At Woodstock's Administrative Adjudication Court I learned something new today, when a case against a local businessman was dismissed.
The businessman had been charged with violating a section of the UDO (Unified Development Ordinances). The UDO apparently includes language that, if a violation is corrected before a court appearance, then the charge must be dismissed.
Talk about knocking out the front teeth of an ordinance!
Apparently, a business owner can be in violation of the UDO, smile when the Code Enforcement Officer comes by, nod his head, agree to fix the problem, do nothing, and then receive a Violation Notice and summons into court. Then, perhaps the date before his court date, he can correct the violation.
Then he can show up in court and state that the violation no longer exists, and the judge must dismiss the charge.
There is something that stinks about that procedure. In this City we are fortunate to have a good Code Enforcement Officer. He has good "bedside" manner; i.e., he can approach a business owner in a polite, professional, business-like manner, explain the law and request compliance. If compliance doesn't result, then his final option is to issue a citation.
Once the citation is issued, the talking ought to be over, and the City Code should not require the judge to dismiss the ticket. This puts the UDO on a different footing than the City Code. If a citation is issued under the City Code, there is no free get-out-of-jail card required, and that's just what 12 defendants in Court today learned.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
5 comments:
If compliance is the objective what exactly is the problem?
The problem, exactly, is that the business owner has plenty of time to comply after first being contacted by the City. Only after he does not comply does the City issue a citation.
Compare that to a warning given for a parking violation or speeding. How many warnings do you give?
When he fails to comply after the "friendly" approach, a citation gets issued. After that, the business owner should, if found "liable", have to compensate the City for its employee's time, the prosecutor's time, the judge's time and the paperwork and clerical time.
This City trains certain categories to push the envelope, to test its limits, and that it won't cost them to do so.
So that's the problem, exactly.
It turns out that it is Illinois state law that prohibits Woodstock from fining that business owner who violates the law, receives a citation, but who comes into compliance before his hearing. Since the City of Woodstock is not home rule, it cannot fine violators, if they bring their property into compliance before their hearing. So State law is the culprit, not Woodstock's UDO or City Code.
Home rule communities can still assess fines, even if the property is back in compliance.
What exactly was the violation? How long would it realistically take to correct? Another job I'm glad you don't have.
Woodstock UDO 9.6A requires parking (at a business) only on an improved surface. The particular business takes in many vehicles for repair, far more than it can handle in a reasonable period of time and many of which may be inoperable.
The Code Enforcement Officer is reasonable in his approach to violations. He works well with the business owners to allow sufficient time for compliance. He might even give more than one warning or grant extensions, in order to avoid issuing a citation.
Post a Comment