A Miami code-enforcement hearing convened to call a long docket of compliance cases; the hearing officer granted extensions in numerous matters so property owners could complete permitting, construction or appeals processes.

The hearing's primary business was hearing requests for additional time. Attorneys and owners repeatedly told the hearing officer they were in various stages of the permitting process — prescreen, applicant correction, or awaiting specific subpermits — and asked for more time. City staff typically told the hearing officer whether they objected and, when they did not, the extensions were ordered.

Why it matters: Granting extensions delays enforcement deadlines while owners seek to obtain required permits, inspections or court resolutions; such continuances preserve due-process time for property owners but also lengthen the time properties remain out of compliance.

Key outcomes (selected cases):
- Case 00106252 (40 Northeast First Avenue #503): Eddie Baker, attorney for the owner, requested 120 days to finalize ADA restroom plans (removal of a shower to relocate a sink). City staff voiced no objection; 120 days was granted.

- Case 00075907 (459 Northeast 25th/20 Fifth Street as read on the docket): Mickey Marrero said the building is being demolished and the remaining violation was working without a permit; city staff raised no objection and the hearing allowed 120 days.

- Case 00106282 (3311 Southwest 21st Street as listed): Joseph Tucky asked for 180 days to work through structural and MEP comments; city staff recommended 120 days and the hearing granted 120 days, noting additional time can be requested before the deadline.

- Cases 00056458 and 00126148 (853 Northwest Third Street): Lucilo Ramos Jr., attorney and manager for the owner, said one violation involved legalizing an illegal unit and another involved a failing dumpster enclosure. For the illegal-unit permitting work the hearing granted 120 days; the dumpster enclosure matter (filed as a general repair permit) was set for 120 days as well after the applicant filed the general repair permit application.

- Case 00086150 (1921 Northwest 34th Street as shown on the docket): Owner Melvin Rivera requested 30 days; the city recommended 30 days and the hearing granted 30 days.

- Case 00117312 (1005 West Flagler Street): Nicholas Alonzo, representing tenant Advanced Auto Parts, requested 120 days while the tenant seeks a CO and CU/BTR; city staff raised no objection and the extension was granted.

- Case 00025246 (1797 Northwest 21st Terrace): Christina Cuervo said one electrical subpermit remained; city staff noted the permit-issue phase and the hearing granted 120 days.

- Case 00121024 (6731 Southwest Seventh Street): Owner Paula Guerrero said the master permit had been approved and subpermit applications were submitted; the hearing granted 120 days on the city's recommendation.

- Case 00083476 (3140 Southwest Sixteenth Street): Owner Carlos Garden asked for 90 days while in permit review; city staff raised no objection and the hearing granted 90 days.

- Case 00105493 (345 Northeast Eightieth Terrace): Owner Jean Dominique Dumont requested 90 days to respond to city comments; city staff recommended 120 days and the hearing granted 120 days.

- Consolidated folios for multiple adjoining properties (series beginning page 76 and related pages covering 25 NE 36th/30th/various Miami Court addresses): Attorney Andres Rivero said the parking-lot site work and CU were completed and only the BTR remained; the hearing granted 90 days to obtain the BTR and complete the final inspection.

- Case 00112451 (6105 Northwest Seventh Avenue): Rachel Streitfeld, attorney for the owner, said a companion unsafe-structures demolition order is on appeal and a motion to reconsider is pending; because permit/demolition work depends on the litigation, she asked for 120 days. City staff raised no objection and the hearing granted the extension.

Procedural and administrative notes: Several cases were not heard or were reset because the persons appearing lacked valid or properly executed powers of attorney. Hearing clerks repeatedly instructed parties to present valid, dated POA forms before the case can be heard. The officer also reminded attendees that if they need more time after a granted extension they must file a timely request to return to the docket.

What the hearing did not do: The hearing did not impose additional fines in the publicly recorded exchanges, nor did staff identify any new code interpretations or city policy changes during these calls. Numerous items remain pending with the city’s permitting and inspection divisions.

Provenance: Excerpts supporting this summary appear throughout the hearing record, including the start of the docket (00:00:08) and the adjournment (00:32:18).