Council hears appeal over property-abatement order at 10852; no formal vote recorded

The Village Council on the evening’s agenda considered an appeal from residents Nana and Matt Rice Johnson of an abatement order for the property at 10852, which the city cited for high grass, weeds, discarded building materials and various items in the driveway.

City code-enforcement staff member Ken said the city has received multiple complaints about “wood structures that you’re using to pour your concrete,” and that those building materials are treated as discarded items under the Village code. Ken told council the property has been the subject of repeated calls and that enforcement staff have been monitoring progress toward compliance.

The Johnsons — who identified themselves during the hearing as the property owners and appellants — told the council the work is a do-it-yourself raised-bed project interrupted by a separate plumbing leak and kitchen repair at a rental unit. The resident said the raised bed construction took about three-and-a-half months and that on several occasions the work stopped because of the unrelated home repair. “There is no code that says that I can't do this,” the resident told the council, and said some items in the driveway were temporary forms and construction pieces used to pour concrete.

Neighbors who spoke during the item raised concerns about the appearance of the site and possible impacts on property values. One neighbor said they photographed buckets, tables and what they described as a “concrete structure” and said the visible materials had persisted for “almost a year,” adding that the condition had discouraged buyers and reduced the neighbor’s home-market appraisal by an amount the neighbor estimated at about $20,000.

Council members and staff discussed past extensions and several candidate timeframes for compliance that were mentioned in the hearing, including 30–60 days, a suggestion of 6–10 weeks, and references to a three-week interval tied to the council’s meeting schedule. Council members said the property has shown a pattern of partial compliance followed by renewed complaints, and they pressed staff and the owners for a clearer timeline to finish the project and remove materials classified as discarded items.

The transcript of the hearing includes repeated references to prior contacts and to the parties’ differing views about whether specific items (benches, tables, buckets, concrete forms) are essential construction materials or discarded items. Staff noted the city’s typical abatement process and the time allowed for compliance; the appellants said the interruptions were due to urgent repairs and physical limitations of the workers.

The transcript does not record a formal motion or council vote on the appeal. Council members discussed options and deadlines and asked staff to return with a clear compliance deadline; no formal action or final outcome was recorded in the portion of the transcript provided.

The council set follow-up on the calendar: the next regularly noted meeting dates discussed were Monday, Nov. 3 (two weeks) and Monday, Nov. 10 (three weeks). Staff indicated they have previously accepted appeals that included 30–60 day timeframes. The record in the transcript stops short of a definitive council order or recorded vote.