Louisville Code Enforcement Board dismisses a lead‑inspection dispute, upholds several fines and grants multiple status continuances

The Louisville Metro Code Enforcement Board heard a full docket of property enforcement matters Oct. 3, dismissing a high‑profile appeal about a lead inspection while upholding and adjusting penalties in several other cases.

Board member Chris Swantlin opened the session, identified board members and counsel, and reminded participants they must be sworn before testifying. "I am not here to take your money. I don't wanna take your money. I want your compliance," Swantlin told those appearing in person and virtually.

Why it matters: The board’s rulings affect property owners' obligations to remediate health and safety hazards, the timing of evictions and sheriff set‑outs, and whether enforcement fines become liens on property. Several cases hinged on whether owners or their attorneys were present and whether county staff had followed required notice procedures.

A contested lead‑inspection appeal dismissed Attorney Jerry McGraw, representing Phenom LLC, told the board the Department of Codes and Regulations had failed to produce discovery and that the inspection regime allowed by the ordinance was being applied improperly. McGraw said his client had spent thousands on remediation and questioned the county’s inspection notices and evidence. County counsel objected that constitutional challenges to the ordinance are outside the board’s authority and belong in Metro Council or the courts. After the property representative described repairing windows and making other fixes, the board dismissed the matter. "The property has been taken care of," the representative said; Swantlin dismissed the case.

Continuances to allow eviction scheduling and cleanup Several property owners with complicated occupancy or eviction timelines were given status dates to allow sheriff set‑outs or additional remediation. Owners and their counsel frequently sought 60–90 day continuances; the board commonly granted a 90‑day status return on Jan. 2, 2026. In the estate case for a property on Evelyn Avenue, counsel said a forcible detainer judgment and a warrant for possession had just been entered and the board passed that matter to Jan. 2 while the sheriff schedules the set‑out.

Citations voided or conditionally discharged where staff verified remediation In multiple cases the board acknowledged that inspections or enforcement packets had been completed and either voided prior administrative citations or conditionally discharged monetary penalties. For example, code staff confirmed lead inspections had been completed for two properties owned by Khaled Awad; prior $500 citations were voided on the condition that Mr. Awad continue to work with the health department. In another matter, owner Yvette Hayes provided photos showing compliance and the board conditionally discharged a $200 penalty for one year so long as no further visits occur.

Fines upheld in no‑show and chronic noncompliance cases Where owners or counsel failed to appear, the board routinely upheld citations. The board upheld a $1,000 fine for a matter at 2538 Bank Street after the person present was not the recorded owner and had no attorney. Separately, the board upheld a $600 penalty for a property on Sunset Avenue after staff documented repeated visits (the board noted an outstanding lien balance on that property).

Mixed outcomes and enforcement emphasis Several cases resulted in split remedies: the board lowered or conditionally discharged portions of penalties to incentivize compliance rather than extract funds immediately. In one case involving accumulated exterior‑condition violations, the board reduced a $300 penalty by half and conditionally discharged $150 on the agreement the owner would continue cleanup efforts.

What’s next: Most matters requiring further cleanup or eviction were set for status checks on Jan. 2, 2026 (90 days). Several specific addresses were given earlier or later dates when the county and owners agreed on timelines, and the board reiterated that district court appeals remain available for legal or constitutional objections to the ordinance itself.

The board concluded the docket after addressing no‑shows and administrative scheduling; Swantlin closed the meeting and adjourned the session.