Fort Myers Beach magistrate takes contested Miramar Street permit dispute under advisement; proposed orders due Jan. 20

A Fort Myers Beach special magistrate said Jan. 6 he would take under advisement a contested code-enforcement case over alleged unpermitted ground-floor plumbing at 151 Miramar Street and asked both sides to submit proposed orders by Jan. 20, 2026.

Carol Jean Thomas, the respondent, presented a 75‑page permit packet, a 2007–08 private appraisal and architectural sketches she said show a lower‑level bathroom, kitchen and laundry. Thomas told the court she had witnesses and documentary evidence indicating the lower level was finished and used as early as 1980, and that the property was built in 1971 and therefore is a pre‑FIRM structure. "I feel we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of our lower level plumbing going all the way back to 1980," Thomas said in summary.

Kelly DeFedericis, the town's floodplain manager, testified she found no town or Lee County records that confirm the ground‑floor bathroom was legally permitted, and said a 2023 revision to a permit for Ground Floor work was submitted but never issued as an approved revision. DeFedericis also explained the town relies on Lee County and property‑appraiser records for pre‑municipality documentation and cautioned that a private appraisal's language does not itself establish permit approval or satisfy FEMA's 50% threshold process.

Patricia (Patty) Smith, called by the respondent and appearing by Zoom from New Jersey, testified she used the Miramar Street property's plumbing in 1980 and described the lower level as finished. Smith said she has known the beach community since childhood and expressed frustration that public resources were devoted to what she called a "silly" dispute about a bathroom.

Magistrate John Van Laningham said the nonconforming-use question (whether the lower level qualifies as a lawful, grandfathered use) may require a more formal adjudication path or specific documentary proof, such as county determinations or registrations, and noted he had not yet reviewed all newly submitted documents in detail. "I'm going to need to take the matter under advisement to review those," he said.

Because of the volume of evidence, Van Laningham asked both parties to submit proposed orders laying out facts and conclusions they believe the magistrate should adopt. The parties initially discussed a one‑week deadline; the respondent requested more time and, with no objection from the town, the magistrate extended the deadline to Jan. 20, 2026. The magistrate said he would not issue a final ruling until he had reviewed the submissions.

Town staff said FEMA requested documentation showing the ground floor could be occupied as habitable space, and that without such documentation the town must continue to address properties flagged on a FEMA list. DeFedericis clarified that a town receipt of a clean FEMA CAB letter for other measures does not eliminate the need to satisfy FEMA's separate document requests.

Next steps: both parties will file proposed orders describing the findings of fact and conclusions of law they seek; the magistrate will review those filings before issuing a final order in the case.