##VIDEO ID:xI6AMRxBKjM## e e e e e e e e e there we go yes Law Firm has the pleasure of serving as the town attorney for the town of Fort Meers Beach um there is a published agenda today where we have filed eight cases however since the um the filing we have been able to work with property owners and uh would like to go ahead and continue four of those cases so today we would like to present to you four cases um I have spoken with Representatives who are present in the audience for all of the four cases okay which ones are we going to hear today um the ones we're going to hear today on the agenda is item uh agenda item a which is 1035 Estero Boulevard KLC surf LLC laa um also um agenda Item B which is 1821 Estero Boulevard um Estero Boulevard Corp and Steven Larsson doing business as Sun and Fun um agenda item C 2815 estera Boulevard Hamstead Associates LLC and 81 Miramar Street um Patricia Smith trustee um your honor what we this is our first time working with you um teleph digitally I guess is one way to say it so um I apologize if we hit some uh Little Speed humps today but what we've tried to do is to send you an electronic copy of what our hearing exhibits are we did file exhibits when we initially f filed the case but we've changed them a little bit not a lot um we have provided print copies or will be in the process of providing print copies to the representatives who are present and um and you'll have your electronic version of it as well okay um I don't know your your policy as far as swearing in um Witnesses for Testimony if you wanted to do that at the beginning or for each case what what is your pleasure usually I'll swear everyone in at once do we have everyone um are all the parties that are going to participate uh reductions here not everyone uh perhaps that knows who I am my name is John Van lanningham uh I'm going to be serving as the uh the town's uh Code Compliance special magistrate in these hearings I'm located in Tallahassee and so we're conducting the hearings by this video set up through Zoom um I uh I'm I'm assuming that we'll call the cases in the order that you've listed them a through D um yes your honor um also the cases that we're continuing for the record if we can um identify those for you sure um because we do have some people in the audience that came just in case um to be continued is um agenda item D which is 4900 Estero Boulevard um owned by Island Towers Condo Association continue to the February 4th hearing um again we are hoping that we can come to compliance um and be able to advise you of that at that hearing um agenda item e which is 1249 Estero Boulevard owned by 1249 Estero Adventures LLC um continued to February the 4th um agenda item F 2450 Estero Boulevard owned by 24 50 Estero Boulevard LLC continued to February the 4th and 406 Estero Boulevard owned by Windward Passage Resort condo continued to February the 4th all right very good um are there any other preliminary matters that we all to take up before we start hearing the cases I don't think so your honor 4447 on the 4447 on the 19th day of November and this case involves property that's located at 1035 Estero Boulevard so I would like to go ahead and make some preliminary remarks regarding the nature of the complaint that precipitated the initiation for preservation in the record regarding the case um let me just before you do that who's here on beh of the respondent the 1035 St Boulevard good morning your honor for the record Amy too with retzel and Andress I represent the respondents how you spell your last name good question T is and Tom h i b as and boy a u t is and Tom all right and do you have anyone here uh who's who's your client r so for the property owner respondent KLC surf LLC we have Chris Primo who is the manager of that entity and then for the operator the lesie of the restaurant which is te4 we have Tom hoton who is the manager of that entity as well and can speak to the operational um and development aspects factually as needed all right very good let me hear from the town and then we'll come back to you thank you your honor so your honor um hopefully you've received our digital copy of the exhibits that we want to present to you today um we are going to attempt to put them on the screens that we have in um our hearing room um and I'm going to walk through those exhibits as well as our code enforcement officer um officer yazo during his presentation so the first exhibit is exhibit a and please bear with me um this kind of establishes the complaint in these Code Enforcement cases as well as the reasons why um why we're here um doing this um it contains our first exhibit uh first item in exhibit a is a letter from FEMA uh which is dated July the 19th can you the next one there we go okay and this letter was addressed to Andy hayatt who is the town manager of Fort Meers Beach the letter includes a summary of the town's non-compliance with its minimum flood plane standards and codes um specific to this case is there is a reference on page three um paragraph 2B which requires the the town to provide a plan for remedying any of the identified violations so attached to that letter of July the 19th is the town of Fort Meers Beach Post disaster compliance status update report from FEMA and this identifies um some compliance issues that the town has um run into um page two of the report specifically says that there was a failure in the town's permitting system which allowed the use of temporary non-compliance structures including shipping containers and trailers slash food trucks and then the statement in the report is followed by a list of town of Fort Meers Beach citations further down in um on the page in paragraph three it says that non-compliant structures parentheses containers and temporary structures that have been placed in the coastal High Hazard Zone The V Zone and the coastal a Zone um please provide a plan to remove these structures or bring the non-compliant structures or non-compliant additions into compliance and confirmation that the town has stopped issuing permits for this type of non-compliant development um the letter of July the 19th of 2024 from FEMA to the town also included a deadline of November 18th for the town to remedy these um violations brought to its attention um shortly uh during shortly after the July 19th the Town Council directed The Town manager to stop issuing any type of permit for this type of non-compliant development um because because of the benefits that some of these businesses that operate out of these shipping containers and food trucks uh present to the residents the town sent a letter to FEMA um asking for its compliance date to be extended to June 2025 um and I believe that letter is dated November the 1st with a video uh link embedded in that letter um guys you got to go up a little bit more there we go is that yeah that's the July 19th the July 19th uh we're looking for a November 1 letter but it is in the packet so I'll I'll proceed but the letter also included a a link um to a video that was actually prepared by um the respondent in this first case um to show how quickly some of these businesses that are operating in these um non-compliant structur could actually relocate um in the event of a declaration of a hurricane warning from the area um I believe on the 12th yeah that's the letter um on the 12th of November fima responded um with another letter saying that it was not authorized to extend the existence of any non-compliant development and further added that the purpose of these regulations is to protect lives and property in the special flood Hazard area um FEMA went on to say that these non-compliant structures are in the most at risk area the ve Zone also known as the coastal High Hazard area which received a 14 foot storm surge during Hurricane Ian so allowing these structures to remain in place presents a hazard to Residents and businesses in the event of another storm as demonstrated by hurricanes Helen and Milton so having received that letter um the town diligently worked with the property owners that had um these non-compliance structures and some um actually in the aftermath of hurricane Milton and hurricane Helen were able to remove and um from the property recently on December the 16th the town directed The Town manager to resend any remaining temporary use permits that were still out there um and again the town continues to work with the property owners who have these um non-compliant structures on their property to have them voluntarily removed and as you see um based on the removal of four of the eight from our agenda we do have a good dialogue with our residents and businesses who um who have these structures there um however um we are compelled to bring some of them to you um in the event that we're we're not able to reach any type of resolution um so at the end we will um summarize the various exhibits that we are presenting to you and ask that they all be put into the record So Pro providing you testimony today regarding the actual violation is Officer Thomas yazo uh who is uh who will introduce himself as well as Carl Thomas who will um provide you with their credentials and and their case right did you want to call those Witnesses at this time yes sir um I would first call um officer yazen good morning morning your honor let me get your full name again for the record my full name is Thomas common spelling last name is yazo Yo zzoo you may proce morning your honor my name is Officer Thomas yazo I'm a code compliance officer and a compliance and security manager with the town of Fort Meers Beach as a manager for the compliance Security Department I am responsible for day-to-day operation the town of Uber or town of Fort Meers Beach code enforcement department and I supervise four Code Compliance officers I review all Code Enforcement cases with them and have access to all available code enforcement files in addition to this since July of 2024 I have been personally involved with the town's efforts to come into compliance with the flood plane regulations identified by FEMA which are incorporated into the town code of ordinances I've been sworn in will provide testimony and documentation regarding the violation in this case during my testimony I will periodically refer to refer to exhibits in the agenda materials and request that these materials be admitted into evidence and included as part of our record for this case again this is Fort Meers Beach code enforcement case number two 2024 0915 which is also identified as DOA case number 24- 0447 the subject property is located at 1035 Estero Boulevard Fort Myers Beach Florida 33931 on September 19th 2024 I observed a shipping container on the subject property which I determined to be a non-compliant structure based on current flood planes regulations inclusive design codes required in special Hazard areas as defined in section 6- 494 of Fort Meers Beach code of ordinances the subject property is located in a coastal a partially as identified in the latest flood plane map and requires the structures to have a base flood elevation of 13 ft above sea level I observed that the shipping container was not elevated and to the best of my knowledge and I have the engineered plans for pilings and infrastructure I then consulted with the fort Meers Beach flood plane manager Carl Thomas who confirmed to me that the shipping container on the subject property was a non-compliant Structure based on my observation and in violation on September 24th 2024 and I sent a copy of it by certified mail return receipt to the address of record specifically 2327 Nursery Road Clearwater Florida 33764 posted a copy of notice violation at the subject property and at Town Hall located at 2731 Oak Street for Myers Beach Florida 33931 a copy of the affida notice and posting evidence of ownership is labeled exhibit B I would like to also include in the record as well as after of notice and posting notice of the information about the case is also displayed on the town of Fort Meers Beach website easily located under the Public Notices the respondent is present at today's hearing is represented by Amy tyo tyo TBO an attorney for Ron Andress I did take photos to document the violation I observed on September 19th 2024 they're uh clearly presented in Exhibit C they contain true and accurate unaltered copies of these photographs during my initial inspection on September 19th 2024 the photographs show that the ship container is not elevated to 13 ft above sea level Additionally the photographs show there are three shipping containers BL that additionally the photographs show that there there are photographs showing permanent attached ramp and railings and decks and stairs in my notice of violation I gave LKC surf LLC 30 days from September 19th to remove the shipping container from the property or to otherwise come into compliance with the town codes I directed A reinspection the subject property occurred on November 18th 2024 by Officer Daniel B who I supervis and she informed me that the shipping container remained on the subject property in the same condition as shown on the photographs I prly took which were part of the case File I directed officer bat to prepare an affid of non-compliance and a copy of which is included in exhibit D the property owner received a letter revoking resending its permit on December 19 2024 a copy of which is also included in the file and exhibit F and all agenda materials as a result of the property owners failure to remove the shipping containers or to bring the subject property into compliance with section 6-51 and 6- 525 of the town's Land Development code as as identified in a notice of violation the property owner was provided with a notice of today's code enforcement hearing as shown in exhibit G with the affid of notice and posting of today's Hearing in advance of today's hearing I reinspected the property yesterday January 6th 2025 and took photographs again of the shipping containers with flood plane manager Carl Thomas present which remains on the subject property in the same condition as I initially observed September 19th 2024 I'd like to add those photographs into the record which was sent to you uh via email as exhibit H at this time your honor I'd like to ask flood plane manager Carl Thomas to provide you with additional information regarding the town's code sections and asce 24 -14 and what is needed for the shipping container on the subject property compliance with the town's code thank you let me just ask if there's new photographs um you say they were sent to me yes sir your honor they were sent to your assistant Jan as to why this is in violation let's see this before we go to the next um M St do you have any questions for uh a anything you want to ask um no your honor not at this time um your honor I believe that um you know this was our first time working with DOA um so we do have a set of the exhibits that the clerk mentioned um they're a little bit different than what is currently filed with DOA so that may be the reason why you're not able to see these pictures yet I'll get them if they have them they'll they'll get them let me ask U um Miss dball if you have any questions for cross examination here on for this witness um my only question for officer yazo at this time would be to confirm that you are finding this to be in violation due to failure to meet base flood or design flood that's correct no further question thank you let me just ask you while you're standing up there m deal um uh before we the next witness often times in these code cases I do it for a lot of jurisdictions first time I've done for the town here but um just so I get a sense of what the disputes are um uh are are you all disputing the alleged violations um or do you have other issues to raise like length of time for compliance and that sort of thing um your honor both would be present in this case um I have a presentation that I will go through after the town completes its presentation where I'll set forth our argument as to why this is not a violation of the town code um but you know alternatively and in the interest of working with the town we do have a couple of alternate requests that we will propose at that time um time to um you know should you find that this is a violation you know we would ask for extended time to aate and um you know consider of a couple of other issues at that point as well couple of affirmative defenses all right we'll he we'll hear those arguments let's go ahead and finish up the we'll come back to that thank you your honor good morning your honor um my name is Carl Thomas and I am the flood plane manager for the Fort mys Beach I've been the flood plane manager for the town since um I have been a flood plane manager since 2011 and I received my certification from the association of State flood plane managers in April of 2011 with my certification I've worked with several local governments concerning flood regulations such as those in effect in the town of Fort Myers Beach and since May of 2024 I've been specifically working with Town staff and representatives from the Federal Emergency Management agency to meet the requirements of FEMA post disaster compliance report for hurricane in included in exhibit a of the agenda materials I am here to provide testimony regarding the non-compliance of the subject property which is located in a high-risk flood zone in September of 2024 I had conversations with officer Tom yazo regarding his concerns that the shipping containers on the subject property were in violation the town's flp plane regulations as claimed by FEA and his compliance report I explained the criteria that would need to be satisfied in compliance with chapter 6 Division 10 section 6501 and 6525 of the town's Land Development code a copy of sections 6-51 and 6525 and an excert asce 24-14 are included an exhibit e of the agenda materials in summary I explained to officer yazo that sections 6501 states that any structure located in a flood zone even if they are exempt from permitting per Florida building code must be designed in accordance with the American Society of civil engineers ASC for short standard 24-14 for flood existent design and construction where compliance includes elevating the structure to the base flood elevation plus one foot anchoring the structure to remain in place during flood conditions or having flood openings or Breakaway walls that allow unobstructed passage of flood waters through the structure non-compliance with flood regulations not only increase the vulnerability of the structure itself but also pose significant risk to Public Safety laboring properties in the environment additionally it jeopardizes the community's participation in the National flood insurance program potentially increasing insurance premiums for all residents subsequent to my September conversations with officer yazo I accomp him on a site visit to the subject property during the week during the second week in December and most recently another site visit yesterday January 6th 2025 again we discuss the re requirements of compliance under the town's flood planning regulations for the purposes of illustration of the hazard non-compliance structures can cause I have a photograph I received from officer yazo taken after Hurricane Milton by Andrew Hyatt Our Town manager and what it shows is evidence of a non-compliance structure similar to what we're discussing today that would displace during the storm and created a hazard to the residents of the town compliance structure ended up in the area of North stero Boulevard we have no evidence where the shipping container was initially located or if its owner in my opinion similar displacement is possible with non-compliant structures such as what we're discussing today and the subject property depending on the strength of the flood event in summary is my opinion that the shipping container located on the subject property is non compliant with the cited Town's flood plane ordinances and I would like to to include a copy of asce 24-14 and Mr hey's photograph and record for this case thank you right thank you and let me ask Mr if you have any questions for the witness um I do your honor um Mr Thomas um can you tell us a little bit more about the photograph so you you testified that it came through the town manager but did the town manager actually take that photograph or was it perhaps the director work photo came from the town manager but I believe the photo was taken by the director of Public Works Jeffrey thank you any cross examination Mr none at this time thank you thank you so you're honor um based on the Swarm testimony and the evidence that the town has presented to you um including the exhibits that are attached to the hearing exhibit package um that should have been transmitted to you today uh the town is going to be asking for uh a finding of a violation of SE section 6-51 6- 525 of the Land Development code and asce 24-14 as of January the 6 which was is based on the most recent photographs that um are in your agen agenda packet uh requiring that the property owner come into compliance with the town code or removal of the shipping container within a reasonable period of time that we would look to your guidance to establish uh as the compliance date um also a uh fine of $250 per day in the event that the there is no compliance or the structure has not non-compliance structure has not been removed by your compliance date um an administrative fee of $250 to cover our expenses and lastly um authoriz in the town to Abate the violation by the removal of the shipping container if compliance is not obtained by March the First with any expenses that are incurred by the town to be paid by the property owner within 30 days um and if the town's expenses remain unpaid beyond the 30 days the town would request certification of the amount owed to be imposed as a lean on the property um in your packet um that was presented to you today your honor we have proposed order I do have those they've been emailed to me I up but I see them there in the queue great and we um we have basically identified the um the various exhibits um that should be in in the packet before you that it is our intent to have um presented those to you and that's it are you is the town recommending March one uh of this year as the compliance date um mention that no we would we would request the authority to Abate the violation on March the 1st um and that date is tied to the town's um obligation to provide a status update to FEMA uh in April so we would need a little bit of time to actually have it moved in the event they are not able to attain compliance all right very good let me hear from M good morning your honor again for the record Amy toau retzel and Andress I represent the respondents and I have a quick presentation that I have prepared today to discuss this case all right very good maybe I'm sorry the clicker I'm having a little oh there we go so as discussed um already by Mr yazo and Mr Thomas and Miss St Rich the property um subject to the code case today is located at 10:35 esto Boulevard and it contains 0.17 Acres it is within the coastal a and be zones and um it does consist of some development that has been discussed here today including two modular shipping containers a fixed to trailers which has not been discussed to date um as well as decks stairs and ramps that are not structurally connected to the shipping containers and which were permitted separately so they are structurally independent of the shipping containers and the shipping containers are located on large trailers I have some photos of those in a couple of slides um that are easily removed from the property in the event of the storm and quite frankly that have been removed from the property um ahead of hurricane Melton which again we will discuss shortly so the town has already gone through um a lot of the history here and you know some of the facts leading up to the current proceedings here today but of course on September 28th 2022 hurricane made landfall right here on the island and along with many many other uses on the island um the pre-existing restaurant and bar was substantially damaged and has since been demolished in November of 2022 um the respondents applied for and obtained a temporary use permit to operate the restaurant on the site out of temporary containers and um with a mobile food truck and then in February 2023 um that's when the permit applications for the deck stairs and ramps were filed and those permits were subsequently issued by the town it's pertinent to note that the development that is on the site has been approved not only by the town through various permits um it's also been approved by dbpr in conjunction with the mobile food vending license that is held by the lesian operator of the site um as well as the uh cop consumptive um not consumptive use permit but the the liquor license that is held by the operator for that site and this configuration has also been approved by the Department of Health as well and it has passed all of those inspections but as Nancy noted in this past summer 2024 FMA um sent a demand to the town mandating removal of of a variety of temporary structures including the containers which were lumped into that in October of 2024 um the respondents appealed to Town Council and Town Council um voted to send a letter to FEMA requesting permission to allow the container containers on this property specifically to remain as they are and as Miss suich mentioned um that letter does contain a h link to a video that shows the evacuation um operations for these containers because again they are on trailers so they are simply removed ahead of a storm event but in November of 2024 FEA denied this request and subsequently the town has been put into a probationary period for the nfip um program and and as authorized under those regulations the code of federal regulations and so they have in conjunction with that probationary period mandated that the town of course enforce what FEMA deems to be non-compliant structures and other I mean truly structures um so that is again why we are here today just to reiterate what the town has already presented and so these are photos of the trailers on which the shipping containers are store so of course this does not show the shipping containers on them but there are a plethora of photographs of the site as developed um that the town has already submitted so we didn't want to be redundant but we did want to include these photos just to show you I mean these are very large goose neck trailers and the shipping containers are a fixed to this to these and these trailers are located on the site so the shipping containers actually are not a fixed to the ground or to any type of permanent or semi-permanent Foundation they are fixed to these trailers and as I mentioned earlier um ahe of hurricane Milton which made landfall in October on a Wednesday a mandatory evacuation was issued for this property on that preceding Sunday at about 4 p.m. by 11 a.m. the next morning that Monday both of these shipping containers on their trailers had been removed from the site taken off Island and Upland and secured in a location where the containers and the trailers themselves were safe from the storm and the impacts thereof and um were subsequently brought back onto the site safe and sound and have continued to operate since then so as the town has already discussed they are alleging violations of section five 6-51 of their Land Development code which requires compliance with the American Society of civil engineers publication 24-14 and this is specific to buildings that are not regulated by the Florida building codee um the second section of the Land Development code that the town alleges has been violated is section 6525 which imposes requirements for development that is not explicitly regulated elsewhere in the code and then of course um Mr Thomas has already discussed asce 24-14 and has requested that that publication is entered into the record but that is a publication again from the American Society of civil engineers and it pertains to structures and the reason that I keep bringing up structures is because as we will get into a bit more in here these are this configuration with these shipping containers on the trailers they're not structures within the meaning of FEMA's regulations and therefore um well I'll get into that in just a moment but again the summary of the argument is that the containers do not violate the regulations adopted for the national flood plane insurance program in 44 CFR sections 59 um at SEC um specifically there are some definitions in 44 CFR 59 but a lot of the requirements as far as you know requiring structures to be at base flood or design flood um regulating recreational vehicles regulating how this type of development can be undertaken is located in 44 CFR section 60 so we would ask that you do take judicial notice of of those sections of the CFR um um but further as as we will demonstrate the containers are not in violation of the town's Land Development code either um further finding that the containers are a violation would implicate due process because the government can't penalize conduct that is not expressly prohibited and as we will get into this configuration is not expressly prohibited by either the code of federal regulations or the town's Land Development code further we assert that even if this was a violation the town would be equitably a stopped from asserting these violations at this point um and finally it's it's really imperative to mention the Practical implications of this case the Lola rest Lola Surf Side Restaurant and Bar is a Mainstay on the island and Not only would there be hardship on the property owner and the L who have relied in good faith that the approvals they have received not just from the town but also from the state on multiple levels um you know demonstrated that that this configuration is appropriate acceptable and you know within the confines of the law but there's also a a plethora of folks that rely on the operation of this restaurant for their own livelihoods the employees the entertainers um and of course the town itself is is struggling to rebuild after Hurricane Ian it has been quite frankly a brutal process for everybody involved and it's and it's not for a lack of the town's good faith efforts but by eliminating some of the few uses commercial uses and specifically restaurants that are back up and running on the island in the aftermath of hurricane Ian which made landfall almost two and a half years ago um it just further puts the town a step backward so with that I will get into the um code of federal regulations so specifically the code of federal regulations Define structures as a building that is a fix to a that is a fixed to a permanent site or a manufactured home that is a fixed to a permanent foundation or a travel trailer that is a fixed to a permanent foundation so the shipping containers on the trailers as they are configured now on the site don't actually meet any of the three different definitions of a structure set forth in the code of federal regulations and the definition at the very end of the definition it states for the latter purpose structure does not mean a recreational vehicle or a Park trailer or other similar vehicle except as described in paragraph three of this definition which essentially is a travel TR trailer that has been affixed to a permanent foundation that type of um vehicle must meet base flood and design flood well Bas blood it's residential but this configuration also does not exactly fit into the definition of a recreational vehicle either um these trailers as you can tell are very heavyduty trailers so they are not towable by a light duty pickup truck but they are towable by a heavy duty pickup truck which is um something that the respondents possess and have demonstrated that they are able to utilize to remove these containers and the trailers from the site quickly and efficiently ahead of a storm um further these are also not recreational vehicles because they're not temporary living quarters for recreational camping travel or seasonal use these are truly this configuration is an Innovative configuration and it's not one that the code of federal regulations expressly contemplates and the reason that I bring this up is because for example a recreational vehicle can meet FEMA flood plane requirements one of three ways the first is that it can be a fixed to a permanent foundation as we've already discussed and if it is and it meets those permanent foundation requirements that are set forth in the code of federal regulations and asce 24-14 and you know all other requirements then that is acceptable but that's not the only way that a recreational vehicle is acceptable a recreational vehicle that's on site for less than 180 days is also acceptable it need not be at base flood elevation similarly a recreational vehicle that is Highway ready that is hooked up to quick disconnect utilities and that is licensed for Highway use is also acceptable under the FEMA regulations and the reason that I bring this up is because again these these containers on the trailers don't fit neatly into the definition of a structure and they're not recreational vehicles either but as you will see it meets the spirit and intent of the FEMA regulations asce 24-14 and the Land Development code so here structures where recreational vehicles can be compliant with FEMA regulations you know via one of the three ways that I've just discussed structures are handled differ structures are required to meet the base flood elevation and depending on the zone that they're in they have certain Foundation requirements certain types of pilings they need to use certain types of materials and all of that again is governed by primarily for a site like this um 44 CFR 60.3 and also a asce 24-14 but a lot of what those requirements also state is that um for example if certain improvements can be removed from the property with at least 12 hours notice of a storm that can comply with asce 24-14 um again going back to the RVs removing RVs from a site that that is in the path of a storm where the RV maybe wasn't located at or above based flood but that leaves ahead of a storm that is also compliant there's no penalty for that so here we don't have shipping containers that are permanently affixed to a foundation and just haven't met base blood they are transportable and as we've discussed prior and and I'm sure Tom hoton um who is the manager of the lesie entity we'll we'll discuss later on if you have any questions um you know he can he can explain to you exactly how this evacuation process has been planned and has actually been undertaken executed and how it has succeeded so we are simply here to state that one the configuration that we have well we can't speak for every other shipping container on the island or temporary structure or whatever here this type of innovative development hasn't really been contemplated by the code of federal regulations and that's not unusual I mean we we see innovation in a lot of Industries and the law is often slow to catch up on that but the particular conduct that has been undertaken by the respondents is not actually in violation of any of the FEMA regulations so the slide just again reiterates that now getting into the case at hand the containers don't violate the LDC so the intent of the flood plane regulations again is to protect the public health safety and Welfare protect life protect property and as you will see the configuration on this particular site does just that the first alleged violation of course is of section 6-51 which states that pursuant to Section 6- 443 of Land Development code building structures and Facilities that are exempt from the Florida building code must meet the requirements of asce 24-14 um so section 6443 of the Land Development code lists a variety of structures to which this applies they don't include the shipping containers themselves so that's I would just say pertinent to note I would argue that 6-51 lane development code actually does not apply to this property for that reason so um further the containers are not actually exempt from the Florida building code they are regulated as manufactured structures which require insignias and this is in conformance with chapter uh with sections 55335 to 55342 of the Florida Statutes which govern which provide the Florida building General Florida building code requirements for um manufactured buildings and structures and other facilities like these shipping containers but for this reason section 6501 Land Development code does not actually apply to these containers more importantly um section 6- 525 which is the second provision of the code that the town alleges has been violated actually does apply to this but we are in conformance with this requirement so this is sort of a catchall provision that states you know General requirements for all other development that hasn't been explicitly contemplated in the town's flood plane regulations so the first criteria is that it must be located and constructed to minimize flood damage must be anchored to prevent flotation collapse or lateral movement resulting from hydrostatic loads um it must be constructed of flood damage resistant materials and it must have Mechanical plumbing and electrical systems above the designed flood elevation or that meet the requirements of as24 so it's important to note that asce 24-14 um part 7 or chapter 7 governs the type of facilities that are contemplated in subsection 4 of 6525 so specifically the first general provision in section 7.1 is that either these utilities and equipment must be located above the minimum elevation either base flood or design flood or they must be specifically allowed below the minimum elevation and designed constructed and installed to prevent flood waters including any backflow through the system from entering or accumulating within the components so again as I noted before asce 24-14 really only applies to structures but in the spirit of and intent of trying to meet these regulations um there is no evidence that the utilities The Mechanical plumbing and electrical facilities are actually not compliant with asce 24-14 so that meets that fourth Criterion um as we've demonstrated the the containers have been designed and located to minimize flood damage they've been designed in a way where yes they are located in a high-risk Coastal area but they are designed to be transportable and we live we are fortunate to live in an area where while we do get major storm events and major flood events we typically have ample notice and therefore this design and location of the containers as they are configured on the trailers meets that first Criterion set fourth and six- 525 they are acceptable and then when there is a storm event coming they can be easily removed and quickly removed as far as the second Criterion the containers are anchored and mobile to tr ERS so they are there to ensure safety when located on the subject property but they are transportable and have actually been transported before storm events and then again of course after storm event coming back onto the site and the containers are made of flood resistant materials and again the plumbing mechanical and electrical facilities are for all intents and purposes appear to be compliant with asce 24-14 so for that reason this is really actually not a violation of the towns Land Development code and we would respectfully assert that or we would respectfully request that um you find that there is not a violation of those sections and I will add that the law is required to provide fair warning of prohibited conduct so the property owner and the lesie have taken every step in good faith to tried to bring this Restaurant and Bar Back to the Island um they've done it in a way where they have worked with a variety of professionals and Consultants they've applied for all of the requisite permits they obtained those permits they brought the trailers to the site they brought the shipping containers to the site they built the um accessory decking and stairs and ramps all under valid permits and there was no issue with with this for close to two years until FEMA came into the picture and argued that these are structures but they're not and now we're in a position where we are arguing nuanced you know Nuance technical requirements here but the reality is is that multiple agencies have found that this configuration complies with all all applicable rules it was just this past summer and and I don't even want to say that FEMA necessarily was targeting this particular site but I think that there are a lot of temporary structures on the island that potentially do create issues um that harm the public health safety and Welfare these don't and to penalize them when they are not expressly prohibited would be um would be violative of of due process so again going back to what we've already discussed the the code of federal regulations explicitly exempts RVs and similar conveyances from the definition of the structure and those are not required to meet base flood or design flood and the containers do comply with 6- 525 and therefore are permitted so to penalize a property owner an operator for conduct that is not express expressly prohibited again it it violates due process further there is the issue with Equitable a stole so property owner and lesie have relied in good faith upon the acts of the Town who have has issued several permits um for this site in the aftermath of hurricane Ian that have all led to the existing development of the site that is now being alleged to be in violation and they made substantial changes in their position they bought these these trailers and these containers theyve uh gone through the cost and time and effort of permitting them and the cost and the time of effort of Permitting other accessory structures that are structurally independent to try to meet you know all all requirements that have been adopted by both the town and the federal government and the state for that for that matter um and they incurred really extensive obligations and expenses at this point that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy that right by simply mandating that these Shi containers that have demonstrate I mean there's very very little risk associated with the configuration of the site as it stands currently um and and to revoke that right would be highly highly unjust and again as as I discussed earlier we can't talk about this case without talking about the implications and and the substantial hardship that would result from requiring that requiring the removal of the shipping containers that would be requiring the removal of an entire restaurant op operation and not only that it would be doing so in the midst of the busy season where they they make a lot of I I don't know exactly what percentage of their revenues are obtained during season but a a lot of the revenue is obtained between Thanksgiving and Memorial Day weekend when snowbirds and other folks come into town to visit not only that during this time this is our dry season so we are not in Hurricane Season the risk of storms far reduced between now in June and there are many many people that depend on this restaurant for their livelihoods to Simply say that this is a a violation is pulling the rug out from under not just the property owner and the lesie but also all of the employees all of the entertainers all the people who in One Way or Another depend on laola for their and their family's livelihoods so um at the very least at an absolute minimum if you do find that this is a violation we would ask that you would at least allow the restaurant to operate as it is configured now through through Memorial Day weekend because again this is our dry season very little risk of storms during this time a lot of um good can be gained for all of these folks that do financially depend on the Ola and it would also give folks enough time to plan for the next step you know how are they going to maintain that that income stream um should you find that this is a violation a new mandate removal of these structures so that was a lot with that please let me know if you have any questions let me ask a question or two and then you have you have a couple of witnesses correct uh yes I have Tom hotton here with me as well as Chris Primo who is the manager of the landlord entity KLC sir LLC in terms of the uh argument you're making um that this configuration of shipping container and trailer essentially doesn't meet certain definitions it's not a structure you argue and it's also not I guess at least not strictly speaking in RV right right it's neither of those as you argue um according to your argument can you tell me what affirmatively it is if it's not an RV and it's not a structure what what is this configuration what would you does it have a label or what would you call it affirmative that's a really good question I'm not exactly sure that I would have a name for it um quite frankly this is the first time I've worked on a project that has this type of configuration so this is fairly new to me and to my knowledge I don't really know of any other sites that have this type of configuration so that kind it plays into why I mentioned earlier that this is an Innovative concept it is structurally sound in its configuration on the property as it is on the trailers but it's also very easily transportable um I I would I don't know exactly what what I would call it I would call it maybe like a a a mobile bar and restaurant um not not to say that they're trying to just pick this up and take it to Food Truck Parks but it's it's truly a kind of a semi-permanent mobile configuration that allows for them to operate before you know permitting a a full true structure that has a permanent foundation all of the you know pilings that are required in a coastal a Zone um is the key distinction here and you it's been a point of emphasis in your argument the trailers I guess these these is your description of these trailers at issue in this case are that they're sitting of these containers they're sitting on these great big trailers the trailers have wheels and apparently you can hook up to a to a truck and move them off site relatively quickly um and and so I take it that as they sit there today they're sitting on these trailers is that right that's correct um if if the trailers weren't there and the containers were sitting on the ground without the trailers would it would you conc that it would be a structure then so it wouldn't be RV absolutely yeah because for the for the structures to be located on the site without the trailers would have to be affixed then to the site via some type of permanent foundation tie downs I'm not um not a contractor so I'm not an expert but yes typically shipping containers are are affixed to the site via some type of foundation and other than the trailer um aspect which I think you noted at the was something that hadn't been emphasized in the town's presentation um it doesn't seem to me like there's any about the facts and the trailer might not be speed either time just hasn't focused on it yet maybe they will in response to your argument but um other than the issue of the trailer and U you don't seem to be disputing any of the facts your argument is really more of a legal argument in terms of well if we look at this situation does it meet the definition of of structure here does it meet the definition of the RV there it's a legal argument um more than a factual be fair to say that is correct your honor all right um and let me call you I'm just going to ask a very quick question to the town let me address Miss ster very quickly does the town dispute the the the the factual existence of the trailer um I don't know if that's a fact dispute or not uh it seems to be or that seems to be is obviously important to the respondent's argument is there a dispute whether these trailers are these containers are sitting on a trailer um I'm not asking you at the moment whether that's leally relevant obviously you'll have an argument on that but is that in dispute or not yes I believe it is your honor um and the basis for that is um the trailers that these um structures non-compliant structures allegedly sit on are not visible um and the property owner if in fact they the non-compliance structure has been sitting on these trailers they knew back in July uh for certainty that um that could have been disclosed to the town and it never was um so we do object to the inclusion of the um photograph um the photograph itself has not really been authenticated it's um part of um argument and um the property owners attorney she makes very good arguments but that is argument and not competent substantial evidence um as far as the legal question um concerning the interpretation of structure and RV um again miss chebbo she recognized that she's really not an expert however you do have evidence before you expert testimony from Carl Thomas who is the town's flood plane manager as well as documented evidence from FEMA um that these are viol ations um and Mr Thomas as well as FEMA they deal with flood plane regulations on a day-to-day basis not in an isolated incidents um in a code enforcement case um as far as Equitable is stoppable I don't think that that issue is really before you um the permit that was issued um to them that they're referring to was issued right after um as the town was trying to come back after Hurricane Ian and there were a number of those permits that were issued in error um which FEMA brought to our attention and we have since ceased um issuing those permits um we did not issue any for Milton or for Hurricane Helen um and we have also now affirmatively revoked those permits um I would if I may um I would like to defer to Mr Thomas as well if if he wanted to address some of the interpretation questions or issues that M tuo argued um into the record let's do this I M has some addition witnesses to present respondents case someone can come back to the town for AAL presentation if you wanted to put that evidence on I just wanted to get a clarification on the trailer issue and if I understand you correctly um M St the town is you're telling me that the town disputes the existence of the trailers because you seen them is that would that me fa say you haven't seen them or the inspectors or officers haven't yeah I to exist your honor I would need to ask Mr yazo um to make I I personally did not go out and and visit them but the photographs that we put did put into evidence I don't think that they're they're visible um May I defer to officer yazo your honor with the visibility that we have with the visibility that we have with the skirting the decking and stuff uh the other uh accessory structures are built around it you can't tell the trailer is there I had no idea the trailer was there uh we'd probably be in a different situation um dealing with this case if I had known they were there but we can go forward with the respondent with that in mind as well all right let me we'll come back into town you might present some Visual Evidence let me go ahead and let Miss complete the respondent case yeah and I I just quickly want to mention a couple of things so the photos of the trailers that I pulled are actually from the permitting file for the initial temporary use permit that was obtained in November of 2022 so um I can I can call Mr Tom hotton up here to discuss the authenticity of those photographs and the existence of the trailers and some of these other issues so hello good morning good morning you have your name please my name is Thomas hoton how do you spell your last name h o u g t all right Mr and Mr do you have questions for the witness you want to just go ahead and examine it yeah thanks Mr hotton so to confirm the photographs of the trailers that were provided in my presentation can you confirm where those photographs came from uh yes um the trailer is actually originated a friend of mine on the trucking company and so the pictures were taking snow there was still snow in the in the photographs um he um my friend drove those down from up north um after we had worked out a I guess I plan with the town the shipping containers were originally um delivered and put on the ground and the town um informed us that they would need to be elevated and on put on the trailers so the town was very well aware of the trailers existence and Mr hoton when you appeared at the Town council meeting in October of 2024 to your to the best of your recollection do you remember discussing the configuration of the shipping containers as being on the trailers versus a fixed to the ground uh most definitely they've always been on the trailers um in the evacuation video I did we we showed video footage of the trailers um trailers are actually very visible from AO Boulevard when you're coming over the bridge thank you Mr hoton um and I will also note as as Mr hotton just mentioned the video that he is referencing showing the evacuation plan for these containers on the trailers that is um embedded in a hyperlink that was included in the town's letter to FEMA dated November 1st 2024 so that is in the record um should you want to view that uh I will also um yeah I will just simply say I I was not aware that there was a dispute as to the factual situation that these trailers were present so um I will just I I will let that be known on the record um we were also not aware that the town was unaware that the trailers were on site um Mr hotton can you tell me a little bit about can you elaborate on the evacuation that you did prior to Hurricane Milton so we can have a better understanding of what happened there and and how difficult or not difficult it was and and what kind of um whether that type of evacuation plan is easily repeated going forward sure um well as as you may have seen already I prepared the evacuation video in September after um getting word that um that the town was going to find me in violation because F was coming down um so having done that um my team was ready to go and um the evacuation went very smoothly it just a matter of removing a little trim work um it's prevents water from coming in um between the two containers but the two trailers just sit side by side much like um a boat would pull up to a dock that can be easily um backed in and removed from the 5 foot deck that wraps around to allow people um and the ramping system that allows people to get up into shipping container bars and bathrooms um everything's on quick disconnects much like an RV with the uh the sewer the electrical PL series of plugs that disconnect um all we have to do is remove the skirting from the front and uh hook on with um a medium duty pickup truck preferably one with dual you dual tires on the back um that has a fifth wheel so um when we removed the shipping containers um we knew we had a period of time the town had called for the evacuation order on a Sunday evening we were pretty much ready to go but we decided that we wanted to do it during daylight so I let Town staff and the mayor know that we would begin the evacuation the following morning um a gentleman that a friend of mine Joe um j& Escavating that um was driving the truck decided that he wanted to do um hall both trailers himself and since we had the time he removed the first trailer around 7 a.m. and we tow it all the way downtown to a friend's property that was outside of any flood zones and then he returned and hooked on to the other pickup or the other trailer excuse me and um the second trailer was removed around 11 um there was extensive video footage of that occurring um and town staff was very well aware that we did remove those all that was left for Hurricane noton was the de so not sure where the confusion is there with that but by Saturday evening we actually brought everything back to the island and we were open for a short time yeah that's it thank you Mr hoton so to confirm exactly how long did it take to remove both of these trailers from the site we took approximately four hours to do it um once we commenced that morning um we could have done it even sooner had we just driven over the bridge unhooked and come back and and yank the other one out we could have done it within an hour thank you Mr h I believe um actually Mr hoden one more thing can you tell us about approximately how many employees you have um and independent contractors and other folks who rely on laaf for some or all of their livelihood yeah t th4 Inc which is my Corporation approximately employees um 21 to 25 employees some are full some are part-time and then we have um a host of entertainers that have been working with that are 1099 employees have been working with me for years now um that we you know we we feature live music twice daily through most of the year um I've got a full season of entertainment bookings booked out this is very important to me but to all of them as well so thank you thank you Mr hoton um that's all that I have I appreciate your cander all right cross examination I just have a few questions um Mr H go ahead I don't of you um you mentioned that you did get a ISS the temporary use permit okay so we received perit the first one would have been for the food truck which was shortly after not isue okay so I believe the the other permit for the use of the shipping containers was held up until we were able to buy the trailers frame the shipping containers on top of them and then build the deck so first the town permitted the the deck building permit and then issued the temporary use permit for the shipping containers okay um I don't know that you really answer my question so I'm gonna ask it this way um was it prior to July 19th of 202 yes and you mentioned that this was Duty uh trailer not a light duty one is that correct could you give us more specifications regarding TR okay so I think heavy duty um was referring to the pickup truck so the the trailers are 40 foot goose neck trailers and the 40 foot shipping containers sitting on top of them so there's two separate trailers both with 40 foot shipping containers sitting on them they sitting right next to each other um they have a hitch on the front of them that you um needs a fifth wheel in order to be pulled away so any pickup with the fifth wheel um with the correct amount of tongue weight um would be able to all them away I believe anything um bigger than an F250 F350 with dual tires on the back would be hand to do so that's what we actually used um we used two different trucks I think we used um an F450 to pull them away originally and then an F350 um to bring them back and I think you testified that it was approximately four hours for you to remove the structure the non-compliance structure and come into compliance is that correct yes I I believe we started um the first shipping container trailer was removed around 7 a.m. and the the second one left the property around 11: a.m. that morning and that was roughly what time frame that was an anticipation of the can you give me a date of when that happened Trail well the it was the following morning after the evacuation order had been called for Hurricane milk um which was it was a Monday morning after that evacuation order I'm not sure okay so that was during the time frame when uh the town was on notice from FEA that there was that these um items or vehicles are non- compliant structures um and you removed them from the site and then you chose to come back to the site um once you went into compliance why did you then go back into noncompliance well we've always argued that we were not in non compliance my answer to that all right any redirect just to confirm so there was some question about the dates um it is my understanding that you removed those trailers the Monday before hurricane Milton made landfall correct correct so if hurricane Milton made landfall on Wednesday October 9th would it be safe to say that the dates of removal would have been the date of removal would have been the morning of Monday October 7th yes Monday October 7 7 a.m. we commenced the evacuation and completed it by 11:00 a.m. and that is all I have for him this time thank you all right thank you thank you m m t you have another witness not at this time but if you have any other questions for um either Mr hotton or Mr Primo I'm sure they would both be ready willing and able to answer those all right I don't think I have any further questions at this time does the town have any additional efforts to present your honor we would like to um have the opportunity to have um our expert um flood flame manager to um discuss the day-to-day interpretations and applications of some of the um CFR sections that Miss tuo argued about um if I may call Mr Thomas back to the stand hello uh thank you y i I'll be brief um I think the primary challenge um in this particular case in particular is um it's kind of in that gray area between being a structure trailer recreational vehicle some sort of hybrid in between um in terms of determining whether it's complying in terms of meeting flood plane regulations what we do know it's not elevated it's not anchored um it's not anchored to remain in place during the flood event and has no flood vents no Breakaway walls so the water can't pass through the structure if they weren't able to remove it in time during during the storm event and the the last um um issue with this particular um case is in terms of the attachments to the structure um I know it was mentioned that um there were some um removal of trim work um I I would just like to confirm that that did not did not include any of the additional stairs or decks or porch porches that were um adjacent to the structure because in order to meet the requirements of a Rec recreational vehicle they would have to be completely detached any other questions for Mr Thomas um not for Mr Thomas however I would like the opportunity to let Mr yazo or officer yazo make a few more comments let me ask if Mr T has any any further questions for Mr Thomas yes just one quick question for you Mr Thomas I'm sorry um is it your opinion then that the minor trim work then is I I guess I'm just a little bit I I'm I I'm just just seeking clarification on the distinction you were making between the trimor and the decking because um the decking was permitted as Standalone I believe but the trim work is just separate so it was more so a question um in terms of confirmation that the deck and the stairs during the tear down process to remove the structure from um um the hurricane Milton evacuation did that include any Detachment of the de from the from the trailer because it can't be attached in any way to that structure so I just need I just I just want comp thank you Mr Thomas I appreciate it um your honor uh Mr hoton is able to answer that question for Mr Thomas I'll just go ahead and take go ahead and take that and then we'll come back to uh go back to the T other yes um and we've actually got some video footage of this but the the the trailers are not attached to the deck in any way the deck is um a permitted building structure separate from the trailers and they are not attached what happens to the deck when you evacuate the the container stays what the deck stayed in place yes yeah and the flood waters can flow underneath it yes okay all right thank you Mr um let me come back to to M you wanted to bring back the enforc the cut officer yes your honor just just to be clear um so we're clear on when this was posted the 24th day of September is when the notice of violation was posted to the property uh they left on October 7th uh through the hurricane and came back sometime thereafter um I do get that was answered that they don't feel like the violation is appropriately uh put forward to them but they did come back after they knew that they were already violated within the compliance anything else that would be it your honor BR any questions no your honor any cross examination anything else that you haveo uh just one final point to Mr Yao's Point as far as the timing with the noov being posted on September 24th 2024 um and the subsequent evacuation about two weeks later um simply getting a notice of violation does not mean that you are actually in violation and as you've seen today the property owner and the operator the respondents jointly um are of the belief as am I that there is no violation here so I would like the comment that you know it was removed and brought back when they knew it wasn't in compliance to be stricken from the record because that's that's not the case there's clearly a legal dispute here as to whether a violation does exist or not thank you I will strike it from the record but I'll take your argument on the point assess that testimony you know in light of of all the evidence in regard to the other evence does either sign have any else to present uh in terms of any witnesses that you want to call I then we have some exhibits but any other Witnesses no your honor steall anything else no your honor thank you and I have the um Town's exhibit package which I'll receive an Evidence misso you referenced uh at least they photograph for the trailers was there anything else that the respondents wanted to offer that we would like to offer aside from the presentation that we provided including the photos of the trailer have been submitted by the town already in the record and we are of course very appreciative of the town for for providing such um detailed exhibits all right well I'll go ahead then and receive those exhibits as well I know there's some dispute particularly about the trailer I've got some testimony about that uh in addition to the photograph um let's let me do this is there anything else that the parties with had some extensive argument anything else the parties want to say by way of closing that Mr St anything else you wanted to add not as far as argument your honor however um we did provide in the packet to you um a draft order which I've given um a print copy to miss uh tubo the only addition we would add is what we're asking for is the fee of the administrative uh charge of $250 recover your Pro cost of prosecution yes sir um all right here's what I'd like to do on this one because there's been some extensive argument and there's a you know a legal position that the respondents are taking um that gets a little bit involved in these definitions um I'd like to give the parties an opportunity to uh submit their arguments in writing if they'd like to do that is that something that either or both parties would like to do that give you like a week if you wanted to file a memorandum that I could look at as well but it's up to you I'm not going to require you to do it if you do want to do it I I'll give you that opportunity um your honor respondents would be open to that and and would very much like to submit their arguments in writing as well thank you for the opportunity sound like to do that yes we'll be responding to them um if we could have perhaps a week after they submit would that be um okay I don't know if their arguments are going to go beyond what was in their presentation that that's fine with me too I just obviously want to keep things moving uh but uh missbo is is a weak enough time for you to get something in your honor I appreciate you asking I would actually um I have a fairly busy hearing schedule between now and next Tuesday um if I was afforded 10 days um potentially to Friday the 17th that would be much easier for me if that would work for you um but of course I will defer to you ultimately on whatever you decide your honor well if you had to tell the 17th and the town head to the 24th does the town have any any objection to that no your honor um if you're also intending perhaps to continue this matter to the fourth um we could then address the the arguments there well I could do that as well I what I uh really kindly doing was just taking the memoranda so I have those as well to look at you know you'd have a chance to develop your arguments in L I'd go ahead and get the order issued uh which I could probably do before the fourth that would be fine um if you'd rather do it that way I'm not sure I need to have you come back although I can I mean I'm open to that as well I I I think I'm going to be able to rule once I get the memos you know got the exhibits I've heard the testimony it's really not so much a fact disp here as a legal one which is why you know the mem might be helpful the the memoranda would be fine thank you your honor all right so uh respondent said you'll submit you file it with the division M hearing your memorandum by the 17th of of of this month and then the town will file a response by the 24th and I'll wait to prepare the order and issue the order until after I've received both of those memoranda I understand the town has submitted a proposed order uh and uh uh Miss TBO if you want to submit a you know a proposed order as well uh you can do that with a memorandum um again it's up to you uh but whatever you all submit I'll review in connection or in conjunction with the uh the exhibits and the testing we I've received and I'll get your final order out probably before the fourth it shouldn't take too long to get the order out once I've got the memos but I would like to take a look at those thank you your honor thank you all right anything else on on this case then all right so just to to wrap up then to uh uh just to summarize take this matter under advisement pending receipt of the Hardy's respective memorandums of law I have the exhibits uh that have been filed um obviously the test I received today and I will Reserve ruling until I've gotten the MOs after that I will put together the order to get that issued hopefully before before the end of the month before next year all right there's nothing further on this case we can move on to the next one thank you your honor um the second case for your review today um is regarding the violations of the town's flood plane codes is Fort Meers Beach case number 20 24914 this was filed as the DOA case 24-48 34 it was filed on um December the 19th this involves property at 1821 Estero Boulevard um as the prior case uh just to put into the record I'd like to just make a few um preliminary remarks regarding the nature of the complaint that precipitated um my comments are tied to the documents that are in exhibit a um having exhibit a as part of the record I'll try to summarize as quickly as possible um exhibit a does contain a letter from FEMA dated July the 19th addressed to Andy hayatt as the town manager of the town of Fort Meers Beach um attached to the letter is a summary um regarding U compliance with codes um specifically on page three perin 2B requires the town to provide a plan for remedying any identified violations in that letter um and attached to that letter is a more detailed report um specifying that one of the uh violations is the failure in the town's permitting system system to allow the use of temporary non-compliance structures including shipping containers and trailers SL food trucks um the statement in femous letter was followed by a list of citations of the town of Fort Meers Beach code of ordinances um specifically also stating that non-compliant structures and temporary structures have been placed in the coastal High Hazard area the ve Zone and Coastal a Zone um requesting that the town provide a plan to remove these or bring them the non-compliant structures or non-compliant additions into compliance and confirming that the town has stopped issuing permits for this type of development um the town was placed under a deadline of November the 19th um I'm not sure the 19th or the 18th but it's in the letter uh for the town to remedy the matters and then uh the Town Council directed The Town manager to stop issuing these permits these temporary permits were issued immediately after um hurricane Ian devastated the island to try to um create some type of semblance of of a town um and so because of the benefits that these businesses did provide immediately after Hurricane Ian um and continue to provide as the town goes through its rebuilding process the town sent a letter to FEMA asking for an exension of its compliance date to June of 2025 attached to that was a video showing how quickly some uh shipping containers can be removed from properties in the event of a declaration of a hurricane warning FEMA responded that they're not authorized to extend the period of time uh and went on to say that the purpose of these regulations is the protection of lives and property that is located in the special flood Hazard area um that these non-compliance structures are the most at risk in the ve Zone also known as the coastal High Hazard area um which did receive a 14ot storm surge during Hurricane Ian and allowing these structures to remain in place uh presents a hazard to the residents and businesses in light of another storm um as was demonstrated by Hurricane Helen and Milton so again some of these non-compliant structures have been removed moved uh voluntarily on uh December 16th the town directed The Town manager to resend any remaining temporary use permits that had been issued uh in the aftermath of hurricane Ian and the town continues to work with property owners who do have um in the town's opinion non compliance structures on their property to have them removed voluntarily um however we haven't been successful in some situations and um un fortunately we've had to bring these matters to you um we ask that you accept the um the exhibits that are attached to the hearing exhibit packet provided to you into the record um and also attached there um are documents from the town clerk evidencing the rication of the outstanding permits so in this case as in the other cases um you'll be hearing testimony from officer Thomas yazo and our flood plane um manager Carl Thomas and they will each introduce yourself of theirselves and state their qualifications um regarding this matter so I defer at this time to officer yazo morning your honor again my name is Officer Thomas yazo I'm a code compliance officer and a compliance security manager with the town of Fort Meers Beach as the manager of the compliance Security Department I'm responsible for the day-to-day operation operation the town of Fort Myers Beach code enforcement department and I supervise four code officers I review all Code Enforcement cases with them and have access to all available code enforcement files in addition since July of 2024 I've also personally been involved with the town's efforts to come into compliance with the flood plane regulations identified flood plane regulation deficiencies identified by FEMA which are incorporated into the town's code of ordinances I have been sworn in will provide testimony and documentation regarding the violation in this case during my testimony I will periodically refer to the exhibits and the agenda materials I request that these materials be admitted into evidence and included as part of the record for this case again this is a Fort Myers Beach code enforcement case number 2024 914 which is also identified as DOA case number 24- 4834 the subject property is located at 1821 Estero Boulevard Fort Meers Beach Florida 33931 on September 19 2024 I observed three shipping containers on the subject property which I determined to be a non-compliant structure based on the current Flo plan regulations inclusive of design codes required in special Hazard areas as defined in section 6-4 94 of the Fort Meyer Fort Myers Beach code of ordinances the subject property is located in a partially located in a part Coastal a Zone as identified in the latest flood plane map and requires the structures to have a base flood elevation of 13 ft above sea level I observed that the shipping containers were not elevated to the best of my knowledge and did not have engineered plans for pilings or infrastructure they also have no visible chassis or steering axles attached to the structures I then consulted with the Fort Myers Beach flood plane manager Carl Thomas who confirmed to me that the shipping containers on the subject property was a nonm were non-compliant structures based upon my observations and a violation of the section 6-51 and 6 d525 of the town code and ordinances and the American Society of civil engineers asce 24-14 which is incorporated by reference into the town's codes my review with in consultation with Mr Thomas is consistent with FEMA's determination contained in their letter of July 19th 2024 and November 12th 2024 I prepared a notice of violation a copy of that notice of violation is included in exhibit B I searched Lee County property appraiser database records containing property owner information and further verified that the property owner is 1821 a stero bouvard corporation based on a deed found in the official records of Lee County Florida I issued the notice of violation on September 24th 2024 and sent a copy of it by certified mail return receipt to the address of record specifically 705 10th Street South number 305 Naples Florida 34102 posted a copy of the notice of violation at the subject property and at the Town Hall located at 2731 Oak Street Fort Myers Beach Florida 33931 I have an Affidavit of mailing and posting of the notice of violation I would like to also include the record notice of and the information about the case is also displayed on the town of Fort Meers Beach website under Public Notices I believe that the respondents are present today for this hearing I also took photographs to document the violation I observed on SE September 19th 2024 in Exhibit C they contain true and accurate and unaltered copies of these photographs during my initial inspection of SE September 19th 2024 photographs show the shipping containers are not elevated 13 ft above SE sea level they do not they do not appear to have any visible chassis or steering axles so they're not easily removed from the island with the light to be Tru that's also exhib the additional photographs I took showed posting the notice violation subject property on October 2nd and posting the notice at Town Hall on October 2nd with an fdav of notice and posting in my notice of violation I gave 1821 Estero Boulevard Corporation 30 days from October 2nd 2024 to remove the shipping containers from the property or to otherwise come into compliance with Town codes I directed A reinspection of the subject property to occur on December 10th 2024 by off officer Marcio Chavez who I supervise and is one of my officers he informed me that the ship container remained in the subject property in the same condition as shown on the photographs I previously took and which were a part of the case File I directed officer Chavez to prare naav non-compliance a copy of which is included exhibit D in the agenda materials property owner received a letter revoking or resending his permit on December 18th I believe 2024 excuse me I I defer to my records here for a second December 19th 2024 a copy of which is include an exhibit F of agenda materials as a result of the property owners failure to remove the shipping containers or to bring the subject property in compliance with section 6-51 and 6- 525 of the towns Land Development code AS identified in a notice violation the property owner has was provided with a notice of today's code enforcement hearing as shown in exhibit g a copy of which is being presented at today's Hearing in advance of today's hearing I inspected the property yesterday January 6 2025 and took photographs of the shipping containers with flood plane manager Carl Thomas present which remains on the subject property in the same condition as I initially observed in September 19 2024 I would like to add those photographs to the record as exhibit h at this time your honor I would like to ask flood plane manager Carl Thomas to provide you with additional information regarding the town's code sections and asce 24-14 and what is needed for a shipping terer to attain compliance with the town's code thank you honor let me before we take the next witness uh let me ask who's here on behalf of the respondent yeah are you here for the respond morning your honor yes I the uh property owner okay what's your name uh Goran Sakowski say that again please uh Gordon Stokowski St OJ KI on behalf of 1821 is sterl Boulevard Incorporated okay s o j k o s i yes sir all right uh you're the property owner do you have anyone else here with you uh the uh tenants okay did you have any questions for offza before we take the next witness I do not all right let's go ahead then and hear from uh Mr Thomas good morning again your honor again my name is Carl Thomas and I'm the flood plane manager for the town of Fort Myers Beach I've been a flood plane administrator since 2011 and received my certification in 2011 as well with this certification I've worked with several local governments concerning flood plane regulations such as those in effect in the town of Fort Myers Beach since May of 2024 I've been specifically working with Town staff and representatives along with um representatives from the Federal Emergency Management agency to meet the requirements of FEA post disaster compliance report for Hurricane Ian included in exhibit a of the agenda materials I'm here to provide testimony regarding the non-compliance of the subject property is located in a high-risk flood zone in September of 2024 I had conversations with officer yazo regarding his concerns that the shipping containers and the subject property were in violation of the town's flot plane regulations as claimed by FEMA in its compliance report I explained the criteria that would need to be satisfied for compliance with chapter 6 Division 10 sections 5 6-51 and 6525 of the town's Land Development code the copy of the code is and an excerpt of asce 24-14 are included in exhibit e of the agenda in short I explain to officer yazo that sections five 6-51 states any structures located in the flood zone even if they exempt from permitting per Florida building code must be designed in accordance with the American Society of civil engineers ASC for short standard 24-14 for flood resist design and construction where compliance includes elevating the structure to a base flood elevation plus one foot anchoring the structure to remain in place during flood conditions or having flood openings or Breakaway walls that allow unobstructed passage of flood waters through the structure non-compliance with flood regulations not only increases the vulnerability of the structure but also poses significant risk to Public Safety neighboring properties and the environment addition it jeopardizes the community's participation in the National flood insurance program and potentially increasing insurance premiums for all its policy holders subsequent to the September conversations with officer yazo I accompani him on on the site visit to the subject property during the second week of December and most recently a follow-up site visit on yesterday January 6 2025 on those visits again we discussed the requirements of the Town's compliance for to meet the flood plane regulations for purposes of illustration um of the hazard non-compliance structures can cause I have a photograph I received from off officer yazo taken after Hurricane milon by Jeffrey H Jeffrey hul um showing evidence of a non-compliant structure that was displaced and created a hazard to the residents of the town in my opinion similar displacement is possible with non-compliant structures such as the subject property depending on the strength of the flood event in summary it is my opinion that the shipping containers located on the subject property are non-compliant with the cited Town flood plane ordinances and I would like to ask the judge to include a copy of asce 2414 and Mr Hy's photograph and record for this case Mr H apologize Mr h phot right M you have any additional questions for Mr Thomas not at this time your honor all right does the respondent have any cross examination any questions from Mr Thomas no you're on it all right uh does the town have any other Reven to this time um no your honor um just again uh We've provided a draft order to you uh we're pretty much asking for the finding of a violation of the noted section 6-51 6- 525 asce 24-14 as of again emphasis on January the 6 based on the most recent photographs that have been taken uh requiring a reasonable um or requesting a reasonable period of time by you to be identified as a compliance date um and the imposition of a $250 day fine for each day the violation extends beyond your compliance date and administrative fee of $250 and authorizing the town to Abate the violation um if the shipping container is not removed or coming into compliance by March the 1st with any expenses to be paid by the property owner within 30 days if not paid the town would come back to you requesting certification of the amount owed to be imposed as a lean on the property all right very good let me come back into the respondent and you may present your case thank you your honor um as the landowner and uh business owner of the property before the storm I had a very successful restaurant there that employed about uh 40 full-time employees obviously the storm wiped us out completely uh wiped out a family home that was also um behind the restaurant so uh After the Storm everyone was trying to see what we can do to uh pick up the pieces and how how to re uh recuperate and uh move forward with uh with uh life on Fort Meers Beach so with that said and done uh Steve had uh a bicycle rental uh business on the island that was in the same uh situation that most of the business people were in uh in the area lost uh his structure completely wiped him out so he approached me to uh see if if I was up to the idea of leasing the uh outdoor parking lot space that we have to uh to see if he can um somehow someway try to uh recuperate and open up his business wonderful idea um I think that uh Fort Meers Beach also thought it was a wonderful idea to have a small business uh willing to take the risk to reopen right after a catastrophe and um service the people of Fort Meers Beach you know um without people like myself let's say and Steve that are willing to take the risk to uh reopen something that was devastated without any guarantee what the future may be hold the city stance is that they R issued permits on air well that's very easy to say well you issue a permit and then the uh business person takes out a loan because he got wiped out to move forward and rebuild and invest and buy these trailers that were uh approved by the city that issued the permit they specified what kind of trailers they needed to be with axles with uh um tires so that they could be moved if need be let's say within you know uh a few hour notice which uh Steve has done and there are under exhibit a h the pictures that they have are actually great pictures so these are cargo containers that already have the axles and trailers on them uh Mr Steve feels confident that if he needed to remove these in emergency situation with uh three tractor trailer um trucks they could be removed within an hour let's say so permits that were issued Investments were made uh trailers were purchased or cargo containers were purchased specifically to uh comply with the permit so that he can open up this small business to service the city of Fort Meers Beach so um that's where we're at my question to the city is to the attorney to see whether they could answer this if FEMA didn't get involved would these trailers be compliant these cargo uh uh containers that were originally approved by the city and permits were by error issued so without FEMA strong arming the city the question is are these trailers um non-compliant that might be a question that would have been best addressed to say someone like Mr Thomas um I don't have an answer for you on that one um but just so unclear you're saying that you've received a permit in the wake of the hurricane hurricane Ian I gu to uh place the uh containers that was that permit was sub revoked at some time correct so the permit was issued specifically to purchase these containers and um the containers to have the capacity to be moved on a short notice so these containers again under under exhibit H you can see that they have axles and tires so all they need to do is be hooked up to a tractor trailer and they could be removed within one hour let's say so that's the permit that was issued and that's what was purchased again in an extensive investment that uh loans were taken out to uh get this business reopened and um I just don't see how the city can just re revoke a permit because FEMA strong arming them and then using the FEMA as an excuse to uh to have them these structures that they approved be non-compliant so my question to the city or to Mr Thomson is um if FEMA wasn't involved are these containers that have the uh uh capacity to be moved non-compliant you're saying that the permit was revoked it was revoked um a month ago not even so so the permit was revoked a few weeks ago your honor okay and I'm assuming that the permit was revoked in retaliation for um the assumption that these containers were non-c compliant again nothing was proved because the city says they're non-compliant because FEMA is telling them that they're non-compliant I mean I'm I'm just curious to see what the city thinks that if fima wasn't involved whether these containers are compliant or non-compliant you think that would make a difference well I think it would definitely make a difference I mean if uh if they're non-compliant why would they issue the permit and have them specifically tell the uh the business owner that he has to purchase these and these are this is what is uh requested again um you know I'm I'm the property owner and you know we've lost an extremely amount of of uh of resources here and we're grasping on a string to survive here the uh the town wants small businesses to come back and then you have a small business that invested everything all over again and then you're trying to destroy somebody just because FEMA thinks that these containers are non-compliant that's the whole the whole question here unless I'm my point we can hear more from the town well just as a I mean if they're non compliant legal standpoint let's assume I mean suppose feema is correct and I'm not saying at the moment they are correct or not correct but suppos feema is correct and structure is not Cent and fuma brings that to the attention of the town which had previously issued a permit the town decides the permit was issued in here and revokes the permit does it matter if the town originally thought it was okay and then was persuaded otherwise by FEA um maybe that matters or maybe it doesn't that's that's what I'm asking right I mean I think it matters because obviously again uh on on issuing of a permit I mean what whether it's this business or any other business if you issue a permit then that person that receives that permit um invests not only you know money it's a lot involved especially in the summertime on the beach where it's extremely slow uh desolate let's say and you have a business owner struggling to pay the bills to pay the rent to pay employees to survive to wait for you know November December to come around which isn't spectacular anyways because why would somebody want to come to Fort Meers Beach right now when there's you know only a few restaurants left so you're trying to eliminate a few of the other businesses that are here now it just doesn't make any sense it's like what are we trying to accomplish here right I was just trying to get a sense of of the the the nature of the argument that make I mean if if the city proposition you're right I mean if the the authorities issue a permit uh usually uh that permit um you know should stand if the authorities decided was issued in error and revoke it that's not the usual course of events um on the other hand if it truly was issued in eror you does the authority have to propagate the air and let it you know let it last I don't actually know the answer to that question on top of my head I'm just raising it that's obviously perhaps the key point that you're making if I understand your position that the permit having been issued should be honored now that's that's what you're saying correct if if the permit was never issued to begin with the expenses would have never been occurred to purchase these structures that were conforming and permitted two years ago or a year and a half ago so now because FEMA is uh revoking the insurance benefits on the on the island which I completely understand but there has to be some kind of solution for the small business own owner that's invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to buy these structures to uh place them on a property and invest to uh you know for the future of the island and all of a sudden now you just want to you know revoke the permit and tell them you have to move your structures in you know a certain amount of time I mean I don't see what how the Justice or or the fairness in that is either right right okay I I I understand with that you're making did you have anything else you wanted to present any other evidence or Witnesses yes your honor my name is Steve Larsson and I'm the operator of the business the co-owner uh the corporation is madl LLC doing business as Sun and Fun sport rentals so as Gordon said based on the permit that we received from the city which we received after extensive meetings with a lot of people at the Town submitted drawings and everything um they issued the permit and then we subsequently invested it is hundreds of thousands of dollars not for these structures but for the equipment that we rent we rent golf carts bicycles scooters uh amongst other things ebikes so and just to get the business going it was several hundred, so going out of business is not an option all right we also invested uh in making these containers look really nice okay they're not just containers thrown you can see by the pictures so my request from this would be I guess first of all I'd like to just keep the containers like they are on wheels on axles able to move but if not I want Clarity from the town on what I can do and I also would like time to remove the containers not during our busy season which was mentioned in the previous case so it would be a burden right now to have to deal with all this in June it wouldn't be such a burden so that's that's my request what would you do to keep the business operational with the trailers if the containers will move well that's what I have to discuss with the town what can I put there you know the containers were quite honestly the containers were at the town's ins insistance because they wanted everything inside they wanted nothing they didn't want any bicycles outside or anything um so I ended up with three 40ft storage containers um I could do without that if we didn't have to have everything inside all right anything else Mr Lon no sir let me ask Miss St do you have any cross Examination for either of the witnesses we I do your honor um factually I don't know which individual is more appropriate so if either of them want to respond that would be that would be fine um I Heard testimony that the non-compliance structures are movable and the question I have was did it move during Hurricane Helen or hurricane milon the answer to that is no and could you tell us a little bit more could you explain why um well quite honestly it was Logistics issue as far as getting somebody in there probably poor planning um but as a as a backup plan we open the containers up and let them flood so they did not move one inch and you show in the the pictures depict that there are wheels on the non-compliant structure when was the last time that that non-compliant structure moved with those Wheels it has never moved are the wheels operational yes but how how did the get there in the first place not with those Wheels the container got there similar situation what you were discussing in your last case but then the axles and the wheels were put on after so it is your testimony that there is axles yeah it's the only way you can do it the axle goes right into these holes on the side of the container okay and they're very expensive by the way they have to be heavy duty I understand my first set of questions my second set of questions is that there was reference made to the permits um that the town had issued in the aftermath of hurricane Ian um were there any conditions that were placed on your permit you didn't I don't have a copy of your permit in the record yes to my to my recollection um they first of all had to be on Wheels um and like I said the um the had to be inside those were the two things that I remember just it's unle forgive me I know there are some packets of documents and some that maybe have been recently sent to me but um is is this permit or emergency permit that was issued after the Hurrican Ian that's not in the packet that's not one of the exhibits I do not think so your honor um what is in the packet is is the letter of revocation of that permit um and I believe there's a copy of the code that requires a t um a 180 days because it is a temporary permit it's not anticipated that it would be a long-term permanent um permission well that was going to be my next question it's referred to as a temp emergency permit so it it had an expiration date essentially it did um um there was a I believe the code requires that they come in within 180 days and request an extension um but that permit again I think it still is in the code of ordinances but it has not been um no additional permits have been issued it was it was at some point it was revoked right there's a letter of revocation you say that is correct was it was revoked on on grounds of of error or mistake on the town yes not I mean just so I'm clear wasn't revoked because of noncompliance with the per it was not correct um the revocation letter and that was my next um is just to State for the record that that's really the the correctness of the revocation letter I don't think is the issue in this code enforcement case um because there are other remedies administratively that those questions could be addressed your honor go ahead yes um I can provide a copy of the permit and it had no expiration date okay Miss stge raises a valid point um however about the remedies for say a wrongful termination of the rication of the permit um and I'm not saying that it was you know improperly revoked or not at the moment just in terms of remedies for that situation uh I'm not sure that the code enforcement proceeding is the place to do that as has the respondent taken any action to dispute or challenge the revocation notice and it maybe the time to do so hasn't even run ask has been done we have not your honor we decided to come to this hearing so your honor in the record um attached is a copy of um a certified copy of resolution number 24-26 and one of the where ass Clauses in that document States whereas both ordinances referring to the emergency temp orary placement permit and the temporary placement permit because they changed the name a little bit um provided that permits issued under either ordinance would be issued in increments of six months and would not exceed 18 months without demonstration of a hardship so it was always anticipated by the town in the adoption of that ordinance um immediately or shortly thereafter hurricane Ian and then uh the town made some amendments to it that these were temporary and not permanent okay all right and super do you have any further questions for the W the respondent witnesses I don't your honor thank you and does the 10 have any additional evidence to present um just I would just ask if M if officer yazo or um our flood plane administer Thomas if if they wanted to have any last comment I'm seeing them saying no so we rest all right so I have the initial testimony got the the town's exhibit packet which I'll received evidence did the respondent have any documents to present apart from what the town already has your honor the only thing I can think of is is the actual permit which you have not seen yet that has no expiration date on it I just don't have it with me right now um is that something you wanted to submit yes your honor I would like to all right well I'll I'll take a look at it if you want to submit that I'll receive that noce as well again out of the moment commenting on the relevance and potential relevance I do think that uh the town may be corrected the remedy for the revocation might lie elsewhere although I can't say off the top of my head exactly what that remedy is and what you know the towns Cod W has provides in that respect um but it may be that uh that particular decision needs to be challenged outside of this proceeding um but uh but happy to take a look at it um what I was going to do again because the town has submitted a proposed order um I'm happy to let the respondant do the same if you would like to do that I won't require it but did you want to submit a proposed order as well to compete with the town submission so i' have both to look at can you clarify what you're talking about the town has submitted a proposed order uh presumably it would find the violation that the town is seeking um and the other you remedies that have been outlined by Mage um probably includes some proposed findings um I'm saying that if you would like to do the same thing I'll let you do that if you wanted to submit a proposed order of your own um would be finding not finding a violation um again I'm not going to require you to do that but I'll give you the if you want I don't think so your honor all right all right if you want to submit that permit file that with division M hearings can you do that by the end of the week yes your honor it's a little out of sequence your honor but I think officer Yao did want to ask one more question okay your honor I would just ask responding um cuz I can't tell and I'm not an engineer nor a mechanic for the wheels I I don't dispute their claim that they're working steerable uh axles but I wouldn't ask them to show proof of that that would help us a long way and going towards them being able to remove those items quickly as they say they can so if they could show some type of proof within their return that those are steerable axles that they have some type of engineered report or mechanics report something that gives us that we can substantiate within the case well let me ask respond is there something you can provide your honor well the question would be then if those axles are operational would we be conforming so if those containers again that were permitted that the town uh insisted on having those specific containers with those specific axles on them them if they are proven that they can be removed the the containers would would we be compliant so the answer to that would be that that is one part of compliance there's several sections that have to go with everything from elevation to mitigating uh hydr venting and such so that would be one part of I'm going to defer to uh Thomas um just to clarify if these structures are deemed Highway ready licensed and Highway ready that they're able to be removed off site during the Advent of a flood event then that would be the only requirement if say it again if they were licensed and in other words if it were more like RV they say yes I mean if if um similar to the discussion that we had with the previous case if we had because based on the site evidence it's hard to tell that the wheels and axles that were installed on the structure were quote unquote Highway ready um if they could demonstrate that and they had the proper documentation to certify that then it would it would not need to meet the flood resistance requirements because it would be um able to be taken off site during the event of the essentially that's a that's a compliance issue I mean if I find a violation and establish a compliance dat and before that date the respondent came forward with sufficient proof of Highway Readiness and license and so forth they might be able to establish compliance that way correct okay all right very good well I will um um uh Mr um lson is indicated he wants to submit that permit I'll take a look at that um with the other exhibits you submit that to me by the end of the week that's January 10th uh I'll I'll Reserve ruling until I receive that after that I will get together make a decision get an order out probably shouldn't take too long to get the order out um but I will I'll wait until I receive that um as well um is there anything else that that we need to on this case anything either side all right nothing further from respond it no your honor all right very good thanks for coming in gentlemen you all three to go um why don't we we've got two more on today's here we he the next don't take a it's about 11:3 I guess we've been going for for a while um why don't we take a 10minute break and we'll come back and pick up with the next case so we'll be in recess until 11:40 I we'll see you in 10 minutes e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e we are your honor it's it's still morning um what we would ask is um if we could hear uh agenda item G move that one forward um their attorney has indicated he does have a a court hearing later this afternoon um we don't have any objection to it if you don't your honor that's fine with me okay so this case um again is regarding uh violations of the town's flood plane codes this is Fort Meers Beach case number 20249 12 and this was filed as DOA case number 24484 on the 19th day of December so it involves property that's located at 8 81 mirar Street in Fort Meyers Beech and I would like to make some preliminary comments again I will try to keep them brief uh regarding the nature of the complaint that precipitated the initiation of this code enforcement case for preservation in the record uh primarily my comments are regarding the documents that have been included in exhibit a um very briefly there is a letter uh dated July the 19th from uh FEMA to Andy hayatt serving as the town manager the letter indicates includes a summary of the town's non-compliance with its minimum flood plane management standards and codes um specific to this case is a reference on page three pin 2B which requires the town to provide a plan for remedying uh identified violations and in addition attached to that letter is a town of Fort Meers speech post disaster compliance status update report again identifying compliance issues specifically on page two the report St States failure in the permitting system which allowed the use of temporary non-compliant structures including shipping containers and trailers food trucks the statement is Then followed by a list of the town of Fort Meers Beach code citations uh further down in paragraph 3A the report says non-compliant structures containers and temporary structures have been placed in the coastal High Hazard area the ve Zone and Coastal a Zone um requesting that the town create a plan to remove these structures or bring the non-compliant structures or non-compliant additions into compliance and confirm that the town has stopped issuing permits for this type of non-compliance the July 19th um letter from FAA FEMA had a deadline of November 18th for the town to address these concerns uh the town thereafter shortly thereafter directed The Town manager to stop issuing any temporary uh permits for these type of uh non-compliant development um because of the benefits some of these um shipping containers the businesses that they contained in the food trucks presented to the residents of the town during their recovery from hurricane Ian the Town Council sent a letter to FEMA asking for compliance date to be extended from November to June of 2025 inclusive of a video that showed how quickly some containers could be removed from the property in the event of a declaration of a hurricane warning however FEMA responded um in in November saying that it was not authorized to extend any uh the existence of any non-compliant development and further added that the purpose of the flood plane regulations is to protect lives and property in the special flood Hazard area um FEMA noted that these non-compliant structures are in the most at risk flood area the ve Zone known as the coastal High Hazard area which in the past during Hurricane Ian received a 14 foot storm surge and FEMA uh told the town that allowing these structures to remain in place is a hazard to the residents and the businesses in the event of another storm such as demonstrated by hurricanes Helen and Milton so since November um some of the non-compliance structures um and actually prior to November uh in the wake of hurricanes Helen and Milton many of them voluntarily uh came into compliance or were removed on December the 16th the Town Council directed the town manager to resend any remaining temporary use permits that were in effect and the town continues to work with property owners who we have identified non-compliant structures on their properties to have these structures voluntarily removed however in some cases we must now seek code enforcement action um to achieve our goals so we ask that you accept um the letters in exhibit a and the remaining letters 's um documents that have been included as exhibits for this hearing providing testimony to you today on behalf of the town in this case is Officer Thomas yazo and flood plane manager Carl Thomas they will each introduce themselves and provide you with testimony regarding their qualifications and actions that they have taken all right very good before we hear the testimony let me just ask who's tun on behalf of the respondent good morning your honor my name is Eric stocks I'm here on behalf of uh respondent Mark Alexa for uh quick ebikes he's the tenant on the property not the property owner how do you how do you sp your last name s o c KS s you're their attorney yes sir the tenant attorney your honor all right very good well let me hear from the town then Mr s will come back to you good morning again your honor my name is Officer Thomas yazo I'm a code compliance officer in the compliance security manager for the town of Fort Meers Beach as a manager of the compliance and Security Department I am responsible for the day-to-day operation of the town of Fort Myers Beach code enforcement department and I supervise four Code Compliance officers I review all Code Enforcement cases with them and have access to all available code enforcement files in addition since July 2024 I've personally been involved with the town's efforts to come into compliance with flood plane regulations identified by FEMA which are Incorporated in the town's code of ordinances I've been sworn in will provide testimony and documentation regarding the violation in this case during my testimony I will periodically refer to the exhibits in the agenda materials and request that these materials be admitted into evidence and included as part of the record in this case again this is Fort Meers Beach code case number 202 4912 which is also identified as DOA case number 24- 04844 the subject property is located at 81 Miramar Street Fort Myers Beach Florida 33931 on September 19th 2024 I observed two manufactured sheds on the subject property which determined to be a non-compliant structure based on current flood plane regulations inclusive of designs required in special ha Hazard areas as defined in section 6- 494 of the FMB code of ordinances the subject property is located in the coastal a Zone as identified in the LA flood plane map and requir structures to have a base flood elevation of 13 ft above sea level I observed the manufactured sheds were not elevated and to the best of my knowledge to not have engineered plans for pilings or infrastructure with no visible chassis or steerable axles I then consulted with the fort Meers Beach flood plane manager Carl Thomas who confirmed with me that the the manufactur heads on the subject property was not compliant structured on my observation in violation of section 6-51 and 6525 of the town code of ordinances in the American Society of civil engineers asce 24-14 which is incorporated by reference to the town's codes my review and cons in consultation with Mr Thomas is consistent with FEMA determin contained in the letters of July 19th 2024 and November 12th 2024 I prepare to notice a violation and then search Lee County Property Appraisers database records obtaining property owner information to determin that the property owner is Patricia O Smith in trust as a trusty of Patricia Smith in trust I issued the notice of violation on September 19th and send a copy of it by certified mail return receipt to the address of record specifically 60 Riverside Boulevard number 1808 New York New York 100069 posted a copy of the notice of violation at the subject property and at the Town Hall located at 2731 Oak Street Fort Meers Beach Florida 33931 a copy of notice of violation I'm an affida of notice of posting an Evidence of ownership from the property appraisers website and a warranty deed recorded as instrument 2023 about the case is also displayed 24 hours a day on the town of Fort Meers Beach website under Public Notices and the respondents are here today for the hearing I did take photographs document the violation I observed on September 19th 2024 which is included in Exhibit C these contain true and accurate unaltered copies of these photographs during my initial inspection on September 19th 2024 the photograph show noncompliant non-compliant containers with which are not elevated 13t ft above sea level do not appear to have axles or steer or steerable CH chassis with steerable axles Additionally the photographs show that there there are two units have no visible chassis steering axles excuse me in my notice of violation I gave the property owner 30 days to remove the non-complying structures from the property or to otherwise come into compliance with the town codes I did reinspect the subject property on December 10th and observed that the storage units remain on the subject property in the same condition as shown on the photographs I previously took I prepared an fdate of non-compliance with a photograph and a copy of which is included in exhibit D the property owner was mailed the letter revoking and resending its temporary use permit on December 19th 2024 a copy of the letter is included in exhibit e as a result of the property own failure to remove the storage units and bring the subject property into compliance within section 6-51 and 6- 525 of the town's Land Development code AS identified in the notice of violation the property owner was provided with notice of today's code enforcement hearing as shown in the appdate of notice and posting of copy which is included exhibit G in advance of today's hearing I reinspected the property yesterday January 6th 2025 and took photographs of the storage units with flood plan manager Carl Thomas present which remains on the subject property in the same condition as I initially observed on September 19th 2024 I would like to add the photographs since a record as exhibit h at this time your honor I would like to ask flood play manager Carl Thomas to provide you additional information regarding the town's code sections and asce 24-14 and what is needed for the noncompliant structures to attain compliance within the town code thank you let me ask M super you have any additional questions for the witness no your honor all right Mr stocks did you have any part examination uh no your honor all right Mr Thomas I think it's afternoon good afternoon your honor um my name is Carl Thomas and I'm the flood plane manager for the town of Fort Myers Beach I've been a flood plane administrator since 2011 and received my certification in the same year um with that certification I've worked with several um local municipalities concerning flood plane regulations such as those in effect in Fort Myers Beach since May of 2024 I've been specifically working with Town staff and representatives from FEMA to meet the requirements of their postd disaster compli compliance report for hurricane in included in exhibit a of the agenda materials I'm here to provide testimony regarding non-compliance of the subject property which is located in a high-risk flood zone in September of 202 4 I convers with officer yazo regarding his concerns that the containers shipping containers on the subject property when violation of the town's foot plane regulations as claimed by FEMA in its compliance report also explain that the criteria that would need to be satisfied for compliance with chapter 6 Division 10 sections 5 6-51 and 6525 of the town's Land Development code copy of sections 6501 and 6525 along with an excert um from asce 24-14 included in exhibit F of the agenda materials uh in summary I explained to officer yazo that section 6-51 States any structures located in a flood zone even when exempt from Florida building code permitting must be designed in accordance with asce 24-4 for flood design and construction uh compliance includes elevating the structure to meet base flood um elevation plus one foot anchoring the structure to remain in place during flood conditions or having flood openings or breakway walls that allow unobstructed passage of flood waters throughout through the structure non-compliance not only increases the vulnerability of the structure itself but also poses significant risk to Public Safety neighboring properties and the environment additionally it jeopardizes the community's participation in the National flood insurance program and poten increases in insurance premiums for all policy holders subsequent to my September conversations with officer yazo I accompani him on a site visit to the subject property in the second week of December and most recently a follow-up site visit yesterday on January 6 2025 we discussed the requirements of compliance under the town's flip plane regulations uh for illustration purposes of Hazard non of the hazard non-compliance structure can cause um I also have a copy of a photo that I received from officer yazo taken by our Public Works director Jeffrey Hogue after Hurricane Milton which provides evidence of a non-compliant structure displaced and creating a hazard to the residents of the town the non-compliance structure ended up in the area of North Estero Boulevard town does not know where the shipping container was initially located or its owner my opinion similar displacement is possible with non-compliant structures such as the subject property depending on the strength of the flood event in summary it is my opinion the shipping containers located on the subject property are noncompliant with the SED Town flot flight ordinances thank you super any additional questions no your honor cross examination Mr St um possibly just couple I'm sorry thomasl Thomas Mr Thomas um in your summation you said that it was your opinion that the shipping containers on my C's property are not comined have you been to Myer yes I have and those structures look like sh contain yes the only reason why I bring this up is it's my contention that my client structures are fixed to the ground via Foundation it's my understanding that the purpose of this code violation was that the structure is not elevated to 13 ft is that the reason why we're here um based on my site investigation the structure was not elevated above the base flood elevation there were no signs that it was a fix to the ground or anchored properly and there were no signs that there were any um flood vents or brickway walls to allow the floators to pass through the structure that's all I have anything else um no just a closing comment your honor if I may um So based on the sworn testimony and the evidence that's been presented to you including the exhibits in the U hearing packet the town is asking for an order finding a violation of section 6-51 6525 and asce 24-14 as of the date of January 6 2025 requiring compliance with the town's code or removal of the uh non-compliance structure within a reasonable period of time to be determined by your honor as the compliance date imposing a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues pass your compliance date um again requesting an administrative uh fee of $250 uh for this case and then authorizing the town to Abate the violation by removal of the uh non-compliance structure if it is not U removed or otherwise attained uh compliance by March the 1st of 2025 with any expenses that are incurred by the town to be paid by the property owner Within 30 days if the town's expenses remain unpaid the town will request certification of the amount owed to be imposed as a lean upon the property that's it all right thank you Mr and Mr STS thank you your honor um first I'd like to say that my client would like to object to any imposition of uh any fines associated with this code violation hearing my client did properly secure a permit to place these structures on his property um he fulfilled the requirements of that permit there was no issue until FEMA came out and said that the property need to be raised up 13 ft so as in the cases before this one where the city has said that is it issued its permits in error I don't believe that my client should have to pay financially for that error so for those reasons we object to that the only other thing I would add your honor respectfully uh is that just just like with these other businesses that have come before you today this is the only time of the year that my client gets to make any money uh this place does turn into a ghost town about June 1st and it stays that way until about November so we would like to have as much time um to comply with your order as possible I'd also like to note that my client has already undertaken measures to come to compliance uh with the codes one of the buildings uh in question has already been sold and will be removed within the next two weeks uh the other one we are actively working to have removed and my client has purchased uh a structure that I have been able to talk to both the witnesses about that we believe is in compliance that he can run his building out uh his business out of so object to the imposition of the fine and as much time as you can give my client all right you want to present any testimony or anything else no sir I don't I don't have a defense the violation your h i mean it's a fix to the ground okay I mean typically the way the finding work is it wouldn't start running until after the compliance date now what you're asking is for the compliance date to be set as far out as possible that that's correct your honor and I guess the I maybe wasn't articulated not the fine itself but whatever the cost the $250 cost for this uh administrative fee the administrative fee we'd like to see the administrative fee waved or we object to it based on the fact that the city has admitted it was their error all right um all right anything else in Mr St no your honor right um M St does the does the atton have anything further to present um no your honor and I don't know if it was stated earlier or not but our March 1st date for abatement is um somewh scheduled because of the fact that the town has to report back to FEMA as far as our efforts to come into compliance and that we have a report that's due to FEMA in u the month of April all right um very good well I have the the towns exhibits which I receive into evidence um there's really not a dispute about the violation here s said he doesn't have a defense to that there's an objection to the recovery of cost of prosecution um and of course just question about what the compliance state is going to be um uh I'm going to take a look at the a closer look at the exhibits and and materials that have been submitted to to kind of get an assessment of get a get a better handle on the time frame to to apply here uh I I don't think in this particular case given the concession responded there's an issue about finding the violation it's question of How It's remedied and the time for him to do so so I will I'll take that piece under advise I will get you out in order fairly quickly but after I've had a chance to carefully exhibit any else we need to do on this one before before we move on to the next anything from the town comments and Mr St the only other thing I'd like to point out to you your honor as you said at the beginning of these proceedings that you're up in Tallahassee is that I'm standing before this court in a temporary structure that is not 13 ft off the air right across the street from the beach I I just thought that the court should know that as well all right all right thank you Mr St appreciate that appreciate you all coming in um I think you all are free to go and we can bring up the next case thank you thank you okay go ahead thank you um um so the last case for your review today is regarding violations of the town's uh flood plane codes and this is case Fort Myers speech case number 20 24994 which is filed as um DOA case 24-48 38 on the 19th day of December in 2024 this is involving property located at 2815 estera Boulevard uh for inclusion of the record again I would like to make some preliminary remarks regarding the nature of the complaint that precipitated the initiation of this code enforcement case for preservation in the record for this case um I reference uh exhibit a which contains a number of documents um specifically a letter from FEMA dated July 19th of 2024 to Andy Hyatt as the town manager of the town of Fort Meers Beach the letter contains a summary of the town's non-compliance with its minimum flood plane management standards and codes um specific to this case is a reference on page three uh perin 2B which requires the town to provide a plan for remedying the identified violations and attached to the letter is the town of Fort Meer speech post disaster compliance status update report which identified compliance issues um page two of that report talks about failure in the permitting system which allowed the use of temporary non-compliance structures including shipping containers and trailers SL food trucks the statement in the report is followed by a list of the town of Fort Meers Beach citations further down um on the page in paragraph three the report say States non-compliant structures peren containers and temporary structures have been placed in the coastal High Hazard area ve Zone and Coastal a Zone know please provide a plan to remove the structures or bring the non-compliant structures or the non-compliant additions into compliance and confirmation that the town has stopped issuing permits for this type of non-compliant development so the July 19th 2024 letter from FEMA also had a deadline in it of November 18th for the town to remedy these matters the Town Council directed The Town manager to to cease issuing permits of this type for non-compliant development um however because of the benefits businesses that were operating out of some of these uh non-compliant structures and food trucks presented to the residents of the town the town Council sent a letter to FEMA asking for its compliance date to be extended to June of 2025 attached to that letter was a video showing how quickly some businesses operating out of these non-compliant um structures could be removed from properties in the event of the Declaration of a hurricane warning for the area FEMA however responded that they were not authorized to extend the existence of a non-compliant development and further added that the purpose of the regulations is to protect lives and property in the special flood Hazard area the non-compliance structures are in the most at risk flood area the ve Zone also known as the coastal High Hazard area which received a 14t storm surge following or during Hurricane Ian and then allowing these structures to remain in place in FEMA's opinion was a hazard to Residents and businesses in the event of another storm as was demonstrated by hurricanes Helen and Milton so since November um some of the non-compliance structures uh voluntarily uh were removed um a lot of them were removed prior to um or in the wake of hurricanes Helen in Milton on December 16th the town directed The Town manager to resend any remaining temporary use permits that were in effect the town continued to work with these property owners who have non-compliance structures to have them removed voluntarily or otherwise come into compliance however we were unable to um achieved that goal with several properties and those are the code cases that have been brought to you today um so we're asking that the documents that are included in exhibit a be included in the record providing testimony to you on behalf of the town in this case case number 20 24944 will be officer Thomas yazo and Carl Thomas they will both introduce themselves and provide you with their testimony um and AC they have taken in this case all right very good thank you before we hear from officer who's here on behalf of the respond my name is Jeff Walker your honor I'm a manager for the himlin Associates LLC properties and surfite Casual Furniture Store that we're rebuilding Mr Walker is it Walker yes Walker thank all right let me he from off for good afternoon your honor again my name is Officer Thomas yazo I'm a code compliance officer in the compliance security manager with the town of Fort Meers Beach as the manager for the compliance Security Department I'm responsible for the day-to-day operation the town of Fort Meers Beach code enforcement depart department and I supervise supervise four Code Compliance officers I review all the Code Enforcement cases with them and have access to all available code enforcement files in addition to that since since July of 2024 I've also personally been involved with the town's efforts to come into compliance with uh flood plane regulations identified as issues with FEMA which are Incorporated in the town codes ordinances I've been sworn in and will provide testimony and documentation regarding the violation in this case during my testimony I will periodically refer to the exhibits and the agenda materials and request that those materials be admitted into evidence and included as part of the record in this case this is Fort Meers Beach code enforcement case number 2024 994 which is also identified as DOA case number 24-48 38 subject property is located at 2815 Estero Boulevard Fort Meers Beach Florida 33931 on o October 17th I observed two shipping containers on the subject property which I determined to be a non-compliant structure based on the current flood plate flood planate regulations inclusive of design codes required in special Hazard areas as defined in section 6- 494 of the Fort Myers Beach code of ordinances the subject property is located in a coastal a Zone as identified on the latest flood plane map and required structures to have a base flood elevation of 13 ft above sea level I observed the sipping container was not elevated and to the best of my knowledge did not have an engineered plan for pilings and infrastructure I then consulted with Fort Meers Beach flood plane manager Carl Thomas who confirmed to me that the shipping containers on the subject property were not compliant structures not having any visible forms of axles or steer or chassis or steerable axles based on my observation a violation in of section 6-51 and 6- 525 of the town code ordinances and the American Society of civil engineers 24-14 which is incorporated by reference into the town codes my review and the consultation with Mr Thomas is consistent with FEMA's determination contained in their letters July 19th 2024 and November 12th 2024 prepare to notice a violation and then search the Lee County Property Appraisers database records containing property owner information and further verified that the property owner is himelstein Associates LLC based on a deed found in the official records of Lee County Florida I issued the notice of violation on October 17th 2024 and sent a copy of it by certified mail return receipt to the add address of record specifically P box 218 Summers Point New Jersey 08244 and registered agent at highin Drive delr Beach Florida 33483 posted a copy of the notice of violation at the subject property and at the Town Hall located at 2731 Oak Street Fort Meers Beach Florida 33931 a copy of the noce of violation Affidavit of notice in posting and evidence ownership is labeled exhibit B notice and information about the case are also displayed 24 hours a day on the town of Fort Meers Beach website under Public Notices I believe that we've already met the representative for the case he's here beside me in my notice of violation I gave himlin Associates LLC 30 days from October 17th 2024 to remove the shipping containers from the property or to otherwise come into compliance with town code I reinspected the subject property on December 10th 2024 and the shipping containers remained in the subject property in the same condition as I previously observed I then prepared an Affidavit of non-compliance with attached photographs of a copy of which is including Exhibit C in the agenda materials the property owner received a letter revoking and resending its permit temporary use permit on December 19th 2024 a copy of which is included in exhibit e in the agenda materials as a result of the proper owners failure to remove the shipping containers or bring the subject property into compliance with section 6-51 and 6525 of the town's Land Development code AS identified in the notice of violation the property owner was provided with notice of today's code enforcement hearing with an naida of notice and posting as shown in exhibit f a copy of which is being presented at today's Hearing in advance of today's hearing I reinspected the property on January 6 yesterday January 6 2025 with uh flood plan manager Carl Thomas and took photographs of the shipping containers which remain on the subject property in the same condition as I initially observed them on September 19th 2024 I'd also like to add these photographs to the record as exhibit G at this time your honor I'd like to uh ask pH plan manager Carl Thomas to provide you with additional information regarding the town's code sections and asce 24-14 and what is needed for a shipping container to attain compliance with the town's code thank you your honor ask do you have any questions for offic right and do I have any cross-examination Mr Walker any questions you'd like to ask no your honor all right thank you Mr Thomas good afternoon again your honor uh again my name is Carl Thomas and I'm the flood plane manager for the town of Fort Myers Beach I've been a flood plane administrator since 2011 and received my certification in the same year with that certification I worked with several fer municipalities concerning flood plane regulations such as those in effect in Fort Myers Beach since May of 2024 I've been specifically working with the town staff representatives from FEMA to meet the requirements of their post- disaster compliance report for hurricane in included in exhibit a of the agenda materials I'm here to provide testimony regarding the non-compliance of the subject property which is located in a high-risk flood zone in September of 2024 I had conversations with officer yazza regarding his concerns that the structures on the subject property were in violation of the town's flood plane regulations as claimed by FEMA in its compliance report I then explained the criteria that would need to be satisfied for compliance with chapter 6 division sections 6-51 and 6525 of the town's Land Development code a copy of section 6-51 and 6525 along with an excerpt from asce 24-14 are included in exhibit e of the agenda materials in summary I explained to officer yazo that section 6-51 States any structures located in the special flood Hazard area even if they are exempt from permitting for Florida building code must be designed in accordance with the American Society of civil engineers asce for short standard 24-14 for flood resistant design and construction where compliance includes elevating the structure to a base flood elevation of one foot above sea level base flood elevation plus one foot anchoring the structure to remain in place during flood conditions or having flood openings or break way walls to allow unobstructed passage of flood waters through the structure non-compliance with flood zone regulations not only increases vulnerability of the structure itself but also POS poses significant risk to Public Safety neighboring properties and the environment additionally it jeopardizes the community's participation in the National flood insurance program and potential increases and insurance premiums for all policy holders subsequent to my September conversation with officer yazo I accompani him on a site visit to the subject property during the second week in December and most recently a follow-up site visit yesterday on January 6th 2025 we discussed the requirements for compliance under the town's flood plan regulations for illustration purposes of Hazards non-compliance structures may cause I have a photograph I received from officer yazo taken after Hurricane Milton by Jeffrey hog our Works director and it shows evidence of a non-compliance structure displaced and creating a Hab a hazard to residents of the town and that's shown in exhibit shown in exhibit AG the non-compliance structure ended up in the area of North Estero Boulevard the town does not know where the structure was initially located or its owner in my opinion similar displacement is possible with non-compliant structures such as the subject property depending on the strength of the flood vent in summary it is my opinion that the shipping container located on the subject property is non compliant with the cited Town's flip plane ordinance I asked to include a copy of asce 24-14 and a photograph of this displaced container on record for this case thank you Mr any additional questions H Mr Walker I have none your honor all right very good that anything else um just some closing comments uh So based on the Swarm testimony and the evidence that's been presented to you including the exhibits in the hearing um agenda materials the town is asking for an order finding a violation of 6-51 6525 and asce 24-14 as of January the 6th of 2025 requiring compliance with the town's codes or removal of the non-compliance structure uh within a reasonable time to be determined by your honor as the compliance date um imposing a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation remains in effect past the compliance date um an administrative fee in the amount of $250 and authorization for the town to Abate the violation by the removal of the non-compliance structure if it is not uh if compliance is not attained by March the 1st of 2025 with any expenses incurred by the town to be paid by the property owner within 30 days and if the town's expenses remain unpaid beyond the 30 days the town will request certification of the amount owed to be imposed as a lean upon the property um and we have nothing else other to add all right thank you m Mr Walker yes honor we started out with these as just temporary uh containers that's all they are they were initially meant for we do use them in our business but we took out a permit to um first put them in in its spot which uh the expiration date on our permit says September of 2025 uh we have a permit to rebuild our building um which was a furniture store and we were open right before Ian hit so these containers are um I just submitted a permit um recently to U become compliant with the codes to elevate them and anchor them in a position uh where the originally on our original permit from the for the rebuilding of the storees that's where they were going to go so this was just temporary while we're rebuilding the store we have a permit in that anchors them and elevates them uh to make them flood compliant so we we aim to to be in that point as soon as the uh permit is finally issued uh we just need a little time once the to get the permit issue to work out whatever uh little differences we need to to accomplish with the city uh and to to extend that so we have time once we get the permit to to get the work done we have to have the U anchors put in and have the containers uh move there also is uh on our plan as well as anchors we're putting a 4ft flood wall in front of them uh so that it protects them from any surges thank you Mr Walker what's the time frame that you anticipate uh to complete that project we're looking roughly about four weeks four to six weeks after we received the permit and the permit been applied for yes all right very good um JY questions Mr St it's not a question but just a comment your honor um you know the town's primary goal is really to come into compliance with our codes um and we're willing to work with property owners as I hope has been um conveyed to you um we do have to provide a report to FEMA um and some type of compliance plan uh we would be willing to um to entertain that to help some of these U business owners to to come into compliance um in the prior case there was reference made to the building that we currently are in which uh is Town Hall um Town Hall the original Town Hall was devastated by Hurricane Ian um and no longer exists it was ultimately demolished um however the town recognized too that we need to be in compliance and we do have a plan to come into compliance we have purchased a site um and FEMA is aware of that so again it's it's the ability to show that compliance is the ultimate goal and that there is a path towards achieving that so with that said I mean we would be willing to work with the property owner this property owner as well as others um to even come back to you with evidence of a compliance plan if if that's something that you might consider I mean that is I mean you know may be a question of uh having a finding a violation and establishing a uh review uh you know a status review after the uh after the compliance day other words the compliance is not achieved come back before we impose a fine to see what things are submission of a compliance plan working with the town to get uh you know an agreeable plan in place that can be presented the FEMA as evidence of um you know the town's good faith efforts to move forward towards compliance I that's seems like that's uh would be a positive step seems that way to me anyway no I agree I just wanted to make one comment um when we got notified 30 days uh we had to be in compliance by November 17th that's immediately started the uh our engineer working on our diagram uh it took him a while to get it to us and as soon as I got it we submitted the uh application for the permit all right very good does the town have anything else to present on this one your H good all right so received the town's exhibits in the evidence and I have also the um the tesor that I received again as in the previous case there doesn't seem to me in this case to be any genuine dispute about the violation per se uh again it's more a question of structuring the remedies and the compliance timeline uh in a way hopefully the compliance will be achieved without imposing excessive cost of burden on the respond in this Cas is evidencing a willingness to bring the property to compliance as soon as practicable um I'll Reserve ruling on some of those details um and get you in order fairly soon after I've had a chance to look a little more carefully at the exhibits which have been presented today uh I don't think it will take it too long but would like to reflect upon them a little bit and think about the time frames and how best to structure the uh structure the uh the order in this case um I believe as well the town is probably submitted a proposed order that's part of the package yes your honor it should be the very last exhibit in your package and with all of the proposed orders uh we will provide the town clerk with a word version of it that she can then transmit to your um assistant uh just to make it easier if you want to edit those all right very good all right anything else said from either party uh Mr Walker anything else no your honor thank you Mr no we're all good thank you all right I think that was our last uh uh agenda item of new business is there anything else that we need to attend to before we inter today's proceding uh I'm not aware of anything your honor um again we thank you for your patience uh this was kind of a learning process for us as far as working with um uh a judge remotely um and we just hope we we figured out some things we want to do better next time so February hopefully will be a little smoother for us all right very good well I thought it went fairly smoothly so uh I thought we were in pretty good shape today and we got through the uh the four cases in in a pretty good time um all right well I will um uh get you those ERS as quick as I can and on a couple of cases I'm waiting for some submissions um and word J I will see you