Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Properties Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Menands advances Local Law No. 1 of 2025 to address vacant, unsafe buildings after public hearing
Summary
After a public hearing, the Menands Village Board moved to adopt Local Law No. 1 of 2025, a code change that creates a vacant-property registry and gives staff authority to act on unsafe buildings; the board discussed owner notice requirements and heard a public comment urging the change.
Menands Village Board opened a public hearing on Local Law No. 1 of 2025, a proposed change to the village code establishing processes for unsafe and vacant buildings and creating a registry for vacant properties intended to encourage redevelopment and improve public safety.
The change, explained by a village staff member during the hearing, would give the village authority to act when a building is deemed unsafe and create a registry for vacant properties to aid monitoring and redevelopment. The staff member said the proposal was modeled on registries used in Albany and Troy and noted a recent fire in Albany at a vacant property as part of the rationale for the change.
The hearing drew one on‑record public comment. Bill (resident) said he supported the law “for health, social, welfare, public safety, environment, and quality of life reasons,” argued that owners who abandon or poorly maintain properties should bear the cost of remediation rather than taxpayers, and urged the board to pass the law.
Board members asked staff a clarifying question about the emergency powers section of the draft local law and whether it spelled out how owners would be notified before the village acted. Staff located language in the draft describing certified service to owners and confirmed that notice provisions appear in the emergency section.
Following the public hearing and discussion, a board member moved to adopt Local Law No. 1 of 2025 addressing vacant and unsafe buildings; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. The board recorded the motion and its passage during the same meeting.
The board did not specify additional implementing steps in the hearing record beyond the adoption motion on the agenda. Next procedural steps (codification, publication, effective date) were not stated on the record during the hearing portion captured in the transcript.
