At the forefront of the meeting was the discussion concerning the First Baptist Church of Fort Myers, located at 134-138 Connecticut Street. This property is entangled in a compliance case, FMB case number 2024 0186, due to a non-compliant structure that fails to meet the necessary floodplain regulations. Officer Thomas Yazo, co-emergency services director for Fort Myers Beach, testified about his observations of the non-compliance during an inspection on October 28, 2024. He noted the property’s failure to achieve the required base flood elevation of 12 feet, necessary for structures situated within a coastal AE zone. Despite the removal of a shipping container, other structures remained non-compliant as of his last inspection on April 15, 2025.

Federicius explained the importance of obtaining an elevation certificate, prepared by a surveyor, to determine the necessary adjustments for compliance. The certificate establishes the finished floor elevation of a structure, a critical document to ensure adherence to floodplain regulations. Pastor Sean Critzer, representing the church, acknowledged the temporary nature of the trailer currently on-site while emphasizing its necessity for daily operations, such as the church’s food pantry.

Pastor Critzer expressed frustration over the financial burden and lack of prior warning from the town regarding potential compliance issues. The church had incurred $121,000 for the temporary structure, believing it was permitted by the town. Critzer requested financial compensation or assistance from the town, citing a shared responsibility for the oversight. However, the special magistrate clarified limitations regarding financial compensation, focusing instead on addressing the violations.

The conversation turned technical, with discussions about the feasibility of raising the structure. Pastor Critzer suggested that adding concrete blocks to existing piers might elevate the structure to meet the flood regulations. He voiced concerns about the practicality and resilience of temporary structures in hurricane-prone areas, questioning the logic of allowing a trailer that remains exposed to hurricane risks. Despite these challenges, Critzer expressed willingness to explore options for compliance, including obtaining an elevation certificate.

In response, the town proposed extending the compliance period, acknowledging the violation but allowing the property owner time to explore compliance options. The magistrate expressed a preference for a “carrot and stick” approach, emphasizing progress towards compliance over penalties. A status review was suggested for September 2, with the aim of encouraging progress.

The meeting also addressed other compliance cases, including a property on Estero Boulevard, where the owner was absent, and attempts to reach them had been unsuccessful. The town requested a continuance to further engage with the owner, and the magistrate agreed to continue the case to the next hearing in August. Another case involved a property at 6500-652 Boulevard, where compliance was achieved following the removal of a non-compliant structure. The town sought only administrative costs without imposing additional fines.