A case on Sanford Avenue highlighted the meeting’s agenda, where the building inspector presented evidence of framing conducted without the necessary permits. The respondent, Daniel L. Luo, contended that he had obtained multiple permits and was addressing issues from the previous owner. After a discussion regarding the timeline and necessity of the permit, the magistrate ordered Luo to secure the required permit by the deadline or face a $150 daily fine.

Leet Properties Incorporated, the respondent for the property on South US 1792 Longwood, faced a violation for installing new soffit fascia without permits. The building inspector provided evidence of inspections and notice postings. The magistrate set a compliance deadline of July 10th, 2024, with a $50 per day fine for failure to meet this deadline.

The meeting proceeded to discuss a property on Grace Lake Circle in Longwood, where a multi-level deck was installed without permits. The respondents were granted an extension until September 11, 2024, to obtain the necessary permit, with the magistrate emphasizing communication and cooperation with the county.

A property owner was fined $873.42 for construction without the required permits but argued for compliance efforts and requested the fine’s waiver. The magistrate ruled the property in compliance, waiving the fine. Another property owner was granted an extension to resolve permit issues by the next meeting, with the magistrate underlining the importance of staying in communication with the building inspector.

A case involving 2410 C M Tut Investment Homes LLC saw a request for fine reduction due to expenses on a new AC unit for a Section 8 home. The magistrate found the property in compliance and abstained from imposing a fine, cautioning future compliance. MaximAuto Center Inc. was found to have installed a chain link fence without the required permits. The respondent was given a deadline of July 10th to obtain the permit, with discussions touching on lot combination and property line issues.

The necessity of permits for installed fences and construction work was a recurring theme. One property owner cited evidence of the fence being installed before their ownership and challenges related to a previous abusive relationship. The magistrate and county officials stressed the importance of obtaining permits and maintaining communication throughout the process.

Cases of properties owned by 2426 cesm Los Campost D America LLC and 2369 cesm Gerald Williams involved unpermitted installation of new siding, framing, windows, doors, and construction work. Fines and administrative costs were imposed, with deadlines set for compliance. The property owned by 2404 cesm Tusco Willa Park SC Limited Block Landers was found non-compliant, resulting in a daily fine and administrative costs. Conversely, the case of 2370 cesm Shelly Boule Hometown Palm Valley LLC confirmed compliance but also imposed administrative costs.

The property on Ridge Road, owned by 2413 cesm Leticia Morales, was in violation due to construction without permits, leading to a significant daily fine and administrative costs. The next hearing was scheduled for June 13th, at which the respondents are expected to provide updates on their compliance efforts.