Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Miami hearing officer upholds multiple code citations; notable guilty findings for illegal dumping and improper bin placement
Summary
A City of Miami special master hearing on Nov. 13 resolved numerous code enforcement appeals: multiple settlements were entered and contested trials resulted in guilty findings and fines (including a $525 fine for a dumping case at 7711 NW 4th Ave, a $300 finding at 1742 NW 1st Place, and a $129 assessment for improper bin placement at 3570 Hibicus
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Miami hearing officer presided over a special master ticketing appellate hearing on Nov. 13, reviewing dozens of code enforcement appeals for dumping, tree‑work without permits, and improper placement of trash containers. The docket combined routine settlement agreements with several contested trials that produced findings against property owners.
The hearing officer opened the session by explaining that the proceeding is quasi‑judicial and that findings turn on two questions: whether the violation occurred and whether the person named in the civil violation notice is responsible. Parties were placed under oath, documentary evidence was entered into the record, and witnesses were examined and cross‑examined.
Routine settlements: Several respondents accepted settlement offers and had orders entered that morning. Examples included a $100 settlement for the case at 4300 Northwest 11th Avenue (Sylvia Flowers), $200 for 5515 Northwest 5th Avenue, $250 for 1881 Southwest 24th Street, $250 for 460 Northeast 28th Street Unit 2402, and a $500 settlement involving failure to protect a tree at 3587 Hibiscus Street.
Contested trials and rulings: The hearing officer heard multiple contested cases and issued findings in several instances.
• 7711 Northwest 4th Avenue (Case 00132970): Nerva Joseph pleaded not guilty and disputed that debris across the street came from her property. Inspector Bridal Marigoldo testified and the city introduced photographic exhibits. Over defense objection the hearing officer admitted the photos and, citing matching tiles shown on the property and in the pile, found by a preponderance of the evidence that the items originated from the property. The hearing officer entered an order finding responsibility and assessed a $525 penalty (court costs waived). Joseph had argued she did not receive notice and said the piles in the area are long‑standing; the inspector maintained the photos and debris linkage supported the citation.
• 1742 Northwest 1st Place (Case 00106731): The owner’s representative said the neighborhood sees recurring illegal dumping and that the owner had recent medical limitations. Inspector Harris introduced exhibits (mailing, photographs and proof of posting) showing material with the owner’s address in a pile on a city lot. The hearing officer found by a preponderance of the evidence that the items bearing the owner’s address came from the property and entered a guilty finding with a $300 penalty (prosecution costs waived). The officer noted the appellant may appeal the order to the Miami‑Dade Circuit Court within 30 days.
• 3570 Hibiscus Street (Case 00142141): The city cited the property for keeping trash/recycling containers on the public right of way. Inspector Mills testified that prior warnings and an educational pamphlet had been posted; photographs showed containers on a non‑pickup day. The hearing officer found the containers were stored in the public right of way in violation of the code and assessed the $79 citation plus $50 in prosecution costs for a total of $129.
The hearing officer closed the docket after resolving no‑shows and resets. For adjudicated matters the officer entered signed orders and reminded respondents of their 30‑day right to appeal to the Miami‑Dade Circuit Court Appellate Division.
Quotes from the record included the hearing officer’s routine disposition language when entering settlements and rulings: "Based on your representations this morning, I'm gonna enter an order settling this matter for $100," and, in contested rulings, findings that a violation was affirmed by a preponderance of the evidence.
