Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Pools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seminole County code board closes two unsecured‑pool cases after owners secure gates
Summary
The Seminole County Code Enforcement Board found two Longwood property owners in compliance after they changed pool gate latches; the board dismissed accumulated penalties in one case and reduced another lien to administrative costs.
The Seminole County Code Enforcement Board on June 26 closed two cases involving unsecured swimming pools after owners made repairs that met county requirements.
Officer Melissa Hill, Seminole County Sheriff's Office code enforcement (South Region), said the county had cited both properties under Seminole County Code chapter 95, section 95.4 (defined in 95.3) for unsecured pools. "The latch needs to be facing the pool, not on the opposite side," Hill said when explaining why both gates initially failed inspection.
In case 25‑17, respondent Betty W. Tanzer of 300 South Sweetwater Cove Boulevard told the board she purchased tools and secured the gate herself after her handyman was unavailable. Tanzer praised Hill and said of the officer, "She is tough as nails." Hill presented inspection photos from Oct. 29, 2024, and follow‑up inspections in May 2025 showing the latch repositioned to face the pool and the yard secured. Staff had recommended a lien of $700 for seven days of noncompliance plus administrative costs; after discussion the board voted to close the case and dismiss accumulated fines.
In case 25‑29, Shanita Hemingway, a code enforcement officer with the Seminole County Sheriff's Office (South Region), said the property at 200 Crooked Oak Court had shown a chain and padlock at one point and later had a latch that was not pool‑facing and not high enough. Hemingway reported the property was brought into compliance on June 18, 2025. Staff's paper recommendation had sought a lien of $12,000 for 48 days of noncompliance; the board instead voted to reduce the lien to the total administrative costs — $118.74 for the clerk and $247.87 for code enforcement, a combined $366.61 — and approved that amount as the action on the record.
Board members commented that both respondents had taken steps to correct the hazards and that the evidence supported current compliance. The board's actions remove or substantially reduce the monetary penalties that staff had recommended but do not remove the underlying code requirements for pool gates: they must be self‑closing and self‑latching with the latch oriented toward the pool.
The board recorded the findings and instructed staff to file the appropriate orders for each property.
