St. Marys tackles vacant building issues

ST. MARYS - City officials discussed proposed legislation on Monday that would create a registrar of vacant buildings in the city and draft requirements for their maintenance with potential fines and legal charges for violators.

"This doesn't necessarily outlaw vacant buildings," city law director Kraig Noble said at the beginning of the streets and sidewalks committee meeting. "Obviously buildings are vacant for a lot of different reasons."

The ordinance isn't meant to target temporary vacancies but rather long-term vacancies that Noble said had become a concern within the city. The proposal is based on an ordinance in Sandusky.

Citing the penchant for vacant buildings to "attract criminal activity," present a "threat to public safety" and their "unsightly" appearance, the ordinance seeks to establish a program to identify, register and inspect vacant buildings that may present a fire hazard, provide temporary occupancy for transients and hinder efforts to maintain surrounding buildings.

The treatment of vacant residential and commercial buildings differs, with Noble saying the rules for residential properties are looser.

According to the draft ordinance, commercial buildings are any structures used or designed for manufacturing, industrial or commercial purposes, "whether or not legally zoned for such use." Residential structures containing more than three units will also be considered commercial.

The designation of a building as vacant depends upon certain criteria, though the ordinance also stated the "evidence of vacancy" would not be limited to details in the ordinance.

In the case of a commercial building, a lack of evidence of occupation and operations for longer than 90 days would be a base requirement. Residential properties would need to have evidence of absence of occupation for at least 90 days as well, substantiated by government employees, neighbors or postal employees.

Additional "evidence of vacancy" would also need to be shown for a building to be registered, which could include using no or significantly below average utilities; delinquent real estate taxes; evidence of rodent infestation; broken or boarded-up windows; absence of furnishings; defective roofs; outdated signs; evidence the interior is not heated during the winter; evidence the structure is not secured from trespassers; visible graffiti; or the accumulation of overgrown or dead vegetation, newspapers, mail, trash or junk, including abandoned vehicles or automobile parts.

Commercial buildings would need to have two additional examples of "evidence of vacancy" such as those listed above in addition to the base requirement. Residential properties would need at least five such examples.

Once a building was designated as vacant, the owner or person responsible would be given notice and have to follow certain requirements. The building would need to be registered with the St. Marys Fire Department, and a plan to either secure, rehabilitate or demolish the building would be required. The ordinance would also require general liability insurance to cover the building.

An annual fee would be charged for any building listed as vacant. Residential buildings would have a registration fee of $250. Commercial buildings would have an initial annual registration fee of $400, but that could be increased based on the duration the structure remained vacant. For every consecutive year the building remained vacant, the fee would be doubled until it reached a maximum $6,400 fee during the fifth year.

If a vacant building became reoccupied, the registration fee paid during the same year of its reoccupancy would be refunded.

Any violations of maintenance requirements for vacant buildings would be met with a warning notice from the fire chief, and if steps were not taken to bring the building back into compliance, the city could take steps to make the changes and charge the owner for the work. Violators would be guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor with a separate offense deemed committed each day a violation occurred or continued.

An appeal process would be created.

Committee member John Bubp said he didn't like the lack of a time frame to secure a vacant structure. The ordinance outlined time limits for demolition or rehabilitation of vacant structures, but Bubp worried the vacant structure option would allow building owners to sit on vacant properties and give them no incentive to improve.

Committee member Jim Christman also joined in, saying the fees could become an issue for building owners who might become stuck with a building in disrepair with no money to fix it and potential buyers' balking at potential assessments.

Noble replied that at a certain point, the fees associated and the necessity to keep the buildings up to code would either encourage the owners to sell properties or could even result in foreclosure, thus still putting the property into different hands.

Brad Bartlett, who said he owned at least eight downtown buildings, said he thought the legislation was a good idea but could see where it could be used "overzealously."

Council president Jim Harris attended the meeting and said he had several family members in Sandusky, where similar legislation had been passed. He said the area had seen "very positive outcomes" with formerly neglected buildings fixed or being fixed.

Fire chief Doug Ayers said he was OK with the extra work the proposal would entail. Downtown St. Marys is on life support, he said, and something must be done to revive it.

Committee members agreed they want to seek more input from the public on the proposal and took no action on Monday.

In other business, committee members motioned for Noble to explore options to address a controversial go-kart track on Celina Road built close to residential spaces. Bubp said some neighbors were unhappy while others thought it was great but wondered about the potential liability of the facility.

Noble said a recent statement they had sent to the owner had garnered some attention, but it was more of a friendly warning notifying the owner of liability issues. Despite being in front of a residence and close to other residential spaces, the track was built on land zoned as commercial.