HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Commission Goal No. 12, Demolition by Neglect1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Courtney Kramer, Planner I/ Historic Preservation Officer Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
SUBJECT: City Commission Goal #12: Demolition by Neglect
MEETING DATE: October 14, 2013
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Policy Discussion
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission allow new programs and existing Code provisions to address dilapidated, nuisance and unsafe structures in Bozeman.
BACKGROUND:
In early 2013, the InterNeighborhood Council (INC), Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory
Board (BHPAB) and North East Urban Renewal Board (NURB) each requested that the Commission make addressing dilapidated, nuisance and unsafe structures a priority for the City.
In petitioning the Commission to act each group outlined the negative effect that a dilapidated
property has on property values, historic resources and quality of life in the adjoining
neighborhood. In late February 2013, the Bozeman City Commission listed “Consider a
Demolition by Neglect ordinance” as a top 12 priority for 2013-2014.
ISSUE: The community uses the phrase “Demolition by Neglect” as an umbrella term to describe the
negative effect that a run-down, dilapidated or abandoned property has on a neighborhood and
structural damage to a building through a lack of maintenance. Graffiti, broken or boarded windows and an unkempt yard choked with weeds are all an indication of a neglected property.
These properties attract nuisance behavior like trespassing and create a fire hazard and a threat to
the public’s safety.
SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH: The following is a brief summary of the input and issues that were offered by stakeholders
during meetings conducted as part of research and outreach efforts:
1. Tenants and neighbors are the first to know when a property is being neglected.
2. There is a lack of coordinated outreach throughout the community to publicize assistance
programs available in the community for owners of neglected properties. Non-profit groups and service organizations offer information, technical assistance and financial
resources or donated materials to address neglected structures.
157
2
3. A number of City initiatives are currently underway to address neglected properties: the
Quality of Life team within the Police Department and the developing rental safety
initiative within the Fire Department.
4. In the past, interdepartmental communication was not efficient until a property was in crisis.
5. The City of Bozeman has the necessary Code provisions in place to address the nuisances
caused by neglected properties and the danger created by unsafe structures.
NEXT STEPS: Several new programs are getting underway that will directly affect how the community responds to neglected properties. In the short time that the Quality of Life program has been
underway, staff has seen a monumental change in how city staff, citizens, and property owners
work cooperatively to address nuisance properties. In addition, the merger of the planning and
building divisions within the Community Development Department has resulted in increased coordination in efforts to address unsafe structures. When the City Commission directed staff to consider a demolition by neglect ordinance these efforts were just underway. We are now
starting to see the results of these initiatives. Staff recommends that we support education and
outreach efforts while allowing the Quality of Life program to more fully develop.
Staff action plan: 1. Assist in educating community members about the risk factors for neglect, the nuisance
codes and how the Quality of Life Officer is the city point of contact for addressing
neglected property.
2. Share information, inside and outside of the City government, regarding not for profit resources available in the community to address neglected property.
3. In 18 months, or upon Commission direction, provide an update on effectiveness of new
programs.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Concur with staff’s recommendations.
2. Direct staff to develop an ordinance for the Commission’s consideration with
identification of specific issues to be included.
3. Other actions as directed by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal effects are variable depending on the Commission’s direction. Future budgets may include
requests for funds to implement the Commission’s direction.
Attachments: A. Memo on the Demolition by Neglect initiative development, process and information gathered B. Case studies of the City’s effectiveness in addressing neglected properties
1. House on West Peach
2. House on South Church 3. House on South Willson 4. Accessory building on East Olive
158
3
5. Hotel on North 7th Avenue C. The property deterioration spectrum
D. Venn diagram of issues which overlap with demolition by neglect
Report compiled on: October 7, 2013
159
1
DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT INITIATIVE PROCESS AND INFORMATION GATHERED:
Introduction: This memo is intended to give further information about the development of the 2013 City of Bozeman initiative to address demolition by neglect. The memo is formatted to follow a timeline
of staff’s work on the project with specific key points called out. Findings made by staff and
associated recommendations to the City Commission are included in the associated cover memo
to the Commission for the October 14, 2013 meeting. Initial direction from the City Commission: In December 2012 and January 2013 the City Commission received input from the Inter
Neighborhood Council, the North East Urban Renewal Board and the Bozeman Historic
Preservation Advisory Board requesting that demolition by neglect be a City Commission work plan priority for 2013-2014. In February 2013 when the Commission adopted the 2013-2014 work plan, they included “Consider a demolition by neglect ordinance” as a top 12 priority.
In March 2013, City Commissioner Cyndy Andrus, Interim Planning Director Steve
Worthington and Historic Preservation Officer Courtney Kramer met to discuss the demolition by neglect initiative. Given the ongoing process to hire a Director of Community Development, the group decided to delay the effort until the new Director was on board.
In June 2013 Director of Community Development Wendy Thomas and staff member Courtney
Kramer met to develop a timeline, outline strategy and identify internal and external stakeholders to consult as the initiative developed. Stakeholders identified included:
• Internal/ City of Bozeman
o City Commission o Bozeman Police Department o Bozeman Fire Department o Building Division
o City Attorney
o Finance Department
• External/ community groups o Inter Neighborhood Council (INC)
o North East Urban Renewal Board (NURB)
o Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (BHPAB)
o Gallatin Association of Realtors (GAR) o Human Resources Development Council (HRDC)
The demolition by neglect initiative gained momentum in July 2013. Staff met with City
Commissioners individually to clarify the intended goals and scope of a potential program. All
five Commissioners directed staff to develop a tool that would apply city wide to residential and commercial properties. During these meetings Staff and Commission members discussed the difficulty in defining “demolition by neglect” and worked to understand which situations the
Commissioners wanted addressed. As discussions progressed, an initial definition of demolition
by neglect emerged; “any building which is unsecured, not weather tight and attracts nuisance
behavior.” Gathering information:
160
2
Staff gathered information to frame the issue. Staff researched municipal code and best practices
adopted by municipalities in the state of Montana, including:
• Butte has implemented a Community Decay Ordinance as ordinance 8.06 and offers an educational pamphlet giving guidelines for mothballing a building.
• Billings Municipal Code Sec. 18-1400 “Boarded Up Structures” outlines specific
requirements for securing abandoned structures. Billings’ Municipal Code 18-300
“Nuisances” gives enforcement officers emergency right-of-entry and abatement if they believe that the “public nuisance constitutes an emergency resenting imminent danger of serious injury to persons or property.”
• Missoula Municipal Code 15.10 adopts by reference the “Uniform Code for the
Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.”
• Helena outlines abatement of public nuisances in Helena Municipal Code 05.09 “Nuisances”
Staff also worked to evaluate the issue on a regional and national level. The City of Boise’s
Municipal Code 11-05-19.14 “Historic Preservation Districts” specifically requires repairs to historic resources when found necessary by Boise’s Preservation Commission: The owner or other person having legal custody and control thereof shall repair such resource if it is found to have one or more of the following defects, or other defects that in the judgment of the Commission has a detrimental effect on the historical characteristics of the property or district: A. The deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports;
B. The deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members;
C. The deterioration of exterior chimneys;
D. The deterioration or removal of exterior finishes or fenestration; E. The ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations
including broken windows or doors; and
F. The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation of
any hazardous or unsafe condition or conditions.
Staff found the unoccupied structures registry created by the City of Wheeling, West Virginia to
be a particularly interesting option. This ordinance enables the City of Wheeling to enter
unoccupied structures on behalf of absentee owners to evaluate the building’s security and
prevent deterioration.
Staff reviewed material published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, including
“Preservation Law Educational Materials: Demolition by Neglect” and “Main Street Story of the
Week: Doing Away with Demolition by Neglect.” “Protecting Landmarks from Demolition by
Neglect: New York City’s Experience” reminded Staff that this issue affects cities big and small.
Understanding existing City of Bozeman Codes: Staff worked with the Legal Department and the Building Division to gather information on the
City of Bozeman’s existing legal framework for dealing with neglected properties.
Bozeman Municipal Code Chapter 16 “Environment and Health, Chapter 2- Nuisances,” section BMC 16.02.050 “Public nuisances” defines public nuisances. BMC 16.02.050 A explicitly
declares unsafe structures as defined International Building Code Section 116 “Unsafe Structures
and Equipment” to be a public nuisance.
161
3
In adopting the International Building Code, which includes Section 116 “Unsafe Structures and
Equipment,” the City Commission empowered the building official to identify unsafe structures,
require the property owner to make them safe or have the building made safe or demolished
through the summary abatement process. An internal working group was created including members from many City Departments.
Members included Ms. Wendy Thomas, Ms. Courtney Kramer, Chief Building Official Bob
Risk, Code Enforcement Officer Paula Frojae, Police Captain Mark Johnson and Deputy Fire
Chief Jack Coburn. First key point: After reviewing the information described above, Ms. Thomas
concluded the City has already adopted legislation enabling the City to address many of
the symptoms of decay causing concern to the community.
Developing case studies: Staff worked to understand the situations in which this legislation has been effective and the
reasons for success. This led to the development of a handful of case study properties (see
appendix B), through which the Staff could evaluate the limitations of adopted legislation and
the effectiveness of the City’s enforcement program. Development of the property deterioration spectrum: Through stakeholder meetings, staff developed an understanding of the symptoms of derelict
properties that the community and City Commission want addressed. Staff developed a building
lifecycle which shows the lifecycle of a structure in order to illustrate the points at which a property usually needs maintenance. The lifecycle also identified keywords associated with the symptoms and the City’s current legislation and processes that address those symptoms. This
property deterioration spectrum is included in Appendix C.
Meetings with stakeholders: Staff met with identified external stakeholders in August to share progress on the initiative and ask for feedback. During these highly productive meetings stakeholders provided valuable
feedback on properties in their neighborhoods that had become neglected. For most of these
neighbors, properties not owner-occupied were the primary concern. Stakeholders also notified
Staff of existing resources in the community which could help property owners fix houses. The Rotary’s “Fix it Up Week,” for example, pairs low-income property owners with volunteers who can help fix deficiencies in a property.
Second key point: Through the stakeholder meetings, Staff began to understand risk
factors leading to property neglect and the resources already available in the community to address it.
The Police Department handles properties which attract nuisance behavior. Through the Quality
of Life initiative the Police Department is now engaged early in the report of and response to a
property in decline. The Fire Department is in the progress of developing a voluntary rental safety program. The Department of Community Development and the Legal Departments are
working to re-evaluate the regulation for demolition of structures within the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District as outlined in BMC 38.16.080. Coordinating the effort,
communication and approach across all of these departments is crucial to effectively handling
these issues.
162
4
Third key point: During discussions of the Demolition by Neglect initiative at the City-
wide level Ms. Thomas recognized that a number of other City departments were
handling ongoing projects which are intended to address issues related to neglected
properties as illustrated in see Attachment D. Application of case studies to evaluate effectiveness of existing legislation and identify risk factors:
In September, Staff continued to meet with internal stakeholders to evaluate how the City of
Bozeman’s various departments have previously handled dilapidated properties and associated nuisance behavior.
The Peach Street case study (Attachment B 1) is an effective illustration of a neglected property.
Building Code Enforcement Officer Paula Frojae began working with the owner in September
2008. The structure was secured in October 2012, when the Building Department spent $1,600 to have the structure made secure from trespass. During this four year interim the property became an attractive nuisance the Police Department responded to a number of calls to the property and
found clear evidence of trespass and illegal activities. At this time the property owner has not
reimbursed the City for the cost of the abatement.
Why was the City so deliberate in addressing the nuisance of the Peach Street house? Institutionally, the City has a long history of respecting private property rights. The Peach Street
case study reflects the City’s extensive efforts to work with property owners rather than take
aggressive action on private property.
Further, application of the existing nuisance code requires coordination across multiple departments (Police, Fire, Legal, Finance and Community Development). As this type of
nuisance abatement is a rare step for the City of Bozeman, the staff members had to coordinate in
order to establish the necessary findings to order summary abatement. Staff also had to find the
funds necessary to pay for the Peach Street property to be boarded up. Framed through the case studies, the research and conversations identified risk factors common
to neglected properties. First, absentee ownership was identified as a risk factor. The Inter
Neighborhood Council members brought this forward and felt that neglected properties could
include rentals owned by landlords who live in Bozeman and out of state, as well as vacation homes rarely occupied. Fourth key point: Identified risk factors for property neglect include:
- Absentee ownership - Abandoned or vacant structures
Bozeman’s rates of owner-occupancy are a bit unusual, given the effect of the student population
at Montana State University and second home ownership. The 2010 Census revealed that 56.5
percent of homes in Bozeman were occupied by renters. These numbers do not reflect the growth
of the MSU student population since 2010. Staff was unable to compare these statistics against the national average because the Census website was closed during the government shutdown
which began on October 1, 2013.
The INC expressed concern about maintenance of renter-occupied properties, specifically
unkempt yards and structures. This portion of the demolition by neglect initiative overlaps with the voluntary rental safety initiative currently being developed by the Fire Department.
163
5
The abandonment or vacancy of structures and properties was identified as a second risk factor
leading to neglect. This is not a new issue for the City of Bozeman. In fact, the City’s Ordinance
Number 5, passed in 1883, established a nuisance code and gave the City the ability to abate nuisances in vacant or unoccupied structures, at the owner’s expense.
Regardless of the reason, unoccupied properties are most likely to have an unkempt yard, be a
target for vandalism like graffiti or broken windows and attract nuisance behavior like
trespassing or squatting. The life and safety hazards created by these unsafe structures create a problem for the Police Department to ensure public safety and for the Fire Department when faced with a structural fire. The 2010 census showed a 10 percent vacancy rate in Bozeman,
which may reflect a portion of secondary homes which are not consistently inhabited.
For both risk factors neighbors and tenants are usually the first to notice an unoccupied or run down property. Neighbors are a key in early intervention, through removal of graffiti, keeping a watchful eye on the neighboring property and assisting with mowing lawns.
Staff found that the procedures outlined in BMC 16.04 “Weed Abatement” reflect the relative
simplicity of hiring a contractor to mow down weeds on a property. This section of Municipal Code makes it easy and straightforward for City Staff to handle the nuisance in a straightforward manner.
The procedures outlined in BMC 16.02 “Nuisances,” which includes the unsafe structures
reference are more burdensome. To a certain degree this is appropriate; given the City’s respect for private property rights.
The Police Department, through the new Quality of Life program, is acquiring the ability to
coordinate the City’s response to these neglected properties. Staff discussed the need to give
these programs the time necessary to get up and running before evaluating their effectiveness.
Staff also identified the need to work with City Departments and community groups to collate information about the City’s Municipal Codes, existing educational materials and available
resources within the community to address demolition by neglect.
For example, the City’s Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District include a number of practical recommendations to protect the
longevity of a building, including (page 31):
Gutters and downspouts should not be clogged or leaking and should
carry water away from the foundation wall.
During heavy rains, watch to see if water is flowing or dripping down the
building wall and into the foundation.
Downspouts should be connected to underground drains if possible (check to be sure these are clear, too), or at least should empty onto splash blocks
which carry the water away from the foundation wall.
Conclusions and recommendations:
The feedback from stakeholder groups proved crucial to understanding the scope of the problem
and existing resources for resolving the issues created by neglected properties. The process has
164
6
proven valuable in facilitating communication between departments and evaluating the City’s
existing Code provisions. In summary, staff makes the following recommendations:
1. Tenants and neighbors are the first to notice a neglected property. Providing the community with an understanding of how properties become derelict and the risk factors would facilitate addressing neglected properties early.
Recommendation: Educate community members about the risk factors for neglect, the
nuisance codes and how the Quality of Life Officer will act as a point of contact.
2. There is a lack of coordinated outreach throughout the community to publicize assistance programs available in the community for owners of neglected properties. Non-profit
groups and service organizations offer information, technical assistance and financial
resources or donated materials. Recommendation: Share information with the Quality of Life Officer, neighborhood groups and non-profits regarding resources available in the community. 3. A number of City initiatives are currently underway to address neglected properties
including the Quality of Life team within the Police Department and the developing
rental safety initiative within the Fire Department. Recommendation: Give these initiatives time to develop before evaluating their
effectiveness. Re-evaluate the issue in 18 months.
4. In the past, inter-departmental communication occurred on an ad hoc basis until a
property was in crisis. However, collaboration over the last four months on the “Demolition by Neglect” effort as well as the kick off of the Quality of Life program has
already improved interdepartmental communication about neglected properties. Staff will
continue to work together to overcome barriers between departments and to coordinate
the City’s efforts to ameliorate nuisance symptoms and protect the public from unsafe
structures. Recommendation: Continue to utilize the Quality of Life Officer as the inter-
departmental point of contact for neglected properties. Give the program sufficient time
to get up and running before evaluating its effectiveness.
165
Case studies of neglected properties within the City of Bozeman, October 2013
CASE STUDIES
Case Study 1: 305 West Peach Street
Symptoms of neglect: Unoccupied, broken windows,
unpainted siding, roof in disrepair, neglected yard,
unsecured from trespass.
Timeline:
• July 2008: Stop Work order for modifications to electrical and plumbing systems without a
Building Permit. Building Dept. Staff arranged to
meet the property owner on the property but
owner never showed up and stopped returning phone calls.
• August 2008- June 2012: City Zoning Code
Enforcement Officers, the Police Department and
HPO Kramer contacted the property management
company, owner and bank officials on eleven separate occasions in an effort to secure the
building.
• June 2012: Communication between Planning,
Building and the City Attorney’s office about prosecution, abatement of the danger and
necessary findings for abatement.
• August 2012: A Police visit found the property
unsecured and with obvious signs of squatters, graffiti and general activity.
• October 2012: Officers checking on the property
due to increased activity located a 23 year old
male sleeping in the residence.
• October 2012: Further communication between Planning, Building and the City Attorney’s office. October 17, 2012 inspection by Mark Johnson found evidence of
transients, illegal activity and danger. October 19 directive from Planning Director to
Chief Building Official to have the building boarded up and record all costs.
• October 23, 2012: Notice to the property owner that the dangers on the property will be abated and the property owner will be personally liable for the costs of abatement.
• October 26, 2012: Building Department paid $1,600 to have the building boarded up.
Resolution:
Following a Summary Abatement procedure as outlined in BMC 16.06, the City of Bozeman’s
Building Division paid a contractor to board up the house at 305 West Peach Street. The cost to
the Building Division was $1,600. The City has yet to be reimbursed by the property owner.
166
Case studies of neglected properties within the City of Bozeman, October 2013
CASE STUDIES
Case Study 2: 905 South Church Avenue
Symptoms of neglect: Unoccupied, broken
windows, unpainted siding, roof in disrepair,
neglected yard, unsecured from trespass.
Timeline:
• March 10, 2012: Report of unsafe and
unsecured structure to the
Department of Community Development; forwarded to Code Enforcement officer for
follow up.
• March 13, 2012: Code Enforcement inspection found and documented that the structure
was unsecure and dangerous.
• March 16, 2012: Code Enforcement Officer sends a Notice of Violation of Section 116
Unsafe Structures of Building Code via registered mail to last known owner requesting
the unsafe structure be made secure. Mail is returned to sender.
• May 3, 2012: Final notice of violation sent to last owner.
• May 24, 2012: Matter turned over to City Attorney’s office for further action.
• June 4, 2012: City Attorney’s office sends letter to owner notifying them that if the
property is not boarded up in compliance with the City’s Vacant Building Policy by June
22, 2012, the City would file a criminal complaint under BMC 1.01.201.
• July 31, 2012: Inspection from Code Enforcement Officer finds the building remains
unsecure.
• August 2012: Code Enforcement Officers visited site, found it unsecure.
• October 15, 2012: Code Enforcement Officer visited the site and found the front door
secured from the inside and the rear door with a latch on it. The rear latch could be
removed with a Phillips screwdriver, but at this time the building is secure.
• August 2013: Code Enforcement Officers visit site; find it secure.
• September 2013: Chief Building Officer visits site, finds the building’s doors locked.
Resolution:
The City is currently taking no action on this property.
167
Case studies of neglected properties within the City of Bozeman, October 2013
CASE STUDIES
Case Study 3: 401South Willson Avenue
Symptoms of neglect: Unoccupied, unpainted siding, roof in disrepair, neglected yard,
unfinished building projects, unsecured from trespass.
Timeline:
• The last Building Permit for this property was in 2001.
• The property has been unoccupied since early 2009.
Resolution:
As of early October 2013, the building remains vacant and secure from trespass.
168
Case studies of neglected properties within the City of Bozeman, October 2013
CASE STUDIES
Case Study 4: 120 South Bozeman (shed is off of
East Olive Street)
Symptoms of neglect: Structure is falling in.
Timeline:
• December 2009: Tennant reports to Building
Code Enforcement Officer that residential
units do not have smoke detectors in sleeping
spaces and the closet is uninsulated and
freezes in the winter. Code Enforcement
Officer visited the site and notified the tenant
of the tenants’ rights laws in the State.
• August 2013: Code Enforcement Officer
contacted the property owner to inquire about
their plans for the building. The property is a
rental and the owner thought that by retaining
the building they would be able to construct a
new building on that site without needed to conform to current setback requirements.
• September 2013: Historic Preservation Officer Kramer contacts owner to clarify that any
new development on this property will have to conform to new setbacks. Owner responds
that they will drop off a demolition application within the week.
• October 2013: The Department of Community Development, including the Building
Division, has yet to receive a demolition application. The owner has wrapped the
structure in “caution” tape.
Resolution:
The City is not pursuing abatement of this property at this time.
169
Case studies of neglected properties within the City of Bozeman, October 2013
DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT CASE STUDIES
Case Study 5: 620 Nikles Drive Hotel, off of North 7th Avenue
Symptoms of neglect: Unoccupied, unfinished building project and unsecured from trespass.
Timeline of City’s actions:
• 2002: Initial City Planning approval for development of a hotel at this site (#Z02184)
• 2008: Sale of distressed property
• June 2009: City approval of modifications to 2002 Site Plan
• June 2010: Occupancy
Resolution:
The property was purchased and the project completed.
170
Well Maintained Structure Lived In Structure Derelict Structure Nuisance Structure Unsafe Structure
Meaning
Fresh paint, new roof, windows in good
repair, landscaping finished and
maintained.
Structure is finished and occupied and
needs minimal repairs and
maintenance. Paint touch ups, roof
maintenance, fixing the gutters, etc.
Roof shows signs of needing
maintenance and not being weather-
tight. Windows are boarded rather than
replaced. The yard is not maintained.
Exterior siding needs repair.
Property is likely unoccupied and
attracts nuisance behavior like
trespassing, unauthorized entry and is
in need of maintenance. There is
evidence of roof leaks, unsafe wiring
and the building is unsecured.
Building is clearly a threat to the public's
health safety and welfare and no
reasonable repairs will mitigate the
threat.
In good repair In good repair Not weather tight
Building is a menace, threat and/ or fire
hazard to the general health and safety
of the community
No building permit or expired building
permit
Occupied Occupied Not occupied The property is unsafe for occupancy
both inside and on the property
Structurally unsound, insanitary and
lacks adequate ingress or egress
Maintained yard Maintained yard Unkempt
The building lacks sufficient
maintenance and is vacant, which
depreciates the enjoyment and use of
the property in the immediate vicinity
to such an extent that it is harmful to
the community.
structure constitutes a fire hazard or has
been damaged by fire, the elements,
age or general deterioration
Any building which meets the definition
of an unsafe building per International
Building Code.
a harborage for rodents or other
animals
The building attracts nuisance behavior
such as disturbances of the peace,
public drunkenness, harassment of
passerby, sale of stolen goods, public
urination, theft, assaults, batteries, acts
of vandalism, excessive littering, illegal
parking, loud noises, etc.
Constitutes a hazard to public health,
safety or welfare by reason of
inadequate maintenance, dilapidation,
obsolescence or abandonment, or
which is otherwise dangerous to human
life.
Any condition which renders air, food or
drink unwholesome, unsanitary to
detrimental to health.
any vacant building not secured against
unauthorized entry
Spectrum of Property Maintenance
Keywords
171
Well Maintained Structure Lived In Structure Derelict Structure Nuisance Structure Unsafe Structure
The storage and accumulation on the
premises for an unreasonable period of
time of abandoned, wrecked
dismantled or inoperative vehicles,
boats or vessels, building materials, and
other materials within the view of
persons on nearby or adjacent property
or the public rights of way.
a structure which has broken or
severely damaged windows, doors,
walls, floors or roofs which create a
hazardous condition.
Any structure which by reason of lack of
maintenance or boarding up of its doors
and windows has a substantial adverse
effect on the immediate neighborhood
or promotes a degradation of the
surrounding community affecting the
public health, safety and welfare
City's ability to resolve
issues:N/A N/A No for the structure; yes for weeds/
yard.Yes Yes
Applicable Municipal Code Sec. 16.02 (Health and Environment-
Nuisances)
Sec. 16.02 (Health and Environment-
Nuisances)
International Building Code Section 116
(Unsafe Structures)
Option 1: City notifies owner of issue
and orders the nusiance abated.
Option 1: City notifies owner of issue
and orders the nusiance abated.
Option 1: Building Official notifies
owner of deficiencies and owner fixes
the problem.
Option 2: Written notice sent via
certified mail. Owner told to abate the
nuisance within 30 days or the City will
do it for them at the owner's expense.
Option 2: Written notice sent via
certified mail. Owner told to abate the
nuisance within 30 days or the City will
do it for them at the owner's expense.
Option 2: Chief Building Official notifies
the owner of the building is unsafe and
requires the building be demolished
within a stipulated time.
Option 3: Summary abatement. If owner
does not comply within 30 days, City
will abate the nuisance and keep an
account of the expenses. The owner will
be charged $200 per nuisance. The City
will charge the property owner 100% of
the expenses to abate the nuisance plus
a 25% overhead fee.
Option 3: Summary abatement. If owner
does not comply within 30 days, City
will abate the nuisance and keep an
account of the expenses. The owner will
be charged $200 per nuisance. The City
will charge the property owner 100% of
the expenses to abate the nuisance plus
a 25% overhead fee.
Option 3: Chief Building Official orders
the building demolished in order to
abate the danger.
Keywords
Enforcement
172
173