CPMCBA Minutes and Attachment #1

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting was held on July 31, 2018 at 4:02 p.m. with Chairman David Anderson presiding. Members present were Mr. Martin and Mr. Neil, and Mr. Lewis. Staff members present were Mr. Hugg, Mr. Pepper, Ms. Bowen, Mr. Coburn, and Ms. Devine. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Code Violations (Chapter 70 – Offenses And Miscellaneous Provisions, Section 70-4 – Throwing And Kicking Objects And Playing Games In Streets And Public Places; And Chapter 98 – Streets, Sidewalks, Storm Sewers And Other Public Places, Article I – In General, Section 98-6 Duty Of Persons Occupying Commercial Establishments And Premises To Keep Sidewalks Clear) – Appeal Of Decision To Remove Basketball Goal From City Right-Of-Way – 18 Baltusrol Court – (Joseph P. Maier IV) Ms. Bowen reviewed the case history for 18 Baltusrol Court. Mr. Maier handed out a picture of the cul-de-sac from the main street. He stated that he lives in the back of the cul-de-sac where there is very little activity. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Maier stated that he did not have a survey of the property. Mr. Martin stated that if Mr. Maier borrowed any money when purchasing his house, he would have a survey. He explained that the survey would show a ten (10) foot easement all the way around the property. The homeowner is responsible for maintaining that easement but is not allowed to use the area in the easement. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. Maier stated that he had lived at the property for less than a year. Mr. Neil stated that he believed Mr. Maier to be an honest man and felt that he did not deserve jail time or a large fine but was worried of the precedent it would set if the board allowed the basketball goal to remain in violation of the ordinance. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Maier stated that the basketball could not be moved to another place on the property because the gas line runs along the driveway and the waterline runs along the other side. He stated that there was a row of trees separating his property from his neighbor’s which also limits where it could be put and more importantly it was already cemented into the ground which if removed would be like flushing his five-hundred (500) investment down the toilet. Mr. Neil stated that unfortunately ignorance can be costly, but if a child were playing in the street in front of Mr. Maier’s property and was hit, it was cost much more than five-hundred (500) dollars.

Mr. Martin suggested a moveable basketball pole that could be kept in the driveway or a goal that could be mounted on the garage. Mr. Anderson stated that he had encountered the same problem fifteen (15) or sixteen (16) years ago when he was serving on the Arts Recreation Community Enhancement Committee and although he does not agree with it he felt that the ordinance was very clear. He urged Mr. Maier to contact City Council to see if it could be changed but this board did not have the authority to change the law. Mr. Martin suggested that Mr. Maier could possibly remove the backboard and goal while waiting to see if Council will make a change to the ordinance, if they did, he could put it back up without having to pay to re-install it completely. Mr. Pepper suggested that the board defer action to allow the Planner or the City Manager time to decide whether this should be an area specifically designated for this purpose by lawful authority and establish parameters. Mr. Neil moved to defer action for sixty (60) days to see if the cul-de-sac could be designated by lawful authority. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Mr. Hugg stated that there would be no adverse enforcement action taken during the sixty (60) days. Property Maintenance Code Citations (Chapter 22 – Buildings And Building Regulations, Article XII – Vacant Buildings, Section 22-403 – Registration And Registration Fee) – Appeal Of Decision And Registration Fee – 915 East Division Street (Rhae Konschask) Mr. Ron Coburn reviewed the case history for 915 East Division Street. Mrs. Konschask explained that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer a year and a half prior and while she was better now, she can’t work for very long at a time because she tired easily since her diagnosis. She inherited the house from her mother, and it was completely full of trash, furniture, antiques, etc. She had been working to clean the house out with the intent of selling it, but it was taking longer due to her inability to work for long periods of time. She stated that it was a family home and she does take care of it, while no one lives there, it is not abandoned. She stated that the taxes and bills were paid, and nothing is owed on the house. Responding to Mrs. Konschask, Mr. Coburn stated that the complaint did not come from a neighbor, it came from another code officer who noticed it when issuing a grass violation for the property. Mrs. Konschask stated that she would just appreciate more time to finish clearing out the house so that it can be listed. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Konschask stated that hiring help to move things wouldn’t work because Mrs. Konschask needed to go through everything herself to make sure it was not something that the family wanted to keep.

Mr. Neil stated that he was sympathetic to Mrs. Konschask’s situation as he had just recently gone through the same experience with his own mother. However, he pointed out that the City had given her a break for three (3) years in a row and while they could still help her out further she would need to get to a point where she had others to come in and help her clean out the house if she could not do it herself. Responding to Mrs. Konschask, Mr. Neil stated that if she made a proposal for a revision to the law for homes that were being well kept after the owner passed but the family was not ready to sell, they would listen, but the board still needed to address the problem at hand. Mr. Lewis stated that he agreed with Mr. Neil in that this could not be allowed to go on indefinitely because of the safety issues that vacant homes create within the community. Mr. Neil moved to confirm the ruling of the inspector but start the clock at year one (1) because of the previous exemptions rather than year four (4). The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Mr. Coburn confirmed that the fee would be $375.00 rather than $3,000.00. Mr. Coburn explained to Mrs. Konschask that once she had the house cleaned out and it was on the market, she could apply for the exemption again. Mr. Anderson clarified that it would have to be actively marketed in the newspaper to be exempt. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. David Anderson Chairman RRC/TM/jt S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS\07-31-2018 CPMCBA Minutes and Attachment 1.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Photo provided by Mr. Maier

ATTACHMENT #1 Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals of 07/31/2018