Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owners and neighbors tell Sunbury Council code complaints about 52–54 N. Sixth St. remain unresolved
Summary
Residents including owner Amy Naimo raised ongoing code enforcement, garbage and aggressive-dog complaints about 52–54 North Sixth Street, saying the matter persisted for five months despite repeated reports; council and code staff said the case had been closed for lack of access and staff said they would follow up.
Multiple residents and a property owner addressed Sunbury City Council during public comment to report persistent code and public-health concerns at 52–54 North Sixth Street, including excessive garbage, animal feces, aggressive dogs and blocked shared access.
Amy Naimo, identifying herself as the property owner of 52 and 54 North Sixth Street, told the council she and her disabled mother have endured repeated attempts to get code enforcement to act since April 2025. Naimo said nearly 20 complaints were filed about garbage accumulation and animal waste, that occupants keep multiple dogs whose waste created unbearable odor, and that inspectors were denied access, which city staff later told her led to the case being closed. Naimo requested records of complaints and inspections from Jan. 1 to the present and asked the city for immediate corrective action.
A neighbor, who identified herself as Sharon and said she is immune compromised, described the ongoing health effects and said she could provide video and photos. Commenters said workers installing a new six-foot fence were mocked by neighbors and that dogs had tried to cross the new barrier using a trampoline placed against the fence. Speakers said the property had been placarded but the occupants remained in place and that code enforcement responses to other, lower-priority issues for the same complainants had been faster.
On the record, code staff explained that a placard indicates notice but that the city lacks authority to forcibly remove occupants from a property. Code staff said the case had been closed in July because inspectors were repeatedly denied access; staff told the council they would follow up in person after the meeting and provide requested records to the complainant. Council members said they would meet with the complainant and code staff after the meeting to review the matter.
Council did not take any new enforcement action on the record during the public meeting; staff committed to in-person follow-up and to producing the requested documentation of complaints, inspections and citations covering the period specified by the speaker.
