Troy City Coun­cil ex­tends nui­sance prop­erty time limit

The Record (Troy, NY) - - FRONT PAGE - Kwhit­comb@dig­i­tal­first­ @kwhit­com­bjr on Twit­ter

TROY, N.Y. » The ques­tion of how much time should the city have to call for a hear­ing on nui­sance prop­er­ties had City Coun­cil mem­bers in de­bate at their last meet­ing.

In Troy, points are as­signed to prop­er­ties for city code, and other law vi­o­la­tions. Af­ter a cer­tain num­ber of points are ac­crued, the prop­er­ties are deemed nui­sances and the mayor can is­sue or­ders against them.

Be­fore the June 7 City Coun­cil meet­ing, “Sec­tion 1. Ar­ti­cle III Chap­ter 205, Sec­tion 205-24,” al­lowed the city to call for a hear­ing on said prop­er­ties within 60 days.

Mayor Pa­trick Mad­den, and Troy Cor­po­ra­tion Coun­sel James Caruso asked the coun­cil to dou­ble that time limit.

Ul­ti­mately the Coun­cil voted 4-3 in fa­vor of amend­ing the or­di­nance to give the city 120 days, but not with­out some dis­cus­sion.

“I’m propos­ing this based on rec­om­men­da­tions by the Troy Po­lice De­part­ment, City Codes, and the Cor­po­ra­tion Coun­sel’s office,” Mad­den said. “The 60 day win­dow some­times doesn’t give us enough time to get through the en­tire process, and it ties our hands to a short time frame. We’d like a longer time­frame so we can get the process com­pleted.”

Coun­cil mem­bers asked if the city had lost any cases ow­ing to the time limit. Mad­den said not un­der his ad­min­is­tra­tion, that he’s aware of, how­ever there have been times where the city’s at­tor­ney’s wished they had a longer time­frame.

“I don’t see how this is good for the res­i­dents of the city of Troy,” said Coun­cil­man Mark McGrath. “You’re go­ing from 60 days to 120 days with a pri­vate prop­erty. The neigh­bors around these pri­vate prop­er­ties, they want (the prob­lem solved) the next day, which we know we can’t do. So now we’re go­ing from 60 to 120 days?”

He said the added time would only pro­long bad sit­u­a­tions.

At­tor­ney Rick Mor­ris­sey, who acts on be­half of cor­po­ra­tion coun­sel, said the ma­jor­ity of these mat­ters are re­solved within the 60 days, and with­out a hear­ing, how­ever, ex­tend­ing the time limit would al­low the city to su­per­vise a prop­erty for a longer pe­riod, mak­ing sure the owner com­plies with what­ever rem­edy they’d agreed to.

“The pur­pose isn’t to give re­cal­ci­trant landown­ers more time,” Mor­ris­sey said.

An at­tempt to split the dif­fer­ence was made by Coun­cil­man Jim Gulli who mo­tioned to amend the re­quest so that it gave the

city 90 days. He, McGrath, and Coun­cil Pres­i­dent Carmella Man­tello voted in fa­vor of the amend­ment, while Coun­cil mem­bers TJ Kennedy, Coleen Para­tore, Anasha Cum­mings, and David Bis­sem­ber voted it down. When it came time to vote on the orig­i­nal re­quest, Gulli, McGrath, and Man­tello voted no while the oth­ers voted yes.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.