The Henderson City Commission held a spirited debate on a revised ordinance relating to clutter Tuesday, before ultimately passing the update that city officials say will allow staff more “teeth” to deal with complaints that come regarding clutter.
The revised ordinance passed 3-1, with Commissioner Robert Pruitt being the lone ‘no’ vote.
Pruitt said that when he read the proposed changes he felt there was too much of an interpretation of what clutter is in the proposal. He specifically cited an example of a resident using a tarp to cover up items that are stored under a carport. For example, he asked if 15 bikes under a tarp stored under a carport would be considered clutter.
Meanwhile, city officials, including City Attorney Dawn Kesley and Codes Administrator Steve Davis, repeated that putting a set number on items allows city staff to respond to complaints and do something about it. Currently, they–and other commissioners and Mayor Brad Staton–said the city receives complaints from residents who complain about clutter and nuisance coming from their neighbor’s property, and when city officials arrive, nothing can be remedied because a specific definition of clutter—including the number of items that constitutes clutter—had not been included in the city’s code of ordinances.
The approved ordinance states that the “presence of more than ten (10) substantially similar items” may be considered excessive. It goes on to say that clutter is an accumulation that is “presumed to exceed what is reasonably necessary for customary residential use…”
Pruitt also mentioned the possibility of firewood being stacked in view of neighbors, asking if that was considered clutter. There was also discussion of an accumulation of bicycles during the meeting.
City Commissioner Kelsey Hargis said that discussion of firewood and bicycles is missing the point of what the real issue is.
“We’re talking about extreme examples,” she said. “The situations we’re seeing, they’re extreme.”
Additionally, a couple residents spoke about the ordinance. Dean Spooner said that the city should tread lightly when regulating private property rights.
“I’m thinking this is going too far,” he said.
He added that one provision of the revised ordinance that allows a property owner to appeal a clutter ruling to the city’s Code Enforcement Board puts the burden of defense on the private citizen, which may be difficult for some to carry out.
Meanwhile, resident Cindy Bickwermert spoke after the ordinance had been approved. She was in favor of the revised ordinance and said she sees cars parked in lawns that haven’t been moved for years and front porches so filled with items that a person can’t get to the front door.
“It’s so much worse than the petty things you’re talking about,” Bickwermert said.
Both Kelsey and Davis said the revised ordinance was written in a manner that attempted to balance the rights of a property owners to use their property as they please with the rights of neighbors to enjoy their property without next-door nuisances that could also decrease property values.
See the approved update of the ordinance below. It is taken from the Henderson City Commission’s Tuesday agenda packet.
“(a) No owner, occupant, or person in control of residential property shall permit clutter, as defined in this section, to be stored or accumulated on the property, when such clutter is readily visible from a public right-of-way or adjoining property and materially detracts from the appearance of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
(b) “Clutter” includes, but is not limited to, the accumulation of: New or salvaged construction materials; salvaged metal, aluminum, or plastic products; wooden or plastic pallets; tools (working or nonworking); auto parts; furniture in disrepair; appliances; televisions; broken toys; inoperable lawn mowers; motorcycles or all terrain vehicles; shopping carts; bicycles in disrepair or in excessive quantities; or any other similar materials accumulated in a disorderly, unsightly, or excessive manner.
(1) An accumulation of any item, even if in good condition and orderly, constitutes a nuisance if it exceeds what is reasonably necessary for ordinary residential use or creates an appearance inconsistent with the residential character of the neighborhood.
(2) The presence of more than ten (10) substantially similar items of the same general type-such as bicycles, tools, furniture, or similar materials–on residential property may be considered excessive under this article. Such an accumulation is presumed to exceed what is reasonably necessary for customary residential use, regardless of the condition, operability, or arrangement of the items. A property owner may rebut this presumption by requesting a hearing before the Code Enforcement Board pursuant to Chapter 15, Section 15-47: Enforcement Proceedings.
(c) Clutter shall not be stored in yards, on driveways, on front porches, under open carports, or on back porches if visible from a public right-of-way or from adjacent real property at ground level – regardless of whether the items are in disrepair or neatly arranged. Clutter must be screened from ordinary public view. For purposes of this section, “screened from ordinary public view” shall mean stored behind an opaque privacy fence or within a garage or lawfully constructed storage/accessory structure. Covering clutter with tarps, plastic sheeting, or similar materials shall not constitute compliance with this section.
(d) Each owner of property in the city, abutting upon a public street, avenue, alley, or other public thoroughfare, shall keep clean and free of uncut grass, weeds, or other growth, except shade trees, the grass plot between the sidewalk and the curb line along his premises where sidewalks are constructed, and, where pavements or sidewalks are not constructed, the owner of abutting property shall be and he is hereby required to keep the public street, avenue, alley, or thoroughfare free from such growth for a distance not exceeding twelve (12) feet in front of and adjoining this property line.”
