Springfield studies vacant building rule

The town is working on another ordinance aimed at cutting down on the number of blighted or vacant buildings.

www.rutlandherald.com

---

Proposed vacant buildings ordinance to require liability insurance

The Springfield Selectboard approved the first reading of a new ordinance that includes mandatory liability insurance for owners of vacant buildings, despite a warning of caution from the town’s legal counsel.

  www.eagletimes.com    

Published May 11, 2016 in the Rutland Herald Springfield studies vacant building rules By Susan Smallheer SPRINGFIELD — The town is working on another ordinance aimed at cutting down on the number of blighted or vacant buildings. Monday night, the Select Board held its first reading of the proposed new ordinance, this one targeting vacant buildings. The draft was written by Selectmen Walter Martone and George McNaughton, members of the town’s ordinance subcommittee. McNaughton said the goal was to give the town another weapon in its ongoing fight against dilapidated buildings, which McNaughton and Martone said Monday night can breed crime, as well as adversely affecting neighboring properties and the town itself. “All of these attempts are to clean up the neighborhood,” he said. During a lengthy first reading, the first step under the town charter for adopting a new ordinance, changes were made to streamline the process and focus the intent of the ordinance. Martone said he and McNaughton used a model vacant building ordinance supplied by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, and “cut and pasted” material garnered from other Vermont town ordinances. Martone said the goal was not to eliminate vacant buildings, since some can be left vacant but maintained. The goal is to make property owners take care of their properties, he said, and not create a hazard or invitation to crime, such as squatters moving into a vacant building. One issue raised by Town Attorney Stephen Ankuda concerned the requirement that all vacant building owners have liability insurance on their vacant property. “How do you sell that to John Q. Public?” asked Selectman Kristi Morris, board chairman. Morris questioned whether the new ordinance would apply to several large, dilapidated and vacant industrial buildings in town, including the ones owned by Springfield Regional Development Corp. But McNaughton said if there is a plan in place to rehabilitate the building, it would be exempt, according to the ordinance. He said one thing he and Martone did not include in the new ordinance was another registry, given the town’s unsuccessful history creating a rental registry. “As long as they comply, that the doors are intact, the roofs are working and the windows are in place, it’s not a problem,” McNaughton said. But he noted two vacant buildings on Clinton Street, owned by two elderly sisters, would have “flunked” the test. “It would have triggered that ordinance,” McNaughton said. Those buildings have since been purchased and are being renovated. A second reading on the proposed new ordinance will be held in two weeks, on May 23. 2016-05-10 / Front Page Proposed vacant buildings ordinance to require liability insurance By Tory Jones Bonenfant toryb@eagletimes.com SPRINGFIELD — The Springfield Selectboard approved the first reading of a new ordinance that includes mandatory liability insurance for owners of vacant buildings, despite a warning of caution from the town’s legal counsel. A requirement that owners of vacant buildings will have to “maintain liability insurance for as long as the building is vacant” drew a comment from Town Attorney Stephen Ankuda, present at the regular selectboard meeting on Monday, May 9. “That could certainly be a challenge,” Ankuda said. That requirement for mandatory insurance includes “a few legal issues,” Ankuda said, when members of the selectboard asked his opinion. A building owner would have to provide proof of insurance, or proof that they have the financial assets “sufficient to cover liability claims,” to self-insure the building. If they could not provide that proof, they would face a fine, according to final wording on the ordinance. “These are all valid considerations” that building owners should consider, Anduka said. “This is somewhat new ground,” he added, as to “holding someone’s feet to the fire” for what he called their nuisance buildings. Ankuda’s signature appears on the Ordinance 2016-2 draft, dated as “approved as to form” on May 6, 2016, that the selectboard distributed in its meeting packet on Monday. “As long as we all understand, going forward, the wrath that we’re going to exert,” said Selectboard Chair Kristi Morris, after the board had discussed that section on mandated insurance. Owners of or agents for vacant buildings would have 14 days to provide that proof of liability insurance when asked by the town manager or town enforcement officer. The ordinance, created to amend the Administrative Code, Chapter 7: Health, Sanitation and Nuisances, also covers other aspects of community health and safety and protection of property by requiring owners to secure and maintain vacant buildings. Reasons for the ordinance include the existence of buildings within the town of Springfield that are not only vacant, but also dangerous, in disrepair and blight, “precipitate disinvestment by neighboring owners,” provide a location for criminal activity, or are vulnerable to arson or vagrants, according to the ordinance. Selectboard member George McNaughton said the reason for including liability insurance is that the blighted or vacant buildings are the ones that can “become the attractive nuisances, and that youth may go into them, and could get hurt. If owners have to get liability insurance, the insurance companies will “force them” to have doors on the structure or other safety updates, he said. “It’s almost like having another person to watch those properties,” McNaughton said. The ordinance was drafted from other ordinances in the state of Vermont, but the selectboard members working on it elected not to have a registry, as some cities do. “We felt there was too much opposition to registries in this town,” McNaughton said. They also created an exemption for “redevelopment projects” for buildings that would be vacant, but would undergo rehabilitating with a town-approved plan. The ordinance includes sections, under “obligations of vacant building owners,” that include weather-tight building openings and roofs, proper drainage, structurally sound walls, safely anchored exterior features and chimneys, safe walkways, excessive vegetation, and a safe exterior premises. For residential building, “vacant” means that no one is legally maintaining a residence in that building. “If someone is still (illegally) living there, it’s still considered vacant,” said McNaughton, referring to “squatters.” Housing that is vacant but used seasonally would not be considered vacant under the ordinance. For businesses, “vacant” means not open for business on a regular basis, and for industrial buildings, it means no employees arrive on a regular basis and no work is being performed, according to the document. Violating the ordinance would be a civil matter, which would be enforced in the Vermont Judicial Bureau or the Windsor County Superior Court, with fines of “not more than $500 per violation,” although each day that the violation continued would constitute a separate violation of the ordinance. The ordinance also states that if an inspection is required or the town manager has reason to believe the property is vacant, the Enforcement Officer would first make a “reasonable effort” to locate the owner, but if entry is refused, may secure a search warrant through a court. Building owners charged with violations can file an appeal through an appeal to the selectboard within seven days of receiving a ticket. Selectboard member Walter Martone said that no time limit exists on the ordinance. “There’s no law that every building in Springfield needs to be occupied,” he said. Only three members of the public attended the public meeting. The selectboard will present the new ordinance at 7 p.m. Monday, May 23 at the board’s next regular meeting, for a public hearing and second reading.