At Monday’s special meeting the Salisbury City Council unanimously overrode Mayor Jim Ireton’s veto of Resolution 2101. The resolution establishes a moratorium on enforcement actions against suspected illegal non-conforming uses typically known as “illegal conversions”.
In his veto message of September 14, Ireton states:
This action will prevent Neighborhood Services and Buildings, Permits and Inspections from advancing potential illegal non-conforming uses for investigation. Salisbury’s older neighborhoods expected, with the results of the last few elections, that a tough stance would be taken. Council, because it can’t work thoroughly with any sense of timing or purpose, has let our neighborhoods down. Newtown and North Camden residents are expecting the city to continue to fight illegal uses. The Safe Streets Neighborhood Legislation has been over a year waiting for city action and this moratorium will negatively impact our ability to protect the public.” said Mayor Ireton upon vetoing the legislation.
Since becoming mayor, Ireton has brought action against landlords owning suspected illegal conversions. Sadly, most of these actions have been unsuccessful due to the Board of Zoning Appeals’ acceptance of third party, hearsay evidence. This is why the council chose to pass Resolution 2101. The resolution calls for a moratorium for 90 days, or until the council passes new legislation governing the Board of Zoning Appeals – whichever is sooner.
It should be noted that Ireton’s remarks regarding council passage of the Safe Streets Legislation is not entirely accurate. It is true that council has only passed one portion of the legislation to date – the Tenant’s Rights Lease Addendum. However, much of the delay has been due to the mayor’s own law department.
We should also note that the moratorium will protect neighborhoods in the long run. If Ireton continues enforcement actions against “illegal conversions”, and continues to lose, those properties will have legal, non-conforming status.
7 comments:
these suspected nonconforming rental units in most cases have been licenced by the city for years, have been multi unit buildings for years and because the mayor has directed the departments to go on a witch hunt they send them notice that they must proof that they are legal non conforming or they must return to single family units. the city does not even have definitive records on file before 1960 yet they expect owners to proove beyond a reasonable doubt. how about the CITY proove that the houses are illegal. how about the city find the records to proove thir point instead of running around issuing letters to all non confoirming properties and giving the owner 30 days to proove what the city can't
G.A.
These "illegal conversions" which you are speaking about have a tricky past.
The majority of them are owned by new owners. These owners had nothing to do with the conversion wether legal or illegal. However, each year they register the units with NSCC and get the proper paperwork to rent these units.
Nobody from the City or Real estate companies made an issue of this at purchase. The buyer on good faith and proper due diligence bought these properties that were currently licensed by the City. In most cases these houses have been licensed for 6 years with no issue.
All the sudden with the change of the Mayor and Council they want the new owners to prove when they were converted. Some of the conversions go back 80 years!!!!!!!
It should be on the City to prove when they were converted...if they don't have the records to prove it and the City has given a license to the property; what evidence do you want?
Sounds like Government screwed up and allowed these rentals to operate for years with a license and now they change their mind.
What should an owner do when they purchase a home on goodfaith and proper due diligence?
G.A.
Some of the "illegal conversions" also have a 2 unrelated exemption. Meaning they can rent to 4unrelated tenants.
For an exemption the owner had to fill an application and pay a fee to the City to obtain this classification. However, the owner didn't get the classification until they passed Interior and Exterior inspections by the City. In addition, the surrounding homeowners had a chance to challenge the application within 30 days. The City placed a Notice on the property stating that the owner was seeking an exemption.
If there was an issue of its use it should have been examined at that time!!!!!!
G.A.
You and the Mayor are both wrong!!! This has nothing to do with Safe Streets Legislation!
It is currently called the "Neighborhood Legislative Package" according to the Citys' website.
This has nothing to do with the model developed in Annapolis, hence, the name change!! Sure there may be 1 or 2 things similiar to Annapolis, but that is it!!!
This is an agenda by the Council and the Mayor pure and simple!!
GA, the "mayors own legal department" as you call it is actually Terry & Debby's favorite playground.
D&T played a big part suthoring the Safe Streets package. They intended to attack landlords from the beginning.
While they love to play lawyer, T&D aren't quite so stupid as to try to pass illegal legislation, so they spend lots of taxpayer money on Paul Wilber.
Take a ride by the House on the corner of FritzwaterST. and Marine Rd. in Salis.Must be 2/3 familes living there with the front proch falling down. What a shame.
Anon 4:19...Call NCSS and stop complaining!!! There are laws on the books to deal with these issues.
We were told that the safe Streets Package was going to cure the crime in Salisbury. Nothing except the Tenant Bill of Rights a
has been passed and look at the success of the new Chief!!!
Crime was due to a ineffective Police Chief (Webster)!!!! Thank God for Chief Duncan...house don't cause crime people do....foot patrols, police on bikes, SPD working with the University Police, State police and Sheriff.
Thats how crime is reduced...the SPD have made an unfriendly crime environment and the results are showing.
Post a Comment