Ticketing Appellate Hearing (Special Master)

[Music] I have a few opening remarks before we get. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under GOD indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please remain standing so you can be sworn in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You MAY have a seat. These are hearings conducted by the city of miami hearing officer. The purpose of which is to give the alleged violators the opportunity to appeal the decision of the code enforcement inspector, which resulted in the issuance of a civil violation notice. These hearings are conducted in a quasi judicial manner and I am the hearing officer assigned to hear today's cases. My responsibility is to act much like a judge in court that is to hear the evidence in cases presented by code enforcement inspectors and then to hear the evidence presented by the alleged violators. These hearings are open to the public. These hearings will not be conducted in accordance with the formal rules relating to evidence and witnesses. Any relevant evidence will be admitted if I find it to be competent and reliable, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule to the contrary. All documentary evidence must be submitted for placement in the hearing file. No documentary evidence will be considered unless the alleged violator or code enforcement inspector submits a copy for the hearing file. Each party has a right to call and examine witnesses to introduce exhibits to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues, even though that matter was not covered in direct examination. Each party has a right to impeach any witness regardless of which party first called the witness to testify and to review any evidence against any witness. It is my responsibility to make findings of fact based on the evidence of record. The fact finding determination of the hearing officer are limited to two. Number one whether the alleged violation did occur and if so, whether the person named in the civil violation notice can be held responsible for that violation. In order to make a finding upholding the code enforcement decision, I must find that by a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the alleged name violator was responsible for the violation of the relevant section of the code as charged. If I affirm the decision of the code enforcement inspector, my order will specify the amount of the civil penalty and the amount of administrative costs of the hearing. The alleged violator or the city of miami MAY seek to overturn the order of a hearing officer by appealing the order to the miami-dade circuit court appellate division within 30 days of the issuance of the order by the hearing officer. After the code enforcement inspector has presented his or her case and you have presented your case, I will consider the evidence and render a decision. This concludes my opening remarks. We will now commence with the proceedings. The clerk will now introduce the first item on the agenda. Before we do that um we have a an nppa appeal and we have several I mean good for the community that we have all these nppa officers who are not out there writing tickets. Um but the appellant has not shown up I would it is 930. I would ask for permission to release them and uphold the ticket. Okay. >> I mean it's 930 and it's page um it's on the npa calendar ticket number 260518-1. The address of the violation is 112 northwest third street and the appellant was wynwood valet. Okay well I know that we can do that in one second. What I would what I think we should do is there's an individual who's late for work. Can we just who has settled who has settled this matter? Let's call let's call that individual and then let's hear that case in absentia only because. >> we don't have absentia. Otherwise I'll just have them stay. No, no, I don't want I don't want them to stay. But I need you to state on the record though that proper notice was given um and things of that nature but we can take care of that in less than five minutes. Okay. Page 14. Property address 1090 north west 56th street case number 00160442. Page 14. mhm. All right these so these numbers are not correct in the packet. Here we go. And I. All right let me see here. 19 page 14. This isn't right. Can you. Okay there we go. Got it. >> okay, I. Got it. Good morning sir. Could you state your name and address for the record, please? Yes. >> my name is ricardo junqueira. Address 1090 north west 56th street, miami, florida 33127. Okay. >> can you find page 14 for me please? Oh. >> okay. >> but. >> I got it, sir. It appears that you were issued a citation for property that you own at 1090 northwest 56th street. Um, and the reason that you were issued the ticket was for dumping littering on right of way alleys, sidewalks or on private property. The area was cleaned up back in MARCH 30th of 2026, but the civil citation remained unpaid. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding this matter. Is that correct? I did. And after speaking to the city you wish to settle this matter? I was told I had no other choice by the assistant city attorney. That is not correct. >> that's fine. All right. Why don't you have a seat? We'll wait until the very end and we'll go to trial because you do not have to settle. It's it's your it's your choice. Well, no, I'm not know right away that the pile was found on. It was on my. >> you do have a choice. I want you to understand that. But you do have a choice. It's not it's not that the city is is holding you and saying you have to settle this case. You have a choice to either settle it or you go to trial. If I if I settle it, will I be able to appeal it to the higher court? No, no you cannot you cannot. The only way you'll be able to appeal it is if we have a trial and then there's a finding that you're responsible and then you can appeal that order. I understand the difference between the cost that I have to pay now and the cost of missing work and all the other stuff. That's your decision. I will do it. Well, because the next question is I'm going to ask you okay. Remember now you're under oath. Okay. So you've had an opportunity to talk to the city and do you voluntarily and freely agree to resolve this matter with the city? Yes. >> given the circumstances, yes. Oh, okay. And after speaking to the city, you've agreed to settle this matter for $250. Yes. >> okay. >> um then based on your representations. I'll enter an order settling this matter for $250 and if you come forward I'll give you a copy of the signed order. Thank you. MISS Dooley. Now we'll take the mp. Okay. >> and this is how you pay? If you could just read it into the record state that the um violators have not appeared, that proper notice was given and then we can release them and we'll uphold. I'll uphold the citations. Okay. >> it's going to be this is mpa ticket 260518-1 for the address of the violation is 112 northwest third street. The appellant is one wood valley. Does anybody here for wynnewood valley notice was mailed certified mail to wynnewood valley pursuant to our clerk's office to be here for today. They were also emailed the notice. Is that correct, MISS Bailey? Email notice to yeah. Email notices? Yes. For today they have not appeared. We do have 123456. Wow nobody's getting tickets this morning. We have uh six uh mpa um officers here. Okay. >> based on the city's representation that the violator was given proper notice for this action and they have failed to appear, I'm going to uphold the citations that were issued, um and release all the mps that are present this morning. Thank you so much. And this is the file itself. And that's the copies of the notice just so that you can see it that were mailed here's. >> proof I reviewed. I've reviewed it. I have the packet here. Okay great. >> thank you so much. Okay. >> [Laughter] 60. >> page 60. Property address 3150 indiana street. Case number 00172604. Hi. >> good morning. Good morning sir. Could you please state your name and address for the record. >> for the respondent? I'm sorry I didn't hear you. Jonathan newman for the respondent. And your address, MR. Newman. Good. >> we reached a deal with. Your address, please, MR. Newman. 28 west flagler, suite 900, miami, florida 33130. Okay. >> it appears, um, MR. Newman, that your client? Isabel pacheco? Yes. Okay. Who owns the property at 3150 indiana street? Yes. Was cited for a violation of tree removal trimming root pruning without a required permit. Yes. >> okay. >> you've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding this matter. Is that correct? Yes. And after speaking to the city, you've agreed to resolve this matter for $250. >> that's correct. Okay. >> and did did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city on behalf of your client? Yes. >> okay. >> then based on your representations this morning I'm going to enter an order settling this matter for $250. Thank you so much. >> thank you. And if you come forward you can get a copy of the signed order. Clerk has it. Thank you. Good morning. Um, whichever. She's here. Let her sign it. Page 121 property address 1866 southwest 11 terrace. Case number 00176279. Page 121. Good. >> good morning ma'am. Good morning. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Katrina hernandez 1866 southwest 11th terrace. Okay. >> and what is your relationship to david marrero and weiss esperanza? That is my grandfather. I just took ownership of the property by deed and I also have a power of attorney. Yes. >> she's correct. Okay. >> very good. Um, it appears that the property that you now own located at 1866 southwest 11th terrace was cited by the city of miami for tree removal trimming root pruning without a permit. Yes. >> and you've had an opportunity you were issued a citation for that violation, correct. Or your grandfather was. And um you had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding this matter. Is that correct? >> I did, yes. >> and after speaking to the city you wish to settle it with the city, is that right? Correct. And after speaking to the city you've agreed to pay $250 to settle the citation. Yes. >> and did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? Absolutely. >> okay. >> then based on your representations this morning I'm going to enter an order settling this matter for $250. Thank you. Thank you. And if you come forward the clerk has a copy of the signed order. Thank you. Okay. Did you keep one of the sheets? Yes, it was page 60. Okay. >> the next one is page 121. Yes. page 36. Property address 545 southwest eighth street. Case number 00167580. Property address 545 southwest eighth street. Good morning sir. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Arturo ortega 545 southwest eighth street. And sir, what is your relationship to guancha for 105 inc.? >> I own the entity. And we verified that MISS Dooley. Yes. >> okay. >> um, sir, it appears that your property located at 545 southwest eighth street was cited by the city of miami for dumping littering on right of way alleys, sidewalks on private property and you were issued a civil citation. You had the opportunity to clean it up back on JUNE 22nd 2026, but the civil citation remained unpaid. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding settling this matter. Is that correct? Correct. And after speaking to the city, you've agreed to settle this matter for $250. Is that right? That is right. And did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? I did okay. Then based on your representations this morning I'm going to enter an order settling this matter for $250. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And if you come forward and get a copy of the signed order right here. Thank you. Thank you. Page 64. Property address 2394 southwest 26th street. Case number 00173155. Good morning sir. Good morning .Could you state your name and address for the record please? Ruben rodriguez. 2394 southwest 26th street. 33133. Thank you, MR. Rodriguez. It appears that your property located at 29 and 2394 southwest 26th street was cited by the city of miami for dumping littering on right of way sidewalks and on private property. You were issued a civil citation for that violation. The area was cleaned up and complied back on AUGUST 17th 2026, but the civil citation remains unpaid. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding this matter. Is that correct? Yes. >> and after speaking to the city you've agreed to settle it for $250. Is that right? Yes, ma'am. And did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? I did then based on your representations this morning I'm going to enter an order settling this matter for $250. Thank you. And if you come forward you can get a copy of the signed order. Thank you. Page 16 property address 811 north west 65th street. Case number 00169545. 16. >> good morning ma'am. You can pull the mic down so there you go. Can you state your name and address for the record please? Gonzalez a 119 west 65th street miami florida 33150. Okay. I don't speak english well. Okay. >> I'll go slow. Will you understand if I go slow or would you feel better with an interpreter? No, I can't understand. Okay. >> your property located at 811 northwest 65th street was cited by the city of miami for dumping littering on right of way alleys, sidewalks on private property. You were given a civil citation for that violation. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning about that citation. And after speaking to the city you want to settle it with the city, is that right? Yes. And you've spoken to the city and you've agreed to pay $250 to settle that matter. Is that right? Yes I did. And did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? Yes. >> then based on your representations I'm going to enter an order settling this matter for $250. Yes. Thank you. And if you come forward you can get a copy of the signed order. Okay. Thank you. Page 42. Property address 7500 northwest. Yes. That's it. Yes. Thank you. Page 42. Property address 7500 northwest fourth avenue. Case number 00172172. Good morning ma'am. Good morning. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Gloria williams, 7500 northwest fourth ave. Okay. >> um, do you also own 7500 northwest fourth ave? Yes. >> oh, I thought you said 12th ave. >> no, no. Fourth ave. 7500 fourth avenue. Thank you. >> um, MISS Williams, it appears that your property located at 7500 northwest fourth avenue was cited by the city of miami for dumping littering on right of way alleys, sidewalks or on private property. And you were issued a civil citation for that violation. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding this matter. Is that right? Yes. >> and after speaking to the city you want to settle it with the city, is that correct? Yes. and after speaking with the city, you've agreed to pay $200 to settle this matter. Yes. >> and did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? Yes I did. Okay. >> then based on your representations I'm going to sign an order settling this matter for $200. Okay. Thank you. And if you come forward the clerk has a copy of the signed order. Thank you. Page 62. Property address 480 north east 56th street. Case number 00172715. Good morning sir. Good morning. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Michael glusman 480 north east 56th street, miami. Thank you, MR. Glusman. It appears that your property located at 480 north east 56th street was cited by the city of miami for dumping littering on right of way alleys, sidewalks or on private property and you were issued a civil citation for that violation. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding this matter. Is that correct? That is. And after speaking to the city you wish to settle this matter with the city, is that right? Correct. >> and after speaking with the city you've agreed to pay $200 to settle this matter. Yes I did. And did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? I did, okay. Then based on your representations this morning I'm going to enter an order settling this matter for $200. Thank you. Thank you. And if you come forward you can get a copy of the signed order. Wait a minute now. We got a problem. >> it said closed. Or at least when I were supposed to. What's your agenda here, sir? I painted my seven. No, no, it's a different case. But you take. >> one copy. One copy? Yes. >> thank you. So much. Okay. [Laughter] Is it closed or not closed. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Thanks. There. He signed it. That's for you. Okay. No. >> no worries. I'm sorry. 68 okay. Page 68. Property address 119 north east 69th street. Case number 00172180. Good morning ma'am. Can you please state your name and address for the record? My name is marie eugene. 119 north east 69th street. Okay. >> MISS Eugene, it appears that your property located at 119 north east 69th street was cited by the city of miami for dumping littering on right of way alleys, sidewalks or on private property. You were issued a civil citation for that violation. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding this matter. Is that correct? Yes. >> and after speaking to the city, you've agreed to settle this matter for $200. Is that right? My name is ringo cayard. I'm here to be with MISS Eugene. Yes. She spoke to the city but there is a slight problem. We didn't want to be disrespectful to the inspector. Hernandez. Monsieur jean did paid already to remove the trash after she called 311 a few times. They never do anything right now as you could see by my accent and hers. We are from haiti. Her business is import export in haiti and proceeds with an orphanage. She don't really have the money to pay that but we went ahead and take the deal. So we're asking for your clemency to waive that. Okay. Well then we're going to have to wait till the very end when we go for trial and but I'm going to tell you if if she's found guilty I you know you you settled it. Either you settle it or you take your chance and go to trial. Okay. >> that's that's the way that's the process. I understand. Could that be split in two for her? I'm sorry. Could you split that 200 in 2 payments for her or something? You can talk to the city as far as. Payments aren't split you just have to start making a payment. If you don't pay it in full you will get charged interest after 30 days. Okay when starting when. It's 30 days they have 30 days to to make the payment. Okay that's fine. Okay. >> all right. Um can she say if she wants to settle it? Well no. >> because he's not. >> the property owner. >> I understand. Yeah I it's been a long time MR. Kennard. I don't know if you remember me or not. Oh, you don't see my name up there? [Laughter] I can't believe it. Okay. >> it's nice to see you. Nice seeing you again. Okay. >> um, MISS Eugene, I have a couple questions for you before we conclude. Just pull the mic down a little bit. Okay. Um, so you've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding the violation and after speaking to the city you wish to settle this matter for $200, is that right? Yes, but I wanted to so they can waive and then 30 days will be fine. Okay. Yeah it's a 30 day process and if you know if you want to make you know, a certain payment I'm sure the city will work with you as long as it's paid in full within the 30 days. Okay. >> so just to be clear, if it's not paid full within 30 days, anything thereafter owed will be charged interest. There's no payment plan option. It doesn't exist. I want to emphasize that I could pay it right now but MRS. Eugene is a proud lady. She says she's going to pay it herself, sir. Okay. >> that's fine. That's not the issue. I'm just telling you what the code requires. >> but I'm trying. I'm trying to. Is that an option for us? Yeah. >> I just want to tell MR. Eugene that if you if you want to pay, you know, you have 30 days to pay 100% of it if you want to pay $100, you know, uh you $50 a week. That's up to you. But anything that's owed after 30 days you're going to be you're going to have to start paying interest on. Okay. I just want you to understand that. But you have 30 days in which to pay the $200. Okay. And I know that it was a citation that was much more than $200 that was issued. Okay. So after speaking to the city you want to settle with the city for $200? Yes. And did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? Yes. >> okay. >> um then based on your representations this morning I'm going to sign an order settling this matter for $200. Okay. And just make sure that it gets paid the entire $200 within 30 days from today. So you have till today is SEPTEMBER the 16th. I would say that you have until OCTOBER the 14th to make sure that you pay it 100%. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. >> if you come forward you can get a copy of the signed order. [Laughter] Iceland. >> yeah. Today or so. So. [Laughter] Bye bye. Page 55. Derek vessel described as 29 foot vessel bearing registration number fl9044. Cb ahmad will widlar. Sorry. Good morning ma'am. [Laughter] I know it's cold in here. Could you could you state your name and address for the record please? Amanda willard. And my physical address is 2512 southeast 15th court in homestead 33035. This was on a vessel. The address is. It's the vessel r mengel. Yes. All right. Um, MISS Willard, it appears that you had an overnight anchoring limitation violation for a vessel. >> yes, ma'am. Okay. >> and you were issued a citation for that violation, but you've had an opportunity to speak with the city regarding the citation. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. And after speaking to the city, you wish to settle it with the city for $100. Is that right? Yes. >> okay. >> and did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? Yes I did. Okay. >> then based on your representations I'm going to enter an order settling this matter for $100. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Just give me a second here. Page 40. Property address 3411 southwest 16 terrace. Case number 00171957. Good morning ma'am. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Yes, clara. 02121 southwest third avenue 600 miami, florida 33129. Okay. >> can you I'm sorry. What was your name again? Clara. >> okay. >> it appears that. That your property at 3411 southwest 16th terrace was issued a citation by the city of miami for tree removal trimming root pruning without the required permit. And you were issued a citation for that violation. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding that matter. Is that correct? Correct. And after speaking with the city you've agreed to settle it for $500. Is that right? And did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? Yes. >> okay. >> then based on your representations this morning I'm going to sign an order settling this matter for $500. Okay. Thank you. And if you come forward you can get a copy of the signed order. Thank you. Okay. >> wait. Um, it's. Page seven. 1070 bell made island drive case number 0062380. good morning sir. >> good morning. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Mohamed hussein, 1070 bell island drive. MR. Hussein, it appears that your property located at 1070 bellemeade I'll drive was cited by the city of miami for dumping littering on right of way alleys, sidewalks or on private property. The area was cleaned up and it was complied the citation back on APRIL 22nd of 2026. But the civil citation remained unpaid. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding this matter and you wish to settle it, is that correct? Yes. >> and after speaking to the city, you've agreed to pay $250 to resolve this. Is that right? Yes. >> and did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? Yes. >> and based on your representations this morning I'm going to enter an order resolving this matter and settling it for $250. Thank you. And if you come forward you can get a copy of the signed order. Page 115 property address 1871 northwest 55 terrace case number 00173730. Okay. Page 115. >> oh. I'm sorry. Good morning ma'am. >> good morning. Could you. State your name and address for the record, please? Claudia lopez, 1871 northwest 55 terrace. She is standing. Okay. >> thank you, MISS Lopez. It appears that the property that you have a power of attorney for this after this morning or you might be the owner of concepcion lopez residential. Llc owner. Okay. >> so your property located 1871 northwest 55th terrace was cited by the city of miami for dumping littering on right of way alleys, sidewalks or on private property. And you were issued a civil citation for that violation. It appears that the violation was cleaned up and complied back on AUGUST 11th of 2026 with the civil citation remained unpaid. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding this matter. Is that correct? Yes. >> yes. And after speaking to the city you've agreed to settle this matter for $100. Is that right? That's correct. And did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? Yes. >> okay. >> then based on your representations this morning I'm going to enter an order settling this matter for $100. Okay. Thank you. And if you come forward you can get a copy of the signed order. 75. >> this is the last one? Yes. >> page 75. Property address 1500 north west 43rd street. Case number 00173182. Property address 1500 northwest 43rd street, page 75. Property address 1500 northwest. MR. Ness. There you go. [Laughter] Good morning. Good morning sir. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Yes. >> my name is charles ness 13820 southwest 92nd avenue. Okay. >> and you also own 1500 northwest 43rd street. Yes, ma'am. Okay. >> your property located at 1500 north west 43rd street was cited by the city of miami for failure to maintain a lot in a safe, clean condition and a citation was issued for that violation. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding the citation. Is that correct? That's correct. And after speaking to the city you've agreed to settle this matter for $150. Is that right? >> yes, ma'am. And did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? Yes, ma'am. Okay. >> then based on your representation. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Did I write down. Yeah. Okay. Um, based on your representations this morning I'm going to enter an order settling this matter for $150. Okay. Thank you. Okay. >> are there any more? We have six cases set for trial. >> okay. Do you want to take a brief break if anybody wants to review their file before we start, does anybody need to review their files before we start? No, I got no head shakes from everybody. All right, hold on. First one will be page one. I see five people here and you say there are six. Well. One person has three so I only have three others. So the ones unrelated to counsel who's over there is um address 5010 northwest fifth avenue address 4015 northwest 12th avenue and address 4512 northwest 18th avenue. If that is not your address. All right. Whose address, sir? Yours was called. Yours was called and yours was called. Right. What address are you northwest. Okay. Did you speak to somebody here? Was it set for trial? Well, [Laughter] What what do you want to. Do and say you were [Laughter] Going to settle? That's okay. Wait. >> what we'll do is we'll take a five minute. We'll take a five minute recess and go and speak with them. Um, you have an opportunity to either settle the case or go to trial. Those are your two choices. Okay. You just go right to that podium. All good. Okay. >> page 117 property address 735 northwest 45th street. Case number 00173051. All right, we're back on the record and we have another settlement here. Sir, could you please state your name and address for the record? Paolo nicholas bazzani 735 northwest 45th street miami, florida 33127. Okay. >> MR. Bazzani. Yes, ma'am. Okay. >> uh, the property that you own at 735 northwest 45th street was cited by the city of miami for tree removal trimming root pruning without a permit and you were issued a citation for that violation. You've had an opportunity to speak with the city this morning regarding settling it. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. >> and after speaking with the city, you wish to settle the matter for $250, is that right? Yes, ma'am. And did you freely and voluntarily enter into that agreement with the city? Yes, ma'am. Okay. >> then based on your representations this morning I'm going to enter an order settling this matter for $250. Thank you. Thank you. And if you come forward and get a copy of the signed order. All right. >> I think we had several who went outside to thaw. Um but counsel stayed here on the noise tickets. I don't know if you want me to. You want to go ahead and start those? Sure. >> I would have saved those for last you know, but no no it's fine. Um you want all three? Yes. Yeah. >> okay. >> so the first one will be page 85. The address is 40 southwest north river drive. Inspector is jean francois ticket number 00126838, page 85. Okay. >> thank you. Appearances, sir. Yes. >> uh, green. Kevin cruz greenspoon marder offices located at 600 brickell avenue here on behalf of the property owner and the operator casa miami llc. Okay. >> are they partners? That's the operators or is that the tenant or that's the. Partners llc is the landlord the property owner? I'm sorry. Say again. The property owner the entity you just recited is the property okay. Okay. >> and um it appears are we going to hear these individually or are we going to hear them individually? >> yeah they're different dates. Okay. >> all right. Um it appears a citation was issued for. Oh go ahead. No I was going to say would we be able to do 4848 and 838 together rachel. No they're different dates. >> they're different dates okay. Just just because. >> they're. Different inspectors different dates. Understood. >> okay. >> all right. It appears that a citation was issued, um for excessive excessive or loud noises audible 100ft from establishment and that was issued. APRIL 12th 2025. >> APRIL 12th of 2025. How does your client plead to that violation? Um not guilty. Okay. >> inspector, can you please state your name for the record? Inspector francois north office. Okay. >> and did you put together pages one through 43 as well as um the video that will be introduced? Yes. >> okay. >> and on um and pages one through 45 we have the ticket as well as the notices for hearing the appeal um proof of mailing proof of posting emails of notice those kinds of things. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And originally as to page one here we have we're showing that the ticket was issued for a violation of 36-4 of the city code that the music was plainly audible from 100ft. Is that correct? Yes that's correct. So as we go through we'll see these are all the notices that were sent and posted on the property. Your affidavits I don't think ticket appeal matter. Um. We have another summons from another time. Could you go? This is this is your notes correct? yes. >> okay. >> and on page 17. Okay. >> um. >> property appraiser report deed. I'm trying to get through all the tracking. All right. So what we're seeing here page 34. This is the measuring stick that you use. Yes. >> 115.4ft. >> yes. >> and you took this photograph? Yes I did. Okay. >> this is your posting at the property itself? Yes. >> okay. >> all. >> this is your posting for the hearing as well AUGUST 2nd. Oh no. I'm sorry. This was the posting of the violation. Yes. Yes for other hearing dates and then another posting for another hearing date. Yes. >> okay. >> it's just been reset a couple of times so. And this is the last one. Yes. Correct. >> okay. >> at this time the city would seek to admit pages one through 43 into evidence. MR. Cruz, do you have any objection to any of these? Yeah, I would just I was going to wait until she made her argument to make mine. I would just add that give you some background, your honor. But my question was do you have any objection from me considering these documents and entering them into evidence? No. >> you can enter them. Yeah no I know, I know. No no. And I'm going to give you believe me plenty of time to speak to me. I just want to know if you had any objection to these documents. >> no objection. It was cited under 36-4. We're on agreement under 36-4. Okay. >> thank you. Then I'm going to enter, um, all these documents into evidence. All right. And uh as exhibit b there's a video. Is that correct? Yes. >> correct. All right. So and you took this video. [Music] This was your video? >> yes. Yes it is. And that's at 115ft. Yes. I'm right in front. Well we get back to there right in front of there. That's the side of the building. Yes. Yes. >> okay. >> do you need to see that again or are we good? No. >> I'm just if I would, um if there could be some sort of definition on what the threshold means of plainly audible in 36-4. Uh, that's I I'm so first of all I don't think we're here for questioning yet. But secondly plainly audible is described pursuant to case law. So um but I'm not done questioning my my witness so. Okay go ahead. Proceed. At this time the city would seek to admit this video into evidence. MR. Cruz, do you have an objection to that? I would only object to I would object I would object on the basis that there it's a loud area and really don't know where that noise is emanating from. I know there's a general area he's pointing to but you know the standard in that code section which he cites correctly because that's what the outside is 36-4. So that's really and plainly audible. it's just I'm not I don't know what it means you know they haven't they haven't defined it. I'm going to object to his objection as it is an [Laughter] Improper objection. There's no foundation for it. Okay. >> MR. Inspector well. We can ask further questions if you like. I would. Okay. >> just just to admit something into evidence you created that video, is that correct? Correct. >> that video was in your care custody control from your body worn cameras. Is that correct? It wasn't a body worn camera. It was I recorded it from my phone. Okay so from your phone and from your phone it was downloaded is that correct? Correct. >> and the video that was played is the video that was downloaded and uploaded to our system for today. Is that correct? Correct. >> and it's in the substantially same condition as it was from when you took it. It's the same audio the same everything. Is that correct? Yes. >> correct. Okay. >> so okay and. >> that basis alone I would seek to admit it now whether or not it meets some other standard I is not I would say. Sir did you were you holding the phone when you videotaped and audiotaped this um this video. Yes I was. Okay. >> MR. Cruz do you have any questions. On cross? No. >> just on this particular matter. Um what what does plainly audible mean. Again, i'm an object. That's not a question. Okay. Admit evidence. Right. >> I we need to hone it in as far as this video is concerned you said you had an objection to the video. Okay. Yeah. Um I think that the city has laid a proper foundation for the video. >> I understand now the narrow scope. >> so I'm going to overrule I'm going to overrule your objection and I'm going to allow the video to be entered into evidence. Okay. Okay. >> all right. Now you can. >> proceed inspector from the sound that we heard, um did you have any question as to where that sound was coming from? No, that was the only location that had music at the time. Okay. >> so there was nothing else going on anywhere. The sound that you heard could you hear it plainly? Yes. >> all right. Just as you heard it in that video. Yes. >> that actually was louder in person. Okay. >> and as you walked forward that same sound as you got to the restaurant hotel, whatever it is there that was what you heard, correct? Correct. >> there wasn't something coming from anywhere else that disturbs your ability to plainly hear that sound. >> no, it was coming from casinos. Okay. >> and how did you get there that day? I received a complaint from the hotline um, that afternoon or evening I forget if it was afternoon and the complainant mentioned that the music was really loud that he couldn't even hear what was going on in his house. And when I arrived at the location before even getting out of the vehicle I did hear the loud music. Okay and this ticket was written at 5:56 P.M. Correct? And we can see from the video that it was still daylight out. Yes. >> okay. >> so you had no visual obstruction and you had no audio obstruction to hear that that was the sound coming from that um structure and it was at more than 100ft. Yes. >> okay. >> I have nothing further. MR. Cruz, do you have an opportunity to cross-examine the inspector? Sure. >> so there there was nothing else. No sound from cars or other buildings, no emanating. Okay. And plainly audible means what to you? >> an object that's a legal conclusion. He's a fact witness. >> he has to interpret. Your honor, if I MAY, he has to interpret the code ordinance which gives him the standard of plainly audible it's not a you know that's not a threshold I just made up. It's what the city provides. That's what he has to follow. I'm going to let him answer what is plainly audible mean to you as a as a as a code enforcement inspector. Plainly audible to me is I can clearly hear the music, what genre it is and what it's playing as far as either it's the beat that was techno music. Um and if it was music that had words to it I would be able to clearly hear what they were saying. Say that last part again if they had um. If it had words to it. Oh the music had lyrics to it. No it didn't I said it was techno music. That's just the beat. No no no I'm not trying to trick you. He's saying if if there were lyrics to music he could hear the words. But this particular case they were techno it was a techno music so there were no words or lyrics but he did hear the the techno um uh noises or or if you want to call it music emanating from casinos. Okay go ahead. So he's saying the music. Okay, we're not making an argument yet. You're still cross-examining the inspector. So the music you heard had no words or lyrics. There was nothing comprehensible to it. Because objection asked and answered. I'll let him. Do you understand? Do you understand the question? Yes, but you're trying to twist it that I didn't understand the words. That type of music has no lyrics it's just the beat. Well no, I'm trying to just clarify. I'm not trying to trick anyone. I'm trying to clarify that your definition of plainly audible means that it has to be comprehensible. No, I said. Objection asked and answered. I believe we should rely on what was said and furthermore a repeated objection of asking counsel asking a fact witness to interpret what the supreme court of the state of florida has determined plainly audible means. >> okay. You heard you heard music that day, correct? Correct. >> okay. >> and where did you hear it coming from? From casinos. That property. Okay. >> ask ask your question. No further question. I don't I don't want to keep doing it if this is going to be you know, I'm not trying to drag anyone into the mud. I'm not trying to trick anyone. We can just keep going. This isn't even the main argument I'm going to make so. Okay okay. All right. Well the city I believe has [Laughter] Rested. Is that correct, MISS Dooley? Yes. >> okay. >> your turn. You have any witnesses? No witnesses, your honor, in all candor, just to give you some background there this occurred. Um, one of these occurred. Uh. I would object to a reference to any other case. We're here on one case. Right. >> well, okay. This one is from APRIL of 25th. >> APRIL 2025. So around MARCH 17th, 2020. Objection facts not in evidence. The city commission introduced an ordinance on. Objection facts not in evidence. >> all right this is argument time. I'm just I'm just listening. Go ahead okay I'm good. I'm going to overrule those objections. Go ahead. Reference in the city system file number 17378 making um what is now what was then passed in JUNE. Oh JUNE of 25. 2025 the miami riverside specialty district there's a noise exemption area. It's under 36-5f okay so I just wanted to give you that background. I bring that up because these were issued or this one sorry this one in particular was issued before JUNE of 2025. Okay. >> and we respectfully submit that the amended ordinance you know these are still pending enforcement matters and if we give them the same regulatory treatment that has now since changed these by the way, 36-365-f now says that the miami riverside specialty district which is property is located in is exempt from subsection a of 365 and 36-4. So I understand. >> I understand. >> I understand your argument but the problem is that these this violation occurred prior to the amendment and I understand you clearly stated it now reads it did not read that back in APRIL 27th of 2025. Is that correct? Correct. >> correct. >> it wasn't it hadn't passed yet, your honor. But okay. There was. You know, the ordinance was expressly you know, recognized that the district was sort of evolving right from primarily industrial to a mixed use and entertainment district. So there's intent there by the city. There's legislative intent to amend the noise restrictions accordingly. So they they knew this was an issue you know, other than the blip we've had um this year, you know, this violator has a really great track record. Objection facts not in evidence it's an appropriate argument. Okay. >> um you know, I think applying my argument I think would further purpose the amendment rather than enforcing restrictions that the city has determined don't apply to this district. Okay. >> do you have anything further? No your honor. Okay. Is there any rebuttal? Yes. >> counsel's argument is that even before a law passes, if it's being considered then the city shouldn't be able to enforce its code and people should be able to violate the law. That in and of itself is a completely inappropriate argument. They are still required to abide by the law. Um it hadn't gone to second reading. It hadn't been adopted. It could have failed its second reading. It could have been vetoed by the mayor at the time. So to argue that they have a license to violate the law because they think they MAY get a law passed should not only not pass muster with this court but any other one. So based upon what you've heard from the video, it's very clear that was plainly audible music you could hear there was music coming from it. Your testimony that you've heard was very clear that that's the music that was heard from 115ft all the way to the building. There was nothing else going on. It was daylight, there was no interference and therefore a finding of guilt um a $500 fine we would request $150 cost of hearing as well. Do you have anything further? Yeah I just rebut with you know it's not that we're we're asking for a license to violate the law retroactively. This was between first reading or second reading and passing. These violations were issued. It's not like we're going back a few months before the legislation was even introduced. You know, so there is there is some intent there that has to be, you know, honored in my opinion. Okay. >> all right. Anything further? No, there's no legal basis for that argument. Okay. >> um well I've heard the testimony and I've seen the evidence presented. Um and I'm going to find that this violation clearly occurred on APRIL 25th of I'm sorry, APRIL 27th of 2025 the music. APRIL 12th. >> uh. >> the violation date is APRIL. I have the ticket up APRIL 12th. I'm sorry. I'm looking at it right now I misspoke yeah. APRIL 12th of 2025 at 5:56 P.M. That the officer has testified that he heard the music. It was clearly audible to him. Uh he, uh, removed himself from his vehicle using his cell phone, videotaped the music coming from the establishment of casa partners llc also um depicted in the video as well as still photographs and by way of testimony of the inspector, uh, jean um francois that he was more than he was 115ft away from the location when he heard this music and that's clearly documented and the fact that on APRIL 12th, 2025 the city commission had yet passed or amended any of the ordinances and the ordinance 36-4 clearly states that uh, excessive and or noises emanating from radios and or other music making device orchestra, band or musician 100ft or more away from the property is a violation. On APRIL 12th 2025 I'm going to find the property guilty of this violation issue an order um of the $500 to satisfy the violation and then a $100 for administrative costs for this matter. If I can um just just to preserve the record we object the ruling and preserve all legal and factual arguments. Absolutely for purposes of any appeal. Thank you. Absolutely. >> our next case. If you wait one minute I need to fill out this um this order that the violation did occur and that the person named is legally responsible, the violation is affirmed. The amount of the penalty is $500 uh prosecution costs of $100 uh for a total of $600 for this matter. And I'm going to sign the order and then after we hear the other matters, MR. Cruz can come and get a copy of all these orders. Thank you inspector. Thank you. Let me know when you're ready for the next case. I will. Keep you awake. It's cold and you're you're keeping me hot and I'm still cold. Cold. >> give me one second here. Okay. >> all right. Next case is page 88. Inspector montoya. The same address 40 southwest north river drive. Ticket number 00124848. Again page 88. What was the last three digits of the violation 848848. Yeah. >> if we could just let's just settle this one. It's 250. Yeah. >> okay. Oh wait. Wait wait yeah this was a it's a $500 ticket. Okay. Oh she has. >> it up here. I got it. Actually I'm sorry. Don't do not kill me. The client wants me to move forward. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The client wants me. He just texted me. He wants me to [Laughter] Move forward on that one. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, your honor. It's okay. Okay. Understood. I have to to do what they say. Yes. >> it's not a problem. She even has white outs, so. No. >> she's super prepared. >> I know, I know, I'm sorry. >> a little white out sticks. That's fine. Sorry. >> your honor. We're good. We'll begin when you're ready. I know you're okay. I'm ready. Uh, inspector, please state your name for the record. Marcelo montoya. Bravo. Okay, uh, did you put together the aforementioned pages one through 68 for today's hearing? Yes, ma'am. Okay. >> and there's also a video that you took as well that accompanies this. Is that correct? >> that is correct. All right. >> in pages one through 68 you have the copies of the ticket the summonses, notices of mailings, proof of mailing, affidavit of mailing photographs and things like that. Is that correct? Correct. >> okay. >> in this case this particular issue was this case was issued for a violation of 36-4 of the city code was issued on MARCH 23rd of 2025 at 7:15 P.M. Is that correct? That is correct. Do you recall at the time what brought you to the area. Uh hotline complaint. Okay, so now we're going to go through this just so that we have it all the pages. This is the initial ticket that was issued. It was sent to both the owner as well as the registered agent, correct? >> yes ma'am. >> all right. And we have copies of the miami-dade county property appraiser as well as the summons report um showing who the owner is and their registered agent. Yes, yes. All right. And affidavits of mailing it was said a couple of times for hearing so we have some extra summonses as well as the summons for today is that correct? That is correct. All right we'll move past these. This is the ticket violation itself the appeal pages 28 and 29. Wait can you yeah. >> you need me to make that bigger? Just let me know. I can see it. I just want to read into the yes. Presently our client disputes the issues of fact and preserves and reserves all rights and remedies available to it by law. And this appeal is filed without waving any right or remedy including any notice and or jurisdictional defenses and or administrative remedies that MAY exist. Okay. All right. And nothing on the next page is just a signature. This is the case facts here we have the warranty deed we keep going through our sun report for the registered agent property appraiser report. Uh okay so we have a photograph on page 39. Uh, did you take this photograph? Yes, ma'am. Okay. >> that reflects 107 point [Laughter] Between 5 and 6. Yes. >> instead of six and seven it's five. >> and six. All right. Uh, and then we have copies of all your postings. Is that correct? Correct. >> so that would be the day the time that it was violated the initial violation and then postings every time it would be set for hearing you post the property as well. Is that correct? Correct. >> all right. And this is from MARCH 23rd as well which is the date of the ticket just outside the area when you were driving by. Is that correct? That is correct. All right. These photos are fairly and accurately depict the property and what it looked like when it occurred. Yes. >> objection to the the photos of the facade relevance. Okay well let her finish. Yeah yeah. With all these documents and I'll ask you if you have objections to the can you can you stop at the notice itself? Which one? >> these are the ones that get posted. >> I can't read that but go ahead. From MAY 18th this one is from MAY 18th. This is from JUNE. This is from MAY 6th of this year. This is from AUGUST 10th of this year. This go back to the very beginning. I just want to see the date of the violation. Oh yeah sure it's 2020 5th MARCH right. Okay MARCH 23rd okay. Yeah MARCH 23rd right at this time city would seek to admit pages one through 68 into evidence. All right, MR. Cruz, um the city is seeking to introduce pages one through 68 um which is a lot of material. Yeah. Uh, you've had an opportunity to review it prior to this hearing and also now do you have any objection to any of those documents? I haven't had a chance to review before the hearing but I saw it now I would just object. Counsel was offered an opportunity to review all the files. Go ahead. >> I would just object to the photos of the of the facade and the queuing line. I'm not sure how that's relevant to a noise violation. Okay. >> um MISS Montoya, you personally took those photographs? Yes ma'am. And you took them um on what date on. The date of the ticket. >> the day of the ticket, yes. And I can't see I don't have my glasses. Okay. >> well do you know when the date of the ticket was? >> it was me. It was no MARCH. I'm sorry. MARCH me.. >> hold on a second. Would is there something that would refresh your recollection as to the date that you wrote the ticket? Uh, because. The ticket itself. Yeah. >> okay. It was MARCH 23rd. Okay. >> of what year. Of oh five? 25 okay. All right. Um, I the fact that the witness has stated stated under oath that she took those photographs, I'm going to allow it into evidence over I'm going to overrule your objection. Okay. Go ahead, MISS Dooley. Now inspector, you also um have a uh a video is that correct? That is correct. >> let me make sure it doesn't start playing okay. And this video was taken when? MARCH 23rd. >> okay. >> and how did you take the video? Uh, with my phone. Okay. Our city issued phone. Okay. >> and then when you take it, um then you download it. What do you do with it? You download it? Yes ma'am. And that's how it appears here. Yes ma'am. Okay. And it's the same or substantially same video that you took that day is the video we're about to play. >> that is correct. Okay. This time permission to play the video granted. Okay now that video in particular isn't at the 100 foot mark. Is that correct? That is correct. I started at it. Okay so that's where you started from. That is right. >> all right. But you don't have a video from the 100 foot. Um that I mean that was I started when I started I measured from there and then I got in my car and I started filming. >> okay. Hold on a second. Can you play that video again please? Is that where you started? Was that 100ft? Yes ma'am. It's a little more than that. So where you started was that 104. Just about yes. Okay. >> um at this time the city would seek to admit I guess we call it exhibit b the video into evidence. Objection. >> I would just object because there um the inspector doesn't she's just stating that she started at 104ft but there isn't the um the distance uh reader as. That's in exhibit a. Well but. >> it's not I understand that but but the testimony is that she started at more than 100ft when I'm just I'm just stating what what the. Witness back to the video during my argument. Absolutely absolutely. Okay. >> I'm going to admit this as exhibit b. Okay. >> so um, at the 104ft where you took the photograph was the music the same sound that you heard? Yes, ma'am. Was there any question about where the music was coming from? No, because that's the only place that's around the area that is actually playing music. Right. >> there is no other area, correct? No. >> there's nothing to the left if you're facing it there is nothing to the left of it and there's nothing to the right of it. Is that correct? That is correct. >> and on the other side of it is just a commercial building. >> that is correct. Yes. So um so there was nothing going on on the street other than this at that time. Is that correct? Okay. Is there any doubt in your mind when you were at that 104 foot line where the music was coming from? No doubt. Okay. >> and you plainly heard that music. Yes ma'am. You know what kind of music it was? It was some spanish music like reggaeton I think. Okay a little bit of loud bass like techno ish reggaeton ish. Okay. >> and this is from 2025, right? Yes. >> okay. >> so it was a little while ago. Yeah. Or in SEPTEMBER of 2026. It's over a year. Okay. >> I have nothing further at this time. MISS Montoya, do you recall what day of the week it was? I believe that was a sunday. Okay, I'm I'm checking right now. Um. There we go. Okay. >> it appears that it was sunday, MARCH 23rd, 2025. Thank you. MR. Cruz. Do you have any questions of the inspector? Yes. >> if um you could go back to the beginning of the video and if you could uh rachel if you could make it full size please. Uh I don't know. On the bottom right. Let's see how it looks. If not, we'll go with the uh. There you go. So is uh inspector, is this the beginning of the video? Yes, sir. >> it is. And would you say that is the property right there that that wall is that facade is the property. >> yes sir. >> it. Is okay so you have to be a hundred at least 100ft away from the property that doesn't look like 104ft from the property. To me that just means you're in the street in front of it. I am. You can continue playing the video please. Uh, counsel. We can. We'll just let it go. Yeah. >> there you go. Your honor, if this um inspector do you were you 104ft in the vehicle or 104ft when you were outside of the vehicle? >> I was outside of the vehicle and then I got in the vehicle and then I started recording the music. But you were on the street? I was driving there. Yes, but I had made my measurements prior to that. So just walk me through it. You're you're in a parked car. You're outside of the your code compliance car doing measurements. No I was outside I did it outside and then I got in my car and that's when I started recording. Okay. >> but where was the car parked? It was on the street. I blocked traffic. You blocked traffic? >> I did to do my inspection because. And where were you to park? Let her finish her answer finish. No, that was it. I blocked traffic so that I could do my inspection so I could get my measurements which I measured. So you you blocked traffic right there at the inception of that video. In the beginning? Yes. In the beginning rachel, if you could just pause it at the beginning a second. Sorry. That's fine. Yeah that's good that's good. So you measured 104ft from where. From there. From the property. I went to the. I the thing is I've done so many of these that I know exactly where my 100ft my 104ft are. Just for the record I know I don't know where 104 came from but the photograph that was entered into evidence was I believe 107. Yes. >> MAY have been my misstatement. 107 yeah. Okay. I just want the the the evidence to be very clear. Yes it's 107. 107 but 107 from the property line. From the beginning walking back. The beginning of where. The beginning the door front walking towards the mrc to where the wharf used to be. Okay. >> but see that's where it's that's that's the improper standard. It's from property line to. Objection argumentative. That was he's asking a question. He's arguing but um ask her her question. >> the question. >> so you measured from the front door of the establishment not the property line. Well the front of the property. Yeah it's the furthest point of the property line. Well I measure from in front of the property that's where the noise is coming. From from the front of the property. So from the. Front door from there go 100ft. You measured from the front door not from the not from. Across the street and then walking. Okay. >> your honor, no further questions. [Laughter] Is there any rebuttal? No. Okay. City rez. Okay. MR. Cruz, it's your opportunity. Yeah. >> I would just make the argument that under 36-4. Right? It has to be 100ft. Right front plainly audible. We all we all agree. I think that's all stipulated right that's what the code says. But the video shows her driving in a car right in front of the building on a public street that I wouldn't say that's 100ft from the property line from when the music is literally right in front right in front of the venue. You see it in the beginning of the video well it's off now but if you see that first frame where I had her pause on the wall is right there. I mean she can throw a rock at it that's that's way inside of 100ft in my opinion. I mean that's 107. She's saying she stopped traffic to measure 107 but 107 from the front of the door is not the same standard the code dictates. So my response will simply be if you're speaking in a linear fashion, he's assuming that you have to measure either to the left or to the right from this property not that you can measure straight back the other way. So that's the problem as she said she was across the street he's talking about being on the same side of the street making this argument if there is a 100ft from a cross the street is very different from saying 100ft from the door because frankly if she's measuring 100ft from the door across the street which is her testimony, that is a correct measurement, right? He's making the argument that it's 100ft but linear down the street. That's a totally different argument. That is not the testimony. Her testimony was across the street 100ft. Well if I MAY. If I MAY you MAY. She said she was in the street. She inspector montoya said she stopped her car, stopped traffic to do her measurements and that's right in front of the