Morristown presses for law to address downtown eyesores

Now, town officials have no legal recourse for addressing such eyesores. While the town government could adopt an ordinance to force property owners to fix and maintain their buildings, there would be no way to enforce it under state law.

“Ordinances must have a basis in state statute,” said town Administrator Dan Lindley. “We are creatures of the state. We can only do what the state allows us to.”

Town officials are asking the Vermont Legislature to change things, so eyesore ordinances would have teeth.

Lindley will present a working draft of the proposed enabling legislation to Morristown’s state representatives within a few weeks.

“We’re one of over 100 designated downtowns and we think this would be an important tool,” Lindley said. “Everyone in the state has said that investing in and revitalizing our downtowns is a priority.”

Preserving character

Morrisville village is among more than 100 downtowns and village centers officially recognized by the Vermont Downtown Program.

Those downtowns receive priority for state funding, increased Act 250 thresholds, and tax credits to promote revitalization.

If enacted, a town eyesore ordinance would address only buildings within the designated downtown — the area along Main and Portland streets.

It wouldn’t affect buildings and barns in outlying areas, Lindley said.

The select board would work out the details. Such a law could impose municipal fines on delinquent properties, or force property owners to apply for tax credits available for renovation of downtown buildings.

Town officials frequently field complaints about downtown buildings that have fallen into disrepair, Lindley said.

They also worry about whether certain buildings fail to meet state safety codes, but the law doesn’t allow a town to order a safety inspection if a building is unoccupied.

The goal of an eyesore ordinance would be to preserve the character of Morrisville’s historic downtown and to make sure that no building stands out from the rest as a distraction.

“Ideally, you would look out at the buildings and see an equal level of appearance up and down the street,” Lindley said. “There would be nothing out of character, from Caplan’s to the Bijou.”

Stowe

Dilapidated buildings haven’t been a big issue in Stowe, said town Planner Tom Jackman.

Having old barns and buildings scattered throughout the town is just part of living in Vermont, Jackman said.

Select board members “don’t want to go in the direction of trying to force people to maintain their property, because generally things fall into disrepair when people don’t have the money to fix them,” Jackman said.

For instance, over the years, Stowe officials have fielded citizen complaints about a former creamery building on the corner of Goldbrook Road and Route 100.

The building has been slowly falling apart for decades and appears to be close to collapsing. Its owner, who lives in Johnson, has told town officials he doesn’t have the money to fix it or tear it down.

“As a general rule, under state law, just because a building is going to fall down doesn’t make it a public health hazard,” said Rich Baker, Stowe’s zoning administrator.

Concerns about the possibility of children playing in the building and getting hurt don’t make it a safety hazard under state law, either, Baker said.

Some towns have property-standards ordinances that require owners of dilapidated buildings to seal them up; Stowe does not.

In the end, the town won’t have to take action. The Vermont Department of Transportation will tear down the creamery when it replaces a bridge at the intersection in 2013 or 2014.