By Amanda Estes
Staff Writer
     It is rare that Scarborough Code Enforcement has to take action to remove private structures that pose a safety hazard, however, at Wednesday’s council meeting, there were two requests for the removal of two barn structures: one located at 201 Gorham Road and the other located at 394 Black Point Road.
      Town Manager Ron Owens said the town is responsible for removal when property owners lack the financial resources to do it themselves. He said the residents have been compliant with the order.
      Six members of the council approved the request for the removal of the Gorham Road structure with a vote of 4-2 with Richard Sullivan and Carol Rancourt opposed. The request for removal of the Black Point Road structure was also approved with a vote of 5 -1 with Shawn Babine opposed. After the vote concerning Gorham Road, however, a question posed by Babine to Code Enforcement Officer Tom Reinsborough, raised concerns over the town’s responsibility to remove structures that are attached to dwelling units.
      “I want to reconsider the last motion now that I understand they are both attached,” said Babine referring to both barn structures.
      The town will have to put a lien on the properties to cover costs of removal, which Owens estimated to be between $7,500 and $15,000. In the case of the Black Point Road structure, costs for a new entryway and new steps are also included in the estimate. Babine suggested the town not rush into getting a lien where the structures are attached to living environments.
      Earlier in the meeting, Rancourt asked if the state also had a lien on the properties and who would be repaid first: Scarborough or the state. Rancourt said she had private knowledge about the Black Point Road property that she could not disclose. She later said that a lien did not guarantee the recuperation of funds.
      Rancourt said her concerns were budgetary. She said if the funds are not going to be recoverable and there are other structures that need to be removed down the road, it could become an “unexpected drain on town finances.” Babine echoed her concerns, stating in a tight budget cycle, the tax base is not the right source to draw from.
      “You cannot just leave it there once you’ve identified it as a hazardous structure,” Owens said. “Every enforcement action is a cost to the town...it’s part of what we are responsible for doing to protect the public.”
      Sylvia Most said she was in favor of the town’s action as code enforcement had already made the order and the property owners were in compliance with it. She said a fire was an example of a situation that would not only put the residents at risk, but also public safety officials.
      Reinsborough said this course of action gives the residents an opportunity to stay in Scarborough. He said the other option would be to go to court and ask a judge to order removal of the structures,’ but that would likely result in the property owners losing their homes.
 Sullivan said he had reconsidered his vote on the Gorham Road property.
 “Looking at the pictures, it’s pretty obvious these people don’t have money,” he said. He said taking them to court could cost the town more than the cost to remove the structures.
      Chairman Jeff Messer said for him the issue was “pretty black and white.” He said he was in favor of the town removing the buildings for several reasons including their current hazardous and unattractive state, the owners’ compliance, the minimal cost of removal and the town’s potential liability for death or injuries related to the structure.
      Patrick O’Reilly inquired as to whether the two property owners were up to date with their taxes. When told that they were, he said taking the issue to court could also result in the property owners going delinquent on their taxes. He said “barring a 100 percent tax lien from the state, Scarborough will have some opportunity to recoup the costs.”
      Reinsborough said all parties will sign a formal written agreement. Up until the council meeting, he said the property owners’ compliance had been in the form of a verbal agreement. He said they still have some time to withdraw from the authorization.