Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Henry County sets public hearing on proposed outdoor-tire ordinance after debate over who would enforce it

Henry County Board of Supervisors · April 28, 2026
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

County staff recommended limiting outdoor tire storage (proposed 48-hour rule); board set a public hearing for the May meeting after extended discussion about enforcement logistics and staffing. Sheriff and planning officials warned enforcement would require staffing choices and training costs.

County staff presented a draft ordinance to limit outdoor storage of tires and the Henry County Board of Supervisors voted to advertise and set a public hearing on the proposal for the 6 p.m. session of the May meeting.

The county attorney's office and staff said the proposal would regulate the number of tires a property owner may keep outside for longer than 48 hours and adopt notice and penalty procedures similar to existing property-maintenance and litter ordinances. "I suggested that a pretty simple ordinance where we would regulate the number of tires you can store outside for longer than 48 hours," the county attorney told the board when describing the draft language.

Board members pressed staff on who would enforce the rule if the board adopted it. Sheriff Wayne Davis and planning staff described two main approaches: assign enforcement to a civilian code-enforcement position in planning and zoning or rely on deputies to serve notices when cases escalate. "Henry County is quite an anomaly. What I found out is we're one of the only sheriff's offices in Virginia that enforces grass and trash," the sheriff said, adding that hiring and training a deputy would take months and cost "well over six figures in salary and training" before that deputy could begin field enforcement. He suggested civilian hires in planning and zoning could be trained and effective more quickly.

Supervisor discussion focused on enforceability and fiscal impacts. Board members noted the ordinance could be structured without naming the enforcing agency, but that the county should identify resources and responsibilities before adoption. Several supervisors said they would like time to review the draft and enforcement options before the hearing and asked staff for an electronic copy of the ordinance.

The board approved the motion to advertise the ordinance and hold a public hearing at the May meeting by unanimous voice vote. No final ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the public hearing will be the next formal opportunity for residents to comment and for the board to consider revisions.

The county attorney and planning staff said fines and remediation procedures would follow existing county practices for property-maintenance violations and that, if necessary, cleanup costs could be placed as a lien against property. The board asked staff to return enforcement logistics and a final draft after the public hearing before any adoption vote.

What's next: The board has scheduled the public hearing for the May meeting at 6 p.m.; staff will circulate an electronic copy of the draft ordinance and the board will decide whether to adopt, amend or delay the ordinance after hearing public comment.