Birely Tannery building code violations MP

The Birely Tannery building at 212 E. Patrick St. The city of Frederick has cited the property for code violations.

The historic Birely Tannery building downtown — a part of the property slated to be turned into a hotel and conference center — has caught the attention of the city’s code enforcement office for property maintenance violations.

The building at 212 E. Patrick St. is slated for sale to Plamondon Hospitality Partners for the construction of the planned downtown hotel and conference center. The vacant building is owned by members of the Randall family, some of whom also own the parent company of The Frederick News-Post.

In response to concerns from county resident Ned Bond — an anti-blight activist who frequently takes photos and video of downtown buildings and gives them to the city when he thinks owners are falling short on maintenance — city code enforcement officers in March checked out the property and confirmed a set of violations. Brittany Parks, the city’s acting division manager for code enforcement, said the owner, 200 E. Patrick Street, LLC, was issued a notice of violation with steps it needed to take to gain compliance.

Will Randall, the general manager of 200 E. Patrick Street, LLC, wrote Tuesday in an email that the family is addressing the complaints.

“Our contractor and property manager met just this past weekend with representatives of the city and are coming up with a plan to address the violations as cost effectively as possible,” Randall wrote. A crew was spotted working on the tannery building on Good Friday.

Parks said Monday that she believes members of the Randall family have promptly addressed every code violation that has been issued at the tannery site in the past several years.

According to city documents, the code complaints at the Birely Tannery building issued on March 20 and 27 include:

  • Missing, damaged and improperly boarded-up windows.
  • Missing and damaged lintels.
  • Missing or damaged and rotting soffits, roof trim and fascia.
  • Missing drainpipe and defective gutters.
  • Chipped or missing paint.

Collectively, the code enforcement office expressed concerns that these maintenance problems could lead to further water damage to the building.

In the past year, two other notices of violation were issued to the tannery owners. Repairs were made, and the cases closed.

The tannery building was initially set for demolition in the plans for the hotel and conference center and may still be torn down. The city’s Historic Preservation Commission will have the final say on any demolition order.

Officials with the Maryland Historical Trust announced in February that the tannery building and archaeological site at East Patrick and Carroll streets belong on the National Register of Historic Places. The designation means that historic elements of the site must be preserved through any future development, but that does not determine whether the building will or won’t be demolished.

The Birely Tannery was established in 1830 and operated until 1952. The current building was constructed in 1909 after a fire.

Follow Mallory Panuska on Twitter: @MalloryPanuska.

(12) comments

jerseygrl42

Interesting that a private citizen had to report these violations rather than the owners just fixing what they know to be violations or the city inspectors who must pass by at least occasionally...wonder why and wonder what is in the soil that no one wants to check our before the taxpayers buy it

jwhamann

This building is an eyesore. Just knock it down in one fell swoop and nobody will miss it. Historic? It's a building re-constructed in 1909. Just look at all the tacky additions to it. Those exterior window shades are probably from the 1970s.

Dwasserba

Awnings give it that homey touch

Crusty Frederick Man 64

Here we go again . " has called the attention of the city code enforcement office for property maintenance violations ". Really, so how did they miss this one? Code enforcement did not have a problem seeing A little chipping paint on my house last year! With that I received a code violation saying 30 days to comply or a $400 fine etc. etc. When talking to code enforcement they said the city you wanted properties to look nice for the visitors coming into town. Being retired and on a limited income I asked if I could have more than 30 days to do the repairs NO was the answer. So I wonder will this property owner be held to the same rules . So the question is should I have changed my last name when I made my call ?

AnotherFineMess

This building was tagged as blighted and undergoing demolition by neglect in 2013. Code only required the securing of plywood and clearing of vines

The building was cited last year for damaged windows and rotting wood but painting the plywood was the only corrective action required.

This property owner is not held to the same compliance requirements as you unfortunately. They were not required to repair any rot on the building. There is a documentation trail that makes the property owner and the City look pretty bad.

DickD

Crusty, the answer is; Yes. Better yet, change it to Young, you can get anything through the Maryland legislative branch, except school funding.

AnotherFineMess

A picture worth 1000 words? None in this article.

It doesn't look like the owners have done any maintenance for years and the City let them get away with it. A fine, howdy do, to all those that have had to bow to code enforcement over the years!

The next time you get a code violation just tell em, I'm going to demolish my house and you'll be left alone!

Burgessdr

AnotherFineComplainer. Very typical of you. Always seeking an opportunity to complain. Code violations are issued. Repairs being started. And you whine and moan. Some people see glass half full, others half empty. Others see every glass full of bile

AnotherFineMess

As usual you are completely uninformed.

Repairs were supposed to have been made previously and were not! The reason for all the rot and missing windows. Documentation exists to prove that.

The reason code mandated action was because of complaints. That tends to validate the complaining. If the complaints had no merit, code enforcement would not issue violations.

If there was approval for demolition (which there is not) code would not have issued violations.

Burgessdr

Bottom line is code violations issued and work started. That is positive. But you see it, as always, just AnotherFineOpportunity to complain.

Burgessdr

You Complain when FNP doesn't have an article about code violations, but then when they do, you complain that they didn't include a photo. Quite clear evidence of a pattern ...

MAVRICKinc7

SO, can we conclude "blighted properties" are something you prefer to ignore. After all, Frederick has had a 50 year head start to do something and did NOTHING, as with other blighted properties found over the past 25 years?

So, isn't your assessment of COMPLAINERS a bit of an exaggeration while you sit in judgement on matters of BLIGHT that Frederick, Maryland and its privileged society have watched crumble around its own foundation for decades? Or, do you prefer not to know what Frederick's is going to be in the next ten years, or do you have a plan that centers on obfuscation and obstruction of the TRUTH?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.