Jefferson County board denies six appeals of unsafe-structure declarations after due-process dispute

Jefferson County Building Code Board of Adjustment Appeals · March 6, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Jefferson County Building Code Board of Adjustment Appeals on March 5 denied six appeals from business owners challenging county unsafe-structure declarations for commercial properties; owners' attorney argued notices and inspection records were not provided before shutdowns, while county officials said life-safety findings and measurements supported the actions.

The Jefferson County Building Code Board of Adjustment Appeals on March 5 denied six appeals from commercial property owners who had challenged county declarations that their buildings were unsafe.

Attorney Frank Prince, representing the property owners, told the board the county’s January 8 letters were not part of the administrative record until the week before the hearing and that, as presented, the county had “what is essentially a taking of private property without any due process.” Prince argued inspectors had backdated documentation, used gross square footage without documented exclusions to inflate occupancy, and had not provided inspection reports or recorded measurements required under the code.

“[T]he primary issue we’re dealing here … is we have what is essentially a taking of private property without any due process,” Prince said, pressing that the board’s review must be limited to what is already in the record and that the county could not retroactively cure any procedural defects by presenting new information at the hearing.

County staff and a fire-code official responded that inspectors measured exterior gross floor area by laser or measuring wheel and that, under the A-2 occupancy rules the county applied, each of the cited buildings “exceeds that 1,100 square feet that require an automatic sprinkler system.” The county official said inspectors and the fire marshal observed violations, posted placards on doors and issued notices and that staff exercised authority to protect life-safety when appropriate.

“My ultimate concern is life safety,” Chair David Pugh said during the meeting. County staff emphasized that some sites lacked sprinkler systems, emergency lighting and secondary egress and that those observations informed their decisions to restrict occupancy or vacate buildings.

The six properties on appeal were listed in county materials and discussed by the parties as: - 512 Quebec Street, Birmingham, AL 35224 - 1109 Forestdale Boulevard - 1124 Pratt Highway - 1317 Eastern Valley Road - 4153 Pinson Boulevard - 7590 Highway 78, Dora

Prince said the county’s letters were issued only after the buildings had been closed and that the county did not supply the underlying inspection reports, photographs, dates of inspection or documented occupancy calculations the owners requested in earlier letters. He said the absence of that record prevented property owners from evaluating and addressing the county’s asserted violations before the government action.

County staff said notices and placards had been posted and that inspectors and fire marshals visited the sites, but acknowledged some written details about measurements and dates were presented to the board at the hearing rather than earlier in the administrative record.

After discussion and roll call votes, the board denied the appeals for each property. For 1317 Eastern Valley Road one board member announced a conflict and abstained; the other appeals were denied by the board majority. The chair closed the hearing after the board completed votes on all six appeals.

The decisions mean the county’s unsafe-structure declarations and attendant occupancy restrictions remain in place pending any further administrative or judicial review the property owners pursue.

The board did not specify a timetable for additional record production; parties indicated objecting owners had asked the county for the inspection records in January and February and that they may seek further relief in court or through additional administrative filings.