Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 09/4/2014Property Maintenance Appeals Board Meeting September 4, 2014 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board was called to order by Chairman Al Warren at 4:00 pm. Warren read the opening statement. Present from the Property Maintenance Appeals Board were Al Warren, Bert Schroeder, Dee Ball, Pat Brown, Gary Denner, and Nathan Joens. City of Ames staff present were Jessica Spoden, Seana Perkins, Holly McDonald, Natalie Herrington and Kathy Reichert. Approval of Minutes Approval of minutes was postponed until next meeting as not all Board members had received their packets. Motion made by Al Warren. Pat Brown second. Motion passed unanimously. New Business 1. Appeal 224 Washington Ave: Gary Denner removed himself from discussion and voting on this issue as property owner, Marjory Howe, is his spouse’s employer. Holly McDonald presented pictures and explained complaint received regarding property being an unregistered rental. Packets were distributed to board. City code was re ad and it was explained as to how it applies to this property, specifically tenant/occupant is paying difference in utility usage. Warren asked if property was ever inspected as rental unit prior to complaint. Testimony from Appellant Owner, Kenneth Howe of 215 Washington Avenue, was present and indicated no in answer. Marjory Howe was not present as it was stated by Kenneth Howe that she was currently out of state. Mr. Howe explained prior to living at their current address that he and his wife occupied 224 Washington Avenue and the current status and use of property. Mr. Howe provided background information regarding his and his wife’s relationship with the gentleman, Dennis Norman, currently residing in 224 Washington Ave. It was stated that Norman’s parole officer approved of living arrangements however the parole officer was not present. Details regarding living arrangements and any standing agreements were discussed in length, specifically the agreement in which Norman is to pay difference in utilities, although Mr. Howe stated to date no payment has been received. Norman’s employment situation was discussed. Bert Schroeder inquired as to how utility accounts are set up and who is making payments for utilities to the property in question. Questions were asked and discussion was had regarding the establishment of verbal agreements between the Howes and Norman regarding utility payments. Mr. Howe indicated that there was no agreement firmly established. Warren asked about whether agreement could be discarded therefore making the issue moot. Spoden explained, per the definition of rent, if any goods or services, not exclusively monies, are exchanged rent has been established. Spoden also noted that without a written contract, verbal agreements are not legal and binding. Warren established safety concerns regarding safe, habital space. Pat Brown inquired on legal aspect of verbal/written agreements of rent. Without Mrs. Howe present to produce documentation that would indicate any “rental” payments, Mr. Howe asked whether the board is considering this individuals situation from a social standpoint; whether it’s better to allow resident to remain or put him out with homeless population. Brown explained the Board’s dilemma. Paul Walker, Toronto St was introduced. Walker spoke on behalf of Norman, explaining Norman’s situation and Howe’s position and relationship with the resident. Walker is also a rental owner. Warren asked Walker if to his knowledge the Howes have received monetary payment. Walker indicated no. Warren asked if Walker has been in property. Walker stated yes, giving his opinion of the current conditions. Warren asked if the Howes have Norman doing any work for them in exchange for housing. Walker said nothing to his knowledge. Dee Ball asked if this property would pass inspection to receive LOC. Norman spoke on his own behalf and gave background on his legal issues, detailed explanation of his housing arrangements leading up to his current residence and explained why he is no longer living at his previous residence. Norman believes the Howes are receiving no benefit to having him living there although he did indicate he has paid to Mrs. Howe some monies for utilities and explained in detail his debt to the Howes. Warren asked if Norman considers there to be contract between himself and the Howes. Norman states there is no contract. Norman noted Mrs. Howe’s letter which was read by Mr. Howe noting their verbal agreement regarding utilities. Warren explained the Board’s position and how this situation applies to City code. Walker explained that the Howes are essentially bookkeepers for Norman, noting he has no checking account and will give the Howes money so they can write checks on Norman’s behalf. Warren noted, again, the predicament of how the code is written as it ap plies to utility usage/payment. Walker argued that there is no profit to the Howes or financial benefit for them allowing Denny to live in property. Warren explained the perimeters of the board and how the code is written. Schroeder noted that due to Mrs. Howe’s absence that there is no one to produce records of whether utilities have been paid for or not. Discussion was had regarding how utilities are paid and if utilities are put in Norman’s name. Spoden explained how code is written indicating any payment for use which would include utilities. Warren inquired if a written agreement was made noting Norman can live there for free, would that be acceptable by code? Spoden stated that we are here today because it is believed rent was received by the owner and if there is an agreement that no rent is to be exchanged this would make this a viable situation. Schroeder asked if any work done by tenant would be considered “rent”. Warren stated the agreement would need to indicate that any money received would not be in payment of rent. Spoden cautioned the board to think more broadly regarding definition of rent and the precedence set by this decision should this situation arise again in the future. Schroeder indicted Mrs. Howe would need to confirm how any money received by the Howes was applied. Mr. Howe, again, indicated that to his knowledge they have received nothing in payment from Norman. Spoden noted it’s not specifically what the money is for but the intent of what the money is for. Warren inquired as to tabling the issue as to establish rental agreement between the Howes and Norman. Brown inquired as to any repercussions regarding setting precedence. Warren stated how a situation would have to be similar. Spoden countered that situations would not have to be similar as anyone could enter into this same type of agreement put forth regardless of personal situations. Walker inquired as to how another situation would proceed forward as it would likely lead to this same situation regarding an appeal. Spoden explained process leading to municipal infraction of code if violated. Brown moved a written contract be requested and sub mitted to the Inspections Dept and tabling the issue until agreement is submitted; Warren noted contract would need to be reviewed and once reviewed will be voted on. Seana Perkins asked about timeframe for receipt of such an agreement. Warren indicated until next board meeting. Brown explained what needs to be done. Schroeder seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Appeal 302 S Walnut: McDonald presented complaint regarding this property owned by Kenneth and Marjorie Howe is an unregistered rental. McDonald sited Ames City code. McDonald noted driveway issue and an appeal made by owner. McDonald noted that this property has been previously inspected as a rental however the process was never completed and therefore not entered into the rental system. The property is currently occupied for payment of difference of utilities. Warren inquired as to whether property has been previously inspected. McDonald stated yes but never registered as a rental; inspection was conducted several years ago. Inspection was scheduled prior to appeal being received. Inspection was put on hold regarding the outcome of this appeal. Testimony from Appellant Mr. Howe presented discussion noting this situation is much different than the current situation at 224 Washington Avenue as this house is currently occupied by an employee. Howe read statement from Mrs. Howe stating agreement with employee. Mr. Howe explained intent of original purchase of house, current state of the home indicating he has no issue with home going through the inspection process. Warren noted appeal could be pulled by Howe. Spoden explained if appeal is pulled he is agreeing that the property is truly a rental. Brown asked if appeal is withdrawn could driveway be brought back to the board if issue were noted during inspection. Howe stated he would prefer not to withdraw appeal without consulting his wife. Warren stated he would prefer not to table this issue as Mr. Howe is in possession of the information regarding this appeal. Schroeder noted that this tenant is paying rent. Howe agreed and again indicated he has no issue with moving forward with the inspection process. Warren, again, asked if appeal is to be heard. Howe stated he does not want to withdraw appeal and asks the board to vote on it. Warren asked McDonald when property was first inspected. McDonald noted deficiency letter dated January 2011 by Ed Gillotte, 20 items noted in letter. Schroeder moved that board require property be registered as rental as per Chapter 13 code. Brown second ed the motion. Roll call vote, minus Denner who removed himself from discussion and voting on this issue as property owner, Marjory Howe, is his spouse’s employer. Motion carries. Board comments None. Adjourn Schroeder moved to adjourn. Brown seconded. Motion to adjourn passed unanimously at 5:30 PM.