Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Nuisance Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Stephens County to clarify complaint-based 'nuisance' ordinance
Summary
Multiple residents during public comment asked commissioners to revise Chapter 34 — the county's nuisance/eyesore ordinance — arguing complaint-based enforcement enables selective prosecution and penalizes lower-income property owners.
Several Stephens County residents asked the Board of Commissioners to amend Chapter 34 of the county code — the county’s nuisance and land-use provisions — arguing the ordinance’s complaint-driven enforcement allows selective or malicious use.
The public comments, delivered during the meeting’s public-comment period, centered on how the ordinance defines “eyesore” and how marshals enforce complaints. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is now under fire because the ordinance is wording as failed and placed opinions over rationality,” said Shannon Shirley, a resident of Brandyberry Drive. Shirley and other speakers said the ordinance’s subjective language allows neighbors to file complaints over aesthetics and use the marshal’s office to press personal agendas.
Residents described cases they said reflected uneven enforcement. Tiffany Lathan, who identified herself during public comment, asked commissioners, “Is this current ordinance being properly and fairly enforced in its entirety?” She and others suggested the marshal sometimes treats neighbors differently; one speaker quoted a marshal as saying of his neighbors, “Those are my neighbors and it’s not my business.” Speakers urged the county to remove or narrow subjective terms such as “eyesore” and to consider requiring marshals to investigate visible infractions independently rather than acting only on complaints.
County staff responded to the comments by saying the board has been revising land-use chapters over the past years and agreed wording can be ambiguous. One commissioner said staff will review Chapter 34 and compare other counties’ language for possible revisions. The board did not take formal action on changes to Chapter 34 during the meeting.
Residents also raised related land-use issues including enforcement resources and whether some enforcement decisions are influenced by differences in property owners’ incomes. Several speakers asked that the county seek clearer, less subjective definitions so enforcement does not “pit neighbor against neighbor.”
The board encouraged continued public involvement and said it would review the ordinance language and examples from other counties before further action.
