4/6/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 103 FAGS �G- 3 The Code Enforcement Board's action raises two important issues that affect implementation of the County's regulations. These issues are as follows: • Should the Code Enforcement Board legislate? By deciding which codes, ordinances and regulations to enforce, the Code Enforcement Board essentially assumes a legislative or law making role. That is a function limited to the Board of County Commissioners, and a function that may not be delegated by the Board of County Commissioners. As the elected representatives of the residents of the County, the Board of County Commissioners adopted legislation to prohibit pot-bellied pigs from being kept in residentially zoned areas. The Board of County Commissioners also specifically voted not to grandfather in pot-bellied pigs existing in residentially zoned areas prior to adoption of the pig prohibition. By deciding that keeping pigs in residential areas does not constitute a code violation, the Code Enforcement Board effectively legislated away the Board of County Commissioners' adopted pot-bellied pig prohibition. According to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, the Code Enforcement Board does not have the authority to take the action which it did. If the Code Enforcement Board thought that the pot-bellied pig prohibition regulation was unfair, the appropriate action would have been for the Code Enforcement Board to have given the subject respondent a period of tune to comply with the regulation and to formally request that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider its regulation prior to the respondent's compliance date. • How should staff enforce pot-bellied pig regulations? As described herein, staffbas enforced the pot-bellied pig regulations adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. In enforcing those regulations, however, staff depends upon the Code Enforcement Board to issue orders and impose fines upon those respondents who fail to comply with the regulations. With respect to the pot- bellied pig regulation, the Code Enforcement Board has refused to enforce, and therefore has effectively overturned, the Board of County Commissioners' legislative decision not to grandfather pot-bellied pigs. Consequently, staff needs direction as to how to enforce the pot-bellied pig prohibition. Since the Code Enforcement Board has decided not to enforce the regulation, it seems that, without action by the Board of County Commissioners, future POt-bellied pig code enforcement mses will also be dismissed by the Code Enforce Board. The choice then is for staff to ignore pot-bellied pig complaints since the Cade Enforcement Board will not enforce the pig prohibition, or for the Board of County Commissioners to appeal the Code Enforcement Board's pot-bellied M decision to circ= court, requesting that the court compel the Code Enforcement Board to enforce the pig prohibition. Alternatively, the Board of County Commissioners could bypass the Code Enforcement Board on future pot-bellied pig cases. This would involve seeking an injunction through the circuit court, based upon Section 100.05 2. of the County's Code oflaws and Ordinarnces. That section deems any violation ofthe code a public nuisance and provides for abatement of the violation through injunctive relief. The Board of County Commissioners' alternatives in this case involve either tatting action or not taking action. In not taking action, the Board of County Commissioners would allow the Code Enforcement Board to legislate the pot-bellied pig issue as well as any other issue with which the Code Enforcement Board disagrees. By taking action, the Board of County Commissioners could compel the code Enforcement Board to enforce legally adopted county regulations. Specifically, the Board of County Commissioners' two alternatives are: APRIL 6, 1999 0 -92- •