Um, if English is not your primary language, then please inform me and um, I will have a translator assist you in these proceedings. When your case is called, the property owner agent for the property owner or
any witnesses that may be may be uh, called should announce their presence. When asked, please speak directly into the microphone. will say aloud your name, your business, your mailing address, and your relationship to the property. If you are not the property
owner or an attorney representing the property owner, then you must present a notorized power of attorney or such affidavit in order for your testimony to be taken on behalf of the property owner. For new
cases, you will be asked for the record if you're aware and understand the violation that is being heard today and do you understand what is required to resolve the violation. The city will present the case first and
then the property owner will be given an opportunity to testify on their behalf to bring forward witnesses to testify to present evidence and photographs and to cross-examine the city's witnesses. Following the case presentation, I will
issue findings of fact. If I find that a violation of city codes exist or existed at your property, then depending upon the case type, I will set an abatement or compliance date for the violation to be resolved. Or for repeat violations, I
will impose a daily fine amount. And I may also impose a future hearing date at impose at a future hearing date should the violation not be uh resolved by the abatement date. If I find sufficient cause to postpone on enfor or
enforce action at this time I will table or continue the case proceeding to another hearing date in the future. If you do not agree with my findings of fact or my ruling, then the property owner may appeal the administrative order
on the case to the circuit court. An appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of the signing uh of my administrative order to be appealed. In accordance with Florida law, if a person decides to appeal any decision made by
the special magistrate with respect to any matter considered at these proceedings, the person will need a transcript or a verbatim record of the proceeding. This record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based. The cost of obtaining the verbatim transcript shall be the sole responsibility of the appellant. And it is recommended that persons that plan to appeal uh their cases should provide their own court reporter at
these proceedings. Pursuant to city codes, if the city of North Miami prevails in prosecuting a case before the special magistrate, the city shall be entitled to recover all costs, including uh in prosecuting the
case. The current cost assessment amount is $100 per case. Once the city records an order that imposes a fine and authorize a lean against the property, then the city will charge additional administrative fees to record and
release the lean. At this point, uh I believe that uh the we're going to do the pledge of allegiance uh first, right? And then we're going to
swear in the witnesses. So, who's going to do the pledge? >> Please. Uh, stand up. and to the stand with all remain standing
right the testimony you are about to give the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth if so I All right. Great. Let me uh ask the clerk if there are any additions, deletions, corrections, or anything else
uh that you want to add uh with regard to the agenda. >> Magistrate, before we start with the agenda, we would like to ask if there's anyone here in the audience who will need a translator. If you need a translator, please let us know.
>> Okay. So, we'll move forward. >> Any changes to the agenda? >> Oh, we do have a few amendments. >> All right. >> Item number 30. They have complied. >> They have complied. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Hang on. Let me uh let me get to it. That's Marie M. Sure. >> Correct. >> Next >> items number one and two has also complied. >> Complied.
>> Yes. 1333 investments inc. >> Next. >> That'll be item number five. Miller George. >> Okay. Complied. >> Complied. Correct. Next will be item number 36.
>> Okay, let me get there. >> Okay. >> Yes. Item number 36. Pedro Mendoza. >> Pedro Mendoza. >> Correct. >> Complied. >> Correct. >> Pretty soon we won't have anything left. So, uh, next
>> and that that'll be all. >> Okay. Yes. Now, let's move forward with the abatement dates. >> Uh, yes, please. >> Okay. As of 30 days, it will be March 16. >> Okay. >> 60 days will be April 12.
>> That's 60 days. >> Correct. >> April 12th >> and 90 >> and 90 days will be May 18th. >> May 18th. >> Correct. Magistrate. >> Yes. >> I missed a few amendments. >> Okay.
>> Number 17 and 19. >> Oh, yeah. 17 and 19. >> 17. >> 18. Sorry. 17 and 18. >> 17 and 18. It's the same party. >> Correct. >> And how are we amending? Is is that compliance?
>> Let me see. What are we amending? >> Do we know why we're amending those two? Attorney Bob >> Ferrer LLC. >> Yeah, correct. Yeah, we took those off already before it got published.
Correct. Yes. Um you can >> you can excuse those. Those will remain on the agenda. 17 and 18 will remain. >> All right. Perfect. Yes. >> Okay. Um, are we okay?
>> All right. Are we ready to start the first case? >> Yes, we are ready. >> All right. You can call your first case. >> Okay. Good morning and thank you for participating in today's special magistry hearing. I will review the process by which today's hearing will be
conducted. Make sure your devices are on mute at all times unless you are given a testimony on case. If you are using two device to participate in today's hearing, be sure your audio and be sure
the audio is enable and on mute device when your cases are called. If you are assigned to a zoom, you will receive a notification giving the access to audio and video so that you may give your testimony. If you are physically at the city hall and wish to give the
testimony, you must sign in with the clerk and await a text message indicating your case is ready to be heard. Upon receiving that message, you should immediately come to code compliance officer office to provide to
provided access to a computer. If you would like to speak on behalf of a case, once the case is called, you should click and raise your hand button to be acknowledged. Before giving testimony, your case should state your name, property address, and relationship to the
property. If you wish to have an interpreter assist in your case, please indicate that when your case is called. Magistrate, we would like to ask, is there any attorneys? >> Sure.
>> Okay, we do have one. >> Okay. Um, you want to call the case? >> Okay. Can you state your name and the property that you are representing? Sure. >> Good morning. >> Before you before you speak, uh would
you read the case into the record so that we know what we're >> item uh 32 >> so that we know which case we're hearing? Okay, magistrate. Item number 32, Manners Bay condo, case number FYRR,
202100176. This case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith and must abate by December 3rd, 2005. Fines were set at $1,000 plus plus $100 assessment cost. >> All right. And the officer on this case
would be Shaunie Presley. >> Okay. Um, Miss Kaslowski, I remember the case very well. >> Good morning. >> And good morning to you and I've gone back and I've reviewed everything again. Um, so I'm pretty familiar with the
facts and uh so I did order the condo association back in uh October October 1 to uh remediate or uh abate the violations
which have to do with uh the 40-year resertification. Is that correct? So when when we were before you back in October and let me just state for the record Lyanna Kazlowski Schuben Law Group offices at 100 Southeast 2nd Street. Yes, I was before you back in
October representing the association at the time. I'm here before you this morning representing Continuum Group because they are now the owners of the property. And when you and I spoke back in October, that was the question. uh
were we going to close and we discussed that a closing was scheduled for October 31st, 2025. That did happen and that was one of the reasons you asked me to come back, >> right? >> Um I think we were initially scheduled
December that got deferred. One of the items that we addressed in October is the fact that we have an agreement with the residents that nine months from closing they are permitted to stay in the building. So that would be 9 months
from October 31st. We do have a safe to occupy letter from our engineers that was signed and sealed October 2nd, 2025 and the city does have a copy of that. So, the request is what it was in
October. We're essentially looking for an extension simply through the end of that 9-month period, which would be July 31st of this year. Come July 31st, the building will be completely vacant. We
will start the process of shutting down utilities and we'll be working with the city on uh a demolition plan. >> Okay. Okay. So, it's good that the closing took place.
Your agreement with the uh property owners, if I may use uh that term, who are no longer property owners, they're >> unit owners, renting, >> rent, >> right? Um,
nonetheless, we do have uh violations and I understand that it's silly to spend a quarter of a million dollars in uh repairs that probably will have to be
done if you maintain the building. >> Um, >> oh, it's much more than that. I'm I'm sorry to per unit owner. We were talking about 200,000 uh across 46 unit owners. That was the reason for the termination.
>> The unit owners could not afford that. >> Some somewhere in the file I saw 250. It may have been years ago when the original inspection was done, but >> whatever. My concern is that those residents are
going to be living in premises that uh are in violation of the code are also in violation of the 40-year reertification. >> And your honor, this is why we we do and we've we've taken it seriously. Every 6
months we have our engineers come out to the property, fully inspect the property and they are certifying to the city that based on their inspection the building is um I'll quote from this
there is no danger of imminent structural collapse and the building including the balconies which I know there was a question about the building including the balconies are reasonably safe for continued occupancy. See? >> Okay. Let me let me ask the city
attorney a question. The original citation um is against Mariners Bay Club. Mariners Bay Club. They no longer own
the property. The property is now owned by the continuum. How, if in any way does the change of ownership affect these proceedings today? And
specifically, should the new owner, the continuum be also part of my ruling, but they apparently are not yet made a part of the proceeding. or maybe they should be
because whatever whatever I order will not be binding on the new owner. How do I deal with that? >> Whatever whatever you ordered is binding on the property on the land. So the new owners would have to still abide by your decision
>> even though the new owner hasn't been cited. Uh >> that's correct. >> Okay. If you want, you can direct staff to uh site them. >> What what is what is the city's position, the building official with
regard to the condition of the premises, whether they are safe to occupy, whether there are any life safety issues, uh anything that might um be a problem for the residents that are still living there.
Does the building official have an a recommendation, a position on this? >> That would be uh something that the building official should should answer. >> Um >> the building official, >> your honor, this is Shaunie Pressy, um a
building office for the building department. Um, in fact, the last safety occupied letter we received was back in December, which still states it was from Jan dated January um 25th of 2025.
So, we have not received an updated letter since the beginning of January of 2020 2025 or 25. >> Miss Kelsowski, do you have a more recent safe to occupy certificate? I I do and I have email records showing that
after that hearing in October, we submitted the letter again because uh at the hearing, you raised a specific inquiry about the balconies. So even though our letter was September 20th, 2025, and we had it before that October
hearing, we submitted it to the city again on October 2nd with the extra line about the balcony. So I do have a copy of that as well. that to the um >> the staff. >> Okay. So, who did you send this over to? >> This would have been the building
official. And I do believe I copied you. I can find that email. And this would have been right after the hearing, not >> um I don't recall receiving this letter right here, but I can take this for the record. So, it's supposed to be submitted to us every six months. And also we did um talked about
if in fact the building if they was going to switch ownership because it's each individually own they would have to do a reoccupancy um inspection because they individually own if the building was not getting demolished. So um a couple of things
should have had happened through the process. Um one the safety occupy letter. two, if the building wasn't getting demolished right away and they still going to have tenants there and they're going to be switching ownerships, they should have done a reoccupancy per unit
that have not um been taken place. Also, >> Miss Glosski, can you get that done? >> We we'd be happy to work with the city on that. Um, I also just want to put onto the record at the the hearing in October, which we did transcribe, um,
your honor, you you did mention to us that if if the residents vacated within 8 months, they would have eight months to continue residing there per the agreement and that the fines um of 1,000 per day uh would not be
affected. That would go into place after the 9 months. So our our our goal is to work with you what whatever you need us to do um between now and July 31st. >> I I don't want to challenge you on that, but I I don't know that I ever said that
uh they could stay there for 8 months. >> Um >> the issue at the time was that I I represented the association. So I think you were struggling with issuing an order um that was binding on the association and not continuum group. So
you were asking me to come back and that you would be able to issue the order as applied to continuum group to grant that extension just with respect to the time period that the unit owners were still in the building. >> Did we discuss did we discuss how long
>> the extension would last or how long the residents would remain living there? >> Yes, and that is on the record. Um, and C. Cindia, I believe Cindia Alvarez has we we went back and forth with this has the transcripts. We discussed not a day longer than that 9-month period.
>> When when do you expect to obtain a demolition permit? >> Um, those are already in the works. It depends on, you know, working with the city and and when those would be processed, but we don't have any any reason to delay there. We have a hard
date of July 31st. People need to be out the building. >> July 1st. >> July 1st. >> No, no, I'm saying I'm asking. Is it July 1st or >> the 31st? >> The 31st. >> Yeah. Exactly. Um 9 months from October
31st, the closing. >> Yeah. that the reason I'm struggling is because you have residents that are living there and many of them may not be able to having been given this time to
find another location to move to. I don't want to be in a position to evict them or have them or have the building shut down. >> And and that was part of of our agreement with them. Um >> yeah. Uh but at the same time, um I do
not want another not not that I'm terribly worried about another champagne, but I don't want the defects and deficiencies and violations to cause damage to any any single resident. So, I think what you need to
do is work with a building official to provide them with all of the necessary certificates reflecting that the units are safe and fit to u inhabit.
And um if you agree to do that within the next 30 days, I may uh I I may table this until July, but I'd like to hear more from the city as to what their recommendations are
with respect to extending the time uh allowed uh until July 31st. >> And I would just say briefly, your honor, uh Miss Pressy does have that letter. I mean, that's essentially what it does. It it applies to the building.
I believe the city asks us for one every 6 months. So, we would certainly be amendable to providing one again in April, which is I believe when >> if I understood her correctly, she wants one for every unit.
>> The issue with the each unit is a rearchy. That's when the change of ownership, they will have to do an inspection to um change ownership. As far as as the building being safe to occupy, we can accept the letter because the engineer is stating that he's certifying that the building is safe.
So, she's stating that she have engineers out there every day. They stating that the building is safe. We don't have u the city doesn't have a structure engineer that can go out to verify exactly what's going on with the building. I can go out out to the
building to take pictures and see what I see and give it and report back to the building official. But right now, it's like we taking the word of this engineer stating that the building is safe to occupy while you know while there are occupying the
the residence at this time. But however, um structural work repairs are needed on the building. Do you have a structural engineer? Uh, >> we have >> certificate or is it from just a general?
>> No, this is the letter from the engineer stating that the building is um safe to occupy. >> Is he a structural engineer? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> According to this um letter right here. Yes. >> That's the latest one. >> Yes. Um from dated October 2nd of 2020.
The same letter that he already drew up. >> Okay. Was there any um any funds at closing uh held in trust to pay for code violations?
>> No, your honor. >> And the deal is irrevocable. It's not contingent on anything. It's >> correct. >> Continuum owns it >> and uh >> correct. >> They're they got their funding. They're
ready to start. They're just waiting on the time uh that they're allowing the uh the residents to stay there. >> Yes. And they are eager for that July 31st date to come around. So, >> okay. >> Um I have one question.
>> Yes. Go ahead. um when your um when the company when the contractor is going to start submitting plans since they already done changed ownership, >> he can also start submitting plans to start the demolition process so they can be in review when they going to start submitting plans to the city.
>> I know they're working on the plans. Um I had a conversation with Mr. David Fishman who's the general counsel for continuum and that's something that's ongoing and moving forward. So, we we'd like to be in a position to submit those pretty quickly after after July.
>> How long how long do you need to submit a demolition permit? >> Apply for a demolition permit. >> I would need to get back to David to to figure out exactly where we are with finalizing those plans. Um, >> any time frame?
>> Um, I just wanted a time frame to be exact. Um, but she's saying she doesn't have one at this time. Um, you have u the final drawings ready to apply for a building permit?
>> No, we do not have final drawings. I that they're in the works. They have been started. Um >> Okay. Um only um at this time I just saying that the fines still be running and it just going to be changed over to the new ownership.
>> Well um yes. Uh however uh I do want the building department to monitor the building to make sure that nobody's
at risk um of any injury because of what may happen. Uh what did you say about the balconies? Have you sealed those or are they open still to >> that? That was one of the inquiries back in October. Um, and we did have the same
engineer, structural engineer, go back out and specifically, uh, look at all of the balconies. So, that letter covers the balconies. Um, I mean, it it was part of the inspection to begin with, but we wanted to give the city extra comfort that um, those were
inspected and they are part of the cert certification from the engineer stating that they're safe for continued use and occupancy. All right. Um, somebody has a question. >> No, no, you need to you need to speak
into the microphone. Unless it's a private >> pertaining to the case building code officer Christopher Kosa the reoccupancy since you already changed ownerships and you still have people in there. We need that reoccupancy now like you need to
come in and pay for lease the reoccupancy and they're going to be after the fact reoccupancy cuz you already change ownership. So, we need you to come in and pay for that now. So, we can do that inspection on each unit, me and Shaunie, and then you can still work on the engineer stuff and getting your permits in.
>> And would you need that? Um, so there are 46 units and I don't know the exact amount of residents who are still there, but let's say only 20 of them are still in there. Would we only be doing the reoccupancy for for those >> all 46 units? >> All 46,
>> including meter rooms. We go into the meter rooms as well. We have to have access to the meter rooms as well. So, all 46 units. >> Okay. Um that Yeah, that's that's clearly stated in um in the code. Uh every time you change
North Miami is a little different. Most cities don't have it, but here when you change occupancies, you have to have an uh an inspection to make sure that no uh unlicensed work was done uh during the teny. >> Understood. But that's not before me
today. >> Right. So I appreciate knowing that. >> That's good information. >> Um so uh I would encourage you I can't order you because it's not before me. I can't order you to do that, but I would
suggest to you that you do it within the next 10 days. >> Understood. >> Uh that's the reoccupancy certificate. And then at that point, the city will be in a position to better assess the condition of each each unit. Nonetheless, it still the common areas
um may or may not be um a danger to um to to the to the residents. What what I'm what I'm going to do is that I am going to uh ratify the fines.
Um, but beginning today, I'm not going to go back to the compliance date because, um, I want to be fair to both sides. I want to be fair to the city and I want to be fair to the property owner in that we
want this to go quickly pursuant to the code with the uh with with the hammer that if if this goes on forever
notwithstanding whatever agreement you gave the the residents which was very you know very nice of you of of the continuum to have done that. There there are penalties associated with the fact that this building has been out of compliance
for a number of years. And I remember going back uh when when I reviewed the file a couple of nights ago, this started back in 2021. um you went through all of these u uh
land use uh issues uh throughout 2024. Um here we are in 2026. Um, I gave you uh until January
7th to abate the uh the violations and bring bring either the the building to compliance or which doesn't make sense at this point or uh at least apply for a demolition permit.
I I was hoping that at least you were in already in the process of applying for a demolition permit. So, you know, based on all of the factors, I'm not going to assess penalties as of January 7th of
26, which is what I said I was going to do on October 1. I will start assessing a thousand dollar fines beginning today based on the testimony of the city's code compliance officer photographs and all of the evidence that I have reviewed
reflecting that the uh building uh is still out of compliance. I'm going to find in favor of the city, ratify the fines beginning, not not ratify the fines, but impose a thousand dollar penalty beginning today
um and assess costs in favor of the city. The uh fines shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance. >> Your honor, is there any way that you would consider having the fines start at the expiration of this safe to occupy
letter? Again, I submit to you and and this is in the record that when we appeared before you in October, quote, they have eight months to continue residing in the condominium after eight months. The fines the fines will be for the condominium association at $1,000
per day if they stay beyond those eight months. That's the representation that's been made to the property owners and to continuum group. Um, as to continuum, you you asked us to come back to give you this update and you said if there
was no compliance by June of next year, because I misspoke in October. I told you 8 months and it was 9 months. So, you said if there was no compliance by June and the property um owners don't vacate, then you will find the association
even though it doesn't technically exist anymore. uh the record will show that uh the order that I entered has an abatement date, a finding of guilt on on October the 1st and an abatement date of January
the 7th. So, and frankly, I don't recall uh saying that they could stay uh until July or June or July, whatever it is. Um
I I gave an abatement date. Um I I will I will modify the order such that it is consistent with what you just represented to us, which is that it will start running
um upon the delivery to the city, which I'm going to ask that it be 10 days, uh of the um reoccupancy certificate. So, the fines shall begin shall begin on
um upon 10 days from today. Now, you know, the continuum made a deal with the with with the residents and that's fine. I I'm I applaud that. But the continuum by allowing them to say that all of this
time with with the violations pending uh is not something that that you know the city is involved in. You you you could have given them you could have given them two months, three months. Um >> I think we we did that kind of at the
request of city commission and it was about not displacing the res. I'm I'm sensitive that we don't want to displace him. On the other hand, there is a fine acrewing because there was an abatement date and there was no compliance. So,
I'm I'm I'm just going to I will accept a a slight modification of the order to say that it will uh the $1,000 daily fines will commence
uh 10 days from today. And that's my ruling. Okay. And uh hopefully by then you'll give the city all of the necessary documents including the uh engineers report, the
latest engineering report plus also the um certificate of reoccupancy on on on each unit as required. >> Um >> yes. >> Can we also put on record that the demolition permit needs to be submitted to the building department also? She
needs a time frame. Um, I said give uh at least 30 days. >> Well, no, I'm going to get demolition permits are not easy to get. >> I mean, submit the each the plans because they still have to go through a rotation to Miami Day County and you have to do other things, but at least we
have a set of plans to show it moving forward. >> Yeah, I I I know about construction uh timelines, etc. Um, often times developers don't really
pursue demolition permits all that quickly, especially if they don't have to. But I I would like an an estimate of what you think. I I know you need to ask someone. >> I do. >> We hear you. >> I know you need to ask somebody.
>> If if um if it turns out that it that you need more time, >> you can come back and we can discuss it. But uh at this point I would impose a uh requirement that you file for it. I'm
not get I'm not saying obtain a demolition permit but file the application for the demolition permit within 90 days. If you need more time, come back and I'm happy to consider it because I don't I don't want the
developer to wait a year to get a demolition permit. you know, even after the residents vacate. >> I >> Is this a request or this is part of this order as part of the 40-year reertification? >> I am going to make that part of this
order because I've given you some courtesy and cooperation on when the fines begin to acrue. I don't recall ever saying that the fines will begin when the residents vacate.
I do remember and the record shows that the abatement date was January 7th. So I expected compliance by January 7th. Whatever that compliance was, whether it was fixing the uh making repairs or uh
making arrangements to have the building demolished. Um, I'm trying I'm trying to give you some some leeway and I'm I'm trying to be fair to to you and to the city and it's, you know, it's like
trying to be Abraham here. Um, I don't want to punish anybody. I don't want people to lose their homes. I I you know, I don't want you to pay $1,000 fine a day. And I don't know what the closing statement
says, but most of the time there's money held back for uh repairs. >> I I appreciate this is a complicated situation. Mariners's Bay is um is setting a precedent. You're going to encounter this with other buildings where they can't afford the articles.
I'm familiar with it. It's happening all over date county. >> This this order today though is is going to shake some things up. Um, and I would like to just submit for the record all the correspondence that we've had with Cindia Alvarez and the transcription of the last hearing.
>> Why don't you do that and um put that into the record and um is the clerk clear on what my order is? Just so we're clear, magistrate, um you stated that they must come into
compliance by in 10 days, which we have is February 14th. They need to have the demo permit as well as the 40-year. >> No, not the 40-year. Which one? >> The reoccupancy certificate. >> Rio certificate
>> that needs to be done within >> the inspection. >> Yeah, it's an inspection by by the city. within these 10 days. >> 10 days. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> 90 days for the demolition. >> 90 days for the demolition. >> Yes.
>> I understood though that >> to apply for the to apply >> to apply for a demolition permit. >> But I understood that the reoccupancy you said was not before you. I mean, that's a request that we get that done. >> That's a request. You don't you don't have to do it, but it's >> we're going to do it. I just want to make sure that's
>> Yeah, that that's not a mandatory thing that I can order today because it's not before me. But I'm encouraging you as part of this whole package that it would it would serve you well, especially if you're going to seek mitigation,
which you ultimately may want. You know, let's say the fines increase to $100,000. you may you may want to go to uh I don't know who hears mitigations whether it's the finance department or even the commission and if you can uh convince
them and and meet the criteria for mitigation uh some or most of those fines will go away but I I'm uh bound by what my responsibilities are and >> understood. So I I for that purpose I
would like to just submit this into the record. >> Right. Why don't you do that as uh the uh owner's exhibit and uh at some point when this is all
over before you get your CO because you're not going to get a CO unless you you're not going to get a a building permit until you meet all of your requirements. So, uh at that time you can apply for mitigation.
But as of 10 days from now, the fines of $1,000 a day will acrewue. The continuum is a big boy. They they uh they they should know, you know, what the uh what the rules are.
>> Well, in this case, it's a big girl, >> right, >> Alex? Yes. >> Yes. Thank you, your honor. And uh we'll continue to work with the city on providing the information that's been requested today. >> Yeah. The more the more you cooperate, the more likely
uh you will be able to file a motion to mitigate. >> Understood. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, officer. Okay, Magistrate Smith, the next item that we are going to call will be item
number three, Horizon South condo or three Horizon South condo, sorry. Um, and that would be case number MHVIO20500134. And the officer representing this case will be Brantley Daniels. And the owner representing the property will be Andrew Suvelski.
>> Excuse me. Can Can somebody turn this back on for me? >> Thank you. Perfect. Now I know. All right. Um, case number three. Anybody here on behalf of the U. Um, condo association.
>> Yes, I am. Andrew Simovsky. I'm the president of the board. >> Say, say that again. >> Andrew Simovsky. >> Okay. >> President of the board of directors for Three Horizon South. >> All right. Do you understand the uh
nature of the violations? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, this is a uh first time in for before me. So, uh, how much time do you need to repair the balcony? Uh, and it's
unit 8:15, right? It's one unit. >> Yes. >> Is that your unit or somebody else? >> It is not my unit. It's it is one of the unit owners. Yes. >> Okay. And who's doing the work? Is that the association or >> the association has contracted a company? To give a little back history.
Um there the the company has had a contract for 2 to three years with a construction company to do concrete restoration on the whole building. The previous board of directors had a dispute with that contractor, stalled the entire project, um open invoices and whatnot. The current board of directors,
we just took over in September 2025 and we we've worked to get that resolved. We put a lot of work into it. It is now resolved. We are restarting the project. We actually we have just signed the new contract. We just submitted the um uh the notice of commencement to the city
uh and it's restarting imminently. Um the the concrete restoration company has given us a commitment that that uh issue would be repaired within 1 to 3 months. >> All right, let me hear from the city.
Inspector Daniel. >> Yes, your honor. Good morning. >> What um what did you see when you went out there? Inspector Daniel, City of North Miami. Um on July 24th, 2025, um I received a call from a resident uh
complaint as far as uh cracks um on the wall or the ceiling, I should say. Um and um upon inspection, I noticed
several several cracks. took pictures and I then uh cited the property issued um violations. Um now at that time I did not receive or I did receive
correspondence. someone came to the city, I want to say several days later and submitted a report um advising that they were that they uh were looking into a engineering company and they requested
for a twomonth extension. That was back on August 17th, 2025, excuse me. Um and then from that time I granted them a two-month extension. Um on
October 17, 2025 upon my um reinspection there was no compliance. Um now following that um from that time frame um upon my final reinspection I was not
able to go into the unit because the unit owner was not available. Um, but on January 28th, I did receive an email um, advising that they um, the condominium did have a engineering
company out. They sent me uh, I think a maybe 20 page PDF showing, you know, what uh, work that they were trying to do or work that they were going to do upon the condominium and
that specific unit. And then I spoke with Andrew sometime last week and here we are today. >> All right. Just for the record, I've uh fully reviewed the file. I've seen the pictures. How much time do you need,
sir, to do the work? >> Uh the contractor has committed to having it done within 1 to 3 months. I actually expect it to be done by the end of March. >> Okay. By the way, you uh I believe you you
cited the uh condominium under section 530. Not sure that that applies. Yes, sir. It does apply. No. 5 530 is occupancy standards. Uh, madame city attorney, if you could look at it, I think it's more
likely that uh I would have used 515, but uh or 528, but nonetheless, there's a violation. It's been admitted that their violation took place. Property owner,
the condo association needs uh a little bit of time to get the contractor to u to do the work. I'm going to give you uh I'm going to give you 60 days. Hopefully, you'll do it sooner uh in
order to do the work. Um so, uh my order will be as follows. based on the unrebotted testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the photographs, the evidence presented,
uh depicting that the uh violations still exist. Proper notice was given. Uh the property owner is not contesting uh the uh uh code violation. Uh, I enter
an adjudication and set a compliance date of 60 days, April 12th, 2026. In the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $350 until the violation is abaded. So, good luck, sir.
If uh if everything works out the way that you expect, we'll we'll be uh we won't I won't see you again. If if uh If you don't then the case will come back to me and more
penalties will be assessed. >> Understood. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Magistr magistrate. Thank you. The next item that we are going to call will be item number four and that'll be Alie Homestead Property
LLC case number CECU 202500246. >> Okay. Anybody here on behalf >> and the officer on this case will be Brantley Daniels and the person representing the property will be Davidson Paul. >> Okay. Anybody here on behalf of the owner?
>> Uh sir >> Davidson Paul. >> Last name sir? >> Paul. >> David Paul. >> Yes. Davidson Paul. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh what is your association with the property? Uh, I am the owner of the
place place that has the violation, Lai Food Spot. I'm the tenant of Ali. >> Okay. You're you're just so that we're clear. >> Yeah. >> Uh, you're the tenant. >> Mhm. >> And the violation is for not having a
certificate of use. Uh because uh you're not allowed to operate loud music uh beyond 11 and dine in is not permitted. >> Yes. >> So uh you have a BTR I assume
>> but your operation does not comply with the zoning code. Yeah, I do have a CU uh and um and I went ahead and start the process of uh well I do not after that
violation I do not play music anymore and I tried to comply with the with the violation and also I went ahead and met with the CPN PND trying to have the resubmit of
uh certificate ticket of use to have dining because the property has like a backyard and the backyard is being used by all the tenants and um we have a small portion of it sometime our clients grabbing food and they went in the back
and just trying to sit around and loun >> I saw the pictures um I don't have any problem with having a little >> you know restaurant in the back >> limited of course to a certain number of people >> right and
you know bring down the noise before 11 o'clock. >> Yes, >> but you you need you need a certificate of use from the city in order to do that. >> I do have one but mine is only for take out. You know I know I I already went they say I have to reapply. >> Yeah, you want you want more stuff in
the than code allows, >> right? >> Okay. So what are you doing anything about that? >> Yes, I already um I already started the process. Uh so I have to um from from what they told me I have to have derm
approved that I can have sittings and from derms I can come back with the administrative site plant and submit it and so they can >> Okay. So let me ask the city uh I'm hearing from the from the tenant that he stopped operating as a
restaurant and he doesn't any longer have music before 11:00. Is he now in compliance? What would you like me to do? Um what what what is the city's >> Inspector Daniel?
>> Inspector Daniel. Uh yes, your honor. Um this sweep, well, it was a uh sweep that was conducted back on July 26, 2025. Uh myself and several officers when we conducted the sweep that night. Um his
the the violation is for him operating beyond the scope of the certificate of use which doesn't allow doesn't allow the his venue to play loud music and it the business is only for a takeout
restaurant. So the pictures that I submitted back on July 25th show a gathering of people here um hookas and things of that nature um were there. And following that in December recently
uh we have another um um inspector that can testify to this as well. There was another sweep conducted at the same restaurant on December 13th, 2025. and the pictures will reflect that
was another outdoor venue going on, loud music and things of that nature. And we have the other inspector right here who can testify. Officer Listry. >> Okay. Well, that that violation is not before me. Okay. Um
I'll accept what you're telling me because I'm assessing a fine. >> Yes, sir. because I I believe that the code provides for a fine if I if if the violation is irrevocable and uh madam
city attorney help me with the language irrevocable and what's the other wordable >> irretrievable reversible >> okay so the they did violate the code >> correct >> okay uh I will assess a fine for
operating outside of the uh certificate of use, I will assess a fine. Beyond that, he he the owner the tenant is telling me
that he's applying for a zoning variance or for the right use what whatever the application is. I think that what I'm suggesting to the owner is if stop doing it. >> Yeah, we have stopped over.
>> Okay. Get your license, your certificate. If you come back, if you come back with another violation, I'm going to double the fine, which is what the code says I can do. >> Okay. So, um
I on on the condition that you have stopped and will not engage until you get the necessary certificate, >> I'm going to assess a $500 fine. >> Okay. Um and u that's that's what I
think is fair under the circumstances. Uh were there any other violations out there that uh you all observed or that was it? >> Yes, your honor. That was it. >> Okay. So, you can operate he can operate
music until 11:00 and then he can stop. >> Correct. And he's um according to the certificate he used, he can he can only operate as a takeout >> takeout place. >> Takeout restaurant. >> So, who who is the music going to play to if it's just, you know, takeout
customers or take out customers. >> Yeah, we do we do not play music anymore. >> Do not do not use >> we remove all the chair on our side. I showed him on uh January 16th. I met with him and I showed him that I made some changes, you know. >> Okay. >> And
>> I mean if if you want to have a radio inside your premises and listen to music, you know, for the employees or whatever, >> obviously that's that's fine. But having outside uh music >> um is not permitted
>> until you until you're uh until you get a certificate. >> Magistrate Smith, to my understanding, are you adjudicating this for? adjudicating him guilty for having violated the code on those occasions when you observed that he was operating
outside of his certificate of of use which he has but it's not it does not permit him to do what he was doing which is basically dine in uh it was uh only for takeout so I am I am assessing a $500 fine for that violation
>> time fet time fine correct >> onetime fine Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Officer Daniels. >> Thank you, your honor. Thank you. >> Okay. Number six. Oh, okay. Mistra Smith, the next item
that we are going to call on will be item number six and seven. That would be Arch Creek Apartments LLC. Case number CHS 202400000021. This case was previously found guilty by
magistrate Smith and must abate by July 18, 2025. Fines were set at $250 plus $100 assessment cost and the officer on this case will be Joseph Des Sanchez and the representative's property will be Mario
Borda. Sir, um, please state your full name, address, and your relationship to the property. >> Your honor, good morning. This is, uh, Mario Ba. I'm the owner of Arch Creek Apartments. My home address is 224 Atlantic Avenue, Sunny Als Beach,
Florida, 33160. >> Okay. You you u are the uh manager for the LLC? >> I'm the uh manager, yes, for the LLC. >> I looked you up on Sunbiz. >> Okay. >> I know the answer. Perfect. >> Uh, are these one of those units that
used to be part of Johnson and Wales? >> Yes, there are two buildings that used to be part of Johnson and Wales, of which same situation as my buildings. We had probably 10 others. Um, they're all going through different processes.
Um, I mean, just to give you some background, I bought this property in 2021. Um, these buildings were built in 1957 as eight and seven units and between the end of 2021 until today have had to jump
over hoops in terms of all the changes to the buildings to be able to get to the CU. Um, so we're since so in June July of last year um I got approval for the reduction of unit size. So that was a zoning change um which
took almost a year and then I had to get approval from the commission um for the CUP from one of the commissions which we got unanimous approval I think it was in September and then we're waiting for the commission to give us the certificate of
use cert conditional use permit and we've been waiting for a meeting since um October. Um it was supposed to happen January 27th. I got postponed until February 10th. That meeting got cancelled. I
believe I'm on the February 24th um meeting if it doesn't get cancelled. And at that point, I should be getting my conditional use permit and then applying for the BTR. When I purchased the building, I obtained the uh
reoccupancy permit for the 15 units. Um I obtained the BTR from the county. I have all my fire inspections um yearly that we do. And the only thing I'm waiting is for this change of zoning or or this conditional use permit to be
able to apply for my BTR. So, I would be requesting a maximum of 60 days, which I believe will provide me enough time to get this finally. >> So, if I understand, madame city attorney, correct me if I'm wrong, but
uh the property owner is not able to get his BTR because he has some zoning issues which he needs to address before which commission are you talking about? Is it the final commission? We're in the
Give One second. >> Is it the planning and zoning board or is it the >> I've already passed? It's the last one. It's the city city council. >> Okay. So, they're the ones that will eventually consider your uh conditional use permit.
>> Yes, that should be the last vote. >> And the conditional use permit is to change the size of the units. >> No, I got that approved. Is to be able to obtain my BTR. >> Okay. So, why do you need a conditional use permit to get a BTR?
>> I don't know. >> All right. Doesn't matter. You're asking me for 60 days to get everything done >> and come into compliance. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> For both buildings. So, it's 165 Northeast. >> Let's deal Let's deal with the the first
building which is 1640 Northeast 127 >> and 1642. It's two buildings in one folio, eight units total. >> 1462 is not on the agenda. >> It it it should be it should be 1640
through 1642 Northeast 127th Street. >> 1640 is the only one that is on the agenda. So that's the only one that I can rule on. >> That's fine. I mean, if you I mean it's not on the agenda, >> then see how it's probably be in
compliance before they can even site you. Anyway, on that particular building >> that that's fine. So that building actually has only one address. So 1640 Northeast 127th Street is correct.
>> Okay. I had previously Was it you that I cited or did I site the prior owner? No, you cited me, but I was relying on my attorneys, which uh for some reason did not bring this forward. I I don't think they showed up,
which was the issue. That's why I'm here. Well, this is my first time in front of you. Well, no. Somebody came back in uh uh
June of 25 because that's when I found the property in violation. And I set an abatement date of July 18th, 2025 with a fine set at $250.
You weren't aware of that. So, I'm looking here at the records, and we were supposed to have a city commission meeting in July, which was then postponed to October, which was then postponed to December, which was then postponed to January, and now we're here. >> Who who postponed it?
>> Um, the city council. >> All right. Uh, I'm going to table this be because of what's going on with the city council and the certificate of of um certificate of use >> conditional use permit. >> Conditional use permit. Uh, I'm going to
I'm going to table it for 60 days. >> Your honor, can I ask that uh six and seven be tabled since they go hand in hand with BTRC? Six and seven. It's the same uh owner. Okay. And and and the reason
Uh the reason I'm inclined to to do doing that is because I I know the difficulty uh in in getting a conditional use permit and you've shown good faith in moving
along being here. Last time your lawyer didn't show up or you didn't show up. I appreciate you being here and you know I take that into consideration when I rule. So I will I will table this for 60
days. >> Thank you your honor. >> All right. Thank you officer just Sanchez. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Magistrate Smith. The next item on this case is going to be item number eight. Biscane Apartment Developments
LLC. Case number CBPR 2025 003 08 and this will be represented by Jonathan Lamestry. Officer Lamestri and the person on the case would be Cole
Dfens the Stephanie. >> Sir, please state your full name for the record. >> Magistrate, he has not been sworn in yet. >> Swear him in. >> Okay. Also, >> magistrate, he has not been sworn in and he does also does not have the power of attorney to represent this case. He's
not the owner of the property. >> All right, I'll I'll inquire. >> Okay. >> Um >> All right, Mr. Cole Dean, if you can please raise your right hand. >> Do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you're about to give in these proceedings shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So help you God, please say I do. >> I do. >> Thank you. Your full name for the record. >> Cold estanus. >> Spell that. >> D E S T E F A N I S.
>> Okay. >> And what is your relationship with Biscane Apartments Development LLC? >> Just an employee there. was called in last minute due to an emergency and asked to come represent them and speak
on their behalf. >> No. No. Uh there are several people. Uh of course there's a registered agent, there's a manager, there's another manager, there's another manager.
There's three pe three three or four people. Well, one is in Puerto Rico. One lives just down the street in Golden Beach. and one lives at or has a a premises at uh 620 696 Northeast 125th
Street. None of them are here. All of them have emergencies. >> That I do not know, your honor. >> Okay. Uh, so the pictures that I'm seeing here are of a restaurant.
I'm sorry. Uh, renovations. Bazaar. There's a lot of renovations going on. There's a gas station. And you're an employee of who? >> Of the gas station. >> Of the gas station. >> The bazaar. Correct. And >> which does not own the the property.
>> They do not. >> Okay. Um, do you have an affidavit from the owner of the gas station to represent? >> I do not. >> Okay. I'm I'm going to disqualify you as a
witness and I'm not going to hear testimony from you because according to the code, you have to be an attorney, an owner, or somebody with an affidavit uh to represent the owner. and
uh you don't qualify, you're not eligible. So, I'm going to hear the case from the code department and see what the outcome is. And I would suggest that next time,
if there is a next time, that somebody with authority show up because uh your testimony is if you if if I were allow to allow you to testify, your testimony would would not be credible,
would not be competent and and would not be allowed by by the code. So, okay, let me hear from the uh from the city. Good morning everyone. Co- compliance officer Jonathan Lestri and this case is being heard for the first time.
On September 5th, 2025, I opened a notice of violation at 12300 Biscane Boulevard uh in regarding uh the property conducting exterior and interior renovations um without a building permit on file. Um I posted the
notice of violation and I also mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser. on January um correction, I'm sorry, December 29th, 2025, I went back to 123000 Biscane Boulevard and delivered
handd delivered the notice to appear for the magistrate on for February 4th and January 16th, 2025 as the final inspection date. Uh the business failed to obtain any permits for the exterior for the interior and exterior work on the property. And to add, um I checked
this morning and there is nothing on file. Um, no permits have been submitted for uh for any work at the property. Okay. And all the uh is there like a convenience store inside the gas
station? >> Correct. So, it's a gas station. I believe it used to be owned by uh BP. Um and then a uh another business took that spot and conducted renovations uh inside the unit. >> That business
>> um it's uh I I I don't have it. Um it starts with an S. Um but it's not one of a it's not a big name. >> Yeah, it's not a major. We we have a tenant and an owner situation >> and and you cited you cited the owner properly.
>> Correct. >> Okay. I just I just want to state uh madam city attorney uh bear with me. I've I've always I've always wondered why in a lot of these cases
we cite the owner, which obviously you must, but in uh in many in most cases that I've seen, you don't site the tenant. Okay. So, in doing research the other day on a for a different city, not
not this city. Yes. I I found that under the code uh under 21-4 which uh talks about definitions. A violator, I'm going to quote it
verbatim. Violator means a person or entity responsible for a violation of the code. the current owner of the property is responsible for the violation in addition to any other party who has possession of the property or who may
have actually caused the violation. And then it goes on to say the special magistrate may find the landlord as well as the tenant responsible for a violation. So, what that means to me, and I'm not the city attorney,
she is, is that I I would like to I would like to see both the owner and the violator or the tenant cited where appropriate because uh the owner may not know anything about this. The owner may be in
another country. In this in in in this case, the owner probably did know, but I'm sure. >> Yes. >> But there are many cases where the owner doesn't know uh that the tenant doesn't have a BTR, for example, or a certificate of use, whatever.
Um so going forward um I would like to you to consider bringing the uh tenant who is the actual violator and the owner as well. So you know you can address
that as you as you may. Uh I had a very similar situation come up in another city and then and when I researched the code here, it led me to what the definition of a violator is. Anyway, uh
sir, I'm going to uh you can go back and tell your boss that uh I am going to find in favor of the city based on the testimony of the city's
code compliance officer and the photographs and evidence presented depicting that the violations still exist, that proper notice has been given. I find for the city and enter an adjudication
and set a compliance date of 30 days. In other words, go get your building permit, get the work uh exam the
inspected by the city. uh we're talking uh >> March 16. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Uh >> and what is the fine? The uh the fine is
$350 in the event of non-compliance that there shall be a daily fine of $350 and the uh adjudicate the um uh compliance date shall be uh 30 days. Uh basically we're asking you to uh
uh get an after the-act building permit. >> Understood. Thank you, your honor. >> Thank you. Mhm. >> Thank you, Inspector Lamestry. The next item we are going to call would be item number 19. >> And that'll be Greyo Investments LLC,
case number CBPR 202500278. This case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Kazoo and must abate by December 3rd, 2025. Fines were set at 250 a day plus $100 assessment cost. And the officer on this case would be Shana Sanders and they're representing the
property would be Omar Enosti in >> Why don't you go ahead as as long as you're there uh and read all the other violations against this particular property. There's a whole bunch of them.
>> It's just that one. >> I'm sorry. >> It's just that one for that property. >> What which number is it? Number 19. >> Oh, 19. I thought you said nine. Okay. >> Okay. Anybody uh representing the property owner?
>> Omar. >> Do we have an Omar? >> Omar did register. Register. Um maybe he left. Let me check the lobby. One moment. >> Number 19. >> Yeah. Yeah. Gyro Investments LLC.
Med magistrate. They are not here. >> They're not here. >> No, we don't. No. >> Okay. Um I don't see any Omar's in um Sunbis. uh
registered agent is someone else. All of the uh members managers are not known as Omar. So maybe he wasn't registered, didn't have the authority maybe, and decided to walk
away. But that's my assumption. just speculating. Anyway, let me hear from the city. >> Shannon Sanders, code compliance officer. This is case for property address 75 Northwest 125th Street. This
is a case that's already been adjudicated and heard by special magistrate for a building without permit for a woods fence that was installed. Um, as of my last reinspection on FE on
January 16th, the violation has not um met has not been um abaded. I am showing proper service was given. The property was posted at the property as well as certified um mailed to the property owners and or listing agents at the
property. >> All right. In uh reviewing the file, I see that um the an application for a permit was submitted but denied. >> Yes, he did submit an application to the
city um December 8th of um last year. Um it has been denied um two times. Um I did have a conversation with the um I believe he was a tenant yesterday. He called me um and he is understanding
that it's been denied. He picked up the application yesterday to make the revisions, but again it has been submitted um to the city, but it's under review. >> All right. Uh again speculating
as I often do uh from viewing the fence. Uh it's a brown fence on the side of the property. You have a picture with 7. The house address is 75. So there's a fence to the left of that which is a brown
wooden fence. Is that correct? >> That is correct. is um it was a fence installed on the um east and west side of the property, both being brown. >> Yeah. And it uh you took some pictures from the rear as well.
>> Um no, I don't have anything from the rear cuz this is off of the main street of 5th. My my suspicion is that it's being denied because it encroaches on the setback requirement with the uh
nextdoor neighbor because it goes all the way to the all the way to the property line. So perhaps that's the problem. But I will uh based on the fact that uh there
is a uh an adjudication back in uh November by another magistrate requiring that the abatement be by December the 3.
I um enter an order in favor of the city based on the testimony of the city's code enforcement officer and the photographs and the evidence presented. Property has been out of compliance since the abatement date
um of December 3rd. I ratify the fines accured to date in the amount of $250 and assess costs in favor of the city. The set fines shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance. >> Thank you, special magistrate.
>> You're welcome. The next item we are going to call is item number 20 and 21. Greenish Association INC case number CF OB 2023 00482.
This case was previously found guilty by Mad Street Kazoo and must abate by August 18, 2025. Fines were set at 250 a day plus 100 assess plus $100 assessment cost. And the Would you like for me to read the other one?
>> Yes, read them both. >> Okay. That item number 21, Greenwich Association Inc. Case number CEZ CU 2023 00807. This case was also previously found guilty by magistrate kazoo and must
abate by August 18, 2025. And fines were set at 200 $250 a day plus $100 assessment cost. And the officer on this case was Shana Sanders. >> Okay. So the property owner representing this case will be Donna McVey.
>> Say that again. >> The property the person representing the property is Donna McVey. >> Okay. you you um I'm Donna. >> Ma'am, uh tell me your name, your address, and your relationship to the property.
>> My name is Donna McVey, 1470 Northeast 123rd Street, North Miami, Florida, 33161, and I am the president of the of the Greenwich Association board of directors.
>> Okay. I have with me here is Orlando Aome and he is the property manage management company owner. >> Spell that last name. >> A R R O M. >> Okay. Speak into the mic so that uh the
recording device can >> My name is Orlando Arum. A R R O M as in Mary. >> And you're the property manager? >> I am, your honor. >> All right. Um, so you were found guilty or the association was on July 2nd of
2025, that's 6 months ago, 7 months ago, by magistrate kazoo uh with an abatement date, meaning that you you had to get your BTR uh business tax receipt by August. We're in
February. We're going to hear that case first. Um, why don't you have it? Why haven't you gotten the PTR? >> Um, I have the answer, your honor. Um, in November, >> speak up. >> In November, uh, we came for another
hearing and we were given 60 days because, um, the use the certificate of use is pending the completion of our 40-year reertification, which was a $2.8 8 million project that has been completed since April of last
year. >> It has or it hasn't. >> It's completed and there is a we have the final letter from the engineers saying that the building is safe to occupy and all the repairs have completed and the permits closed. There was an electrical side to that
inspection that was also completed and the only thing we were pending was to complete the lighting of the parking lot which is now permitted and in in process. We didn't have that permit in November. We now have that permit and
the construction the work for the lighting has already started. There was also the matter of the um ground fault uh circuits in the units. We have been we had been trying to get all the unit owners to do that on their own because it has to do with each unit owner. But we actually had to give
up and hire a general electrical contractor to start doing that. We have out of 221 units, we only have 16 left to do. We expect to do them uh in the next few days. And so we tried to present the reports for the um 40-year
completion, but the city has not accepted them because of the work on the electrical has not been completed. Even though we have a safe to occupy letter from both engineers, the structural and the electrical. So we're basically we we filed the obligation for the certificate
of use. We paid the fee, but the city won't grant us a certificate of use because of the pending uh 40 year. There was also the matter of a permit that was open from 20 2009 for the elevator
electrical work and we were told by the city that if we obtain a certificate of operation, a valid one now they could close that permit cuz we can't find a contractor that did that work. We don't even know what the work was from 2009. And then um there was another
permit from 2018 that was for painting that basically was completely uh re the work that was done the two the $2.8 million work that was done completely basically just did all that
work all over again. So um and we have final permits and closure. So, we're basically trying to finish the electrical work so we can have the city accept our our report so they can then allow us to get the certificate of use. We're waiting we're waiting to do that so the city can issue a certificate of
use and we just need a little bit more time. >> Okay. What how many units? >> 200 221 units, your honor. >> Okay. And I assume uh madame president that there was a special assessment for the two and a half million to $2.1 million.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Uh what was uh you said that you had a meeting after August. >> There was a hearing here with the city in November 5th, I believe. And we were granted 60 days to continue. Um we asked
for more time, but cuz we knew between, you know, getting a permit and getting a contractor working, it was going to take more. That was in November, the holidays in the middle, so we're we're almost done with that electrical work. >> Okay. Uh I want to hear from the city uh
because it's not reflected on my agenda. Uh was there uh uh an extension granted for 60 days on November 6 by magistrate Kazoo >> Shannon Sanders compliance officer. The case was not heard at the um November
hearing. We tabled it um because he had some pending as he stated he has some pending issues that he has to take care of. We had already been bringing them before the magistrate on a few occasions. Um didn't want to have to bring them again. So they requested an
extension in which we granted. So we tabled it. >> Who granted it? >> Um well it shows that the special magistrate um tabled it. Um well I'm sorry. I want to make sure I'm saying this right. Yes, it shows that the special magistrate tabled it to the
February 4th hearing. I'll let the um Can you confirm that? Is that what took place? The notes you put in there. >> Okay. Is is there anybody from the building department able to tell me what the status of the
40-year reertification is with the city? >> Um Shnie Press with the building department. Um as of today, they are not in compliance until all the repairs are made. their engineer is not going to be able to give them a clear resertification report.
>> Any time expectation on >> that's on there. >> Folks, what is the maximum amount? not max minimum. I I want this done and I don't want to
penalize the unit owners because technically even though the 60 days was was granted uh you're still subject to a $250 a day fine and uh because you've already passed the
60 days from uh August September mber maybe October U and we're now in uh February. So I I don't I don't want to punish people but
I do want compliance. Tell me a date certain by which compliance will be completed or else the fines will acrew. Give me a date.
>> I know it's hard. You're dealing with contractors. You're dealing with the city. You're dealing with third parties. >> The work is already underway, your honor. So, we we're at the mercy of that contractor to complete the work. We hope there's no, you know, parts that are not
like are not available, whatever. We don't know. We think everything's ready and everything is progressing. So, we could be done as early as, let's say, the end of this month, but we don't know for sure. So, maybe can we get another 60 days? I'll make it 45 days.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Table it for 45 days. >> Okay. If due to an act of God, due to the city's inability to process your paperwork or if the contractor doesn't
have the necessary supplies or whatever, if there's an emergency or some other uh issue, uh you can come back and we can revisit it. At the same time, I I would like you to work with the building
officials to make sure that everything gets done within 45 days. After 45 days, I'm not going, you've already been given 60. Not going to go beyond 45 days. 45 days, the fines will acrew. And they may, you know, based on what I find,
they may increase. The fines could very well go up from 250 to 500 depending upon what I what I hear. Your honor, thank you. Thank you for that. Um, >> move as quickly as possible. I don't I don't I don't want to. My point is, >> you're moving. You're here. You're
showing me good faith. I don't want to penalize the unit owners. You just need a little bit more time. I hope there are no life safety issues. I hope that nobody gets hurt. Go ahead. We have letters from both engineers, the structural and the electrical that the
buildings are safe to occupy even though there's lighting issues in the parking lot because that has nothing to do. I just want to ask a question. This hearing that happened on November 5th with um with the magistrate, do you guys have records of that?
>> Sure. Everything is a public record. >> Yes, we do. >> You do? Okay. Because >> there was a hearing. I just want to make sure that there was that you were aware that there was a hearing on November the 5th and that we were did we did speak to the magistrate at the time and we were given 60 days. That's
>> you can speak with the >> so the hearing and then we can give you more information on that hearing. >> I just want to make sure the city has that record because it did happen. Okay. >> And magistrate we are confirming that >> on Zoom. It was a Zoom hearing on the fourth but we tabled it. We didn't give
six months. We tabled it because again he had all of these issues. >> When it was tabled was any time given to the property owner before the matter came back to us >> magistrate when we table a case based on
if the magistrate tells us it'll be 30 60 or 90 days whatever the abatement dates are. We are automatically set it for that hearing prior. So, if it was a 60-day hearing, we would have scheduled it for that 60-day hearing date.
>> Okay. Look, the record will speak for itself. >> Correct. >> The record is there. Whatever the record says if this comes back to me. Um, I'd like it to be noted. It probably is already noted in the file that there was a
hearing on the 5th at which time it was tabled. I I haven't read it, but I mean that that portion of it, but that'll that'll reflect it. What I I take note that, you know, you're telling me and I'll go back and take a look at it. >> Thank you.
>> In any event, >> that's behind us. Let's move forward and let's get this done. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. >> Before I'm going to table I'm going to table it for 45 days. We have >> Are we going to do the same thing for case item number 21? >> Yes.
Oh, the same item. >> It's the same It's the same thing. Yeah. >> Yeah. They can't get a certificate of use unless they finish their 40-year resertification. >> You can't get a certificate of use without getting the 40-year resert. >> We have the date county one already. We
have the certificate, but North Miami has different rules. >> Yeah, you need one from the county, but you still need one from the city. >> Okay. Next item. Next item we are going to call on will be item number 35
and that would be NMBB partners LLC case number CZCU 202500237 and the the officer on this case will be Shana Sanders and the representative for this property will be Ross Alexander. Mr. Alexander, welcome. Tell us your
full name, address, and your relationship to the property. >> Yes, my name is Ross Alexander. Um, I'm the tenant for the property at 1955 Northeast 149th Street.
>> And the the uh the name of the uh business is Synergenic. >> It's actually Synergy Services NMB. Okay. And uh do you understand the violation? >> Yes, I do.
>> Not having a certificate of use. Um why is it you don't >> uh Well, okay. I changed entities actually at the end of November. Uh went from uh you know, Synergetic
Services Inc. basically doesn't is dissolved. It doesn't exist anymore. So, it's synergy services NMBB. Um, I got the uh BTR
and then I actually we had a hearing on December 4. I believe you were the magistrate. It was a virtual hearing. >> I tabled it uh myself. I'm showing December three, but it could four
>> three or four. >> Okay. And I actually submitted everything for the application of the CU on that day. I actually walked out of the building on the corner and went to the next building and submitted it. Anna
Maria Kala told me this morning, it's still in process. She still has it there. and she gave me this customer number uh which it appears under in the computer system and that
number is 485342. So from my standpoint I don't know what more I can do to comply because I'm waiting on the >> You haven't been denied? >> I haven't been denied. Correct. >> Okay. Uh, let me hear from the city.
>> Shannon Sanders, co- compliance officer. This is a case for um the business not having the proper certificate of use. Um, as already stated, this case was brought before the magistrate in December. It was also brought prior to
that in October. We've tabed this case, you know, a couple of times. I've met with the business owner a few times. Definitely, he's understanding what needs to be done. I would at least like um this case to be adjudicated if possible. This case has been going on
since August of last year. Um still open and operating. Um so if we can, I would like this case to be adjudicated to, you know, help possibly, you know, get get speed up the process a little bit.
>> All right. Having uh considered the testimony of the city's code compliance officer uh the evidence presented uh having examined the record and noting that I
previously tabled the application the um tabled the matter uh back uh in December um and as the officer said this has been going on now for
since July of 25. I'm going to enter an adjudication and give you sir, let's see, 60 days to uh April 12, 2026, which is
much more time than you need to resolve your certificate of use issue, whatever that may be. I I don't know that the city is holding it back uh unreasonably. I can't believe that it there's got to be
something about your use that is troublesome. So, you need to go and sit down with the planning and zoning department, figure out what that is and fix it. And I giving you 60 days in
order to do that. Um, I'm going to set a compliance date of 60 days and in the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $250 until the violation is abated or complied with. In closing, I can only
tell you that if you don't comply, there will be a fine. If the city drops the ball and they just never answer, never tell you what's going on, never give you the or or you disagree with
them or whatever. If there's an emergency, you can come back and ask for more time, but for the for the time being, I'm adjudicating you guilty and I'm setting a fine and I'm giving you more than
enough time, 60 days, to resolve your certificate of use. Okay, that's going to be my ruling >> right now. You don't have anything to There's no fine. >> I'm getting >> Okay, I I understand that. I just I I
don't know what I could do from my side to speed up the process because in my mind I've >> and and of course I actually met with Anna Maria Kala this morning before coming to this hearing and she said well
we are short of people and it's taking this long and >> that's why I'm giving you an additional 60 days and if the uh building and zoning department is short of people and they're not unable to process your
application and they don't give you the the reason why it's not being granted, you'll tell me. >> Yeah, I specifically asked that if there was a reason it's not and I was told no, it was just they're short of people. >> All right. Uh I'm I'm sure that they can
get it done in the next 60 days. >> Okay. And if not, come back. And then should we put on the record this customer number which I think the code officer she said you could use it to look it up. It's in the applications
entered in the system. >> We don't doubt at all that you made an application. >> Yes. >> But it hasn't been granted. >> Okay. >> And it it may be that they're having difficulty uh with your use. Well, as of 9:15 this
morning, she said no >> to that. So, >> she didn't give you a certificate, >> right? >> All right. We'll we'll see you soon. Hopefully, we'll get it done soon. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Officer Shana. And the next item we are going be
going to be called on will be item number 24 through 26. Would you like for me to go through each case? >> Yes. >> Okay. That would be item number 24, JNR Capital 5161 LLC. Case number CBPR-2025-0000316.
And officer on this case will be Jonathan Lamestry. The next item is item number 25, JNR Capital 5161 LLC, CF OB 202500288. And the officer on this case is also
down at Dea Mistri. And the next item is item number 26, JNR Capital 5161 LLC CE case number CZCU 202500332. And the officer on this case is also Jonath.
And the representative for this property is Noel Daloni. Uh, whoever's going to testify, please state your full name, address, and relationship with the property. >> My name is Das Nolino. The address is
13001 West 7, North Miami. I'm the tenant of the property. What is the uh name of your business? >> 929 Y boy lounge.
>> Okay. So uh you are the tenant. >> Yes. >> JNR is the owner. >> Yes. >> Uh what kind of business is that? Is that a restaurant? Bar? >> It's a It's a lounge.
>> A lounge? >> Yes. Okay. Bought and >> you're you're the president. >> Yes. >> Of the business. And ma'am, >> who are you? >> She's the manager. >> What's your name?
>> Monet Doorsville. >> Okay. It's listed in Sunbiz as Monet Dorsville. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> So, the both of you operate the property? >> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. You don't have, according to the
city, you don't have a permit to for the work that was done, interior work, uh that was done without a permit. And uh that you need you need to have a permit to do that. They're asking for
you to get a uh an after the fact permit. You understand that? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. I'm looking at some of the photographs showing quite a bit of work being done at the premises.
Was that your business or the owner? >> The owner. >> The owner was doing the work. You were not You were not doing the work. Um actually um we just do the the little the low ball
with uh the hand sinks and the mop and then the the cut the VIP section. This is what we have done after that. >> All right, let me hear from the city. >> Good morning uh co- compliance officer
Jonathan Lestre and this case is being heard for the first time on October 3rd 2025. uh zoning specialist uh from the zoning department, Safi Bene. Um she contacted me and our department to
inform us of uh possible bar and lounge uh starting at 13001 Northwest 7th Avenue. I was assigned to the case and I responded to the scene where I observed uh building uh uh construction work
being done interior interior construction work being done inside the unit. Um I have before and after pictures as you could see um they put up a wall um inside the unit space. A lot of interior work was being done. I
checked our system and there was nothing on file uh in regards to a building permit. So, I opened the notice of violation. I posted the notice of violation at the property and I also mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser.
On December 29th, 2025, I posted the notice to appear for the magistrate um at the property. And as of January 16th, 2026, the final reinspection date, uh the business failed to obtain or the property failed to obtain an after the fact permit for the interior work done
on the unit. Was there any work ongoing when you were there? >> So, when I first opened the violation on October 3rd, 2025, um I didn't see anybody working, but uh the picture showed uh interiorwise, it showed that there was construction work being done.
I returned back and they put up a wall uh in front of the main entrance where I couldn't see anymore, but they did put up a wall showing that yes, construction work was not only it was still continuing. So the violation is for doing
construction work without a license. >> Correct. >> And uh All right. So do you have anything further to say about the uh violation? >> Either one of you. >> Actually that was um all this work done
by the owner not us. >> Okay. All right. And um well, you're not being cited. The owner is. So um and the owner is not here. Um
so based on the unrebotted testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the photographs and the evidence presented depicting that the uh uh depicting that the cited violation still exists and proper notice has been given. The
tenant has uh appeared. Uh I find in favor of the city and enter an adjudication and set a compliance date of March 16, 2026, 30 days. In the event of non-compliance, there shall be
a daily fine of $500 until the violation is abaded. So, you go tell your landlord um if he doesn't do it within 30 days, the fine is $500 a day
per day until he complies with the code. >> Okay. >> All right. Next one. >> You're still there. >> Oh, there's more. Okay. >> Correct. >> Okay. What's the next one?
>> Yes. Uh so this case is case number 25. This is in regard to the business tax receipt for 929 Yeah Boy Bar and Lounge. >> On December 13th, 2025, um I opened a notice of violation uh for
the business tax receipt um for the business not having a business tax receipt. So, as the building as the business is under construction, um the zoning department um informed me that um they have a food truck um parked at the location. Boy, bar.
>> Is there a food truck? >> Yeah, that was my food truck after a couple days, let's say 3 days. And then I went to the zone and then I tell them, hey, this is my address. That's my location. Could I park my food truck there? And then when they pull up the address, they say, um North Miami
doesn't allow food truck there. And then and the next day we never park. We never come back. >> Okay. What is the city's uh recommendation as to the Well, you I don't see anything in
the in the in the violation that talks about a food truck. >> Yeah. >> I just I I see that he doesn't have a certificate of use and I have no problem adjudicating that. Um, if you ever see the food truck there again, we'll take that into consideration. But for
purposes of this ruling on this matter, I uh will uh rule based on the testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the photographs, and the evidence presented depicting that the uh violation still exists. Proper notice is
given. Uh, I find in favor of the city enter an adjudication and set a compliance date of 30 days. That's uh three March 16th. In the event of non-compliance, there shall be a
daily fine of $500 until the violation is abaded. >> And if you bring back that food truck, you're going to be cited more. I was going to ask is since we rent the spot, >> can we like park the food truck there or
not? Just asking again if it's allowed or not. >> No. Um, no. You would have to get approval from the city in order to park your food truck next to uh the ten uh next to the unit that you're renting 13001. You would have to get approval from the zoning department.
>> The zoning Okay. >> Yes. >> But we did ask. >> We asked already. >> And what did they tell you? They say the North Miami doesn't allow food truck at all. >> Then they don't allow food truck. >> Yeah. From 119 to 135th. >> Then they don't allow it. >> All right. >> Um, we also have case number 26 as well.
Uh, this is in regard to their certificate of use. >> Which one? >> Case number 26. >> That's the one I just ruled on. >> Oh. Uh, I thought you ruled on case number 25 on my >> I did that as well. >> Okay. Okay, then. Yes, sir. >> Okay.
Next one. I I think we're done. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Levestri. >> Thank you. >> All right. The next item we are going to call on will be item number 31, and that is
31. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> All right. And that'll be item number 31. That'll be Marie Y. Bonafice Joseph. and the case number would be CEBPR 202300835. This case was previously found guilty by
magistrou and must abate by June 16, 2025. Fines were set at $200 plus $100 assessment cost and the inspe the officer on this case will be also be Mr. Jonathan Lamestry and
representing the property is Joffrey Joseph. Um, good morning, >> Mr. Joseph. Tell us your full name, address, and your relationship to the property. >> My name is Lesie Jacques. Jacqu Q. Um,
that's my cousin. Um, the property address is um 1190 Northwest 2024 Street. >> Do you understand the violation? Yes, it was about a a shed that um was put up and um we was asked I'm here to
ask can we have another 60 days to um comply with everything. Um we just had some money issues to um finish fixing it. >> You're not the owner? >> No, I have power of attorney though. That's my cousin. She's in um she just had a first
grandson. She's in um >> Sir, do you have the power of attorney? >> Yes. Come over here. You show it. >> Why don't you show it to the U city clerk? Okay, here here's here's the the problem
is that it's been too long >> and it's going to take long to fix the problem that was created by the owner. Um, it was built without a permit. It needs to be demolished.
You need a building permit, need inspections, and I don't know that giving you 30 or 60 days is going to make any difference. And I understand, I'm sympathetic to the money issues. Um,
but I've got to enforce the code and it hurts me to have to tell you this, but the magistrate gave you plenty of time. Uh, and here we are 7 months later and
that shed is there. I don't know how much it would cost to demolish, but if you demolish it with a permit, you don't have to rebuild it. So, all I all we're asking for, all the city's
asking for is that it be demolished. you know, go out there, get a permit, get a demolition permit, get a licensed contractor. It's not that much money to demolish this small shed that doesn't belong there. So, I can't give you any more
time and I can't overrule what another special magistrate has already done. I'm not convinced that uh giving you any more time is going to make a difference. So, based on the uh testimony that I've
heard both from the city and from the uh representative for the property owner, having reviewed the entire file and noting that the um property has been out
of compliance since June 16, 2025, um I find in favor of the city ratify the fines accured to date in in the amount of $200 uh plus $100 cost,
the fines shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance. So, if you have a hardship and you're not able to pay for it and the fines keep moving up, you go talk to
the city and maybe they can be a little bit more considerate, maybe wave some of the fines, >> maybe give you a reduction. There's a process for that. It's called mitigation, >> right? >> You go in front of uh the finance department, I believe, right? the
finance department, >> the leans department, >> and you can uh you can tell them what your situation is and maybe they'll be considerate. I I cannot put myself. I don't I'm not allowed to mitigate. So, uh in some cities the special magistrate does it. I'm I'm not allowed to do that.
So, what I would suggest is that >> go ahead, demolish that shed as quickly as possible with a permit, have the city inspect it, and maybe you can limit your fines to maybe a couple of thousand dollar. Then you come in front of the
city and maybe they'll wave 50%, maybe not. But that's what I would do if I were in your shoes. >> Okay. Okay. I thank you. Appreciate you. Okay. >> All right. You guys have a good day. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lamester.
The next item we are going to call is item number 39 through 41. Would you like for me to go through each read them all? >> Okay. >> All right. Item number 39. R U D R U DG
L H A Bell House LLC. Case number CF OB 2023-0000461. This case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith and must abate by January 7th, 2026. The fines were set at 350 a day plus 100 assess $100
assessment costs. Item number 40, RU DG LH A Bell House LLC. Case number CEGMP 2025 000077.
In this case, >> that's a new case. >> Number 40. >> 41. >> Yes. >> I'm doing 39 through 41. >> They're the same um business just different opposition.
>> I I read 39. And uh number 40 is about a dumpster which is a new case. >> We're reading all the ones associated with the property. Oh well with the
armor. >> Okay. Okay. Item number 40. R U DG LH H A Bell House LLC. Case number CEGMPP 2025 000077.
The next one will be item number 41 R U DG L HH H A Bell House LLC. Case number CZCU 2023 00784. And this case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith and must
abate by January 7, 2026. Fines were set at 350 a day plus $100 assessment cost. And this is also officer John Demetri. And the where's 41? >> Uh we're going to hear uh number 39. And
I see someone at the podium. Sir, please state your full name. >> My name is uh George Cine. I'm the property manager for Little Haiti Housing, which is >> Spell your last name. >> Cine S A S A S S I N E.
Okay. And you're the property manager for >> Little Haiti Housing, which is uh the owner of the property. >> RUDG. >> All right. So, we have uh all of those letters. >> Yeah.
>> Which don't mean a lot to me, but I I do remember Little Haiti Housing Associate uh association from a prior hearing. Is that the same >> same one? >> I I'm not
Well, we have many members in the company, so maybe they came and I'm not aware. >> All right. There's there's a Michelle with a company. >> Yeah, she's the she's on the board of director. She's uh the president. >> All right.
So, why don't you have a business tax receipt? Um I actually um I was advised by uh Mr. uh Lister to to come and ask an extension for uh 90 days. We I
submitted um the application for CU to the city. It was approved. I had submitted it on September 11th, but it was denied by I guess the the county. And um I got an email from uh Mr.
Raphael Pedro Pedron and um I I don't know why the the county has uh denied it. So, and I don't know who to contact. So, he suggested that I humbly ask for a 90-day
extension to see why we were denied by the the county so we can um obtain the certification of use. >> Well, let me tell you up front, I'm not granting you 90 days, okay? This is something that should have been handled
uh back in December in January cuz this you knew that this was coming before us. Um but but the case that I'm concerned
about is the first one, which is a business tax receipt. And what you're telling me is that you can't get a business tax receipt. You're not able to get a business tax receipt because the county has not given you a certificate of use, right? >> That is correct.
>> And but the city has >> Well, the the from what I'm understanding from an email from Padron says that the city approved but it was denied by the county. >> Okay, let me hear from the city on that issue. >> Good morning. Uh co- compliance officer
Jonathan Lestre and this case is uh a returning case. Um, so on March 18th, 2023, I opened a notice of violation against the commercial property owner, uh, L R U DG LH HA Bell House LLC in
regarding their business tax receipt. Uh they were found guilty by by Mad Street Smith and um on on January 2nd, 2026, they post I posted notice January 2nd, 2026, I posted the notice to appear at the
property and as of January 16th, the final reinspection date, um they do not have their business tax receipt. Um the commercial property owner can't obtain the business tax receipt without first obtaining the certificate of use, which is case number 41. Um, so at the moment
this case has been open since 2023. It's now 2026. >> What's the problem with the county? And has the city issued one? >> No, no one that >> No, no. I'm I'm asking the officer. >> Okay. >> So, um I don't deal with uh obtaining a
business tax receipine certificate of use. That would be the community planning and development department. My guess is that whether it be um paperwork that's missing, uh whether it be uh uh documentation, um maybe that's the reason why they're unable to obtain it,
um or unable to get their certificate of use, which in order to get their business tax received as well. >> Are there situations where the city issues a certificate of use and the county doesn't? >> And is is that what happened here? >> I'm not sure, sir. I I can't I can't
comment on that. I I I wouldn't know. >> What kind of business is this? >> Low-income housing. >> Okay. And are you funded by the feds or are you funded by the county or who funds you? >> Well, um right now we basically we we
got money from I'm fairly new as property manager, so I'm I'm giving you as much as I know. Um for us to obtain the properties we had federal funding but um with um covenants so we have to
load we have to rent them to the end user has to be low income and be vetted and so forth. >> Does the county give you uh any funding CDBG or anything like that? >> No. >> How about the tenants? Are they mostly
section 8 or >> low income >> subsidized? >> We we out of uh these 65 units, we have zero tenants that are section 8
just because um when we we we it's so hard to for um um members of the community to obtain section 8, it gets uh very complicated for them to get in the list. So um we try to do it in the
first first come first uh so forth. So anyone who comes along as long as they fit the criteria we try our best to provide uh decent housing to our tenants. >> Do you work with the uh city of North
Miami on uh funding or >> placing people things like that? >> Honestly that's past my pay scale. I I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know. All right. I I would like at some point somebody to explain to me the operation
and where the funding is coming from and you know what people you cater to and because that will somewhat affect my decision on imposing any further fines. >> Uh >> the only thing if if I could be directed
to who to in in county to to see or speak to to so I I know what steps to take. When did you file? >> I didn't find anything. I mean, I I was so lost. >> Somebody filed November
>> of 2025 >> with the county. >> Correct. And then he also has a denial from Wasa and Durm um that he needs to contact the Miami date county and see what what the denials were. >> Maybe this is above your pay grade.
Maybe you need to get an engineer, especially if you're dealing with Durham. Maybe you need to get uh you know, somebody that >> knows how to process things through the county. >> We have two buildings that are adjacent across from each other. So, we have a
bailhouse east and a bail house west. The west has certificate of use. We did the derm inspections. We try to concurrently do them. And I just don't understand how we got approved for uh the west building and the east building is not
>> well you should be able to get those answers. >> I'm I'm that's why I'm I'm asking >> you know at the last meeting >> I remember nobody showed up. So, while I'm normally
sympathetic when somebody like you comes before me and tells me the facts, I'm not so sympathetic when people ignore a notice to appear. That's why I
was uh you know that that's why I found you all guilty and imposed a relatively high fine. Uh do you have uh city do you have a recommendation on this? >> Um at this time magistrate um the
recommendations are whatever the officer decides. However uh officer Presley is willing to print these annals for Mr. Sassin. um giving him give him whatever
documents information he needs to reach out to the county and he can speak with her after. >> Okay. So, I'm I'm going I'm going to adjudicate the fines >> begin. >> You pass my vocabulary. I I don't
understand what that means. >> All right. I'll I'll explain it. It's a legal term. >> Okay. >> Okay. Basically, I'm going to find you guilty. Okay. and I'm I'm going to
try to split the baby in half, give you a little bit of time to do what you need to do and in cooperation with the city to ensure that you're not burdened with heavy fines, particularly since
you're probably having trouble funding and it's getting more and more difficult to fund these lowincome housing projects. So, what I'm going to do is I am going to start running the fines in 30 days
um and ask you to continue to pursue the certificate of use from the county. If in 30 days you still don't know or don't have a certificate of use, I want you to
come back. I'd like the city to bring it back and maybe I'll give you a little bit extra time, but as my my uh my finding is guilt. Uh you you uh
I ratify the fines only to the extent that they are forward instead of backwards. We're not going to go back and start finding you on January as of January 7. We're going to start
the fines uh on March 16, 2026, which gives you a little bit of time to get what you need to get. If you get the CO, I'm sorry. If you get the certificate of use, the BTR
takes 10 minutes. Okay. So, I hope I'm making it clear that um I am ratifying the fines. uh or ratifying that you were adjudicated
guilty um by another m or by me on December 3rd. And as of uh March 16th, those fines will start to run on a daily basis until
there is compliance. Does that make any sense? And if you and if if you'll work with the city to try to get the CO so that you can get your BTR in 30 days, if for whatever reason
you don't have it, you come back, we'll have the city bring it back to me and then I'll see where we are. >> Thank you. >> But there's there's got to be a reason why you're not getting your >> I just don't know where to see you. So,
if the city could help them, that would >> My recommendation is to visit community planning and development as soon as you're finished. Um, visit them next door and um just ask cuz again, uh, we found out that, you know, DURM, it's DURM and another thing that's causing
the reason why you're unable to get it approved. So, you would have to visit the county, but also talk to community planning and development, see if they could help. >> Thank you. The amount of the fine is, as I had said, is that the question? >> It's uh 350.
>> Oh, also I I apologize. Uh case number 40 is not my case. It's uh Inspector >> 41. Do 41. >> Oh, I apologize. Uh does So, case number 39 we heard for the BTR. Case number 41 is the certificate of use. >> What about 40? >> Case number 40 is in regard to uh trash
and debris. Uh that case is from uh >> for a different inspector. That's >> different inspector cited that. So we'll go ahead with 41 since he's still the same officer for >> Yes. >> So case number 41. Um same property uh
13925 Northeast 6th Avenue, RUDG LHA Bell House LLC. This violation is in regard to uh the commercial property not having their certificate of use. Um they were found guilty by you. uh and they had to abate by January 7th, 2026.
Um I posted the notice of correction, I posted the notice to appear uh for the special magistrate on January 2nd and as of January 16th, the final reinspection date, uh the property owner, commercial property owners failed to obtain the certificate of use. >> All right. Uh same ruling
uh based on the uh unrebuted testimony of the city's code enforcement officer and the evidence presented reflecting that the property has been out of compliance. I hereby uh set the fine
at $350 to begin on uh March 16th, 2026 and assess costs in favor of the city and the fines will run continuously
after March 16, 2026. In the event there is non-compliance, I would advise you and your folks that if you need to come back before me, you bring someone with expertise in DURM,
certificate of occupancies, certificate of use, whatever whatever issues you may have with DURM, I'd like to hear from somebody that knows what's going on so I can make a better reason decision. Hopefully by then everything will be
resolved. But u I'm very sympathetic to the work that you do and the uh folks that you take care of and I I don't want to make your life more difficult due to some
bureaucratic uh issues. Now, I would hope that there are no building code or life safety issues or situations where, you know, the water may be polluted or there may be uh other life safety
issues. If those come up, then then I'm going to be a little bit more harsh. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. And as for And as for case number 40, it'll be presented by Inspector
Inspector Morales. >> Okay. Um, first of all, let me ask uh the property owner. That's an easy one. Okay. Remove trash, furniture, debris throughout the property. Uh, I I saw the trash.
It's doesn't look nice. And so you need to clean that up and you need to put a dumpster enclosure where the dumpster is. You just can't put a dumpster wherever you want. Do you understand that? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Are you prepared to make those corrections uh as quickly as possible? >> They they've already been done. >> Okay. Uh can you confirm that, Mr. First of all, Mr. Officer, please tell us who you are
>> and uh and and and what you're here about. >> Yeah. Good afternoon. Uh Officer Morales with City of North Miami. Uh I issued this violation back in July of 2025, both mailed and posted at the property. As you can see in the pictures, um the
dumpster doesn't have an enclosure and uh they constantly have either bulk trash and just trash and debris all over the property. Um >> Yeah, that that looks horrible. >> Yeah, and this is on a consistent basis.
I actually um went by yesterday to reinspect. Um, even though they've already failed the final reinspection, I still decided to go by yesterday to reinspect and it's in the same condition. Dumpster's exactly where it is located on the picture and uh there's
more bulk trash around the property. I I I I don't know what to tell you you need to do with your tenants, but dumping stuff like that is uh a violation. Not not
forget it's a violation. You have to pay a fine, but it's really not a neighborly thing to do. And it looks terrible. Okay? I see it all over the streets, not so much in this city, but in other
cities. But you need to tell your folks that and maybe even put cameras. Maybe put a camera. >> We did do that. >> Okay. that that is is has to be addressed because I'm going to give you
I'm going to give you time to clean it up and then if if it happens again and you get cited again, the fine will be doubled. And I don't want to I don't because this this is doable. the other
stuff with a certificate of uh use may be a little bit more difficult because Durm gets involved, but this this is something there's got to be somebody onsite looking at this and cleaning it up on a on a basically on a daily basis and and
you need you need to put a this is going to take a little bit of time. Uh we may need to deal with a dumpster separately because with a with a dumpster they're going to need to build an enclosure. >> Right. >> Correct. Yes. >> And that's going to take a while because they need plans.
>> Correct. >> You know that has that has to be enclosed in concrete or some other method. >> You can ask code if you going to do it what what is the how to do it or you can just go around the neighborhood and see
how other people do it. But that has to be enclosed. >> This um wait, this was taken yesterday. >> This this picture wasn't taken yesterday, but I what I said was I went by there yesterday and inspected it myself. Um and there is still bulk
trash. I have a picture on my phone on the city phone of yesterday's um the condition it was yesterday. I can show you that if you like. >> I just like to add we we do have an enclosure. We have a serious illegal dumping problem in the area. We've
invested funds that we do not have to set up um cameras in the building in both buildings. This is actually the West building. I recognize it. We we're always paying um
waste management extra fees to come in to come and haul them out. I um I'm trying my best, but you know, we are on the street. We have, you know, people driving all over. I mean, we try to work
with um, you know, the police department if we get the license plates and so forth. Our tenants are not the best either. We try to do education with them where we tell them that they have on the other building. Um, the inspector can advise every day. We even have a a crew
that all they do is pick up garbage in the area and they don't want to throw it away in the dumpster. they threw it in the ground. So, we were getting fined so so much money by um Waste Pro, I believe, in that area. And um it became
less expensive to pay someone full-time just to pick up garbage on the premises. And um we started to find them. That doesn't help. They don't have the extra cash, but the threat it is improving. Uh
um >> Well, you you know what? You know what the real hammer is? You evict them. If they if they are a a continuous nuisance and they keep doing it over and over and over again,
you're the landlord. You have a lease. It gives you the right to terminate the lease when they're violating the law. So, you can use that as a hammer for those who are insensitive to to the problem. But I'm going to I'm whatever
whatever is out there needs to be removed and the >> anything out there will be removed within the next 48 hours. >> Okay. I I I'll I'll give you 30 days. >> Okay. >> Um so uh as to these particular violations, including the dumpster,
because you say you have a place for for the dumpster. >> Yeah. Already, right? >> Just just to be clear, there is no dumpster enclosure at that property. that if you look at the picture where that is there's a fence or a gate. That's not an enclosure. That's a gate to the backyard of the property. That's
not a proper dumpster enclosure, unfortunately. >> Okay. So, I don't know if to do two orders or or one, but my order will consist of two parts A and
B. the uh all the debris and the trash and the uh uh furniture and whatever is out there that that has to go by uh March 16th 26
that's 30 days everything you got to leave it spotless everything has to be moved out and clean u and as to the uh dumpster issue which may require you to enclose it with
either concrete or whatever material the city allows. I'll give you till uh April 60 days uh uh April 12th, 2026. Um, so I'm adjudicating you guilty.
And uh, as to the fines, if the fi if if if the debris and the furniture and all that other material is not removed by March 16th, the fine will
be $350. Okay, that's 30 days from now. The fine will be $350. A as to the as to the dumpster issue, the fine uh uh the the fine on the
dumpster will be $500 if if you don't do it by the 16th. $500 a day. So, you better get somebody up. >> Magistrate, I apologize um for interfering. Um regarding the bulk removal, that would have been a separate
case for that one. He should have cited separately. This one is referencing the enclosure. >> Well, number 40 talks about trash, furniture, debris. >> Yeah. Removing it, >> right? But the that would have been
accumulation of bulk, >> right? So, which one is >> this is mainly for this is for the dumpster enclosure. >> So, I'm citing for the for as it states removal of the trash and enclosing the dumpster.
>> Okay. Because the order won't allow us to do your the order >> well >> in the fashion >> he cited he cited the dumpster. >> Okay. So the order won't allow us to do both to split this. So
it would just be under this case one order. >> It it's one order but the o the order has two parts. >> Correct. What I'm explaining is that our system will not allow us to do the two parts. >> Okay. Gotcha.
So, you want me to break it up into two separate violations? >> It will need to be separated. Correct. >> Okay. So, one order as to the uh trash uh to be done uh within 30 days uh March 16, 26
with a uh fine of $350. uh if it's not in compliance by that date, a separate order as to the dumpster has a compliance date of April 12th, 2026
with a fine of $500 in the event of non-compliance. and the fine shall uh continue to run until the violation is cured. Two separate obligations. First thing,
you clean up the mess. Then you got until April 12th to build an enclosure. Don't build it on your on your own. You need a permit. You need a contractor to submit plans. Get a permit. pay somebody
to build you an enclosure for the dumpster. >> Okay. >> In the meantime, you got a lot of other work with the county, so get busy. >> Thank you.
>> The trash fine will be 500. No, no. The trash is 350 a day after March 16th and the uh dumpster is 500 after April 12 26. All right. Thank you, Mr. Officer
Morales. All right. The next item we are going to call on will be item number 43 and 44 and that'll be SDMA Investments and Development LLC case number CF LR
2023 00421 and the officer in this case would be Jonathan Lameshri and item number 44 Sadma Investments and Development LLC case number CZCU 2023 3 00803
and this is also Jonathan Lestri and the representative of this property will be Derek. >> Hi your honor. I'm this Derek Marbles uh licensed real estate agent mortgage broker the property manager for Sadama Investment Development. Mr. Wer and
>> this is about this is about 139 >> the owner is uh Sadima Investment and Development. >> Yes sir. And the principal officer is >> Wilner Fertilian. >> Okay. He's the manager for the LLC >> that we have him as a manager for the
LLC. Correct. >> Okay. All right. So, um you understand the nature of the violation. Correct. >> Correct. Where we inherited the it's our property. We inherit it from the person that was leasing it from us. It previously had everything that it needed. Uh there was a name change that
we had to do eventually. And then that's where we came into having to do the uh certificate of use went about the correct way. We got everything approved. We are just like you just previously mentioned we are in the uh the world of derm. Uh I did I have everything
submitted. All uh permits are already submitted, plans are submitted. Uh as of today I do have the printout from DURM of the things that are missing from our uh our engineer that has to be handled. And I would presume I'm only asking for
probably 60 days, 30 days to finish with durm and then 30 days to get the the grease trap and everything updated as they requested. >> The name of the business is All Day Everyday Inc. >> The what I had to do is All Day Everyday Inc. Latin House Express because that's
what it was known as and that's kind of how everyone knew it. So, I had to go to the state of Florida, do the name change, but I kind of kept it all there for a look and >> it's a restaurant. >> It's a takeout Cuban cafe traditional. Correct. >> Okay. So, so the landlord, the owner of the
property runs the restaurant, >> correct? Now, we Yeah, we took over possession of the >> Okay. So, there is no tenant. >> No, we we are the tenant. Separate separate entities, but yesterday same >> basically the same people. >> Same thing. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh officer,
>> good afternoon. Co- compliance officer Jonathan Lamestri and this case is being heard for the first time. So this case uh case number >> tabled once. >> Oh, it was tabled. My apologies. Um
I in I inherited this uh violation from a former code officer. Uh but this violation was opened back on May 4th, 2023. um by the former code inspector. It was mailed out to the property owner and as
of the final reinspection date uh there was no compliance uh for case number 43. Um the case was tabled by magistri Kazu for 60 days and the case is now set for February 4th as of today but um as of the final reinspection uh nothing on file.
>> Okay. based on the um unrebotted testimony of the city's code compliance officer and the evidence presented reflecting that the violation for BTR still exists and
proper notice is given. I find in favor of the city enter an adjudication and set a compliance date of 60 days. The reason I'm going 60 days is because of the certificate with certificate of use may have some implications with term and it's a restaurant. I know that it takes
a little longer with restaurants. So at 60 days in the event of non-compliance there shall be a daily fine of $350 until the violation is abaded. So that's the uh certificate of use. Now the is that
>> case number 43 was the business tax. >> We just did the business tax receipt. Correct. Right. Right. So, uh what I meant to say is that they can't get the business tax receipt before they get the certificate of use. >> Correct. >> So, uh nothing new, right? You don't >> Yeah, we will have it handled.
>> Okay. Uh based on the uh unreoded testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the evidence presented showing that the vi violation still exists, proper notice has been given, the property owner has appeared. Uh, I find
in favor of the city, enter an adjudication and set an abatement date, compliance date. Uh, what what did I give you on the other one? 16. >> April 16th. >> Uh, April 12, 2026. 60 days. In the event of non-compliance,
>> April 16, >> there shall be a I'm sorry. >> 16. April 16. >> April 16. >> Correct. 16. >> I thought it was April 12th. >> Oh, it is. You said on the first case, April 16th. >> I said 16. Well, I meant April 12th. >> April 12th. Okay.
>> Okay. April 12th. >> Uh that's a 60-day uh abatement. Um in the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $350 until the violation is abaded. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. I'm I'm sure you're going to do all right.
>> I will have a care. Good luck. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you officer Lammy Mystery. Okay, the next item we are going to be calling is item number 9 through 12
and the number nine site less code group INC case number CBPR 2025 00190 and this case was previously found guilty by magistrate Smith must abate by
December 3rd 2025. Fines are set at 350 a day plus $100 assessment cost. And the inspector, the officer on this case is Jonathan Lestri. Item number 10, siteless code group,
Inc. case number CF OB 2025 00162. And this case was also previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith and must abate by December 3rd, 2025. Fines are set at 350 a day plus $100 assessment
cost. And the officer on this case is also John Demestry. >> Did you read 11? >> Number 11. Sorry. Item number 11, siteless code group INC. Case number CEG AB 2024 00001.
And this case was also previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith. Must abate by December 3rd, 2025. Fines were set at 350 a day plus $100 assessment cost. And this case is for officer Shana.
Item number 12, set lo siteless quote group INC case number CC 2023 000012. And this case is for officer Jonathan Lamestry. >> And we would review Jonathan Lestre's
cases first. >> Which one is that? That'll be nine, 10, and 12. >> Okay. >> And China's 11. >> All right. Let's do nine.
Sir, please state your full name, address, and relationship to the property. >> Good afternoon. My name is Fitzgerald Gabriel. The address is 12201 Northwest 7th Avenue. I'm the owner. Okay. Um, I'm also showing Gabrielle
Fitzgerald. >> Yeah, it's me. >> That's you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And who's Jennifer? >> Oh, that's my daughter. >> Okay. You're both registered. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, um, you've been before. I
don't remember if you showed up or not. I don't remember you, but you've got a whole bunch of violations, and I'm going to uh ask you first uh to address the the violation dealing
with the awning. Is that >> there's a violation that uh you you uh installed an awning an overhang a terrace without a permit and the city you
>> can you show them the picture? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. The Yes. Um, I'm ready to get um a demolition permit for it because I didn't know if I have to if I could get a demolition permit to remove it.
>> Have you filed for a demolition permit? >> No, I didn't know about if if I could get a demolition permit. >> Well, you were guilty. You were found guilty back in October. You must have gotten some papers from the city telling you that you were in violation.
>> But I I didn't know exactly the running what it mean. But I know about a patio, but it didn't say no patio. But uh that's why you know that that whatever you call it, patio, awning, overhang, whatever it is, it's got to
go. >> Okay. >> Right. How much time do you need? Well, no. Forget it. You've already been found guilty. >> Yes. All right. Um, I don't want to be overly harsh on you with the penalty, but how long do
you think it's going to take you to remove it? >> Soon I left here, I'm going to go to the department and for the permit and for the demolition permit and to remove it, maybe less. It could be a month or depend how long the permit.
>> Why? Why did First of all, I don't think you showed up at the last meeting. >> Say it again. At the last meeting, you didn't show up, did you? >> We did. It was on the zoning on the Zoom. >> I was >> I was I was there.
>> Okay. Anyway, you were supposed to uh complete the work by December. >> Um December. Yeah. But um I had a lot of um I had the windows and although the fans, all the certificate of use, I already
take care all that. And the only thing I don't understand is the permit. I went to the city and they say for the paint uh everything is removed. There's nothing I have for the paint. I pull up a permit and I close all but um for some
reason I still having problem that you say that I need the permit for the paint. >> You know what the status is Mr. Officer? >> Yes. So he's referring to case number 12. Um, so for case 12, he did apply and
obtain a permit back in 2016 uh for painting the property, but the violation for this violation was opened back on Sorry. I'll tell you right now.
This violation was opened up in February 23rd, 2023 in regards to the paint. Correction, January 30th, 2023. Yeah, we're not talking about the paint uh violation. We're talking about the
>> awning. >> Awning. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. >> All right. Different. >> Okay. >> You need a you need a >> a demolition permit to get rid of it. >> Okay. Um, based on the
unrebotted testimony of the city's code enforcement officer, the photographs and other evidence presented showing that the property has been out of compliance since December 3, 2025.
I hereby find in favor of the city and assess a fine beginning today in the amount of $350
and assess costs in favor of the city. The fines shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance. Sir, I'm giving you a fine of $350 per day until you get that demolition
permit and that um awning removed completely. >> Okay. >> Hopefully, you can do it in five or six days, but you'll be getting fines. >> Yeah. It's going to be up to the city
for the permit. No, >> you got to get a permit. >> Yeah. >> And you got to get that >> done. It shouldn't. If >> I could do it myself, I could do it in two days. >> Well, >> you have to talk to the building official. >> Okay. >> And I don't think you can do it yourself.
>> Okay. >> I don't think so. Right. >> No, I don't have to get a permit. >> Permit for this for the demolition shouldn't take more than a couple of days. >> Couple of days >> then you and then you can Yeah. >> Okay. All right. All right. And don't
leave. Now we have number 10. >> Case number 10. Um this is in regard to their uh failure to obtain the business tax receipt. Um I would like to dismiss this case uh in regards to that there is a open violation
um from Inspector Shana Sanders uh that was opened back in 2022. So this was uh an error on my part. Um I shouldn't I shouldn't have opened this violation. So, I'm requesting that this violation be dismissed. >> Uh, that's number 10. >> Case number 10. >> BTR, >> correct? >> They do have a BTR.
>> No, they don't. Um, they actually have a lean running on the property as we speak for their restaurant. Um, Haitian, it's a Haitian restaurant that's operating at the location. Uh, they were found guilty, uh, I believe in 2024. Uh, so there's a running lean on that property. >> Okay. So, case 10 is dismissed.
>> I'm going to dismiss number 10. >> Correct. >> Let's go to 11. >> 12. 12. >> Yes. Um so >> correct. >> So for case number 12
um again good afternoon code officer Jonathan Lestrey. Uh this case was opened on January 30th, 2023. Uh the property did not obtain a permit to paint the commercial building. Um I posted the notice of violation at the property. I mailed the notice of
violation to the property owner via property appraiser. Um, and as the final reinspection date, they failed to obtain a permit for the to paint the commercial property. And I know this gentleman was speaking earlier about having a permit.
Uh, again, he applied and obtained a permit back in 2016 for the work at that time in 2016. This violation was opened back in 2023. And if we can um show uh video or show uh the photos of the >> Is is that that it was repainted?
>> It was repainted. Yes, sir. Yes. So >> So the first time they did it with a permit, the second time they did it without a permit. >> That's what it looks like. Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Can we have the pictures up? It wasn't for the first time ever.
>> Ma'am, I I don't know who you are, but you need to >> I'm with him. >> Okay. So, if you're going to say if you're going to if you're going to say anything, you got to say it into the mic. >> Hi, my name is Rosie. I'm with him. Um, since he did the paint with this permit, he never repaint the paint. It's just
the same old paint. >> You could show you could you could show the pictures. Great. And I that permit number is uh 19 is uh 2019 and 000096. >> All right. Let the officer let the officer
>> February 2020. >> Please look at the photos on the TV. Sir, >> we're talking scroll down. Scroll down. >> Two different paint jobs. >> Opposite way. Opposite way. Other way. Other way. >> So this is January 30th, 2023 when I open the violation. Um you could see
that it is a um color multicolored uh building at the time. This is January 30th, 2023. Again, the gentleman stated that he had the permit in 2019. He obtained the permit 2019. Uh this is what it looks like
January 30th, 2023. You Yes. This is January 30th, 2023. That's This is when I open the notice of violation and you go the opposite way now, Greg.
So this is what it looks like now. Um so the entire building is a grayish color. Um so they obtained a permit back according to the gentleman uh in 2019. Um, again, 2023
when I did open the violation, it had that multiolor look. And then this is a uh somewhat recent picture. I believe this is uh 20 25 or 26, but this is what it looks like right now. So, um, in the
city of North Miami, um, you're required to obtain, uh, if you're going to paint a commercial property, um, you're required to obtain a painting permit, um, from the building department, which again, they failed to do. >> Wait, wait, wait.
So, >> sir, I I can clearly see that there was a change recently. No, it was um before you paint any building, they had to put a bonding, a blue bonding to it. It's not a paint. It's a bonding they put so
that when you painting for the paint to don't fall down. So, it was not a paint. It was a bun they put on it and after they paint it gray. >> That's the that's the permit for the gray for the color that you see. That's
the permit for it. is North Miami they want the color pink and so they tell us to change a different color at that time when it had that color. North Miami didn't want the pink. So they tell us the same um um permit just changed the color. So he went and changed the color.
>> I went there and and and go to the department of Home Depot and they give me the sample of the color. I take it to the North Miami and they say okay it's good. They going to remove they go take care everything. >> I'm confused. So, Madrick Smith um again the gentleman
stated again um in 2019 he obtained a permit at that time 2019 as you can see from the photos 2023 it had a different color you you know the multiolor thing this is what it looks like today so there was
>> saying that's not paint that's bonding >> yeah we have the building >> well it yeah it looks it yeah >> it it looks like paint to me >> it's bonding We'll have our building inspectors look at it. >> No.
>> Uh, I'd like to hear from the >> magistrate. So, we were looking at the permit for 2019. It does not have a building final on there. So, um, Shnie again from the building
department. If a permit was obtained in 2019 and you was say for instance the color was yellow, the color was yellow. Once you paint your color yellow, you cannot revise that same permit from 2019 to paint your building currently this
year without a current building permit. Again, you will need to obtain a building permit application along with the sample of the paint you're going to color your building and bring it to the city um to the building department
>> in order to comply with that violation. >> But um I I had a I had a new permit. I had a new permit for the paint and I went I went to the city and they tell me what I got to do cuz I already had the paint.
They I give them all my application, all the licenses, and they take it out of the system out. It's not me. That's the city. >> No, sir. I work with the building department every day. We would not tell you. >> You can take your old permit from 2019
to apply to attain that permit to current you um to rectify a violation from this year. So, you would have to submit a new permit. Okay? >> To not use that same permit from 2019. That permit is known. It's only
>> I'm I think we've heard enough to circles. Let's Let's stop. >> Stop. >> You need to get a permit. >> The color is different. The year is different. What happened before is of no significance to me. It's what's going on
right now. And that's >> what you need to address. You need to get a you need to go see that lady or somebody in her department. Yeah. and you need to file an application to paint your building whatever color the city allows because some color is not allowed. Some type of, you know, I I
don't know what colors are allowed, but whatever colors you you you can um agree with the city, that's the permit that we're looking for. So uh this is a uh this you you you were not previously
adjudicated on this. So I will uh adjudicate you guilty based on the evidence presented. Um and uh find in favor of the city. Proper notice
has been given and I enter an adjudication and set a compliance date of 30 days March 16, 2026. Um, and uh, in the event of
non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $350 until the violation is abated. Get your permit, then you can go ahead and and paint it. >> Thank you, Mr. Lmetri. We'll have
Officer Sanders come up next. me. >> Which case are we hearing now? Number 11. >> Yes, number 11. >> That's the dumpster. >> Yes, correct. >> All right. Uh are you sir, uh you you can come back.
>> Yeah. Uh, are you aware that you were cited and that I find found you guilty because of a dumpster that is not
allowed. Um, I'm looking at a picture, a dumpster next to a car, uh, dated September 15, 2025. Are you aware of that? >> Say it again. I don't understand that. >> You have a violation because your
dumpster is against the law. >> Yeah. So, I had a permit for the dumpster. I have had a permit for the dumpster, but I had an application for the rest management for to pick up the all the trash. I don't know exactly. I I I'm
sure that you have a contract, but it's not with is it with the city? >> Yeah, risk pro application is on file. >> Shannon Sanders, school compliance officer. If you can, let me see what you're showing me. I'm not sure what
that is. >> Was he showing me he has a um service agreement with Waste Pro? Um, is this has this been submitted to them? And um, do you have a official contract? >> Yes. Um,
>> so >> yeah, I know it's they're not here. I'm just coming. >> What is that? >> This is an application um for waste pro, but it doesn't show like it's approved. It doesn't show receive submitted
anything at all. So maybe he started the application process but that's where it ended. >> Mhm. >> Have you submitted that to waste pro? >> Yes. >> When
>> when an application is you know All right, let me let me get to the the meat of this. The city requires that the the property owner, a business owner have a contract with WastPro. >> That is correct. Yes. Any commercial
property within the city needs to have um sanitation services with Wastro >> because the city has chosen West uh uh Westpro >> as its hauler. >> Yes. They're the service provider for the >> Waste Pro. >> Yes. >> Okay. So they he must he has no choice.
He can't use some other company. Right. >> He he's got a piece of paper there that says Waste Bro on it. What What is >> But that appears to be just the application. You know, our question concern is that been submitted to the city. I mean, has that been submitted to Waist >> Pro? You're not a customer of Waste Bro
right now, are you? >> Um Um, not right now cuz I just filled out the form for it and I sent it to >> You have to have a an You have to have a an agreement
uh with the city authorized hauler, which is Waistb. So, uh, in addition to that, is there anything wrong with the dumpster or is that a separate violation? >> Um, that is a separate violation that's
not before us today. >> That's not before us. >> No. >> Okay. So, the only issue here is the uh the fact that he doesn't have a contract with Wistbro. >> That's correct. >> All right. Um and uh it's evident that all he has in
front of him is an application and not the actual lease agreement or pickup agreement, whatever they call it. Um what do they call the agreement? >> I'm assuming it's a contract. He would have to have a contract with them. >> Okay. So based on the u unrebuted
testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the documents and evidence presented depicting that the violation still exist uh and proper notice has been given. I find in favor of the city enter an adjudication and set a compliance date
of 30 days. >> Um magistrate um if I'm correct. Let me look at this really quick because I I believe this case was already heard. Um, this was >> You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. >> It's been previously adjudicated. Yep.
>> Yes. This is from 2024. >> Yeah, this has been around a while. um based on the um testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the photographs and evidence presented
um showing that the property has been out of compliance since December 3, 2025. I find in favor of the city and hereby ratify the fines accured to date in the
amount of $350 and assess cost in favor of the city. The set fines shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance. Do we have one more or that's it? >> Let me see what number. >> Are we done with
this property? >> Yes, we are done. >> Thank you, sir. We're done. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Inspector Shana. All right. The next one it will be number Okay. So, the next item we're going to
call is item number 27. And that'll be Jamie L. Noble, Charlene Noble. Case number CBPR2024 000112. And the officer on this case is officer Brentley Daniels. And the representative
for the property will be Jamie Noble. >> Miss Noble, uh, please state your full name and address for the record. >> Jamie Noble, 18622 Northwest 27th Avenue, apartment 212, Miami Gardens, Florida 33056. Are you aware of the violation that was issued on your
property for uh a black metal gate built without a permit? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. It's a nice looking fence. Uh it just needs a permit. >> Yes, I'm kind of at a standstill right
now. >> I'm sorry. >> I'm at a standstill right now. My father passed away on December 5th, 2025. >> Okay. So, I now have >> How much How much time do you think you need to get a >> an after the-act building permit?
>> As of right now, my probate lawyer says it can take anywhere between 60 to 90 days. >> Okay. >> To change over the property into my name for me to be able to get a permit per the code enforcement office. >> Okay. So, the properties in probate,
>> correct? >> All right. Um, are there any other potential owners of the property or are you >> No, I will be the only owner. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, sorry for your loss.
>> Thank you. Um, I'm going to adjudicate the the property uh guilty and I'm going to give you 90 days and hopefully the probate lawyer is uh in the process of
changing title. Uh shouldn't take more than 90 days. >> I pray it doesn't. Uh so uh based on the uh unrebotted testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the photographs and the evidence presented depicting
that the cited violation still exists, proper notice has been given. I find in favor of the city enter an adjudication and set a compliance date of 90 days to May 18th, 2026. In the event of non-compliance, there
shall be a daily fine of $250 until the violation is abated. Ma'am, I'm not setting any fines. All I'm saying is that you got 90 days to get your after the fact permit
after the title is changed. >> Okay? If for whatever reason the probate is taking too long, and I can tell you from experience that some of these probate
judges are very slow to be nice to them. Okay. Um I I've seen many situations where it's taking them six months on a very simple case to do what they have to do. Maybe
they need more judges. Maybe they need more diligent judges, but it takes a while. So I that's why I'm giving you 90 days. But if you need more time, feel free to let the code people know and we can come back and we can, you know, if you make the proper showing
that you've done everything you can, I can give you an extension. But right now there's no fine. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. All right, the next item we are going to be call on is items number 17 and items number 18
and that is Ferrera LLC CEB case number CBPR 2025 00271 and the officer on this case is Mr. Brentley Daniels and item number 18, Ferrer LLC, case number CBPR 2025
00272 and that is also officer Brentley Daniels. And the representative for the property will be Jose Ferrer. >> I thought it was Jorge. >> Jorge. >> Yes. >> Jorge. >> See, I'm uh
>> I'm looking at Sunbiz. >> Got you. >> All right. Uh, it's great to have the uh iPad in here because it makes it a lot easier. I appreciate that. We didn't have that before. Uh, I do it at home anyway, so
I'm would have picked up on it. Uh, sir, uh, your name, address, not going to ask you for your telephone number, but, uh, what is your relationship to the property? >> I'm the owner of the Fera LLC. The address of the property is 1075 North
Norththeast 131st Street. My name is Jorge Fer. >> Okay. So, you uh put a white metal fence on the property. >> Yes, sir. >> Looks very nice. Uh your property seems
to be wellkept. Unfortunately, uh you did it without a permit. Not everybody knows you need a permit, but you need a permit. So, how long do you need to get a permit?
Get a, you know, get a licensed professional, engineer, contractor, uh, file for a permit, get the city to inspect it, and make sure that it meets the code and everything else. Cuz, you know, one of the problems with some of
these fences is that if they're not properly installed and you get a hurricane, that fence is going to end up in somebody else's window. So, uh, we need to, uh, inspect it to make sure that it meets code. Uh, how long do you think you'll need?
>> I already got a contractor and I gave him a survey. He gave me a price, which is pretty good. Um, don't, you know, it's the first time putting a permit on the city. I really don't know how long it takes, but seems like 60 days will be more than enough according to what I've
been listening in this court. >> Okay. All right. You got it. Based on the unrebotted testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the photographs and the evidence presented depicting that decided violation still exist. Proper notice has been given. I find in
favor of the city enter an adjudication and set a compliance date of 60 days, uh, April 12th, 26. In the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $250 until the violation is abaded. >> Thank you, honor.
All right. So, you got 60 days. You run it. >> We got one more. >> I'm sorry. >> I have it. I'm number 18. >> Oh, you got one more. Okay. After the fact building permit >> for Pangola. >> Okay. I Yeah. Uh
I wasn't sure that I understood what a pergola was. So, let me look at the picture. Uh, can you show me what >> it's >> is that the uh you beyond the fence there seems to be like an an aluminum roof. That's what it is.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, there seems to be like a a metal uh extension of the house. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. And you you'll need a permit for that as well. >> Yes, sir. Yes. Yes, your honor. >> Uh, it tell the file tells me that you
submitted a permit but it was denied and it's now pending. Uh, why? >> I don't think I have submitted any permits. >> No, >> not at all. >> Oh, because I'm looking at a different file.
>> Okay. >> It's my first time pulling permits from the same point. >> Uh, no. I was looking at the the one right below that the case right below that. So, uh, how much time do you need? 60 days. >> I I think so.
>> You do the same on both? >> Yes. >> And if it meets the code, you're fine. If it doesn't meet the code, >> you'll have to demolish it or build it a new. Based on the unrebuted testimony of the city's SCO compliance officer, the photographs and the evidence presented
depicting that the cited violation still exists, proper notice has been given. I find in favor of the city, enter an adjudication and set a compliance date of 60 days, April 12, 2026. In the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $250 until the violation
is abaded. >> Thank you, honor. >> You're welcome. Have a good day. Thank you, Inspector Daniel, >> Magistrate. That does conclude those who are registered. Um, but however, we do
have a few who are not here. That needs to be um that we need to go over. Would you like a bathroom break? >> Does anybody need a bathroom break? >> Water. >> Uh, yes. Uh, >> so let's let's break. Let's break for 15
minutes. It's now 5 minutes after 1, right? >> It's 105 now. >> 104. >> 120. >> I'm sorry. >> 120. >> 120. >> We'll come back at 120. >> Correct. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> Is there a restroom in the back or I have to go out? >> Okay. too many. >> Excellent. I I love it. I I get to see them. Uh I can spread out. I see you guys better. It's on TV.
>> No, no, no, not at all. And it seems >> that'll that'll work better so that when I'm here, we're ready to start. Thank you for reminding me. I should know. Oh. Oh, we still look at the photos and everything. Okay.
You want it to be like this? >> Oh. And close it. Mhm. >> It irks you. I see you trying to figure out see There you go. >> They did a whole renovation. renovation. outlet.
Yes, we are ready. >> Okay, we'll be starting with item number 13. Okay. >> All right. Uh 13. You said >> yes. Item number 13. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. Item number 13, Collins
Lantanimo. Case number CBPR 2020 202500204. And the officer on this case would be Shannon Sanders. >> Miss Sanders >> 13. >> Number 13. can't hear you. >> Shannon Sanders, code compliance
officer. This is a new case for a building without permit for property dress 230 Northwest 126 Street. I originally cited this property on oh um March 24, 2025.
whereas I visited the property, I cited them, mailed out the notice of violation. Um, a year later, I see they still have not obtained um, no fence, no fence permit
has been um, obtained and nor has an application been submitted. I have not had any contact with anyone from this property regarding this matter. Um, but there was a fence that was installed in the rear. I am showing proper service
was given. The notice was mailed out to the property owner on December December 30th, 2025. Um reinspected it on the 16th of
January whereas again compliance has not been met. >> All right. You said that the um if I understood you correctly that the uh fence was being installed. It looks to me like it's been installed.
>> No, it's been installed. It's It was already installed. >> Yeah, it's not even It's not even straight. It looks like it's crooked. >> So, okay. Have you spoken to anybody about this? >> I have not spoken to anyone about this. I was a gentleman at the property. I've
been there a couple of times. I spoke with a gentleman. Um but um there was a language barrier. I um at that time, you know, um called our um assistant that was in the office who tried to translate. He was stuck on a conversation about the vehicles being
parked on the lawn, said he knew nothing about the fence um that was in the rear. He was the tenant. Um but that was about it. >> Okay. Um, based on the unrebotted testimony of the
city's code compliance officer, the photographs and the evidence presented depicting that the cited violations still exist. Proper notice has been given. I find in favor of the city enter adjudication and set a compliance date of 30 days, March 16,
2026. In the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $350. Okay. The next item will be item number 14. Delma and Nogira and Barbara Barl Noira.
Magistrate. This case >> I'm ready and I've reviewed the file. >> Okay. Officer um the officer just advises that this case was closed as of yesterday. >> How? >> Number 14. >> They uh obtained a license.
>> Correct. Okay. This is uh pavers, right? >> Can you repeat that? >> Yeah. Uh pavers on the driveway. >> Yes. After the fact permit. >> Yeah. All right. So, that's that's done. >> Correct.
>> All right. Let's go to the next one. >> All right. Item number 15. Esper Lennox Louise LLC. Case number CF OB 2025 00289. And this case is presented by officer
Jonathan Lamestri. >> Good afternoon, special magistrate. Uh >> good afternoon. >> Code officer Jonathan Leststery. And this case is being heard for the first time. On December 13th, 2025, uh the co-compliance department in coordination with the North Miami Police Department
conducted a business compliance sweep at 12831 West Dixie Highway in regards to the business sidewalk bottle shop Miami operating without a North Miami business tax receipt. Um, I hand delivered the notice of
violation to uh the restaurant uh manager informing them of the violation and that they need to obtain a business tax receipt and certificate of use. Um, I hand delivered. I also mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser
and as of the final reinspection date. Uh, there is nothing on file. Uh, no, uh, application on file. >> They're still operating as a restaurant. Correct. >> Correct, sir. 12831 West Dixie Highway. >> Okay. Based on the unreoded testimony of
the city's code compliance officer, the photographs and the evidence presented depicting that the cited violation still exists. Proper notice has been given. I plan and pay for the city enter adjudication and set a compliance date of March 16, 2026. In
the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $350 until the violation is abated. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Elementary. All right. The next item on this case is going to be item number 16. Esper Lennox
Louise LLC. Case number CZCU 202500 333. And this is also presented by officer Lestre. >> Yes, magistrate. This is >> same property, right? >> Correct. >> Same property, but for this violation, it's for the certificate of use. >> Okay. >> Uh proper notice was given. Uh again, uh
the North Miami Police Department and and code compliance, we conducted a sweep where we issued the violation to the business uh for not having a certificate of use. >> Based on the unreedited testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the
evidence presented depicting that the cited violation still exists. Proper notice has been given. I find in favor of the city, enter an adjudication, and set a compliance date of 30 days, March 16, 2026.
Uh, in the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $350 until the violation is abaded. Okay. The next item on the the next item we are going to call will be item number
22 and that'll be GSP Mocha Plaza LLC case number CF OB 2025 00285 and also case number 20 item number 23 GSP Mocha Plaza LLC case number CZCU
2025 0323. Yes. >> Officer, please. >> And the officer on this um case would be Mr. Lamestri as well. >> Yes, sir. >> Um we'll start with case number 22. Um this violation is in regard to the
business, the Sweet Life Miami Salon Suites at 744 Northeast 125th Street. Uh they have failed to obtain uh the North Miami business tax receipt. So, uh, this, uh, business, uh, they're subleasasing,
uh, the space to other tenants, um, for businesses. So, um, you I was unable to get access into the unit um because you need a key card to enter into the building. Um but from my
understanding or from the just outside you could see that there is uh booths or uh spaces 16 spaces um where um hair salons uh tenants uh they operate their business a barber shop hair salon nail
technicians they're subleasasing at the business um I hand delivered the notice of violation to uh the manager informed him what he needs to do visit community planning and development Um but as of the final reinspection date um they have
failed to obtain a business tax receipt and certificate of use. >> Okay. This this this one um from what I've reviewed it looks like the tenant uh the the corporation uh for
the tenant has been dissolved. it's no longer registered in the state of Florida. So, they may or may not necessarily be doing business. Doesn't mean that they are not. They just just they just let their corporation
uh expired, but nonetheless, you got the owner and uh if they're doing a lot of renting inside their premises, uh you know, that they should uh definitely do something about that. Uh the business
tax rec on uh this the 22 is a business a BTR corre life Miami salon suites which from what I'm seeing in the pictures it looks like uh you're right like a skin hair nails so on and so
forth. So, uh, as to number 22 on the BTR, uh, based on the testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the photographs, and the evidence presented depicting that the cited violation still
exists, proper notice has been given. I find in favor of the city enter an adjudication and set a compliance date of 30 days, which is March 16th, 2026. In the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $350 until the
violation is abaded. And then you got the the next one is a certificate of use for the same property, the same tenant. >> Correct. >> Um, >> you want to read that for the record? Absolutely. So, uh, case number 23, uh,
CECCU 2025-00323. Uh, the business, the Sweet Life Miami Salon Suites at 744 Northeast 25th Street, uh, they failed to obtain the certificate of use for the city of North Miami. Um, on December 9th, 2025, I I posted the notice of violation at the
property. Um on I also mailed the notice of violation um certified letter to the property owner. Um and as oh and I'm sorry uh December 29th, 2025, I hand delivered the NTA the notice to appear
for the special magistrate to the property manager in person explaining to him that he needs to visit community planning and development to get the proper license. And as of Janu January 16th, the final reinspection date, the business failed to obtain a certificate of use.
>> Okay. Based on the unreedited testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the photographs and the evidence presented depicting that the cited violation still exists. Proper notice has been given. I find in paper of the city enter an adjudication and set a compliance date of 30 days March 16 uh
2026. In the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $350 until the violation is abated. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The next item that we're going to be calling on will be item number 28 and
that's Jeremy D. Des. Elizabeth and case number CFY 2025 000087 and this case was previously found guilty by magistrate Smith and must abate by January 7, 2026. Fines were set
at 350 a day plus $100 assessment cost and this case will be presented by Mr. Morales. Officer Morales. >> Officer Morales, I'm familiar with the file. I saw the pictures. I uh thought that they had learned a lesson when they were uh found guilty.
I think that they now have more cars than they did back when I heard it. But anyway, go ahead and present. >> Yes. Uh Officer Morales, City of North Miami. I issued this violation on 4 uh 2025. Um, I posted it at the property
and uh, when I posted at the property, I actually there was a gentleman that approached me that claimed to be the owner. Um, and I informed him of what he needed to do to resolve the violation. Um, he said he was going to do it. Unfortunately, that never uh, came to
be. So, um, as you know, you, um, it was found guilty on, um, December of 2025, and we are here again per the final reinspection. Um, no compliance has been met. >> Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I thought
that they would get the message. Um, based on the unrebotted testimony of the city's code enforcement officer, the photographs um, and the evidence showing that they
have been out of compliance since uh, the abatement date of January 7th. Uh, I hereby ratify the fines acrewed to date in the amount of $350 says cost.
Uh, the fine shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance and of course uh I would encourage you to lean the property. Thank you.
>> And thank you, Mr. Morales. Officer Morales. And the next case that the next item we'll be we're going to be calling on will be one moment. Which one? Oh, I didn't see it. Okay. The next item we're going to be calling on will be item number 29 and that'll be
Lopez and with the case number CMK 202500001. And the officer on this case will be officer S Shauna Sanders. Miss Sanders, for the benefit of everyone, I have reviewed the
file. I've seen the pictures. I've seen the boulders. So, um, just tell us what you saw when you went there. >> Um, Shannon Sanders, co- compliance officer. Um, property address 741 Northeast 137 Street. This is a case
that's coming to you for the first time. I originally cited this property on April 16th, 20 um 25 when after receiving a call from the school regarding properties along 137 Street
that had put up um traffic markers, had put up blocks, rocks, things of that nature to prevent um employees of the school parking there. I at that time had a conversation with the property owner
um who explained he would you know try to have the rocks removed at that time. We gave him about a month because he spoke about how heavy they were. He said he would try to have a friend, you know, help him remove them. As of my last
reinspection, he has removed some he had some logs and things of that nature that was there alongside the boulders. The wood has been removed. However, the rocks and boulders still remain. Um, my last reinspection was done on
January 16th. I had a conversation with him at that time. He asked for an additional week. I drove by the property yesterday. They were still there. I am showing proper service was given. The notice to appear was posted at the property December 30th, 2025. Certified
mailing was also mailed out to the property owner. I saw that uh you gave him an extension. >> Yes, we did. Um when when we originally cited him um he was very upset. Um he said he needed time. He spoke about
again the heaviness of them. So we you know gave him about a month or two but upon reinspection they had still been there. So I went ahead and failed it for the magistrate. Not only is it a safety hazard, if a vehicle hits one of those rocks,
it's going to be a disaster, but it's also looks like a dump. And I think it's uh every neighbor in that neighborhood should be outraged by by that. Um, so anyway, I read the code and clearly they're in violation based on the
testimony uh unrebuted testimony of the city's code compliance officer, the photographs and the evidence presented depicting that the cited violation still exists. Proper notice has been given. I find in favor of the city entering adjudication and set a compliance date
of 30 days, March 16, 26. In the event of non-compliance, there shall be a daily fine of $350 until the violation is abaded. Thank you, Officer Sanders. The next item we're going to be calling on will be item number 33, NMBB Partners, case
number CF OB 202500201. And the officer is also Shannon Sanders. And number 33 also goes along with it. That'll be number n partners LLC cezcu 202500203. Also Shannana Sanders.
>> How about uh 35? >> 35 was we did 35 earlier. >> That's right. Shannon Sanders, um, co- compliance officer. These are two new cases, um, for property address 1922,
Northeast 147 terrorists that are coming to you for the first time. They go hand in hand. The first case is for um, failure to obtain the business tax receipt. I originally cited this property in
May of 2025, whereas I received a notice from um the sanitation services, Waste Pro um about um service that was needed or um
outstanding balance that was paid for that was was was outstanding balance for their um sanitation services. A week later, I then received a invoice from Crywolf for outstanding um balance or not non-payment for their
false alarm. At the time of that inspection, I visited the property was brought to my attention that a leasing was um located at this property. the previous people that the notice came
about had moved, but Ammer Lein was there. I had a conversation with the then business owner who stated he did not know he needed a business tax receipt. I explained to him you needed both the certificate of use and business tax receipt. He stated he would move
forward with coming to the city to obtain them. As of my last reinspection, no business tax receipt nor certificate of use has been obtained. I did um have a conversation with a gentleman
um over the phone, I believe it was Monday, who called and said that there was something to it to the city. Um as I explained to him, this has been going on since 2025. Every time I visited the property, business is up and running.
Um, I'm not doing an inspection two days prior in or visiting any departments um about a business that has been open for a year without a business tax receipt. Um, >> what kind of business is it? >> It's like it seemed like it's a mechanic shop. Um, it's a mechanic shop.
>> Okay. All right. Based on the >> special magistrate, if I may. >> Yeah. >> John Jenkins, assistant director of code compliance. This gentleman actually was here earlier today from air leasing and um I guess we did not notice it in the back and and we dismissed him. So in all fairness to him um he was here earlier
today and tried to register. >> Okay. So should I table it or I mean I'm ready to rule. To >> be fair we should table it. Madam Attorney >> yes I I believe we should table it being that we dismissed him.
Okay. >> All right. Let's bring it back. Same with uh 34. >> Yes, sir. >> And I'm going to ask while we're on that address, was he also going to give testimony? Do you know um assistant
director for the um violation for the PDFAO 20250027 regarding the um account for the um late registration of the alarm? because we had another case that's separate from these two as well.
>> All right, bring that back. >> I don't have the agenda. >> Inspector Sanders, is that under NMBB? >> What what happened was Excuse me. U we heard 35. >> Correct. >> He was present for 35. >> Yes. >> And then he was told you can leave.
>> No. So number 35 was Synergetic Services, which was the gentleman um Ross >> um Alexander. >> Yeah. Ross. He was he's another tenant in that building. So this is a totally different gentleman that is the owner and representative for me leasing.
>> Okay. >> All right. >> I don't see it for some reason. >> Do you know the one that that Miss Officer Sanders is referring to is regards to the uh >> that case is not on the the that case she's referring to I don't see on our agenda.
>> Oh, it's not. Okay. >> Oh wow. So, just for the record, we're tableabling 33 and 34 m leasing. >> By the way, when you um come back on 33 and 34, if you could take some pictures
of the um business so I know what's going on there. >> Okay, definitely. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Sanders. All right. The next the next item we'll be calling on is item number 37, Rayro Investment Trust, case number CF LR203
00454. This case was previously found guilty by Smith. Uh it was abated January 7th and fines were set at 350. This is case was presented by Mr. Le officer Lammy.
>> Thank you. Um this case also coincides with case number 38. Um, this is a business tax receipt certificate of use violation. But we'll start with case number 37 uh for the business tax receipt. Um, at 12141 Northwest 7th Avenue, uh, I
opened a notice of violation regarding uh the commercial property owner RARO Investment Trust uh, failing to renew for uh, the business tax receipt for the city of North Miami. Um, the business hasn't renewed since September 30th, 2022. I opened the notice of violation back on
September 29th, 2023. Posted a notice to appear. Um, of course, you found him guilty and he had to abate by January 7th, 2026. As of the final reinspection date of January 16th, 2026, uh, the business failed to renew the business tax
receipt. The commercial property owner still owes since September 30th, 2022. >> Okay. based on the unrebuted testimony of the city's code enforcement officer, uh the photographs and the uh other evidence presented showing that the
property has been out of compliance since the abatement date of January 7th, 2026. I uh find in favor of the city and hereby ratify the fines acrewed to date in the amount of $350
uh per day uh and assess cost in favor of the city. The fines shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance. >> Okay. >> The next one is uh certificate of use. >> Number 38 is the same property. Item number 38 railroad investment trust CECU
2023 00863. This one was previously found guilty by at Jan on January 7th. The fines were by magistrate Smith and the fines were set at 350. And this case is also presented by Mr. Officer Lestri.
>> Correct. And same as case number 37, um, as of the final reinspection date on January 16th, 2026, uh, the commercial property owner failed to renew the certificate of use, uh, the commercial property owner owes since September 30th, 2022. Based on the unrebuted testimony of the
city's code enforcement officer, the photographs and other evidence presented reflecting that the property has been out of compliance since the abatement date of January 7th, 2026. I find in favor of the city hereby ratify the
fines acrewed to date in the amount of uh $350 plus uh costs. The fine shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance. Okay. Uh the next item we'll be calling
on will be 42 and 43 and that no 42. Oh 42. Yes. Item number 42 Sanusi Apartment LLC. Case number MHVIO 2023 00949. This was previously found guilty by magistrate Smith with an abatement
date of March 14, 2025 and fines were set at 350. And this case is also presented by M. Officer Lamestry. >> Thank you. Um on April 19th, 2023, I opened a notice of violation um in regard to the
exterior walls uh having mildew being dirty. It has stains. Um I posted the notice of violation at the property, mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser. Um I sent this case before you and you found them guilty as well. Um
they had it to abate by March 14th, 2025. Based on the uh I've seen the pictures. >> Okay. Yes, sir. >> Based on the unreuted testimony of the city's code enforcement officer, the photographs and other evidence presented
that the property has been out of compliance since March 14, 2025. Um, I find in favor of the city and ratify the fines accured to date in the amount of $350 plus cost assessment.
The set fines shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance. All >> right, magistrate, that magistrate, that concludes the agenda for today. >> Okay. Little long, but I think uh
>> All right. Thank you everybody.