Forest City Council Delays Nuisance Ordinance Rewrite Amid Property Rights Concerns

Forest City’s effort to modernize its nuisance ordinance was halted Monday night after town leaders raised concerns about property rights and government overreach.

The proposed rewrite, drafted by municipal attorney Jill Camp, would give the town broader authority to address what it considers unsafe or unsanitary conditions — from junked cars and burned buildings to overgrown lots and abandoned structures. Camp described the changes as “long overdue,” emphasizing that local enforcement rules must align with state statutes and modern community standards.

The plan also included language extending the ordinance’s reach up to one mile beyond town limits, within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). That clause became a flashpoint during the meeting.

Several council members argued that the town has no business regulating private property outside its borders. They said the proposal risked blurring the line between public health protection and unnecessary intrusion on private land.

Camp explained that the ETJ provision was meant to address rare cases where a hazardous condition just outside town limits could impact residents within town — for example, a leaking septic system or contaminated runoff.

But the pushback was immediate. Commissioner Shawn Moore said property owners outside the city limits are under county jurisdiction and should remain that way.

After extended discussion, Camp agreed to remove the ETJ language before the ordinance returns for a vote later this month.

Balancing safety and private rights

The rewritten ordinance seeks to separate “real property nuisances,” such as neglected yards or unsafe buildings, from “personal property nuisances,” including junked or abandoned vehicles. It also adds a new category for “severe nuisances,” allowing quicker action on fire hazards, toxic materials, or sanitation issues.

Camp told the council that a well-drafted nuisance ordinance is essential to protecting public safety. “If you have a good, tight nuisance ordinance that has a clear notice requirement and enforcement process, you can keep your community safe,” she said.

Commissioner Moore said that private property shouldn’t be labeled dangerous simply because it looks messy. “I’ve got three old cars sitting just outside the city limits,” he said. “That’s not a danger. I might not like the way it looks, but it’s not dangerous.”

Camp acknowledged that distinction. “You’re right,” she replied. “We’re talking about conditions that pose actual hazards — like broken glass, open wells, or burned materials. Not just what looks bad.”

The limits of local enforcement

Beyond aesthetics, the draft ordinance raised questions about process and penalties. It includes provisions for notice, hearings, and appeals before any property can be cleared, boarded, or towed. Chronic violators who repeatedly ignore orders could face quicker action, though they would still have the right to appeal in Superior Court.

Camp said those procedural safeguards are intended to prevent constitutional violations and ensure due process for property owners.

The proposed ordinance also allows the town to recover cleanup costs by placing liens on properties or adding unpaid invoices to property tax bills — an approach Camp said is authorized under North Carolina law but will be reviewed further for clarity.

Several members asked for clearer definitions to avoid confusion about when and how the town can step in. The board agreed that the final version must be enforceable but not excessive.

Next steps

Camp will revise the ordinance to remove the ETJ authority, clarify the definitions of “danger” and “severe nuisance,” and explore additional protections for small business owners who store vehicles as part of their trade.

Mayor Steve Holland said the town’s goal is to strengthen enforcement tools without infringing on residents’ rights. Council members plan to revisit the updated draft at the October 20 meeting.