The Greene County board of supervisors is reviewing a draft of an ordinance that would empower the county to take action to require property owners to clean up unsightly or hazardous sites in the unincorporated portions of the county.
The ordinance was prepared by county attorney Nicola Martino. He explained that he reviewed the Jefferson and Grand Junction nuisance ordinances, as well as ordinances from Carroll, Boone, Webster, Buena Vista, Monona, Clay and Jones counties in writing the proposed Greene County ordinance.
“The biggest concern was what to include in the ordinance. What the supervisors have now is only a draft. I hope we’ll have discussion about what’s included,” Martino said.
Broadly, the ordinance defines “nuisance” as “whatever is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses or an obstacle to the free use of property so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.”
Among things specifically identified as a nuisance is the dumping or storing of household appliances or junk vehicles. A junk vehicle is one that lacks current license plates or lacks two or more tires or other parts that render it inoperable. Storing tires, batteries, scrap metal, dismantled or partially dismantled vehicles, vehicle parts, wooden pallets, or unused and discarded lumber is also prohibited. Buildings that have been abandoned or are dilapidated, unsanitary or unfit for human habitation are included.
Under the proposed ordinance, the Greene County sanitarian, the county board of health, or other authorized officer can have a written notice to abate the nuisance served on a property owner. The property owner can request a hearing before the county board of supervisors if he disputes that the property or materials named are a nuisance. After the hearing, the board of supervisors makes a determination.
If a property owner does not deal with the nuisance, the county can perform the required action and assess the costs against the property for collection in the same manner as property tax.
The ordinance grants to the board of health or an authorized agent the right to enter any building, property, or other place for the purpose of examining any possible nuisance. Any person who interferes with that inspection duty will be deemed guilty of a simple misdemeanor, according to the proposed ordinance.
The ordinance provides a way to get rid of nuisances that is simpler and quicker than the current method, which requires civil action in district court, Martino said. Several years ago the county undertook cleanup in Farlin that involved a lengthy legal process and cost the county thousands of dollars. The proposed ordinance would hold property owners liable for the expense of cleanup.
Should a property owner disagree with a board of supervisors’ decision about a nuisance, he could appeal the decision in district court. However, the burden at that point would be on the property owner to prove the site in question was not a nuisance, rather than on the county to prove that it was, Martino explained.
The supervisors received Martino’s draft ordinance at the May 19 meeting. No timeline was named for consideration, but they were asked to read it closely and consider the scope of the definition of “nuisance.”
The process of adopting the ordinance would include a public hearing and publication of the ordinance.
