Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Timnath resident raises concerns over code-enforcement notice and contractor response
Summary
Resident Clarence Sitzman told the council he received a code-enforcement notice after debris had been removed from his Kern Street property, said he had difficulty reaching the contracted safety/code company, and objected to the potential fines and notification timing.
During public comment at the Jan. 14 Timnath Town Council meeting, resident Clarence Sitzman described a dispute over a demolition dumpster and a subsequent code-enforcement notice he received.
Sitzman told council he owns property at 4101 Kern Street and had removed two dilapidated buildings, using a roll-off dumpster. He said a couch was dumped on his dumpster overnight and that Republic Services told him he could be charged a $200 fee for overage; he removed the couch to the street and Republic Services collected it. Sitzman said SafeBuilt (the town’s third-party code/safety contractor) photographed the dumpster and later issued a notice of violation.
Sitzman said he received the notice late (the town’s packet said it was mailed Friday at 5 p.m.) and that the correction deadline in the notice left him only hours to comply. He described calling town staff members (Cody and Chad) and leaving multiple messages without a timely call-back, which he said left him feeling “very pissed off” about the process and possible fines (he described escalating fines in the notice: $100 for the first day, $300 for the second, $1,000 for the third day and suggested potential per-day tallies and other penalty amounts).
Town staff responded on the record that town directors (Robinson and Stone) were present and that staff would follow up. Community Development Director Chad Robinson offered contact information and said he would set up a time to talk with Sitzman to address outstanding questions; staff also acknowledged the contractor’s involvement and the need to clarify notification timing.
Sitzman asked for town follow-up and contact information; council asked staff to get in touch. The exchange was recorded as part of the council’s public-comment period; no enforcement outcome was decided at the meeting.
