Item 7 on the agenda for the last city council meeting seemed somewhat strange to me. It stated the following: “Direction on what to do if someone doesn’t get a building permit.” I was curious to find out why the city officials would not know what to do in such a situation? Did this mean that the city never had a violation of the building permit requirements before? No, of course not, because there have been other building permit violations in the past. Then why did the Mayor and City Clerk need special instructions on “what to do?”
This one agenda item consumed a lot of discussion time by the council. There were only three council members in attendance at the meeting on October 5, and it seemed that there were three different interpretations of the building ordinance or four interpretations when counting the Mayor. The violation turned out to be simply that a resident had not obtained a building permit to erect a portable shed in his backyard. Also, according to the City Clerk, the location of the shed did not meet the minimum distance of four feet from the rear yard property line as required by the ordinance. What should have been a simple routine matter for the Mayor and city administration to handle -- well, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Yet, the question in my mind was, why all this commotion over a simple problem?
Usually, when an item is placed on the council’s agenda which involves building permits or property lines, there is an address and/or owner’s name listed. However, in this case there was no listing (although, it seemed that the council members and Mayor knew who owned the property). Hmmm, I thought, that’s strange.
Some of the council members were not aware that a building permit was required for a portable building. One council member commented that he thought the ordinance just applied to principal or permanent structures. He read from the ordinance that “all principal structures shall be placed on a permanent frost-free foundation;” and he concluded that since a portable building did not require a foundation, a building permit was not necessary. Councilman Larry Harding said that he, himself, was probably in violation of the ordinance since he had some portable buildings on his property and he had never obtained building permits for them. Other council members mentioned that they knew of additional portable buildings in Eddyville which had been erected without building permits.
In reviewing the ordinance, the council members seemed to be surprised to find other sections of the building ordinance which may have been violated in the past. For example, there is a requirement that “a garage or accessory building shall not occupy more than thirty-percent of a rear yard” and another requirement that “the maximum size of a garage or accessory building shall be thirty-two feet by thirty-six feet and twelve feet in height.” The council members mentioned that there is one residential lot with a long building which encloses several garages. They also mentioned that there is another residential lot with a large two-story building in the backyard and the ground level of the building is a garage.
However, the issue in question was the item on the agenda regarding the portable building that had been recently erected without a permit. The council voted two to one to ask the city attorney to prepare directions for the City Clerk to handle this matter. Councilman Harding voted against the motion because he did not think the ordinance applied to portable buildings and he did not believe the city clerk should be the one to accept or deny a building permit.
Ironically, the answer to the question of what to do about the portable building was right there in the copies of the building ordinance which the council members were holding in their hands. Under Section 155.27 “ABATEMENT OF VIOLATION,” it states that any violation of the building ordinance “may be abated by the City” in the “manner provided for the abatement of nuisances.” Chapter 50 of the City Code of Ordinances, “NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE,” spells out the step-by-step procedures that are necessary to correct the problem.
In the future, it would save a lot of discussion time and possibly prevent the council from making mistakes if they invited the City Attorney to attend the council’s monthly meetings, especially when there is a legal question on the agenda.
But, there is more to this story. As I mentioned earlier, the address of the residence and the owner’s name had been omitted from the agenda and was never mentioned during the council’s long discussion. One week after the council meeting, I was paying my water bill at city hall, and I asked the City Clerk who the owner of the portable building was? Her answer surprised me, and it put a whole different light on what had taken place at the council meeting. Could politics have been involved? No, I said to myself, with something so petty that would not be possible. But, on the other hand, hmmm – maybe, nah, well, just maybe it was possible. So I decided to talk with the owner of the portable building. As they say, there are always two sides to a story.
To be continued in my next blog.