Petoskey council debates vacant‑building registration rules; first reading yields changes on timing and inspections

Petoskey City Council opened a first reading on a proposed ordinance to register and regulate vacant buildings, focusing debate on when a building becomes “vacant,” inspection timelines, exemptions and enforcement pathways.

The draft ordinance would require the owner of a building vacant for a designated consecutive period to register the property with the city’s code enforcement officer. "It won't be voluntary," the city manager said during the discussion, describing registration as a tool to allow the city to monitor and address vacant properties.

Council members pressed staff and legal counsel on several key points: the number of consecutive days that should trigger registration, how long owners would have to file a registration, what counts as an exemption, and how quickly the city could require a vacant property to be secured.

Councilmember Moore asked whether 90 days in the draft was too long and proposed shortening it; several members agreed. By council consensus during the session the panel asked staff to revise the draft to require registration after 60 consecutive days of vacancy and to retain a 14‑day window for owners to submit a registration after that trigger. Council also asked that staff propose a uniform renewal period; the draft currently starts the renewal clock from the date of registration and sets the registration to be valid for 365 days.

The council also discussed inspection and enforcement timing. Staff and public‑safety representatives recommended that a building be inspected within a defined period after registration; code enforcement asked for realistic time to schedule an inspection, and council directed staff to use 30 days as a target window for the initial inspection after registration. On emergency securing of open doors or broken windows, the council reached consensus that the ordinance should require prompt action and set 24 hours as the operational standard for securing an at‑risk vacancy (with discretion for code enforcement in complex cases).

Exemptions drew lengthy discussion. The draft includes exemptions for units temporarily unoccupied, properties actively under construction, buildings listed for sale and multi‑tenant buildings with active operations. Several council members and staff warned that a broadly written temporary‑absence exemption could be used to avoid registration—producing a long list of seasonal vacation homes and routine vacancies that are not the council’s enforcement target. Council directed legal staff to craft narrower exemption language (for example, tying some exemptions to demonstrable ongoing maintenance, significant continuous construction progress, or defined occupancy thresholds for multi‑tenant properties) so the ordinance targets properties that harm community welfare.

Council and staff discussed fees, exemptions procedure and the administrative burden of tracking registrations and renewals; staff noted the city currently manages several registration programs and is exploring software assistance to track renewals and inspection schedules.

The ordinance discussion was framed as a first reading and policy cleanup; no adoption or formal vote on the ordinance occurred. City staff and the city attorney will return with revised ordinance language reflecting the council’s direction—notably: change the registration trigger to 60 consecutive days; keep a 14‑day registration deadline after the trigger; target an initial inspection within 30 days of registration; and add clearer, narrower exemption criteria and a defined upkeep/maintenance standard for active construction work and multi‑tenant properties.

The council emphasized it wants the ordinance to focus on properties that create public‑safety, health or blight risks rather than require routine registration for seasonal or well‑maintained second homes. Staff said they will bring revised draft language and suggested administrative procedures back to the council for further review.