HOPE — Hope residents may soon be facing stricter property regulations.
Three officials with the community of Hope — Town Manager Frank Owens, Town Marshal Matt Tallent and town attorney Scott Andrews — met recently to discuss priorities regarding ordinance updates that the town council has expressed interest in pursuing, Andrews said.
Proposed updates outlined by the attorney to the council during their September meeting are the first of several changes that will be examined and discussed in the near future.
At this time, there appears to be no ordinance in Hope regarding the storage of recreational vehicle and boats, Andrews said.
But after a trailer, a camper and a boat remained front of one house last winter, discussions began at Hope Town Hall regarding the possibility of creating regulations modeled after the Columbus ordinance.
Applicable provisions can be found in Columbus’ Stop Standing and Parking ordinance within Chapter 10.28.220, Columbus Code Enforcement Officer Fred Barnett said.
Key provisions state all recreational vehicles must be stored either behind or alongside the primary structure on the property. No portion of the recreational vehicle shall project beyond the front setback of the primary structure or the minimum side or rear yard setback required on the lot.
No more than two recreational vehicles shall be stored on any residential property at any time, the ordinance states. However, an additional vehicle is allowed for temporary visitors for a period of time not exceeding seven consecutive days or 14 total days in any calendar year.
In addition, the wheels of an RV or its transporting device cannot be removed except for repairs, nor shall any recreational vehicle be permanently affixed to the ground in a manner that would prevent its prompt removal, the Columbus ordinance states.
Council members were just recently given proposed changes, the town attorney said.
“It’s being brought up now just so the council can get some ideas on how you want to structure this, and where you want to go from here,” Andrews said.
Weed ordinance update
If property is in violation of Hope’s weed ordinance, the town will mow the lawn — and then bill the property owner only for the actual mowing time, according to the local regulations.
But town officials “want to put more teeth into it,” Andrews said.
Changes under consideration would require every property owner who had one violation notice within 12 months of receiving a second one would be required to not only pay the actual cost of mowing, but an additional $100, the town attorney said.
If the property owner had been sent two notices over a 12 month period and receives a third, he or she would pay the actual cost, plus an additional $200, Andrews said.
“And if we end up having to file an ordinance violation and go to court, the (property owner) would become liable for all court costs and attorney fees,” he told the council.
Unsafe buildings
The current unsafe building ordinance in the northeast Bartholomew County community essentially follows state statutes, and that’s fine with the council.
The problem has been that there was nobody in town to enforce it. The current ordinance talks about a code enforcement officer as the enforcing officer of the unsafe building regulations.
“But the town does not have anybody who is an appointed code enforcement officer,” Andrews said. “That has been amended to add our building and zoning administrator (Matt Galbraith) as our enforcement officer.”
However, that’s not the only change being considered. Suggested revisions would also provide a means for the town to condemn an unsafe building without having to go to court, the attorney said. All the council would have to do is make sure they carry out due process properly, Andrews said.
Each council was given a template of an order that could be sent out to those with unsafe buildings. The due process calls for a public hearing in front of the town council to rectify what the building owner needs to do to make the structure safe, the town attorney said.
The proposed revisions also outline what actions the council could take if the homeowner refuses to comply, he added.
