Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Code topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council warns public hearing on Chapter 9 and 18 amendments to tighten "junk" enforcement

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff proposed edits to municipal code chapters 9 and 18 to streamline enforcement, remove legacy criminal penalties, clarify mailing address source and limit a farm-vehicle exemption to the Planned Agriculture district; council voted to warn a public hearing for July 23, 2025.

The City Council agreed to warn a public hearing for 6:30 p.m. July 23, 2025, on proposed amendments to Essex Junction Municipal Ordinance Chapters 9 and 18 intended to strengthen code enforcement procedures for nuisances and "junk" on private property.

Chris from the development department presented the amendments, saying the department has ramped up code follow-up and that the proposed changes, prepared with the city attorney, are intended to make enforcement and escalation clearer for chronic noncompliance. "These amendments to the municipal code, as proposed are meant to make that a little bit easier," Chris said.

Councilors discussed several specific edits that staff incorporated or proposed: adding the phrase "and costs" to a fee-shifting provision so the city can seek attorney's fees and costs; restricting a previously broad exemption for "farm vehicles and equipment" so that exemption applies only in the Planned Agriculture zoning district; removing legacy references to criminal penalties where the new approach is civil enforcement; and changing the source used for an owner's last known address from joint assessment records to the City of Essex Junction records. Councilors also agreed the council itself will serve as the ordinance appeals body rather than creating a separate appeals board.

A motion to warn the public hearing as presented, with the discussed edits, was made and seconded; the council voted in favor with no nays.

The hearing is now scheduled so residents can comment on the proposed ordinance language before the council returns for a final decision.