Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Building Permit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Owner given 90 days to secure permit after unpermitted flooring change cited amid tenant complaints

City of North Miami Special Magistrate · May 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A North Miami magistrate found that flooring in Unit 2108 at 14951 Royal Oaks Lane was changed without a permit and granted the owner 90 days to obtain an after‑the‑fact permit; tenant testimony described audible footstep noise and the magistrate noted noise complaints are a separate matter.

At a May 6 special magistrate hearing, the owner of Unit 2108 at 14951 Royal Oaks Lane acknowledged that new flooring had been installed without building permits. The unit owner, Camille Gaillard, said she hired a contractor she believed to be reputable and was unaware a permit was required.

Co‑compliance officer Jonathan Lemestri said the city opened the violation after a downstairs tenant complained that the replaced flooring was not sound‑insulating and created audible, disruptive footstep noise. The complainant described hearing "boom, boom, boom" from footsteps at night and provided email documentation to the code department. The tenant and a neighbor testified to persistent noise issues.

Contractor Juan Orellana told the magistrate he is assisting the owner to comply and that the materials and documentation can be submitted for an after‑the‑fact permit. Building staff estimated permit processing could take 60–90 days under typical circumstances.

Magistrate Rafael Suarez Rivas accepted the owner’s exhibits and testimony, found the violation of building without a permit proven, and granted 90 days (until Aug. 13, 2026) for the owner to obtain a proper after‑the‑fact permit and resolve code issues. He warned that a $250 per‑day fine would commence after that date if the owner had not achieved full compliance. The magistrate clarified that the hearing addressed the permit violation; the related noise complaints were not adjudicated in this proceeding.