Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Nuisance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough council president urges Marion County to join nuisance action over 1803 Indigo Street; commission agrees to collaborate
Summary
Hillsborough council president Ronald Wilkins told Marion County commissioners that a property at 1803 Indigo Street granted a conditional use permit in 2023 has not been developed as promised and appears neglected; the county voted to join the city in legal action and instructed counsel to proceed with county leadership.
The Marion County Commission voted March 30 to work with the City of Hillsborough on legal action concerning a property at 1803 Indigo Street that the city says is not complying with a conditional use permit granted in January 2023.
Ronald Wilkins, Hillsborough city council president, told the commission the Realist LLC received a conditional use permit for modular/container‑style dwellings and that three container units were approved, but the property has shown little development since approval. "I do not believe that they are [compliant with the conditional use permit]," Wilkins said, describing visible debris, vehicles and general neglect that he labeled a blight on a main approach to Hillsborough.
Wilkins laid out three options for addressing the site: transfer extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to the city, allow the city to pursue a nuisance abatement under KSA 13‑1417 (which permits abatement within three miles of corporate limits), or file a joint nuisance action in district court. County counsel and commissioners discussed the practical burdens of pursuing each path and noted that joint action with the city could provide the district court remedies available to municipalities.
Commissioner (speaker 4) moved that legal staff work with the city to pursue the matter, with Marion County leading the action; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Commissioners discussed that any abatement costs could be shared by agreement and that the county presently retains standing to file a district court action. The board did not commit to a specific remedy (ETJ transfer vs. unilateral abatement); it authorized counsel to proceed with collaboration and legal filing as appropriate.
The commission hearing cited KSA 13‑1417 as a statutory authority Hillsborough could use for municipal nuisance abatement and discussed the procedural advantages of joint action in district court when available municipal remedies are not statutorily applicable to county properties.
