Laserfiche WebLink
After discussion by the commissioners and Mr. DeBraal, the following was <br />added to the schedule of fines. <br />e) Noise violations will be addressed separately with $100 for the first <br />occurrence and any subsequent incidents will be $300. <br />Mr. Taylor voiced his opinion against the proposed fines, particularly for <br />the more expensive rentals. He also felt that there should be a provision for the <br />property -owner having their license suspended or revoked for repeat offenses. <br />Chairman Polackwich responded to Mr. Taylor's remarks that this had <br />been addressed at the first meeting and the advice of the county attorney's office <br />was that we as a county cannot revoke licenses as this is part of the prohibition <br />preemption that we cannot stop people from having vacation rentals. Repeated <br />violations would have to be dealt with by the court system. <br />Mr. DeBraal explained that repeat violations would be reported to the <br />Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBBR), who could take <br />action against the state issued license. They could suspend or revoke the state <br />issued license which would put the unit owner in violation of our county code <br />because they are required to have a state license in order to have a county <br />license. He went on to point out that vacation rentals are viewed the same as a <br />hotel/motel where law enforcement eviction authority was concerned and the <br />business owner can- work together with a sheriffs deputy to immediately evict <br />violators from the premises. <br />Mr. Zurface inquired as to when an owner would be notified of fines <br />because they have thirty days to refund the vacation rental deposit. Mr. Boling <br />replied that the manager/owner would be notified immediately of any problems <br />brought to the attention of code enforcement staff. <br />Dr. Conway questioned whether the noise violations would be imposed <br />under 974.03 or 974.05 and who would be the fining officer. He pointed out that <br />out of the 1492 noise complaints in the county last year, only one made it to code <br />enforcement and there was no fine while three were arrested by law enforcement <br />but for battery rather than noise. Mr. Boling replied that both ordinances would be <br />used and can be enforced by both code enforcement and law enforcement. <br />PZC/Unapproved 7 June 2, 2016 <br />F:\BCC\AII CommitteesTU\2016—AGENDAS & MINUTES\PZC 060216.doc <br />Attachment 8 <br />168 <br />