The house next door: 1261 Hartley St. timeline

February 2, 2014 

1261 Hartley St. timeline

July 14, 2009: Macon’s Economic & Community Development office receives a complaint about 1261 Hartley St. indicating the home’s front door has been removed, the back door stays open and there are “people going in and out.”

July 17, 2009: Inspector visits the property and notes the vacant dwelling has an overgrown yard with open windows and doors. The inspector’s report says its potential use for illegal activities makes it a public nuisance.

Aug. 3, 2009: The city sends a certified letter to then-property owner Alliance Properties Group Inc., which outlines the unsafe conditions and housing violations. The company is given until Aug. 13 to address the yard and until Oct. 2 to bring the home into compliance with city code.

Aug. 13, 2009: The home is reinspected, and the violations have not been addressed.

Sept. 29, 2009: The city receives a new complaint about the conditions at 1261 Hartley St.

Oct. 12, 2009: The city reinspects the property and notes there has been no change.

Dec. 7, 2009: The city inspects the property again and notes the violations have not been addressed.

Feb. 11, 2010: The city inspects the property again and notes the violations have not been addressed.

March 17, 2010: The ECD inspector files a request to issue a summons for Alliance Properties Group to appear in Municipal Court and address its failure to comply with the violations.

April 22, 2010: The city issues a summons for Alliance Properties Group to appear in Municipal Court on June 17. The certified letter is returned to the city as “Unclaimed.”

June 1, 2010: The city records note the property went into foreclosure and ownership was transferred to Atlantic Southern Bank on Nov. 3, 2009. This means the city must open a new case under the new owner.

June 4, 2010: A new inspection of the property is done, and the inspector notes the home is still unsafe and the yard is still overgrown.

July 2, 2010: The city sends a certified letter to Atlantic Southern Bank noting the unsafe conditions and housing violations. The bank is given until July 12 to address the yard and until Sept. 2 to bring the home into compliance with city code.

July 19, 2010: The city reinspects the property and notes “some progress.” The yard has been cleared, and the home has been boarded up.

Nov. 3, 2010: The city inspects the property again and notes there has been no change.

Jan. 20, 2011: The ECD inspector files a request to issue a summons for Atlantic Southern Bank to appear in Municipal Court and address the failure to comply with the violations.

Feb. 9, 2011: The city issues a summons for Atlantic Southern Bank to appear in Municipal Court on May 5.

March 14, 2011: The city must open a new case on the Hartley Street home as records indicate ownership has transferred again. Tax records show Sean Tucker purchased the property on May 28, 2010, for $4,000 as part of a bank sale. An inspection shows the unsafe conditions still exist.

March 24, 2011: The city sends a certified letter to Sean Tucker that notes the unsafe conditions and housing violations. Tucker is given until April 4 to address the yard and until May 24 to bring the home into compliance with city code.

April 12, 2011: The city reinspects the property and notes there has been no change.

June 6, 2011: The city reinspects the property and notes there has been no change.

August 22, 2011: The city issues a summons for Tucker to appear in Municipal Court on Nov. 3. Tucker signs for the certified letter on Aug. 31.

Oct. 31, 2011: The city reinspects the property and notes there has been “some progress” with cleaning the yard.

Nov. 3, 2011: A Municipal Court document notes the case is continued until Dec. 15.

Dec. 9, 2011: The city reinspects the property and notes there has been no change with the existing violations.

Dec. 15, 2011: A Municipal Court document notes the case is continued until Feb. 16, 2012.

Feb. 10, 2012: The city reinspects the property and notes there has been “some progress.”

Feb. 16, 2012: The city sends a letter to Tucker at a Macon address, noting he was scheduled for a hearing on Feb. 16 and the case has been rescheduled for April 19. The letter, which notes failure to appear could result in a contempt charge, was returned to the city.

April 16, 2012: The city reinspects the property and notes the violations still exist.

April 26, 2012: The city sends another letter to Tucker at a Warner Robins address, noting he was scheduled for a hearing on April 19 and the case has been rescheduled for June 21. The letter, which notes failure to appear could result in a contempt charge, was returned to the city as “Moved Left No Address.”

July 12, 2012: The city reinspects the property and notes there has been no change with the existing violations.

July 19, 2012: The city sends another letter to Tucker at a Macon address, noting he failed to appear for a Municipal Court hearing and a new charge of “failure to appear” had been levied. The case is rescheduled for Sept. 20, and the letter notes an arrest warrant could be issued if Tucker does not appear. The letter is returned to the city.

Sept. 13, 2012: The city reinspects the property and notes the violations still exist.

Sept. 20. 2012: The city sends another letter to Tucker at the same Macon address, noting he failed to appear for a Municipal Court hearing. The case is rescheduled for Nov. 15, and the letter notes an arrest warrant could be issued if Tucker does not appear. The letter is returned to the city noting Tucker “Moved Left No Address.”

Nov. 8, 2012: The city reinspects the property and notes there has been no change.

Nov. 15, 2012. The city sends additional letters to Tucker at the same Macon address, noting he failed to appear for a Municipal Court hearing. The case is rescheduled for Feb. 7, 2013, and the letter notes an arrest warrant could be issued if Tucker does not appear. The letters are returned to the city.

March 12, 2013: The city reinspects the property and notes the violations still exist.

March 21, 2013: The city sends another letter to Tucker at the same Macon address, noting he failed to appear for a Municipal Court hearing. The case is rescheduled for May 16, and the letter notes an arrest warrant could be issued if Tucker does not appear. The letters is returned to the city.

May 9, 2013: The city reinspects the property and notes the violations still exist.

May 16, 2013: The city sends another letter to Tucker at a new Warner Robins address, noting he failed to appear for a Municipal Court hearing. The case is rescheduled for Aug. 15, and the letter notes an arrest warrant could be issued if Tucker does not appear. The letter is returned to the city as “Not Deliverable as Addressed.”

Aug. 8, 2013: The city reinspects the property and notes the violations still exist.

Aug. 15, 2013: The city sends another letter to Tucker at the Warner Robins address, noting he failed to appear for a Municipal Court hearing. The case is rescheduled for Sept. 5, and the letter notes an arrest warrant could be issued if Tucker does not appear. The letter is returned to the city.

Aug. 26, 2013: The city reinspects the property and notes the violations still exist.

Sept. 23, 2013: The city sends another letter to Tucker at the Warner Robins address, noting his case was heard on Sept. 5 and a condemnation order would be issued in 30 days if the repairs were not made. The letter notes this would result in a lien on the property for the cost of the demolition. The two attempts to deliver the letter end with the letter being returned to the city.

Oct. 10, 2013: The city reinspects the property and notes the violations still exist.

Dec. 6, 2013: The city sends another certified letter to Tucker, noting the city will be taking bids to demolish the home. The file does not note if the letter was delivered.

Source: Macon Economic & Community Development Department

The Telegraph is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service