Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Phenix City Council approves nuisance resolution after debate over Crawford Road permit and timelines
Summary
The council adopted a resolution declaring two properties public nuisances, including one on Crawford Road, after extended debate about whether the property owner had obtained roofing permits and whether the city’s cure period (referred to variously as two weeks and six months) is applied consistently.
Phenix City’s council voted June 16 to declare two properties — 1305 14th Street and 1903 Crawford Road — public nuisances and authorized the Housing Abatement Board to take demolition and clearing actions, with demolition costs to be assessed to the properties’ taxes. Mrs. Davis, the city clerk, read the resolution citing Alabama Code §11-53A-1 and the council adopted it by unanimous roll call.
The Crawford Road parcel drew extended discussion before the vote. Councilman Bailey asked whether the owner had obtained a roofing permit and whether the city should table action if the owner is in the process of repairing the structure; he said he had been told the owner hired a roofer who obtained a permit that day. City staff said the permitting and documentation needed to be verified and that the enforcement process was already underway. Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized that the process must be fair and consistent with the city’s procedures.
Several councilmembers pressed for clarity about the cure period given to property owners. During the exchange one councilmember said he disagreed with a six-month cure period used in other cases and described scenarios (probate delays, title disputes) that could prevent an owner from meeting that deadline. Others said the department sometimes gives extra time but stressed that owners still must show they are making required repairs and obtain licensed contractors. Councilmembers also contrasted the Crawford Road case with a separate VFW property that received different handling, noting context and government protections can differ.
City staff (identified in discussion as building/inspection personnel) said the department follows established processes; if the owner supplies the required permits and paperwork the department could “hold off” on demolition. Council members repeatedly urged better communication so owners understand what is required and to avoid mixed messages about timeframes. The mayor and council framed the debate as a matter of consistent enforcement rather than a challenge to the competence of department staff.
After the discussion, the council voted to adopt the nuisance resolution directing abatement actions and assessment of demolition costs to property taxes. The resolution does not specify a stay or postponement contingent on a permit submission; council discussion indicated staff would act to verify any late-filed permits and could pause enforcement if appropriate.
What happens next: the Housing Abatement Board is authorized to proceed with demolition and cost assessment per the adopted resolution; council discussion indicated staff will verify any newly filed permits and return to council or administratively hold off if the owner cures violations in time.
