An appeal hearing for a public nuisance order for 243 Jackson Ave. turned into more than 90 minutes of covering the same issues before the Bradford Board of Health.

A substantial amount of time was spent with property owner Linda Allen of Atlanta, who was testifying by video conference, berating Bradford’s property maintenance department for citing her in the first place.

At the June board meeting, member Tom Riel mentioned that in 2021, when the house was vacant, a pipe burst and more than 100,000 gallons of water ran through the house. Allen disagreed. Riel said he was there, had heard the water running and had called in the Bradford Water Authority himself.

“Water did not go all throughout the house,” she said. “This is what I do for a living. There’s nothing I can’t notice in a house. That was the first thing I was looking for was water damage. There was none.”

The water was contained to the basement only, she said, and opined that it came from the hill behind the house. Riel told her again that was not the case, and pointed out storm drains where water from the hill flows.

She replied sharply, “I don’t think so.”

Board member Kris Goll asked whether, from when she bought the house at judicial sale in 2023 until she was first cited by property maintenance, she had done any work on the house.

“Yes,” she insisted, saying she removed trees and bushes and the sidewalk was redone.

At the beginning of the hearing, she told the board, “The house is actually in mint condition. The previous owner failed to do any maintenance on the house. I inherited her neglect.”

When conditional issues were brought up by the board, Allen would ask if the prior owner had been cited for it. When health director Brandon Plowman told her violations went back to 2018, she said she had filed a Right to Know request, and that the prior owner wasn’t cited for it.

That was not relevant at this hearing, several members brought up, as she is the owner now.

When it was Plowman’s turn to present evidence on the conditions of the house, Allen objected to his credentials and certifications, and to photos that she hadn’t seen as they were “biased.” The photos, Plowman pointed out, were of her property. Solicitor Mark Hollenbeck interrupted and asked the photos be shown to Allen and that she take a moment to make note of her concerns before they continued.

She began speaking about the photos, to which president Fred Proper said she would have time later in the hearing to do so.

When Tyler Hannah, DPMI counsel, moved to admit the photos for evidence, Allen objected. “I should have been given notice of these. I don’t have them in front of me. I sent my exhibits that you are well aware of.”

Hollenbeck said, “I think that’s one of the downfalls of lack of in-person attendance. I think you are within your rights to ask for a continuance.”

Allen didn’t want a continuance, and didn’t want to be given time to review the pictures.

The case moved on. Plowman said, “The roof on the entire structure is dilapidated, deteriorated and needs replacement. The soffit and fascia is completely deteriorated.”

The exterior needs to be resided or repainted. There is one broken window, the gutters are either missing or don’t work correctly, the rear porch is in disrepair with the decking collapsing and the uprights needing to be replaced.

When asked if she had any questions, Allen again asked if the prior owner was cited for those issues.

Riel said, “Hold on a minute, do not go outside the realm of the testimony Mr. Plowman just gave.”

The photos were admitted into evidence.

When asked to make a final statement, Allen again stated the prior owner wasn’t cited for the problems. “It’s not fair. It’s such a hardship on me. It’s not a public health problem.”

She started talking about a cut gas line before she was interrupted by Riel and told to stay within the scope of the hearing.

Proper asked her what she wanted to do about correcting the issues that property maintenance raised. She said she would repair parts of the roof, but didn’t have the money to replace it.

Board member Kris Goll said, “Miss Allen throughout the testimony has picked and chosen what repairs she wants to make based on her ability to pay. The city has given her the list on what to repair.”

She had been offered 90 days to make repairs. However, she told them she was not going to replace the roof, but would only repair the worst parts.

Hollenbeck expanded on Goll’s comment, saying, “If Miss Allen says she will repair the back portion of the roof, is it satisfactory to the city or not?

When asked, Plowman said, “Given the condition of the roof’s state, I would suggest the roof would have to be replaced now.”

“Does it have to be done to meet code?” Hollenbeck asked.

“Yes,” Plowman said.

“I object to that assessment,” Allen said.

“Noted,” Proper said.

“I can’t do the whole roof,” she said. “He’s entering a new violation that was not part of the original purpose of the whole meeting. Right now I just want to fix what is the major problem, which is that back area. Yes I object to the entire roof. Let’s stick to what…”

Goll interrupted. “Three feet of the roof on the north side of your home is gone. Do you realize that? Plus you bought a home in 2023 that had been condemned. I’m going to make a motion to affirm the public nuisance order for 243 Jackson Ave.”

The motion passed unanimously. She asked for the names of who made the motion and who seconded it; Goll made the motion, Terry Lopus seconded it.

Proper explained the passage of the motion would not prevent Allen from moving forward with repairs to the house.

The second hearing was for 72 Holley Ave., owned by Michael and Brenda Bailey. He gave a brief explanation of the work done, including tearing off and replacing the roof and fixing nearly everything brought to his attention. The board voted to give him 90 days to continue, at which time Plowman would reevaluate.