Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Burning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges stricter enforcement and clearer rules on open burning after repeated smoke incidents
Summary
A Verona resident told the Common Council that repeat backyard fires have produced prolonged smoke, poor air quality and unclear enforcement, and asked the council to tighten the open burning and noxious-odor rules and clarify enforcement contacts.
Jenny Pavlovic, a Verona resident, told the Common Council at its June 23 meeting that repeated open burning in her Melody Lane neighborhood has created “very poor air quality” this spring and at times been a health nuisance. Pavlovic asked the council to limit allowable fires, prohibit burning materials that produce heavy smoke and clarify who residents should call when ordinances are violated.
Pavlovic said violators have at times left fire pits smoldering overnight and burned yard waste and other materials she believes are already prohibited under Verona’s open burning and noxious-odor ordinances. “Do not allow fires to be left unattended or to smolder overnight,” she told the council, adding that enforcement was inconsistent in her experience.
Pavlovic recounted two recent calls to the nonemergency fire number. In one instance a firefighter inspected a smoldering pit but did not issue a citation; an on-scene officer said he would try to contact the homeowner. In a separate incident a battalion chief told neighbors that burning yard waste violates the ordinance, but Pavlovic said the burning continued after the official left.
She asked the council to consider a three-hour limit on recreational fires, to prohibit burning leaves, green or wet wood, furniture, trash or treated wood, and to identify specific contact points for complaints on weekdays, weeknights and weekends. Pavlovic said she wanted the city to act “soon and not let the entire summer go by without updating the open burning ordinance.”
Mayor Luke Diaz acknowledged the public comment and said the city is “looking at this” and residents should expect further action. The council did not take a vote or direct a specific ordinance revision at the June 23 meeting; the matter was raised during the public comment period rather than as an agenda item.
The record indicates residents and council members discussed enforcement limits and which department responds to smoke complaints; no formal enforcement change or new ordinance language was introduced at the meeting. The council’s next steps, including whether staff will draft ordinance amendments or a clarification of enforcement procedures, were not specified in open session.
