Seminole Special Magistrate Meeting Tackles Property Violations and Permit Confusion

The recent Seminole Special Magistrate meeting prominently featured discussions on property violations due to unpermitted installations and confusion surrounding permit requirements. Key topics included a significant case involving Daniel A. Bula Velasquez and Lety E. Gutierrez Opina, who faced allegations of multiple unpermitted installations, and the ongoing challenges faced by property owners in navigating complex local regulations.

07:12The spotlight was on the case of Daniel A. Bula Velasquez and Lety E. Gutierrez Opina, who were cited for a range of unpermitted installations, including gates, an awning with a pergola, a swimming pool, and the demolition of two sheds. The violations fell under Seminole County Code, Chapter 40, Appendix A, Section 105.1. The administrative costs for processing the case amounted to $1,281.77. The county recommended imposing a lien retroactively from the compliance date, accruing at $250 per day until the property met compliance standards. A building inspector confirmed that the violations persisted, with pending permit applications requiring corrections that had not been addressed. The property owner expressed confusion regarding the necessity of permits, particularly for the demolition of sheds, and claimed inadequate communication about permit renewal requirements. The magistrate emphasized the importance of professional guidance and set a new compliance date of September 10, 2025.

27:18Another case of note was Deborah Grace’s, involving unpermitted concrete columns, walls, and electric gates. The violations were first noted on September 3, 2024, and inspections confirmed their continued presence. The magistrate recommended a compliance deadline of September 11, 2025, with a daily fine of $50 for non-compliance. Inspector Brent Griffin highlighted the need for a variance, which had previously been denied, and emphasized that a new survey was necessary. The property owner had taken steps to adjust the fence’s position and obtain a new survey, although unclear whether a variance remained necessary.

50:01Further discussions addressed a property setback issue, where a neighbor agreed to purchase land to help the owner comply with setback requirements. A contract was in place, and the survey had been received, allowing for plans to convert the property into a small house. Despite potential plat complications, the situation appeared manageable. The compliance timeline was set for 90 days, with a hearing scheduled for September 11.

51:45The meeting also reviewed a case involving Michael Shadine, cited for installing an addition, pool, and accessory structure without permits. Administrative costs neared $9,000. The magistrate advised issuing a lien retroactively at $100 per day until compliance. The inspector estimated a 60-day issuance period for the building permit, with representatives agreeing on this timeline. A compliance hearing was scheduled for August 14.

59:28In another case, Steven and Mary Beth DeLeonardis faced violations for unpermitted structures, including a shed and an accessibility ramp. The inspector detailed the ongoing violation timeline and communications, noting unresolved issues. The accessibility ramp’s status raised questions about whether the manufactured home it led to was compliant. The home had a temporary permit, and plans to attach it to a new structure faced zoning law challenges. The magistrate stressed contacting the inspector to verify compliance, with a compliance deadline of August 13, 2025.

01:20:34The meeting also explored a mobile home with a limited use permit expiring in August 2024. Discussions covered converting the mobile home into a permanent structure, potentially as an accessory dwelling unit, with specific restrictions. The magistrate emphasized timely communication with the county, setting a compliance date of October 8, with a subsequent hearing on October 9, 2024.

01:21:25Los Campos Day America LLC’s case involved unpermitted siding, framing, windows, and doors. The magistrate set a compliance date of June 11, 2025, with follow-up on June 12, 2025. Despite administrative costs of $965.31, the inspector expressed frustration over stalled progress. The planning manager noted the appellant’s lack of communication, emphasizing the need for community meetings and public hearing attendance. The appellant acknowledged holding a community meeting but was confused about the special permit’s status. The planning manager clarified that no automatic notification existed, and public hearing attendance was necessary. The magistrate highlighted the importance of communication and adherence to regulations.

01:34:27The meeting concluded with a case against Revamp Capital LLC for an unpermitted fence. The magistrate ordered compliance by August 13, 2025, with a $50 daily fine for non-compliance. Jean Epierre’s case involved a black wrought iron fence installed without permits. Despite progress, a variance was necessary, complicating the compliance timeline. The magistrate extended the compliance date to October 8. Annabelle Fernandez’s case featured a wood fence installed without a permit. The magistrate sought clarity on communication regarding permit reapplication.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

is discussed during:
in these locations: