Showing posts with label nuisance and unsafe building ordinance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuisance and unsafe building ordinance. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Starke Commissioners Amend Unsafe Building Ordinance

starke-county-courthouseThe Starke County Commissioners adopted amendments to the county’s unsafe building ordinance last night amid enthusiastic support from members of the public. Koontz Lake residents in particular attended the meeting and expressed frustration with the prevalence of visible junk vehicles, trash and other debris they say are driving down property values and affecting quality of life. Concerns were also raised about trash that’s not properly disposed of attracting rodents and potentially spreading diseases.
The amended ordinance requires vehicles incapable of being driven or without a current registration attached to be stored in a location that is not publicly visible, such as a garage or barn. It states “vehicles covered by a tarp or other plastic, vinyl, rubber, cloth or textile covering are considered to be visible.” Vehicles undergoing temporary service or repair are exempt from the provision. Also vehicles owned by military members on active duty assignment may be stored without a current license plate provided it is not visible from public property.
The ordinance also defines junk or debris not including inoperable vehicles and requires them to be stored in a completely enclosed structure at the rear of a dwelling. Also lumber or other building materials, construction vehicles or construction equipment not in connection with a permitted building project in progress on the property cannot be stored where they are visible from public property.
Fines of $350 for a first and $700 for a second offense after a 10 day period, plus cleanup costs, will be levied, according to the ordinance. A third offense will be referred to the Starke County Planning Commission for a public hearing. The owner will also be responsible for a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per day plus any administrative fees incurred related to advertising and conducting the public hearing.
Chronic nuisance properties are defined in the ordinance as those upon which two or more nuisance activities or conditions as defined in the ordinance have occurred during any three year period. They may have such recorded on the chain of title in the Starke County Recorder’s Office. That designation will remain in effect until the county’s enforcement officer certifies it has been nuisance-free for 24 consecutive months.
The ordinance is effective immediately. A copy is posted below. The underlined sections represent the new language.



Monday, January 25, 2016

Starke County Commissioners Review Proposed Nuisance Ordinance

starke-county-courthouseThe Starke County Commissioners want the planning commission to take another crack at a proposed nuisance and unsafe building ordinance. It aims to regulate what is and is not allowed in unincorporated areas of Starke County in the interest of health, safety and welfare.
County attorney Marty Lucas has reviewed the plan commission’s proposal and offered several suggestions. For starters he thinks the enforcement needs to be handled through the court in order to ensure land owners receive due process rather than through administrative enforcement. Additionally Lucas says the state’s Right to Farm law needs to be incorporated into the proposal. It sets allowable practices for farming operations and protects farm operators from lawsuits.
The proposed ordinance addresses things like inoperable vehicles, junk, debris, dangerous structures and improperly maintained wastewater disposal systems and wells. It also finds the accumulation of pet and animal feces to be a nuisance, along with vermin infestations, graffiti and the defacement of public and private property and the storage of construction materials or an accumulation of garbage.
Rather than enacting an across-the-board policy, Lucas suggested considerations based on the land use. Plan Commission Director Terry Stephenson believes the proposed regulations should apply equally to all and feels common sense enforcement in a better route.
After discussing the matter, the commissioners voted unanimously to send the ordinance back to the planning commission for further study.