Trending
RENOVO--Residents and owners of a row home containing 16 units that was declared unfit for habitation have lost their argument that Renovo Borough abused its discretion and erred in issuing a building condemnation notice.
Judge Michael Salisbury of the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas issued a multi-page opinion Tuesday, affirming the Renovo Borough Board of Appeal's decision regarding the building along 14th Street.
The borough, via its codes officer, Victor Marquardt, had declared the building at 133-163 14th St. unsafe for habitation in a notice dated Sept. 16, 2019.
Owners of the properties appealed that decision to the appeal board in a few short days.
A hearing was held last November and it was continued into 2020 while the borough provided the residents with counsel and notification specifying necessary repairs.
The subsequent hearing was held earlier this year and the board voted 3-0 to deny the appeal.
The property owners raised the following issues to the court:
-- Did the Notice provided by the Renovo Borough Code Officer to the Property Owners satisfy the requirements of Section 107 of the International Property Maintenance Code of 2015?
-- Does Section 109 of the International Property Maintenance Code of 2015 equire the Borough of Renovo to order and initially fund the necessary work to be done to make the 14th Street property safe?
-- Was the inspection conducted by the Renovo Borough Code Officer andthe Borough's structural engineer sufficient to make a determination that the sixteen(16) unit building on 14th Street was unsafe?
Judge Salisbury ruled that the "court is satisfied that the board did not abuse its discretion, commit an error of law, or make findings not supported by substantial evidence regarding the likelihood of the progressive collapse of the entire building."
The appeals board in January of this year, on a 3-0 vote, had rejected the appeal from the 14th Street row house residents seeking relief from a borough condemnation notice issued last fall.
Residents have tried to argue that the building could be sufficiently repaired to allow occupancy.
The borough, backed by code and engineering opinions, argued otherwise, insisting the brick building was unsafe. According to engineering opinions, portions of the unoccupied unit at 155 14th St. had collapsed into the building, making the firewall unstable and risking further collapse on the other units.
There also were opinions on the hazards presented by the fire-damaged unit at 137 14th St., which also was at risk of collapse.
In its initial finding, the borough insisted the building, (most notable, but not limited to the property at 155 14th St.) "is deteriorated, decayed, and has begun to collapse, making it unsafe …," and that "an unsafe structure is one that is found to be dangerous to the life, health, property or safety of the public or the occupants of the structure by not providing minimum safeguards to protect or warn occupants in the event of fire, or because such structure contains unsafe equipment or is so damaged, decayed, dilapidated, structurally unsafe or of such faulty construction or unstable foundation, that partial or complete collapse is possible."
It's possible Judge Salisbury's ruling could be appealed to a state court, but no word was received on that by press time last night.