Town of Big Flats

BIG FLATS TAKES AIM AT VACANT BUILDINGS:

The town of Big Flats will try again in the coming months to revive a controversial local law regarding vacant buildings -- but this time other towns will be watching the outcome.

The Town Board in late August was set to vote on a package of zoning law changes designed to implement the town's comprehensive master plan. But the town withdrew the proposals following stiff opposition by residents, business interests and property owners.

One of the provisions that drew the most heat was a proposed law that would give the town the authority to demolish any property that stood vacant for two years.

In response to sharp criticism, the town formed a committee to re-examine the vacant structures law, and find ways to make it more palatable. That committee is expected to wrap up its work and return to the board with recommendations as early as next month.

Southern Tier Economic Growth President George Miner, one of the most outspoken critics of the vacant structures proposal, said the new version will offer more exact definitions.

"There are buildings that are vacant that aren't abandoned. Their taxes are paid, their upkeep is maintained, they are actively marketed. That was a primary concern," said Miner, a committee member.

"If a building is abandoned, not being kept up, lawns not mowed, broken windows, things associated with nuisance building, taxes delinquent, they are looking to have some legal steps they can take, but also steps to provide services to that property owner to try to get building more marketable."

The proposed changes would establish certain guidelines that assessors and code enforcement officers would monitor once a building becomes vacant, Miner said.

Article 19-A of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law already allows a municipality to seize abandoned dwellings under certain conditions, in some cases even if the building is still occupied. A vacant dwelling is considered abandoned if it is not sealed or continuously guarded and either (a) the code enforcement officer has issued an order prohibiting occupancy of the dwelling, or (b) property taxes on the premises have gone unpaid for a period of at least one year. After some initial steps, the process requires the Town to obtain a court order to vest title in the municipality. The statute apparently is not often used, I suspect because it doesn't permit the municipality to levy and assess demolition costs against the property (i.e. its own property).