Nuisance ordinance now in effect

DOUBLE SPRINGS - Concerned residents have brought the issue of a nuisance property to the attention of the Double Springs Town Council the past few months, prompting the council  to approve a public nuisance ordinance at its regular meeting Monday, March 9, after a public hearing filled with concerns, questions and discussion on the issue.
Ordinance 2026-1, known as the Town of Double Springs Public Nuisance Ordinance, received a unanimous vote of the council, with Adam Veal making the motion, seconded by Kathy Cole. 
Voting in favor were Veal, Cole, Tim Cockrell, Brittney Tucker and Andy McSpadden.
During the public hearing, held before the regular council meeting at the Town Hall courtroom, Town Attorney Jeff Mobley explained specifics of the new ordinance to those in attendance.
In attendance for the public hearing were George and Marcia Paramithas and Albert and Pat Stockton, residents in the area of Adams Road who have made claims of health hazards and other issues over an eyesore property in that area, where unattended garbage and trash have allegedly attracted unwanted animals and caused foul odors.
 Although these residents have voiced complaints that something needed to be done about a specific property on Adams Road, Mayor Kim Miller at a previous council meeting said the town wanted to consider an ordinance that would be fair to everyone and address these types of issues throughout the town.
Mobley began the public hearing by detailing specific points of what at the time was a draft nuisance ordinance, copies of which had been passed out to those in attendance.
“(The ordinance) is designed to promote the health and safety of our citizens and to promote the value and enjoyment of property within our town by establishing minimum expectations for the upkeep of property within our town,” Mobley read.
“A public nuisance - and this is straight out of the state code - is injurious to the health, morals, comfort or welfare of the community or any portion thereof,” Mobley added.
The ordinance contains details over specific items that could be considered nuisances, such as abandoned vehicles, building nuisances, including structures remaining from demolition, fire, portions of buildings and parts of uninhabitable structures which would  be considered unsafe, Mobley cited from the ordinance.
“Abandoned vehicles include boats,” Mobley noted. 
Grass and weed nuisances include overgrown grass or weeds exceeding 12 inches in height, which provide breeding grounds and shelter for rats, mice, snakes, mosquitos, insects and other pests, the ordinance further states.
“It’s also the kind of things that will create allergies,” Mobley stated,“weeds that are particularly obnoxious to people are included under your grass and weed ordinance.”
The ordinance also goes into details over what constitutes an unsafe building.  The ordinance defines it as a structure that is unsafe, unsanitary, constitutes a fire hazard or presents a danger to human life due to inadequate maintenance, dilapidation or abandonment, the ordinance states.
“Obviously, if I have an older building in town, you’re going to have to meet a strict standard to require them to fix it,” said Mobley. “In other words, is it a danger  to the public, or is it an older building?”
Mobley then directed the public’s attention to the improved subdivision portion of the ordinance and discussed how it would be in comparison with natural conditions.
“This is not designed to tell somebody who owns a wooded lot that’s never been disturbed that they have to go in there and improve the lot if it is still just trees and whatever is naturally growing,” Mobley further explained.
“Once it is in an approved subdivision, once you have cleared it out, you have to keep it cleared,” Mobley added.
The ordinance defines nuisance as anything that unlawfully causes hurt, inconvenience or damage that arises from the unreasonable, unwarranted and unlawful use by a person of such person’s own property, either real or personal, or from such person’s own improper, indecent, unsightly or unlawful personal conduct, working an obstruction or injury to the right of another or of the public.
“If a case is made against an individual, it will be up to the prosecution to prove that it meets these standards,” Mobley further explained.
“It shall be the duty of the owner, tenant or any person in control of or in charge of any premises to maintain the premises in compliance with the provisions of this article,” Mobley pointed out. 
“Failure to maintain property or premises in compliance shall be deemed to be a public nuisance,” he added.
A citizen of the Town of Double Springs may sign a complaint, which alleges a property constitutes a nuisance as defined by the new ordinance, Mobley explained.
Once this complaint is filed, an official authorized by the town will investigate the alleged complaint.
“An enforcement official would have to be someone the mayor and council will appoint to oversee the function of this particular ordinance,” Mobley explained.
The completed report from the investigating officer shall be delivered to the owner or responsible party in control of the property, with the report containing not only the findings, but also recommendations to fix the alleged nuisance, according to Mobley.
“The owner or responsible party in control of the property  shall have a right to dispute the complaint in writing and such response shall become part of the report,” he stated.
“Before a person may be cited or arrested for violation, he shall be served with at least 30 days notice and given an opportunity to abate the notice,” Mobley continued.
If the alleged abatement has not been abated within the notice period, any citizen of the town has the right to appear before a magistrate and seek a charge for violation of the ordinance, Mobley concluded.
If the property is determined to be an immediate hazard to the health, safety and well-being of residents, officials shall determine immediate abatement or take steps to have the town abate the nuisance, Mobley added.
All violations of the provisions of the ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of a minimum sum of $250 up to the maximum of $500; imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed 30 days; both fine and imprisonment and an order to abate the nuisance, according to the ordinance.
“That penalty is in accordance with the state law,” Mobley emphasized.
“A person with a duty to abate any nuisance is liable for separate and distinct offenses for each day the nuisance is allowed to remain after it has become a person’s duty by notice of the enforcing official to abate it,” the ordinance states.
George and Marcia Paramithas then addressed Mobley and the council that the owner of a property on Adams Road, about which they have complained, has items stacked in Tupperware containers.
“If it is in the front yard where it’s visible from the road, then that is certainly something that  you can ask to be investigated to determine if it is damaging to property value,” Mobley responded. “At that point, I know it’s garbage, but it really amounts to junking up the front yard.
“If you have weeds and grass growing around the containers, then that could possibly be an issue of the weed ordinance,” Mobley added.
“How many complaints can you file?” Marcia asked.
“You can file complaints until you become a nuisance yourself,” Mobley responded, met with laughter from those at the meeting.
Miller noted that the town’s police chief would delegate the enforcement officer for such complaints.
“The benefit of that is you have someone trained in investigation,” Mobley noted.
“It looks better with a badge,” George Paramithas stated.
“Our goal is not to arrest anybody,” Miller stated. “We don’t want to do that. We would prefer them to say, this is enough. We realize we have no choice at this point but to clean it up. That’s ultimately our goal.”
“That’s my goal,” George responded. 
“(The ordinance) is clearly designed with due process in mind,” Mobley added, “due process both for the one who is issuing the complaint and due process for the one who has been complained upon.”
“It’s fair to both sides,” George then stated.
“Absolutely,” Mobley responded.
George then asked if the concerned residents needed to hire a lawyer.
“No,” Mobley responded. “The city will move forward with the complaint you file.”