Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 11-17-25 Code Enforcement Board CITY OF C71r- NT CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2025 CALL TO ORDER Chair Camps called the meeting of the Code Enforcement Board to order on Monday,November 17, 2025, at 6:00 pm_ ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT:Chair Camps,Member Malcowslci,Member Kilburn,Member Connelly, and Member Cornett_ Members Fracasso and Pc rn les were not present_ ALSO PRESENT: Code Enforcement Officer Snodgrass; Code Enforcement Manager Wallace, Code Board Attorney Brackins, City Attorney Dye", Attorney Dan Mantzaris, Planning Director Curt Henschel, and Planning Coordinator Rae Chidlow_ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE MINUTES Motion to aparove the Minutes for the September IS 2025 Code Enforcement Board Meeting as amended-Moved by Member Cornett- Seconded by Member Connelly Motion passed S-O- OPENING STATEMENT-Chair Camps made the opening remarks_ Code Board Attorney Bracki"s stated that he had a conflict of interest for the first two cases so Attorney Dan Mantzaris would be sitting in for those two cases_ SWEARING IN WITNESSES Code Enforcement Officers Wallace, Snodgrass, and city staff, along with any of the public who may testify were sworn in. Assistant City Attorney Dyer introduced the cases and stated they would be heard in order with the exception of Item 4 which would be heard at the end_ NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1 —CASE NO_ 25-000146 Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 2901 Highway 50 VIOLATION: Sec_ 1 O1-209 General Use for Conditional Use Permit; 1 O1-21 3 Conditions 8z Safeguards for Conditional Use Permits Code Enforcement Officer Wallace explained the case_ She said the property owner has been sent proper notice and Representative is present_ She stated the property is not in compliance_ Attorney Brent Spain, 1809 Edgewater Dr., Orlando, spoke on behalf of Encompass Health regarding an alleged violation of a PUD ordinance tied to its rehabilitation hospital property. He explained that the approved development,originally authorized under Ordinance 2020-30 in 2021, clearly separated Phase One (owned and developed by Encompass Health, completed in 2023) from Phase Two, which includes a 100-foot strip of land not owned by his client. He argued that the ordinance and approved construction plans did not require building a road across Phase Two property. Instead, the plans required only a stub-out to the Phase Two property line, which Encompass constructed as approved, including reflective markers marking the end of pavement. He emphasized that the ordinance language does not mandate construction of a road across land his client does not own and that Encompass has already granted a cross-access easement to the Phase Two owner and offered the same to adjacent property owners. Because Encompass built the project in full compliance with the approved conceptual and construction plans and lacks legal authority to build or grant access across property it does not own,he requested that the board find his client not in violation. Board member Connelly raised concerns that since the PUD covered the entire property when approved, Encompass might still bear responsibility for completing the disputed access connection. Mr. Spain reiterated that Encompass constructed the roadway stub only to its property line as required by the approved construction plans and argued that the ordinance mandates cross access but does not explicitly require building a road across land Encompass no longer owns. He confirmed that Encompass originally owned the entire parcel and obtained the PUD approval but emphasized that the project was always designed with two clearly defined phases: Phase One for the rehabilitation hospital and Phase Two for future commercial development. He explained that the separation between phases was shown in the original ordinance and conceptual plans, and that Encompass anticipated selling Phase Two because commercial development is not its business. Attorney Dan Mantzaris clarified that the core issue stems from the fact that the PUD approval covers the entire 32-acre parcel, not just Phase One or Phase Two individually. Because the PUD was granted as a single approval for the full property, any alleged failure to comply with its conditions, specifically the cross-access requirement, applies to all land within that PUD, regardless of later ownership changes. He stated the condition in question does not distinguish between phases or assign responsibility to one specific owner, meaning it could potentially be enforced against either or both current property owners.As presented by the city,the case concerns noncompliance with a PUD condition, and the board's role is to interpret whether that condition has been satisfied. If it has not, the attorney suggested the board may need to find both property owners in violation and require them to work together toward a resolution, even if the physical issue lies primarily on one portion of the property. Member Cornett made a motion to find the Respondent not in violation and to dismiss the case: Seconded by Member Makowski Motion passed 3-2 in approval Members Kilburn and Connelly opnosed. ITEM 2—CASE NO. 25-000014 Seema Khanna 2 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: Vacant parcel AK2713216 VIOLATION: Sec. 101-209 General Use for Conditional Use Pennit; 101-213 Conditions & Safeguards for Conditional Use Permits Code Enforcement Officer Wallace explained the case. She said the property owner has been sent proper notice and Representative is present. She stated the property is not in compliance. Attorney Craig Esquenazi,Rohan Khanna,410 W. Gulf Atlantic Highway,Wildwood,argued that Encompass Health originally applied for and benefited from the PUD approval when the entire 32- acre parcel was under single ownership and therefore cannot now avoid responsibility by selling Phase Two. He contended that because the PUD applied to one unified property at the time of approval, Encompass remains obligated to ensure the access road requirement is fulfilled, even if the land was later sold. Board member Cornett questioned whether any documents specifically required road construction or imposed a timeline for Phase Two development, noting that no clear construction deadline appears in the deed or PUD documents. Mr. Esquenazi, while acknowledging that Section 7 does not explicitly state that a road must be built, argued that if construction is required, Encompass should bear that responsibility rather than shifting it to the new owners. He stated that his clients are willing to cooperate with the city and grant necessary easements to facilitate construction but maintained that Encompass cannot "sell away" its obligations under the original permit. He responded that development is anticipated within one to two years, depending on financing, and added that his clients had not received any formal cross-access easement offer from Encompass. Board member Cornett raises further questions about coordination among the parties and whether access for the adjacent UP property is also driving the dispute. Planning Director Curt Henschel stated that they do need access from Highway 50 to access his property. Attorney Rohan Khanna, 410 W. Gulf Atlantic Hwy., Wildwood, argued that distinguishing between Phase One and Phase Two is misleading because the PUD was approved for a single, unified parcel,placing the obligation on the original applicant, Encompass Health. He maintained that a property owner cannot eliminate public obligations under a PUD simply by selling part of the land through a private transaction, even if contractual agreements exist between buyers and sellers. While he emphasized that his clients are willing to grant cross-access easements and cooperate,he contended that if the PUD required construction of a road,that responsibility should remain with Encompass, which benefited from the approval and subsequent land sale. He characterized it as unfair to shift what he views as the original applicant's liability onto the new Phase Two owner. Attorney Lee Brewster, 16620 Lake Trail Drive, representing UP Development, the property owner directly east of the site, described a history of access disputes with Encompass dating back to 2022. He explained that both parties initially sought approval for access points,but the Florida Department of Transportation would not approve two competing permits. Although they agreed to 3 resolve the issue collaboratively, he stated that Encompass ultimately secured approval for its preferred access point to meet its hospital opening deadline, disregarding prior discussions. He argued that this decision negatively impacted UP Development,particularly because it has a tenant, Aldi, that requires specific truck access under its lease, potentially exposing UP Development to litigation. He emphasized that UP Development has active permits, ready tenants, and ongoing residential and commercial projects,but cannot proceed without a connecting road for fire,health, and safety access. He contended that Encompass always intended to sell Phase Two and avoid developing it and expressed frustration at what he views as Encompass being relieved of its responsibility to construct the necessary road infrastructure, leaving neighboring property owners burdened by unresolved access issues. City Attorney Avery Dyen summarized the municipality's position regarding the dispute, explaining that under the Planned Unit Development adopted in Ordinance 2020-30, Section 3, Paragraph 7, cross access between the properties was required at the specified location. The city contends that this cross access currently does not exist,which is the basis for bringing the violation forward. Member Connelly made a motion to find the Respondent is not in violation and to dismiss the case; Seconded by Member Kilburn Motion passed 4-1 in approval Member Cornett opposed. ITEM 3—CASE NO. C2310-0021 Kevin Henshaw LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 1620 51h Street REQUEST: Reduction of Fine Code Enforcement Officer Snodgrass explained the case. He said the property owner has been sent proper notice and is present. He stated the property is in compliance; and further, the fine accrued is$5100. Staff recommends Respondent pay$500 and be refunded$4600. Attorney Crawford, 702 Montrose St., stated that his client is fine with staffs recommendation. Member Kilburn made a motion to reduce the fine from $5I00 to $500 and to refund $4600 to Respondent: seconded by Member Connelly Motion passed 5-0 with approval. ITEM 4—CASE NO. C2412-0006 Colonial Tile& Pavers LLC LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 1730 S. Highway 27 REQUEST: Reduction of Fine Code Enforcement Officer Snodgrass explained the case. He said the property owner has been sent proper notice and is present. He stated the property is in compliance; and further, the fine accrued is$27,750. Staff recommends Respondent pay $5,550 to be paid within 30 days. Respondent was present and sworn in. 4 Member Kilburn made a motion to reduce the fine from $27 750 to $3550 and to be paid by January 15 2026: seconded by Member Connelly. Motion passed 5-0 with approval. ITEM 5—CASE NO. C2506-00006 Helen Ross LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 3853 Fallscrest Circle VIOLATION: IPMC 302.2 Grading & Drainage; 305.1.1 Unsafe Conditions; 305.4 Stairs & Walking Surfaces; 105-84 Required Soil Conservation Measures; Sec. 18-53 (14), 19-54, 18-55, 18-56 Nuisance& Abatement Code Enforcement Officer Snodgrass explained the case. He said the property owner has been sent proper notice and is present. He stated the property is not in compliance. Respondent was present and sworn in. Member Connelly made a motion to find the Respondent is in violation and to impose a fine of $250 per day for every day after the date of the order: furthermore based on Sec. 18-53 to allow the City permission to abate the property• Seconded by Member Kilburn. Motion passed 5-0 with approval. ITEM 6—CASE NO. C2507-0007 Grupo Cinco, LLC LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 1326 East Ave. VIOLATION: IPMC 108 Stop Work Order; Sec. 125-522 (a)Building Permit Required Code Enforcement Officer Wallace explained the above violations. She detailed the case summary stating the property is currently not in compliance. She gave the history,violations and dates, and exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the property on the dates taken. She further stated the staff s recommendation which is to find Respondent in violation and to impose a fine of$150 per day for every day not in compliance from December 1, 2025. A Representative was present and sworn in. Member Makowski made a motion to end the Respondent is in violation and to impose a fine of $150 per day for every day after December 15 2025 if Respondent does not comply with this order. The Respondent is ordered to contact the Code Enforcement Officer to arrange an inspection of the property to veri& compliance with the order; Seconded by Member Fornoles. Motion passed 5-0 with approval. ITEM 7—CASE NO. 25-000044 Marlon Coelho De Carvalho& Sabrina Bastos De Oliveira Ferreira LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 3224 Sailing Pier Ave. VIOLATION: Sec. 125-522 (a)Building Permit Required Code Enforcement Officer Snodgrass explained the above violations. He detailed the case summary stating the property is currently not in compliance. He gave the history, violations and 5 dates, and exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the property on the dates taken. He further stated the staff s recommendation which is to find Respondent in violation and to impose a fine of$150 per day for every day the property remains in violation after August 20, 2025. Member Makowski made a motion to find the Respondent is in violation and to impose a fine of $150per day for every day after January 17 2026 ifRespondent does not comply with this order. The Respondent is ordered to contact the Code Enforcement Officer to arrange an inspection o the property to verify compliance with the order• Seconded by Member Cornett. Motion passed 5- 0 with approval. ITEM 8—CASE NO. C2503-0021 Benjamin Anderson&Trudy Life Estate LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 1660 Drew Ave. VIOLATION: Sec. 125-522 (a)Building Permit Required Code Enforcement Officer Snodgrass explained the above violations. He detailed the case summary stating the property is currently not in compliance. He gave the history, violations and dates, and exhibited pictures that are a true and accurate depiction of the property on the dates taken. He further stated the staffs recommendation which is to find Respondent in violation and to impose a fine of$150 per day for every day the property remains in violation after August 20, 2025. Respondent was present and sworn in. Member Makowski made a motion to find the Respondent is in violation and to impose a fine of $150 per day for every day after January 17 2026 ifRespondent does not comply with this order. The Respondent is ordered to contact the Code Enforcement Officer to arrange an inspection o the property to verify compliance with the order• Seconded by Member Kilburn. Motion passed 5- 0 with approval. AJD_ There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:58 m. Vice-Chair Evan Fracasso Attest: Rae Chidlow; Planning Coordinator 6