Board of Adjustment confronts multiple unpermitted fences and contractor errors, urges homeowners to pursue contractor remedies

At the April Seminole County Board of Adjustment meeting, members reviewed multiple variance requests tied to fences and other structures that were built without required permits and in some cases because contractors mismeasured or left the job.

Board members repeatedly said that, while they felt sympathy for affected homeowners, the board’s role is to apply the county code and not to substitute for civil remedies homeowners may have against contractors. Chair (unnamed) said, “the rules of the game are the rules of the game,” while other board members described a recurring problem in which residents are left to absorb the cost when a contractor fails to secure a permit or mis­s­ets property lines.

Examples presented to the board included 684 Tomlinson Terrace, where applicant Omar Nasim told the board his contractor measured from the sidewalk rather than the property line, putting the new 6‑foot fence about 1.5 feet over the setback. Staff told the board traffic engineering can permit a 5‑foot side‑street setback internally, but the required setback under the code is 20 feet. The board heard that the contractor is still contactable but that Nasim had already paid him; Nasim said, “They are gone. So now it's my problem.” The board moved to deny that variance; the motion carried with one dissenting member (the judge), and the application was denied (board note: denial recorded by the meeting as having passed with one dissent).

At 200 Riverview Drive, applicant Nishan Bajaria said his fence and gates were erected after a contractor failed to obtain a permit and that the contractor sold the company and would not take over the project. Board members debated whether to deny the application to avoid appearing to reward unpermitted work; a motion to deny was made during deliberations, but that motion did not succeed (meeting record: a motion to deny was considered and did not result in a final denial). Staff reminded applicants that they have appeal options to the County Commission and that they can reapply.

Across multiple cases staff reported the same pattern: traffic engineering often had no sight‑distance objection, but construction without permits generated code‑enforcement cases (for example, CB23‑299 and BV25‑209 were cited in staff reports). Board members repeatedly encouraged homeowners to pursue civil remedies against contractors and noted county staff cannot adjudicate private contract disputes.

The board also continued one fence height request at Oak Lake Trail to a future meeting so the absent applicant could appear and answer the board’s questions.

The board’s takeaways: staff will continue to enforce code violations, traffic engineering will continue to review sight‑distance internally during permitting, and homeowners whose projects were built without permits retain the right to appeal board decisions to the county commission or to pursue civil claims against contractors. Several board members expressed support for the idea of stronger consumer protections at the county level but said any policy change would need to come from the Board of County Commissioners, not this quasi‑judicial board.