Browse > Home / Beautification, Code Enforcement / Residents Mull New Ordinances

Residents Mull New Ordinances

April 15, 2005

Building standards addressed as public meetings continue

By LOYD BRUMFIELD News Editor, Today Newspaper

A long list of concerns was raised by members of the citizens advisory committee at the second of a series of public meetings about proposed new city code ordinances April 5.

Committee members, flanked by Cedar Hill City Council members Daniel Haydin and Wade Emmert, addressed storage issues, building maintenance standards and regulations for automobiles and boats at the two-hour meeting at the Cedar Hill Recreation Center.

Code officers Johnny Kendro and Stacey Graves provided overviews of existing codes and a look at proposed new ones.

Several residents said clarifying what’s allowed and what isn’t should be a major focus of the new codes.

“People don’t know what they can or cannot put on their property, and they don’t know who to ask about it,” said Rod Reed, a resident of High Pointe. “Whether it’s in the building code or some other document, people want to know what can or can’t be done.”

Outside storage really isn’t covered under existing city codes, Graves said. The proposed new ordinance specifies what would be allowed and what wouldn’t be.

Under the proposed new ordinances, outside storage of items in public view would be prohibited, including building materials or supplies, chemicals, appliances not designed for outdoor use, outdoor appliances that aren’t installed, tools or mechanical equipment not connected with a residential use, lawn maintenance equipment, motor vehicle parts or accessories, trash and other items that aren’t typically stored outside.

Materials screened from public view, such as by a solid fence, landscaping or a combination of both, are permitted.

While the city has its own standards, individual neighborhoods can also put their own regulations in place through deed restrictions that exceed city codes, Emmert said.

Emmert is chairing a series of meetings about proposed codes, the third of which is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Thursday, April 19, to address property maintenance and miscellaneous concerns.

Eventually, the proposed new codes will be presented to the city council for action.

Storage took up a large portion of the meeting, including regulations about sheds.

The definition of a shed was bandied about among residents.

“Does the shed have a door? Is it enclosed or does it have three sides?” Haydin asked.

Committee member Richard Hicks asked about materials used to construct storage buildings.

“I want to make sure it’s not constructed out of something that will rot,” he said.

The new codes will address nuisance and sanitary issues, Emmert said, who also addressed the storage of materials.

“What I’m talking about here is large amounts of wood, for example, that becomes rodent-infested; stacking crates so that they are visible from the fence, things like that,” he said.

Lawn mowers must be stored away from public view, Kendro said.

Cedar Hill is still operating under its Uniform Housing Code passed in 1988, Kendro said.

“That’s what we use to determine if a structure is habitable or not,” he said.

Several members of the committee said it was important for citizens to understand the necessity of proper home maintenance.

“One problem with home maintenance here — and I’m the classic example of this — is people come here and they don’t plan to stay,” Reed said. “When I came here, I said I was going to stay two-and-a-half years.

“Now, 18 years later, I’m still here.”

Sheri Borth of Keep Cedar Hill Beautiful wondered about burglar bars.

“They send a negative message,” she said, drawing nods from several others. “People see them and don’t think it’s a safe neighborhood.”

Several people at the meeting asked questions about minimum building standards, such as how can you tell when paint becomes too faded and how can you punish homeowners for violations when the problems very well might have been caused by the builder using poor materials?

“There are no easy answers to those questions,” Emmert said.

Those questions also brought up another subject — esthetics.

Emmert seemed skeptical of whether that should be a city concern.

“The question you have to ask is, are we going to concentrate on structure, or are we going to take on the task — what I think would be a giant task — of looking at asthetics?” Emmert said. “Because that would mean really stepped-up enforcement and that gets into things like personal preferences as well.”

Loyd Brumfield can be reached at cedarhill@todaynewspapers.net.

Similar Posts

Comments