Let's uh go ahead then and bring this proceeding to order. This is the Fort Myers Beach Special Magistrate hearing uh for June 3rd, 2025. We're getting underway by Zoom teleconference uh as scheduled. My name is John Van Lanningham and I am the Fort Myers Beach
special magistrate for code compliance. I'll be conducting today's hearings. Um, I have before me the minutes of the hearings from last month's meeting on May 16th, 2025, which uh I've reviewed and seem to be in order. Are there any objections to
approval of those minutes? No, your honor. Yes. No, your honor. We're fine with that. All right. Without objection, then I will approve the minutes from the May 16, 2025 meeting. Are there any other
preliminary matters uh or administrative uh items we need to attend to before we start calling the hearings? Um no, your honor. Um today you have um let's see four items. Um and um we'll just take
them as they come. Um nothing to add extra. We can go ahead then and proceed with uh with the first case. Thank you, your honor. The first case on today's agenda is 134-138 Connecticut Street, owned by
First Baptist Church of Fort Meyers. This is FMB case number 2024 0186. The property owner is uh First Baptist Church of Fort M. Uh the property address again is 1341 138
Connecticut Street. The violation is for a non-compliant structure and as you are aware your honor um we have had a number of violations come before you regarding these non-compliant structures.
Um, in your packet we have um exhibit A and this is a letter from the um Federal Emergency Management Agency that was dated back in July of uh July 19th of 2024. This was to Andy Hyatt as the town
manager. Um and the letter contains a summary of um some findings that were made regarding the town's compliance with the minimum flood plane standards that are in our code. um specific to this case is there is a reference on
page three uh pin 2B which requires the town to provide a plan for remedying identified violations. Um and then also attached to that is a uh town of Fort Myers Beach post- disaster compliance status update report from FEMA that
identifies these uh compliance issues. Um, page two of that report says failure in the permitting system which allowed the use of temporary non-compliant structures including shipping containers and trailers, food trucks. Um, the statement is followed by a list of the
town of Fort Meyer speech citations. Further down on the page, the report states that these non-compliant structures and temporary have been placed in the high uh coastal high hazard area, the VE zone and the coastal Azone. and FEMA had asked us for a plan
of bringing these um non-compliance structures into compliance. Um your honor is aware of the various documents that we have in exhibit uh B of the packet. Um they're basically the same
that um we have presented to you in in other cases. Um, moving right along, uh, the town had issued some temporary placement permits. Um, and since that time, um, at the
request of FEMA, it's part of our ability to try to come back into compliance, those any of those pending permits have been revoked. Um, and FEMA of course said that we can't issue any more of them. That was back in December. There is
subsequent convers uh correspondence with FEMA. I'm going to fast forward a little bit for purposes of efficiency to state that our last correspondence with FEMA after working with them and trying to come into compliance was on April the
28th of this year. Um at which point FEMA which had initially placed us on probation um indicated that the town would be able eligible to go back into the program. Um however it would still be moni FEMA would still be monitoring
the town uh making sure that we did comply with um our flood plane regulations and they would be doing various inspections to that effect. That brings us to the case before you um which uh officer Yazo will uh further
elaborate on the actual details of it. However, we believe that there is a non-compliant structure there and the purpose of today's hearing is to go ahead and try to bring that uh property into compliance. Um I also u through the
testimony we want to introduce our new flood plane manager. Um this is Miss D. Federrices. Uh nice Italian name there. Sorry if I mispronounced it. Um and she'll be providing testimony to you as well. And uh perhaps we should go ahead
and swear in. Also, I want to recognize uh pastor pastor Shawn who is here uh representing the property owner who I believe will also be providing testimony and would need to be sworn in. All
right. Very good. And who would you like to start with? If we could swear in our witnesses and then uh Officer Yazo will will get us started. All right, let me go ahead and swear in then all the witnesses at once. If you would, all those who expect to give testimony in this hearing, please raise your right
hands for me. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Yes, I do. All right. Very good. Good morning, your honor. Nice to see you again. My name is Thomas Yazo. I am
the co um emergency services director for Fort Myers Beach. As a director of the compliance and emergency services department, I am responsible for the day-to-day operation of town of Fort Myers Beach code enforcement department. I now supervise three code enforcement code compliance officers. I review all
the code enforcement cases with them and have access to all the available code enforcement files. In addition, since July 2024, I've also 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 and 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 of this
case. Again, this is Fort Myers Beach Code Enforcement case number 202241086. The subject property uh is located at 134138 Connecticut Street, Fort Myers Beach, 33931. On October 28th, 2024, I observed
a non-compliance structure on the subject property, which I determined to be non-compliant structure based on the current flood plate regulations inclusive of design codes required in the special hazard areas as defined in section 6-494 of the FB FM code of ordinances.
The subject property is located in a coastal AE zone as identified on the latest flood plane map and requires structures to have a base flood elevation bottom space at 12 ft above sea level. I observed that the non-compliant structures were not
elevated and to the best of my knowledge did not have an engineer plans for pilings or infrastructure. I then consulted at the time with the flood plane manager Carl Thomas who was on staff who confirmed me that the non-compliant structures on the subject property was the non-compliant structure based on my observation and a violation
of sections 6-501 and 6-525 of the town code of ordinances and the American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE 24-14 which is incorporated by reference into the town codes. My review and in
consultation with Mr. Thomas is consistent with FEMA's determination contained in their letters of July 19th, 2024 and November 12th, 2024. I prepared a notice of violation and search Lee County's property appraisers database records contain property owner information and further verified that
the property owner is First Baptist Church of Fort Myers Beach based on a deed found in the official records of Lee County, Florida. I issued the notice of violation on November 13th and sent a copy of it by certified mail receipt to the address of record specifically to
130 Connecticut Street, FMB, Florida 139 blade that 33931 and posted a copy of notice of violation at the subject property and at the town hall located at this time at 2731 Oak Street, Fort Myers Beach, Florida
33931. A copy of notice of violation, affidavit, affidate of posting, notice and posting and evidence of ownership is labeled in exhibit C. Notice of the notice of and information about the case is also displayed 24 hours a day, seven days a week on the town of Fort Myers Beach
website under public notices. The respondent is present today at this hearing. He identified himself as Sean Critster. He's the pastor of said church. I took photographs to document the violation and posting I observed on
October 20, 2024 in exhibit C contains true and accurate unaltered copies of these photographs during my inspection and posting on April 29th of 2025. The photographs show the non-compliant structure located in the coastal AE zone is not elevated to 12 feet above base
flood level. In my notice of violation, I gave First Baptist Church of Fort Myers Beach 30 days from November 13, 2024 to remove the non-compliance structures from the property and or to otherwise come into compliance with the town codes. To be
fair, your honor, they had a shipping container on property, which they have since removed, but the other structures that are still on property are still non-compliant structures. I reinspected the subject property on April 15th and the shipping uh container
and non-compliant structure remain on subject property in the same condition as I previously observed. I then prepared an date of non-compliance with attached photographs, a copy of which is included in hearing ex hearing exhibit D in the agenda materials. The property owner did receive a letter revoking or rescending any possibility
of a temporary use permit on December 19th, 2024, a copy of which is included in hearing exhibit B in the agenda materials as a result of the property owner's failure to remove the all the non-compliant structures at subject property into compliance with section
6-501 and I'm sorry and to bring the subject property in compliance with sections 6-501 and 6-525 of tan of the town's land development code as identified in the notice of violation. The property owner was provided with a notice of today's code enforcement hearing with
affative of notice and posting as shown in hearing exhibit A. In advance of today's hearing, I reinspected the property yesterday, June 2nd, 2025, and took photographs of the non-compliant structures and created an affidavit of
non-compliance which remains on this. These structures still remain on the subject property in same condition as I initially observed on October 28th, 2024. I would like to add these photographs to the record and add them into hearing exhibit C, please. All
right. At this time, your honor, you do you have the photographs? I do, and everything was sent through already. Okay. Everything was already sent through through that part. Remind him. Yes, your honor. That should be in your in your agenda packet.
from yesterday. From yesterday. All right, I'm gonna I'm pulling that up. Go ahead. Okay, so at this time, your honor, I'd like to ask flood plane manager Kelly D. Fred Federicius to provide you with
additional information regarding the town's code section and ASCE24-14 and what is needed for a non-compliance structure to obtain compliance within the town code. Thank you, sir. Any questions? I do not have any questions. Let me ask
if uh if uh I'm going to get your name wrong. Uh Pastor Sean, can I get your last name? Critzer. To the mic. It's Critser. C R I T S E R. C R I T S E R. Yes.
Critzer. Yes. Did Did you have any questions for the witness? Pastor Christ. Oh, for No, no, sir. Not yet. No. All right. I mean, I have a flood plane question, but she may be getting ready to clear it up, so
that's Okay. All right. Thank you. Officer Yzo, why don't we have the next witness? Hey there. Good morning. Kelly Deferiches, uh the town of Fort Meyer Beach flood plane manager. Um they wanted me to give you a little update
with my history. So, um I've been with the town since January of this year prior to this. Let me let me jump in here real quick if I could. Can I get you to spell your last name or I'll never be able to say it. It's D E F as
in Frank. E D E R I C I S as in Sam. Deferrices. Kelly is spelled K E L L I. All right. Oh, I'm glad you pointed that out. All right. Now I've got it. Go ahead.
Yes. Sorry. Um, like I was saying, I started here with the beach in January of 2025. Carl is still on staff. It's just I'm local here now. And prior to starting with the beach, I was the flood plane manager for the city of Marco Island for the last nine years. So I'm
very familiar with the coastal requirements and any flood plane that goes on here in Southwest Florida. And I'm here to just follow up to what Mr. Yazo had um specified with regard to this structure um to make it
compliant. As of right now, I do not see that we have an elevation certificate on record to determine what the finished floor elevation of the structure is. Without this elevation certificate, we cannot determine how much higher it
needs to go um to make it compliant. On trailers like this, they go from the underside because there's HVAC um equipment and stuff under the trailer. So the underside must be to um finish floor elevation of 12 because it is
located in a base flood elevation of 11 and you're required to be 1 ft above. So if we can get an elevation certificate for this structure and this is only from a flood plane standpoint. It is not what is required for building code purposes but from a flood plane standpoint. We
would need that elevation certificate to determine how much higher the actual structure would need to be to determine for compliance if that makes sense. Yeah. Could you say that last piece again? Make sure I understand that. Yeah. So, so right now this property is
located in a base flood elevation of 11. It is required to be 1 foot above base flood. So that would make the underside of the the trailer at 12. And so right now we don't have an elevation certificate to determine what the
finished floor currently is at. Once we have that elevation certificate, we can determine if it needs to go up one foot, two foot, three feet, but that's the only document that can be used to determine how many feet it can go, how many feet it needs to go up. So the
respondent needs to get an engineer to do that elevation certificate. It's actually prepared by a surveyor. Yeah. And then like I said, that's the only document that we can use to provide it assistance to determine how many feet it needs to go up. It I mean it could
possibly only need to go up one foot. We don't know without that document. All right. Anything else? Um from a flood plane standpoint, that's all. All right. And pastor Chris Critzer, did you have any
questions for uh the flood plane manager here, Miss De Federicis? Just one. Is the the entire island under the same flood plane or does it divide? I was told in years past that our property sat on the border of one of the
zones and half the property was on one side and half the property was on the other. Okay. So, I I do actually have the map pulled up and I can show you. Um, but this property is located in a base flood elevation of 11. There are several lines that run through adjacent properties, but from what I saw, it's
fully in a base flood elevation of 11. And these maps were adopted in um 2022. So on the original large property piece, is it one or was that property divided from two parcels? Yeah. So, um, it's
where the structure is located. So if that corner Yeah. So I looked at that prior to the meeting and because that's located in a base flood elevation of 11, you must go to 12. So the closer you get to the coast, the higher it goes and so yeah, that actually better because it's
not in the A12. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. That was my only question, your honor. All right. Anything else? All right. I don't have any questions. I appreciate your testimony. Anything else that um that the uh that the town would like to ask
the witness? Um no, not not of this witness, your honor. So um we believe that we have provided the requisite evidence to show that there has been or and continues to exist a violation on this property. Um and we would be asking
for an order to that effect. Um, also the authorization uh to remove the non-compliant structure in the event that um the property owner fails to do so uh based on a compliance date that we would defer to your judgment um to
establish um and also asking for the $250 administrative fee. All right. Very good. And uh Pastor Critzer, why don't you uh take the podium there? Um let me ask you first and then uh if you want want
to give testimony or have any other witnesses or exhibits, we'll certainly you know take that as well. Um the preliminarily um are you all contesting the violation that's been charged here? First of all, where's the camera that I'm looking at him at?
Because it feels weird to look at the team. Okay, there you are. You're looking at me now. Okay, we're not really contesting the violation, so to speak. Um, we we do have questions and concerns over the process in which this is taken. Um, and at the financial burden that we're now
placed under. Um, of course, we would approach this two ways. One, we'd surely like to stay. We're in the process of, you know, the building of the new building. Um, you know, we believe a church should be on the island or our church should be on the island specifically. Um, you know, the church is used for congregating and for
assembly and then a food pantry daily. That's pretty much the only, you know, usage of the building. We did make it through two hurricane floods last year. Um, you know, the building is secured just like the building that we're standing in now is. Uh, so I'm saying of course that would be our first choice.
Now, you know, I've watched many of these hearings and I think we all who are in these structures believe the same way and we don't seem to be able to allow that and I get that. So then we would go to, you know, our second choice, which would be that's fine. We
need to remove it. I think the town is culpable in that, you know, that we now need to remove it because, you know, I'm looking at a timeline that started, as the town says back in July of 19th. I didn't even receive my permit until August 31st of 2024. That's when I
received my official notice that I could, you know, move into the structure. I didn't even get my fire inspection passed until September 11th because they said that we could go ahead and start assembly as long as that fire last fire inspection happened. And then it did and we received it on September 11th. I then found out that there was an
actual letter that came to the town on April 8th of 2024 when FEMA started stating that there was a problem. So the town allowed me to go through this permitting process without even mentioning that there possibly could be a problem and giving me the option to say do you want to proceed knowing that
it's possible that we could be in trouble. So I understand that there was a failure you know according to the notice I got that there was a failure in the permitting on the town's pro uh on their part. So, in in our mind, we went through I got the bills here about
$121,000 worth of finances to put this structure in place because we were told we could. Now, we're saying that was an error. If that's an error, then I think someone should at least share in the responsibility of that. Um, so if we need to remove it, let's remove it. You know, if that's the final determination
of your honor, we stand behind that. We're not we're not here to fight. We try to stay when when it shouldn't. We're just saying we didn't have the finances. We went and borrowed it, begged, borrowed, and steal to get it uh to put that structure in place. And then now we're telling, hey, we made a mistake. You can't do that. Uh it needs
to go away. And then finding out that there was actual information given to the town that they knew that they were possibly had a problem and still allowed us to go forward and spend that money. We just think that was irresponsible. Um and and we have shouldered the entire burden. Now we're being told, you know,
well, we hope you can get, you know, get it moved or or we'll move it for you. So, we're saying, you know, we'd like for you to move it for us. We'd like for you to absorb the finances of moving it, uh, and maybe even pay us for doing it in the first place. So, sure, we'd ask for the whole 121,000 back. I don't
think we're going to get it. Um, but if your honor could see fit to give us part of it back to help at least get them out of here, uh, and recoup some of that money, uh, we'd be greatly appreciated. Let me ask a couple questions just to clarify. Um the permitting you're
talking about was that's for a permanent structure for or for a temporary structure. That is for this temporary structure specifically the these so we we're sitting in a in a triple wide trailer that was a FEMA um not FEMA I'm sorry was an FPL training center. We
purchased it from Will Scott Industries um and they moved it, placed it, you know, on our struct on our property, you know, for this specific purpose. And just uh in terms of the chronology of events, you had a permanent structure there that was damaged in the hurricane.
Yes, sir. We had five buildings on the property and they're they're all destroyed. Okay. And so the temporary trailer, the triple wide, that came in as your substitute or your temporary placement while you look at constructing a permanent building? Yes, sir. And and your long-term plan is to build a
permanent building. Yes, sir. Our LDO is in process now. Uh permits have been through town staff or at least discussions on the permits have been through town staff and final drawings have been submitted, you know. So, we're well into the process and hope to be breaking ground in the next probably 60
to 90 days. Okay. All right. So, the the permitting that you you spent the $121,000 on that was the temporary placement permit. It's the permit and the structures themselves. Um, you know, like I said, we went to Will Scott to purchase those, uh, and then had to get
them placed, had to get them transported, um, tied down, you know, the whole process. Okay. All right. U, I just wanted to make sure I understood what what was happening there. um in terms of I know you you've spoken about
responsibility and recouping expenses and um um just uh you know so you understand as a special magistrate I don't have the authority to make awards like that um I won't comment one way or the other as to whether or not you know
there's any redress for that but uh whatever it might be if if it might be it's not here in front of me and special magist I just don't have that authority Um, my authority is limited to determining the violations. Um, if there are other things that have happened, you
know, whatever they may be, uh, I I don't I don't have the jurisdiction to address them. So, I'm not ignoring you or dismissing it. I'm just telling you the limits of what I can do um don't extend to that to that uh into that space. Okay? If that makes sense. But
then at the very least, we would ask not to be charged to court cost. All right. And let me ask uh if there are any questions by the town for this witness. If you if you were done, did you have anything else you wanted to say or any other exhibits? No, your honor.
Okay. Any questions for uh for the pastor? Yes. Um and pastor, we we do recognize the the work that you do on the island for the residents and we we do appreciate that. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in the situation with with FEMA. Um, has anyone discussed with
you the possibility of raising the structure rather than just outright removal? Because that was what we were considering as far as bringing you into compliance. Sure. I mean, if we're looking I know that we're sitting at um we're sitting at 43 in. So, we're
sitting just under four feet right now. Do we know what the ground? So, so hold on a second. So, your honor, if I may, let me just bring our our our town staff um who can have a better dialogue with you as to the specifics of it. Sure.
Compliance is really our goal, but we don't really want to be punitive. We want to bring these structures into So, pastor, um the goal again is compliance. So, um, with that being said, removing the structures is one
option. Okay. Um, and the other option is to bring into compliance by raising it to the base foot level at 12 feet because it's 11 ft in the area where you are. Well, it has to be one foot above that. And because of the structure is what it is, it has to be at the bottom floor level, right underneath. Okay. So,
just to be very clear and I want to make sure that you understand, it wasn't just to remove it. It was to raise up and make it compliant. and I can uh defer to to our flood plan manager. She can give you better uh information on how to make that happen. Exactly what you need to
do. Okay. I did it. It was just the reason it was brought that reason I wrote that way is our our code violation doesn't state talk about raising it up. You know, to be honest, correct? And you know, I sent emails back in November still haven't been
answered by staff council. I included everyone. I left a voicemail with zoning lady who in conversation with our developer stated that we were, you know, in non-compliance and she wasn't willing to move forward. So, I left her voicemail on March 11th of this year.
She still hasn't called me back. So, we so we reached out to try to see if there were other options. We just haven't heard anything. So, to answer your question real quick, I know that we are the property itself right there is at 3.8 and then we're at 43 in. So, we're still looking at around six feet to have
to go up. And I don't think your honor has the option to say this, but if you know, if the town is okay with paying to have it raised up, that helps, you know, go back to the responsibility of saying because Kendra did sign off on the flood plane.
She looked at what levels we were at that at that point. Um Kendra, your honor, is the u at that time was the person in charge of issuing the permit. U we were required to show her what our base blood level was at that point. show her how tall the the structures were
going to be. Uh, and she agreed that the 43 in was okay at that time. So, if that's the case, and now we're saying it needs to be a little taller than that. If we only need to go up another six feet, that's, you know, eight blocks, eight concrete blocks, you know,
you on each pier. You know, that structure is sitting on, I think, 48 peers plus the tie downs. They would simply have to raise the structure up, stick the other peers under it, and let's go. and and and the church would be fully acceptable to that if the town were to say, "Hey, you know, we messed up. We'll
help you and then you can stay." Um, if that's in the best interest of the town, you know, I'm still, you know, torn aside, you know, is that is that do we still want the structures to sit there? Is that going to still be okay? Because, you know, my my point was I didn't think we could even have trailers on on
on the island, you know, temporary trailers. They're not they're still not going to be it's not a structure like the houses across the street that have been put on peers. I mean, they're still a trailer. So, if we're saying that the trailer can stay, it just has to be raised up a little bit, that doesn't
really make sense to me, you know, that that I can bring a mobile home on this island and strap it down and still be able to live in it just as long as it's 12 feet in the air. Just doesn't seem like it's a hurricane proof house. That's it.
So, what I would recommend is obtaining an elevation certificate to get exact numbers to see exactly what it needs to be elevated to. Um, but while I don't know how much in depth I'm supposed to go into this, but I would also I will I'll meet with you so we can better go
over um what your options are once you have that elevation certificate and then determine um from there what what you you would like to do. But I can absolutely work with you on this to get it. I mean, the town has a current elevation certificate
that was done in the last 60 days because of the LDO. Just enough that I need to know because if I'm not on that LDO, then I wouldn't know that one exists. Okay. And so I can go ahead and look that up and I can correspond with you. We can get exact numbers. Okay. when you say and just again so I can
kind of picture this that 12 feet elevation that's above sea level or or the base flat it's not above the ground necessarily is it yeah so what it is is when FEMA develops their flood insurance rate maps which is the firm um they start out in the middle of the water at
zero and if you're in a base flood elevation of 11 it doesn't mean that you're 11 feet in the air because you have to take the ground into account. So, if the ground is at three feet, like just round numbers, three feet, he's up four feet off the ground. He's at seven.
So, then he would have to end up elevating five feet. So, you start out at zero in the ocean. You take the ground into account and you go up that far from the ground. So, if he's at three and needs to get to 12, that's nine. Yeah. Nine. Nine feet off the ground.
So, it's it's potentially doable for this trailer. And that's why I'm going to look at the elevation certificate to determine exactly what the exact numbers are and then he'll have to make the determination if that's what they want to move forward with. So, and again, so I'm clear, one one
option for compliance here would be to raise that trailer up potentially to the base flood elevation of 12. Well, it's the finished floor elevation. Base floods determined by FEMA and then one foot above that is what the finished floor is at. Yeah. Finish floor. Yeah,
finish floor base flood is on the flood map and finish floor is the requirement elevation, the required elevation. All right. Did you have any any further questions? Uh, Pastor Critzy? No. No, sir. All
right. Um, all right. Does the town have anything else on this one? Your honor, I think we've had some really good dialogue um to possibly bring this into compliance. um we would modify our request to you then. Uh we would suggest that yes that
that there is a violation. I think there was an admission to that effect. Um however on the compliance date uh perhaps if your honor gave um a little bit longer period um town staff could meet with the property owner and maybe
we could bring this thing into into compliance during that compliance period that you establish. Um I think we generally we would not be scheduling a uh magistrate hearing um in July. Um so your next hearing would be
in August. Um so just add that to the record. Why don't we um anything else, pastor? Um I mean looking at that timeline, I agree with her. July would be tough
anyway. Um and If we are talking about being able to meet talk about the flood plane getting a permit to raise it because I'm assuming that's going to take permit. Um I I would ask that you would move us
to your September meeting is all. So to clarify, your honor, um the September meeting as far as a compliance date, we would the town would be looking to for you to render a decision in this case um simply for the fact that we can
keep the code enforcement matter moving forward. We would then have documentation to provide to FEMA um when they and they do their their inspections. Why don't I could set a compliance date sometime in August with a review in
September to decide whether to start fines or not start fines based on what's happened. I mean again if if if the respondent is moving towards compliance and you know an option has been chosen and things are happening you know I'd
rather defer uh or suspend fines you know if you're making progress towards compliance you know uh if if you're being obstinate which I don't anticipate then that's a different matter but I'd like to schedule a compliance date so that things move forward uh but uh I
still retain authority to decide whether to pull the trigger on the fines or not depending on what's happened. Understood. The town is agreeable to that, your honor. All right. And what's the September? I can look it up. I just about right down. Do you know what the
September hearing date is? I'll get that to the clerks. They tell us where to go, what to do. September. September 2nd. September 2nd. All right. So, what I'm going to do is I'll receive the town's exhibits and
evidence, and I'll make a finding of violation. I'm going to set a compliance date that'll be somewhere out near the end of August. I'll have to look at the calendar and then we'll have a we'll schedule this for a status review on September the 2nd to uh uh hear what the current circumstances are and decide at
that time uh whether those fines are going to uh going to be uh suspended or whether they're going to uh start to run there uh as of that compliance date. And again, just to uh to be clear, if if the respondent is moving forward and and
towards compliance and and uh with diligence and uh and in good faith, then uh you know, in all likelihood, I'll suspend the fine and we'll continue uh the matter and see how things progress. We want compliance, not to hit you with
a big fine. Um but that way things will keep moving forward. you'll have a uh essentially you know a carrot in a stick as it were to uh to keep uh to keep moving forward and hopefully from what I've heard there might be a way to to keep your your trailer um if you know if
it's feasible to raise it up to a point that gets you to uh the base flood elevation of uh of 12 ft. So uh anything further on this one from the town? No, your honor. Pastor, anything else? No, sir. Thank you very much. Do you have
any questions? Uh uh uh no. Okay. Look forward to working. Well, thanks for coming in then. You're free to go and good luck. Thank you. We can go ahead and move on to the next case. Thank you, your honor. Um, our
next case is 5790 Eststerero Boulevard. This is Fort Meyer Beach case number 20241096. The property owner is Tonino Deilo Trust and Lynn Jackson Deilo Trust. The property address is 5790
Eststera Boulevard. The violation is for a non-compliant structure. Um, your honor, I'm going to go a little bit out of order here simply because we do not have the property owner present today. Um, I would ask uh Officer Yazo if he
can provide testimony to you as far as our noticing um and ultimately I'm I'm going to request that we continue this case to u to see if we cannot have better contact um with the property owner. to officer Yazer.
Good morning again, your honor. Thomas Yazo. I am the emergency services director for Fort Myers Beach. Um, and as a director of the compliance and emergency service department, I'm responsible for day-to-day operations town of Fort Myers Beach. I'm going to jump right into the noticing since we
are looking to uh move this forward and continue this. Uh I prepared a notice of violation uh and search the Lee County property apprais database containing property the owner information and further verified
the property owners Tonino and Lynn Demilo based on a deed found in official records of Lee County, Florida. I issued the notice violation on November 13th and sent a copy of it via certified mail. Sorry, your
honor. Excuse me one second to the following uh addresses for uh the respondent. The first was a certified and regular mail to Tonino and Dillo Trust and Lynn Jackson Dillo Trust
to 30 Stonegate Street, Stoville, Ontario, L4 A2C1, Canada. It was also sent to the address at 5790 Eststerero Boulevard and posted a copy of the notice of violation at the
subject property. And at the town hall at 2731 Oak Street, Fort Myers, a copy of the notice of violation after the notice of posting and of evidence of ownership is labeled in exhibit A. Notice of uh vi violation and information about the case is also
displayed 24 hours a day, seven days a week on the town of Fort Myers Beach website. In that regard, we are going to ask for the continuence uh for a violation uh for for this case so we can repurpose and renotice in other matter so we can make sure that we've done all
due process. Your honor, officer Yaser, may I ask you a question? Um was there any attempt made to try to reach the property owners by telephone? Yes, there was. We did attempt to contact via phone. Uh we've had no con
no luck with that. We've left messages at any phone numbers that we could uh come up with and that's been documented in the case. So, your honor, our request is to continue this case u to the next hearing which would be August August the I'm
looking at the clerk's what date? August 5th. August the 5th. Um at which time we will continue our efforts to try to contact um the property owners and perhaps even avail ourselves of additional noticing uh provisions in the
statute um to make sure that we we get the case properly noticed. Yeah, it looks it looks like it's been noticed, but uh it certainly doesn't hurt to you know make additional efforts so that you don't have any procedural issues uh notice issues down the road.
Is this just looking at the pictures now? This isn't a trailer. It looks like this is a half finishedish building or something. Is that what Your honor, this is this is actually a shipping container, a mini shipping container on property of a construction site. Oh, I see. And it's been there for months. Uh
we've notified the construction company and attempted to notify the owners of said property. Uh there's been no forward motion. That's why it was brought to hearing. Uh we did find when we didn't get any uh information back on our uh return receipt, that's why we're
asking for this continuance to act in good faith and with all due process. All right. Well, I will uh we'll go ahead then and continue this case to the uh August 5, 2025 agenda. Okay, your honor. Um the next case, um
I'm going to actually defer to officer Yazo on this one, uh simply because at the end of the presentation, you're going to hear that, um the property owner has come into compliance. Um in the record, we do have exhibit B, which
are all of the um the FEMA documentation as as you are aware of and from our other cases. Um and so I don't really have too much more to to say as part of an introduction. So again, I'm just going to go ahead and defer to officer
Yazo to present the case. Very good. Yeah, honor. Good morning again. Thomas Yazo, Fort Myers Beach Services Director. So this is u this case is for the property located at 6500652 Boulevard. It is privateier of
Fort Myers Beach. It is a condominium complex. They did have a non-compliant structure on property uh before the date of this hearing. They have removed it. So, an affidavit of compliance was filled out, sir, on 529
2025. Uh I have photos and the affate of compliance which will be if not sent to you already will be sent to you via uh via email. So, you have that in file. I'd like to present that into evidence at this time. Your honor, we're not
looking for any fines in any manner other than the $250 court costs with this and just the hear and order uh stating that there was a violation in place before they came into compliance. All right, very good. I'll receive the
town's exhibits and evidence, including the affidavit of compliance. Uh and uh we'll go ahead and enter an order then that uh uh establishes the existence of the violation that has been corrected. uh without imposing fines and assessing
$250 in administrative costs for the prosecution of the case. Is there anything else the town needs on this one? No, your honor. All right. Very good. I guess that's all the violation cases. We've got a certificate of lean. We do, your honor. That is your next
case. Um, this one, again, I note that the property owner is not present and in an abundance of caution. Um, and because of due process concerns, further down the line, uh, we will be asking that you, um, issue a continuence of this case.
Um, we believe that it has been properly noticed. Um, however, Mr. Hamilton's Hamilton Associates. They do have a council that represents them and we will provide a courtesy notice to their attorney who wanted to be kept aware of
any um any matters moving forward uh involving this client. All right. And do they remain out of compliance? Um they are in compliance now. It's just um it would just be the assessment of a
lean for the period of time subsequent to your compliance date that they failed to um to remedy the situation. Right. Okay. So, you want to continue this one as well to August 5th? Yes, sir. All right. So, I will do that. We'll
continue the uh continue this case to August 5. We don't have any more cases on your agenda today, your honor. Um, just uh for your information, we will be doing some training over July uh with our code
officers. Um, so hopefully when you come back in August, we'll have we'll even be better at what we're already doing. Uh we have some new staff so we want to uh orientate them to the process of how it occurs here in Fort Myers Beach. Very good. Well, we're moving pretty
efficiently, I have to say. Uh presentations have been uh been pretty crisp. So, uh if if you improve them, we'll we'll be even more efficient, I guess. So, we're already doing a pretty good job. All right. There's nothing else to hear today on today's agenda. Uh
no, your honor. Nothing else. All right. I will get orders out to you on these cases. Uh, two of which have been continued. Um, one of which is a costs only after compliance and of course the first one involving the church will be a
finding a violation with a compliance date in a status report um in uh in September. So uh uh having nothing else on today's agenda, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much and I will see you all next time.
Thank you.