Newberry County Council discusses nuisance ordinance draft

NEWBERRY — Discussion over a new draft of the Newberry County nuisance ordinance began during a work session before the county council meeting on Wednesday, September 6.

“Last week, we emailed y’all out a draft ordinance that would, I mean this as a little bit of an exaggeration, but would take us from basically not having a code enforcement program in place, to one that’s fairly developed,” said County Administrator Jeff Shacker. “This is just a starting point.”

The purpose of the draft ordinance is to identify what classifies as public nuisances and nuisance property, with a heavy focus on property maintenance. It over encompasses issues from trash and waste to structural integrity and building upkeep. The ordinance is included with language that ensures that the fault lands on responsible parties, instead of just the property owner, as the owner is not always at fault.

“It could be structural, in some cases not structural. Examples of that [non-structural issues] would be rubbish, trash, vegetation, junk vehicles, just kind of a ‘garden variety’ of nuisances that are not structural that will be identified,” said Shacker.

In the draft, junk vehicles, or vehicles that are unlicensed, inoperable or in a state of disrepair, would be required to be hidden from view of the road and adjoining properties. If the vehicle is screened from view, then property owners could be allowed to have more than one junk vehicle. Although the maximum number is still under discussion, it is expected that responsible parties can not exceed more than five junk vehicles, or they will be subjected to follow the salvage, scrap and recycling operation requirements. Junk vehicles would not be allowed on multi-family residences.

Trash that is not stored in a sealed bin or other viable container for trash will be considered a nuisance. The council may be allowing an increase of junk accumulation from three cubic feet to 81 cubic feet/3 cubic yards (or about the size of three, four burner stoves), since many felt that only three cubic feet was too little space.

“So garbage, trash or refuse would constitute a nuisance if it’s not stored in trash receptacles, enclosed buildings or containers other than trash receptacles that are designed for that purpose,” said Shacker. “And they would need to be sealed so you don’t get rodents or insects or anything else that could create a noxious odor.”

The subsections that cover trees and other types of vegetation focus on dead or damaged trees, tree limbs and vegetation that could pose a threat to public roadways or other properties nearby. These include poisonous plants, widow-makers and overgrown plants and weeds.

“So we would be looking at weeds and vegetation that could become a dumping spot for refuse, could have an odor issue just associated with it or can be poisonous or otherwise harmful,” Shacker explained.

Council members brought up their own recommendations and changes moving forward, asking what constitutes as junk vehicles and yard decorations. They mentioned how some residents use antique tractors, vehicles and certain parts of both as decorations, saying that there should be language that makes a difference between junk and decoration.

Chairman Todd Johnson felt that the language within the structural defect subsection was too broad. The draft explains that buildings found with a structural defect could be classified as a nuisance, although it would need to be identified by a code official. Defects would be based off the international standard.

“The definition of defect, that’s kind of a broad term,” said Johnson. “A structural defect can be very simple but [under this draft] all of a sudden, you’re declaring it a nuisance. I think it should be sufficient to put the structure at risk or the community at risk.”

Vice Chairman Leslie Hipp agreed, adding that there should be a second opinion before the final decision on nay building is made. It would prevent a single officer making the call, avoiding any potential problems that could come with a single person making the final decisions.

“What we put in writing is what we can be enforced,” added Johnson.

It was also brought up by members of the board that many buildings within the county were built before the international code was put in place, meaning that a large number of buildings would either need to be grandfathered in or go under construction to meet the standard. It’s difficult to enforce a code when the buildings were never built to meet it.

“We have to be a little bit careful about that too, because a lot of these buildings were not built to that international code,” said Hipp.

“I think we have to build in as much protection as we can,” added Todd.

The other major complication the draft faces is the consequence of a nuisance violation. Upon the determination of a violation, responsible parties, ideally, would receive a notice either in person or on their door. A reasonable amount of time for removal of the violation would be discussed and responsible parties would be required to complete work within that amount of time or ask for an extension.

The penalties and whether they would be criminal or civil charges are still being decided. In the draft, it lists the penalties for guilty parties as a misdemeanor charge with $500 fine or no more than 30 days in jail.

“Then I think you might have to check the notice requirements,” said Johnson. “That’s going to need to be done personally, in the event that it is a criminal charge.”

If left as a civil issue, then the notice could be left at the door and jail time could not be a punishment for a nuisance violation. Both Katie Werts and Jeff Shacker were already unsure about a criminal charge for violations, their concerns lining up with Johnson’s, who didn’t want someone going to jail over a nuisance violation.

Jeff Shacker said that he would look into the structural defects, wording that would cover junk versus decorations, penalties and other issues brought up within the nuisance ordinance draft and come back in the later weeks with an updated version of it.

Councilman Travis Reeder did ask about an update with Airbnb and the issues that others have brought forward in previous meetings, asking how it fit into the nuisance ordinance draft. Johnson agreed, saying that the council needed to keep moving on the issue.

“The platforms for short term rentals do have some fortunate mechanisms in place where they hold not only the owners of the property responsible, but tenants too,” said Shacker.

“Airbnb has a complaint registry and if a rental has so many complaints, they take it off the market,” added Johnson.

Tenants who receive a large number of complaints are also removed from being able to rent Airbnb locations.

When the ordinance draft is looked at in again, it will come with side-by-side comparisons of those in the surrounding counties to help ensure it is not overly restrictive. This will also include language that protects and allows for work-arounds for certain businesses and language that covers other potential nuisances, such as fireworks and other loud sounds.