by Geoff Fox
Former mayor Dan Murphy approached town officials during the October town meeting asking for updates on where things stand regarding two blighted properties in town.
Murphy said he was concerned about the look of the town and some of the issues that keep being talked about. There are people doing good things in town and taking care of their properties.
It’s an issue Murphy has touched upon a few times in the past.
He noted the town no longer puts “old business” as an agenda item for the monthly meetings and suggested there’s enough old business for the town to address.
“That becomes like the titular file, I think, keeps you guys from being criticized because people say, ‘Well they’re not doing anything on that.’ Well, I don’t believe you’re not doing anything on that,” he said.
Murphy added the people don’t hear about those issues and they should with some regularity, so encouraged officials to add that unfinished business to the agenda so they can speak to the public about those issues.
This led to him asking about the properties on Main Street and High Street in court.
Mayor Roland Lanehart told Murphy they had just had a court date a couple days prior to the meeting.
Town Manager Michael Faith said it was the second hearing with Town Attorney Edward Kuczynski saying there hadn’t been a town meeting since they had been in court.
Kuczynski said the town is continuing to work with engineers to remedy the problem.
The trial, he said was postponed another 30 days. According to Maryland Case Search and online court documents, that date is set for November 10.
He said the owner of the Main Street property, Kenneth Apple, has a structural engineer “dragging his feet” and has another engineer lighting a fire under the structural engineer to get plans submitted to begin work doing the needed repairs.
Kuczynski said Apple also alluded to the fact he might have a person interested in buying the property.
In the case of the other property on High Street owned by Jordan Butts, Kuczynski said there’s a contractor lined up who was going to apply for building permits to make repairs. According to Councilman David Kerns, those permits hadn’t been applied for as of a week prior to the meeting.
“So, we’ll see where he is in 30 days,” Kuczynski said.
He did say Butts was looking to obtain permits that would allow him to stabilize the property and start working on the house instead of tearing it down.
As long as the town is getting some cooperation toward remedying the problems, Kuczynski said the town would continue to work with both owners.
If that doesn’t happen, the town would prosecute and continue to issue citations until there is compliance.
“With code enforcement, it’s about getting people to do things,” he said.
Kuczynski said they could easily say they’ll pay the $1,000 fine, but the town would have to charge them again and keep coming back at it.
“We’ve not reached a point on either property where they have just not done anything,” he said. “It’ll feel like the progress is slow, but we’re making some progress.”
Faith said the citations are still active and the judge gave both owners 60 days at the first court date, but this most recent date, the judge gave an additional 30 days.
“I can’t imagine there’s another argument for another continuance with that judge,” Faith said.
Faith did tell Murphy he’d talked to Butts, who had cleaned up the yard of his property, and told him there’s someone living in the garage.
Since Butts hadn’t applied for a permit yet, Faith suggested at the end of 30 days, the town hire someone to tear down the house and put a lien on the property.
He also spoke to Apple’s engineer and told him they need answers because they keep getting questions about the building.
Faith said Apple’s engineer told him they were going to make a site visit and submit plans. The permit had expired but Faith gave them another zoning permit.
Murphy said there was chatter around town about the way the town was handling things. He said he didn’t want town officials being victims of that kind of talk.
“This is ridiculous. We’re not a victim. We are in control of what’s going on,” a frustrated Kuczynski said.
The continuance, he said, were because the owners were demonstrating some kind of effort of movement to fix the properties.
“That doesn’t make us a victim,” Kuczynski said. “This is a civil enforcement situation.”
The point is, Kuczynski said, is to keep the burden off the back of the taxpayers and on the property owners.
Kuczynski said there hasn’t been inaction, but Murphy countered it just needs to be explained to the public.
Murphy also asked if town officials had made a list of other properties that fit the criteria of dilapidated properties in need of action.
Kuczynski said these cases have become test cases with Lanehart adding the county has never had to deal with cases like these before.
Kuczynski said Hagerstown doesn’t get as aggressive as Hancock has and they have an aggressive property maintenance program.
Lanehart said the town knows several that are on the list and once they get through these two cases, both the town and county will know more about what to do.
