Ordinance violations questioned

The Ellendale City Council had a full house during its most recent regular meeting on Thursday, May 9, including an individual present with recording equipment to document what they described as “part two of a four-part investigation.” The issue in question: lawn trimming ordinance violations at five properties owned by Daniel Petsinger, who was present to challenge a notice of violation he was given following an official complaint submitted to the city.

 

The ordinance cited in the complaint falls under Section 92.38 of the City Codification Manual, reading: “All property owners shall be responsible for the removal, cutting, and further disposal and elimination of weeds, grasses, and rank vegetation or other uncontrolled plant growth on their property.” At the time of the violation notice sent to Petsinger, lawn growth was in excess of 6” in height.

 

The purpose of the public hearing called by the council was to hear from the property owner and attempt to answer questions he had. However, the matter of overgrown lawns at the properties in question was largely ignored.

 

Instead, the city’s legal obligation to publish the codification manual online was first questioned. Petsinger claimed that the manual, which is currently available on the city website, “was not signed nor dated” and was not published online.

 

“We do not have to put [the codification manual] online; that is a courtesy,” explained Deputy Clerk/Treasurer Steve Engel. “Official copies [are available in] the clerk’s office.”

 

Petsinger also focused heavily on his constitutional right which he felt was violated when the council attempted to answer his questions.

 

“Unfortunately, this is not your hearing,” Petsinger said. “This is my hearing that I got called in to, and I have a right to speak under the constitutional rights that I have in a hearing that you guys called. Are there objections to that from the council?”

 

No council members objected or attempted to prevent Petsinger from speaking. He continued, claiming that the city failed to provide a “signed, written copy” of the official complaint that resulted in the notice of violation.

 

The council spent many months over a year ago revising, reviewing and discussing the ordinance enforcement process, which was finalized, signed, and dated when it went into effect. Council meeting minutes show that each complaint received and violation notice sent regarding the lawn ordinance violation followed that process outlined by the city.

 

The council agreed to close the public hearing in order to review the process and better prepare for questions unrelated to the original ordinance violations. The ability of the council to close the public hearing was also questioned. Scott Groth, longtime council member, informed the council and guests at the meeting that no explanation is required in order to close a public hearing.

 

The matter will be revisited during the next regular council meeting on Thursday, June 13 at 7:00 p.m.