Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinances Nuisance Blight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caribou Planning Board schedules public hearings on nuisance and blight ordinances
Summary
The Caribou Planning Board voted March 13 to send revised nuisance and blight ordinances to public hearing after discussion about definitions, enforcement and legal review.
The Caribou Planning Board voted March 13 to schedule public hearings on two draft ordinances — a revised nuisance ordinance and a blight ordinance — moving both measures to the next stage of review.
The measures matter because they would change how the city defines and enforces nuisances and aesthetic blight, introduce new definitions and penalties, and rely on a mix of local ordinance authority and state statute review before the council considers final adoption.
Board members discussed language changes to the nuisance ordinance that primarily add definitions intended to clarify what the ordinance covers. A board member said the edits were “just the end of, of putting those definitions in” so the ordinance would be clearer to readers. Members agreed the draft fits within existing state law and municipal practice and recommended a legal review before public notice.
On the blight ordinance, members focused discussion on Section 10, which addresses violations and penalties. One board member urged a legal review of the recovery-cost provisions to confirm the city can recoup enforcement expenses without making enforcement purely about money. Members compared options used in other municipalities and noted the need to coordinate enforcement tools with existing dangerous-building, health-and-safety, property-maintenance and junkyard provisions already in the city code.
Several members emphasized the practical difference between health-and-safety hazards and aesthetic blight. As the board discussed examples — from dangerous burned structures to peeling paint — members said the city should use stronger state-authority tools where public safety is at stake and reserve the new blight language for aesthetic and property-maintenance concerns.
Board members asked that the drafts be sent to the city attorney for review before public hearings. The board also noted seasonal constraints: enforcement and compliance timelines could be affected by winter conditions and the board expects hearings after snow melt.
Votes at a glance - Nuisance ordinance: Motion to schedule a public hearing — outcome: passed (roll call: Steve — yes; Frank — yes; Maura — yes; Dave — yes; Eric — yes). Note: board discussion recommended attorney review prior to hearing; public hearing timeline expected in a few months when snow is gone. - Blight ordinance: Motion to schedule a public hearing — outcome: passed (roll call: Steve — yes; Frank — yes; Maura — yes; Dave — yes; Eric — yes). The board noted the draft will go to the city attorney for a legal check; a hearing date appeared on the board calendar as April 10.
What happens next: Both drafts will be sent to the city attorney for technical review and then returned to the board to set formal public-hearing notices. After the hearings, any final changes would go to the City Council for consideration and possible adoption.
