2019.08.20 Planning Commission - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ordinance 867 Review: Updating Language on Zoning Enforcement & Other Enforcement Activities Planning Commission Report; 8-20-19 Page 2 Ordinance Review: Section 1 (lines 8 – 21):  Section 1 of the ordinance adds a definition for the phrase “Structure Unfit for Human Occupancy,” and identifies such as public health nuisance. Within the definition, we note that either the Building Official or Code Enforcement officer is authorized to make this determination. Currently, only the Building Official can make this call which results in a very inefficient enforcement process. Section 2 (lines 22– 29):  Section 2 of the ordinance officially grants the power to deem structures unfit for human occupancy to designated staff in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. Section 3 (lines 30-127):  Section 3 creates new abatement procedures to follow when nuisance issues are ignored by a landowner and must be addressed by the City. The current process mandates involvement by the City Council which can be time consuming and counter-productive to alleviating the nuisance. The proposed new process would allow staff to provide notice and begin abatement activities administratively, but allow landowners to appeal such orders to the City Council for review.  Lines 39 & 40 require notice be sent by US Mail or personal delivery. All references to legally “serve” a property owner for nuisance violations would be eliminated.  Lines 46 through 61 outline the information that must be included in a notice to the property owner subject to potential abatement.  Lines 62 through 65 allows City staff to initiate abatement if the property owner does not fix the problem or file an appeal, and dictates that all expenses must be tracked and reported to the City Finance Director for later reimbursement.  Lines 66 through 72 discuss billing for abatement activities, and the process by which unpaid bills will be assessed to the following year’s tax rolls.  Lines 73 through 82 clarify the specialized process that can be used if a nuisance poses an imminent and serious hazard to the public.  Lines 83 through 125 is new language offered by the City Attorney to clearly define who is responsible to pay for assessment costs, and how the City will deal with reimbursement for emergency services. As the City Attorney was on vacation while the ordinance was penned, she could not review the proposed placement of this language in the new ordinance. Please note that it may be relocated prior to going before City Council, but the language would still stay the same.  Lines 126 and 127 would reserve section numbers 17-9 and 17-10 for future use.