Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health And Nuisance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council to tighten open‑burning rules after repeated smoke and chemical complaints; law director suggests civil nuisance route while code review
Summary
Residents told Berea City Council on May 19 that recurring overnight smoke and chemical sprays from a neighbor’s outdoor burning have infiltrated homes and harmed their health; the law director said existing rules were only partly applicable and suggested private nuisance litigation as an immediate civil option while council considers code changes.
Several residents told the Berea City Council on May 19 that smoke from a neighbor’s frequent outdoor burning, including “black combustion smoke” and suspected chemical sprays, has repeatedly entered their homes and caused health problems.
A resident described smoke creeping through bedroom windows in the overnight hours and said she and a co‑resident had been to the hospital and experienced chronic respiratory symptoms; the couple said they had contacted police and the fire department but felt their complaints had not been resolved. The speaker said a neighbor had claimed “Maria allows her to burn” and reported encounters with a neighbor who identified herself as a paramedic. Another resident said smoke and odors made it unsafe to use CPAP and oxygen equipment.
Ashley Jones, the city’s director of law, told council that the fire department’s on‑scene investigations had found the burning to be in partial compliance with the city’s then‑existing open‑burning code, which permits certain small fires near property lines. Jones said amending the code is a council action that would not happen immediately, and she also suggested that residents could consider private nuisance claims — a civil remedy — wherein a lawful activity still substantially interferes with another resident’s use and enjoyment of their property.
Council members acknowledged the seriousness of the health claims and discussed options. Jones explained that the private nuisance route is a civil action between private parties and not an enforcement action the council itself would initiate; she said that if council wants a tighter local rule, the council can pursue a code amendment but that change would not be instantaneous. Several council members urged staff to collect details from residents and to review enforcement options concurrently with any legislative change.
No new ordinance was introduced at the meeting; council members said they would consider code changes and look into administrative remedies and further enforcement steps. The council asked staff to gather facts and work with complainants on possible next steps.
