(A)   In an action seeking closure of a chronic nuisance property, the village shall have the initial burden of showing by preponderance of the evidence that the property is a chronic nuisance property.
   (B)   It is a defense to an action seeking the closure of chronic nuisance property that the owner of the property at the time in question could not, in the exercise of reasonable care or diligence, determine that the property had become a public nuisance property, or could not, in spite of the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, control the conduct leading to the findings that the property is a chronic nuisance property.
   (C)   In establishing the amount of any civil penalty requested, the court may consider any of the following factors if they need be found appropriate, and shall cite those found applicable:
      1.   The actions or lack of action taken by the person in charge to mitigate or correct the problem at the property.
      2.   Whether the problem at the property was repeated or continuous.
      3.   The magnitude or gravity of the problem.
      4.   The cooperation of the person in charge with the village.
      5.   The cost of the village investigating and correcting or attempting to correct the condition. (Ord. 00-20, 11-20-2000)