8/21/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AUG 21 19 BOOK 61 F� F 0 continues, that we should devise some way to relieve or protect the innocent property owner. Director Keating noted that the Code Enforcement Board is looking at it from the standpoint of getting it cleared up and that is what they ordered Mrs. Carter to do. However, she asked for additional time to bring her problem to this Board. He emphasized that while we have adequate language in our ordinances to prohibit someone from littering and dumping, the problem is in catching the individuals particularly when it is vacant, unfenced property. One of staff's recommendations to Mrs. Carter was to erect a fence, but she did not feel that would solve the problem. He believed that the Board is faced with deciding either to enforce this or have the County clean it up. Vice Chairman Scurlock felt in that case the County would be cleaning up every grove in the county. He still felt that one of the main problems is that people do not want to travel 12-17 miles to the Landfill and, therefore, dump their trash on the nearest vacant lot. To discourage that, he believed the County should provide for collection of all materials at the transfer stations. Mr. Carter felt that some of our Code Enforcement people should investigate these situations, because it is almost impossible to sit out there, day after day, and catch someone dumping, which, in this case, amounts to roughly six truck loads of debris and trash. Mr. Carter noted that most of the dumping is done by lawn maintenance outfits and suspected several firms located nearby. Attorney Vitunac advised that the Code Enforcement Board is not allowed to take action on matters that are essentially criminal in act and dumping on -someone else's property is a criminal matter subject to the County code. It is a law enforce- ment problem. Code enforcement is not law enforcement, it is property maintenance, and under common law and every other law, 73