Special Magistrate Judge John Laningham has denied Miramar street resident Carol Thomas’ request to reopen her code enforcement hearing. The town alleges Thomas was not supposed to build a bedroom and bathroom on the bottom floor of her home.
Thomas has been fighting with the town for months, claiming not only was the bottom level of the house a livable dwelling since before the town was incorporated in the mid 90’s, but that she was given a permit to complete like-for-like repairs to the home after Hurricane Ian.
Thomas wanted to get back in front of Laningham to present additional evidence she says was never presented to the judge in two previous hearings. Those pieces of evidence include a permit and a Certificate of Completion that Thomas says the town did not have in their records but luckily she printed it out.
The town opposed Thomas’ request to add more evidence to the record stating that, “post-hearing submission of documents would deny the town an opportunity to question Respondents regarding authenticity, relevance, and meaning.”
Laningham agreed with the town and wrote, “Motions predicated on ‘newly discovered evidence’ are disfavored and are to be granted sparingly. A party seeking relief on that basis bears the burden to demonstrate, at minimum, that: (a) the evidence was discovered after the hearing; (b) the evidence could not have been discovered earlier by the exercise of due diligence; (c) the evidence material and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (d) the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably change the outcome.”
Laningham basically said that Thomas had the materials in her possession and could have presented them at one of the two previous hearings.
On our show Sunday, Mayor Dan Allers said, “The argument isn’t about whether it existed or didn’t exist. Does what exists now meet flood plain requirements? The issue is that the work was done without a permit. But the point is the town is trying to work with her.”
Laningham went on to say that the documents Thomas provided didn’t appear to help her case anyway. “The proffered materials, i.e., Building Permit No. 232518, the Certificate of Completion, and related permit printouts, do not establish lawful authorization for the condition charged in the Notice of Violation in this case. The permit scope is limited to work relating to windows, front door, soffit, fascia, gutters, and vinyl siding, and was, it appears, revised to authorize “like for like” repairs to the lower level. The proffered materials do not purport to authorize the plumbing, interior build-out, or other lower-level improvements that are the focus of the enforcement proceeding. A certificate of completion reflects completion of permitted work and does not, without more, confer after-the-fact authorization for unpermitted conditions or operate as a waiver of applicable code requirements. Accordingly, the proffered materials would not change the outcome of the enforcement proceeding.”
Thomas told Beach Talk Radio, “My husband and I are deeply disappointed by the ruling from the magistrate. We are now exploring our legal options on the next steps.”