Seminole County magistrate extends compliance deadlines, continues cases and sets fines in routine enforcement hearing

The Seminole County special magistrate on Aug. 14, 2025 reviewed multiple code-enforcement cases involving unpermitted construction, electrical work and unpaid permit fees and issued a series of extensions, continuances and penalty warnings.

The magistrate opened the session by explaining the hearing process and reminding respondents that the county presents its case first; respondents may then offer evidence and witnesses. The magistrate reiterated the possible penalties for violations, including fines of up to $250 per day for first-time offenses and higher daily penalties for repeat violations.

County building-division staff led most presentations. Ruth Goldstein of the Building Division and Inspector Brent Griffin described the evidence and permit histories in each matter, citing Seminole County Code, chapter 40, appendix A, section 105.1 where applicable. Common issues included installation of unpermitted air-conditioning units and signs, additions and pool work that had not cleared plan review, revisions pending payment and work performed outside parcel boundaries.

Examples from the hearing illustrate the range of outcomes. In the case presented for Sonia Hurtado (installation of a mini-split AC without a permit), staff reported that the required energy calculations were submitted the day of the hearing and recommended additional time to complete the permit process; the magistrate extended the compliance date to Sept. 10, 2025, with a compliance hearing set for Sept. 11, 2025. For Mount Zion Baptist Church of Midway, a gazebo installed without a permit was in active plan review; the magistrate granted a 30-day extension and set a Sept. 10, 2025 compliance deadline and a Sept. 11 hearing.

Where permit applications were effectively complete but pending payment, the magistrate repeatedly urged respondents to pay so permits could be issued rather than imposing fines immediately. For example, staff said a permit revision for solar work at a property owned by Yahoo Properties LLC was approved but not issued because payment was outstanding; the magistrate gave the owner 30 days to pay and warned that, if the payment was not made, a $250-per-day fine could be imposed retroactively to Aug. 14.

Some matters raised legal or boundary questions that required further fact-finding. In the Joseph Migliaccio case, the owner disputed the county’s position that a shed sat in a separate tract/landscape buffer outside his parcel. Planner Angie Gates said the survey showed the structure was on a tract not belonging to the owner, and code-enforcement manager John Martin asked for a continuance to research property-dedication and boundary logistics; the magistrate continued that matter to Oct. 9, 2025 to allow staff to investigate and notify the respondent.

For several properties where owners did not appear, the magistrate accepted the county’s electronic case files into evidence, found code violations, ratified prior orders and set compliance deadlines (commonly Oct. 8, 2025, or Nov. 11–12, 2025, depending on the case). In those instances the magistrate warned respondents that fines would begin accruing if they failed to meet the deadlines and reserved rulings on administrative costs and fees until compliance hearings.

The magistrate approved the July 10, 2025 meeting minutes and confirmed the next special magistrate hearing for Sept. 11, 2025 before adjourning.

What happens next: affected property owners were given the specific compliance dates cited in the magistrate’s orders; several items were continued so county staff could complete plan-review checks or determine property-boundary status. The magistrate reserved decisions on administrative costs and fees for follow-up compliance hearings.