Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Lauderdale special magistrate continues dozens of code cases; most given 60–90 days to comply
Summary
At the Nov. 12 special magistrate hearing for the City of North Lauderdale, the magistrate continued the majority of property‑code enforcement cases — including grouped subdivision matters and commercial and residential violations—generally granting 60‑ to 90‑day windows for repairs or permits.
The Special Magistrate for the City of North Lauderdale convened a quasi‑judicial enforcement hearing on Nov. 12 and continued the bulk of property‑code cases to give owners time to complete repairs or secure permits. The magistrate opened by reminding attendees that "the burden this afternoon is upon the city" to demonstrate a violation and that participants would testify under oath.
City staff read dozens of cases and the magistrate repeatedly granted continuances. Grouped cases tied to a single residential development (identified in the record as multiple SMH codes) were continued generally to Jan. 11, with a return date of Feb. 11 if compliance was not achieved. The magistrate said these grouped matters "have the same violation" and treated them together to streamline proceedings.
Several individual properties also received extensions. For example, staff said the property at 4320 Northwest 59th Street, identified as vacant with fire damage, had an out‑of‑state owner who is hiring a contractor; the city proposed a 60‑day extension to Jan. 11 with a possible Feb. 11 follow‑up. City staff described an unsafe residence at 322 Southwest 78th Avenue with extensive fire damage and requested a 90‑day extension to allow repairs and permit work.
Commercial and other cases were similarly paced. The Walmart Stores East LP property was described by staff as partly compliant on one side of the site but not on another; the city noted a long history of noncompliance and indicated a proposed fine amount of $5,500. Attorney Kennedy, representing the property, said his firm had been retained recently and asked for 30 days to achieve compliance.
The magistrate repeatedly told respondents that if the city did not meet its burden the case could be dismissed, and he deferred technical corrective details to city staff and contractors. Where parties said work had started, the magistrate and staff set staggered return dates rather than immediate fines or removal orders.
The hearing covered dozens of cases in quick succession, with most matters continued to allow remediation rather than immediate enforcement such as demolition or higher fines. Follow‑up hearings were scheduled for January and, if necessary, February.
