HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 04/02/2012
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
AMES, IA APRIL 2, 2012
I. The regular meeting of the Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Larry Cormicle at 4:01 p.m., April 2, 2012, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present
from the Building Board of Appeals were Larry Cormicle, Larry Brandt, Brad Heemstra, and Chuck Haselhoff. Dan Nutini and David Francis were absent. The Homebuilder representative position
is vacant.
Staff members present were David Brown, Judy Parks, and Bruce Kinkade
Moved by Brandt, seconded by Haselhoff, to approve the minutes from January 23, 2012
Vote on motion: 4-0. Motion passed unanimously.
II. Old Business
Staff update on the 2012 NEC adoption in the Ames Municipal Code. First reading is on the City Council agenda for April 10, 2012.
III. New Business
A. Hearing on appeal of owner of 268 Village Dr. in regard to Notice to Abate a Dangerous Building and Public Nuisance by demolition. Owner, Mr. Ogilvie, was not present. David Brown
left the room and searched the hallway for Mr. Ogilvie. Appellant was not present for the appeal hearing that he requested.
Larry Cormicle referenced Section 5.601 of the Ames Municipal Code, appeal application, which outlines five reasons to file an appeal. Although not specifically stated, Mr. Ogilvie’s
appeal seems to be based on claim (5) “required actions cannot be completed within the time limit specified by the Building Official”, as the appellant’s letter dated February 24, 2012
closes with, “As it is, I’m doing everything I can.”
The appellant occupies the single family dwelling at 268 Village Dr. The structure of concern at that address is the detached garage and shed. Appellant also owns 2915 Oakland St.
The deadline on the notices dated February 10, 2012 is February 29, 2012. Brown pointed out that the first paragraph of each notice sent to the appellant states a summary of the history
of correspondence. There has been no apparent response to any of the notices.
Larry Brandt stated that he visited 268 Village Dr., and it appeared that some cosmetic improvements had been made to the property including a new roof.
Brown distributed pictures that were taken of 268 Village Dr. in 2007 of conditions that existed prior to the mailing of the most recent notices. Roofing was nonexistent at the time
of the pictures and for the last four years. Any repairs that were done would have required permits and inspections. No permits have been issued, so there is no way to determine if the
repairs made are appropriate or structurally sound. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the owner will not respond to anyone who goes to his door to attempt to have a conversation.
He will not return phone calls. He refuses to accept certified mail. He is unwilling to communicate, which makes it impossible to work toward voluntary compliance. The letter sent by
Mr. Ogilvie in February is very similar to the letters he sent in 2007 in which he asked for time and complained about his poor health. Unfortunately, those are not valid reasons for
failing to maintain a property. The other element to consider is the impact on the adjacent properties and the neighborhood. We have received several complaints on both of the properties
over the past five years. We hope the board will see that staff has made every attempt to gain voluntary compliance and has failed, and this is the last resort to deal with the problems,
to preserve the quality of the neighborhood, and to have the property maintained in a manner that is consistent with the other properties and not in violation to the code.
Cormicle asked if the city had legal authority to enter a private property to check for code compliance.
Judy Parks stated staff would need an administrative search warrant to enter the property unless the owner consented. Anything that is visible from a public right of way is legal for
the city to enforce.
Cormicle questioned if city staff should make another visit and document the work that has been done, since the homeowner apparently made some repairs without permits and inspections,
and the photographs are dated 11 months ago.
Parks agreed that staff needs to have current documentation. She also clarified that Mr. Ogilvie did receive and sign for the notices dated February 10, 2012.
Brown requested an administrative search warrant to search the property.
Parks recommended the board table the action on 268 Village Dr. until staff can secure an inspection on the property and report back to the board with the current condition.
Moved by Heemstra, seconded by Brandt to table the action on the detached garage at 268 Village Dr. requesting city staff perform an inspection and the city legal department determine
what the most appropriate legal way to do that is.
Vote on motion: 4-0. Motion passed unanimously.
B. The second property is 2915 Oakland St. with the same owner and same appellant, asking the board to overturn the Building Official’s determination.
Brandt stated the building is dangerous and recommends demolition. Brandt’s investigation of the property revealed the building is in worse condition now than it was in the photographs
dated 2007, doors are wide open, and the garage roof is broken.
Brown stated that there has been no visible maintenance and the structure is more deteriorated today than it was in 2007. Water and electric service have been terminated.
Cormicle referred to the appellant’s letter from February 24, 2012 in which he states he has the house at 2915 Oakland St. listed for sale with a local realtor.
Brandt mentioned that the house is in a good location with a nice lot. He pointed out that there is no named buyer for the property, and suggested the board proceed with demolition.
Parks said the authority of the board is to uphold the notice as issued which instructs for abatement or demolition, to amend or modify the notice, or to extend the time for compliance.
Move by Brandt, seconded by Haselhoff to uphold the notice as issued from the Building Official
Vote on motion: 4-0. Motion passed unanimously.
Discussion on motion was held.
Heemstra questioned if it would be better to give additional time to try to find buyer for the property.
Parks reminded the board that the demolition costs are assessed against property. A new buyer would have to pay them, as a lien would be placed against the deed.
Chuck Haselhoff stated staff has given the appellant ample time to make an attempt to repair the building.
Brandt reiterated he does not like how accessible the building is.
General agreement was made from board members about the danger of the building.
Parks said the Building Official has the authority to set a deadline, which is what was done in the notice.
The next steps would be to secure bids to demolish the building, then proceed with the demolition, then take the matter to council for assessment of the costs against the property.
IV. Board or staff comments or concerns
Brown mentioned the activity going on downtown. Buildings are being repaired structurally and cosmetically.
Heemstra will announce the vacancy of the Homebuilder’s representative position at the next Ames Homebuilders Association meeting.
Brandt asked for an update on 913 Carroll Ave. Brown said the owner sent an email to the Inspections office stating that the building is privately used and not a concern to the city.
Brown will be contacting the owner.
Moved by Brandt, seconded by Heemstra, to adjourn the meeting
Vote on motion: 4-0. Motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m.
1
1