City solicitor outlines proposed revisions to Bangor's vacant building registration ordinance

City solicitor Dave Stepcak presented proposed revisions to Bangor City's vacant building registration ordinance that would allow limited fee deferrals in some cases, eliminate interim vacant building permits and clarify permit durations and maintenance standards.

The proposal would let property owners defer the registration fee for six months after a fire or other casualty event that renders a home uninhabitable — provided the event was not caused by the owner's criminal act or gross negligence, the owner registers the building as vacant, provides an emergency contact, and remains available to code enforcement. Owners could request one six-month extension if code enforcement determines adequate, good-faith progress is being made; "If the property becomes no longer vacant within that 6 month period, the code enforcement director may waive or reimburse the registration fee to the owner," Stepcak said. For casualty events, that waiver discretion may extend to a year plus an additional 90 days under the proposed language.

A second exception would allow fee deferral when there is an active building permit on file with code enforcement and the owner submits the vacant building registration application and complies with inspection requirements. That exception is intended to cover buyers who purchase properties to renovate and reoccupy them; owners who show adequate work in good faith could request a second six-month extension but the total discretionary deferral is capped at one year under the draft.

Stepcak said the revisions would do away with interim vacant building permits because they proved confusing and impractical to administer. The proposal also explicitly sets a vacant building registration permit to be valid for six months from the date the owner submits a completed application and pays the fee, and updates maintenance standards applied on inspection to focus on preventing trespass and weather-related deterioration while removing requirements code enforcement found redundant or impractical.

Committee members pressed staff on how "good faith" progress would be determined and on the limits of extensions. Councilor Beck asked whether owners who are actively renovating are limited to a single extension or could apply for additional extensions; Stepcak said the proposed system permits a six-month deferral and one six-month extension and that staff intentionally included an upper limit to preserve the ordinance's enforcement purpose. Councilors also sought clarification about the circumstances under which the fee would be waived if a property becomes occupied within specified timeframes; Stepcak pointed to the language that permits waiver or reimbursement when occupancy occurs within the permitted windows.

No formal vote or final action on the ordinance was recorded during the committee discussion. Stepcak asked whether the committee wanted to move the item to the council calendar; the transcript records members discussing the item but does not show a recorded motion or formal vote in committee.

Clarifying details discussed at the meeting include: a six-month initial deferral period for fees, one discretionary six-month extension (totaling up to one year), a possible additional 90-day extension tied to casualty events, permit validity calculated from application/payment, elimination of interim vacant permits, and updated maintenance standards focused on trespass and weather protection.

The revisions are intended to balance effective enforcement to reduce the number of vacant buildings with accommodations for owners actively repairing or restoring properties for occupancy. Staff and the solicitor said the changes aim to make administration clearer and to reduce incentives for property owners to ignore inspection requirements. The committee did not adopt final language during the meeting and no ordinance number or vote tally was recorded.