FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — The city’s special magistrate heard a full docket of building-division enforcement cases on Jan. 15, 2026, granting time-limited permit extensions in a number of matters, imposing or reducing administrative costs in others, and denying a requested delay in a demolition case.

In one of the earlier matters, attorney Steven Tillbrook, representing Thor Gallery at Beach Place LLC, said the property manager had solicited bids and that the owner needed more time to adjust bids to current conditions: “We27re gonna take some time to readjust those bids, in order to, meet with the current conditions, and we27re in agreement with a 91 day extension to obtain permit,” Tillbrook told the magistrate. The city supported the 91-day extension and the magistrate suspended fines while the permit process proceeds.

Several residential and commercial property owners were granted similar deadlines. Senior inspector Mary Rich and the city supported a 126-day extension for Springbrook Gardens (case BE23060052); the magistrate granted the extension and suspended fines while the property pursues permits. Inspector Preston Mark and respondents reported compliance activity or permit renewals in other cases; where compliance was confirmed the magistrate ordered administrative costs rather than ongoing daily fines.

For a property at 971 Southwest 31st St. (case BE24080231) the city requested $950 in administrative costs after the owner came into compliance. The respondent asked the court to reduce the amount, saying the compliance happened after an unexpected contractor requirement. The magistrate reduced the charge to $500.

At 909 Breakers Ave (case BE25120097), the Breakers Condo Association’s attorney, Nicole Blondeon, told the magistrate the association expected to complete repairs and have repair drawings in hand; she said the owner was “definitely in agreement” with the city’s proposed timeline. The magistrate granted 61 days for permit and repair progress, with a mandatory reappearance scheduled to confirm status.

Not every request for additional time was granted. Jack Seiler, representing Mori Legacy Foundation Inc., told the magistrate the property’s engineering report showed the structure should be demolished and asked for 60 days to secure a demolition permit and contractors. The city objected to the extension, saying progress had been slow and that permitting assistance would be provided if the owner submitted a permit; ultimately the magistrate denied the requested extension and said fines would begin the next day if no permit action occurred.

City inspectors repeatedly cited expired permits, unpermitted work, and maintenance issues across the docket, asking the magistrate to grant 61–126 days in many cases or to impose daily fines ranging from $50 to $500 where compliance did not occur. In multiple instances the magistrate suspended daily fines while property owners pursued permits and inspections; in others the magistrate ordered accrued fines reduced to administrative costs where inspectors confirmed compliance.

Records presented at the hearing cited local ordinances and the Florida Building Code, including references to an ordinance for parking-facility maintenance (city ordinance 47-20.20.h) and multiple citations under the Florida Building Code (e.g., FBC 2023 §105.1) for work performed without required permits. Several respondents said delays were caused by permit-review timing or by needing additional information from contractors or engineers; the magistrate routinely advised respondents to stay in contact with the assigned inspector and to return to the docket if they needed more time.

The magistrate set reappearance dates or ordered mandatory reappearances on specific dockets where necessary and closed or rescheduled items that were in compliance. Additional cases on the docket received similar dispositions: extensions to obtain permits, fines suspended during active permitting, administrative-cost assessments where compliance was achieved, and occasional denials where the record showed little recent progress.

The hearing concluded after the magistrate processed the remainder of the docket and recessed for a short break. Owners and representatives were repeatedly told that once a permit is issued and an engineer27s signed letter is submitted (where applicable) the city may reconsider accrued fines or provide an extended compliance window under the city27s programs.