Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft nuisance ordinance for small subdivisions, members urge scope limits
Summary
Committee members reviewed a draft nuisance ordinance adapted from another Illinois county and recommended limiting its scope with a distance/footage rule and consultation with sheriff and health departments to avoid criminalizing common rural property practices.
The Administrative Committee of the Whole reviewed a draft nuisance ordinance intended to address property upkeep in small subdivisions and directed board members and staff to provide feedback before the item returns for further consideration.
The draft, presented as a model adapted from another Illinois county, would identify alleged ordinance violations, require a 15-day notice to property owners, and, if not corrected, refer matters to the state's attorney for enforcement. Josh Douthat described the draft as "tried and trued and used by other counties," and said the intent was not punitive but to target dangerous or extreme conditions.
Several members raised concerns about the ordinance’s geographic scope and enforcement burden. Aaron (S6) cautioned about consistent enforcement and how the county would handle violations, and Ward (S3) and others warned that without a distance or footage threshold the ordinance could reach widely spaced rural properties and unintentionally criminalize normal country living. Ward suggested adding a distance-based criterion to narrow the ordinance to properties with proximate neighbors.
Members also recommended that the sheriff's department and the health department review the draft for operational concerns and enforcement feasibility. The chair asked members to submit suggestions to Josh for revision; the committee did not vote on the ordinance and will revisit the draft at a future meeting.
Next steps: board members and relevant county departments will be asked to provide written feedback to staff and the drafter (Josh) before the draft returns to committee for possible further action.
