Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews rewrite of vacant-structures ordinance, debates 90-day vacancy threshold and appeals process
Summary
The Charles Town Ordinance Committee reviewed a draft vacant-structures ordinance that tightens definitions, proposes a tiered fee for poorly maintained buildings and outlines a condensed appeals timeline; members debated a 90-day utility threshold and whether to treat commercial and residential properties differently.
Stephanie, a city staff member who drafted the ordinance language, presented a partial rewrite of the vacant-structures ordinance and walked the committee through purpose, definitions, fee placeholders and an appellate process.
She said the draft aims to consolidate existing procedures, justify fees (including a placeholder $100 per-staff-time figure for code-enforcement work) and create a tiered structure that distinguishes properties in good repair from those that are not. "The intent of this article ... is to streamline and consolidate the existing procedure," she said, adding that the goal is to keep vacant buildings weather-tight, secure and safe for emergency responders.
Committee members examined the proposed definitions for "occupied" and "vacant." Stephanie listed evidence the city would use to determine occupancy (regular mail delivery, continuous utilities, business license, tax statements, pre-rental inspection). She proposed defining a vacant building to include properties without continuous water, sewer, electric or gas service for a period exceeding 90 days. Members debated whether 90 days is appropriate and whether commercial buildings should have a shorter threshold (e.g., 30 days) while residential properties have a longer one; they also discussed remodel exceptions.
On appeals, Stephanie suggested shortening the time to file an appeal to 10 days and scheduling a hearing within a set period (committee discussed 30–60 days and a 60-day cap on scheduling). The committee agreed the burden of proof should be on the property owner to show the determination was incorrect, and that determinations are typically stayed pending appeal.
Committee members also reviewed CTAB'generated utility/account reports that flagged accounts with no measured usage for long periods; staff described how code enforcement would follow up and confirm whether an account represents a genuinely vacant property.
Next steps: staff will continue drafting the ordinance wording, add code references and placeholders will be replaced with actual cost estimates after consulting code enforcement; the committee will return the revised draft for additional review before referral to council.
