Vacant building will cost Barre thousands to demolish
|
|
A leaking roof and debris add to the impression of decay inside a vacant building owned by the the City of Barre on Route 14 within the Town of Barre. Below, the entrance to the building. STEFAN HARD/TIMES ARGUS |
Toolbox
By David Delcore TIMES ARGUS STAFF - Published: June 30, 2009
BARRE – As city councilors prepare to take testimony tonight on a proposed ordinance that would crack down on the owners of "vacant and dangerous buildings," they've tentatively agreed it's finally time to deal with one of their own.
It won't be cheap, according to Councilor Scott Gagnon, who was put in charge of handling the disposition of the hulking green house that is located just beyond Hope Cemetery on Route 14. Gagnon said a year-old report revealed the building is laced with asbestos and lead – from its floor tiles and wallboard compound to its peeling paint asphalt shingles – much of which must be removed before the building can be demolished or burned to the ground as part of a training exercise for firefighters.
"We are talking in the tens of thousands of dollars to mitigate this," Gagnon said last week, explaining that is the only reason why the increasingly dilapidated and structurally questionable building is still standing.
"'Structurally sound' is probably a very loose term for that building," he said.
The badly deteriorated, poorly secured building is just the sort of nuisance that the council had in mind when it crafted a potentially controversial ordinance that will be the subject of a 7:15 p.m. public hearing in council chambers in City Hall. And, while the city-owned structure is located just barely outside the city limits and would not technically be affected by the proposed ordinance, councilors agreed to solicit bids for razing the building.
"We need to lead by example," said Mayor Thomas Lauzon, who borrowed much of the language for the proposed ordinance from Burlington after residents of Brooklyn Street complained about the negative effects several abandoned buildings were having on their residential neighborhood.
"We have one of our own that needs to be taken care of," Lauzon said.
Over the years the city-owned building has been used for storing surplus equipment for the cemetery department, occasionally pressed into service as a haunted house, and used by firefighters for training exercises. And, while Gagnon said it is currently unsafe, the city has done little to secure the building, which is littered with debris and is an inviting place for vagrants.
The front door is locked, but a rusted nail is all that secures a windowless side screen door and there is access to the building through several broken windows or the garage area.
Those conditions would be unacceptable under a proposed ordinance that would require owners of similar properties in the city to secure them, make necessary repairs, and obtain a vacant building permit from the city. The ordinance envisions a fee for the 90-day renewable permits that would be set by the city. The figure currently being discussed is $500 – an amount that could be waived for up to two years under the ordinance if the owner can show that the property in question is being actively marketed for sale and is being maintained in accordance with the minimum standards outlined in the proposed ordinance.
Councilors have expressed a desire to come up with a mechanism to clean up unsafe and, in many cases, abandoned properties that are located in various neighborhoods around the city. The proposed ordinance also includes a system for fining non-compliant property owners and would give the city the authority to order the demolition of dangerous buildings at the owner's expense in extreme circumstances.
39