Sanford commission delays decision on 101 East 1st Street after heated historic-preservation appeal

The Sanford City Commission on Nov. 10 took up an appeal of the Historic Preservation Board’s denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed rehabilitation and additions at 101 East 1st Street, a prominent six-story historic building in downtown Sanford. After extended presentations by planning staff, the applicant’s counsel and several witnesses, the commission voted to continue the appeal to Jan. 12, 2026 while the applicant supplies detailed construction drawings and material specifications.

Planning Director Eileen Henson told commissioners the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) denied the application because submitted materials lacked critical dimensions, elevations and detail needed to evaluate impacts under Schedule S (the city’s historic-preservation standards). She said staff found expired approvals, unpermitted work, a demolition of a pump house without an approved development plan and a stop-work order issued March 26, 2025. “The applicant was given multiple opportunities to revise the plans for new construction but did not submit drawings that met required preservation standards,” Henson said during her presentation.

The project team, represented by attorney Jennifer Englert of the Orlando Law Group and the project architect Stephen Hepner, disputed some staff conclusions and asked the commission to overturn the HPB denial. Englert said the applicant had earlier approvals in 2022 and 2023 and that staff had recommended approval at prior hearings. “This tower…was approved in 2022, twice and in 2023,” Englert said, arguing the record includes prior approvals and substantial investment by the applicant.

Owner Mohammed Roshan described progress inside the building and asserted that engineering reviews had been completed for an elevator shaft. He said he signed a contract with an elevator vendor and paid deposit amounts; he told commissioners he had invested heavily in interior work. “I was given a building permit for the entire project,” Roshan said, and disputed the suggestion that the team had not pursued approvals.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant for precise drawings showing how the proposed elevator tower, catwalks and pump house would attach to the historic structure, what materials would be used, and how new elements would meet Schedule S requirements for compatibility and reversibility. Multiple commissioners said the missing north elevation, inconsistent heights on provided drawings, and lack of trim and material notes prevented confident approval. As one commissioner put it during discussion, “We need detail of what exactly is that cornice going to look like.”

An initial motion to uphold the HPB denial failed on a 2–2 vote. The commission then approved a motion to continue the appeal to Jan. 12, 2026, with the condition the applicant submit full construction documents, elevations and clear material/trim specifications sufficient for staff and the HPB to assess conformance with Schedule S. The commission indicated staff would mark up the construction drawings and work with the applicant before returning the item to the dais.

Next steps: The applicant must provide the requested construction drawings and materials samples and coordinate with planning staff and HPB. If the applicant cannot supply the needed details by the continuance deadline, commissioners said the denial would stand and the applicant would have to pursue further remedies or reapply.