RFS 11153 assigned. If received outside of normal business hours, we will investigate this issue on the next business day.

YES!!!! Thank you for posting this! Such an eyesore and health hazard for many many years! WTF, UVM???
PLEASE stop neglecting these historical buildings, please repair asap. The amount of time this neglect has gone on is truly baffling and shameful. It should be repaired immediatly!

Issue acknowledged. UVM was notified.

UVM advises that maintenance of these historic buildings is excluded from the current year's budget. They are an eyesore at a gateway to the City and their delapidated condition reflects poorly on the City, the University and, by default, the neighbourhood.

It doesn't make sense that enormous NEW buildings have gone up and are currently being built, but these two historic buildings right on the Central Green, the beautiful focal point of our State University, are ignored year after year. What's REALLY going on, UVM?

"UVM was notified". OK then, what is UVM going to do about it? This has been outstanding for a month now - it would be helpful to receive an update.

Yes, please!

Is it not possible for Codes Enforcement to escalate this environmental abomination within UVM until someone deigns to respond?
If UVM was first notified on May 13th, and before that at the May 11th NPA (complete with contemptuous response), it is now more than one month that UVM has had to deal with this; surely enough time for UVM to offer Codes the courtesy of a response and corrective action plan?

Still no response on this topic.
How ironic (moronic?) is it that the City is spending $thousands repairing/replacing sidewalk in front of the Mansfield Avenue building, while the building itself is allowed to decay and deteriorate with impunity and no corrective action in sight?
Doesn't anyone care?
Come on Burlington/UVM, you can do better.

UVM's response which is to ignore the problem and the criticism is unworthy of a state university, as is the "it's not in the budget" non-explanation. This is a health and safety matter as well as a middle finger to the neighborhood and the community. It's a level of neglect that an institution with substantial maintenance resources and capabilities should never have allowed to develop in the first place.

As for Code, I wonder what verbal and/or written communication they have had on this matter, and why they would not be assessing daily fines for the violation to spur a more responsible and community spirited response. Now is the painting season!

A UVM fraternity (who heavily use that Math building on the corner) offered to scrape and paint it this spring as a thank you to their teachers in the building. UVM declined the offer. What a shame!

These classic old, possibly historic, buildings will be torn down to make a parking lot or yet another brick box if we don't get a defined commitment from UVM to repair them, from the outside in. (There are issues with mold and leaks inside, but all can be remediated)

Important Clarification: In 1996, using lead-safe work practices, the building was chemically treated and stripped down to bare wood to prepare the surface for the non-lead-based paint that is currently on the building.

Does that absolve UVM from their responsibility to rehabilitate their buildings now, twenty years later?
Hopefully "UVMSpokesperson" will offer the University's plan to deal with the existing condition.

PS: Important Clarification: The "non-lead-based paint" is mostly NOT "currently on the building"; it's flaked off.

I frankly don't expect UVM to offer any meaningful response to this issue - seriously, what could they possibly say that wouldn't be a total (and well deserved) embarrassment? I do, however, expect a response from my city government. One "UVM Notified" comment, after ~10 weeks have passed?!!? Come on - we should demand better. What say you, Mr. Ward?

The following is an excerpt from the report I submitted to the Zoning Administrator on July 14, 2016 regarding the complaint that there was demolition by neglect at this property.

At my request the UVM officials arraigned for me to tour the building on July 11, 2016. The interior tour gave me an opportunity to look in every room. The interior appeared to be in good condition with no apparent defects that would indicate water penetration or deteriorated surfaces. By comparison to similar structures of that age that are rental properties, the wall conditions and interior decorative features are better than average.
The last interior area I inspected was the attic. The top floor of the building is an unfinished attic space. It has limited headroom with the exception of center area near the peak of the roof-line. The space is unheated and not insulated. It was hot and dry in the attic. I went to the exterior walls and noted that the insulation materials along the wall edges were dry and intact. The wall and ceiling materials all appeared to be dry and in sound condition.

Before leaving the property I asked for permission to take a paint sample of the peeling paint. UVM staff agreed and confirmed their position that there should be no lead paint due to an abatement project about 20 years ago. Without objection, I took the sample of the yellow paint from the North side of the building where the complaint photo showed long strips of peeling paint. The surface area under the peeling paint looked more like new lumber products rather than original materials. The wood looked a little weathered but not aged or deteriorated.

I returned to the Code Enforcement office with the yellow paint sample for testing. I used a 3M product called “Lead Check Swabs”. Following the instructions on the label I used the swab to test the paint sample. The result was negative for lead based on the testing instructions. A positive lead test is indicated by a red or pink color on the swab after the test area is rubbed with the swab. I have used this test about a dozen other times and found a red color on all previous samples from other properties tested. This test, while not conclusive, supports the UVM statement that the area of peeling paint does not contain lead.

Relevant Zoning Ordinance and specific subsection:
(c) Demolition by Neglect:
No owner of a historic building, or lessee who is obligated by lease to maintain and repair such a structure (other than the interior), shall allow, cause, or permit the structure to suffer or experience demolition by neglect. Examples of such disrepair and deterioration include, but are not limited to, the following:
7. Lack of weather protection that jeopardizes the structural integrity of walls, roofs, plumbing, electricity, or overall structural integrity, including lack of paint, lack of adequate heating, and lack of adequate ventilation;

Initial Findings
At this time I see no evidence that the areas that are in need of painting have jeopardized the structural integrity of the building. The interior inspection does not indicate any areas of immediate concern relative to structural integrity.

Interim plan for compliance:

I recommended that until the exterior was completely painted/renovated, minimum preventative maintenance should be done to remove the areas of peeling paint and stabilize the remaining areas. The interior of the property will be scheduled for periodic inspection to confirm the conditions do not change before the exterior paint surfaces are stabilized more permanently.

The Zoning Administrator supported my recommendation and the building conditions will continue to be monitored.

Many thanks for the detailed response Bill.
Has UVM offered a timetable for repainting the structures? It's great that you have been able to give a thumbs-up to the type of paint used, and the integrity of the interior, but these properties are in the shop window of our City and reflect badly on us all, not so much UVM unless one realizes they're UVM's properties. Milt.

The UVM response and Code Enforcement follow-up touch upon one aspect of the problem – whether there is peeling paint that contains lead – but miss the more fundamental issue. The overall condition of the UVM building at 16 Colchester Ave and the one next to it are substandard, and they both continue to deteriorate. Woodwork, clapboards, windows, porches, etc. are in very poor condition. In fact there are a set of stairs that are so bad they are closed off, presumably due to safety concerns (the Code Enforcement Officer made no mention of these).

The condition and appearance of UVM, commercial, and rental housing buildings is integral to the fabric of the neighborhood and a sense of well-being. These buildings set a particularly poor example for private landlords, whom we all expect to live up to the standards imposed under Burlington’s housing and building codes. It is ironic that the rental house directly across the street on the corner of Mansfield and Colchester Ave -- owned by a landlord the City has been aggressively pursuing for interior code violations -- has a very well cared for exterior.

And make no mistake, this is not a new problem – these UVM buildings have been on a steady decline for the past 5 years.

We all understand that UVM has budgetary constraints, but they have simply neglected these buildings for too long. Time to take responsibility for them and to be more communicative to the public about their future.

Thank you all for your patience as UVM assessed options for both of these buildings. UVM has made the decision to paint both 12 and 16 Colchester Avenue. Work will entail minor repairs and new paint on both buildings. The project will begin on September 21st and last through November.

Finally! Thank you to everyone who pushed as long as it took to make sure the right thing is done for these buildings and our community!

Thanks Lisa, Thanks Bill!
Action: I love it!!

This work was underway earlier this week.

Closed

Would it not be appropriate to leave this action "Open" until the work is complete?
That way, we can see what is deemed acceptable to UVM and also Codes.

The reason we closed the issue was that the eliminating the peeling paint was what was required to resolve the issue.

It sounds like you want this to remain open until the contractor finishes painting. We can do that but it will remain "acknowledged" until the contractor wraps up and not open.

Can there be some clarification regarding the lead paint issue? One posting said there was no lead paint left on the building, but there are warning signs and caution tape for lead toxicity, and hazmat suits being worn by the workers.

The law requires that they proceed that way unless the property has been certified as lead free.

There was some previous lead abatement work there but the building never underwent a certification to be declared lead free. As a result, the workers must use all the precautions that you see today.

The building was repainted.

Closed

Thank you. #12 is still a mess, so could we please leave this open until it too has been repainted? Thank you.

We posted a photo of the building that was the same as the complaint photo. Our photos shows that the building was repainted as requested.

The University is finishing work on an adjoining building which was not photographed. We trust that that work will be completed soon.

We will check back in a few days for you to confirm that the painting was done at the other property too.

Thanks Bill,
Just checking! Trust but verify and all that.

These types of issues can be resolved in the future with a separate report for each property you want to see fixed. Thank you.

Respectfully, we have verified that 16 Colchester Avenue was repainted as requested. That was what was reported by GreenSpaceBlueWater.

I understand you want 12 Colchester to also be verified. We will do so.

The painting was done at the building next door too.

Closed

Fantastic!
Thanks to all concerned.

Thanks for fixing this issue!

Issue 1679980 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.