Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Continuance Vs Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After settlement, board gives Alina Perez 60 days for permits and a progress report rather than immediate enforcement
Summary
Alina Perez, whose long‑running roof and permit cases were in litigation, told the board her case settled and she has a roofer identified; after a lengthy debate the board agreed to continue the matter for a 60‑day progress report instead of issuing an immediate order of enforcement.
Alina Perez appeared before the Village of Biscayne Park Code Compliance Board on April 15 to report that litigation in her long‑running roofing and permit matters had settled and that she had identified a contractor.
Staff argued the board should place an order of enforcement so the village can monitor compliance and, if necessary, assess fines retroactively. Several board members pushed back: they noted Perez has regularly reported progress through months of continuances, had been cooperative for years and only recently reached settlement, and therefore deserves time to obtain permits and begin work. Board members debated the legal effect of an order of enforcement versus a continuance, including whether an order would permit retroactive fines if the owner later failed to comply.
After extended discussion the board voted to continue the case and requested a progress report with a 60‑day target for permit status; the intention is to allow Perez to obtain permits and demonstrate progress without immediately imposing retroactive fines. Staff may request further action if the owner fails to meet the continued deadline.
