Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 07/12/2012 1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE APPEALS BOARD AMES, IA July 12, 2012 Call to Order The meeting of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board was called to order by Chairman Al Warren at 4:03 On July 5, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Property Maintenance Appeals Board were Al Warren, Jill Smith, Mary Fitch, Bert Schroeder, Jeff Drury, De Betts and Pat Brown. Staff members present were David Brown, Judy Parks, Natalie Herrington, Macaley Johnsen, and Clint Peterson. Approval of Minutes: Schroeder noted an omission of Roll Call Vote by Betts. Minutes will be amended. No vote taken to approve as amended. The opening statement was read by Warren. Old Business Recap of training from June meeting. Parks provided a brief synopsis of the training last month and shared information that Gary Taylor had wanted to share, but due to time constraints was not able to. Discussion was held. Hearing on appeal of owner of 3413 Coy St. regarding egress window requirements, based upon: 1-Strict compliance with the code is impractical/not reasonable, 2-Additional time is needed to complete the required work. Macaley Johnsen had no new information to share, but provided the slides again for review. She clarified that this property is classified as a newly registered rental, and it must comply with the provisions of the code. She further advised that it had been registered as a rental years ago, but fell off the rental register when property owners changed hands and our office was not notified. Pat Brown wondered how much time had lapsed between the times it went off the rental record to now. Johnsen advised that the last Letter of Compliance was for Pacin Rentals at 115 Sheldon, and it was issued in June 2006 and expired June 2010. A New Rental Registration form was submitted in July of 2011, by Triplett. Brian Toressi, with Davis/Brown Law Firm and Talia Jackson with Triplett Companies spoke. Toressi clarified that their request was to issue a one-bedroom LOC for this property, thus making the tenants responsible for any liability if they chose to use it as more than a one-bedroom residence. Parks responded that while she understands that it can be written that way, she noted it could not be effectively enforceable and she reminded the board that this is a new rental registration. After much discussion a vote was taken. Motion by Pat Brown to deny the issuance of a Letter of Compliance for a one-bedroom property. Second by Betts. Discussion occurred. Roll Call Vote: Drury=Yes, Betts=Yes, Warren=Yes, Smith=Yes, Brown=Yes, Fitch=Yes, Schroeder=Yes. Motion Carried. Discussion between the board and the appellant ensued regarding wording within the Code and terms such as ‘special knowledge’ and other language which seems vague and hard to interpret. Toressi then requested a two-bedroom LOC and noted that the window would meet code if both panes were to be opened up and pulled out and he advised they would put instructions up near the window on how to 2 remove the panes. Parks advised that the Board had already voted down the request for a one-bedroom LOC and it has already been determined that this property is classified as a newly registered rental and it must comply with the Code. Therefore, there is no further action needed by the board regarding this case. It should be noted that the board advised the appellant that if they could provide a report from the window manufacturer that the windows in question are egress rated, that they should provide it to the City for further review and consideration. The board also noted the importance of registering rental properties in the City when owners change hands. David Brown then shared that it is important to bring appeals like this to the board as it provides data and documentation that can be used to help reevaluate the code and make changes as necessary. Board discussion and decision on appeal of owner of 814 Duff Ave., #301 regarding egress window requirements, based upon: 1-Strict compliance with the code is impractical/not reasonable. This issue was voted on last meeting but ended in a tie as one of the board members had to leave prior to the vote being taken. That member has now listened to the tape from the last meeting and is prepared to vote today. Motion by Betts to uphold decision of the building official to require windows to meet code. Second by Smith. Roll Call Vote: Drury=Yes, Betts=Yes, Warren=Yes, Smith=Yes, Brown=Yes, Fitch=Yes, Schroeder=Yes. Motion carried. New business Hearing on appeal of owner of 4203 Westbrook Dr. regarding egress window requirements based upon: 1-Strict compliance with the code is impractical/not reasonable, 2-The code has been incorrectly interpreted. Johnsen shared this is a condo unit and is a newly registered rental. There are two appeals, one for window size, egress requirements and one for plumbing, washer improperly drains to the floor drain. Johnsen shared photos. Pat Brown wondered the time frame from date of purchase to date of registration. Johnsen stated that it was purchased on 9/8/2005 and it was registered on 6/8/2011. This property came up as an unregistered rental. Discussion was held regarding whether or not the property was built to code. But that is not part of this appeal and the answer doesn’t make a difference in this situation. Toressi and Talia Jackson explained that other cities surrounding Ames have allowed for steps or a ladder to get up and out of the windows. Warren asked if the appellant provided any alternatives such as sprinkler system or smoke alarm system or stairs. Jackson stated that they were just told to put in an appeal. Pat Brown asked how long Triplett has managed this property. Toressi advised it was an irreverent question and that they would not answer it. Toressi then stated for the record that he believes the board has the power to grant appeals if it is determined to be impracticable, and doesn’t lesson life, safety or health and provided this same argument for the 3413 and the 4203 egress window appeal. Toressi also concedes that all three properties are all newly registered rentals. Hearing on appeal of owner of 4203 Westbrook Dr. regarding the washer discharge based upon: 1- Strict compliance with the code is impractical/not reasonable, 2-The code has been incorrectly interpreted. Johnsen explained that the washer discharges to floor drain and advised that for newly registered rentals, the discharge must meet plumbing code standard and properly vent/drain to the sanitary sewer system. It is currently directed to the floor drain. Warren asked if there was a mold issue or water on the floor. Johnsen explained that the water is directed to a laundry tub to the floor drain. Johnsen noted that in 2010, when these issues were brought back to Council to see if there could be any leeway, they did give 3 some forgiveness for currently registered rentals to continue to discharge to a laundry tub or floor drain, but it was decided that newly registered rentals would still have to comply with all provisions of the plumbing code. Toressi argued language in the Code and definitions of terms. He reiterated that the Code is completely inconsistent with many many provisions and in the normal course of law, when it is inconsistent it should be in the favor of the people trying to seek relief. More discussion was held. David Brown noted that during the time the code was being modified, the City Council had lengthy discussions on these topics and they made it very clear they did not wish to impose exorbitant costs on existing rentals to be brought up to code. So, they decided that any newly registered rentals would have to comply with the existing code. Toressi understood the reasons, but advised that the code should be written in a way that would be understandable to people and stated that it is inconsistent and vague. Motion to deny approval by Betts, second by Pat Brown. Roll Call Vote: Drury=Yes, Betts=Yes, Warren=Yes, Smith=Yes, Brown=Yes, Fitch=Yes, Schroeder=Yes. Motion carried. Appellants left the meeting. Discussion was held regarding how the appeals process went today the wording in the Code in general. It was noted that there is still a lot of cleanup work that needs to be done with Chapter 13 and that staff has compiled a list of items and will continue to make notes until such time as the code is revised. Parks advised she would write up decisions and orders on each of the specific decisions made. She also noted that it was requested that the City provide a summary document of appealable items and what the standards are for newly registered rentals to landlords/home owners. Discussion was also held regarding making it more clear to appellants as to what they need to do to make an appeal. There is some documentation on the website but Parks advised she would work on this as well. Motion to Adjourn Schroder/Drury – 6:04 PM