Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Permits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Code board finds Azalea Place property owner in compliance after permit application for jet-ski lifts

Winter Park Code Compliance Board · August 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Winter Park Code Compliance Board voted 5–0 Aug. 6 to find the owner of 2211 Azalea Place in compliance after the respondent applied for building permits for two jet‑ski lifts; neighbors had complained the lifts intruded on property lines and lacked permits.

The Winter Park Code Compliance Board voted unanimously Aug. 6 to find the owner of 2211 Azalea Place in compliance with a notice that cited unpermitted jet‑ski lifts, after the respondent’s attorney said a permit application was in process.

Philip Wade, the city’s safety and code compliance officer, told the board the case (BLDG26‑0006) alleged “construction and alteration of jet ski lifts installed to the boat dock without a permit” and presented inspection dates, parcel information and photographs. Wade said the Lakes Division director had advised a variance would be required for any new configuration and that the permit application remained under departmental review.

Respondent attorney Damon Chase argued the lifts had been present for about 21 years and that the original dock was permitted. Chase said the owner had since applied for a permit and was adapting the lifts to davits so the equipment would sit on the dock and not in the setback. “We have pictures that, like, before any of the houses out there were built, there’s the dock with the lifts on it,” Chase said.

Neighbors who spoke urged enforcement. Resident Charles Chase said a survey placed the jet‑ski lifts within about 1.5 feet of his property line and said he had no record of a required letter of no objection. Elena Holac said she had received threatening messages after reporting the issue to the city.

Board discussion focused on the narrow wording of the city’s notice and the limits of the Code Compliance Board’s authority. A board member moved to find the respondent in compliance because the owner had applied for the required permit within the time frame specified in the notice; the motion passed 5–0. The board noted that other, separate code claims (setback or prior permitting irregularities) could be pursued by the city if it chose to file a new notice.