Council won’t dissolve code board

0
Council won’t dissolve code board
BEACON FILE PHOTO<BR> BRINGING COURTROOM EXPERIENCE TO BEAR UPON COUNTY GOVERNMENT — Volusia County Council Member Don Dempsey, who represents the county’s District 1, takes the oath of office Jan. 5, 2023. A lawyer with a private practice in DeLand, Dempsey argued so forcefully against abolishing the county’s Code Enforcement Board that he convinced a majority of the council to allow the panel to continue.

What a difference in only two weeks!

A few well-timed and well-placed words changed hearts and minds inclined to do away with a powerful county panel.

“I thought I was for this at first,” Volusia County Council Member Danny Robins said March 19, thinking aloud about his shift on an ordinance to abolish the Code Enforcement Board. 

Saying they want to streamline county government, the council had earlier proposed to abolish the eight-member Code Enforcement Board and empower a single appointed official to settle building and zoning violations. The sole decider in such civil cases is known as a special magistrate. For the record, the county already has a special magistrate, who rules on code cases. But the move to vest all code enforcement in a special magistrate was gaining traction — until Council Member Don Dempsey, a lawyer by trade, prompted the shift in the groupthink. 

“I’m 100 percent against this,” Dempsey said, adding he had seen what happens in a court with “a rogue judge.” “My biggest fear is we get a rogue special magistrate.”

“There is safety in a multitude of counselors,” he continued, referring to a statement in the Bible (Proverbs 11:14). “Imagine any one of us running the county. … We need a multitude of counselors.”

Dempsey cited other instances of collective decision-making, rather than a single person wielding all power and making all decisions.

“The Supreme Court has nine members,” he argued. “The House of Representatives is not one person.”

Dempsey urged his equals on the dais to avoid “voting for a king for the county.”

Council Member David Santiago spoke in favor of the anti-code-board ordinance.

“I don’t see this as adopting a king,” he told his peers.

“The magistrate works for the County Council,” Santiago also said.

Suddenly, as they weighed Dempsey’s words, a majority of the council backed away from eliminating the board.

“I’m going to vote no on the special magistrate,” County Chair Jeff Brower said.

“You’re dragging some pearls out that are blessed with common sense,” Council Vice Chair Troy Kent told Dempsey. “Your comments are well-received, and I’m going to support your comments.”

Council Member Jake Johansson tried to rally support for abolishing the Code Enforcement Board, recalling that he had first pressed for the board’s demise. 

“The special magistrate does work for us, and we can fire and hire them,” he said. “I think special magistrates are, by and large, more balanced.”

Johansson added he had favored the special-magistrate process over code boards when he was city manager of Port Orange.

Council Member Matt Reinhart likewise endorsed the special-magistrate process as the way to expedite code problems.

“I have seen it move much faster with the special magistrate,” he said, recalling Daytona Beach had done away with its code board.

Whichever process is in place, an aggrieved code violator does have a chance to appeal a judgment against him or her. Appeals of code board decisions would “go to Circuit Court,” said Assistant County Attorney Paolo Soria. 

Soria also said some code violations may also be resolved in a lesser-known way.

“A lot of the code violations may show up as variance requests,” he informed the County Council.

The county’s Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission grants variances for such irregularities as non-adherence to building setbacks or fences erected away from property lines.

An additional bit of support for keeping the Code Enforcement Board came from Chad Lingenfelter, who now chairs that panel. Lingenfelter noted he and fellow board members must reveal any contacts or communications with people, such as alleged violators or neighbors, involved in a code dispute, aside from the code-enforcement staff and the official record of a case. 

Such communications, including phone calls, letters, emails, or a code-board member’s visit or drive-by of the site of a possible violation, are known as ex parte communications. For the sake of fairness, such contacts or conversations must be revealed before a hearing begins.

“Each agenda has an item to disclose ex parte communications,” Lingenfelter said, adding special magistrates are not bound by such a rule.

After hearing and considering points they had not heard before, council members unanimously decided to table the issue. The 7-0 vote to table the ordinance to abolish the Code Enforcement Board indefinitely means the measure will not resurface unless a majority of the council support revisiting it at a later time.

Thus, the Code Enforcement Board survives.

As noted above, Volusia County has both a code board and a special magistrate. The Beacon asked what determines whether an alleged code violation goes before the board or to the special magistrate, but a clear answer has not yet been forthcoming.

Previous article President Biden has accomplished much for our country
Next article DeLand Less-Mow Spring
Born in Virginia, Al spent his youth in Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia, and first moved to DeLand in 1969. He graduated from Stetson University in 1971, and returned to West Volusia in 1985. Al began working for The Beacon as a stringer in 1999, contributing articles on county and municipal government and, when he left his job as the one-man news department at Radio Station WXVQ, began working at The Beacon full time.

No posts to display

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here