Resident says cityviolation letter threatened misdemeanor fines after she remedied yard issue

Kimberly Hughes, a Johnstown resident at 451 Park Lane, told a council work session that the city issued a violation letter about a vehicle and an engine stored briefly on the side of her property and that she and her husband later received a second, more threatening notice nine months after the original contact.

Hughes said she spoke with the city inspector after the first notice, cleared the visible debris and removed the engine from the yard, but later received a letter that demanded removal within 48 hours and warned of misdemeanor charges and a $1,000-per-day fine if the property remained noncompliant. "I would be lying if I said we could afford the threats that we were given," she told the council.

The Hugheses said the initial complaint involved a parts car and an engine kept under a tarp while they were restoring a 1950s Ford; they said the car under their carport was not at issue and that they had taken steps to remedy the condition described in the first complaint. Kimberly Hughes described the tone of the second letter as "accusatory" and said it did not acknowledge the cleanup she and her husband performed.

John Hughes added that the enforcement timeline and the cost of variance or permit processes had left them confused and financially strained. He said the family had discarded a $500 restoration frame and spent many hours restoring parts, and he asked whether restoring a vehicle under an attached carport remained permissible. "We were left confused and defeated on why I need a full-blown blueprint for just a simple go-ahead," he said.

Council members and staff did not make a ruling during the public comment period. Staff said they would accept written documentation and would review the complaint and images, consult with the inspector referenced in the Hugheses' conversations, and follow up with the family. A staff representative said he would try to contact the inspector and aimed to provide initial follow-up to the Hugheses within one to two weeks, while acknowledging workload constraints and the possibility of routing the case to additional staff for a fuller review.

The council thanked the Hugheses for bringing the matter forward and said the work session was intended for information gathering rather than immediate enforcement action. Council members emphasized the importance of applying rules consistently and expressed willingness to work with a resident who wants to comply. The councilor leading the discussion encouraged the Hugheses to submit the documentation to staff so the city could examine the complaint background and identify appropriate next steps.

The city did not take formal action on the spot; staff described next steps as a two-stage review (initial fact-gathering and, if needed, a more detailed code review or referral to another office) and promised to report back to the Hugheses and to the council after its review.

The public-comment exchange is now in the city's follow-up queue for staff review and potential administrative action; staff told the Hugheses to expect contact in about one to two weeks.