Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Health, zoning staff recommend removing outdated ‘public nuisance’ ordinance after crosswalk finds duplications
Summary
Public Health and zoning staff told the committee that the county’s older ‘public nuisance’ ordinance duplicates provisions now enforceable under updated human health hazard and zoning codes; the committee asked Health and Human Services to review and decide whether to hold a public hearing.
Polk County public health and zoning staff reviewed a draft ordinance change that would remove an older ‘‘public nuisance’’ chapter from the county code because its provisions duplicate measures already enforced under current ordinances.
Brian Hobbs, environmental health sanitarian with the Polk County Public Health Department, explained the background: an original nuisance ordinance enacted in 1995 covered a broad set of complaints (garbage, noise, animals) but lacked measurable standards and has not been used for enforcement. Hobbs said the health department adopted a human health hazard ordinance when it recodified its rules (now under chapter 16), and zoning and other authorities now provide enforceable citation powers. Hobbs said, “we have never once used that ordinance in any enforcement, because it's either unmeasurable, there's no standards in place, or the things that would be are already taken into account with zoning [and the health department].”
Committee members raised public‑service and clarity concerns: if chapter 22 (the nuisance chapter) is removed, where would a layperson look to find who handles a complaint? Staff answered that the county code search and crosswalk could point people to existing authorities (zoning, chapter 16/human health hazard, sheriff for disorderly conduct, DNR for certain water issues). Staff proposed either removing the duplicate chapter or replacing it with a brief reference directing users to current code sections.
No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. Committee members asked Health and Human Services (HHS) to review the crosswalk and decide whether to hold a public hearing before any removal; HHS will present the committee’s discussion and advise whether a hearing is needed. Staff warned that a public hearing could trigger a wave of new complaints and expectations for a new county nuisance ordinance; others said a hearing would help with public transparency.
Why it matters: Removing the duplicate chapter would simplify the county code and reduce public confusion but would require careful outreach so residents know which agency enforces particular complaints (zoning, health, sheriff, DNR). The HHS committee will determine whether to proceed to public hearing and eventual ordinance revision.
