Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abatement Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission forwards expanded public‑nuisance and abatement ordinance to council
Summary
The commission voted unanimously June 4 to direct staff to update Chapter 8.06 to expand abatement rules to include abandoned property and public nuisances on private property, add definitions, notice procedures and a 30‑day compliance timeline, and recommend the draft to the City Council.
The Seldovia Planning Commission unanimously voted June 4 to ask staff to update the city's abandoned‑property code into a proposed public‑nuisance and abandoned‑property ordinance and to recommend the draft to the City Council.
Staff told the commission the revised Chapter 8.06 broadens the existing vehicle‑focused language to cover abandoned property, junk and trash and provides an enforcement process similar to language used in Wasilla, Homer and Houston. "We're expanding that code to include private property," the City Manager said, describing new definitions for abandoned property, junk vehicle, junk, trash and 'city land.'
Key points: the draft creates a formal enforcement order process that can require removal, screening or restoration of nuisances and generally requires property owners to bring property into compliance within 30 days of notice, unless the city stipulates a written extension for good cause. Staff described civil remedies and penalties, including the ability to recover damages and attorney's fees and a minor‑offense fine schedule (not to exceed $500 per violation in the draft language). Appeals of fines and enforcement actions would follow the city's appeals procedure and, for now, can be heard by the Planning Commission under existing code; staff said the city is exploring whether an administrative hearing officer would be added in the future.
The draft also lists exceptions for commercial operations with active repair orders, commercial storage facilities, junk salvage yards, landfills and authorized refuse or septic operations. Commissioners recommended wording improvements for the notice and demand sections and clarified that the code language refers to land within city limits or under city zoning authority.
Vote and next steps: a commissioner moved to have staff update the proposed ordinance with the commission's changes and recommend it to the City Council. The motion passed 4‑0 on roll call (Commissioners Forsberg, Sweet, Kroll and Ryan): all voted yes. Staff will prepare the revised ordinance and forward it to council for formal consideration and public hearing.
The commission did not adopt the ordinance as written but completed the policy review and formalized a referral to the City Council.
