County officials are looking to update building and zoning rules as a way to hold repeat violators accountable.
A change to Johnson County’s zoning ordinance would penalize repeat violators who have a similar type of violation on the same property within five years, typically in regards to junk or trash. The Johnson County Plan Commission on Monday unanimously approved the change, which will now go to the Johnson County Board of Commissioners for consideration.
A separate proposed update is to the county’s unsafe building ordinance, which would strengthen the penalties on property owners who do not repair unsafe structures. The ordinance allows the county to impose fines on a property owner, but the change would allow the county to file a lien on the property when the total of unpaid fines reaches $10,000. The change would also establish an Unsafe Buildings Fund, where fines would be collected to repair or tear down unsafe properties when the owner refuses to do so.
This proposed change was tabled Monday to fix a formatting error. The ordinance will be updated and back on the agenda at the commission’s July meeting, said David Hittle, county planner.
The habitual violator change would impact about 10 Johnson County property owners who are gaming the current ordinance by clearing junk from their yards before a fine is due, only to junk it up again shortly after, Hittle said.
“It plugs up a loophole … This is for guys who are purposely trying to sidestep the ordinance. This will provide ramifications for that and begin the fines immediately for people who are repeatedly doing the same thing over and over again, knowingly,” he said.
Some of the habitual violators run a home-based business that creates a nuisance, such as a contracting business where employee vehicles are parked in their yard and heavy equipment is stored on the property. Others are an eyesore with furniture and junk all over their yards, Hittle said.
Each time a new violation is filed, county employees spend hours of their time investigating complaints and speaking with the complainants and property owners. Every time a complaint is made, an employee has to drive to the property and do a personal assessment of the situation to determine if it meets the criteria for a violation, he said.
If the commissioners approve the change, the habitual violators will no longer cost the county man hours and gas to investigate complaints while they continue to avoid paying fines, Hittle said.
Under the proposed change, a violation of the same type on the same property within five years of a previous violation will immediately begin to rack up $100-per-day fines, according to a draft of the ordinance. If the same violation occurs three or more times within five years, the fine would increase to $300 per day, the draft states.
Though unsafe buildings are less common than junked up yards, it is a public safety threat that must be addressed, Hittle said.
He hopes that allowing the county to impose liens will make property owners realize the importance of repairing these buildings, he said. In this case, the fines would remain unchanged, at $50 per day for non-compliant residences, and $100 per day for non-compliant businesses. But adding the option of a lien gives the ordinance more teeth, he said.
Unsafe buildings can range from burned structures that have been left standing for an extended period of time, to a home with a caved in roof, to a building with broken windows.
“It has to be, in some way, unsafe for the public. So if a building is empty and abandoned, but the windows are boarded and no animals, no rain, no curious kids can get in, it would not be a safety threat. But if it is open to the elements, it is an unsafe building,” Hittle said.
By establishing the fund, the county can start to take action on structures where property owners cannot or will not comply. The money collected would be used to repair or tear down structures, depending on the level of damage. The purpose of the fund is to direct fees from fines assessed by the planning and zoning department to fix up the properties in question instead of using taxpayer dollars to do it, he said.
