High court OKs building demolition

The Vermont Supreme Court has handed Springfield a victory in its ongoing fight against dilapidated buildings in town.

www.rutlandherald.com    

High court OKs building demolition By Susan Smallheer Staff Writer | November 08,2016 Email Article Print Article SPRINGFIELD — The Vermont Supreme Court has handed Springfield a victory in its ongoing fight against dilapidated buildings in town. In a decision released Friday, a three-judge panel led by Chief Justice Paul Reiber sided with Springfield over property owner Donald Bishop, who was fighting the demolition order for a fire-damaged building at 188 Wall Street, saying his due process rights had been violated. The high court panel noted that a structural engineer hired by the town, and cross-examined by Bishop’s attorney, found “all parts of the building as being unsafe,” and had rejected the possibility of stabilizing and repairing the building as “unreasonable and irresponsible.” “The witness’s testimony was more than sufficient and competent to support the board’s finding under the ordinance that demolition of the building was required,” the court ruled. Springfield Town Manager Tom Yennerell said the next step is to have a complete asbestos assessment on the building and then get a demolition permit from the Vermont Department of Health. Bishop had appealed a Windsor Superior Court decision upholding the Springfield Select Board, ruling that the fire-damaged building was too far gone to be rehabilitated. The building was damaged in a fire in 2012, and two years later Springfield Fire Chief Russell Thompson, also the town’s health officer, filed a complaint with the town under its nuisance building ordinance. Thompson said the building was unsafe, triggering a formal review by the town and a structural engineer hired by the town. A December 2014 review found that the building was unsafe and the town ordered it demolished. Attorney Richard Bowen of Springfield, who represented Bishop, said the town’s process was unfair to property owners, arguing that Bishop hadn’t resolved his insurance claim from the fire yet. Bowen, who said he hadn’t yet read the high court’s decision, repeated his view that the town’s process did not give property owners sufficient time and opportunity to fix their properties. He said Bishop had done a lot of work on the building, but stopped when the town got involved. Yennerell countered that Bishop had two years from the time of the fire to repair the building before the town started to take action. And, he said, the first formal notice to Bishop called for the building’s repair or it would be demolished. Bowen argued that Bishop had done repairs to the fire-damaged house, but stopped once he received the order from the town. Yennerell said some property owners whose buildings were on the town’s original Top 10 list of dilapidated properties did successfully repair them and avoided demolition. Yennerell pointed to a separate court case pending in Windsor Superior Court involving another Bishop-owned property. “The order was given to demolish or repair. And obviously neither of those occurred,” Yennerell said. But Bowen maintained his client was not given the opportunity to fix the building. “Who is going to put money into a property that’s already been condemned?” he said, calling it an “abuse of police powers on the local level.”