Development dispute leads to Apopka City Hall workplace investigation into Anderson's conduct

In Summary:

Apopka community development employees said Anderson criticized their professionalism and supported an applicant seeking approval for uses staff considered inconsistent with City development rules. According to Planning Manager Bobby Howell, City Attorney Cliff Shepard subsequently confirmed staff’s interpretation and provided Anderson with relevant case law. Human Resources recommended administrative review and an ethics referral, but the City did not refer the matter to the Florida Commission on Ethics.

*****

An internal City of Apopka investigation documented complaints from three Community Development employees who said Commissioner Nadia Anderson criticized planning staff and advocated for a proposed development during a June 29 meeting.

Related: The Price of Saying No: Apopka cannot have a bare-bones budget without feeling the cuts.

Anderson disputes the employees’ characterization of the meeting, saying she was performing her responsibility as an elected official by questioning how the City handled the applicant’s concerns. She said she did not represent the applicant, receive compensation, or attempt to dictate whether the project should be approved.

Human Resources Director Joe Patton summarized the complaints in an August 19 memorandum to Interim City Administrator Radley Williams. Patton recommended that Williams review the findings and determine whether any action was appropriate. He also recommended referring the matter to the Florida Commission on Ethics.

The City confirmed that it did not make that referral, but provided a statement about the incident.

“The City of Apopka expects all employees and elected officials to conduct themselves professionally and is committed to ensuring that every employee is treated with the utmost respect and dignity,” the City said in a statement provided by Public Information Director Steve Montiero. “The City takes workplace concerns seriously and addresses them through the appropriate established processes.”

Dispute centered on development review

The meeting involved a project identified in the HR memorandum as Adam Retail Plaza and associated with 412 Old Dixie Highway. Howell’s attached statement also identifies the plaza as being at 429 W. Main St., meaning the City documents reference both addresses.

According to Howell, a construction site plan was submitted in June 2025 to demolish an existing site and construct two buildings. Planning staff later informed the applicant that a smoke shop—identified on the plans as hookah retail—and a tire-repair facility were not permitted in the property’s Mixed Use-Downtown zoning district.

Howell said staff met with the property owner and his engineer several times to discuss alternatives. One proposed solution would have divided the property so the existing tire-repair business could remain on one parcel while the remainder was redeveloped separately. Anderson requested the June 29 meeting, which included the property owner, civil engineer Ali Teherani, an associate of Anderson, Public Works Director Vladimir Simonovski, and the three planning employees.

According to the documents, the property owner said the City cost him about $70,000 because he initially received information that the proposed uses and site plan would be allowed but was later told otherwise.

Howell wrote that the owner claimed approvals had already been issued, but the project engineer said during the meeting that the City had not approved the plans. Howell maintained that any development would have to comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.

Howell’s statement also brings City Attorney Cliff Shepard into the dispute. Howell wrote that he contacted Shepard on July 1 to explain what occurred during the meeting and confirm whether planning staff had correctly interpreted the applicable development rules.

According to Howell, Shepard said he already knew about the meeting because Anderson called him immediately after leaving City Hall. Howell wrote that Shepard confirmed the planning manager’s interpretation was correct, explained the applicable law to Anderson and sent her relevant case law. 

Employees describe criticism and pressure

Howell alleged that Anderson told him during the meeting that his interpretation was wrong and said the city attorney would support her position. He also wrote that Anderson characterized staff’s conduct as unprofessional and argued that the disputed uses should be allowed because the applicant had relied on information supplied by City employees. Howell said he interpreted the statements as an attempt to intimidate and publicly embarrass planning staff because the project was not receiving approval.

In a separate statement, Sohn said he perceived Anderson’s comments as diminishing the professional judgment and qualifications of the planning staff. He also said Anderson encouraged the property owner to bring the dispute before the City Commission and indicated that she was willing to assist him.

Sohn acknowledged that he was not assigned to the project and did not have firsthand knowledge of every communication preceding the meeting. However, he said he personally heard Anderson’s comments about staff performance and professionalism.

Hamza wrote that Anderson represented the applicant, verbally attacked planning staff, and said the department should approve the project. Those descriptions represent the employees’ accounts and interpretations of the meeting, not findings by an independent ethics agency.

Anderson rejects bullying characterization

In a written statement and responses to questions about the investigation, Anderson said vigorous oversight should not be equated with intimidation or misconduct.

“I categorically reject any suggestion that advocating for citizens, businesses, accountability, and fair treatment constitutes bullying or an abuse of authority,” Anderson said. “An elected official who is unwilling to ask difficult questions, challenge bureaucracy, or bring people to the table when something appears wrong has little purpose beyond occupying a seat on the dais.”

Anderson said she disagreed with the employees’ descriptions of the meeting and was attempting to understand what happened, identify a possible resolution, and ensure that the parties received fair treatment.

“Professional disagreement is not misconduct,” Anderson said. “Accountability is not intimidation. Advocacy is not bullying.”

Asked whether she called planning employees unprofessional or said the project should be approved, Anderson said her criticism concerned the City’s process rather than individual employees. She said she advocated for professionalism, consistency and fairness but did not believe it was her role to dictate the project’s outcome.

“There is an important distinction between saying, ‘I believe this process was handled poorly,’ and personally attacking an employee,” Anderson said. “Elected officials must retain the ability to make that distinction and speak candidly.”

Anderson says she had no financial relationship

Anderson said her involvement was limited to her role as a commissioner responding to concerns brought by a business.

“Businesses are part of this community too,” she said. “Advocating for a business to receive fair treatment from its government does not make an elected official its agent, employee or representative.”

Anderson said she received no compensation and expected none in connection with the project. She challenged anyone suggesting otherwise to produce supporting evidence. She also confirmed that she encouraged the applicant to seek review by the City Commission. Anderson said residents and businesses should be able to bring an unresolved administrative dispute before their elected governing body.

“The City Commission exists in part to hear matters of public concern and exercise oversight,” Anderson said. “It would be rather extraordinary to suggest that directing someone toward their publicly elected governing body is somehow improper.”

Anderson explains decision not to participate in HR review

The HR memorandum states that Williams informed Anderson about the complaints and asked whether she wanted to provide a statement. According to the document, she declined.

Anderson said she did not consider that decision an admission of wrongdoing. She said the way the allegations were being presented led her to reserve her response and address the issue through what she considered the appropriate channels.

“I stand behind my responsibility to advocate aggressively but professionally for the people I represent,” Anderson said.

Commissioner questions timing

Anderson connected the controversy to the City’s continuing budget debate, saying the discussion has shifted attention away from her questions about taxes and spending priorities.

“I also find the timing difficult to ignore,” Anderson said. “While I am fighting to keep property taxes low and questioning spending priorities, we are once again discussing allegations about the manner in which I advocated rather than the substance of the issues facing Apopka.”

She questioned spending on City Hall improvements and administrative and communications positions while community nonprofit funding is under scrutiny. Anderson argued that organizations serving young people, seniors and people experiencing homelessness can reduce future demands on police, fire, juvenile justice and other public services.

“That is the debate I intend to have,” Anderson said.

According to the City, the development remains on hold while officials await revised materials from the applicant.

Key Points:

• Three Community Development employees submitted complaints following a June 29 meeting.
• The dispute involved the proposed Adam Retail Plaza and whether its planned uses complied with City requirements.
• Howell wrote that Shepard confirmed planning staff’s interpretation of the applicable rules.
• Anderson denied bullying employees, representing the applicant, or receiving compensation connected to the project.
• The City did not make the ethics referral that its Human Resources director recommended.