Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board trims special‑master fines after developer says permit confusion was county error
Summary
The county reduced penalties against a developer after the engineer said the work was permitted and staff acknowledged internal communication failures; the board approved a reduced balance and directed staff to record the adjusted lien.
The Board of County Commissioners voted Dec. 16 to reduce civil fines previously issued after a special‑master hearing against Fisher Link Development LLC following testimony that the work in question had been permitted and staff admissions that internal communications were unclear.
Richard Matassa, the engineer of record, said construction equipment had been stored on a lot that Matassa believed fell within a drainage‑work permit tied to adjacent work and that he had tried to alert county staff. "We told code enforcement we had a permit," Matassa said. Michelle Carlin, who attended hearings on the matter, told the board she had presented permit documentation earlier but staff did not accept it at the time.
County staff and legal counsel framed the board's decision narrowly. County attorney John Jobin told commissioners that the board was not reconsidering whether a violation occurred — that had not been appealed — but rather whether to grant leniency on the monetary amount. Administrator Rogers acknowledged internal miscommunication and recommended leniency because of missed opportunities to resolve the dispute earlier.
Outcome: The board motioned to reduce the outstanding balance to the administrative amount noted in the special‑master proceeding and to record the reduced lien; the motion passed 5‑0. Counsel said staff will record the adjusted lien and notify the parties about next steps.
Why it matters: Developers and contractors told the board the case highlighted a breakdown in inter‑department communication on permits. Commissioners said the action corrected an enforcement outcome that, in their view, stemmed in part from county process failures rather than willful noncompliance.
Implementation note: Staff will file the reduced lien amount as directed and follow up with the property owner and developer about compliance obligations going forward.
