Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Lauderdale code enforcement board orders repairs, sets deadlines and fines in multiple cases
Summary
At a June hearing the City of North Lauderdale Code Enforcement Board found several properties in violation of city codes, ordered repairs with deadlines ranging from 30–60 days (and some extensions), and approved fines or per‑occurrence penalties for repeat violations.
The City of North Lauderdale Code Enforcement Board on June 25 heard multiple property‑maintenance cases and issued final orders requiring repairs, imposing deadlines and setting fines for continued noncompliance.
The decisions affect several property owners and rental properties across the city and instruct respondents to secure permits where required or face daily or per‑occurrence fines.
Board members moved and approved findings of code violations and corrective orders in several cases. For one vehicle‑related case the board approved a cease‑and‑desist order for the respondents and directed that recurring unlawful parking be treated as a per‑occurrence violation: vehicles observed in violation may be tagged for immediate towing and the city will assess a $100 fine for the occurrence. The board characterized that fine as a per‑occurrence penalty rather than a per‑day charge; if the vehicle is removed the occurrence is considered resolved but a future repeat would trigger a new fine.
Other orders approved at the hearing included: - Case number 25-06-CEB-COD-05241865 (Melgarigo Francisco and Alicia De Oliveira): Found in violation of Code Chapter 66‑33 and 106‑197(a). The board ordered correction of the violations on or before Aug. 24, 2025, and stated that if the respondent fails to comply, a $50 per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation continues beyond that date.
- Case number 25-06-CEB-4012-12242849 (Marlene and Emmanuel June): Found in violation of Section 102‑343 and related exterior maintenance sections; ordered to correct the cited violation on or before Aug. 24, 2025. A $50 per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation continues past that deadline.
- Case number 25-06-CEB-03253094 (Phyllis Ruist): The city requested a final violation and 30 days to comply; the board approved a corrective order with a 30‑day compliance period and a daily fine thereafter (motion approved).
- Case number 25-06-CEB-03253116 (J Property LLC; 7961 SW Sixth Street): The board found the property's exterior fence in dilapidated condition and ordered correction within 60 days with a $75 per day fine if the violation continues past the deadline.
- Case number 25-06-CEB-03253164 (Howard Jocas): Two exterior violations remained; the board approved a final violation and set a 45‑day compliance period and a $75 per day fine thereafter.
- Case number 25-06-CEB-04253315 (Antonor Bridal; 1907 SW 84th Terrace): The board found work without permits and multiple exterior maintenance violations; it approved a final order with a 30‑day compliance period and a $75 per day fine for continued noncompliance.
The board also granted a 30‑day extension in case 24-08‑CEB‑08230303 (David Guzman), moving the compliance date to Aug. 24, 2025, to allow the respondent additional time to secure required permits or complete corrective work. The board read a list of cases reported as complied into the record and approved the minutes of the previous meeting.
City staff explained to respondents that filing for the required permit generally extends the practical time available to complete permitted work and encouraged respondents to keep in contact with the assigned code officer to avoid additional penalties.
The board’s orders emphasize permit requirements for driveway expansions and structural repairs: work that requires a permit must have the permit filed to start the permit period; work that can be completed without a permit must be done within the board’s compliance window.
The board approved each motion by voice vote; no roll‑call tallies were recorded in the public transcript.
The orders are effective as written; respondents were instructed to contact the assigned code officer (names provided during the hearing) for guidance on permits and timelines.
