All right, good morning everybody. This is a code compliance hearing for the city of North Miami. Today is June 3rd, 2026. It is about 9:32. Uh I am Jose Smith, the uh special
magistrate uh sitting today for the city of North Miami. The purpose of this hearing is to determine if a code violation exists at the property as observed and cited by the code
compliance officer of the city. If the city is not able to prove its case, then I will dismiss it and you may leave. These proceedings are being recorded. So all persons who are speaking should do so one at a time to ensure that all
testimony is clearly audible on the recording device. If English is not your primary language, then please inform me when I call your case. We have interpreters uh who will assist you during the proceedings.
When your case is called, the property owner agent for the property owner and any witnesses that you may have should come forward to the podium to the uh on the left side of the room. And when asked, please speak directly into the
microphone and say out out loud 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 will have to
present a notorized power of attorney 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 uh and understand the violation that is being heard today
and uh whether you understand what is required to resolve the violation. So please answer accordingly. The city will present its case first and then the property owner violator will be given an opportunity to testify on their own
behalf, bring forward witnesses to testify, present evidence and photographs, and cross-examine the city's witnesses. Following the case presentation, I will issue a finding of fact on the case. If I find that a violation of city code
exists or existed at your property, then depending upon the case type, I will set an abatement date uh for the violation to be resolved. Or for repeat violation, I will violations, I will impose a daily fine
amount. For new non-re repeat cases, my order will include an abatement date by which you must resolve the violation and a daily fine amount that I may impose at a future hearing should the violation not be resolved by the abatement date.
For appeals of civil violations, I will enter a ruling either affirming or reversing the citation. the citation is affirmed. I will enter an order assessing a civil penalty, court cost, and a compliance date. If the violation
does not comply with uh within the compliance date, uh the the fines will continue and penalties will be assessed. If I find sufficient cause to postpone enforcement of uh your case at this
time, I will table it and proceed. um uh will have uh proceedings uh on another date uh in the future. If you do not agree with my findings of fact or my ruling, then the property owner may appeal my administrative order on the
case to the circuit court. An appeal must be filed within 30 days of the execution of my administrative order. In accordance with Florida statute, if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the special master magistrate,
with respect to any matter considered at these proceedings, the person will need a verbatim record of the proceedings. The record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The cost of obtaining the verbatim record shall be the sole
responsibility of the property owner uh or the appellant. Uh, and it is recommended that persons who plan to appeal their case should provide their own court reporter at this proceeding. Pursuant to city codes, if the city of North Miami prevails in prosecuting a
case before the special magistrate, the city will be entitled to recover all cost incurred in prosecuting the case. The city will charge additional administrative fees to release any leans that may be filed against the property.
Now, if you're giving testimony today on a case, please uh rise, raise your right hand, and the police officer will uh issue the oath. Um then the code compliance uh clerk will announce any additions,
corrections, deletions to the agenda, and we'll be calling the first case. So, let's u uh swear in all the witnesses. Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in these proceedings will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, say aloud, I do. I do. >> Thank you. >> Do we need to swear in any interpreters? Do we have any? >> Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the translations which you are about to give
in these proceedings will be accurate and correct to the best of your knowledge, skill, and ability? Say I do. >> Thank you. And the pledge. >> All right. I think we uh will do the uh pledge of allegiance. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Please stand again. Sorry.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. I think um
the clerk get needs to give me the um >> the abatement dates. >> Okay. >> So July 16 that would be 30 days. August 13 60 days. >> That's August 13.
>> Correct. And September 9th for 90 days. >> Okay. >> All right. All right. Good morning everyone and thank you for participating in today's special magistrate hearing. I will review the process by which today's hearing will be conducted. Make sure
your device is always on mute unless you are giving testimony on a case. If you would like to speak on behalf of a case once the case is called, you should step up to the podium. Before giving testimony on your case, please state your name, your property address in relationship to the property in
question. If you wish to have an interpreter assist you during the proceeding, please indicate this when your case is called. Your magistrate, that concludes the instructions. >> Okay. Any uh additions,
deletions, amendments >> the published agenda? >> No, magistrate. >> So, are we ready to proceed? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Let's call >> first case. >> All right. We'll be calling item number
four, Ameila George. Case number MH VIO2025 00148. And the inspector on this property is Shanny Prey. >> Okay. Um, >> I remember hearing um
>> this this case last time it not specifically this case but the building. >> I'm so sorry and I do apologize. This one case supposed to be off the agenda. We only taken the a building itself. All the units we postponed. This is one
of the ones should have been postponed. >> All right. So, are we hearing four or are we hearing another one? >> It should be another one. It should be only the buildings. The building itself. >> Which one? >> The 40 year and the minor. Um,
I don't see the number 10 11 and should have been one more 12. >> 10 11 and 12. Mhm. >> 10, 11, and 12. >> Correct. Person is being postponed
because the building official is number four. >> Number four is postponed. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we're tableabling that for another day. >> Yes. Okay. So, we're going to >> So, we going are we going to the next
case? Magistrate. >> Whichever one you want to hear. >> She for another one. >> Well, the she's a part of I guess she just want to probably speak on the behalf of the whole building itself. But that's number 10, 11, and 12. >> Okay. Number 10, 11, 12.
>> Okay. So she's she's not here on unit 15. >> Yeah, she's she's the owner of unit number 15. All the unit owners, I postpone all those cases for some reason. That case is still showing on here, but her unit is being postponed
until a later date, but the building itself is number 9, 10th. >> So the common areas, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Okay. We'll be calling item number 10, Sansusi condo. >> Uh I'm sorry. And why wasn't um notified? Cuz the last the last letter
you >> that was from June. >> Yes. I mean this was posted and you sended a certified mail. >> Yes. All >> on my old address cuz obviously I can't leave there. I was not notified that I was cancelled or postponed. >> When I spoke to you a couple of months
ago, you called me on the phone and I did I did told >> you gave me this this uh this day. Ma'am, >> I spoke to you again after that. It was you and it was another person and also the people from the building. I also explained to them and we can do this off off record. I'm not going to go back and forth right now.
>> Let's not postpone your thing. >> Where is the letter stating that it was cancelled? >> I don't send out a letter that it was canceled. I was >> Why don't you Why don't you uh the two of you decide you know what you're going to do? >> Yeah. Number nine. Well, her her is going to be postponed. If she want to get here today, it's going to be it get
her today. So, while we hear the other cases, >> why don't you talk to the lady and figure out what what's going on? >> Okay, >> let's do
10, 11, 12. She might be >> she might want to testify. >> She may want to testify right on the other >> 10, 11, and 12. So, let's go to 10 and 11 and 12. >> All right. and then we'll we'll figure out what we'll do with with with four whether we hear it or we don't. But let
let's do the others. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'll be calling item number 10, Sansusi Condo, case number C uh 20260000001. And the officer on this case is Shaunie Pressy. >> Excuse me.
>> Please quiet. >> You can ask. >> All right. Uh, officer, identify yourself, please. Uh, >> hi. Good morning. I'm officer Shaunie Pressie. Um, I'm building department. >> My name is uh Charles Evers. I'm the
building inspector and at this point I'm acting building official. Okay. All right. Let's hear case number 10. Okay. >> Sansusi Condo.
what it is, but I don't think it's okay. There we go. So, we have my posting notice of appearance and this is property appraisal and some
unsafe structures for all the units. I'm sorry trying to get most of them. And this is regarding the unsafe structure case that's
dealing and this is I'm sorry this is the engineer letter of the findings from the engineer that states that the building is unsafe but unit 110 202 28 and I believe um 19 and n
all the notices that was posted to all units, pictures, another notice that was telling that the building is unsafe. All the units that we um deemed to be unsafe from two to 27
more the um unsafe notices. Hang on one second. Um, my iPad is not working. >> Can somebody I' I've looked at everything, so I uh I've already seen everything you're presenting, but go right ahead so that it's part of the
record. >> Okay. So, um, a part of this record, we went to um, we initially took them to Miami Day County Unsafe Treasure Board to because of the reertification. That was one thing. And then the other thing is for the building being um you for
unit number five um the floor cave in so it was making the building unsafe. So 40 year was one thing. >> Wasn't it a whole row of apartment apartments that correct issues? >> Okay. >> Yes. So they did bring in an engineer did finally go out um last month the
month of May to assess the building. We did receive that engineer letter which is on file now. He deemed units 2 to 27. He only exempt six units which was the units I stated before. So it is six units was able to um stay. The rest of
the units was had to be vacated. Um the 40-year resertification report was um um denied by the engineer that repairs are needed. repairs are needed in which which units or
>> well um he deemed the building to be still unsafe because of those that um common row of those two lines. So that area from the units from two to unit number 27 um he deemed it to be unsafe
until the repairs are made. >> Wasn't this building evacuated? >> That's the building. Yes, we just evacuated the building last month. >> And are people allowed to come back? >> Not right now only, but six units, which is unit number the units that I stated before, which is 9 919.
Um, let me see. I believe it was 1, N 18 and 10 in 21 I believe it was.
Those the only units that's allowed >> and that's because a structural engineer said that they were safe. >> Yes. Because that road is not connected to the buildings um the way it's structurally um made. the beans is not connected to the ones that's um deemed
to be unsafe. >> So, but they're still not in compliance with a 40-year reertification. >> Correct. Because the he on his report repairs are need to be made within the whole with those buildings.
>> Okay. And is the building official exercising his authority to uh maintain those units closed while the 40-year resertification has not been
complied with. >> Correct. >> All right. So e even even though they're not even though this the the structural engineer said that they're they're safe, there's still issues that
need to be addressed under the 40-year reertification requirement. So in effectually in in in effect the building official is keeping the entire building
uh evacuated red tagged. >> No >> no >> no sir that that's not a true statement. The building official has deemed that because of the letter that was received by the structural engineer that that uh
the building official is in good faith trying to not evacuate the the units that were in compliance, but the B they're monitoring that and they're giving them a opportunity to
bring the building in compliance to the to for a reertification and uh that was the decision of the building official. at any time that that that uh response can be overrun but at
this point that is what we're going by today and as you will see in our following cases that whole there are uh three how many buildings >> there a total of six >> there are six buildings that have not
been in compliance to the reertification and we're trying to to uh bring them into compliance. >> Okay. Um it's a little bit unusual to bring um
these cases uh to the special magistrate. I heard it before and I'm happy to hear him in the future. Typically they go to the either the unsafe structures board which you don't have or you go to the uh
county. What what is it that you are asking me to do? Greg more time. >> Sir, we have brought this building to the county. The count and it was deemed uh unsafe
and they were asking why haven't we brought it to our local jurisdiction first to try to find compliance. It just so happens that other officers before us had, you know, I guess because
of COVID or whatever or that that we haven't gotten all these documents, but these buildings, uh, we're bringing it to you to try to push compliance with the reertification and compliance to
that the structural is in compliance structurally, electrically, and the phototrics at with a within the local jurisdiction. >> I understand. But what is it that you're asking me to do? Are you asking
>> if in fact they are not in compliance? >> Sir, let me finish. >> Okay. >> You're asking me to make a determination that they are not in compliance. But you are
suggesting that I give them a reasonable period of time within which to satisfy the 40-year reertification requirements failing which there will be penalties assessed. Is that
>> absolutely correct >> asking me to do? >> Yes, your honor. >> Okay. Uh I cannot overrule the building officials determination that the building
uh is unsafe because it has not complied with the 40-year reertification. That is not my role. That is the role of the building official under the state statutes and the county code and the city code. So that that issue is uh not
my issue, but I will adopt your determination as building official that there has not been compliance with the 40-year reertification, which is a building code issue. Okay. Having said that, um is there a time period within
which the uh building can uh reasonably come to compliance to allow access to the units. >> Okay. So, the reason why the building official is bringing these cases forward to you right now because we gave them plenty of time to um try to come in
compliance since last year of 2025 and they didn't come into compliance. So, when we had the the unissue the safe structure on issue case that we speaking about right now dealing with the two lines, they had until um they supposed to been in compliance since last year.
They have not. They haven't pulled any permits. So therefore we that's why we moving forward to court now and if they don't she just want them to start running. I guess you can >> so you you want you want me to adjudicate
the case? >> Yes. issue a compliance date and uh assess the appropriate fine for the whole building or just the units that are the subject of the uh 40-year resertification.
>> This is for the whole building. >> Number 10 is for the whole building. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is there anybody here that is authorized to speak on behalf of the condominium
association that owns the units in question? >> I'm uh part of the board. I do not have a power of attorney because we are um in process to put together a new
board and right now we don't have courtroom in the board. >> Uh what is your name and what is your residence? >> My name is Maria Amira. I live in the association. I own a unit in the condominium in building
11960. And you and you are did you say that you are on the board but you couldn't get an authorization because there was no quorum? >> There's no quorum and the only person left won't speak with me and won't open
her door. She's the president and >> so I'm going I'm going to let you speak because I want to hear the other side of the story. Um, but since you don't have authorization, you don't have a board,
I don't know that anything you say will really carry any weight because there's nobody here legally uh to speak for the association. uh you don't have a lawyer, you don't have a a
a president board me a board member does not have the authority to speak on behalf of the building. Only the officers do. Are you an officer? Uh right now I'm in practice or the
person that's the only person that is uh I don't know I don't know how to explain it. I'm representing the owners the owners in the association >> without a without a power of attorney. I don't I cannot accept that statement.
>> All right then let it have no weight. But I I I can tell you what we're doing. Tell tell me what's going on in the in the you you're you know what's going on in the building. Just give me some information as to what you're doing. >> We were told that we had to fix our
internal issues that that was not the regard of this in this meeting. So we're still working on that. We are getting closer to a solution. Uh but me and well
a group of a big group of owners we are in touch with the engineers that have been doing the work and we are aware of everything that's happening. >> Who's paying for the engineers? >> Everybody is uh the association is has paid for the reertification
reports and we are we all contributed via special assessment. >> Is there a special assessment? There was a special assessment for the reertification. That money has been spent and we're waiting to >> Yeah. But that's nothing compared to
what you're going to have to spend correct to restore the building to code. >> We are right now getting ready to to send out an assessment for the plans for the construction for the repairs. Uh because that's going to be $80,000.
So we are going to this would have been done already had we not been having issues internally with the current um president of the association. Um we do have um we have one quote by
the engineer that presented the reertification and we're going to get either to we were supposed to have already we they didn't finish um but we're going to have it today, tomorrow, anytime this week um quotes from other two engineers that are
going to present three quotes and we're going to decide which quote is that we're going with and then we will send the assessment to unit owners. Um, everybody,
we've been um communicating with a big group of owners. Uh, we are communicating via letter with another with about 30 units. We only have a an address to send
communications to, but everybody knows that there's a there's a big there's that we're going to have a big assessment, two two assessments coming. One of which is the repairs assessment. We've been told that
it may be up to $750,000. We've been putting out the costs, but it's not nothing is on paper yet. So we have not started collecting money. I >> I am I am uh not optimistic
having seen these before. >> Oh, we have a lawyer also. We are starting. >> Are you are you in court? >> Not yet, but we're going to start uh a process with the DBR this week. >> That's not what you need to do. But
speak to your lawyer and get a court to appoint somebody to represent all of you so that that person that the court appoints can come before me and we can have a conversation >> because if nobody else has authority, the judge has to appoint somebody. So
anyway, uh I to me um if it ever happens, you're talking months if not years before you can come into compliance based on the pictures and the evidence
that I've seen. >> And so, you know, you're here to tell me things that are important, but you're it's going to take a long time. So, I'm going to uh first of all uh uh based on
the testimony that I've heard and I um uh looked at the file u and I've listened to the building official and um Miss Saunders um I
will find you guilty the association uh because the violation of the um 40 year uh 40-year resertification ordinance still is in effect. Proper notice has been given. I find in favor
of the city enter an adjudication and set a compliance date of 60 days 60 days for you and the building official to get an an idea of where we
we're headed. I'm not confident that you're going to be able to comply with it, but I'm just going to tell you that after 60 days, I am going to impose a daily fine of $500 per day
until the uh violation uh is abated. meaning that you need to come in with a 40-year resertification plan and uh acceptable to the building official and you need to make whatever necessary at least the emergency uh
repairs have to be made and eventually there there has to be full compliance with whatever the building official requires you. So there as as of 60 days, which is a August 13, uh if you're not in compliance, you will be the
association will be paying a fine of $500 per day. Uh is that something that uh what do you think about that? >> That's no problem. I just have a um a quick question cuz we probably getting the the two cases mixed up. So we have
one for the unsafe structure, which is number 10. Number 11 is >> we're not in 11 yet. >> Yeah. The number number 11 is actually a 40-year reertification. It kind of go hand in hand. Okay. But I just wanted to make sure we was on the same page. >> 10. 10 is what? >> The unsafe structure. >> 10 is the unsafe structure.
>> That's only dealing with the 11930 building >> cuz that's the only one that have the the lines that was >> okay. >> In comp in in the issue. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. So the uh 10 is it's still the association
>> still association but it's only for that one building >> but it's unsafe structure. >> Unsafe structure. Correct. >> Okay. So, uh, my ruling is the same, except that I'm going to add >> that the building official certainly has the authority to go in there
>> to >> and red tag, >> evict people, uh, remove people in order to preserve public safety and welfare. >> Correct. uh on on number 10. Number 11, if you want to read number 11 for the
record, >> um building the association, but that's the 40-year resertification. >> Correct. So, that's the FYBRRR 2022 0050, and that's dealing with the the whole condominium, a total of, I believe it's six buildings.
>> I I have I have to I just realized that Magistrate Suarez has already found them guilty on number 11. Yes, because we had brought them back, I believe, three months ago or >> Right. He he heard it on April 1.
>> Yes, that sound about right. >> Okay. And he uh set a $500 fine as I did. Uh so we're consistent uh with that. And he uh gave the he gave the association an abatement date of May 18th, which they've obviously
uh have ignored. So, >> um, so they partially in comp I'm they not in compliance because they still need repairs to make. So, it's not a um they have not completed the 40-year reertification
report because they have repairs that needs to be made. So, therefore, they are still not in compliance. So, um yeah. Well, I'm I'm based on the uh prior order uh since they're not in compliance uh and were not in compliance
uh when they were supposed to be, which is May 18th, I'm going to ratify uh the acred fines uh based on the testimony that I heard from from you, the photographs and the
evidence presented. Uh, I find for the city. I ratify the fines acrewed to date in the amount of $500 per day as of May 18th and assess costs in favor of the
city. The fine shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance. U at after there is compliance. on a daily basis until there's comp. >> That's That's my phone.
>> Um >> a shot GPT heard me. So you can't talk today without >> the phone listening to you. >> Is this going to be 500 on top of the other 500 that will start on August 13?
>> Yes. They're separate violations. By August 13, we're gonna have maybe the permits to start. We will have the permits. Will that do anything? >> I will tell you uh that uh you can once
you comply and everything is acceptable to the building official, then uh you can go to the finance department and try to mitigate your fines. But uh the fines stay as they are.
Okay. >> All right. >> All right. Magistrate, we'll be calling the next one, which will be item number 12, Sansusi Condo, case number MHV io202500126. This case was previously found guilty by magistrate Smith with an abatement date
of May 18th. The fines were set at $1,000 per day plus $100 cost assessment. And the inspector on this case is Shaunie Pressie. Okay. So, um, Shny Pre on case number MHIO 202500126.
Um, this case was also bring forward because of the cracks around the building. Um, the walls, the ceilings, broken um, floor tiles in the middle, loose handrails. Um, these was actually observed last year and we was required
them to pull permits in the beginning and as of today, no permits has been pulled. Again, we're talking about the uh >> the same um building 11930. That's the only building for the association. >> It's the association. >> Yes.
>> Not a particular unit. No unit owner. >> All right. I am going to ratify the um fines based on the testimony of the building department.
Uh >> um I believe those things have been fixed >> without permits. >> Oh, >> the the the more the more you talk, the more trouble you're in. Okay. >> No, we need to know. This is the only
way we find out what's really happening. >> Okay. >> So, >> all right. Well, you know, you need to get somebody that's authorized to speak on behalf of the association, and you're not. Okay. you just happen to live there, but you can't speak on behalf of the association because you don't have
authority and nobody at the moment has authority to speak. >> You're probably an inactive uh association to begin with. So, please speak to your lawyer, try to resolve some of these other issues. Uh but I
will uh find in favor of the city, ratify the fines acrewed to date in the amount uh and at that time I impose a fine of $1,000 a day plus a cost assessment. Uh the fine shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is
compliance. Again, talk to a lawyer. This is uh >> we we have a lawyer. We just haven't talked about this. We have talked about removing >> the Korean president who's um >> yeah bringing us
>> when that happens you go into court and you have the court appoint the receiver and the receiver takes charge and that hasn't been done here. >> Okay. So >> if we if we bring a receiver we're not going to be able to afford the repairs. >> Well you know we need to
>> between a rock and a hard place then >> take a little >> a different approach. Well, I I don't know what approach. I mean, they've tried everything. The city has tried everything. So, uh the next step may be demolition and then
>> No, no, we're not going to get to that point. We're going to fix >> I hope not, but that may happen. Anyway, uh we're done. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Uh any other cases uh on this building? >> No. >> Okay. >> They everything else is postponed until
>> Okay. So, the the issue with the uh the unit Right now we're going to postpone right now on the association. >> All right. So explain everything to uh the lady uh that owns the unit.
>> Okay. >> So that everybody's on the same boat. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. All right. Magistrate, we'll be moving on to item number six. Fountain Head Sub Parcel 1 LLC case number C E F
O B 2025 000159. >> And this case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Suarez with an abatement date of May 18th, 2026. Fines are set at 350 per day plus $100 cost assessment. And the officer on this case
is Shauna Sanders and the person the property is Andrea Norman. Oh, and magistrate uh number seven also goes with it. Do you want me to call it now or? >> Yeah, let's do uh let's do both. >> Okay. So, call it out now and just get
out the way. >> Yeah. Yeah, we'll do six and seven. >> Okay. Number seven, Fountain Head Subarcel 1 LLC. Case number CZCU 202500151. This case was previously found guilty by magistrate Suarez with an abatement date
of May. Fines were set at 250 per day plus $100 cost assessment. And the officer on this case is officer Shana Sanders. And the person representing the property is Andrea Norman. >> I'm sorry. State your name again for the record.
>> And Andrea Norman. I have the power of attorney for Head sub parcel. I'm representing the property owner. >> Okay. Uh, Andrea, what? >> Norman. >> Norman. Okay. And you have a power of attorney. Have
you shown it to the city attorney? >> I showed it to the guy that checked me in. >> Okay. I I think it should be reviewed by the city attorney. >> Who's the city attorney? >> Right here. >> Can you bring it over for us, please?
Yeah, but this picture >> Do you want it back or you want keep it? You can keep it. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. What is um your association or connection to the property? >> I'm the property manager. I'm
representing the property owner. >> Okay. The violations are against the tenant. >> Okay. I thought this was a vacant lot. >> It's um a vacant lot, but it's got a truck parking on it, and that's what we're going through this process for,
trying to get them their certificate of. >> So, so there there the property itself has no issue because it's vacant. And so, uh, you're saying that there's a tenant that is using your client's
property to park a vehicle >> to park multiple trucks. It's an overnight truck parking lot. >> And what are you What are they doing about it? >> I'm sorry. >> What What is the owner doing about it? >> We're in working with the tenant to make
sure they get current with all city compliance. The lease says that they have to be um compliant with all applicable laws and regulations. >> Well, you've already been found guilty. So,
what do you I mean, what what are you asking for? >> I'm not asking for anything. I'm here to see what the magistrate's going to impose because at the last meeting, they said they had a certain period of time to apply, get their certificate of use and their BTR. They have applied for both. So, we're seeing if since they've
applied, are they going to be gr granted an extension or are fines going to be imposed? >> Well, they were supposed to do it by May May 18th. So, let me hear from the uh let me hear from the city and see where where they're at. If they've already
applied, I'd like to know what is keeping them from being uh uh granted. >> Shannon Sander, City of North Miami co- compliance officer. Um, as I already stated, this is a case for the Red Stock
Trucking um, business that's located at the vacant lot. I am going to ask that we give them an extension. It was just brought to my attention from the licensing department that they have submitted their application. Um, they submitted it on May, I'm sorry, April
13th. They were preliminary approved through the MD MDC on May 29th. So, we are going to go ahead and ask for an extension to give them more time to get this situated. >> I'm I'm going to table it and then you
bring it back if uh if if they don't if they don't get the permits for whatever reason, zoning or whatever problems they may have on both cases, either one. >> Yes. The first can't you can't get a BTR
unless you have a certificate of use. >> That is correct. the certificate of use may be subject to certain zoning and planning issues that may complicate things. So, because they've applied and because uh I have the representative of
the owner telling me that they're really trying to comply, I'm going to table it until you come back and tell me otherwise. >> I appreciate that. >> I'll I'll table it for 30 days. Um uh July 15th.
That's more than enough time should be. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you for explaining it. Uh that was simple enough, wasn't it? >> Yes, sir. Thank you so much. >> We appreciate the >> I see I see that the the owners live in Sunny Isles. >> The owners do live in Sunny Isles.
>> Okay. So, they're local. It's not like, you know, you have to call uh Alaska to get somebody to >> No, I meet with them every Tuesday. >> Well, but you know, they need to get on top of it and make sure that the tenant is in compliance. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. because ultimately the code says that you're on the hook.
>> Yes, sir. We we know that's why we're pushing our tenant. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> So, magistrate, are we tableabling both six and seven? >> Yes. Uh both cases are being tabled until July 15th. If there's compliance,
then it doesn't come back before me. If there's some problems with uh you know that for whatever reason uh you can't you can't get the city to issue them uh then come back to me. We'll talk about it and then decide what to do then.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> All right magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number eight. Gito Deliver, case number CEBPR 2025 000286. This case was previously found guilty by
magistrate Smith with an abatement date of May 18, 2026. Fines were set at 350 per day plus $100 cost assessment and the officer on this case is officer Shana Sanders and the person representing the property is Luminell. He's the contractor.
Sir, please state your full name slowly so I can write it down for the record and your address. >> Yes, your honor. Louis Mary R. Nelson. >> Madison. >> Nelson. Nelson.
>> Nelson. Okay. >> N LS N. >> And uh what is your relationship to the property? >> I'm the general contractor working with the owner to resolve the issue. >> Okay. You have a general contractor's license. >> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. >> Uh I found the property owner guilty back in March. Uh that was a long time ago. I saw the file. There's a carport there uh next to the house and the uh uh
violation needed to be uh abated by May 18th with a $350 fine. Um, tell me where we are. Well, let first let me hear from the city. >> Shannon Sanders, city of North Miami co-
compliance officer. As already stated, this is a report of previous compliance for property address 1260 Northeast 122nd Terrace is for building without permits for um an addition that was added on and or enclosed on the side
garage. Um, as of my last reinspection, um, compliance has not been met. Um, I have spoke with the property owner as well as a contractor who, um, indeed asked for more time. However, um, this violation has been open since last year.
So, I um did not want to give it more time, hence why we are here today. But again, as of my last reinspection, the permits have not been obtained for the enclosure in addition that was made to the property. >> Mr. Nelson,
why have you not followed up and submitted uh plans specifications at least to get uh at least to apply for an after the-act permit? >> I I want to say he has applied um
however it's been denied by um multiple disciplines. um he needs to make revisions to the application that's on file but he has applied. >> Okay. So uh have you seen the comments made by the
various disciplines? Do you know why your uh application has been denied as as of today? >> Yes, your honor. And I I just want to clarify something that the officer just stated. I spoke to her. I explained to
her that we applied for the permit. There were some revision requested. We did we did made we made the revision and we have we submitted those drawing since uh May May 6. All right. May 20th. I I
do apologize. On May 20th, we submitted the the drawing and so far it the the planet has been approved by the structural department as well as flood. Now we are waiting on building and we've been at the building
department every day since the 22nd of May. >> What's the problem with building? Um we have building department here who would have to speak to building or I can grab my laptop and see what the um
standill is. Um >> I can tell I can tell you your honor because I was at the building department like I said since I we submit on May 20th every day as you can see on the 21st social approve it on the 22nd flood
approve it. Since that 22nd I was told that >> the file has been transferred to building from the 22nd yet as of yesterday I was at the building department that told me is still being incued >> from the building department.
>> Is is building the only uh issue that that that is left? You already done >> all your every every other department has approved the uh >> Yes, your honor. If you could if you if you if you can look at the record uh
>> how do I call electrical already approved since back in May as well as uh mechanical. So the issue we had was like my client did the construction in wood but the problem is like the structural
plan reviewer didn't want to approve the conversion in wood so we had to resubmit everything in concrete block which we had a meeting with the structural engineer we we did the drawing and he approve it on the spot
>> okay anything from building on on that issue by the way if it's already constructed It was it constructed in in wood or block? >> No, it was con it was an open carport that the homeowner decided to enclose it with wood structure
>> and the building won't allow that >> structural will not allow that. >> Okay. And so how much time do you think uh the building department uh what what is your response to that? If they come in and they present plans
that are acceptable with uh blocks instead of wood, is will that will that fix it? Good morning, Officer Coulson. City North Miami building department. He has his comments. Everything was
emailed to him. It tells him clearly that he needs to make note on the plans. If it probably would take if he submits everything that they asked him for, it probably they probably would clear it in two weeks to to two weeks to three weeks, but he has to come back and give him everything they asked for. So he was
denied on 42926. So yeah, all he has to do is to comply with what they asked him for. So if he has everything, that would comply. >> Well, if if he came uh to you, you say April 29th. >> Yes, that's what it says. denial was on
April 29th. >> That means that he tried to comply before the abatement date. >> No, that's his denial. >> I'm sorry. >> That's his denial. When they denied it, they when they denied it was >> I I understand, but he was already in the process >> Yes.
>> of complying before the abatement date was over over. And you're telling me that it it would probably take two weeks if he if he submits the the right paperwork. >> The right paperwork. I don't know. Had you when you went yesterday did you resubmit every has everything been resubmitted
>> officer the day we resubmit everything that was requested they were submitted >> so now I'm just waiting as you can understand that he has to go to different jurisdiction the the most critical one was structure
we submitted on April on May 20th and on the 21st the next day structure approve everything >> yeah you have your approval from structure you have your approval from flood. >> All right. Look, I'm I'm going to I'm going to table this I'm going to table it for 30 days. >> That's fine. >> July 15th. And if you don't have your
paperwork in place and if you don't have your approval by by the 15th, I'm going to ratify the fines and then you're going to start getting hit with fines. >> The only thing I can tell you, your honor, is just like uh we want to move forward, but we don't have any control over how long the building department
>> I understand how you know cities work. I've been with enough cities to know everybody's busy. Everybody's doing the best they can. And with the budget cuts that we're all going to see, it's going to get worse. So, let's, you know, work together. I don't want to hit you with
fines. I don't want to hit the property owner with fines. If you're working in good faith, I believe you. So, you know, if something can't if it doesn't happen within 30 days, I'll rehear it and we'll see what the delay is. If the delay is
that the plans are defective, then I'm going to ratify the fines. If the issue is, well, the building department is taking too long, then I may give you a little bit more time because the building department is busy and they're doing a lot of other things. So, uh, I'm
not going to find you today. I'm going to give you an additional 30 days to get the job done. But I may if I may ask uh I'm thinking about if I got the permit as it says in about two to three weeks I may need another 30 days and in addition
60 days. >> Let's not let's not predict what's going to happen in 30 days. I just just gave you 30 days. Use it. Building official says it would take two weeks. I think it can be done in two weeks if you present
the right paperwork, the right plans. So, don't be negative. Just, you know, >> I'm not trying to >> work >> I'm not trying to trust >> work with these guys. They're not here to hurt you. They're here to make sure that the code is complied with. >> Okay. >> I appreciate that.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, Magistrate. The next item we will be calling is item number nine. Joyce K. Hagman. Case number C E R CV 2026 000012
and magistrate she has not been sworn in yet. >> All right. So let's swear in. Is is that Joyce Hagman? >> Yes. >> Correct. >> That's your name. All right. Let's swear her in. Yes, I do. >> Ma'am, for the record, please state your
full name, address, and your relationship to the property. >> My name is >> Speak up loud. So, pull down the microphone and >> Okay. Joyce Hagman and my property address is 745
Northwest 121 Street, North Miami. >> Okay. When I was looking at the record, uh the file, it mentioned a trust. Is the property in the name of a trust?
>> Yes. >> Yes. But you're you're the trustee. >> Yes. >> Okay. So that that's I I wanted to get that clear. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is there any other owner besides yourself? >> No.
>> Okay. And so uh you you understand what the violation is? >> Yes, I do. >> And what are you going to do about it? >> Uh I already take care. >> How? >> Uh we remove the RV. >> Okay. >> Is already out of the property.
>> Okay. It it's a single family home that you own. >> Yes. >> Okay. And and so whatever was there, whatever recreational vehicle was there has already been removed. >> Yes. I spoke to Shannon yesterday actually. >> Okay. Uh let me hear from the city.
Can't hear you. >> Shannon Sander, city of North Miami co- compliance officer. This is a new case for a recreational vehicle that is being parked at the property. Um it was initially opened
February of um February 3rd, 2026 where as I was following up on some old inspections that was given to me um to address, I noted that it was it was a few years old. Um hence I did not want
to um bring a case from 2020. So, I reopened a new, more current violation, mailed it out to the property owner, had a conversation with her about the RV, parked in the rear of the yard. Um, at that time, she stated that she would
have it removed. Um, I went visited the property on two or three different occasions. On every occasion, the RV remained. Um, she stated that she had some items inside that she was trying to remove and again asked for more time.
However, upon my last reinspection, the RV remained. Um, I did ask um and or provide her with information as to if she wanted to keep it there. She could apply for a variance. However, she um stated she did not want to keep it, she
was going to get rid of it. Um, but again, it remained. We did have a conversation yesterday where as she stated it was removed. However, I told her because of the time frame that she notified me of compliance, I was unable to do the reinspection
um to check um to verify if indeed it was. I am okay with possibly tableabling this in or giving it an extension to recheck to go by um either later today or tomorrow to verify if indeed it has been removed. Um but again, as
>> all right, um >> I have a picture. Well, it it's taken when? >> Um, yeah, it was the removal actually. It was um last Monday.
>> All right. But whether you have a picture or not, the officer needs to Oh, definitely. And and ensure now, you know, let let's not play the let's not play a cat and mouse game here where you remove it for a couple of weeks and then it comes back. >> No,
>> because then I'm going to have to find you. Okay. No, it's permanent. >> So, uh, when you say it's removed, >> Yes. >> it needs to be removed permanently. >> Yes. Permanently. >> Okay. >> So, I'm going to table it for 30 days, let the officer go out.
>> If it's removed, and I'm sure that she's going to go back more than once to make sure that you, you know, that it's really out and and uh because no neighbor wants to see a recreational vehicle parked next door. It's it's makes sense and it's very hard to get a
variance and expensive. So I I would just park it somewhere else. >> Is it remote? >> Okay. >> Yes. >> So I'll I'll uh table it for 30 days. >> All right, magistrate. That um concludes the for the people that's already here.
Everybody else. >> Okay. I I noticed in the agenda there's a a noise case. >> Uh I would curious as to whether or not somebody would show up for that.
>> Does anybody know what I'm talking about? >> Number two. >> Number two is a noise case. >> Noise disturbance. >> That's val. I I I want to hear that one because I I
I like noise cases. I that's all I did in Miami Beach when I was there. >> Okay. >> So, let's let's hear number two then. >> All right. We'll be on item number two. 12746
Northeast 4th Avenue LLC. Case number CN US206 000026 and the officer on this case is Stevenson Doral. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> This is Officer Steve Dorval. this uh
this case um at 12746 Northeast 4th Avenue which uh this um violation was written back on the um uh you can see here is up there. Here's my permanent action
report. It's a violation was issued back on the 21st of April 2026. Here's my notice to appear. This is a Sunbiz which is also inactive.
Yeah, it's dissolved. Actually, I I looked at the file very carefully. I noticed there there's more than one incident. >> Correct. There's multiple incidents at this residence. This is actually um a house party that they they rent the
house out, but it's not on Airbnb. It's not on none of the sites. It's more like a word of mouth. >> To me, it sounds like a short-term rental. >> It definitely is a short-term rental >> or a party house. >> It definitely is a party house. Um and uh I noticed that there were at
least three incidents and one of them was at 3:00 in the morning. >> That's correct. Multiple incidents 3 4 in the morning, 10 at night >> and the I can't believe the owner is not here. Have you notified the owner? Does the owner know? Cuz
>> person who who answered the door did not identify himself. >> I didn't only notify the owner. I also spoke to someone at the property that is that allegedly he's saying that he's taken over the property is, you know, he's paying the back taxes that's owed
on the property. There's a lot going on at that property and I se I visit that property several times on the 30th of April, on the 4th of May, and also on >> Are you asking me to site them for each violation separately, or is there only
one violation? We're only here today for one violation, but they also had other other violations. >> Yeah, I I I would have been happy to have heard all of them, >> right? The other ones was for vehicles parked in the rightway, um vehicles parked on the grass,
um outdoor storage. It's just a lot going on there. >> Yeah. Um, >> but the biggest issue honestly is is being is the fact that it is it is a party house being rented out for short-term
>> rental. It that's what it sounds to me. >> Right. And uh normally what what I do with those is I hit him with a big fine. >> Yes. I agree. Now I I looked at the city code
and there multiple and this is why perhaps um you know a training might be helpful uh to some of the code officers that are not as experienced as some of the others. But
the code has a lot of and and this is also to the city attorney. Uh it has a lot of different sections. uh 12 uh >> this is 12 section 124 >> 12-2 nuisances are prohibited and then
uh 12 uh 12-14 uh noise disturbances prohibited uh 12-15 specific prohibitions um etc. Um I I as I said earlier I I I've been
involved with um this issue almost my entire career and I I would also encourage uh the city to uh site under the county noise ordinance which is uh
21-28 is the county's ordinance which is the only ordinance that I know of of all the municipalities in South Florida that has actually withstood a constitutional challenge. Uh and uh it says very very
clearly 2128 that u it applies to not just the county but also to um uh all the municipalities in South Florida. Uh looking for the
language here. Um it says um this section shall apply to both the incorporated and unincorporated areas. Um and the and in the incor in the
incorporated areas, this section shall be enforced by the municipalities. I like that ordinance. It's the one that other cities site. So going forward, you can site all your code sections because it's pro it probably is a nuisance,
>> right? >> Sometimes just noise is not necessarily a nuisance. >> And I I would uh encourage you to take a look at 2128 of the county, >> right? >> Because that that has been uh tested by
uh in in the federal courts and found to be legal and constitutional and not subject to a challenge. So, I I would feel more comfortable going forward if in addition to the sections that you cited, um you also cited the county just like
you do with the building code, >> right? >> You site the county. But um what I'm going to do is uh in light of the you know the fact that they're not here and that there were multiple incidents
uh and they really need a uh you you really they they really need to understand that this is not going to be permissible in the city. I am going to find them $5,000 because it is an irretrievable
um violation under the uh statute. Um I think this madam city attorney, what does it say? Irret retrievable. And there's another word used to increase the fine to $5,000. Irret retrievable and >> irreparable.
>> Ireparable. Okay. Yeah. In other words, they did they did the damage. There's nothing, you know, they did the damage, so they got to pay for what they did. and that my fine will be $5,000. >> Especially having reviewed what the
officer, >> you know, with the multiple >> attitude and you know, and and the times in question and >> uh I would suspect I have reason to believe that it is a party house since it's been doing this for a while. And
the owner should understand that when you do that, there's a penalty associated with it. And uh $5,000 I think is a fair penalty. >> That'll be a onetime fine. Correct. >> That's a one-time fine. >> Thank you.
>> Now, the next time they do it, it's going to go up. I'm telling you, I think my authority is uh higher than that, right, Madam City Attorney? I can go higher than five. >> At your discretion, but I think five makes the point.
>> Okay. Okay. Yeah. Let let them, you know, since they're not even here, which to me means they're too embarrassed to come here and argue uh
against the fine. So, uh it just shows a lack of respect for the community and a lack of respect for this system, code enforcement system. Uh so uh let let that be the message that
comes out of this proceeding that uh we're not going to tolerate this. >> If it had been a one-time thing, maybe I would have, you know, it's not a one time thing. >> Been nicer, but this is a repeated violation. >> This definitely is.
>> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> No, I I have Thank you. All right. >> All right, Magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number one. That'll be 126 West Dixie LLC. Case
number CF LR2025 001 07. And the officer on this case is Brandley Daniels. >> Okay, officer. Proceed. >> Good morning, Misty Smith.
Officer Daniel, city of North Miami. I open a violation against 12625 West Highway for not for an expired um business tax receipt.
So, here's my permanent action report. Here's the violation that was issued back on October 15, 2025 for failure to renew their business tax receipt. Here's a notice to appear.
Affidavit of posting property appraiser. Here's the Sunbiz. >> All right. That's all in the file. I've reviewed it. I'm familiar with it. >> Yes, sir. >> The tenant appears to be
uh Conviva Senior Primary Care. >> Yes, sir. That's correct, your honor. >> But they're not the owners. They're the the What is that? Like a >> medical facility? >> Yes, sir. Correct, your honor. >> Okay. So, there's a like a medical facility that has not renewed their uh their BTR.
>> Correct. Is there anybody here of the >> Good morning, Rafa Pedron, licensing manager. >> Yeah, I recognize you from before. So, I I I know you're the expert on BTRs. >> Yes. And CUS. Um, so this business, this
violation is actually towards the commercial property owner, which has not obtained their BTR, and it's been since May 14th, 2024. Um, that's when I personally emailed them and letting them know this is what
you need to apply for your business tax receipt after getting the CU approved. To date, they have not submitted anything. >> Has the tenants? >> As the commercial property owner, >> yeah, >> tenant is fine. This is towards the property owner. >> I know. Uh, but has the tenant received
>> conviva? I believe so. Yes. >> Okay. And the code requires that not just the tenant but also the property owner >> correct >> obtain a BTR >> and the property owner. >> Okay. Have they obtained do they need a certificate of use as well?
>> CU has been approved. >> Oh, okay. So, this is just coming in here and paying uh >> paying and submitting a paper. >> Okay. And I'm surprised they're not here. So anyway, uh based on the unrebuted testimony of the city's code compliance officer 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, July 15th. In the event of non-compliance, there
will be a daily fine of uh $350 until the violation is abated. So let them know that uh in 30 days this the clock starts ticking and uh look it may it may be I don't know who
owns this but it could be an out ofstate company or somebody that is too busy on other things uh because uh they're not here and This is, you know, such a simple thing to take care of. Just see if you can
reach out to them. Let them know. >> Special magistrate, as to this item, because it is a failure to renew, the penalty would have to be up to 250. >> Okay. So, there's a limit on >> there's a limit.
>> Okay. So, uh we'll make it 250. This is because the code says 250. Okay. It's specifically. So if the code provides for a penalty, I'm bound by that. Okay. >> Okay. We're done.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, your honor. >> Okay, magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number three. 1 3 02 Northeast 125 LLC 125 Street LLC. Case
number CEC CU 20225 000278. This case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith with an abatement date of April 12, 2026. Fines were set at $500 per day plus $100 cost assessment.
And the officer on this case is Shauna Sanders. Miss Sanders, please state your name for the record. >> Shannon Sanders, city of North Miami co- compliance officer. This is a case for report of previous compliance. Um
whereas compliance has not been met. Um just a brief history on the property. They were cited for not obtaining their certificate of use. This is for the barber shop um Future Cuts LLC. I've had
multiple conversations with them regarding this matter. However, again um they have not obtained their um certificate of use or BTR. Um >> are they still in business? >> I'm sorry. >> Are they still in business?
>> Yes, they are fully functioning and operating. Um >> because uh Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Sunbiz says that they're inactive. >> They are very much active. >> Okay. >> All right. So, uh they're there. They're
not uh doing their they don't have a certificate of use. >> Yeah. >> Uh they were found guilty on March uh 4th uh by me and I uh scheduled a fine of $500 per day.
um they're going to have to do a lot of haircuts to pay what uh what they're going to do what they're going to owe the city. So based on uh the testimony of uh Shana Sanders, city's code compliance officer,
uh the pictures and the evidence presented uh showing that the property has been out of compliance since the compliance date of April the third uh April the 12th. Uh, I find in favor of the city,
ratify the fines acrewed to date in the amount of $500 per day, assess and and assess cost in favor of the city. The fine shall continue to run on a daily basis until there is compliance. I'm showing uh Charles Reyes as the uh
person in charge there. Uh I don't know if he's the one that you've been talking to or not. I have talked to him as well as other individuals who have identified themselves as friends or family members of him. Um
the first time I visited the property, he identified himself as a property owner. But again, I want to put on record every time I go back now it's I'm his friend. I'm his cousin. I'm just here um hanging out, you know. So,
>> all right. Well, clock is ticking. They're ticking. Uh, anyway, any anybody any other any other cases? >> Yes, we have one more left. That's item number five. Bayardo Cortez, case number
CEB PR 2026 0003. This case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Suarez with an abatement date of May 18, 2026. Fines were set at $500 per day plus $100 cost assessment. And
the officer on this case is officer Renald Casemir. >> Okay. You you can be brief because I've already reviewed the entire file. >> Right. >> I saw the pictures and I have an order that has not been complied with. So
>> that's pretty much it. Um >> nothing new since nothing new. Um the they apply for the permit on the six. Nothing. >> Okay. >> Uh based on the uh unrebotted testimony
of the city's code compliance officer, uh the photographs and the evidence presented uh showing that the property has been out of compliance since the abatement date of May 18th.
uh property owner was previously found guilty by magistrate Suarez. I hereby ratify the fines accured to date in the amount of $500 per day 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. >> All right, magistrate. And that concludes today's hearing. >> Thank you everybody. uh appreciate your uh attendance and your help. Um it was a
brief calendar, short calendar so we can go back to work and keep the city running.