HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-25 96-388 ORDERW
COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 9-25-96 Item No 96-388
Item/Subject: ORDER Authorizing a Bank Loan of up to $700,000
Aggregate Principal Amount and a Tax Levy Therefor for the'
Purchase of Land from the Maine Central Railroad. -
Responsible Departmenti City Manager
tory: The attached Order would authorize the city [ cute a bank loan
1®anot to exceed $700.000 for the purchase of approximately 28.8
acrof
amount
i erfront land from the Maine Central Railroad. Our expectation is
that the amount actually required will be somewhere between $450,000 and
5550,000.
The arms of the loan will call for repayment over two years at einterest
rate o be determined. Bids have been solicited from all local banksBathe
results thus far indicate that the loan can be gotten for am interest rate a
low as 4.25. This compares favorably with the Bk offered by the railroad to
fivanca this acquisition.
Prior to formal a this Order, a. public hearing i required.
Additionally, a twothirdsmajority of the Council must approve the issuance
Of this debt.
Ma
nager
-
s Comments:
�A C��LLAUI(l' a�.�.h YC
.tYti yy,a oil ilktl� 1sitic C rcu:a%.' �O
:I/'Tr-�-� CSTY MANAGER
Associated Information:
Budge[,Approval:
FINANCE DIRECTOR
Legal Approval:
CITY ZU1
Introduced For
L Passage
First Reading - Pageof
Referral to Finance Committee
96-388
Asupmd to Councilor Blanch ecte September 25, 1996
_ CITY OF ,BANGOR
(TITLE.) (OrDHr. ..—AUTHORIZING ..eIN.. IESUB..NOT TO EXCEED..$200„ D00 .......
AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF A PRIVATELY PLACED GENERAL OBLIGATION NOTE
FOR"THE'"PDROHABE""ARB'"ENVIRONMENTAL"'REMEDIATION OF'"LAND
By the City cmdrU Of Ute City of Bass";
ORDERED,
THAT Pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. 55]]2, Section 13 of
Article VI of the City Charter (Private and Special Laws of 1931,
Chapter 56) authority thereto enabling, there is hereby
authorized the issue up to Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars
($700,000) aggregate amount of general obligation notes of the
City of Bangor for a term not to exceed three years, and an
interest race not to exceed 5.0& per year. The proceeds derived
from the sale of said notes will be used and are hereby -
appropriated to pay the costs for the acquisition and
environmental remediation, if ecessary, Of approximately 28.8
acres of land from the Maine Central Railroad. -
LRal
COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 9-25-96 Item Nn 96-388
Item/Subject: ORDER Authorizing a Bank Loan of up to $900,000
Aggregate Principal Amount and a Tax Levy Therefor for the
Purchase of Land from the Maine Central Railroad.
Responsible Department: City Manager
commentary! The attached Osler would authorize the city to execute a bank loan
in an amount not to exceed $]00.000 for the purchase of approximately 28.8
acres of x erfront laid from the Maine Central Railroad. Our eryectation 1e
that the amount actually required will be somewhere between $450,000 and
$550,000.
The terms of the loan will call for repayment hunt two years at an interest
rate o be determined. Bide have been solicited from all local banks, and the
cult$ thus far indicate that the loan ran be Sotten for an
interest es
low a 4.2%. This compares favorably with the ei offered by the railroadto
finance this acquisition.
Prior to formal action on this Order, a public hearing is required.
Additionally, a two thirds majority of the Council most approve the issuance
of this debt.
Budget Approval:
FINANCE DIRECTOR
Legal Approval:
f CITY SOLICITOR
_Introduced For
X Passage
First Reading PageO£_
_L Referral to Finance Committee
Legal Notices
PUBLIC NEARING '
CITY OF BANGOR
General Obligation Bonk
Loan Not to Exceed VOgOOO
For the Purchase 0 Land
A Copy Ot the entire order Is
Clailable to the public in the
y Clerk's Office at Bangor.
City Hall. The public is Invited
to address the Council on this
proposed bank loan.
Gail E. Campbell
City Clerk
September 14, IM
96-388
Ae®piled [o Camda Blanchette September 25, 1996
CITY OF BANGOR
QmE.) 19Yr1lere __..AUTHORIZING-AN_ISSUE_N¢T..T¢.EXCBeD...$T09..440 ....
AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF A PRIVATELY PLACED GENERAL OBLIGATION NOTE
""FOR" THE -PURCHASE ""AND"FNVIRONMeNTAL REMEDIATION OF
By Hw My CoauH Of Me Oft of Sampan.
ORDERED,
THAT Pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. 95]]2, Section 13 Of
Article VI of the City Charter (Private and Special Laws of 1931,
Chapter 56) authority thereto enabling, there is hereby
authorized the issue up to Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars
($700,000) aggregate amount of general obligation notes of the
City of Bangor for a term not to exceed three years, and an
interest rate not to exceed 5.0 per year. The proceeds derived
from the sale of said notes will be used and are hereby
appropriated to pay the costs for the acquisition and
environmental remediation, if necessary, of approximately 28.8 -
acres of land from the Maine Central Railroad.
IN CITY WHNCIL
Septevber 25, 1996
Public Hearing Opmed:
lfiis Order was detailed by
time Finance Director. No
Cmrti¢nts frm the Public
Public Hearing Closed
Passed
E
96-388
ORDER
Title, Authorizing An Ieaue Not to
Exceed $700,000 Aggregate Amount of A
Privately Placed General PILLgatlon
OoEe'foP'Ede'➢d:�ne�e'aoA' d�vi�nnmeutal
Remediation of Land
G.
A.iged to
P....... ........
�o cfirst
96-389
SUBCH_4PTER IV
DANGEROUS BUILDINGS
Section .
2851. Dangerous buildings.
2852, Appeal; hearing.
2853. Municipal officers may order nuisance abated.
2854, 2855. Repealed.
2856. Securing dangerous structures.
2857. Recording of notice.
2858. Consent to removal.
2859. Summary process,
§ 2851. Dangerous buildings
Whenever the municipal officers shall find a building or
structure or any portion thereof or any wharf, pier, pilings or
any portion thereof which is or was located on or extending
from land within the boundaries of the municipality, as measur-
ed from low water mark, is structurally unsafe; unstable; un-
sanitary; constitutes a fire hazard; is unsuitable or immroper
for the use or occupancy to which it is put; constitutes a hazard
to health or safety because of inadequate maintenance, dilmida-
tion, obsolescence or abandonment or is otherwise dangerous to
lifeor property, they may after notice and hearing on this mat-
ter, adjudge the same to be a nuisance or dangerous and may
make and record an order prescribing what disposal shall be
made thereof.
1. Notice. The notice shad be served on the owner- and all
parties in interest, as defined in Title 14, section 6321, in the
same way service of process is made inaccordancewith the
Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Notice how published. - When the name or address of
any owner or co-owner is unknown oris not ascertainable with
reasonable diligence, then the notice shall be publishedoncea
week for 3 successive weeks prior to :the date of hearingin a
-' 9NYis Pe+bYVNm.-9 241 .. -
17 § 2851 CRMS Title 1796-389
newspaper generally circulated in the County, or if none, in the
state paper.
S. Order. The order made by the municipal officers shall
be recorded by the municipal clerk who shall forthwith cause an
attested copy to be served upon the owner and all parties in in-
terest in the same way service of process is made in accordance
with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. If the name or ad-
dress cannot be ascertained, the clerk shall publish a copy of the
order in the same manner as provided for notice in subsection 2.
4. Proceedings in Superior Court. In addition to proceed-
ings before the municipal officers, the municipality may seek an
order of demolition by filing a complaint in the Superior Court
situated in the county where the structure is located. The com-
plaint shall identify the location of the property and set forth
the reasons why the municipality seeks its removal. Service of
the complaint shall be made upon the owner and parties -in -Inter-
est in accordance with the Blaine Rules of Civil Procedure. Aft-
er hearing before the court sitting without a jury, the court
shall issue ah appropriateorder and, if it reouires removal of
the structure, it shall award casts, as authorized by this sub-
chapter to the municipality. Appeal from a decision -of the Su-
perior Court shall be to the law court in accordance with the
Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. -
R.S.1954, c. 141, § 25; 1965, c. 284; 1967, c. 401, § 1; 1973, c. 143, §
1; 1979, c. 27, §§ 1 to 3.
iiistorlend Note
The ism amendment repealed andor, part owner, is unknown or
replaced this section, which prior resides without the State, such active
thereto read: shall be given by publication in the
"what, the municipal officers of a state paper, orin a paper published
town, after personal notice In writing In the connn:a weeks successively.'
to the owner of any burn, dilapidat- The 1981 amendment repealed and
ed or dangerous building, or by puhll- replaced the Best paragraph, which
canon In a newspaper In the same prior thereto read:
county, if pay, 3 weeks successively.
Otherwise in the state paper, end aft- 'w'herever the municipal officers
at a hearing of the matter, adjudge shall find any bnrnc or dangerous
the same be be a nuisance or dam building, or any building that consti-
prous, they may make and record an tutes a hazard to safety or health
order prescribing what disposal shall =it which also exacta a downgrad-
he made thereof, and [hereupon the -ing or blighting influence on the sur -
town clerk shall deliver a copy of rounding neighborhood, they m
such order to a constable, who shall after notice and hearing an Ne met-
same
such corner, if a resident of the rer, adjudge the same cc be a nui-
state.with an attested copy thereof, sauce or dangerous and may make
and make return of hila doings there- and record m order prescribing
on to said clerk forthwith. If the [chat disposal shall be made thereof."
242
Ch. 91 NUISANCES
The 19,3 amendment, in the first
paragraph, inserted "or any wharf.
pier, pilings Or any portion thereof
whichd on or
from land within the boundari
d.
ges
of the m nicipality. as measured
from low water marl:.".
The 1879 amendment, in subsec. 3,
substituted "cause an attested copy
to be served upon the owner and all
parties in interest in the same way
service of process is made in accord.
17 § 2851
once with the imine Rules of Civil
procedure. It' for "send an m nted
copy thereof to the owner or co-own-
er by certified mail to his last known
address. of if"; added subsec. 4; and
repealed and replaced subage. 1.
which prior thereto read:
"The notice shall be in writing
sent by certified mail to the owner
at their last known ad-
orowners
ad-
dress least 14 days nest prior to
the data of hearin8"
Crass References
Authority to enter and inspect buildings, see title 25,§ 2960.
Municipal officers defined, see tide 300, § 1901.
State paper, see lids 1, § 551.
Law Review Commentaries
Mvnidpal tort Lability. 16 Maine
L.Rev. 72 (1964).
Library References
Nuisance X62, 18. C].S. Nuisances a 36, 40,103.
Notes of Decisions
In general 2
Liability of municipality 5
Notice 4
Requirement ler complaint 3
Validity of prbrlaws I
I. validity of prior laws
Statute relating to buildings ad
judged to be nufsances was not um
constitutional, even though it park
way the right of Jury trial. Swett
v. Sprague (1667) 55 Me. 190.
2. In general
Sections 2351 to 2360 of title 25,
tell 'ties to ap-
Sections 2:191 to 2393 of title 25.
relating to investigation of fire has-_
arils, do not charge the chief Of a
£ire department. and ea-oillcia a fire
Inspector, with any responsibility as
to a -burnt dilapidated or dangerous
bu lding" under this section. Id.
me terms "law of the lead" and
"due process of law" es used in State
and Federal constitutions respective-
ly, are Identical in meaning. Id.
A "latent danger" fvastructure
upon which work Is to be performed.
is one that is neither visible nor dla-
'erable by ordinary inspection o
test. Levesque v. Fraser paper Ltd.
(1963) 159 lie. 181, 189 A2d 375.
which require eel
tor complaint
pointr , en inspector of buildiand 3. Requirement proceedings for
whirls fix his duties, charge each ap- Statute regulating tngs
pointe with no responsibility for ac the abatement of not santes required
con upon a "burn, dilapidated or no complaint to he made and the
dangerous building" under birds see- mayor and aldermen could act upon
[ion. Midland T. City of Single their own observation and knowledge
(1983) lag Ile. 491, 1% A2d 106, ap of the unsafe condition of buildings
peal atter remand 160 lie. 285, 203 6Swett v. to be Spiraling removed
CISa 55 1audience.100.
ALM 87.
248
lDF➢l
17 § 2851 CRIM
4. Notice
\otice by publication is not enough
with Iespect to a person whose name
and address are known or very ensily
ascertainable, and whose legally pro.
tented interests are directly affected
by the proceedings In question. Mi-
chaud v. city of Bangor (1983) 159
ble. 491, 196 A.Id 106, appeal after re-
mand 160 \1e. 285, 203 And 685.
Notice and oppotmnky for bearing
are at the essence of due process of
law. Id.
Property owners, who lived in city"
should have been given personal no.
ties of hearing on order to have
building condemned; service by pub-
licadve did not meet requirements of
due process of law. Id.
The order of notice provided by
statute relating to dangercus build -
mile, passed at a legal meeting of the
mayor and Aldermen, was legal, when
the record showed that the mayor
was present and participated in the
proceedings; no separate action of
the mayor was necessary. Swett V.
Sprague (1887) 55 31e. 190.
ES Title 17
96-389, 3
The provisions of statute requiring
the notice therein provided to be pub
lished "three weeks successively" In
it certain newspaper, was complied
with, when such notice was published
In the weekly issue of such paper,
dated the 15th, 22nd and 29th, respic
lively, of the same month" although
the hearing under such notice was to
take place on the 30th. Jd.
If the notice Ordered at the time of
Adjudication fails of service, 8 new
and" may be ordered and served,
without commencing proceedings
anew. Id.
S. 1-lablllty of munlnipallty
Property owners, who lived in city,
should have been given personal n
tics of heating o order to have
building condemned as a nuisance,
and giving of nouns of publication
did not meet requirements of due
process; and city, which had build
ing destroyed by building inspector
And members of fire department Act-
ing asspecial agents for city,
liable to properly owners. Michaud
V. City of Bangor (1963)1.19 tle. 591"
186 A d IN, appeal after Teemed
160 ]Ie. Me, 203 End 687.
§ 2852. Appeti; hearing
An appeal from a decision of the municipal officers shall be
to the Superior Court, pursuant to the provisions of the Maine
Pules of Civil Procedure, Pule 80B.
R.S.1954, c. 141, § 26; 1961, A. 817, § 470; 1965, c. 284; 1979, c. 27, F
4.
1115torical Note
The 1965 amendment repealed and ered of such person by an action for
replaced this section, which prior money paid."
thereto read: The 1919 Amendment repeated A7
"5 2853. Town officers may order replaced this section, which prior
nuisance abated thereto read:
"If no application is made to the 1- n7 person aggrieved by such at
Superior Court, As is provided, tate der may, within 30 days after said
municipal officers of such town shall _order Is made And recorded, file an
cause said nuisance to be abated, re- appeal therefrom to any Justice of
moved or altered in compliance with Me Supreme Judicial or Superior
eir order, And all espouses thereof Court who shall, atter notice and
shall be repaid to the town within 30 hearing, affirm, annul or alter such
days atter demand, or may be reenv. order And may render such judgment
As to costs An Justice requires."
244
17 § 2553
9u..3
Law Review Cam[vevtaries 96-389
Municipal tort babilltF. 19 Laine
L.Rev. 72 (1964).
Library References
Nuisance 4=67. CJ.6. Nuisances §§ 138,163.
§ 2853. Municipal officers may order nvisance abated
If no appeal is filed, the municipal officers of such municd-
pality shall cause said nuisance to be abated or removed in com-
pliance with their order, and all expenses thereof shall be repaid
to the municipality by the owner or co-owner within 30 days
after demand or a special tax may be assessed by the assessors
'against the land on which said building was located for the
amount of such expenses and such amount shall be included in
the next annual warrant to the tax collector of said town for
m
collection, and shall be collected in the sae manner as other
state, county and municipal taxes are collected.
In the case of any claim for expenses incurred in the abate-
ment or removal of any wharf, pier, pilings or any portion
thereof which extends beyond the low water mark, the soerial
tax authorized by this section shall apply to the land from which
such wharf, pier or pilings extended or to which they were adja.
cent, provided the owner of the land is also the owner of the
said wharf, pier, pilings or portion thereof.
Expenses shall include, but not by way of limitation, the
costs of title searches, location reports, a _e or process, costs
of removal of the structure, any costs ' . rred in securing the
structure, pending its removal, and ah other costs incurred by
the municipality which are reasonably related to the removal o?
the structure. In addition to levying a special tax, the munici-
pality may recover its expenses, including its reasonable attor-
ney's face, by means of a civil action brought against the owner.
R.S.1954, c. 141, § 27; 1961, c. 311, § 476; 1965, c. 284; 1967, c. 401,
§ 2; 1973, c. 148, § 2; 1977, c. 707, § fl 9, all. Jan. 1, 1979; 1979, c.
21, § 5.
Mstoriul Note
The 19655 amendment repealed and der is so made and filed. apply to the
replaced this section, which prior . Superior Court which shall forthwith.
thereto read: after notice and hearing, affirm, an-
-1 2853.
n-12853. Aggrleved owner may ap� out or alter such order."
peal to court The 1967 amendment, in the first
-Any owner aggrieved by such or. paragraph, substituted 'h special rax
der may, within 30 days after saidvr may be assessed by the essessora
245
17 § 2853 CRIMES Title It
96-389
against the land On which said build-
ing was located for the amount Of
such expenses and such amount shell
be included in the nest annual war-
rent to the tar t011axOr Of said town
for collection, and shall be collected
in the same manner as other state,
unty murdeipal taxes are collected."
for "the municipal officers may
bring a civil action to recover such
expenses", and added a second para -
Pont.
The 1913 amendment added the
provisions constituting the second
paragraph.
The 19T amendment repealed the
former first and second sentences of
the second paragraph, which prior
thereto rend: 'Personal property lo-
cated within said nuisance shall be
removed upon written notice of the
micipal officers sent by cndfied
mail at least 14 days prior to the
abatement of said nuisance. The no-
tice shall be sent to the Owner or
owners at their last known address
and shall specify that unless said per-
sonal property is removed it will be
disposed of by the municipality"
The 1979 amendment added the
third paragraph.
Transition and application. For
transition and application provisions
of Laws 19i7, a illi, see the Histori
cal Nate ander j 1301 of our 33.
Library References
Nuisance Pia. C.T.S. Nuisances y 108.
§§ 2854, 2855. Repe i ed. 1965, c. 284
Historical Note
Section 2851, which related to Section 2855, which related t0 the
costs, was derived from R.S.1954, c. adoption of this subchapter by Tote
141, 9 28. Sae, now, generally. 1 255.1 at a town meeting, was derived from
of this title. R.S.1954, c. 141, 429.
§ 2856. Securing dangerous structures
In addition to other proceedings authorized by this touched -
ter, a municipality shall have the right to secure structures
which pose a serious threat to the public health and safety and
to recover its expenses in so doing as provided in this subchap-
ter. If a building is secured under this section, notice, in ac-
cordance with section 2851, subsection 1, shall be given. .This
notice need not be given before securing the structure if the
threat to the public health and safety requires prompt action..
1979, c. 27, § 6.
- Library References
Health and Environment 6 1, C.T.S. Health and Environment H
I. 28 to 36,62.
§ 2857. Recording of notice
The municipal clerk shall cause an attested copy of the no-
tice to be recorded in the Registry of Deeds located within the
county where the structure is situated. Recording of this notice
96-389
Ch. 91 NUISANCES 17 §`1,8559
shall be deemed to put any person claiming under the owner of a
structure subject to proceedings under this subchapter on notice
of the pendency of the proceedings.
1979, c. 27, § 6.
Library References
Health and Environment Csi. W.S. Health and Environment gy
28 to N, 48, 52.
§ 28$8. Consent to removal
The owner and parties -in -interest of a dangerous structure
may consent to its removal and to the recovery of the expenses
incurred by a municipality by means of a special tax as set forth
in this subchapter. Notices of the consent shall be recorded in
the Registry of Deeds located in the county where the structure
is situated.
1979, c. 27, § 6.
Library Refeream
Health and Envltnolnent X32 C.T.S. Health and Environment ga
28 to 36, 52.
§ 28$9. Summary process
In cases involving an immediate and serious threat to the
public health, safety or welfare, in addition to any other reme.
dies, a municipality may obtain an order of demolition by sum-
mary process in Superior Court, in accordance with this section.
1. Commencement of action. A municipality, acting
through its hulloing inspector, code enforcement officer, fire
chief or municipal officer=_, shall £Ile a verified complaint setting
forth such facts as would justify a conclusion that a building Cr
structure is "dangerous," as that term is defined in section 2851;
and shall state therein that the public health, safety or welfare
recujres the immediate removal of that building or structure.
2. Order of notice. whenever a Complaint is filed under
this section, the justice before wham it is brought, acting ex
parte, shall promptly issue an order:
A. Requiring the owner and all parties -in -interest, as that
term is defined in the statutes governing foreclosure by civil
action, to appear and show cause why the building or struc-
=a should not be ordered demolished;
B. Specifying the method of service of the order and the
complaint;
247
17 § 2S59 CRIMES Title 17
96-389
C. Setting a time and place for hearing the complaint,
which shall be the earliest possible time but not be later
than 10 days from the date of filing; and
D. Fixing the time for filing an answer to the complaint if
the court determines that an answer is recuired.
3. Margement of time; default. The court may for good
cause shown enlarge the time for the hearing. If the owner or
parties4n-interest, or any of them, fail to answer, if an answer
is required, or fail to appear as directed, or to attend the hearing
at the time appointed or as enlarged, the court shall order a de-
fault judgment to be entered with respect to the owner or par-
ties -fn -interest.
4. Hearing. After hearing, the court shall enter judgment.
If the judgment requires removal of the building or structure,
the court shall award. costs to the municipality as authorized by
this subchapter. The award of costs may be contested and dam-
ages sought in a separate action to the extent permitted by
subsection 7.
5. Appeal. No judgment requiring demolition issued pur-
suant to this section may be appealed. The owner of a building
or structure which is the subject of an order issued under this
section, or a party -in -interest, may appeal the award of costs, if
any, or seek damages for wrongful removal pursuant to subzec-
tion 7.
6. Stay. No judgment authorizing demolition may be
stayed pending appeal, unless the court first determines that
granting a stay would not pose a significant risk to the public
health, safety or welfare.
7. Damages. Any complaint which either seeks damaees
for the wrongful removal of a building or structure or challenges
the award of casts must be filed no later than 30 days from the
date of the judgment or order which is the subject of the appeal.
The damages which may be awarded for wrongful demolition
are limited to the actual value of the structure at the time of its
removal. The provisions of Title 14 section 7552 and section
7555 do not apply. If the municipality should prevail, the court
may award it its costs in defending any appeal which may in-
clude, but are not limited to, reasonable at'.prney's fees.
1981, c. 43.
Library References
Munk ipal cmoradons �Ws. C.S.S. ffiavupel Comoradons §§
ffi, 224.
248
CAPE ENFORCEMENT
John K. Banat
pevNopineM Gwclmtm
August 29, 1996
Mr. Robert Seger
P.O. Box 265
Bangor, Maine 04402
Re. 66 Curve Street, Bangor
Dem Mr. Seger
E
17
Z 723 449 349
Race
Ce t f ad
ee r WInre NOMMw
Cn
No
AmweO lMam,tlm.I MID
This Iflter is to inions you (bat a public hearing will be converted by the Bangor City Conrail On
September 25,1996, at 7:30 pm. The hewing will be held in the Council Chambers of
Bangor City Hall, 73 Harlow Strce4 Bangor, Male. The purpose of this public hewing is to
take testimony and decide whether m codemn the building or stru mx located at 66 Curve
Street Bangor, as a dangerous building pursuant to Title 17, Sections 2851 through 2859, of the
Maine Revised Statutes Annotated.
As owing of this property you are advised in attend this hewing at which you will be afforded the
opportunity to present testimony concerning the property. Please feel free to contact me if you
have my questions.
Sincerely,,, ^
John Hamer,
Development Co edirmtor
Certification # Z 723 449 349
5ne
0
F
$
This Iflter is to inions you (bat a public hearing will be converted by the Bangor City Conrail On
September 25,1996, at 7:30 pm. The hewing will be held in the Council Chambers of
Bangor City Hall, 73 Harlow Strce4 Bangor, Male. The purpose of this public hewing is to
take testimony and decide whether m codemn the building or stru mx located at 66 Curve
Street Bangor, as a dangerous building pursuant to Title 17, Sections 2851 through 2859, of the
Maine Revised Statutes Annotated.
As owing of this property you are advised in attend this hewing at which you will be afforded the
opportunity to present testimony concerning the property. Please feel free to contact me if you
have my questions.
Sincerely,,, ^
John Hamer,
Development Co edirmtor
Certification # Z 723 449 349
CITU 0'
soca
MAINE
CODE ENFOHCENENT
Jpnp K. Homer FSje.°9
Dewmpnem Cwmmw r v, _
Augusl30,1996
Mr. Lou Begin R x
Maine State Employees'Cmdit Union
P.O. Box 5659
Augusta, Maine 04332&For£ Po�^
vanm.r.wu
Re: 66 Curve Sneef Bangor €
8
Dear Mr. Begin:This letter is to inform you that a public hearing will be convened by the Bangor City Council on
September 25, 1996, at 7:30 pm. The (rearing will be held in the Cause! Chambers of
Bangor City Hall, 73 Harlow Street, Bangor, Maine. The purpose of this public hearing is to
take testimony and decide whether to condemn the building or structure located at 66 Curve
Street. Burger, as a dangerous building pursuant be Title 17, Sections 2651 through 2659, of the
Maine Revised Statutes Amounted.
As owner of a mortgage in Ods property you are encouraged to attend this bearing at which you
will be afforded the opportunity to present testimony concerning the property. Please feel froom
contact me if you have any questions.
- Siiinnlp'cee IAml'Iyy,,�\
Jobe lramtt,
Development Coordinator
Certification 4 Z 723 449 350
WILDING RECORD DID
ADORES
OMI MOJDATE
NOTES.
DESCRIPTION IDATE iMr.
u s
L
� P 'FD
d J
y .� %F I
1rvxne
_
nu
,Dena
STYLEv°'
DO 0, AMN.Ee
2¢
Qsx
ZP
1
O,All
Qji%
>osv
VIA AAeA
02
ev„nn
p i
r%
aP
u"s
t
_i
O,.TMs
-B
Imm,aum
(e
sawv
DEAL
-�Gs %
'WALLY1R
2
g
YEAH "LOAD,JJALLAIIN
0 UMMUT11
LAOS, I'LL
E�
b
a
lu.w 0 FULL
MY
LAAn
ADDITIONS. WTBUILDINGS DID IMPflOVEMENTS ,P
msWTVIVADMIG
s,
NOTES.
DESCRIPTION IDATE iMr.
u s
L
� P 'FD
d J
y .� %F I
CITY OF
> 1>
uurvc
CAINO,F
J
—
ASSESSMENT
REC
2n
1
YEAR
LAND
21teF'1i I2I Lf„ ',i: /59
991
40-020
Ig
2,30
2.100
2,100
2}700
2.7`CO
1.100
40100
58926
3, SJ.5.50].32,
33tSOO,2001992
35, V00,1001993
33,300,000
33.30000001995
2a.1ti,
23.10.2001'1991
22.506.600
�'92.100
Ul1996
1
to
O
is
O
LAND DATA
I
ER
3G i J
o•^^
:—;VE 3T
41
'0
Vpcw
J 44 11
fe
SaMAREMEET
MAP
=rER ROBERT C
a.su,r
- 3CX 2S5
'C
OWo
euR NE
_/ —
04402
--
i"MCRATER I=
___
—
?'Ki.V2156F275V2110P51G46G1P3c 1.}
5E52E
MMITMAGAD
NOTES
> 1>
uurvc
CAINO,F
—
ASSESSMENT
REC
1
YEAR
LAND
SVILDINWTAL19as
991
40-020
Ig
2,30
2.100
2,100
2}700
2.7`CO
1.100
40100
58926
3, SJ.5.50].32,
33tSOO,2001992
35, V00,1001993
33,300,000
33.30000001995
2a.1ti,
23.10.2001'1991
22.506.600
�'92.100
Ul1996
1
O
is
O
LAND DATA
I
Vpcw
fe
SaMAREMEET
MARC
_/ —
a
--
—._—_
___
—
veaa9
To: Dan Welling on MEMORANDUM
from: John Hamer -
fuial Opinion of Pause:
30 Highland Avenue
55 Parker Street
66 Curve StreM
Dace: August 19, 1996
30 Highland AvenLw
The structure III at 30 Highland Avenue is situated in an Urban Residence 2 Demot and
has four dwelling units. The lot cortaira an area of approximately 7,920 square fee. The
structure was placarded in December 1984.
In the Urban Residence 2 District, the Land Development Cade requires a minimum lot area
of 12,000 square feel in order for a structure to contain four dwelling units. A lot containing a
three dwelling unit structure is required to have an area of 10,500 square feet A lot
containing a one or two dwelling unit structure is required to have an area of 9,000 square
beet Ua Development Code Chapter Vlll, Article 20, Table v-1.
The discontinuance of a non -conforming use for tweW consecutive monthsextinguishes be s.
right to corronue the non-cordonnirg use. 1974 Zoning Ordinance, ChapterVII, Article 2,
Section 6(3), and Land Developmer t Code, Chapter Vlll, Adide 4, Section 1.3. An
abandoned non -conforming use could be resumed in some dreumstances under be 1974
Zoning Ordinance, but not under he Land Dewslopment Code. The Land Development
Code permit a lot of record containing an area of 9least 5,000 square feet and street
frontage of at leadfi ty feM to establish a singe family dwelling unit Land Development Code,
Chapter VIII, Artide 4 Section I.I(C).
The structure located at 30 Highland Avenue Ion its legally non -conforming status in
December 1985. Any night to resume the non -conforming use underthe 1974 Zoning
Ordlrance was ellmirated in 1991 when the Uai Development Code was enacted. -Sim
the lot has an area of only 7,920 square fee[ and be nrul has Ion its legally non-
conforming staWs, the structure amnesties used to house multiple dwelling units. Sincethe lot
has az least by, feet of nreel frontage and an area of more than 5,000 square feet the
structure may be used as a single family dwelling unit.
55 Parker Street
The structure 1155 Parker Street is situated in an Urban Residence I. District The
structure contained two dwelling units when R was placarded in November 1988. The lco has
an area of appro innacely 4,625 square feet.
In the Urban Residence I Until the land Deselopment Code requires a minimum area
Dan Wellington
Page 2
Angst 19, 1 W
of 10,000 square fee. lard Development Code Chapter All, Abdde 20, Table v-1.
The discontinuance of a non -conforming use for twelve mneoh' months extinguishes the right to
mmNnue the man -conforming use. 1974 Zoning Ordirence, Chapter Vlll, Artide 2, Section 6(3), and
band Development Code, Chapter VIII, Mice 4, Section 1.3. An abandoned non-contorming use
could be resumed in some circumstances under be 1974 Zoning Ordinance, but rout order be Land
Development Code. The Land D ebpmeM Code permit a lot of record containing an area of a[
15 000 square feet and svee homage of at least fifty feet to establish a single family dwelling unh.
Land Development Cade, Chapter All, Anlcla 45ection 1.1(C).
The structure lowed at 55 Parker Street lost its legally non -conforming status in November 1969.
Any right to resume the nonconforming use under be 1974 Zoning Ordinance was eliminated in
1991 when the band Development Code was enacted. Since the lot has an area of only 4,625
square fee and the structure has lost m legally non -conforming status, the structure cannot be used as
a m idennal dwelling uni. Moreover, since the lot dog not have at least fAry, feet of street imntage
and an area of more Man 5,000 square feet the structure may be used for any purpose.
66 Cum St t
The structure located at 66 Curve Street is situated in an Urban Residence 2 District and has two
dwelling units. The lot contains an area of approximately 3,229 square lee. The smamre was
plawMed in December 1991.
In the Urban Residence 2 District, be lard Development Code requires a minimum bt area of
12,000 square lee in orderfor astructure to contain four dwelling unit. Abtcontainingathree
dwelling unhstrucwre is required ro have an area of 10,500 squarefee. A lot containing a ane or
two dwelling unit structure is required to have an area of 9,000 square fee. Lard Development
Code Cneper All, Article 20, Table v -I.
The dismmpnuance of a rwn-conforming use for twelve consecutive months eArguishes be right ro
continue the rear -conforming use. Land Developmerx Code, Chapter All, Article 4, Seebn 1.3.
The Land Development Code permits a lot of record containing an area of at least 5.000 square feel
and Nee fmritage of at lean fifty had w establish a single family dwelling unit. lard Development
Code, Chaper Mll, Article 4 Section I.I(C).
The structure lom[ed a 66 Curve Street lost its legally ruoncordorning status in December 1992.
Slrce the lot has an area of only 3,229 square feet and the structure has Ion hs legblly non-confaming
staves,NZNucturewrratbeusedtohorsemUtipledw Uingunhs. Sncethelothaaanareaofony
4,625 square feet and be structure has lost its legally man -conforming status, the structure want be
-
usedaamodentialdwellirgunh. Moreover, since the lot dares not have A least fifty feet of street
frontage and an area of mom ban 5,000 square feet the structure may be used for any purpose.
BANGOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
Memorandum
Data: August 21,1996
To: Assistant Chief Frank Dinsmore
From: Lt. Jahn H. Ellis and Lt. Garrett Bray
Regarding: Dan Wellington's request for assistance on 30 Highland Avenue, 66
Curve Street, and 55 Parker Street.
As requested in Wellington's memo dated August 19, 7996 we evaluated the above
properties for fire related concerns. The three properties were evaluated with respect to
controlled public access, fire department access, exposures (setbacks from adjacent
structures), electrical power, fire load, structural integrity, structure type.
66 Curve Street is a two story frame structure, last used as a single family dwelling.
According to the owner it is presently being upgraded. At the time of the inspection the
building was unsecured because windows were being replaced. There was a 5 gallon
plastic gasoline can visible through the front window. This potential hazard was pointed
out to the owner. Exposures are < 25' on the left and < 12 on the right. There is rw
significant exposure to the rear. Electrical bower has been disconnected from Me building
according to Bangor Hydra Electric (BHE). Fire Department apparatus access is from the
front only.
30 Highland Avenue is a three story, fiat roofed structure of masonry linos) and frame
(rear) construction last used as an apartment building. The building may be structurally
unsound. At the time of Me inspection the building was secured and the contents, if any,.
ware not visible. The closest building is - 25' away. Electrical power has been
disconnected from the building according to BHE. We recommend that in case of fire that
the incident commander evaluate limiting the response to protection of exposure with no
interior attack. There is apparatus across from Highland Avenue and from Charles Street.
55 Parker Street is a two story frame structure last used as a two ung dwelling. At the time
of the Inspection Me building was secured but some windows had been broken out. The
building was essentially empty. Exposures are <25' from both the right and left side. Rear
exposure is> w 50'. Electrical power has been disconnected from the building according
to SHE There is apparatus access from Parker Street only.
96-389
February 2, 1996
TO: Dan Wellmgtoq Code Enfomement Officer
FR: fames D. Ring, Qty Eryyneer
SIIB2BCf: i66 Coma St, 5l Sevemh St, 58 Pmker St.
N accordance with your mcem request, I have performed an exterior inspection of the
above- referenced properties. Each of these exhibited obvious structural defects from the
notable, and I am cerlem interior inspections would reveal further problems, M such time
that you are able to gain access to these bmWings, 1 or a member of my staff would be
available to provide f mean assistance.
Based an my exterior inspections, I offer the following Native to the structural condition
ofmch building:
66 Curve Street
This is a two story wood fame structure that appears to have bens added on to at least
three times. The main atrumum is primarily suppond on a concrete black and rubble
foundation. Deterioration has resulted in noticeable settlement of the two from comers.
The southeasterly foundation wall is cracked and bowed as well. The rear addition(s)
appear to be held up by some type of wood supporting smuamre with some exposed
roam member. The rear walls and roof planes are severely distorted from settlement and
lack of support. The exterior siding and trim is in very poor condition allowing entry of
water at various locations, which will lesson fimther deteioartion of this structure.
51 Several Strcet
The main building is a large old two story wood Gems structure with an attached ell. The
main portion is supported by an exposed concrte block foundation. The whole structure
is out of plumb, and distorted roof and walls (particularly on the northerly side) suggest
that interior support is failing or insulfcimt. The rear ell is even more distorted and
appears to be approaching a state of instability. Structural displacement is Rather
evidenced by misaligned door and window openings. The budding is covered with asphalt
siding and a variety of roofing materials in poor condition. Numerous openings allow
water to enter the structure. A small garage is also located on the property, and appears
W be on the verge of collapse.
This is a I h story woml Imate structure built upon a foundation constructed of what
appears to be smell broken gra she or cobblestone and mortar. Much of the foundation
that is visible has 4i1ed and comribmes little support to the structure. Given me
foundation conAhion, I am surprised Chet this building is still stealing. The chimney,
located in the northerly half of me building is very deteriorated and severely out of plumb,
which indicates considerable building movensnt. Exterior siding is cauda wood
clapboards which were installed over asphalt or asbestos siding. Much siding and trim We
ehher fdlen off or opened up, creating many voids for emry of the elements. Daylight can
be am through the wills at numerous locations.
affil
96-389
Interoffice
Memorandum
TO:
Dan Wellington, Code Enforcement Officer
FROM:
T.I. Mandal, Housing Resources Coordinator
CC:
SUBJECT:
66 Curve Street, 51 Seventh Street and 58 Parker Street
DATE:
January 25, 1996
In response to you memo also dated today, the following are my observations and comments on
the above renounced properties. I will by to keep my comments relevant and useful within the
context of the old promise "Every property is whabable". Rehabilitation should always have two
considerations, 1.)ConsMetion, or the technical and structural feasibilityofthe project; and 2.)
Financing, or the ability of the owner to repay the loan, and the lender's security for a mortgage
(available equity after rehab). With that said, here goes:
66 Curve Street
Itoard this property with theonmer about font or five years ago. He but been referred to me
for a rehab loan. At that time, the property could have been rehabbed, but it was a close call, it
was(avery poor condition. 1knewitwouldrakealotofmoney,andthea r-rehabvalueinthis
neighborhood wood not be high, and being as the owner planned on living in it I inquired about
his income and existing mortgages. There was a$40,000+/- existing mortgage on the property
from a local Credit Union, The owner told me that mortgage was in the process of foreclosure,
but the Credit Union would `Palk" to any lender founded in financing the rehab. I called the
Credit Union, they were interested in possibly suspending the foreclosure, but were not willing to
subordinate their mortgage. With the potential of $35,000 of rehab costs added to the $40,000
mortgage, (the after rehab value would have to be in the $85,000+range, not typical in this
neighborhood) and a borrower with a poor credit history, this was obviously not a goad lora. I
told the owner and he understood. Me was a classic case of technical feasibility (five years
ago), but no financial feasibility based on equity.
51 Seventh Street:
I have never been fir this property, but have heard numerous reports from people who have. The
owner of this property also approached me for a rehab loan about a year ago. We sat down in my
office and went over the figures. He told me at that time there are no existing mortgages on the
property. The owner was reemployed, and due to injuries and disabilities could be conaidered
unemployable. His inmate was limited in, according to hum, about $300-$400 per month. I
went through all of his after -rehab expenses with him one by one (loan payment to City, tares,
insurance, heat, electricity, food etc.) and these expmtses added up to his entire (unverifiable)
income. It was clear to him that he could not afford a loan and living expenses, he left my office
with that understanding. I later found out that there was indeed a mortgage on the property,
96-389
which would have pushed his monthly expenses war' over his monthly income. I didn't go much
deeper into this project, but my sense is thatilds is a case of technical feasibility (although this is
disputed by those who have acmally seen the inside of the property), and even financial
feasibility relative to the fact that equity is good, (this is a very good neighborhood, and after -
rehab value would be high), but, the owner's credit, and ability to pay the large loan amount
probibited the loan from being made. It sounds to me that the only way to rehabilitate Us
property would be if moderate in upper income family (art eligible for the CD loan programd.
could purchase it for next to nothing, with clear title (almost impossible), and do $50,000 worth
of rehab, it might he financially feasible to rehabilitate this property. However, those are some
major obstacles.
M Parker Street:
I went through this property with the owner(awoman) well over 10 years no. Atthattimel
told theowner that the condition of the property was such that it was not relishable. Technically
speaking the work required was so extensive that it would be cheaper to demolish it and build a
new house. New construction is not permitted by HI under the Residential Rehabilitation
Loan Program. That was over ten years ago. The property bas not been touched since. This is
obviously a lost cause.