During the session, Officer Bat, representing the Town of Fort Myers Beach, presented evidence of the violation, including photographs taken during an inspection. The violation pertained to the operation of a commercial parking lot without the required special exception permit, despite a notice issued on March 21, 2024. Officer Bat noted that a reinspection on July 8, 2024, revealed no compliance, marking it as a repeat violation and referencing a prior case from 2019 for similar offenses, which had resulted in a lien against the property.

The town requested that the magistrate find a violation, impose an administrative fee of $250, and establish fines not exceeding $500 for each day the violation continued. With 141 days elapsed since the repeat violation was identified, this could amount to $70,500 in potential fines. The town also requested that the property owner cease the operation of the parking lot or obtain the appropriate use permit.

Attorney Redel Andress, representing the property owner, countered these claims by providing a historical context of the property. Andress emphasized that the parking lot had been used commercially since the 1980s and was initially permitted under zoning regulations of unincorporated Lee County. He argued that the parking lot’s current use should be considered lawful under the non-conforming use clause, which had been uninterrupted despite the 2004 zoning ordinance that now required a special exception permit.

Andress further noted that the property owner had already submitted an application for a special exception to legitimize the use, attributing the delay in submission to a transition between legal representatives rather than negligence on the property owner’s part. He also argued that, under Florida law, the rights of lawful non-conforming uses are preserved, and property ownership changes do not invalidate these uses.

The property owner’s representative stressed that the parking lot had been in operation for over 20 years, and if considering the predecessor, for approximately 44 years. He argued that the property owner relied on the income generated from this parking to maintain the property, pay taxes, and rehabilitate the structure. The representative claimed that imposing fines, especially the potential maximum of $500 per day, would cause undue harm due to this long-standing use.

The town’s counsel referenced previous cases where this issue had been addressed without any claims of non-conformity. The town maintained that the current code requires a special exception for shared parking and that, without this, the use is classified as illegal. The town requested time to review the legal citations raised by the property owner’s counsel, asserting that they had not been given the opportunity to evaluate the claims properly.

A debate ensued regarding the authority of the town to require a permit for the operation of a parking lot. The town’s representative clarified that while the referenced statute did not eliminate the need for permits, it created ambiguity regarding the extent of local government authority to regulate parking. The town was not seeking to invalidate the shared parking ordinance but rather to ensure compliance with the existing legal framework.

A senior planner from the town provided insights into the special exception application process, explaining that it typically takes between 60 to 90 days for review before any initial hearings or readings by the town council. This timeline was significant in assessing how the property owner could proceed while fines continued to accrue for operating without the required special exception.

The magistrate closed the hearing with the understanding that further discussion would occur in September, allowing for the submission of briefs and additional evidence relevant to the case. The session concluded with a brief mention of an unrelated compliance order that had been previously signed and entered into the record.