Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Vacant Properties topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables proposed vacant-and-at-risk property registry after realtor, council questions
Summary
Staff proposed replacing the city's abandoned-property chapter with a vacant-and-at-risk registry to track long-term vacant properties, require registration and inspections, and assess fees; the committee tabled the bill for amendments after public and council concerns about the definition of 'vacant,' fee burden and appeal timing.
Miss Kistler and other planning staff presented Bill 33, a proposal to repeal the city's abandoned real property chapter and adopt a vacant-and-at-risk property chapter to establish a registry, mandatory contact information, inspections and an annual registration fee. Staff said the registry is intended to help first responders and code-enforcement staff identify vacant parcels and to serve as an early step toward blight remediation where needed.
Miss Kistler described the registry’s purpose: to perform investigative steps before labeling a property vacant (checking mail accumulation, neighbor reports, property activity, and making contact attempts), list contact information for owners or managers, require a light or other vacancy-mitigation measures, and charge a fee tied to the administrative work of maintaining the registry and performing periodic inspections. "We're looking to address from that moment on putting this property into a registry," she said, adding that the registry will allow police, fire and code officials to know who to contact.
Staff explained an "at-risk" designation historically grew out of mortgage-foreclosure reporting; banks already notify the city in some cases. The registry would be managed in the city’s EnerGov permitting system and flagged on parcels so staff can see a property's status when looking it up. Staff said the registry is intended as a precursor to the blight process: if a property remains on the list for a year and remains vacant, it could become a candidate for the blight process, which includes stricter enforcement options.
Several council members and public commenters raised concerns. Council members asked that the ordinance treat residential and commercial properties differently, questioned whether fees could be burdensome for homeowners, and urged clearer, objective criteria so enforcement officers apply the rule consistently. Asher Chavone, representing the Greater Lehigh Valley Realtor Association, asked for clearer objective criteria for 'vacant' and suggested extending the 10-day appeal window and including hardship provisions; he cautioned that once the law is in place it can be hard to reopen.
Staff responded that the ordinance is amendable and that they will draft hardship provisions, consider a simple checklist to guide enforcement and explore delaying referral to the May council meeting to give more time for revisions. A council member moved to table the bill pending administration-prepared amendments and additional committee review; the motion was seconded and the committee voted to table with the intent to bring a revised version to a future CED meeting and to target the first June council meeting for consideration.
