Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Borough moves forward on impaired Locust Street building

208-210 Locust Street

Columbia Borough recently filed a blighted property application with the Lancaster County Housing and Redevelopment Authorities (LCHRA) to place 208-210 Locust Street on a blighted property list. (The building's front wall was deemed in danger of collapse last summer, and steps were taken to secure it.)  The process requires LCHRA to receive certification from the Lancaster County Planning Commission (LCPC). LCPC recently approved moving forward with the certification. The Columbia Borough Planning Commission must also act on the issue, according to Columbia Mayor Leo Lutz.

If the Columbia Borough Planning Commission approves the certification, LCHRA will seek to purchase the property from owners Sam and Cynthia Bigler. If an agreement of sale cannot be reached and the owners do not sell to another entity, the property will be listed as blighted, and LCHRA will sell it to a party who will meet the conditions for redevelopment of the property.

If at any time during the process the owners present a certified plan to remediate the property - with signed engineering drawings and an approved timeline in accordance with the demands of LCHRA - they will be able to do so.

“Remember, it's difficult to take a property," Lutz said. "People who own property do have rights, but the municipality also has rights." 

21 comments:

  1. Woah!Woah!Woah!!! Its about time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who in the HELL WOKE UP!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It should be a no brainier for Columbia Boro Planning to agree with the county.I think Bigler may now get the message that everybody is tired of no action being done. Hopefully, this action will not take a year, since it has been almost a year already.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What is Columbia Boro so afraid of? Go get them. We don't have money for this. We the people already help pay the rent as their tenants are low income. They are slumlords.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's time to eradicate ALL slum lords in this town. We'll NEVER advance until that's done. No more pussy-footing and playing nice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is amazing that it took all this time for this action to happen. Why is it in other towns, if a building was deemed to collapse, the building would either be fixed or tore down in a shorter amount of time. If a property is a hazard, get after the owner to correct.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When you look at the deed transactions in the Sunday paper, who are all the different LLP's listed. Are they a collection of slum Lords forming partnerships and bringing more cheap housing to the boro, and create more rentals and creating more hardships on the single house owners and paying of taxes. The boro needs to start encouraging single family home ownership and less rentals. Taxes are killing the boro.

    ReplyDelete
  7. when does the code officers come back from hiatus? There is a property on 509 Locust Street here in the Borough that is in bad shape. the roof is in bad shape and the shingles are falling on the front sidewalk on cars and pedestrians as well. The back yard has tall grass and weeds that attract rodents and mosquitos. But alas; the Borough owns this property...... what ups with that I wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If they can not take care of their own properties, what does that say about the code enforcement in the boro.How can tell others about taking care of their properties when they do not take of their own?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tear that eye sore down and make a nice walking rest stop park with a piano for pedestrians like they did in Lancaster next to the Press Room !

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would like to know if all his taxes are payed up! How much taxes are on the locust st. property?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bigler owes about $50,000 to the borough. I'm not sure how much of that is for taxes.

      Delete
    2. That does not reflect tax dollars.

      Delete
  11. Even single family dwellings need to be addressed by our CODES DEPT.
    Yes you know,,

    ReplyDelete
  12. What's the deal with the Code Dept.? It's a laughing stock. How can Council let this continue??? It surely seems like it "depends who you are" and rules are meant only for certain people. We see this every single day. As a taxpaying homeowner, I am sick and tired of seeing the inconsistancy in this dept. First and foremost your priority should be to cite, fine, whatever and everything you can humanly do to be 100% sure that ALL SLUMLORDS ARE taking care of and take pride in their properties. With more than 800 in this Boro, just the problem rentals should be ALL you have time for. There are quite a few that have been problems for YEARS AND YEARS. You hear it from your family friends and neighbors. You've seen it firsthand yourself. Stop harassing homeowners to paint, IF they could afford it, they'd do it! But hey their taxes are exorbitant. This dept is way overdo for an overhaul.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think the property at 509 Locust St. is listed or going to be listed as a blighted property. There are 3 properties listed as blighted in Friday's Lancaster paper.

    ReplyDelete
  14. How many years will it take for the Biglers to pay up if that number is correct. I am sure they will find a loophole to delay payment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And now go immediately after the other properties. Union Street at Third is turning into an eye sore. Overflowing trash onto the sidewalk seems to be common.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with Bob. I wonder if he conformed with the zoning issue of off street parking at 3rd and Union.He has a lot up the street, but there may be drainage issues he never corrected. It should be in the zoning minutes when it was approved, with conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The building was always maintained when it was a Business. Now it's starting to look like Lancaster County Solid Waste. Keep after Him!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Demolish it before winter or it's likely to collapse on to the building next door. The farmers almanac is predicting big snow loads this year.

    ReplyDelete