HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 05/02/2013 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE APPEALS BOARD
AMES, IA May 2, 2013
Call to Order
The regular meeting of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board was called to order by Chairman Al
Warren at 4:00 p.m., May 2, 2013, in the Council Chambers in Ames City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present
from the Property Maintenance Appeals Board were Al Warren, Jill Smith, Bert Schroeder, Jeff Drury, De
Betts and Pat Brown. Mary Fitch was absent.
Staff members present were Seana Perkins, Shawn Bayouth, Judy Parks, Natalie Herrington, Macaley
Johnsen, and Bruce Kinkade.
Opening statement was read by Chairman Warren and introductions were made.
Approval of Minutes from October 4, 2012. Motion Drury/Second Schroeder. Motion carried
unanimously.
Building Official, Seana Perkins, introduced herself to the Board and thanked them for their time and
effort put into this board.
Election of Chairperson: Pat Brown moved to re-elect Al Warren as Chairman of the board. Betts
second. Motion carried unanimously.
Hearing on Appeal of owner of 324 S. Franklin. The strict compliance with the code is impracticable and
unreasonable. The appeal is in regard to the kitchen sink drains to the floor drain and the bathroom sink
is improperly vented. Inspector Johnson shared a photo of the bathroom in question and explained the
areas of concern. It is allowed to have the shower go to the floor drain, but the kitchen sink, on the
opposite side of the wall, goes to the floor drain also and it is not meant to handle that type of load. It
needs to be properly trapped and vented. The other item of concern is the bathroom sink and the
cleanout is not to be obstructed. It is an S-trap, but since it goes to the cleanout it should be removed as
it can be obstructed. Warren clarified that the kitchen pipe drains directly from the sink to the floor drain.
Johnsen confirmed. She explained the house is a 3-family conversion and it was registered in 2001, so
at some point the third unit was added to the basement. Johnsen clarified that the rental registration for
this home was received in 2001. Drury asked if there was any discussion of this issue in 2001 and
Johnson did not know.
Warren asked if it had been inspected between the time it was registered and when Johnsen conducted
her inspected. Johnsen advised it had been inspected at least a couple of times, but that would have
been under the previous rental housing code, prior to 2009.
Schroeder asked what would need to be done to correct this issue and Johnsen noted that the owner
would need to properly connect the old fixtures to the sanitary sewer system, which would include it
properly draining directly to the system and also having a vent going out of the top of the room. Permits
would be required. Warren asked if there were any obstructions to running the vent up the outside of the
wall? Johnsen was unaware.
Drury asked Bruce Kinkade if he knew if draining into the floor drain would pose any more danger than
the shower drain going to the floor drain? Kinkade noted that it is a different type of fixture and advised
that the rental code specifically says that the shower is an allowable drain. The kitchen was never
allowable according to any of our adopted codes. But the rental code does allow for shower drain. Betts
inquired if gasses come up from the drain and Drury explained that there is a trap located there and as
2
long as there is a trap, then no. He advised that actually the fact that the shower drains into it, will keep
the drain wet which would prevent sewer gas from coming back up.
Appellant Sham Persaud is the owner of the property which he acquired in 1985, not in 2001. He advised
that when he purchased it, it had already been converted. It has been a rental property since that time.
He has been paying the yearly dues consistently. Persaud stated that there have been no issues with
drainage as far as water backing up or sewer gasses. He advised there is another drain next to the toilet
that can be opened up. Warren wondered if Persaud has any documentation from a city official/building
official okaying this plumbing arrangement from 1985? He advised he does not, however he has gone
through several inspections over the years. Warren then wondered if there are any obstructions on the
outside wall that would prevent being able to run venting? Persaud advised there is a window close by,
and there is a clean-out about two feet from the toilet. Warren then asked about the bathroom and
kitchens on the other floor and if they were located directly above this bathroom/kitchen area. Persaud
advised that they are on the opposite side of the home.
Smith wondered if Persaud had looked into the cost of what these changes would be? Persaud stated
approximately $5,000 total. He advised it is an old property and he doesn’t feel it was reasonable to put
that much money into it. He is asking for leniency as there have not been any issues with the plumbing
as it is.
Drury inquired if he intends to sell the property and Persaud advised he does and would like to do it
sometime this year, but no definite plans have been made yet. He feels it will most likely go back to being
a single-family property as it is not meant to be a multi-family dwelling as it only has one water heater and
one furnace, etc.
Discussion was held on the length of time that would be given to the appellant to fix this issue and it was
determined that anywhere between 90 up to 180 days would be given. Brown noted that it didn’t seem to
her that the board would have much leeway on this issue. Attorney Parks concurred, other than the
amount of time that could be granted to complete the work. Warren agreed and advised that as he reads
the plumbing code, it does not give too much discretion as far as the venting for the sink or the plumbing
for the kitchen sink. In the pre-existing plumbing items, there are some exceptions, but the two items that
are being appealed; the board is limited on any latitude that could be offered.
Motion to deny appeal by Schroeder. Second Brown. Roll Call Vote: Smith: Aye, Brown: Aye, Betts:
Aye, Warren: Aye, Schroeder: Aye, Drury; aye. Motion carried unanimously
It was discussed that staff and legal will get together to discuss the pending deadline of June 30, 2013 for
pre-existing conditions and will follow-up as necessary.
Discussion was held regarding some frequent items that are in question during inspections relating to
above grade egress windows, below grade habitable space, non rechargeable fire extinguishers, ceiling
height, existing driveway approaches and pre-existing plumbing items. Inspector Johnsen shared some
information regarding each of these issues and staff will work on creating a document/policy statement
with information explaining each of these issues.
Adjourn – Motion Schroeder/Second Brown. 5:11 PM