Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Minutes

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals met on January 31, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. with Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, presiding. Mr. Martin and Ms. Ennis were present. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mr. Coburn, and Ms. Devine. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Martin moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Ennis, and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Citation – Appeal of Decision – 1160 S. DuPont Highway (Richard Arndt) Mr. Ron Coburn reviewed the case history for 1160 S. DuPont Highway. Mr. Arndt stated that he received the notification and came to City Hall and met with Ron. On May 10th he stopped by the property and met with Mrs. Townshend and Mr. Tarailia to discuss the situation. He explained that the property had become vacant in 2001 and he had purchased it from the estate of the person that had passed away there. He stated that he had made it a storage area for his electrical contracting business and the intent at the time was to make it an office location. He began that process with Mrs. Townshend in 2007. He got as far as an approved site plan but the economy put everything on hold for a while. He stated that the building was still being used as a storage/warehouse. He did not understand why he received a notice about the building when he had other buildings on the property that were used as warehouses. Mr. Arndt stated that the building was in a commercial area and it was not unattended, it was something his company used on a regular basis for storing materials. He explained that he maintained the exterior and trimmed the trees. He stated that he felt it should not be considered vacant because it was used on a regular basis and was unsure if perhaps it just needed to be reclassified. Mrs. Townshend stated that the board would have two possible routes if they decided to grant the appeal. One would be to determine that it was not vacant and should not be registered in accordance with the ordinance. Staff’s concern with that would be the precedent that it set for other vacant building because it clearly met the definition in the code. The other potential, that she believed to be the issue that Mr. Arndt was looking at was the $250.00 fee. She stated that he did not qualify for an exemption under the way the ordinance was written. However, if the board was interested in granting some relief she thought it would be less precedent setting and less concerning that it could potentially undermine the ordinance itself if it was determined that the fee could be waived for a certain period of time, specify the period of time, and put on the record the reasons why fees were being waived. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that the property was zoned commercial, but the site plan Mr. Arndt referenced had expired, and if he were to come back in, he would have to reapply at which point he would have three (3) years to start construction under that site plan.

Responding to Mr. Arndt’s statement that the building would be just under 1500 square feet, Mrs. Townshend stated that a building that size, if not adding impervious cover would be an administrative review which would be far less cumbersome. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mrs. Townshend explained that the building was considered vacant in December and not three (3) years prior because in March of 2012 a building inspector was reassigned to deal with vacant buildings. Prior to that, the approach to vacant buildings was more complaint driven, however, with the economy, foreclosures, and the increasing problem that vacant buildings were posing to the community, the City became more proactive. In August of 2012 that employee retired. It was a while before they had gotten back to staff, but in October or November the vacant building function was assigned to Mr. Coburn. Mr. Coburn stated that when he noticed Mr. Arndt’s building, he noted that the roof was in bad shape and the windows did not look like they had any type of treatment inside which prompted him to return to the office and pull electric records. The electric had been terminated on August 10, 2009 which indicated to him that it was a vacant building. Mr. Coburn stated that he would not consider a shed a vacant building because storage is its primary purpose, but because the property in question was a single-family dwelling in his opinion it fit the description of a vacant building. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. Koenig stated that while the zoning had changed, he was concerned with changing the classification because it was a separate piece of land and it was not a storage facility nor was that the intended use. Mrs. Townshend stated that there were several vacant properties in bad condition in the City that were being used for storage that caused complaints from neighbors. Several dangerous buildings in the City that were used for storage had been demolished and there were a few more still to address. She stated that if the board were to go down the path that a vacant house used for storage is not truly vacant it could open a can of worms. Mrs. Townshend stated that when the use of a building was changed the building code review would make sure that it met the code requirements for that purpose. Another building used for storage that was previously dealt with became structurally unsound due to excessive storage and had to be demolished. If Mr. Arndt were to continue to use the building as storage it must meet certain requirements in terms of load, fire protections, etc. She stated that from a staff perspective, she did not have any objection to the board providing Mr. Arndt relief from the fee, but she did not believe the code gave her the discretion to grant that relief. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend stated that if Mr. Arndt wanted to get the existing building approved for storage the first step would be a building permit. She stated that her guess was that once the building inspector and fire marshal went through that it may not be worth what he would need to do, having just looked in the windows. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Martin stated that he would want to see the building registered as vacant regardless of whether they voted to waive the fee.

Responding to Mr. Arndt, Mr. Koenig stated that the reason the fees doubled each year was an incentive for the property owner to make a decision, in a sense it was there to force the property owner’s hand. Responding to Mr. Arndt’s statement that he did not want to put more money into the building because he planned to tear it down when he built the new office, Mr. Koenig stated that at some point the condition of the property would reach the point where it would begin to accrue more code violations. Responding to Mr. Arndt’s concerns that if he agreed to tear the building down that he may fall under a whole new set of regulations and codes for the new structure he intended to build, Mrs. Townshend stated that she would need to pull the site plan that was approved in 2007 to see. However, she stated that if he was within the setbacks, the department was working to make changes to the ordinance to make setbacks more lenient. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Arndt confirmed that both he and his wife owned their property as well as the property in question. He clarified that he owned both properties and they had gone through the state distribution. Mr. Coburn stated that he understood how Mr. Arndt felt that it was not unused because he lived right next to it, but there was a lot line separation which made the storage building a separate property and subject to being defined as a vacant building. Mr. Koenig stated that he felt it met the definition of requiring it to be registered as a vacant building, but had no objections to working out a one (1) year grace period on the fee to give Mr. Arndt time to make a decision on whether he wanted to get it approved for storage, have it torn down, or pay the $250.00. Ms. Ennis moved to waive the fee for one (1) year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Mr. Koenig moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 2:42 p.m. Scott D. Koenig Chairman SDK/DD/dd/js/tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS\10-19-2015 Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals\01-31-2013 Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals - MR.wpd