Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Barrett Township residents urge narrower language, pause on penalties in proposed property‑maintenance ordinance
Summary
Residents at the Barrett Township Board meeting pressed supervisors to narrow a draft property‑maintenance ordinance, raising concerns about broad vacant‑property registration, steep daily penalties, vague nuisance language and vehicle‑storage rules. The board voted to advertise a revised draft and set a public special meeting for May 28 to review the ordinance line‑by‑line.
Residents packed the Barrett Township supervisors meeting to press the board for clearer limits on a proposed property‑maintenance ordinance that would create a vacant‑property registry, annual fees and daily penalties.
Philip Tomy, who identified himself as “a resident and property owner here in Barrett Township,” told supervisors the ordinance’s vacant property registration is “overly broad,” warning it could apply to unimproved land, woodlots or seasonal properties. He said the draft imposes a $300 annual fee and a $100 daily penalty for failure to register and asked the board to “slow this process down, seek additional public input, clarify vague language, and reconsider sections involving vacant land registration, nuisance definitions, vehicle restrictions, inspection authority, and escalating penalties.”
Nicole Presman, who gave her address during public comment, said she “appreciate[s] the efforts” to address dangerous or neglected properties but that the ordinance “extends far beyond simple property upkeep” and includes enforcement mechanisms—courts, fees, inspections and ongoing obligations—that could disproportionately affect seniors and lower‑income residents if the language is not tightened.
Michelle Cec raised questions about several definitions in the draft, including the weeds and blight provisions. Noting the dandelion example used in the draft’s plant list, she said she “decided to do a little research” and urged the board to adopt standards that reflect common community norms rather than subjective aesthetics.
Former code‑enforcement professional David Fad said he supports enforcement focused on safety, but argued the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) used as the draft’s skeleton must be adapted to local conditions. “This is not the place for the IPMC per se without strict modifications,” he said, while warning that poorly written code can be used as leverage between neighbors.
Why it matters: The draft would give the township new inspection and abatement powers and authorize fees and liens that residents said need clearer legal grounding and guardrails. Several speakers urged the board to consider incentive‑based revitalization—façade grants, rehabilitation loans or occupancy partnerships—alongside enforcement tools.
Board action and next steps: The board clarified that advertising a draft does not equal adoption. By motion and second, supervisors voted to advertise a draft of Chapter 375 (property maintenance) for public review and to hold a special advertised meeting on May 28 at 6:30 p.m. for a line‑by‑line public workshop. The board emphasized revisions may follow based on public input; advertising the draft starts the formal public notice and comment process.
What remains unresolved: Residents asked for clearer definitions of “nuisance,” “inoperable vehicle,” and “vacant property,” and for justification of fee and penalty legal authority. The board did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting; the May 28 special meeting will be the next formal public opportunity for comment and revision.
