Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin resident asks board to dismiss curbside-item violation; board says no fine has been imposed
Summary
Keaton Mahan asked the Board of Public Works and Safety on Aug. 18 to dismiss a violation notice for a vanity and sink placed curbside. The mayor indicated he would oppose dismissal and city staff said no fine has been imposed and the matter may be referred for further action if the condition is not corrected.
Keaton Mahan, a Franklin resident, asked the Board of Public Works and Safety on Aug. 18 to dismiss a violation notice he received about an item he placed at the curb, saying the city did not follow the notice requirements.
Mahan told the board the citation referenced Aug. 12 and that he received a mailed letter but no notice posted on the property. "I looked through my home security footage on the date that was cited, which was August 12, and it doesn't appear that anyone from the city had ever come and actually conducted an inspection at all," he said. He asked the board to dismiss "violation VAIO 25 5 2 4."
The board did not take formal action to dismiss the notice. Mayor Barnett said he would oppose dismissing the case, adding that the usual process is that after a letter is mailed the item must be removed within the city’s timeline or it will be picked up and a fine may follow. A city staff member told the board, "There has not been any fine imposed. The notice was to clear up the alleged violation at this point in time." The staff member said that if the condition is corrected, "there will be no further action taken," but that if not, the matter could be referred to the staff member’s office for further action.
Nut graf: The exchange clarified that the violation notice cited by Mahan had not led to an imposed fine as of the meeting; the board did not vote to dismiss the notice and described the existing removal/notice process and possible referral for enforcement if the condition remains unresolved.
Supporting details and next steps: Mahan said the ordinance requires a notice posted on the property and limits certain notices to once per calendar year; he told the board he believes the notice was not properly issued because of the missing posting and lack of inspection. The mayor and city staff described the typical removal timeline and warned that further enforcement could follow if the condition is not corrected. No formal vote was recorded to grant Mahan’s request during the meeting.
Ending: The board moved on to other business after the exchange. The staff member indicated the matter would not proceed further if the cited condition is remedied, but could be referred for additional action if it is not.
