ORD-2003-006 Amend Section VII (Legal Status Provision), Sub-section VII-E (Penalties for Violation)

Browse Search

c. Amend Article 23 (Enforcement) to streamline the citation procedure for zoning violations, to establish procedural guidelines for violation notifications, to allow the Zoning Officer to process civil penalties. An increase in the civil penalty from $100.00 to $500.00 per violation is also a part of the amendment. 2. Orange County Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Amend Section VII (Legal Status Provision), Sub - section VII -E (Penalties for Violation), to identify the citation procedure for violations, and establish procedural guidelines for violation notification, to allow the Planning Director to make assessments for civil penalties, and increases the civil penalty from $50.00 to $500.00 per violation. Craig Benedict said that within this ordinance is how the County identifies with recurring violations and how to provide notices. The County still plans to have personal delivery with registered and certified mail. Civil penalties are suggested to increase from $100 to $500 per day. Presently the demand for payment occurs from the County Commissioners. The recommendation is that the demand for payment occurs with the staff and the courts. The definition of a violation and a violator has been enhanced. The attorney's office has worked closely with the zoning staff to examine the ways to bring violations to a faster conclusion that is fair with full notification and disclosure. He showed a procedural chart of the process of civil penalties. He said that presently there is a backlog of zoning compliance issues because they do not proceed past a certain point and there is no expeditious manner to bring them to a conclusion. John Link assured the Board that before the matters are carried to court that the person involved will know exactly what is involved. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to 23.2.2 and said that the person can be given notice in person or by certified mail. He would like to be assured that there is a personal documented visit first. He made reference to 23.2.3 and read, "a notice of violation is not required where a notice of the same violation has been issued to the same violator at the same property within the previous two years." He asked if someone could have 700 days of $500 a day fines accrue and not get another notice. Craig Benedict said that if a violation is resolved and then the violation is reactivated within the two year timeframe, then a notice is not required to have the repeat violation. Geoff Gledhill said that the idea is that this is not a continuing violation, but the previous one had been stopped and the violator has later resumed the violation. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the appeal would now go to the Board of Adjustment. Geoff Gledhill said that the appeal of the zoning officer's determination has always been to the Board of Adjustment. The difference is that the County Commissioners demanded the civil penalties and this would now be at the staff level. Commissioner Gordon said that it might be possible to work in a visit by a person by giving the person an option. Commissioner Halitosis cautioned the Board of County Commissioners. He said that the Board has given up enough in this County. He said that giving away opportunities for appeal to paid staff is setting a dangerous precedent. Commissioner Carey made reference to 23.4.4 and said that this provides for the Planning Director to make decisions about settlement or mitigation of the civil penalty in instances where appropriate. He thinks it is important that we reflect in here that what we are after is compliance and not money. He would like the language to reflect that the County wants