Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council authorizes abatement of nuisance property at 2605 Lehman Ferry Road, staff granted discretion for short extension
Summary
After a public hearing on a long-neglected former daycare at 2605 Lehman Ferry Road, the council approved abatement authorization but instructed staff to work with a local agent; community development director Scott Erwin was given discretion to grant a brief timeframe for remediation if the owner or agent showed rapid progress.
The Huntsville City Council held a public hearing on Oct. 23 on a nuisance property at 2605 Lehman Ferry Road and voted to authorize city abatement while allowing staff discretion to grant a brief extension for voluntary remediation.
Scott Erwin of the Community Development Department told the council the property — a former commercial daycare — has been neglected for years and staff recommended abatement. "This is a former commercial property formerly operated as a daycare has been neglected for many years, so we're seeking your authorization to make this nuisance," Erwin said.
During the public hearing, Sarah Colletti questioned the city's role in failed local businesses and sought clarity on municipal responsibility when commercial properties deteriorate. Antoine Davis, a commercial real estate agent, said he has been coordinating with the owners and contractors and asked the council to defer demolition or abatement for 30 to 60 days to permit remediation. "We've already taken steps to assess and correct the issues... we are ready to clean and repair the building within the next 30 to 60 days," Davis told the council.
Council member Kling moved to adopt staff's recommendation while authorizing Scott Erwin, as department head, to grant a reasonable short extension if remediation is demonstrably underway. Kling said he did not think 60 days would be appropriate in all cases but supported giving staff discretion. The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.
Council members emphasized that voluntary compliance is the city’s first goal but that abatement authority was necessary if the owner fails to act. No specific remediation timeline was imposed in the motion; the final timing was left to Code Enforcement and Community Development staff working with the owner and any local agent.
