Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Walton County board fines and enforcement are inconsistent after variance denial; board asks staff, county attorney to return
Summary
Residents said a previously denied pole-barn variance remains under construction and faces thousands in fines; planning staff and the board agreed the zoning board lacks independent enforcement authority and requested the planning director and county attorney appear at the next meeting to clarify enforcement paths.
Residents raised a separate, contentious issue late in the Nov. 17 meeting: they said a property previously denied a variance for a pole barn remains under construction and faces significant fines.
Barbara Murano (identified in public comment) and neighbor Mark Douglas said code enforcement continues to issue fines — they cited totals described in the meeting as up to roughly $35,000 — while the property owner continues building. Murano said she had been told code would close the matter if the owner pulled required permits, but later found the owner was still constructing the structure and that fines persisted. Neighbor Mark Douglas said the sequence of events — code board denial, apparent follow-up actions and then continued work — made the process look inconsistent and left neighbors frustrated.
Planning and building staff explained the limits of the zoning board’s enforcement authority. Donnie Sway, the Building Plans Review manager, and other staff said the zoning board does not have independent enforcement authority to impose fines; magistrate hearings and code enforcement processes are separate and may impose fines or other remedies. County legal counsel (present) said further research and consultation would be required to identify the county’s enforcement avenues and the board requested that the planning director and county attorney be present at the next meeting to explain options and remedies.
Several commissioners said the case illustrated a recurring problem: code enforcement and planning do not always coordinate enforcement outcomes and the board asked staff to bring the planning director and legal counsel to the December meeting to clarify the process and possible enforcement steps.
No formal enforcement decision was made at this meeting; the board scheduled follow-up and asked staff to return with the director and attorney to explain what enforcement tools are available and how board determinations interact with magistrate and code enforcement actions.
