Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners grant 30-day extensions in two nuisance‑property hearings after threats and cleanup efforts
Summary
At hearings April 27, DeKalb County commissioners authorized a 30‑day extension for two long‑running code‑enforcement cases — one (Dickerson/Slieger) after reopening when the owner appeared; the Mason family property also received a 30‑day extension for cleanup verification. Staff were directed to verify progress with sheriff accompaniment if needed.
DeKalb County commissioners on April 27 revisited multiple longstanding code‑enforcement cases and approved short extensions to give property owners a final chance to clean up before civil enforcement.
Code‑enforcement officer Cameron presented documentation showing extended noncompliance on two properties: one listed as having 474 days of notices and another with 1,153 days of cited violations. In the first hearing, staff reported receiving a threatening voicemail on the county phone; the board initially authorized a lawsuit to enforce the ordinance. After the hearing was reopened and an owner appeared, commissioners agreed to pause filing suit and gave the owner 30 days to work with code enforcement; the board required that inspections be accompanied by a sheriff deputy if safety concerns remain.
At the Mason property hearing, the property owners told the board that cleanup had begun and said they had removed vehicles and debris; commissioners discussed documentation for vehicle titles and registration (to determine whether recreational “mud trucks” are abandoned). Commissioners granted a 30‑day extension for code enforcement to verify the cleanup and to check titles/registrations, with the condition that the enforcement officer document progress and report back.
Why this matters: Both cases are examples of prolonged ordinance enforcement where persistent noncompliance prompted the county to consider litigation. The board balanced enforcement against the possibility of resolution: the 30‑day windows are a final administrative step before filing suit, according to staff.
What was said: Code enforcement described multiple certified notices, photos and an escalation history. Cameron told commissioners the file included certified mail, posted notices and on‑site photos and that attempts to negotiate had not succeeded. Johnny M. Mason and Melita Mason told the board they had started cleanup and asked for time; the board said staff would coordinate inspections and, if needed, involve the sheriff for safety during site visits.
Next step: Staff will document the condition of each property after 30 days and return to the commissioners with updated photos and a recommendation. If insufficient progress is made, commissioners authorized counsel to proceed with litigation previously recommended for similar persistent violations.
