A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to case number CC 2486 involving Seth Fishman, with his father, Robert Fishman, representing him due to Seth’s incarceration at the Miami Correction Institute. The discussion revealed the complexities surrounding property compliance amidst legal battles. Robert Fishman outlined the challenges they faced, stating that his son’s incarceration had led to a complete communication shutdown, complicating any efforts to address the outstanding permits. He highlighted that Seth’s finances were tied up due to government-imposed liens and a restraining order, which hindered their ability to proceed with necessary repairs.

Robert Fishman detailed previous interactions with a contractor, Mr. Baran, whom they had prepaid several hundred thousand dollars for construction work that was halted following Seth’s legal issues. Despite minor completed work, the necessary permits had not been secured, and the contractor’s subsequent permit applications were reportedly undocumented on the town’s records. When pressed by the magistrate for clarity on the legal standing preventing repairs, Robert reiterated the financial constraints and ongoing litigation against the contractor. He requested an extension until April for compliance, given the trial against the contractor and the pending decision from the Court of Appeals.

The town’s representative proposed a 90-day extension to address the situation’s complexities, which included previously mandated life safety issues like fire sprinkler systems that had been resolved. The magistrate granted the extension until May 13, 2025, and scheduled a status hearing for that date. Robert Fishman submitted a settlement agreement for review, though the magistrate deemed it unnecessary for the proceedings, opting to keep a copy for the record. This case highlighted the intricate legal and logistical challenges faced by property owners when external legal matters intersect with local compliance requirements.

Another high-profile case involved the Schulman Roberta Personal Trust, where violations related to bathroom remodels without valid permits were discussed. A Highland Beach Code Compliance Officer reported the timeline of events, including an unclaimed notice of violation and a pending permit due to missing plumbing sub-permits. The representative for the respondent, Joshua Ben Ruby, explained the delay was due to contractor registration issues and requested an extension. The magistrate set a compliance deadline of March 11, 2025, after which fines would be imposed for continued non-compliance.

In another case, Michael Quinlan’s prolonged non-compliance led to significant fines. The respondent had been in violation for extensive periods, resulting in cumulative fines exceeding $49,000 across two cases. For the first case, initially carrying a fine of $28,750, the town recommended an 85% reduction, which Quinlan’s representative argued should be further reduced due to inadequate contractor performance. The magistrate dismissed the request for a 100% reduction, and an eventual settlement was reached for a 90% reduction, reducing the fine to $2,875 with a compliance period of 60 days. In the second case, a fine of $20,500 was recommended for reduction to $250, contingent upon compliance by April 11, 2025.