Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Conservation Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner told to seek county process for retaining wall inside conservation easement and floodplain; magistrate grants 60-day continuance
Summary
A Seminole County conservation-easement and floodplain question slowed permitting for a retaining wall; the county attorney advised that an administrative-code process (compensating storage/exchange) is required before a permit may be issued, and the magistrate continued the case to July 9.
Property owners Ahmed and Sakina Nuramohamed appeared in a case concerning an unpermitted retaining wall at 846 Isle Pointe in Sanford. County building staff said permit applications for a retaining wall and associated drainage and natural-resource reviews remained in plan-check status with outstanding corrections.
Deputy County Attorney Naysa Borker told the magistrate the county’s legal view is that the parcel lies in a designated flood hazard area and that the recorded plat contains a conservation easement that “specifically says no construction permitted within the conservation easement.” Borker explained that Seminole County’s administrative code provides a formal process for either (a) releasing an easement where it was recorded in error or (b) doing an exchange — relocating compensating flood storage on the property — if the owner can demonstrate equivalent compensating storage elsewhere on the parcel. Borker said the county had rendered that opinion to the owner and advised that any permit issuance would be conditioned on completing the county’s prescribed administrative steps.
Attorney MacGregor Love, representing the owners, told the magistrate he would have his engineer coordinate with county engineers to pursue the administrative process; Love asked for additional time and suggested two months might be needed to pursue the engineering work. The magistrate said that the county’s administrative process — not a bilateral agreement between the owner and engineer — governs and granted a 60-day continuance, setting a compliance date of July 9 with a compliance hearing on July 10.
Why this matters: The matter illustrates a substantive limit on the building division’s permit authority when a recorded conservation easement and floodplain mapping are implicated. The county’s administrative code requires a showing of compensating storage or an error in the original easement record before permitting construction in easement/floodplain areas; that step must come before permit approval.
Next steps: The owner’s engineer will need to coordinate with county drainage/floodplain staff (including Jim Potter, county drainage reviewer) and follow the administrative-code exchange process if compensating storage can be identified. The magistrate continued the case 60 days to allow those technical steps to proceed.
