Magistrate finds front-yard overgrowth complied; shed/structure issue at Cooper City property continued to Oct. 1

The Cooper City special magistrate on Sept. 3 found that the front-yard overgrowth complaint at 8705 Southwest 50 Fifth Street had been brought into compliance and ordered a $150 administrative fee, while deferring a separate structure/permit dispute to a status hearing on Oct. 1.

Broward Sheriff's Office code inspector Michael Giordano testified he had been contacted by neighbors in May alleging overgrown vegetation and rodent concerns at the property. Giordano said he inspected the front and side areas several times and documented the conditions in photos. The property owners provided email correspondence in which they asked the inspector to reconsider the citations; the magistrate said she had not seen proof that rodents were present and found insufficient evidence to sustain the nuisance citation for rodent activity.

Owner representatives told the magistrate that some maintenance had been done on the front yard and that photographs before the hearing showed recent work. The magistrate ruled case 251039 (excessive overgrowth/exterior condition) complied based on photos introduced at the hearing and assessed the $150 administrative fee due by Oct. 3, 2025.

The hearing also covered two related cases for the property. Case 251035 (alleged public nuisance from excessive growth/accumulation of junk) was not sustained for lack of evidence; the magistrate said no fine or administrative fee would be assessed on that count. The more substantive dispute involved case 251036, a structure in a setback (a shed) for which no building permit record exists at the city. The owners said the shed predates their 1998 purchase and described financial hardship; city staff and the magistrate explained that, if the shed was constructed without a permit, the owners would need to pursue a variance or remove the structure.

Because the shed's history and prior case records required additional review, the magistrate continued case 251036 for a status hearing on Oct. 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. and asked staff to research prior matters and permit/record history. The magistrate said she would review prior orders and be prepared to consider a variance process or other remedies at the October status hearing.

Inspector Giordano and other staff entered photos, inspection notes and the owners’ emails into the record. The magistrate noted that, while some of the alleged problems had been fixed, setback and permitting issues remain legal questions that require more time and record review before a final order.

The decision separated (1) compliance findings for immediate nuisance/overgrowth concerns and (2) a procedural continuance for the setback/structure matter, preserving the owners’ opportunity to pursue a variance or produce permit records.