Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dangerous Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Branson adopts rewritten dangerous‑buildings process to speed abatement
Summary
The Board of Aldermen approved a rewritten Chapter 18 provision to clarify how the city identifies, notifies and abates dangerous buildings, add an expedited appeals path and allow cost recovery by lien.
The Branson Board of Aldermen voted to adopt a rewritten dangerous‑buildings process that city staff says will speed up inspection, notice and abatement of structures that threaten public health, safety or welfare.
The ordinance replaces Article X, Division 1 of Chapter 18 of the Branson Municipal Code and establishes a clear inspection-and-notice workflow, timelines for owner remediation, an administrative hearing process for appeals, and a mechanism for the city to recover abatement costs through a tax lien if property owners do not comply.
Amanda, Planning and Development staff, summarized the proposal during the meeting: “The ordinance provides a legal process for vacating, repairing, and demolishing buildings that are dangerous to public health, safety, or welfare.” She said the new text aligns with Missouri statute, tightens definitions of “dangerous building,” clarifies staff roles and creates a predictable appeal path through an appointed administrative hearing officer.
City Attorney Norm told the board staff and legal reviewed the earlier code and found “a lot of due process deficiencies,” saying the existing notices and procedures were “very convoluted” and required cleanup.
The ordinance directs inspectors to evaluate suspect structures, have the building division supervisor issue a written notice and order describing required corrective actions and deadlines, and permits an interested party to appeal within 10 days. If an appeal is filed, an administrative hearing officer will hold a hearing, make written findings within 15 days and issue a final order. Any party may then seek circuit court review under Missouri statute.
Board members framed the change as a public‑safety measure and a companion to other efforts to address blight. State Representative Brian Seitz asked whether the change covered commercial and residential properties; Amanda confirmed it covers both. City staff noted the ordinance will also support planned use of a revolving demolition loan fund the board approved in the previous budget.
The board approved the ordinance on a voice vote. Members answered “aye” when the mayor called for the vote and the mayor noted the ayes had it.
The ordinance will now be enforced per the timelines set in the new text; property owners may appeal following the administrative procedure described in the code.
