Good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. All right. Very, very good. Do we have everyone that we need to have to get started? We do, your honor. All right. Great. Just pull this up here. Make sure I've
got my documents like I do. All right, let's go ahead and uh uh call this proceeding to order. And we're on the record, this is the Fort Myers Beach Special Magistrate hearing scheduled for
Friday, May 16, 2025. Uh we're getting underway at about 9:15 a.m. Uh and I apologize for any delay on my end. I know there was some issues there as well, but I guess ironically, I was the last to to get on the uh to get in the meeting. Um but we are all together and
ready to get started. Um, and my name, for those who don't know, is John Van Lanningham, and I am the um special magistrate for for uh for code compliance for Fort Myers Beach, and I'll be conducting today's hearings. And we have a few matters on today's
agenda. Um, before we get to the hearings that are scheduled, um, we have a couple of administrative items. Um starting with the approval of the minutes from the April 1 uh 2025 hearings u which have been provided. Are
there any objections to the approval of those minutes? No, your honor. Right. Without objection, then we will approve the the uh minutes of the special magistrate hearings from April 1, 2025. And uh with that, we can begin moving
through the uh the matters that have been uh placed on the agenda for today. Um and I see the the first item here are the compliance cases. Uh and we can go ahead and start with those if you'd like. Um your honor, uh we have another
section in our um agenda a little bit further down uh regarding our compliance cases. So I apologize for the oversight. We we listed it twice. Um, so we could go straight into the violation cases if that's your That's fine. Okay. So, the
very first case on our agenda today, first of all, my name is Nancy Stup. I'm an attorney with the Vos Law Firm and we have the honor of serving the town of Fort Meyer Speech as its town attorney. Um, the first item that we do have as a violation case is 1698 Eststero
Boulevard. Um, commonly known as the goods. Um, this is Fort Myers Beach case number 20240727. The property owner is Nautical Marketing LLC. The property address is 1698 Boulevard. The status of the matter
is compliance. Um, your honor, we have put u a number of uh documents into the record and we would ask that you accept that. In the record, you will find um documentation that notice was complied with for the hearing today. Um I also
want to add that uh Miss Leisac is present today and will provide testimony to you um regarding uh she is the registered agent for uh nautical marking marketing LLC. I also have a uh code
enforcement officer um Wick who will provide testimony to you today regarding the status of compliance. All right. And uh let me see who do I have here then on behalf of the respondent. Good morning your honor. Jackie Lisa for
the record. And and just so I'm clear, you are you're disputing the allegations in the notice. No, your honor. Um I think she's here at this point. Yeah. So, I also would like to uh draw your attention, your honor,
to the fact that um the parties did get together and communicated and we worked with Miss Lisak. She worked with the town um and we were able to facilitate a compliance of the violation that had been cited. Um we do have a stipulation
agreement in the packet as well um to the violation itself. So, really the matter that should be pending before you today um whether or not to impose. We're not asking for a fine because compliance has been attained and we have done that
no fine in any cases where we're able to uh get to compliance. Um but we would request the $250 administrative fee um because of the fact that we have had to come before you today um and incurred additional costs on behalf of the town.
Right. So, um, let me go ahead and and I'll receive evidence these exhibits that the, uh, that that the town has, uh, has provided. And, and Miss Leisac, um, uh, I understand you all have reached an agreement as to the, uh, as to the violation and come into compliance, so that's good. I
misunderstood that at the outset. Um, is there any objection to the costs? I think the the town is statutoily uh, authorized to impose some costs of prosecution. Is there any objection to that? I mean, we would absolutely ask for relief from the cost if possible, just because of everything that has and
is continuing to go on on the island. Uh, the folks in the goods who were on that are struggling to keep their business open, feed their family. They're working. Not only were we neighbors, we're still neighbors, we're friends. We were trying to help them provide a living for their families. So, uh, if there was a way to ask for relief
from that, that would be appreciated. uh if there is not then of course you know we'll take care of that so that we can get the matter closed. I mean the uh I think that the town would have to wave them since there's a statutory right to uh to impose or
assess them. Um, I mean, we could, I suppose, get into a hearing as to the actual amount, although I mean, in my experience, the $250 would be a a rather n, you know, kind of a nominal sum, but u um, if you'd like, we could explore that in greater detail. Again, unless
the town wanted to wave them, and they're obviously asking for the cost. There's a a right to recover them. Um um your honor, just for the purposes of uh transparency, fairness, and consistency,
um we have asked for the $250 um administrative cost in all our cases. So, we would not be in a position to wave those. Um and uh again, it's taken um some time. Um but it was time well
spent because we were able to reach compliance to not only um process the code enforcement case but also to prepare the stipulation and um and to appear today on this matter.
Well um Miss Le I I appreciate and understand what you're saying. Um I'll go ahead and and assess the cost then. um we have imposed that same amount on everyone and there is a right to for the town to recover costs. I will say I mean
to the extent it you know u puts it in a little bit of perspective. Um I do a lot of code enforcement in different jurisdictions and $250 is I I know it's I mean I wouldn't want to pay it so I understand why you don't want to pay it. Um but uh it's a it's a relatively small
sum as these cases go. Um I mean in other places I see them much much higher. So um for what that's worth that maybe that's small consolation but it's a relatively small sum for cost in a code enforcement case. It is the amount we've been imposing across the board in
these cases. However and I would agree with Miss Dupick that it mish that would you know fairness and and uh inconsistency would require that we that we stay to that amount. Um, was that the
only matter that remained in dispute? Yeah, that's all that we have outstanding. So, thank you. It's fair enough. We certainly don't want to ask for anything that anyone else is not getting. So, all right. I will go ahead and then there's a a somewhere in the pack and I still haven't arrived at it. There's a stipulated order or there's a
stipulation. I can just enter the order based on your honor. We did not prepare a draft order for your review. That's fine. I can I can put one together. Oh, you've got the terms and the stipulation. I I'll approve the stipulation and and that will that will
resolve. Your honor, the only other thing I wanted to ask about is in that it does state and we did have some discussion about if there was another offense, it would be a second offense and we had some discussion on that. So, if we could get some relief on that um as this being scratched and I don't
anticipate any further issues. Uh certainly we're working with the town and they've been excellent to work with on this, but I would not want to put myself into the position where if something else un unknown in the future uh happened as does seem to happen on this island a lot um I would like to at
least give ourselves a little bit of leeway there. I I would I would say this again not having read what's actually in the stipulation but uh my inclination unless there's something that surprises me there would would be not to address that issue in the final order since it's
it's sort of anticipatory. I mean there may not never there may never be another offense and but if there is and hopefully there won't be the question about whether it's a repeat offense or not I mean we would take up at that time I mean it might be a completely different offense it might you know uh
there's no point in trying to anticipate that hypothetically um uh and it hasn't happened yet so uh why don't we leave that issue for another day uh which may never come perfect if that makes sense. That makes perfect sense. Thank you. All right.
All right. Thank you, your honor. Happy day. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. You're free to go. So, um, your honor, if I may, um, the next item on your agenda is 1035 Astera Boulevard, KLC Surf. Um, this is the Lola, uh, matter.
Um, as you are aware, well, let me go ahead and read the rest of it. Um, it is for Meer speech case 2024915. The property owner is KLC Surf LLC. um operating uh with its tenant uh Lola. The property address is 1035
Astera Boulevard. The current status is non-compliant. However, there is an appeal pending in the circuit court. We are not asking for any action to be taken by you today. However, we did want to provide a status update to you and I
believe Miss Tau is here on behalf of um the property owner and the tenant. All right. Very good. Good morning, your honor. Amy with Russell for the record. Good to see you again. I see you. So, we have some
updates. As Nancy mentioned, um this is of course in a circuit court appeal, but um despite that, clearly the property owner and the tenant are both seeking to find a way to move forward collaboratively with the town. So, they are
um working on getting plans for permitting as as they mentioned last time. We do have some renderings um and I can present those here in a moment. Um they did obtain their renderings. They're working on obtaining their engineered site plans and um are in the
process of getting their structural drawings done for permitting as well. Um we are also we have submitted a request for a pre-application meeting for uh our development order application which would be the first step in getting
the rebuild approved. That is the town of Fort Myers Beach's site plan approval. So, um, we are working to get that pre-application meeting on the calendar so that we can make sure that our DOE plans are up to snuff. And,
um, so that's essentially where we are. And once we go through DO and we can get that, then we'll be able to submit for actual building permits. And who knows how long it'll take to actually build the site, but um certainly once we break ground, we will be diligently underway
trying to get um Ola back up and running there at 10:35. Right. Well, that's pretty good. Um and what what stage is the uh the circuit court case at? Have have briefs any briefs been filed or is it still ramping
up? Yes. So, our initial brief was filed um three and a half weeks ago or so. I believe the town's brief is due next Friday, but I will defer to Nancy on the deadlines. Um and then of course after that, we have uh 15 days to file a reply
brief, which we will do. We'll work with the town to decide whether we want to request oral arguments or not. And then from there, hopefully we will be um seeing a decision rendered. Thankfully, the judge that is on this particular case is quite expedient. So, we are hopeful to get this resolved as soon as
possible. All right. Well, good. I um and just for clarification, I was looking over the agenda last night and I recall this case was on appeal. Um what I didn't recall and I don't really think it's an issue for today
since the town isn't asking for me to make any decision or ruling at present. Um but uh there's there's no stay in place. Am I am I right? I don't think that I entered one. Had the circuit court uh appellet division entered any
kind of stay pending review? Um not at this time. That is certainly something we've discussed with the town. Um but nothing has been filed or and no order has been rendered. Um your honor, certainly I it's my understanding that a
stay would be ultimately decided by you. So um you know if that were to be filed, we would be filing it with you and coming back for a hearing likely. I mean I guess uh again at the moment it's not really an issue since the town isn't asking me to make some enforcement type
of ruling. Um I mean if if it ever came to that point I I think I haven't you know looked at this in detail recently but I guess absent a stay the town could move forward with enforcement of the final order even pending the review obviously
if the circuit court reversed and this any some things might get undone uh and uh uh you know I mean I I won't speak for the town I I wouldn't guess as a practical matter you know you commence a foreclosure your action while you had a pending appeal on
the final order. But um just I I guess I just wanted to be clear. I didn't recall a stay um and or recall seeing one. So again, it's not really an issue this morning since we're not uh we're not taking up any kind of enforcement or other, you know, immediate ruling. But
uh uh I just wanted to be to be clear on that. I you know, hopefully that'll never become an issue. Hope that that's right. If it does, we'll take it up, you know, but it'll be fine. Um uh so there's nothing I guess for me to rule. Um uh I'm happy to hear further details
if you want to get into it. I need to I thought mau were you going to show photos or do you want to do that? That's fine. I mean I'm happy to you know and then I just have a couple things.
Thank you. So um I don't have the clicker but I have three renderings that I just wanted to present today. So the first one is a rendering from the perspective of folks in Time Square. So this would be to the west of the site
closer to the beach. And as you can see, this is a really, really nice building that they've proposed. This is a perspective from San Carlos. And um again, really nice. Those are, you know, some of the restrooms. They've kept kind of a quasi tiki hut
feel, but clearly we're looking at something that's a conventional structure. Uh would be built of course in accordance with all state, federal, and local requirements including Florida building code, FEMA requirements, all of that. And again, this is another
perspective from San Carlos. So, um actually that mural on the uh old elevator shaft is is there existing. So, that's already there. The rest of that would be of course new structure and you know we certainly think that this looks
really nice. We think the architects have done a really nice job and we're really looking forward to getting this project up and running. Yeah, it does look nice. Thank you. I've I've never been, but maybe someday when this is all over, I'll get down
there and I'll be able to see the the beach there. It looks nice. It's really It's a really lovely spot. I think you'd really love it. Well, great. Well, I'm glad to see that those th those renderings and, you know, I'm I'm certainly hopeful as I'm sure everyone is that that will uh move
forward uh you know, a pace and uh and that will be be built and that will be a nice not only for the business owner but for the uh for the town and the tourists and everyone else. So, that would be a good result. So, your honor, I wanted to add a few things. Um yes, we will all be
um welcoming um a new restaurant to our community. However, the enthusiasm towards the um redevelopment of this site is not um universal at this time. And I do want to
explain to you why. Um so, just to be clear, the violation that is the subject of your order that is on appeal, it's not for the failure to get a building permit or the failure to redevelop its restaurant. The violation is there
because Lola is operating in a non-compliant structure um that is in violation of the town's flood regulations. Um they have the opportunity to move the non-compliant structure and continue on with their building and
their redevelopment u project um or to make it compliant, but they've chosen not to do any. Um you may recall at your January 7th um public hearing that we had um the town asked you to impose a
reasonable period of time for compliance. We left it open because we recognize the hardship that terminating a business would cause to Lyola and uh they asked to be able to stay open until late Memorial Day weekend. Um, and you
rightfully came into a compromise and gave them a compliance date of March the 1st. And to date, they have um continued to um be in violation, although they
still I mean they did evidence, they provided evidence, they discussed their ability to um exit the property very very quickly in um the event of a storm. So, their continued presence creates two risks for the town and its residents
that we're trying to figure out a solution to and how to best manage those. Um, the first risk is the fact that hurricane season will begin on June the 1st. Um, and our concern is the actual location. As you saw in the um
the sketch, um it is located at the foot of the Mantanis Bridge, which is one of the two only entries onto the island. Um it the Matanis Bridge basically intersects with Asteroa Boulevard which
unfortunately last night we had a dump truck that overturned with rebar that caused significant delays um for people on the island as well as people coming to the island. And the concern that the
town has is not only for the um and it is an inconvenience the traffic. However, in the event there was some kind of medical emergency on the town in the town um we're concerned that we would not be able to have um rescue uh
vehicles come. So, if we have a storm now that hurricane season has started and Lola continues to keep their non-compliance structures there, um the town has a risk um blockage of traffic as well as the inability to perhaps get
needed resources in a very timely manner um on the island. Second, um I don't know if your honor is aware, however, FEMA has sent us a letter and there is a copy of it on page 59 of your 139 page packet. Um we
received the letter on April the 28th. We were very very joyful. Um FEMA told us that the town is going to be taken off of probation. Um and we and FEMA recognized the hard work that um that the town staff has done in providing the
information that they were looking for. Um however, getting off probation doesn't automatically provide um the opportunity to participate in the NFIP, the National Insurance Program. And FEMA was very
direct in their letter uh when they told us what the process would be. we would be taken off of probation on November the 18th. Um, however, that removal from probation was conditioned on whether or not the town could document that the
non-compliant structures have all been removed. FEMA will be coming to the town for a community assessment v uh visit sometime before August the 31st of this year. We do not know when they're coming
and we are working feverishly trying to get the last couple non-compliance structures um removed. However, should Lola continue to not come into compliance, u they are basically putting the town at risk once
again of of going into a probationary status with FEMA because of the fact that there is continued non-compliance. So, I just wanted to put that on the record. We have I have spoken with Miss Tubau. Um, and uh, you know, FEMA again
has demonstrated that it can move those uh, non-compliant structures and they could continue on with their efforts to redevelop with those structures not present. As far as the appeal, yes, our answer brief is due next week. Um, and
then, uh, Mr. Chubau has the 15 days to file a reply brief, and the town will then strongly consider asking for expedited, uh, review. The fact that Miss Tubo has said that she doesn't know how long the rebuild is going to take,
that causes me even a little bit more concerned. However, the rebuild, the timing of the rebuild is not the uh, the solution to compliance for the violation. It's the removal of the non-compliant structures.
Thank you. And and just to clarify, when I said I wasn't sure what the time frame for the rebuild would be, I was talking about the actual construction work. Um clearly once they break ground, there will be no n nothing that is there now will
remain at that point. I just don't know exactly what the time frame is from breaking ground, you know, getting your NOOCC to closing out your permit. Um, timelines are kind of all over the place right now. And but, um, what I can say
is everything leading up to being able to break ground is being expedited. We are working very, very quickly. You know, certainly um, we understand the town's concerns.
without getting too deeply into it, we clearly disagree that there is a violation. Um, and I would also make an argument that even if this was a violation, which it's not in my legal opinion, um, that the town has done
everything that it can do to, you know, in to adjudicate this case. Um, so it would it would certainly be um outside of FEMA's rules regarding probation to put the town back on probation if if FEMA's only issue at that point was
Lola. So, um, with that, your honor, thank you very much. If you have any questions for me, please let me know. All right. Well, thank you. I again, I guess, you know, because, uh, I'm not being asked today to take some kind of enforcement action to some extent. this is you maybe forwardlooking and one of
the reasons I brought up the issue of the stay. Um and and I I I understand the I think uh the situation as it stands. I mean there are risks from the town's perspective and I I guess there are risks from the from Lyola's
perspective and that you know if if the circuit court for example affirms the final order then you know we have a situation where fines are acrewing and you know without a stay I suppose the town could at least begin commencing some kind of enforcement action if it saw fit to do that. Um obviously uh
there would be some decision points there you know potentially on a stay. Um my point is it um you know the the the the underlying violation that was found in the final order that's under review um
subsists and uh at least unless and until it you know that finding gets reversed and at some point um uh if it's affirmed uh there there would you know again be some additional decision points but fines would be assessed you know
based on the final order. Um, again, I don't want to get too far ahead of where we are. Obviously, there are various contingencies right now, including what might happen on appeal. Um, but, uh, I mean, I I guess what I'm saying, bottom line is I understand that there are a
few moving parts here and and, uh, um, there are various, you know, directions this or turns this could take, you know, going forward. um in the optimistic uh view uh and you know my hope and I'm sure the town's hope surely the property
owner's hope is that the new building the new structure will you know be developed and constructed you know uh in in reasonably short order obviously these things take time and and that will be an asset for you know for the community and obviously for the owners
um um I'm not you know I don't know what the nature of objections to the development might be, but um um often times, you know, people don't like it when you start building things, I guess, near the coast. I don't I don't know what's going on there, but it looks nice in the pictures and hopefully that'll
get done. But, uh, you know, again, I don't want to get get too far ahead of where we are today other than to note that I I I understand that there there are yet some decisions potentially to be made and that might involve things like, you know, determining fees and that kind
of thing, but um, but we're not there today. Obviously the LA Ola could uh you know if they remove the trailer could you know minimize the risk of of ongoing fines. Um but um um but that's you know
um I'm I'm not being asked to take any enforcement step here and and and so we'll we'll deal with that if and when it comes. I um I'm not sure there's any there's nothing really else for me to do at the moment. Right. I mean that nothing other than to to hear and you
know be reminded of what's going on. It's kind of a status that that is correct your honor. We just wanted to keep you um involved and um again the town is uh there will be some other cases coming to you with the last couple of non-compliant structures that we have
that we're aware of. Um this is the last um non-compliant structure in town square which again uh its proximity to the bridge and to the ability to actually circulate on the island is is really a big risk for us in the event
that the um that the uh restaurant was displaced um you know that this the trailer ended up in the middle of the boulevard. Understood. All right. Very good. Miss TBO, anything else? I'm all finished. Thank you so much,
your honor. Appreciate your time. Thanks. Thanks for coming in. I I appreciate the update and uh as I've said before, you know, good luck. I hope it, you know, I hope it goes forward. It looks again, it looks nice. You know, it looks like it'll be a nice place if if and when it gets completed. Yes. Thank
you so much. Thank you. Thank you, your honor. Um the next case is uh is a compliance case and um I am pleased to u let you know this is uh first of all let me uh put on the record the the item
that we're discussing. It's 13133 Eststerero Boulevard um previously known as the Island Shores Club. This is Fort Meyers Beach case number 20250056. The property owner is Kaminsky
at 131 Estero LLC. The property address is 1311 133 Eststera Boulevard. The violation was property maintenance. Um I do have our code officer here who could speak to the compliance. Um in your
packet you will see that the demolition has occurred. The property is uh very clean. Um and we have received in advance a $250 um administrative fee. The attorney for the property owner is
present and I'm sorry it's usually Mr. Davies but this is his associate and I forgot your name. Samantha Samantha Enada and I'll let her comment. Let me get your last name if I could. I got the first name. That's okay.
Samantha Enada. E N C A L A DA. DA. All right. And this is the case we had last time where there was a stipulation with I know one or two little wrinkles that had to be ironed out but um right there were a couple of
cases the unsafe building. Yes, that is that is correct your honor. And um uh per your order there was a compliance date uh which we had timely met. Um there is actually in the file an affidavit of compliance on when that
inspection took place. Um the date of compliance was April 30th, so well before the deadline um that you provided in your order of May 9th. Um also uh Miss Stuper Rich did mention that we did pay the fee in advance um for the
$250. So, at this point, um, and based on our timely compliance, uh, we we are agreeing with, uh, Miss Super Rich's, um, representations, and we'd be asking that, uh, we have an order of compliance and close out, um, the cases,
right, very good. And have you all uh, included a proposed order in the packet? Uh, no, your honor. We will going forward. If if you want to just agree on a form and and submit that to me, I go ahead and get it signed, I you know, I'm happy to to do that. I'm always happy to hear
that a case is in compliance. Everyone's in agreement. Yes, we're trying to make it easy on you, your honor. Okay, very good. And for the Thanks a lot, Miss Analada. Anything else? Um well, just for the record, um we do appreciate them and and you as well
moving us to um resolving this matter. Um you mentioned that there were some uh issues that we were talking about after your hearing. Um however, we did work it out and um I think everyone is in a place where they would need to be. Um
the last item that is on your agenda is the building official appeal. And I think we need a formal order of dismissal. Um that appeal again, it's the same address. It's 131 133 Astera Boulevard. Um it was for an unsafe
building. The property owner and uh their attorney is here. Just an order of dismissal because the unsafe building is gone. All right. Again, happy to do that. And if if you all want to just confer and send me an an agreed upon form, I'll go
ahead and get that signed. Um uh but that's uh that's great. We'll get those get those two cases uh closed out. We don't have any um further cases, your honor. Um we do have the clerks are here
uh doing their job and I understand we have a couple of of still non-compliance structures coming to you on June the 3. Is that correct? Oh, and uh nothing further. Oh, that was all of our cases. Okay,
that was it. Well, that's great. I thought we had one uh I guess that was the the first one that uh it was it was resolved. So, nothing nothing really contentious today. So, that makes for an easy hearing day. Excellent. So, there only a few more cases that that uh are
likely to come up that involve the uh non-compliance structures related to the FEMA issues. Yes. and staff is working very very diligently because of the fact that the community assessment visit is uh dead is scheduled for August the
31st. Um we also had quite a number of cases where um construction occurred without building permits. Um the town moved forward and sent letters and we have achieved a very high percentage of compliance with after the-act permits.
So, those cases most likely will not be coming to you. However, there still are a few that that we're going to be pushing forward on. Pretty good. I'm glad to hear that. Um although I guess when everything's finally resolved, I I may have put
myself out of business here for Fort Meyer speech, but anyway, I'm glad that we're getting them getting things moving and resolved. Thank you. That's that's good. All right. Um, if there's nothing else then uh to take up on today's
agenda, we're adjourned and I will see you on June 3rd. Thank you. Thank you, your honor. All right. Where's