Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sanford commission authorizes potential lawsuit over unpermitted work at 101 E. First St.; owner agrees to pause unpermitted construction
Summary
After months of permitting disputes and a stop-work order, the commission authorized staff to prepare litigation that would be filed only if the property owner resumes unpermitted work; commissioners conditioned the authorization on abatement while the owner pursues the required historic and building approvals.
The Sanford City Commission voted Monday to authorize the city attorney to prepare litigation aimed at enforcing city codes at 101 East First Street, a redevelopment project that city staff say proceeded in part without required permits and certificates of appropriateness.
City Development Services staff summarized a multi-year permit review and enforcement history for the property, saying the owner had secured some approvals but had not completed the site-development process needed for exterior or vertical work. Development staff said the pump house on the property was demolished without a completed site-development permit and that subsequent inspections showed additional unpermitted activity.
City staff asked the commission for authority to seek injunctive relief and other remedies; the request included a carve-out that litigation would be filed only if the property owner resumed nonpermitted work. Commissioner motion language authorized filing the suit but allowed abatement while the owner pursued the historic-preservation and building approvals required by the city.
Developer Mohammed Rashad, the property owner at issue, addressed the commission and said he had applied for site development permits and a separate building permit for an elevator shaft and other vertical elements. Rashad said he had relied on a third-party plan reviewer and asserted portions of the work had been permitted for interior work; staff and the building division said the interior permit did not authorize exterior or vertical construction. Rashad told the commission he would stop nonpermitted work if allowed to proceed with the permitting process.
Commissioners and staff stressed several deadlines and procedural steps. City staff said one limiting factor was that prior certificates of appropriateness (C of A) had expired and that the next Historic Preservation Board (HPB) hearing is April 16; staff said a complete application for HPB consideration must be submitted by the HPB filing deadline (stated in the meeting as the day after the commission meeting) to enable review at the April 16 HPB meeting.
After discussion, the commission approved the authorization with the condition that litigation would be filed only upon noncompliance (defined as resumption of nonpermitted construction), and that permitted horizontal/site and utility work already authorized by the issued site-development permit could proceed. The commission directed staff to provide the owner with a written list of exactly which permits and approvals are required and to provide commissioners with that list.
Ending
The owner pledged to pause nonpermitted vertical construction; city staff said they would file suit if work continued outside approved permits and instructed the owner on the HPB and building-permit deadlines needed to restore compliance.
