Potter scrambles to define terms after complaint

A citizen of Potter has the Village Board hastily reviewing their ordinances directed toward body shops, salvage yards and other businesses.

Scott Worth told board members that he got a “nasty note” on his property saying that the fence was an eyesore. So he tore down the fence on that side of the building.

At the Village Board meeting on May 6, the man brought in a copy of an ordinance he found that he claimed exempts him from the original ordinance about “vehicle nuisance.” The business owner reminded the board members he was under the impression that this was settled a couple of years ago, when it was determined that he didn’t have to have a fence in the first place.

Worth presented a copy of the ordinance that showed that businesses are exempt and reminded the board members that he was told a couple of years ago that he had to construct a fence to hide the vehicles that he had on the property.

A debate ensued, spurred by questions from the board, over the difference between salvage yards and body shops.

The aggrieved owner said that there is a difference in regulations between an auto wrecking and an auto repair/auto body shop.

Board members asked if the vehicles were purchased as salvage. Worth stated that some of the vehicles are purchased at auctions but they aren’t considered salvage vehicles; they are considered repairable unless they are so far gone that they can’t be repaired, they are considered salvage. He added that as long as they are fixable, they are considered repairable. When they are repaired, they are retitled.

He continued to claim that the repairable vehicles come with a salvage title from the insurance companies, but they are not really considered salvage vehicles at that time because they are at an auction for sale. He said when they become “salvage,” they go to a salvage yard.

The contention was that salvage yards have a different definition than an auto body repair shop. A salvage yard exists to process materials, which the owner doesn’t do at his location; instead, he takes his iron to those yards because they accept iron and he doesn’t.

The owner said that his business falls under the same category as other businesses in the area, and that the village isn’t enforcing the code on those businesses.

A board member insisted that the information presented “isn’t the complete statement, it is tied to the allowable uses and it is tied to the different kinds of zoning.” The business owner agreed that the page he submitted was the “exception page.”

The business owner expressed that he wasn’t trying to create a problem, that his fence looked bad so he took it down. He was just asking for fair treatment. He claimed that he was the only business to receive a nuisance letter. He said that he was targeted with this letter because his fence fell down and that he “took care of the problem.”

The owner said “if you are going to do it to me, do it to all of them.” A board member agreed that he had a valid point.

A board member advised the business owner that the original letter did not come from the village board; someone had made a complaint and the board members had to follow through. The board member asked if another person complains should that person be sent to the business owner. The business owner replied “that’s fine. If somebody comes down and complains about my property, I’d be more than happy to talk to them. That doesn’t bother me a bit.”

The owner said that he will comply with whatever the outcome of the ordinance check by an auditor reveals, as long as “that same auditor visits every commercial business in town.”

A board member suggested that they pull all of the sections on auto body/auto repair and see what it does. “Fair enough,” said the business owner.