Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council issues dangerous‑building order for 102 Pierce Street after inspection finds fire and lead hazards
Summary
Following a code enforcement presentation detailing electrical, structural and lead hazards, the council adopted the findings and order requiring demolition or corrective action at 102 Pierce Street; the motion passed 6‑1 after owner Blackridge Group LLC said it intends to rehabilitate the building.
Lewiston — The City Council adopted an order concluding that the multiunit building at 102 Pierce Street meets the state statute definition of a dangerous building and directed corrective action, after planning and code enforcement presented evidence of pervasive electrical hazards, structural openings and a newly identified lead hazard.
Code enforcement presentation: John Connor, director of planning and code enforcement, summarized inspections documenting exposed and unprotected wiring, ruptured plumbing exposing wiring to water, evidence of prior electrical fires, missing entry doors and holes that eliminate compartmentalization and increase the risk of rapid fire spread. He said the building was vacant and that those conditions create hazards to adjacent properties.
Lead hazard finding: The department entered an additional exhibit indicating a lead‑hazard determination tied to prior abatement and demolition activity; staff said licensed lead abatement contractors will be required if rehabilitation proceeds.
Owner response: A representative for Blackridge Group LLC (identified as Lagu) told councilors the company intends to renovate and estimated the rehab cost at $250,000–$300,000, presented tentative plans and asked the council to allow the owner time to submit permit applications and move forward with a restoration plan.
Council discussion and safeguards: Members debated the mechanics of the order and whether the code enforcement officer should be required to report back before ordering a final demolition. Counsel and councilors proposed requiring a report back or setting the expectation that code enforcement will provide updates; the council's action was framed as granting staff the authority to act if owners do not remediate hazards within the prescribed time frame.
Vote: The council adopted the order (findings of fact, conclusions of law, and corrective action) by a 6‑1 vote. Several councilors emphasized that condemnation authority is a tool to secure remediation but that demolition is a last resort if rehabilitation does not materialize.
