Planning Commission debates dangerous‑building enforcement and agrees to workshop on priority zones

Planning commissioners spent most of the May 26 meeting discussing how Green River should use its dangerous‑building and nuisance codes to address a stock of aging and unsafe structures and how enforcement should be targeted.

Staff circulated the adopted uniform code for abatement of dangerous buildings and noted it could be used for enforcement. "It comes with a coffee spill automatically, so you're ready to go," staff observed, referring to a printed template from the health department. Commissioners and participants repeatedly cautioned that the uniform code’s definitions are broad and could affect many storefronts and buildings if applied without care.

A participant raised concern that starting enforcement only along Broadway could look like selective targeting of certain business owners and urged a townwide, equitable approach. "If you start with Broadway and you ignore those other buildings, you're gonna have a huge unhappy community," the participant said, urging that letters and notices be sent to all property owners rather than only one corridor.

Commissioners discussed alternatives. One commissioner proposed a transparent, timeboxed priority-zone system: designate priority zone 1 (Main Street/Broadway) for a fixed time window, then rotate enforcement through zones so every property owner knows when their area will be addressed. "Priority zone 1, Main Street... this is happening from week X to week Y," the member said, arguing a phased pilot can both demonstrate results and signal a townwide plan.

Commissioners compared approaches used elsewhere. The body discussed Salt Lake City's "green ordinance" that requires repairs within 10 days for certain vacant-building defects and charges escalating annual fees starting at $3,000 for residential properties and $6,000 for commercial properties; several commissioners said the scale of Salt Lake is not comparable to Green River and recommended benchmarking against a similarly sized municipality.

Other practical barriers arose in the meeting: demolition and hauling costs, limited transfer-station capacity, and the fact that many problem properties are owned out of town. Staff reported the city issued an RFP to operate a transfer station and that previous council discussion called for a $500,000 bond from any operator; the RFP had not closed and no awarded operator was reported.

The commission agreed to schedule a working meeting (a workshop proposed for the following month) to review the code language, discuss enforcement schedules and zone designations, and invite city council members to provide direction. Staff said they would circulate materials in advance to enable a focused workshop rather than prolonged discussion at a regular meeting.

The discussion generated no immediate ordinances or fee changes at the meeting; commissioners instructed staff to return with comparative examples, operational cost estimates for demolition/disposal and draft language for a boarding/abatement policy for further review.