|
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
<br />PROJECT: Public hearing on the repeal of existing ordinance and enactment of new ordinance amending
<br />Chapter 7 of the Paris Code of Ordinances consistent with State law regarding vacant substandard buildings
<br />and structures and the abatement of that nuisance.
<br />BACKGROUND: In the city of Paris, as well as all other cities, there exist vacant dilapidated buildings and
<br />other shuctures which, if left unaddressed, endanger the safety and well-being of citizens and neighboring
<br />properties, bring down property values (and, consequently, tax revenues) in the area, invite criminal activity,
<br />and are, to say the least, eyesores. Since at least 1970, the City has had an ordinance to provide for the repair
<br />and/or removal of such structures, but the ordinance has not been updated to keep pace with current State law.
<br />There are significant differences between our present ordinance and current authorizing legislation, and any
<br />future demolition activity must be conducted pursuant to an ordinance that meets State law standards.
<br />DESCRIPTION: Two new Articles are proposed to be added to Chapter 7 of the City Code.
<br />Article III of the attached proposed ordinance contains the requirements derived from State law
<br />regarding enforcement actions against vacant substandard buildings and structures. In addition, the proposed
<br />ordinance replaces the administrative scheme of the existing ordinance with a building and standards
<br />commission as authorized by current State law. In the past, a committee of several City employees, including
<br />the building official and the city engineer, has held hearings, made determinations as to dilapidated structures,
<br />then sent a report to the City CounciL The City Council would then hold a second hearing and issue any orders
<br />regarding the repair or demolition of such vacant buildings or structures. By contrast, a building and standards
<br />commission is made up of nine (9) members of the community, five (5) regular members and four (4)
<br />alternates, and their decisions are appealable only to a district court. Such a procedure insulates the City from
<br />the charge that it is making these decisions unilaterally, without concern to citizen input, since the decision
<br />makers will be a citizen board. It also insulates the Council from charges of political favoritism since the
<br />citizen commission, and not the Council, will be holding the hearings. Investigations will be conducted by the
<br />code inspectors, and the code inspectors will be non-voting ex-officio members ofthe commission. As before,
<br />the new ordinance provides that, should the owner fail to repair or demolish a building or structure as ordered,
<br />the City can demolish the building or structure, assess the cost to the owner, and place a lien on the property
<br />to secure payment.
<br />Article IV of the proposed ordinance would implement a program for issuing permits for vacant
<br />buildings placed in a secured status. The purpose of this article would be to provide property owners and the
<br />City an alternative way to regulate some of the vacant substandard buildings in the City. Under these
<br />provisions, only buildings which are sh-ucturally sound (i.e., have solid walls, and non-leaking roof, and are
<br />in no significant danger of fire or collapse) would be eligible to be placed in a secured building status provided
<br />the owner complied with the requirements of the ordinance. Under the ordinance, the owner would seek a
<br />permit, pay a fee, the building would be inspected initially by the City Building Official (with follow-up
<br />investigation for permitrenewals atthe owner's expense by a state certified inspector), and ifthe building was
<br />found exteriorly sound, then the owner would be required to secure the building from access by vagrants or
<br />other individuals but would not be required to bring the internal structures up to City code. The building could
<br />not be occupied during the term of the permit; all windows and doors would be secured; and the building must
<br />be maintained in a structurally safe and sound condition for the permit to continue to be valid. In addition, the
<br />owner would have to allow access by authorized City personnel, including police officers, the fire marshal,
<br />and City inspectors, to make sure the building does not represent an additional safety risk. Providing this
<br />process affords building owners an alternative to making the expenditures necessary to bring internal portions
<br />of an otherwise sound building up to code until such time as a tenant is available for the building, or the owner
<br />has some other purpose for which the building can be utilized. Adoption ofthis Article IV is purely optional;
<br />
|