by the code compliance officer of this city. If the city is not able to prove its case, then I will dismiss the case and you may leave. These proceedings are being recorded. Therefore, 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 a translator who will assist you during the proceedings. When your case is called, the property owner, the agent for the property owner,
and any witness that you may have should come forward to the podium on the left side of the room. When asked, please speak directly into the microphone and say aloud your name, your business or 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 affidavit in order for your testimony to be taken on behalf of the property owner or for you to take any actions on behalf of the property owner. Actually, uh for new cases, you
will be asked for the record if you are aware of and understand the violation that is being heard today and do you understand what is required to resolve the violation? Please answer accordingly. The city will present its case first. Then the property owner violator will be given an opportunity to
testify on their own behalf to bring forward any witnesses to testify and to present evidence and photographs and to cross-examine the city witnesses. Following uh the case presentation, I will issue a finding of fact on the case. If I find that a violation of the
city codes exists or existed on your property, then depending on the case type, I will set an abatement date for the violation to be resolved. Or for repeat 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 date should the violations not be resolved by the abatement date, the date given. For appeals of civil citations, I will enter a ruling either affirming or reversing the citation. If the citation
is affirmed, I will enter an order assessing a civil penalty, court costs, and a compliance date. If the violator does not comply by the compliance date, continuing fines and penalties will be assessed. If I find sufficient cause to postpone enforcement action at this time, I will table the case, proceeding
to another hearing date in the future. If you do not agree with my finding a fact in a ruling, the property owner may appeal an administrative order on the case to circuit court. An appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of the execution of the administrative order to
be appealed in accordance with Florida statutes. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the special magistrate with respect to any matter considered at these proceedings, then the person will need a verbatim record of the proceeding. This records 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 appellant, whoever is bringing the appeal. And it is recommended the persons who plan to appeal their case should provide their own court reporter at this proceeding. Pursuant to uh the
city codes, if the city of North Miami prevails in prosecuting a case before the special magistrate, the city shall be entitled to recover cost incurred in prosecuting the case. The current cost assessment amount is $100 per case. Once the records are in once the city records
an order that imposes a fine and authorizes a lean against the property, then the city will charge additional administrative fees to record and release the lean. Now, if you are giving testimony today in a case, please rise and raise your right hand as an officer
issues an oath. The code compliance clerk will announce any additions, corrections, and or deletions to the hearing agenda and then he or she will call the first case. Um so
please uh first let's now have the uh officer give the pledge of allegiance and then afterwards they will administer the oath. >> Ice of the United States of America and to
the republic for it stands nationy and all standing and raise your right hand as I am. 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. >> Yes. >> Translators, please stand. Raise your right hand. 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. I'd like to ask, are there any um additions or deletions to the agenda today? >> Yes, magistrate. >> What are they, please?
>> Item number eight. Item number 27. Item number 31. >> Hang on. >> Okay. Item number 33 36.
Okay, hang on. Hang on. Okay. >> And number 37. And that's it. >> And the nature of uh those uh additions or deletions are that what? >> Yeah, they have complied. >> Okay. So, um the cases that were just
announced that uh I have circled which are again to repeat uh eight >> 27 >> 27 um 31 33 three
36 and 37 >> correct >> have complied and will not be heard today and um no further action will be taken on those today. >> Yes, that is correct. >> All right. Uh thank you. So um now uh we're going to hear from the
clerk. >> Um I would like to give you the abatement dates. >> Okay. >> Okay. So May u May 18, 30 days. June 17, 60 days. >> May 18th, 30 days. June, I'm sorry, and repeat the second one.
>> June 17, 60 days. And July 16, 90 days. You got that? >> Yes. Uh May 18th, 30 days. June 17th, 60 days. July 16th, 90 days.
>> Correct. >> If you don't mind, um just for the benefit of the persons here, can can you just tell them in a simple way what what that the abatement dates mean? >> Sure. The abatement dates basically means that's the day that you have to
comply after you are found guilty. >> Okay. Fine. >> Okay. So, good morning everyone. I'd like to thank you for participating in today's special magistry hearing. I will review the process by which today's hearing is conducted. Please make sure all devices
are 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 the case, please state your name, property address, and relationship to the property in question. If you wish to
have an interpreter assist you during the proceeding, please indicate this when you are called. your magistrate that conducts the instructions. >> In terms of the rules and past practice, are there any cases that are to be taken first because uh the respondents or
attorneys are present? >> No, we'll be going in order. >> Okay, we'll be going in order. Okay, >> correct. >> Fine. >> All right. >> Uh are are you attempting to say something, sir? Who are you? >> I'm sorry, your honor. I'm an attorney for MP. I spoke to a gentleman. I
thought he said he's going to call first. >> Okay. >> I don't mean to interrupt, but >> right. Well, I think that what is meant there is uh as I understand the rule is that if there is an attorney or a person
here on behalf of a respondent, >> I believe >> she's not the respondent. The respondent is I I who who is the respondent's attorney who's here? >> I don't see them. >> All right. Well, then I unless they
don't seem to be present. So, again, that's the rule. So, you know. All right. >> I didn't mean to interrupt and I >> No, it's no problem. Um so then continuing as we planned, we're going to hear
case number one and uh that case is >> magistrate. I'll be going by an order by who's present. >> All right. Okay. I thought you said that. All right. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Okay. Okay. So item number one 117
office building corp case number C LR 2025 001 02 and also it um item number two is the same case. Would you like me to just do it one by one or we'll do it at the same time?
>> Um let let's do it one by one. >> Okay. And the the representative for the property is Adner Leante. Okay. So, um the the first case uh which uh has been
read permit address is 1175 Northeast 125th Street. Uh there's a need for a business tax receipt or BTR um for Archon Engineering Group which is currently expired. And um
let's let's hear that case, please. Good morning everyone. Officer Daniel, city of North Miami. I issued a violation back on October 9th, 2025
for Archon for not having a current business tax receipt. I'm showing that um sufficient posting and mailing was applied
and as of my reinspection date, the business has not obtained their current business tax receipt. As of >> when was the reinspection date, officer? >> Give me one second. >> Sure.
October 25th, 2025. October 23rd, excuse me, 2025. >> Okay. And there's uh per your records, there's been no compliance since then. >> Yes, sir. That is correct. >> Okay. Can I see any uh photo or exhibit
you have, please? That's the posting. I'm not sure if you can see. That's me. Uh, that's the posting. >> Okay, I see it. >> And the others. >> This is the affidavit of posting.
>> Okay. >> And the most recent affidavit of posting. >> Okay. Those are the exhibits. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. They'll be accepted into the record. Um,
is there anything else you want to add? When when um should there be any further um date for uh abatement on this or should uh because it's it's been going on a while, it should uh be
found in violation. >> Good morning, Rafael Pedro, licensing manager. I can attest to the fact that this business, Archon Engineering, has not had a business tax receipt since 2010. And prior to today, I have not spoken to this business owner for any sort of
explanation. >> So, no BTR since 2010? >> No. >> Okay. So, uh what would be the proposed uh fine for no BTR? >> A one-time fine, sir.
>> Of >> whatever you decide. >> Okay. Uh, does does the code stipulate a fine violation for this? >> Yes, your magistrate. >> And what what is it? >> I can pull it up for you. I can pull it up.
>> Yeah, please pull it up. 200, your magistrate. >> $200. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Uh, is there anybody else here who wishes to be heard on this? Is there any There's someone at a podium. That's why I'm asking. Is there anybody else who wants to be heard on
this? That means you. >> Are you here on this case? >> Yes, I'm here. My name is Adelon. Yeah, I heard what uh the lady just said and >> and you are what is your address and what is your relationship to the property? >> I am the president of Aron Engineering, but I believe the inspector probably
made a mistake. uh he put Aquan Engineering Group LLC but my company is AON Engineering Group Inc. Also he put the address um sweet 215 my sweet number is 213 I already spoke to him I think he's going to fix that and I'm willing
to pay the fine and then also I applied for the C uh CU and I have the process number >> uh for for the BTR. Yeah. For for the business >> for the Right. But a business tax receipt. You don't have a business tax receipt?
>> No. >> Okay. >> So, I think that uh the city should correct its record. Uh I don't know if the business is operating in both suite numbers or one or um >> it's only one sweet number. >> It's only one sweet number. But any in any event, you're the respondent. You
were cited. You have knowledge of it. You're here, right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Special magistrate, I wanted to make one correction on the case. Yes. Uh for the record, >> if it is adjudicated, it would need to be a running fine and not a onetime fine. >> It would be a running fine. Yes.
>> So, it's 200 per DM. >> Correct. >> Okay. And uh they have not had a uh they have not had a BTR since 2010. Right. That's just that's the testimony. Okay. So, um is there
anything else you want to say, sir? >> Uh no. >> Okay. So I I make a finding uh based on the record uh the testimony and the evidence that has been heard that uh the business um Archon Engineering Group
does not have a current business tax receipt uh for uh their uh business operations as required by law. Um uh and they have not had one for a long time, but you know, we're not going back on in time on this, but uh they they do not
have it now and don't have it at this moment. So, um effective um at this time I am going to impose a fine of uh $200 per day until a business tax
receipt is secured and obtained um uh as required by law. And um that will be the order in this case. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. And the next case that we'll be calling is the same property 1175
office building corp case number CEZCU 202500290 and the representative for the property is the same person Adler Leante uh as a point clarification. Um, the fine um
is going to start uh unless I'm advised otherwise, the fine will start tomorrow because they haven't had a BTR since 2010 and it's 2026. So, that's what I'm right. It starts tomorrow. >> I have found them in violation for not
having a BTR. Yes. Even even when it's even when it's a like 20. >> Okay. All right. Okay. The uh abatement date. Uh let me uh just
state for the record then that um though this violation has existed since 2010 per the testimony unreuted the uh abatement date will be provided of 30 days uh 30 days would be uh more or less May
would be May 18th and uh if no BTR is obtained uh by May 18th, 2026. Uh effective on that date, there will be a $200 per DM,
that is per day fine, um imposed until the BTR is secured. So, um yeah, thank you for that clarification. No, I I understand what you're saying. It's just, you know, the the violation
has existed for 16 years, but okay, that's fine. Um, okay. Um, >> yes, we'll continue on the next case. All right. It's pretty much the same property, 117 5 office building Corp. case number CZCU
202500290. And the representative for the property would be Admiral Leante. >> Court Officer Daniel. Thank you everyone. The same property was also given a
violation for not having their certificate of use. I cited the property on the same day as the business tax receipt. Uh
>> yes, sir, that is correct, your honor. And as of October 25th of my reinspection date, the business has not >> I'm sorry, excuse me. March 16th, as of my final reinspection date, the BIS
March 16th of 2026, the business did not meet compliance for their certificate of use. Yes, your honor. >> This is the posting. >> Yes, sir. >> Are you speaking to me?
>> Sorry. >> All right. May I see the photographs, please? >> Sure. Um, I'm I'm sorry. This is the original aid for the posting. This is the actual posting the violation
and here's the actual violation. Okay. Uh, those documents will be accepted into the record and made part of the record. Um, is there anything else you want to add, officer? Good morning. Gra licensing manager. Um the gentleman has turned in a
certificate of use application on May 13th and it's currently in process. So he is being diligent in terms of going through the process, >> but he doesn't have the certificate of use yet. >> No. Okay.
Um, madame attorney, can you advise uh me what the um fine is per the code and whether it's a perdium or one time for the CU? >> Yes, special magistrate. It's also perdm
and it's a fine of up to 250. So, it's at your discretion. >> Okay. How long has this property not had a CU for? Because of the amount of time without a BTR, this pro this business actually has
not had a CU ever. >> They've never had a CU. >> No, because CU began in 2011. So, he stopped paying for a BTR in 2010 and then he just never obtained a CU. >> Okay.
Um Okay. Um All right. Fine. Um, >> sir, do do you state your name, your address again, and anything you want to say about this and your relationship?
>> Uh, my name is Adela. um the CU uh the inspector is talking about we just we applied for a CU probably uh not too long ago and then that thing is in process right now. We're waiting for
the city clerk you know to issue the uh CU and then that's all I can say. >> Okay. Um so uh based on what I have uh
based on uh the testimony I have heard um I find uh and I make the finding a fact that um uh this uh business uh Archon Engineering does not have a certificate of use as required by law. Have not had one. They apparently are in
good faith applying for one now, but they have not had one for many many years since at least since 2011. So, uh they will be given uh 30 days uh till May 18th
to obtain a certificate of use. uh if they uh have not done so, there will be uh in light of the um many many years of of not having one, there will be a a daily fine of $250
a day commencing on that date um until a certificate of use is uh obtained. Um so that would be through May 18th. Okay.
And uh that's that's a date for compliance just like in the other. >> Also, I want uh the inspector to u fix the record because he put the wrong address. >> I want him to fix that address also. Uh the wrong sweet number. I think you need
to fix that also. >> Yes. I I would I would recommend I think it's it's beyond my my perview here, but I would recommend that the inspector and and you meet and that the city correct it records to >> just to clarify that was the original
suite from 16 years ago. So it has not been updated yet because he is still in process. >> Okay. So it's it's actually sir what the city's saying it's incumbent upon you and I think the code provides that if you change an address a suite number something like that you have to come in and you have to show that documentation
to the city it's beyond you just saying here that it's wrong since you haven't come in before evidently and done that you you need to do that. >> Okay. I will take care of that. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you magistrate. >> All right. Um
okay magistrate. The next item I'll be calling will be item number 11, Bayardo Cortez, case number CBPR 2026 0000003. And the officer on this case is Rainol Kazmir and the representative for the
property is Habib Cake Cake York. Good. Good morning, magistrate. >> Good morning. Uh, please give your name and uh your your position, your address. >> My name is Inspector Officer Casemir. >> Okay.
>> Code enforcement officer. >> Okay. And we are here on case number 11 on the agenda today. Biardo Cortez, address of 1665 Northwest 134th Street. unapproved efficiency living unit uh
built or created without the required permits. >> Um >> yeah. >> Okay. Let's let's hear from you on that case. >> Well, the case is basically it's an unapproved efficiency that was built without a permit.
>> So there was no building permit ever issued >> at all >> here for this? >> No, sir. >> Okay. uh show us the the photographic evidence please. Uh bring it up. >> This is the efficiency.
>> I don't know what happened. >> These are all the photos that were taken >> that was built. >> Hang on. >> Hold on a second. All right, start going through them again one by one.
>> I'm gonna start from the top. >> Yeah, start from the top. One by one. >> Just let me know when you want me to go to the next one. >> Go describe each one. >> Oh, this is the This is the efficiency. That's the one that's on the left side of the house that was built. It has a bathroom
that was also constructed. And according to the property appraiser, it's supposed to be a a three bedroomedroom, one bath. >> And with the effic uh unapproved efficiency, what is it? It's
plus the efficiency. >> Plus the efficiency. Yeah. >> Okay. Go ahead. What's your next exhibit? Here's here's the bathroom. That That's part of the efficiency. >> Okay. Next exhibit, please. >> That's it. As far as far as the
pictures, it's just two pictures for the efficiency. >> Okay. What What about your other documents? >> My other documents are >> the property appraiser. >> Okay. my posting. >> Okay. The posting on the address.
>> Yeah, that's the notice up here. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Here it is again. >> Okay. >> The notice of violation also. >> Okay. and the and the regular notice of violation
and the affidate affidavit of posting. >> Those are all your exhibits. >> That's all my exhibit. >> Okay. They are all noted and accepted into the record uh as evidence in this case. Um is there anything else that you'd like to add?
>> Not at the moment, sir. Uh, madame attorney, what is the um prescribed fine for the unpermitted unit and is it perdm or not? >> Special magistrate, it is perdm and it's up to $500.
And do we have anyone else here to speak on this matter? >> Hi, >> you are >> I'm the contractor for the house. Okay. And right now I'm working for the plan and the permit to submit in the city. So I don't know if you
>> Okay. You didn't Well, first off, do uh you have a power of attorney? >> No. >> Okay. So, um if you don't have a power of attorney, um I don't believe that that uh under the
rules and and practices here, you can testify because you're not the owner. >> Okay. You're not an attorney. >> Okay. >> And he didn't give you you don't have a power of attorney. >> Okay. >> Uh I mean for the record since you've stood up just give your your name and your business address and and
>> Okay. So what I can make >> Yeah. You I'm just asking you. You stood up. What is your name and your business address? >> My name is Habib K. >> Okay. >> That is the address for my client is I'm the contractor. I'm working for the planning permit to legalize the
>> All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. >> That's it. Um Okay. I uh am going to when when do you know or is it possible to determine when this um unpermitted efficiency was built or did you
determine that in speaking to anybody? >> Well, >> officer >> from the picture. >> Yes. >> This is a picture that was 2023. I don't know if it was built before that, but that's when the officiative was first we
first found out about it back in 201. >> That's when the city was first appraised of it >> for sure. >> Okay. So, now we're in 2026. Okay. Um based on the u testimony and the evidence as unrevitted, I find that at
um on case number 11 uh Bayardo Cortez at 1665 Northwest 134th Street, there was an unapproved unpermitted efficiency living unit that was built and created without the required permits under the Florida Building Code and and other
applicable uh regulations. Um and um I will afford 30 days for compliance uh which is May 18th
um 2026. And again mindful of the fact that we're now in 2026 and based on the inspector's testimony this has existed for at least three years. So, uh there there will be a fine if um I I do find this violation to have been proven and
existing. Uh there will be a fine um if if there hasn't been a pure, you know, correction by May 18th of $500 per day until the required building permit per the building code and other applicable regulations
um is obtained. And that's that's a decision on the case. >> Okay. >> Okay. So again, the date is is May 18th. May 18th for compliance. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Perfect. >> If not, there will be that fine. And uh if there's nothing else on this matter,
then uh that uh resolves this matter. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next matter. >> Okay, magistrate. The next item will be item number 20, 21, and 22. They're all the same property. So, I'll start with
item number 20. Fountain Head Sub parcel 1 LLC case number CF OB 2025 00159. And the representative for the property is Adriana Norman. >> Andrea.
>> Andrea, sorry. And the officer on this case is Shana Sanders. >> Okay. Where is Okay, here's the officer. Okay. Okay, we'll hear from the officer. And like in all the cases uh uh that that I
hear anyway, please um have the photographs and other evidence ready to show on the screen so they can be admitted. I apologize, Magistrate. I wasn't prepared to hear this case. They sent me an email stating that they um wanted an extension um seeing that it was um the
first day of Passover. So, again, I wasn't prepared to hear this case. So, just give me a moment. I thought we were tableabling it. I apologize. I don't know anything about that email. >> Well, I I certainly am unaware of it.
So, um I don't know who the email was to and uh but apparently it's still on the docket. So, whoever prepares the docket didn't nor was it announced for continuance. So, I'm going to move ahead unless there's
some other um understanding here. But um >> which case are we hearing first? >> Uh case number 20. >> Which one is that? I don't have >> Fountain Head Fountain Head uh sub
parcel uh one LLC CFO 2025159. Uh >> is that for the business tax receipt certificate of use? >> Yeah. Uh that that one is for the BTR for red spot truck parking.
Shannon Sanders, City of North Miami code enforcement officer. Um, this case is for the failure to obtain the business tax receipt. This case was first opened um by code officer um Mel who has um no longer with the
city. It has been given to me to present as of it being given to me. I've looked in the records. I've shown and or seen that they at this present time don't have a business tax receipt um for this property.
Uh may I see um the the photos and and the the you know other documents in this case please? Dona, >> we can Can I have someone come and look at this? I I'm not familiar with um this system here. So, Gregory, can you come
down and do this part for me, please? Okay. Please, please um let's just quickly go through the documents if you don't mind, please. If I'm looking at it, that looks to be the notice to appear that the original officer mailed out. >> What What date is that? Can you can Can
you tell me? >> That shows January 27th, 2025. >> Okay. Then go then go ahead to the next one and just briefly describe it if you would. >> That looks like the notice who appeared that the administrative clerk mailed out. That's the notice of posting where as I posted the property
>> Friday >> that's dated March March 6 of 2026. >> Okay. >> Day county property appraisal that Sunbiz. >> Okay.
And this is the photo um of the property that I took at my last reinspection. More so showing the business um name that is located at this location >> and that was on March 16th. >> That is correct. >> And um
officer, as of this date, do they have a BTR? >> No, they do not. >> Okay. And when if we know if if you know, when was the last time they had one? Um they did not they do not have one at all. >> They have not had one at all. Okay.
So um here uh again to the the code fine uh correct me if I'm wrong for an OBTR is $200 per day. Right, Madam Attorney? Since this is the failure to obtain and
not to renew, it is up to $500 a day. >> Failure to obtain. Okay. >> Yes. >> And here that's what I was well what I was attempting to to gauge from the witnesses. So it's never been obtained as per you don't just don't have one.
>> Okay. >> No. >> All right. >> Are you are you asking me? I'm sorry. They do not they have not obtained a business tax receipt. To the best of our knowledge in the records, they have never >> they have never obtained a business tax receipt. >> Okay. Is there anything else anybody
from the city wants to add? >> Not I. >> Okay. >> Give your name again and your title. >> Rafael Pedro, licensing manager, city of North Miami. Um, I did look on Miami Dade County's portal to check the status
of their approval process, which is a prerequisite to completing our process. And it looks like their application with the county is considered abandoned, originally turned in February 10th, 2025. So, they would need to reach out to the county to get that process
started up again so that we can continue on our end. Is there anybody else here who wants to speak on this matter? Please give your name, uh your business address, your relationship to uh the property, whether you are the owner and so forth.
>> So, my name is Andrea Norman. I'm here representing 1890 Northeast 146th Street. I have the power of attorney. I'm acting on behalf of the landlord. I work directly for the property owner. um this property. >> We need to have has anyone reviewed that power of attorney? You have
>> at the front. >> Is it a matter of record? I need to ask. I don't know. >> Yeah, I'd like it placed in the record if it's been accepted. >> So, you need this now? >> Yes. Yes, we do. >> Okay. Okay, that was reviewed and
accepted by the city. >> Okay. >> And that's for the ne next two cases, this case and then the next two as well. So, we found out about this um the landlord found out about this in early March as the inspector said. We got notices probably around March 10th or
so. Um we did apply advise the tenant. We have a tenant on property. Um they've been there since December 18th of 2025. Um with a rent commencement date I think beginning in March of 2020 or sorry
since 2023 with a rent commencement date beginning in March of 2024. Um we did advise the tenant that all three of these violations are tenant responsibility under the terms of the lease and they have not been complied
with. So I'm I'm you know I'm merely a magistrate here but I can advise you and I don't know if uh other city professional staff want to add anything else. The way code enforcement works if if those things are fixed as a tenants's responsibility
in the lease then that's a matter between you and them >> of course. >> But the way code enforcement works is cities have to look to the owners because uh that's the way the system is set up under state and local law. um you know because it's it's against
the the violation is on the property it's you know as against the property so you look to the owner >> no we understand that sir >> right okay so that's something that that while I appreciate what you're saying you have to resolve >> absolutely >> you know with your tenant uh privately
or in in whatever manner you can you know um is there anything else you want to say >> no sir >> okay so Um I find uh are there any other violations on this property?
>> Um yes, they have a corresponding case for the certificate of use and then they have one for the sad >> um >> for the for the what? >> For the sad the grass area um around the property um needs to be replaced due to the type of business they have now.
They've been parking trucks um along um in that um at that location which has damaged the grass area. So the city is requesting them to either place down sod in or to put down some type of um gravel, rocks, concrete, something that
>> those are the other cases we're hearing. >> Okay. Did they have if anybody knows that they have any of the other violations before or we don't know. >> They do. I I know that they do have other cases. um not before the magistrate, but they do have eight other
cases that are pending um for this violation. I mean for this property, >> eight other cases, >> eight other violations. Eight other violations that are opened um not before again this magistrate, but other ones that you know may come later as um as
need be. >> Okay. >> Sir, I don't know anything about those. If those have been sent, we have not received those. >> Right. those well those are you know I was just trying to find outformationally not to you know so that's something that you can certainly meet with the inspector or staff about later but
they're not on the agenda today there's no concern with those today those are I was just trying to gauge uh the nature of of uh the frequency of the violations on that property >> that's all it was really just for my
information so um >> number 20 >> yes on case number 20 I am going to find that there is a violation uh for the Fountain Head sub parcel to um
not have a business tax receipt or BTR uh as required by law. And um I am going to give uh the respondent the business 30 days to comply May 18th.
And um I was told uh and again I just want to reiterate that uh since they've never had a BTR and that's been established, right? They've never had a BTR that uh they haven't obtained a BTR and the perdm fine is up to $500.
Is that is that correct, Madam City? Um Madam Attorney, >> yes, this one is at your discretion, >> right? Okay. So, uh they have a multitude of violations. So, I'm going to um assess a fine of
$350 a day uh for not having a BTR. Uh that will commence on May 18th. Uh that violation has been proven and um that will uh unless there's something else that will conclude this particular
uh case number 20. >> Okay. The next item will be item number 21. Same property, Fountain Head Subarcel 1 LLC. Case number CES SOD 2025 00009. And uh officer on this case is also
officer Shauna Sanders and Adria Norman. >> Close. >> This is the the damaged sod case. >> Andrea, >> this case has to do with uh the damaged sod in the swale area. Okay. Um, >> yes, that is correct. Shannon Sanders,
City of North Miami code compliance officer. As already stated, this violation is for 1890 Northeast 146th Street. It was originally opened by um code officer Janiro Mel um who's no longer with the city. It was originally
opened on January 14th, 2025, whereas he um inspected the property, sent out a notice of violation. Um I can't say if any contact has been made between then and now. It has been given to me on Janu on March 16th of 2026. Whereas I was
asked to um follow up with this case and find out what's going on. As of that time I inspected the property. I did observe that the sad area um did need to be um was it was damaged and needs to be replaced. I verified and looked at the
pictures that were taken from when the officer originally opened it. I have been in contact with um you a gentleman um and I believe you know a woman regarding this violation. They understood fully what what needed to be
done. I thought um compliance would have been made before today but it has not as of my last reinspection. When was your last reinspection more or less? >> My last reinspection was on March 16th.
>> And there was no compliance as >> there was no compliance as you see here in the photos. The um grass area that surrounded the property um is damaged um and needs to be replaced. >> Okay. And can you just quickly describe
the documents that you're presenting just very quickly? >> Go back down up >> from the top or whatever you know. >> Go all the way back down. Who wants to start >> from the top?
>> From the top. Of course, that's the permanent action report showing all the activities and notations that have been made um since the violation was open. The notice that you're looking at here is the original notice of violation that was sent out by the officer who opened it. That was in
January of 2025. Um you have this is the notice to appear that the administrative staff um gave to me and mailed out to the property regarding today's hearing. That's my notice of posting um that I posted the property. Actually, I hand delivered it
to a gentleman who was um identified himself as an employee of the business. Um that is the affidavit of posting from the original notice um a violation that was mailed out by the officer who opened
the violation. Day County property appraisal. Sunbe is showing the um Sunb account for the property and the business. And those are my current photos of the what the property looked like at the time of my
reinspection and dated March 16th. And those barren areas are areas that are required by by the code to have sod. >> It necessarily doesn't say it has to be saw. It has to be in good condition.
Whatever materials that they have there needs to just be again in good condition. And since they have grass area, we would require them to put down more grass area. If they choose to have something else, they can visit the b um the building department and obtain the necessary permits. But for now it's
grass. >> Okay. So again to just fully comprehend the violation, if it's grass, it has to be resided. If it's gravel, it would have to be an acceptable gravel approved by the city. What whatever kind of finish it is. Am I
>> That is correct. >> Okay. None of which is the case. Okay. Um is there anything else you want to add? >> No. >> Okay. All the exhibits and the evidence are accepted into the record. Uh, madame city attorney, what is the um prescribed
fine for this violation and is it pdium? >> Special magistrate, the code does not have a fine for this, so it would be at your discretion, but it would be PDM. >> Okay. Um, please get state your name, your relationship again, and anything you want to say about this.
>> Sure. Andrea Norman. Um I'm the property manager. I have the power of attorney for the landlord. We found out about this same as the last case in early March. We reached out to the tenant and advised them that they needed to take care of this as per the terms of the lease. As you've already stated, this is
a ultimately an owner responsibility. Um we were under the impression that it was being taken care of. We have an email from the tenant that said it was being taken care of on Saturday. Um, when I followed up with the tenant to make sure that it was taken care of, they did not respond to my email, but they did tell
me today that it was not taken care of. >> All right. Um so uh based on the testimony and and the evidence I have heard today, I do find that uh there is a violation in case number 21 of um damaged sod or other
acceptable finish of the city in the swale area caused by vehicles and trucks and so forth parking on it. Um there being no prescribed fine uh we're going to give 30 days to comply which is May 18th
and uh there is no prescribed fine. So for this particular violation there will be a pdeium of $100 per day uh commencing on uh May 18th um until there is correction or cure of that violation.
Am I clear? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Um, >> yes. Yes, I see it. Uh, so now we'll have um >> Okay. The next item on the agenda was item number 22, same property, Fountain
Head Subarcel 1 LLC. Case number CECU 202500151. And the officer on this case is Shannana Sanders. And the representative for this property is Andrea Norman. >> Perfect. Shannon Sanders, City of North Miami co-
compliance officer, presented the case for property address 1890 Northeast 143rd Street. Um just as the previous um cases, this case was given to me um to follow up and or to address. This case was originally opened by officer Janiro
Marillo, a previous employee of the city on January 27th, 2025. whereas they visited the property, noted um and looked in the computer, verified that there was no certificate of use, proceeded to mail out notice of
violations for the property. I am seeing no records between January 27 of 2025 up until it was given to me March 6 of 2026 to follow up on and or to address. At that time, I looked into the system. I
did not see a certificate of use application on file and or obtained. So I proceeded to um move forward in presenting it um and for today's hearing. Um again this case um kind of goes with the first one for the business tax receipt, but this one is for the
certificate of use. They kind of go hand in hand. So if we can um you know can we have this case maybe you know um mimic the same as we did for um 20 for the business tax receipt because you can't really receive one without the other. So
for time purposes um we can you know can we if it's up to you and of course the registered agent if we can do these um identical with the same reinspection date compliance dates. Yes, I understand and
thank you. Uh, can we quickly go through the photos and the evidence and put them on the record? And maybe is now a good a time as any to say that with me for every case presented by anyone, I want the photos and the evidence briefly described because I I'd like to put them
on the record. Okay. So, that's just request, please. >> Okay. Um the first case that you the first photo you should be seen is for the permanent action report um showing all the data and notices everything the
inspections that we've been doing at the property. The second um what you're seeing now is the notice of violation that the officer who originally opened the case um has on file. This is the notice to appear for today's
hearing that was mailed out by the administrative staff showing certified mailing was mailed out. Affidavit of posting for which I posted and or handd delivered to the um a gentleman who identified himself as an employee. Um
you have the day county property appraisal and then again the photos dated March 16th of my last reinspection. Okay. All of these will be accepted into the record as evidence. Um,
madame city attorney, I I realize that that the CU is related to the BTR and so forth, but again, I want to ask because um does the code prescribe a particular >> Yes, your magistrate, it prescribes of
up a fine of up to $250 per day. Okay. Um, Miss, what again? Uh, name, address, relationship, and anything you want to say? >> Yes, your honor. Uh, Andrea Norman, uh, 1890 Northeast 146 representing the
landlord. I have power of attorney by the property owner. Um, I don't have anything else to say. I've I've I've you know we understand what you need to do. >> Okay. So um appreciate that. Um
based on the uh evidence that has been uh presented uh there is no CU and then none has apparently been on file or has been obtained uh for this address. So, I am going to find that uh 1890 Northeast
146th Street uh Fountain Head Subarcel is in violation by not having a CU from uh the city. Um they will have 30 days to comply which is May 18th, 2026. Uh and if there is no compliance or you
know uh cure by that date um the uh the period uh after the abatement date uh there will be a $250 per day fine uh until the certificate of use is obtained. Um
and uh that that's the order in this case. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, magistrate. The next item on the agenda is item number 24, 25, and 26. They're all the same property. We'll start with item number 24, JNR Capital
5161 LLC. Case number CBPR 2025 00316. And this case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith with an abatement date by March 16, 2026. The fines were set at 350 per day plus $100
cost assessment. And the officer on this case is Jonathan Lestri. And the the representative of this property is the Sanoli Noel. Okay, let's let's hear from the officer. And please remember to put um the photos
and the other documents in um before me so they can be admitted into evidence, please. >> Absolutely. Good morning, Magistrate. Suarez co- compliance officer Jonathan Lestri. And this case is a returning case uh in regards to building permits
required at 13001 Northwest 7th Avenue. On October 3rd, 2025, I opened a notice of violation at 13001 Northwest 7th Avenue in regards to interior renovation at the property
without a permit on file. Um, I posted the notice of violation. I mailed the notice of violation out to the property owner via property appraiser. Um, on January 16th, 2026, found reinspection date. The business failed
to obtain an after the fact permit for the interior work done inside the unit. Uh, on February 10th, 2026, they were found guilty by Magistrate Smith and they had to abate by March 16th. Uh the fine was set at $350 per day plus $100 cost assessment.
And on March 16th, 2026, as of the fun inspection date for this agenda, um the business failed to obtain an after the fact permit for the interior renovations at the property. >> Uh can we at the documents, please, and put them into the record?
>> Absolutely. So this page is the permanent action report. This is where our notes are. um shows that you know they were found guilty by uh magistrate Smith. This is the notice of violation that was issued to the property. The notice to appear uh before the
magistrate. This is the affidavit of posting. This is Miami County's property appraiser. Sunbiz shows the business. Correction shows the property owner.
And this is another Sunbiz showing the business at the location. And this is the final reinspection photos. Uh March 16th, 2026. Um this is in front of the property. >> Um if you could see the
>> the 929 Yeah, boy. on the right hand side. Um they installed that wall inside the unit. This picture is the uh posting of the property
and this is in front of the unit. This is in front of the property and the business at the location uh 929 Yabo. Um we were informed by the zoning department of the business operating there without license licensing.
Um they informed us that you know they're trying to open the business at the location and they're doing interior innovations without a permanent on file. So, this is what it looked like when I first opened the violation back on October 2nd, 2025.
Again, interior renovations. Uh, this is as soon as you, uh, look through the front door, this is what you see. And like I stated, this is what it looks like now. Uh, they put up a wall as you can see from the bottom. So we'll
So again, they did interior renovations without a permanent on file. >> Okay. Is there anything else you wish to add? >> No, sir. >> Okay. All the photos that you have shown and the uh other evidence is going to go into the record. Um and um
uh is there anybody else here to speak on this matter? Um, my name is Dino. The address is 13001 Northwest North Miami. I'm the tenant. Um, I think last time we came here, they thought we was
open without the certificate of use. We did not. And then, um, we had to get the full plan from the engineering. That was the same guy that came today. the first guy we went to
him. He take um a month and a half to give us the full plan. He still couldn't do it. And then the inspector from Miami date county asks us to get another engineer down from now. We working on it
for the full plan so we can move from there. We haven't operate yet. >> Okay. Is there anything else you want to add? Um before we came here, that was on
3 weeks before today, we went downstairs and then we asked if we can get more days for us to get all the papers done. >> So, okay, I I understand. Uh is there anything else you want to say?
So my my view is and and I'll listen to to council or whatever, but my view is that um um the violation this is a a fairly common violation to my knowledge of um work
without a permit has been shown and I I find the the violation present at JNR um you know Capital uh LLC uh 131 Northwest 7th Avenue. I think I have to be mindful of and take administrative notice of the
prior magistrate's hearing. There's an order. So um you know I I feel that I uh really have limited discretion in in this case because there's a prior on the matter and that prior has not been
appealed and uh or you know so um so I'm going to ratify and confirm the prior magistrate's order of uh March 16, 2026 uh finding that uh there there wasn't
um a compliance by March 16th of of that date and the fine to be imposed uh to that date, the to the abatement date of March 16, 2026 because again this was heard already by by another magistrate and an order was imposed uh would be a
$350 per day fine as of as of that date as of you know when that period passed and and and and going forward until there's compliance and the $100 administrative assessment and it is so ordered and I really don't have any
choice in the matter. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, magistrate. >> The next item will be item number 25. The same property JNR Capital 5161 LLC case number CF OB 2025
00288. in this case was previously found guilty by magistrate spiff with an abatement date uh by March 16, 2026. Fines are set by 350 per day plus $100 cost assessment. And the officer on this case
is Jonathri and the representative for the property is also the soni Noel. Good morning again, Magistrate Suarez, co- compliance officer, Jonathan Leestry, and just a quick rundown of uh of the violation. On December 13th,
2025, I opened a notice of violation at 13001 Northwest 7th Avenue for the business 929 Yah Boy Bar and Lounge. Um they do not have a business tax receipt on file. Um I posted the notice of violation that day and I also mailed the
notice of violation as well. Um, they were found guilty by Magistrate Smith and they had to abate by March 16th, 2026 and the fine was set at $350 per day plus $100 cost assessment. On March 5th, 2026, I posted the notice to appear at the property uh the posted the
notice to appear before the magistrate at the property. >> Can we quickly go through the photographs again to >> Absolutely. >> and describe each one very briefly. >> Yes. So, these is what we call the permit action report. This is where we keep our notes. Uh, this is the notice
of violation that was posted at the property. This is the notice to appear at the property. This is the affidavit of posting. Uh, Miami County property appraiser.
This is the business 929 boy bar and lounge sunbiz account which shows 13001 Northwest 7th Avenue. This is the sunbiz for the property owner JNR Capital. And again, this is in front of the
business. So, the business is so they're doing renovations at the unit to build up their business uh their bar and lounge at the property. Um, but again, our zoning department for uh for the city of North Miami provided us
photos showing that they had a food truck uh under the same name 929 boy and they would park it at that unit and they would serve food. And these are the photos from their Instagram page which shows that they are operating
and again uh the postings of the property And this is the order to comply. >> Okay. All the uh evidence presented uh is accepted into the record and made part of the record. Thank you. Is there anything else anybody wants to add? >> Yes. >> Rafael Pedro, licensing manager, city of
North Miami. This business has been in since about October, November, and and did apply for their certificate of use. However, they were advised by zoning that a board of adjustment application must be turned in and approved prior to the completion of the CU processing
because of the business's close proximity to residential homes. Since initially being told at the end of 2025, to date, no board of adjustment application has been turned in. So, there in essence, their CU application
is on and is on hold. Um, anything else you want to add? >> No, that's all. >> Um, okay. Um, is there uh anyone else that wants to speak on this matter? And please again
your your name, your business address, your relationship, and what you want to say. >> Um, my name is Dolin Noel. The address is 13001 Northwest 7 Avenue. Um, like I said, we if we did not have
the the Southx, we did apply for it. And then like I said already, the reason why we haven't have the certificate of use, it's it's it's it's because of the engineering and mommy did too. After the
engineering done with the for plan they're going to send us the code and then we have to go to the zoning. After zoning we have to go to um healthc care to sign. So we was waiting all on him to finish the project so we can start from
there. Okay. >> And I appreciate what you're saying and I know that uh the engineering reports and so forth with the county can, you know, be um involved. Um nevertheless, I think here
my hands are somewhat tied. There's an order by a prior magistrate uh and uh you know, I I have to acknowledge and take uh administrative notice of that. Uh there was already a finding and a hearing on this. So, I'm
going to find that um on a case number 25 uh for 131 Northwest 7th Avenue um you know, in terms of um
this violation. uh there is not a BTR and I'm going to uh I think that's proven and I'm going to ratify and confirm uh the order of the other magistrate and um uh I'm going to impose
as is prescribed by the magistrate in the earlier order a flying of 350 per day uh which would be effective after the abatement date of uh March 16, 2026 as I understand it and the $100 in costs and Um, you know, I believe that that
that's, you know, the, you know, the bow is pretty well tied on this case and and, uh, it's it's not the first time hearing it here and so forth. So, uh, that that is the order here. Thank you. >> Yes. And also the order magistrate tell us if we need more time to come
request for the more times. >> Uh, yes. So I I can't speak for the other magistrate except that uh there was no uh there was no uh request made here of record and the way the city receives
this request and and uh and again not to you know I I'm just mindful of any other magistrate in their orders. Um additional time wasn't afforded to you in in the earlier order. So I don't know how I can afford additional time now because there's already an earlier order. So I I again I think my hands are
pretty well tied. Thank you. All right, magistrate. The next item we will be working on is item number 26. It's the same property JNR Capital 5161 LLC. Case number CE CU 2025 00332.
And this case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith with an abatement date of March 16, 2026. Fines were set at 350 a day plus $100 assessment cost. And the officer on this case is Jonathan Lamestry and the property representative is Desaloney
Noel. >> Good morning again, Magistrate Toare. Um, this case mirrors case number 25. Uh, this violation is in regard to the certificate of use at 1301 Northwest 7th Avenue. >> Item number 26. >> Correction, I'm sorry. Number 26. >> 26.
>> Not 46, I'm sorry. Number 26. Um, so this violation is in regard to the certificate of use at 1301 Northwest 7th Avenue. Um, quick summary. On December 13th, 2025, I opened the notice of violation uh for the business at the location 929 Yo Bar and Lounge for not
having a certificate of use. I posted the notice of violation at the property, mailed the notice of violation to the property owner. Um, >> pictures, John, >> pictures. >> Yeah, pictures and documents on all cases. you you can describe those as you're going through it or after however you
want but in all cases yes >> I understand so this is the permanent action report where we uh keep our notes uh the notice of violation against the property this is the notice to appear before the magistrate
the affidavit of posting Miami county property appraiser uh the sunbiz of the the sum biz of the property owner the notice to appear before the magistrate.
This is uh the order to comply. And again, these are photos that our zoning department provided to us showing that there was a business operating at the location and that is the storefront of the property of the business.
>> Is there anything else you want to add? >> No sir. >> Um, all photos and other evidence is hereby accepted into the record and made part of the record. Um sir again name, business address, relationship and anything you want to say.
>> That's NOA 1300 on Northwest 7 Avenue. It's look like it's the same photos that they repeat it again and over and over. Um for the photo that was the that was a food truck, my food truck. Since I rent
the place, I thought I was going to like park the truck in front of the place. But before we done that, we came to the city the zoning and then I provide the address and then I asked them if I can park the truck there and then they said
no. North Miami does not allowed food truck. After the other day, I never come back with the food truck. But at least they already they already have some pictures from the food truck. It's okay. But when I came here, they say we could not not like park the truck. We never
park the truck again. So that was the same photo he's showing over and over and like I said we did not operate without certificate of fuse because we was waiting on the engineering for the full plan >> right no and I understand what you're saying so what what I wanted to say
briefly and again not advising you in any sense of course but just as general information whether a food truck is allowed or not is a matter of city zoning. I don't think we are here today on a food truck case. This has to do with other kinds of violations. Uh you
know uh business tax receipt is required by law for any business to do anything. Certificate of use is required by law for any business to do anything. So you know it's not uh you know there's there's not a citation here that I've heard today about you know having a food truck you know. So that's just it's I
understand what you're saying but it's not pertinent to these violations. These things the BTR the CU uh business tax receipt certificate of use are required for any business doing any commercial activity in a city. So um again in light
of the fact that this case was heard by the other magistrate and uh I I feel my hands are tied he uh I feel that there is a violation here proven in that you don't have a certificate of use. That's what you need to get just like the
>> That's right. That's right. We're working on it. And like I said, the other manager said, tell us if the 30 days is not enough, we have to come and request more days and then we're almost done with the for plan with the engineering though.
>> Well, it puts me in an awkward situation, but you know, I that's not provided for in the order. or the orders just and there and there's been no request for the additional time and maybe you want to meet with staff to figure out for the future how you can do that but uh again I feel my hands are
tied when you have any other magistrate issuing an order and there's already a bunch of findings there unless there's some kind of unique or special circumstance I'm going to abide by it. So, uh, based on the testimony, I'm going to approve and ratify, uh, the other magistrates's order. Uh, and I do
find that there's a violation here of not having a certificate of use as required by law for 131 Northwest 7th Avenue. Uh, the fine is 350 a day per after the abatement date of uh, March
16th, 2026 and $100 in costs. And uh you know again in terms of requesting more time and things like that I just encourage you to please go and meet with staff in advance of the hearings and understand the process for how that can be done. But I can't uh
again here I have a case that's already been heard by somebody else and there's already an order. So uh it's very limited what I can do of anything. Thank you. Um, we can call case 15 next. Yes. >> Okay.
Right, Magistrate. The next item on the agenda is item number 15, Citadel Plaza LLC. Case number CN US 2024 00297. And the representative of this, no, the officer on this property is Jonathan
Lameestry. And I have a few residents here affected by the by the >> violation >> by the plaza. And that is Jeff G. Distine and for Borcata
court. Can't I can't read the >> We also have Eileen Bava. Your honor, >> Mr. Button, if I may address, >> magistrate, we have some >> You may not >> representatives for representative in the neighborhood
that is here. We have um the court reporter Jeff Goldstein. We have um Miss Eileen Bakaba. We have uh Jose Rivera.
And then we have um attorney for Miss Bakaba which is I'm sorry >> Raul >> Raul Gastessi. >> So if you guys can please make your way up those that were called. So, so again,
unless unless c to be clear, unless council has a motion or some other request they want to make, you know, the way we like to conduct things is the standard way. We hear from the city first and then we will hear from other witnesses,
respondents, council, you know, with arguments, whatever. But unless, again, unless there is a motion or some other request you want to make, we're going to take things in the in the regular order. >> That's exactly what I intended, your honor. I was just going to let you know who I was. >> Okay. No, your your appearance is noted
and and you will be heard, sir. >> Okay. >> Go ahead and please remember the documents. >> That's it's already on. >> Okay. >> Good morning, U Magistrate Suarez. Good morning everyone. Co- compliance officer Jonathan Leestry. Um, and this case is
in regard to a public nuisance for deficiency in the water draining and retention system at the property 13400 Northeast Third Court. Back in 2024, our the CO compliance
department received uh a concern a complaint um from one of the residents that are here, Mrs. is Ailen Bakaba stating that um the water uh the drainage system at the property is not holding. Um whenever it rains, it
overflows into her street um which causes a flood. on December 13, uh, correction, December 23rd, 2024, um, per my, uh, director at the time, um, he advised me to open a notice of violation for the property, uh, not
holding the water, lack of retention at the property. I posted the notice of violation on December 23rd, 2024, and I mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser. The case went before Magistrate Smith
back on April 2nd, 2025. The case was tabled by Magistrate Smith. Um, the magistrate requested that the owner of the Citadel Plaza 13400 Northeast Third Court uh be there for the next hearing and an engineering report be provided to the building department or public works
within a 30-day period which is uh May 16th, 2025. Um the case has been tabled. Um so it's now before you again. Um on March 13th, 2026, I posted the notice to appear at
the property. And on March 16th, 2026, as of the final reinspection date, uh the code enforcement department, not me and the code enforcement department have not received an engineering report from the Citadel Plaza um showing that the water retention system is working.
Um, and as you can see on the screen, um, I'll show you my notes and our evidence. >> Let's go through, let's go through again your your documents, please. >> Okay. So, this is the permanent action report. This is where we keep our notes documenting everything that that's happening with the case.
This was the notice of violation that I opened for the Sodto Plaza. This is the notice to appear for the Sodto Plaza for the magistrate. This is the affidavit of posting. Miami County property appraiser
sunb for the cit plaza and this is the property 1340 northeast third court. Um as you can see there's um that's the drainage system. uh Miss Picaba, one of the residents that are here who's going to give testimony, um she was saying
that whenever it rains, the water um comes up and it flows into Northeast Third Court. Again, pictures of the parking lot, uh the posting. Uh that's one of the storm dreams at the property.
And again, more postings. And these are photos that Miss Picaba provided to us of her street whenever it rains. This is another notice of violation. I posted the property. This is uh emails regarding the case.
Uh this looks to be a receipt um for the property uh cleaning the drainage system. report. >> Oh, yes. >> And this is an engineering report uh that the property provided to us. Uh but it should be noted that this was back on
May 8th, 2018. They didn't provide us with a more recent and accurate uh engineering report for the property. So again, the date of that engineering report was >> May 8th, 2018. >> 2018.
>> And the magistrate had requested an engineering report last year. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> To be submitted by May of last year. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> That has not been submitted. >> Not to the code enforcement department >> or or building
>> or not to any department. >> Not to any department >> or building. >> Okay. That's has not been submitted. >> It has not been submitted. >> Okay. So, all those documents uh and photographs are accepted into evidence without objection. >> Um
was is the owner present here today. >> Of Citadel? No. >> If you speak to me, you have to speak on the record. Okay. >> Of Citadel Plaza. No. >> Okay. They were noticed. >> They were noticed. >> Provided notice. Yes. >> Okay. Um All right. Okay. Is there
anything else you want to add? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Um, so, um, let's hear from council or anyone else that wants to, uh, give, uh, testimony. Uh, please, uh, keep your
testimony not as the persons, but only as the facts. Keep it as as brief as possible. It's, uh, unless you're an engineer, it has to be based on your personal knowledge. something you've seen and observed and I'd like to avoid any duplicative testimony. So, okay. Anybody else who wants to speak can
>> I would like to be heard, your honor. >> Yes, sir. >> My name is Raul Gustessi. I apologize. I obviously getting over a cold. Um I'm the attorney for Miss Picaba. Uh I'm not going to >> Business address, please.
>> Uh 8105 Northwest 155th Street. Uh the law firm is Gastess Lopez Mea. Uh I just want to remind the court that in the file uh magistrate Jose Smith reviewed uh an extensive video and in
addition code enforcement testified at that hearing that the very Monday before that hearing there was uh extensive water runoff. Uh, Magistrate Smith also advised that he believes it's black
letter law that you have to retain all your water on your property. The so all of this because of all of that over the objection of some of the residents magistrate Smith gave them a a report
and basically asked them hey tell me what's happening and fix this. They didn't do it. Uh they weren't prepared at the time uh to have someone testify. They wanted more time uh initially
during the hearing. uh magistrate Smith said give us give me the report in 30 days. They said I don't think we can do it. I believe he gave them 60 60 days and in fact at that time set a hearing for May of last year. So they had every
opportunity to get this done. They still haven't. These residents are really really suffering because of this. Uh we've got my client missaba. Uh I know Jose I don't know what is Rivera I believe. uh you know if you want to hear
from them they can but this is >> yes I I'd like to hear from them because again I um >> fair >> if we're going to issue u any kind of uh finding I'd like to yeah hear from them uh and uh you can >> right
>> sure >> come forward and u again name address uh how close you are to this property and what you know about the situation please >> yes sir my name is Eileen name BABA. I live at 13350
Northeast Third Court. The Citadel is located at the corner of Northeast Third Court and the south the southwest corner of Northeast Third Court and 135th Street. It joins my property.
So, we share a border. Um the north border of my the north property line of my house shares a border with the Citadel. Okay. And um the Citadel has a
a wall that they put up between my property and theirs. Water comes out. Ever since the Citadel was built, water comes out of the slot drains, which is what was shown in the picture. um it at
the entrance and it bubbles up out of there when it rains and it flows water to third coat in instead of retaining the water on site. Um in addition to that that wall that separates us, water
comes through that wall and pours directly into my backyard from the citadel. Um so I am getting water from the front on the street and from the back. Now the the citation was written
based on 1012 2024 when the city came out and observe because I called them because I said water is coming under there right now. They came and they photographed and they observed the water coming from the Citadel sludge trains.
Then on the last hearing which took place on April the 2nd of 2025 um Mr. Jonathan here had testified that they were they also observe water coming out of there the previous um Sunday
which was the 31st of March 2025. And then I observe water again coming out of there afterwards on multiple occasions including uh May um uh September 9th, 2025. So this is an
ongoing process. I don't know what's the date of that. um they said that they clean it, but I I'd like your honor to um to recognize that even after they got the original citation of of
October the 20 based on October um water coming out of there, you have an entire dry season and in March of 2025, it's like the first time it's raining. So you have dry coming right coming out
of dry season. They should be empty pretty much and you still have water flowing out of there. And the city inspector themselves observe this. And I have been I have more than 30 incidents of flooding on third court over the last
documented for years. And I'd like the audit to know that I've lived in my house since 1994. And between 1994 and when the Citadel was built, there were only two cases of flooding. And that was from extreme floods, which was the
no-name storm of 2000 and Irma in 2017. So between 1994 and when Citadel was built, I have two cases since they were built. More than 30. Thank you. Y >> when when more or less was Citadel built? >> 2018, sir. And that's when the flooding
of the street started. And this this same owner has built multiple properties and every one of them does the same thing. So this is a cumulative effect that is a lifethreatening issue for us. We can't cross the street. We can't get mail consistently.
Um and we have I have trees rotten and fall. I've had to replace my my kitchen. I have um I had to replace my um my air condition. I'm I'm experiencing a
lot of damage and I'm not the only person. This is the street as a whole, but I am the house that's closest to it. Sir, I know that we have Jose here that also lives on the street. >> I'm I'm curious about one thing you said
that you said water besides water not being retained on the property. And yes, I do believe that's a general rule. Um, you said something about water coming through the wall. Is the wall cracked or broken or is it porous or I don't I just don't understand water coming through the wall. >> They do not have that wall. An engineer
can answer this but they do not have the wall properly sealed. So the water per I have pictures and videos that I have submitted pro I have submitted to the city on multiple occasions showing that water comes to me right through the wall. So it comes right and it pours
into my backyard. Sir, >> is that is that video here today? >> No. So, I have no information about the water coming out. >> I can give you the video right now if you like. I can I can email it to him right now. >> Well, I would I would need to see it here, you know. I would need to see.
>> Would you like me to email it to him right now while the other witness is doing this? >> Well, if if if it's possible. Yes, >> I can, sir. >> Yes. Go ahead. Right now. Okay. Thank you. Hello. Um, my name is Jose Vera. I live
at 13325 Northeast Third Court. Um, so I'm here to testify. They're supposed to retain the water, which they don't. I I've seen it overflowing through the drain. But here's the thing on
on 135th and then third court. I live on third court. So they put a drain system that doesn't work that you see the water coming out on 135th. That's still their property. There is no drain system. So the water literally comes down 135th. It
goes down and on third court it makes the turn. So there's nothing there is nothing catching water there. It's just free to flow. So then you have on this side too where they have the drain. The drain doesn't work. It doesn't work.
It's got such a big pitch that it just comes down and it comes down with authority, man. I I've seen that thing coming down the block. It doesn't take long before the block floods. So they didn't do their job putting the right drain system. They put a dinosaur
system in there that doesn't work. And on on the side of 135th, there is no drain system. So, we're getting hit from both sides. So, I don't think it's right. And you know, when hurricane season, when
I'm at work and I know that it's it's raining hard and I look at the the weather on on the phone, I go, "Oh boy, we're going to get hit hard." Because I already know what to expect. Ever since they built this place, it used to be
just nothing but grass and dirt. But now it's concrete. Water. Water. You know, you put it the concrete. Where's the water going to go? It's going to find a path to go. So, and it's coming down third court. And this problem started as
soon as they built this place. And I don't think it's right because they've done nothing. Like I tell you, to put a drain on one side, it doesn't work. and not even attempt to put one on the other side where the water is just going to flow. It's too much for us. And they've done nothing from the moment that they
built this place. It seems to me they don't care. >> They're all about making money. That's all it is. That's the way I see it. They don't care. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else? >> No, no, no, she didn't. Um she just
showed me a photo >> just now, >> right? We we if it's uh practicable, we can view the video and if you you can testify as to it because uh you you took
it, Miss Picassi. So if if possible, >> uh if possible, we can view the video and she needs to testify to it because she took it. >> But uh it would have to be in the record, you know. We can't just >> m magistrate um we won't be able to
review it during this hearing. If she has it or emailed it to the inspector or the officer, we can provide you with that phone to review the images. But however, having it on screen for this presentation, you won't be able to view
it then. >> Right. If it's not, if it's not, then I uh I appreciate the offer, but uh I think what they're saying is you needed to submit that into evidence earlier so it could have been made part of the city's record to be viewed and apparently that can't be done right now.
I don't uh we understand, your honor, there's plenty of video that was shown to Jose Smith. I think you've heard testimony, as far as Mr. Beaba is concerned, there's plenty of video uh in the record already. Jose Smith uh reviewed it. uh
he he even made semifindings at the time, not complete findings. Uh and then you've heard the testimony uh from inspectors seeing it themselves and from the residents. So uh as far as we're concerned, we believe you should go
forward and make the appropriate finding uh that they're in violation. >> Uh let me let me ask uh council for the city. There there were discussions and presentations and so forth but there is no earlier order in this case is there?
>> No. >> Okay. Um what is prescribed uh either by the city code, the land development regulations, the public works manual, whatever is applicable for u a violation of not
retention of water. uh and uh is it a pdeium and uh you know I want a citation to where that violation comes from what the violation is and whether it's a pdium. >> So public works uh would would have to
give testimony on that. I wouldn't be able to provide that information. Um but I do know that the property is supposed to hold and retain water at the property. >> I see. So um but in order to um
I do I do find that uh I think that violation is proven and and uh >> correction. Let me verify if uh building wants to give any testimony. >> Right. But there needs to be in my view testimony from someone
you know as to >> we do have an official from the building department that will give testimony. They need to get up and speak. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh, good morning. My name is Charles Evers. I'm one of the building inspectors for the city of North Miami that is part of
the South Florida building code to retain the uh the water or runoff on that property as as the previous uh magistrate made a ruling
for an abatement and and gave it appears due notice through our code officers over the years to comply to submit submit proper engineering documents even the 2018 during the time of construction
and their design professionals and they're asking for more documents. I think uh it it's apparent that those that entity has not shown up or uh responded to the request of the magistrate.
So, >> but in that to to be fair, that area on third court in 135th Street after the last storm event, as probably this the resident can attest, has is uh part of
the South Florida Water Management District and has at at times that those that that management has failed to conduct proper water management. in that area and that apartment building that is
across the street on third court was completely flooded to the first floor and had to the whole building had to be uh a uh leave the building until that was restored. So that area has a history
of issues but as in my opinion it is apparent that the the last magistrate asked for documentation and asked for an engineer to submit documentations of what they
were going to do and it appears that no response has been given. No, you're you're correct in uh everything you're saying, sir. And uh you know uh the respondent has not appeared today and uh did not
submit the uh required engineering report uh that was requested by the magistrate last year. The last one submitted was in 2018. But the what I'm specifically eliciting in terms of uh information
here is that uh when there is a nuisance due to the insufficiency of water retention because there's insufficient safeguards or measures on the property to to preclude the runoff. Um >> absolutely there there excuse me sir but
there are engineering uh design criteria or with deep well injection and other means of abating of retaining the water on their site there are solutions
>> no I'm sure and I have heard cases about >> and in fact the wall that the the resident is saying that abates abuts her property. That wall is a retent should have been a a retention wall and in and
waterproof to that area so it wouldn't wouldn't uh go through the wall to protect her property. That's the intention of a retention wall. The intent of a retention wall. Some somehow there feel it appears that there's a fa
failure to to address the issues by uh the owner and they've been by code enforcement. They've been given ample time to submit and to resolve these issues. >> No. And I you've been coaching in
everything you've said. I thank you. But what I'm looking for is either past practice, prior cases for what has been the when there is a violation found of failure to retain the water uh causing
damage to other properties and overflow and so forth. What um has been the fine uh or penalty prescribed? And if there is none, I would suggest that we look to violations of the Florida Building Code
as a guide because that's where this I believe arises from. >> Uh, >> special magistrate, our code states, and if you'd like, I can read it in its totality. >> Yes, I'd like I'd like to read it, please.
>> Uh, section 12-53 of chapter 12, uh, Miami North Miami Munich Code Code of Ordinance. The board may establish additional penalties for public nuisance, including fines not to exceed $250 per day. Provide for the payment of reasonable cost, including reasonable
attorney fees associated with investigations and and of hearings on public nuisances. Provide for continuing jurisdiction for a period of one year over any place or premises that has been or is declared to be a public nuisance and establish penalties including fines
not to exceed $500 per day for reoccurring public nuisances. Total fine fines imposed by this section shall not exceed the statutory limit provided in Florida statutes 893.138. >> May I May I be heard, your honor? >> Yes.
>> Uh the the fines and stuff like that that doesn't go to my clients or anything. You know, the $500 a day I you know, this has been going on for years, so I think that's appropriate. Uh but what we'd like is is an order from you
mandating that they fix this and fix it immediately and this has to stop. They're they're not looking for them to pay $500 a day. We're we're starting the rainy season. It could pour this weekend probably and they're going to have the
same problem again. So finding them I I believe is part of the process, but I think you need to mandate that they have to fix it. Well, I think that um again, uh
I I tend to take a conservative or prudent view of these things. There there um are certain things I think I can decree in the order, which I will. But again, you know, a special magistrate is essentially you're you're hearing the
code violation. I'm not a court of record. I'm not the circuit court. I don't have, you know, plenary juris. >> Yeah, I know. But I'm not. So, you know, I hate to disappoint you, but uh >> I think and in terms of of uh I know that uh the other magistrate heard
testimony and uh you know, viewed videos and so forth and so on. But, uh please correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike other cases, uh we've heard here today, there is no earlier order. Am I correct? There is no earlier order >> other than uh mandating that they
provide an engineering report to demonstrate compliance. >> Right. Well, they have he decreed that but there is no order. He he stated that but there is no order >> and they agreed to do it. >> Right. And they agreed to do it. So So um based on the testimony today, I'm
mindful of the fact that there is again for the record no earlier order. uh having taken uh judicial notice of uh section 12-53 of the city code as read out by um the
assistant city attorney and um also having accepted all documents into the record and all the testimony that I've heard that is unrebuted um I do find that there is a deficiency in the water drain retention system as
cited Um and I uh do think that because there is no earlier order there there has to be a compliance date given because there's no prior finding even though there's discussions but there's no prior order.
Uh so they will be afforded uh 30 days May 18th to comply to uh bring their uh water drain retention system uh and other water safeguard uh structures into full compliance uh with the building
code and other applicable regulations. If not uh thereafter there will be a perdm fine from the date of compliance of 250 per day. uh I don't think I can um find that uh they it's a recurring or repeat violation because again there is
no earlier order. So just to you know uh highlight that fact but I I do find that uh there is a nuisance on the premises by the unrebuted testimony in terms of water runoff and water spillage and
water intrusion uh going from those premises and uh the um respondent uh is advised that they should take all corrective measures within the compliance date period to make their water drain retention system
and their wall. Uh separating uh the Citadel from the abuing properties compliant in terms of being able to um preclude you know the water runoff onto the abuing and adjacent properties and
the damages being caused thereon and uh should take all steps to uh comply. But in any event, um there there will be a fine of 250 per day because the violation has been proven uh starting with May 18th and every day thereafter
and $100 in in costs are additionally assessed and uh uh and excuse me, I stand corrected. Uh $250 in costs uh per um per the record is here. 250 in administrative cost is
here by assessed as well. Besides a 250 per DDM fine, um jurisdiction is reserved um to the magistrates here for a one-year period as provided by the code uh to hear uh if there's other incidents or other matters that arise
from this that would relate to this case. But in any event, uh in in terms of what I believe is the first order actually issued for this matter. So the order is again that there is a violation. They have till May 18th to cure and if not a $250 per day fine. Uh
there is a nuisance. There is a retention in jurisdiction for one year and there's $250 uh in cost assess as well. Thank you. >> Thank you your honor. Uh we will be uh excused if that's okay. >> Oh yes. Yes. We've concluded with the case unless someone has something else
on it. Thank you. >> All right magistrate. The next item on the agenda is item number nine. Arlland Martin, case number CBPR 2025 2000357. And the officer representing this case
is officer Jonathan Lamestry. And the representative of the property is Arlande Martin. And this resident will requested a translator. >> Oh, and um M hasn't been sworn in yet. >> Okay. Would uh would this witness please
be sworn in? The witness needs to be sworn in. >> Officer Carter. >> Officer Carter. >> Officer Carter. Swearing >> both. >> Yes.
Do we have the Haitian translator? >> Please speak to the mic into the mic when you guys are speaking. >> Okay. >> Okay. You're going to um you're going to need to do whatever you're doing and presenting the other cases. Find the documents as well. you're going to need
to pause because if he doesn't understand English, it's going to have to be explained to him, not just, you know, >> I'm aware. All right. Uh, good morning everyone. Code compliance officer Jonathan Lamestry and this case is being heard for the first time. >> Okay. >> Speak into the mic, please.
>> Okay. >> Can you just go slow, like a little bit slower, please? >> Absolutely. Good morning, everyone. Code compliance officer Jonathan Lamestri in this case is being heard for the first time. >> Okay. This violation is in regard to obtaining
a permit uh an after the-act permit for the construction work on the property. On December 6, 2025, uh the director of code enforcement uh contacted me in regards to uh property conducting
a little bit. >> Little by little, >> little by little. >> Sorry. On December 6, 2025, uh the director of code enforcement, uh co- compliance informed me that the property was replacing a portion of the of the swale,
um turning it into a driveway without a permit on file. >> Okay. December December 6th December 6th. >> December 6, 20 >> 25. >> Okay. Sam, go ahead. The director of code compliance informed
me that the property was conducting uh construction work without a permit on file. >> Uh they were replacing a portion of the swale and turning it into a driveway. Okay. I I posted well I hand delivered the
notice of violation to uh a gentleman who claimed to be the property owner. >> Okay. So I also mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser. I mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via
property appraiser. >> Okay. Um I posted the notice to appear at the property on March 5th, 2026. March >> March 5th, 2026. grievances
>> and on March 16th >> says >> uh which is the final reinspection date >> the property failed the property owner failed to obtain uh after the fact permit for the construction work. >> It should be noted on February 12th
February 12th, >> the owner applied for an after the fact permit with the building department. >> Okay. Building department, >> but the permit was denied. documents. >> Correction. I'm sorry. Let me just uh go
over the documents just let him know uh that I was going to go over the documents. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It's not it's not time for him to speak. >> Oh, the city has not finished.
Yeah. Explain to him that he's going to go over the documents. Okay. Okay. So this is the permanent action report. This is where we keep our notes. >> This is the notice of violation.
>> This is the notice to appear. >> This is the affidavit of posting. >> This is another affidavit of posting. This is Miami date county property appraiser. >> Um, and this picture is the property. >> As you can see, um, the white concrete.
Um, that's the driveway that they paved. Uh, that was the swale. Uh, where it was grass, greenery. Um but they >> but they did concrete uh construction work without a permanent on file without city permission.
>> These are more photos of the property. >> This is the notice to appear that I posted at the property. Uh this is the gentleman that I spoke to. I opened the vi the day that I opened the violation informing him of the construction work
and this is when uh I arrived on scene. I saw that it was taped off fresh concrete. >> That's all your honor. >> Okay. All photos and other documents are accepted into the record and made part of the record. >> Okay. You accepted.
>> Is there anything else you want to add? >> No sir. That's all. >> Okay. Now we can uh hear from anyone else. And remember they have to give their name, their address and their relationship to the property. Street Miami.
>> Okay. My name is My name is Arland Martin and my address is 315 Northwest 126 Street Miami, Florida. >> Yeah. But >> I'm sorry.
>> Yeah. >> What is he to the property? >> Is he the owner? Yes, I'm the honor. >> What does he wish to say? >> Okay. So, the reason why I had to do this work because every time is running and there
is like so many water and mud in this area. Uhhuh. >> Okay. I just wanted to change the look of this area to make to make it looks better. That's why I did that. Hold
on. Okay. The part in red was already like that. >> So the other that that's that's the other side that I fix. The other side the other the part the red part was already like that. The other side with the
concrete. That's why I did what I had to do. >> So I believe I I follow the rules. I did everything right. So if you want, you can set an inspector to make sure everything was right or
not. Um, again, special magistrate, this violation, this violation is in regard to obtaining a building permit uh for the construction work at the property. >> Okay. Okay. Okay.
One second. I'm I'm going to ask him to explain better to tell me better. Okay. Yeah. >> Or I can translate it. Yeah. >> Okay. It's been two months since I requested a permit, but I never receive anything. >> Oh, okay. I received a notice telling me
that they denied my my request for the permit. Okay. >> Did he Did he meet with Did he meet with the city to find out why before today? >> I'm sorry. >> Did he meet with the city to find out why it was denied before today?
>> Okay. That's a yes or no. Oh, they sent an email, but that was like a little bit complicated what they asked me to to do. >> I I have the email. >> No, no, no. But did he meet with them?
Oh, >> no. Just an email. >> Magistrate, we have a building representative here. >> Okay. Let's let's hear from the building representative. name, title, and then what what you know? >> Shaunie Pressie, building officer.
>> Shaunie Pie, building officer. >> Um, during your review process, um, let me start off by saying, um, once you apply for the permit, it get reviewed by engineer for driveway engineer building and zoning. >> Okay. >> Um, >> so
slow down. >> I'm sorry. It's okay. sideway. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. >> And he has been denied by all trade. So once the email that he received, it tells him what it's been denied by and what he need to do to correct it in order for him to get approval.
>> Okay. So >> translator, can you speak into the mic a little bit more? >> Sure. Sure. he must um comply comply with the requirements that they asked him to do. >> Okay. So, Okay. Requirement requirement. Okay.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. Once he get an approval, then we could go out and do an inspection. But from the pictures that is taken, he have too much coverage. So, he still will have to cut some. I'm not the reviewer, but he needs to go and probably sit down with the zoning department so he could
get more clarification of what is required because he have too much concrete. >> I'm sorry. With with entity he has to meet with like >> um the zoning department. engineer. He can speak with the speaking to the mic.
Okay. Go ahead. >> Um once he make the corrections, the permit will be approved and he can get his permit. >> Okay. Okay. All right. >> Okay. >> Um, is there anything else you want to
add, ma'am? >> No, I mean once he um make the corrections to his plans that was submitted um it'll go back and review if everything is up to code that we can issue the permit. And and how much how much time more or
less per your experience professionally >> would it take to you know for a typical person to obtain such a permit? >> A full review is 30 days but some things doesn't take 30 days. A driveway um it can cuz he um once he make the corrections it can take two to three
weeks. >> Two to three weeks. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, so do I need an engineer? >> No, he need a a person or his contractor to correct the the plan that he submitted.
>> Okay. Contractor. Okay. Okay. If he's trying to I think what it is, he may be trying to do it by himself and he's don't understand what the requirements that they asking him to do. If he don't have a contractor, he's
probably going to still be lost because it's certain things that he needs to do, he need to show on that plan in order for it to get to get approved. We just don't go out to do an inspection and tell you you need to do X, Y, and Z. Okay? >> He have to show it on paper.
>> Okay? And then he needs to know how to execute it there on his job site at his property. Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We're not going to just show him what to do. That's his either his contractor or him as a owner builder
should already either know how what is what needs to be done. Okay. >> So, we need to show it. >> Okay. So, okay. If he's not quite understanding what it needs to do, maybe he needs to hire a a certified contractor to to help him.
>> Okay. Okay, >> special magistrate. Um it's up to you. Um we would like to give this gentleman 60 days uh an adjudication showing that you know there is a violation on the property but also provide him 60 days um
to uh get the permit. >> Understood. Um so based on the uh testimony of all parties and the documents in the record um uh which have all been accepted uh I
do find that uh there is a a violation here and uh the violation uh involves doing this um work uh on the property and the sidewalk. um
you know um without the permits required by law and uh I find that the violation has been proven. Uh that being said, it seems that the you know the owner is acting in good faith to try to comply.
Um what is what is the the fine for this and is it predium? >> Uh the fine for the special magistrate is a daily fine of up to $500. So, it's at your discretion up to 500.
>> Okay. >> So, this owner will be given 60 days 60 days till June 17th >> to pull the required permit. >> Okay. So >> if not uh afterwards there will be a PDM
daily fine of uh this this is obvious this is a single family home and this is the owner right correct there will be a daily fine of $250 per day. Okay. >> Until there's correction. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right.
>> Okay. So, two months and if not 250 per day. So, uh please get into compliance. Okay, >> thank you. >> Okay, magistrate, the next item we will be working on is item number 23. >> 23,
>> correct? And that's GSP Mocha Plaza LLC, case number CEZ, CU 2025 0032 3. And this case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith. must abate
by March 16, 2026. Fines are set at 350 per day plus $100 assessment cost. And the officer on this case is Jonathan Lestri and the representative on this property is Corine Fenote. >> What?
>> He hasn't been sworn in yet. >> They'll be sworn what was the date that you said they had to bait by? I'm sorry, you smoke. >> Okay. He had to abate by March 16, 2026. And you said $100 assessment as well. >> Assessment, but 350 per day.
>> Per day, right? >> Uh, anybody who hasn't been sworn in has to be sworn in. Please, >> please raise your right hand. 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. >> Okay, let's hear from the city. Good morning, Magistrate Suarez. CO compliance officer Jonathan Lestri and uh this case is in regard to the
certificate of use at 744 Northeast 125th Street. Um the business, the Sweet Life Miami Salon Suites uh has failed to obtain the certificate of use for the city of North Miami. On December 9th, 2025, uh notice of violation was issued at the property for not having a certificate of
use. Um, I posted the notice of violation on December 9th and I also mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser on February 10th, 2026. They were found guilty by Magistrate Smith and they had to abate by March 16th, 2026. Fine was
set at $350 per day. On March 13th, 2026, I posted the notice to appear at the property um to attend the magistrate hearing. And on March 16th, 2026, as of the final reinspection date, the business failed to obtain the certificate of use. Uh the business
failed to provide the proper documents to obtain the certificate of use. And as you can see on the screen, this is the notice of violation that was issued, the notice to appear, the affidavit of posting,
uh the sunbiz for the property owner, GPS Mocha Plaza, and this is the Sunbiz for the business, the Sweet Life Rentals LLC. And this is in front of the property. Sweet life. This was done on March 16th,
2026. And this is in the rear of the property. on December 29th, um I post I handd delivered uh a violation or to a notice uh to a
person that claimed to be the manager of the Sweet Life. And this was the notice to appear. And this is the order to comply. and this is the letter that we sent via certified mail to the property owner. That's all your honor.
>> Okay. All photographs uh documents uh notices to comply and all other uh matters presented here uh are accepted into the record. Is there anything else from the city? >> Yes. >> Rafael Pedong, licensing manager, city of North Miami. The business owner has
turned in a certificate of use application. and it was reviewed and approved to proceed to the count through through the county approval process which is a very lengthy process and they're currently stuck in that county review but they are complying.
Okay. Um from the owner uh anybody want to say anything? uh your name uh your address, your relationship to the property, and what you want to say, please. >> Yeah. Hi, Magistrate. My name is Justin Murphy. Uh I am the new owner uh of the
Sweet Life. I just recently acquired it. Um my wife and I purchased the business from the previous owner on February 1st of this year, so two months ago exactly. Um, if it's all right, um, I I'd like to I'll do this as concisely as possible, but I'd like to give you a little
timeline of events as basically how we got to here today. Um, I think it's just going to be helpful for everybody to have a good overall understanding of it. Um, so the well, the the the former owner made several misrepresentations
and omissions to me. Um, one of which being the status of their licenses with the city. He said everything was all set. Um, I had no reason not to believe that. You know, he had been open for almost a year. Um, the location is literally a stones throw from here. Um,
744 Northeast 125th Street. Um, so basically being right under the nose of the city, it just I had no reason to think that he didn't have his licenses. Um, so, uh, started the process for the CU um, right at the end of January. Got our
fire inspection done um, January 30th. Um February 1st is when our our lease went into effect and we actually took over. Um the first uh notice uh or first thing that happened to give me pause and realize that there was an issue is on
February 10th uh I got a call from Miami Dade Water and Sewer um about a change of use um and basically saying that there's going to be um an ordinance letter that needs to be paid for due to a change in aotted uh water flow. something to that effect. Um, and I was
confused. I said, "Well, there's no change. It's I'm I'm acquiring an existing business. It's a new LLC, but it's the same business." And he said, "No, it's it's it's not." Um, so that led me, you know, down a road of trying to unfold what was going on. Um,
basically at that point, um, the former owner became pretty non-responsive. Um, I got my lawyer involved. Um we went back and forth for a few weeks. I was trying to um we were actually pursuing recision. Um that ended up not
happening. Um on let's see um I was first made aware of the initial notice that was given back on December 9th towards the end of February um when one of my tenants
shared it with me. Um, and um, basically they also said to me, "Hey, now that you're taking over, are we going to be able to get our CU and and BTR?" Um, and I said, "What do you mean? You're supposed to already have it." None of the tenants have been able to get their CU or BTR because there's no like master
CU and BTR on the entire build. Well, not building, but the entire unit. Um, so once we realized the recision wasn't happening, um, this is unfolding into a legal battle between me and the, uh, former owner, I ended up reaching out to
Inspector Jonathan on March 20th. Um, had a brief conversation with him. He was very helpful. Um, I just kind of laid out the facts as to what was going on. Um, he then shared with me that, uh, the issue already went to the hearing on
February 4th. That was my first learning of that. Um, and he also told me that this meeting was going to be happening today, April 1st. Um, and the following day on 13th is when he actually delivered the notice to appear in person. Um, a few days after that, I also spoke to Mr. Raphael. Um, Jonathan
uh, recommended I reach out to him, explain the situation, see if any type of extension could be given by him. Um, he told me that because uh, it already went through on February 4th that it was out of his hands. That, you know, made sense to me. Um, as of today, um,
actually as of last night, um, the derm process with Miami Dade went through and I do have, um, the CU from Miami Dade. Um, right before I I walked in here, I dropped it off, uh, next door and I believe now the next, um, phase, you
know, the next thing to happen before the CU issuance is going to be the zoning compliance inspection. Um, now the underlying issue to all of this is, uh, not only did he not get his CU or BTR, the former owner, but he also did a
buildout without the proper permits. Um, so I'm already anticipating that that's going to come up once the compliance inspection happens. Um, I've already engaged with a a GC. Um, he's done a walkthrough. We've got an architect in there to do a preliminary walk through
uh just in anticipate anticipation of having to go through the after the fact permit process even though we haven't been issued any formal violation yet. Um and so yeah, that's basically, you know, where I how we got to today. Um I had no
idea about any of the, you know, notices, uh notices to appear, violation letters, any of that until after, um I acquired the business. And um yeah, the former owner just kind of pulled a fast one. Um I think that once he I don't really know what his endgame was, but I
think once he started to get these notices himself, he said, "You know what? I'm just going to sell the business and, you know, toss the buck to whoever, you know, acquires it and let them deal with it." So, here we are. >> Okay. I appreciate your cander. Um
anyone else? to ask >> if you have something different to add. You know, >> I I'm corino. I'm the landlord 750 North 125th Street. So, we're just here to to support uh Justin in the process.
There's a lot of information that we were not given and what we are asking is for time extension for us to cure the situation and provide the proper CU to the city of North Miami. So, we would love to to get a little bit more time.
We are here. We've been here for over 10 years and we just want to to comply and be uh good neighbors. So, I think 60 days should be a good amount of time. >> You've been here for 10 years. Oh, I'm confused about that. On this property or
>> uh Yeah, we used to own the cafe creme in Os Miami. So, we've been uh on the property for for 10 years. Yeah. >> You mean you own this property or I don't >> We own We are the landlord. So, we own the building and we have three different tenants and one of them is Justin. But prior to
owning the building, we were also restaurant owners >> on that same property. >> But the the actual real estate owner of this property, >> it's me. It's us. Yeah. >> I'm the landlord. >> Okay. So, yes. What do you want to say?
>> Yes, Patrick Sores. after speaking with uh the licensing department and uh hearing that he is proactively trying to obtain a certificate of use. It's just the hold up with Miami date county durm. He obtained the derm certification but then you know there has to be an inspection. This gentleman
is working on complying. So I'm open to tableabling the case um for another 60 days. >> Okay. If if that's the recommendation of the city, uh I'm going to follow it. I I will make no finding today. The case is
tabled for 60 days. Now, mind you, just as a point of general information and not advising you, of course, the owner is responsible for violations on the property, whoever committed them, you know, so when you own a property, you own the violations. Doesn't matter who or why. And as to personal things that
um you know the outgoing tenant uh did represent or did not represent to you, that's between you and them. That's not within the province of the city. The city is simply enforcing the code as to the violations. We're we're really not concerned with what anyone says. That's for you to pursue in mediation or in a
court or otherwise. But it's not it's not something here. But when you own the property, you own the violations. That's a general rule. So 60 days and uh you know um I would I'm open to that. Um and
uh so this case will will be abated for um 60 days which I believe is till June 17th and it will be heard again at that time. And I do want the record to reflect that it was abated at the owner's request and with the city's
consent and that's why for 60 days. And just to note that there's already a two-month abatement that has been furnished. Okay. So when that time comes up again, I hope everything is in order. Uh I am uh
willing to find that they did not have uh you know the required CU and uh to impose a $350 uh fine for that uh you know and $100 in costs. And I'd want that added in the order. So there'll be no continuing
penalty, but you didn't have the CU. That violation has been proven to my satisfaction. So there is going to be a fine of 350 plus 100 because you didn't have the CU within the time required. But it's not going to be daily. It's just this one fine because you don't have it. Do you understand?
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. But it will there's very every prospect if you're not diligent and you don't have it in 60 days of something else, god forbid, happening. So please do comply within that time frame.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Magistrate. The next item we will be calling is item number 30 and number 32. These two cases go together. The item number 30 is Jesus Ma and W. Anna
L. Forbes. Case number CF AW 2025 00152 and the rep the officer on this case is officer Gabriel Morales and the representative of this case is Jesus Ma Okay, let's hear from the city first and
please remember to introduce the documents. >> Yes. Good afternoon, magistrate. Um, officer Morales with the city of North Miami. Uh, this case um was open on um
on 321 2025. Uh, first one is for the fence file. >> I'm sorry. You said June June 21. I'm sorry. I have to interpret for him >> for 3 321 2025. >> 321 2025. >> Yes. the um the fence uh the maintenance of
the fence it was um dirty and stained and old. Uh so um uh I issued the violation on that day. So this is uh you can see the permanent action report um where we note uh all of
our documents. >> Can you see it? >> I don't see them on screen. So this is the permanent action report. >> Okay. This is uh the notice of the violation. Uh this is the notice to appear >> which was posted on 36 2026.
>> This is proof that the notice was also uh mailed >> and the affidavit of posting. I'm sorry. >> Affidavit of posting. Yeah, >> affidavit of posting. >> This is a property appraisal. >> And these are the pictures taken of the
property of the final reinspection on March 16th of 2026. And this is uh proof of posting at the property for um of the notice of violation. Notice to appears
notification. Notice to appear. >> Thank you. notification. Okay. And this is uh the notice of violation posted. And this is u more proof of the original um the original pictures of when I first
posted the violation. Okay. Um, all those documents and photos will be accepted into the record as evidence. Is there anything else you want to add? >> That's it. >> And the the prescribed fine for this is
what? >> What is it? Um, attorney >> attorney B. >> Special magistrate. The fine is $250 daily. >> Are there other violations on this
property? >> Yes, sir. >> There are other violations. Okay. That I just wanted to know. >> Yeah. >> Um, what the period for compliance for this is I mean I would think this is relatively straightforward. a fence permit or what is it? >> Yes, sir. Well, he doesn't need a
permit. >> He just needs to >> he Yeah, he just needed to pressure wash and paint the original the fence that's there right now. because a replacement isn't required. >> Correct. >> Just maintenance really. >> Correct.
>> So, what would be a a reasonable time for that? >> So, I gave him until April 4th of 2025. >> Oh, you had already given him that? >> Yes. That was the original compliance date. >> April,
>> April 4th of 2025. >> Okay. >> Of 2025. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. >> Now, he we did meet I did meet with the owner yesterday at the property and as of yesterday when I was there present uh
the the fence was still in the same condition. >> Now, he did mention to me when I was there that he was going to start working on pressure washing it and and painting it. Um, and then he then he was supposed to call me back, but I never got a call
back. And then today he mentioned to me or his son mentioned to me that they've completed the work. Yes. Now, uh I would like for it to be adjudicated. Um and then uh after the hearing, I can definitely go to the
property, reinspect, and if it's complied, then I will close out the case. I can close out the case. What does he want to say? If anything, the owner >> No, I already resolved everything that he asked for. Everything that he asked
me to do, I already did it. >> And you said that you had granted an extension until when? >> No. So, the original um the original compliance date was April 4th of 2025. Um and nothing was um complied by then.
>> Uh so then it was scheduled for um for the hearing for this hearing. Um and since u March 16th of 2026 um which was the final reinspection date for this hearing uh there was no compliance met. So I
guess what I'm saying is between the time of the extension last year and today is is approximately a year. >> Correct? >> Okay. So, um I'm I'm going to make a finding that uh the violation
of the condition of uh defense um has been uh found and um based on the evidence uh considering
that it's very easy to I think well somewhat easy anyway to pressure clean and wash and repaint the fence does not require a new permit I think it's fairly simple to do. So, the violation having been found, uh, I'm going to find that
there is a violation today. So, $250 is going to be imposed for that violation today plus $100 cost. Okay? And uh we're going to have since the owner is claiming compliance, we're going to uh
also insert a 30 days uh cure period of uh May 18th uh 20 uh tw uh yeah May 18th, 2026. there is a violation today because that's been proven, but there will additionally be, so you can explain it
to him, a daily fine of $250 a day starting on May 18th if if in fact the inspector isn't satisfied that there's been full compliance by then. Okay, that's the order. >> Okay, magistrate, the next item is item number.
>> Your magistrate, I'm sorry, just to clarify. So, you said it's a fine of $250 per day beginning May 18th. It's it's a fine of $250 today plus $100 because the violation was proven. >> And um then
if he hasn't corrected it by May 18th, there'll be an additional $250 a day starting May 18th if he hasn't corrected it by then. Okay. Am I is this clear? >> Yes, sir. Thank you so much. Sure. Um Yes.
Um, I'm letting him know that it's for the violation of the friends and he just stated, "But but I already painted it." Mhm. >> But he didn't have a reinspection before the hearing and uh and and he could have resolved it by having a reinspection before the hearing and the officer
dropping the case. He didn't do that and we're at a hearing today. Yeah, I painted it yesterday. That's the breaks, you know. What can I tell you? Right. >> It's not good to leave these things till the last minute or at least not the day
of the hearing. Okay. >> I And no one here can verify that. So you know nothing. All right. >> Okay. >> Is that all your magistrate? >> That's it. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Magistrate. The next item we will be calling is item number 32.
>> Same property. Jesus mot Anna L. Forbes. Case number CER CV 202500113. And the officer on this case is Gabriel Morales. And the representative of this property is Jesus Ma.
>> Good afternoon again, Magistrate. Um, Officer Morales with the city of North Miami. Uh, code compliance. I issued this violation originally on March 21st, 2025. Okay. And this uh violation was observed for a what seemed to be a recreational
vehicle uh on the rear at the rear of the property and see if I can doesn't seem to be pulling up here. Oh, there it goes. Okay. So, this is the permit action report um where we have
where we state all the uh information and action we've completed for the property. Notice of violation. >> Uh notice to appear. This is um the affidavit of posting and mailing
>> the property appraisal of the property. >> Um proof that it was also mailed to the property. So, as you can see here in the picture, it's a little difficult. Let me see if I can zoom in there. Right there. There's the top of what
seems to be a recreational vehicle. Um, and to come into compliance, he either needed to remove that recreational vehicle or obtain a variance. Um, and no variance has been obtained and the the vehicle is
still there or the the trailer variance variance of variance variant I'm sorry thank you magistrate >> uh this is uh the posting for the notice
to appear. >> This is the posting of the original violation uh back in March of 2025. 21 2025. >> I'm sorry. March >> March 21, 2025. >> And that was the full >> of the violation.
This is another picture of the original the original picture of the uh violation >> and that that's all. >> Okay. All documents uh and other evidence are accepted into the record.
um code compliance officer if if you know or anyone if they know uh how long uh obviously relocating the RV is one thing but how long would it take to uh more or less get a variance here for for this what what is
the time frame? So the uh zoning department would be able to speak on that better, but um from my experience, I would say it can take about a month or two um at uh for them to obtain the
variance. >> Um >> Raphael. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Your expertise can be needed >> for the variance. What's the average time? >> I don't have a variance. >> No. What's the average time it usually takes for them to obtain it once they've
applied? You the magistrate wants to know what. >> So I strictly handle business licensing. Um that would be a zoning issue which is a separate division from my own. I can say that possibly about a month or two, but that's not I don't work with it, so I
can't give that as an official timeline. >> Understood. Apologies. Understood. Understood. >> Um okay. Ask him if there's anything he wants to say about this and be sure he understands the violation that uh it's
no RV there unless he has a variance. So either get a variance or he has to move it. So, I have this here. If if I have to request a permit or something so I can pay for it. >> Well, I'm not a per I'm not a permit official of the city. He has to go to
zoning and planning and and apply for a variance and he might have to go to a public hearing for it, but that's can't do that here. This is this a magistrate hearing. >> What is What is a prescribed u fine for this? >> $100 a day.
your magistrate now he said I have the variant here >> it says so metal checklist and fee application >> so >> well that that would have been somebody else >> so that a variance look and see if it's
>> so that is an application for a variance but he has not even applied he just has the physical application with him >> so explain he just has an application for a variance It doesn't just come flying out of the sky. He has to, you know, apply for it, submit the application, have it approved. He might
need to go to a hearing. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, >> I will do it. That's why I have it here. >> Right. So, uh, based on the testimony here today and the evidence I have
heard, I do find that there is a, um, an unlawful or unpermitted recreational vehicle parked at this property. Uh, the respondent uh, needs to get a variance because the violation has been proved. I'm going to impose um a fine uh, of and
if the city has any comments about any of these things, uh, please feel free to make them. I have no no issue with that. would impose a fine of $100 plus the cost charge of an additional $100. I am going to give based on the testimony I have received of what it would take to
get a variance, I'm going to give the respondent 60 days uh to comply. So, there is a finding of a violation today, $100 plus $100 in costs. Uh they have 60 days to comply until June 17th. they have not obtained
a variance by June 17th or removed the recreational vehicle by June 17th or automatically be a $100 per day fine commencing on that date and occurring thereafter until cured. Am I clear? Okay. obtain
or the vehicle. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right, magistrate. The next item we will be calling on is item number 34, >> Julia Andreal.
Case number CBP, CEB NP 2025 00022. And the officer on this case is officer Gabriel Morales. And the person representing this property is Julia Andre. And they are requesting a
translator as well. >> They They're requesting I'm sorry, I didn't >> Oh, they need to be sworn. Sorry. >> Officer Carter. >> It's okay. Please raise your right hand. 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. >> Good afternoon again, Mad Street. Um, Officer Morales with City of North Miami. Um, I first uh issued this
violation back in May uh 30th of 2025 when we received a complaint from a nearby resident um that the prop that the property was uh doing um construction or work without permits. Um
uh upon my arrival um I was granted access to the rear of the property uh where I did observe that. Uh so let me just pull that information up. So this is the again permit action report.
This is the notice of violation for doing work without permits um and having an addition or efficiency and a pergola um in the rear of the property. This is the notice to appear. This is uh the affidavit of posting
property appraisal. Uh this is posting of the notice to appear on March 5th of 2026. This is the original uh posting of the violation on May 30th of 2025. And this is the work that was being
constructed in the rear of the property. And then you can see the addition or that efficiency in the in the rear um is not um an original part of the of the property and there's no permits on file for it.
That's it. >> Okay. All evidence and photographs will be accepted into the record. Is there anything else you want to add? >> Uh yes. So, I when I first went to the property um uh original for for the
complaint, I did I believe I spoke to um the young lady here um over the phone uh because she wasn't at the property. Someone else that was at the property granted me access to the rear uh and I explained to her what needed to be done
to comply. Um and she said that she was going to work on it. Nothing ever happened. Then we scheduled it for the hearing. Uh when I went and posted the uh notice to appear, she was outside with uh some other people gathered outside. I mentioned to her um about the
hearing and um she granted me access to the rear of the property. Uh and it's it's still in the same condition as you can see on the picture. Um the addition and the efficiency is still there. I informed her that she needed to get permits for it and she said she was going to work on it but didn't get uh
nothing has been done as of late as of now. >> And um anything else you want to add? >> No, that'll be all. >> Okay. Um good afternoon. My name is Julia Arendelle, the property owner of 1055
Northeast 134th Street. Yes, the property is still in its state and that is due to I have consulted with several contractors after the initial and I have not yet been able to obtain one one because many of them who have come to the property have stated to me
that they have bigger jobs at this time. However, unaware of my full options, I am now requesting to have a variance for which the property could be identified as an ADU. >> Okay. So, requesting and and I realize
that for members of the public, you know, they would not necessarily know these things. So, you you have to seek this kind of sort of general information. It's helpful to you. But so, you have to go and meet with planning and zoning to request a variance. That's not something you can do here. This is code compliance.
>> I'm simply the magistrate. So my my situation is simply what is the situation today? Is there a violation or not? And I think the violation has been proven. So whether you can secure uh a variance, good luck. I I think even if
you could, you'll still need to have it permitted. I don't think it's going to change, you know, the fact that the building code requires it be permitted because of safety and and other concerns, you know. So um just for my um knowledge, my edification is that what
is the use of that property? >> It is currently being used for where I stay. >> Okay. And is that residence with a rent? >> No. If it's if it's rented, you ask? >> Yes. >> No, it's not rented. >> Okay. Is anyone paying compensation for it?
>> No, cuz I reside there. >> Okay. You reside there. So who resides in the main structure? It's being used u for full capacity of a licensed business. >> Okay. So, a business is in the main structure and you're in the efficiency. >> Correct.
>> But you own the entire property, >> correct? >> You're receiving rent from the business >> somewhat. Yes. >> Well, I mean, they're not there for free, are they? >> No. >> Okay. All right. Um what is um the the code provide for this violation, please?
Construction work without a permit is a $500 fine daily. >> Okay. Um based on the testimony and the evidence I have heard um >> correction I'm sorry M trade up to $500.
>> Okay. Up to $500. Okay. So based on the the evidence that I have heard um are there other violations on this property? >> Um not to my knowledge.
>> Okay. Not okay. Uh so uh based on the testimony and the evidence I have heard, I do think that it's been proven um you know um by clear and convincing evidence that uh there is a building uh permit without an addition and efficiency
there. Um I'm going to find that the violation is it's up to $500 per day. I'm going to impose a fine of $300 for um the unpermitted addition plus
$100 in costs. Uh ma'am, uh Miss Arendelle, you're going to be afforded 60 days to obtain. You're going to need a building permit approval. You're going to need a variance. uh if you have not done so by
that time there will be an additional fine of $300 per day per day per DDM uh starting on June 17th uh and each day thereafter until there is full compliance which means that you have to have it fully permitted fully approved or it needs to be demolished one or the
other. Okay. And you'll need a permit for the demolition as well. Okay. So um that that will be the order on on this case. Is there any additional comments or questions or >> No. No. >> No.
>> Do you understand? >> Yes. >> Okay. So that's 300 plus 100 today and 300 a day starting on um June 17th. >> Yes. >> If you have not complied. So I would encourage you to please be as diligent as you can be.
>> Okay. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, magistrate. The next item we will be calling is item number 38, Nicole Antoine, case number CGMP 2025 00088.
And the officer on this case is Gabriel Morales and the representative of the property is Nicole Antoine. And the representative of the property has to be sworn in. It's Carter. Please raise your right hand.
>> Do you swear or affirm that the to testimony that 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. >> Okay, let's hear from the city. And please remember your exhibits.
>> Yes. Good afternoon again, Magistrate. Uh, Officer Morales with the City of North Miami code compliance. Um, let me pull up the information. >> Okay, so this uh violation was issued back in September of 18th of 2025. Um, I
originally gave them a compliance date until um October 10th of 2025. Um I uh this violation was for the general maintenance of the property. Um the uh
walkways, the walls and the fascia uh etc. are just uh very dirty and stained and can see it looks like it's it's kind of some of the fascia is like falling uh and so is the gutter. Um my um information here, this is the permit
action report. This is the original uh notice of violation posted um again on uh 918 2025. This is the notice to appear
the affidavit of posting uh proof that it was mailed. um the property appraisal. This is the uh last picture uh for the uh final reinspection um March 16th of
2026 of the property. I'm just going to zoom in here. You can see part of the fascia and the gutter and the roof. It's in a pretty bad condition. This is for the fence on the right hand
side. Proof that it was mailed to the property and proof that it was uh posted at the property. uh the notice to appear. And this is the original picture that I took of the property back in September
uh 17th of 2025. You can see it's in the same conditions. And that's that's it, magistrate. >> Okay. And that's almost a year ago. So, um all right. All evidence is submitted into the record. Um and uh is there
anything else you want to add? >> Uh no. >> Okay. Um let me hear from the owner. Um, I am >> sorry. Are you Would you like an interp give your name, your address, and your relationship to the property?
>> Um, I am Katie Montina. I'm her youngest daughter. Um, she's actually getting the house brakes prepared. Well, maintenance. Um, we pressure wash the walls. >> Does she need an interpreter? >> Um, she don't want one. I don't know. I'm here >> because we have one here.
>> I'm here for her. >> Do Do she need one? >> No. Just give your >> Just give your name, the address, and your relationship to the property. >> Montina, I live at 550 Northeast 132nd Terrace. And that's my mother.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, we are we did wash the house. We pressure washed the house. Um, obviously it needs painting. It need maintenance. Um, you said something about the parking. I seen on the letter the parking um we live across the street
um it's an apartment across the street from our house and those people they don't have no parking so they park in front of our house so we are forced to park our car on the grass we speak to the owner of the apartment all the time but they always still come park in front
of our house um the grass will be fixed we pressure wash the walls I don't know she's she's trying to find a program or something that you guys can help her because she has to fix the roof and they're charging her over 30 grand and more. She's an elderly woman. She
stays by herself and she has a business. She don't have financially she's not able to repair the house on her own. Um yeah, I don't know what more can we say. She's trying and little by little
it's getting fixed. But for us to say we're gonna fix everything today or tomorrow, it won't be able to. And the fines that I'm seeing on the letter, it's real high. >> There's no fines yet. >> Um I've seen something like $1,000. Like
>> no fine has been imposed yet. >> That's real high. And she's already having problems financially. And for her to get fined, it's really going to be hard on her. That's all I have she has to say. What are her sources of income?
>> Um, she has a business on 131st Northwest 7th a Avenue. >> What is that business? >> Nicholls Fashion. It's a boutique. >> Okay. And that's >> it's basically v variety of boutique. >> Okay. But it's it's a functioning business. >> Yes, it is, but it's slow business. It's
still It's function, but it's slow. >> Does she have any other income? >> That's her only income. Is there anybody else living on the property and paying any consideration? >> No. >> Okay. >> She's on her own. >> Is that property her homestead?
>> Yes, it's own. >> All right. Um >> if it's a program that she can get into that somebody can help her. It's something >> Well, again, this is simply a magistrate hearing. That would be something that she would go if not the county, that's
another kettle of fish, but she would go to community development here or community planning or something and see if there's some kind of grant available. But that's not something that anyone here has anything to do with. That's again community development or community planning.
>> Magistrate, um, if you want, um, Gabe, could you provide her warehousing information and the CRA information? They can assist you better in regards to that. situation. Okay. >> Okay. And the walls, yes, is dirty. We pressure wash it, but as you can see,
you said the things are falling off. The pressure washer is so hard, it will peels off the paint and the roof. >> After the hurricane, the um mango tree fell on our roof. So, half of it chipped off and she tried to go through FEMA. It
was nothing like she's on her own. So again, you know, I don't one thing I want to tell you technically so you know, I'm I don't go beyond what the violations are cited here unless I've missed something. I don't see anything about parking or the roof. This has to do with the exterior condition of the house. So this hearing is limited to
that. The walls, the fences, the walkways, you know, >> I'm just mentioning everything that I read on the note that I received at the >> Yes. So, uh, magistrate, originally I had cited them for two violations, the general maintenance of the property and also for them on you can see on the
picture, uh, the original picture, they were parking vehicles on the grass. So, I had cited them for that. Uh, but when I went to go do my reinspection, the vehicles were no longer on the grass. So, I did close out that violation. Uh, >> so there was not a parking violation, but would your violation also encompass the roof?
>> Uh, yes, for the general maintenance of the property. >> For the general maintenance of the property? >> Yes, the general maintenance of the property. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification. What is what is the suggested um code uh violation for that? >> For failure to maintain the property, it
would be up to $250 a day. >> You said up to 250 a day. >> Okay. Um so listen carefully. Uh I think that based on the testimony and the evidence uh the violation has been proven per the photographic evidence of the inspector that um uh there there is
here a a situation where um the walls, walkways, fence, etc. um you know need to be repainted, need to be refinished uh to be um acceptable. and uh you know they're the front of the
house that face the street repair damage facing gutters. Uh in light of all the circumstances including the circumstances of the owner that I uh that I have been told I'm going to impose a fine of $150
for the violation which I think has been proven uh plus $100 uh in costs. I'm going to give uh the owner 60 days 60 days to to comply. So, she's going to
have 60 days and that means 60 days for you to get any grant of any is available. 60 days for you to um you know put the exterior condition of the house in a way that's acceptable to the inspector, this person here who presented the case, you know, and uh if
that would be through June 17th, June 17th. And if it's if it's up if everything is up to code at that time, that's fine. There'll be no other issue besides the 150 and the 100 for today. But if it's not, there'll be an additional client of 150 a day starting
then. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Something you want to say, >> magistrate? It's just a $100 cost assessment. Just a $100 for the court until the until it's ratified. Yeah. So,
it's just a $100 cost assessment for today. >> That's not what I said. >> Another 15. >> No, I said today. That's why >> I said 150 today because there is a violation and um $100 and then I said
she has 60 days to comply, >> right? That's what I said >> we just do the $100 cost assessment for appearance. >> What is there something else? Just tell me >> Oh, yeah. What I'm saying is that uh we don't typically give them a one-time
fine. We just do the $100 cost assessment and then when they appear again to court and when you ratify that fine it starts based on what you >> the time frame that you've given them. >> Okay that's no that's fine noted. Um so
I just like to be uniform and consistent with everyone. >> I have given other one times today because it is a practice in various other jurisdictions that when you do find a violation to give them a one time fine. So our our one time the court cost is the the assessment cost is >> so you're telling me you don't do the
onetime fine. >> Is that what you're you're representing that to me? I I want to be clear. >> Right. So >> are you >> what I'm saying is since they appeared before the court today the first time there is a $100 cost assessment but not an additional
150. The 150 is your adjudication. >> Okay. So the adjudication, so again, this is based on what I've seen in various other jurisdictions. If there's a violation today and it's proven, I believe the magistrate can adjudicate today. But if you're telling me that the practice here has been not to do that, I
just want to be clear. I think it's well within the magistrate discretion because that's the whole idea of proving the violation in the case. Okay. So what you're telling me is really a past practice. It's not I don't think it's a legal matter. But that being mindful of that, what I'll do is so today I'm only going to impose a $100 cost. You're
going to have 60 days to comply. If you have not complied within the 60-day period to have the the house up to code, then there's going to be a $150 daily fine. Okay. >> Okay.
>> And and um starting at at that time. >> Yeah. I I do believe it's a matter of magistrate discretion, but I'm if you're telling me that's what the city does, but it's not the case in various other jurisdictions, I can tell you that personally. Okay. >> Right.
>> No, no. I I think it's well within the province of the magistrate. That's a whole, you know, if you prove the case, it's a violation. This is sort of one, two, three. >> No problem, Mag. I wasn't familiar with that practice here. So, that's what I was saying. Okay. >> Understood.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Magistrate. Let me see. Dallas, >> do you have any questions? So, it's $100 today. She has 60 days. And if not, it'll be $150 a day. You need to go to
the CRA, Community Redevelopment Agency, Community Planning, whatever the grants, that has nothing to do with us here. And then the House within that 60-day period, whatever it takes to make it up to code. And you need to contact this gentleman who's the inspector, the him
to have a reinspection prior to it coming back here in 60 days because at that point if there's still a violation um you know you're looking at a a fine. >> Okay. >> Am I clear?
>> Um where do we pay the $100 fine? >> Well, staff has to respond to that. I'm not. >> So that's going to once they input that into the system, then you can come to the code compliance office, we can print out a receipt for you and then you can go and pay at the city cashier.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The 60 days that's including to fix the roof also because >> that includes that includes >> days. So that's So the violation was for maintenance for maintenance of the of
the general property. >> Now if you So the violation was for general maintenance of the property. It just it needs to look up to par. Now if you choose to completely fix the roof, that's honestly really that's >> right. That's up to you. So whether you need a a re- roof or where you need the
roof, >> what what he's basically saying, what this violation is about, and I'll let him speak to it, is the exterior appearance of the property. So it might be just a matter of revarnishing, you know, uh, you know, on the on the violation it
states to pressure wash and paint, >> right? That's all the violation is. So that's >> is what's causing everything to the debris >> and that's why you need to repaint after you pressure wash. >> Pressure wash does do that. >> There's cracks and there's Okay.
>> What? >> We're I'm done. She's done. Do you do you think a 60-day period is I mean to me again looking at the violation on its face it's basically repainting and refinishing and correct. Do you think 60
days is reasonable or do you do you think that 90? >> Yes, I believe so. >> You think 60 days is reasonable? >> Okay. So >> we're going to paint it and we're going to call you back. >> Do you do you understand now? >> I understand. I understand. Are you are
you asking for more than 60 days to get the work done? >> More than 60 days cuz the roof even if we repair we paint over the roof. It's not about the roof. >> So it's not about the roof. It's about the maintenance of the exterior of your property. >> Cleaning the exterior. >> So we're asking are you saying 60 days?
Are you saying 60 days is not enough and you're requesting more time? >> Yes, we need more time now. >> Okay. >> Once an order is entered, it's entered but it hasn't been entered yet. So, in light of the circumstances, and I think that the the most time I can give, um, I
will be 90 days. You'll have 90 days to comply. 90 days is July 16th. That's to have the property up to code by July 16th. >> Okay? That's that's the the time period. Full compliance. Don't go beyond what is cited, but
whatever has been cited by the inspector, that's that's what you need to correct or fix or cure. Do you understand? >> Okay. Okay. So, um, >> am I >> Are you clear? Are you >> clear? Are we done? >> Yeah. Yes, we're done. Unless, you know.
Yes, we are. >> Good day. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Magistrate, at this time, I would like to dismiss the interpreters if there is anyone else who needs an interpreter. >> Okay. Having heard none, there is no one else and they've been dismissed.
>> Okay, >> let me see. >> We just did. >> The next item on the agenda that we'll be calling is item number 45. That's R U DG
L H A Bell House LLC, case number FY RR 2023 00015. And the officer on this case is Shaunie Pressie. And the representative of the property is George Sum Cine
>> Ceine. >> Okay, let's hear from the city first, including the documents that go into evidence, please. Duna, >> there you go. >> Oh, it's the Okay. Hi.
This Shaunie Pressy with the building department. Um this is for um 40-year reertification regarding property located at 1399 13990 Northeast 6th Avenue.
Okay. So this property is not in um compliance as of 2023. Um in front of you you have the action report. Um notice of violation. Um
the first notice okay the the notice of violation actually was issued by me. This case was taken on by a previous inspector um in 2023. So when I just issued this um notice of violation I only get um just told them um and the report need to
be submitted immediately. um notice to appear and that's about it and the um the affidavit of posting and property appraisal. >> Are there any other exhibits?
>> Oh, there's some business there. >> Anything else? >> No, nothing else. >> Nope. And that's just a letter um stating that they reertification need to be completed.
>> The same thing that's from old cases that's from previous. Yes, those is are the notices from 2023 when the first inspector actually um sent out the notice. I believe that was Vanessa Williams
should be Vanessa a copy of that. Yeah, that's it. That's just the outlines. That's when she certified the first time when she mailed out her letters in 2023.
>> That's all. >> Um, all uh exhibits and evidence are accepted into the record and made part of the record. Can you just uh briefly I know that we know what it is, but just for the record, can you just briefly summarize what uh this violation is? Okay, this is a reertification um for
the property according to the Florida um building code. Every property that's within um either it have to be uh only thing is that ZMP is a single family home, a duplex commercial properties and multifamily um have to redo this
requirement. Um they have to meet two requirements with then that is 2,000 square ft or less than um 10 occupancy load. And if you meet that, you can be exempt. If not, you have to complete the reertification. It's a structural and electrical report that needs to be
submitted to the city. >> And this property obviously is not exempt. >> Correct. >> And um is the property currently occupied? >> Um yes, I believe so according to haven't submitted anything that says otherwise.
>> Okay. And this has been pending since 2023, >> correct? >> Okay. Uh is there anything else from the city that you want to add? Um, I was just trying to see the square footage of the property we want. >> It's a total of 10,000 and 20 2,243
ft. >> 2,243 ft. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Anything else at this time? >> No. >> Okay. >> Sir, uh, your name, your your address, your relationship to the property, and anything you want to say? >> Yeah. My name is George Cine. Um, I'm
the recent property manager, so I wasn't here in 2023 when we were signifying, but I looked to our archives and our record. Um, we did a 40-year certification on I'm sorry. I I have one
question I want to Okay. Uh, this Mr. Cine is not the owner, not an attorney. Does he need a power of attorney? Yes, special magistrate. >> Okay. Do you have a power of attorney? >> I don't have it with me. Um, this is an
ongoing case. So, >> um, >> I I I'm I'm sorry. I didn't know I had to bring it with me. >> Well, I don't the instructions say it for the hearing that if you're not the owner or an attorney, you need a power of attorney? >> Okay.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. the the actual um when the notice of appear the second page um it states that on on the docket >> asking if he's provided one in the past. >> Oh no, >> you don't know. Okay. >> Right. So look, I don't I don't mean to
be I you know want I'd like to be fair to everybody, but I I mean I looked in the the rules for the hearing and it does say that if you're not the owner, if you're not the attorney, you need a power of attorney. >> I understand. So, I don't want to treat you differently. >> You said that to previous uh Yes. >> people who were here. So, I mean, I
didn't just want to walk out. Maybe. >> No, I understand. But you you need the power of attorney from the owner. >> But but the fact is I you know, it doesn't look you're here and I don't want to you know, but the one thing I do want to ask you because you are here is
you don't have the reertification at this time, do you? >> No. So, what I'm what I have is I have a um we did the reert reertification on April 12th, 2013. 40-year reertification. I didn't know that the
40-year needs to be done. >> I thought it needs to be done every 40 years. I didn't know that uh >> every >> it's every 10 years. So, you did the last one you did it was in 2020 20 um 2013. The next one would have been 2023 and so on. >> And that's why you have the violation
from that time. Do you understand? >> Yes, I understand. But what I also did is I well I looked it up on Chad GBT and found out that you need to do it every 10 years. Okay. Um we did take a firm I have proof of payment where we we paid
um on March 24th. So I'm just waiting for him to schedule and u >> but it hasn't hasn't been done as of this day. No. And I and I think that's to me I don't mind telling you personally I find that to be a serious violation because >> it has to do with with
incidents that have occurred here in Florida with buildings and uh it's to me it's one of >> I watch the news so yeah >> it's one of the more serious violations. So uh no I thank you but you know it's it's your 10-year renewal and that's why you were cited in 2023 3 years ago. So
again I don't I don't mean to be a hard nut or busting your chops but you had three years to discuss this with the city and find this out. You're here at the hearing now. So um what what is the prescribed fine for this? I think it's 500, but I >> That's correct.
>> Okay. So, uh I'm going to find that um this property uh in fact since 2023 has not had the required building reertification that's required by Florida Building Code and and by law uh
which means the 10-year report. Uh, so, uh, I I do find that for the violation having been proven, it's $500, uh, plus the $100 fee. Um, you're going to have 30 days to
comply. The building official isn't here arguing for any shorter time, so you're going to have 30 days to comply. >> I was already had um before I bring them to court, the 30 days already had done passed. the 30 days have already passed.
>> Okay. So again, I consider this a serious violation. So what has been the shortest time that the magistrate has imposed here for a a corrective date? >> Um when I bring them to court, I'm just asking for it to the fines to start running immediately.
>> Okay. All right. So the I I do consider it a serious violation. It's been going on since 2023. And you're telling me that um madam building official, you have had other cases where the fines have started immediately. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, okay. I just want to be clear, have that on the record. So, the fine
will commence immediately. All right. Uh and uh it's $500 a day until there's correction. >> Okay. >> Sorry about that, but again, it's a serious violation. >> Can Can I I >> I We're done, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Okay, magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number 46 and 47. They're the same property. So for item number 46, Sans Susi 18 LLC, case number CF LR20500121. And the officer on this case is Jonathan
Lameestry. And the representative for this property is Angie Cohen. >> Um, >> that's which is a tenant. >> I'm sorry. >> Good morning, special magistrate. Um,
just give me one minute. Good morning, Mag. I'm correction. Good afternoon, magistrate Suarez. Uh, co- compliance officer, Jonathan Lester. And this violation uh case number 46 is in regard to uh the business uh failing to
uh obtain their business tax receipt. On December 13th, 2025, I opened a notice of violation um for the business design lab Miami located at 2250 Northeast 123rd Street um for not having a business tax receipt. 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 March 5th, 2026, I handd delivered the notice to appear to the business owner uh at Design Lab Miami. And as of
March 16th, 2026, the final reinspection date, the business failed to obtain/renew the business tax receipt for the city of North Miami. And with in regard to the notes, um permanent action report is where we have our notes. This is the notice of violation that I posted
at the property. the notice to appear. Uh the affidavit of posting, uh the property appraiser, the sunbiz of the property owner,
the sunbiz of the business, and this is the business storefront, Design Lab Miami 2250. Uh this is me handd delivering the notice to appear. Uh this is me posting the notice of violation
and again the affidavit of posting and that's all. >> Is there anything else that the city wants to add? >> Yes. >> Good afternoon. Rafael Pedro City North Miami licensing manager. I just want to clarify that a new certificate of use
application was turned in for the change in suites because the business moved and she is the business is still in prog in in um process with Miami date county. Um there isn't much else a business owner can do at this point but she has been diligent in following up with the city
and doing what needs to be done but she is stuck in in the date county process right now. >> Okay. Um, anything else? >> And no, your honor. >> No, they did have a BTR before, but it
just wasn't renewed. Correct. >> No, no, it was renewed. However, because of the change of a change in suite, she has to file paperwork all over again. So, the license has not been issued for the new suite yet because she's in process. >> But she had one Yes. before. >> Yes. Okay.
>> And and fully compliant for for years. >> Okay, I understand. Um, >> hi. Um, my name is Sanji Cohen. I am the uh founder of Design Lab Miami. Um, I forgot what else you asked. I'm sorry.
>> Uh, well, that you don't have right now the BTR, the business tax receipt or what? What do you want to say about that? >> Okay. It's been a process that I was actually not very familiar with. derm
the portal how to put documentation in is not easy to navigate for a low tech person. So right now everything they have and WASA is in is going to review on April
3rd which is Friday for the what is it for the >> business tax receipt >> the certificate >> certificate of use everything else I complied and it's approved I have a copy
of the if I if you would like to have it >> right that's from the county but you need you need a business tax receipt from the city, which they're going to require a county approval first. But you're in the city of North Miami, so you need a business tax receipt from the city of North Miami. You don't have that right now, right?
>> I because I have no idea where I get that. >> Well, wait a minute. If you've owned this and you've had it before, how is >> I don't understand how people have been in business here for years and have no understanding of >> No, no. So once you're finished with the county process, which you are in process
with, uh, we can continue the certificate of use application process here without with for for North Miami, once that approval is obtained, then we issue the new business tax receipt showing the new address. >> So you are basically where you have to be because we cannot move forward until you've gotten that county approval.
>> Okay. >> And you have the county approval? >> Not yet. She doesn't have the county approval yet. She is in process. >> Okay. Is there anything else you want to say? >> Uh, it's very frustrating for for a business owner. It's too uh day county
in the city of North Miami, they don't communicate. Therefore, everything has to be done completely to different with them. So, I was not aware of that. So, that's why it's taking a long time. I'm waiting for an email from them. And it took me until
this week to call on Monday like why is it taking so long knowing that I had this hearing >> and they told me oh because we missing one paper and it's your job to to bring it to us. So it's been a learning process >> and did you bring them that paper?
>> Yes. And that's the reason why the WASA is about to review uh on uh on Friday the application. Well, I think yes. Right. A lot the cities rely on the county for some of these basic findings, but I I do think the county is
undergoing simplifying their their rules to make their processes a bit more user friendly, but again, that's beyond the scope of us or this hearing. Has this business been in compliance before and have they had any other violations? >> No. So, Misty Suarez, I've just spoken
to Raphael and uh we both agree that we could table this case for an additional 90 days uh for case number 46 and for case number 47. 46 is the business tax receipt and 47 is the certificate of use. Um she is working diligently with
the city and with the county to obtain the license. Um so if we could just table the case for 90 days. >> Okay. >> And as mentioned before, she has been in compliance for many years. The only reason we're before you now is because she changed suites. So she's in the middle of that change of address
process. >> Okay. So Miss Cohen, so you understand based on the request from the city and because of your former compliance, the cases have been tabled. That is they're continued to July 16th, 2026 for both
your business tax receipt, your BTR, and your certificate of use, your CU. Uh but you have to have them by that time or there's absolutely very likely possibility of >> no absolutely >> of a fine and cost and so forth. Okay. Do do you understand?
>> I understand and I will. >> So that's that's 90 days to July 16th of this year. Compliance honor before then and it's incumbent upon you. It's your responsibility. >> I will to get all these things from the city prior to that date. >> I'll be seeing them very soon. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay, magistrate. The next item we will be calling on the agenda is item number 48, Sanusi condo, case number FYRR 2022 00050.
And the officer on this case is Shaunie Pressie and the tenant is Hana Carano and Maria J. Mario. Mirror. >> Mira. >> Mera. >> Mirror.
>> M I R. >> Okay. You're you're a tenant. You're not the owner. >> No, I'm an owner. I'm a unit and I reside the unit in the unit. I'm also a board member of the >> But you are the main thing I want to
establish is you are the owner. >> I'm the owner of uh one unit in the condominium. Okay. >> And I'm here representing the the association. >> Okay. So, you are you are a resident owner of a unit in the condominium?
>> Yes. >> Currently, >> yes. >> Well, I'm I'm going to defer to the city. To me, that's sufficient. You know, >> I'm also a board member. >> You're a board. Yes. Yes. I understand. But you don't have anything from the board saying for you to appear here, do you?
>> Um, what is needed? What is >> I'm asking you. Do you have anything from the board saying you're here to represent them? >> No. We thought that being a board member was all we needed. Uh being a board member, you were already
>> generally would require a resolution or authorization or something or power of attorney. But okay, I I'm willing to accept that you're a resident there and you've represented you're a board member and you're under oath and that's fine. That's fine. We can present anything that's needed maybe later today or we
can submit it to the city via email or bring it here if something else is needed. Well, technically you should have a because you're here on behalf, not yourself. You're here on behalf of a board of the condo as a whole. You
should submit a power of attorney or something. >> We were told that you needed to be a board member to represent. >> Someone told you that? Okay. You didn't say that. If someone from the city told you that, that's sufficient. We're not getting any more time up with it. Go ahead.
>> Um Shnie Pressy, um building the officer. Um this is regarding a 40-year a resertification um for 1945 Northeast 19th Drive.
Um this already been heard, I'm sorry, in front of the unsafe structure board. we just bringing it to the city to move forward with fines and um because they as of today they not in compliance. Um the unsafe structure
board ruling was submit the engineer letter within I think 10 business days and that was back in February from 10 business days. They had to um get six units inspected
um and also complete the reertification within um 30 business days or um I'm sorry 60 business days. The only thing they did provide to us was an engineer letter and the last engineer letter that was submitted to us
um stated that the building basically is unsafe and that um for unit number 5, 15 and 25 for the six remaining um units. He did at that point in time he didn't get it
inspected and said that it needs to be inspected. If not, the building needs to be um completely evacuated by May 8th. So, that's what um the last engineer letter that we received. But as of today, the reertification has not been completed or
they haven't had an engineer to go out to do the assessment so far for the reertification. >> Um I'd like to say something. >> Sure. >> Is there uh based on my understanding? Is >> there anything else you want to say? Anything else? Anything else?
>> No. >> Okay. >> Based on my understanding. >> Okay. Again, I'm sorry if you gave it, but name. >> Okay. >> Address and your relationship to the property. >> My name is Maria Amira. I am a condo
owner, a unit owner at Sansusi Condo Association, and I'm here representing the association as a board member, recently appointed board member. Um my understanding was that today we had to
come here to present proof of the 40-year certification which the city says that we never obtained. >> Okay. I have here the paperwork. >> Uh so the last the reertification has
not been attained. >> Uh right now I'm only talking about the 40 year. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. So what I'm trying to explain to you overall is a reertification. The the name of the reertification is called 40-year. That's the first in um reertification that needs to be
submitted when your building turned 40 year. After that is every 10 years. >> Okay. >> Your building have not submitted the upto-date 40-year because now that 40 year was due I believe in 2022. >> Okay. So you're calling it 40 year but it's it's not the 40 year.
>> Yes. 50 and the 60. No, we don't call it 50 or 60. It's every 10 years. >> Every 10 years. >> Yes. Okay. >> And it have not been submitted. >> That's correct. Uh that's correct. We're working on we just um the
we have uh the owners we are now getting together because we didn't know anything. I just became a board member because there was uh they were short uh to comply with one member that had resigned.
Uh so we do have the the we have secured an engineer that is going to start working today um inspecting the premises. We have five buildings in the condominium in the association. There's one building that
is having issues, structural issues right now and but we have we intend to correct everything. uh we start working with uh we have secured an engineer
uh that is going to start doing work. It's going to start with the inspections and we intend to proceed with correcting all the different issues that we have. Uh this um we've got here because um we
didn't realize the owners. We didn't realize that our our condominium association was not acting on a timely manner presenting and complying with every with the things
that the condo needs to comply. We just recently came to know what's going on. Well, recently uh the the affected parties in 11 1930 they have been working with the
association for a while for a few years um trying to get the attention of of the association. There's different things here. One is the reertification. I don't want to get things mixed up. Let me show you the letter of the
engineer that we have signed this week. We also started I also have the um the letter that went out uh I think it was Monday to to collect money from the from the
owners to start with the reertification process. >> Right. But that's what we have right now. >> When when was the last reertification they did? >> Um 20 I'm sorry >> 2012. So 40-year reertification was done in
2012. So that would mean that in 2022, >> correct? >> You need it's 40 years and then 10 years or after. You understand? >> Yes. >> So in 2022, that's four years ago, >> you needed to do the 10-year reertification. >> Okay.
>> And again, it sounds to me it's it's a serious violation just by its nature. And it sounds also serious because you've gone to the unsafe structures board. They wouldn't be hearing the case if there weren't some issues there >> that are >> naturally. >> So, what is the city's request or recommendation on this?
>> Um, right now, um, we already, uh, we want to move forward with just going ahead and start putting on records and start finding them cuz they have not been in compliance. We've been trying to work with them at this point and they changing engineers every month. So, it's only for us to
just to move forward at this point. We we understand uh up to this point we have been relying on this one the president of the association who's uh not letting anybody participate. The board is supposed to
have seven members between three and seven. I'll just say that we've been having a lot of problems with her and we have in view of what's going on uh on the notices from the city we have uh
engaged we are trying to engage as many owners as possible. We are uh engaging in legal legal action against the association for bringing us to this point where we're going to be fined and
there are there's a safe and unsafe structure in the community. We would have never gotten here had we been informed. I know not knowing doesn't
it's not a reason to not we are um >> yes but nobody you know I I understand that's all internal and you have to be diligent on that and I and I think you well with that but you know nobody wants another Champlne Towers you know so >> definitely >> um um
>> can we just do adjudication for this um hearing at this point >> yes and and what what do you mean by that specifically Um I guess 30 days and and to what >> any fines >> and any fines that go with it.
>> 30 days. That's your recommendation. >> And I mean to comply with the resertification, >> right? Okay. So based on the testimony that I have heard today, uh I I do think that there is a violation proven as to
San Susi uh condo that uh the reertification report is is overdue and uh it seems to be a possibly unsafe condition with a unsafe structures board case and so forth. It's a serious violation. So uh that violation has been
found today. There's going to be the $100 cost imposed and the owner will be given 30 days to comply. >> Then we have a few more weeks because the engineer told us yesterday that they're going to need like
>> not unless not unless the city agrees. I'm not going to give it to you because I I believe these violations are the most serious ones of all the most serious that that are heard in code complaint. So >> listen to what I'm saying. I'm not going to give it to you unless the city agrees. >> Okay? because you know to me they are
the most serious violation unsafe structure. >> So >> no additional time at this point. >> So you're going to have 30 days to comply. That's May 18th and um to to have the certification submitted. If
not, I believe the fine for this violation is $500 per day. >> It'll begin to acrue at that time. We have um >> ma'am I ruled >> we have construction work to do and the certification won't be
um won't be approved or won't be passed until we fix the issues that we have in the buildings. So the engineers have to do the assessment and that's going to take at least two weeks and then we need
to do the work right in order to get >> unless a city unless a city wants to uh agree to an additional time again. My again I'm just looking at the fact that it's a serious violation. I'm sorry about your internal problems but it's been pending since 2022. That's four
years ago. I just don't know if we're going to have time to to do the corrections on time to >> unfortunately we cannot um give any additional time. >> So we have to have the buildings fixed
>> cuz starting May 8th um starting May 8th if building 11930 is not in compliance the whole building is going to be evacuate um everybody out. >> I heard May 18th. >> Okay. So that's one thing. So, we dealing with a couple of issues. You
want us to give you one more time, but the simple fact everything's kind of lined up with each other. You want more time, but the main fact that you guys keep on asking for more time, and we've been doing it for over a year now, and the report should have been done since 2022. You have one building that's
actually falling apart. >> Yes, that's >> and it's part of the reertification. >> Yes, it is. So, it needs to be uh fixed, right? The building needs to be fixed in order to get >> you guys keep on changing engineers. You're not sticking to one engineer. We're going to have a new board in
place. >> I understand what you're saying. When y'all get one engineer, when y'all don't like or whoever's on your board don't like what they present, you guys change it. You need more time and more time and more time. We keep on giving you more time and more time, but if something happens,
>> we didn't understand that. >> The city doesn't want to take us fault. And I just want you to understand that. So therefore, we cannot grant you any more time. you just need to move forward and try to complete whatever needs to be done. >> Okay. >> Shnie, can you show the pictures? >> Um
>> um with the 40-year reertification, they have just um overall some of the buildings and how it looks, the cracks and stuff. So, you have the um >> stop. Okay. >> I have a I have a technical question
because I I don't know. I mean, is it possible? And when there's multiple structures within one condominium complex that there would be a partial um or it would have to be the whole thing. >> No. So when they under one folio follow on say they have four I mean I'm sorry
they have five buildings under one folio number all five buildings need to be completed at one time. Sometimes depending on it depends sometimes it would list it as building one two three and four. It would give them depending if the year it were built in different
time but for their instance everything was done under one. >> I understand. So ma'am I'm very sorry. I know that you know it's troubling for you but this is a serious thing. It's been pending since 2022 and uh you know sometimes these
fines are really to strongly encourage compliance and to bring everyone's attention to what's at stake here. What's going to be the fine? >> He's finished it now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. $100 cost today. I would be willing to impose a fine today, but the
city has agreed to wait 30 days. So, in 30 days on May 18th, if there isn't full compliance, there will be a daily fine of $500 a day. >> Okay. >> All right. >> All right. >> It's a very serious matter. It's a public health safety welfare matter. >> It is serious to us as well. All right.
>> Yeah. That's why we are taking action. >> Well, yes. this, but perhaps perhaps you needed to do it in the past. >> Yeah. >> So, um >> Okay. >> So, do you understand? 30 days to comply. $100 today. 30 days to comply.
Uh the 30 days would be May 18th. After May 18th, if you haven't complied, it's $500 a day until there's compliance. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Magistrate Smith, that concludes all of the cases that are pre the people that are present. >> Okay. >> The rest of the cases are people that
are not here. So, I would like to request a 10-minute break. That's fine with you. >> That's fine. Um, >> yes. Okay. >> Yes. Have a great day everybody. Are you good? Excuse
me. You're so good. I see people. This is We had a tour of the Yeah. Yeah, come on. That's all tight. He want to see every little
>> I you don't made a newsletter. smell good. >> It smell light. Like it's calm. >> Yeah. Why is it in the car? Thank you babe. >> It's a black school.
>> Oh, you said what? Not the It's the dips. >> Not just chips with the >> dip. for >> what? They have a lot of I think the next one going to be worse. This one was 99.
>> It dropped. >> This was 99. This is so nice. When I was in >> 200 No problem. God knows that. so they can get educated >> he wants to have he wants to have a separate one
>> even if they're listening. >> Yeah, you're putting under the wrong code in huh. Mhm. Just scroll as you're speaking. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All right,
>> we're about to start. >> Okay, gotcha. All right, we'll be start we'll be continuing with item number three. 121000 Northwest 7 Avenue LLC. Case number FYB RR 2023
00007. And the officer on this case is Shaunie Pressy. Yeah. And John, just as Chris is talking, just scheme through it
>> into the pictures, evidence, everything. >> Good afternoon, Officer Coulson. City of North Miami building department building code officer. This case is 1210 Northwest 7th Avenue LLC FYBRRR 20230000007.
This is a building rig certification report is due. Please submit the required application fee. See what we got going on. We have the as uh we have the affidavit of posting property appraiser page
some notice to appear uh the letter the notice the final notice that we sent out to let them know before we go to court with them from the building department. Cert went out certified mail
notice of violation the original notice another notice from the building department for the 30-year. So basically what we're telling we have already sent out all the proper notices and everything but we still have no compliance. We have a final reins inspection date on that
should be May uh 16th I think. I mean, I'm sorry. Um, yeah, March, as of March 16th, we still have no compliance. So, there's still compliance. We are recommending that we want adjudication on this case and we're looking for fines
and to start the finding process and get the adjudication. >> Thank you. All documents are submitted in this case. >> This is a default. uh defendant has not appeared despite being uh noticed. I do
find that in case number docket 31 121000 Northwest 7th Avenue LLC, they have not submitted the um building reertification as required by law. Uh thereafter, uh I am assessing based on the unreuted evidence $100 in cost and a
$500 fine against a reertification is a a serious matter. Uh the fine would would uh you're requesting for it presently, right? >> Yes. >> All right. The fine >> the fine is to run immediately for the FB. >> So the fine is to run uh henceforth from
from the you know >> from from this time on uh until there is compliance. Okay. $500 per day. Thank you. >> Okay. Magistrate. The next case is item number four 126 Dixie Inc. Case number
CF LR 2025 00106 and also case number item number five 126 Dixie Inc. CEZCU 2025 00297. Both of these cases are the same
property and the officer representing this is Brenley Daniels. >> Okay, let's go through it quickly, please. This is the default. Go ahead. >> Good afternoon, Mistrate. Court Officer Daniel. Uh the permanent action report, I'm sorry,
was um uploaded. I opened a violation against um the property 12615 West 60 highway. And as of the as of the final reinspection date, March 16, 2026,
they have not obtained their business tax receipt. >> Okay. Uh is there anything else you want to add? >> Yes, this business simply owes for the current fiscal year that we're in uh for the business tax. Prior to that, he had
been they have been in compliance. >> Okay. Thank you. All documents that the city has presented are submitted into the record as evidence. uh council, I remember that there was a distinction uh before, which I'm trying to remember exactly, between not ever having had the
BTR or not renewing it. >> Yes, that's correct. So, for not ever having it, so to get the BTR, you can give a fine of up to $500, but failure to renew it, it's up, it's a penalty of up to 250. >> Okay. Um
uh this case has been proven and it's a default and they don't have a current BTR. They have failed to renew it. Uh $100 is assessed and the cost and a fine effective uh from this day going forward of $250 per day is imposed until they
have secured their BTR. >> Okay, moving on to the next. Are you saying they're starting today or are you giving them uh an abatement date or >> I'm I'm certainly particularly when there's a default and no one is here requesting it, I'm not going to give them an unrequested abatement date. The fine is effective immediately. >> Gotcha.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Next case, Bradley. >> Item number five, 126 Dixie Inc. case number CZCU 202500297. And the officer on this case is Bramley Daniels. Court Officer Daniel
City of North Miami. Um they were also issued the same business. They were issued a violation for not having a certificate of use showing that
the proper posting was um provided. Sunbiz affidavit of posting um the notice of violation and as of March 16, 2026 final reinspection the business
has not renewed their certificate of use. >> Rafa Pedro, license licensing manager. This business owes two years of certificate of use fees for the previous 24 to 25 fiscal year for the current 25 to 26 fiscal year.
>> Okay. Is there a distinction in the code in the fine of um But they did have it at one point, right? At one point. >> Correct. >> Is there a distinction in the code? Is this up to 250 per day? Uh >> no, there's no distinction between
having it and renewing it for certificate uses. >> Okay. So then the fine is up to >> 250 per day. >> Okay. So, uh this is the default situation. All the evidence has been submitted into the record. They uh do not current have a certificate of use
and they're not here. So, a fine is imposed of 250 per day uh commencing uh right away uh as soon as the order is rendered and uh the $100 in costs. Thank you. >> Yes, your honor. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> 250. Okay. >> Starts today six next. >> Okay. The next item we'll be calling is item number six. Ace Tain DO case number CBPR 2025 00322
and the officer on this case is Shana Sanders. Shannon Sanders, city of North Miami, co- compliance officer. This is a case for a fence that was installed without a permit at property address 415 Northwest 122nd Street. I see that I first cited
this violation on October 20th of 2025 while doing my normal um inspections. At that time, I opened up a notice of violation, mailed it out to the property. I reinspected the property on November
8th, 2025. Um as of November, I haven't had any contact with anyone from the from this property regarding this matter. So, I went ahead and failed it for the special magistrate hearing. Um, as of my last reinspection, I am showing that the
violation still remains. Um, hence why we're here. The notice that you're seeing in front of you is the permanent action report. Um, which I just read from, this is the notice of violation that I mailed that to the property owner
notice to appear for today's hearing. um that was certified mailed out affidavit of posting that I posted the property Miami date county property records um is what you're seeing now. >> Okay. So, uh this is a default. All uh
exhibits and evidence presented by the city are hereby accepted into the record. Um owners not present. Um what what does the code provide for uh a violation of the unpermitted fence?
>> Violation of a construction or work without a permit is $500. >> It makes no distinction how minor or major the work is. >> No. Up to 500. So I guess >> up to 500. >> Yes. >> Okay. Right. Okay. So this is a fence. I don't consider it unless there's other violations. I don't consider it a major
thing. So, I do find the violation, not not that it's any violation is substantial, but I what I mean is it's not a public health and safety violation. Um, so I do find the violation is proven uh in this case number six. And um the fence was
installed without a permit. $100 co cost is hereby imposed and a fine of $150 per day is hereby imposed um starting as soon as uh the order is rendered uh until uh the permit has been obtained that there's cure for the fence. Thank
you. >> Okay, magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number seven and item number eight. Both of these cases go together. Item number seven, Ulta Bay Shore. >> Oh, not sure. Sorry, just item number seven. Alta
>> item number seven. Okay, >> correct. Alta Bayshore LLC. Case number CBPR 2025 00353. And the officer on this case is Haimey George. >> Good afternoon. Um, CO compliance
officer Jamie for the city of North Miami. I um, this case, this property is 2220 Northeast 12th Street. I opened the violation for um an unpermitted temporary fence that was installed
around the vacant lot. I opened the violation December 4th, I believe December 4th of 2025. I observed a temporary fence while while I was on inspection of the property and as of my final reinspection date, which was March
16th of 2026, the property owner has not applied or obtained a permit for the temporary fence. >> Is the fence still there? >> The fence is still there. Yes. >> Okay. Is there anything else? >> That'll be all. I mean, uh, there's
pictures of the temporary fence. >> Right. All photographs and exhibits that the city is showing here on the record and which are part of the file are hereby accepted into evidence. This is a default. I do find that uh there is an unpermitted temporary fence here constructed around the property. So the
cost of $100 are assessed plus a daily fine of $150 is imposed effective on rendition of the order uh until there is compliance. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number 10. Bartholomew B panel. That's case number C E XP 2024 00004. And the officer on this case is Shannana
Sanders. >> Shannon Sanders, code compliance officer. This is a new case for exterior maintenance of property that um needs to be um pressure cleaned to possibly repainted. Um it was originally cited
February 27th of 2024. I'm doing my normal inspections. I noticed the property had some dirt stains, um some mildeo stains, things of that nature. I sat at the property
at that time. Um during this time we transitioned and I moved into another zone. So I'm seeing I had no um follow-up reinspections for over a year as we started to fail cases for the magistrate coming up. Um this case came
up. I was given to me. I visited the um property again, see that the house was still in the same condition, still remained in need of um pressure cleaning. So I proceeded to go ahead and fell it for the magistrate, you know, hence why we're here today. The photos
that you're seeing here is the pictures of what the property looks like as you see around the porch area in front of the home. um needs to be a little pressure cleaned um and possibly repainted. I am showing proper service
was given. I posted the property with the notice to appear on March 9th of 2026. Certified mailing was mailed out as well on the 10th. The photos that you're showing here
again is of what the property depicts and looks like upon my reinspection. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh so this is a default. All evidence uh presented by the city is hereby submitted into the record. I do find that there is a violation
uh because uh the dirty stained porch area needs to be uh pressure cleaned u on this uh property uh docket number 10. So the $100 is assessed and it's a violation for this stipulated by the code. >> Yes. Up to $250 per day.
>> Okay. Uh, I'm going to impose a fine of $150 per day effective upon rendition until there is cure. >> Okay, magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number 12, 13, and 14. They're all the same property. Item
number 12, Biscane Apartments Development LLC, case number CBPR 2025 00308. This case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith and must abate by March
16, 2026. Fines were set at 350 per day plus 100 cost assessment. And the officer on this case is officer Jonathan Lameestry. Good afternoon, magic bars. Um, co- compliance officer Jonathan Lamstri. Uh,
this violation was opened due to the exterior and interior renovations at the property. um they were found guilty by magistrate Smith and they had to abate by March 16th. On March 5th, 2026, I posted the notice to appear at the property. And on
March 16th, 2026, as the final reinspection date, the property owner business failed to obtain an after the fact permit for the exterior interior renovations on the property. Um in regard to the photos on screen, this is the Sunbiz account.
the order to comply. And this is the gas station at 1230 Biscane Boulevard. As you can see, the exterior renovations at the property. And you'll see a before picture as well. This is me hand delivering the notice to
appear to uh the tenant or to the clerk at the business. Uh, they did interior renovations inside the unit. This is not what it used to look like. They have a DJ set. And this is what it used to look like.
This is uh from Google Maps. This is what the property used to look like. Again, exterior renovations done without a permit on file. Okay. Um, all u documents and evidence presented including the prior order are hereby accepted into the record, made
part of the record. Um, what did the prior order of the magistrate provide that in terms >> 350? It was the final set of $350 per day plus $100 cost assessment. So, I'm going to ratify and affirm the prior magistrate's order and $100 cost
assessment plus 350 a day uh effective from date of rendition since there has been no compliance and that's what's provided for in the prior order. Thank you. >> Okay. And the next item is item number 13. Same property Biscane Apartment Development LLC. Case number CF OB
202500252. And the officer on this case is also Jonathan Lameestri. >> Good afternoon, code officer Jonathan Lestri. And this violation is in regard to uh the business uh the gas station at 123000 Biscane Boulevard not having a
business tax receipt on file. On September 6th, 2025, I post I opened the notice of violation and I posted the notice of violation at the property as well. Um, and I also mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser. On March 5th, 2026,
I posted the notice to appear at the property. And as of March 16, 2026, the final reinspection date, the business failed to obtain a North Miami business tax receipt. There's nothing on file. >> Rafael Pedro, business licensing
manager. I as far as I know no one's come in no representative from the business has come in to community planning and development to inquire about what applications are needed to or anything like that. And that those those renovations actually went from an it made it it was an auto what is it a
garage before and now it's just they've just expanded to a variety store. >> So went from auto automotive services to some kind of variety store. >> Yeah. Like a like a gas station convenience store. Before it was it was both automotive repair and convenience
store. Now they've just expanded everything to one large um gasoline convenience store >> and that of course would require a permit for the new configuration. Okay. >> Right. >> All right. Um was there a prior order on this? >> No. No. This is the first time this is
going before you. >> Okay. So, uh, I'm going to find that there is a violation that, uh, there has been no BTR, uh, issued as required by law and the $100, uh, in the cost is hereby assess.
And did we have a stipulated BTR violation of up to I I I don't know them all by heart, so >> of up to $500. >> Up to $500. Okay. This is a commercial enterprise. We're going to impose a a daily pdeium of um $250
uh effective from rendition until there is full compliance. Okay, magistrate. The next case is item number 14, the same property, Biscane Apartment Development LLC. Case number CECU 202500266.
And the officer on this case is Jonathan Lamestri. >> Good afternoon, code officer Jonathan Lamestri. Um, again, this case was opened um on September 6, 2025 for the business, the gas station, not having certificate of use on file. I posted the
notice of violation and I also mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser. On March 5th, 2026, I posted the notice to appear at the property. And as of the final reinspection date, the property failed to obtain the North Miami certificate of use.
And in my records, the business did not even apply for a certificate of use. Rafael Pedro, business licensing manager. Same comments as the previous case. No one has come in from the business um requesting any application or any clarification as to the nature of the violations.
>> All right. Uh this is a default. All documents submitted in the record by the city are hereby made officially part of this record and taken into evidence. is uh uh council is this uh similar to the BTR that that the magistrate has discretion up to or is there a
stipulated? >> Yes, you have discretion of up to $250 per day. >> Okay. So, uh to be consistent, $100 a day in cost is hereby assessed. I think this violation has been proven and it's
unrebuted and a daily fine of $250 a day is imposed until there's correction or cure from the date of rendition. >> Thank you. >> Okay, magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number 16, Collins
Lantan Mino, case number CBPR 2025 00204. In this case was found guilty by magistrate Smith and must abate by March 16, 2026. Fines were set at 350 per day
plus 100 cost assessment. And the officer on this case is Shannana Sanders. >> Shannon Sanders, city of North Miami co- compliance officer. Um, as I already stated, this is a case of report of previous compliance. As of my last reinspection on
March 16th, um, the violation still remains. Um there's still no permit um obtained for the fence that was installed in the rear of the property. This is a default. All documents presented by the city uh in their file and and shown in evidence are hereby
accepted officially into the record as evidence. I think that again I my hands are are um you know uh guided by by the other order of the magistrate. You said that the finding had been that if there wasn't compliance by March 26, it would be a $350 a day fine. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, I find the violation does exist. Um, the cost of $100 are hereby imposed and per the prior order, uh, which is ratified and confirmed, a $350 per day fine is hereby imposed, uh, from from
date of rendition until there's compliance. >> Okay. Okay. The next item we'll be calling is item number 17. Diaz Kusta Cusa >> Questa. Yeah. >> Assess Management LLC. Case number CBPR
2025 00317. And the officer on this case is also Shauna Sanders. >> Shana Sanders, city of North Miami co- compliance officer. This is a new case for property address 12590 Northeast
16th Avenue, unit 301. This is um a new case for electrical um electrical permit that has expired. It needs to be renewed. Hence um there is um a violation. I went out
to the property um after receiving a complaint about um different things that were going on inside several units. I along with the condo president um and manager walked the property um came upon this one. Um looked into the computer,
saw that they had um some expired permits. Um I spoke to and the gentleman who identified himself as the electrician for the building said that he would obtain the permits and or renew them. As of my last reinspection, the
permit still remains expired and it still needs to be renewed. I am showing proper service was giving. I posted the property with the notice to appear um on the 6th of March 2026. Certified mailing was also mailed out to the
property. Um >> um if you would like um what you're seeing here is the property appraisal. This one was more so for an expired permit, not so much. Um so the the work was not
actually visibly seen. It was more so a checking of our system for open and or pending violations. Um and at that time it was observed that again they had an expired permit. So there is no photos of the work that was done. Um it was hence
just a conversation that was had between myself and the um condo president along with a gentleman who identified himself as the handyman's last electrician. Well, there's no photos. My question,
you know, in the back of my mind, there's no photos. Do you have personal knowledge that work was done without um without the permit or did did you know we don't follow the strict rules of evidence, but does someone tell you unequivocally clearly work has been done
here recently without the electrical permit or how do we know? >> And yes, that was and why I was called up to the property. It was um said to me that there was several things going on in these um units whether it was for
this one electrical work others it was um flooring that was done it was cabinets that was reinstalled it was multiple things but yes that's why I was called out to the property. So there was electrical there was work requiring an electrical permit that was done without
it. And you know that for a fact >> was per the conversation that I had with them. They said that they did do work and that they um thought the that the final inspections everything was called in. The work was done and complete. However, it was not final out because
they thought the inspections were called in. Um hence why the electrician said he would renew the permit, get everything squared away, you know. But as of today, no. >> And the permit is required to be renewed. >> A permit is required to be um they
obtained the permit. It just hasn't been finaled out in our past. You >> Oh, hasn't been final out. Closed out. You're >> Yes. >> Okay. So, all right. What is What is the the fine for failure to close out the permit? >> I don't have a fine for failure to close
out a permit. >> Okay. >> We have a fine for failure to obtain one. >> Well, okay. So, this is a default, but you know, um what what I just want to be mindful of, it's a default. So, I'm not going to,
you know, get into issues that no one is here to address. It's not my province to do that. But, so there should be some catchall for other things that would apply because I have seen violations in other places with failure to close out a
permit. So, I'm going to apply the one of failure to get it. But there's usually something about failure to close up. What were you going to officer? Did you want to say something? >> No. No. I was lifting up my glasses. >> Okay. Okay. We'll apply that one. But
usually there I mean I have heard before people say no, there's failure to close out the permit is whatever. >> What I can do, I can research that for >> Yeah. Yeah. We should research that because I've seen that violation at other places. >> Yeah. So, what is the one for failure to obtain?
>> For failure to obtain is up to $500 per day. >> Okay. >> And this is a a building. We do have failure to provide electrical service as required by building code which is also uh up to $500.
>> But is that is that cited here today on the No. Okay. So, can't get into that. Um so uh this is a default and based on that notwithstanding anything else we're going to find that there is a violation for a failure to close out or you know
conclude the the required electrical permit is required by law. A $100 cost is hereby assessed and a fine of $250 per day until there is compliance is hereby assessed from date of rendition.
>> Okay, magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number 18 and item number 19. Same property. So item number 18, Esper Lenox Louise LLC. Case number CF fo 2025
00289. This case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith. Must debate by March 16, 2026. Fines were set at 350 per day plus 100 cost assessment. And the officer on this case is Jonathan Lestri.
>> Okay. Very quickly, go ahead. >> Good afternoon, uh, co- compliance officer Jonathan Lestri. Um, this is a violation for the business sidewalk bottle shop Miami at 12831 West Dixie Highway um for failing to obtain the
North Miami business tax receipt. On December 13th, 2025, I opened the notice of violation um and hand delivered the notice of violation to the business owner. mailed the notice of violation as well to the property owner. They were found guilty by magistrate Smith and they had to abate by March
16th, 2026. Um on March 11th, 2026, I posted a notice to appear at the property. And as of the final reinspection date on March 16th, 2026, the business failed to obtain the North Miami business tax receipt. And I would like to pass the
microphone to Rafael Pedron. Rafael Pedro, licensing manager. So, the owner has been in constant communication with the licensing department. Um, he's currently stuck at Miami date county going through the derm process. He's got some kind of discrepancy
because of outdoor seating versus no outdoor seating and their grease trap, but he is stuck in that loop over at Miami date county at the moment. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh all exhibits and other documents uh presented by the city are officially submitted into the record
as evidence uh based upon the unrebuted testimony. This is a default. I do find that there is a violation. I will adopt and ratify the order of the other magistrate. Uh and I again I think that my hands are somewhat you know constrained there. Uh you told me that
he had placed a violation of $350 per day. >> Correct. So that will run from date of rendition plus $100 cost >> 19. >> All right. The next item we'll be calling is item number 27. >> 19. 19.
>> 19. Item number 19, Esper Lenox Louise LC, case number CZCU 2025 003333. This case was previously found guilty by Magistrate Smith and must deate by March
16th, 2026. Fines were set at 350 a day plus 100 cost assessment. And this case is presented by officer Jonathan Lamestry. Good afternoon, CO compliance officer Jonathan Leststery. Um, this violation is in regard to the certificate of use for sidewalk bottles
Miami at 12831 West Dixie Highway. On December 13th, 2025, I opened the notice of violation for the business not having a certificate of use. I also posted the notice of violation that day and I also mailed a certified letter to the property owner via property appraiser. They were found guilty by magistrate
Smith and they had to abate by March 16th and the final set at $350 per day. On March 11th, 2026, I posted the notice to appear at the property. And on March 16th, 2026, the business failed to obtain the North Miami certificate of
use. >> Okay. I'm I'm going to accept all documents profered by the city into evidence officially as part of the record. I find that uh it has been proven that uh this business does not have a CU as required by law. I'm going to adopt and ratify the earlier order of
the magistrate that uh uh there is a failure to comply and stipulated a penalty of 350 per day uh is hereby imposed from date of rendition along with the $100 cost uh the fine to run
until there is compliance. Thank you. >> Okay, magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number 27. That's James K. Kips. Oh, >> sorry. Item number 28, Jennifer Rebecca
Teal, case number CF AW 2025 00214. And the officer on this case is officer Shana Sanders. Shannon Sanders, city of North Miami, co- compliance officer
um for case for property address 12790 Northeast 12th Avenue. I'm going to apologize and because I have two cases. Which one are we hearing first? Um do we call the the the fence or the which one is this? >> Oh, I'm sorry. For the fence. Okay. This
is for violation for um fencing or walls that are in need of repair. I originally cited this property on September 2nd of 2025 where as I was doing my normal inspections. At the time of inspection, I noticed um you know a property that
had some severe um damage along the cement wall surrounding the property. At that time, I started the property um and asked that they have the wall repaired in her place. Of course, obtaining the necessary permits to do so. As of my
last reinspection um on the 16th of um this month or last month is I'm now April, I'm sorry, March 16th, the violation still remains. I have not had any contact with the t the
property owner since the initial time of me um opening up this violation in 2025. Um you know I've tried I've tried a couple of times to call the old number that I had but again I have not had any um conversations with her. It even seems
like the property is it might be a little vacant um cuz I have seen no activity um but the violation still remains. I am showing that I gave proper service. Um certified mailing was mailed out by administrative staff. I as well
posted the property on March 6th of this year. Um the photos that you're showing um that you're seeing are of what the property looks like. Um seems like maybe there was some kind of vehicle damage of, you know, something hit it. Um but
it's been like that for over a year now. Um and needs some repairs. Uh this is a default. All evidence submitted by the city is hereby accepted into the record and made part of the record. So this looks like something beyond fence maintenance. It looks like the fence is structurally crumbling at
various places or it could fall. I don't know based the photos make it seem like it has various gaps and uh what what would be a recommended fine for something in this case? 21.
>> One second. Magistrate. >> I have a fine of up to 150 per day. >> Okay. I think the violation has been proven and the fence uh damage seems serious. A fine is hereby imposed of 150 per day effective from date of rendition
uh for this violation plus $100 in costs. Um second case we have is for outdoor storage. Same property address 12790 Northeast 12th Avenue. Um case number CODS 2025
0242. um same day I was doing my inspections last year, September 2nd of 2025, where as I noticed along um side the fence, there were also some wood pallets um
that were leaning on the front um tree and along the front of the property. I then again cited the property mail without notice of violations to the property owner. Um have not heard anything from her for over a year. Um,
as of my last reinspection, the violation still remains. I am showing that I gave proper service. I posted a notice with the notice to appear on March 6, 2026. Certified mailing was mailed out to the property owner via
certified mail as well. As you're showing here in the picture depicted, these are the wood pallets that are um located on the pro property. still leaning on the >> it's not not visible on the screen but uh
>> okay I see it now okay as he's showing here postings that I posted the property you have the um notice to appear notices that were mailed out to the property all enclosed
in the file. >> Anything else? >> No. >> Um this doesn't seem like it's this is default situation. All exhibits presented by the city are hereby accepted into evidence and made part of
the record. uh for this kind of um violation. Uh Madame Attorney, I it seems just having personal property and and objects in front of the house that that are not allowed. Is there is there a prescribed fine?
>> Yes, Magistrate. a fine of up to 250 per day. Okay. Uh based on the evidence, I find that there is a violation as alleged uh for this case number 29. And uh the cost
of $100 are hereby assessed and a fine of $150 per day is hereby imposed on effective from rendition until there is cure or correction. >> Special magistrate, may I request a brief recess, please? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
Jeffrey, let let me ask you something. something that I want to know because the last bill I found from North Miami, which I I still had it. I was surprised, but I had a one of my bills that I rendered here showed uh the payment
scheme, you know, the invoice I submitted to the city of five hours or less was 800, right? And anything over five hours, it would be the 800 plus whatever like 125
an hour. If it's over, >> we're on recess. Oh, it's I don't really care. Well, that's what I was What I was told that I was told that
it's over. But if it's over five hours in addition, still the same. It's still the And then the people I need to submit it to recent >> right invoice
Okay. This is the Thank you, Special Magistrate. I have to put on the record that um item number 15, the attorneys for Citadel are claiming they did not receive proper notice. They have
forwarded us the notice that they did receive and it was improper. So we'll have to stay your order for this number. >> Repeat that again. >> Item number 15. You gave an order earlier under the assumption that notice
was proper. Notice was improper. We just heard from the attorneys for the Citadel, >> which is the um the the party who was cited in this case, and they did not receive notice. Well, proper notice, they have sent us a copy of their notice, which is improper.
>> Okay. So, on the representation that um the notice that was given was improper notice or notice fully compliant with law. Um, I'm going to uh reconsider
uh case number 15, the Citadel. Uh, I think the city's going to have to convey this at least to the respondents uh the inter the interested parties at attorney who attended and and be advised because uh they left here with a different
impression. But, you know, notice goes to due process. So I'm going to make uh uh you know I'm going to I'm myself on my own valition based on representation going to reconsider the order in 15. The order has not yet been rendered. Uh that order is not to be rendered. That order
is hereby vacated until appropriate and due notice is required by law as given and case number 15 will be heard at that time whenever properly noticed and and set forth. >> Thank you. Special administrator All right, magistrate. The item we will
be working on now is item number 35, Chris Consultants LLC, case number CBNP 2025 000013. And the officer on this case is Mr. Gabriel Morales.
>> I'm sorry that I was writing something down. What case number was that again? I'm sorry. >> Number 35. >> Okay. Good afternoon, uh, magistrate. Uh, officer Morales of City of North Miami code compliance. Uh, this violation was issued on January 30th of 2025 from a
complaint that was received from a neighbor in the building uh that uh they're doing construction without permits. Um the initial uh reinspection or compliance date was um uh February
13, 2025 to obtain an after the-act permit for the demolition work that was being uh in progress. Now they did apply for a permit um back in December, Chris, is that correct? December.
>> December for the permit. >> Yeah, they applied December December 4th. >> Okay. So they applied in December. Uh but the permit has still not has not been issued. It's just pending. Uh so they haven't done anything uh with the
permit. Um and uh it says that they need to obtain the actual permit for the violation to be closed. And you can see here on the picture that they completely uh removed everything in the in the unit. >> Permit has not been issued. >> The permit has not been issued.
>> It has not been issued. And um presumably when they don't have the permit, the respondent, the owner knows that they need to meet with the city or do I mean they have some understanding of what they need to do to get the permit, right? >> Uh yeah.
>> Christopher Coulson, building building code officer. So when they do all the permits get turned in, reviewed by all the trades, they get notified whether it's approved or denied. They get an email. So they've been they would have been notified whether they've been approved or denied. So here presumably
they've been denied or is it just that the permit is pending? That's just >> it's just pending. >> It's been reviewed by one of the trades but it it hasn't been denied. It's just pending. Some people for unfortunate it
always sh from the building department on record. Once the permit has been reviewed, it's going to always say it's pending until it's completed the till it got approved. So, it goes into review. The trades will
review. It'll get denied in the system, but it doesn't say denied. It'll still say pending until it says issued. I want to just make sure that's clear >> because we heard other cases where I was told people put in a permit and was denied. >> Yes, it's going to be denied. That mean
once it get denied, we sent an email saying, "Hey, it's been denied." But in the system, it still will remain pending. >> Presumably, this person, this this uh LLC was notified of today's hearing. What I'm getting at is >> this is all I'm getting at. Basic fairness. I just would they have been
under the impression that they have a permit pending. >> Okay. So, >> that's what I'm getting, you know, I just I want to be fair. >> Yes, they're going to have they're going to be still under impression that they permit pending. It's gonna say pending, but they would know that it's been
denied because they received a notification already saying it's been denied and they need to be um corrected. >> But in this case, they haven't received a notification, have they? >> Okay. Did they get notified? >> That's what I need to know because even if they're >> Let me give me one second. Let me go
double check. What >> do you understand what I'm getting at? Yes. All they got is not email notification was sent on 2226. Officer Pressy um for the builder department a email notification was sent
that it was um denied on 222 202 26. So only persons approve it been denied by building. Wait, hold on one second. Give me one second. It went back in review. Actually they've been approved.
Let me see. Building approved it. cost affidavit. Let make sure electrical plumbing structural. They got an email notification on 222 that the permit is ready to be picked up. They just have to pick up the permit
>> that the permit >> not issued yet is ready. >> Not issued. It's ready for pickup. So, it's still going to stay pendant in the system until they actually come in and to pick up their permit. So, we'll always say pending. That's how the system is um set up. You have to
actually go inside to inside the actual permit history to know what's going on. >> Okay. No, I understand, but I'm trying to get at very simply and just, you know, for for my own comprehension. Is this case where a permit is going to be issued
>> to this owner if they just come in and get it? >> Correct. >> Okay. I don't think this is a code enforcement violation. Okay. This case is hereby continued and it's tabled for a period of 30 days until May 18th. Please sort it out with the owner
beforehand because I you know do believe in uh you know issuing a violation when there is a violation. But when a a permit is ready to be issued and they just haven't picked it up, I think someone from the city respectfully needs to call and reach out to them and say come and get your permit and let's just
resolve it that way if if you please. Thank you. So, no adjudication on um this case um number 35. This is continued for 30 days until May 18th and hopefully it's resolved by then. Thank you. >> All right, magistrate. The next item is
item number 39, North Dade SNF Real Estate Co. LLC, North Dade Phillips TI TIC. Case number CBPR 202500275. And the officer on this case is Jonathan
Lmetestri. >> Good afternoon, Mat Suarez. Code officer Jonathan Lmetri. On July 17th, 2025, I opened a notice of violation for um building permits required at 1235 Northeast 135th Street. This is in
regard to a fence being installed on the property without a permanent file. I posted the notice of violation at the property and I mailed the notice of violation via property appraiser. And as you can see from the photos, show you the fence. This is the property appraiser page.
This is a nursing home on 135th Street. This black fence was installed uh without a permit on file. This is me hand delivering the notes of violation to the clerk. And this is what the property looked
like uh prior uh before they installed the fence at the property. And this is what it looks like now. Have you been in touch with the owner? >> I've spoken to the representatives at the nursing home. I went in there. I explained to them the situation that all
they have to do is visit the building department to obtain an after- the-act permit for the fencing. >> So, this is a nursing home where I see a life or something like that or adult congregate. This is some kind of >> Yes, this is a nursing home on Northeast 135th Street on 12th Avenue.
>> Okay. >> Anything else? No sir. >> Okay. Uh this is the default. Without um objection, all documents and evidence presented by the city are hereby formally accepted into uh the record.
Uh I do find that a a permit uh was required. Um the case goes back to last year. Um the $100 cost is hereby assessed. Is there any recommended fine amount?
>> Building without a permit up to $500 at your discretion. >> Okay. I'm going to impose a fee of $250 per day until there is compliance um from from time of rendition. >> All right, magistrate. The next item
we'll be calling is item number 40. Paul and Jane Shervin. Case number CEJ CEJ NK K 2025 000025 and the officer on this case is officer
Gabriel Morales. >> Good afternoon, Magistrate. Officer Morales with the city of North Miami code compliance. Uh, I issued this violation July 11th of 2025 uh for a reinspection on July 25 of 2025.
Um, it was for uh the junk that was stored in the rear of the property such as like u old metal and couches and buckets and chairs. Um, I show you the pictures now. This is from
This is from the reinspection. But uh if you Let me see if they show the So on the reinspection, you can see the couch and stuff is still there >> now that I look more closely. Uh by the glass door, >> the couch and so forth. And
>> I'm sorry, >> by the glass door, the various other items. >> Yes. Um, and then you can see at the farther end that that concrete wall is kind of blocking there, but there are some like these large buckets or containers that
they store there. Um, that was from the reinspection. It's the posting that is a notice of violation. And this is when originally um they had that sofa. They had some
metal stuff in the in the rear in the back there. It's kind of difficult to see, but there's like these big metal things that they they moved that, but they still kept some of that junk back there. >> And that is a violation of the code to have that debris outside. >> Yes. For for that junk
>> because obviously I'm going to ask a dumb question. That's obviously not patio furniture. >> It's not. Yeah, it's not. It's interior furniture that's being kept outside. >> Okay. All exhibits presented by the city are accepted into evidence and made part of the record. This is a default. Um, is
this a single family home? >> It is a duplex. >> It's a duplex, but it's being used residentially. >> Yes, correct. >> Okay. Um, unless I'm advised something else, I'm going to find that the violation has been proven. It's unrebuted. The costs are assessed of $100.
plus a perdeium of $150 per day effective from rendition until there is correction. >> Thank you. >> All right, magistrate. The next item we'll be calling is item number 41 and 42. Same property.
Item number 41, Plaza Ye LLC. Case number CF OB 2022500187 and the officer on this case is Jonathan Lestri. Good afternoon co- compliance officer Jonathan Leststery and this is a case in
regarding the business tax receipt for property 9 55 Northeast on 25th Street. The business is Brotherhood JW Salon. um they do not have a business tax receipt on file uh with the city of North Miami on April 26, 2025. I opened
the notice of violation and I posted the notice of violation that same day. I also mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser on March 5th, 2026. I hand delivered the notice to appear at the property and on March 16th, 2026, the
final reinspection date, the business failed to obtain the North Miami business tax receipt. Rafa Pedong, licensing manager, city of North Miami. The business had turned in a certificate of use. Well, we're on business tax, but either way, it's related. So, they turned in the certificate of use application in 2024.
They were informed in September of 2025 that a board of adjustment distance separation variance must be applied for and obtained before licensing is approved. And the BOA distance separation variance was turned in yesterday. >> Yesterday.
>> Yesterday. But after a long time. >> So they knew because they were advised at that time, >> right? They were advised in September of 2025 what they needed and they turned it in yesterday. >> This is a commercial use on that property. >> Yes.
>> Did they ever have a BTR before or they just have never had one or >> No, never had one. >> Okay. As I recall, there's a distinction in the code between not having one and having failing to >> Yes, that's correct. Not having one at
all is a fine of up to $500. Failing to renew is a fine of up to $250. Well, based on the evidence and the fact that it's unrebuted and uh the fact that
they were advised apparently quite some time ago about the need to do all of this and they failed to do anything until yesterday and still not timely. Uh and that they've never had a BTR, right? You represented that to me. Yeah. >> So, uh violation is is found for no BTR on the property. The $100 cost is
assessed. A daily fine of $500 a day is hereby assessed from rendition until there's compliance. >> 500. >> All right. The next case is item number 42. The same property plaza LLC CECU
202500186. And the officer on this case is Jonathan Lestri. >> Good afternoon code officer Jonathan Lamestri. Same as case number 41, I opened the notice of violation um on April 26, 2025 for the business Brotherhood JW Salon uh for not having a
certificate of use. I posted the notice of violation at the property and I mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser. On March 5th, 2026, I hand delivered the notice to appear at the property and as of March 16th, 2026, the final reinspection date, the business failed
to obtain the North Miami certificate of use. >> Okay. All documents submitted by the city are uh introduced and made part of the record. Uh this is the default. Um I have the same question as in the prior case. Did they have a certificate of use before or
>> No. >> Okay. >> They had applied in 2024. They were informed September 2025 of the BOA distance separation variance needed and they'd applied yesterday. They applied yesterday, >> but they've never had one. No. >> Okay. So I'm going to um
find that uh there is a violation. They did apply yesterday. You said >> for the variance. Yes. >> For for the variance >> which precedes the certificate of use application and business tax application. >> Okay. How long would that take more or less? You know they >> not sure how long. Well if this they
need a board of adjustment distance separation variance that means it has to be a board hearing duly noticed. So if there's no quorum I from what I've overheard I'm in that department but I don't handle this. It could be a lengthy process. >> I just you know they have applied and
the application was accepted. I mean it wasn't like it was deficient. It was accepted. >> It was accepted yesterday. >> Was accepted yesterday. Okay. I'm going to find is this like the uh Madam City uh is this like the BTR that it's up to $500?
>> No. This one is up to $250. >> Up to $250. Okay. So, uh I'm going to find that there is a violation. Uh they don't have a certificate of use. They were advised of the need for the variance. Um $100 cost
is assessed and um I mean they they have applied. So, I'm going to impose a fine of $150 per day uh until correction from date of rendition. Um,
and again I I want to be clear that when a default situation when they're not here, unless the city is either requesting an enlargement themselves or a respondent is requesting an enlargement, I'm not going to just of my own valition grant one. You understand?
>> Yes, I understand. All right. >> Okay. The next item is item number 43, Prestige Stone LLC, case number CBPR 2025 00248. This case was previously found guilty by magistrate Smith with an abatement date
of January 7th, 2026. Fines were set at $500 >> per day plus 100 cost assessment. >> And this case is also presented by Jonathan >> Lestri. Yes. >> Good afternoon. CO compliance officer
Jonathan Lester. Um, this case is in regard to observing roof work being done at the property without a permanent file. >> Okay. On May 5th, 20, correction, on May 15th, 2025, I observed roof work being done at the property without a permanent
file. I posted the notice of violation and I mailed the notice of violation to the property owner via property appraiser. Um, they were found guilty by Magistrate Smith and they had to obey by January 7th, 2026. The fine was set at $500.
Um, sorry. On March 11th, 2026, I posted the notice to appear at the property. And on March 16th, 2026, as of the final reinspection date, um, yeah, the business, uh, correction, uh,
the property, uh, didn't have the permit on file. However, uh, building inspector Shaunie Presley would like to clarify a couple things. They still not in compliance as of yet. Um they still the permit has been submitted to the building department. Um
they had to make some correction if I'm not mistaken to durm had um comments and they re they going to resubmit that comments back to durm maybe next week sometime but they not in compliance as of today.
They it's still in process >> but they have submitted. >> Yes. Okay. And that that submission was accepted. It's just >> Yes. >> They need to pass the aspestos with with DUR because it's a commercial roof.
>> Okay. So, I think that there's a violation. So, based all uh documents and evidence submitted by the city are hereby formally accepted into the record. I think my hands are tied by the prior order. So, I am going to find the violation today exists uh for the $100
cost. and the $500 as stipulated by the magistrate and those are hereby imposed. Uh however, because they have submitted a application for permit, uh I'm going to give them 30 days, which seems I
don't know reasonable unless you think a a longer time is needed. Yes, that that that's that's >> I'm going to give them 30 days >> till um May 18th to secure the permit that's required by law. And uh if they do so, then that's
fine. We're just looking at the $100 plus the $500 as per the other order. But if they haven't secured uh the permit by um May 18th, we're talking about $500 per DM fine until there's correction or cure. Am I clear?
>> Very clear. Okay, >> thank you. >> The next item we'll be calling is item number 44, Rubyero International Investment 2, LLC, case number CBPR 2026
000018. And this case is presented by officer Shana Sanders. >> Shana Sanders, city of North Miami co- compliance officer. This is a new case for property address 12355 Northeast 13th Avenue for a dumpster enclosure
that was installed on the side of the property. Um I was riding during my normal inspections on February 5th, 2026 where I observed the gentleman um installing in or changing out um the dumpster enclosure. Um at that time I
had a conversation with him. He gave me the number of the property manager. We spoke via telephone call. He said that he would um obtain the permit for this enclosure. As of my last reinspection, the per the permit has not been obtained
in the um comp the dumpster instru the dumpster enclosure still remains. I am showing that I gave proper notice. I mailed the notice to appear to the property owner
on March 6, 2026. Certified mailing was mailed out um on the 13th um for this um hearing. Um I did speak to another gentleman um at the property maybe a
week ago and stated that they were going to go ahead and remove it. Um but again, I upon my reinspection, no permit was pulled. um in the dumpster still remain. The dumpster enclosure still remains.
>> Great. Thank you. Um all evidence submitted by the city and presented is hereby accepted as part of the record. This is a default. What is the um recommended fine for an unpermitted dumpster enclosure or does it just fall
under unpermitted? >> It falls under unpermitted and it would be a fine of up to $500 at your discretion. Okay. I consider this matter to be of, you know, what's it's beyond a broken fence, but it's it's not um
u super serious matter based on the testimony I've seen. So, I do find a violation. The $100 and costs are hereby imposed. I think the violation has been proven. Uh fine of 250 per day is hereby imposed from rendition until there is
correction. Thank you >> magistrate. Question for number 43. What was the ruling? I remember you said ratified then 30 days just for clarity. >> No, the ruling on 43 is as follows. Uh again, based on on the practice that
I've seen at at various places, the violation was proved today that the uh roofing work was done without a permit. So, per the order of the other magistrate, the $100 cost was imposed
plus the $500 for the violation because he provided that in the other order. >> The only difference is that because there was also testimony that they submitted a permit and that is pending that I said that they have 30 days until May 18th
to secure the permit. And I asked if that was reasonable. I was told it was. And I said that if they haven't secured the permit in 30 days, that there will be again the the other order provides $500 per day, there will be $500 per day after
May 18th in addition because they haven't secured the permit. Am I clear? >> Yes, your honor. >> Okay. >> Yeah. He said um there's going to be an additional $500 after May 18. Yeah, because he said May 18th.
There's anything unclear, just ask me. I try to be clear. All right. And and that concludes today's hearing. >> Okay. So, uh it's um 3:04 in the afternoon. Uh if there's no other business before the magistrate, is
there any other business before the magistrate? Okay, that concludes the hearing. Thank you so much.