Neighbors want to clean up Sharon Valley eyesores

SHARON — What one person described as “the entire Sharon Valley” turned out for a special meeting of the Board of Selectmen to discuss a pair of eyesore properties on Sharon Valley Road. 

The meeting was held at Town Hall on Thursday evening, Feb. 18. About 40 people attended, including Town Attorney Judith Dixon, Zoning Enforcement Officer Jamie Casey, Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Barclay Prindle and building inspector Stanley MacMillan.

The addresses of the homes and the names of the family that has lived for many years on the two properties were not discussed. First Selectman Brent Colley, in opening the discussion, reiterated several times that “This is a touchy subject because these people are our friends, family, community members, neighbors.”

He noted that there are eyesore properties all around town, but that Thursday’s meeting was only about the two Sharon Valley residences. The meeting had been called in response to multiple letters and complaints sent to the selectmen’s office about the residences. 

The properties were described by other Sharon Valley residents as having as many as 30 to 40 junk cars in front of and behind the main buildings. 

One of the properties has a trailer on it now, and a person is said to be living in that trailer.  Several people said that person has been digging a hole in the yard and putting sewage into it. 

Another concern voiced by several people at the meeting was that there are toxic liquids leaking from the cars and running into the street and contaminating the soil. Piles of tires on the property were also described as a source of contamination for the soil. 

The bank owns them now

The town attorney clarified several points in terms of what the town can and can’t do to try and clear what was described several times during the one-and-a-half hour meeting as “blight.”

First she noted that both properties have been foreclosed on and are owned by the bank. The tenants have not yet been evicted, however, because tenants have strong protections under the law. It can take months to years for a property owner to legally evict a tenant. 

Until the tenant is evicted, it’s illegal to take away that person’s private property, even including old, non-functioning cars and bags of trash piled up on the lawn.

Once the tenant is finally evicted, the bank will hire a contractor to come in and clean up the property and try to sell it.

It’s a long process, Dixon agreed, but she urged the valley residents to be patient. “You’re coming toward the end of that process.”

Audience members expressed unhappiness when they heard that it could take as long as one or two years for that process to come to an end. 

How to define blight

Several people asked Dixon what would be involved in creating a blight ordinance. Dixon said it’s a lengthy process that would begin with her presenting a draft ordinance to the selectmen, which they would then present to the town at town meeting. 

She cautioned that blight ordinances are unwieldy and can be expensive to enforce. A first big challenge is how to define “blight.” She warned that “once a definition is created, it applies to you and everybody else around town.”

Dixon further explained that the process of clearing up a blighted property is also long and expensive and often, ultimately, creates new problems. A trained blight inspector has to be hired by the town to work weekly; he or she can’t be hired on a case by case basis. The inspector would have to go around town and tell anyone with blight on their property to clean it up or face a fine. 

“There has to be a sense that the ordinance is being enforced equally,” Dixon warned. Some towns have faced lawsuits from property owners who said that the blight ordinance was being applied to them as a type of discrimination because they were, for example, disabled or a minority.

If repeated warnings and fines are ignored then a lien can be placed on the property and the town can eventually take possession of it and clean it up. 

Even after a property has been cleaned up, the town has to then figure out what to do with that land. Sometimes it can be sold easily; sometimes, it’s not so easy to get rid of.

Offers to help with cleaning

Several people in the audience asked if they are allowed to go to the two properties in question and offer to help clean them up.

Dixon noted that some people consider it their right to keep a lot of possessions on their property. And, she warned, not everyone agrees on what is unsightly on a property. 

“The idea of asking if they would like help is fine,” said Selectman Dale Jones. “And you will find out very quickly if they want your help.”

It was also noted several times that cleaning up a property once doesn’t mean it will remain clean; it’s likely that debris will accumulate again, perhaps quickly.

Moving forward

Selectman Jessica Fowler summed up what seem to be the three biggest concerns about the property: sewage and garbage; junk; and the squatter tenant living in the trailer.

She said the board will look into the pros and cons of creating a blight ordinance. And Dixon said she will keep an eye on the bank to be sure that the eviction process has begun. 

The selectmen asked anyone with concerns to send them to their office, preferably in writing. ZEO Jamie Casey said that anyone who has questions about what can and can’t legally be done on a specific property can come to her office and look in the files.

First Selectman Brent Colley called The Lakeville Journal just before press time on Tuesday, Feb. 23, to say that the bank was contacted after the meeting, and that the front of one of the properties has now been cleaned up. “It looks much better than it did,” Colley said.