Cleveland County Commissioners Meeting Recap April 16, 2025

In which we ask the question, “Is this actually about public health and safety, or could you just not get this by the zoning board?”

Hey, y’all. It’s been a minute since I typed up a meeting recap, so I will preface this by saying that a) I’ll try to do better and b) I’ll also try not to be too long-winded.

Yesterday, April 15, 2025, there was a Facebook post circulating that made attending this month’s County Commissioners’ meeting seem a little more urgent than usual. Here’s the text of the original post (whose author I do not know):

CLEVELAND COUNTY VOTES TONIGHT

Two new ordinances could give the county broad power over your property—and even your home.
The Board of Commissioners will vote on two new ordinances that:

• Allow the county to decide if your land is “reasonably maintained”—without defining what that means

• Give government agents the authority to enter your property or home

• Let one unelected code officer declare your house “unfit” and order you to vacate

• Give the county power to place liens, fines, and demolition orders on your land

• Exempt some landowners—like bona fide farms—but apply full force to everyone else

They say it’s about health and safety.
But the zoning board already rejected this once.
They tried to sneak it into a consent agenda—without public hearings.

Now it’s back, with the same agenda but different language.

This isn’t about safety. It’s about control.
If passed, these ordinances will give the government new power to decide how you live on your own land—and what happens if they don’t approve.
You don’t get to vote on the ordinance. But you do get to vote on who passed it.

They vote Tuesday night. You vote next election.

Call your county commissioner. I did.

Sounds bad, right?

And since literally every piece of news I have encountered for three solid months concerns rights and freedoms being stripped away, attendance didn’t feel optional.

A Quick Recap In Case You Don’t Have Time for the Details (or my commentary)

• County Attorney Jonathan Sink presented his proposed changes to existing ordinances, including new sections that “give the Board ‘teeth'” (there was a lot of “teeth” talk here tonight)
• Most of the public was unaware of this proposal, which seems to be an attempt at jamming through a failed zoning proposal in a different way
• Three residents were signed up to speak on the subject. Two urged the Board to pause and give the community time to ask questions. The other acknowledged that most of these ordinances are already on the books, so what’s the point?
• Deb Hardin asked clarifying questions that seemed pointed at assuaging the fears and concerns raised in the Facebook post.
• Doug Bridges gave some self-affirming nonsense words about doing it for the children.
• Tony Berry, the only Commissioner that actually showed up to represent his constituents at this meeting, moved to postpone a vote until further study as well as time to make this more transparent to all citizens
• ZERO COMMISSIONERS SECONDED HIS MOTION.
• Doug Bridges moved to approve as presented.
• Johnny Hutchins seconded the motion.
• Only Tony Berry voted no.

How it All Went Down

Since Facebook posts can be wildly unreliable (sorry, y’all; sometimes we are all a little dramatic), I went in with an open mind.

Initially, it seemed like turnout for the meeting was decent, but the majority of attendees were there to celebrate the 98th birthday of a WWII vet (hats off to you, sir), and several others were speaking about an ongoing issue with zoning permits and Brookcliff Solar.

Based on the contents of the Facebook post, I expected there to be a MUCH larger crowd, with people ready to shake their fists and say their piece, but here’s the thing:

THEY DID NOT INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS IN ADVANCE, ON PURPOSE.

When the public is involved, elected officials can’t just run around doing as they please. Involved citizens hold our officials accountable. We also probably slow things down and make their jobs considerably more annoying, but hey, man—that’s democracy. I’m hanging onto every scrap we have left.

Minimum Public Health and Safety Standards

County Attorney, Jonathan Sink, presented this portion of the meeting. He was immediately defensive, saying that “… there’s a lot of things floating around on Facebook that are not true.” His dismissive attitude about citizens’ concerns was nearly as off-putting as his loafers without socks, but I digress.

Here’s his summary:

It all seems pretty arbitrary and boring from this “bird’s eye view” (I’m quoting Jonathan here).

We then moved on to the new structure and sections of the ordinances.

Jonathan really leaned into this being a “complaint-driven process” as if that’s fool-proof.
NO ONE EVER COMPLAINS ARBITRARILY, RIGHT?

Here Jonathan outlined his definition of “What’s ‘reasonably maintained’?” saying that “It’s a reasonable person’s standard… When you see it you’ll know it.”

I mean, that really cleared it up for me, JONATHAN.

Jonathan also shared that you “Gotta have an enforcement piece if it’s gonna get done.” 

Questions Deb Hardin Asked

• Just to reiterate, this will not give any government agent the authority to enter your property or your home without consent? 
• This has nothing to do with going in the house? This is outside?
• People are assuming that one person will make these decisions, but it looks like from what you said that would not be the case?
  • And we’re not talking about the person with one bag of trash outside the door, we’re talking about health and safety?
  • We’re talking about dwellings that are inhabited?

Answers Varied

Jonathan clarified that if a resident denies authorities access to the property, they would then need to leave the premises and obtain an administrative warrant.

He did emphasize that this had nothing to do with going INSIDE the house, however, I’d encourage you to keep reading, because one of the citizens that spoke during public commentary raised a very fair point about building and code inspectors basically doing whatever they want.

Mr. Sink reiterated that a violation of this ordinance starts with a complaint, and that many players are involved.

He also clarified for Deb that this ordinance impacts the premises surrounding buildings that are inhabited.

Doug Only Asked One Good Question

• Are we holding the renter or the property owner responsible?

Then Doug shared that he’s had many first responders tell him that they have had to fight fires standing in feces and sewage. “Many” sounds like an exaggeration but if what he shared is accurate, some of y’all need to get right.

Tony asked, “What determines from a roadside view, and what’s the next step to attempt to get a warrant to step onto the property?”

The answer was that the warrant comes after access has been requested and denied.

The Public

The three citizens who spoke on this issue showed up well-prepared. They came from Kings Mountain, Mooresboro, and Shelby. They wanted to know why this is being presented as a safety measure when, in actuality, it is a zoning measure that was previously rejected.

They wanted to know why this was so poorly communicated to the public.

They pointed out that this cannot be a safety measure if it exempts farms because fire does not discriminate. They also pointed out that Statute 153-140 does not allow you to circumvent zoning laws and disguise them as safety issues.

One speaker pointed out that building and code inspectors can effectively bring anyone they’d like in without regard to property owners and permissions. That same speaker also shared that he, along with others, were prepared to request review from the NC Attorney General.  

The final speaker shared that people are afraid of Socialism, but since Socialism is “an economic system in which industries are owned by workers rather than by private businesses,” I think she was confused.
SOURCE

The Outcome

I mean, I already spoiled this for you, but here are the additional details.

After the public commentary, Deb Hardin asked a few more questions:

• Is there any question about the legality, and do we need to verify with the state in any way? (Jonathan No-Socks says this is totally legal)
• Why can we not do this with the existing laws? (insert more teeth-talk)
• As it stands now, if we use the old method, would they get a citation that they don’t have to pay? (basically yes)
• Fire and safety code – why are we excluding farms? (legal-schmegal answer here, which was ” the minimum housing code violation would apply to anybody”)

Insert more talk about teeth and some grand-standing from Doug, and then Tony Berry moved to postpone until further study, as well as the opportunity to make this more transparent to all citizens.

NO ONE SECONDED HIS MOTION TO BE REASONABLE.

Doug moved to approve as presented, Johnny seconded that motion, and all Commissioners voted “yea” EXCEPT for Tony Berry.

My Thoughts

My initial attendance was to verify the claims in the initial Facebook post for myself. After sitting through the entire presentation and then re-reading that Facebook post, I don’t think the original poster was being dramatic at all. Our systems are failing all around us every day, and making arbitrary rules that lack transparency, clarity, or definition in many ways do not make us safer.

I didn’t hear ANYTHING about health or safety.

Instead, what I heard was that anyone having a bad day could lodge a complaint, and let’s be real here — cleaning up old cars or piles of brush on a property is expensive and takes resources that most people DO NOT HAVE, and it takes longer than 10 days.

No one wants to live across the street from a pile of trash or old cars leaking oil, but community means offering help. Not a lien on the property, and penalties that regular people cannot afford.

To me, this read like one more tax on working-class people. The stated time frames are ridiculous and unrealistic. And the lack of transparency was VOLUBLE.

Resources so that You Can Check Me Later

Our County Commissioners’ meetings are recorded (aside from the closed sessions), and you can view them on YouTube. The recording for this meeting can be found here. It starts at 34:25 which is where the relevant dialogue begins.

Public Meeting Agendas can be found here.

And here is the Agenda Summary for this particular meeting. I’ve also attached the document file of the “New Minimum Public Health and Safety Standards” so that you can download and read things through for yourself.