Fort Lauderdale code board grants mostly short extensions for dozens of unpermitted work cases

The Fort Lauderdale Code Enforcement Board met March 24, 2026, and heard more than 40 cases involving work done without required permits. Chair Terry Nolan opened the hearing and the board spent the day weighing requests from owners and their agents for more time to obtain permits and correct code violations.

City building inspectors repeatedly told the board that many properties had either submitted applications that were “awaiting client reply” or had plan review comments outstanding. Inspector Severiano Nanesco introduced the first case (BE25090104, 3100 Northeast 49th Street), saying the remaining issue was miscellaneous electrical work by the dock. Joseph Campona, identifying himself as the owner’s board president, said an electrical contractor had pulled the appropriate rec-room permit and the property needed additional time to secure a separate electrical permit for the dock work. The board granted a 35‑day extension for that case.

Across the docket the board followed a consistent pattern: for straightforward applications that were in plan review or missing a contractor’s subpermit the board commonly granted 63‑ or 91‑day extensions; for cases involving multiple trades, structural changes, or anticipated variances the board granted longer compliance windows (often 126 days) or scheduled Massey hearings if there had been little or no progress. For example, the board gave a 91‑day extension to an owner who had submitted permits but was waiting on the city’s reviews (VE25030071, Capital Cyprus LLC) and set a July 28, 2026 compliance deadline with $50/day fines for several properties where the work was broader or safety‑sensitive.

Several respondents said they had purchased properties with unpermitted work already completed and were now trying to legalize the work. At least one owner, Ryan Timber, told the board his contractor had submitted a structural permit in late February and that he had engaged engineers and architects to correct multiple items; the board granted 126 days where such broader permitting and a variance might be required. In other instances owners cited health issues or recent family deaths as reasons for delays; the board often balanced compassion with a requirement for demonstrable progress, imposing mandatory reappearances when members wanted to see active steps taken.

The city’s assistant building official, Joe Pasquale, and city attorney Ronald Montoya Hassan warned that issued permits authorize inspectors to enter properties for inspections and reiterated the consequences of not cooperating. In one disputed interaction a contractor’s representative objected to an inspector’s characterization of an on‑site exchange; the city attorney clarified that enforcing stop‑work orders can involve criminal exposure in rare circumstances, a point offered to explain why an inspector brought police to ensure a stop‑work order was observed.

The board also discussed enforcement posture on repeat noncompliance. Several members proposed stiffer daily fines or moving cases to Massey — the higher enforcement stage — where fines begin to accrue; where appropriate the board scheduled Massey referrals or imposed mandatory appearances.

What happens next: Nearly all orders issued at the meeting set a future compliance date (most commonly 63, 91 or 126 days) and asked respondents to return to report progress. Cases sent to Massey or found not to have shown sufficient progress will start accruing daily fines if they remain unresolved. The board emphasized that steady, documented contact with the assigned city inspector and complete permit submittals are the path to resolution.

Quotes in context: “We don’t want to see you again,” Chair Terry Nolan told multiple respondents after extensions were granted, a reflection of the board’s preference for clearing longstanding cases. “We would ask that we forego a Massey hearing at this time,” attorney Andrew Ingalls said on behalf of one commercial owner who had submitted permits and said the delay was in plan review. “I replaced the piling with a piling with reflectors…to make it safe,” John Thompson said while explaining his unpermitted seawall piling work and recent paperwork submissions.

The board approved minutes from February 27 and adjourned after a brief recess. The City reiterated that working with assigned inspectors and submitting corrected plan sets are the fastest routes to compliance.