Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Burning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Open-burning ordinance draws public comment and fails for lack of a second
Summary
After public comments from Fairview residents about impacts on small-property owners, the Board of Commissioners removed and then voted on Ordinance 2025-11 (open burning). A motion to approve lacked a second and the measure failed for lack of a second.
A proposal to regulate open burning inside the City of Fairview — Ordinance 2025-11 — drew public comment and did not pass on Tuesday night after a motion to approve failed for lack of a second.
The most detailed public comment came from Wyatt Jones, who said he and his family use city-issued burn permits to manage downed trees on properties smaller than 20 acres. “We get our burn permit and we burn,” Jones said, describing regular inspections by the fire department. Jones said the proposed ordinance’s 20-acre threshold would prevent him and other residents from burning routine yard debris and fallen trees.
Another citizen, Leslie Street, asked city officials to require developers working in Fairview — she named T Square Engineering as an example — to appear at City Hall and answer neighbors’ questions about construction impacts and how the city polices development activity.
Mayor Anderson moved the open-burn item off the consent agenda so the board could hear the citizen comments. At the subsequent old-business agenda item, a commissioner moved to approve Ordinance 2025-11, but no member seconded that motion. According to the transcript, the item therefore “failed for lack of a second.” The board did not take a roll-call vote on the ordinance after the motion failed.
The transcript records the public commenters’ concerns about the 20-acre limitation and the way residents currently obtain burn permits and use local inspections. The transcript also shows the board noted input from the fire chief and fire marshal but did not adopt changes on Tuesday.
Next steps were not specified on the record. The ordinance had been listed on the consent agenda before the mayor moved it to old business; the board did not adopt language to send the proposal back for revision or to schedule another hearing.
For residents seeking more information, the planning and codes or fire department contacts were referenced during the meeting (no contact or revised text for Ordinance 2025-11 was provided in the record).
