The Presque Isle City Council narrowly approved a vacant building ordinance on Wednesday that has ignited debate for two months.
After much discussion and one plea to throw the document out completely, the group voted 4-3 to accept the latest version, which has undergone multiple revisions.
The vote establishes rules to govern the appearance, maintenance and safety of “unattended vacant buildings,” and set penalties if building owners violate the rules.
The city proposed the ordinance in March, claiming some vacant structures were poorly maintained, unsightly and dangerous. Landlords argued the fees amounted to unnecessary taxation and the regulations created too much municipal oversight over private property.
Councilors tabled a decision on the ordinance in April to allow more time to incorporate public suggestions.
Many people were against the ordinance because they feared city officials would enter properties without warning and violate owners’ rights, Councilor Doug Cyr said.
“I think the thing started off on a very bad foot and put a bad taste in people’s mouths and is honestly the reason why people don’t trust the government and its actions,” Cyr said. “I think this just needs to be redone and looked at from a different point of view.”
The city could just as effectively enforce codes and rules that already exist, he said.
The ordinance will allow the city to intervene before buildings become so derelict that they can’t be salvaged, Councilor Craig Green said. That could eliminate the city having to spend taxpayers’ money to tear down decrepit buildings that property owners, some out of state, have simply walked away from.
The city hasn’t had a plan to try to solve building problems before they become massive, City Manager Sonja Eyler said. Having an ordinance in place says the city is being proactive to get ahead of blight.
“Our property valuations are down because we’ve got vacant buildings in every single neighborhood,” she said. “Is it a perfect tool? Maybe not, but there’s a reason why communities all over Maine are scrambling to get these ordinances in place.”
The document’s first draft was modeled after one in Bangor and relied heavily on fees, Green said.
The ordinance defines a vacant building as a commercial or residential structure that has not been occupied for at least 60 days and either is not being maintained or has unsecured doors or windows, deterioration and debris, has prompted repeat public safety responses or constitutes a nuisance or hazard.
Buildings that are actively maintained, comply with city codes and are not creating nuisances or hazards are not deemed vacant.
The regulations do not authorize the city to seize or condemn a property, the document states.
A previous version would have required landlords to obtain a six-month vacant building registration permit within 60 days of the structure becoming vacant or the property being transferred to a new owner. The new ordinance removes that requirement.
Instead, the city’s code enforcement officer can issue a notice to the owner of a property that meets the vacant building definition. That notice would identify conditions, outline corrective actions and provide “a reasonable timeframe for compliance,” the document states.
An original section on fees for vacant building permits and renewals provoked the most controversy between the city and landlords. The rules would have set vacant building permit fees at $200 for residential and $500 for commercial structures, with renewals between $300 and $2,500.
That fee schedule has been removed along with the permitting requirement.
The city could, however, impose civil penalties if a property owner fails to secure or maintain the building, does not correct conditions identified in a written notice or fails to prevent nuisance conditions.
The ordinance sets penalties of $100 and $2,500 per day “for each day the violation continues.” Penalties will not be assessed without written notice of problems and a set timeline to correct them.
A new paragraph in the ordinance specifies that the code enforcement officer cannot enter or inspect a property against state law or the property owner’s rights.
Councilor Hank King supported the regulations, but suggested the City Council table it for another month to make sure it will work as intended for the community.
The council shouldn’t push off a decision any longer, Councilor Mike Chasse said. He moved to approve the ordinance and authorize city staff and legal counsel to make syntax revisions and technical language adjustments.
Chasse, Green, Herman Legassie and Council Chair Jeff Wilette voted in favor, with King, Cyr and Plummer voting against the measure.
