House at 133 Woodbury needs a vacant building permit. Property is required to be maintained by owner even if vacant. If owner is negligent, city can do the required maintenance and fine the owner.

Please update us regarding applicability of the Vacant Building ordinance in this case, and action taken. Burlington CE had history of not enforcing vacant building permit requirements, but I'm told they are serious about it now.

Follow up, please.

I was there this morning and met with the family member who was there working on his car. He is not a squatter but the son of the listed owner of the property. He was sitting in the blue chair in the front lawn when I arrived. He said his mower was broken so he did the best he could with the weed whacker to trim the front lawn.

The property is actively being marketed for sale.

You can contact me directly if you have concerns about the son being there.

I can be reached at 865-7510.

133 Woodbury is unoccupied, and looks deceiving on the outside. It is not livable on the inside. It definitely needs a vacant building permit. The son does not live there.

Building is vacant, needs permit.

In the case of this property, the loophole in the ordinance is "actively being marketed." Bill Ward reported back that the property is being actively marketed, so that gives the owner a waiver on the permit. But there is more to it than that. Don't give up!

Probably the assumption behind the loophole is that an owner who is actively marketing a property will keep it looking attractive so it will sell. A property that is a neglected dump is NOT being seriously marketed. And a person washing a car in the driveway does not define occupancy. The property needs to be condemned if it is uninhabitable.

The object of the vacant building permit is to keep an unoccupied building from becoming a blight on a neighborhood, a fire hazard, and a magnet for criminal activity or illegal occupancy. The owner is required to secure and maintain the property -- keep yard clear of brush and trash for example. The permit fee covers the cost of the Code Enforcement staff monitoring the property for compliance.

Consult with City Attorney Bergman. He wrote the ordinance, and he can advise you -- he works for you! Active marketing is more than putting a sign in the lawn or claiming it on a waiver request. Even if the property passes the active marketing test, it has to be secured and maintained. Read the ordinance (it is at the website below, scroll down right hand column). Call Attorney Bergman. Get the most updated version of the ordinance. Don't give up.

This blog has neighborhood history, and might give you some ideas: http://dangerpool.blogspot.com/ Remember blogs have the last post first, so to follow the process you have to start at the first post.

"...structures that are vacant, abandoned, and in disrepair, the Burlington City Council finds and declares that:
(1) Structures that become dangerous and unsafe must promptly be made safe and secure to protect the public safety.
(2) Structures that are vacant and not properly secured are dangerous and unsafe in that they are extremely vulnerable to being set on fire by unauthorized persons.
(3) Many structures that are vacant, whether secured or not, are a blight on their neighborhoods, cause deterioration and instability in their neighborhoods, and have an adverse impact upon adjacent and nearby properties......

Issue acknowledged.

This property was marketed and sold. the new owner is doing a fair amount of permitted work on this property.
Issue closed.