Noise mitigation took center stage as the magistrate discussed case number 2277, involving B&B Land Holdings LLC. James Betts, represented by attorney Caran Groves, was notified of a potential fine of $28,750 for 575 days of non-compliance at $50 per day. The violation stemmed from a wall constructed to mitigate noise from a dog resort, operational for 25 years before Betts acquired the property. A neighbor’s noise complaint sparked the code enforcement action.

Groves detailed the complications, explaining that the contractor, Dave B Howell LLC, failed to obtain necessary permits and exhibited performance issues. The contractor submitted plans but did not complete the project within the required timeline, and there were concerns about the contractor’s licensing status. Betts was under the impression that compliance efforts were underway, based on the contractor’s assurances. The attorney requested a fine reduction to allow Betts to allocate funds for compliance, which included additional issues beyond the wall, such as a potential firewall concern.

The special magistrate acknowledged the confusion and extended the compliance deadline by 90 days, setting a new deadline for permit submission by November 13, 2024. The county’s administrative costs of $963 were ordered to be paid within 30 days, with a warning that failure to comply would result in a lien against the property.

Another discussion involved case number 2367, with Ifra Lima and Kelly Andre facing a compliance deadline for a temporary electrical service. An affidavit of non-compliance was filed after an inspection on August 6, 2024, with administrative costs totaling $956. The attorney representing Lima and Andre highlighted communication issues with Duke Energy and progress on obtaining necessary documents, expressing confidence in resolving compliance soon.

In a related topic, Bob Pike, the Seminole County Building Official, provided insights on a property undergoing changes. He emphasized the need for a finalized site plan approved by Planning and Zoning, detailing the impacts on wetlands and drainage. Megan Zorski from Planning reinforced the necessity of reflecting all existing improvements in the site plan due to complex considerations.

The magistrate imposed a 30-day deadline for site plan submission, with fines retroactively imposed back to July 11 if not met. This urgency was echoed in other cases involving compliance issues, such as the installation of sheds, carports, and fences without permits. For instance, the property on Force Drive in Sanford faced a $50 per day fine for an unpermitted shed, while Rebecca Wiggins was directed to obtain permits for a carport installed in 2013, with similar fines for non-compliance.

A notable case involved property owners Roger Vega and Katherine Esposito, requiring an interpreter for extensive unpermitted renovations. The county inspector Jason Rucker detailed the timeline of inspections. The magistrate ordered a property inspection by the building official to assess compliance, stressing the importance of timely communication and adherence to the compliance timeline. The compliance period was limited to 30 days to ensure prompt action, with a potential fine of $200 per day for continued violations.

The meeting also addressed Sandra France’s case, granting her an extension to November 13 due to personal challenges affecting compliance. Amanda and Christopher Jagger faced delays due to a necessary wetland study, with administrative costs recommended at $748.83. Victor Sharia’s case involved a series of extensions dating back to February 2022, with a recommendation for a fine totaling $2,900 due to ongoing violations.