[0:14] Good afternoon, the August 20th, 2026 special magistrate hearing is now in session. Special magistrate John Heron will be presiding. The procedure for today's hearing is as follows. As each case is called, the city representative will present the case. Once the presentation is complete, the respondent will have an opportunity to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, your relationship to the property,

[0:43] and then present your testimony.

[0:46] After testimony has concluded,

[0:48] special magistrate Heron will consider the evidence

[0:51] and issue of ruling.

[0:53] If you are found in violation of the code,

[0:56] an administrative fee of $175 will be imposed.

[1:01] The fee cannot be waived or reduced by the special magistrate.

[1:05] Special magistrate Heron, you have been provided

[1:08] with a copy of the minutes from the July 16th,

[1:11] 2026 hearing.

[1:14] Yes, I have. I reviewed them and they have been signed.

[1:19] Let the record reflect that the minutes have been approved.

[1:22] Kindly silence all electronic devices at this time.

[1:26] Everyone who intends to testify today, please stand and raise your right hand.

[1:35] Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth,

[1:41] and nothing but the truth.

[1:44] Thank you, you may be seated.

[1:47] The first case on the agenda is item number one, under certifications, SM26095,

[1:58] 3090 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Officer Angel Smith.

[2:21] Okay, Officer Angel Smith, presenting facility of Oakland Park.

[2:24] This is for case number SM26-095-3090, West Oakland Park Boulevard, owner is

[2:34] coppofam-TRBix, Robert and Gillian, CBS.

[2:41] Violation is for section 8.7B, trash, slash graffiti.

[2:47] This is 33,000, not a crew in, original hearing date was 618, 2026.

[2:54] final amount was $250 per day starting retroactive to the date the violation was first noticed, which was February 13th, 2026 plus $175 admin fee.

[3:10] Sir Owen, here speak to this matter.

[3:15] Yes, good afternoon.

[3:17] Monique Jerome on behalf of Copal, Hanson and Biggs.

[3:22] Just want to ask do you need a copy of the owner's letter of authorization?

[3:27] You can provide it to the inspector and we'll enter that into the record.

[3:33] And do you need a copy of the invoices or?

[3:39] No, I mean it's in compliance at this time and so what are we doing here?

[3:48] We're going to request a reduction in the lien.

[3:51] We believe good cause exists to support our reduction consistent with Florida Statute 162.09 and the City Code Section 28.7B with the three factors to consider concerning our request.

[4:09] I'll tell you what I generally do, and for those in the audience who potentially are in the same situation.

[4:14] As a general rule, I'll reduce cases that have been coming to compliance down to 10% which in your case that would be down to $3,300 plus $175 admin fee for a total $3,475 payable within 38, is that acceptable?

[4:32] So, yeah, could we get 60 days to pay?

[4:36] Okay.

[4:36] Okay, thank you.

[4:38] All right.

[4:38] In case, SM-26-095, address record, 3-0-9-0, West Oakland Park Boulevard, owner of record, the Comple Family Trust.

[4:48] Based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, which I will accept into the record.

[4:53] The staff report can find that the matters properly before the special magistrate find that the property is in compliance with

[5:00] The city code, it was cited for in the notes of violation. That compliance, however, was passed to the date set fourth and set order. As a result, a fine of $33,000 has accrued plus the $175 admin fee, a grant reduction of that amount to $3,300 plus the $175 admin fee, payable within 60 days, if it's not paid within the six days, it will revert back to the full amount. And at that point, city staff can record an order to that effect.

[5:29] and it will become a lien against the property.

[5:32] Any questions?

[5:33] Thank you.

[5:34] Best of luck.

[5:43] Next is item number 13, under new cases, SM261561881 Northwest 31st Court, Officer Gilbert Vanero.

[5:56] Code Inspector Vanero on behalf of the city, a presenting case summer SM26156.

[6:02] The property address is 1881 Northwest 31st Court.

[6:05] owner of the record according to BCPA.

[6:08] It's Cyboros SFR holding LLP, mailing addresses 600 gallery of parkways,

[6:16] sweet 300 Atlanta, Georgia.

[6:18] This is not a homestead property.

[6:20] Surface was obtained by certified mail posting of the property in City Hall.

[6:24] This case was open on May 12th of 2026 by my observation.

[6:28] The following steps were conducted to obtain compliance.

[6:33] Notice of violation was issued and posted on 512th of 2026.

[6:38] The property was cited for the following city code ordinances.

[6:42] Section 24.65 unlicensed vehicles.

[6:45] It's prohibited to park and store an unlicensed vehicle at this residential property.

[6:51] There was contact with the property owner and anyone to reference to this property.

[6:56] The city is requesting 30 days to comply or $150 per day.

[6:59] I'm submitting as evidence for the case file, notice a violation, photos depicting the properties,

[7:07] condition of legal posting, BCPA printout, notice to appear affidavitive service and supporting evidence.

[7:14] There is representation here for this case.

[7:18] State your name for the record, please.

[7:20] Good afternoon, Kevin Diaz on behalf of the property owner.

[7:22] Okay, you've heard the staff recommendation.

[7:26] Do you have any questions?

[7:27] Do you want to dispute their allegations that set forth the notice of violation in the case file?

[7:36] Yes, so we spoke beforehand.

[7:39] I can show the magistrate photos.

[7:44] I originally came here with the idea that we were in compliance and after a discussion with the code enforcement officer,

[7:51] the position is that as of this morning, the car reappeared.

[7:57] Now, all the feedback that we've gotten is that the tenant has complied this issue.

[8:02] Now, if that's not the case, which tenants sometimes lie, then we need to start action to remove them.

[8:10] Yeah, I understand, and certainly, the officer can testify, I do know that as a matter of routine procedure,

[8:21] in this city as well as virtually every other city that has a code enforcement system.

[8:28] The inspector will go by the properties that are scheduled for hearing either the day

[8:32] before or the day of to determine whether or not there's compliance or not.

[8:37] So was that inspection conducted?

[8:40] Yes.

[8:41] And the vehicle was still there.

[8:43] But again, it may not be there tomorrow because I go by these properties on a daily basis.

[8:49] On a regular basis.

[8:49] So, you know, you may have a tenant who put it politely as shell game, you know, they do appear to be, you know, operable, but, you know, from the photographs there in the city's file, there are at least three vehicles there on the dates and the photographs where the vehicles were there that don't have any plates.

[9:18] and so that becomes the violation.

[9:21] You know, I don't have any problems with, you know,

[9:25] granting and ordering as recommended by staff 30 days.

[9:31] And it's just a matter of, you know, working with the inspector

[9:36] to verify compliance.

[9:38] You know, I obviously have to take him at his word.

[9:42] I'm not saying that they, you know, the photographs are the photographs,

[9:45] perhaps, which I will accept in the record, but if he's saying that as of today's date,

[9:50] then it may be as you indicated an issue with the tenant, and that's outside my authority.

[9:57] I'm just interested, if I make format.

[10:00] And I have no reason to question the code enforcement officer. I personally never inspected the property, so I can't definitively say one way or the other. My thought, after speaking with the code enforcement officer, if there is a way to roll this next month, to see either a, if the tenant did comply, and if I can produce more evidence, one or the other, or if he didn't, and he's lying, then we need to initiate the eviction action, which is going to be substantially more than 30 days.

[10:28] The seven-day notice the cure alone is going to take us some time and then we still need to file.

[10:33] Yeah, and we're really just slicing the pie a different way, you know, instead of right to left, left to right.

[10:41] We still end up with the same amount of slices in the same place.

[10:47] question, because what's going to end up happening is, I give you the 30 days, which

[10:56] is what the recommendation staff is, and we come back here, and this is between you

[11:05] and your client, they're paying you to come back second time, as opposed to the 30 days.

[11:11] The 30-day time period to come back is the same.

[11:16] So either it's in compliance within the next 30 days or it's not, and the fine would begin to run.

[11:22] Or we postpone it, and again, the client is potentially out of the money to have you come back again.

[11:32] and I, as often as I'm over here, sometimes I'm over there and we do what the client tells

[11:40] us to do.

[11:41] So, does staff have any objection to that?

[11:45] I mean, you are going to have to interact with the code officer on a regular basis because

[11:53] again, it may be, unfortunately, not the first time I've seen this here in other locations.

[12:00] It's just a shell game where the

[12:05] the tenant is moving the vehicles when they know you're coming out or someone on behalf of landlords coming out.

[12:11] And they just and they reappear.

[12:13] I don't know if he's selling the vehicles working on them or what but.

[12:19] When I spoke for the first time with the tenant.

[12:22] Those two vehicles are where on license.

[12:24] Those vehicles were for the son and an FU.

[12:27] And he asked me to give him an extension because he was trying to get the paperwork and so forth and get them registered.

[12:32] I did. That was a courtesy notice. Then afterwards, when I saw that it didn't happen, I went ahead and issued the notice violation.

[12:40] But to be fair, there's only one vehicle left there is the Acura. That's left. The other cars are gone.

[12:46] They were unlicensed. But again, if you had to stand up at the intersection to continuing the matter for 30 days.

[12:56] As I said, we're, to some degree, back to the same place in 30 days.

[13:01] Either it's been resolved or you're coming back before me because you have a problem with the tenant, not necessarily with the city, so to speak.

[13:13] Based on the evidence and the communication between the officer and the tenant, the city would not object to another extension.

[13:19] All right, then in case SM 26156, address record 1881 Northwest 31st Court, owner of record,

[13:29] Serebrus SFR holdings to LP, we'll continue the matter for 30 days, obviously if you

[13:38] have it obtained a card from the inspector, make sure you do before you leave and follow

[13:44] up because he will have to go out and re-inspect prior to the hearing next month and hopefully we'll get

[13:55] disposed of and resolve before then. We won't have to come back or I will. You won't have to come back.

[14:01] Thank you. A question, do we know that hearing date now or that's a notice in this?

[14:06] Next date is September 17th, same time, same location, same bat channel.

[14:16] Thank you, everyone.

[14:19] That's a lot.

[14:29] Next is item number 8, under new cases, SM26150, 1001 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Officer Angel Smith.

[14:48] Is there someone here on behalf of Lowe's?

[14:54] This is Lowe's home center, right?

[14:57] Sorry, when I heard the case number, it wasn't tracking.

[15:00] That's fine, hold on. Before we move on, this was on the agenda last month, I believe, or the month before. And we pulled it, you all, staff pulled it, but at the time I had mentioned that this particular matter creates a problem for me, because my firm does work for lows and other jurisdictions. So I have a conflict

[15:29] But normally what would happen and the situation this matters, then we'll get referred

[15:36] to the city's code enforcement board, which doesn't have the problem I have, and you

[15:42] would then have to appear before them.

[15:45] Obviously, we're in an open forum.

[15:47] You have the opportunity to say whatever you want to staff in the way of trying to resolve

[15:52] the matter before you leave here today or find out what needs to be done.

[15:56] But for the reasons I stated on the record, I, you know, ethically I am prohibited from hearing this matter and it would have to be rescheduled and reset for the Code Enforcement Board because of the conflict of interest I have through my law firm.

[16:13] Understood. Anna Barton on behalf of Lowe's. I was not aware and I don't believe there's any

[16:19] paperwork showing that this has been called for hearing in the prior month, so I'm not sure

[16:23] what that's about.

[16:26] Well, you can take a look at the file. There is the notice of violation hearing as well as

[16:34] the underlying notice of violation. What would normally happen during the course of the hearing

[16:41] is staff would part of their presentation, their testimony would indicate or testify that they followed the statutory and code procedures for noticing the hearing and that's in the file.

[16:54] You know, again, historically 99% of the time 99.9 when they testify that they followed the procedures for noticing it's that it did go to the corporate center, not necessarily locally.

[17:11] because that's what shows up on the Broward County Property Pressure's website as the address and that's what you have to follow pursuant to Chapter 162.

[17:22] So, you know, there was a notice, there was notice issued.

[17:26] Right. And perhaps the Code Enforcement Officer can help me here. Was this issue, was a hearing issue last?

[17:32] Because we've been in contact and there's, this is the first hearing notice that I'm aware of in this case altogether.

[17:38] I was not aware that there was a hearing notice or that this is a second time that it's been set.

[17:42] There was a prior hearing scheduled either last month, no, or a month before, and it wasn't held staff withdrew the matter and reset it.

[17:55] Okay, this indeed is the first hearing.

[17:58] This is the first hearing, okay, but we never received notices of a prior hearing and I did have an opportunity to look at the record that

[18:05] that the code enforcement officer put together and I don't see that there was any notice for

[18:10] a July hearing. So I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

[18:16] This notice went out. Give me a moment. I'll tell you. Let me give this.

[18:22] And maybe this is all for not if it's going to be reset, but I just want to make sure that

[18:26] I'm not missing information.

[18:30] I have that the violation notice and the

[18:35] the date case established was June 18th and then the next document we have is a notice

[18:42] of hearing that sets today as the hearing date.

[18:47] So the notice of violation

[18:52] was

[19:06] issued on 6, 18, 20, 26 appears and the notice of hearing

[19:17] I

[19:28] don't see the date but it does state on it that the hearing is today on compliance

[19:36] I just needed to be obtained, sorry, that a copy of this notice of violation hearing was mailed delivered to the above violator at the address state of below on or before 8, 10, 20, 26, right.

[19:52] So that's why I'm confused about the July hearing that was never noticed.

[19:55] So the July hearings and I don't have it in front of me may have been

[20:00] Council before notice has even went out. So if that was the case, you would never receive a notice. Okay. That tracks with the record shows, because it shows and actually I do have questions about that because in what was. Well, before I get into the record and questions given the conflict, so how do we proceed here? Do we proceed and we just have the code board? What will happen is that a new notice of hearing will be generated and it will be sent. I will tell you that unless you may.

[20:31] arrangements here, and believe me, I, because, as I said to the previous attorney, a lot of times I'm over there, and part of the problem that I experience with some of my corporate clients is that notices go to Virginia.

[20:48] And, you know, next thing I know and I'm getting requests from one of my colleagues, hey, can you go to hearing tomorrow?

[20:54] because that's the first, we know of it here locally.

[20:58] So, you can make arrangements with the inspector to receive a copy.

[21:05] But in order to comply with the state statute and the city code,

[21:09] notice will have to be sent to the corporate address that's set forth on the Broward County Property Preasers website, which is in North Carolina.

[21:20] So, you know, and I don't know how it trickles down internally as I said before and that same issue, but it will be scheduled and I don't know when the next code board meeting meets they may be able to staff maybe should be able to tell you that I

[21:43] believe the next code board need to be knocked over but I don't have the exact date.

[21:46] My recommendation would be to get with Ms. Smith and maybe explain what has to be done exactly.

[21:52] And more than likely, you'll be able to comply before that hearing we've been happened.

[21:56] There'll be no ruling today.

[21:57] Okay, so there's no fine, there's no ruling, there's no, nothing that will happen today.

[22:00] So I will save everyone's time and not get into the specifics of the case or what's going on.

[22:05] And then I'll be in touch with Officer Smith.

[22:10] All right, well thank you.

[22:15] Hold on, ma'am, don't leave, hold on a minute.

[22:22] Did I say lows or home depot?

[22:25] Lows.

[22:26] Last time.

[22:28] Because home depot is also on the schedule and I'm trying, now when I see it, it's literally

[22:33] happens to be the one just before your case.

[22:36] I'm trying to think, where do I have the conflict?

[22:43] Was last time?

[22:44] And maybe that's why you have a recollection of it being punted one time.

[22:48] Can you take a, just don't leave. Let me, let me inquire.

[22:59] If you give me a moment, I

[23:04] will ask my assistant to check very quickly.

[23:08] give

[23:23] me a moment.

[23:46] Hey, I need to do something very quickly. Check to see through our system whether

[23:53] or not we represent home depot or lows or both. I know we have a conflict with at least one of them.

[24:04] Okay, and then either email me or text me. Okay, thanks.

[24:11] All right, let's we'll call back

[24:15] In fact, case SM26156, no, I'm sorry, SM26150 in a moment, and call the next one, please.

[24:30] Not Home Depot.

[24:31] Oh, the next one is Home Depot as well, is there, who's the representative?

[24:35] Same issue, ma'am, so I'm checking to see whether or not I have a conflict with one of the two.

[24:43] So I'm trying to find out which one it is so I can let one or both of you leave and as the same thing, it'll be scheduled before the City's Code Enforcement Board, which staff can provide you that information.

[25:04] So, I understand conflicts. Yes. Yeah, let's go with the next one.

[25:14] Next is item number eight, under certifications, SM-26-021-3560, Northwest 5th Avenue, officer Gilbert Vanero.

[25:25] In

[25:37] respect of an arrow on behalf of the city, presenting case SM 26021, property address of 3560, northwest 5th Avenue,

[25:46] owner of record is Samir and Fatima Abdulay.

[25:52] The actual amount of $17,850 is not accruing. They have complied as of August 17th of 2026, and

[26:03] Mr. Samir is here.

[26:04] Sorry,

[26:08] your name for the record.

[26:09] Good afternoon.

[26:10] My name is Samir Abzeyer.

[26:12] I'm the owner of 35, 16.

[26:14] Norwoods, Vitaven.

[26:15] Okay.

[26:16] You are in compliance.

[26:18] Yes.

[26:19] What do you want?

[26:20] What do you want?

[26:21] Same thing?

[26:22] Yes.

[26:23] Okay.

[26:23] All right.

[26:24] As I said before, and again, for the benefit of anyone in the audience,

[26:28] if you come before me on any of these accrued fines,

[26:34] standard reduction is 10%, which in your case would mean

[26:37] I mean, instead of $17,850, $175 admin fee, you would owe $1,785 plus $175, which is a total

[26:49] $1,960 payable within 30 days, is that acceptable?

[26:52] Understood.

[26:53] All right.

[26:54] So in case I'm 26, 021, address record, 3560 Northwest Fifth Avenue, owner of record,

[27:00] some year, I would add, and not to mess some year.

[27:05] I'm not sure if I got them right.

[27:08] I am going to accept into the record the staff report and find that the matter is properly before the special matter

[27:13] and based upon the MIS test money presented here this afternoon, I'm going to find that the special matter

[27:18] matter is prior order finding the property to be in violation of Section 5.3A permits required so the code of a

[27:24] has been complied with, but was complied with after the date set forth in the special magistrate order.

[27:31] As a result, the final $17,850 is accrued plus $175 Edmund Fee.

[27:37] I'm going to reduce that amount down to $1,785 plus $175 Edmund Fee for

[27:44] total $1,960 payable within 30 days.

[27:46] If it's not paid within this 30 days, it'll revert back to the full amount plus the Edmund Fee.

[27:51] and staff will record an order of that effect, and it'll become a lien against property.

[27:55] Any questions?

[27:56] Best of luck, thank you.

[28:04] Next is item number 11, under certifications, SM26026490 northwest 37th Street, Officer Gilbert Venero.

[28:28] Inspec the Venero on behalf of the city, presenting case SM26026 property address of 490 northwest 37th Street.

[28:38] This property was cited for work without permit.

[28:42] It has been in compliance as of 717 of 26.

[28:46] There's a non-accruiting amount of 13,200 and the property owner is here.

[28:54] Your name for the record, sir?

[28:56] Tim, I face a billion owner.

[28:58] Okay.

[28:59] And you're the property owner?

[29:00] Yes.

[29:01] Okay.

[29:01] You're in compliance.

[29:02] Finally, sir.

[29:04] Yes.

[29:04] And I would love to ask you to pay attention to that.

[29:08] that I was victim of contractor fraud,

[29:12] and I was doing everything that I could

[29:15] to make it and compliance,

[29:17] and I was never intended to do any illegal things.

[29:21] And if it's possible, sir,

[29:23] if you can waive this entirely, that would be great.

[29:28] I understand and I command you for asking,

[29:33] I mean, it's nothing wrong for asking,

[29:34] but I have to treat everyone the same way.

[29:37] Otherwise, I get accused of unequal treatment, and therefore, I will give you the same relief that I have offered to the other property owners who have come before you, which is to reduce your accrued fine down to 10%, which in your case would be $1,320 plus the $175 admin fee for a total of $1,495.

[30:00] $1, which is payable within 30 days. Okay. It sounds good. All right, it's like I don't have a lot of options.

[30:08] Case SM-26-026, address a record, 490, Northwest 37th Street, owner of record, Tumaphay is a billion. I hope I got that right.

[30:19] Going to find that the base upon the notice testimony presented here this afternoon, I will accept into the record staff report.

[30:26] We find the matters properly before the special magistrate, make a determination that the previous order of the special magistrate has been complied, but came into compliance past the deadline set forth and said order as a result of a fine of $13,200 has accrued as no longer accruing plus $175 admin fee will reduce that down to $1,320 plus $175 admin fee for total $1495 payable within 30 days.

[30:56] If it's not paid within that time frame, then it'll revert back to the original out and then staff will record an order to that effect in the public records that will become a lien of the property against your property, which I'm sure you don't want, so just make sure you go ahead and get that paid within the 30 days. Thank you for coming.

[31:12] All right.

[31:14] Next, the item number 9, SM-26-022-2819 North Oakland Forest Drive CH Officer Gilbert Venero.

[31:35] Inspector Venero presenting case, SM-26-022, property address of 28-18 North Oakland Forest Drive Club House.

[31:45] This is a violation for Section 5.3, permits required.

[31:52] The property has an amount of $8,500, not accruing.

[31:59] I believe that it was abated and you gave it on the last hearing of 30-day continuance.

[32:06] But as of yet, I believe that the permits have not been cured.

[32:10] All right,

[32:14] ma'am, your name for the record.

[32:16] Good afternoon, Felicia Strode, Lakeview Club,

[32:18] condominium association.

[32:25] I remember you coming before me.

[32:30] We, as staff said, we held the fine nabance pending submission

[32:36] of the proper paperwork for the permit.

[32:39] What's the hold up?

[32:40] We had some communication issues, I believe,

[32:44] and exactly what needed to be completed at the property.

[32:48] We've been able to, since then, we've been talking with Antonio a lot.

[32:53] We have a new vendor that is handling everything he's working with, not only the chief plumbing inspector,

[32:59] but also the Department of Health.

[33:01] He is working also with an engineer.

[33:04] They are getting the permits together.

[33:07] We were just recently notified of additional items that need to be included,

[33:12] including the backflow devices, we need to separate.

[33:15] So it seems to be continuous additions to what needs to be done and they've not been able to focus on just the permits because there are a lot of other issues that are encompassing this and we want to get them all resolved at once.

[33:30] My contractor has asked if we could get an extension to get the permits submitted to get everything in order so we are 110% in compliance with both Department of Health and the City of Oakland Park and the permits that are required.

[33:44] and everything is up to par.

[33:47] He asked me if I could request 90 days because we do still have to do permit submission.

[33:58] Obviously, the request for 90 days, I'll make an inquiry of staff to see what their position is on this.

[34:06] But I'll make one observation before staff responds.

[34:10] I understand and appreciate the concept of trying to wrap up everything at one time, but I will give you some unsolicited advice, but the city is independent of the Department of Health, and while you may have issues with them, and I certainly encourage you to resolve those.

[34:37] You know, at the end of the day, you know, I only have jurisdiction over the city's case.

[34:46] And let's assume for the moment that based upon your request, I give you additional time.

[34:53] But yet you're still, and your contractor's still running into problems with the Department of Health, not the city.

[35:00] And at that point in time, as they say, you have to cut, or fish cut bait, how you're going to proceed, because the city's going to start, the fines will start accruing.

[35:14] So-

[35:15] I have three pools and two hot tubs, so it's a lot to control right now.

[35:20] Okay.

[35:21] So I do ask for consideration.

[35:25] Staff is I would refer this to my supervisor he has

[35:29] Thank you, sir. Is the pool currently open?

[35:35] Yes, it is.

[35:36] It's currently open even though one is to our health department is

[35:40] Allowing this pool to be open. Yes, yes, absolutely.

[35:43] They have they have no problem with this pool.

[35:45] We've got like I said, there's three pools, two hot toads

[35:48] And we're trying to tackle all of them all of the above

[35:51] and it's been a long process.

[35:54] It's been very challenging because of everything involved.

[35:58] We just secured the new vendor this month, actually,

[36:01] the Russell's Pool Company, just this month,

[36:03] and he's been working with Anthony.

[36:05] And we, it was brought to our attention that all three pools

[36:08] need to have a separate backflow device

[36:10] so we had to look into that.

[36:11] And it's just been a lot of back and forth

[36:14] of this needs to be done now.

[36:16] Okay, so now we have to stop what we're doing

[36:17] and jump into that immediately to satisfy the request.

[36:24] The city would be agreeable to 60 more days at this point, with fine starting to accrue again after the 60th day to build on components.

[36:32] So that's what we'll do, we'll give 60 days and again, I would purely because it's all I have control over that I'm involved in is you may want to focus on

[36:46] the city's end, I can't speak for the Department of Health what they may or may not assess in the way of potential fines for whatever they deemed to be their violations.

[37:00] So, you know, 60 days if you got to get the permit in for the city work and then we can consider the additional things.

[37:14] But if it's not brought into compliance within that 60-day time frame, the fine will start accruing again retroactive to the initial date, so there's going to be that much more of a fine accrued.

[37:29] We will be done with the health department today, literally today.

[37:33] So tomorrow they will focus on the permit requirements and everything else.

[37:37] I'll tell them to put backflow on the back burner.

[37:39] Okay. Okay. All right. In case SM-26-022,

[37:45] address 28-19 North Oakland Forest Drive owner

[37:50] record, Oakland Forest Property Owners Association. I have reviewed and the updated staff report.

[37:59] It's in the record. Fund matters properly before the special magistrate. In grant, the request,

[38:05] the of both the applicant and the city or the prop owner of 60-day continuance.

[38:14] If the required permits are not obtained within that 60-day time period, then the fines

[38:21] will begin to accrue retroactive back to the original date and at some point staff can

[38:29] bring it back for certification at that point.

[38:33] So, you know, wish you the best and obviously stay in contact with the inspector to make sure that you get in compliance.

[38:43] All right, best of luck.

[38:45] Okay, thank you.

[38:46] Have a great day.

[38:46] Thank you.

[38:47] You too.

[38:52] I'm sorry.

[38:55] Oh, here.

[38:56] Let me see.

[39:13] Hey.

[39:14] You have an answer?

[39:17] Yeah, I'm in the middle of the here, but I'm in the middle of the hearing were both this issues come up so I need an answer now, but

[39:41] they both pop up,

[39:53] okay,

[39:57] all right, yeah, all right.

[40:05] Both names, before the record, we're talking about agenda items 7 and 8 on the agenda. I've been informed that either current or past colleagues of mine have represented both entities. They appear to have been, at least some of them closed, but we don't know for sure.

[40:31] So just in a matter, in a month's a caution, I'm just going to punt and have both matters referred to the city's

[40:41] code enforcement board to remove that concern of that issue. And so, you know, you all can also

[40:47] move forward with some level certainty and staff can move forward with certain levels of a level of

[40:53] certainty. And I just, you know, obviously tell you all everything. The same thing I've said to

[40:59] And everyone who's come before see if you can work things out with staff before you have to go before the code enforcement board and

[41:05] save yourself and your clients some time and trouble, best of luck, both of you.

[41:10] So-

[41:10] The city withdrawals, SM26149, and SM26150 from this agenda.

[41:16] All right, best of luck.

[41:17] Thank you for showing.

[41:31] Two in one time.

[41:32] One hearing.

[41:33] It's the first time that that's happened.

[41:39] No.

[41:41] I'm surprised that, because as you all know, we run these through our internal conflict check before I even come here and I'm not sure whether they didn't get flagged beforehand.

[42:00] Next, the item number 10, under certifications, SM-26-025, 193-0 Northwest, 33rd Court Officer Gilbert Bernero.

[42:22] Inspector Bernero presenting case SM-26-025, property address of 1930, Northwest, 33rd Court.

[42:29] Whole North Record is Christopher Lake, okay?

[42:32] Okay, the actual violation has been complied as of July 17th of 2026.

[42:39] There's a non-accruing amount of $7,000.

[42:42] And a representative is here on behalf of the owner.

[42:50] Sir, your name for the record.

[42:51] Fred Hussler, on behalf of the owner.

[42:54] Okay, you've heard what I've offered to the other property owners.

[42:58] I'll make the same offer to you.

[43:00] Or maybe a little bit more, I think, than that.

[43:03] We have, I spoke to officer Richter.

[43:06] Officer Richter has an email on file that the permit was supposed to be issued on the 9th.

[43:13] But the chief building inspector had went out of town before this happened and it was supposed to be occurred.

[43:21] Well, I understand I appreciate that.

[43:24] All I have to base, I can base my determination on and what's in the record is when was the permit issued and that's, you know, the circumstances of when or how it might have been delayed, you know, that's part of the process of getting a permit from any governmental jurisdiction.

[43:44] So, you know, you have, staff has stated that it was issued from the further date.

[43:55] Is there any further reduction?

[43:58] The date was actually corrected to reflect 717.

[44:03] So, that is the correct date taken in consideration that the chief, you know,

[44:11] I would assume that someone else could have issued the permit on behalf of the city.

[44:16] Is there only one person within the city who issues building permits or approves building permits on behalf of the city?

[44:23] Again, the code officer, Aaron Richter, I spoke with Patricia, the chief structural inspector.

[44:30] She went on vacation for two weeks.

[44:32] She advised me that this permit should have been issued the day she, before she left.

[44:40] She did not get to it, but it was issued.

[44:43] It was passed in her book as issued and passed a plan review.

[44:49] That is why the, in what was that date?

[44:51] July 17th. Okay. I confirmed with her. I thought he said July 9th. I'm sorry. No. Okay. Yeah.

[45:00] And, okay, no problem. And what was the, what was the file? It would be reduced down to $700 plus the $175 admin fee for a total of $8, $75 payable within 30 days.

[45:11] Yes sir, thank you sir. All right. This case, SM-26-025, address record 1930, northwest 33rd court, owner of record,

[45:22] Christopher Lake, based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon.

[45:26] I will accept into the record the staff report and find matters properly before the special

[45:30] magistrate, and in said case, make a determination that the previous order of the special

[45:35] magistrate finding the property being violation of Section 5.3A permits required city code of

[45:41] Oakland Park has been complied with but was complied with past the date set forth and said order.

[45:46] As a result, a fine of $7,000 is accrued, plus the $175, I'm sorry, $175 admin fee.

[45:55] I will reduce that down to $700, plus the $175 admin fee for

[46:01] total of $875 payable within 30 days.

[46:04] If it's not paid within that time frame, then the fine will revert back to the full amount.

[46:09] And staff can report in order to that effect in the public records of Broward County.

[46:13] And the same shall constitute a lien against the property.

[46:18] Next is item number two under new cases, SM 26144, 1510 Northwest 44th Street, Officer Tetskardina.

[46:37] Officer Tetskardina, City of Ocompara, case number SM 26144, property addresses, 1501 Northwest 41st Street.

[46:46] The owner of record is Mr. Juan de Benitez.

[46:50] Service was obtained by a certified mail posting the property and city hall.

[46:53] This case was open based on my observation.

[46:57] The property was cited for Section 2464B1 commercial vehicle and Section 2480i3 grass parking residential.

[47:07] On May 12th, 2026, I noticed a violation was issued to Mr.

[47:13] Lombanitas for noncompliance of the above mentioned violations of the municipal code.

[47:17] My observations, while patrolling my sign zones, I observed multiple vehicles parked on the grass

[47:23] at the property on several different occasions over the course of several weeks.

[47:28] I initially issued a courtesy notice advising the residents of the violation and

[47:32] requesting that they discontinue parking on the grass.

[47:36] Despite the courtesy notice and the notice of violation that I issued, the violations continued to occur.

[47:42] The city is requesting the following.

[47:45] Do the recurring nature of this violation and the prior warning and violation issued.

[47:49] the city's requesting a one-time fee of $250,

[47:54] regardless of compliance in an order to remain in compliance.

[47:58] I am submitting as evidence, the case file includes,

[48:01] the notice of violation, photographs, BCPA printout,

[48:04] notice to appear,

[48:11] let me step back here for one second.

[48:15] The fines, I did amend the fines.

[48:19] So due to the recurring nature, I'm not gonna go through it that.

[48:22] We're going to give them 15 days to correct the violation, and if they don't correct, it would be $150 per day.

[48:33] So I'm going to strike the recurring nature of the violation.

[48:37] The violation again, so I submitted the affidavit service, the code case history report, and

[48:43] the code case history details report, photographs of the code case postings, USP tracking number, and this is the city's case.

[48:59] May I have your name for the record?

[49:01] Veronica Sorano, and I'm the owner's daughter.

[49:04] Okay.

[49:06] You've heard, yeah.

[49:09] I get it. I hear it.

[49:10] Yeah. So, you know, I've looked at the photographs

[49:13] and you're more than welcome to.

[49:15] It's okay, trust me. I know.

[49:17] You know, I think what I'm hearing from staff

[49:23] and I'm just sharing with you from what I'm,

[49:26] is that this appears to be a recurring issue and needs to be taken care of and looked at the progress.

[49:34] I mean, we're not talking, you know, a lot of times I'll have a case like this where

[49:38] there's one car that's parked on the grass.

[49:41] I know.

[49:44] They're parked all over the yard.

[49:46] Yeah, I know. This is something I spoke to my dad about, too, because he has a business and he

[49:50] has his work tricks on his personal card, but I tell him it's too many cars. But, you know, I, I, yeah, so, you know, they, they,

[50:00] The commercial vehicle, the box truck, can't be there at all, other than just, you know, you know, whoever it is coming for lunch, it can't be parked there on a permanent basis or overnight. So, commercial vehicles are according the city zoning code need to be maintained and parked overnight and kept in commercial zoning districts, not residential neighborhoods. And so, and then,

[50:29] And separate from that, obviously, is the multitude of cars in the park all over the grass.

[50:40] I'm going to find, unless you tell me something compelling, which I've not heard so far, I'm going to find the property and

[50:48] violation and give you the 15 days, and hopefully, it gets resolved.

[50:53] In theory, the cars can be moved, as soon as you leave, pick up the phone and call, hey, they need to be removed.

[51:04] And I'm not saying because I guess in theory I don't know necessarily the zoning district.

[51:12] You could potentially expand the driveway to add some of the things that I was going to say.

[51:20] I'm sorry?

[51:21] That's what I was going to say.

[51:22] That was one of the things I wanted to ask today just for my dad because I've been told

[51:26] If we want to expand if there's a problem, like is there certain?

[51:32] You know what I mean?

[51:33] You would have to talk to the zoning department.

[51:38] The zoning department, which is you can while you're here, you can make an appointment to speak to someone about what that process is.

[51:48] You might be able to get space for two additional cars on the driveway, my guess.

[51:55] But if there's more than that, there's going to be a more permanent solution as to where those vehicles are maintained.

[52:02] It has to be, they can't be on the grass.

[52:04] I would suggest you bring a copy of a survey, if you can get a copy of a survey.

[52:10] When you talk to somebody in zoning, because that way they'll be able to help you a lot better.

[52:14] All

[52:17] right, then in case SM-26-144, address record 1510, by the way, Alistair Cretty and you said 1501, not 1510.

[52:29] I believe it's 1510.

[52:35] Okay, 1510, Northwest 41st Street, owner record 1 beneath this.

[52:40] I'm going to accept into the record staff report and find that the matter is properly before the special magistrate.

[52:47] And basically on the honest testimony presented here this afternoon, I'm going to find that the property and property are in violation of section 26

[52:55] I'm sorry 24.64 b1 commercial vehicles and section 24.80 i3 grass parking residents is owning district

[53:03] The city code of Oakland Park and give the property under 15 days to come into compliance by removing the vehicles

[53:10] If not a fine of a hundred fifty dollars a day for each day and non-compliance thereafter and also

[53:16] So assess the $175 admin fee.

[53:19] So 15 days, the vehicles have to be moved in 15 days.

[53:23] You can then meet with staff and talk to staff about a long-term solution, but in the mean time, that's okay.

[53:32] All right.

[53:34] I did finally get a response from my assistant.

[53:40] But the

[53:55] Home Depot, Home Depot, Home Depot USA, Inc.

[54:01] Loads home centers with different names as well.

[54:08] We have done more side builds, more comfortable.

[54:11] So, yep.

[54:14] Next is item number three, under certifications, SM-26031.

[54:19] 1, 4, 7, 5, 0, Northeast, 6th Avenue, Officer, Wilson-Kentero.

[54:29] Specter-Kentero, on behalf of the city, I'm presenting case S-N26-Z-O-3-1 for the property located at 47.50, notice, 6th Avenue.

[54:39] Code case, 2025-0917-978.

[54:46] The property was cited for 5.38, permits required.

[54:51] they only permits are still pending and

[54:54] in reviews is the interior renovations and is 15,000

[55:00] On 500 dollars accruing, the original hearing was 2019-2026 to be complied by 619-2026. The fine amount is $250 per day.

[55:18] Your name for the record, sir? Good afternoon. Are you Sharma? Okay. And you are one of the property owners? Oh, yes, sir. Okay. So you originally had a hearing back in June.

[55:36] And based upon the amount of the fine, $250, my educated guest, were you here?

[55:45] My older brother was.

[55:47] Okay, all right, you need a permit, so what's going on?

[55:55] Because you're still not in compliance.

[55:57] Correct.

[55:58] So we have permits submitted, we're working with an engineer from March 6th.

[56:03] I have like an agreement signed with the engineer. We have windows and driveway permits

[56:10] already closed. The only permits that are left are interior renovations like Mr. Wilson

[56:15] said and the engineer is actively working on revisions and I have like a proof like paper

[56:23] that he gave me as well and a letter signed by the engineer and he says that any moment

[56:29] and now we should have the permits closed,

[56:31] but we are out of good faith still working.

[56:34] As soon as we got the violation,

[56:35] we've been working with the engineer.

[56:39] And yeah, I don't have the letter signed by the engineer,

[56:43] I don't know if you want to take a look at it.

[56:45] You can, here's the issue that we have.

[56:52] Procedurally, the matter before me

[56:54] is to make a determination whether you're in compliance or not.

[56:59] because we already had a hearing where the violation was deemed to exist and you were given

[57:08] a period of time to come in compliance. I'm suspecting that your older brother didn't tell you

[57:19] what I'm about to say to you and again for the benefit of everyone here is if you are here on

[57:28] of violation, which is the first step in the process.

[57:32] If I always tell everyone, if you're running into trouble getting a permit or getting

[57:38] whatever approvals it is that you may need to come into compliance, you need to make

[57:43] sure that you're talking to the code enforcement officer and you're asking for an extension

[57:48] of time.

[57:49] Because if not, we get to the stage we're at here today, on your case, where three months

[57:54] months have gone by and nothing has been, you know, the process has not been completed.

[57:59] And in a vacuum now, I'm being asked by staff to, and under the state's law and the city code,

[58:07] to make a determination that you're still not in compliance and authorize staff to record an order to that effect and

[58:14] that a $15

[58:22] ,000, $15,500 fine has already accrued.

[58:27] and continues to accrue on a daily basis in the amount of $250.

[58:32] And I can tell you the reason why that I assessed the $250 fine when your brother was here is you know,

[58:40] you did work without a permit period and so no one knows if that work is safe.

[58:46] No one knows if it's up to code and people in lives are at risk and yes you're working with an engineer.

[58:52] I don't know if he's, if that letter indicates that he's already reviewed.

[59:00] And you know, because I know sometimes the, particularly with the building certification,

[59:08] the engineer has to submit a record, a letter saying it's safe while they've finished the improvements.

[59:14] I don't know if that's what they've provided.

[59:16] Mr. Sharma, let us, you get 10 days to go and confirm this is not dangerous or something

[59:23] by a licensed type, preventing any danger to the people and he let us go inside.

[59:30] The other thing you want to take in consideration because he lives in New York, he's not in charge

[59:34] of the property, Mr. Sharma has a major, major surgery in New York, he's preventing to do

[59:42] a lot of stuff.

[59:43] I mean, there's been a communication with me.

[59:45] I don't have an objection to, you know, according to the current representative that they feel that the permit will be issued within, you know, next.

[1:00:00] Five to ten days, giving time on both sides, which then would bring them into compliance. I don't have an objection to continuing the matter for 30 days, but I'm telling you that if your engineer is saying, hey, it's going to be done, you need to make sure that it's done because then you can come back and potentially ask for reduction of the accrued fine. Because again, as I said before, you're at 15,000,

[1:00:30] in 500 and crewing on $250 a day.

[1:00:34] So 30 days is going to be that much more.

[1:00:37] So the sooner you can get the permit issued,

[1:00:39] it'll stop the bleeding, so to speak,

[1:00:43] and then you can come back and ask for

[1:00:45] a reduction of the accrued fine.

[1:00:48] Okay.

[1:00:49] And I had a question because we are actively work,

[1:00:53] like we've been working with the engineer

[1:00:54] for almost nine months now, I believe,

[1:00:57] Is it possible to stop the cruel of the fine and just to stop the cruel of the fine and we'll show like I like to think that we've been showing good faith just we've been working with the

[1:01:10] industry.

[1:01:11] And I understand what you're saying my concern or the issue that I have is that as I said before I give the admonition or the statement that look if you're

[1:01:26] running into trouble, make sure you talk to the officer and get back before me.

[1:01:31] And so, you know, you didn't, and why you have been working with staff, I will tell you

[1:01:39] that if you had come back before me, and they had said the same thing and you said the

[1:01:43] same thing, I would have given you an extension of time up front and no fines would have crude

[1:01:48] to begin with.

[1:01:49] But, you know, here we are.

[1:01:50] We're doing this as they say, and anyone take this wrong, ask backwards, okay?

[1:01:58] The extension of time should have been requested up front, rather at this point in time.

[1:02:04] So does staff have any issues with holding the fine in the bants during the 30-day period?

[1:02:13] I mean, I can tell you that if you don't, it's going to revert back to the full amount.

[1:02:18] Now, within 30 days, you said?

[1:02:21] Yeah, so if you don't get it resolved and the permit issued, when we come back here in 30 days, it'll revert back.

[1:02:32] So the $250 per day will be put back into the pot, so to speak, if I hold in the bands during that time period.

[1:02:43] I understand, I mean, so like Mr. Wilson said, my brother's the one who was in charge of like the construction and he had a really bad back acts in his wedding week.

[1:02:54] And he's in New York right now. I'm from New York, we're all from New York and we bought the house for our parents and they haven't been able to move in just because the permits are having been closed.

[1:03:02] So right now he's still recovering from back surgery and like he told me about the letter a couple of weeks ago and he was in contact with Mr. Wilson up until you know the accident.

[1:03:16] So I honestly don't have the full picture of like what should be done and what shouldn't be done. I'm just all I know is that out of good faith we have been working with the engineers.

[1:03:24] If I knew that we needed to request the extension, I know my brother did, we would have definitely just kept in contact with Mr. Wilson and asked for that extension.

[1:03:36] So I was hoping that we can maybe get that fine, stop the crewing.

[1:03:44] I understand that we can't wave it, but also like an extension as well on the permits.

[1:03:51] The differential between now and 30 days is going to be $750.

[1:03:57] I give you the mitigation request, assuming we come to compliance.

[1:04:06] So-

[1:04:09] City would go with the 30 day continuous, however we would like to find to continue when they come back before you for the certification, it could be looked at at that time.

[1:04:19] Yeah, I mean, let's keep the fine accruing.

[1:04:22] Now, just as if you heard one of the cases before,

[1:04:26] if you get the permanent issued, let's say in two days,

[1:04:30] or three days, whatever, it stops then.

[1:04:34] And so, again, that's the incentive to get the engineer

[1:04:38] and to complete the process and get the permit issued.

[1:04:42] So you're not at risk for that entire time.

[1:04:46] So we'll grant the request and the agreement of staff for 30 days, but we'll continue to find a cruel and we'll, you know,

[1:05:00] Consider that when you come back for the mitigation, okay? Do you have any questions? I did have one more question, or when the permits are issued like the application numbers, does that count as an like an issuance or are you talking about like full approvals? Well, in your case, because it's an after the fact it's okay, there's a master permit and this,

[1:05:30] There's the master permit covers everything, but you have a particular trade or a component of it, probably, if it's an injure, my guess is structural interior.

[1:05:48] So, you know, it would be, for promises of calculating the accrual define, it's the date

[1:05:55] the permit is issued.

[1:05:57] Okay.

[1:06:00] So, in case I'm 26-031, I will accept into the record the updated staff report, which

[1:06:08] includes the property owner's letter from their engineer and find that the matters properly

[1:06:16] before the special magistrate.

[1:06:18] And in case I'm 26-031, address the record, 47-15-Northy-6th Avenue, owner of record, the

[1:06:28] Sharma family, we'll give a 30-day

[1:06:32] continuance to the case for an update,

[1:06:37] September 17th, 2026.

[1:06:40] All right, best of luck.

[1:06:45] Next item is number 14.

[1:06:48] Under certifications, SM26091,

[1:06:52] 190 on Northwest, 33rd Court,

[1:06:55] Officer Gilbert Venero.

[1:07:12] Inspector of the Nero, presenting case SM, 26091, property address, 1990, northwest 33rd court.

[1:07:22] Violation was section 23.1A abandoned vehicles, and section 24.65 unlicensed vehicle.

[1:07:30] An accruing amount of 15,200, okay, and it has not come into compliance.

[1:07:39] There was more than one vehicle at one point.

[1:07:41] One of the vehicles is along one of the property.

[1:07:46] But as you see in the picture, there's a boat there that has a tree growing out of it.

[1:07:52] With no tag and the tires all down to the ground, and it's still the same way it hasn't changed.

[1:07:59] So it's the boat that's-

[1:08:01] Yes sir.

[1:08:02] Okay, everything else is.

[1:08:04] All right.

[1:08:06] I remember, I do see the picture and kind of, I have to laugh, and don't take it personally.

[1:08:19] But not often that you see a tree growing in the middle of a boat part in a driveway.

[1:08:27] So what's going on?

[1:08:27] I mean, you're up to $15,200 in fines, because of that boat.

[1:08:34] So, registration, I have completed the registration already, that has been done as two weeks ago.

[1:08:42] For the vessel?

[1:08:45] Yes.

[1:08:45] Okay.

[1:08:46] But it's not the decals on it.

[1:08:48] It is.

[1:08:49] Okay.

[1:08:49] Hold on.

[1:08:50] Hold on.

[1:08:52] Let's.

[1:08:53] You.

[1:08:56] So, my understanding is that the trailer has to

[1:09:06] to have an up-to-date registration, and the vessel needs to be updated registration, and you have both, okay, provide them to the inspector.

[1:09:27] I mean, yes, we'll enter it.

[1:09:30] Can you make copies of the other side of the boat, so he doesn't see the actual.

[1:09:34] Can you, hold on, one at one at a time, can you make copies of those?

[1:09:39] Because otherwise we, you know, they can't be made part of the record, and that's part of the compliance

[1:09:45] determination. As long as you either today are in some point he says he's

[1:09:51] I take a photograph of them I guess. Can you take a photograph on the can you

[1:09:54] show me a photograph on the other side of the board?

[1:10:00] All right. So I date

[1:10:08] that he acquired the decals as long as the as long as the decals are affixed. And we can calculate when the date on the registrations updated as the date of compliance. Right. And then work our way backward on what the amount of the crude finest. Right. And also,

[1:10:32] So the trailers, the tires are flat on the ground if you look at the pictures.

[1:10:38] And I understand what's

[1:10:47] been cited was unlicensed vehicles.

[1:10:51] So just before you leave here, what staff is saying, you got to get that thing.

[1:11:00] you have to get the trailer in a state where it's obviously it's now licensed

[1:11:07] but you also need to get it to where it's operable otherwise we're gonna be

[1:11:10] back here there actually as it looks I know what it looks like but it is

[1:11:15] operable okay you can tow the vehicle you can tow the vessel so right now yes I

[1:11:20] can tow the vessel I have actually three tires one tire that is flat out of the

[1:11:24] whole people, which I will as far as a tree that has been taken care of the boat. But it is, I'm

[1:11:35] sorry, it's just tough.

[1:11:38] So one of the things the reason I have that boat is, I was in a boat accident

[1:11:42] about 10 years ago, and I haven't been able to drive a boat for the last two years. It's a boat

[1:11:48] where two of my best friend passed away that we used to work on with it. So I really don't want to get

[1:11:53] rid of it because the last thing I remember of them actually PSO was there to rescue me on

[1:11:59] that day in Daniel Beach so I'm trying to put in compliance but for the past two years I've been

[1:12:06] unemployed so it's been very tough since I haven't been living here I've been traveling to fine

[1:12:12] work traveling to Ocala back and forth I was staying living there six days a week I didn't see the notice

[1:12:19] when it was first posted I saw the second notice for the meeting unfortunately I couldn't make the

[1:12:24] meeting because I just got finally got a job and it was my first training. And if I would

[1:12:31] have missed that, that's a job I haven't had for two years. And that's the reason it looks

[1:12:36] that way. 13, 4. All right.

[1:12:44] So, again, just optics. I understand.

[1:12:50] A piece of unsolicited advice, if you haven't already, and I think you may have said that you did, but yank that tree out, get that tree out there, because I suspect, I don't know for sure, that someone probably in your neighborhood goes by your home on a regular basis and says, no, our neighborhood, I don't want to save.

[1:13:19] But clear as a person in our neighborhood that doesn't like minorities, they have contacted every single time, every single person in my neighborhood does a minority, there's a person down the block, they never call on that their boat is there on registered flat tire on the grass.

[1:13:34] Yes.

[1:13:35] Look, you're doing from the perspective of what you've been cited for, you're done everything that you need to do, you're in compliance.

[1:13:43] All I can suggest to you is try and clean up, wash the pressure clean if you have the ability to outside that boat, remove the tree.

[1:13:53] So it looks, you know, just because it's sometimes perception becomes reality for people.

[1:14:03] But based upon what you've provided, you are in compliance, you're still, we came into compliance

[1:14:09] past the deadline, but instead of a $15,200 fine, based upon the date you're down to $13,400.

[1:14:21] What I've done is for everyone else will do the same thing for you.

[1:14:25] I'll reduce that down to 10%, which would be $1,340 plus the $175 admin fee, which is my math sucks.

[1:14:36] Excuse my language, that's why I'm an attorney, not an engineer.

[1:14:44] $1,515, how long would you need to pay that?

[1:14:47] So like I said I just started working I've been unemployed for the past two years I don't know

[1:14:53] What's the longest you can give me but I'm really six years back on my feet can it possibly 90 days

[1:15:03] 90 days, okay? And, again, again, so I don't see you again, the optics of cleaning up the boat will improve your chances of not being back before me, probably pretty significantly. I'll accept these into the record, update the staff report, find that the matter is properly before the Spus Mastery, and in case I'm 26-091.

[1:15:33] the address of record 190 North West 33rd Court and the owner of record Thomas Rodriguez.

[1:15:39] I'm going to find that the special master's prior order, finding the property to be in violation of Section 23.1A, abandoned vehicles and Section 24.65 unlicensed vehicles, city code of open part have been brought in compliance, but we're brought into compliance past the deadline set forth and said order as a result of fine of $13,400 plus the $175.

[1:16:03] I will reduce that down to $1,340 plus the $175 admin fee for

[1:16:13] total of $1,515, do and payable in 90 days.

[1:16:20] Thank you, and best of luck.

[1:16:22] Thank you.

[1:16:25] Next is item number one, under new cases, SM26143, 4029 Northeast,

[1:16:33] The least six Avonion officer, La Tarsha Ricks.

[1:16:37] Sorry, before we move, Mr. Thomas, just keep in mind that if you don't come into compliance,

[1:16:43] don't pay within 90 days, it'll go back to the full amount.

[1:16:46] You mean just for the tire for it?

[1:16:48] I'm sorry?

[1:16:49] No, no, you're in compliance if you don't pay the fine, okay?

[1:16:54] All right, yes, next.

[1:16:56] Code

[1:17:09] for, sorry.

[1:17:11] Thank you.

[1:17:12] Code enforcement officer LaTosha Ricksell for the City of Open Park.

[1:17:16] Property address is 4029 North E670.

[1:17:20] On a record it's Montana Realty Management LLC.

[1:17:24] Service was obtained by certified mail,

[1:17:26] posting it to Property and City Hall.

[1:17:28] This case was opened based on a complaint.

[1:17:31] The property was cited for Section 2480, B3C of street parking.

[1:17:37] to the rear parking area was in a state of disrepair with visible cracks and holes that required attention.

[1:17:44] All cracks and holes in the rear parking need to be repaired to restore surface to a safe condition.

[1:17:52] Section 8.7A overgrowth, there was overgrowth for the property that needed to be cut and maintained.

[1:17:59] I have not made any contact with the owner.

[1:18:01] On 4th, 14, 20, 26, a complaint was filed with the City of Open Part.

[1:18:06] I investigated the complaint and the case was opened on 4th, 28, 20, 26.

[1:18:12] As of 8th, 20, 20, 26, the overgrowth has been complied.

[1:18:16] However, the off-screen parking has not been in compliance.

[1:18:20] The City is asking for 30 days to comply for $150 per day.

[1:18:25] I'm submitting evidence in the case file, including notice of violation,

[1:18:30] photographs, BCPA, printout, notice to appear after Davis of service,

[1:18:35] co-case detail report, photos of posting, USPS tracking report, and this is the city case.

[1:18:44] What was the recommended file, 150, okay.

[1:18:49] Your name for the record, sir.

[1:18:50] There's the firm Martinez.

[1:18:51] And your relationship to the property and the property owner, which is Montana Realty Management LLC.

[1:18:57] I am the manager at the body shop.

[1:18:58] Okay.

[1:19:01] Have you seen the photographs you know, do you have an understanding of what we're

[1:19:05] talking about?

[1:19:06] Yeah, they're coming on Wednesday to get that 10-curve.

[1:19:08] Okay, so you think that, have they told you they can get the generically referred to it

[1:19:18] black topping done within 30 days?

[1:19:20] Okay.

[1:19:24] I will, if it gets taken care of, all that will be doing payables, the hundred cents

[1:19:30] 75 dollar admin fee, I will say to you what I've said before.

[1:19:34] Make sure you're talking to and communicating with the officer, she indicated before that there's been a lack of

[1:19:40] confirmation, I would suggest that you, if there's any issues whatsoever,

[1:19:45] that you reach out to her, get scheduled to come back for me to ask for additional time.

[1:19:50] So we're not, in the next stage, imposing a fine against your property or the shop property.

[1:20:00] Do you have any questions? All right. In case SM-26143, the address of record is 4029 Northeast 6th Avenue, the owner of record is Montana Realty Management LLC. I am going to accept into the record, the staff report, and find that the matters properly before the special magistrate. Based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, including the representative of the property owner. I'm going to find that the property owner are in violation

[1:20:29] of Section 2480B3C Off-Street Parking, the violation of Section 8.7A Overgrowth has been compliant according to staff.

[1:20:43] Give the property under 30 days to come to compliance with the failed to do so within that time frame, a fine of $150 a day for each day and noncompliance thereafter and also assess the $175 admin fee.

[1:20:55] Next is item number four, under certifications, SM-26-057, 490 power line road, officer Tets

[1:21:06] Cadena.

[1:21:09] And for those of you in the audience to see you understand, we take the cases in the

[1:21:15] order in which you signed up.

[1:21:16] So there's unfortunately a poor soul out there who's going to have to sit through most

[1:21:22] if not all of this hearing until we get to your matter, but let me tell you I can tell

[1:21:28] you with 100% certainty that even after you are gone, whoever you may be, we will still

[1:21:33] be here hearing cases because every time there are a number of property owners who don't

[1:21:39] even show up, and so we will be hearing those cases last.

[1:21:43] Thank you for your patience.

[1:21:45] Office of Ted Scardina, City of Oakham Park.

[1:21:48] The address of the property is 4,900 Powerline Road.

[1:21:53] The owner is 4,900 Powerline LLC.

[1:21:57] Violations were 2480B2D Obstreet Parking, section 5.3 permits required.

[1:22:07] There's $19,500 not accruing, the original hearing was 416 of 26.

[1:22:13] to be complied on 531, 2026. The fine amount was $250 per day plus $175

[1:22:21] administration fee. And they've come into compliance.

[1:22:32] Name for the record, sir. Peter Papis, General Manager, 4900 power line up.

[1:22:37] Okay. You're in compliance. I'm making an educated guess.

[1:22:41] You are here to request a reduction of the fine.

[1:22:45] Yes. Okay. As I said before,

[1:22:48] I will reduce down the amount from $19,500 plus $175 admin fee to $1,950 plus $175 admin fee for a total of $2,125 days, $125, payable within 30 days.

[1:23:08] Is that acceptable?

[1:23:09] I'd like to request 60 days, please, it's a hotel, hotel, business is down, really bad, and it's on top of it, it's our off season.

[1:23:19] All right, 60 days.

[1:23:23] Do you have any questions?

[1:23:24] No questions.

[1:23:25] Okay.

[1:23:27] Accordingly, in case SM-26-057, address record 4900 Powerline Road, owner of record 4900 Powerline LLC.

[1:23:36] I am going to accept into the record staff report and determine that the matter is properly

[1:23:43] before the special matter straight and based upon the evidence testimony presented here

[1:23:46] this afternoon.

[1:23:47] I'm going to find that the property and property owner are in compliance with the special

[1:23:51] matter straight's previous order of finding the property to be in violation of Section 2480B2

[1:23:57] D off street parking in Section 5.3 A permits required, City of Oakland Park, code, however

[1:24:03] or that compliance was passed the date set forth and said order.

[1:24:08] As a result, a fine of $19,500 as a crude, I will reduce that amount down to $1,950 plus $175 admin fee for a total $2,125 payable within 60 days if it's not paid within that time frame.

[1:24:22] It's a revert back to the full amount and staff will then record an order of that effect in the public records-broward county, and I'll constitute a lien against the property.

[1:24:30] Okay, thank you.

[1:24:32] Next, aside on number six, under certifications, SM26097, 3472 Northeastern Fifth Avenue

[1:24:42] Officer Carlok.

[1:25:02] Officer Carl Locke, City of Oldton Park. This case is up for certification, SM-26-097, address record 34-72 north of the East Fifth Avenue. Owners,

[1:25:14] rank group, incorporated. The violation of the Section 24-79-1D3, outdoor storage. The amount for

[1:25:22] day for the violation was 300. The compliance date was supposed to be 5-4-26. The resolution date was 6-22-06.

[1:25:31] We're currently at 14,700 not accruing.

[1:25:34] The original hearing date was June 18th, 2026, and it went retroactive to the date the

[1:25:40] violation was first noted on March 4th, 2026, less than 155 admin fee.

[1:25:46] I have been in touch with the owner's son, the representative he's here to speak with you.

[1:25:51] He sent an email with some pictures from last night that he wanted to make sure that you

[1:25:55] you saw to show what he's doing in his attempts to clean up the property.

[1:26:00] I also went out this morning and took pictures, so they're in there for you to see as well.

[1:26:06] The city is seeking the certification of the full fund of $14,700,

[1:26:10] basically based on the history of this property and the repetitive nature of this violation.

[1:26:15] So I included a 2024 violation for your records.

[1:26:19] This was heard in 2025, it then was read into the record and became a violation on record.

[1:26:29] And then in 2026, we had to repeat offense.

[1:26:32] And I do know that a code enforcement officer is working on another violation because if you look at the pictures,

[1:26:39] although it was definitely cleaned up, the dumpster is still there.

[1:26:42] There are still wooden crates that are there and there will probably be a new case opened on the property.

[1:26:51] Are we in compliance or not?

[1:26:55] It says $14,700 not accruing, but it sounds to me that from your testimony it may not be in compliance?

[1:27:06] Well, it has fallen out of compliance again, but my case was complied since then it's gone into noncompliance and officer Rick's

[1:27:13] will be probably opening a new case on it.

[1:27:15] Well, one thing at a time, all I have before me is case SM-26-097, you are in compliance.

[1:27:24] Yes.

[1:27:25] Okay.

[1:27:26] All right.

[1:27:27] But it may come back before me in a future date, or likely to come back before me.

[1:27:34] All right.

[1:27:34] Yes.

[1:27:35] Your name for the records, sir?

[1:27:37] Charles Greenberg.

[1:27:39] And your relationship to the property?

[1:27:40] I'm the property manager, that's my father's the owner.

[1:27:44] Okay, you are in compliance, however fine of $14,700 has accrued plus the $175 admin fee.

[1:27:54] And according to staff, we may be back but here before me, I hope not.

[1:28:00] What do you want to do?

[1:28:02] I would please request for a fine reduction.

[1:28:05] Okay, I will grant you that request.

[1:28:09] to reduce the fine down from $14,700 to $1,470 plus the $175 admin fee,

[1:28:18] doing payable within 30 days, that is a total of $1,645.

[1:28:28] Is that acceptable?

[1:28:32] May I please request a 60 day to pay that?

[1:28:36] All right.

[1:28:42] I've been giving people some leeway here. I frankly can ask staff, I generally

[1:28:51] don't. It's just 30 days or not. Why 60 days? I'm just kind of, you know, I'm going

[1:28:56] to, again, if you come back before, if any of you all come in before me and you're asking

[1:29:01] for more than 30 days, as we come up in the any one who still remains here, please start

[1:29:08] explaining why additional time is needed.

[1:29:11] We have had quite a lot of expenses with the owner of that business.

[1:29:16] We have had to pay for a chunk removal a couple of weeks ago in the amount of $800.

[1:29:26] Are you saying because of that, you're not able to pay within 30 days?

[1:29:30] Again, it's-

[1:29:31] We are able, but we would do this request 60 days to-

[1:29:37] I'll give you 45 days, okay, we're here in case I'm 26097, 3472, Northeast 5th Avenue,

[1:29:49] owner of record, rank, group, ink, I'm going to accept into the record staff report and

[1:29:55] and find that the matter is properly before the special

[1:29:57] mastery and best upon the image.

[1:30:00] This testimony is presented here this afternoon. I'm going to find the property and property owner are in compliance with the violation, Section 24.791D3 outdoor storage, but that compliance came after the date set forth in the order for compliance as a result of a fine of $14,700 as a crude plus $175 admin fee. I will reduce that amount to $1,470 plus $175 admin fee for a total $1,645 payable within 45 days.

[1:30:29] any questions?

[1:30:33] No questions.

[1:30:34] Thank you.

[1:30:34] All right.

[1:30:35] Best of luck.

[1:30:36] Thank you.

[1:30:39] Nexus item number 14.

[1:30:40] Under new cases.

[1:30:41] SM 26157.

[1:30:44] 1857 Northwest.

[1:30:46] 29th Street.

[1:30:48] Officer Gilbert Vanero.

[1:31:02] Code enforcement.

[1:31:04] Vanero.

[1:31:04] I'll be presenting case number SM 26157.

[1:31:09] Property addresses 1857 Northwest 29th Street.

[1:31:12] Onor of record according to Brown County of Property Appraisers is Dane Mowatt.

[1:31:18] Mainly addresses 6020 Shakewood Circle apartment 202C Tamarack.

[1:31:24] This is not a homestead property.

[1:31:26] Service was obtained by certified mail posting on the property in City Hall.

[1:31:30] This case was opened on May 29th of 2026 by my observation.

[1:31:34] The following steps were conducted to obtain compliance.

[1:31:37] The notice of violation was issued on 529, the 2026, the property was cited for the following city code ordinance violations.

[1:31:47] 24.4 B1 use permitted light industry.

[1:31:53] Multiple vehicles are being stored at this vacant lot, which is not permitted in use and

[1:31:58] does not comply with the city code requirements.

[1:32:00] This constitutes an unpermitted use of the property, section 23.1A abandoned vehicles.

[1:32:08] Multiple vehicles are being stored in the front of the gate of the property, which is prohibited regardless of whether the vehicles are licensed or operable.

[1:32:16] This condition is in violation of the city code requirements.

[1:32:21] There was no contact with the property owner or anyone in reference to this property.

[1:32:25] The city's requesting 20 days or $150 per day per violation.

[1:32:31] Submitting as evidence, notice the violation, photos depicting the property's condition and legal posting.

[1:32:36] The BCPA, per now, the notice to appear FIDA service as supporting evidence.

[1:32:43] I believe there's someone here to speak for that property.

[1:32:46] Okay.

[1:32:47] Sorry, your name for the record.

[1:32:49] Ufford, Francis.

[1:32:50] And your relationship to the property?

[1:32:52] I'm the leesie that I, leesie.

[1:32:55] You could pull that up, speaking to the mic.

[1:32:58] They would lease them parked in over there.

[1:33:00] Okay.

[1:33:06] You're essentially the tenant?

[1:33:08] Yes.

[1:33:08] Okay.

[1:33:09] Do you have any communications with the property owner regarding this issue?

[1:33:13] Yes.

[1:33:13] You know, okay.

[1:33:14] Okay, so because normally the property owner is ultimately the entity responsible for what happens on their property.

[1:33:24] So, you know, I don't know what your level of communications are with the property owner.

[1:33:31] I don't know why the property owner chose not to come here, maybe he might be able to.

[1:33:41] Well, whether it's you or him, you know, the alleged violation as demonstrated by the photos is that, you know, you're using the lot as a vehicle storage lot, and that's not allowed, period, okay, it just, it's the city code does not allow it there, so the cars are going to have to be removed.

[1:34:06] It cannot be used for that purpose unless you go through a very lengthy process of having the city, which they may or may not grant you a request to rezone the property.

[1:34:19] It's not allowed.

[1:34:21] That's as simple as I can say it, for your benefit and for the benefit of your landlord, that use is not permitted in the city, in that location.

[1:34:33] Yeah, but for the containers that he have on their been there by like 25 years that's been then you know what he needs to

[1:34:43] He needs to take the initiative

[1:34:48] I'm assuming you're not you've not been the tenant there for 25 years 23 years. I'm sorry for 23 years

[1:34:56] You have been that yes, okay, so either

[1:35:01] The property may or may not qualify for what's called a legal nonconforming use, or it doesn't. I can't make that decision, it's not a decision for me to make. And you would have to meet with city staff to find out whether or not you meet the criteria under the city code to continue to have this here. And just so you understand, you will have to demonstrate through verifiable evidence that this

[1:35:30] has been there for those 23 years.

[1:35:33] Going back to whenever the zoning code may have changed.

[1:35:37] Because if the zoning code that applies this property

[1:35:40] is older than 23 years or 25 years, it doesn't matter.

[1:35:44] It's not allowed there.

[1:35:46] And I don't know that, but you'll have to find that out.

[1:35:54] Based upon what he's told me, I'm going to give him

[1:35:58] the benefit of the doubt to meet with staff and continue the case for 30 days for determination

[1:36:04] whether or not they qualify for a non-conforming use provision on the code, but if not you're

[1:36:12] going to be back here on September 17th if you don't remove the vehicles.

[1:36:17] You have to one, find out from the city if you meet the criteria and you're eligible to keep

[1:36:24] them there. If you're not, you've got to get them removed. Because that's again, I don't make

[1:36:31] that decision. I just hear the evidence and make a determination. I get just like you do, I

[1:36:37] receive the code as it's presented to me by the City Council who have adopted those rules and I

[1:36:45] just make a determination whether or not you as a property owner or a tenant are in compliance with

[1:36:50] those rules and regulations are not. That's my job.

[1:36:55] If I can add to that, as well, here on here.

[1:36:59] That includes the, that doesn't include the vehicles in the right of way.

[1:37:03] There's a barbecue truck, and there's cars in the right of way,

[1:37:06] which you and I have spoken before, those have to be moved immediately.

[1:37:10] Those do not conform to that.

[1:37:12] Those are cars that are parked illegally that we could tow right now.

[1:37:16] Those in the right of way, which you know where the right of way is, have to be moved immediately.

[1:37:20] Okay, so in the event that we have to move those the storage containers that are over there. We're getting more than 30 days. We have to explain that to

[1:37:44] you.

[1:37:48] Does this municode keep the catch lines for when the

[1:37:53] abregs are adopted? All right, so let's give me a moment.

[1:38:27] We know what, what the zoning designation is for this property?

[1:38:33] It's light industrial.

[1:38:36] Okay, but this is an empty lot and that's what it's registered on.

[1:38:39] No, no, just one thing at a time, let's get to light

[1:38:47] industrial, commercial light industrial districts.

[1:39:24] Okay, so the initial zoning designation for this property was adopted by the city of Oakland Park on 10, 17, 1990.

[1:39:38] So since 1990, the zoning on this property prohibits this use.

[1:39:44] I need to ask the staff verify that the initial regulation adopted in 1990 includes that prohibition.

[1:40:00] It's ordinance 090-21, adopted on 1017-90. It was zoning regulations were updated in 2006

[1:40:11] through ordinance 02006-008, which was adopted on 035, which was adopted on 5306-1119-08.

[1:40:26] So, you know, if the initial regulations adopted in 1990 say that this is a prohibited use,

[1:40:34] you know, if you weren't there before 1990 and staff showed me a photograph from

[1:40:40] dated and aerial photographs from 1994, showing that this lot was totally empty at that time.

[1:40:47] I'm sorry, 1998, so that's going back 25 years, so as you testify.

[1:40:57] So you would have to be able to show, again, if this is prohibited use in the zoning district and it was adopted in 1990,

[1:41:13] And as the sheriff's representative stated, whatever is in encroaching or going into

[1:41:23] the right of way, they have the right to remove on their own because it's obstructing

[1:41:29] the road for pedestrians and vehicle traffic.

[1:41:33] So that has to be removed as well.

[1:41:36] That's not before me.

[1:41:37] They can do that unilaterally.

[1:41:38] They're just telling you as a courtesy, hey, move them, or they're going to start towing them themselves.

[1:41:45] And that's their right, it doesn't have to come before me for determination.

[1:41:49] They just need to verify that it's over the property line and encroaching it onto city property before they can take the action to remove whatever's encroaching into the road right away.

[1:42:02] So, again, I'll continue the matter for 30 days to allow you to investigate and make that determination and allow staff to look into it, but I can tell you in advance that if we come back in 30 days and the information is that it appears to be, that this is all the way back to 1990 that these regulations exist, I will, I won't have any other

[1:42:32] alternative based upon the evidence, but to find the property and to be in violation of the code.

[1:42:37] But in the event that it has to be moved up, it's going to take less than more than 30 days.

[1:42:43] Well, we can talk about that, or you can come to some agreement with the city, once you determine, or

[1:42:51] it's determined whether or not this can even be there to begin with, as far as, you know, yes,

[1:42:57] I, the law requires me to give you a reasonable period of time to come into compliance.

[1:43:04] And we can talk about that when we come back if, or alternatively said you can work that out with staff directly and potentially not have to come back before me.

[1:43:14] But to make it very simple, either you're in violation of the regulations or you're not.

[1:43:19] And you have to find out from staff as to when these regulations as they specifically apply does appear to go back to 1990.

[1:43:32] If that in 1990 the city said this isn't allowed, then looking here at the master business list, give me a moment,

[1:43:45] what would this

[1:43:50] be considered in the code storage?

[1:44:00] Part of the issue also serves vehicle storage as an accessory use and there's no primary use for building on that lot.

[1:44:13] This city would also like to enter into record the aerial shot of BCPA from 1990.

[1:44:16] Yeah, when we come back, if need be, yes, you would show that it introduced into the record the prior, the historical photographs.

[1:44:28] Let me see just generally storage boats.

[1:44:31] Let's see yeah let's see

[1:46:03] Fair with me.

[1:46:05] Yeah.

[1:46:08] Outdoor storage in the I-1, the box is empty in

[1:46:15] the I-1.

[1:47:02] It appears that there's a designation of H-25 in the I, and I don't know what that,

[1:47:14] yeah, going down. So

[1:47:20] yeah, I'm going up here now.

[1:47:40] Okay. Yeah. Okay.

[1:47:47] So

[1:48:07] this is just a vacant lot.

[1:48:17] So as best I can determine, and looking through the code, this use, this location is only

[1:48:27] permitted

[1:48:30] as

[1:48:36] what is called an accessory use, and that means there has to be another primary

[1:48:43] use there.

[1:48:47] Let's say for example a car repair shop and outdoor storage is allowed there.

[1:48:55] So you would have to have that use and there is a specific limitation on that which is

[1:49:11] 25?

[1:49:16] Yeah, the excess reuse to a primary use. So you, as it currently exists, it looks

[1:49:26] to me, this isn't allowed. But I'm going to give you 30 days to work through that issue

[1:49:31] with city staff. I suggest that before you leave here today, three o'clock staff should

[1:49:39] be here that you go to the Planning and Zoning Department and schedule a meeting with them as

[1:49:45] soon as possible to have this discussion and find out whether or not this can be allowed in this

[1:49:53] particular location. If it can't, then again, I would strongly suggest that you work with

[1:50:00] The staff to agree to a time frame, to remove all the vehicles. Otherwise, you're going to be back before me. And we're going to have this discussion all over again with me ultimately making a decision and not only making that decision, but as part of the process for the course of effect, imposing a fine if you don't come into compliance. So, as I said, I would strongly recommend that you immediately meet with staff as soon as possible.

[1:50:30] Make the appointment here before you leave, obviously take care of the issue that the

[1:50:37] deputies, the sheriff's office, identified of the cars encroaching into the right of way.

[1:50:42] They need to be removed, and if staff ends up advising you that you can't do this here,

[1:50:49] work with them to come up with a deadline that is agreeable to both parties for the removal.

[1:50:55] And you won't come back before me.

[1:50:57] Okay, so in case SM26157, address the record 1857 Northwest 29th Street, owner of record Dane Moa, the matter will be continued for 30 days.

[1:51:24] Nexus item number 12, funder certifications, SM26065, 2731 Northwest, 26 Avenue, officer Wilson, I'm sorry, Gilder Van Erow.

[1:51:57] Inspecative the narrow, presenting case SM-26-065, property address of 27-31, Northwest-26 Avenue, property owner is Andrew and Joanna Jones.

[1:52:10] This is an amount that's been accruing for $9,900.

[1:52:14] The original hearing date was April 16th of 2026 with a compliance date of June 15th of 2026.

[1:52:23] the final amount was 150 per day, plus the admin fee.

[1:52:27] As of this date, they still haven't gotten the permits in order.

[1:52:33] But the property owners are here to represent and speak on the behalf of the issue.

[1:52:59] Your name for the record, please.

[1:53:01] Andrew Jones.

[1:53:02] Mr. Jones, obviously I assume you are the property owner.

[1:53:05] Tell me what's going on.

[1:53:06] We've been working on this for a while at this present time.

[1:53:10] And we do have some of the permits, the windows and doors.

[1:53:14] We was advised that the same contractor that would be doing the windows and doors is going to be taking on the whole project.

[1:53:21] He's just waiting for the, they're working on the master permit.

[1:53:24] So there are some, some additional information to be talked about between the engineers.

[1:53:31] And so GC, so that's where we are now.

[1:53:34] So like every time we talk to them, they always say they're working on it and it's going to be done today.

[1:53:39] I love a, you know, just keep the crew in time.

[1:53:42] So at this point, we talked to them again.

[1:53:45] Mr. Jones should be in the record.

[1:53:47] You know, basically what we said,

[1:53:49] we need a general contract to show on record

[1:53:51] after I talk to the code and what's not.

[1:53:53] So they have the documents to say that they are,

[1:53:56] but it's not on record.

[1:54:23] Officer, permitting where they're saying that they've submitted,

[1:54:28] they've gotten some of the permits,

[1:54:29] But they have obviously some of the trades that can you enlighten?

[1:55:00] When they came, the issue was that the contractor never pulled the permit and obviously was given in the run-around. That's the reason why he looked for a brand new contractor to continue with this. And this is what's you saying. As far as the windows and the other things, that wasn't the issue about the permits at least for us. It was the actual, if you look at the pictures, the addition in the back of the house that they extended the house. So that's where they're working out of this.

[1:55:29] point.

[1:55:35] So where are we at with that? I mean, the point is well taken that while you're going through the permitting some other issues appear to have been identified that needed correction as well. And that I commend you for taking care of that.

[1:55:52] But the issue or concern that I have is, I've said to some other people who've come

[1:56:01] before you, is, you know, we're in the stage of the process where staff is asking me to

[1:56:08] make a determination whether you're in compliance or not because the length of time that's gone

[1:56:13] by and, you know, kind of the window for getting back before me and asking, hey, we need more

[1:56:20] time is, you know, should have happened prior to this time and so really I have realistically

[1:56:31] two options available to me and to you which is do what I've done with some of the other

[1:56:36] property owners which is give you an additional time and basically say, you know, we'll be

[1:56:42] back here in 30 days if you haven't resolved this and in the meantime this fine continues

[1:56:48] to a crew. And so that is your incentive, obviously, to try and take care of the problem as

[1:56:58] soon as possible. I have a lot of people who unfortunately come before me who kind of the same

[1:57:07] situation where our contractor said they were going to take care of it, or they told me I didn't

[1:57:14] department, you know, unfortunately, you know, you're caught up in that, and here you are.

[1:57:23] So your current contractor, have they indicated how long it will take to get this completed?

[1:57:35] Yes, but we came into a contract with green innovations, and since June 23rd, they got

[1:57:43] the first piece done. We talked to them on a regular basis and they keep saying the same thing.

[1:57:48] My wife may have some comments. No, I mean based on Johan Jones's work, spoke with them

[1:57:55] probably 30 minutes before coming in and they are indicating that they're working on the corrections

[1:57:59] and getting ready to hold on quotes, submit the subs. And so what do you find there? Yeah. I mean he

[1:58:08] He gave us the information we signed again for the engineer to take over the project.

[1:58:17] They're doing the whole entire project.

[1:58:19] And so he's saying, rather than the engineering, that they're just resolving, answering

[1:58:23] some more questions, and everything should be on the master permit, it should be good.

[1:58:28] That's what we got.

[1:58:32] Were you all here for the original hearing?

[1:58:35] Okay.

[1:58:35] So, if I didn't say this then, I apologize if I'm repeating myself, you're getting

[1:58:45] a permit after the fact, obviously.

[1:58:49] And what you really need and you're working toward is getting an engineer who will certify

[1:58:57] issue in some medicine saying, hey, this complies with the code and you are from what I can tell,

[1:59:07] you're doing all the things that you need to do.

[1:59:14] Unfortunately, and I say this being in your

[1:59:21] shoes on behalf of other people that I've represented on the other sides. You know, I can't tell you

[1:59:28] Unfortunately, the issues that you're experiencing with your engineer are not uncommon.

[1:59:37] On behalf of clients, like, what are you going to submit the plans?

[1:59:41] What are you going to have this completed?

[1:59:44] And in the meantime, the clock is ticking on the accrual of the fines.

[1:59:50] Like I said, there's two things that I can do at this point.

[1:59:54] I can give you additional time. The fines will accrue or I can

[2:00:00] And certify the amount and allow you an attempt to try and resolve it. If I certify it, then you don't have to come back before me. Not only will you continue to resolve the permitting issue with staff, but you also would resolve the accrued fine directly with staff. And you wouldn't have to come back before me. Or we continue it. And you come back before me.

[2:00:29] for me in 30 days for an update, but the end of the process of this sort of, what's called the certification process,

[2:00:40] you don't get resolved within that 30 days, they will record an order and technically become a lean against your property.

[2:00:48] While that sounds severe, you can still, and ultimately when you get it resolved,

[2:00:54] the law says then they will remove that lean from your property,

[2:01:01] subject to working out the resolution of the final amount.

[2:01:04] And again, you don't have to come back before me.

[2:01:06] So, you have a preference?

[2:01:10] Sort of.

[2:01:11] Okay. That's fine.

[2:01:16] So in case I'm 26-065, address of record, 27-31, Northwest 26th Avenue, the owner of record

[2:01:26] are Joanna and Andrew Jones.

[2:01:30] Based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, which I will accept into the record

[2:01:35] the updated staff report and find that the matters properly before the special magistrate.

[2:01:39] I am going to make a finding that the property and property owner are still in violation with the original order

[2:01:47] issued by the special magistrate finding the property to be in violation of section 5.3 a permits required

[2:01:53] City code of Oakland Park that they find of

[2:01:56] $9,900 as a crude and continues a crew in the daily amount of $150 per day and there's also doing payable the $175 ad mean fee

[2:02:06] I will certify that amount

[2:02:09] And request staff not record the order for 30 days to see if the property owners can resolve the matter within that time frame.

[2:02:18] And then also resolve the accumulated fine directly with staff, best of luck, okay?

[2:02:27] And again, just continue to stay in contact with both code enforcement staff and the building department, okay?

[2:02:36] Best of luck.

[2:02:39] Next is item number two under certifications, SB 25227, 160 North East, 55th Street, Officer Wilson-Kintero.

[2:02:54] Throw me with this question.

[2:02:55] To continue on behalf of the city, case number SB 25227 for the property located at 160 East, 55th Street.

[2:03:04] Code case, 2025, 06, 13361, the property was cited for Section 5.3A, Permiss Require,

[2:03:18] 38,750 dollars

[2:03:21] accrued, the original heating was 2018-2025 to be complied by 318-2025, the fine amount

[2:03:30] is 250. The property was cited for permits for inter, for the calpere enclosure, the fence, windows, doors, and rear-parts.

[2:03:42] The only pervy on records is for the calpere enclosure and it's still in reviews.

[2:03:50] Name for the record, sir.

[2:03:52] Edgar, Edgar Ramas.

[2:03:54] Okay, Miss Ramas is the property owner.

[2:03:56] Yes.

[2:03:59] We've got a fine of, number two, $38,750 and continues to crew in the daily amount of $250 a day.

[2:04:16] What's going on?

[2:04:17] So after the first million I have with you three months ago, I hire a contract and we start

[2:04:29] with the planting.

[2:04:30] We were doing, I guess, the right way, but I start paying at the end, I pay like $6,000

[2:04:40] for the plant and for him to start, but he always, everything I was calling, I was

[2:04:47] telling me that we need to wait or he was under control and at the end.

[2:05:00] Is it happening?

[2:05:07] Much like the prior, the ones that just came before you, where are you at with this contract? Are you still using him or is he? Well, right now, you can always ask me for everything I asked, they were here and he will want like more money. And I see the letter that you guys send me or like, what? I never think, you know, like, all that. I'll say anything in the record that's been submitted at all.

[2:05:33] But, nothing at all, just put it out, put it in closer, and it's still in review since.

[2:05:38] I have the plans with me.

[2:05:40] Well, the problem is, and I appreciate that.

[2:05:43] You can provide the officer.

[2:05:45] But, you know, the plans, the science-yield plans need to be submitted to the city

[2:05:52] by a licensed contractor or an engineer, or architect, as the case may be,

[2:05:58] Um, you know, for it to be part into the system.

[2:06:02] So, you know, I, I have, you can, you can, you can first give it to the inspector

[2:06:08] and then I'll put it in the file.

[2:06:09] But there's nothing I can do about it or with it because that's not within my, my authority.

[2:06:16] Um, again, much like what I said to the people who just were before you, you have really

[2:06:22] at this point two options. I will certify the amount and ask staff to hold off and

[2:06:31] recording the order for 30 days to allow you that time frame to try and get the contractor

[2:06:39] of the engineer to actually file the paperwork with the city and get the permit so you

[2:06:46] you comply the violation, or I can continue it, and the fines continue to accrue in either

[2:06:56] event. But ultimately, someone has to submit the appropriate plans to the building department

[2:07:06] so they can be reviewed, approved, and a permit issued. That's the compliance for you is

[2:07:13] obtaining a building permit and I certainly understand and as I said I've heard the similar

[2:07:25] explanations from other property owners and all I can tell you is you have to keep plugging

[2:07:34] away but at this point two options available which would you prefer?

[2:07:40] I don't know what's going to happen in the future if I still paying him or continue with the process.

[2:07:49] I would like to see if you can't help me with that.

[2:07:51] You do have the option, unfortunately, there's going to be a loss of what you've paid already

[2:07:57] is to find another contractor who's more responsive.

[2:08:02] I don't know what to tell you, because, again, as I said to the people, I've been in

[2:08:07] situation, on behalf of my clients where I have to, you know, call up the architecture,

[2:08:15] the engineer or the contractor almost on a daily basis saying, hey, what's going on?

[2:08:20] You know, unfortunately, that's what you're going to have to continue to do, or find another

[2:08:26] contractor.

[2:08:28] At this point, I'm going to pay the fee, I'm saying if you can help me to level up.

[2:08:34] Well, then what I'll do is I'll certify the amount, as I said, just with the previous owner to give you 30 days before that order is recorded.

[2:08:43] Okay, you get the problem resolved, and then you can work with staff to get that fine reduced.

[2:08:50] The only thing is, I don't want to promise something like, I don't know how long it's going to take.

[2:08:57] I don't want this to continue at the end.

[2:08:59] Well, that's the problem is it's going to continue one way or the other, okay?

[2:09:04] The way that the code works, the city code, and state law that allows the city to do this is the stick,

[2:09:20] carrot, and the stick analogy, the stick that the city has under the law is to impose these fines to motivate you, and I know you're motivated, okay?

[2:09:31] and I just to get it done, taken care of, as I said to his other people, you know, if

[2:09:39] you had asked for additional time, earlier in the process, we may not have been at this

[2:09:46] stage as of yet, but, you know, we're here. And so, you know, again, I have really two options

[2:09:56] to make available to you and both of them in

[2:10:00] That's not involved, unfortunately, the accrual of the fine.

[2:10:06] That's not meant to be negative, but once you get that resolved, and get the permit issued, then you can ask the staff for, you know, how do I get this fine reduced, right? Or in 30 days you come back before me. But, you know, the solution to your problem at the end of the day.

[2:10:29] Today is getting that permit application submitted to the city, getting it approved, and the city issuing the permit.

[2:10:37] Until that happens, the fines are going to continue to accrue whether I certify them, or I continue the case.

[2:10:44] A magistrate, the city would recommend a 60 day continuance and come back before certification for this.

[2:10:50] Okay, so 60 days, and then we'll look at what's going on.

[2:10:56] Again, now, I would encourage you very strongly for your benefit to be behind your contractor

[2:11:07] every day, because once the permit application is submitted and ultimately the permit issued,

[2:11:14] that will stop the running of the fine.

[2:11:16] So in that 60-day window, that the continuance that I'm going to give you, the closer to

[2:11:23] day one, which is tomorrow, as opposed to 60 days at the end of the 60 days.

[2:11:29] The sooner you get your contractor to submit the plans and get the permit,

[2:11:34] the sooner the fines will stop accruing.

[2:11:36] And then we will deal with that in 60 days when we come back, okay?

[2:11:41] All right.

[2:11:42] All right.

[2:11:43] In case, SP-25227 address a record, 1-6-0, North East, 55th Street, owner of record,

[2:11:53] Edgar Reynolds will continue the matter for 60 days to allow the property owner to hopefully

[2:12:00] get everything resolved and will then consider fine reduction at that point in 60 days.

[2:12:07] Best of luck.

[2:12:09] Next item, number 15, under certifications, Assam 26158, 1851, Northwest, 29th Street, Officer

[2:12:20] Gildord Benero.

[2:13:06] 15 under new cases.

[2:13:11] All right, 15 new cases, all right.

[2:13:15] Jumped again, but we'll get you down anyway.

[2:13:18] Okay, Inspector Benero, presenting case, Assam 26092, Prodigy Address of 16, hold on.

[2:13:33] That's for new cases.

[2:13:36] All right, let's just do that one.

[2:13:39] I don't know if he's going to repress upon.

[2:13:50] Is 26158, 1851, Northwest 29th Street.

[2:13:54] All right.

[2:13:58] Okay, that's not the right case, that was for certification.

[2:14:00] This is for new cases, I have it.

[2:14:03] All right.

[2:14:04] Okay, so you've got to get that one back.

[2:14:08] I

[2:14:17] feel like I'm at home, I'm just doing what my wife tells me to do.

[2:14:23] So the clerk.

[2:14:24] Which one do we hear for?

[2:14:25] Okay,

[2:14:28] 26158, item 15 on the agenda, new cases.

[2:14:33] 158, okay.

[2:14:35] Code enforcement in respect of the vinegar on behalf of the city, I'm presenting case SM 26158, property

[2:14:42] address of 1851, Northwest 29th Street, owner of record according to Brawer County

[2:14:47] property appraiser is Damien and Kelly Carroll, mailing address of 2701 North West 154th Lane,

[2:14:54] Davie Florida. This is not a home set property service was obtained by Certified Mail.

[2:15:00] Posting of the property and city hall, this case was opened on 529 of 2026. By my observation, the following steps were conducted to obtain compliance. The notice of violation was issued and posted on 529 of 2026. The property was cited for the following city code ordinance of violations. Section 24B1E. Use permitted light industrial, multiple vehicles are being stored at a vacant lot which is not permitted use and does not comply with the city code.

[2:15:29] code requirements.

[2:15:30] This constitutes an unpermitted use of the property section 231A abandoned vehicles.

[2:15:37] Multiple vehicles are being stored in the front of the gate of the property itself, which

[2:15:42] is prohibited regardless of whether the vehicles are licensed or operable.

[2:15:46] This condition is in violation.

[2:15:48] This condition is in violation of the city code requirements.

[2:15:52] This property, there was contact with the property owner.

[2:15:56] In fact, in two separate occasions, I spoke to Mr. Carroll.

[2:16:01] This is the neighboring lot of the previous case, and it's identical.

[2:16:06] There's no difference.

[2:16:07] The difference is that Mr. Carroll is putting an apartment to go ahead and zone this floor.

[2:16:14] I believe a commercial structure to store heavy equipment, right?

[2:16:19] But it doesn't solve the issue of the vehicles being there because they're not permitted.

[2:16:24] So, therefore, the city's requesting 20 days that comply are $150 per day per violation.

[2:16:31] I'm submitting as evidence the case filing, including the notice of violations photos depicting of the property,

[2:16:37] condition of legal posting, BCPA burnout, notice to appear, affidavit of service, as supporting events.

[2:16:44] And Mr. Carol is here.

[2:16:48] Mr. Carol, I presume.

[2:16:50] Yes, sir.

[2:16:51] Okay.

[2:16:52] I'd like to speak on my own behalf for a minute, though.

[2:16:55] It is absolutely your right.

[2:16:58] My property is nothing like the property next door that you just dealt with.

[2:17:03] I've been working with the Sheriff's Office and signed up with towing companies and

[2:17:09] gone out there on numerous occasions and had these people towed off of my right away.

[2:17:16] I've spoken with the deputy that's present and told them that these people next door have

[2:17:23] nothing to do with me.

[2:17:24] So, that truth be told, we're two totally different entities.

[2:17:30] No, for sure, we're dealing with them separately.

[2:17:35] I do have, would make just one observation to staff as well as the property under eye.

[2:17:43] The other case, that's the one on the agenda just prior to this, it appears, this is often

[2:17:54] memory because it's not too old that some of the photographs of the other case are also in this case five.

[2:18:05] It seems like it's similar because the properties are identical and they both have more vehicles in it.

[2:18:13] His property is basically on the right hand side, which is 1851.

[2:18:18] Well, it's on the right hand side.

[2:18:22] These two photographs, these two, would you like to say come on?

[2:18:26] One's look to the, you know, are identical to the ones that were in the other case file.

[2:18:33] These two in particular,

[2:18:37] I don't know if they are or they're not.

[2:18:39] Just simply we can't, you know,

[2:18:43] well, let's, let's, let's do this.

[2:18:49] This, um, staff needs to look at both of these files and update them for the record to see if there are duplicate pictures in which is, yeah, which is which that's not a, okay, you already, give me a moment.

[2:19:08] If I can speak, where are you doing that?

[2:19:12] So probably the simplest thing is I've been to the building department multiple times.

[2:19:18] Two and a half years ago when this problem first arrived, we asked for a building permit.

[2:19:26] We've been two and a half years with the City of Oakland Park trying to get a building permit.

[2:19:31] I was here two weeks ago, and every time I come here, they say, I'm days away, you're days away.

[2:19:40] We're resubmitting, we're this, we're that, I wouldn't even be here right now because

[2:19:45] everything would be inside of my building if the City of Oakland Park could issue a building

[2:19:51] permit in a timely manner.

[2:19:55] So this is this

[2:20:00] I'll give you a moment.

[2:20:06] The Dave

[2:20:10] Mowatt case, the prior one,

[2:20:14] this is a photograph that was introduced into evidence in that case.

[2:20:19] Okay.

[2:20:23] Same photograph introduced in this case. So which of the two doesn't go to?

[2:20:27] I'm looking right now. I'm fine. Real quick.

[2:20:31] All right, so let's go back. Essentially the same conversation we had with the tenant that before.

[2:20:41] or do you have a business there or does a tenant?

[2:20:48] I don't know if you lease this or the reason why is because you can have this type of activity

[2:20:57] at this location as an accessory use to a primary use.

[2:21:02] If you don't have an auto shop, again, as the example I gave, where you're storing the vehicles

[2:21:09] you're working on in the storage yard, you can't have this use here.

[2:21:15] And you're saying that you're working with city staff, that's fine.

[2:21:20] What I'm inclined to do at this point is do the exact same thing I did with the prior case,

[2:21:26] which is continue the matter for 30 days.

[2:21:29] So you and the staff can work through that issue and come back and tell me because as I told the tenant

[2:21:38] the other property, same thing is a here.

[2:21:41] If they tell you that, hey, we can't issue a permit.

[2:21:45] You're saying you've been going through it for two years?

[2:21:47] I don't know why they have it, however long.

[2:21:50] Don't know why they haven't issued you a permit.

[2:21:52] There must be some reason, okay?

[2:21:57] So, let's find out what the reason why, if you can, or can't do this.

[2:22:03] I believe I've been in close contact with my architect who's been in close contact

[2:22:10] with the building department, and I mean, literally, everybody's on the same

[2:22:15] page that were days away.

[2:22:19] And I, you know, this is a situation where, in theory, you might be able to do what

[2:22:23] you are allowed to do.

[2:22:25] I don't want to.

[2:22:26] Well, but it's, it's to put it in very simple terms, chicken for the egg.

[2:22:32] You need to have the primary use before you can have the accessory use a storage.

[2:22:39] If you don't have the primary use, you don't get to the second one.

[2:22:42] So I don't know the circumstances other than what's been presented here.

[2:22:48] They're telling me or that there is no primary use here at this location.

[2:22:53] So we're back to the same scenario as the other owner, either you were there prior to 1990 doing this.

[2:23:01] which I doubt, or you have gone through the process of establishing a legally operated

[2:23:09] business there where this is an accessory use.

[2:23:11] I have no desire.

[2:23:14] So I want to build a building.

[2:23:17] It's simple.

[2:23:17] I understand.

[2:23:18] But then the vehicle's got to get removed.

[2:23:20] Yes.

[2:23:20] No, no, I agree.

[2:23:22] Okay.

[2:23:22] I absolutely agree.

[2:23:23] But I'm not inclined to removing the vehicles until I start doing the business.

[2:23:31] building and here's the reason I say that because seven months ago I was days away from getting my building permit.

[2:23:42] I can only go by what I'm being told by the city of Oakland Park, sir.

[2:23:45] That's right. I understand but the city of Oakland Park is here telling you today that you can't have the vehicles there.

[2:23:51] You got to put the building first there first. You know, it is checking before the egg. You have to make the decision which you want to do.

[2:23:58] If the city comes back and tells you, which is what I understand that no, then in 30 days, I'll enter an order saying you have whatever reasonable period of time to remove the vehicles, if not a daily final start to a crew.

[2:24:15] And then it's up to you what you want to do.

[2:24:17] No, no, I feel like the building department is going to come through in the next 30 days.

[2:24:22] So the day I get issued the building permit, regardless, the vehicles will be gone in the 30 days.

[2:24:30] So if that's what needs to happen, so good.

[2:24:32] That would be my strong suggestion, but that's up to you and you have the 30 day continuous to try and

[2:24:38] figure out what you can and can't do.

[2:24:41] And just staff.

[2:24:43] You are on our just one through the files and make sure the right photos are on the

[2:24:48] right.

[2:24:49] Well, that particular photo was duplicate and it belonged to Case 26157, the prior one.

[2:24:55] One of the others looked like a duplicate.

[2:24:57] All I'm saying is that I will review it.

[2:25:00] We review that and make sure that the right photographs are in the right file.

[2:25:04] Yes, sir.

[2:25:06] 30-day continuance.

[2:25:07] I will be fixed in there.

[2:25:08] All right.

[2:25:09] Thank you.

[2:25:09] We're in my address ago.

[2:25:12] Case SM-26158, 1851, Northwest 29th Street, owner of record, Damon and Kelly Carroll.

[2:25:20] 30-day continuance.

[2:25:21] Next

[2:25:26] is item number 13, under certifications, Assam 26067, 461 Northwest, 35th Street, Officer Gilbert Venaro.

[2:25:39] This is Dave

[2:25:43] Moat, and this is Mr. Carroll.

[2:25:50] Yes.

[2:25:51] Inspector Venaro presenting case SM-26092, property address of 160 Northwest 36th Street.

[2:25:59] owner of record is James Carpene.

[2:26:03] This is a violation of 24.65 on licensed vehicles.

[2:26:09] At a crewing amount of 7,600, the original hearing date was 521 of 26 with a compliance state of 6,5 of 2026.

[2:26:19] A fine amount of $100 per day and 175 atman fees.

[2:26:22] And as of this day, it maintains the same.

[2:26:26] Nothing has changed.

[2:26:26] All right. This is case SM-26-092 on record James Carpening. Is there anyone here?

[2:26:42] Did

[2:26:43] they sign in and leave? All right. Then we'll just dispose of it.

[2:26:51] Again, case SM-26-092,

[2:26:54] address the record as zero northwest 36 street on record James Carpening. Is there anyone

[2:27:00] One in the audience, other than staff to speak to this matter.

[2:27:03] Seeing no one, I'm going to accept the staff report and find that this matter is properly before the special magistrate on a certification request, and

[2:27:13] going to make a determination that the special magistrate previously found this property and property under violation of Section 24.65 on licensed vehicles, city code of Oakland Park.

[2:27:25] that the property is still in non-compliance as of today's date, as a result.

[2:27:29] A final $7,600 is accrued and continues to accrue in the daily amount of $100 per day.

[2:27:35] Plus $175 admin fee, I'm going to certify that amount.

[2:27:39] And authorize staff to record an order to that effect in the public records of Broward County.

[2:27:43] And the same shall constitute a lien against the property.

[2:27:46] Next

[2:27:56] is item number 13, SM 26067, 461 Northwest 35th Street, Officer Gilbert Venero.

[2:28:17] Inspect the Venero presenting case SM 26067, Property Address of 461 Northwest 35th Street.

[2:28:25] Owner of Verkner's Matthew Dodd, Biolation is Section 5.3, Permanence Required.

[2:28:32] An accruing amount of $9,900.

[2:28:34] The original hearing date was 416 of 2026 with a compliance date of 615 of 2026.

[2:28:40] A fine amount of 150 per day plus 135 admin fee, the permits some have been issued, but

[2:28:48] there's still some in review and we're still waiting.

[2:28:51] And there's a representative here.

[2:28:54] Sir, you aren't the last one.

[2:28:56] I saw you, it's up good to.

[2:29:00] I was here two months ago and thank you for giving us the 30 days, I think, to file

[2:29:08] the permits and by the time I left here 48 hours later, I went to the front and I said

[2:29:15] I have to pay the admin fee that measures for the today and I paid that.

[2:29:21] What's happening here right now is very, very simple, your honor.

[2:29:25] But Matt Dodd is a very, very good friend of mine.

[2:29:30] I don't do this for a living, but I represent him as a friend.

[2:29:34] He just purchased this house he had an a half ago.

[2:29:38] He called my company to do some pressure cleaning for his residents, which we did.

[2:29:45] And at that time he said, well, I need to get that fence replaced, I need to get this done,

[2:29:51] I need to get that done.

[2:29:52] I'm like, okay.

[2:29:54] We were told that we need to have a permit to change the fence, because the fence was all right and would.

[2:30:01] So, I was the one person that came to the city and I applied for the permit on his behalf, and I communicated with everybody here and everybody very professional. We obtained the permit and we paid the permit to install a new fence. Then he discovered later on that we needed a permit to do some driveway repair by the garage. We applied for a permit.

[2:30:29] And we paid for the permit.

[2:30:31] When I met all of you guys, I was told that I had to pay an administration fee, and

[2:30:38] I have to keep going with what's going on.

[2:30:40] And we are working, we are doing what the city wants us to do.

[2:30:47] Two issues, your honour.

[2:30:50] One, we were told that we had to move the AC unit from the front of the house to the back

[2:30:58] of the house. Matt died when he bought this house. He bought this house as is. The way how it is.

[2:31:04] He had it inspected. He paid for it. Now, he's in a process of doing a refinance on the house.

[2:31:11] We discovered your honor that the city of Auckland Park already approved

[2:31:17] to have that easy unit at that location what it is today. I came personally. I met a lovely lady.

[2:31:24] she was very nice and then she said okay so you don't need to move it you just need this

[2:31:30] I picked up the phone I called the GC and I told him okay we don't need to move the AC unit

[2:31:36] we just need to get this calculation of the AC unit he said yeah I know someone I haven't

[2:31:47] heard back from him I was like dude listen I got to take care of this right away I personally your

[2:31:52] owner called two people. They own AC companies. I don't know. I need to do some calculations

[2:31:59] about the AC unit in the front. Nobody. If you know, if the city can direct me towards

[2:32:06] someone that I can call today and ask them to go to that house and do the AC calculation

[2:32:13] for the unit. I'll be more than happy to do so, sir. On June the 15th, the $150 fee

[2:32:25] start occurring. On June the 26th, the record shows that for the windows and doors, everything

[2:32:34] was submitted to the city, and it was in review. So we are complying. I'm here on behalf

[2:32:40] of Meddad, I'm trying to help him. I'm not a GZ, you know, and I just need assistant.

[2:32:49] And I need something from the city that will allow me to show to someone or some type of

[2:32:55] directions to who can assist me so I can provide the information that the City of Ocromport.

[2:33:03] So let's stop there and see if we can get some clarification and some assistance.

[2:33:09] Please.

[2:33:11] And the fees, they start occurring on June the 15th, but the record showed that on June the 26th,

[2:33:19] it shows that it was completed and it's in review.

[2:33:26] why? Because I had to hire an architect to create something for the city, which was submitted

[2:33:34] by the GC. And if you were sent to them for review. And now, quite honestly, your honor,

[2:33:40] I'm getting to the point where I'm just going to get to the bottom line of this. I'm just going

[2:33:44] to get another GC. And I'm going to stay on the top of them every single day until one district

[2:33:50] the statistics is done on an overwid.

[2:33:52] All right, so a couple things, let's kind of roll back and go back to how we got here.

[2:34:03] Yes, sir.

[2:34:04] So, we

[2:34:11] had a hearing of the original hearing date back in April, May, April.

[2:34:23] And, you know, staff entered into evidence, various photographs and other items, one of them or one of them in particular, but there's several others is this photograph of someone actually doing the work.

[2:34:41] so it's pretty it's evident from the photograph that the front door was

[2:34:51] being replaced and work was ongoing there is actually right next to the

[2:34:58] in the photograph.

[2:35:00] And the picture of the notice of violation is right there. I don't know why they continue to do the work without the benefit of a permit. But, really, at the end of the day, that is the issue. So you've started the process, let me, you've started the process. Compliance under the law, I said this before, some of the other people, is not when you submit the application.

[2:35:28] But when you actually get the permit, because while it may be in review, the building department, the building official may determine that there's missing information.

[2:35:40] And as a result, they can't determine whether or not the plans comply with the Florida Building Code or not.

[2:35:46] So even though you submitted the application last month, or back in June,

[2:35:57] The length of time leads me to believe that there's been an issue that has been identified by the building department that needs correction.

[2:36:09] The only person who can correct that information is either a licensed architecture engineer or a licensed general contractor.

[2:36:21] Yes.

[2:36:21] And to the extent that you have any of those individuals or companies working for you,

[2:36:30] they need to make sure that what they've submitted to the city compiles very far.

[2:36:35] I'm going to be on the top of it.

[2:36:36] And for the record, you can ask the inspector, I've been working with him.

[2:36:41] He knows that I'm going my best.

[2:36:43] And when he goes to a GC and that he goes to an architect, it's out of my hand.

[2:36:47] And, you know, I'm not, I'm, you know, I'm not, you know, making any, I'm just making a statement that, you know, whoever did this, Mr.

[2:37:01] and ultimately Mr. Mr. Dodd, should have known that he needed a permit to do this.

[2:37:08] Yeah, okay.

[2:37:09] And so that's why we're here.

[2:37:11] Exactly.

[2:37:11] So, again, procedurally, I'm being asked to make a determination you're not in compliance.

[2:37:18] And so we have two options as I've explained to everyone else in similar situation.

[2:37:22] I can either give you 30 days to try and finish the process and the fines will continue to

[2:37:27] accrue and then once you get compliance, we can consider a reduction.

[2:37:32] Or I can certify the amount and allow you to continue the process, but you won't come back

[2:37:40] before me, you'll just deal directly with city staff, both on getting the permits issued and then ultimately reducing, but right now you're not in compliance.

[2:37:49] Mr. Dodd is not in compliance because he doesn't have a permit for the doors, the windows, and what was the other thing that was?

[2:38:00] Your honor, I just wanted to verify we were checking in the system.

[2:38:04] The windows and doors are still outstanding.

[2:38:06] There's some questions about it, so he needs to address that in order to finalize that.

[2:38:10] So, are those the things that are still outstanding?

[2:38:13] Well, there's also something under mechanical, but we're trying to figure out exactly what.

[2:38:17] And the AC, yeah, the AC.

[2:38:19] Correct, so you know, I cannot suggest to you who to use, it would be inappropriate for me to do so.

[2:38:28] I think staff is in the same position.

[2:38:30] I don't know why my guess, my educated guess, I don't mean the, my educated guess is

[2:38:38] whoever needs is going to do the calculations for you, is going to want to get, wants

[2:38:43] to get paid to do so.

[2:38:46] And so you just have to, you know, there isn't yellow pages anymore.

[2:38:54] is Google and start at AAA plus air conditioning and go down to Zebra air conditioning and within A to Z find an air conditioning, general contractor who would be willing to do those type of service.

[2:39:12] Okay, just for the record, we would mind paying the fees from June the 15 until June the 26,

[2:39:20] because that's what everything was submitted.

[2:39:24] No, you're missing a key component here.

[2:39:30] Is submitting the paperwork does not get you into compliance?

[2:39:36] What you are in violation of is Section 5.3A of the Florida building code that says,

[2:39:43] before any of this ever occurred, you needed to get a building permit first.

[2:39:48] So, compliance is obtaining, physically, the permit, applying for it does not get you compliance.

[2:40:00] That's why I'm being very clear and repeating myself. Okay. Submitting the application is not compliance. Getting the permit is compliance. And in your case, once you get the permit, it shouldn't be that difficult because the work's already been done. Okay. It will have to be inspected. I do see the city's building official are there in the back and I'm making an educated guess.

[2:40:29] That's probably agrees with me, because we've worked together on some of these cases in the past.

[2:40:34] Mr. Haring, can I interject something?

[2:40:37] Absolutely.

[2:40:38] I'm looking at the permit, and the reviews, the first review was in December of 25.

[2:40:47] It's the last time any reviews were done.

[2:40:50] Okay, so nothing's been submitted since, was there a general contractor back then?

[2:40:55] He had an AC contractor.

[2:41:02] This gentleman sitting here telling me that something was submitted in June.

[2:41:10] Again, I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm not disagreeing with you.

[2:41:17] You all disagree with each other. Work it out.

[2:41:24] No, the AC, that's the reason why when we discovered that the think was permitted by the city of

[2:41:31] Overture Park.

[2:41:33] I thought you were talking about the AC.

[2:41:34] That's when the lady had the city.

[2:41:36] She said, you don't need to move it.

[2:41:37] This is the only thing that I need that calculation.

[2:41:40] Yeah, but you still need a building permit application and the building permit issued for the doors and windows.

[2:41:47] Yes, that's, you know, that's in progress, that's in review, that's in progress between the GCN and the city, yes.

[2:41:54] So again, back to where we kind of started, we have two options.

[2:41:59] I can certify the amount, which is accrued as of today's date, $9,900, and

[2:42:06] continues to accrue in the amount of $150 a day.

[2:42:10] You can continue to do what you need to do to come into compliance.

[2:42:14] and you then will address the crude fine directly with staff or we continue it for 30 days

[2:42:22] if you get the permit within 30 days and we come back here then I can consider a fine reduction but

[2:42:29] and I want to make this absolutely clear yeah I've got to get the permit so if you're so I'm gonna

[2:42:35] ask you you're on or what would you recommend to do if you were in his shoes I can't make your

[2:42:41] recommendation.

[2:42:44] I'm essentially the judge here. It would be an inappropriate for me to recommend.

[2:42:50] I give you your options. Has the city put a lien on his property because it's

[2:42:54] trying to do a refinance on his property? Not yet yet. Okay, so the amount is $9,000.

[2:43:01] $9,900, but it continues to accrue until compliance. If he went and paid it tomorrow,

[2:43:08] tomorrow, it's day after tomorrow, it'll start at 150.

[2:43:13] And next day, 300, next day, 150.

[2:43:16] If you reduce it down to a certain amount, sure, then would you give us 60 days for me

[2:43:21] to finalize everything?

[2:43:23] I will get everything done in 60 days.

[2:43:27] I need at least 60.

[2:43:28] I'm not asking for 90, but I want to be on the safe side.

[2:43:31] Within 45 to 60 days, I want to have this behind us.

[2:43:35] I'll give you 45 days, okay, so in and and you that's that's that's fair.

[2:43:42] I'm not agree with you so that's fair in case I'm 26067 address record 461 Northwest 35th Street owner record

[2:43:50] Matthew Dodd will continue this matter for 45 days actually from a practical standpoint you'll be back

[2:43:58] here on October 15th, okay, so you have you have till October 14th

[2:44:05] The fines will continue a group.

[2:44:08] Okay.

[2:44:08] Thank you.

[2:44:09] Thank you.

[2:44:10] So the only thing that I need to, and the prices I'm going to pay, the reduced price.

[2:44:19] Well, on October, if you're in compliance, we'll talk about that then.

[2:44:23] So I don't have to pay nothing now.

[2:44:25] Not right now.

[2:44:26] God bless you.

[2:44:27] Thank you.

[2:44:28] Thank you.

[2:44:29] I'm just trying to put this in.

[2:44:30] No, I just want to make sure that you understand that.

[2:44:32] You know, every day that goes by, the fine continues to get larger.

[2:44:36] I understand that, so I understand that.

[2:44:39] But there is no lien that was placed on his home because he's trying to get a real finance, okay, cool.

[2:44:46] All right, so the matter will continue to October 15th.

[2:44:52] Okay, thank you.

[2:44:56] Next item is number one, under old business.

[2:44:59] you

[2:45:00] Yes, I'm 26, 0, 8, 3, 4, 0, 1, northeast, 32nd street, officer, Aaron Rector.

[2:45:31] Okay,

[2:45:35] so I remember, refresh my memory, what did we, I continued it to allow this young lady to see if we could get compliance.

[2:45:47] because from what I recall, a lot of the activities that were taken place in your property were being done by maybe family members.

[2:45:59] And so where are we at and there's no-

[2:46:03] No, it was the cars in the yard, in the trees.

[2:46:09] That's what it was.

[2:46:10] Aaron Richter, City of Oakland Park.

[2:46:12] This is actually old business because she's been in conversations with me.

[2:46:19] She had financial difficulty with the roof, only the roof remains, so she can explain that.

[2:46:27] Okay, so do you need more time?

[2:46:30] Is that the one we're here for?

[2:46:32] Yeah, um, okay, previously I told you I was um, because his statement is program. We did yeah, yeah, so I

[2:46:41] I've since I had to pay one of your text. So I've since paid that and I've completed the application and turn it in and

[2:46:49] them. So I'm just waiting on their response. So

[2:46:53] That and that's all but the other things I've met with the other thing. He said that the trees were

[2:47:01] Okay. Okay. I can get rid of those trees in the back. Um, and that everything was everything was in compliance. Yeah. So I don't know how long the process is going to take the lady told me 90 days, 90 days and she'll let me know what, um, the outcome, whether it's yes or no, I mean, at that point, I guess I have the.

[2:47:30] Yeah, it's very common for the grant processes to have, like, an application and approval cycle.

[2:47:45] You know, since it appears that all the violations except for the replacement of the roof.

[2:47:58] and I think really that violation is related to the tarp more so than the overall.

[2:48:05] So one, to the extent that you can, if you haven't already, try and keep that tarp flush

[2:48:12] with the roof of the, you know, some of the pictures so that it's lifted up and, you know,

[2:48:19] I know this sounds very stupid, but try and keep it looking as nice as possible, okay, for the

[2:48:28] benefit of you and the neighbors. And given the circumstances in knowing how sometimes

[2:48:38] the grant cycle works, I'll give you additional time to come into compliance.

[2:48:45] And we'll hold

[2:48:47] up on the accrual of the fine, given again the issues of having to work through probably

[2:48:55] the county, the CDBG grant process.

[2:49:01] So I will give you 90 days to come into compliance and just come back in 90 days to give us

[2:49:08] a status report.

[2:49:09] Hopefully, maybe, I don't know if Officer Richter, if you're willing to do so, is maybe put

[2:49:18] in a good word with the county, the CDBG people about the need to move this forward as quickly

[2:49:24] as possible.

[2:49:25] if it qualifies?

[2:49:26] I can do that.

[2:49:26] Yes.

[2:49:26] I believe I have the contact information.

[2:49:29] Great.

[2:49:30] And best of luck.

[2:49:32] Thank you.

[2:49:32] So in case I'm 26-083-401-0302nd Street, the owner of record, Andrew Young, based upon the

[2:49:42] evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, I'm going to make a finding that all the violations

[2:49:47] have been complied with except for the Section 24.79.1E5B exterior surface maintenance.

[2:50:00] So the property under 90 days to, um, extensive time to come in compliance.

[2:50:08] And hold the, uh, advance, the cruel fines and

[2:50:13] advance, uh, during that time period. Best of luck, keep us posted or keep off

[2:50:17] the record posted, okay? Thank you.

[2:50:24] I didn't see old business there.

[2:50:28] Next is item number 11 under new cases, Assum 26153, 3001 Northwest, 26th Street, Officer Gilbert Venero.

[2:50:39] Code Inspector Venero, on behalf of the city, presenting case, Assum 26153.

[2:50:45] The property address of 3,001 Northwest, 26th Street, owner of record according to BCPA is, let's see.

[2:50:53] Denise and Trickson, Brown, Francis.

[2:50:57] The property mailing address is 3,001 northwest 26th Street.

[2:51:02] This is a homestead property service was obtained by certified mail posting of the property in City Hall.

[2:51:07] This case was open on March 26th of 2026 by my observation.

[2:51:12] The following steps were conducted to obtain compliance.

[2:51:16] Notice of violation was issued and posted on April 26th of 2026.

[2:51:19] The property was cited for the following city ordinance violations, section 24.105A5D.

[2:51:27] There's missing grass and sod in the furnace sway area of the property, section 248013, grass parking residential.

[2:51:36] There's prohibitive parking on the grass at this property, subject but not limited to multiple vehicles.

[2:51:43] There was no contact with the property owner or anyone related to this case.

[2:51:47] the city's requesting 15 days to comply or $150 per day per violation.

[2:51:52] I am submitting as evidence for this case, the notice of violation, photos depicting the property's condition and legal postings.

[2:52:00] BCPA printout, notice to appear, affidavit of service, and supporting evidence.

[2:52:06] I do want to add that in the pictures, we're not looking at just a couple of vehicles.

[2:52:13] normally on a daily basis I see anywhere between nine vehicles parked on the

[2:52:19] grass. They seem to have activity there throughout the day because I see a

[2:52:26] lot of movement coming in and out to the back. In the soil area you can actually

[2:52:31] see that the soils completely decimated but it was actually replaced by

[2:52:39] I gravel sometime last week.

[2:52:43] As of this week, I saw that they did place sod on top of the gravel, but the gravel is still present.

[2:52:52] Your name for the record, please.

[2:52:54] Forks and Francis.

[2:52:55] Let's close to you so we get you on the record.

[2:52:57] Forks and Francis.

[2:52:58] And you relationship to the property?

[2:53:01] We are both older.

[2:53:02] Okay.

[2:53:02] Forks and Francis.

[2:53:04] You've heard from staff.

[2:53:06] Have you seen the photographs or do you care to see the photographs?

[2:53:09] All right.

[2:53:09] What what happened with the area that he's talking about the sand the gravel it's very very hard to keep the grass there

[2:53:18] We've tried multiple times as soon as the rainfall

[2:53:21] The area is completely ruined. It's like a mudslide. So in order for us to keep the grass

[2:53:28] We had to put the gravel in order to keep the grass where it is

[2:53:35] You know, I

[2:53:37] I don't think I as the special magistrate don't take this the wrong way I'm going to say I don't care how you come into compliance nor I do I think necessarily a city just that you come into compliance if putting down gravel or something else to assist with drainage and whatever I just will tell you that from personal experience because I just laid down sod in part of my yard where I had this kind of similar issue.

[2:54:06] not necessarily with parking, but tree roots.

[2:54:12] I have a big oak tree in my front yard,

[2:54:14] and the roots were starting to come up,

[2:54:19] and we're not allowing the grass,

[2:54:21] so I had to come in and put down additional dirt

[2:54:24] to make it deeper and then put the sod on top.

[2:54:28] So I understand what you're talking about,

[2:54:32] and how you do that is up to you.

[2:54:34] I do, you know, I'm not a landscaper and I don't know whether or not the grass is going

[2:54:40] to stay there with, depending upon what type of gravel you put down and if it's a mix.

[2:54:44] But, what I can see from the photographs of the swale area and the reason why, you know,

[2:54:56] there's problems with the grass staying there is because the car's

[2:55:00] The driving over it. I mean, you know, that's, you know, that's where there are driving over that swale area to get to park the cars in the, in the front yard. And, you know, if you, those vehicles, if you, if very simply, if they continue to transit that area, doesn't matter how many times you, you do something or you try and take care of it, you're not going to solve the problem because it's the vehicles.

[2:55:29] vehicles, transiting back and forth, they're going to kill whatever you try and put down

[2:55:34] there. And that's the other, that's the second part of the violation, which is the cars

[2:55:39] in that front yard. I mean, you know, the photographs show, you know, seven, eight vehicles.

[2:55:46] You've been here through most of the hearing. You may have heard the young lady who came

[2:55:53] here on her on behalf of her dad. Maybe you can expand under the code. You'll have to go

[2:55:58] through the permitting process, you can expand your driveway to accommodate more cars,

[2:56:03] but they can't be parked on the grass.

[2:56:04] I don't make that rule up, the city commission does, and

[2:56:08] it's the job of staff to enforce that and bring the cases before me.

[2:56:14] And I look at the photographs and there's cars parked across your front yard and

[2:56:20] that, and again, I live in a neighborhood where my kids,

[2:56:27] I've said this before my kids are grown already and so I don't have, but there's a lot of

[2:56:33] neighbors of mine who have expanding families and those kids are getting to the age where

[2:56:39] they're all driving vehicles. And so we're closely and soon to kind of reach a tipping point in

[2:56:50] my neighborhood kind of same type of issue, where do you park your vehicles?

[2:56:54] vehicles. Luckily for most of my neighbors, they either have a driveway that's large enough

[2:57:01] or some of them are in cul-de-sac and they can park in parts of the cul-de-sac. But what

[2:57:08] do we do here? So the city is saying, hey, you got to remove the vehicles within 15 days

[2:57:16] and stop parking them. Now, if you remove the vehicles and stop them from parking in your

[2:57:21] front yard. My guess is I can't guarantee that you're going to give that grass a better chance

[2:57:29] to grow and stay there and comply the other violation. But if you continue to allow the

[2:57:36] vehicles to come in and over that area, it doesn't matter what you do, it's going to kill

[2:57:41] the grass, keep you in violation of both sections of the code. So, you know, one of the jobs

[2:57:49] that I have here is to hear you and say if I do make a determination, there's a violation.

[2:57:56] How long is it going to take you to comply the violation?

[2:57:59] They're recommending 15 days.

[2:58:01] I want to hear from you.

[2:58:03] Can you get the cars removed within 15 days?

[2:58:06] And by that, I mean, not only do you have to remove them, but they can't come back.

[2:58:10] Until you either expand your driveway to where they're parking on a hard surface.

[2:58:16] You can't part, the code doesn't allow parking on graphs in the front yard, you know.

[2:58:22] Is it possible to get at least 30 days with the cars?

[2:58:26] Yeah, but, you know, again, it's got to be taken care of, not you're going to start

[2:58:32] incurring a fine, which frankly, I don't want any of you all to incur any fines.

[2:58:40] But that's the negative aspect of the process is the, again, I said, I mentioned the course of effect is that if you don't do it, you're going to start running a fine.

[2:58:53] I'll give you 30 days.

[2:58:57] You're honest?

[2:58:58] We'll see what goes from there.

[2:59:00] I want to interject.

[2:59:01] The soil area, the gravel has to be removed, because the gravels are permitted on the soil, and secondly, that gravel will roll and destroy the asphalt.

[2:59:11] Yeah, hold on, I'm like, yeah, so.

[2:59:14] The gravel that we put there comes up to the microphone, so.

[2:59:22] Because the way how the road sets, the water serves down in our sweat.

[2:59:29] So every time the rain falls, it becomes a putt.

[2:59:33] So even since the day we bought the house,

[2:59:38] that's how it is.

[2:59:39] So since we've been parking on it, it gets worse.

[2:59:42] So that's why we bought the gravel.

[2:59:44] Because the first time we got the ticket,

[2:59:46] we laid the grass, but the water came back and do it.

[2:59:50] And somebody gave us the advice,

[2:59:52] say, best thing, put the gravel.

[2:59:54] Make it a little harder, and then we put the grass.

[2:59:57] So I

[3:00:00] I kind of understand that the yard is, you know, inverted, here's the road, and it goes this way. Partly because the cars, okay, I'm not going to show you what it looks like. And then partly because of the yard being sloped as well, that water is going to cumulate and that sway layer, which frankly is what it's intended to do, by the way. But it may be that it's so deep that something needs to be done to elevate it.

[3:00:39] Again, I said before, and I don't take this, and staff don't take this wrong.

[3:00:49] I don't care how you come into compliance.

[3:00:52] You've got to come into compliance, and you need to work with staff to find a solution.

[3:01:00] because I hear what you're saying is that you, you know, I looked at the photographs, the either you need to bring in soil or a mix of soil and aggregate to help fill that.

[3:01:17] So, well, no, so what you would do, I'm thinking, is put in a layer of rock of first.

[3:01:28] first to fill up most of it, and then you have to put some amount of top soil, if not

[3:01:35] the grass isn't going to take root and the rock will help with the drainage, but basically

[3:01:42] what's called a French drain.

[3:01:43] And you put the soil and the sod on top of the lower layer of rock, but it can't be just

[3:01:51] Rock and then this is sought on top of it because it's not going to you want to

[3:01:56] support so I'm dirt under again, you know, you know, you can you can talk to the

[3:02:02] city staff. There is people who are understand that process more than I do. I'm

[3:02:11] just talking, you know, so that would be probably our burst. Yeah,

[3:02:21] I'm going to give you more time, okay, so to try and work out a solution, I think 15 days given the, what we're all discussing here is, isn't going to be enough time to allow you to meet with staff and figure out what level of repair needs to be done to that swell area.

[3:02:46] to make sure that your grass stays there so we're not, you know, kind of cut in a loop.

[3:02:51] In that case, can it be at least 60 days because we still have to take the group out of that?

[3:02:56] Yeah, I'm thinking about what would be a reasonable period of time given the variables.

[3:03:02] The one thing that you may want to do, what you just mentioned about what you've spent already is,

[3:03:12] Certainly, I would say keep watering the grass so it doesn't die.

[3:03:17] If it's not taking root and it's a palleted sod that you put down, you can take it off

[3:03:26] and put it to the side and if as long as you keep it moist and it'll survive for a certain

[3:03:33] period of time because I don't want you to have to spend another amount of money, whatever

[3:03:41] that may be because you know you're trying to find a solution. So you know get

[3:03:48] together with staff and see what information you can get from them about what

[3:03:55] would be the best way to stabilize that area and and make it and put it to the

[3:04:01] point where that grass will survive and then again of course is removing the

[3:04:05] vehicles and not bringing them back.

[3:04:08] I'll give you 60 days, because I think it's going to take some time to figure out what you need to do to stabilize that area and come to a solution.

[3:04:22] But remove the vehicles now, okay?

[3:04:25] So the 15 days to remove the vehicles, we're going to leave in place and

[3:04:30] you then have 60 days to take care of the landscaping requirement issue, okay?

[3:04:37] All right. Any questions? All right. In case SM-26153, the address is 3001

[3:04:45] Northwest 26th Street. The owners of record are Trixon, Francis and Denise Brown,

[3:04:51] Francis. I'm going to accept into the record the staff report. And based upon the

[3:04:56] The evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, I'm going to find that the matter

[3:05:00] First, properly before the special magistrate and find that there is a violation of Section 24105, Section 1A5D, landscape requirements, and Section 24.8013, grass parking, residential zoning district, city code of Oak and Park. I'm going to give the property owner 15 days to come into compliance with the grass parking provision, Section of the code, and 60 days with regard to the landscape requirements. So they failed to come into compliance with that timeframe.

[3:05:29] a fine of $150 a day to a crew for each day thereafter and the $175 admin fee.

[3:05:37] So to summarize, you take care of the problem within the timeframes, the 15 and 60 days.

[3:05:44] The only thing that you will owe is the $175 admin fee.

[3:05:48] I don't have the authority to modify or waive it.

[3:05:51] If you don't, then that fine will begin to accrue.

[3:05:54] I'll tell you the same thing I've said to everyone else.

[3:05:56] Make sure that you're speaking to the officer, staying in contact with them.

[3:06:00] And if you're working toward compliance, and just things aren't working out particular with regard to the landscape issue,

[3:06:07] make sure you let him know, get you back on the calendar, and you can come back and tell me,

[3:06:12] hey, we're still working through this problem with staff, we need additional time.

[3:06:16] And I'll consider that and give you additional time, all right?

[3:06:20] Any questions?

[3:06:22] The officers are about to hand you his card.

[3:06:24] Please contact him with your contact number.

[3:06:26] That way I have our arborist come talk to you.

[3:06:35] Next, a item number five under certifications, SM 26 077 4711 North East.

[3:06:45] 18th Avenue, officer Carlok.

[3:06:49] You guys, code enforcement officer Carlok for the City of Oakland Park.

[3:06:54] SM-26-077 cases up for certification, property address 47-11 North East 18th Avenue, the owner

[3:07:03] is heritage partners LLC. The violation of the section 24-69 B-3 pool fencing and gates

[3:07:09] required. We're currently at 16,500, not accruing. The original hearing date was May 21,

[3:07:16] 2026. It was to be complied by June 5, 2026. The final amount was 250 per day plus the 175

[3:07:23] five admin fee, the property did come into compliance on August 10th, 2026, and there's a representative here from the property.

[3:07:33] How you doing, Your Honor?

[3:07:35] Your name for the record.

[3:07:36] Let me go, Pamplona.

[3:07:38] Okay, and your relationship to the property?

[3:07:40] I'm basically a representative in the process of, I just signed a quick link deed today, to take ownership of the property.

[3:07:47] I was aware of two violations that we were given on the same date.

[3:07:55] of

[3:08:05] August, I'm sorry,

[3:08:09] on 2, 6, 20, 26.

[3:08:11] So February 6, 20, 26, we received a violation by Mrs.

[3:08:16] Aaron and Mr. Lockhart, one for the pool fencing gates, and

[3:08:19] the other one for a front door, non-permanent front door.

[3:08:23] I actually, we had a hearing on July 7th, for

[3:08:28] the permit issue for the front door.

[3:08:31] As soon as we got both violations, I hired a handyman to take care of the pool

[3:08:36] They basically got painted, he did a repair job on them, I don't think it was the best.

[3:08:42] Apparently we came to court on July 7th, my partner, Mr. Austin did, which he's actually very ill right now.

[3:08:49] And you know, I've been kind of taking everything on my own.

[3:08:53] Nothing was mentioned about the pull gates when we came to this hearing on the 7th of July.

[3:09:00] And Mr. Lockhe told me that we had received the court hearing for the pool fences, but we never received the court hearing.

[3:09:09] I was under impression the whole time that we were compliance when I painted them and got them basically repaired.

[3:09:18] And the other day, I went to the house and I seen this on the door, a fine for $19,000.

[3:09:24] for not being the compliance report gate, I immediately called a company to come out.

[3:09:30] And they, Mr. Lockhe saw the gates, they completely redid the front and made them compliant.

[3:09:38] But the whole time, from the moment they put the notices, we've been in contact with Mrs.

[3:09:44] Aaron and Mr. Lockhe, while my partner was Mr. Austin, I just made contact with him last week when I got the gates repaired.

[3:09:54] But yeah, all you're here, all I can say is that.

[3:10:00] All you're here for today is the fencing and gate issue. If there was another violation,

[3:10:09] it's either been resolved and it's not before me.

[3:10:12] Well, it's in the process right now.

[3:10:14] That's not before you.

[3:10:14] That's on the building case.

[3:10:16] That'll be brought to you in the building side if it continues.

[3:10:18] Oh, Joy.

[3:10:20] So we'll deal with that one at that point in time.

[3:10:25] But, you know, I'm looking through the file and you're more than welcome to, it's your right to see this information as well.

[3:10:34] There was a notice of violation hearing on the gate sent out on somewhere

[3:10:53] back in April

[3:10:58] or May of this year.

[3:11:01] Where was that sent to?

[3:11:02] It was sent to Heritage Partners LLC at 4941 Northwest 48th Avenue in Tamarack.

[3:11:11] It wasn't placed on the door like these notices?

[3:11:14] Well, hold on, I'm going to get to that as well.

[3:11:17] Yes, it was.

[3:11:20] I'm not sure if that flew away or something, but we never got notice of that hearing.

[3:11:24] If not, I would have called the company the same day to fix it.

[3:11:27] That's my issue.

[3:11:28] So it's not that we haven't been trying to be compliant.

[3:11:31] We just never received the notice of the hearing for those bull gates.

[3:11:34] I thought they were in compliance when I tried to face them the first time around.

[3:11:38] There's a two-step process, a notice of violation is issued, and then a notice of violation hearing, which was the hearing that took place.

[3:11:46] I got the notice of violation, sorry.

[3:11:48] No, no, this is a third one, the one that you're, so there's been two notices sent to Heritage Partners LLC.

[3:11:57] at the address I provided to you, there's a certified return receipt.

[3:12:04] And in a bunch of caution, this particular city also posts the property,

[3:12:12] and there's photographs in the file from the original hearing on this case,

[3:12:18] that show, and there's affidavits in the record where the notice of violation and

[3:12:24] And the notice of hearing were both posted one here on the side, I'm not sure which one this one that looks like that's the notice of violation.

[3:12:32] And the notice of hearing was actually posted on the front door in 5, 7, 20, 26.

[3:12:43] The notice of violation was posted on 2, 6, 20, 26 according to the date stamp.

[3:12:50] So, and it was mailed, so the city doubled down, as they say, and sent the notice by mail, which is a requirement, and they also have the authority or the ability to also post, which by the way they don't have to because mailing under the statute is actually sufficient, but they went a step further and also posted the property.

[3:13:16] So, you know, and so when I get these cases, if you've heard, you know, you have sat

[3:13:23] through them, you'll hear me say, you know, this case is properly before the special

[3:13:27] magistrate, which is legalese for saying, I've looked through the file and all the

[3:13:32] notices that are required have been sent, and therefore the case is properly

[3:13:35] before me, because if they don't comply with these requirements, I will continue

[3:13:40] the matter and say you have to prove a service before you know I can hear the case, do process.

[3:13:49] But in this case, as I said, there are photographs in the file that indicate not only was

[3:14:01] a posting but there's also the affidavits of service where under oath the officer has

[3:14:07] has issued an statement saying that they posted the property on 52026, that was the code

[3:14:30] enforcement case and then the notice of hearing and then the notice of violation was posted on February 6, 2026 according to the affidavit in the photographs.

[3:14:42] So and last but not least

[3:14:50] it

[3:14:55] was hold on the U.S. Postal service

[3:15:04] Attempted to deliver, but no one signed for the notice at the address. Apparently, hold on. See, this is 984. So, one of the notices someone signed for.

[3:15:20] And the other one, someone decided not to sign and accept service.

[3:15:26] So, for the, no was signed for, for the hearing date, your item

[3:15:40] was delivered to an individual at the address at 2.10 pm on February 23rd, 2026.

[3:15:45] So, someone signed for the notice of violation because the, the notice of hearing was sent out afterwards.

[3:15:56] So, the February date, there was a delivery attempt on May 4th of the notice of hearing and whoever was at the address refused to sign to accept it.

[3:16:09] But it was then posted on the property, so I understand you didn't, but what I'm trying to say with all due respect, as a special

[3:16:19] I made a finding of formal determination that the city complied with the notice requirements back then I can't explain why you didn't see it or how it didn't I don't know how often you go to the property or if there was someone living there that may have taken it I don't know that's that and don't take this wrong way that's it's it's it's on you you know because the city has done all the things or did all the things that needed to do

[3:16:49] in order to present the case properly before me.

[3:16:54] With all that said, okay, you're in compliance and under the circumstances I would grant you or give you the same relief, I've given everyone else, that's come before me in similar situation.

[3:17:10] I'll reduce it down instead of you having to potentially pay a fine of $16,500.

[3:17:17] dollars. I'll reduce that down to 10%, which is $1,650 plus the $175 admin fee for a total of $1,825.

[3:17:28] If it's payable within 30 days, unless you need additional time. And as I said before,

[3:17:32] you need to tell me why you need additional time. And I'm giving you the same relief and

[3:17:39] courtesy. I've provided to everyone else in the same situation. But as I said before, I've

[3:17:45] We've already made a determination back in what may.

[3:17:51] When this case was presented to me initially, that the city complied with the notice requirements.

[3:17:56] I can't explain why you say you didn't get it because the notice of violation was accepted in the mail.

[3:18:05] And there's photographs and affidavits saying that they posted both notices.

[3:18:09] And the only thing that was rejected was the notice of hearing because whoever was at the address refused to accept it.

[3:18:18] Right, I understand that the hair, does it, partners, that's the address of the company.

[3:18:22] And like I said, Mr. Austin, which Mr. Lockheed made contact with multiple times, he's been very sick and ill, so nobody's been there.

[3:18:28] That's why I guess somebody rejected the notice.

[3:18:32] I go to the property once in a while because I maintain it, but it has been vacant.

[3:18:36] I never saw a notice on the door, I would have took care of it right then and there, just like I did when I received the $19,000 notice.

[3:18:44] I called companies the same day, I was hoping maybe you'd have some heart for me and just maybe.

[3:18:49] I am having heart.

[3:18:50] I'm giving you the 10 for the adoption that I give everyone else, as I said to someone else who asks,

[3:18:55] well, hey, can you do something better for me?

[3:18:57] No, I got to treat everyone equally.

[3:18:59] Otherwise, we get into trouble for not treating everyone fairly and equally.

[3:19:05] It was just an honest mistake, it wasn't because I was trying to not be compliant.

[3:19:11] And I appreciate, and the city does appreciate, all I can say to you is you're aware of the issues.

[3:19:19] Make sure that you're communicating and hopefully we can get the other matter resolved before it has to come back before me, the building permit issue.

[3:19:29] So I just got the permit today, so I'm going to have to get that over with.

[3:19:37] Then it won't have to, it won't, it will get pulled off the agenda and you won't have

[3:19:41] to come back.

[3:19:42] We're here in case SM26077, the address of record is 4711 North East 18th Avenue, the owner

[3:19:50] of record is Heritage Partners LLC.

[3:19:53] I'm going to accept into the record, the staff report.

[3:19:56] I'm going to make a finding that the matter is properly before this.

[3:20:00] Special Magistrate. It's here on a certification request. And based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon, I'm going to find that the Special Magistrate's previous order, finding the property to be in violation of Section 24, 69 B3, pull fencing and gates required code section of the city of Oakland Park has been brought in compliance, but was brought in compliance. Pass the date set forth and said order as a result of a fine of $16,500 as a crude plus the

[3:20:29] an admin fee of $175 going to reduce that amount to $1,650 plus the $175 admin fee for a grand total $1,825 payable within 30 days.

[3:20:46] Is it possible to get 60 days to pay that on your own?

[3:20:49] Give me 45, okay.

[3:20:51] Thank you.

[3:20:51] All right, 45 days.

[3:20:55] Best of luck and hopefully I don't have to see you again.

[3:20:58] All right, thank you guys.

[3:21:00] Thank you.

[3:21:03] Next aside, number seven, under certifications, SP251701830 Northwest 32nd Street Officer Gilbert Venero.

[3:21:15] Inspector Venero on behalf of the city, presenting case SP25170 Property Address of 1830 Northwest 32nd Street.

[3:21:23] Honor of recorders, Suriana Alvers Gutierrez, violation of Section 5.3,

[3:21:31] There's an accruing amount of 23,500 with the original hearing date of October 16th of 2025 to be complied by the December 15th of 2025, the fine amounts were $250 per day plus the admin fee certification hearing was held on March 19th of 2026, a 90 day extension and fine abated were offered with a fine reduction to reflect 2,300 units.

[3:21:59] And 50 if compliance was achieved within the time frame and it hasn't as of yet.

[3:22:08] Your name for the record.

[3:22:10] John Wiggins, representing the owner.

[3:22:12] All right, what's

[3:22:20] going on?

[3:22:20] Actually, we actually did get the permit, but she has a separate permit.

[3:22:25] It's on the property one for kitchen and bathroom.

[3:22:28] And then this was a separate issue that was coming up with the garage enclosure.

[3:22:33] at that time we got everything

[3:22:35] together with the architect

[3:22:35] Smith city got the permit but

[3:22:37] somehow it got kind of

[3:22:38] alluded between the kitchen and

[3:22:40] the bath and the garage got

[3:22:42] co mingles so we had to cancel

[3:22:44] that permit and now we're in the

[3:22:46] process of getting that second

[3:22:47] permit actually I mean I the

[3:22:49] second review um we were told

[3:22:52] that probably by the end of

[3:22:54] next week they should have the

[3:22:55] review done and then I should

[3:22:56] We'll get this done just asking for an extension of 30 days.

[3:22:59] I think we can get this wrapped up.

[3:23:04] Staff have any?

[3:23:08] So.

[3:23:09] No objective.

[3:23:11] Okay.

[3:23:11] Because I have to tell you on behalf of the Miss Alvarez or Miss

[3:23:21] Couchera summons.

[3:23:24] She's got more breaks than I generally give.

[3:23:30] At this point in time, you know, unless this gentleman here at the end had just said what he did, I was ready to essentially enter the order that I had said I would, which was to go back to the full amount because we're 90 days.

[3:23:48] and so we did get the permit and we did call the inspection in and that's off the process.

[3:23:55] Yeah, but my point is that when we were here three months ago, I am absolutely sure that we talked

[3:24:07] about all the violations and the need to get everything taken care of.

[3:24:14] There were two separate permits issues, look, this gentleman said it will continue it for 30 days, I'm going to do that, but I'm saying right now that it so everyone's very clear that if it's not taken care of and the permits not issued and were resolved, my order here today is that it goes back to the full amount of $23,500.

[3:24:43] $1,500 because we're now 120 days plus 120 days on top of the time period I previously

[3:24:56] entered when I first found the violation which is

[3:25:00] Frankly, except for the very rare instances of the lady who the invalid property owner, where she's, you know, need some financial assistance and everything and she's going through the, I very rarely give the type of relief to a property owner that I've given in this case. That's all I'm saying.

[3:25:25] to that. Watch everybody today. I saw that. So I just want to make it clear that we've got a 30-day window to get that permanent issued or it goes back to the original amount. And I appreciate, you know, and then point is that that point in time, you can, you know, work with staff to then get the fine reduction. I'll certify the amount. It'll happen automatically and no further action will be required.

[3:25:54] I don't believe it's going to be a problem, it's like right now I got something right now from Jeanette Everett

[3:25:59] and she says she should have the review done by next Friday, and then it's just a matter of calling the inspections in and we're out there.

[3:26:04] So in case SP 25 170, address a record 1830 Northwest 32nd Street, owner of record Zulan Alvarez and Gutierrez will grant a 30 day continuous if not completed,

[3:26:17] Then you can actually you can prepare an order for my signature for the full amount and record it you can then work directly with staff

[3:26:26] Yeah, but I was gonna say what if I have an issue with the city not giving me getting the permit. Well then again I look and I'm not I'm not trying to be difficult here and I appreciate it. The point I'm trying to make is that and

[3:26:44] And I'm really not trying to sound harsh, but

[3:26:51] people who come before me with these types

[3:26:56] of violations, it's because one or two things generally here is I didn't know I needed

[3:27:04] a permit or someone told me I didn't need a permit and what I generally will say to people

[3:27:14] is that God bless the Florida legislature, not the city of Oak on Park, even though there are now some new exemptions of the Florida Building Code.

[3:27:24] Florida Building Code basically says that you touch the building and you need a building permit.

[3:27:32] And that should be the assumption of everyone who's thinking about doing something to their house.

[3:27:37] I understand but can I can I sure so this issue is a covered garage she had

[3:27:44] purchased the house this work was done prior to her so this started from

[3:27:49] December and by time that we got around that finds it in crude and that's

[3:27:54] fine that's that is what it is she did not do the work on the garage so I had

[3:27:59] to bring into special engineer had to do a concealed permit to be able to be

[3:28:03] able to say hey we did not similar to yeah so we actually

[3:28:07] actually got the permit, got it all done, called in the first inspection and then the kitchen

[3:28:11] and bathroom are interlocked with that permit.

[3:28:15] So they made us cancel that permit and start the process again.

[3:28:18] So that's why we're in the delay that we're in.

[3:28:21] She did not do the work and it closed like a rush.

[3:28:24] If you have problems with the city's last time show when she either closing from the

[3:28:31] What I'm trying to do is, in a

[3:28:36] roundabout way, it's just move the matter forward so you don't have to come back for me.

[3:28:43] If you have problems with the city on getting within the 30 days, my order will go into effect but that doesn't mean.

[3:28:52] I want to make it absolutely clear that you can't and shouldn't continue to work with the city.

[3:28:56] The only difference is that once you do get the permit, you won't come back before me for a fine reduction.

[3:29:05] You'll work directly with city staff.

[3:29:07] Then I'm going to ask, since this has become a severity, and I think it's totally unfair because of the situation that I just discussed.

[3:29:15] Can we move the 45 days?

[3:29:17] I don't need to make sure I got this permit, no problem.

[3:29:19] I think I'll have it resolved in less, but I have no control over what the building department's going to do.

[3:29:27] Because I believe it's unfair for you to say right now you're going to pay that $23,000 when this you're not listening, I'm not saying that that's the amount of fine that will be there, you can once you come into compliance with the reduction at that point, you're going to you're going to enforce the $23,000 if I have no control over the city and everything's been fair here today, but this one I believe is not fair your you will have the opportunity to deal

[3:29:55] directly with city staff. Once a fine is certified.

[3:30:00] I don't, I, it doesn't come back before me. Okay, that's all I, that's, that's the, that's the purpose of the certification process is you won't have to deal with me anymore. You then would deal directly with city staff. You get the permit. Let's say, if I don't get the permit, then you come back to save now. She's the beginning of force. You have to pay that $23,000. No, you weren't able to get that done in the 30. Well, if, if you don't, let's play this out under your scenario. That was out. Okay.

[3:30:28] If you don't get the permit, then you're going to have to demolish the improvements.

[3:30:33] I can't tell the city to issue a permit to you.

[3:30:37] The issuance of a permit is based upon the determination of the Florida of the city's building official that the work that's being done, and the permits being requested for, complies with the Florida Building Code or not.

[3:30:52] That once you meet the requirements of the Florida building code under Florida law, the city has to issue a permit.

[3:31:00] So the disconnect and the this scenario that we're talking about is if the city doesn't issue me a permit is because the city's building official is making the determination, the what's been submitted still does not meet the permit.

[3:31:13] I'm saying, I'm saying, what if I don't make that 30 days? This is where I'm concerned about.

[3:31:17] Again, if they I know we're going to get the permit because that's I'll give you the 45 days

[3:31:21] My point is that after the 45 days my order becomes final and you will now deal directly with city staff

[3:31:27] And you won't have to come back before me

[3:31:29] But there has to be an ending to the process. I'm getting the closure. I'm getting the closure on this

[3:31:34] I had a closure and they got rejected because like I told you that we had the bathroom and the

[3:31:41] In the kitchen and then somehow those comments got put on to that permit and I have no idea how that happened

[3:31:46] But it's just it and we had to deal with it.

[3:31:50] I'm not trying to kick the can down the road.

[3:31:54] I don't have any control over that.

[3:31:56] I know, I know, but I just want to make sure that I get this process done so she doesn't improve that.

[3:32:01] I want to be able to come back and get it certified so she gets a 10% and we're done.

[3:32:06] You can, I would recommend you work with staff even in the process.

[3:32:11] I think 45 days is a bit more, so I'm going to talk to the tomorrow with the bill in the Department.

[3:32:16] Thank you.

[3:32:17] Okay.

[3:32:17] In case SB 25-170, address record 18-30 north west 32nd Street.

[3:32:23] As I said, the owner record is Julian Alvarez-Gucci-Ebris will give a 45-day

[3:32:27] continuance.

[3:32:29] If it's not brought into compliance within that time frame, as I indicated, my order will be self-excuting.

[3:32:34] And if it's brought within 45 days, come back and again, you don't even need to come back.

[3:32:43] You can ask staff for a reduction of the crude fines directly to them.

[3:32:49] She's willing to pay that if we had the reduction, or I was actually going to ask you, can we pay today?

[3:32:53] But that's fine, obviously I've got to get this completed.

[3:32:56] Well, that's what my previous order did actually read, as I'd given the discount.

[3:33:01] But we're not in compliance with that order.

[3:33:03] I know, but there was a circumstance to suit.

[3:33:07] I know you don't want to hear about the circumstances but there was.

[3:33:10] That's all.

[3:33:11] All right.

[3:33:13] You've got your 45 days best of luck, all right?

[3:33:15] Thank you.

[3:33:16] Thank you very much.

[3:33:17] Appreciate you all sitting around waiting.

[3:33:20] You know, we're still here.

[3:33:24] I'm hurt.

[3:33:26] Yeah.

[3:33:32] Oh yeah, take off.

[3:33:39] Five minute break.

[3:33:41] All right.

[3:33:42] All right, let's take a five minute break.

[3:33:44] The time is close to 4.45, we'll reconvene at 4.50, thank you.

[3:34:04] We'll call the meeting back to order, 4.48.

[3:34:06] Next matter, next case.

[3:34:09] For the record, under no cases, item number 1, SM26143 has been heard.

[3:34:17] Item number two, SM 26144, has been heard.

[3:34:22] Item number three, SM 26145, 4160, Northwest 12th Avenue, Officer Tetskardina.

[3:34:31] Tetskardina, City of Open Park, case SM 26145.

[3:34:36] Property addresses 416, Northwest 12th Avenue.

[3:34:39] Oner of record is Haya Kafari, Kafari, Kafari, Kafari.

[3:34:43] The service was obtained by certified mail posting the property and city hall.

[3:34:49] This case is based on my observation.

[3:34:51] The property was cited for 24.8 I-3 grass parking residential, section 24.65 unlicensed

[3:35:02] 13.8, a trash receptacles, and section 8.7, overgrowth. On June 3, 2026, a notice of violation was issued to Haia Kafati for noncompliance with the above mentioned violations of municipal code. Observation summary is while patrolling my assign, I observed multiple vehicles parked on the grass at the property on several occasions over the course of

[3:35:29] several weeks.

[3:35:31] Furthermore, trash receptacles were left on the soil after public works picked up their trash,

[3:35:35] and there are unlicensed vehicles on the property, and the yard is overgrown.

[3:35:40] Again, I initially issued a court courtesy notice,

[3:35:43] advising the residents of the violations and requesting that they take the necessary corrective action.

[3:35:48] Whoever'd to date the violations have not been addressed.

[3:35:51] The city's requesting the following.

[3:35:52] The city's requesting 14 days to comply with violations related to grass parking,

[3:35:57] scheme, trash receptacles, and overgrowth, and 21 days to comply with the violation related to unlicensed vehicles.

[3:36:04] If the homeowner fails to comply with the required time frame,

[3:36:10] a fine of $150 per violation shall be imposed.

[3:36:15] I'm submitting his evidence, the case file includes the notice of violation, photographs,

[3:36:20] BCPA, printout, notice to appear, affidavits the service, code case history report, and

[3:36:25] code case, details report, photographs of code case postings, USPS tracking number,

[3:36:31] this is the city's case.

[3:37:13] All right, we're here on case SM26145, address record 4160, northwest 12th Avenue,

[3:37:21] the owner of record is Haya F. Carfati, is there anyone in the audience to speak this matter

[3:37:27] other than staff?

[3:37:28] Seeing no one, I am going to accept into the record staff report and find that this matter

[3:37:35] is properly before the special magistrate, all notices, have been given.

[3:37:43] Based upon the evidence test money presented here this afternoon, I am going to find that

[3:37:47] the property owner and property are in violation of section 13.8A, trash receptacles, section

[3:37:55] 24.8013, grass parking residential, section 8.7A overgrowth, and section 24.65, unlicensed

[3:38:05] vehicles. With regard to the first three violations, we're going to give the property

[3:38:10] under 15 days to come into compliance. With regard to the last recited violation,

[3:38:19] we're going to give the property under 21 days to come into compliance. If the property

[3:38:23] under fails to come into compliance with those deadline dates, a fine of $150 a day shall accrue

[3:38:29] for each violation and non-compliance for each day thereafter and also assess the $175

[3:38:35] number

[3:38:41] 4, under new cases, SM 26146R 3450 North East 19th Avenue, officer Carlok.

[3:38:52] Code enforcement officer Carlok for the City of Oakland Park.

[3:38:56] This is case number 26146R, repeat.

[3:39:00] Property addresses 3450 North East 19th Avenue, owner of record is Nina Katzenova.

[3:39:05] Service was obtained by Certified Mail in posting the property in City Hall.

[3:39:10] This case was opened based on my personal observation on June 26, 2026.

[3:39:15] The property was cited for Section 13.8A trash receptacle.

[3:39:19] To wit trash and recycle receptacles, we're left out curbside for pickup on non-pick-up days.

[3:39:25] This property was presented at the June 2026 special magistrate hearing for

[3:39:30] continued violations of trash receptacles being curbside on non-pick-up days.

[3:39:34] a finding of factors made and a fine of 250 plus the 175 admin fee was imposed.

[3:39:40] This fine and fee have not been paid.

[3:39:42] I have not had contact with the owner, certified mail goes to the location and is returned

[3:39:46] to the city as I'm able to forward.

[3:39:49] The property continues to violate the city ordinance as evidenced by the June 26, 2026 and

[3:39:55] on August 18, 2026 photographs.

[3:40:00] The days of the week were a Friday and a Tuesday and the area pickup days are Monday and Thursday. The city is requesting. A finding of act that this violation has reoccurred and is a repeat violation. Due to the repetitive nature of this violation, the city is seeking a one-time fine of $1,000. I'm submitting his evidence to the case folder, the following, the notice of violation, the BCPA printout, notice to appear, affidavits of service, photos of the violation in posting, the case detailed report, a copy of the prior order

[3:40:30] of enforcement, and the returned certified mailings.

[3:40:33] That's the city's case.

[3:40:35] All right, we're here in case SM26146R.

[3:40:40] Adjour's record 3415 North East 19th Avenue.

[3:40:43] Owner record Nina Cachanova.

[3:40:46] Is there anyone in the audience

[3:40:47] speak to this matter other than staff?

[3:40:52] Seeing no one, I am going to accept into the record staff report

[3:40:55] and find that the matter is properly

[3:40:57] before the special magistrate.

[3:40:59] All notices required have been provided.

[3:41:02] And based upon the evidence testimony presented here this afternoon,

[3:41:04] I'm going to find that the property and property on our own violation is section 13.a,

[3:41:09] trash receptacles, city code of open park, that this is a repeat violation and an irreversible violation.

[3:41:20] You know, once they're out there past the deadline, that's the violation.

[3:41:24] I'm going to impose a one-time fine of $750 plus $175 admin fee, and to the extent that you may have any communications with Miss Katzenova, please inform her that if we, if she comes back before me on the same violation, again, it's going to be double and it's only going to go up from there.

[3:41:48] some points you're going to have to pay the fines, so that's that.

[3:41:56] Next is item five, under new cases, SM 26147, 1341, Northeast 40th, Place, Officer Karloch.

[3:42:10] Code enforcement officer Karloch with the City of Oakland Park.

[3:42:13] This is case number 26147, the property address is 1341, North East 40th, Place.

[3:42:19] The owner record is Taren, Brittany, Jellin, and Brian Patrick Wise.

[3:42:24] Service was obtained by certified mail and posting the property in City Hall.

[3:42:28] This case was opened based on a complaint received on June 29th, 2026.

[3:42:32] The property was cited for 24.79.1D2 outdoor storage.

[3:42:38] To it, Adali, a tabletop, rope, plastic storage creates trash bags,

[3:42:43] backpacks, carpets, buckets, and wood were being stored in the front yard.

[3:42:49] There was a prior outdoor storage violation of this location on December 8, 2025.

[3:42:54] This violation was issued on June 29, 2026.

[3:42:57] And while posting the notice for the hearing, I met a parent of one of the owners cleaning the yard.

[3:43:02] We discussed the items that needed to be removed.

[3:43:04] I later met with Brian, one of the owners, and we also discussed the violation.

[3:43:09] Brian emailed me to reinspect the property on August 19, 2026.

[3:43:13] I did and it has complied.

[3:43:15] The city is requesting a finding of the fact that the violation did occur so that if it reoccurs, it will be a repeat offender.

[3:43:21] I'm submitting as evidence the following.

[3:43:24] The notice of violation, the BCPA printout, the notice to appear, affidavit to service, photos of the violation in postings, the case detailed report, certified mail tracking sheet, returned certified mailing, and a printout of the complaint.

[3:43:37] That is the city's case.

[3:43:38] case.

[3:43:39] Okay.

[3:43:40] We're here in case SM-26147, address record 1341, northeast 40th place, owner of record,

[3:43:52] Ryan Patrick-Jellin and Karen Brittney-Wise, hopefully got that right, is there anyone here

[3:44:00] to speak to this case?

[3:44:01] Seeing no one, I am going to accept into the record of the staff report and find the matters

[3:44:06] is properly before the special magistrate, and make a finding of fact that the property is in compliance with Section 24.7, 9.1, D2, outdoor storage, but came into compliance, passed the deadlines that forth in the notice of violation, and therefore it's a formal finding of fact, so any future violations can be treated as repeat violations, no fine or fee assessed.

[3:44:34] We

[3:44:51] continue with new cases, item 6, SM26148 has been complied, item 7, SM26.

[3:45:00] Item 6149 has been withdrawn. Item 8, SM 26150, has been withdrawn. Item 9, SM 26151 has been complied. Item 10, SM 26152 has been complied. Item 11, SM 26153 has been heard. Item 12, SM 26155 has been complied.

[3:45:27] Item 13, SM 26156 has been heard.

[3:45:33] Item 14, SM 26157 has been heard.

[3:45:37] Item 15, SM 26158 has been heard.

[3:45:42] Item 16, SM 26159 has been complied.

[3:45:48] Continuing with certifications, item 1, SM 26095 has been heard.

[3:45:55] Item 2 SP-25227 has been heard, SM-26031 has been heard, SM-260577 has been heard,

[3:46:12] Item 6, SM26.097 has been hard.

[3:46:17] Item 7, SP25 Pod 70 has been hard.

[3:46:22] Item 8, SM26 021 has been hard.

[3:46:26] Item 9, SM26 022 has been hard.

[3:46:30] Item 10, SM26 025 has been hard.

[3:46:35] Item 11, SM26 026 has been hard.

[3:46:39] Item 12, SM 26065, has been heard.

[3:46:45] Item 13, SM 26067 has been heard.

[3:46:50] Item 14, SM 26091 has been heard.

[3:46:55] Item 15, SM 26092 has been heard.

[3:46:59] Item 16, SM 26110, 1861, Northwest 28, Street Officer Gilbert Venero.

[3:47:08] And the crows go wild.

[3:47:10] Unbelievably, inspect the banner on behalf of the city, presenting case SM-26-1-1-0.

[3:47:17] Property address 1861, northwest 28th Street, owner of records Pierre and Lemowick.

[3:47:23] And the violation is grasped parking.

[3:47:26] The amount per day is $100.

[3:47:28] Compliance stage should have been $6.28 of 26 resolution date, or was actually August 12

[3:47:35] of 2026.

[3:47:36] A non-accruiting amount of 4,500 has been set, and there's no one here for this case.

[3:47:47] This is case SM26110, address record 1861 Northwest 28th Street, owner of record Lamont Pierre, this is a certification matter.

[3:47:59] Is there anyone here to speak to this matter, other than this case?

[3:48:02] Seeing no one, I am willing to accept into the record the staff report.

[3:48:06] And make a determination that the matter is properly before the special magistrate and in a said case based upon the MS testimony presented here this afternoon.

[3:48:15] Finding that the property is in compliance with the special magistrate's order, finding them to be in violation of Section 24.80, I-313 grass parking residential zoning district, city code of open park, but that said compliance occurred after the date set forth and said order as a result.

[3:48:35] a fine of $4,000, $4,500 is accrued, no longer accruing, and also the $175 admonity.

[3:48:44] I'm going to certify those amounts and authorize city staff to record an order to that effect in the public records of Broward County, and the same shall constitute a lane against the property.

[3:49:02] Okay, we have come to the end of the agenda, is there anything else to come before the special

[3:49:10] man straight for the good of the order? Seeing and hearing nothing, the time is 503, we are

[3:49:19] here by adjourned.

Special Magistrate Hearing

Agenda

Transcript