OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Miami Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearing - June 1, 2026

Meeting Portal — Monday, June 1, 2026
BodyMiami, Florida
SessionMeeting Portal
DateMonday, June 1, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:28:52
Transcript — Verbatim
0:04

All right.

0:04

If you plan on testifying today, do you swear affirming the testimony you will give today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth say I do.

0:11

Thank you, maybe seated.

0:15

Okay, so um, I'm sorry?

0:19

Let me swear to it.

0:20

Okay, yes, please go ahead.

0:22

Uh do you solid me swear a form that you want to translate from English and Spanish and Spanish saying that's a single ability?

0:28

Okay.

0:37

Oh, okay.

0:37

All right, we're gonna swear everybody in in Spanish.

0:39

Uh just go ahead and please do so.

1:04

Okay, thank you.

1:05

Gracias.

1:06

One moment, one more.

1:07

One more.

1:09

Do you solemnly swear from you a translate from English to create English to the best of your ability?

1:15

Thank you.

1:27

No, okay, mercy.

1:33

Um, so I want to welcome everyone to uh the code enforcement special uh magistrate hearings this morning.

1:42

Uh so uh my name is Richard Genler, and as a special magistrate, uh I hear the case in the same manner as the code enforcement board.

1:53

I'm authorized by Florida statute and the City of Miami Code to hear and decide cases brought against those persons and or property who have been cited for violations of various ordinances, but who have not corrected the alleged violations or not corrected them in a timely manner.

2:14

Each case will be called and the respondent whose property and or business is the alleged violator, will be asked to either plead guilty or not guilty to the issued violation or violations.

2:29

If the respondent pleads guilty, both the city code compliance department and the respondent will have the opportunity to explain what is going on, and then as a special magistrate, I will decide how much time, if any, will be given to comply with the violations, and any amount of any per diem lien to be issued.

3:10

And up to five hundred dollars per diem per day for residential property and up to five thousand dollars per diem or day for a non-residential commercial property for what is called a repeat violation.

3:25

If the respondent pleads guilty, the city through the assistant city attorney, sitting to my left to your right, um present its case.

3:37

After the city presents its case, the respondent will be permitted to present its defense.

3:42

Both the city and the respondent will have an opportunity to present evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses.

3:49

If the respondent is not present, and the respondent's representative wishes to present the respondent's defense, that representative must either be a licensed attorney in the state of Florida, have a valid power of attorney or some other legal document which gives them the authority to represent the property interests of the respondent.

4:09

If the representative does not have a valid power of attorney or other legal document, then the case will be heard in abstention, and the representative will not have the legal authority to present a defense or testify before me.

4:23

If a hearing is requested through a plea of not guilty, the hearing is conducted in an informal manner.

4:34

This is what's referred to as a quasi-judicial proceeding.

4:37

However, all discussion, presentations, and questions are limited to matters relating directly to the violation cited.

4:47

After all the evidence is presented, I will determine whether the respondent is guilty or not guilty.

4:52

If found guilty, I will order the violation to be corrected by a certain date, and if not corrected, the relevant per diem lien will be determined by me and imposed.

5:02

If I determine that the violation is one that created an irreparable or irreversible harm through the evidence and testimony presented, an additional fine of up to $15,000 may be issued.

5:14

When an issued violation has been complied, it is your responsibility as the property owner to contact your code compliance inspector to have the violation complied.

5:25

It is the if the violation is not corrected by the required date, the per diem lien is ordered today shall issue without further hearing.

5:33

The lien imposed will be a lien against decided property and against other real or personal property owned by the violator.

5:40

If you need to request an extension of time after the imposition of time to comply today, you may do so by visiting www.miamigov.com and this and the in the search queue type quote unquote extension of time.

5:55

You may request the extension of time before the time given today expires.

6:09

In informy date county.

6:19

Okay.

6:19

If you have a cell phone, please turn it off, turn it to vibrate.

6:22

Of course, everyone must conduct themselves in a professional, respectful manner.

6:27

Thank you so much.

6:28

And the city may call its first case.

6:32

So we'll do the extensions of time first, then followed by the to be heard.

6:36

Okay.

6:36

No problem.

6:38

Um sorry.

6:40

Page 146, property address 111 Northwest 26th Street, case number 000 9426.

6:49

This representative have two cases.

6:51

I'll just call them one at a time.

6:58

Did you said the agenda item number is 46?

7:02

146.

7:03

146.

7:07

Should be at the end.

7:08

Okay.

7:09

Oh, I got it.

7:10

I see it.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Code Enforcement█████████████████████████████████████████████67%
Building Permits█████████████19%
Property Maintenance████6%
Illegal Dumping███4%
Business Tax Receipt█2%
Procedural█1%
Historic Preservation█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Miami Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearing

Overview

On June 1, 2026, the City of Miami Code Enforcement Special Magistrate, Richard Genler, presided over a hearing to address various code violations. The proceedings included extensions of time for property owners to come into compliance, hearings for respondents contesting violations, and default judgments for absent respondents. The session began with five extension-of-time requests, all of which were granted for 120 days, and then moved to contested hearings, followed by absentia cases. A total of approximately 19 cases were addressed.

Extensions of Time (All Granted)

  • 111 NW 26th St, Case 0009426: Attorney Mickey Morero represented the operator. The city recommended and the magistrate granted a 120-day extension because the respondent is in the permit stage and awaiting inspections.
  • 101 NW 26th St, Case 0009425: Attorney Mickey Morero represented the operator for a second property on the same site. A 120-day extension was granted.
  • 620 SW 10th Ave, Case 00108461: Owner Wendy Marmol appeared. A 120-day extension was granted as the respondent is in the correction stage of the permit.
  • 152 NW 34th St, Case 00107641: Marisol Garcia appeared on behalf of her mother, Marcelina Garcia, who is not a native English speaker. The city recommended and the magistrate granted a 120-day extension.
  • 3210 NW 22nd Ave, Case 00091273: Owner Jeanette Marslin appeared. A 120-day extension was granted; the property is in the permit phase.
  • 2495 SW 21st Terrace, Case 00108328: Owner Patricia Welbert appeared. A 120-day extension was granted.

Contested Case: 1130 NW 48th St, Case 0011291

  • Violation: Work without a permit (installation of a metal fence).
  • Respondent's Position: Owner Shirley Delauder, represented by her daughter Ruby King, initially contested the violation, stating the contractor told her no permit was needed because it was replacing a wooden gate. She also noted she is a widow on a fixed income.
  • City's Position: Inspector Hedgeburg testified that replacing a fence requires a permit and that no permit was obtained. The city recommended 120 days to secure an after-the-fact permit, with a $150/day fine if not completed.
  • Outcome: The magistrate found the violation existed, reasoning that a permit is required by law for a fence replacement. The magistrate ordered the violation be corrected within 120 days; if not, fines of $150 per day will accrue.

Admitted Violations (No Contest)

  • 1854 NW 21st St, Case 0078802: Owner Vinamrata Mehta admitted to unpermitted interior renovations (drywall, mechanical) in an office space. The city recommended 120 days and payment of permit fees. The magistrate ordered compliance within 120 days, with $250/day fines thereafter.
  • 1270 NW 51st St, Case 0011371: Owner Leslie Espinoza initially contested but then admitted to a back structure built without a permit and encroaching on setbacks. The inspector noted the illegal unit charge was not pursued due to lack of evidence of occupancy. The magistrate ordered compliance within 120 days, with $150/day fines thereafter.
  • 7724 NE 1st Ave, Case 00135029: Attorney Alex Uribe represented the owners. He admitted to unpermitted driveway work and mailboxes, but disputed claims of an illegal unit. The magistrate found the driveway and mailbox violations existed and ordered compliance within 120 days, with $150/day fines. The city's request to order an interior inspection was denied without prejudice due to lack of notice in the original violation.
  • 7101 N Miami Ave, Case 00146272: Justin Tarani (with power of attorney) admitted to needing certificates of use (CU) and business tax receipts (BTR) for businesses operating on the property. The magistrate ordered compliance within 120 days, with $150/day fines.
  • 93 NE 65th St, Case 00158043: Owner Paul Bilton contested the initial claim of lacking a contract for waste service, but admitted to the actual violation of overflowing dumpsters. The inspector testified the property had a history of overflowing trash. The magistrate found the violation existed but noted it was resolved as of a week and a half prior. No additional time or fines were ordered, but the magistrate warned that a repeat violation could result in higher fines.
  • 708 NE 68th St, Case 00093268: Owner Jacqueline Berther admitted the need to finalize an after-the-fact permit for tree removal, but noted the city had allowed deferral until construction is complete. The magistrate ordered compliance within 180 days, with $150/day fines, after the respondent indicated 120 days would be insufficient.
  • 161 NW 40th St, Case 00065846: Owner Urek Prado Vargas initially pleaded not guilty, but later admitted to unpermitted work (mechanical, electrical, sub-flooring, encroachment) while stating the property is slated for demolition. The magistrate found the violation existed and, over the city's 60-day recommendation, granted 90 days to comply, with $250/day fines. The magistrate emphasized the respondent must show progress on obtaining a demolition permit.
  • 329 NE 56th St, Case 00041293: Owner Leandro Bossi admitted needing to secure an after-the-fact permit for tree removal. The magistrate ordered compliance within 180 days, with $250/day fines, similar to a previous case.
  • 2215 NW 14th St, Case 00152634: Attorney Guillermo Alvarez, also the operator, did not contest the violation (failure to have CU and BTR for a marina). He requested only 60 days to apply pressure on the county for sign-off, instead of the city's recommendation of 90 days. The magistrate granted 60 days, with $250/day fines.
  • 104 SW 9th St, Unit 1204, Case 00110440: Owner Miguel Gomez admitted to unpermitted bathroom demolition and remodeling. The magistrate ordered compliance within 120 days, with $150/day fines (homestead property).
  • 300 SW 64th Ct, Case 00148603: Owner Celia Fernandez admitted to failure to maintain the facade and landscaping. The city originally recommended 90 days, but after the respondent cited medical issues and requested 120 days, the magistrate granted 120 days, with $150/day fines. The inspector agreed to meet with the owner to discuss requirements.
  • 615 SW 73rd Ct, Case 00146380: Maria Rodriguez (with power of attorney) admitted to unpermitted driveway and fence work, stating the permit is nearly obtained. The magistrate ordered compliance within 120 days, with $150/day fines (homestead property).

Absentia Cases (Default Judgments)

  • 1074 NW 47th St, Case Unknown: Unpermitted work (addition, fence, pergola). Ordered to comply within 3 days; $250/day fines.
  • 4718 NW 11th Ave, Case 001243: Unpermitted carport and improper RV storage. Ordered to comply within 3 days; $250/day fines.
  • 1280 NW 54th St, Case 00146492: Failure to register vacant lot. Ordered to comply within 3 days; $500/day fines (commercial/non-residential lot).
  • 1025 NW 51st St, Case 00148120: Unpermitted pool and back structure. Ordered to comply within 3 days; $250/day fines.
  • 5555 NW 17th Ave, Case 00151408: Insufficient solid waste service at a commercial property. Ordered to comply within 3 days; $500/day fines.
  • 3616 NW 20th Ave, Case 00106151: Failure to maintain lot and failure to register lot. Ordered to comply within 3 days; $500/day fines.
  • 751 NE 70th St, Case 00132669: Failure to register a vacant, blighted structure and failure to maintain lot. Ordered to comply within 3 days; $250/day fines.
  • 961 NW 7th St (Marina), Case 00110440: Operating a marina without certificate of use (CU) and business tax receipts (BTR). Ordered to comply within 3 days; $500/day fines.
  • 2411 NW 23rd Ct, Case 00134020: Failure to have CU and BTR for an apartment building. Ordered to comply within 3 days; $500/day fines.
  • 452 SW 15th Rd, Case 00131220: Failure to register vacant structure and failure to maintain lot. Ordered to comply within 3 days; $250/day fines.
  • 4370 SW 7th St, Case 00157606: Failure to maintain exterior (facade, landscaping, outside storage). Ordered to comply within 3 days; $250/day fines.

Meeting Transcript

All right. If you plan on testifying today, do you swear affirming the testimony you will give today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth say I do. Thank you, maybe seated. Okay, so um, I'm sorry? Let me swear to it. Okay, yes, please go ahead. Uh do you solid me swear a form that you want to translate from English and Spanish and Spanish saying that's a single ability? Okay. Oh, okay. All right, we're gonna swear everybody in in Spanish. Uh just go ahead and please do so. Okay, thank you. Gracias. One moment, one more. One more. Do you solemnly swear from you a translate from English to create English to the best of your ability? Thank you. No, okay, mercy. Um, so I want to welcome everyone to uh the code enforcement special uh magistrate hearings this morning. Uh so uh my name is Richard Genler, and as a special magistrate, uh I hear the case in the same manner as the code enforcement board. I'm authorized by Florida statute and the City of Miami Code to hear and decide cases brought against those persons and or property who have been cited for violations of various ordinances, but who have not corrected the alleged violations or not corrected them in a timely manner. Each case will be called and the respondent whose property and or business is the alleged violator, will be asked to either plead guilty or not guilty to the issued violation or violations. If the respondent pleads guilty, both the city code compliance department and the respondent will have the opportunity to explain what is going on, and then as a special magistrate, I will decide how much time, if any, will be given to comply with the violations, and any amount of any per diem lien to be issued. And up to five hundred dollars per diem per day for residential property and up to five thousand dollars per diem or day for a non-residential commercial property for what is called a repeat violation. If the respondent pleads guilty, the city through the assistant city attorney, sitting to my left to your right, um present its case. After the city presents its case, the respondent will be permitted to present its defense. Both the city and the respondent will have an opportunity to present evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. If the respondent is not present, and the respondent's representative wishes to present the respondent's defense, that representative must either be a licensed attorney in the state of Florida, have a valid power of attorney or some other legal document which gives them the authority to represent the property interests of the respondent. If the representative does not have a valid power of attorney or other legal document, then the case will be heard in abstention, and the representative will not have the legal authority to present a defense or testify before me. If a hearing is requested through a plea of not guilty, the hearing is conducted in an informal manner. This is what's referred to as a quasi-judicial proceeding. However, all discussion, presentations, and questions are limited to matters relating directly to the violation cited. After all the evidence is presented, I will determine whether the respondent is guilty or not guilty. If found guilty, I will order the violation to be corrected by a certain date, and if not corrected, the relevant per diem lien will be determined by me and imposed. If I determine that the violation is one that created an irreparable or irreversible harm through the evidence and testimony presented, an additional fine of up to $15,000 may be issued. When an issued violation has been complied, it is your responsibility as the property owner to contact your code compliance inspector to have the violation complied. It is the if the violation is not corrected by the required date, the per diem lien is ordered today shall issue without further hearing. The lien imposed will be a lien against decided property and against other real or personal property owned by the violator. If you need to request an extension of time after the imposition of time to comply today, you may do so by visiting www.miamigov.com and this and the in the search queue type quote unquote extension of time. You may request the extension of time before the time given today expires. In informy date county. Okay. If you have a cell phone, please turn it off, turn it to vibrate. Of course, everyone must conduct themselves in a professional, respectful manner. Thank you so much. And the city may call its first case. So we'll do the extensions of time first, then followed by the to be heard. Okay. No problem. Um sorry.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com