At the heart of the meeting was case number 2024-4249 concerning KERO Shops LLC. This case, carried over from a previous hearing, revolved around whether the property’s use as a commercial parking lot was legal. The discussion was tense, with both the town and the property owner presenting extensive arguments.

Tim Shadel, a local resident, testified that the parking lot had been used for paid parking long before the current owners took over. He argued that the new owners had been treated unfairly by the town, which he believed misunderstood the historical context of the property. Shadel’s testimony was followed by that of Amy Too, the attorney representing KERO Shops LLC. Too detailed the property’s history, explaining that the building was constructed in 1976 and that the commercial parking use had been lawfully established in 1980. She contended that the current owner operated under the belief that the use was grandfathered in, as no separate permit was initially required.

Too further argued that the town’s previous findings should not apply due to a jurisdictional dismissal in a prior case. She emphasized that the current case was distinct and that KERO Shops LLC was prepared to meet any requirements to gain a special exception for their parking lot. The town’s attorney maintained that the parking use had always been illegal and that the case’s circumstances did not warrant an exemption from past legal findings. The town sought administrative costs and daily fines amounting to $85,500 for 171 days of continued illegal operations, highlighting the seriousness of the violations.

A point raised during the meeting was whether the property owner was attempting to relitigate previous findings. The town had consistently denied the legality of the parking lot in various hearings, including a court case that dismissed the matter due to lack of jurisdiction. The town reiterated that KERO Shops LLC had been notified of violations multiple times, with the latest notice issued in 2019.

The magistrate expressed a need for further review, citing over 100 pages of materials that included ordinances and resolutions. They requested additional documents to clarify the arguments before making a decision.

Another notable case discussed was number 2022-0371 regarding a violation on Gulf Island Drive for work conducted without a permit. The code enforcement officer reported that the violation had persisted for 839 days. However, no fines were requested, only a $250 administrative fee to cover the costs associated with bringing the case before the Special Magistrate. The magistrate agreed, imposing the administrative cost without additional fines.

Additionally, case number 2024-0316 concerning 5740 Lauder Street was addressed. This case, continued from a previous meeting, involved an unsafe building. The town’s representative requested the case be closed and transferred to the building official for further consideration. The property owner’s attorney, Amy Too, stated that her client was seeking proposals for demolition. The magistrate approved the request to close the case and transfer it to the appropriate authorities.