Committee backs updating Findlay's dilapidated-structure rule rather than adopting full international maintenance code

Findlay planning staff and the law director presented a proposed rewrite of the city's dilapidated-structure rules (municipal code §521.02) and the Planning and Zoning Committee voted to recommend the revised, locally tailored version rather than adopting the international maintenance code wholesale.

Matt Cardano of Regional Planning told the committee he and staff "looked at what changes will we need to make to 521.02 dilapidated structures to accomplish our goals," and proposed updating the existing municipal section to cover roofs, siding, architectural elements and accessory structures without importing the broader international maintenance code.

Law Director Rob Feitner said the existing §521.02 is mainly used for demolition of blighted structures but can be improved to make enforcement clearer for property owners and staff. He described the revised draft as "more clear, more detailed, more modernized, it's easier for enforcement, it's easier to understand for a property owner to know what's gonna get them in trouble." He and planning staff also discussed limiting unintended effects from a wholesale adoption of the international maintenance code ' for example, clarifying that the city would not require handrails on older South Main Street homes unless a handrail was broken and posed a hazard.

Committee members pressed several enforcement and scope questions: they asked whether the proposed section applies to residential, commercial and industrial properties (the answer was yes), requested explicit language about dead trees and overhanging limbs that create a hazard to sidewalks, and debated whether to keep "boarded or covered" windows and doors in the definition of exterior openings. Cardano and Feitner said they would add language about dead trees and review the boarded-window wording; Feitner also suggested shortening or removing a final paragraph that attempted to incorporate an outside community's cost-recovery language and would instead rely on the Ohio Revised Code authorities.

Feitner explained the enforcement and court remedies available under Ohio Revised Code §715.26 and §715.261, noting those statutes permit municipal inspection and, in certain circumstances, securing or demolishing dangerous structures after notice. He said current practice is case-by-case and that the proposed update should not mandate a fixed administrative timeline; instead, letters in individual cases typically set the response time and remedy schedule. He noted violations under the existing dilapidated-structure section carry minor-misdemeanor penalties and that courts may order abatement. "We're not worried so much about fines," Feitner said; the goal is timely abatement.

Councilman Grant Russell moved to recommend adoption of the revised §521.02 as discussed with the law director's cleanups; Dan DeArmond seconded. The committee voted in favor and asked staff and the law director to prepare legislation for council review.