Neighbor objections, Central Broward sign-off mark contested gravel work in Cooper City drainage easement; magistrate defers fines pending permit review

Special Magistrate Scott Klein heard extended testimony July 2, 2025, in case EN25-015 involving a property where compacted gravel was placed in a drainage easement. The city cited the owner under the Land Development Code for altering an easement without approval; Central Broward Water Control District subsequently provided an easement agreement approving the grade change but not an engineering report addressing neighbor concerns. Klein found a violation exists but deferred fines while the owner pursues the hard-surface permit and the city continues plan review, and reset the matter for an August status update.

The dispute centers on whether compacted crushed stone placed in January created an impervious surface or otherwise altered drainage in a dedicated easement. The city’s Community Development Director, Carlos Vega, told the magistrate the city referred the matter to Central Broward after inspectors found compacted gravel in a dedicated drainage easement; Central Broward’s inspector determined the work had not been approved, and the district later provided an easement agreement after meetings with the property owner. Vega said the city required the owner to obtain both the district’s approval and a city permit for a hard-packed surface.

Neighbors and the homeowners association pressed for stronger enforcement and documentation. Tara Mulberry, counsel for the Sterling Palm homeowners association, said the association had not approved the driveway-style work, raised concerns about unpermitted parking and damage to surrounding sidewalks, and asked the magistrate to require engineering plans and a grading/drainage analysis before resolving the matter. Neighbor Rosalie Staley described property elevations and said the compacted limestone behaves like an impervious surface and creates runoff risk for lower-lying adjacent properties; she said Central Broward’s sign-off appeared to be a “hold harmless” arrangement that does not protect neighbors from flood risk.

Owner response and city position

Property owner (respondent) denied the violation but submitted materials showing an easement agreement from Central Broward and said a hard-surface permit had been applied for the day before the hearing. The owner said the work was done to repair erosion and that he paid $486 for a county/oversight engineer’s review. The owner said the compacted material allows drainage through the surface and disputed assertions that it is impervious.

City staff — including Vega and Mark Young, the city’s chief structural inspector — told the magistrate the permit for compacted hard surface is now in plan review and that the owner had submitted an application on the previous day. Young explained that loose gravel does not require a permit but that compaction creating a hard surface does. The building department therefore needs a short plan-review period to determine whether the proposed work meets city code and building standards.

Magistrate ruling and next steps

Klein said he did not have jurisdiction to review or overturn Central Broward’s internal approvals, and he declined to resolve civil disputes between the HOA and the owner. He found that a violation of the city’s code (alteration of a drainage easement) exists based on the evidence and testimony presented but did not impose daily fines while the permit review is pending. Klein ordered a $150 administrative fee payable within 30 days, required the owner to pursue the city permit, and continued the matter to the August docket for a status update. Klein warned that if the permit process does not result in timely compliance, he could reopen the case and consider assessing fines.

Why neighbors remain concerned

Neighbors and HOA counsel requested the city or Central Broward require an engineering report showing elevations, runoff modeling, and a grading plan demonstrating the project will not shed water onto adjacent properties. They said the district’s easement agreement — as presented to the magistrate — appeared limited to holding the district harmless and did not provide neighbor protections or engineering analysis. The magistrate advised neighbors to pursue Central Broward for any questions about that agency’s review and suggested civil remedies (private counsel) for property-to-property claims regarding servitudes or damages.

The magistrate’s order leaves the permit-review process as the principal mechanism for technical review; he scheduled the matter for the August docket so the record can show whether plan review and permit issuance resolve the outstanding concerns.