I somehow have to abracadabra and create records that don't exist beyond 1986 for
my house. I have proven through testimony that that pl that beyond everything else I have someone that used the plumbing in 1980. Most likely that was put in place in 1971 when they built the home.
Everything was done at the same time. Built the home, finished lower level. It was all done in 1971. It wasn't that they built the home in 71 and then in 75 they had added something. The the county record says finished lower level 552
square ft. Unfortunately, FEMA doesn't accept the terminology provided by the property appraiser, but they do accept the description, and we can't even provide FEMA with a description because the description doesn't fit exactly with with what is at that structure currently. And you aren't the only one
that was on this 245 um structure list. Also, don't confuse the community rating system program with the FEMA audit cab visit because they're two separate things. I have no idea what you're talking [clears throat] about. >> Yeah. So the CRS the 25% is not affiliated with the FEMA CAB visit.
Those are two separate programs. So while we did receive a clean cab visit letter from FEMA, that doesn't justify that we don't continue doing the correct thing and finishing up the list that FEMA provided us. >> And I would just reiterate again, your honor, the plumbing was there. It was
there. We've been out of compliance because of permits that nobody nobody can find. and I always thought that I was innocent until proven guilty. >> Well, I don't think there's any dispute that the plumbing was there and has been
there for years. As I recall, the town's position has to do with the post hurricane repair or remodel work um that triggered the flood plane requirements applicable to the ground floor features. But I mean I don't know there's everyone
agrees that that plumbing has been there a long time. >> Yes. Absolutely. >> Are we going I I would ask this since my since I feel like my home out of the however many that have been done because there are several several thousands of
homes on the beach. Are we is the city prepared to go through the town, every single home on with on the island and make everybody do what they're asking me to do? >> I'll let code address this, but we don't go look for complaints. So, if you want
to um provide addresses to code, they can go ahead and go over that. Um these things do get caught um through plan review. Sometimes they do get through, but unfortunately again this was on the FEMA list and there's nothing we can do and we don't even have documentation to provide to
FEMA that this is a compliant structure. >> But certainly there can be a ruling made that the plumbing existed and it doesn't have to be removed. Certainly we have provided the evidence that that is there. >> Well, that's that's part of the dispute. But um well, did you have anything else,
Miss Thomas, that you wanted to to add? Any other any other evidence? I have all your exhibits and I've heard the testimony. >> Um, not at this time. Would you like me to leave a copy of the ordinance with the court? >> If you give the ordinance number to the clerk, that would be great.
>> Okay. And I would also ask one last thing, your honor, when you make your ruling today, whether you make it right now or at a later date, could I please ask that I be emailed specifically by myself for this ruling? you. We've appeared on December 4th and I did not
hear from the city until I requested on December 18th. So, I didn't know that there was even a reappearance for for January 6th until December 18th. So, I've had from December 18th to today's date to prepare for today.
>> Okay. I assume that you were getting sent copies of the orders or notices. Is that not correct? I was sent one on I was sent after I inquired via phone calls and emails. I was sent a copy of your order on December 18th in the I was sent it via email and in in what we now
call snail mail. >> How was it not sent otherwise? It should you should be on the service list. >> I was I had I received the email from Michael Howerman who had the document as a PDF and sent it to me. I well maybe
Lette I can't remember. I don't have a copy of that with me, but I have a um I did not receive anything until December 18th. So, I would like to personally not have to wait for the city to let me know what's happening. >> Yes. When we close out, if you want to
leave your email, just make sure the clerk has it. >> Yeah. If you leave that also send regular mail. >> Yeah. Just so you're clear, Mr. I don't I personally don't send I don't serve the orders to myself. So, whatever is on file for your address or your contact
information, that's where I presume it will go. If you put your email address on file as was suggested, I think the order can be emailed to you. >> And one last comment that I would make, your honor, is when we purchased this home in 2021,
certainly we didn't have any idea that Ian was coming. Nobody could have. But when the appraisal was done on our house, we purchased our house as a four bed, 3 and 1/2 bath home. It was valued at that
from an appraisal. Yes, it was a private appraisal done by my mortgage lender. But to remove this lower level greatly devalues my home, and I would like all of this on record in case we need to take this further.
>> All right. Now, let me ask the town, is there any additional evidence, testimony the town would like to offer at this time? >> Um, just note um Kelly's testimony um that ran through the permit process as well and then the exhibits and questions that were answered. Um
we weren't aware of any question regarding non-conforming uses until today. Um I'm not aware that one was granted through the town's processes. Um and we are looking for a property owner to be found in violation be given 60 days which come to compliance or a fine
of 250 a day and cost of 250 and coming into compliance would be uh to cap off the permits just refresh our collection >> remove all unpermitted construction including the plumbing >> that would include
>> there's more there's more than just the plumbing right from the remodel work >> any electrical plumbing any systems on ground floor. >> Um if if we are required to remove the electrical, your honor, that would mean we'd have to remove the electric panel of our house.
>> The electric panel is is in the garage and that electric panel is at the same level that all of the plugins are at in our lower level and obviously the ceiling lights are higher than the electric panel. That's actually not a correct statement
because I visited the property and I did notice that the electrical outlets were elevated in some areas and the light switches were the electrical box that's clearly been there since day one because that is in the utility room that is referenced on property appraiser. So that stuff is fine. It's just the plumbing, the illegal kitchen, the
habitable area on the ground floor. >> Again, your honor, just the idea that our home was appraised, we purchased a home. We purchased the home in 2021 and appraisal was done greatly greatly devalues our home to have that all removed.
You know, I I I understand and appreciate that. Obviously, when uh these issues arise with uh the removal of ground floor enclosures, it's uh it's a big deal of course for the for the homeowner. Um all right. Well, the uh
each side has submitted a good deal of documentation uh including the recent uh submissions by the respondents which uh are pretty lengthy and uh candidly I haven't had an opportunity to read through everything in detail including all these permits and permit
applications that have been talked about uh in today's proceeding. Um what I uh so I'm going to need to take the matter under advisement to review those. uh but I I will uh uh offer and request the parties to submit to me proposed orders
as well so that I can review uh the uh written uh arguments of the parties in in fashion the final fashion the order. Um uh do you think you all could get get me your proposed orders in a week?
>> Yes, your honor. I'm not sure what what what you're asking me to provide for you. If you you tell me and I will provide it. >> If you could submit to me a proposed order that would uh essentially state
from your perspective what uh you think I should find, what facts I should find based on the evidence presented and what conclusions I should draw from those facts. I mean, your argument would be that there's no violation. So, uh, your proposed order would reach
that conclusion, but it would present your perspective and your argument. So, I could take that into account in, uh, drafting the final. >> I absolutely can do that. >> Town's perspective, it would be, you know, findings that would lead to the inconclusions leading to the outcome of
finding a violation and imposition of a compliance date with potential fines for non-compliance. I >> But it would be helpful for me to say that as well. Again, this is involved case with a lot of a lot of documents. It's going to require some extensive factf finding um in order to create the
kind of order that needs to issue in a case of this nature. Uh and also to create the kind of order that can be reviewed if uh if an appeal is taken. Uh so if you could get this to me in a week, I I'm happy to give you additional time as well if if you think you need more time. Um
>> I would request one week. I would request one week. Let me just look at my calendar here. >> I most likely can have it sooner than that, your honor, but if I could have one week to have that submitted to you, that would be greatly appreciated.
>> Yeah. Again, I'm not uh here. >> So, yeah, one week would bring us to Tuesday, January 13. Um that's sufficient time for both sides.
>> Yes, your honor. >> All right. All right. So again to reiterate, I'll take the matter under advisement so that I can review the documents more carefully. Um and uh as well uh review and consider any proposed orders that
the parties would like to file. uh and uh uh uh the parties are indicating that they both agree they can file a proposed order by uh by January the 13th. That's one week from today. So I will um uh
wait on the submission as well of the proposed order before I take final action. Um but um at some point hopefully soon after that I'll get you the final order in the matter after I've had a chance to review and digest all of the the exhibits.
and and your submissions. Is there anything else? >> Just your honor, you would like >> Yeah, you have you have the previous testimony from the Crumbies available to you, correct? They appeared in December 4th >> telling about the apartment being an efficiency apartment and the lady that
did hair. >> Yeah, I have the uh the testimony from the from the first session uh of this proceeding. Um, as well as I think that's when you submitted your first set of exhibits, >> correct? >> Yep. >> I have.
>> Okay. >> And does the town have anything else on this one before we move on? >> Not this time. >> All right. Well, thanks. Thanks for coming in, Miss Thomas. And and again, I'll look forward to receiving your proposed order honor before the 13th of January, and then we'll get you order.
>> Your honor, I'm sorry. I'm sorry to do this. I've my husband just reminded me that we have several upcoming um appointments. Could I have two weeks, please, your honor, instead of one? >> Does the county have any objection? I guess that would be the 20th of January.
Um no objection. >> I apologize. I didn't remember that I had appointments. >> Just uh one second. All right. So, uh, we'll, uh, revise or amend that deadline for the, uh,
proposed orders to January 2026. That's two weeks from today. >> Thank you. >> And I will not rule until I've received those from the parties. All right. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. And anything else before we uh complete this hearing? >> Oh, I thank you for your time.
>> All right. Thank you. So that concludes then of the the formal hearing in uh the town versus Danny Lewis and Carol Gene Thomas and we can proceed to the next item on the agenda. >> Yes, this is a status hearing case 2025819.
Case was heard before the special magistrate on October 29th at 9:00 a.m. Special magistrate order was signed by special magistrate Van Lanham on 112 2025. The order found the property owner John K. Daniels in violation of the Fort Myers Beach Code. Um, regarding
construction without permits, um, the owner was provided until 123 of 25 to obtain the required permits. Um, our daily fine of $250 a day would be assessed and costs in the amount of $250 were um, assigned on that order as well.
Um, a fine assessment hearing was set for today, January 6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Um, on December 18th, 2025, I filed an affidavit of non-compliance. Um, did not show the permits um updated or issued
for this violation and those are um were submitted to electronically uh evidence packet A. I apologize. Just look at this here. All right. So uh the uh
the uh your testimony is that the uh respondent had did not obtain the needed permits by December 3rd. >> That is correct. Our cost for reinspection showing that the unpermitted work was either removed or corrected.
>> So a daily fine would commence to run on a day following the compliance date December 4. Let me ask, is this Mr. Daniels here? >> Uh, yes. I'm Joseph Daniels. I'm John's son. I was here >> last hearing as well. >> Okay.
>> Can we get him sworn in as well? >> Yeah. Did you do you want to get some give some testimony, Mr. Daniels? >> Uh, I have a comment to make. >> Well, we'll go ahead and swear again. If you raise your hand for me, please. Do you swear or testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, sir.
>> Now, you're both sworn in. And Mr. Daniels, go ahead. Um, basically I just want to say that not pro not much progress has been made on this um, since the last hearing. I do apologize for that. Um, the end of the year is a very busy time for me. Um, and then the
holidays and all that stuff in the middle right now. Um, we are held up I was requested by Kelly. Um, the most recent rejection comment that I got is in further review of the property and flood insurance policy payout from
Ian. There seems to be a discrepancy with the cost breakdown provided in the policy payout. I've began to gather documents and get a response together for Kelly. I just have not been able to get it all together. Um I can read
through some of my response if you would like to at this moment or all I would like to ask is for additional time. Um, if I could have this to her by this week, I can do that without any issue. >> Hello, Kelly.
>> Kelly DeFedius, town of uh Fort Myers Beach Flood Plane Manager. I don't I I don't have a problem waiting because I know the holidays really I just got a phone call. somebody's been trying to get a hold of me and I'm like the holidays and so I don't have a problem with um corresponding with him to get those numbers obviously as long as no
construction's going on and it's um but other than that I because I know it takes a while to get pennies recorded and written down. So >> and what we're looking for here is uh some after the fact commenting on unpermitted work. >> Yes, correct.
>> All right. And Mr. Richies, your testimony is that you don't mind giving Mr. Daniels more time. >> No, the the FEMA affidavits that someone fills out are very detailed and they have to get every scent um referenced in there. So, I do know it takes a lot. And
again, if it wasn't for the holidays, maybe not. No, I'm just kidding. But yeah, there's definitely I don't have a problem corresponding with him >> and and we've corresponded already. So, >> how much time Mr. Mr. Federichi or Mr. Houseman, would
you be willing to give him? >> He he said he could have it by a week. I I trust that he could have it by the end of the week. He's probably the same thing as me. People calling over the holidays trying to address it all. So, by by early next week, I think is sufficient if if that's okay with code.
With that being said, I don't have a problem extending it to new status hearing February. When's our When's our hearing in February? Apologize. Give me one second. >> So yeah, if you want to extend it to the
second of February, that would give me time to reinspect and make sure that all the permits are issued before the next hearing. >> And then if if all of it's fine, then he doesn't have to go to hearing. Is that correct? Like we >> depends on the order for today. Okay, that's >> our next hearing is what is it? February 2nd. We're looking at the
February 3rd is the next hearing. >> February 3rd. >> Okay. So, we have a status uh review on February 3rd. >> Correct. [clears throat] >> All right. Uh and are we extending the
compliance date then? I guess Mr. Federichi said another week or so. >> Correct. Yes. Yes. Let's say 10 days because that gives you [clears throat] this week and then early next week. Yeah. It'll give him a little while. Is that okay? >> Let's do two. Yeah. Two weeks. That way we put it that puts us right in the
middle between the hearings >> and hopefully it'll be addressed before the hearings. >> So, will we give them until January 20th? >> That would be fine. >> Okay. >> If I may ask, are you saying January 20th that I have to be completely
compliant permit issued everything or response to this rejection letter? because I know how permits worked on here and after I handle the matter with Kelly, which I'm going to speak with you after this and try to schedule a sit down. Um, after I handle the matter with Miss Kelly, then I'm going to be going
into the next review and that might get me another rejection letter from a different department that I then have to address and >> have all those. >> Yeah, the order would require probably the last. Okay. >> Yeah, I'm the I'm the last one for the review and so with it's okay. So, I'm the last one for the review. And with
that being said, there's um you would see that if you had other rejections and you would just submit them at the same time. If everything's been approved, then that's fine. Um but for me, just get me the stuff before the 20th. I'll correspond um with code and we'll just keep letting them know and update them
and hopefully if it's acceptable, we resolve this before February 2nd or 3rd so we're not here again. >> I have no objection to that. >> All right. So, I I'll extend the compliance date then to January 20, 2026
based on the testimony. Um, it does sound like you've been working towards getting this into compliance. Um, based on the responses I'm hearing from the town, so that's a good thing. Um, so we'll extend that date for you.
We'll have you back on the 2nd if the property is not in compliance. Obviously, you brought into compliance and uh and you won't need to come back in. The only thing that may have to be addressed is we did assign court costs. So that that's that would still be on the on the record.
>> I thought we did >> we haven't we haven't done the final that was in the original order. I apologize. >> Yeah, I think I've got the uh the costs are already covered, so that won't change. I mean, the court costs are going to be assessed regardless. I think it's $250.
>> Is there anything else the town needs on this one at the moment? No, your honor. >> All right. Thanks for coming in, Mr. Daniels. >> Thank you. >> Keep working on it. Good luck to you. >> Um, next item B and status updates. Case 20250853
12 Fair View Boulevard. This case was heard before the special magistrate on October 29th, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. a special magistrate order was signed. On 11:12 of 2025, the order found the property owner, Adrien Turner, in violation of Fort Myers Beach Code.
Um, the owner was provided until December 3rd to obtain the required building permits. Our daily fine would be imposed of $250 a day. Um, administrative costs were also imposed, so $250. Um fine assessment hearing was set for January
6th at 9:00 a.m. Um upon my um reinspection, permits were obtained on 1212 of 25 and an affidavit of compliance was filed on 1218 with a comp compliance date of 1212 2025. >> The property owner complied on 1212
lines began to run on 124. So it's Um there was a short period of non-compliance then a short fine period. >> Correct. We're okay with um waving that short period of fine but also we want to
collect the um administrative costs of 250. >> Okay. Which we adjudicated in the prior. So you just need an order imposing costs. >> Correct sir. Your honor. >> All right.
So vision order imposing cost in this one of $250 otherwise uh uh waving the fine that would have occurred during the week or so between the compliance date and the affidavit of compliance. >> Yeah, sure.
>> All right. >> Well, that's a pretty good outcome. >> Status hearing. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, go ahead. Um C is Tiva Investment Real Estate LLC. Case number 2025988. This case was heard before the special
magistrate on 10:2925 at 9:00 a.m. Special magistrate order was signed um on 1112 of 25. The order found the property owner Tea Investment Real LLC in violation of Fort Myers Beach Code um
requiring compliance by 123 of 25 um regarding um demolition permits not being finalized and some insurance type of issues with that. Um fine was to be assessed of $250 a day thereafter and
cost of $250. Fine assessment hearing was set for January 6, 2026 at 9:00 am. Affidavit of non-compliance was filed on 128, 2025. Um, we wanted to note for the record, the town has been working with this
property owner. Um, they are out of country and have a language barrier. Um, but they are working directly with staff to try and get this um, permit taken care of. Um, if you want to do um if you were able to give a 30-day extension,
that would be appreciated. >> Okay. So, you want to extend the compliance date? >> Yes, your honor. >> That was for the compliance state was 123. So, uh, do we want to set this for a status at
at next month's hearing on February 3rd? >> Yes, your honor. Um let's look at the calendar. So uh um >> what works best for the town in terms of a compliance date? Some to get it
reinspected before the February 30 hearing somewhere around the end of January or >> as long as I have a day or two to go out and reinspect it. Yes. >> Does January 30 give you enough time? >> That would be fine. >> All right. So, we'll extend the
compliance date to January 30th, 2026 for reinspection, and we'll have this uh again for status review on February 3rd um to uh review compliance. Um obviously, if
they're in compliance before that date, we'll just need to impose an order of costs. Anything else we need on the tea invest case? >> No, that is it, your honor. >> All right. Very good. >> And our final case D7846 Buccaneer
Drive. Case 20250811. This case was heard before the special magistrate on October 29th, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. the special magistrate order was signed. On 1112 of 25, the order found the property owner Mark and Sherry Brook in violation of Fort Myers speaks code
um construction without permit. The owner was provided until 123 of 25 to come into compliance um by obtaining required building permits or a fine of $250 a day there after to be imposed. Um, administrative costs of $250 were
also imposed on the order. A fin assessment hearing was set for January 6, 2026 at 9:00 am. Copy of the order and affidavit of compliance um were submitted as exhibit one, exhibit A, I apologize, um, showing
compliance on 124 2025. So, the property is in compliance and we are just looking for administrative cost of $250. >> All right. So, I will enter an order of cost on this one. Property is in compliance. Again, a good outcome there.
Like to see that. All we need on this one then is the order of cost. >> Yes, your honor. >> Excellent. >> All right. I will get that out to you. >> Thank you, your honor. And that's all of our status update
cases. Do we have any other business we need to address on this agenda? >> That's all I have. >> All right. Very good. So, let me make sure the next time I will see you all is February 3rd. >> Yes, your honor.
>> All right. It looks like the only the only really tricky thing here is dealing with the that first violation case that Lewis and Thomas and I will be looking for the proposed orders uh on that uh in a couple of weeks and
get get an order out on that one. Um these others are fairly straightforward and get them out fairly quickly to you. >> Okay. >> I'll get with your attorney and we'll get that over to you. >> All right. Very good. Well, if there's no other business, uh, this proceeding
is adjourned. I will see you all next time. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, your honor. >> All right. Take care.