When neighbors Bobby Villery and Dawn Metzger were cited for identical fence violations in the Autumn of 2018, Villery was given 30 days to bring his fence into compliance while Metzger was given a year.
Aldermen Herb Adams protested the different treatment of the two residents and asked the administration to come up with a solution.
Mayor Steve Myers and City Administrator Steve Roth crafted a letter of apology to Villery, enclosed a check to reimburse him for the $37.00 permit fee for the illegal fence and offered to reimburse him for the material he used to construct a permitted fence upon receipt of the invoices for the material.
At that time, Mayor Steve Myers told the Missourian newspaper reporter that Metzger would still be allowed one year to replace her fence and that all illegal fence owners, who were cited in the future, would be given a year to comply.
“That will be the policy going forward,” Myers said.
But one St. Louis Street property owner finds herself in jeopardy of court action for a violation City Administrator Steve Roth said he first learned of July 27. If one alderman had his way, her business license would be revoked.
Trudy Nickelson, owner/operator of Designs of Ambience, 415 West St. Louis Street, a special event venue, constructed an eight-foot privacy fence behind her party venue that was two feet higher than city code allows.
At the Aug. 3 board meeting, aldermen discussed and debated the penalty for Nickelson’s illegal fence.
In an email from Roth to City Clerk Kim Barfield, following a request for details of Nickelson’s penalty, Roth said he first learned of the violation July 27, when the planning and zoning commission (P&Z) discussed it. He said the City Code Enforcement Officer, at the time, Brian Kopp had informed Nickelson verbally of the violation. Kopp is no longer with the city. There was no date when he informed her, or what he said.
Roth said Nickelson then appealed to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to keep the eight-foot fence. The variance was granted but Nickelson was given 90 days to complete construction of the fence. When the variance expired July 28, the fence was not completed.
Roth said when P & Z discussed the issue it was suggested the that conditional use permit for the party venue be revoked, which he reported to the board of aldermen at the Aug. 3 meeting.
Roth said Nickelson spoke to him on at least two occasions in the past couple weeks regarding the issue.
“I told her if work was not complete by the variance deadline (July 28) that she would be in violation,” Roth said in his email. “ I also told her if we knew the work was nearing completion that we would likely withhold any violation notice.”
From this reporter’s perspective applying the Mayor’s one year rule, it would appear that Nickelson would have to have the fence completed by July 2022.
Roth also said that Nickelson informed him she was 60-90 days behind schedule, due to materials being back ordered.
“I told her I was not sure what steps we (the city) would take, and that I also understood the board may take up the issue that evening (Aug. 3).” Roth said.
Alderman Jerry Eversmeyer wanted the board to take action against Nickelson during the meeting. He said her business should be revoked.
She’s had plenty of time to get the fence up,” Eversmeyer said.
Adams, who served as municipal judge for 16 years said the Board of Aldermen was not the right place to deal with a city code violations. He said if there was a code violation, the property owner should be given a written summons that would be provided to the city prosecutor to be decided in court.
Adams made a motion that was seconded but some aldermen were not satisfied. Aldermen continued to discuss the issue for upwards of half a hour. There was no mention of the one-year rule.
Butch Frick, Ward One said to be fair to the property owner city should give her a 30 day notice before giving her written summons. Frick said he was concerned with talk of revoking a business license for a code violation without giving the property owner fair warning.
Eversmeyer stood by his position. He said the violation had been going on for too long and the city should revoke Nickelson’s business license.
Adams said the Board of Aldermen should not do anything. He said neither the board of aldermen nor the court could force the property owner to take the fence down. The only thing the court can do is to fine her if she is not in compliance.
“When I was the municipal judge, my focus in code violations was one thing: compliance,” Adams said. “When a property owner comes before the judge there should be a level playing field. The City and the property owner should be able to discuss their position on the issue without prejudice.”
He said concerns about how much time a property owner had to bring a violation into compliance would work itself out in the process of appearing before the municipal judge. Once a summons has been issued, the property owner can ask for a continuance while they bring the violation into compliance. That would delay court action and give the property owner time to get in compliance before the issue comes before a judge.
“The way the court scheduling works, she’ll have plenty of time to bring the fence into compliance before she comes in front of a judge,” Adams said.
Aldermen approved the summons.
When asked to comment on how the city assesses penalties, Mayor Myers provided a copy of a new fence ordinance that was enacted in May. The ordinance does not spell out the penalty for non-compliance and Myers has yet to respond to a request for copies of any official regulation on how the City addresses non-compliance penalties.
I have to tell you, it seems reasonable that the code enforcement officer would have some authority to work with the property owner and it appears that Kopp was trying do that before he left the city employment.
As a former resident of Pacific and once having served the City as Secretary of the Planning & Zoning Board but more importantly having served as a Legal Administrator for over 30 years the City Attorney needs to propose an ordinance that sets forth specific penalties for non-compliance and the fines associated with the violations. It could be that Pacific does not have the statutory authority to impose a fine as a 4th Class City and may need to file these type of complaints In the Circuit Court or County Court who both have concurrent jurisdiction. It is a sad day when a member of a legislative body (Alderman) decides an issue of fines and revocation of a business license without a Court having determined a crime has in fact been committed. This is why municipalities need to make sure their insurance coverage for actions done in the name of the City are in the millions of dollars because irresponsible people cause good people to be sued!