Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 05/7/2015 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE APPEALS BOARD AMES, IOWA MAY 7, 2015 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board was called to order by Chairman Al Warren at 4:04 pm. Warren read the opening statement. Roll call: Al Warren, Jeff Drury, Dee Ball, Pat Brown, Bert Schroeder, Nathan Joens and Gary Denner. City Staff members: Jessica Spoden, Seana Perkins, Sara Van Meeteren, Kathy Reichert, and Lorrie Banks. Approval of Minutes Approved corrected minutes from September 4, 2014 and October 2, 2014. A motion was made by Jeff Drury; Pat Brown seconded the motion. Approved April 2, 2015 minutes with correction (typo) noted by Gary Denner. A motion was made by Pat Brown; Jeff Drury seconded the motion. New Business Hearing on appeal from owner of 3412 Jewel Drive regarding the status of this property as a rental; the code has been incorrectly interpreted (Al Warren recused himself, Bert Schroeder lead the hearing): Sara Van Meeteren gave an overview of case to the board and the definitions per Chapter 13 of the Ames Municipal Code regarding occupancy based on a complaint received by the Inspections Department. Pat Brown questioned the use of the words partnership and corporation in our code versus the word person. Jessica Spoden defined those terms legally and explained how they apply to the rental code. Jesse Antelman, owner of 3412 Jewel Drive, introduced himself and gave a background of the property and how he and his wife came to acquired it. Antelman discussed his interaction with Van Meeteren stating he received a letter based on a complaint received by the Inspections Departing indicating he was in violation of the rental code in relation to occupancy. This property is not a registered rental. Antelman explained his understanding of the definition of “person”, “partnership” and “corporation” as it is defined in our rental code in reference to the occupancy rule and the classification of a roomer. Antelman understands the code to define his marriage as a legal partnership therefore making it acceptable to have 2 roomers who also have a legal partnership without the property needing to be a registered rental. Antelman referenced his interactions with City staff through the complaint process and how he came to understand the code and why he believes our code is being interpreted incorrectly. Bert Schroeder asked when the house was purchased. Antelman stated about 2 years ago. Brown asked if Antelman has sought legal advice from an attorney. Antelman answered no. Discussion was had as to the legality in the definition of “person” in our code as it pertains to a “partnership” and how it applies outside of the rental code.Gary Denner noted the code indicating owner occupied properties allow 1 roomer, a roomer being defined as a person. This property is owner occupied. Definition of a roomer as an individual or a “person” was discussed. Antelman commented how this will affect his roomers. Brown explained that this is a legal definition that applies to the city as a whole and will set a precedent. Jeff Drury indicated that this could undo what the rental code was trying to avoid all together. Schroeder inquired as to adding text amendment regarding the definition. Seana Perkins indicated Inspections is not currently on a council agenda. Discussion was had regarding how to proceed. Denner inquired as to the length of any agreement between the roomers and the owner regarding length of occupancy. Antelman answered they have a verbal agreement, but nothing in writing. Antelman argued, again, his interpretation of these definitions and how he is not agreeing with the decision he believes is going to be made. Brown countered with the responsibility of the board and the ramifications this could have as it applies to the city as a whole and that it cannot be applied on a case by case basis. Brown moved to deny with a July 31, 2015 enforcement for compliance. The motion was seconded by Dee Ball. Brown questioned the hesitancy of the board to second her motion. Drury complimented the appellant regarding his “catch” in our code and sympathizes with his situation. Brown, again, stressed the precedent this could set in the Ames community regarding occupancy. Antelman requested an exception based on his situation. Spoden explained there is no variance to be granted through Chapter 13 of the Ames Municipal Code. Spoden noted that you are either in compliance with the code or you are not in compliance with the code. Denner opened discussion about the amount of time needed in regards to compliance and asked Antelman what his thoughts were on what is a reasonable amount of time to comply. Antelman did not have an answer. Schroeder suggested September 1, 2015 as a compliance date. Discussion was had regarding this date. Drury made a friendly amendment to Brown’s motion that the code enforcement date be December 31, 2015. Denner seconded the motion. The friendly amendment passed unanimously. A motion was made to deny the appeal with compliance by December 31, 2015 by Brown. Motion was seconded by Ball. The motion passed unanimously. Antelman thanked the board for hearing his appeal. Ball and Schroeder commented on a need to direct staff to resolve this issue with the definitions. Perkins indicated they will be reviewed by staff. Move by Brown to direct staff on need for clarification of the code as it pertains to a roomer and person. Motion seconded by Denner. Motion passed unanimously. Al Warren introduced next agenda item which was the nomination of a chairperson. Brown nominated Warren. Ball seconded the nomination. The vote was unanimous. Warren was voted to continue as the board chairperson. A co-chair was not added to the agenda so a vote was not able to be taken during this meeting. This item will be added to the next meeting agenda. Board/Staff Comments Warren commented on the 3412 Jewel Drive case stating Spoden did a good job of interpreting the code as it is written and voiced his concerns regarding how the definition is stated in our code and the legal ramifications that could occur based on the interpretation and the ruling of higher courts. Discussion was had regarding the intent of the code versus the interpretation of the code based on its language as it went through the legal process. Warren noted he appreciated receiving the rental newsletter. Perkins discussed its delivery and who receives it. Warren asked if each member of the board is given or has received a copy of the rental code as defined by Chapter 13. Perkins stated each member of the board receives a copy of the most recent version of the code when they are appointed. If someone has been on the board for a significant period of time it is possible that they do not have the most recent version of the rental code. Discussion was had regarding which version is the most recent version and its supplements. Warren requested that the City provide a current copy of the code and its supplements to the current board members. Perkins stated she will provide copies to all board members at the next board meeting. Denner inquired as to any recurring issues or areas of potential concern from rental staff as they are conducting inspections. Perkins indicated she is not aware of any and that when any issues or concerns do arise they are handled at that time on a case by case basis. Warren stated he wanted to note the fire extinguisher compliance is due by July 1, 2015. Perkins indicated our inspectors are addressing this on a case by case basis with property owners and property managers. Perkins noted they are allowing flexibility when they can as long as it does not in violate any fire or life safety codes. The S-trap compliance item was also mention with a compliance date of July 1, 2016 noted. Drury inquired about the rental back log status and the where now close they are in becoming current to date. Perkins stated they are close and that all back log is or has been scheduled noting one property manager having the only outstanding back logged units and that staff is working with them to get these completed. Warren complimented the staff on embracing the back log situation and working to become current as well as the staff’s willingness to be more open with communication. Perkins accepted the compliment on behalf of her staff. Adjourn A motion was made by Brown to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Schroeder. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5:08 PM