The 150 Park Street property abuts the Goose River and comprises less than half an acre. According to Town Manager Jon Duke, Rockport has received complaints, “regarding the dilapidated status of the home at this location and the Code Enforcement Officer was asked to investigate.”

The building, according to the town code enforcement office, was vacant, had multiple openings, and was rotting. Its history may extend back 223 years, having thought to have been constructed in 1800. It was possibly Camden’s first post office, and has been noted on a former real estate listing to feature post and beam construction. According to municipal tax records, Elizabeth Hart purchased the property in 2019. The current assessed value of the land, house and barn is $117,700.

A memo to the board (See attached meeting packet PDF for the full correspondence between the parties) said property owner Hart, of Lincolnville, had been given, “multiple opportunities over the past year to either tear down her building, which has been deemed a ‘Danger and a Nuisance’ or rehabilitate the building where it stands.”

With the Select Board’s involvement, the town may issue a Findings and Order Oct. 10. A Findings and Order is a legal directive to tend to property within a municipality. Property owners have the right to appeal the order at Superior Court.

The conversation about the building goes back at least a year. Bickford had contacted Hart with a letter dated Oct. 7, 2022, requesting that she talk with him about her intent for the structure.

At the end of December, he wrote to her again, acknowledging that she had replied, and encouraging her to produce a plan and date of action.

“Your ideas all make good sense but have no time frame and time is important,” he wrote in an email to Hart. “I will restrain until Feb. 1 to give you the chance to determine the best and quickest way that you think works for you.”

After that, he warned, he would have no reasonable option except to declare the building dangerous. It would then be incumbent on Hart to fix the building or tear it down.

“If you can’t afford the cost of removal of the structure, the town may be willing to enter a consent agreement to remove the structure with a payment system,” he wrote.

On Feb. 21, he wrote to her again: “Warm weather is coming soon. What’s your thoughts? Demo, Save, or Sell, perhaps?”

Over the next month, he suggested that Hart obtain a surveyed plan of the property. She responded that she had a demolition quote, with perhaps a spring timeline, and indicated the possibility of building or moving the building.

In early May, Bickford warned Hart that a violation notice was pending. Later in the month, she wrote to Bickford that a survey was forthcoming. She also inquired, according to an exchange of emails, about the possibility of tearing the building down and rebuilding.

Bickford subsequently responded in June with an outline of zoning ordinances and municipal processes. Hart responded that she had plans to tear the building down, but wanted a guarantee that she could rebuild on the lot. Hart requested clarification.

As of Oct. 10, the issue has moved before the Select Board, with Bickford recommending the following:

Ordering a letter of intent be submitted to the town stating what the plans are for the building and a timeline that includes an immediate start date; and