Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Abandoned Vehicle topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lincoln County delays second reading of abandoned-vehicle ordinance after widespread public concern
Summary
After more than a dozen residents raised Fourth Amendment, property‑rights and privacy concerns during a public hearing, the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners postponed the second reading of an ordinance addressing abandoned vehicles and related right-of-entry provisions to allow staff and the county attorney to redraft it.
The Lincoln County Board of Commissioners on May 12 postponed the second reading of an ordinance governing abandoned vehicles and related property access after residents raised privacy and legal concerns during a lengthy public comment period.
Chair Walker T. Norman opened the discussion by telling residents the board had received calls, emails and texts over the weekend and that commissioners wanted more time to work with the county attorney to “grasp...what people have asked us to do” before voting. He said the item will return for a first reading and then a second reading once staff and counsel have revised the draft.
Eleven people spoke during the public‑comment portion of the hearing. Pete Burke of 5157 Augusta Highway said the draft ordinance felt like “a countywide homeowners association” and called it “nothing but a form of communism.”
Ed Hulcom of 1168 Fortson argued the ordinance could violate the Fourth Amendment and warned against the county inviting legal challenges. “Just because somebody's curious doesn’t mean they get to come knocking,” Hulcom said.
Other speakers stressed limits on right of entry and protection of a home's curtilage. Greg Grant, who said he raised similar concerns in 2023, told the commission that “going around the porches and driveways and stuff” threatens reasonable expectations of privacy and that code enforcement should protect citizens from government overreach.
Michael Hunter, who has lived in the county five years, urged the board to distinguish county and private property and said section 75‑13 in the draft—labeled “right of entry”—would allow county personnel onto private land “whenever you feel like it,” which he called “absolutely wrong.”
Several speakers described legitimate county concerns—such as safety hazards and blight—but urged targeted solutions that do not allow broad access to private property. Anne Haden asked how far onto large parcels (5–20 acres) enforcement would extend, and several commenters said sparse staffing and inconsistent county enforcement suggested the county should enforce its own property first.
After hearing public comments, Chairman Walker said commissioners and staff had heard “valid concerns” and would start over in revising the ordinance. He encouraged residents to email specific recommendations to their district commissioner and copy the county attorney so those items could be considered during the rewrite. The chair said the revised ordinance could return in June or July depending on the time needed for legal review.
No formal vote on the ordinance occurred at the meeting; according to the chair, the public turnout and comments directly prompted the postponement.
The commission’s next procedural step will be to work with the county attorney to produce a new draft, publish it on the county website, and schedule a first and second reading once the revisions are complete.
