R’boro eyes vacant building plan

ROSEBORO — A new ordinance to address vacant buildings in downtown went back to the drawing board after town board members expressed uncertainty about the initial proposal presented to them during the Aug. 13 meeting.

The ordinance proposal was presented by NC Lead Fellows Tyler Wise and Anna Rahilly who broke down its design purpose aimed at preserving the downtown area.

“We have worked with our small town Main Street, also looking at other communities throughout North Carolina, that have adopted this ordinance for revitalizing their downtown,” Wise told the board.

“So the purpose of this ordinance is to preserve the historic and aesthetic integrity of downtown Roseboro,” Rahilly added. “Also, to protect the town’s commercial business district, stimulate the local economy, as well as ensure adequate maintenance of building facades and building interiors so as not to appear blighted.”

Wise said the ordinance is one that’s been effectively used to achieve that goal and, if applied for the town of Roseboro it would cover over 20 currently vacant buildings.

“So being in the N.C. Commerce program, we have learned that vacancy is not just a Roseboro problem,” Wise stressed. “We’ve been able to look at ordinances for places such as Warrenton and Kings Mountain who have also started using this ordinance with positive results. So we have 47 buildings in downtown Roseboro, and 21 of them are vacant, and we believe that this ordinance will help to address that issue.”

To solve those issues, the ordinance comes with a set of requirements for property owners to maintain their buildings.

“So for property owners, the requirements would be to register a vacant building or buildings with the town staff, to remain in compliance with maintenance and security, as well as submit a plan of action,” Rahilly explained.

“Some of the maintenance requirements are maintaining or painting the interior and exterior of the buildings,” Wise added. “The areas surrounding the property should be maintained in a way that does not provide evidence of vacancy, and the windows and doors should be intact.

“We are seeing where some communities are allowing for plywood or paper to cover windows,” Wise said. “They’re using it as methods to decorate or as a marketing effort to share event dates and things of that nature. We also wanted to address writing on the buildings, which should be correct, to keep a good aesthetic for downtown, and just the overall mission of no evidence of vacancy.

It was also noted that there were security requirements as well which consist of the property being maintained securely to prevent unauthorized personnel, people and or animals from accessing a property.

“That means broken windows replaced, doors are closed and locked, and windows are not boarded up but actually replaced,” Rahilly said.

The final piece of the ordinance revolved around penalties for failure to comply with the requirements.

“So some of the penalties would be if they failed to initially register their vacant property, $50, and $50 for not doing it annually,” Wise detailed. “It would also be $50 if they fail to submit a plan with how they plan to move forward, whether they’re renting or selling. A failure to implement that plan will be $250 and then a $500 penalty for failure to meet the maintenance or security requirements.”

The penalties section of the ordinance gave the Roseboro board pause and raised a plethora of questions about how the penalties would be applied.

“Here, where it says definition of day, you put consecutive days, how is that defined?,” Commissioner Mark Gupton asked. “I ask because consecutive days versus accumulated days, that’s a very big difference. Because if you say 30 days and all of a sudden they do something, then those consecutive days start over again. So that might be a cycle that you may want to look at.”

Board member Ray Clark raised a question as well.

“So to clarify, say if I got a vacant building and I’m trying to rent it, if it stays vacant for 30 days, according to this ordinance, I need to come to the town hall and register it?” he asked. “I say that because I know sometimes it’s hard to rent something in 30 days. I know you got to put a deadline on it; I just wonder if 30 days is a little quick, but it might not be.”

Suggestions on backing the consecutive days to 60 or 90 before applying the penalty were made but no decision was reached.

Clark asked if the vacancy penalty would impact those who were currently renovating a space but had no occupant in the building within the consecutive days window.

“If they don’t register within that they are fined, but what if somebody moved out of a building and they’re trying to get it fixed, if nobody is in it, is that considered vacant?” Clark said. “What if you’re doing work on it, because again, what if somebody moves out and you’re trying to do renovations, is that considered occupied?”

“Arguably it is considered occupied but I would clarify that,” town attorney Sandy Sanderson interjected.

“Either way, I’m more worried about the ones that are out of compliance,” Clark added.

Sanderson made his own suggestion with how to potentially handle situations involving the penalty based on his readings of the vacancy ordinance, which he noted could bring problems.

“One of the suggestions I had before any vote was made on this, I think, that everybody who’ll be affected by it should be notified,” Sanderson said. “Though this isn’t a zoning ordinance, it’s kind of a semi-ordinance, and so again, I would suggest anybody that’s going to be affected, give them notice. You don’t have to do an official public notice, but give them notice that says, ‘hey, we’re considering this so come here because we want input. ‘

“Your problem is the ones that have the vacant buildings and have not been paying any attention to them, they are not going to come and they are not going to argue. So what you’ll have are the ones operating businesses, and keeping up their businesses, they are going to come and they’re going to be in favor of it.”

There was a bit more tug-of-war into the penalty aspects of the ordinance before Sanderson brought it to a head to discuss solutions, which he noted wasn’t simple to define.

“I mean, we can go back and forth on it but there’s a lot of overlap between this and your nuisance ordinance, in terms of penalties, and the problem on some of that has been the expense,” Sanderson pointed out. “Because when people are not in compliance, us taking the action to enforce it, although it ultimately falls back on these people that are in violation, collecting from them is hard.

“So the town is fronting money in order to enforce the ordinance, and I would see that as an issue here, too. Say if they’ve been having a building downtown that they haven’t maintained for 5 to 10, years, and you give them a $50 civil penalty, because what this is is a civil penalty and not a fine. What you’re likely to see is they’re going to ignore it.

“Then it becomes how and what are we going to do to enforce it?”

Sanderson gave two answers as ways the board could resolve the enforcement, saying, in truth, there really is no easy one.

“With the enforcement, and we talked about this, as one of the things when she (Tyler) was doing the drafting of it, is there’s two ways to do it,” he said. “You can do a criminal fine, and then it goes to criminal court, but then those are assessed by the judge, and they’re paid into the state of North Carolina, not paid into Roseboro.

“Then you can do a civil penalty, which is what we have got here in this ordinance ,and basically you’re saying you owe us $50. If they don’t pay it, then our option is we sue them for the $50 and we put in there that they’re to pay for cost and attorney fees, but then, ultimately, you have to try to collect.

“So, I mean, there’s no easy solution, when you’ve got the vacant buildings, and I commend them, in trying to come up with something to at least help, but again, there are no easy solutions.”

More and more questions were brought up as to defining some of the language in the ordinance, and because of the uncertainties, the board opted to table a decision until the September meeting. And they asked that the proposal be reworked.

“Let’s tweak it and then come back to the board and discuss it again,” Sanderson said. “Then, when the board is all good with it they can put a vote forward on it, this way it gives them time to digest it.”