Proposed nuisance ordinance clears second hurdle

By BROOKS TAYLOR

Mt. Pleasant News

While the Mt. Pleasant City Council defeated a proposed ordinance on abandoned and junk vehicles Wednesday night, a nuisance ordinance survived a second reading?but not without debate.

The council unanimously passed and moved to a third reading an ordinance on general nuisances. The third reading of the ordinance will be during the council?s Jan. 23 meeting at which time it will become law if passed.

Most of the discussion on the ordinance centered on an ?exception? article at the end of the ordinance.

The article reads as follows:

?It shall be lawful to grow native plants, including ferns, grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees in a managed landscape design certified by a landscape architect or master gardener. The managed landscape design shall not include noxious weeds.?

Councilman Stan Curtis said a master gardener does not have the power to certify the design and the article is not needed.

?A master gardener cannot certify the design,? Curtis began. ?I don?t think the exception needs to be in there.?

Further, he noted that the exception put an undue burden on city residents. ?I don?t think we should burden our residents to get a landscape designer to have a flower garden. I think this is burdening the populace with something not necessary. It is flat wrong.?

?What I am worried about is the guy whose backyard is overgrown and he say it is native grasses,? noted Councilman Steve Engberg.

?There are many ways to attack the problem without the exception included,? Curtis answered.

Councilman Matt Crull also took issue with an article reading: ?Any hazardous thing or condition on the property, including, but not limited to, open holes, open foundation, open wells or cisterns, or dangerous trees or limbs.?

The ?not limited to? language ?opens up everything to interpretation,? Crull remarked. ?A kids? playset could be termed hazardous.?

Engberg said the ordinance committee has been receiving complaints and something needs to be done. ?We have people who are devaluing their neighbors properties and we are receiving complaints about it. Without an ordinance, it makes us look like fools and it is frustrating. It still comes down to what we are going after. We have to do something.?

Mayor Steve Brimhall reminded the council that its word is not final. ?We are not the jury. If we say it isn?t right, our decision can be appealed and it will be decided in court.?

City Attorney Patrick Brau added that in such instances the proof will be on the city to prove that such situations are hazardous. ?We?re trying to identify things that re nuisances rather then get into broad definitions.?

Council members meet again in regular session Wednesday, Jan. 23, at 7 p.m. at City Hall.