Planning Commission recommends against replacement of code board with special magistrate

By DOTTY NIST
Will a special magistrate replace the Walton County Code Enforcement Board (CEB)?  If this occurs, it will be against the recommendation of another county commission-appointed board, the Walton County Planning Commission.
A proposed ordinance that would replace the CEB with a special magistrate was brought before the planning commission at its April 9 regular meeting at the South Walton Annex.
For over 15 years the CEB, an unpaid volunteer board appointed by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), has held hearings on alleged code violations. Recently the BCC voted to start the process of considering an ordinance to replace the CEB with a special magistrate.
By Florida law, counties and municipalities may use either a board or a special magistrate for code enforcement hearings. Special magistrates are hired to conduct these hearings in some areas. They are often retired judges.
Mark Davis, county attorney, told the planning commissioners that his office represents the CEB at code hearings, and that when an attorney is needed to represent county staff at these hearings another attorney must be hired. Replacing the CEB with a special magistrate would enable him to represent staff, eliminating the need for another attorney, he explained.
Davis said he sits in on CEB meetings and is aware that those board members work very hard.
Planning commissioner David Kramer asked if it would not cost money to hire the special magistrate. Davis confirmed that it would, saying that the cost might actually be more. He said he had hoped to provide assurance that the cost would be “a wash” as compared with hiring the additional attorney but was not able to do so.
Planning Commissioner Suzanne Harris asked what the BCC’s decision had been as to whether to “sue” the CEB. On March 10, at the request of county staff, Davis had brought a request before the BCC for the county to file a court appeal of a Jan. 15 CEB decision, which had found a Paxton area sky-diving operation not in violation. The BCC had voted not to proceed with the appeal.
Davis replied to Harris that the commissioners had voted not to appeal the CEB decision. He added that this had nothing to do with the decision now before the planning commission.
Kramer, who had served on the CEB before being appointed to the planning commission, said that during his 15 years on the CEB that board had never lost a court appeal of a decision. He said he had learned during that time that the objective was to achieve compliance with the code and that it was important to exercise compassion as a CEB member.
Davis responded that compliance would be the goal in hearings conducted by a special magistrate as well.
Kramer contrasted the atmosphere of CEB meetings, with a board of fellow citizens as decision makers, to that of being in court, where a person needs to have an attorney to represent them. People coming before the CEB feel that they can talk with the board members, he noted. Kramer said he had the feeling when appearing before the Walton County Value Adjustment Board, which utilizes a special magistrate, that he “had better have” a lawyer for representation.
“I like having a board as opposed to a special magistrate,” he concluded.
Santa Rosa Beach resident Mary Nielson spoke about her experience as a neighbor impacted by a situation that resulted in a code enforcement case. She and other neighbors were allowed to speak on the matter and present evidence to the CEB, she recalled. “We felt we did have the eyes and ears of our fellow citizens,” she told the planning commissioners.
Nielson spoke in favor of keeping the CEB and also the planning commission and other “citizen boards.”
With regard to attorneys for board hearings, she advised selecting the attorney for each situation based on their area of expertise.
Kramer made a motion for denial of the proposed ordinance to replace the CEB with a special magistrate. Harris seconded, warning that if the CEB is eliminated, what will follow is that “all the boards in this county will be done.”
The motion carried unanimously, resulting in a recommendation against the ordinance, with the BCC to have the final word on the matter at a future meeting.