City Stymied By Blight
The controversy over neglected and deteriorating buildings is nothing new to downtown Frederick, but Mayor Randy McClement’s administration has come under particular scrutiny as residents grow more frustrated with a lack of progress, and the selectivity in identifying and penalizing offenders.
The appointment of three separate committees to study the same issue, starting in 2012; the misinformation and omissions from City Hall on the status of blighted buildings; the mayor’s failure to act promptly to level an unsafe building at 56. S. Market St.; a Facebook page devoted to the city’s blight blunders, and a 2014 street protest are just a few examples that demonstrate City Hall’s failure to take charge of the issue.
City Hall has attempted to address the issue, but hasn’t made the necessary bold moves to tackle the most egregious properties, critics say.
In response to concerns, the city published an online rudimentary database of code violations, but doesn’t show the status or conclusion of those violations, making it essentially useless.
Code enforcement officers were added to the budget, along with more technology to ensure more efficiencies. That action primarily resulted in more garden variety violations, as code enforcement recommendations for the worst offenses were mostly ignored by City Hall and marked “closed.”
In September 2013, near the end of McClement’s first term, the Board of Alderman also passed legislation to allow the city to petition the court to appoint someone to refurbish, demolish or sell blighted buildings. The city has yet to apply the law.
The Board of Aldermen voted in 2014 to allow escalating fines for repeat offenders, one of the recommendations made by the first blighted properties task force, but there’s scant evidence that it’s been applied to the worst offenders.
The mayor appointed three task forces, the most recent one in March. One of the recommendations from the second blight task force report, issued in July 2016, was the need for strong leadership on blight, said Darcy Richards, a member of the second task force. Members kept asking for an update on the status of their recommendations, and were rebuffed. “We asked every few months, and we got an ‘it’s coming’ kind of response,” she said.
The unresolved issues on blighted properties come down to priorities, not legislation or staffing, Richards said. “The power to do the job and the resources and tools are already there,” she said. “This is not a partisan political issue, but it is a question of vision and mission. Eradication of blight is not part of the mission.”
Tony Checchia, appointed as chair of the third task force, said at the outset that he wasn’t sure what will make this latest incarnation different from the previous ones, but that he wanted to “make this one different” and “real.”
“I have lots of ideas and I don’t like to waste my time with feel good plans,” Checchia, a real estate broker, said. “But in the end, it will be up to the mayor and board of aldermen to adopt anything we come up with.”
Three subcommittees are taking a comprehensive look at blight, including: conflicts in processes; identification and beautification of gateways, blighted and vacant properties, and working with code enforcement. Checchia’s goal, he said, is to have an action plan to present to the Board of Aldermen within the next six months.
Below is a brief history and update on some of the most blighted and controversial downtown properties.
The Birely Tannery
Located on the site of the proposed downtown hotel conference center, the tannery building has been unoccupied since 2004. The building at 212 E. Patrick St. sits behind the old Frederick News Post building, and has a history of code violations starting in 2010. A fire in 2011 resulted in condemnation, but the building is not currently on the city’s most blighted properties list. The property is owned by the Randall family.
In a report issued on Apr. 18, 2013, Code Enforcement Officer David Beers said the building was condemned on July 29, 2011 by the city’s building department for being “uninhabitable.” From the report: “Building is 100% vacant and considered as a Blight Building,” and “Building is not in good repair and is subject to demolition by neglect.” [Photo above by Katherine Heerbrandt]
Despite the city-generated report, a city spokeswoman said in a May 19 email that the city’s building department “has no documents pertaining to condemnation of the referenced address.”
After a hole was repaired in the roof, and some external cosmetic improvements made, the case was “closed” in October 2013. However, more code violations were issued in June 2016, including peeling paint, rotted wood and unsecured windows and doors. Owners were notified that they either needed to obtain a permit for demolition or address the problems.
In September 2016, Code Enforcement acknowledged that the boarded windows had been painted and the outside of the building was “in good shape.” The case file concludes “The building is in the process of trying to go through HPC for a demo permit. Case closed.”
The city has no record of a request for demolition permit on the building.
A third complaint was lodged in March 2017, revealing several code violations, according to a Mar. 29 code enforcement report. The list of violations include chipping, flaking and peeling paint; loose and missing mortar, cracks and general disrepair, missing or rotted downspouts, gutters, and a portion of the roof, and broken and missing glazing on windows and doors.
The property is not listed on the city’s Blighted Properties list, created by the city in 2014. The list was last updated in December 2016.
In response, a contractor sent an email dated Apr. 9 to code enforcement saying that he had reviewed the situation with the owner, who wants to address the safety issues. “At some point, a Demo Permit will be applied for. In the interim, addressing all safety issues is of paramount concern to Mr. Randall and myself,” the email states. It concludes with a request to “negate the $3,400 fine” and “a continuance” on doing the work.
Code enforcement noted on Apr. 6 that “the property owner is working on a plan to bring the property in compliance.” To date, no request for demolition has been filed on the building. Preservation Maryland listed the tannery building on its Endangered Maryland list in 2014. Owners will need approval from the city’s Historic Preservation Commission to take down the building.
According to Director of Public Works Zack Kershner, “the purpose of the notice of violation is to put the property owner on notice of the code violation that has occurred and provide them with the opportunity to address and correct the violation. The NOV also provides notice to the property owner of the potential penalties and citations that may occur should they fail to comply.”
“This building was allowed to rot long before the hotel plan,” said blight activist Ned Bond. Bond has been relentless in hounding the city to do the right thing, and calling them out when they don’t, beginning with the former Asiana Restaurant on Market Street. His persistence was largely responsible for the recent demolition of 56 S. Market St., which was deemed structurally unsound by two engineers in September 2016.
Bond said the city has been complicit in allowing the building to deteriorate, and faults the city, not the property owners. “The city has the opportunity to do something and it does nothing,” he said.
The city has plans to purchase the former Frederick News Post property for $3.2 million and lease it to Plamondon Hospitality Partners, developers of the hotel conference center. The Frederick Extra recently asked the city for the actual property appraisal. In response, city spokeswoman Mullins said she is looking into it, but that the property owners and PHP would likely have had any appraisals done themselves.
Former Asiana Restaurant
The building at 123 – 125 N. Market St. in the heart of downtown has been empty since 2001, and is the poster child for blight in downtown Frederick.
The city took property owner Duk Hee Ro to court in the summer of 2014 over 10 outstanding code violations, including a leaking roof. In October 2014, city attorney Scott Waxter asked a District Court judge to waive the citations because the work had been completed. But two days before the city asked for a waiver, code enforcement noted five outstanding violations, according to city records, and were preparing to write more.
The building owners obtained 26 building permits to complete the work; of those 19 have expired. Although it was slated to come off the city’s most blighted property list in April, it’s still not in compliance. [Photo left, "Keep Out sign at former Asiana, courtesy of Ned Bond]
Bond, who ran a boutique adjacent to the building, has taken pictures and noted the progress, or lack thereof. “Nothing has changed really. Sprinklers are hooked up to the City main, gas is hooked up and electrical upgraded,” he said. Bond called City Hall’s response to the problem, closing the case, “a monumental and systemic failure.”
In a recent email exchange with the city’s elected officials, Bond said that the city should reissue notice of code violations for all plumbing, electrical, gas, sprinklers, fire alarm and renovation work, give the owners 30 days to comply, or face heavy fines.
“Put an attorney on the job that won't show up to court with the excuse he didn't have the time to check permits and progress. Put a code inspector and manager on the job that won't lie about the compliance with the NOV and close out the violations. Make sure the only way violations are closed out is when the work is done and passed all required inspections,” Bond wrote.
Mayor McClement did not respond to the email inquiry. Alderman Josh Bokee said that he will request a closed session on the matter to discuss outstanding issues and potential legal remedies. Alderman Michael O’Connor, who is running for mayor, said the city needs to purse legal remedies while “vigorously and relentlessly enforcing our codes.”
331 N. Market St.
The former Carmack Jay’s grocery store, owned by Douglas Development, is a shell of a building that has been empty for over a decade except for groups of vagrants, according to neighbors.
Bond who revived the Facebook page on city blight recently, took pictures from a public right-of- way on Fourth Street of water pooling on the floor from a leaking roof. He filed a complaint with code enforcement on May 11 and included the pictures seen above.
In a May 22 post on the City of Frederick's Blight Facebook page, Bond noted that on May 12, the roofing and drainage violation was “CLOSED!” Workers were seen on the property working on the roof on May 16, but no building permits were obtained to do the work.
“So, when a building has a severe problem and Code Enforcement closes out the well documented complaint, the danger is that there will be no inspection to verify the magnitude of the problem, no mandate to properly address the problem and no followup inspection of the problem to make sure it was even corrected. The absence of a requirement to obtain a roofing permit also means no City oversight by the building department, inspections or verification that the work was in compliance with City codes!” Bond wrote.
