At the heart of the meeting was a contentious issue surrounding a building deemed unsafe since Hurricane Ian. The property owner’s representative, Mr. Davies, argued against the early imposition of fines. Davies proposed a compliance period of at least 30 days following the issuance of a demolition permit, emphasizing the owner’s intent to demolish the building within this timeframe.

The town expressed urgency in addressing the unsafe conditions, citing safety risks and ongoing neglect. A town representative highlighted the property’s condition since June 28, 2024, and the need for prompt demolition. Bill Wula, manager of the adjacent Pink Shell resort, testified about the hazardous state of the property and its impact on his business, noting the presence of homeless individuals and a beehive posing risks to guests. He urged swift action, lamenting, “we’ve been suffering with this condemned structure for over two years now.”

The town’s attorney underscored the necessity for fines, arguing that the property owner had ample opportunity to address the issues but had failed to apply for a demolition permit despite receiving notice of the property’s condition. The attorney proposed a daily fine for non-compliance, highlighting a 56-day period of inaction as a basis for penalties.

Discussions also revolved around an escrow account of $15,000 proposed by the town to cover potential demolition costs if the owner failed to meet deadlines. The town viewed this as essential to avoid financial burdens and delays. Mr. Davies countered that the escrow was unnecessary.

The magistrate explored the potential for imposing daily fines, referencing Chapter 162 of the applicable statutes, which allows for fines up to $15,000 if the harm from the violation is deemed irreversible. However, the magistrate expressed uncertainty about applying this standard to unsafe buildings, typically addressed through daily fines. To clarify the basis for any fines, the magistrate requested supplementary materials from both parties, ideally within five days, to ensure the process continued without delays.

The magistrate also addressed the procedural aspects of the cases, including the potential dismissal of an appeal rendered moot by the planned demolition. There was consensus on various stipulation elements, though disagreement remained on the timing and necessity of the escrow. The magistrate proposed incorporating the stipulation into a final order, establishing a finding of violation while setting a compliance date.