Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canaryville moves to codify complaint-driven code enforcement; questions remain on fines and administration
Summary
The board reviewed a draft code-enforcement process based on Iron County's model that emphasizes signed complaints, notice to property owners and potential fines; members asked staff to revise wording and return in December after attorney review.
Heidi presented a draft code-enforcement section intended for inclusion in the town's codified ordinances. The draft follows a complaint-driven model used by Iron County: complaints must be signed (no anonymous complaints), notices to property owners would include the complainant's name, and an on-site visit by the code enforcer (Tyler) would be conducted with a second person present.
Heidi explained that the draft outlines timelines for mitigation (for example, 30 days with possible extensions under special circumstances) and a process for disputing a complaint by requesting placement on a planning-and-zoning or town board agenda. She also described enforcement options if property owners fail to mitigate problems, including fines (examples in the paperwork ranged around $200–$300), liens on property and, in some cases, criminal citations as permitted under local code.
Board members discussed how zoning-related complaints would be administratively handled by planning and zoning while other department issues would be brought to the town board. Several members expressed concern about criminal citations and asked for clarity on how fines would be assessed and applied consistently. Heidi said she would revise the draft using the county's wording for section 6 and return it to the board in December after attorney review.
Board direction at the meeting was to proceed with drafting and to bring a revised, attorney-reviewed version back for formal action.
