HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 10/05/20151
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
AMES, IOWA OCTOBER 5, 2015
Call to Order
The regular meeting of the Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Larry
Cormicle at 4:00 p.m., October 5, 2015, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present
from the Building Board of Appeals were Larry Cormicle, Brad Heemstra, Larry Brandt, David
Carnes, and Dan Nutini.
Staff members present were Seana Perkins, Scott Ripperger, Sara VanMeeteren, and Jessica
Spoden
Guest present was Steve Bock
Moved by Brandt, seconded by Carnes, to approve the minutes of September 14, 2015
Vote on Motion: 5-0
Motion passed unanimously
Old Business
None
New Business
A. Discussion of the plan to abate a potential dangerous building at 4004 Phoenix Avenue
Larry Cormicle stated that the meeting was not for an appeal. It was a discussion with City staff.
Jessica Spoden, Assistant City Attorney, asked to speak before the Board began any discussion.
She stated that it was the opinion of the Legal Department that the Board does not actually
have the authority to hear the discussion at hand. Under the authority that is given to the
Board by code, the Board has the authority to hear appeals and to make recommendations to
code amendments. It is a very specific, limited authority that is given to the Board under
Chapter 5. If the Board was to proceed with the discussion, it could potentially create a conflict
of interest for the Board. If the Board was to advise staff on how to move forward on the item
i.e., to classify the building as a dangerous building, the owner would have the right to appeal
that decision and that appeal would then come back in front of the Board. The Board could
choose to go forward with the discussion, but it would be against legal advice.
Larry Brandt asked for clarification as to why the Board was called together. Cormicle
responded that it was for a discussion. Brandt read a line from the staff memo from Sara
VanMeeteren dated September 28, 2015 which said, “Staff is requesting direction”. Spoden
stated that it was her understanding that a decision had not been made as to whether or not
the building at hand was a dangerous building.
2
Seana Perkins explained that staff was asking for a discussion not on whether or not the
property is dangerous, but rather on the plan that was submitted by the owner, which is to sell
the property. Steve Bock was present representing the property owner.
Cormicle reiterated that there had been no appeal and that the Board has only certain legal
authority as the Building Board of Appeals under advisement. He added that he was hesitant to
have a conversation about the issue because of the Board’s very limited authority by city
ordinance and state law.
Brandt said he liked the way the City has done it in the past, and the Board should continue
with that practice and wait for an appeal.
Spoden said the Board would have the chance to have a say on the issue if the owner of the
property felt that it needed to be appealed in the future.
Brad Heemstra asked for clarification as to what specific action prompts a person to file an
appeal in this type of situation. Perkins replied that if staff determines that a building is
classified as a dangerous building then the property owner has the right to appeal the decision
that it is dangerous.
Cormicle stressed that the Board needed to be cautious considering there had been no appeal,
and the Board needs to pay attention to the limited authority actually given to them. Perkins
confirmed that there was no appeal and no classification that the building is dangerous.
Dan Nutini agreed with Cormicle that he did not see the need to discuss the issue since there
was no actual appeal.
Cormicle said he was relying on the City Council’s opinion and interpretation of the City’s
ordinances and laws. The Board has very specific, limited authority and needs to stay within
that limited authority to avoid any potential or real conflicts of interest in the future.
Moved by Brandt, seconded by Nutini, to adjourn
Vote on motion: 5-0
Motion passed unanimously
Adjournment
The Board adjourned at 4:08 p.m.
____________________________
Eileen Carter, Recording Secretary