Yesterday, Pete Smith, a Middletown man who has been fighting to pay off blight violations on his childhood home, won a small victory at an appeals hearing for fines levied on his two parcels from the dates of August 22 to October 23, 2025.

“After reviewing the record, the testimony today, I made the following conclusions,” said Ben Schimelman, Middletown’s Citation Hearing Officer. “As to the property at 212 Sisk, I found insufficient evidence of blight, and accordingly, the fines are inapplicable for the property. At 20 White Road., however, I have found sufficient evidence of blight.”

212 Sisk St. is the parcel upon which Smith lives, having been first purchased by his father, Barney J Smith, in 1959. 20 White Road, purchased by his father in 1962, is an adjacent parcel containing a barn. Per Schimelman, the hearing centered on determining “whether what the city assessed in fines was appropriate in light of the facts of the case.” 

Upon receipt of a notice of blight, residents have thirty days to bring their property into compliance. As Smith’s notice was given on July 23, he had until August 22 to bring both parcels into compliance. The city argued that since he hadn’t, he owed $12,400 in total; $100 per day, for each of the 62 days from August 22 to October 23, per each property. Since Schimelman found one parcel to be blighted and the other to not be, Smith now only has to pay $6,200.

“Well, I’m glad he’s leaving the house off of it,” said Smith. “Another $6,000… that’s unfortunate. I don’t have it.”

Smith was accompanied by a friend of his, John Dasconio, who Smith said has both helped him in his cleanup efforts and lent him money to help pay off the $74,000 in prior fees owed to the town. Middletown’s City Counsel, Brig Smith, and Zoning Enforcement Officer, Thomas Hazel, presented 15 exhibits to reinforce the city’s case against Smith. Hazel, considered a witness to the proceedings, was sworn in before being examined by Brig.

“On an annual basis, I’m probably issuing 30-40 citations a year out of 150 to 200 cases per year,” testified Hazel. “As long as people serve me with a proper plan and stick to a timeline, typically the city will work towards compliance that way. We’re not here to generate money, we’re here to get compliance.”

The two walked through their exhibits, presenting the City’s case against Smith. The exhibits consisted of the notices of blight, citations, and failure to pay notices issued to Smith from the dates of July 23 to October 23, 2025, for both of his parcels. Additionally, the two presented photos taken from site visits conducted by Hazel on September 11, October 30, and December 12. 

While the initial notices of blight included citations for bulky waste and grass or weeds greater than eight inches, Hazel noted that in his citations, issued on September 9, he only cited Smith’s properties for the waste. Hazel said he did this for two reasons: because the autumnal changes to Smith’s vegetation made it harder for him to discern if anything had been done to the grass or weeds, and because he considered it “the lesser of the two issues.” 

When asked what elements constituted bulky waste, Hazel said that the majority of vehicles, of which Smith owns several, were not a concern, given that they were registered and in working condition, but that many of the other possessions kept in his yards were.

“There was a lot of debris, tarps, buckets, metal items, cars — a myriad of items strewn about the two properties,” said Hazel, who noted they were visible from the street. He said if Smith’s possessions were “not visible from the road in the public way, I could not cite him for this [blight].” 

Hazel argued that the photos taken on each date clearly show that Smith hasn’t done enough to bring the property into compliance.

“The conditions are still similar to the conditions since the notice of blight,” said Hazel.

When Smith had his chance to testify, he argued several points. He noted that the property, until very recently, has not only belonged to him but his brothers, preventing him from removing certain items. In response, Brig pointed to a section of the blight ordinance which noted that responsibility falls on “all owners, operators and occupants” of the property.

Smith also said that he was never notified at the time of any of the visits, and told Hazel he would have liked “to have been present with you to maybe explain what’s going on.” Additionally, Smith noted that he had been hard at work removing waste from the property; he noted he’s removed over 25,000 lbs of scrap metal in the last month, has “gotten rid of a large amount of tires,” and has removed additional unregistered vehicles.

“This is a situation in a state of constant flux, the picture shows us an instant in time,” said Smith. “There’s constant activity here; moving stuff, getting rid of stuff. The dumpster has come and gone once already totally full – the pictures don’t show anything, it shows this big ugly thing there.”

Additionally, Smith said that some of the items pictured shouldn’t be considered waste, as he has legitimate uses for them, such as wheelbarrows, shovels or other lawn tools, and said that some of the buckets near the edge of his property were full of items he had arranged to be left there for collection by interested parties. 

Responding to Hazel’s earlier point that the violations were only levied because his possessions are visible from the street, Smith said he had inquired about putting up a fence, and purchased “four sections” of 6-by-10-foot “chain link fence with the slats in it, so you can’t see through,” but didn’t put them up after being told they were non-compliant.

“Mr. Hazel flatly told me, ‘chain link fence is not allowed in the residential area,’” said Smith. “I don’t have money to buy PVC, combustible fencing, or anything else.”

Smith said that ultimately, if the blight fines were to continue, he would lose his property and be homeless.

“With the blight fines continuing to accrue, now I will be homeless, and I will lose this property to foreclosure,” said Smith. “I will lose this property to foreclosure, and I will lose all my property.”

After the decision was made and the hearing concluded, Smith said he would continue working on getting the property cleaned, but was worried about what might happen if the town continues to charge him fines or if they decide to cite him for blight for other non-compliant parts of the property, such as his roof or vegetation.

“My goal, [is] I want to see this blight ordinance eliminated,” said Smith.

Brig Smith reiterated on Hazel’s prior remarks that the city isn’t hoping to make money off of Pete, just ensure compliance.

“As the ZEO testified, the city’s goal is not to make any money, it’s to clean up the blight,” said Brig. “The best outcome for the city, the neighbors, and for Mr. Smith himself, is to make sure the blight is remediated.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.