Should Code Enforcement become Proactive?

[Smiling JOe]

Busta Hustle, what are you doing opening up that can of worms? :funn:That entire back@ssward mess will leave Code Enforcement shaking their heads wondering which rule to enforce. In some cases, the County's Storm Water Plan is just plain stupid, and is totally opposite of what the Covenants and Restrictions may allow, and in the middle is Mr or Ms property owner who is stuck, trying to determine which rule they obey.

 

[Busta Hustle]

just do what the "connected" do...just ignore the rules cuz if no one complains no one enforces...or do i have a bad a-t-t-i-t-u-d-e...

 

[Smiling JOe]

I understand the County recently took action against the owners of the property located slightly to the west of Sally's By the Sea, who clear cut the entire property, violating County Code. I hear that the County wants to finally, after three years of inaction by the owners to restore the property (actually, they tried planting a few plants, but they died because they didn't water the plants), fine the property owners and get them to restore the vegetation (I'm not sure how one restores 20 year old scrub Oaks.) and they are sending the property owners to Court to let the Court make the judgment.

Shocking, I know. The County actually attempting to enforce the rules.

 

[John R]

Conversely, based on the number of your posts, you must be the ultimate "Big Brother" who's watching (and reporting) everything. And from what I've seen from several of your posts, you haven't disappointed me much in this regard.

Likewise, if we take your number of posts and extrapolate the 'self important BMB beachfront owner' factor of a 1:1 ratio, you are clearly the winner. Your new screen name could be BlueMtnBeachEmperor ;-)

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

...... Your new screen name could be BlueMtnBeachEmperor ;-)

Finally, some respect!

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

To the best of my knowledge, it still is a County requirement, until the County changes it.

To the best of my knowledge, it is not.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Can you provide evidence of the County overturning their ruling?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Can you provide evidence of the County overturning their ruling?

SJ, another reason why half informed "proactive" citizens are more dangerous than "lurkers".

The final item on the planning commission?s regular agenda was an amendment to the Walton County Land Development Code that would have mandated seawalls to be covered with at least 3 feet of sand and a more gradual slope. Furthermore, it included vague language that essentially would have required a second letter of county approval to be sent to the DEP, even if the applications were already ?complete? and waiting permanent status.
Emmet Hildreth disputed the amendment on three grounds and forced the planning commission to table the discussion until more information could be disseminated. Hildreth told the commission they lacked the right to force such regulations on private property.
?If you told everyone in DeFuniak Springs to plant roses in their yard would you expect them to do it?? he asked.
He admonished the commission?s attempted action as ?ex-posto facto,? and questioned the county?s legal authority to interject in DEP business.
?This county commission has said time and time again that it has no authority over construction in the Coastal Control Line,? Hildreth said, referring to an area under particular state scrutiny between the Gulf and upland structures. ?Still, here we are, making a proposal about what the county can do to trivialize the process. Our applications are complete and nowhere in the process were we ever told about a ?second letter? until tonight.?
Under pressure from county attorney David Hallman, the planning commission admitted the purpose of the amendment was to require a second letter, but planning commission director Pat Blackshear said it was actually a DEP condition and therefore a second letter ?may not be required.?
Later, Hallman said he ?wasn?t sure what the planning department was trying to do? with the amendment.
?I think there was a lot of confusion,? Hallman said of the issue, ?and ultimately because of that, the amendment was not approved.?
Hallman said he didn?t like to speculate on actions the BCC would have taken if the amendment had reached their agenda, ?but I think it is very clear we don?t have jurisdiction over the CCL,? he said.


SJ, is there any part of the above that is not crystal clear?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Yes, that which is not clear is why the requirements which were discussed at the Special BCC Mtg were conveniently left out of the minutes. I have noted this before, and wish I still had my handout and notes from that meeting, because much was left out of the minutes, including the caps and slopes, which were discussed and, to the best of my recollection, approved by the BCC, but got lost when people began asking for clarification. Just curious, were you at the meeting too?

Also, for future reference, perhaps you could cite your sources. I have no idea if this is a newspaper article or recorded minutes from a meeting.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

.....
Also, for future reference, perhaps you could cite your sources.

Don't feel like it (this time).