Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Buckfield select board debates wording and enforcement of new property maintenance ordinance
Summary
Board members and residents discussed community feedback on the recently enacted property maintenance ordinance, focusing on language about grass length, enforcement procedure (complaint-driven, 14-day remediation window), potential legal costs for demolition, and plans to place ordinance language on the next meeting agenda for further review.
Town of Buckfield Select Board members spent a substantial portion of their July 7 meeting reviewing community concerns about the town’s recently enacted property maintenance ordinance and how it will be enforced.
A committee member said residents generally welcome an ordinance but worry some wording may be too restrictive — for example, provisions about lawn length. “Perhaps that’s more restrictive than we want it to be,” the committee member said, urging the board to clarify language so the measure targets public-health or safety risks rather than ordinary lawn appearance.
Staff member explained the ordinance is complaint-driven rather than the code enforcement officer proactively inspecting properties. The staff member described the enforcement steps: the officer will visit addresses with multiple complaints, offer the owner an opportunity to remediate, and allow time for compliance before escalating. “So Manny walks over to Tilton’s, and he meets with you, and he says, hey, you’re in violation. You need to cut your grass. You’ve got 14 days to cut the grass after that,” the staff member said. The staff member also referenced a monetary penalty in the ordinance when compliance is not met.
Board members emphasized the ordinance is intended as a tool to address public-health and safety concerns — for example, vegetation that harbors rodents or peeling paint that could become a hazard — not to punish ordinary property appearance. The committee member and another board member encouraged use of a flexible, reasoned enforcement approach and said the code enforcement officer has discretion to grant extensions for residents who face hardship.
During public comment, resident Judy raised a decades-old concern about a vacant, deteriorating house on Buck Hill Road and asked what the town can do about it. Staff member and committee members instructed Judy to submit a complaint to the code enforcement officer to begin the formal process; they also noted that condemnation or demolition would carry legal and disposal costs that the town would need to address in budgeting if pursued.
The board agreed to add discussion of ordinance language to the next Select Board meeting agenda to gather more public input at the meeting that follows the July 21 public hearing. The board encouraged residents to submit written comments or speak at the upcoming meeting.
