Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hagerstown staff propose new abatement rules for nuisance pools and abandoned vehicles
Summary
City staff outlined draft changes to the property maintenance code to speed removal or remediation of unused pools and to create a separate nuisance ordinance for abandoned or inoperable vehicles, including timelines, permit extensions and towing/sale procedures.
City staff told the Hagerstown City Council at its Feb. 4 work session they will bring draft ordinance language to allow the city to more quickly abate nuisance pools and to adopt a separate nuisance-vehicle ordinance.
Staff said the proposed pool changes would let the city declare a pool a nuisance if it is unused for a defined period, require safety measures for pools left unused for 30 days, and treat a pool that is unused for two consecutive summer seasons as “abandoned” and subject to removal. The city would retain the ability to drain pools considered a nuisance before reaching the abandoned threshold.
The change is intended to speed responses for neighbors who report pools that have become health or nuisance problems. Emily McFarland, who handles abatement, said the city currently issues about 20 notices a year related to pools and about 65 notices a year for untagged or abandoned vehicles. She described the current enforcement path: “When we issue a notice, we don’t have any authority to abate without the courts…you have to get in front of a judge, which can be 3 to 4 months.”
On vehicles, staff described a separate nuisance ordinance that would allow immediate removal for imminent hazards and faster abatement for nonhazardous but long‑term parked or dismantled vehicles. Under the draft framework staff discussed: a vehicle that is untagged for 30 days, dismantled or otherwise inoperable (for example, failing Maryland inspection or missing essential parts) could be treated as an abandoned nuisance; the city would give 30 days for corrective action in many cases; a $75 administrative permit could extend a 30‑day period for up to six months (one extension per five‑year period for a single vehicle).
Staff explained towing, storage and sale procedures: if a properly noticed vehicle is taken into custody and not redeemed, the ordinance would allow sale after set time periods; proceeds would first cover city expenses and any remainder would go to the general fund. Staff said owners could redeem vehicles up to the point of sale and that, if sale proceeds do not cover costs, the property owner could receive a bill for the shortfall.
Council members emphasized speed and transparency for residents. Councilman [unnamed in transcript] said residents “don’t want to hear…we’re waiting on a court date” and asked for a more timely process; staff noted court scheduling constraints and current efforts to secure more regular code‑enforcement court dates.
Staff said they researched other jurisdictions and found pool‑abatement programs in Maryland and examples of vehicle nuisance ordinances in several jurisdictions including Allegheny County, Cumberland, Salisbury and others; they plan to bring the ordinance language to a future regular session for introduction if council is agreeable.
The council did not take a formal vote at the work session; staff were directed to prepare ordinance language for introduction at a regular meeting.
