FORT LAUDERDALE — The city’s special magistrate on Thursday heard dozens of code‑compliance matters, granting many property owners short extensions while imposing or maintaining civil fines in cases where violations persisted or created public‑safety risks.

The hearing, convened Dec. 11, lasted through the docket and covered property maintenance, unpermitted structures, parking and multiple noise and vacation‑rental complaints. Inspectors presented prehearing inspection results and asked the magistrate to impose fines or continue fines already accruing; respondents frequently asked for more time to permit or complete repairs. In many cases the magistrate suspended accrual of additional fines while giving fixed extensions ranging from 15 to 140 days, provided the owner produced evidence of progress or permit activity.

Why it matters: These hearings are the city’s principal administrative venue for enforcing local property, nuisance and safety codes. Outcomes can mean immediate financial penalties for property owners, or temporary relief while owners secure permits or contractors. The magistrate repeatedly emphasized that evidence in the record — permits, inspection reports or photographs — is required to obtain relief.

Key outcomes and examples

- Extensions with suspended fines: The magistrate granted a 49‑day extension and suspended fines for a downtown riverfront property represented by Andrew Schein while the team researches original restaurant plans. Several other owners received 49, 77, 105 or longer extensions when the city confirmed permitting or review activity was underway.

- Reimposed maximum penalty for large party: Following video evidence and testimony showing a large party that obstructed streets and emergency access, the magistrate vacated a prior order and reimposed a $15,000 fine for the vacation‑rental property, concluding the event created a public‑safety hazard and nuisance.

- Fines imposed for noise and discharge: The court found in favor of the city in multiple plainly audible noise complaints after inspectors and video evidence were presented. A pool‑related property was fined $1,000 for discharging pool water into the public right‑of‑way in a manner the city said damaged neighboring swales.

- Disputes about city contractors and record evidence: At least one property owner alleged city contractors had used private property as a staging area and caused damage; the magistrate said alleged contractor damage should be pursued through the contractor’s insurance and/or risk‑management processes, and denied an extension where no permits or documentation were in the record. Owner Al Lewis argued the city had created the problem and presented a $14,000 cleanup estimate; the magistrate declined to extend without permit records and left fines to be set at a later hearing.

What the magistrate said: On a noise case the magistrate explained the standard for enforcement: where an inspector and video show sound plainly audible at the statutorily specified distance, a citation may be sustained. In other matters the magistrate stressed that evidence — permit numbers, inspection photographs or proof of contractor mobilization — must be presented to justify extensions.

Next steps: Many cases were continued to future dockets for reinspection or imposition of fines if compliance is not achieved by the ordered dates. Property owners were repeatedly told they may request rehearings if they obtain missing permits or documentation before the next scheduled hearing.

Representative quotes from the hearing

- Property owner complaining about alleged city contractor damage: “The city created this problem.” — Al Lewis (as stated in hearing)

- On the danger created by an uncontrolled party: “That party…created a nuisance and a hazard for the area,” — city representative requesting the maximum fine

- On the record requirement for extensions: “What you’re telling me cannot be verified in the record, and you brought nothing with you.” — Special magistrate (ruling denying an extension in one case)

The hearing concluded after the city entered exhibits and closed the docket. Cases were rescheduled or continued as noted in the magistrate’s orders.