By DOTTY NIST
The Walton County Code Enforcement Board (CEB) recently took action on alleged violations pertaining to outdoor storage of merchandise on the U.S. 98 Scenic Corridor, buffer clearing, and junk and debris.
Cases on these issues were heard at the county board’s Nov. 20 meeting at the South Walton Annex.
The first case involved alleged clearing in a buffer area at the corner of CR-30A and CR-83 on the Redfish Village property.
Walton County Code Enforcement Officer Jason Catalano explained that, in response to a complaint, he and other county staff members had visited the property on Feb. 20 and had noticed what appeared to be impacts to the preservation buffer area. The next day, he said, code enforcement had received a call saying that a landscape crew was on the site. Catalano said a stop work order was issued at that time to prevent further impact to the buffer.
On May 22, he testified, it was determined that, in addition to the new impacts, the property was no longer in compliance with a directive resulting from a 2012 code enforcement case which had required some restoration replanting on the property. Eight trees that had been added in that replanting had died and had not been replaced, contrary to requirements for 80-percent survival, Catalano explained.
At a June 19 meeting between representatives of property owners Redfish Village Condominium Association and county staff, Catalano related, the condominium association was requested to submit a less-than-minor development order application with a restoration plan. The complete plan was submitted on July 15.
Catalano described some delay by the property owners in implementing the plan but said that they were determined to have complied with the requirements on Oct. 15, the day of the code enforcement board meeting at which they had been notified to appear. The board members granted a continuance of the case on that date due to the determination of compliance, but the case was taken up at the Nov. 20 meeting as a result of the history of noncompliance.
Catalano’s recommendation was for a finding of violation with no fines imposed but with the property owners being required to pay an administrative fee of $450 to cover the costs incurred by the county in prosecuting the case. With the finding of violation, future noncompliance of this nature would be deemed a repeat violation subject to $500-a-day fines, he noted.
David Milam, an attorney representing the property owners, testified that there had been some confusion when the original violation occurred concerning the location of the preservation buffer. There had been an attempt to remediate, but trees were planted in the wrong area, he explained. Steps have now been taken to prevent this from occurring again, Milam said. He did not object to Catalano’s recommendation or to the payment of the administrative fee.
The board members voted in favor of the finding of violation and imposition of the administrative fee with all aye votes, with CEB member Richard Fowlkes abstaining from voting due to a conflict.
In other action, the board members found a violation in connection with junk and debris left outdoors at a residence on 13th Street in Santa Rosa Beach, with the first complaint on the items being received on July 17 and, according to testimony, the original items and additional ones remaining on the property up to the date of the meeting.
With the finding of violation, the board members set a 30-day deadline for correction of the violation, with the property owner Jimmy Gonzales to be required to pay a $450 administrative fee and be subject to $100-a-day fines in the event that compliance does not take place by the deadline.
The final case involved cars for sale being displayed outdoors on U.S. 98 in Miramar Beach contrary to the requirements of the U.S. 98/U.S. 331 Scenic Corridor Standards.
According to Dustin Beck, code enforcement officer, the first complaint on the matter was received on July 2, with as many as nine vehicles for sale being displayed on the property at one time.
Beck said that over the next few weeks there was communication between the business owner Stan Hall, but that communication had then “fallen apart” and code enforcement had at that time contacted the owner of the property, Alexander Christiani.
Beck testified that, as of the day of the meeting, the violation still existed, although some of the vehicles had been removed.
The property owner was not in attendance, but Stan and Emily Hall, owners of the business, Emerald Coast Motor Cars, were present.
Stan Hall told the board members that he and his wife came before them on behalf of small businesses. He testified that the couple’s business was not a car lot but a car-buying business.
Hall said that the number of cars for sale remaining on the property was currently three. He said he and his wife very much wanted to remain in business and sell cars.
CEB Chairman Tom Stein responded that however much the board members might be sympathetic with Hall’s situation, their job was to enforce the code as written.
Board member Richard Fowlkes commented that the board members would be happy to see them sell cars but that a car-selling business should be in an area where that activity is allowed by code. Whether the number of cars was 11 or one did not make a difference, Fowlkes added.
In response to a question, Hall said he did not look at the Scenic Corridor Standards before locating his business on U.S. 98.
The board members voted 3-2 to find the property in violation due to the display of vehicles for sale. A 10-day deadline was set for correction of the violation, with the property owner being charged a $450 administrative fee and to be subject to $250-a-day fines in the event that compliance does not take place by the deadline.
The Halls exited with Stan Hall angrily vowing that they would be leaving Walton County because of the county’s “ridiculous rules.”
