Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table proposal for countywide citizen code-enforcement board, ask staff for more research
Summary
After extended debate over scope, authority and staffing, the board voted to table a proposal to create a citizen-led code-enforcement board and asked staff to consult neighboring counties and return with options at the first March meeting.
Camden County commissioners tabled a proposed ordinance to establish a citizen code-enforcement board after a lengthy discussion that aired concerns about scope, staffing, legal process and whether the board would address animal-control complaints or broader nuisance and dilapidated-property issues.
Cody (commissioner/staff presenter) and county staff said the current enforcement path — where many ordinance violations proceed to magistrate court and frequently result in jury trials in superior court — can be slow and ineffective. The proposal presented would create a citizen board that could hear code cases, levy fines and produce faster local resolution; appeals from the board would go to Superior Court, staff noted, and the enabling state code authorizes counties to establish such boards.
Opponents raised several concerns. One commissioner said the proposed board as written would add an unelected body with the power to levy substantial fines (the draft permitted fines up to $1,000 per day in some cases). Staff and commissioners also identified resource constraints: Camden County covers large rural territory and currently has only two code-enforcement officers, who also handle animal-control-related work; pursuing condemnation and title work to clear certain dilapidated properties can require substantial attorney time, title work and county outlays, often with little chance of recovering cleanup costs. Staff cited an example where demolition/cleanup cost the county about $10,000 and produced no recovery from property heirs.
Separating animal-control enforcement and general code/nuisance enforcement was a recurring theme: some commissioners asked whether a narrower animal-control board (or different process) would be more effective than a countywide code-enforcement board. The county attorney reported that neighbouring Glynn County had an advisory board that was later dissolved; staff said it would study other counties’ approaches.
After discussion, a commissioner moved and the board voted to table the item and direct staff to research alternatives and return at the first March meeting with recommendations and comparisons from neighboring counties.
Why it matters: Commissioners described persistent community complaints about property conditions, animal-control issues and the slow pace of enforcement under the existing court-focused system. Any new enforcement mechanism would change who adjudicates violations, the size of penalties and the administrative workload for county staff and legal counsel.
Next steps: Staff will research neighboring-county models, clarify distinctions between magistrate-court handling of certain violations and the proposed board’s jurisdiction, and return with refined options at the board’s March meeting.
