Oneonta appeals board denies some landlord appeals, forgives fees in others

The Oneonta Code Enforcement Appeals Board on an unspecified meeting date heard appeals from multiple property owners contesting administrative fees tied to missed rental-inspection requirements, denying some appeals and forgiving others.

Board members denied the appeal for 35 Spring Street and for 52 Burnside, finding that the owners had sufficient notice or time to comply. The board forgave administrative fees for two appeals involving properties on Burnside Avenue (27 Burnside and 49 Burnside), citing documentation and evidence that inspections could not be completed because of circumstances beyond the owners’ control.

The appeals centered on certificates of compliance and required inspections (smoke/heat detectors, heating-system and electrical inspections). Board members recited that the city sends a written notice with due dates; in some cases owners said they did not receive or did not understand the enclosed instructions. One owner described the forms as lacking an explicit “do not fill out” warning and asked for clearer instructions on the city’s process.

For 35 Spring Street the board recorded a motion to deny the appeal and voted unanimously to deny. The board said that the owner had not completed the electrical inspection required by the notice and that the fee schedule (an initial fee followed by daily accrual) applied from the date the inspection was due.

For 27 Burnside (appellant John Feiler), the board found evidence of attempts to schedule inspections and operational obstacles — notably an electrical meter that was shut off during scheduled inspections — and voted to forgive administrative fees on the basis that inspection access was prevented. For 52 Burnside the board denied the appeal, concluding the owner had sufficient time after a July notice and did not make timely arrangements. For 49 Burnside the board accepted documentation showing a prolonged, noncooperative tenant and an extended eviction process; the board voted to forgive the administrative fee for that unit.

Board members repeatedly reminded appellants that the appeals body enforces the city code but does not write it. Several members suggested owners seeking code changes or relief speak with their Common Council representative. Finance staff were identified as the office that can set up payment plans for owners who cannot pay immediately.

Votes at a glance - 35 Spring Street — Motion to deny appeal: outcome denied; recorded votes: Chair Merzinger (yes), Commissioner Livermore (yes), Commissioner Hartley (yes), Commissioner Bosnick (yes). - 27 Burnside — Motion to forgive administrative fees due to circumstances preventing inspection: outcome approved; recorded votes: Chair Merzinger (yes), Commissioner Livermore (yes), Commissioner Hartley (yes), Commissioner Bosnick (yes). - 52 Burnside — Motion to deny appeal (timing of owner request): outcome denied; recorded votes: Chair Merzinger (yes), Commissioner Livermore (yes), Commissioner Hartley (yes), Commissioner Bosnick (yes). - 49 Burnside — Motion to forgive administrative fees after eviction and documented access issues: outcome approved; recorded votes: Chair Merzinger (yes), Commissioner Livermore (yes), Commissioner Hartley (yes), Commissioner Bosnick (yes), Freeman (yes).

Why this matters: The decisions clarify how the city enforces inspection deadlines and how the appeals board evaluates claims of inability to obtain inspections (for example, tenant noncooperation or lack of electricity at the unit). Owners received repeated direction that code text and fee schedules are posted in the city code and that the appeals board must apply those rules.

The board advised property owners who dispute how the law was written to approach their Common Council representative. Several appellants were also directed to work with the city’s finance office to discuss payment plans for outstanding administrative fees.