08/20/1986 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Paul Borg, 13452 Carillo Lane, asked for clarification of the issue of boats in the proposed ordinance. He again showed the i► Council pictures of his neighbor's property which had on it a boat and a plane. In addition, Mr. Borg noted that his neighbor also had not finished his roof and this project had been going on for some time. Mr. Borg questioned when this ordinance would be in effect, if adopted. Mr. Janklow, 13464 Carillo Lane, suggested that a 90 day limit for outdoor storage of building materials or similar materials unless substantially screened was unreasonable. In his opinion, this figure should be 30. Also the term 'consecutive days' could be a loophole. Mr. Ray Fenn, 13428 Carillo Lane, suggested that the ordinance before Council was a good remedy to the problem. They could decide if materials on a property were properly screened. Mr. Fenn further noted that he had gone through the Town and had only seen approximately six instances which could be addressed by the nuisance ordinance. Marc Kaufman, 14100 Donelson, expressed difficulty with the pro- posed nuisance ordinance. What, for example, would be the action taken regarding horsetrailers. In his opinion, this ordinance was not workable and was being considered to address one particular situation in the Town. Mrs. Mary Stutz, 25310 Elena, noted that most residents would not be in compliance with the proposed or- dinance. She commented that they not only had a horsetrailer but also had a recreational vehicle which was only used on certain kmw occasions. Only if every resident in Town were made to comply would she undertake the steps to screen, etc. these vehicles. In her opinion, this ordinance was impossible to enforce. Fuhrman stated that she felt this ordinance was unenforceable. Dronkert felt that on balance the ordinance would allow Council to make fair judgements and Tryon felt that it provided a method to the residents to help lessen the impact from their neighbors' property. Council did note as a policy statement that horse - trailers were considered agricultural, not recreational, vehicles. The City Attorney, in response to a question by Dronkert as to whether Council had the obligation to make everyone comply with the ordinance, noted that an enforcement program would need to be formulated. This program would include a notice procedure, hear- ing, opportunity for resident to correct, and, if all else fails, abatement of the nuisance by the Town at the owner's expense. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by Tryon and passed unanimously to waive further reading of ordinance. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by Tryon and passed by the following roll call vote to introduce ordinance # entitled 'sanitation and health' by adding thereto Chapter 5 entitled 'nuisances'as modified by the City Attorney and with the following amendments made by Council consensus on 8/20/86: 1) change the term 'substantially screened' to 'adequately screened'; 2) page 1, section (a) Fire Hazards: Dry or dead