Multiple citizens spoke during the public-comment portion of the meeting about residential building-code enforcement and the practical implications for low-income residents who occupy tiny houses, travel trailers or other nonstandard dwellings.

Pastor Glenn Guest of Shiloh Baptist Church told the board he is concerned that state-imposed residential building codes could force demolition of small homes and displace residents who cannot afford code-compliant housing. Guest said a neighbor faced demolition notices and that the stress of enforcement contributed to a medical emergency. He urged county leaders to challenge the state rules and consider more compassionate alternatives, arguing that some people would be safer in imperfect housing than homeless.

Several other residents echoed those concerns and asked whether the county could grandfather existing nonconforming dwellings or issue zoning exemptions. Linda Pitt asked why a resident recently came to officials and whether any assistance or variance options exist.

County staff and the chair responded with the current enforcement framework: Madison County follows state and international building codes that set a residential threshold (staff and chair cited a 401-square-foot threshold for homes that triggers full residential code requirements). Staff stressed that structures built or marketed as sheds or uncertified tiny units without HUD or Southern Building Code certification cannot legally be occupied under state rules and that local code enforcement is bound to enforce those standards. The chair noted there is no automatic grandfathering for noncompliant sheds and that the county has limited discretion without state code or ordinance changes.

What was said in the meeting:
- Pastor Glenn Guest (public comment): urged county action to seek state flexibility, saying demolition of improvised homes would leave vulnerable people without shelter.
- Chair and staff: explained the county’s legal obligation to enforce state/international building code (401 sq ft threshold), described permit process and noted that adopting a local tiny-home ordinance would require county-level policy changes and staff training for separate inspection regimes.

Why it matters: The exchange highlights a tension between safety-driven building standards and housing affordability. Residents asked the county to explore options to prevent immediate displacement; staff cautioned that statutory constraints and certification requirements limit local remedies.

What’s next: Staff said they will follow up with petitioners and asked residents to submit information in writing; commissioners suggested outreach and legal counsel review for any potential local policy changes or state advocacy avenues.