Residents urge county intervention after rental in Meadowlark Drive allegedly houses 'Spark' clients
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Meadowlark Drive residents complained in public comment that a homeowner is renting to 'Spark' clients and operating what they called a commercial, week-by-week lodging operation in a deed-restricted, residential neighborhood; county counsel advised enforcement would likely require private civil suits under deed restrictions, and the sheriff said law enforcement has received multiple complaints.
Residents of the Meadowlark Drive area told the Russell County fiscal board that a property in their deed-restricted neighborhood has become a week-to-week lodging location they say is housing people placed by an organization they identified as "Spark."
Tony Facundo, who identified himself as a Meadowlark Drive resident, said the house’s occupants come and go late at night, that there are as many as seven to eight people living there on a weekly basis, and that the activity is disrupting elderly neighbors (he said his 90-year-old mother sleeps nearby). Facundo told the board he and other residents fear property values and neighborhood safety will decline.
The sheriff told the meeting that his office has fielded numerous Spark-related complaints over the years and that deputies sometimes lack information on program residents because of privacy constraints. A county legal adviser explained that, in neighborhoods without a homeowners association, deed restrictions are enforced by private civil actions — meaning affected property owners must typically hire an attorney and bring suit to enforce covenants restricting commercial use. The adviser said courts decide whether a use is commercial and warned against selective enforcement; remedies are usually through private litigation.
Residents repeatedly urged the board to act; board members and staff advised the group to gather neighbors and consult an attorney about filing suit, and county staff said they would provide copies of the deed restrictions for review. Several speakers asserted that Spark or its representatives promised occupants and that the operation functions as a business; at least one speaker said he had no documentary proof of Spark’s role. The sheriff noted the county does not maintain a public, month-to-month list of program residents, citing privacy and potential HIPAA concerns.
The board did not take formal enforcement action during the meeting; members said they would research restrictions and provide residents with copies of recorded restrictions and that private legal remedies are the typical path for resolution.