|
|
|
Camden County, Mo. —
Camden County is considering modifications to the Unified Land Use Code, including removal or correction of dangerous buildings and tougher overall code enforcement.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Don Hathaway said the proposed revisions are part of an effort to modernize and improve the code.
The county does not currently have any authority to condemn structures as derelict or dangerous. Area fire departments can condemn dangerous structures through building codes.
Hathaway said he would like to see the county work with fire departments on how to implement a better system to ensure public safety.
The details are still being worked out, he said, but it could mean the issue going beyond P&Z.
Camden County's land use code only covers the lakefront and about five miles back from the shoreline.
"Dangerous buildings are not limited to the P&Z area," Hathaway said.
Review and enforcement could be a combination effort by another department of the county and the fire department, he said.
The proposed dangerous building ordinance would establish minimum standards for initial and continued human occupancy for both residential and non-residential structures.
Along with a notification and hearing process for compliance, the proposed ordinance would require structures deemed dangerous be repaired or demolished and the lot cleaned within 30 days of service of the order to do so at the end of the hearing process. The owner would be responsible for footing the cost via a special tax bill, or lien, against the property which could be paid off over a period not to exceed 10 years.
The proposed revision to general enforcement of the Unified Land Use Code stipulates a more stringent penalty for violations.
Currently, the fine can be up to $1,000 or a maximum of one year imprisonment or both. The fine is a one-time sum for the violation as a whole.
The proposed revision would set the fine at up to $500 or imprisonment in the County Jail for up to 90 days or both. However, every day that a violation continues would be considered a separate offense, and so, a separate penalty.
Hathaway is also proposing revisions to the Permits and Final Plat Approval section of the code. Properties in the P&Z district that are zoned for agriculture would no longer have to have their land subdivided in order to get a construction permit under certain conditions.
A new subsection on administrative surveys and lot split surveys is proposed as well along with the planning administrator being authorized to approve and sign the surveys for recording.
Camden County is considering modifications to the Unified Land Use Code, including removal or correction of dangerous buildings and tougher overall code enforcement.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Don Hathaway said the proposed revisions are part of an effort to modernize and improve the code.
The county does not currently have any authority to condemn structures as derelict or dangerous. Area fire departments can condemn dangerous structures through building codes.
Hathaway said he would like to see the county work with fire departments on how to implement a better system to ensure public safety.
The details are still being worked out, he said, but it could mean the issue going beyond P&Z.
Camden County's land use code only covers the lakefront and about five miles back from the shoreline.
"Dangerous buildings are not limited to the P&Z area," Hathaway said.
Review and enforcement could be a combination effort by another department of the county and the fire department, he said.
The proposed dangerous building ordinance would establish minimum standards for initial and continued human occupancy for both residential and non-residential structures.
Along with a notification and hearing process for compliance, the proposed ordinance would require structures deemed dangerous be repaired or demolished and the lot cleaned within 30 days of service of the order to do so at the end of the hearing process. The owner would be responsible for footing the cost via a special tax bill, or lien, against the property which could be paid off over a period not to exceed 10 years.
The proposed revision to general enforcement of the Unified Land Use Code stipulates a more stringent penalty for violations.
Currently, the fine can be up to $1,000 or a maximum of one year imprisonment or both. The fine is a one-time sum for the violation as a whole.
The proposed revision would set the fine at up to $500 or imprisonment in the County Jail for up to 90 days or both. However, every day that a violation continues would be considered a separate offense, and so, a separate penalty.
Hathaway is also proposing revisions to the Permits and Final Plat Approval section of the code. Properties in the P&Z district that are zoned for agriculture would no longer have to have their land subdivided in order to get a construction permit under certain conditions.
A new subsection on administrative surveys and lot split surveys is proposed as well along with the planning administrator being authorized to approve and sign the surveys for recording.
A new subsection on condominium plats is also proposed.
What is dangerous?
The proposed dangerous building ordinance lays out several items that would be make a building unsafe.
• Whenever any door, aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is not of sufficient width or size or is not so arranged as to provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic.
• Whenever the walking surface of any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is so warped, worn, loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic.
• Whenever the stress in any materials, member or portion thereof, due to all dead and live loads, is more than one and one-half (1 ½ ) times the working stress or stresses allowed in the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location.
• Whenever any portion thereof has been damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, flood or by any other cause, to such an extent that the structural strength or stability thereof is materially less than it was before such catastrophe and is less than the minimum requirements of the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location.
• Whenever any portion or member of appurtenance thereof is likely to fail, or to become detached or dislodged, or to collapse and thereby injure persons or damage property.
• Whenever any portion of a building, or any member, appurtenance or ornamentation on the exterior thereof is not of sufficient strength or stability, or is not so anchored, attached or fastened in place so as to be capable of resisting a wind pressure of one-half (1/2) of that specified in the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location without exceeding the working stresses permitted in the Building Code for such buildings.
• Whenever any portion thereof has cracked, warped, buckled or settled to such an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to wind or earthquakes than is required in the case of similar new construction.
• Whenever the building or structure, or any portion thereof, because of: 1. Dilapidation, deterioration or decay: 2. Faulty construction: 3. The removal, movement or instability of any portion of the ground necessary for the purpose of supporting such building: 4. The deterioration, decay or inadequacy of its foundation; or 5. Any other cause:
• Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used.
• Whenever the exterior walls or other vertical structural members list, lean or buckle to such an extent that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity does not fall inside the middle one-third (1/3) of the base.
• Whenever the building or structure, exclusive of the foundation, shows thirty-three percent (33%) or more damage or deterioration of its supporting member or members, or fifty percent (50%) damage or deterioration of its non-supporting members, enclosing or outside walls or coverings.
• Whenever the building or structure is infested with insects, vermin or rodents.
• Whenever any building or structure shall have faulty weather protection, which shall include open: 1. Deteriorated, crumbling or loose plaster; 2. Deteriorated, or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof, foundations, or floors, including broken windows or doors; 3. Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other approved protective covering; or 4. Broken, rotted, split, or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings.
• Whenever a building or structure, used or intended to be used for dwelling purposes, because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, decay, damage, faulty construction or arrangement, inadequate light, air or sanitation facilities, or otherwise, is determined by the Planning Administrator to be unsanitary, unfit for human habitation or in such a condition that it is likely to cause sickness or disease.
• Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire-resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause is determined by the Planning Administrator to be a fire hazard.
• Whenever any building or structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance known to the common law or in equity jurisprudence.
• Whenever any portion of a building or structure remains on a site after the demolition or destruction of the building or structure or whenever any building or structure is abandoned for a period in excess of six (6) months so as to constitute such building or portion thereof an attractive nuisance or hazard to the public.
