Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 01/04/2016MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AMES, IOWA JANUARY 4, 2016 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Larry Cormicle at4:00p.m.,January 4, 2016, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Building Board of Appeals were Larry Cormicle,Larry Brandt, David Carnes,Brad Heemstra, and Nathan Werstein. Dan Nutini and Chuck Haselhoff were absent. Staff members present were Seana Perkins, Scott Ripperger, Sara VanMeeteren, and JessicaSpoden Guest present wasappellant Ivan Hanthorn Moved by Heemstra, seconded byBrandt, to approve the minutes of October 5, 2015 with a change in the last paragraph of the word “Council’s” to “Attorney’s” Vote on Motion: 5-0 Motion passed unanimously Old Business None New Business A. Appeal of the Dangerous Building declaration at 2214 Storm Street by owner Ivan Hanthorn Appellant Ivan Hanthorn presented his case. He stated the house at 2214 Storm Street is an old housewith an old garage. The City received a complaint about the condition of the garage, and Hanthorn was notified by Community Codes Liaison Sara Van Meeterenthat it needed to be repaired or demolished.Hanthorn has not been as able to complete the necessary repairs as quickly as he had planned or to be able to meet the obligations of his proposed timeline because of his poor health and the bad weather. He did continue to work on repairs however, and the current state of the garage is that the roof deck is solid and can withstand extra weight from possible snow and is weather proof. The wall is stabilized with jacks and members. The building is not currently a danger. It simply is not finished. He never intended to ignore the City’s directive. He just ran into poor health and bad weather. He is requesting an extension, but is unsure about a realistic date with the current weather. Larry Brandt asked Hanthorn if he had looked into hiring help to complete repairs. Hanthorn stated that he had two helpers lined up to assist him, but then they chose to do other work over his project, andafter that he was unable to find help that was not a contractor. Brandt said he is worried about the fact that the garage still leans on the west side. If in any way the building is likely to fail and damage the neighbor’s property, then it must be fixed. He pointed out that Hanthorn has had a lot of time to complete the project and he may need to hire help to finally get it done if he cannot do it himself. Hanthorn said he would be willing to hire laborers to assist him but not contractors. He believes the structure is not dangerous. Brandt asked if anyone from the City has said the structure is safe or has Hanthorn had an engineer look at the garage to determine if it is worth saving. When Brandt looked at the structure, he did not see whereHanthorn had stopped the settling on the west side. Hanthorn replied that the original blocks are there, but what decayed was the two inch thick 2 x 4 plate which needs to be replaced with a 2 x 6 treated plate torestore the garage to its original dimensionality. The stone has not sunken. Brandt said the structure is still leaning and looks like it is about two inches off. Hanthorn said he took it up and then took it down. He could take it back up to leave it there, but he got to the point where this meeting with the Board was going to take place and the weather was bad. Brandt asked if Hanthorn had it level. Hanthorn said he took it off without taking it all the way to level to test out the structure of enforcement and his process. Larry Cormicle referred to the memo from Hanthorn which states he has made some repairs. He asked if any City staff has looked at the repairs that have been made. Sara Van Meeteren stated that she and Craig Hageman went to 2214 Storm Street a couple of times and they did not notice any changes to the structure. She observed a large hole in the roof, but she did not go into the structure. Cormicle summarized that Hanthorn has made some, but not all, repairs. Hanthorn replied that he has accomplished the essential concerns. The garage is currently stabilized with jacks and 4 x 4 members. It is tilting, but it is not going to go anywhere. He will not able to finish the repairs until the plate is put in, but that will be difficult given the ground conditions and the weather. The deck has been repaired. There is tarping on both sides so it is weather impervious in the temporary sense, but not in the permanent sense, as it is defined by Inspections. Cormicle asked Hanthorn what progress he made while the weather was good. Hanthorn stated he worked on it every day that there was good weather. Cormicle asked what barrier has prevented the successful completion of the repairs besides the appellant’s physical ailments, as it appears there has been no attempt to make the repairs and have them done bythe deadline. Hanthorn stated that he wanted to do the work himself and he is slow, but if the Board requires it, he will hire someone to do the job. Cormicle pointed out that the approaching deadline is February 1, 2016. Jessica Spoden clarified that the document that was recorded and sent to Hanthorn declares the building dangerous and the City will demolish it if it is not corrected in such a manner that is sufficient to the City to make it no longer dangerous. If the Board moves forward, the appellant should ask for a stay of the demolition and ask for an extension of time and then come back and prove that the building is no longer dangerous. The building has already been declared dangerous. Hanthorn thanked Spoden for the clarification and stated he was insufficiently aware of the procedural matters. Cormicle mentioned that the notice was recorded November 23, 2015 and confirmed that Hanthorn received a copy of the multi-page document. He expressed confusion as to how Hanthorn could not be aware when he was notified in writing in November. Brad Heemstra asked if the roof sheathing has been replaced and if the hole was no longer in the roof. Hanthorn confirmed that the hole has been repaired. Spoden stated that City staff has not been able to determine that the hole has been repaired. Brandt said from inside the structure, one can see plywood in place. Heemstra also asked about the settling on the west side. Hanthorn stated the plate was the issue. Heemstra summarized what needs to be done: it needs to be jacked up and cleaned out and the rotted plate needs to be removed and replaced with a new one. Cormicle asked Hanthorn what his plan and schedule were to complete the permanentrepairs.Hanthorn replied that it was his understanding that by filing his appeal and coming before the Board,things were at a standstill. He did not understand that the City would still be tracking his progress and following the time table during the appeal time. Cormicle stated the Board has three options with the appeal: 1) Uphold the notice as issued and deny the appeal, and as the decision has been issued, it is tear the building down. 2) Granting a time extension to proceed with the demolition. Hanthorn said he does not want to demolish the garage. 3) Amend or modify the notice. The Board has the ability to grant a timeline for completion of the project. Cormicle asked Hanthorn if he was asking for a time extension to complete adequate repairs. Hanthorn confirmed. Cormicle then asked for a completion date. Spoden referred to page three of the recorded document which states that the Board can grant an extension, but the extension shall be for a reasonable period of time generally not to exceed 90 days for repairs or modifications and60 days for demolition, exceptwhen extraordinary circumstances can be shown. May 1, 2016 would be 90 days. Brandt shared that the Building Board of Appeals is not a punitive Board, and they try to work with residents and business ownersof Ames as much as possible. They are not bureaucratic, but drawn from the community at large, and do their best to help people do what they want to do. He believes Hanthorn has been given a lot of time already and does not think a 90 day extension will help if Hanthorn insists on doing the repairs himself. Brandt stressed that he wants Hanthorn to be able to make the repairs himself, but given the appellant’s health and ability, he needs to hire help. Moved by Heemstra, seconded by Brandt, to have staff inspect the structure by 5:00p.m.on January 8, 2016,to affirmthat the roof has been replaced with sheathing and the jacks are adequately supporting the structure temporarily to prevent collapse. Vote on motion: 5-0 Motion passed unanimously Moved by Heemstra, seconded by Werstein, for conditional approval of a 90 day time extension until May 1, 2016 to complete the required repairs. Vote on motion: 5-0 Motion passed unanimously Scott Ripperger asked Hanthorn for clarification that the west side had settled two inches because the plate rotted but the foundation is still in good shape. Hanthorn replied yes. David Carnes asked to clarify the consequences of not meeting the requirements of May 1, 2016.Spoden responded that if permanent repairs are not completed by May 1, 2016, the building would be demolished. No other extensions are allowed by code. Hanthorn stated he understood the deadlines and the terms. Adjournment The Board adjourned at 4:58 p.m. ____________________________ Eileen Carter, RecordingSecretary