Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Longwood denies special exception for medical trailer; staff asked to consider a 6‑month temporary permit
Loading...
Summary
The commission denied a request to make a mobile PET/CT cardiac trailer permanent, citing Longwood Development Code Article 10, but directed staff to explore a six‑month temporary use permit while fire‑code and permitting issues are resolved; vote was 5–0.
The Longwood City Commission unanimously denied a special exception March 2 that would have made a mobile PET/CT cardiac trailer permanent at 450 W. State Road 434, but commissioners also asked staff to explore a short, six‑month temporary use permit or a code change so the clinic could continue serving patients while addressing outstanding compliance items.
Community Development Director Chris Kettner told the commission the code exempts Article 10 from special exceptions. "Article 10 ... the City Commission cannot grant to article 10," he said, explaining that site‑plan and development permitting requirements are not subject to the special‑exception process and that the application as submitted was therefore legally deficient.
Victor Chapman, representing MD Associates, and cardiologist Waseem Amar told the commission the trailer houses equipment (including a rubidium generator) used for cardiac PET/CT testing that applicants said cannot be accommodated inside the building. "This is a life saving test," Dr. Amar said, and multiple patients and staff gave testimony describing long relationships with the practice and dependence on the local service.
The record shows the mobile unit previously operated under a temporary medical mobile unit permit issued 01/06/2023 and set to expire 07/06/2023; code enforcement identified the expired permit on 10/07/2025 and issued a notice of violation. Staff and commissioners also flagged outstanding fire‑code issues, notably electrical wiring that the fire marshal said should be run underground to the unit.
Commissioners stressed they were not questioning the clinical value of the service but relied on the legal constraints in the development code. After discussion, the commission voted to deny the special‑exception request 5–0 (motion by Commissioner Boney, second by Commissioner Morgan). Immediately following the vote, staff outlined an alternative: the city could issue a six‑month temporary use permit if the applicant agrees to conditions (including resolving the fire marshal's outstanding items) and staff can work with the applicant to craft a compliant path forward.
Outcome: special exception denied 5–0; staff directed to pursue a temporary permit option and to examine whether a code amendment is needed to allow a permanent solution in the future.
The medical provider told the commission they have contractors ready to bury wiring and address the fire‑code items within days. Staff said a short TUP would remove the outstanding code enforcement fine while the city and applicant work toward a permanent, code‑compliant solution or proposed code change for a future hearing.
