Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seminole County code board orders repairs, cleanups and pool security; fines set
Summary
At its April 24 meeting the Seminole County Code Enforcement Board ordered property owners to correct fence, pool, rubbish, vegetation and structure hazards across the county, setting compliance deadlines in May and one in June and authorizing daily fines for failures to comply.
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Seminole County Code Enforcement Board on April 24 found multiple property code violations across Seminole County and issued orders requiring repairs, cleanups or demolitions with deadlines generally in early May and one extended to June.
The board heard staff reports on more than a dozen cases, most involving rubbish, overgrown vegetation, unsecured swimming pools, storage on vacant lots and unsafe accessory structures. In each case the board adopted the recommending corrective order and set a compliance date; several orders carry daily civil fines for failure to comply.
The actions are designed to remove public-safety risks and restore properties to code: orders included requiring an owner to repair a leaning fence and secure a backyard pool, removal of stored vehicles and personal property from a vacant R-1 parcel, removal of rubbish piles from residential yards, cutting of uncultivated vegetation and repair or removal of a rotted shed.
Many respondents told the board they were working to fix the problems and asked for time: several owners said they had contractors scheduled, had submitted requests to homeowners associations, or had family members assisting. County code officers told the board when they had been able to re-inspect and what violations remained visible.
Votes at a glance
- Case 25-28 CEB — Jerry W. Cordette, 200 Crooked Oak Court, Longwood: Violation — dilapidated fence (Seminole County Land Development Code, ch. 30, pt. 14). Order: repair or remove and restore upright by May 1, 2025. Fine if not corrected: $100 per day. Motion (find violation, order correction): moved by Catherine Townsend; second by Dudley Bates. Outcome: approved (board set May 1 compliance; tally referenced in the record as 4–1).
- Case 25-29 CEB — Jerry W. Cordette, 200 Crooked Oak Court, Longwood: Violation — unsecured swimming pool (Seminole County Code ch. 95, sec. 95.4 as defined in 95.3(g)). Order: secure pool (48-inch barrier, self-closing/latching gates and pool-side release) by May 1, 2025. Fine if not corrected: $250 per day. Motion: Catherine Townsend; second: Dudley Bates. Outcome: approved; record states motion carried 3–1 (one board member recorded as opposed).
- Case 25-33 CEB — Wenner (Winner) Williams, Dollar Way, Sanford: Violation — storage on a vacant R‑1 parcel (Seminole County Land Development Code, ch. 30, pt. 5). Order: remove stored materials from vacant lot by May 8, 2025. Fine if not corrected: $100 per day. Motion to accept staff recommendation: moved and seconded (record: motion approved unanimously by voice vote).
- Case 25-34 CEB — Linda J. Smith, 137 Jewel Drive, Altamonte Springs: Violation — rubbish (Seminole County Code ch. 95, sec. 95.4). Order: remove remaining rubbish by May 9, 2025. Fine if not corrected: $100 per day. Motion to accept staff recommendation: approved by voice vote.
- Cases 25-35 CEB / 25-36 CEB / 25-37 CEB — Mabel Hill, Harry Hill, Bernice McKinney (heir) and Cheryl M. Hardy, 2054 Sipes Avenue, Sanford (three companion matters): Violations — uncultivated vegetation, rubbish, and remains/rubble of a structure (Seminole County Code ch. 95, sec. 95.4, subparts a–c). Orders and deadlines: vegetation (remove growth over 8 inches) — compliance by May 8, 2025; rubbish (remove debris) — compliance by May 8, 2025; rubble/structure (repair or remove unstable shed) — compliance extended to June 8, 2025 to allow time to seek permits or contractor assistance. Fines: vegetation $50/day; rubbish and rubble $100/day if not corrected. Motions: board accepted staff recommendations; vote on the rubble/structure item included a 45‑day extension (to June 8) by majority vote.
- Case 25-27 CEB — Cindy N. and Michael E. Torres, 121 Alma Drive: Violation — rubbish (ch. 95 sec. 95.4). Order: remove rubbish by May 9, 2025; $100 per day fine if not corrected. Motion to accept staff recommendation: approved by voice vote.
- Cases 25-30 CEB / 25-31 CEB / 25-32 CEB — Volkan (listed in record as “Vulcan/Volcan”) Domi and Domi Marie Halo, 936 Red Fox Road: Violations — rubbish (95.3(a)), stagnant/foul water (95.3(f)), and unsecured swimming pool (95.3(g)). Orders: remove rubbish by May 12, 2025 ($100/day fine); remove stagnant water/clean drain by May 12, 2025 (fine cited in the record as $250/day); secure pool by May 12, 2025 (pool barrier, self-closing/latching gates; $250/day fine). Motions to accept staff recommendations were approved by the board; officers were directed to re-inspect for compliance.
Board members and staff emphasized the public-safety rationale behind pool and structure orders, and several board members advised respondents to coordinate promptly with code officers for re-inspection. Where respondents reported health, mobility or financial constraints, staff and the board noted options such as pursuing building permits, HOA approvals, or legal-aid referrals; in one case staff advised that structural repairs would require a building permit and that demolition may also require permits. Officers told respondents to contact them to schedule re-inspections and to provide proof (photos, receipts or permit paperwork) when work is complete.
Several respondents told the board they had contractors arranged, had submitted HOA requests or had already staged materials for removal. In every case the board required respondents to show compliance by the stated date or face the daily civil fine the board authorized.
What’s next
The board continued enforcing deadlines at its next scheduled meeting; staff were directed to re-inspect properties and close cases when compliance is verified. Respondents were advised to contact the presenting code officer to schedule re-inspection; officers also offered information about building-permit and legal-aid resources when needed.

