4/6/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• in addition to the official pot-bellied pig complaints referenced above, staff has received a number of inquiries from county residents regarding pot-bellied pig regulations and enforcement procedures. Based upon those contacts, it is reasonable to believe that some residents having pot-bellied pigs have removed the pigs to comply with County regulations without having been formally cited through code enforcement. With respect to the pot-bellied pig code enforcement cases, several different actions have occurred, and one case is scheduled for an evidentiary hearing at the next Code Enforcement Board meeting. In the Heidi Lewis case, the Code Enforcement Board held an evidendary hearing and issued an order that her pigs be removed Prior to a compliance hearing before the Code Enforcement Board where a fine would have been imposed, Ms. Lewis voluntarily complied and removed the pigs. Several other cases were also resolved by the respondent removing his pot-bellied pigs before fines were assessed. At its meeting ofMarch 22, 1999, the Code Enforcement Board considered the Amimarie Causey rase. =47=77111: Like the Heidi Lewis case, the Amimarie Causey case involved pot-bellied pigs being kept in a residential zoning district. Also like the Lewis case, the Causey case involved pigs that had been acquired prior to the May LDR amendment which prohibited pot-bellied pigs being kept as household pets in residentially zoned areas. At its March meeting, the Code Enforcement Board conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Causey case. Despite evidence presented by staff that pot-bellied pigs were being kept in a residentially zoned area in violation ofthe County's LDWs and despite the respondent's testimony that pigs were being kept at the residence, the Code Enforcement Board found, by a four to three vote, that no code violation existed. In making its decision, the Code Enforcement Board majority indicated that they did not agree with the County's land development regulations on pot-bellied pigs. They indicated that they thought it was unfair to require removal of pot-bellied pigs acquired prior to the May amendment of the LDR's. And they opined that they felt that they (as the Code Enforcement Board) had made the wrong decision in ordering that Heidi Lewis remove her pigs. In finding that no violation existed in the Causey case, the Code Enforcement Board made a policy or legislative decision, instead of a quasi-judicial decision. •,� l..• 71,711 _:•._� ��7n..��- Indian River County established its Code Enforcement Board in 1982. Its creation is codified in Section 103.03 4. of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances. As indicated in that code section, the Code Enforcement Board is constituted and has the powers and responsibilities as set forth in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, provides the enabling authority for local governments to establish Code Enforcement Boards which have "the authority to hold hearings and assess fines against violators of the respective county or municipal codes and ordinances." That chapter goes on to state that "an aggrieved party, including the local governing body, may appeal a final administrative order of an enforcement board to the circuit court." Finally, Chapter 162 states that "the local governing body attorney shall either be counsel to an enforcement board or shall represent the municipality or county in no case shall the local governing body attorney serve in both capacities." By deciding in the Causey case that keeping pot-bellied pigs did not constitute a code violation, the Code Enforcement Board exceeded its designated authority under Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. According to Chapter 162, the Code Enforcement Board has the authority to enforce existing adopted regulations, not to establish, amend, modify, or change codes or regulations. Those are legislative functions which only the Board of County Commissioners can undertake. Since Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, provides that appeals of Code Enforcement Board decisions go to circuit court, the Board of County Commissioners does not have the authority to overturn the Code Enforcement Board's decision. In fact, state statutes provide that the Board of County Commissioners insist adhere to the same procedures as any other aggrieved party in appealing a Code Enforcement Board decision. Ifthe Board of County Commissioners does opt to appeal the Code Enforcement Board's decision to circuit covet, the Board of County Commissioners cannot use the County Attorney's office as its legal counsel. Since the County Attorney's office represents the Code Enforcement Board and since Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, prohibits a local government's attorney from representing both the Code Enforcement Board and the local government, the Board of County Commissioners would need to retain an outside attorney in an appeal of the Code Enforcement Board's decision. In fact, the County Attorney's office, as the Code Enforcement Board's counsel, would oppose the Board of County Commissioners in such a proceeding. APRIL 6,1999 -91- �;,� BOOK ' 3 F��4 X99