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.”
Oh by the way, does Margaritaville and Lani Kai and Pink Shell have ground level flushing toilets by their pools that were rebuilt or added after Ian?
Regarding the judge’s statement that the completed work went beyond the permitted scope: If anyone can reconstruct the Permitting FAQ’s that were published by the Town shortly after Ian, you will find that they were very liberal regarding permit requirements. Basically, you were allowed to rehab existing space, and permits were only required for structural items, notably window and door replacements. Then FEMA got on the Town’s case and those FAQ’s were quietly rescinded. If the owner did this work shortly after Ian, those FAQ’s would make a strong case for her, and the Town would do well to let this case die quietly.
This is very unfair and will be taken to a higher court. Mrs. Thomas has a strong case and will ultimately win this course of action!
She has done everything legally. She did not recreate anything.
Ms Thomas,
Go find an attorney who can determine between an illiterate, piss poor judge and one who knows how to read the entire situation. I’m so sorry for this outcome but it’s far from over. You have many options still to chose. Good luck!
Homeowners who renovate ground level rooms do so with no expectation of insurance coverage. They understand that future flood events are not covered by their insurance policies and that FEMA won’t pay for damages or renovations. The homeowner takes on and accepts all risks. They own the property so why can’t they do whatever they want with renovations as long as they are performed and completed within code?
How would this be any different than the many people who repaired one of the many ranch houses on the island? They are all first floor repairs.
My thoughts exactly.
The towns permit folks do not have a clear plan, and always have a ya but to follow there permit We are at the point of not getting any more permits because of the hoops the permit folks make us jump through and constantly add more hoops. Some of our permits have been 100% completed for over a year and the permit police stop by and say ya but
Not a user friendly town
Agree, it’s at owners expense. Living unit on ground level is no different than a single family home except they are insured.
If they are willing to loose whatever is on the main floor, who cares? Insurance is not going to cover it so what does it matter?
This is her property, she paid for it. She should be able to decorate her lower level anyway she wants. No matter what she might use that space for she knows that if she loses it in a hurricane that is at her own risk. Why should this be a problem.