Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council orders abatements for three Stewartville properties after public hearings
Summary
After public hearings, the Stewartville City Council ordered abatement of nuisances at 103 3rd Street SW, 102 2nd Street SW and 878 Burke Boulevard SE, offering property owners limited time to comply before the city removes material and assesses costs to the tax roll.
The Stewartville City Council on June 24 held three separate public hearings and voted to order abatement of alleged nuisances at properties the city says are in violation of local code.
At the first hearing, staff presented photographs of the property at 103 3rd Street SW, owned by John and Jamie Hewitt, and recommended a progressive approach: give the owners a short period to clean up and, if they do not, authorize city crews to abate the nuisance and assess the costs — including attorney and administrative fees — to the property tax bill. Council moved and voted to order abatement while offering the owner an opportunity to complete cleanup before the city acts.
The council then heard from Brian Daniel Sackett at 102 2nd Street SW. Sackett asked for clarification about setback and driveway rules for storing a camper; staff and council explained that vehicles and campers must be on an established driveway and that certain setbacks (about 15 feet from the curb) apply for vision and safety. Sackett said he would straighten the wood pile and other items; council approved an abatement order with the same notice-and-assess approach if the property is not brought into compliance.
At 878 Burke Boulevard SE, staff reported persistent weeds, a damaged fence and piled boxes visible in city photographs. Council discussed offering the owner a choice — have the city remove and dispose of the fence and debris, or hire repairs and be assessed — and voted to order abatement. Council emphasized that costs the city incurs will be charged to the property if the owner does not act.
None of the abatement votes recorded roll-call tallies in the meeting transcript; each motion carried on council voice vote. Council repeatedly described the process as progressive — staff will first attempt outreach, then, if compliance does not occur, the city will send a formal letter and may perform abatement with costs assessed to the property tax bill.
The council said photographs and documented findings form the basis for the abatement orders and encouraged owners to work with staff to avoid city action. The meetings of each nuisance item concluded with the council noting options for property owners (repair versus city removal) and reaffirming the legal authority to assess abatement costs to the tax roll.
