Cocoa Beach magistrate finds permitting violations at Coconut Cove Yacht Club; 30- and 120-day compliance windows ordered

A special magistrate in Cocoa Beach on Jan. 21 reopened and reheard case 25-54 concerning construction and permitting activity at 398 West Cocoa Beach Causeway, finding violations of Florida building-code provisions and local accessory-structure rules while pausing any immediate fines to give the respondent time to cure the defects.

The city presented evidence that staff observed an unpermitted parking lot, an unpermitted accessory structure (a shipping-container/Connex-type unit) and earlier trash and debris on the parcel between Jan. 9, 2023, and April 15, 2025. A notice of violation was sent April 15, 2025; a prior hearing in November 2025 found violations and set a compliance date of Nov. 20, 2025 and a potential $250-per-day fine if compliance was not achieved. The city said, as of Feb. 11, 2026, neither a final building permit nor site-plan approval had been issued because submitted materials (particularly the stormwater plan) were insufficient.

Miss Crawford, the city presenter, told the magistrate the FDEP/SJRWMD permit had been uploaded to the project record but that the building permit was still awaiting zoning and engineering approvals and that the site plan required planning, fire, engineering and stormwater review. Development Services Director David Dickey and the city's building and stormwater staff were in the room to answer technical questions.

Respondent representatives and property interests disputed parts of the city's timeline and said prior staff conversations had led them to believe only state-level (St. Johns River or FDEP) approvals remained outstanding. Respondent counsel and property representatives also argued the site previously held a special exception allowing limited outdoor storage and contended that the containers fell within that exception. City staff countered that the special exception related to a larger parcel that had been split and that the special-exception conditions (notably opaque fencing/screening on the north and east) had not been permitted or demonstrated to be in place for the current tax parcel.

Development Services Director David Dickey told the magistrate staff had performed multiple sufficiency reviews of the stormwater submittals and that the engineer of record had not addressed the city's minimum code requirements. The city also said the Connex/containers themselves must be permitted as structures so the building official can assess anchoring and wind-safety measures under the Florida Building Code.

After narrowing the matter to two discrete compliance questions ' whether the container is an unpermitted accessory structure and whether the parking lot/site plan had required approvals pending an adequate stormwater plan ' the magistrate proposed a reasonable cure period and sought agreement. City staff said they would work with the respondent; parties discussed a 30-day window for the building-permit application and a longer period for site-plan/stormwater resolution.

Mayor Keith Capizzi appeared and urged improved communications between the city and the property representatives, calling the property owner a "good guy" and saying staff should work to make compliance painless. In the hearing record the magistrate noted the trash and debris issues had largely been resolved in the field visit and that the remaining problems were technical permitting matters.

Ruling from the bench, the special magistrate found no violation of the city's declared-nuisance provision (section 10-22) but found violations of the Florida Building Code provisions cited (including section 105.1 and general provisions) and of local rules related to accessory structures (section 3-33). The magistrate ordered the respondent to file a building-permit application for the container (fencing/anchoring) within 30 days and gave 120 days to obtain the approvals necessary to finalize the parking-lot site plan and stormwater requirements. If compliance is not achieved, fines and daily penalties would be considered at a later "Massey" hearing; the magistrate did not set a per-day fine at this hearing.

The magistrate said a written order reflecting these findings and deadlines would be entered and distributed to the parties within a day or so. The special magistrate recessed the rehearing after announcing the order.

Next steps: the written order will be issued to the parties; the city indicated it will resend the most recent stormwater sufficiency review to the respondent's engineer to identify outstanding items. Any fine determination or Massey hearing to set penalties will occur only if the respondent fails to achieve compliance within the prescribed time windows.