[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:10]
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF STANDARDS DECEMBER 1, 2021 MEETING. THOSE FISHING TO SPEAK TO ANY CASE WILL HAVE SIGNED IN AT THE DOOR.
IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO, PLEASE DO SO AT THIS TIME WHILE WE COMPLETE OUR OTHER DUTIES. THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS
[MINUTES]
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER MEETING.ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE VOTES IT HAS -- THE ABSTENTIONS WERE THREE OF US WHICH MR. MR. MCCOLUM AND ME ARE BOTH ABS ABSTAINED.
PROBABLY NEED TO CHECK THAT FOR ACCURACY.
I DON'T THINK MR. MCCOLUM WOULD HAVE ABSTAINED BECAUSE HE WAS PRESIDING AT THE MEETING AND SIGNED THE MINUTES.
SHOULD HAVE SIGNED THE MINUTES, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE -- DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING?
>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. WE PASSED ON CASE NUMBER 21 3 2100193761, HARTFORD FOR 30 S DAYS.
AND IT WAS ON THE NOTE THAT WE RECEIVED ABOUT CASES WE WERE GOING TO REVIEW TODAY BUT I DIDN'T SEE IT ON THE ACTUAL AGENDA TODAY. -- IT'S WHAT?
>> IT'S B, RIGHT HERE. SORRY, I NEED MY BIFOCALS FIXED.
SORRY. >> ANY ADDITION ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS. ACCEPT THE MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTION BEING MADE. MOTION BY MR. ALRED.
SECONDED BY MR. WEBB THAT THE MINUTES BE APPROVED WITH THE CHECKING OF THOSE CORRECTIONS. ROLL CALL POLICE.
>>. >> WAYLAND SCHROEDER: YES.
>> DAVID BEARD: YES. >>CLERK: MOTION PASSED.
>> AS A STATEMENT OF POLICY EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY STATED AS OTHERWISE, BUILDINGS MUST BE SECURED AND THE LOT CLEANED AND MOWED OF THE OWNER WITHIN TEN DAYS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE RESULTS OF THIS HEARING. IF THIS IS NOT DONE THE CITY MAY DO SO AND BILL THE OWNER. IN ANY CASE WHERE THE BOARD OWNERS THE DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES BUT THE OWNER FAILED TO APPEAL THE BOARD'S ORDER, THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. ANY APPEAL MUST BE FILED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF AGGRIEVED PARTY RECEIVES NOTICE OF THIS HEARING. AT THE HEARING YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION.
SPECIFIC TIME FRAME NEEDED TO COMPLETE REPAIRS SPECIFIC SCOPE OF WHERE HE PAIR WORK TO BE COMPLETED.
COST ESTIMATE TO BE DONE BY LICENSED BONDED CONTRACTORS SUCH AS ELECTRIC, PLUMBING, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING CONT S CONTRACTORS. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT YOU AT THE HEARING, THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE FILE ON THE PROPERTY AT THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIOR TO THE HEARING, AND THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE PRESENCE OF CITY STAFF FOR THE PRESENCE OF QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STATE -- PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
SEEING NO ONE, DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU SHOULD GIVE TODAY IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE T H
[A. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-001109: 1933 VOGEL AVE. (WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, BLOCK 4, LOT 5), Owner: Remmers, Bobby Lee % Megan Remmers]
>> DAVID BEARD: THANK YOU. MR. MARS, WE ARE READY FOR THE
I AM CODE OFFICER FOR THE COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT CONDEMNATION PROGRAM. FOR TODAY'S MEETING, WE HAVE A TOTAL OF FIVE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA.
AND THIS WAS THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS SENT OUT FOR THIS
[00:05:04]
CINCINNATI MEETING. TE FIRST CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER 21-001109, LOCATED AT 1933 VOGEL STREET.THE CHECKLIST FOR THE RECORD SEARCH SHOWS THE COUNTY RECORDS WITH THE WARRANTY OF BOBBY LEE RECOMMENDERS AS THE OWNER.
CARE OF MEGAN RECOMMENDERS TO BE THE OWNER.
TAX RECORDS ARE NOT APPEAR T E TABLE.
UTILITY RECORDS SHOW UTILITIES HAVE BEEN INACTIVE SINCE FEBRUARY 2018. BOBBY LEE REMMERS TO BE THE OWNER. THIS WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING.
THIS IS THE FRONT NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE REAR SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
THIS IS THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
AND THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
THERE IS SOME -- SOME PHOTOS OF THE EXTERIOR FIRE DAMAGE THAT WAS SUSTAINED AND SOME PREVIOUS DILAPIDATION ISSUES.
AND MORE EXTERIOR DILAPIDATION THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE.
EXCUSE ME. INTERIOR FIRE DAMAGE FROM THE PHOTOS TAKEN INITIALLY WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED.
SOME SEALING, MOLD AND RAT FECAL MATTER THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE AND INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES AS WELL.
AND THIS STRUCTURE HAS REMAINED SECURED AND UNTOUCHED THIS ENTIRE TIME AND NO ACTIVE PERMITS.
DECEMBER 22, 2017, THE STRUCTURE CAUGHT FIRE.
NOVEMBER 23, 2020, WORKED AS A DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE CASE UNDER CODE ENFORCEMENT. DECEMBER 2, 2020, A PHONE CALL WITH MISS REMMERS THAT THE HOMEOWNERS WERE BOTH DECEASED AND SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY.
HOME WAS SECURED BY THE SAY MAY 20, 2021, THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED AND INITIAL ORDER OF THE CONDEMNATION SENT TO MISS REMMERS. MAY 18, 2021, THE HOUSE WAS SECURE AND NOBODY HAS BEEN E R ENTERING OR ADDRESS THE PR Y PROPERTY. AND ON JUNE 10, WE SENT NOTICE FOR THE JULY BUILDING BOARD OF STANDARDS FOR THE JULY BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS. IN JULY THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS ORDERED FOR THE MEETING TO BE TABLE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AND NOTICE FOR THE AUGUST BOARD MEETING IN JULY.
AND I DON'T HAVE THAT DATE IN THERE, BUT THE AUGUST 4 BOARD MEETING WAS ORDERED FOR 30-60. ON SEPTEMBER 7, WE RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM THE POTENTIAL BUYER WHO WAS -- HE WAS WAITING FOR AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP FOR THE PROPERTY.
THE PRELIMINARY TITLE SEARCH WAS COMPLETE AND AT THAT TIME HE WAS UNSURE WHEN THE CLOSING DATE WILL BE AND HE WAS TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY. OCTOBER 15, 2021, CONTACTED AGAIN FROM THE POTENTIAL BUYER SAYING HE HAD NOT HEARD FROM THE OWNER AND THEY HAVE NOT SIGNED OR RETURNED ANY REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND STATED HE WAS GIVING UP ON TRYING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. NOVEMBER 16, WE MAILED A NOTICE FOR THE DECEMBER BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS MEETING AND POSTED ON THE 18TH OF NOVEMBER FOR TODAY'S MEETING POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE. SO GIVEN THE LACK OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY ANYBODY OR ANYBODY TRYING TO.
ARE OR OWN -- REPAIR THE STRUCTURE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PROPERTY -- TO FINE THE PROPERTY A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND FIND IT AND REPAIR THE STRUCTURE WILL BE UNREASONABLE.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST, INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARDS, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL FIRES, HA DOES PLUMBING AND WEATHER PROTECTION. FOR OWNER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.
>> JUST A MINUTE. >> WE TABLED THIS CASE?
>> WE TABLED IT IN JULY AND BROUGHT IT BACK IN AUGUST.
>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MORRIS? >> DID YOU TALK TO THE DAUGHTER?
>> YES. AND SHE IS -- SHE JUST HAVEN'T REALLY RESPONDED -- MISS REMMERS HAVEN'T RESPONDED TO LETTERS, CALLS. WE ARE HEARING MORE FROM THE POTENTIAL BUYER AND STATED HE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY SIGNATURES FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED FOR HIM TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY. SO HE JUST GAVE UP.
[00:10:03]
>> DO YOU FEEL LIKE SHE IS AWARE -- DO YOU FEEL LIKE SHE IS AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING ANY ACTION?
>> YES, SIR. WE SENT HER EVERY NOTICE REQUIRED TO BE SENT TO ANY O R OWNERS OR HEIRS, AND SHE JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE INTERESTED IN REALLY ADDRESSING IT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. MARS? THANK YOU, MR. MARS. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 21-001109.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD SEEING NO ONE.
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 21-001109.
AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION AND MOTION.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
IF WE FOLLOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE OWNER RECEIVES THE NOTICE OF THIS HEARING, THE RESULTS OF THIS HEARING, MAY MOTIVATE HER TO -- TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO MR. VINES WHO HAS BEEN TAKING CARE OF IT FOR -- HOW LONG? -- SIX MONTHS, THREE, WHATEVER. IS THERE A WAY FOR HIM TO -- CAN HE BRING THAT BACK TO US FOR -- FOR ACTION? BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO FIX IT UP.
I HATE TO SEE THIS PROPERTY GET DEMOLISHED WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO
FIX IT UP. >> ONCE THIS BOARD ORDERED THE PROPERTY BE DEMOLISHED, AT THAT POINT, THE ONLY REMEDY IS TO SEEK RELIEF IN THE DISTRICT COURT.
AND THIS HAS TO BE DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF ORDER AND THAT WILL BE THE REMEDY AND AS THIS BOARD KNOWS THAT HAS OCCURRED ON NUMEROUS LOCATIONS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS ORDERED TO BE DEMOLISHED, THE SUIT IS F D FILED, AND THE CITY WILL WORK OUT AGREEMENTS WITH EITHER THE OWNER OR THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER, WHOEVER IT MAY BE. AND THERE IS STILL THAT POSSIBILITY, YES, SIR. IT WOULD NOT COME BACK TO THIS
>> YES, SIR. >> DAVID BEARD: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I JUST QUESTION RATHER MISS RECOMMENDERS KNOW THE RAMIFICATIONS OF HER INACTION AND GETTING THE LETTER SAYING WE ARE GOING TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY MIGHT CHANGE -- MOTIVATE HER TO TAKE SOME A N ACTION. BUT WE HAVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION HERE. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT.
>> IF SHE WERE TO GET THAT INFORMATION AND FIND THE MOTIVATION, SHE HAS 30 DAYS TO APPEAL IT.
ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> DAVID BEARD: COSTS $500 OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO FILE. >> WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?
>> DAVID BEARD: I DON'T KNOW WHAT AT AN I HAVE IT IS.
INACTION IS NOT AN OPTION. GUILT WHATEVER THE BOARD'S
MEASURE IS. >> WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC H H HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE
UNREASONABLE. >> I WILL SECOND IT.
>> DAVID BEARD: A MOTION BY MR. ALRED.
A SECOND BY THERE SCHROEDER THAT THE PROPERTY BE DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND HAZARD TO HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WILL BE UNREASONABLE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL PLEASE.
>> WAYNE PARIS: AYE. ALLRED ALLRED YES.
>> GARY WEBB: YES. >> MR. ROSICK.
>> DAVID BEARD: YES. I MAKE A FOLLOW-UP MOTION THAT THE OWNER CAN DEMOLISH OR APPEAL IT TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DE H DEMOLISH.
>> MOTION BY MR. ALLRED. SECOND BY FLORIDA MR. SCHROEDER.
[00:15:07]
AND OWNER WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.ROLL CALL PLEASE. >> DR. PARIS.
[B. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-001937: 6150 HARTFORD ST. (K & A JACKSON SUB, BLOCK A, LOT 1), Owner: JACKSON, IDA ANITA]
>> DAVID BEARD: YES. >>CLERK: MOTION PASSED.
>> DAVID BEARD: NEXT CASE. >> NEXT CASE IS LOCATED 61 HARTFORD STREET AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE.
>> THIS WAS TABLED AT THE LAST MEETING.
NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. >> A MOTION TO TABLE THIS CASE?
>> MAKE A MOTION TO UNTABLE IT MOTION BY MR. ALLRED AND SECOND BY MR. WEBB. ROLL CALL PLEASE.
>> MR. BEARD. >> DAVID BEARD: YES.
CASE NUMBER 21-001937, 6150 HARTFORD STREET.
THE GENERAL WARRANTY DEED GIVING IDA AND ANITA JACKSON.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME.
TAX RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES ARE NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS SHOWN TO BE INACTIVE SINCE JANUARY 31, 2017. THE SEARCH REVEALS IDA AND ANITA JACKSON TO BE THE OWNER. THIS WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING.
THE FRONT SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE REAR NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND IDENTIFY SOME MATERIAL ELECTRICAL ISSUES. SIGNIFICANT CEILING/ROOF DAMAGE.
AND INTERIOR CONDITIONS AND INTERIOR DAMAGE.
AND SOME MORE PHOTOS OF THE CONDITION OF THE INTERIOR RIGHT NOW. SO JUST SKIPPING BACK TO THE MEETING BACK IN NOVEMBER WHEN IT WAS TABLED, WE DID MAIL THE BOARD DECISION LETTERS. NOVEMBER 10, THE POTENTIAL BUYER DID OBTAIN A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY.
NOVEMBER 16, WE MAILED NOTICES FOR TODAY'S MEETING AND POSTED THE NOTICE FOR TODAY'S MEETING FOR THE 18TH OF NOVEMBER.
WE DID CHECK, THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP FILED YET; HOWEVER, THE POTENTIAL BUYER IS HERE WHO IS THE CONTRACTOR AS WELL. DEMOLITION PERMIT HAS BEEN PULLED, AND HE DOES HAVE PAPERWORK STATING THAT THE BILL OF SALE JUST NEEDS TO BE FILED AND AWAITING TRANSFER AND I AM -- WE CAN LET HIM EXPLAIN THAT. SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFINE THAT THE PROPERTY IS THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND THAT THE STRUCTURE IS REA E REASONABLE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8.
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST. INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARDS, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION.
WE FURTHER ORDER THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH AND APPEAL WITHIN 30
DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. >> DAVID BEARD: ANY QUESTIONS
OF MR. MORRIS? >> WE SAW THIS LAST TIME, RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR. >> DID WE TABLE IT?
>> YES, SIR. >> THEN WE NEED TO UNTABLE IT.
>> WE DID ALREADY -- >> WE JUST DID.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. THE STRUCTURAL HAZARD, CHAPTER 8
>> CAN YOU KIND OF BRIEFLY TELL ME WHAT THAT INVOLVES OR WHAT
CRITERIA? >> IF THE CONDITION OF THE STRUCTURE IS -- YOU KNOW, STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND.
>> I SEE A MISSING WALL HERE. >> MISSING WALL.
THE ROOF -- GOT ROOF ISSUES. CONSIDERED STRUCTURAL HAZARD.
IF WE SEE ANY FOUNDATION ISSUES, THINGS LIKE THAT, BUCKLING AND THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE PAY ATTENTION TO THE SIDES AND WE KNOW THERE IS BUCKLING THERE OR THEY ARE CAVING IN.
[00:20:02]
IT INDICATES FOUNDATION ISSUE. >> BASICALLY WALKING ACROSS THE
FLOOR. >> YES, SIR, THE FLOOR.
WE SOMETIMES COME ACROSS THE OPEN FLOOR BOARDS AND THE JOISTS ARE ROTTED OUT AND MAY REQUIRE AN ENTIRE REPLACEMENT OR DEMOLISH. ANYTHING THAT IS STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND IS WHAT WE TRY TO IDENTIFY.
>> WHAT TYPE OF FOUNDATION DOES THIS HAVE?
>> I BELIEVE IT IS A CONCRETE ACTUALLY.
BECAUSE SHE HAS -- >> FROM ALL THE DEBRIS, I REALLY WASN'T FINDING THE FLOOR. DO YOU THINK THERE IS A SLAB TO
BUT, AGAIN, THE CONTRACTOR WHO IS ALSO TRYING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY STATED THAT HE IS READY TO JUST REMOVE EVERYTHING AND DEMOLISH EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
>> SLAB INCLUDED. >> YES, SIR.
AND, OF COURSE, ANY APPROVAL REMAINING WITH THE SLAB WILL NEED TO BE FURTHER TAKEN UP WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
>> IN VISITING THE PROPERTY YESTERDAY, THERE WERE, I THINK, AT LEAST TWO POTENTIALLY THREE FIFTH WHEELERS PARKED ON THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON THE SAFETY AND HAZARDS AND IF THAT IS EVEN A PORTION OF WHAT WE WOULD LOOK AT.
I WAS CONFUSED TO SEE. BECAUSE IT IS NOT SHOWN IN YOUR PICTURE HERE, THE FIFTH WHE WHEELERS.
>> MR. MARSH CAN ADDRESS THAT FOR.
>> YOU WE ARE ADDRESSING THAT AS A ZONING CASE.
WE HAVE ANOTHER CASE OPEN FOR THAT.
>> OH, OKAY. >> WE SENT MAIL TO THE CURRENT
SO THAT IS BEING TAKEN CARE OF -- DIFFERENT PLACE AND NOT
SOMETHING WE DEAL WITH HERE. >> YES, SIR.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. MORRIS? THANK YOU, MR. MORRIS. AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 1 21-0019.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> MY NAME IS -- I AM THE ONE THAT IS GOING TO BUY THE PROPERTY AND ALSO THE ONE THAT IS GOING TO CLEAN IT UP AND EVERYTHING. THE REASON WITH IT -- MISS JACKSON WANTS SOME OF THE STUFF FROM THE PROPERTY AND SHE NEVER COME BY TO HAVE IT. SHE LIVES IN -- AND GOT A LOT OF HEALTH ISSUES. AND SHE HAD ME JUST TO WAIT.
AND WE CAN'T WAIT ANYMORE. WE ARE GOING TO START TO CLEAN IT UP TOMORROW. WE ALREADY GOT THE EQUIPMENT TO CLEAN IT UP, EVERYTHING. AND SO THE PROCESS OF THE -- BY THE PROPERTY ON THE WAY. WE SENT -- TO THE TITLE PLACE.
AND THAT'S IT. WE ARE IN MOTION.
THE NEXT 30 DAYS, EVERYTHING WILL BE CLEANED.
AND ALSO, THE RVS WRONG TO MRS. JACKSON AND WE WILL REMOVE AND ONE CAR ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE REMOVED.
TWO MORE ARE GOING TO GO TO OTHER RV PLACE.
SO WE ARE GOING TO CLEAN EVERYTHING, EVEN THE CONCRETE SLAB AND GO FROM THERE, OKAY. THAT IS MY REPORT.
>> DAVID BEARD: ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
>> APPRECIATE IT. ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THE CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. I WILL CLOSE THE CASE FOR CASE NO.-001937 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR CONVERSATION.
>> I HAVE AN OBSERVATION. IF THE HOUSE IS PULLED AND WAITING FOR A TITLE, AND PULLED PERMITS FOR DEMOLITION, WHY DOES THIS BOARD DO ANYTHING? WHY DO WE HAVE TO TELL HIM TO DO
WHAT HE IS ALREADY DOING? >> I GUESS ONE REASON IS BECAUSE IT WAS TABLED AT THE LAST MEETING SO WE WERE REQUIRED TO BRING IT BANG. BUT THE OTHER REASON IS WITH THAT BEING SAID, THERE ISN'T A CURRENT BOARD ORDER ON IT.
WHAT THE BOARD ORDERED TO DEMOLISH KIND OF PUTS A LITTLE MORE PRESSURE ON THE OWNER OR NEW OWNER TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE -- GET THE CONDEMNATION PART TAKEN CARE OF.
SO BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BOARD ORDER TO FIND A NUISANCE AND ORDER DEMOLITION, IT IS BASICALLY -- IT IS SET IN PLACE
[00:25:03]
AND JUST -- BASICALLY PUTS A MORE STRICT TIMELINE ON IT TO GET DONE. AS HE STATED HE IS TRYING TO GET IT FINISHED AND HE IS BEING DETERRED BY THE OWNER AND WITH THIS, DOESN'T REALLY DELAY HIM ANY LONGER BECAUSE CURRENT ORDER ON IT AND DON'T COMPLY WITH THE TIME FRAME, THEN THE CITY IS ABLE TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?>> COULD I SEE THE TIMELINE AGAIN?
>> YES, SIR. >> AND THE ORIGINAL CONDEMNATION
AND THEN THE INACTIVITY AND ALL OF THE SITUATION CAME TO A HEAD AT OUR LAST MEETING AND THAT'S WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO PROTECT OUR STEPS AND TABLED IT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF INFORMATION GOING
ON. >> I THINK THE SENDING WAS PENDING THE LAST MEETING. THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE TABLED IT. WE WERE GIVING IT TIME TO BE COMPLETED. THAT IS HOW I REMEMBERED IT.
>> I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT STARTED AT A 30-60.
GIVE IT A CHANCE. BUT -- THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT CHANGED SINCE WE FIRST SAW IT.
>> RIGHT. >> THAT IS WHAT TROUBLES --
>> THE ONE THING -- THE ONE THING THAT HAS CHANGED IS THE MOVING OF THE FIFTH WHEELERS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND SOMEONE IS USING THE PROPERTY.
I CAN TELL YOU THOSE THINGS ARE IN -- AND -- THOSE THINGS ARE IN THERE SO TIGHT THAT THERE IS NO WAY THEY CAN DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY WITH -- WITH THOSE ON THERE.
SO MY -- MY VIEW IS THAT WE PROCEED WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE THAT PUTS THE PRESSURE ON THEM THEN TO WHERE THEY HAVE TO MOVE THE FIFTH WHEELERS AND GET THEM OFF, ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT CODE VIOLATIONS THERE. THAT HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH IN REGARDS TO THE FIFTH WHEELERS. I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> DAVID BEARD: THAT A MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WILL.
>> MOTION BUILD PARIS. SECOND BY MR. SCHROEDER, THAT THE PROPERTY IS DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND THE REPAIR WILL BE UNREASONABLE.
>> MOTION PASSED. >> A SECOND MOTION THAT THE O OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.
>> DAVID BEARD: MOTION BY DR. PARIS.
SECOND BY MR. SCHROEDER, THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. ROLL CALL PLEASE.
[C. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-003190: 2141 SHELTON ST. (SEARS PARK, BLOCK 20, LOT 32), Owner: TALAVERA, ANDRES]
>>CLERK: MOTION PASSED. >> DAVID BEARD: GOOD LUCK SIR.
>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER 21-003190.
LOCATED AT 2141 SHELTON STREET. THE CHECKLIST FOR THE RECORDS SHOW COUNTY RECORDS WARRANTY DEED NAMING ANDRES TALAVERA AS THE OWNER. SECRETARY OF STATE SHOW NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME. TAX RECORDS AND MUNICIPALITY ARE NOT APPEAR KABUL. UTILITY ARE NOT ACTIVE SINCE
[00:30:06]
FEBRUARY 2019. SMELL ANDRE TALAVERA IS THE OWNER. THE NOTICE PLACED ON THE STRUCTURE. AND THE FRONT WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE REAR EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, EXCUSE ME. THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
EXTERIOR DELAPIDATION OBSERVED THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE.
WE HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE ROOF THAT LOOKED TO BE CAVED IN.
SOME INCOMPLETE AND INTERIOR WORK.
AND SOME INTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES.
SOME INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES. SO TIME LINE OF EVENTS ON NOVEMBER 8, 2019, AFTER EXTENSIVE SEARCH, WE -- THROUGH POLICE REPORTS, WE FOUND OUT THAT THE OWNER WAS FOUND DECEASED IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY FROM AN ELECTROCUTION FROM AN ILLEGAL ELECTRICAL HOOKUP.
JUNE 9, 2020, THE CITY CONTRACTOR ABATED THE PROPERTY.
JUNE 10, 2020, CODE OFFICER CONFIRMED NO POWER SOURCE TO THE HOUSE. AND THAT THE POWER -- SORRY, CONFIRMED THERE WAS NO ACTIVE POWER ACCOUNT AND THAT THE HOUSE REMAINED UNDER POWER FROM AN ILLEGAL CONNECTION.
AUGUST 9, 2021, THE PROPERTY WAS INSPECTED AND FOUND TO BE POSSIBLY GUTTED DOWN TO FRAMING AND UNPERMITTED ADDITION ADDED TOE THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE. A STOP ORDER WAS PLACED ON THE STRUCTURE AND WE CONDEMNED THE PROPERTY.
AUGUST 10, AN INDIVIDUAL CALLED UPSET DUE TO FINDING THE STOP WORK ORDER. AND ON AUGUST 18, WE FILED -- OFFICIALLY FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO CONDEMN THE PROPERTY.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2021, THE INITIAL NOTICE AND LETTERS WERE SENT TO THE OWNER. SEPTEMBER 3, WE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS TRYING TO SELL THE HOUSE TO A HOME BUYING COMPANY AND STATED THAT HE WAS TRYING TO GET THE DEED TRANSFERRED FROM -- INTO HIS MOTHER'S NAME.
ANDRES TALAVERA'S MOTHER'S NAME AND WE INFORMED HIM UNLESS WE SAW AN OFFICIAL DEED TRANSFER IN THE COUNTY CLERK RECORDS THAT WE REALLY COULDN'T, YOU KNOW, DO ANYTHING AS FAR AS OWNERSHIP GOES OR HELP GIVE ANY GUIDANCE AS FAR AS THE OWNERSHIP GOES AND IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE AN OFFICIAL CELL, THEY HAD TO DO THE TRANSFER DEED -- THE DEED HAD TO BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. NOVEMBER 10, WE DID A SEARCH WITH THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE COUNTY RECORDS SHOWED NO CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP. NOVEMBER 16, WE DID MAIL THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS NOTICE AND POSTED IT ON THE 18TH FOR TODAY'S MEETING AS WELL. AS OF TODAY, THERE IS STILL NO ACTIVE PERMITS AND NO CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP ON THE PROPERTY.
SO PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST.
INADEQUATE SANITATION, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, WIRING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ORDER THE OWNER TO REPAIR. 30 DAYS ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES. IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN INSPECTIONS. IF THIS IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PE S
PERMITS. >> DAVID BEARD: ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MORRIS. IT WAS STILL OPEN YESTERDAY, BY
>> DEERFIELD BEACH DEERFIELD .
>> DAVID BEARD: IT WAS STILL OPEN YESTERDAY.
>> DAVID BEARD: NO QUESTIONS? >> IS THE -- IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PROPERTY'S AWARENESS, I MEAN, WE -- THIS BOARD AND CITY HAS DONE WELL TO EXPEDITE A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES AROUND THE CITY. AND I CAN SEE THAT THE TOOLS WE HAVE AND WHAT WE WORK WITH IN THE WAY OF NOTICES AND -- AND GIVING OWNERS TIME TO COMMUNICATE WHETHER IT IS THEIR PROCRASTINATION OR WHATEVER. WE DON'T HEAR FROM THEM.
IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS SOME ENTITY, MAYBE FAMILY RELATED, I DON'T KNOW. BUT THEY ARE TRYING TO WORK A DEAL EVEN WITH ONE OF THESE HOUSE BUYING OUTFITS.
SO IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE 30-60 LETTER, ONE MORE SHOT AT
[00:35:04]
IT IS ONE OF OUR TOOLS THAT WE ARE USING HERE.AND I -- I APPLAUD YOU FOR APPROACHING IT THAT WAY.
I MEAN DOESN'T LOOK LIKE MUCH TO SAVE, BUT SOMEBODY COULD MAKE A TURN ON THIS. IN THAT RESPECT, IT IS MORE OR LESS MY COMMENTARY THINK HAT SEE WE ARE JUST USING ANOTHER ONE OF OUR COOLS AND THIS ONE STARTED NOVEMBER 8, 2019.
UNFORTUNATE BEGINNING FOR THIS TIME LINE EVENTS, BUT I THINK WE ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH. SO THAT IS WHAT I SEE HOW THIS ONE SHAPED UP. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT
COMMENT. >> DAVID BEARD: ANY OTHER
DISCUSSION? >> I WANT TO ADD THAT WE DID RECEIVE CONFIRMATION RECENTLY AS WELL.
AS FAR AS OWNERSHIP IS CON D CONCERNED, THERE IS IN THIS CASE A POTENTIAL HEIR OR SOMEONE WITH INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND WHAT NOT. THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY TO PULL PERMITS AND CAN HIRE A GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO PULL THE PERMIT FOR THEM AND GENERAL KERT CAN PULL IT UP UNDER THEIR CREDENTIALS.
I GUESS WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS UNESTABLISHED OWNERSHIP DOES NOT DETER A PROPERTY WERE BEING DEMOLISHED.
THIS INDIVIDUAL WHO IS TRYING TO BUY OR SELL THEY ARE ABLE TO DO IT WITHOUT HAVING ACTUAL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE CONDEMNATION CASE.
THAT IS MORE THEIR ISSUES AND LEGAL PROCESS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT WE DON'T GET IN THE MIDDLE OF.
BUT AS OF SEPTEMBER SOMEBODY CALLED TRYING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT. BUT WE HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM
ANYBODY SINCE THEN. >> DAVID BEARD: MR. HERNANDEZ IS POSSIBLY NOT A FAMILY MEMBER. HE IS A CONTRACTOR?
>> I BELIEVE HE WAS A FAMILY MEMBER -- YEAH, HE IS A FAMILY MEMBER OF MR. TALAVERA. AND HE WAS TRYING TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO A HOME BUYING COMPANY, I GUESS THOSE COMPANIES THAT REHABILITATE HOMES.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? FLOOR IS OPEN FOR A MOTION.
PUT UP THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THERE.
THERE YOU GO. >> HAVE YOU OPENED FOR PUBLIC
HEARING YET? >> DAVID BEARD: I AM SORRY.
>> I JUMP IN AND WE START THIS DISCUSSION, BUT WE STILL HAVE A
FEW STEPS. >> DAVID BEARD: AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 21-003190.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21- 0 21-003190. OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION OR
A MOTION. >> EXCUSE ME, IF -- IF WE GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHEN WILL BE THE NEXT TIME THAT WE GET TO SEE THIS -- TO SEE IF SOMEBODY IS TAKING ACTION ON IT?
>> SO TO ALLOW THE TIME FRAME WITH THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE IN THE MAIL, WE TYPICALLY LIKE -- WHEN WE DO IT 30-60.
PRESENT AT NEXT MONTH'S MEETING IN JANUARY AND LOOKING AT
POSSIBLY FEBRUARY. >> IS THERE NOT A CHANCE THAT YOU MAY BE FINDING SOMEBODY THAT IS DOING SOMETHING AND WE DON'T
EVEN SEE THIS AGAIN? >> THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.
THAT IS WHY WE KIND OF -- WE TRY TO DILIGENTLY LOOK THROUGH THE COUNTY CLERK RECORDS TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE SOMETIMES THEY DON'T ALWAYS CONTACT US TO LET US KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD SO FREQUENTLY LOOKING AT COUNTY CLERK RECORDS TO MAKE
SURE THE OWNERSHIP WAS CHANGED. >> OKAY.
>> THAT IS WHAT -- -- THE COMMENTS EARLIER WERE SAYING OUR COOLS ARE WORKING. AND WE WILL LET THIS GO THROUGH A PROCESS. ANOTHER COUPLE OF MONTHS MAYBE
[00:40:06]
AGAIN THE START TIME ON THIS IS NOT LIKE IT HAS BEEN HERE THREE OR FOUR YEARS. I THINK THE PROCESS IS WORKING IS MY COMMENTS AND WE MAY NOT EVEN SEE THIS AGAIN.IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER THE OWNER TO REPAIR, 0 Y DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES.
AND IF THAT IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGH-END INSPECTIONS, AND IF THAT IS DONE, ALL FINISHED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THEIR EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS.
>> DAVID BEARD: MOTION BY MR. SCHROEDER THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO REPAIR AND 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES. AND IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS OF ROUGH-END INSPECTIONS. IF THAT IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PE S PERMITS. IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND? MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION?
GOT TO HAVE SOME ACTION HERE. >> I FEEL STUCK.
>> CAN WE SEE THE PICTURES ONE MORE TIME? SO THERE IS EXTERIOR OF THE ROOF AND INTERIOR BEING DPUTED OUT.
AND, AGAIN, A LOT OF THIS WORKING TO DONE WITHOUT PERMITS SO A STOP WORK ORDER WAS PLACED ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING ISSUES.
>> GUYS, IT LOOKED TO ME IF YOU DON'T APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SEE EVEN IN THE STATE OF THE CONDITION IT IS IN, AND YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DECLARE IT A NUISANCE, AND IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED FASTER WITH DEMOLITION, THERE IS STILL AN ENTITY THAT COULD COME ABOUT TO STEP IN AHEAD OF THE CITY'S EXPENSE.
THAT IS PARTLY THE WAY I AM LOOKING AT THIS.
I WANT TO GIVE IT TIME FOR SOME ACTIVITY.
IF THAT FAILS, IT BECOMES A NUISANCE AND IT -- IT GETS DEMOLISHED. AND THE CITY ENDS UP TAKING CARE
OF IT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS FOR 30 DAYS TO SEE. WHAT IS IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS.
>> DAVID BEARD: MOTION BY MR. ALLRED THAT WE TABLE THIS CASE
UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. >> I WILL SECOND.PE
>> DAVID BEARD: SECOND BY DR. PARIS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I THINK WHAT MR. SCHROEDER SAYS, I -- I AGREE WITH HIM ABOUT THE -- WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCESS. I THINK THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO -- STILL OPEN.
AND I HAVEN'T SEEN AND THAT IS MY CONCERN ABOUT THAT BUT I DO THINK THAT THE -- GIVING OF 30 DAYS TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. BUT MY INCLINATION IS IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, TO GO AHEAD AND DECLARE IT A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
BUT, AGAIN, I SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GIVING THEM 30 DAYS TO SEE WHAT THEY DO. IF THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING, THEN
WE MOVE TO DEMOLITION. >> WE HA MOTION IT, RIGHT?
[00:45:03]
>> DAVID BEARD: ROLL CALL PLEASE.
>> MR. SCHROEDER. >> MY COMMENTARY TO MY RESPONSE WOULD BE IF WE DO LOOK AT STAFF RECOMMENDATION, OWNER TO REPAIR, 30 DAY TO OBTAIN AND IF THIS IS DONE.
THAT IS THE 30 DAYS I WAS GOING TO GIVE THEM.
YOU DON'T NECESSARILY LET THIS FLOAT ALL 90 DAYS WITH NOTHING GOING ON. YOU CAN STOP THIS RECOMMENDATION AT 30 DAYS TO SEE IF THERE IS NO PLAN OF ACTION, NO TIME FRAMES.
>> IF YOU GET IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
>> NO, I AM SAYING THE CITY STAFF IS GOING TO BE TAKING CARE OF IT. AND THAT -- THAT IS THE WHOLE ESSENCE OF WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE 30-60 IS.
YOU DON'T JUST RUN IT 90 DAYS AND EVERYBODY JUST CART BLANCHE IT. SO IF YOU GIVE IT 30 DAYS NOW, YOU WILL GIVE IT ANOTHER 30 DAYS LATER AND JUST MAKE IT A NUISANCE NEXT TIME, BUT THAT IS THE WAY I AM UNDERSTANDING OUR TOOLS HERE. I DON'T REALLY SEE THE NEED TO TABLE IT. I WOULD RATHER DO MY PROCESS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SO MY RESPONSE TO THE TABLING
>> DAVID BEARD: NO. THANK YOU.
>>CLERK: MOTION PASSED. >> NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS
[D. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-003216: 1009 S. 12th ST. (NORTHINGTON W/2, BLOCK C, LOT W54.05 E140 N101), Owner: LEGACY DWELLING, LLC]
CASE NUMBER 21-003216, LOCATED AT 1009 SOUTH 12TH STREET.THE CHECKLIST FOR THE RECORDS SHOW COUNTY RECORDS WARRANTY DEED NAMING LEGACY DWELLING LLCS AT OWNER.
TAYLOR COUNTY SHOW LEGACY DWELLING LLC TO BE THE OWNER.
UNITED STATES AGENTS INCORPORATED TO BE THE REGISTERED AGENT. TAX RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY ARE NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS SHOW TO BE INACTIVE SINCE SEPTEMBER 2019. SEARCH REVEALED THAT LEGACY DWELLING IS THE OWNER. IS A PUBLIC NOTICE ON THE MEETING. THE FRONT NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE REAR SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
THIS IS THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. SOME EXTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES THAT WERE DISCOVERED. SOME EXTERIOR FIRE DAMAGE AND PREVIOUS DELAPIDATION ISSUES. SOME INTERIOR FIRE DAMAGE THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE. SOME MORE AREAS WHERE THERE IS A SEVERE INTERIOR FIRE DAMAGE. AND SOME INTERIOR PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL ISSUES. TIMELINE OF EVENTS.
ON FEBRUARY 6, 2021, THE STRUCTURE CAUGHT FIRE.
AUGUST 12, TWONZ, THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED.
SEPTEMBER 2021, LETTERS WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND LIEN HOLDER. AND SEPTEMBER 13, 2021, ACCORDING TO UPS TRACKING SHOWED THAT THE OWNER RECEIVED THE NOTICES VIA CERTIFIED MAIL. SEPTEMBER 20, 2021, WE HAVE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE TO THE LETTERS SENT.
NOVEMBER 17 AND 18, THE NOTICES WERE POSTED AND MAILED FOR TODAY'S MEETING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8, INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE OWNER TO REPAIR. 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND TIME OF ACTION FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES.
IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGH-IN INSPECTIONS.
IN THIS DONE WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PE S
PERMITS. >> DAVID BEARD: ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MARS. THANK YOU.
OPEN THE CASE NUMBER 21-003216. OPEN THE -- TO ANYONE WISHING TO
[00:50:05]
SPEAK TO THIS CASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21- 6 21-003216.AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE DONE A 30-60 NOTICE, COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF WHY WE WOULD TRY THAT AGAIN SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE?
>> SO AT THAT POINT, WE BRING IT TO THE BOARD.
AS I STATED EARLIER WITH -- WITH THE BOARD ORDERED 30-60, THERE IS MORE OF A PUSH O IT. BECAUSE IT IS ORDERED BY THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS TO COMPLY WITH THE 30-60.
HOWEVER -- IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN AND AFTER REFERRING TO LEGAL ON THIS IN THE PAST, WE ARE COVERED LEGALLY BY SENDING AN INITIAL 30-60. SO AT THIS POINT IT IS UP TO THE BOARD IF THEY WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE ADDITIONAL 30-60 OR IF THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO DECLARE A NUISANCE.
>> MY CONCERN IS THERE IS NO RESPONSE.
AND IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE -- >> WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.
>> -- AND -- LET'S SEE SEPTEMBER 9, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER.
OVER TWO MONTHS. AND WE ARE NOT TALKING AN INDIVIDUAL HERE, WE ARE TALKING A COMPANY.
THAT'S WHY AT THIS POINT, IT IS KIND OF UP TO THE BOARD'S DISCRETION. WE PRESENT.
AND YOU ALL CAN MAKE THE DECISION.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE KEEN ON AS WELL.
COMMUNICATION IS THE BIGGEST THING.
STATED EARLIER EARLY CONFIRMATION ON INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED EARLIER. IT IS TOUGH TO COMMUNICATE THAT TO OWNERS IF THEY ARE NOT CONTACTING US.
>> ONE THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IF THESE CASES GO TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM FOR RESOLUTION, THIS BOARD'S ACTIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. AND THAT IS PROBABLY WHY THIS IS A FORMALITY MORE THAN ANYTHING. FOR LEGAL PURPOSES.
>> IN REGARDS TO GIVING THEM THE ADDITIONAL TIME FOR --
>> THE BOARD'S ACTIONS TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE STAFF'S
>> HAVE YOU VISITED WITH THE -- WITH THE OWNERS OF THIS PR Y
PROPERTY? >> NO, SIR, THEY HAVE NOT REACHED OUT TO US. NO RESPONSE AT ALL.
>> ARE THEY A LOCAL ORGA N ORGANIZATION?
>> I BELIEVE SO. NO, SIR, ACTUALLY, THEY ARE T NOT. THEY ARE OUT OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, LEGACY DWELLING. >> COULD WE SAY THE -- SEE THE OWNERSHIP -- THE OWNERSHIP?
>> LETTERS WERE SENT BOTH TO LEGACY DWELLING AND UNITED STATES CORPORATION AGENT WHICH IS THE REGISTERED.
THEY BOTH RECEIVED THE NOTICES. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. CAN YOU BRING THAT UP, PLEASE.
>> YES, SIR. >> MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> SORRY -- OKAY, THERE YOU GO. >> HERE AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE I SEE SOME SIMILARITIES OF THIS CASE TO THE LAST CASE. THE TOOLS IN PLACE.
ALREADY GAVE THEM THE 30-60. AND THIS THE TIME IT COMES BACK IF IT DOES COME BACK BECAUSE HIS HANDS ARE STILL TIED.
>> THE REASON I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME IS BECAUSE THE STAFF TOOK ACTION WHICH GAVE 30-60. NOW IT IS BEFORE THE BOARD AND TO FILL THE LEGAL PREREQUISITES, WE ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 30-60-90 TO FULFILL THE LEGAL OBLIGATION.
[00:55:04]
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SECOND THE MOTION THAT IS ON THE FLOOR.
>> MOTION BY MR. WEBB THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO REPAIR 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING ALL TIME FRAME FOR REPAIRING COST ESTIMATES. AND IF IS DONE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGH-IN INSPECTIONS. THAT IS DONE ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS BY THE APPLICABLE PERMITS.
SECOND BY MR. ALLRED. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> I THINK WHAT CONCERNS ME IS JUST NO RESPONSE.
I THINK WE ARE DELAYING THE INCREDIBLE WITH NO RESPONSE.
>> AND, AGAIN, AS MR. SCHROEDER SAID, THE BOARD CAN GO AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. BECAUSE WE ARE LEGALLY COVERED BY SENDING THEM THE 30-60 INITIALLY.
BUT IT IS UP TO THE BOARD'S DISCRETION.
NOT AN OWNERSHIP QUESTION HERE WHERE IN THE LAST ONE THERE WAS
WE DO KNOW THE OWNER AND WE HAVE PROOF OF THE DEED BEING UNDER
LEGACY DWELLING. >> I FEEL THIS PROTECTS THE OWNER AND PROTECTS THE CITY AND STARTS THE LEGAL PROCESS SO THAT
DUE PROCESS CAN BE DONE. >> DAVID BEARD: ROLL CALL
[E. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-003384: 502 PORTLAND AVE. (PARK HEIGHTS ABL, BLOCK 13, LOT 1 & N/2 OF LT 2), Owner: DAVIS, JAMES]
>> DAVID BEARD: YES. >>CLERK: MOTION PASSED.
.> DAVID >> DAVID BEARD: NEXT CASE
PLEASE. >> FINAL CASE IS CASE NO. 8 NO.21-00384 LOCATED AT 502 PORTLAND AVENUE.
WARRANTY DEED SHOWING JAMES DAVIS TO BE ONLYER TAMPA TAYLOR COUNTY SHOW JAMES DAVIS. SECRETARY OF STATE HAVE NO ENTITY UNDER THIS TIME. MOO MISS PAT IS NOT EQUITABLE.
UTILITY RECORDS OF A MUNICIPALITY SHOWN TO BE INACCURATE SINCE 2020. SEARCH REVEALS JAMES DAVIS TO BE THE HONOR. THIS IS A PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING.
IS THE FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE REAR WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. SOME EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED. SOME INTERIOR CEILING DAMAGE THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE. AND INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES.
INTERIOR SANITATION ISSUES. WE DISCOVERED RAT FECAL MATTER THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.
SOME INTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES. SO THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED AUGUST 25, 2021.
AUGUST 31, THE PROPERTY WAS SECURED BY THE CITY.
SEPTEMBER 8, THE PROPERTY WAS SECURED BY THE CITY A SECOND TIME DUE TO A BREAK-IN. SEPTEMBER 9, 2021, INITIAL NOTICE AND 30-60 LETTER OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND LIEN HOLDER BEING CERTIFIED. AND SEPTEMBER 7, 2021, RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM BANK OF AMERICA WHICH WAS THE LISTED LIEN HOLDER SHOWING THEY DON'T HAVE A LIEN OR ACCOUNT ON THE PROPERTY THUS SAYING THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.
ON THAT DATE, THE PROPERTY WAS ABAITED BY THE CITY.
ON OCTOBER 12, 2021, THE TRACKING -- MAIL TRACKING SHOW THE INITIAL NOTICE 30-60 WAS RECEIVED BY CERTIFIED MAIL.
NOVEMBER 10, 2021, WE STILL HAD NO CONTACT OF ANY PARTY OF INTEREST. ON NOVEMBER 16, 2021, WE RECEIVED A REPORT SHOWING THERE WERE 28 CALLS ALONE FROM ADP ALONE ON THE PROPERTY, CALLS INCLUDED INDIVIDUALS BEING THREATENED WITH HANDGUNS, SUICIDE OR ATTEMPTED SUICIDE AND AN INDIVIDUAL ACTUALLY SHOT HIMSELF WITH A GUN AT THE PROPERTY AS WELL. NOVEMBER 16, WE MAILED NOTICE OF TODAY'S BOARD MEETING AND POSTED NOTICE ON THE 18TH ON TODAY'S BOARD MEETING ON THE STRUCTURE. SO PURSUANT CHAPTER 8, FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: INADEQUATE SANITATION, KNEW CANS, ELECTRICAL PLUMBING AND FALSIE WEATHER PROTECTION.
[01:00:04]
AND TO HAVE 30 DAYS TO HAVE PERMITS AND PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES.IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGH-IN INSPECTINGS.
THIS IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PE S PERMITS.
>> DAVID BEARD: ANY QUESTIONS? ANY CALLS -- ANY POLICE CALLS
SINCE THE ACCIDENT? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
OF COURSE THAT WAS JUST A BRIEF SUMMARY OF EVERYTHING.
TOTAL 28 CALLS. WE DIDN'T REALLY SPECIFY DADE DATES. BUT, NO, SINCE WE SECURED IT, I DON'T BELIEVE WE RECEIVED ANY MORE CALLS.
AND ALSO BEEN, AGAIN, NO PARTIES OF INTEREST REACHING OUT.
NO CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP AND NO PERMITS PULLED AS OF TODAY.
>> DAVID BEARD: ALL 28 CALLS OF THE SAME INDIVIDUAL?
>> NO, SIR. I BELIEVE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS.
I'M PRETTY SURE THERE ARE MAYBE SQUATTERS OR STUFF GOING IN AND
OUT OF THERE. >> DAVID BEARD: ANY QUESTIONS
OF MR. MORRIS? >> YOU SAID ON SEPTEMBER 9 INITIAL NOTICE AND 30-60 LETTER TO A PROPERTY OWNER AND LIEN
>> AND THE LIEN HOLDER, AS WE THOUGHT, WAS THE BANK OF AM A AMERICA. AND THEY DENIED HAVING ANY
ACCOUNTS OF THAT? >> YES, SIR.
>> I AM SORRY, GO AHEAD. >> DID YOU CONFIRM OR GET INFORMATION THAT THE OWNER RECEIVED THE 30-60 LETTER?
>> YES THROUGH UFS TRACKING. WE HAVE INDIVIDUAL TRACKING NUMBERS FOR EACH LETTER WE SENT TO THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES AND PARTIES OF INTEREST. AND WE RECEIVED CONFIRMATION THAT THE -- THAT THE OWNER -- THE LISTED OWNER -- SOMEBODY SIGNED FOR THE MAIL. BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE USPS TRACKING IT SHOWED IT WAS RECEIVED, CERTIFIED MAIL.
>> THAT WAS OCTOBER. SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER AND THE 30
>> WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO 30 DAYS FROM THE TIME WE SENT THE MAIL.
WHATEVER HAPPENS BETWEEN NOW AND THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE IS OUT OF OUR CONTROL AND, AGAIN, SHOWS THE LACK -- THE NEGLECT OF THE PROPERTY BY ANY PARTIES OF INTEREST TO NOT BE AWARE OF WHAT
>> BUT, YES, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS THE 30 DAYS.
>> I AM TRYING TO FOLLOW UP ON THE ESSENCE OF A 30-60 LETTER AND AN INITIAL 30-60 LETTER. SENDS A NOTICE OUT AND IF WE HAVE GOT A COOPERATING OWNER AND WE CAN COUNT ON THAT OWNER TO COOPERATING AND COMMUNICATING AND IF THEY FAIL TO ACT IN 30 DAYS, WE CAN BRING THE HAMMER DOWN AND BRING IT BACK US TO AND IF THEY ARE NOT DOING WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING AND GIVING US A PLAN OF ACTION AND THE PROPERTY COMES BACK TO US, IT IS FOR US TO DETERMINE THE NEXT ACTION, WHICH COULD BE GIVE THEM SOME MORE TIME. AND NOW WE ARE TABLING THINGS.
WE CAN EITHER TABLE IT OR DECLARE IT A NUISANCE IF IT IS IN THAT CONDITION. THIS PLACE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE QUITE THE NUISANCE YET. AND IT HAS THESE REPORTS AND GUNS AND PEOPLE SHOOTING. NOT EVERY PLACE GETS THAT ACTIVITY. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING HIRE IF OUR 30 -60 LETTER KEEPS GOING AND WE KEEP SENDING 30-60 LETTERS OUT AND THAT IS WHAT JOSH IS TRYING TO USE AS HIS TOOL I DON'T KNOW WHY WE KEEP SENDING 30-60 LETTERS IF -- IF WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE COMPARTMENTTATION TO STEPS OF THE 3060.
IF THEY DON'T DO THE FIRST PART, WITH WE HEAR FROM JOSH AND SEND ANOTHER 30-60 IN I MEAN, I AM TRYING TO GET US ON A BATH TODAY
[01:05:05]
OF UNDERSTANDING WHY ARE WE SENDING 30-60 LETTERS OUT IF THEY DON'T DO THE FIRST 30 DAYS OF IT PROPERLY.WHETHER WE HAVE AN OWNER COMMUNICATING OR --
>> SHOULD WE TABLE THIS DISCUSSION FOR THE DISCUSSION
PART OF THE PHASE? >> MY UNDERSTANDING HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT -- THAT WHEN A CASE FIRST COMES TO US, FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, THAT UNLESS IT IS IN IMMINENT DANGER, THE STANDARD PROCEDURE IS TO DO A 30-60 TO SHOW IF THE CASE ENDS UP IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT THE CASE CAME THROUGH THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS. THAT HAS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A DECISION. AND MUCH MORE THEN THE INITIAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF THE 30-60 WHEN IT WAS CONDEMNED.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. THE FIRST ONE THAT WE DO.
MAY BE THE SECOND ONE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER GETS BUT THE FIRST ONE THAT WE DO. THAT MAYBE IS NOT THE CASE BUT ALWAYS HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT. WOULD YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD
TO THAT, MR. MORRIS? >> NO, SIR.
AS PREVIOUSLY STATED OUR 30-60 THAT WE SEND DOES COVER THE PROCESS OF IT AND IT IS ULTIMATELY THE BOARD'S DECISION WHETHER THEY WOULD WANT TO PROCEED WITH AN ADDITIONAL 30-60 WHETHER THEY GO IN ANOTHER DIRECTION BUT KNOW, WHAT YOU SAID IS CORRECT. IT ADDS ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION WHEN IT COMES TO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.
REGARDLESS. I MEAN WE CAN -- YOU CAN RECOMMEND 3060. AND THEY CAN APPEAL THAT IN DISTRICT COURT. THEY JUST DON'T APPEAL DEMOLITIONS, THEY CAN APPEAL ANY ISSUE IN DISTRICT COURT INCLUDING TABLING. AND ALL THAT STUFF IS SPECIFIED IN THE BOARD DECISION LETTERS WHEN WE SEND IT OUT.
ULTIMATELY IT IS WHATEVER THE BOOR DECIDES IS GOING TO BE.
WE ARE COVERED. >> DAVID BEARD: IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THANK YOU.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 21-00384.
ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND DRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21- 4 21-003384. AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR
DISCUSSION OR MOTION. >> OKAY.
SO NOW IS THE TIME YOU GET OUT AND YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR PEACE. SO WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE
RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO? >> AISLE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FOR THIS BOARD TO REFLECT UPON.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT HAS THREE BULLETS ON IT.
>> ARE YOU RECOMMENDING SOMETHING ELSE?
>> I WANT US TO DISCUSS HOW ARE WE UTILIZING THE FIRST 30 DAYS OF THESE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. AND IF -- PARTICULAR GET ON BOARD WITH WHAT MR. BEARD SAYS, AN INITIAL 30-60 IS WHAT COMES THROUGH BEFORE WE EVEN HEAR ABOUT IT.
AND IF IT COMES TO US, WE HAVE KIND OF THE COURTESY CALL TO GET IT IN THE SYSTEM AND WE SEND OUT A 30-60 DAY.
BUT IF HE IS NOT GETTING ANY ACTION FROM AN OWNER.
I CAN UNDERSTAND BUT WHAT I AM HOPING WE WILL LEARN FROM THIS THREE BULLET POINT RECOMMENDATION, WE CAN MOVE THIS ALONG QUICKER IF WE BREAK OUT THE FIRST 30 DAYS.
WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THE RECOMMENDATION BUT HE KNOWS HE CAN ACT IN 30 DAYS AND SPEED IT BACK TO US GET IT BACK TO US.
AND HE NEEDS TO LET US KNOW THEN THAT HE IS NOT GETTING ANY COMMUNICATION WITH AN OWNER. WE CAN MOVE THINGS ALONG AT THE
[01:10:04]
CLIP OF THE FIRST 30 DAYS, LET STAFF DO ALL THE MANAGING OF THESE CASES BUT IN TERMS OF OTHER CASES TODAY THAT I DECLINE TO PASS, THAT IS KIND OF WHAT I AM SEEING IS GOING ON HERE.WE TABLE ONE AND GIVE THEM ANOTHER 30-60.
I WANT TO GET US ON THE SAME THOUGHTS THAT THE 60-DAY TO OBTAIN ROUGH-END INSPECTIONS IS ONLY IF THEY PLAYED BY THE R S RULES. SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION TODAY AND -- WELL, I AM JUST NOT GOING TO ENTER A MOTION BECAUSE I AM TRYING TO GIVE YOU FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE EITHER GET ON BOARD OR COMMENT TO MY COMMENTS WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THE TOOLS THAT THE BOARD HAS.
AND I REFER TO THEM AS "T "TOOLS"BEING WE HAVE A 30-60 AT ONE TOOL. A TABLING AS ANOTHER TOOL.
WE HAVE GOT -- WE HAVE GOT TO DIAGNOSE THE COMMUNICATION THAT THE STAFF IS GETTING. IF THEY ARE GETTING COMMUNICATION OR NOT. WE NEED TO HELP THE BOARD WHEN THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION. BOARD CAN'T DO THINGS IF THEY DON'T GET CLARIFICATION FROM THE OWNERS.
IF THEY DON'T FIND AN OWNER. I THINK THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT HAVE BOTHERED US OVER THE YEARS FINDING OUT SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS LATER NOTHING HAS HAPPENED AND THE HOUSE HAS SAT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROBABLY BEEN HAZARDOUS OR A NUISANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO SEE HAPPEN ON
SOME OF THESE HOUSES. >> DAVID BEARD: SO YOUR CONCERN IS THE SECOND TIME THAT THE 30-660 THREE BULLET POINTS THAT YOU SAY IS EXERCISE IN FUTILITY IF THERE ARE NO COMMUNICATIONS.
>> IF THERE ARE NO COMMU N COMMUNICATION, JOSH NEEDS TO KNOW THAT EVEN AFTER 30 DAYS. IF THEY ARE BUSY DOING STUFF AND THEY PUT IT ON THE SCHEDULE TO GET IT BACK TO US INSIDE THE 60 DAYS, HE CAN TELL US IF HE IS HAVING ISSUES WITH GETTING A PLAN OF ACTION. HE CAN TELL US AND WE CAN HELP MOVE THE -- THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE SYSTEM A LITTLE QUICKER IF WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS NO ACTIVITY.
AND IF IT TAKES MAKING A PROPERTY SOME NUISANCE AND DECLARING DEMOLITION TO IT AND WE UTILIZE THAT TOMB TO COMMUNICATE TO AN OWNER. IF WE USE THAT TOOL TO GET THEM INTO ACTION, I JUST WANT US TO UNDERSTAND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
DOING. >> WELL, THIS -- THIS TH THREE-POINT RECOMMENDATION HERE IS -- IS ACTUALLY -- WAS SPAWNED BY THE EFFORT TO MOVE THINGS FASTER THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
WE USED TO JUST GIVE THEM 90 Y DAYS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT OR 160 DAYS TO DO THE PROJECT. AND -- AND IT WOULD GO 160 DAYS AND NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN AND IT WOULD COME BACK TO US.
AND THE STAFF DEVELOPED THIS PROGRAM -- OR THIS TOOL TO, INDEED, HELP PUSH THINGS ALONG FASTER.
THAT THEY HAD MILESTONES THEY HAD TO COMPLETE BEFORE THEY CAN GET THE NEXT 60 DAYS. THEY DIDN'T DO THE FIRST 30 S DAYS. THEY DIDN'T GET THE NEXT 60.
SO THAT IS ACHIEVING WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR.
[01:15:04]
MAYBE NOT FAST ENOUGH. .>> WHAT I AM SAYING THAT JOSH AND STAFF BROUGHT THIS BACK UTILIZING THIS TOOL, AND WHY WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THEIR
RECOMMENDATION. >> DAVID BEARD: THAT IS TRUE.
>> WE NEED TO CATCH A CLUE THAT HE IS HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING COMMUNICATIONS GOING. AND ALL HE HAS LEFT IN HIS
TOOLBOX IS ANOTHER 30-60. >> A DIFFERENT 30-60.
>> A DIFFERENT 30-60. >> AN ILLEGAL 30-60.
>> THAT IS WHERE DR. PARIS'S CONCERN, PROLONGING SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY GOING ON WHICH IS NO CONTACT FROM THE OWNER.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, NO CONFUSION.
WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS AFTER THOSE INITIAL 30. IF I DON'T HEAR FROM THEM WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THAT LETTER BEING SENT OUT, THEN I CAN TRY TO BRING IT BACK -- OR I CAN BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.
THE 60 DAYS -- BECAUSE IF THEY TURN IN THEIR PLAN OF ACTION WITH COST ESTIMATES AND PER THE -- PULL THE PERMITS, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU NEVER SEE IT AGAIN BECAUSE IT IS BEING REPAIRED. BUT IF I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING WITHIN 30 DAYS, THEN, YES, RECOMMENDATION OF ANOTHER 30-60 WILL PUT ANOTHER 30 -- YOU KNOW, ONE TO TWO-MONTH WAIT ON IT WHICH IS WHAT I STATED EARLIER. THE 30 DAYS DON'T ALWAYS LEND TO THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING SO A POSSIBILITY YOU WILL HAVE TO
WAIT FOR THE FOLLOWING MONTH. >> BUT STILL OVER THE YEARS HAS PUSHED CASES ALONG FASTER TO THIS BOARD.
>> YES, EVERYTHING IS ON A CASE BY CASE -- YES, SIR.
>> APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THAT WE ARE GETTING THESE THINGS MUCH FASTER THAN WE USED TO AND THEY ARE GETTING RESOLVED FASTER THAN
THEY USED TO. >> EVERYTHING IS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. SOME OF THEM MOVE ALONG FASTER.
OTHERS CONTINUE TO SIT THERE LONGER.
>> IS THERE A MOTION? >> WE ARE IN THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION NOW. I JUST -- I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO HOPE THAT WE NEVER ARE THE EXPRESS LANE FOR MAKING DECISIONS.
I HAD TO GO TO THE GROCERY STORE LAST NIGHT.
AND I REALLY LOVE GOING TO THAT SELF-CHECKOUT LINE, BUT I HOPE WE NEVER BEEN THE SELF-CHECKOUT LINE FOR MAKING DECISIONS.
AND I DON'T THINK THE CASES THAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY ARE SIMILAR.
I THINK THAT THE DISCUSSION IS APPROPRIATE AND THEY ALWAYS RAISE SERIOUS CONCERNS. I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK.
IS THIS THE CASE -- IT'S -- WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION.
IS THIS THE CASE HAS ALL THE GUN CALLS?
>> YES, SIR. >> THAT IS A POSTER CHILD FOR A COMMUNITY NUISANCE. I SAY BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO RESPONSIBILITIES HERE. ONE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUMBER TWO, TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
AND I THINK TO FAIL TO DECLARE IN A PUBLIC NUISANCE WHEN THERE ARE 28 CALLS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE OR GUN ISSUES IN A COMMUNITY IS -- IS -- WELL, I WON'T USE MY EASTERN OKLAHOMA VERNACULAR.
MY CHEEKS ARE GETTING RED. I WILL LEAVE IF AT THAT.
I THINK WE HAVE AN ISSUE HERE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE.
CLEAR, PRESENT DANGER. SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELL FARE AND REPAIR OF THE
STRUCTURE WILL BE UNREASONABLE. >> DAVID BEARD: MOTION BY DR.
PARIS THAT THE PROPERTY BE DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WILL BE UNREASONABLE.
IS THERE A SECOND? MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A S D SECOND. IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION?
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
FOR THE OWNER TO REPAIR, 30 Y DAYS TO OBTAIN PERMITS AND INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR COST ESTIMATE.
IF IT IS DONE 60 DAYS, ROUGH-END INSPECTIONS.
AND ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF ALL
PERMITS. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.
>> DAVID BEARD: A MOTION BY MR. WEBB.
SECOND BY MR. BROSIG. THAT THE THAT THE OWNER -- THE
[01:20:03]
ORDER -- THE ORDER TO REPAIR 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR REPAIRING COST ESTIMATES. IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGH ENDS INSPECTIONS. IF THAT IS DONE ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PE S PERMITS. ROLL CALL PLEASE.>> MR. BEARD. >> DAVID BEARD: YES.
[F. Clay Door - Staff Presentation Condemnation Program Statistics Review - FY2021]
>>CLERK: MOTION PASSED. >> DAVID BEARD: THANK YOU.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR CASES. I THINK WE HAVE A PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD MORNING, CLAYTON DOOR, CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER.
I HAVE STATISTICS FROM THE LAST FISCAL YEAR I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER OF THE CONDEMNATION PROGRAM THAT WE ARE MANAGING RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE 60 NEW CONDEMNATION CASES DOWN FROM SIX THE YEAR BEFORE. WE HAD 269 DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE CASES WHICH KIND OF ELIMINATD A LOT OF THOSE CASES THAT ACTUALLY HE CAME TO THE BOARD SO YOU SEE HOW THE STATISTICS FALL IN PLACE. 34 CASES COMPLETED.
ABOUT THE SAME AS LAST YEAR. 33 BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD OF CINCINNATI BUILDING STANDARDS. ABOUT THE SAME.
35 RESOLVED WITHOUT GOING TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS.
AND. 12 CITY FUNDED DEMOLITIONS WITH TWO OF THEM BEING CONSENT BY THE OWNER AND 12 COMPLETED BY THE OWNER AND THAT IS KEY TO THE NEXT STATEMENT OF, WE HAD AN AVERAGE OF 12,500 FOR EACH DEMOLITION UP FROM 7,000 LAST YEAR AND 14 WERE OWNER REPAIRED. SO YOU SEE THAT THE PRICE INCREASE THIS YEAR AND THE COMPLETED BY OWNER WAS REHELPFUL TO OUR PROGRAM BECAUSE WE DIDN'T USE CITY FUNDS TO DO THAT AND WILL BE PAID BACK. WITH THAT 269 OF THE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE CASES. THAT HELPED TO REALLY ALLEVIATE A LOT OF OUR CONDEMNATION CASES BEFORE WE EVEN GOT HERE AND ALLOW THE OWNERS TO REHAB OR DEMO THE PROPERTY THEMSELVES.
AND WE HAVE -- WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO CONDEMNATION OFFICERS THIS YEAR. WE HAVE JOSH AND ROBERTS THAT ARE DOING THIS. JOSH -- ROBERT IS DOING A LOT OF THE 269, THE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE CASES AND GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT THEM FIRST. AND THEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL DECIDE WHETHER IT IS GOING TO GO -- AS A CONDEMNATION AND DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE AND THE STAFF WILL DECIDE WHAT THE -- WHAT WE ARE GOING TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY
OF THIS? >> YOU HAVE COMPARED YEARS PAST THE PROCESS IS WAY BETTER. I MEAN, I REMEMBER WHEN IT USED TO BE YEARS. THIS IS NICE.
>> AND YOU WILL SEE MOST OF THE CASES THAT ARE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD NOW, I THINK, EVERY CASE TODAY WAS 2019 AND NEWER
WITHIN THE LAST YEAR. >> YOU KEEP TRACK WHEN YOU IDENTIFY SOMETHING THAT IS RESOLVED TO SHOW HOW LONG YOU
SHORTEN THE PROCESS? >> YEAH, THAT IS KINDS OF THE KEY TO THE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE MIGHT THAT BE PROGRAM FIRST.
AND A FURTHER DANGER BECAUSE OF A CRIME AND VAGRANTS GETTING
INTO IT. >> I REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS FOUR AND FIVE YEARS. NOW 18 MONTHS FOR ALL THE TIME AND LESS THAN THAT. WHAT IS THAT TIME LINE? BECAUSE THAT IS BE ESSENTIAL TO THE FABRIC OF THE DISCUSSION WE
HAD EARLIER TODAY. >> ABSOLUTELY.
AND THAT -- GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS LIKE WE DO WITH THE 36 LEADS TO THE CONDEMNATION. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT TAKES A LOT MORE TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T.
WHEN WE WILL SKIP THROUGH SOME OF THE PROCESS WHEN IT IS AN IMMEDIATE DANGER AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN SAY, NO, THIS IS AN EMERGENCY DEMO. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN OFTEN OR THE STAFF WILL DECIDE WHETHER THIS IS WORTHY OF GOING TO ANOTHER 0 30-60 OR -- OR APPEAR DEMO BASICALLY.
OF THE NUISANCE. SO -- WITH THE TWO HAVING THE -- DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND DEMOING IT.
THE KEY HE IS TO PUT -- TO DECLARE IT A PUBLIC NUISANCE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PICTURES OF SOME OF THE
[01:25:02]
CASES THAT WILL COME UP TODAY, THERE IS DEFINITE PUBLIC NUISANCE THERE IS. AND OUR ABILITY TO GIVE BACK TO THOSE AND KEEP IT SECURED AND THE POLICE FROM HAVING TO GO VISIT THOSE AS OFTEN AS THEY DO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BOARD?>> ON YOUR 12 CITY-FUNDED DEMOLITIONS WITH THREE BY-OWNER CONSENT, ARE THERE NINE IF I DO THE MATH.
THREE CONSENT. AND NINE OF THOSE THAT SOUND LIKE WE JUST DIDN'T GET ANY ACTIVITY FROM AN OWNER.
>> RIGHT. >> IS THAT IS WHAT THAT IS?
>> OUT OF 12 OF THOSE, THE OWNER CONSENTED AND REALIZED WE I NEEDED TO BE DEMO. WE GOT THE BID AND DID THE DEMO AND THEY PAID BACK THE CITY. PART OF THAT 12.
>> THE 12 COMPLETED BY OWNER. THAT LINE IS FOLLOWED BY A COMMENT AND 12 ARE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER SO THOSE 12 AREN'T AT
THE CITY'S COST. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THAT IS KEY TO GET THE OWNER TO DO THEIR OWN WORK SO WE DON'T HAVE TO STEP INTO THIS PROCESS. SO 24 DEMOS THAT WENT THROUGHOUT PROCESS AND WERE PUSHED ON BY THE BOARD TO GET DEMOED.
>> THE AVERAGE COST IS UP $5500 AS OPPOSED TO ONLY $7,000 LAST
>> SO IT COST MORE TO TEAR SOMETHING DOWN.
>> IT WORKED OUT PRETTY GOOD IN YEAR.
EVEN THOUGH THE COSTS WENT WAY UP, LESS CITY PAID-FOR DEMOS.
TURNED OUT JUST ABOUT RIGHT TOWARD THE END OF THE YEAR, AND FUNDING LEANING FORWARD WE MAY HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT.
AND IT IS STILL GOING TO COST. >> OKAY.
IN KIND OF REPORT IS HELPING FIGURE OUT OUR BUDGETING FOR OTHER YEARS. AT LEAST IF -- DEMOLITION COSTS
THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE THE COST FOR US TO GET IT SECURED PRIOR TO THAT AND ANY OTHER NUISANCE WHERE WE HAVE ZONING VIOLATIONS.
>> THE DEMOLITION ONLY. >> YEP.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BUY IS LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE STAFF. ONE OF THE THINGS I LEARNED THIS YEAR IS THE FACT THAT YOUR STAFF GOES OUT AND GOES THROUGH DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS LOOKING FOR PROPERTIES, SOMETHING THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF IN PREVIOUS YEARS SO I AM WONDER GOING THAT MAY HAVE HELPED REDUCING THE TIME FRAME -- AND NOT WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO CALL IN A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND GOING OUT AND LOOKING AND DRIVING DOWN THE STREETS AS IF YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO DO ALREADY AND O SO, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR EFFORTS THIS PAST YEAR. >> THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE -- ON BEHALF OF THE STAFF, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE SHOW AND NO MATTER HOW MANY YEARS YOU SERVED ON THE BOARD, YOU ALL ARE VITAL MEMBERS TO THE BOARD AND YOU ALL BRING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE FOR US AND WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE TIME YOU PUT IN ON THIS BOARD.
>> DAVID BEARD: THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE A NEW MEMBER OF OUR BOARD HERE.
THE HOMEOWNER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOARD.
LET HIM INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIM.
>> CHAIRMAN, WORKED WITH HOMES. I HAVE BEEN IN THE HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY FOR EIGHT YEARS NOW. AND SO I REALLY ENJOY THAT PART OF IT. THAT'S ABOUT IT.
THANK Y'ALL FOR HAVING ME. >> DAVID BEARD: THANK YOU FOR AGREEING TO SERVE. WITH THAT, I GUESS, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.