Redland Resident Defeats Code Enforcement in Appellate Court Victory

A Redland resident has won an appeal against Miami-Dade County Code Enforcement after challenging a series of violations issued against his agricultural property.

Phil Stam, a small-scale rancher, received four code enforcement citations in July 2025. Three were dismissed during the initial hearing process, but a fourth, involving stacked shipping containers, remained unresolved until he challenged the decision in circuit court.

A three-judge appellate panel of Florida's 11th Judicial Circuit ultimately ruled in Stam's favor, finding that he had been denied procedural due process and that the hearing officer had departed from the essential requirements of law.

The court directed that the remaining citation and its associated penalties be vacated.

The dispute began with four separate allegations concerning Stam's Redland property.

The first involved several potbellied pigs. County officials cited an ordinance limiting the number of hogs permitted on agricultural property. Stam challenged the application of that restriction, arguing that his potbellied pigs should not be classified as hogs under the ordinance. The citation was dismissed.

A second citation alleged that a recreational vehicle on the property was being used as living quarters. Stam maintained that no one was living inside and that the vehicle was connected to electricity for maintenance purposes. That citation was also dismissed.

The third involved a structure used for agricultural operations, including equipment maintenance, irrigation and fruit handling. Stam argued that the building qualified for an exemption available to certain nonresidential farm structures under Florida law. The hearing officer dismissed that allegation as well.

The fourth citation concerned shipping containers stacked on the property. Stam intended to use the structure for agricultural equipment repairs, but county officials maintained that the configuration violated local land-use regulations.

Stam argued that the cited ordinance addressed permitted agricultural uses but did not expressly prohibit stacking shipping containers. He also challenged the fairness of the hearing process, maintaining that the county introduced arguments beyond those identified in the original citation.

Unlike the earlier three violations, the shipping-container citation was upheld by the hearing officer. Stam appealed that decision without legal representation.

The appellate court determined that the proceedings had failed to provide the procedural protections required by law. The judges also rejected the treatment of stacking itself as a land use prohibited by the ordinance cited in the case.

The ruling reversed the hearing officer's decision and directed that the disputed citation, penalty, surcharge and costs be vacated.

For Stam, the outcome represents more than the resolution of a property dispute. He believes the case demonstrates why residents should understand the ordinances they are accused of violating and the procedures available to challenge enforcement decisions.

The decision resolves the citation addressed in Stam's appeal. Its broader application to other code enforcement disputes would depend on the facts and law involved in those cases.

Stam encourages property owners facing citations to review the applicable regulations, understand their hearing rights and consider available appeal procedures when they believe an enforcement decision is incorrect.