Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Putnam County grants 30-day extension, warns of $100-a-day fines for two long-running code-enforcement cases
Summary
The Putnam County Commission granted two 30-day extensions for neighboring nuisance properties tied to the same owner, and directed that standard $100-per-day sanctions begin if the properties do not show further progress.
The Putnam County Commission on May 13 granted 30-day extensions for two related code-enforcement cases, 2024-O7 and 2024-O8, but said sanctions would begin immediately after the extension if property owners did not show additional progress.
Miss Jordan, a planning office staff member, told the commission the two properties are owned by the same person and that the owner submitted an email saying he had visited the properties, removed some trash and mowed since the packet photos were taken May 7. Jordan said the owner also requested 60 more days and reported he had engaged a contractor, Michael Ray, to use heavy equipment on the work. "There had been no progress made, during the 90 day period that he was given," Jordan said, adding that the recent work was the only measurable activity during the enforcement period.
The commission debated whether to impose sanctions or give more time. One commissioner said he was "ready to put sanctions on Mr. Carroll" if the owner did not move faster; another proposed a 30-day extension after which fines would begin. The board approved a motion to give a 30-day extension for each case and to impose the county's standard sanction if there is no progress at the end of the extension. Commissioners identified the standard amount as $100 per day.
The cases trace to an original complaint filed in March 2024, the planning staff said, meaning the properties have been under enforcement for roughly 14 months. Commissioners noted the owner lives in Lewisburg and that recent work reportedly involved only mowing and limited cleanup. Jordan said one of the properties has a house and a small shed; visible exterior work to secure windows or doors was not evident in the packet photos.
The commission asked staff to apply the same timeline and sanction structure to both properties because of their proximity and family relationship of the owners. The board approved the identical extension and sanction plan for both files to avoid confusion about requirements.
