Town faces quandary: Demolition or delay?
By Susan Smallheer
Staff Writer | March 25,2015
SPRINGFIELD — A house on the town’s Top 10 list of dilapidated properties has been sold, presenting the Springfield Select Board with a conundrum: Do they push ahead with the already ordered demolition, or wait for the new owner to renovate the property?
Town Manager Tom Yennerell reported to the Select Board on Monday night the home at 129 Tarbell Road had been sold to a Massachusetts couple, who told Yennerell they didn’t know there was a demolition order in place against the building.
Yennerell said the new owner planned to renovate the house by himself, although Yennerell said he was given no timetable for the repairs and renovation.
But the fact that there was no legal attachment to the property deed of the demolition order perplexed Selectman George McNaughton, who also questioned how a real estate agent could sell the home knowing it was on the town’s list of dilapidated property.
McNaughton urged Yennerell to have the new owners of the Tarbell Road property come to a Select Board meeting next month to tell the town what their plans are.
If the town doesn’t keep up the heat on the owners of dilapidated property, he said, the town will face other sales of property to avoid demolition orders.
Yennerell said the home at 129 Tarbell Road had been purchased in early March. He said at the time of the sale, a bank owned the property, which at one time was owned by Sheila Tarbell.
“The bank sold it, and they didn’t know it either,” he said of the demolition order.
“We should be recording the demolition orders,” McNaughton, a lawyer, said, directing his comments to Town Clerk Barbara Courchesne.
He said the town would need something more substantial than a verbal promise of renovations.
“We want something more than, ‘Gee, we want to fix it,’” he said. “It seems inconceivable that it happened.”
Yennerell said the new owners would not need any permits from the town because they plan only on repairs within the building’s existing footprint.
The goal of the town’s push against dilapidated properties is to get them fixed up and still on the town’s tax rolls, he said, not to demolish buildings.
McNaughton pushed for the new owner to come before the Select Board to tell them why the demolition order shouldn’t be followed, but the other two Select Board members at the meeting, Kristi Morris and Stephanie Thompson, seemed content with only a letter from the new owners.
The board would be well within its rights to grant the new owner a continuance, McNaughton said.
Yennerell said an acceptable timeframe for renovations would be six months — the same amount of time for building a new home.
McNaughton said town meeting voters had given the town a “strong message” that they supported the board’s efforts against dilapidated buildings. Town meeting voters approved creating a special fund — and authorizing $100,000 — to help finance the demolition of such properties. The money becomes available in the new fiscal year — starting in July.
The board also set up a three-person inspection team — made up of a structural engineer, Fire Chief Russell Thompson and the town’s health officer — to inspect several new properties that had been brought to the town’s attention for possible action by the town.
Those include buildings at 15 Furnace St., 69 Park St., 29 Reed St. and 57-59 Wall St. A report will be made on those properties at a Select Board meeting April 27.
Some of those buildings have dilapidated outbuildings or porches, Yennerell said, and not the main building itself.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Town faces quandary: Demolition or delay?
A house on the town’s Top 10 list of dilapidated properties has been sold, presenting the Springfield Select Board with a conundrum: Do they push ahead with the already ordered demolition, or wait for the new owner to renovate the property?
Town faces quandary: Demolition or delay?
By Susan Smallheer
Staff Writer | March 25,2015
SPRINGFIELD — A house on the town’s Top 10 list of dilapidated properties has been sold, presenting the Springfield Select Board with a conundrum: Do they push ahead with the already ordered demolition, or wait for the new owner to renovate the property?
Town Manager Tom Yennerell reported to the Select Board on Monday night the home at 129 Tarbell Road had been sold to a Massachusetts couple, who told Yennerell they didn’t know there was a demolition order in place against the building.
Yennerell said the new owner planned to renovate the house by himself, although Yennerell said he was given no timetable for the repairs and renovation.
But the fact that there was no legal attachment to the property deed of the demolition order perplexed Selectman George McNaughton, who also questioned how a real estate agent could sell the home knowing it was on the town’s list of dilapidated property.
McNaughton urged Yennerell to have the new owners of the Tarbell Road property come to a Select Board meeting next month to tell the town what their plans are.
If the town doesn’t keep up the heat on the owners of dilapidated property, he said, the town will face other sales of property to avoid demolition orders.
Yennerell said the home at 129 Tarbell Road had been purchased in early March. He said at the time of the sale, a bank owned the property, which at one time was owned by Sheila Tarbell.
“The bank sold it, and they didn’t know it either,” he said of the demolition order.
“We should be recording the demolition orders,” McNaughton, a lawyer, said, directing his comments to Town Clerk Barbara Courchesne.
He said the town would need something more substantial than a verbal promise of renovations.
“We want something more than, ‘Gee, we want to fix it,’” he said. “It seems inconceivable that it happened.”
Yennerell said the new owners would not need any permits from the town because they plan only on repairs within the building’s existing footprint.
The goal of the town’s push against dilapidated properties is to get them fixed up and still on the town’s tax rolls, he said, not to demolish buildings.
McNaughton pushed for the new owner to come before the Select Board to tell them why the demolition order shouldn’t be followed, but the other two Select Board members at the meeting, Kristi Morris and Stephanie Thompson, seemed content with only a letter from the new owners.
The board would be well within its rights to grant the new owner a continuance, McNaughton said.
Yennerell said an acceptable timeframe for renovations would be six months — the same amount of time for building a new home.
McNaughton said town meeting voters had given the town a “strong message” that they supported the board’s efforts against dilapidated buildings. Town meeting voters approved creating a special fund — and authorizing $100,000 — to help finance the demolition of such properties. The money becomes available in the new fiscal year — starting in July.
The board also set up a three-person inspection team — made up of a structural engineer, Fire Chief Russell Thompson and the town’s health officer — to inspect several new properties that had been brought to the town’s attention for possible action by the town.
Those include buildings at 15 Furnace St., 69 Park St., 29 Reed St. and 57-59 Wall St. A report will be made on those properties at a Select Board meeting April 27.
Some of those buildings have dilapidated outbuildings or porches, Yennerell said, and not the main building itself.
Town faces quandary: Demolition or delay?
By Susan Smallheer
Staff Writer | March 25,2015
SPRINGFIELD — A house on the town’s Top 10 list of dilapidated properties has been sold, presenting the Springfield Select Board with a conundrum: Do they push ahead with the already ordered demolition, or wait for the new owner to renovate the property?
Town Manager Tom Yennerell reported to the Select Board on Monday night the home at 129 Tarbell Road had been sold to a Massachusetts couple, who told Yennerell they didn’t know there was a demolition order in place against the building.
Yennerell said the new owner planned to renovate the house by himself, although Yennerell said he was given no timetable for the repairs and renovation.
But the fact that there was no legal attachment to the property deed of the demolition order perplexed Selectman George McNaughton, who also questioned how a real estate agent could sell the home knowing it was on the town’s list of dilapidated property.
McNaughton urged Yennerell to have the new owners of the Tarbell Road property come to a Select Board meeting next month to tell the town what their plans are.
If the town doesn’t keep up the heat on the owners of dilapidated property, he said, the town will face other sales of property to avoid demolition orders.
Yennerell said the home at 129 Tarbell Road had been purchased in early March. He said at the time of the sale, a bank owned the property, which at one time was owned by Sheila Tarbell.
“The bank sold it, and they didn’t know it either,” he said of the demolition order.
“We should be recording the demolition orders,” McNaughton, a lawyer, said, directing his comments to Town Clerk Barbara Courchesne.
He said the town would need something more substantial than a verbal promise of renovations.
“We want something more than, ‘Gee, we want to fix it,’” he said. “It seems inconceivable that it happened.”
Yennerell said the new owners would not need any permits from the town because they plan only on repairs within the building’s existing footprint.
The goal of the town’s push against dilapidated properties is to get them fixed up and still on the town’s tax rolls, he said, not to demolish buildings.
McNaughton pushed for the new owner to come before the Select Board to tell them why the demolition order shouldn’t be followed, but the other two Select Board members at the meeting, Kristi Morris and Stephanie Thompson, seemed content with only a letter from the new owners.
The board would be well within its rights to grant the new owner a continuance, McNaughton said.
Yennerell said an acceptable timeframe for renovations would be six months — the same amount of time for building a new home.
McNaughton said town meeting voters had given the town a “strong message” that they supported the board’s efforts against dilapidated buildings. Town meeting voters approved creating a special fund — and authorizing $100,000 — to help finance the demolition of such properties. The money becomes available in the new fiscal year — starting in July.
The board also set up a three-person inspection team — made up of a structural engineer, Fire Chief Russell Thompson and the town’s health officer — to inspect several new properties that had been brought to the town’s attention for possible action by the town.
Those include buildings at 15 Furnace St., 69 Park St., 29 Reed St. and 57-59 Wall St. A report will be made on those properties at a Select Board meeting April 27.
Some of those buildings have dilapidated outbuildings or porches, Yennerell said, and not the main building itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
---
Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts
Easy: Leave it for now, *hit, leave it forever, flatlanders rule.
ReplyDeleteThe buyer foolishly failed to employ an attorney or, due diligence on their own accord. They gambled and lost. The house is condemned and they are on the hook for demolition costs.
ReplyDeleteCritical the Select Board pay hard ball and make this an example. Neighbors have endured the eyesore long enough and the voters have overwhelmingly spoken. There must be no further delay.
Give the new owners a chance to fix it. That is the only fair thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThen the BoS need to get their act together and get the proper documentation on record for the houses on the Hit List. That means Banks, deeds, and whatever else needs to be done.
This should be a wake-up call for the BoS to do their job right the first time. IMO that is.
What a bunch of bumbling idots. When you set up the ordinance you didn't plan for this? BAAHAAAA I guess this is why the lawyers practice in Vermont because in the real world they would be tossed out of the firm for such a mistake. Second, you put a demo order on a house that was bank owned and the bank didn't even know this? Again, you look like a bunch of bumpkins. THIS is why that demo fund should not have passed because you have a group of halfwits setting up these rules and next thing you know someone will come home and find their own house demolished because the town doesn't know whether it is coming or going half the time. JUST DEPLORABLE and EMBARASSING!
ReplyDeleteLet it go, let it go, take it down.
ReplyDeleteNobody knew anything until it was done? Right. Sounds like our president.
ReplyDeleteWhy would someone buy a house in such poor condition if they didn't plan to renovate or start over on the lot? There is no return on a property that can't be improved, so seems like they have a plan to buy cheap, fix, and then flip (or live in). Give them a chance!
ReplyDeleteAs I understood it, this was a house which was subjected to a demolition order clear back in 2013, and the B of S back then apparently took no further action to tear it down. Now when a new board starts pushing for action, they are finding out the full extent of the former lack of diligence. At least that is the way I understand it. It also looks like the same ones who didn't press forward diligently back then are still refusing to push forward with diligence.
ReplyDeleteAre you telling me that the town had a demo order on this property since 2013, and this bank didn't know it? The bank saw things were down to the wire, found a buyer, walked away washing their hands clean, and left the buyer to face the demo order. Now maybe we have a property owner who might have a vested interest. Lets see what they plan to do before you send Preistley up there with an excavator
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the argument at the Selectboard Meeting, it wasn't over whether they new owners would be allowed to present their ideas as to reconstruction, it was over whether they should be notified to come in and ask for an extension and set out their plans with the Board to set deadlines, or whether they should just be asked to write the board telling the board what they planned to do. It was a matter of nuance as far as I can see. Also, it was not clear at the meeting as to how the property was sold, whether it was a brokered deal or whether a bank auction. The concern as I understood it was that in the past the prior boards allowed matters and promises of self reconstruction to go on for years without action. The question was whether this practice would be allowed to continue or not. But, I could have misunderstood what I was watching.
DeleteAmen 7:02! I don't find it credible that the Bank involved in this property didn't know about the demo order. And, it would appear that they took advantage of some out-of-towners to shift the liability off their books!
ReplyDeleteReal happy to see that there will be a committee consisting of a structural engineer, Fire Chief Russell Thompson and the town’s health officer.
ReplyDeleteA health officer is very important to have because just the title makes people listen and even might take action. Seems odd to say that but I've seen it happen.
I really hope that the plan to have a Code Enforcement Officer will not happen and the health officer can do the job.
Thanks to the great town of springfield I'm goin to loose my house ...THANK YOU
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it from the article and SAPA, the purchaser bought the property on the cheap at a foreclosure sale by an out of state bank, there is a possibility that the out of state bank would not have known given the pre-2008 loosey goosy lending process, an attorney doing a title search would not have discovered it because the prior board didn't record the demolition order (the current board is not required to do so either, but has started doing so), I find it less credible that the real estate broker didn't know. The Town gave Mr. Clay an opportunity to fix the property, but he didn't do so. The engineer at the meeting testified that it would be cheaper to tear down and rebuild, than to try and make the structure safe. A vacant acre lot, may well still be worth $8,000.00. Seems like an awkward situation, but don't see it as the fault of the current selectboard.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% Shouldn't his be on the real estate broker for not knowing?
Delete