Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents say code enforcement case remains unresolved; board asks county attorney and director to return with clarification
Summary
A neighbor and an advocate told the board a previously denied variance for a pole barn remains in place and fines have accrued; staff said enforcement and magistrate processes are separate and the board requested county attorney input and the planning director at the next meeting.
Residents who opposed a variance in a prior case told the board that the property owner is still working on a pole‑barn structure that the board had previously denied and that code enforcement fines have continued to accumulate.
Barbara Murano (who identified herself as involved in the prior matter) told the board that after the board denied the variance earlier this year, code enforcement had still issued fines that she and others believed had not been resolved. "His fines are up to $36,000," Murano said, asking why enforcement had not resulted in removal or compliance.
Neighbors and an individual who identified himself as the person who filed the original complaint described ongoing work at the site and alleged the magistrate hearing and enforcement steps produced inconsistent results. A neighbor said he had not received notice of a magistrate hearing and that fines were continuing while the structure remained.
Planning staff explained that the zoning/adjustment board does not have independent enforcement authority to effect removals; code enforcement and magistrate hearings proceed under separate administrative processes. Donnie Sway, the building plans review manager, and other staff said they could not confirm fine disposition in the meeting and that code enforcement officials and the county magistrate handle those matters.
Given the confusion and the apparent lack of coordination between planning, code enforcement and magistrate processes, the board asked that the planning director and the county attorney (Clay Atkinson) attend the next meeting (Dec. 15 or the next scheduled session) to clarify enforcement authority and whether there is a conflict when the same attorney serves multiple roles.
What happens next: The board asked staff to invite the planning director and the county attorney to the next meeting to explain enforcement options and the relationship between the zoning/adjustment board, magistrate hearings, and code enforcement.
