Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Property Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney files abatement motion; commissioners seek regular updates on Coliseum Inn property
Summary
County attorney reported a motion to enforce abatement for the Coliseum Inn property with a hearing set for June 30; commissioners directed the county attorney to provide periodic email updates and noted potential parallel code-enforcement action and statutory limits on demolition authority.
County Attorney Morphew told the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners on May 8 that the county had filed a motion to enforce an order related to the property known as the Coliseum Inn at 2507 Gillespie Street and that a hearing is scheduled for June 30.
Morphew described the legal history: the property was originally the subject of an Alcohol Law Enforcement (ALE) investigation and closure for criminal activity, and the owner and several lienholders were organized through dissolved LLCs. He said the county has sent notices to interested parties and that some limited demolition activity (removal or locking of doors and partial wall removal) has occurred but that the structure remains in poor condition.
“The outcome of this is…we're asking the judge to order them to either secure it or demolish it,” Morphew said, noting the statute used focuses on abatement of criminal activity on properties. He cautioned that the statute provides no immediate authority for demolition by the county; a demolition could require a separate superior court action or an agreement among the city, county and school board, or a code-enforcement action under local nuisance or minimum standards.
Commissioner Tyson asked that the county prioritize the property and receive regular briefings. Morphew recommended providing updates by email about every two weeks rather than discussing details in open session because litigation-related statements can be used in court.
Commissioners also discussed using code enforcement to pursue a demolition-by-neglect or nuisance pathway in parallel; Morphew said that approach is possible and that some cases may require a superior-court action and could take a year or more under statutory timelines. No formal board motion to demolish was taken; the board directed staff to continue legal action, to pursue code-enforcement options as appropriate, and to receive periodic email updates on status.
Ending: A hearing on the county’s enforcement motion is set for June 30. Staff will continue parallel code- or court-based processes as appropriate and provide the board with roughly biweekly email updates until the matter is resolved.
