February 9, 2009
7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Siefford read the statement regarding the Open Meetings Act.
1. Chairperson Siefford called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and asked for roll call. Other members present were: Koerwitz, Meyer, Schlake, Ridder, and Stepp.
2. Next, was the approval of the minutes from the January 12th, 2009 meeting “as amended”.
Bedlan noted that she had amended the minutes by correcting the listed typos.
Member Koerwitz made the motion to approve the minutes of the January 12th, 2009 meeting “as amended” and member Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes"
(Koerwitz, Meyer, Schlake, Ridder, Siefford, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
3. Next, was the discussion and recommendation to the City Council regarding the notice of Building Permit requirements insert for the light and water bills and recommendations from the City attorney pertaining to the aforementioned insert.
Bedlan read the subsequent letter from the City attorney regarding the enforcement of building code requirements:
I understand the Planning Commission would like to begin enforcing building code's requirements for building permits more closely than has been done in the past, and wanted to give the public a "heads up" before doing so. I think the notice is a good idea. I was asked to prepare a draft notice for review by the planning commission and City Council. That draft is enclosed in your packets for the planning commission meeting. The notice reminds the public of the basic requirement to obtain a building permit before making any structural changes to an existing building or before construction of a new building, with directions to seek the assistance of the zoning administrator for details. The notice also provides the potential penalties for noncompliance. Note the penalty is somewhat different from the general ordinance violation penalty, which is $500 per day per violation. State statute limits the max. penalty for code violations to $100 per day per violation.
Questions were raised whether there is some waiting period once notice has been sent to a person who has failed to get a building permit, before enforcement action can be taken. Section 113 of the building code provides that the building administrator can serve notice of a violation, and if the notice is not complied with "promptly," the City may take legal action.
It does not appear from state statute that the building administrator has any authority to actually cite persons, in terms of writing them a ticket, for building code violations. Violations can be enforced either in criminal or civil court. If a criminal citation is to be given, the city police would need to issue a ticket, and then the violation would be handled in county court. If injunctive relief is requested (ordering the violator to do something--remove an unapproved structure, refrain from violating the ordinance, etc.), then a civil action would need to be brought, which could include a fine. Under state law, the maximum fine is $100 per day per violation. Generally, it seems the City will be most interested in correcting something that occurs because of a building code violation (improper construction, improper demolition), and not necessarily in fining someone for the violation, which leads me to conclude that City would most likely be interested in civil actions to correct deviations from the code. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Bedlan stated that she has also spoken with the Police Chief and if the City chooses to take the criminal action rout he would be willing to issue a fix-it-ticket then a citation to appear in court and pay a fine after the City issues a letter requesting compliance. Bedlan notes that there is no set amount of time in which a violator needs to comply and the City would like to leave that time frame open so that they can adjust the time limit to fit the violation. If the City chooses to take the civil action rout they will send a letter to the violator requesting compliance, then the attorney will send a fix-it-letter, then the violator will be summoned to court to fix the violation. She states that the City Attorney is advising that we set a standard procedure to follow the civil action rout but still leave it open enough so that if we need to go the criminal rout we can. It is also noted that the Police Chief is willing to write something in the paper in regards to building code requirements and violations. Bedlan also mentioned that member Kleine called earlier in the day and suggested we insert Building Permit Requirements in bold under Notice on the insert. Member Koerwitz made a motion to approve the Notice of Building Permit Requirements with the addition to be inserted in the utility bill. Member Schlake seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Koerwitz, Meyer, Schlake, Ridder, Siefford, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
Member Stepp suggested we follow the civil procedure when taking action against violators. Member Koerwitz agreed and questioned if we could follow the civil action as a matter of procedure but leave our options open to taking criminal action if we needed to. Bedlan responded that he is correct. According to the attorney it is a good idea to have a general procedure set in place but reserve the right to take criminal action instead of civil if it is necessary. Siefford questioned if this needed to be made a motion. Bedlan stated that it was not necessary but they could if they wanted to. Schlake made the motion to follow civil actions as a matter of procedure when dealing with building and zoning violations unless deemed necessary to take a criminal action. Member Stepp seconded that motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Koerwitz, Meyer, Schlake, Ridder, Siefford, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
4. Next, was the discussion and recommendation regarding correction of typos in the city of Fairbury, Nebraska Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition.
Bedlan stated the typos were found in the height and lot requirements of the R1 – low density residential district. They read that the minimum lot requirement should be 20,000 for a single family dwelling and 20,000 for other permitted uses. Those numbers should be 7,000 and 10,000. Member Stepp made the motion to correct the minimum lot requirements. Member Ridder seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Koerwitz, Meyer, Schlake, Ridder, Siefford, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
5. Next, were comments from the public on non-agenda items.
Bedlan answered some questions from last months meeting in regards to funding for fixing 16th street from E-F. She stated that she looked for a storm water discharge fund and found nothing available. She also looked into the funding we received to do McNish Park and discovered that it was a joint project done with FSA and the NRCS funded in part by Urban Conservation Projects. The FSA office requires a letter and map with suggested remedies to the problem before they will check to see if it meets their requirements. She stated that she will have the City Engineer look into it when he comes down for the 1 & 6 and send his information to the FSA office.
Member Meyer questioned why this meeting was being called a hearing on the agenda and Bedlan noted the typo.
6. With no other business on the agenda, Member Meyer made the motion to adjourn. Member Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Koerwitz, Meyer, Schlake, Ridder, Siefford, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
Laura K. Bedlan
Board of Adjustment Secretary