Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances nuisance-property ordinance to second reading after extended debate
Summary
After a lengthy first-reading discussion, council voted to move a proposed nuisance-property ordinance — which would allow enforcement after three citations in 90 days and could include revoking certificates of occupancy — to a second reading for further refinement.
The Barre City Council voted to advance a draft nuisance-property ordinance to a second reading after more than an hour of questions and amendments from councilors. City Manager Nicholas presented the draft and said the proposal is modeled on Saint Albans and “applies to any property,” adding that the code enforcement team would first seek a collaborative nuisance abatement plan before escalating to a hearing.
The ordinance would define a public nuisance to include three or more criminal citations or civil-code violations within a 90-day period and would allow the city to require abatement measures, such as repairs, lighting or cameras, and — in rental or commercial cases — could direct revocation of a certificate of occupancy if problems persist. The draft exempts citations tied to domestic violence, child-neglect and stalking to avoid deterring reporting. Nicholas told council the code enforcement team and police would work together on implementation and that the city attorney had advised against language encouraging evictions.
Councilors raised several concerns about tenant protections and how the ordinance would apply to large multiunit properties. One councilor warned, “I would hate to see the tenant not be involved in the fix or not involved in the conversation,” arguing tenants should have early notice and an opportunity to participate in remediation plans. Council members asked staff to clarify definitions (property vs. unit), thresholds for multiunit buildings such as housing authority sites, procedural rules for quasi‑judicial hearings, timelines for issuing decisions after hearings, subpoena authority and safeguards so residents will still call emergency services when needed.
City staff said many of those issues will be addressed before the second reading: they will revisit the definition of “unit” versus “property” for large developments, check Saint Albans’ experience for how hearings were used in practice, add clearer procedural timelines, and run proposed changes by the city attorney. The motion to move the ordinance to a second reading carried by voice vote. The council and staff agreed to return with a revised draft that clarifies tenant involvement, procedural rules for hearings and thresholds for multiunit dwellings.
