Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSBB 2005-02-25 MinutesMINUTES OF THE SUBSTANDARD BUILDING BOARD CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JANUARY 25, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Garry Cope Vice Chair Brian Crowson Place 2 Thomas Moreau Place 4 Philip Orr Place 7 Bob McCary ABSENT Place 5 John Larriviere 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 Garry Cope: The first order of business is the consideration of the minutes from our last meeting which was on Sept. 21, 2007. Are there any questions or comments about the minutes? If not, do I hear a motion? Brian Crowson: I make a motion that we accept the minutes. Thomas Moreau: I second the motion. Garry Cope: I have a motion and a second to accept the minutes of our last meeting. All those in favor? Let the record show that it was a unanimous aye. SSB2008-10 PUBLIC HEARING FOR BLOCK 6B LOT 2 J.L. AUTRY ADDITION KNOWN AS 4033 RITA BETH STREET. Garry Cope: Our first hearing for consideration today is our number SSB2008- 10., Lot 66, Block 2, J L Autry Addition, known as 4033 Rita Beth Street. I'd like to hear the City's presentation. Dena Milner: I am Dena Milner. I work in the Code Enforcement Division of Neighborhood Services. The first case I will present today is case SSB2008-10 located at 4033 Rita Beth Street. This is an occupied property zoned R-3. An aerial map showing the general location is included in your presentation. Garry Cope: Dena Dena Milner: Yes Garry Cope: Can you get that microphone a little closer? Dena Milner: Sure. An aerial map showing the general location is included in your presentation. The owners of this property per our tax records and the deed from Tarrant County are Joseph & Kathleen Hughes. A Repair or Demolish letter dated 8/30/07 was mailed certified mail with the return receipt requested. The notices were returned marked undeliverable. The owners were notified of this hearing by certified mail on 1/10/08. The notices were also returned marked undeliverable. At this time we have no permits on file for this property. The photos included in this presentation are true and accurate photos taken by myself. A brief history of 4033 Rita Beth Street: 8/1/07 the exterior and interior of the structure were inspected. 8/2/07 a title search was requested. 8/2/07 the Notice and Order was sent. 8/30/07 the Notice and Order was sent again. 8/20/07 the title search was received. 12/18/07 the interior and exterior of the structure was inspected. 1/10/08 the Notice of Hearing was sent. 1/14/08 the Notice of Hearing was posted on this structure. 1/24/08 the interior and exterior of the structure was inspected. This is the aerial map showing the general location of the property. Photo 1, taken 1 /24/08, shows a dead rodent. Photos 2 & 3 taken on 12/18/07. they show evidence of insect infestation. During the 1/24/08 inspection no evidence of insect infestation was found. Photos 4 & 5, taken 1/24/08 show inadequate foundation. Photo 6, taken 12/16/07 shows a hole in the mudroom floor. Photo 7, taken 1/24/08 shows repairs made by the current occupant. Photos 8 & 9, taken 1/24/08 show damaged and/or deteriorated drywall. Photos 10 & 11, taken 1/24/08 show evidence of ineffective waterproofing. Photos 12 & 13, taken 1/24/08 show rotten wood and split wall coverings. Photo 14, taken 12/18/07 and photo 15, taken 1/24/08 show evidence of a roof leak. That's the end of this presentation. Garry Cope: Is there anyone in attendance today from this property that would like to speak to the Board? Darryl Vardiman: I am 4033 Rita Beth. Garry Cope: You say you are the owner? Darryl Vardiman: No, I am the occupant. The leasee. Upon my arrival on 12/27/07, major cleaning was necessary before moving in. We used several exterminating methods: boric acid and bombs to eliminate roaches. Walls were then washed from top to bottom baseBoard. Walls were then painted. Bait was laid and traps were set to kill rats. There is no longer evidence of rodents. Damaged floor Boards have been replaced. That was the big hole you saw in the picture. And this has all been done in a short period of time. And if allowed more time, I'll say we are committed to perform all necessary repairs that are in violation of the North Richland Hills Codes and Standards. It is our intent to complete said repairs within time allowed as set forth today by this Board. There is not a lot to be done. I've showed already that in a little time, a lot can be done. If you would please, today, allow me the most allowable time. I don't know; 30 days, 60 days to get it all done. My wife and I just moved here from Indiana and we work a lot, but with the time we have and my off time is spent around the house. I want my wife to be happy and to have a beautiful home. I didn't come from no junk and everywhere I have ever gone, I don't care how I received it. When I leave it, it is always in better shape. I can assure you that this problem will not exist any longer. Thank you. Brian Crowson: Let me ask you some questions. Garry Cope: Anyone else going to speak for this particular property? Brian Crowson: I was just going to ask you if this is a lease-to-own or are you just renting it? Darryl Vardiman: It is a rent to buy. Brian Crowson. You haven't moved into it yet, I'm assuming. Darryl Vardiman: Yes I have moved in. Brian Crowson: You have been there since 12/27/07? Darryl Vardiman: Since 12/27. That is correct. Garry Cope: Are all the utilities on? Darryl Vardiman: Yes sir, they are. Brian Crowson: Code Enforcement, can the electricity be turned on? Do we allow the electricity to be turned on with all of these sub standards? Dave Pendley: If it has never been turned off. Garry Cope: How long do you think it would take you to complete these things, bringing the house up to standards? Darryl Vardiman: Well, from the list of things that were already stated today, I think the only thing that is on that list now is the foundation repair. We patched the wall. The hole in the wall, actually, is in the inside of a closet, so if it was outside in the living room area, it would have been fixed a long time ago. My wife wouldn't let me go on like that. Because it is in a closet and it is hidden from her eyesight, she hasn't said anything, but I know it has to be repaired. That hole in the wall and the crack in the drywall, which is something minor. The repairs to the leaky roof can be done in a reasonable time. So there is only 3 or 4 things remaining. I've knocked out already about 6 things on that list now in the short time I have been there. I'm a handyman and I don't play. Garry Cope: Be more specific on your time/deadline. Darryl Vardiman: If you allow me.... What is your maximum allowable time? I'm not trying to push it to the limit, but I do work. I'll let you set the time and I will just comply. George Staples, City Attorney: Standard time is 30 days unless he is able to establish preponderance to the evidence that these repairs cannot be made in 30 days, it is 30 days. Garry Cope: Thank you George. George Staples: Did you understand that? Darryl Vardiman: Yes sir. Garry Cope: I have a question. Mine concerns the owner of this property. Has the City been notified at all that the owner is adhering to your requested demands for upgrading the structure? Have you heard anything? Dena Milner: The first contact the City has had with anybody relating to the property with an interest to make any repairs was yesterday afternoon when I spoke with Mr. Vardiman. George Staples: Mr. Vardiman is representing to you that he is in the process of acquiring it. I think that probably is what you said? Darryl Vardiman: Yes sir. That is correct. George Staples: I think you can regard him as the owner's agent or the prospective owner, even. Garry Cope: And it looks to me that we are only here to decide whether to demolish it and that's it. We don't consider any repair according to the.... George Staples: What we have to do and the thing is that we have to give him time or demolish. In other words, first thing is, is it substandard? Secondly, what would be required to bring it up and then thirdly, how much time are you going to give him or the City is directed to demolish. What it sounds like on the thing is that we've got a pretty good list of the conditions that have to be corrected. Some have already been done. But we still have a list here and it looks like those are probably the ones to where he is going to have to make those repairs or the City is going to have to demolish in 30 days. And, of course, when we talk about making these repairs, we need to include that he is going to need to get building permits for those things that require it. I'm not sure how much of those things do, but there may be some. Garry Cope: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Darryl Vardiman: You're welcome. Garry Cope: Any comments or questions from the Board? Philip Orr: Seems like to me that he is making progress on this and I think give him the 30 days and go from there. The only thing is that might brought up the days and some reason why he hasn't completed all of them. We need to know that. But just to run in and demolish somebody who is trying to establish a home, I'm not really comfortable with that. Garry Cope: The first thing we need to do, though, is determine as a Board whether or not after what we have heard today and the photographs we have seen, is this building substandard? Brian Crowson: Well, yes. In my opinion it is substandard. Garry Cope: Then, there is at least 2 of us here. Then I agree that it is substandard in the condition that it is right now. Darryl Vardiman: Can I make another comment? Garry Cope: Yes sir Darryl Vardiman: If there was an analogy made of my life and that house. I would say that I would have been substandard and killed and in prison a long time ago. I was given the chance. I'm asking you today to give me a chance. We know that you have to come to a decision like we all like to come to a decision. Like whether we want to straighten it up or fix it up or have it torn down. I say the house should stand. Brian Crowson: Just by saying that it is substandard doesn't mean that's what we are doing. Garry Cope: We have to make that determination before we leave here. As a Board. Darryl Vardiman: Okay Dave Pendley: Have any permits been issued? Garry Cope: No, is the answer I heard, right? George Staples: But the repairs that he is talking about that he has made up to this point wouldn't normally require permits. I think I heard him say that he had replaced drywall. The roof may be another issue. Thomas Moreau: Do you need permits for interior to do it yourself? Dave Pendley: For patching drywall, no. But for the structural end of it or ripping and replacing the whole wall... technically yes. Thomas Moreau: There is electrical and plumbing, also. If any of that is done, that needs to be permitted as well? Dena Milner: I think the foundation is the only thing that will require a permit. George Staples: The foundation is the only thing that we know of that is going to require a permit. Dena Milner: And I'm not sure about that. Garry Cope: As the Board, are we all in agreement that the building as it sits right now is substandard? Garry Cope: Several said yes. Garry Cope: Then as a Board, our next step is to decide if we think it is to the extreme that it needs to be taken down or are we going to let this gentlemen have a chance to try to repair it. If that's the case, then as a Board we have to decide how long to give him to at least get this process started. 30 days is what George was telling us is normal, so.... George Staples: No, that is in your ordinance. Garry Cope: That's what I mean. George Staples: It says repair or remove or demolish the building, unless he establishes he can't be done within 30 days. Sounds to me like he says he thinks he can do it in 30 days. Garry Cope: I, for one, am willing to say that if he gets this process started in 30 days. Gets the permits for the things that have to have permits and gets those things started and get us a list of things that he is going to do that fixes this house. And give him 30 days to get started and give him a point at which time he has to have it all done that is a reasonable time that is acceptable both to the City and to the occupant. Jo Ann Stout: I would prefer that we go ahead and give him the 30 day deadline to get the repairs completed. And if he does not complete the repairs within 30 days, then we can bring it back to you guys if he feels, at that time, that he can prove that he wasn't given adequate time. Then you can review it. But I would prefer to keep him on track and have the repairs done within 30 days. George Staples: He hasn't indicated that there is a problem doing it in 30 days. You all asked him that. Really and truly, the normal procedure which you ought to be doing and that we would recommend to you, that's all we recommend. We recommend that you make a motion finding it substandard and ordering that all these repairs be completed within 30 days. If it is not completed within that time, the City be directed to proceed with demolition. That's what your ordinance says. That's what you have done in the past. Brian Crowson: I'll make that motion. Garry Cope: Any other comments? Brian Crowson: I'll make the motion that we find this property substandard and that we give Mr. Vardiman 30 days to complete all requirements given by the City to make it to standard. And if he cannot meet those requirements, then we demolish this building. If he needs more time, we'll reassess it based on the City's opinion in 30 days. Philip Orr: I'll second that motion. Garry Cope: any further comment? I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Let the record show that it is unanimous. That takes care of the first one. Before we get started on the second one, I'd like to find out if there is anyone besides the City that needs to make a presentation for the property at 4036 Rita Beth. Brian Crowson: You all don't have any connection with that? George Staples: Across the street, I believe. You may want to reconsider after seeing the pictures of where you are going to live. Garry Cope: And before we get onto the next one, just so that you understand what the procedure will be now: We'll work up this motion, this Board Decree and it will be given to you and then you will have your 30 days and then you will have to get back with the City and prove that this work is being done. Okay? If not, then we'll have to set up another Board meeting if you appeal their decision to demolish. Is that not correct, Gentlemen? George Staples: No. It is what it is. In other words, if he wants to appeal to District Court, he's always got that option. But as far as what happens now, he's just in the normal City process: needs a permit, comes down and talks to.... Garry Cope: Okay, I'm a little confused. How will you notify him? George Staples: He is going to get a written Order in the mail. And it will have everything that you all talked about right here. It'll be reduced to writing. You will sign it and it will be mailed directly to him. He'll actually end up with more than 30 days by the time we get our act together. Garry Cope: How will you guys know at the end of 30 days if things are done? George Staples: They will go out there and look. Jo Ann Stout: We will go reinspect. Darryl Vardiman: My 30 days begins when I receive this in the mail? Garry cope: Yeah. Darryl Vardiman: Can I be dismissed now? Garry Cope: We appreciate it. Thank you coming. SSB2008-11 PUBLIC HEARING FOR BLOCK 3, LOT 2A J.L. AUTRY ADDITION KNOWN AS 4036 RITA BETH STREET. Garry Cope: Okay, we will move on to our next Board Hearing and it is SSB2008-11. City's presentation please. Dena Milner: Case SSB2008-11, located at 4036 Rita Beth Street is an unoccupied property zoned R-3. An aerial map showing the general location is included in the presentation. The owners of this property, per our tax records and the deed from Tarrant County are Joseph and Kathleen Hughes. A Repair or Demolish letter dated 10/23/07 was mailed certified mail with a return receipt requested. The notices were returned marked undeliverable. The owners were notified of this hearing by certified mail on 1/10/08. The notices were also returned marked undeliverable. At this time, we have no permits on file for this property. The photos included in this presentation are true and accurate photos taken by myself. Brief history: 10/24/04 the most recent water account was terminated. 8/27/07 the exterior of the structure was inspected. 9/18/07 the interior and exterior of the structure was inspected. 9/19/07 a title search was requested. 9/27/07 the title search was received. 10/23/07 Notice and Order was sent. 1/10/08 the Notice of Hearing was sent. 1/14/08 the Notice of Hearing was posted on the structure. 1/24/08 the interior and exterior of the structure was inspected. This is a general location of the property. Photo 1, taken 1/24/08, shows general dilapidation. Photos 2 & 3, taken 1/24/08, show that the HVAC unit installation is not complete. Photos 4 & 5, taken 1/24/08, show evidence of a roof leak. Photos 6 & 7, taken 1/24/08, show evidence of a rodent infestation. Photos 8 & 9, taken 1/24/08, show deteriorated and unsafe flooring. Photos 10 & 11, taken 1/24/08, show cracks in the floor. Photos 12 & 13, taken 1/24/08, show portions of the ceiling that have caved in. Photos 14 & 15, taken 1/24/08, show portions of the ceiling that have caved in. Photo 16, taken 1/24/08, show old fence pickets used as roof supports within the accessory structure. Photo 17 & 18 ,taken 1/24/08, show a damaged electrical outlet hanging from the ceiling next to the chimney. Photos 19 & 20, taken 1/24/08, show wiring which does not meet Code. Photos 21 & 22, taken 1/24/08, show wiring that does not meet code. Photos 23 & 24, taken 1/24/08, show faulty plumbing. Photos 25 & 26, taken 1/24/08, show deteriorated drywall. Photos 27 & 28, taken 1/24/08, show ineffective waterproofing. Photos 29 & 30, taken 1/24/08, show ineffective waterproofing and rotten wood. That's the end of this presentation. Garry Cope: Did you personally witness all of these conditions? Dena Milner: Yes. I took these photographs yesterday. Garry Cope: And it is your testimony that this property is substandard is all these respects. Dena Milner: Yes. Garry Cope: Thank you. Garry Cope: Dena, do you know when this property was last occupied? Dena Milner: No. George Staples: 2004 would be the most recent, if anything. Dena Milner: That's right. That's when the water was terminated. Brian Crowson: No contact has been made with the owners. Dena Milner: I have attempted contact but as with 4033 I have received absolutely no contact from the property owners. I have tried the numbers that they have given to the previous tenant and she has not returned my call. Jo Ann Stout: She is aware that we are trying to get in touch with her because the gentleman that was here for the previous case, the tenant before him is actually the one who called in some complaints to us. So he only had her phone number. George Staples: But we have notified them at the address. We don't know what their tax situation is, but we can't do any better than what we have. This is all the notice we have. We believe them to be out of state and they are not much interested in this property, it doesn't look like. Garry Cope: This is what we are used to -abandoned property. It is very rare for someone to come in and talk to us about a house that we think is abandoned that they are now living in. So, this is pretty cut and dry to me. Our first and primary objective is to determine whether or not we, as a Board, believe this house is substandard. Brian Crowson: Let's go ahead and make a motion that this property at 4036 Rita Beth is substandard and that we require the City to go ahead and demolish it. George Staples: We can't do that. We have to go forward and give the owners 30 days to make the repairs necessary to correct the conditions that....... Brian Crowson: I thought that was done prior to this. George Staples: No, sorry. Garry Cope: Once we sign our Order, they get 30 days. But this motion is that we deem this property substandard. We give the owner 30 days to comply with this and after that 30 days, if there is no compliance to bring it up to standard, demolish it. Garry Cope: Any comment on the motion? Philip Orr: I have a question on that. If nobody is responding to this and you don't know who the owner really is, isn't that what you said? George Staples: We know what the tax records show. Jo Ann Stout: And that is all we are legally bound to. Garry Cope: Any other questions on the motion? George Staples: We run a title search is what we do. Bob McCary: I understand that, but just sending out an order like that without knowing where it is really going. George Staples: It is going to go to the same place as the notices did. Garry Cope: I have no problem with that. My comment on that is that I have no problem with that after 4 years. If it has been 2004 since the property has been occupied or maintained, we have given them 4 years and now we are going to give them their last 30 days. That would be my comment. Brian Crowson: The City has done what was reasonable and expected to contact these people. Thomas Moreau: The City property taxes. Do we know if they have been paid or not? George Staples: I don't know. Dena Milner: I don't know. Thomas Moreau: I have a feeling that if I didn't pay my taxes, I'd know about it. George Staples: Well, but we are sending the notice to the same place that the tax notices go. Garry Cope: That is really not our purview. We have to determine whether this building is substandard. And if it is, then we have to take the steps to demolish it. That's really our only course. Bob McCary: This presentation, I think that if anybody thought it wasn't substandard would be blind or deaf. Gary Cope: I agree. Bob McCary: I second the motion. Garry Cope: If we have no more comment on the motion, now we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Let the record show unanimous aye. Now we are moving on to the next one. SSB2008-12 PUBLIC HEARING FOR BLOCK 11, Lot 10 STONEYBROOKE ADDITION KNOWN AS 8421 TIMBERLINE CT.. Garry Cope: Do I have anyone who wants to speak in favor of 2421 Timberline? Just speak about it at all, you don't have to be in favor or against it. We have 1, 2. Very good. Now I want to bring up the next hearing and that is SS62008-12. City will make its presentation. Debbie Heizer: My name is Debbie Heizer and I am a Code Office for the City of North Richland Hills Neighborhood Services Dept. I am here to present case number SS62008-12. In your packet you will find an aerial photograph indicating the location of the property. Garry Cope: Can you speak into the microphone? Debbie Heizer: The zoning of the property is R-2, single family and the property is currently unoccupied. The photos that I will present in this hearing are true and accurate photos taken by myself, Rick Roberts and our Building Official, Dave Pendley. The owner of the property, per our tax records is Johnny and Tammy Barney. A repair or demolish letter dated 11/27/07 and again on 12/17/07 was mailed certified and first class mail. The owner of record was notified by certified mail and US mail of this hearing on 1/10/08. We have not received a return receipt for the certified mailing. At this time, we have an active permit on file, however, little to no activity has taken place. A Scope and Schedule was presented by the property owner but it was inadequate. His first deadline, actually on the Scope and Schedule has not even been met. A brief history: on 5/30/07 the property was inspected with the property owner and the Building Official. On 6/20/07 citations were issued to the property owner for nuisance violations and again on 7/12/07. On 8/9/07, the property owner obtained a building permit and on 10/15/07 a new roof was placed on the structure. 11/7/07, we requested another Scope and Schedule from the general contractor and on 11/14/07 the inspection of the exterior was conducted and no progress was made. A title search was requested. On 11/26/07, I spoke with the contractor again regarding the lack of Scope and Schedule. The contractor advised he had presented the property owner the Scope and Schedule on the property was supposed to have delivered it to the City. On 11 /27/07, due to the inactivity and lack of Scope and Schedule, the Notice and Order was sent. On 12/14/07, the Scope and Schedule was submitted but it was inadequate. On 12/17/07, an updated Notice and Order was sent certified to property owner and the interested parties. On 1/8/08, the Notice of Hearing was sent to all interested parties. On 1/9/08 the property was posted regarding the Notice of Hearing and on 1/15/08, the Notice of Hearing was posted in the newspaper. Another exterior inspection was conducted on 1/24/08. This is an aerial showing you approximately where the property is located. Photograph on the left, photo of the exterior taken 11/5/07 and the one is the exterior photo taken on 1/24/08. As you can see, no progress has been made on the exterior. George Staples: What did they show that was substandard? Debbie Heizer: Faulty weatherproofing. Brian Crowson: Debbie, on the left photo there, what is behind that fence. Is that where the water meter was? Debbie Heizer: The construction fencing? Brian Crowson: Yes. Debbie Heizer: that is something the City was doing. They were putting in new sewer pipes. That has nothing to do with the house. Photo 1 & 2, taken 1/24/08 show inadequate weatherproofing. Photo 3 & 4, taken 1/24/08, are more examples of faulty weatherproofing and general dilapidation. Photos 5 & 6, taken 1/24/08 show examples of Boarded windows and faulty weatherproofing. Photos 7 & 8, taken 5/30/07 are examples of the interior of the structure which is unfinished. Photos 9 & 10 are more examples of the interior of the structure after the damage of the fire. Photos 11 & 12, taken 5/30/07, show standing water in the structure. Photos 13 & 14, taken 5/30/07 show charred wood and supports that are listing. Photos 15 & 16, taken 5/30/07, show more charred wood and an unrepaired interior. Brian Crowson: Do you have recent photos? Debbie Heizer: Not of the interior. We have not inspected the interior and the windows are blacked out. We cannot see inside the interior. Photos 17 & 18, taken by our building official, Dave Pendley, show an unfinished attic that was not permitted. The attic was damaged by the fire and the property owner is attempting to rebuild the attic as habitable space. That concludes that presentation. George Staples: Question now. The Scope and everything that was submitted to repair, did they address some of these items that you had not been able to inspect? Debbie Heizer: No. I'm sorry, that did mention installing new water heater. George Staples: But that hasn't been done. Debbie Heizer: Correct George Staples: No permits have been taken out. Debbie Heizer: No permits have been taken out. George Staples: That may answer one of the questions that you were wanting to know. And is that property substandard in your opinion? Debbie Heizer: Yes sir, it is. George Staples: You have personal knowledge of the conditions as far as you have been able to observe them? Debbie Heizer: What are the City's recommendations for this property? Debbie Heizer: We'd like to see it repaired. Garry Cope: Repaired? Debbie Heizer: Yes, sir. Garry Cope: Is there a current occupant? Debbie Heizer: It is not occupied, no. The property owner does live in the vicinity. Garry Cope: Do you know when it was last occupied? Debbie Heizer: I believe the fire occurred April, 2005. Garry Cope: Do you know when the last, if any, repair work was done on this building? Debbie Heizer: Other than the new roof that was put up in October, I am not aware of any other repairs. Garry Cope: Nothing since October? Debbie Heizer: Not that I am aware of. Garry Cope: Any other questions? Thank you. George Staples: We have another City witness, I believe. Garry Cope: There's at least 2 people that want to speak. George Staples: We need to finish with the City's case first. Garry Cope: Do we have another City witness? Dave Pendley: I am David Pendley, I am the Building Official. I, too was at this inspection at the earlier date in May. I took several of the photos. The progress of the work is just not meeting what would be even a normal schedule. The interior hasn't made any progress. Debbie mentioned that there is an area that looked like it was being framed up above in the attic area for livable space that wasn't ever approved. And both Code Enforcement as well as my department receive multiple complaints on this house because of the lack of progress. And it is dilapidated. Garry Cope: Any permits taken out to do anything on this? Dave Pendley: They took out a permit in August which will expire in less than 30 days as far as Building Codes is concerned because of lack of inspections and progress. Garry Cope: In other words, they would have had to have had something inspected by now. Dave Pendley: That is correct. Garry Cope: And as far as, was that just a general permit? Did it cover electrical and everything else? Dave Pendley: It was just a general building permit. No trades were involved at all. Garry Cope: But they would still have to take out a permit to do the electrical, wouldn't they? Dave Pendley: That is correct. Garry Cope: Hasn't been taken out, right? Dave Pendley: Nothing taken out. Garry Cope: No permit taken out to make those alterations in the attic, either, have they? Dave Pendley: No. Garry Cope: Questions? Brian Crowson: The water and electricity I assume is all turned off. Dave Pendley: Yes. Garry Cope: Any questions? Thank you, Dave. George Staples: I think there is an owner or representative. They ought to be allowed to talk next. Gary Cope: Right. Do we have an owner or representative of the owner? Johnny Barney: I am the owner. Garry Cope: Ok. If you would like to come speak to us, please? You'll start by giving us your name and address. Johnny Barney: My name is Johnny Barney. I am the said owner. My wife and I and Midland Mortgage are the said owners of 8421 Timberline Court. Afire did happen almost 3 years ago. And it took us about a year and a half to get the insurance squared away. I fought with them. They wanted me to leave the walls in tact, leave the sheet rock up. Have all the wiring replaced, so on and so on. That's very hard to rewire a whole house and leave the sheetrock up. So, the insurance gave us $38,000, actually gave us $42,500 to repair all the damage in the house which is nowhere near what we needed. So, we fought and we fought and we fought. After a year and a half, it was either sue them or go forward. I didn't have the money to sue them. Basically, I borrowed $35,000. I have sunk $35,000 into that house. I have used 9 dumpsters that I have taken out of there. I completely took off the whole roof cause there was 15 rafters and joists that were burned and I had to completely take all that off. We did rebuild it, my son and I. I constructed all the roof structure on it. I've done pretty much all the framing on it and all the work on it. There has been some work done on it. Since August, or May when this first inspection was done by David, we did get the new roof on it. I blacked out the windows and I did the boarding. The Mortgage Company said I needed to do that to secure. The insurance is still on the property through Midland Mortgage Company. Garry Cope: I'm sorry, could you please speak up? Johnny Barney: There is insurance on the property through Midland Mortgage. I had a second insurance policy on it up until last month and it expired. I am in the process of renewing that. Cause Midland Mortgage will not let me continue without a secondary policy on the house, liability policy. At this time, I am pretty much out of funds, is basically why there is nothing else being done. I've got paperwork filed at 3 different places trying to get the loan. I am trying to borrow $90,000 to complete this structure. It has been a tough road these last 3 years forme and my family. I've managed to pay a mortgage plus pay rent on an apartment to live and it hasn't been easy. I know the house has set there vacant. I've put a lot of hard work and grind into it to get it to even to where it is. I know you might not think I have, but I have. And that's pretty much basically where I am at. Brian Crowson: I've got questions. Obviously the City could not see the inside. Have you made any alterations or anything since? Johnny Barney: Since David has been in there, I have went in and completely took out all the burned wood, mainly around the garage area, where the fire happened. I've got all the walls out that were burned. I've got all the lumber stacked in one side of the garage that I've got to haul off. I have tore it out. Did get all the premises cleaned up, got the last dumpster removed. I've pretty much done everything I can up to this point. I got the siding bidded out, which I was hoping to get done before Christmas. But I had to use those funds to take care of another matter. Brian Crowson: When was the last time that you did any actual physical work to this? Johnny Barney: Physical work was 2 weeks before Christmas. I've been rebuilding some of the interior walls,. Brian Crowson: Any significant amount? Johnny Barney: Yeah. It's pretty cleaned up now. It wasn't cleaned up and it didn't have a roof on it when David was in and yeah there was some standing water. There is now no standing water. Brian Crowson: What is your objective? Johnny Barney: I need to get it finished by.... You know if I can get the loan put through, I can get in it by May. I've got to get back in it cause financially I can't keep paying for it and keep doing what I'm doing. Brian Crowson: Has the grounds been maintained? Johnny Barney: I try my very best to keep the grounds maintained. Brian Crowson: Grass and everything? Johnny Barney: Yes, sir Brian Crowson: Front and back yard? Johnny Barney: Front and back yard. I even repaired the fence when they told me it was falling down. I went over there and stood new fence on the left side of the house, which would be the west side of the house. For the property on the outside, I try to maintain it and do what the City asks me to do. And I did pay some fines for property dated back last spring and I had some of the roofing debris in the back yard and I ended up having to pay $500 in fines. That was the breaks. Cleaned it up, paid my fine and trying to move forward. Garry Cope: Any other questions? George Staples: I have one for you. Looks like you were trying to build a room addition up in the attic? Were you aware that you had to have a permit to do that? Johnny Barney: At the present time, no I wasn't aware that I needed to do that on a second story. Basically, I didn't raise the structure any in height. Those are 5 ft sidewalls. My house, before it was burned, had a gable on each end and they went up higher than what the original roof is right now. So, what I did is went around the entire perimeter with a 5 foot pony wall and then put the 5 ft pitch backup. Left side of the house, over the master and 1 bedroom, I didn't put the 2 story all the way over that, I left that single and I brought my roof line up to meet the top of the 2 story part. I did use 14 inch joists and put them on the stairs and done everything to Code. I've been in the building trades for quite a few years. Garry Cope: So it is your assertion that this did not need to be permitted, this work. Is that what you are saying. Johnny Barney: I permitted the scope of work to build back. I did not designate what I was doing. I wasn't aware that I had to designate that I was going to put attic space back above it. I'm not for sure that I'm even going to live in it. But I did build it to where it could be turned into. Garry Cope: Any other questions? David Pendley: When we had met last summer, you had mentioned something about, and as well as today, about getting the financing available to continue the work. That was back in August or so. How is that progressing? What kind of road bumps have you run into? Johnny Barney: It's a tough road cause my credit score is 565 and they won't give me a home equity loan because the house is just a shell. It's tough on me because I'm putting out about $4,000 a month and only bringing in $4500 and I've got a family of 6. I'm pretty strapped for cash. David Pendley: Do you know when the last attempt was? Johnny Barney: The last loan application I put in was last Friday and it is with a private lender, Bill Jackson out of Dallas and I should hear something on that by Wednesday of next week. See what happens there. If that don't go, then I'm going to see if my father-in-law or someone will help me somehow establish a loan, yes sir. David Pendley: Is that kind of your backup plan in case that falls through? Johnny Barney: I hate to get family members involved because I don't want to have to put their name on a lien or nothing else, but it's come to that point, yes sir. George Staples: Have you considered selling the home? Johnny Barney: I have considered selling the home, but it would probably be, it would definitely pay off the mortgage because I don't owe that much on it. I owe $57,000 on the property. The lot's probably worth more than that. Yeah, that's a consideration if I can't get the loan because I'm on a month-to-month basis on my mortgage right now. I'm like a month behind right now. But the Mortgage Company has been working with me. So, I've managed to keep up with it for almost 3 years, but it's getting pretty tough. Garry Cope: Any other questions? Thank you Mr. Barney Johnny Barney: Thank you. Garry Cope: Any others who want to speak about this property? Do I have a couple of you? I think there's 3 of you. Okay, how about ladies before gentlemen. M'am you can come first. If you'll just state your name and your address, please. Melissa McKinney: Hi, my name is Melissa McKinney. I'm an attorney with Barrett, Burke, Wilson . ...................... Our address is 15000 Surveyor in Addison, Texas. I am actually here on behalf of Midland Mortgage. And Mid First Bank which is the actual note holder of the property. Essentially, they asked me to appear here today just the Commissioners know that we are aware of what the situation is. As of yesterday I got some pictures from the City that kind of better explain to the Bank what the condition of the property is. They are somewhat limited because they are the lien holder but they are willing to cooperate, anything that they can do. After hearing the homeowner speak, I think that I can add a few things to that. He has been in contact with the Bank . Unfortunately, we were just retained and so I didn't even have all of the information about the property insurance or what may have happened with trying to do repairs before. But the scenario that he gave, with enough cases that I have done like this, sounds very similar to what we see over and over. Having to fight with the insurance companies and at some point deciding if you're going to sue them or just try to move forward. I can also testify that he has continued to make his monthly mortgage payments while he has been out of the property and in the apartment, which I think confirms part of the difficulties with trying to get the repairs and the financial strain that probably placed. He was correct about the amount that he owed on the property and that obviously, in a repaired condition, there would be some equity in it. But if not, that certainly makes it a little if he does decide to sell it if he can't get the loan to repair it. George Staples: Okay, my turn. Look, the Board is going to find this substandard. I mean it's obvious it's substandard. Melissa McKinney: Yes sir. George Staples: We can't give more than 90 days because we've been presented no plan. The statute and the ordinance both say that in order to get more time to do this, we have to have a detailed plan. Melissa McKinney: Yes, sir. George Staples: What are you going to do if we order it demolished if he doesn't get it done, even if we allow him 90 days? Melissa McKinney: Well, at that point I'd have to go back and talk to the bank. I mean, obviously, our goal is always to help somebody stay in the property and I would certainly..... George Staples: The City is not interested in imposing hardship, but this Board here, has to do what it has to do. Melissa McKinney: Right, absolutely. George Staples: I'm really saying these things not because you don't know them, but I want to put it on record here is that what the Board is limited to and what it can do. Melissa McKinney: Right, and we recognize that and the Mortgage Company is limited too. We can't just go in and fix the property on our own and it's important, I think a lot of times... I mean, just from the 2 cases today, I don't even know if they had mortgages on their property, but are probably fairly unusual for somebody to show up from the Mortgage Company at a hearing like this. So, they do care. They are much more aware now, within the last 24 hours, of what the real situation of the property is. But they are somewhat limited, so what our goal is to continue to work with the homeowner. There are things we can do, maybe financially, I don't know yet. That's a separate conversation I have to have. That's obviously not going to make the whole situation better. George Staples: Obviously, though, the mortgagee and the homeowner are going to be in a better position once they both understand what the situation is. Melissa McKinney: Absolutely and we're not in a position where we can go in and do the Scope and Schedule or add any details to it, or anything. But, we do have a little bit of expertise in our office and it sounds like he has a lot of expertise with the actual property and the repairs he's been trying to make. Obviously, we'll cooperate as much as we can. But the Board's going to order what it's going to order and then we'll have to make our legal decision on how we want to proceed after that. Johnny Barney: Can I add one thing that I forgot to add, please? I do have a $14,000 check at Midland Mortgage they are retaining and I do have another $20,000 check and a $900 check that I need to send the Mortgage. George Staples: Okay, look, that's not our problem. Johnny: Well, I'm just adding that..... George Staples: You all talk to each other about stuff like that. Johnny: There is some funds there... Melissa McKinney; You know what, I do think that's relevant, though. George Staples: It's relevant to y'all. Melissa McKinney: No, I think that it's relevant to how much time the City is going to give him. If the City wants to just say you have 30 days versus granting him the additional 90 days. I think that is relevant. Now, the Commissioners can obviously choose to disregard that. But, I think it speaks to the ability of at least being able to fix some of the fundamental issues that we've all seen are wrong with it today. Dave Pendley: Is some of your testimony based on ...do you have any knowledge or inclination that the Mortgage Company may be able to grant a secondary loan to complete these things? Melissa McKinney: I don't know that they would necessarily be able to grant a secondary loan. Obviously, there's too many financial things and as I indicated, we just got detained. But I don't even know if that conversation's happened. I suspect that it sounded like, from his testimony, that he's talked about it with other banks. But there are other financial things the Mortgage Company might be able to do such as setting off the regular mortgage payment that he has right now. As I indicated, he's made it. That's not going to give enough money to make the repairs. But I think every little bit, to give him some more wiggle room, that on top of the other money at least indicates that there's more chance of a repair within the 90 days than not. George Staples: Dave, like me, she's just a lawyer and she can't commit the client to anything. This is a standard Texas mortgage, however. He's almost certainly in default of the conditions. In that situation, if they want to, in order to protect their investment, they can go in and make all of the necessary repairs. I'm not saying they will do it. That's something she'll have to take up with the client. Johnny Barney: There is $30,000 available ........................... Brian Crowson: Can I ask the City a question? What needs to be done to bring this up from substandard? Does he have to complete the interior or just up to Code, the exterior, the electrical and the plumbing? Are we saying that he has to have it all completed inside and livable or.....? George Staples: Someday he does because that building is substandard. Brian Crowson: Yeah Debbie Heizer: The exterior would be a great start. George Staples: That's what's causing all the neighbors to raise hell with the City. Brian Crowson: And I think I would, too if I was in the neighborhood. Debbie Heizer: I'd also like to say I've not seen evidence of it myself, but there is supposedly some rodent infestation around there? George Staples: Yeah, that would be cheap to take care of. Debbie Heizer: So that might be something we need to look into, also. Melissa McKinney: I think it might help the City to feel more comfortable if there were some sort of agreement for a timeline on when y'all can go back in, if you haven't been in since May. Johnny Barney: I've recently had a exterminator spray. George Staples: Well, do you have a problem letting them come in and inspect? Johnny Barney: I have no problem. I've given them full rein anytime they want to go. George Staples: They can call you up and come look, right? Johnny Barney: They can go look right now. Melissa McKinney: Maybe we could set a time today. I think that would make everybody feel more comfortable. Johnny Barney: I mean, I have no problem of letting you in the property. Jo Ann Stout: Jo Ann Stout, Director. Can you tell me again, when did you get involved in this property? Melissa McKinney: It's been very recently. The City sent Midland Mortgage the Notification of the Hearing. And so, they we aware that there was, obviously they were aware that there was issues. There's been insurance money and stuff that he discussed, but I was specifically retained because of the hearing today. Our firm was specifically retained. This is the first time our firm has had any contact with the property. I think I got the file Monday maybe? May have been late Friday afternoon. I think I actually got it on Monday. Garry Cope: Within the last week. Thomas Moreau: Has the property been officially set at substandard? Jo Ann Stout: Yes, it is substandard. George Staples: That's what we are going to agree on. Thomas Moreau: If it's substandard, it doesn't make any difference about your time on the thing. If the ordinance says 30 days, that's the way it's going to be. George Staples: Well, you can grant more time. You can grant up to 90 days if there is evidence it can't be accomplished in 30. Garry Cope: We're taking about repairs, here. George Staples: Yes Melissa McKinney: Substantial repairs George Staples: You can't grant more than 90 without a detailed plan. So, as I said, you don't have to grant more than 30, but you can't grant more than 90 under the current set of circumstances. But, I think you need to listen to the other folks, the neighbors that are out here, too and then we'll probably have a proposal for you as to how we propose to deal with this. It's probably going to involve first, a timetable for getting some building permits, or permits to address the situation. Because Dave, nearly all this stuff requires building permits, doesn't it? We're talking about exterior, we're talking about interior, we're talking about electrical. So, as I said, we'll probably recommend that you give them a certain amount of time to get permits and then another amount of time to get completely through with it. Melissa McKinney: May I just ask for clarification cause I think I'm just a little confused. There was a Scope that was submitted but it wasn't detailed enough or it didn't encompass all of the work that needed to be done, is that right? Dena Milner: That is correct. Melissa McKinney: And there hasn't been a subsequent one that's corrected those defects? Dena Milner: Correct. Melissa McKinney: Okay. That may be something that I'm able to help him work on to get the City the right information, the right documentation. Johnny Barney:......... before Christmas. Dena Milner: December the 14tH Melissa McKinney: They just need more. George Staples: This Board has nothing before it as far as a schedule. That's the schedule I'm talking about. Garry Cope: Understood. Any more questions? Thank you, ma'm. Melissa McKinney: Thank you. Garry Cope: Please state your name and your address. Heather Hollingsworth: My name is Heather Hollingsworth. My address is 8424 Timberline, the house across the street. I've only been a resident there for 3 weeks. We just bought the house, my fiance and I. But, we almost didn't buy the house because, and only because, of that house at 8421. Upon coming into the neighborhood, every other house was well manicured, is kept up, looks nice. But with that house, we didn't want the problems. And so we started doing some inquiring and found out it had been this way for 3 years. Still almost didn't buy the house. Finally, we were pretty much talked to by several people and told that the City is on this, the City is doing everything it can and at some point, the City is going to act on this house. So, we did by the house and we're glad because we love the house. But, you know, we haven't seen anybody over there in 3 weeks. We've been there everyday for 3 weeks. I take that back, we did see the adult son over there. He comes by and screeches tires with his radio blaring and I hear that is a common, common thing on that street by him. That aside that has nothing to do with the building structure. I'm just here to find out what the deadlines are going to be and just let you know that it does matter. It's bringing down the neighborhood. There is another house for sale in our neighborhood on our street that's been for sale longer than ours. So, probably other potential buyers are feeling the same way we did. And it's an eyesore and it's ...I hate having to explain to people who are excited coming over to see our new home, ignore the house across the street. Everything else is better. I feel bad that this family's out of their home, but 3 years is enough. And if he has all of these checks, why aren't they being cashed and why isn't someone over there today and yesterday working on something? I don't know. Garry Cope: Any questions? We appreciate you coming. George Staples: We've got some more folks. Mannford Wagner: My name is Mannford Wagner and I live at 8425 Timberline Court. As you're looking at the aerial photo, my house is to the right of the property that we're discussing right now. Mr. Barney, I hope you don't take this personal, by any means. But, I purchased this home about April 15th of 2006. I've been in there about a year and a half, now. Like the previous speaker, when I was looking at the home, it's a beautiful neighborhood, has a lot to offer. I think North Richland Hills has a lot to be proud of as far as our City and our Community. Having come here, you know, I did take off of work. I'm not getting paid for this, so I just felt that I, at least, had to express my feeling, my frustration. But again, I hope there are no hard feelings here, Mr. Barney. Moving forward with what I have seen and when I purchased the home, I was told by the previous owner, and again, I am a little old fashioned. I usually like to take someone's word. They seemed like a really nice couple. They had lived in the same home. They had built it, lived there their whole lives, were ready to move on and do some traveling in retirement. They said great things about the Barneys. They said the house would be completed in about 6 months. I did see a dumpster out there at the time. At first, I really didn't see any work being done other than.... It looked like the home that had an attic fire. From what I was told prior to buying the home, that they were waiting on the insurance money. They were going to put the roof on, fix the inside of the house and would be done, they said. Within about 4 months, 5 months later, I don't know the exact time, there was a second story being put on. We live in a neighborhood where there's all single stories. You can go neighborhood to neighborhood to neighborhood and there's not a 2 story unless you drive a few blocks around the corner to the newer developments. To me, that was one thing I didn't want to live next door to was a 2 story house that I could see the top on. That's why I liked the house and I was under the impression it was going to be restored to prior to the fire. Insurance money of $42,000, a loan for $35,000. I mean you could have almost built a brand new home for $75,000, if you got the property in the mix. I mean, you can watch any "Flip this Home" and see it for yourself. I've seen work done. I'll see times with a lot of work then nothing for 6-8 months. I really didn't make any complaints until probably in the last 12-8 months. Just because I started getting frustrated. I've been in that house for a year and a half. In the past 6 months, I've had literally infestation of mice. I've killed over 20 mice, and if you look at the aerial photo, the infestation all happed on the left side of my house which is bordering up to his house. I can't prove they are coming from there, but I haven't had a problem in a year and a half. Again, to have that many, I can understand 1 or 2, but I'm ripping out the bottom of my kitchen cabinets, pulling out nests, taking feces out. I pay my mortgage, I pay by rent like.... I do what I have to do. I pay my taxes and I'm not going to fuss about it. I'm going to do what I have to do and move on from there. But I work probably anywhere from 10-12 hour days, 6 days a week and to spend my time off doing stuff like that, I'd rather be working on my home like anyone else would when you buy a property for an investment and do something with it. I think my main concern is 3 years is a long time. I understand people have problems. I know that things do take money, but I've seen a lot of money being given, but look at the property. I can't say there's $70,000 put in that home. To put asub-flooring on the top, raise the level. You can look at the home itself and it's taller than it was previously. So, again, that's mainly my concern. As far as you guys dealing with it, I just respect you guys letting us come down and express our concerns and voice a little frustration on my part. I bought the house lot because it is a nice neighborhood. Great people around you. Everyone seems to be pretty cordial and, like the previous speaker, for a year and a half now, how people come over and that's the first thing that comes out of their mouth. Maybe it is my bad investment choice in buying it but I did take other people's word on it and I figured it wouldn't even bean issue now. It's really kind of where I leave it at. Beyond the state of the yard, I've even cut the side yard to help you out. Even though, again, maybe that's my fault. But, at the same time, I don't to like see Wild Kingdom come up to my house. I take pride in my property. I take pride in my neighborhood. Again, I just hope you guys make the right decision and at least you know there are neighbors that do have some concerns and we'd like them to be at least addressed or taken care of. Thank you. Garry Cope: Any questions? Jeffrey Clark: My name is Jeffrey Clark. I live on the street at 8404 and I've lived there about 18 years. In the 18 years we've all gotten along as neighbors but then there was a fire and all of a sudden we have a big eyesore that's 2 stories tall that we have to drive by and look at everyday. It's real hard to be proud of your property and be able to take care of your property when you have to drive past that everyday. I recently had my house refinanced and the financing guy told me that they deducted $15,000 off my property value due to this house that was on the street. Because of that, I'd like to see it gone. Three years of watching it catch on fire, being raised 2 levels and watching tar paper blowing around for a year with no shingles on the roof and really not any progress being done except for when push came to shove and he was instructed to either do this or something else is going to happen. I think sufficient time has been allowed. Garry Cope: Any questions? Thank you Mr. Clark. Brian Crowson: I'd like to ask the owner some stuff. Garry Cope: Okay. Is that all the folks that want to speak on this? Okay. Mr. Barney, we have some more questions. Johnny Barney: Sure. Brian Crowson: Sir, how many checks did you say you have? The total amount? Johnny Barney: Let me clarify. There's not been $75,000 ran through there. Brian Crowson: I'm not concerned about what...... Johnny Barney: The insurance ......... Brian Crowson: I'm just going to ask you the questions and you just answer them for me, if you would please. How much money do you have that you plan on investing in this right now? Johnny Barney: Right now there is $14,600 at Midland Mortgage. There's another $20,000 in my presence that I need to send them. You got $34........ Brian Crowson: That you need to send to who? Johnny Barney: Midland Mortgage. Check's made out to me and Midland. I cannot do nothing with them till they release the funds. Garry Cope: Insurance checks? Johnny Barney: Exactly. The $30,000 that I put in the house, I had to go borrow. Brian Crowson: So I am assuming when you had this disaster hit your house, you took the opportunity to increase the square footage, which obviously has put you behind on everything. Had you put it back the way it was, probably would have been over 9 months..... Johnny Barney: I still would have had to rip off the whole structure and re-joist every one. Brian Crowson: Yeah, but this extra expense in doing the new room... Johnny Barney: But it wasn't extra expense because I was in the lumber business and I got my boss to give me that at pretty much whole sale prices. Brian Crowson: That's an expense. It's not bricks. Johnny Barney: So far as me spending extra money, no I did not spend a thing. Brian Crowson: That's all the questions I have. Garry Cope: Any other? Thank you, sir. George Staples: Let me offer you a framework, okay? And that's all this is. It's just an idea is all it is. Because we've got a mortgagee involved in here and they don't have instant control over this, it seems to me that we ought to take advantage of that part of the statute that says that you first give the owner some schedule. Obviously, we're going to have to find it substandard before we do any of this stuff. We find it substandard and then we give the owner a relatively brief time, 30 days. During that time, he's ordered to permit access to the City staff, upon request and during that 30 days he has to, by the end of 30 days he's got to provide proof of rodent extermination. In other words, professional rodent extermination. And obtain permits for required repairs. He's got an additional 30 days to complete those repairs. You all probably know that it doesn't take any time to get permits. That's a 1 day affair, if that. So he can get the permits. He's actually got 60 days to do this. I don't know what he's going to do with his money situation. That's nothing we have control over. Then, if he defaults on either one of those. In other words, if within that 30 days he doesn't do any of that stuff, it'll go to the Mortgage Company to do these things. Okay? But, if he doesn't complete the repairs within 60 days, then the lien holder is notified that they've got 60 days to complete the repairs. And, if that doesn't happen, if there is default along the way, the City is directed to demolish it. That's a lot of time. But it's complicated and I think we all realize that this is a mess. We're not interested in figuring out who made the mess. We're interested in cleaning up the mess. But this puts an incentive on everybody involved in the process to get the thing done and still gives what would seem to be a reasonable amount of time to address this. Y'all don't have to agree with those timeframes. You can give them more time, if you want to. But you can't give anyone more than 90. It seems to me that 30, 60, 60 might be a way to deal with it. Now I just threw that stuff in there about the rodents because that looks to me like it needs to be handled real quick and should be. Jo Ann, do you have any comments cause I'm trying to find a solution here to what... Jo Ann Stout: I think my major concern is the fact that I think I understand the owner's dilemma but I think that we, the City, has done everything we can as far as requesting Scope and Schedules. And then not receiving it, then when we do receive it, it is inadequate. So I think that we need to get something done one way or the other. Garry Cope: Any questions or comments, guys? George Staples: I think 5 months is plenty of time to get it done and if it's not done in that, it should go. Garry Cope: So you're saying giving 5? Thomas Moreau: Yeah, give him the 30 days... George Staples: I was giving him 4 months. I give him 30 plus 30 and if he don't get it done, we give the Mortgage Company the same time. George Staples: Do you want me to read it out since I've got most of it written down? Garry Cope: Yeah, but I still have a couple questions and a couple of comments. If we give him 30 days to take care of the rodent issue and 30 days to get the permits, all of that is taken care of in 30 days but no actual work is done in that 30 days? Jo Ann Stout: Well, what he can do, I mean he could spray tomorrow and get the permits tomorrow and have 60 days to make the repairs. That's what .... Gary Cope: So, at the end of 60 days, we should be seeing an appreciable difference? Jo Ann Stout: The repairs should be done. But, if they are not done ... George Staples: But if he doesn't get the permits in 30 days or if he doesn't do the rodents in 30 days, then the Mortgage Company gets to start. Brian Crowson: So, what you are saying is that he's got 30 days to get the permits and 60 days to complete the work. Jo Ann Stout: That's correct. George Staples: And the only addition to that is he's got to give access any time the City wants it and he's got to get that rodent extermination done within 30 days. Brian Crowson: 60 days starts now. Doesn't start from the date that he gets the permits. George Staples: No, it starts from the day of our Order. Gary Cope: Okay, gentlemen, and you as a Board, you are all fine with that? You don't think we can give him any less or any more time than that? Bob McCary: I think maybe George ought to read it again, only thing. The frame work sounds reasonable to me. Just so everybody is hearing it as it is. Brian Crowson: My opinion, if we could go less, I would go less. George Staples: You can go less. Brian Crowson: I mean, just because this has gone on long enough, I sympathize with the neighborhood people and I say we give him less. Gary Cope: Okay, we've got one for less. What about the rest of you? Thirty or less? 30, 30 and 60 or less? Thomas Moreau: I've got mixed feelings about it. Gary Cope: I think we all do. Thomas Moreau: I've been involved in repairing a burn out before, but 3 years is excessive. It took me 6 months to tear down, demolish and then rebuild. George Staples: What would it take him, if he got it high behind, how long should it take him? From right now, how long should it take him to complete those repairs? Garry Cope: Being an old softie, I'm for giving the guy a little more time. So, the 30, 30 and 60 sounds reasonable to me. Thomas Moreau: From what I've seen of the photographs, probably another 4 months. George Staples: Well, now look. Y'all are the ones to make this kind of decision. Brian Crowson: If this could be complete tomorrow, that's what I want. George Staples: But you all know it can't be. Brian Crowson: I know that, but that's just my opinion. Dave Pendley: What if it was completely weathered in within the first 30 days? Put a milestone in there. Garry Cope: The exterior part. George Staples: Would that be, you can do that if you want to. Garry Cope: Yes sir, you had a question? Jeffrey Clark: My problem is that even with the work that's going to be done is that the structure itself is already, in my opinion is already a code violation because of the height of the second level. Being able to just go ahead and put a band aid on it and continue fixing it seems wrong to me for it to be allowed to continue. Dave Pendley: Outside of not crossing the right bridge with the construction. In other words, getting plans that show that there's a second story to be constructed, there is not... I know you won't like this answer, there isn't a zoning violation by having a second story in your neighborhood. Most neighborhoods, and I'll say 99% of the neighborhoods in town don't have a prohibition against a second story. And the ones that do, allow it, but you just have to opaque the windows. So, we cannot prevent a second story but his plans do have to reflect a second story. All the building code requirements that come about, like the ceiling joists, things like that, floor joists that are necessary to support the second story. But there isn't a prohibition in general to have the second floor. Brian Crowson: Is there not an ordinance that says square footage can only be 75% of the bottom floor or something like that. Dave Pendley: Not here. Brian Crowson: To prevent box houses or something? George Staples: There is a coverage thing but he's nowhere near that. Garry Cope: But this is outside the purview of this Board, anyway. Because, our purview is whether or not, is the standards not... Dave Pendley: That's correct. Garry Cope: I wouldn't have brought this question up either simply because we don't have any say whether or not a homeowner wants to put a second story on his house if he got the money and wants to get the permits. Bob McCary: But the money is the point here. George Staples: Do ya'll want to try again with this? Garry Cope: Yes, we would. George Staples: I'm going to read it and assume that comment we were working on with the weatherproofing is going to get added to the first 30 days. I'm going to read it like it is, y'all mess with it. The homeowner ....the Order that will be entered is that access by the City will be provided upon request. The owner has 30 days to provide proof of rodent extermination, professional rodent extermination. Obtain permits for required repairs and complete outside weatherproofing repairs. Additional 30 days to complete all repairs. If there is a default on either the first 30 days or the second 30 days, then the lien holder will be notified to complete all the repairs within 60 days. Or, if there's complete default on this, then the City is ordered to demolish. Brian Crowson: I can live with that. Brian Crowson: Just for me to explain back to you what I have heard, 30 days to complete the exterior. To make it look like it was lived in, basically. Dave Pendley: Siding, brick whatever the case might be. Brian Crowson: Yes. 60 days from the starting of that 30 days, obviously. In other words, additional 30 days to complete the inside. Okay, I can live with that. And then, of course, after 60 days, if these aren't complete it goes to..... George Staples: Or if he doesn't finish the stuff he's supposed to do in 30 days. Brian Crowson: Right, okay. Then it goes to the lien holder. Jo Ann Stout: Then they've got 60 days to finish it. Dave Pendley: I would like to bring something up, just for the record, if I could. know you are about ready to vote. With the inclusion of the second story that wasn't there before, our ordinance requires each elevation to be 85% masonry. There will be a consideration that Mr. Barney is going to have to meet with our Building Inspection Department to figure out what he is going to do about the second level of the house and exterior materials. Garry Cope: Now this will all take place in this first 30 days. Dave Pendley: Correct Garry Cope: At the end of this first 30 days, we'll have detailed plans for finishing this repair work complete, right? Dave Pendley: Well, we'll not only have that, we'll have the, according to this proposed Order, we'll have those plans, the permit and the completion of the exterior materials. Brian Crowson: And y'all will inspect the exterior to make sure he's complying with the bricks because I don't want him to go up there and put siding on it, then y'all come back, hey its not right. And then the 30 days is gone and he's not compliant. Georg: Well, we can't keep him from sneaking out there at night, you know, and hammering up the stuff but.... Brian Crowson: I'm saying I want the homeowner to know exactly the percentage. Dave Pendley: That's why I brought it up. Brian Crowson: Good, good. Sir, do you understand that. Johnny Barney: I understand that. What if I just disregard the second floor and just .... Brian Crowson: Just as long as you get it done in 30 days. Johnny Barney: I set it up to be future living. It's not..... George Staples: He's going to have to comply with whatever it is. He's going to have to get a building permit. That building permit, they will address those issues of what he's going to have to put on the exterior at that point. Right, Dave? Dave Pendley: Um hum. George Staples: If he comes and gets the permit, that discussion is going to have to take place. We don't know what it requires. Brian Crowson: As long as he's in compliance is all I want to make sure of. Johnny Barney: Can I add one thing that might ease your. mind? The original house had 2 great big gables on the ends. I'm actually lower in my roof pitch than what that was. That whole side was all siding. Both ends. And now, it's not. It's only one side that's tall and it's no taller than what that gable was. Brian Crowson: Well, anytime ...... Garry Cope: Thank goodness that's nothing that we have to decide on. Brian Crowson: Anytime, anyway when there is a destruction, I think whether it was built to a certain code when it was built, if the ordinances have changed you have to go with the current ones. Johnny Barney: I understand that, but I haven't .... I can leave stairs out of it and keep it single story. It doesn't matter to me but I'm no taller. Dave Pendley: Leaving the stairs out doesn't change it anyway. Garry Cope: Okay, gentlemen, do I have a motion to take this Order as read to us by George? Thomas Moreau: I move we accept the framework of what the City Attorney gave us on thing and let's move on. Garry Cope: Any discussion? Do I have a second? Bob McCary: I second that. Garry Cope: Okay, I have a second and a motion so all those in favor? Various: Aye Garry Cope: Unanimous, so ordered. Okay, one more. Do we have anyone in the audience about the property at 7000 Lowery? Jo Ann Stout: Nope, doesn't look like it. SSB2008-13 PUBLIC HEARING FOR BLOCK 7, LOT 10 SMITHFIELD ACRES ADDITION KNOWN AS 7000 LOWERY Garry Cope: Okay, then it's time for SS62008-13. Will the City please make its presentation? Rick Roberts: I'm Rick Roberts, a Code Enforcement Officer in training in the Neighborhood Services Department. I'm here to present case SS62008-13. In your package, you will find an aerial photograph indicating the location of the property. The zoning of this property is residential. The property is currently occupied. The photos that I present at this hearing are true and accurate photos taken by myself. The case is at 7000 Lowery, located at 7000 Lowery. Legal description: block 7, lot 10, Smithfield Acres addition. The owner of this property, per our tax records, is David J. Chism. The Vacate, Repair or Demolish letter dated December 27, 2007 was mailed certified and first class mail. The owner of record was notified by certified mail and regular U.S. mail of this hearing on January 9, 2008. We didn't receive a return receipt but we did get in contact with the owner. So, on January 23, 2008, just 2 days ago, I, along with Code Officer Dena Milner met with Mr. Chism to inspect repairs that we had noted on his property. And, at this time, Mr. Chism has completed all necessary repairs and staff requests that this case be closed due to compliance. If you would like to see the slide show, I can show it. Garry Cope: So ordered. Jo Ann Stout: Go ahead and show us the pictures. Brian Crowson: I just want to see how well he's cleaned up. Rick Roberts: That's the front of his property. He's done a little bit of trimming back. This was the damaged garage door. Brian Crowson: These are all the old ones? George Staples: I don't think we've got the updated ..... Rick Roberts: This is the updated photo and he didn't do the best job in the world but he did comply. He had 2 large broken windows in the front of his house. This was taken in October and this is where the repairs were made and he's cut back some of his bushes for access for the Fire Department. The second window, taken October 26 and this was just taken the other day. He's trimmed his bushes back. He had a missing vent cover and the A/C coolant lines were uncovered. He got that all fixed so it looks a lot better. And we've sent him notices for the junk in his backyard. This was a photo from the street. Jo Ann Stout: But that's not under your purview. Rick Roberts: That's right, that's just off the subject. He's built a new gate and enclosed it so that passer by's ..... We met with him, like I said, 2 days ago. He had picked up some of that junk in the backyard. Jo Ann Stout: And we're working on it. Rick Roberts: Yeah. Brian Crowson: Cause that's going to be a rodent problem, then. Rick Roberts: I think he's got most of that, he collects Volvos and he restores them and they are in pretty good shape. But he's given us access to inspect his property anytime so he has fully cooperated. Once he got the Notice of the Hearing, he kicked it into gear. So, we recommend the case be closed. Garry Cope: We've never had one pulled off the Board, George, what do we do? George Staples: You do nothing. But I do have a favor. I don't remember that you found that last property substandard. Garry Cope: And we need to add that to our Order. George Staples: So, why don't you reopen that real briefly and get a motion finding it substandard. Garry Cope: Okay. Formally, I want to reopen SSB2008-12 to cover the subject of declaring the property substandard. Do I have any questions? Any comments? Any motion? Brian Crowson: I motion that we deem 8421 Timberline Court substandard. Garry Cope: Any comment? Second? Bob McCary: I second that. Garry Cope: I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Various: Aye Garry Cope: So ordered that we add that to our Order. Jo Ann Stout: You guys are wonderful. Thank you. 5. Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:33pm Vice Chairman: Brian rowson