Proposed Ordinance Would Eliminate Parking In Front Yards

By Gordon HopkinsThe Fairbury City Council voted in favor of an ordinance that would prohibit parking in front yards in the city limits, except on an improved surface at a meeting on Tuesday, September 16.It was the first of three votes. Changing or creating an ordinance normally requires three votes unless that requirement is waived by the council. That means there are two more meetings where the public will have the opportunity to express opinions on the proposed ordinance before it becomes final.That is exactly what at least one city council member wants. “This one makes me a little uncomfortable. I would just like some more discussion around it, I think,” said councilperson Jaime McDaniel during the meeting. “I understand the premise, you know. It affects other people’s property values, things like that. I just want to take it seriously, because we’re determining what people do with property they own.”“I get torn because I do believe, like you chose to live in a municipality, municipalities have houses, and they’re there for a reason, and I don’t like the look of junk cars,” said McDaniel. “Even my own husband says, ‘If I own a property and I want to park right up against my front door, I feel like I should be able to.’” What The Ordinance SaysThe proposed amendment to § 72.20 of the Fairbury Municipal Code reads, “No motor vehicle shall be parked or stored in the front yard, or adjacent right-of-way, of any residential use lot except on an improved surface driveway or other improved surface.”The amendment also defines improved surface, “For purposes of this section, ‘improved surface’ shall mean a hard surface area maintained with materials, including, but not limited to, concrete, pavement, asphalt, brick, or gravel, sufficient to prevent mud, dust, or loose debris.”Medical exceptions are allowed for those with physical limitations, such as those who park in the front yard because they need to be closer to an entrance. Those individuals would need to contact the city and provide a note from a doctor. Opposition To The OrdinanceCouncilperson Bradley Kuzelka was the lone no vote against the proposed ordinance. He made clear he was opposed to creating more rules for citizens to follow, “If we look in our code book, of which is 317 pages long, 92.20, the definition of nuisance, a general definition, a nuisance consisting in doing of any unlawful act or omitting to perform a duty or suffering or committing a condition or thing to be or exist, which act omission or condition or thing either. And if you look at number six, essentially interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. Is that what we’re talking about? Parking a car that affect people’s life and property?”Mayor Kelly Davis said, “I’m kind of on the fence on this. I don’t like cars parked in the front yards, but it’s their property. How they treat their property is up to them.” Support For The OrdinanceCouncilperson Charlie Endorf has pushed hard to see the ordinance enacted.“My whole thought process to this deal was, how about we start making some rules and clean this town up,” said Endorf. “Let’s make a set of rules. I don’t care how darn strict they are, make them and abide by them. It’s that simple. There’s rules all over this country. We live by them or we don’t, like a lot of them live by it.”Kuzelka countered, “I’ve got five kids. I don’t need to be anybody else’s dad.” Enforcement of the OrdinanceKuzelka also expressed doubts about the ability to enforce the new ordinance, “This will affect our constituents, my constituents, your constituents, everyone in the city. I went six blocks from where I work, which is not far from here, and I identified five or six vehicles already. So, if we do this, instantly, those vehicles will become illegally parked. And we have all kinds of codes we’re not enforcing right now. I could go down the list. We don’t have guys to do this enforcement, so we’re going to have one more code in our 317 pages of code we’re not going to enforce.”Mayor Davis said, “I understand the wishes of the planning and zoning and we got some messes in town. But I also agree with Brad. We got a lot of code we’re not enforcing. We can’t. We can’t. We don’t have the manpower to enforce them all, and we can’t get the help we need from people that were paying dearly to do law enforcement. So, I don’t know what I don’t know what the answer is.”It is worth noting that, when the City eliminated the police department and contracted with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office to provide law enforcement, the contracted stipulated the city would enforce city codes. The City currently has two code enforcement officers.“Well, we could raise your taxes, and we could hire more people for code enforcement, but we’ll make a lot of people mad then, too,” said Endorf.

Promising Early Results From Pilot Programs To Address Water Quality Issues

County Closes Steele City West Bridge

Related Articles

High Winds Fuel Multiple Wild Fires in SE Nebraska

Sen. Ricketts Makes the Case for War

City Offices Closed During Move

A Broken Wire Over Railroad Tracks Leaves City in the Dark