5/12/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M the Code Enforcement Board, that code inspector will give evidence in the name of the County. Discussion ensued regarding selective enforcement. Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois related the procedures the County follows. The code enforcement log reveals that the County receives over 1,000 complaints on a yearly basis, which is enough to keep the code officers busy. However, a code officer is designated for what is called geographical enforcement where the officer will go through and view a subdivision, and if there is a violation, it will be cited. Commissioner Scurlock asked if that same code officer would note other violations on the way to a particular complaint, and Environmental Planning Chief DeBlois assured him that a note would be made of other violations, even though action may not be taken immediately. He pointed out that in addition to Mr. Mensing's notice of violationf there were 7 other similar notices sent in Roseland and 14 sites on his particular street have been contacted informally. Mr. DeBlois explained that initial contact with violators is informal and on staff level. If the situation cannot be resolved at staff level, then it is sent to the Code Enforcement Board for determination. If they determine a violation does exist, they set a time frame for compliance. Mr. Mensing's notice is the beginning of the process. He sees the initial notice of violation as something he should not get, but it is the first step and gives him an opportunity to resolve it without going any further. Mr. DeBlois confirmed that the policy is the code officer does not trespass on posted lands. In the subject case, the code officer indicated that she did not see any posted sign. Chairman Eggert led discussion about procedure in the case of public health or safety violations on posted lands, and Mr. DeBlois responded that it would be observed from off site. In most cases, the code officer will go to the door and ask to talk to the owner. If the situation becomes more complicated, the County Attorney is consulted. Discussion ensued regarding habitual code violators and Mr. Mensing's past violations. Mr. Mensing would not admit or deny being in violation, and he stated that issue would be addressed in another forum. He was before the Board to object to anonymous complaints. Commissioner Scurlock summarized that staff's position is that anonymous complaints must be answered, and when there are multiple or habitual violations, it is done more formally. County Administrator Chandler confirmed we do respond to anonymous complaints because we have an obligation to determine if 25 MAY 12 1992 �� t19 Fr uT• �: a,�