Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Vacant Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Portsmouth council on inconsistent code enforcement for vacant properties and overgrown lots
Summary
Residents and community volunteers pressed the Portsmouth City Council Wednesday over what they said are inconsistent inspections and weak enforcement of property-maintenance, vacant-structure and nuisance codes; city staff said they will convene an enforcement group and meet with residents to review specific cases.
Portsmouth City Council heard multiple residents Wednesday who said city inspections and enforcement of vacant-structure, overgrown-weeds and nuisance rules are inconsistent and leave neighborhoods unsafe.
Residents told council that city inspectors cited properties but later closed cases without compelling property owners to remove overgrowth or board damaged windows. “Residents deserve better,” said David House, a Portsmouth resident who cited specific properties and city code sections during public comment.
The concerns centered on whether city staff were applying city code 23-26 (nuisance/weeds), 17-133 (building and structure maintenance/closures), section 32-31 (visibility at intersections) and the Virginia State Fire Prevention Code (304.1) consistently. Speakers said some complaint reports filed through SeeClickFix resulted in no enforcement or in findings that the problem met an inspector’s standards rather than the code’s written requirements.
Why it matters: residents said the apparent inconsistency allows hazards to persist — from overgrown yards that the city’s nuisance code deems a fire or health hazard to vacant buildings they say are inadequately secured. Multiple council members indicated they want clearer, more uniform enforcement.
Details: resident David House cited the municipal code language that he said requires property owners to cut weeds over 10 inches and to remove debris; he said inspectors have sometimes applied different sections (for example citing 17-133, which he said applies to closed structures) in cases he believes do not meet that classification. Daniel House, another resident, said inspectors closed cases after observing board-up material present but that windows above the first floor remained exposed and paint and glazing were deteriorated.
Council response and next steps: City Manager Steven Carter told council he preferred to defer a fuller response to a future meeting but said staff are arranging discussions with the residents raising the complaints. Council members asked that the examples be used to inform an enforcement task force now being formed so inspections and remedies follow the explicit language of the code. Councilman Tillich and Councilman Hugo urged staff to include the cited properties as examples when the enforcement team meets.
No formal policy or enforcement action was adopted at the meeting. Council members and the manager said staff would follow up with the complainants and bring recommended next steps back to council.
Taper: The speakers urged the city to be proactive rather than relying solely on complaint-driven enforcement; city staff said they will review the cited files and return with recommendations to standardize enforcement.
