Chesterton Tribune

 

 

Vacant and abandoned building ordinance still under the knife

Back To Front Page

 

By KEVIN NEVERS

A proposed ordinance which would require the owners of vacant and abandoned buildings to register their properties with the town--under certain conditions--will remain an “Old Business” item on the Chesterton Town Council’s agenda, after members agreed at their meeting Monday night to leave it in Town Attorney Chuck Lukmann’s hands for further revision.

“It’s a work-in-progress,” remarked Member Jim Ton, R-1st, who broached the subject of such an ordinance in the first place. “We’re working with Attorney Lukmann right now and we’re looking at making the ordinance more responsive to state parameters.”

Ton, noting that the first iteration of the ordinance was based on that enacted by another town, added that a more customized document taking “full advantage” of the measures authorized by Indiana Code, would serve the town better than the “cookie-cutter approach.”

“I think we can make it tighter,” Lukmann said, for his part. “I think we can make it a better ordinance. I think we can make it more enforceable. I want to give you an ordinance which will take 100-percent advantage of the enabling authority.”

How exactly a revised ordinance would differ from the one which Lukmann originally prepared for the council isn’t clear. That first version would require the owner of an abandoned building to register with the town, “abandoned” being defined as follows: one that’s been vacant for at least 90 days, is in violation of the town’s unsafe building ordinance, has been issued a remediation order, and has been in non-compliance with that order for at least 30 days.

Registry would involve, among other things, the owner’s appointing a property manager who lives in or near town, providing various pieces of information about the ownership and insuring of the building, and filing a plan for maintenance and remediation.

“We’re not looking at someone who’s selling a house and has moved to another house but is still maintaining the property,” Ton said. “We’re looking at people who walk away from something and stop taking care of the property.”

Member Emerson DeLaney, R-5th, did suggest that he wouldn’t be prepared at the council’s next meeting, Monday, Sept. 14, actually to take action on any new version of the ordinance but would want time to review it.

Ton was unhappy to hear that, voiced his desire to get the revision--whatever it might look like--passed on Sept. 14, and told DeLaney that, as always, members will be receiving the document in their packets on the Thursday before the meeting, in plenty of time for them to digest and consider it.

Clerk-Treasurer Stephanie Kuziela said after the meeting that she will similarly make a copy of the revision available to the Chesterton Tribune, in time for the Trib to preview the document in the Friday, Sept. 11, edition, so that the public also has a chance to see what members might be voting on.

Earlier in the meeting, Pat Carlisle from the floor expressed her gratitude to the council for making a vacant and abandoned building ordinance a priority. “We’re very, very, very pleased to see you moving ahead on this,” she said.

Accepting the Gateway Blvd. Extensions

In other business, and by unanimous votes, members accepted as new public rights-of-way the dual extensions of Gateway Blvd. constructed east of Village Point by the Lake Erie Land Company and Urschel Laboratories Inc.

In fact, the two extensions together comprise a single continuous stretch of road leading from the intersection of Village Point to the bridge over Coffee Creek and then further east to the traffic circle, on the far side of which it becomes a private drive owned by Urschel.

Lake Erie Land built at its own expense the stretch from Village Point to the bridge, while Urschel built the bridge itself and the stretch of roadway east of it. The town accepted the whole of the extended Gateway Blvd. with the exception of the bridge, which Porter County, through its Highway Department, must accept, the Highway Department having jurisdiction over it.

As a condition of acceptance, Lake Erie Land and Urschel must provide the town with a two-year maintenance bond equivalent to 25 percent of the total construction cost of their respective bits of roadway. For Urschel, that amounts to a bond of around $97,000.

Lake Erie Land has not formally submitted its construction cost yet and so members made their acceptance of its stretch of roadway contingent on the calculation of that cost and the receipt of a bond in the correct amount.

 

 

 

Posted 8.26.2015

 
 
 
 

 

 

Search This Site:

Custom Search