The City of Clermont Code Enforcement Board on Nov. 17 dismissed an enforcement action against Encompass Health that alleged the rehabilitation hospital failed to provide required cross access under Planned Unit Development Ordinance 2020‑30.

Assistant City Attorney Avery Diane opened the hearing by noting items 1 and 2 stem from the same set of facts but affect different properties. City planning staff described an approximately 100‑foot strip between the hospital parcel (phase 1) and adjacent land (phase 2) that staff says was conditioned for cross access in the PUD and is not yet connected.

Kurt Henschel, Planning and Development Services director, told the board the issue was a missing connection between the two phases: "that's why we're here because they haven't connected the roadway from 1 development to the other." City staff recommended the board find a violation and assess daily fines if compliance was not achieved.

Encompass’s counsel, Brent Spain, countered that the approved PUD and the later approved construction plans required only a stub‑out to Encompass’s property line and did not require his client to build a road across land it does not own. "Nowhere in there does it say a road needs to be constructed," Spain said, and he showed the board the approved construction drawings and recorded cross‑access easement documents indicating Encompass built to the limits of its permits and offered cross‑access agreements to neighboring owners.

Adjacent landowners and the phase‑2 owner argued the original applicant benefited from the PUD and that responsibilities can run with the land; counsel for the neighboring owner said Encompass had benefited from the permit and that a private contractual dispute between owners might be the only remedy. The board discussed whether the PUD’s cross‑access condition applied to the entire 32‑acre parcel or placed the onus on a specific phase.

After questioning and argument, a board member moved to find Encompass Health not in violation of the ordinance and to dismiss case CEB25‑00146; the motion was seconded and carried. Later in the meeting, the board also dismissed the linked case against the vacant lot owner (case C25000014) for insufficient evidence.

What happens next: the dismissals resolve the city’s enforcement actions for now. Several parties at the hearing suggested the remaining disputes about who must construct or finance the full connection are likely civil matters between private owners or may require future site‑plan or right‑of‑way actions; the board did not direct additional remedial measures against Encompass or the vacant parcel owners.