LABELLE — The Hendry County Board of Commissioners tackled the issue of enforcing county code in regard to inoperable vehicles  during their Feb. 24 meeting.

 Planning and Community Development Director Ryan Alexander presented a request to amend Hendry County Land Development Code. Alexander explained that currently there isn’t a clear definition of what classifies as an inoperable vehicle which makes it difficult for code enforcement to enforce the code.

The proposed definition for an inoperable vehicle is as follows:
(1) Any disassembled or partially disassembled vehicle from which parts, including, but not limited to, the chassis, engine, wheels, or tires have been removed; and/or;
(2) Any vehicle without a valid, current registration and displayed tag; and/or;

(3) Any vehicle on jacks, blocks, or lifts with flat tire(s) or which is otherwise incapable of movement under its own power and will remain so unless major repair or reconstruction occurs.
(4) Does not include farm equipment provided it meets the requirements in F.S. 604.40.

Commissioner Michael Atkinson expressed some concern with certain types of vehicles that may fall under this definition but that weren’t inoperable. “I know people with buggies and race cars,” he said. “None of those can get a tag.”

Chairman Ramon Iglesias suggested that they make sure the definition is clear so that working, operable vehicles such as those would not fall under the label of inoperable.

Alexander stated that he believes that falls under the “capable of moving on under its own power” criteria but would look into adding something that would ensure the types of vehicles Commissioner Atkinson mentioned do not receive citations.

Commissioner Mitchell Wills brought up another issue with certain types of vehicles. “Throughout Hendry County you’re going to have a lot of places where people build buggies out of about just about anything you can imagine,” he stated. “A lot of those are rollers, until you get the motor put in them, so they’re not going to move under their own power.” He agreed that these areas need to be cleaned up but that it would be a “sticky situation”. Wills said he was anxious to see what the Planning and Community Development staff comes back with as far as the language of the amendment.

Alexander said that the proposed changes would not change what is already allowed, just better define it. “In rural residential areas we can talk about changing what’s allowed there. This is just defining it and I can come back at a later time to work on where we would allow it ... If they have the land for it and it’s appropriate it, then we would allow it.”

The motion was approved unanimously. This first hearing for this item and it will be brought back to the board at the March 10 meeting for approval pending any discussion.