Florida Woman Gets Into Epic Battle With the County Over Her Backyard Koi Pond

A Florida woman found herself in front of Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal panel recently. The reason? The Hillsborough County Code Enforcement Board told Maureen C. Donnelly that her backyard pool was in violation of the Hillsborough County Property Maintenance Code, issuing her a citation.

According to the legal documents posted to FindLaw, Donnelly was issued a citation over the state of the pool, since an inspector said that the pool water didn’t meet clarity requirements and the fencing wasn’t up to code.

The problem with the citation is that Donnelly denies that she has a pool. Instead, she says that the body of water is actually a koi pond, which she created after converting her existing in-ground swimming pool. 

Donnelly decided to fight back against the county, even filing a request to review the circuit court’s appellate ruling with the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. The court reviewed the paperwork under the second-tier certiorari review, granting the homeowner’s petition. Here’s what they found. 

The County Claimed the Pond Needed to Meet the Standards of a Pool

According to court documents, Donnelly was cited under Section 8-117(f) of the code, which states, “Every swimming pool shall be maintained and operated in a clean, safe and sanitary manner at all times.” That was applied to the water as well as the fencing around the pool.

However, Donnelly’s lawyer argued that this code doesn’t apply, since the koi pond doesn’t meet the requirements to be considered a swimming pool, including the requirement that the body of water be “intended for swimming or recreational bathing.” Donnelly told the courts that she had no intention of using it for swimming or bathing, and simply wanted to convert the space into a place to raise koi. 

The Case Went Before the Hillsborough County Code Enforcement Board

Before reaching the appeals stage, Donnelly presented her case to the county code enforcement board, where her lawyer argued that the koi pond couldn’t be regulated in the same way as a pool, because it wasn’t intended for swimming. 

“My response to that is, this is a pool,” an unnamed board member was quoted as saying. “It was designed to be a pool. It was built to be a pool. Should be maintained as a pool.”

A $500-a-Day Fine Was Threatened

On Oct. 31, 2022, Donnelly was given until Nov. 4, 2022, to fix the structure’s filtration and fencing before she would be subjected to a $ 500-a-day fine. While a circuit court originally upheld the county’s findings, a second-tier certiorari petition did not. 

The court found that while the structure was initially built as a pool, it was no longer being used as such. Therefore, it was no longer subject to Section 8-117(f). The court also said the circuit court’s review was inadequate. 

“There is literally nothing—no remarks about witness credibility, no findings about ‘putrescent’ water, mosquitoes, or health hazards, and not a word, jot, or tittle about Ms. Donnelly’s intent,” the response read. “All we have done is point out this rather conspicuous void in the order and in the evidence the parties have presented.”

In the end, the court wrote, “petition granted; order quashed.” Hopefully this means that Donnelly is now free to move forward with her koi pond conversion.