Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges transparency after code‑enforcement sticker left on door
Summary
A resident said a code‑enforcement sticker placed on her door left residue and damaged the property; she described repeated, unreturned calls to enforcement and urged clearer notice and fairness. Commissioners said an administrative change (doorhanger then letter) is planned and agreed to follow up.
Elisa Freeman Carr told the Worthington Hills commission during public comment that a code‑enforcement officer had placed a sticker on her front door that left residue and damaged the glass. "A code enforcement officer came to my home, our home, and placed the sticker directly on the door. The residue from the sticker cannot be removed, which has resulted in damage to our property," she said.
Carr said she and her husband made multiple visits to the code‑enforcement office and placed calls but received no clear explanation; she described repeated visits and what she called harassment, and urged the commission to be transparent and fair to residents. "We're law‑abiding citizens," Carr said, asking the commission to consider how notice and process are communicated.
Commissioners acknowledged the complaint and described inconsistent guidance between permitting staff and county code enforcement. One commissioner reported contacting Councilman Winkler’s office and said they had heard back from the county representative that an administrative change would be implemented: moving to a door hanger followed by a letter for residential homes instead of immediately placing a sticker. The mayor apologized for the failure to return calls and explained the city’s policy is to report suspected violations to Jefferson County code enforcement, which handles enforcement and permitting decisions.
Council members and residents debated when visible construction (posts, concrete, lumber) should prompt a report to code enforcement and whether inspection follow‑up is handled consistently; the mayor stressed the city reports suspected work to protect public‑safety and tax‑assessment interests. Commissioners asked residents to provide addresses so staff could send formal notices when an owner is not registered; staff agreed to mail notices through the city’s legal process, with further legal follow‑up if noncompliance continues.
No formal remedy or compensation was recorded on the record; commissioners described administrative follow‑up and an operational change in notice procedures as the next step.
