08/18/1998 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 8/18/98 the attention of the Recreation Commission. Mrs. Saringer thanked Mr. Healy for bringing this problem to Council's attention and said that it would be referred to the Recreation Department. Steve Calmer, 4429 Root Road, spoke in opposition to Ordinance 98-88 which creates a new and revised Section 949.03 and 949.04 of the Codified Ordinances entitled "Trees and Weeds." He said the implications of the text as written and some of the statements as written would result in loss of an individual's freedom of choice about how to treat their property, the imposition of one frame of reference upon all and the elimination of cultural diversity including bio-diversity. He is concerned that under the guise of the public health, safety, morals and welfare, we are getting more and more governmental intervention into the private lives of individuals. In his opinion, the best way to solve this problem is to drop the proposed ordinance and pursue the problem under public nuisance ordinances, rather than specific control and definition of genus and species as to what is a weed. He knows some people who would call pachysandra aweed--he's one of them! (Mr. Calmer submitted his written observations, comments and criticisms concerning the proposed legislation and a copy is attached to these minutes.) Mr. O'Grady, sponsor of the legislation, said he felt Mr. Calmer's main point is the loss of individual choice of what one can do on private property. He believes it is a misperception that this ordinance does that. What the legislation does do is address a problem that specific residents have with parcels in their neighborhoods that are not kept up and that are a nuisance to them and their neighbors. Also, he believes it takes a more studied approach to how we, as a city, are going to manage these parcels in that we specifically site that parcels adjacent to the Metroparks and that abut I-480 do not fall under the requirements of this code. Additionally, we incorporated into the ordinance the opportunity for appeal. Adherence to the code is driven by complaints--as was the case of the parcel on Wellesley Drive where the property in question contains overgrown vines and weeds that are infringing on the neighbors' property. Mr. Calmer again suggested that these situations be addressed through the public nuisance code. Law Director Gareau explained to Council that, when the complaint on the Wellesley Drive parcel was made, the Building Commissioner looked at the parcel and declared it to be a natural area. The proposed legislation would eliminate the discretion of the Building Commissioner from the process because there was no criteria. If there is any sort of appeal on whether a parcel is or is not a nuisance, that will instead go to the Service Director. The legislation basically defined all of the kinds of weeds that are noxious as presented in the Ohio Administrative Code. Mrs. Saringer asked the Law Director if offending properties could be cited under nuisance codes. Law Director Gareau said he believed a resident could be asked to remove weeds and vines that are higher than 8 inches because they constitute a nuisance. However, he noted that what is defined by the Department of Agriculture as a weed might not be considered so by Mr. Calmer and other people. Mr. Calmer said many things we call noxious weeds are imports. By definition, a weed is something that is growing where you don't want it. Mr. O'Grady said he wished to clarify a point: The Law Director is correct in that he stated that the Building Commissioner determined this particular parcel to be a natural area and, therefore, it was exempt from the requirements that exist in the code. However, the law review stated that under Section 949.03 all properties within the City of North Olmsted 8