4/6/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

allow Heidi Lewis, the respondent whose case created neighborhood concerns, to re-establish her pigs. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider the information presented herein, consider the county attorney's input, and make a decision regarding its preferred pot-bellied pig alternative. • To appear! the Code Enforcement Board's Causey decision. Appealing the Code Enforcement Board's decision will involve hiring outside legal counsel and filing a lawsuit in circuit court. According to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, any such appy must be filed within 30 days from the date of issuance of the Code Enforcement Board's order. Although the Code Enforcement Board adopted its order on March 22, 1999, the order has not yet been formally issued. Issuance will occur soon. The cost of appealing the Code Enforcement Board's order could range from $3,000 to $5,000 for outside legal counsel for the Board of County Commissioners. The Code Enforcement Board would be represented by the County Attorney's office. Because of the time limitation to appeal a Code Enforcement Board order, the Board of County Commoners must act immediately if it intends to appeal. This will allow time to choose and contract with an outside attorney and time for that attorney to prepare the complaint. • Not to appeal the Cade Enforcement Board's Causey decision The Board of County Commissioners can choose not to appeal the Code Enforcement Board's Causey decision That, however, would leave the Board of County Commissioners' pot-belfied pig prohibition, or at least the non -grandfathering provision of that regulation, unclear. Because enforcement would be futile given the Code Enforcement Board's past action and stated position, code enforcement staff would not pursue enforcement of pot- bellied pig violations where the pig existed prior to the May LDR change. If the Board of County Commissioners opts for this alternative, the Board of County Commissioners should formally rescind its decision not to grandfather pot-bellied pigs kept in residential areas prior to its May IDR amendment. Such action would clarify the regulation and provide specific direction to code enforcement staff The Board of County Commissioners can choose either alternative. With alternative 1, the Board can reconfirm and defend its September non -grandfathering position with alternative 2, the Board will avoid a lawsuit, but must reverse its September non-grandf tthering decision Such action will also CountyAttorney Vitunac noted that the County Attomeys' Office represents the Code Enforcement Board as well as the Board of County Commissioners. He recommended filing a motion for rehearing as no one would benefit from having 2 County agencies suing each other. He also recommended that the owners of the pigs be invited to meet with Planning & Zoning and look at the issues again, particularly the "grandfathering" issue. Perhaps a way can be found for the pig owners and the County to agree. APRIL 6, 1999 -93BOOK '103 �mA-ji -