Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge changes to county ‘eyesore’ ordinance, saying it allows selective enforcement
Summary
Multiple residents told the Stephens County commission that the nuisance ("eyesore") ordinance is vague, complaint-driven and enables selective enforcement, asking commissioners to clarify definitions in Chapter 34 to avoid neighbor-to-neighbor disputes.
Several residents urged Stephens County commissioners to revise the county’s nuisance or land-use rules, saying the ordinance’s use of the term “eyesore” is vague and gives neighbors excessive power to trigger enforcement.
Multiple speakers during public comment said the ordinance is complaint-based and can be used maliciously. One speaker said the ordinance "allows selective prosecution along with malicious intent, favoritism, personal agendas, and opinions to dictate how the ordinance is executed and enforced." Another resident asked, "When did that opinion become the law?" and urged the county to tighten definitions in Chapter 34 so that enforcement is applied consistently rather than hinging on a single neighbor’s complaint. Commissioners responded that county staff and marshals must investigate complaints and that the board will re-examine Chapter 34 wording and look at examples from other counties.
Board members acknowledged the difficulty of precise wording and asked staff to gather model language and examples, but they made no immediate change to enforcement policy during the meeting.
