PUBLIC MEETING
CITIZEN’S COMMENTS
AMENDMENTS TO THE HEALTH AND SANITATION CODE
May 10, 2004
Torres opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. and began with introductions. Staff present were Victor Torres, Dan Johnson, Julie Wyatt and Monica Cardin.
Torres stated that the first page of the handout provided a brief synopsis of the proposed amendments to the Environmental Code. He added that the rest of the handout was the actual ordinance with the identified changes; the underlined sections indicate new items and the items struck out will be deleted.
Staff Review of Proposed Changes
Torres proceeded to review each proposed change. He stated that Section 9-203 referred to the process or procedure for abating health nuisances due to changes in the state statute and added that similarly in Section 9-204 will also reflect changes in the state statute for the collection of cost for abatement. Sections 9-407 and 408 are amended to require the removal of trash and trash receptacles. There currently is no time frame for the removal of trash and its receptacles, which makes enforcement very difficult. The amended section calls for the removal within 24 hours. In Section 9-603, there are several new definitions, such as the definition for an approved driveway surface, outdoor furniture, house numbers, treatments and abandoned motor vehicles.
Johnson noted that on the driveway surface, the definitions are out of other parts of the existing code and mimics those sections. There is no difference in the chapters of the City Code.
Torres stated Section 9-605 refers to enforcement standards. The statement referring to “of a quality and appearance not commensurate with the character of the neighbor” will be deleted and “that violate this code” will be added. This will help enforcement staff apply the code the same across the community without exception. He stated that Section 9-606.1 refers to unlawful acts in regards to Exterior Conditions. It is amended to clarify that indoor furniture may not be used as outdoor furniture. This section addresses couches on porches. Staff has had some complaints in the past and had limited enforcement capabilities. He noted that numerous other cities are moving toward the same thing.
Bob Ebey inquired about Section 9-606.1 reference to lawn mowers. He stated they are suppose to be in the yard, but according to the code, individuals who do not have storage sheds or a place to store the lawn mower would be in violation of the code for leaving the mower in the yard.
Torres clarified that the intent is to reduce accumulation. Ebey suggested deleting lawn mowers from the section.
Torres stated that he will make a note as far as amending that section, but wants to make sure the philosophy of the section is met. Ebey suggested defining “lawn mower.”
Johnson asked if it was understood that that section is already in the code. Ebey stated that he did understand, but still believes it should be changed.
Torres explained that Section 9-606.1, part D refers to dead or dying trees. The Code does not speak to this subject and staff has difficulty in enforcing any action to remove a tree or have it addressed. The Parks and Recreation Department will have to identify it as a dead tree and then it can be removed. There are many issues that staff encounters with dead trees, such as property lines. This would be incorporated into this section of the code.
Torres commented that Section 9-606.3 speaks to displaying house numbers on the property. It is also an amended section.
Torres stated Section 9-606.4 is entirely new. It speaks to trash receptacles and proposed items be removed within 24 hours after the collection crew departs. This will ensure the properties bring trash receptacles away from the City Right-of-Way.
Torres stated Section 9-607 reduces the amount of time the individual has to correct a violation of City Code. It currently is 45 days and staff proposes to change it to 30 days for corrections. If an extension is needed, staff can extend the time to correct the violation. The intent is to see if there is going to be any type of action. The property owner can request an extension.
Wyatt added that staff issues a courtesy letter allowing 45 days to correct the violation. Staff then re-inspects and if no changes have been made, staff issues a formal notice giving the property owner another 45 days to correct the violation. She noted that if there is some action or contact with the property owner, staff works with the property owner to get the property into compliance.
Ebey stated that according to the Code, staff only has to issue one notice and then the person can be prosecuted for any other violation in a 24 month period.
Wyatt clarified that the Weed Ordinance is separate from the Environmental Ordinance.
Ebey stated that the issue is that staff sends a property owner a notice of violation. The property owner then receives another notice of violation for something different and a notice to appear in court. Wyatt stated that it would only happen if staff sends the property owner a formal notice.
Richard Heckler asked if he could receive a copy of the Public Hearing minutes. Torres stated that minutes would be available.
Charles Goff stated he is curious whether the second letter would be reduced to 30 days as well. Wyatt stated that the formal notice would give 30 days. The first letter is just a courtesy letter.
Goff stated that the first letter would have 30 days. Wyatt stated it would change both time periods.
Goff then asked for clarification on if then the property owner does not do anything, staff has the option of taking the individual(s) to court. Wyatt stated he was correct.
Goff asked if there was an option to issue a citation. He is curious to know if there is a simpler or more expedient way to correct the violations. He wants to know if that has been discussed. Wyatt commented that if a property is cited as environmental blight, staff could take it before the City Commission, where they have the authority to clean it up. Structural blight is followed through the courts.
Goff asked how long it takes to get through the City Commission. Wyatt stated that once the City Commission issues its resolution, the property owner has 20 days to fix it and then the City will fix it. Staff does not follow that route often because of liability issues.
Goff asked what the average time was on a case if a property owner refused to clean things up. Johnson stated that it is hard to determine. He added that around 75% have the violations corrected once they receive their notice to appear in court.
Goff asked if that would happen after 60 days on Structural blight cases with these changes. Johnson stated that it would be more realistic to say two to three months. Staff tries to do everything before the City cleans things up.
Patricia Sinclair stated that she is a frustrated complainer who has not seen serious abatement in the neighborhood. She stated she has received retaliation from the neighbors and staff for lodging complaints. She also stated that it is a very serious matter when a person misses the deadline for appeal because the case cannot be dropped. She stated the 15 days to receive the notice is inadequate and the courtesy notice appears to be optional.
Torres stated that there is no section referring to the courtesy notice. It is a step the Neighborhood Resources Department takes as a courtesy to notify the property owner, who may or may not be aware of the blight. Staff makes the extra effort, which ultimately is a softer approach.
Sinclair stated that is should be placed in the code. Torres stated that it is the Department’s customer service approach.
Sinclair expressed her dislike with the notification process and that the courtesy letter is a policy and not in the Code.
Torres stated that Section 9-608 increases the maximum fine for an Environmental Code violation from $100 to $500.
Torres explained Section 9-610 is amended to conform to the state statutes when a City removes a vehicle from a property.
Ebey stated that he understands the procedure, but asked if the City was subject to the same conditions that a landlord is. He asked Torres if he checked with Dave Corliss, Assistant City Manager, if the City is required to publish the removal of the vehicle before they remove it. Torres stated he would consult with Mr. Corliss.
Sinclair asked if the abandoned vehicle could be in the driveway. Sinclair commented the definition is too fine. She had a tire go flat in her driveway and was unable to fix it right away. Johnson stated that if she was cited, she would get a letter within 15 days and then staff would allow for an extension.
Sinclair commented that she feels the Neighborhood Resources Department should look at the worst things in the City first and fix those problems. She is worried about the diversity in the neighborhoods and stated most of the changes and amendments are a waste of the City’s resources.
Torres stated that Section 9-613 is amended to include the permission for the City to recover the cost of sending notice of violations of the Environmental Code. He noted the amendments will go to the City Commission in the next few weeks.
Public Comment
Ebey asked why the City still uses certified mailing and not Certificate of Mailing. He stated it seems a waste of money to put everything certified. Torres commented the he passed the concern onto the City’s legal department because they recognize there is a difference. Corliss stated he would research that and find the legal merit of following that process.
Sinclair had several suggestions for staff. She asked that staff consider a code regarding outside air conditioners because they are extremely noisy. Johnson advised that the Environmental Code is more visual.
Sinclair also asked staff to include something regarding light trespasses because it is a big problem in some neighborhoods. She stated it was an area that somebody needs to take responsibility in. She added that the good neighbor fence rule was not in the code and fences need to be regulated better. She sees fences constructed that are inside and out. She noted that she cannot get the hedge fences in the city right-of-way enforced. She also mentioned better enforcement of political signs. She suggested that the complaining party be investigated as well as the property that the party is complaining about. Torres reiterated her statement to clarify what she wanted.
Sinclair stated the code is too arbitrary and limiting to the diversity of the neighborhood. Lastly, she stated it was ridiculous that a person could not have their bicycle out on the porch or in the yard.
James Dunn asked how large the house numbers have to be. Johnson stated the house numbers have to be four inches.
Dunn asked if the amendments addressed the issue of being commensurate with the neighborhood. Torres advised that the draft strikes this section from the code and it is replaced with “that violate this code.” He stated this will help the Department with its enforcement.
There followed a brief discussion regarding the issue of being commensurate with the neighborhood. Carol Bouchurch stated that she thought leaving that provision in the Code makes it very difficult to enforce the Code. She noted it is a qualitative judgment and is tough to deal with. She stated it was a good idea to cross it out.
Dunn suggested the City provide a yearly notice to repeat weed violators.
Vontersch stated that for the most part the Oread Neighborhood Association is very supportive of these changes. It is the City’s role to assist the neighborhoods with blight and deterioration. They are very eager for the City to play an active role in the Oread Neighborhood.
Sinclair asked about the trash receptacles. Johnson stated that it is really for the blocks where a trash can sits at the curb and people just drop trash in it.
Sinclair asked for clarification regarding being cited for another violation and having to appear in court for it. Ebey stated that it can be a different nuisance.
Dunn asked about yard waste recycling.
Sinclair asked about appearing at court if the violations are corrected. Johnson stated that the individual would still have to appear at court and pay the fine.
Torres closed Public Comment and adjourned the hearing at 8:05 p.m.