Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Batch topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homewood council moves on multiple nuisance cases: several properties declared nuisances, others dropped or continued
Summary
At its Sept. 15 meeting the Homewood City Council handled a batch of property‑condition items: it declared multiple vacant or poorly maintained properties public nuisances (several resolutions passed), dropped others after owners abated conditions, and continued at least one public hearing for more time.
The Homewood City Council on Sept. 15 considered a series of property‑condition matters, declaring several properties public nuisances, dropping enforcement for others after abatement, and continuing one public hearing to a later date for additional time and contact with the property owner.
Key outcomes: Council votes during the meeting included declarations of public nuisance for these properties (as recorded in the meeting minutes and staff recommendations): 1807 Mayfair Drive (owner: Davis Investment LLC) — declared a public nuisance and recorded as Resolution 25‑162; 2534 Central Avenue (owner: Corey Chambers) — declared a public nuisance, Resolution 25‑163; 251 Carr Avenue (owner: Bullard Garage LLC) — declared a public nuisance and referred to the abatement board (resolution numbering clarified in meeting minutes as 25‑164); and 1045 Forest Brook Drive (owner: Benny Charles) — declared a public nuisance, Resolution 25‑165.
Dropped and continued items: The council also dropped enforcement for one property after staff reported the owner had completed abatement and provided updated photos (property owned by RETB LLC) — the council voted to drop that case. Another property at 20 West Lakeshore Drive was also dropped after the owner cut a dead tree and arranged cleanup. A separate property at 109 Hanover Road was continued with the public hearing left open and carried to the Sept. 29 meeting to allow the owner additional time; staff will provide the owner’s contact information to the assigned council liaison.
Staff reports and enforcement process: For many items Code Enforcement staff (Brian Cook) reported site conditions, the posting and certified‑mail notice process, and that owners had been given time to abate before council consideration. For one vacant commercial site (251 Carr Avenue) staff noted a possible lawsuit among owners and police reports that unauthorized individuals had occupied the structure; staff recommended referral to the abatement board because the structure is open, lacks utilities, and has had reported trespassing and lock changes. Police (Chief Frost) discussed transient occupancy concerns at that location.
Procedural notes: For properties declared public nuisances the council followed the standard process staff outlined: notice and posting, a public hearing, and a council declaration initiating a statutory remedy period. Staff told the council that if owners do not comply within the statutory timeframe the city may schedule abatement and place a lien on the property for the cost of work. Several items passed unanimously; where owners had voluntarily abated conditions, cases were dropped to avoid further action.
