Courts await journal entry from Marietta Law Director
Judge ruled that both properties must be abated by the city
115-117 Gilman Ave. in Marietta have been declared by the Washington County Common Pleas Court to be both a blight and public nuisance as defined by Ohio law.
Photos by Janelle Patterson Decay continues behind the blighted 115-117 Gilman Ave., Marietta, properties with a recent wind storm sending a dead tree at the property line into a trailer court owned by a family trust of the city law director.
A staggering man trespasses through the 115-117 Gilman Ave., blighted property in Marietta this week.
115-117 Gilman Ave. in Marietta have been declared by the Washington County Common Pleas Court to be both a blight and public nuisance as defined by Ohio law.
Photos by Janelle Patterson Decay continues behind the blighted 115-117 Gilman Ave., Marietta, properties with a recent wind storm sending a dead tree at the property line into a trailer court owned by a family trust of the city law director.
A staggering man trespasses through the 115-117 Gilman Ave., blighted property in Marietta this week.
Trending
Deadlines and timelines are still drawing scrutiny in Marietta following a court declaration of blight and a public nuisance on Gilman Avenue.
But the court's deadline for the city law director to return a journal entry was not met Monday, nor each subsequent day through Wednesday.
"I talked with Judge (John) Halliday's secretary today and it will be ready for him to review Monday morning," reported Marietta City Law Director Paul Bertram, after being questioned concerning the delayed filing.
Halliday ruled on April 19 that both properties must be abated by the city, though he did not outline a required way to abate the blight and nuisance.
According to Ohio Revised Code Section 3767.41(2)(a)"Public nuisance" means a building that is a menace to the public health, welfare, or safety; that is structurally unsafe, unsanitary, or not provided with adequate safe egress; that constitutes a fire hazard, is otherwise dangerous to human life, or is otherwise no longer fit and habitable; or that, in relation to its existing use, constitutes a hazard to the public health, welfare, or safety by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, or abandonment.
In that same section, state law defines an interested party as any owner, mortgagee, lienholder, tenant or person that possesses an interest of record in the property.
Halliday ruled on April 19 that John and Peggy Grimm are not interested parties as defined by law with a claim in the two blighted properties at 115 and 117 Gilman Ave., though they had stated a familial sentimental value in the property.
But according to public court documents noting their attorney's motion to intervene on April 19, the pair have now been listed as co-defendants in the case alongside the deceased owner of the property Donald S. Rose.
Bertram noted Wednesday that the property is still open to trespass and injury, in addition to the immediate danger of collapse identified by the structural assessment produced in evidence last week by Marietta Project Engineer Eric Lambert, with sworn testimony.
Also entered into the court record and available for public review were the sworn affidavits of neighbors Seth Robinson, CJ Smith, Gerald Willams and Jean Myers, Melinda Calvert, Jackson Patterson and Georganna Wade, which were acknowledged by the judge during the hearing.
Those same neighboring residents have repeated both in community meetings and in review of the case this week that the structure must not be left without action for another summer.
"I still worry about people getting in there and a fire happening, I can't let my great-grandkids walk by, can't let them play back in this field," said Elizabeth Newlen, another neighbor of the blighted structure.
Newlen described Monday the continued activity she has witnessed over the years of decay of the property but was interrupted as she watched another individual staggering through the property.
"That happens all the time, what if they get in one of those buildings and it catches fire," she asked.
Bertram noted that the property is expected to be fenced off by the city, but did not identify a date and confirmed that fencing is not a legal satisfaction of the order to abate.
According to the same ORC section identified above, abatement is defined in state law as "the removal or correction of any conditions that constitute a public nuisance and the making of any other improvements that are needed to effect a rehabilitation of the building that is consistent with maintaining safe and habitable conditions over its remaining useful life."
"Abatement" does not include the closing or boarding up of any building that is found to be a public nuisance.
"I do know that it has already had its asbestos evaluation," Bertram shared Wednesday. "That happened (on Tuesday). Now I need to review what other documents we have before I say the timeline."
Bertram also stated that he was aware of a tree aligning the Rose property with a trailer park under his family's trust ownership that had collapsed barely missing an active gas meter.
Safety-Service Director Steve Wetz confirmed city officials' awareness of the tree and the determination that the tree was Bertram's responsibility.
"It will be taken out of there as soon as I get someone that is available and charges a reasonable price," said Bertram.
He also noted an abandoned trailer on the family trailer court property that was boarded up by city staff last year is expected to be demolished by the end of May.
Janelle Patterson may be reached at jpatterson@mariettatimes.com.