Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Rehab Downtown topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks investors for downtown building; council grants time to secure roof repairs
Summary
An owner updating the council on the multi‑story downtown property at 217–219 said he cannot transfer legal possession because of liability concerns, has had private funding fall through, and reported that medical records remain stored inside; council voted to give the owner additional time (roughly six months) and asked for periodic updates and an engineer assessment for financing eligibility.
The owner of a multi‑story downtown property at 217–219 told the Plainville City Council he has struggled to secure private funding to replace the roof and stabilize the building, raising both financial and public‑safety concerns.
The owner said he has not taken legal possession because he fears personal liability and that prospective private donors withdrew when promised payables did not materialize. He said some potential funders balked at a $70,000 ask but might consider smaller contributions, and that the building is water‑damaged and filled with items that complicate cleanup. He also reported that ambulance and medical records containing Social Security numbers are stored inside; he said those records have not been properly disposed of and that raises privacy and liability concerns.
City staff described an existing abatement procedure for dangerous structures and said the city’s immediate concern is removing any imminent hazard. Council and the owner discussed sequencing — prioritizing a new roof to stop ongoing water intrusion as the first step — and possible tools to attract investment, including grants and a land‑bank mechanism. The owner said he could not apply for many grants until he had legal occupancy of the building.
Council moved to give the owner additional time (a six‑month extension was discussed in the meeting) to secure funds and coordinate work; the motion passed by voice vote. Council members recommended the owner obtain an engineer’s study and said the city would consider options and follow up with the owner and relevant county contacts regarding tax incentives and land‑banking but emphasized the city’s abatement authority if the property remains an immediate public hazard.
Council and staff agreed that once abatement work related to immediate hazards (for example, securing the roof) is completed to the city’s satisfaction, the city’s abatement action would conclude and the city would step back unless future issues arise.
