Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chairperson Nixt stated if they could enforce the ordinance they have now in the manner for it to <br />work they would not need to have an amendment. He stated the issue was that because of the <br />difficulty of the City meeting the burden of proof of operability, that comes down to a situation <br />where the City is in a difficult position so they needed to limit by numbers so they do not have to <br />show proof. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if it was the accumulation of inoperable vehicles or just vehicles. <br />He thought the burden of proof was not a reason to be changing the ordinance. He stated if they <br />used the current ordinance with the new abatement program, how that would change the system. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik stated she would anticipate if they are not <br />going to the County Court system and they used the abatement process and if they had a question <br />whether a vehicle was operable, she thought staff would have the ability to put the bourdon of <br />proof on the property owner. She stated there would be the ability to appeal it if the property <br />owner feels the violation is not accurate. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated as he read the current ordinance, commercial use vehicles that are <br />properly screened would not fall within the number of vehicles that are restricted because they <br />did not modify Sub E. That tells him that commercial use vehicles and equipment falls outside <br />of the amendment. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik stated that was not her intention of the <br />ordinance and if she has missed something she would need to fix that. The number of vehicles <br />intended to be the aggregate on the property includes personal and commercial. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated this does not address trailers and other non-motorized equipment. He <br />stated the objective is to give the city the opportunity for enforcement. He thought they needed <br />to give deference to where in the city the property is located and they need to break that down. <br />As far as an enforcement tool, how is regulating the number going to increase the likelihood that <br />they are going to enforce that. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik stated they are not eliminating the <br />requirement that it has to be operable. She thought it was easier to drive by a property and count <br />the vehicles for enforcement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cleveland thought the whole point of Government was the burden of proof is <br />supposed to be placed on the City because it is continually evolving and she also thought they <br />were trying to protect that homeowner as well against liability. If they have a track record with <br />letters and notifications, the City is protected and can enforce the ordinance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt thought the solution may be instead of regulating the number of vehicles; they <br />should regulate the square footage of the approved parking surface, based on lot size and <br />mandate some screening. That will control placement and sizing if they want to exceed, they will <br />need to come to the City for approval. This will leave the homeowner with the flexibility to store <br />more vehicles and allow the City to regulate and enforce this ordinance. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/September 6, 2007 <br />Page 13 of 15 <br />