Maintenance ordinance questioned

WEST PARIS — An ordinance which aims at protecting public health, public safety, property values and preventing nuisance conditions, was questioned by residents at a February 28 public hearing (and defeated by voters at town meeting March 2). 

Six residents attended the hearing last Thursday. 

Drafted by the town's planning board, the property maintenance ordinance is modeled after an ordinance passed in Woodstock, selectmen said.

The ordinance was first discussed by selectmen more than a year ago after a resident, Ted Jones, who attended last Thursday's hearing, requested the town closely regulate the maintenance of town properties. 

"I don't think we are asking a great deal," Jones said last Thursday. "Just for them to not have their yards filled with junk." 

"I don't want to be the bad guy," he said, "but at the same time, the government is already defacing our properties everyday, monetarily.

"There's a lot of beauty in the homes of this town, especially along the main drag," he said. 

According to the ordinance, "All grounds or parts thereof shall be maintained to prevent unsafe, unsanitary and/or nuisance conditions ... and to avoid any adverse affect on the value of adjoining properties." 

"The grounds of any property shall be kept in good repair and free of unsafe or unsanitary conditions." 

Examples of conditions addressed by the ordinance include household trash, refuse or human waste, and other non-natural materials like metals, plastics, batteries, tires, appliances and furniture. 

"Do we really need something like this?" asked resident Nick DiConzo. "It reads like something that should be in a gated community." 

DiConzo worried passing an ordinance so stringent could make the town liable for lawsuits. He estimated that about 40 percent of the properties in West Paris were already in violation of the ordinance. 

Selectman Wade Rainey agreed, estimating that enforcing the ordinance on the majority of those properties could result in legal action.

DiConzo said he knew of a few local property owners who can't even afford to clean up their properties, let alone court fees. 

"Rather than hauling them all into court, put a volunteer group together and help them out," DiConzo suggested. 

Rainey pointed out that one person's definition of "junk" could be entirely different from the next person's. He said it would be up to the town's code enforcement officer to make the determination. 

"We first need to figure out what is 'junk' and what isn't," Selectman Dennis Henderson said. 

Jones added that an extension of up to 180 days, should the CEO find a property in violation, is more than enough time for anyone to bring their property into compliance. "That's six months," he said.

"I haven't seen this town take a hard approach on anything," said resident Kenneth Poland.

He pointed out that a home that burned in a fire three years ago on Route 26 in West Paris is not only an eyesore but a safety violation that has yet to be addressed by either the resident or selectmen. 

Resident Peter Collette asked whether the town could put a lien on the building. Town Manager John White answered that a lien can only be placed on it if it falls under the dangerous building statute, which "it may or may not." 

"There's a lot of ways to do things without it costing a lot of money," Poland said. 

"It's going to cost the town money no matter what we do," Collette said. 

"All it [the ordinance] is asking for here is an attempt," Jones added. 

DiConzo said his biggest gripe with the ordinance is the term "nuisance condition." From his perspective, the designation meant his chicken coop might be in violation.

He asked why the town needed its own ordinance if state statute already addresses dangerous buildings and said the town's CEO already has enough on his plate. 

Selectmen said they merely intended to encourage residents to keep their properties clean by passing the ordinance.

"It's opening up Pandora's Box, I feel," DiConzo said.