Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSBB 2004-04-06 MinutesMINUTES OF THE SUBSTANDARD BUILDING BOARD CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS APRIL 6, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:19 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Vice Chairman Altemate Altemate Michael Augustin Gant' Cope Phillip Orr Cheryl Hammonds Bob McCary ABSENT Michael Dean John Larriviere CITY STAFF Building Official Dave Pendley Dir. Neighborhood Services Jo Ann Stout Code Enforcement Officer Dena Milner Code Enforcement Officer Debbie Heizer Holly Blake Recording Secretary 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2003 Gant' Cope, seconded by Phillip Orr, motioned to approve the minutes of January 21, 2003. The motion was approved unanimously X5-0). 4. S6604-01 PUBLIC HEARING FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 15, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ADDITION, KNOWN AS 4116 VANCE ROAD. Dave Pendley, Building Official, presented the case. A brief history of 4116 Vance Road: 1) an inspection request was sent to owner on May 05, 2003, 2) on ~ ~ aros~oa Substandard Building Board October 7, 2003, permission to enter was granted by David Raglin who has Power of Attorney, 3) inspection was conducted on October 08, 2003 and the property was posted as a substandard building, 4) a notice of hearing was issued on February 02, 2004 and published on February 06, 2004 with the intent of a public hearing on February 17, 2004. On February 17, 2004 the Substandard Building Board met, but was unable to discuss or vote on the case because a quorum was not present. The case was republished on March 27, 2004 for public hearing on April 6, 2004. When Code Enforcement first received complaints on this property, it was placed at the bottom of the list because of all the trees covering the house; the condition was not noticeable from the street. However, once Code Enforcement approached the house the condition was found to be very bad. The vertical siding on the front door is worn off. Inside the home, a 4x4 is coming out of the roof and is rotting and the wood is infested with termites. Due to the water damage, ceiling material is coming down and the insulation is exposed. Half the roof is laying inside the house. Shortly before October 2003, the owner was living in this house. Ms. Hammonds asked Mr. Pendley about electric and utilities and if the house was being serviced. Mr. Pendley stated that all services are off. According to David Raglin, the owner's son, the service was not disconnected until the owner fell and was temporarily moved to a nursing home. This is when Mr. Raglin realized the condition his mother was living in. Mr. Raglin's told Mr. Pendley that when he offered to visit, his mother would agree to meet with him down the street, but never at the house. Mr. Pendley continued -The back door is falling apart and the siding has been removed. On the south side, inside the house, is the driest area of the house and it also has problems. At the last meeting, some neighbors appeared to testify, but were unable to appear tonight. Mr. Raglin initially wanted to tear down the house himself, but was unable to due to finances. Staffs recommendation is to demolish the structure and assess a lien against the house for the value of the demolition. Mr. McCary asked Mr. Pendley if the property would be worth enough to make up the difference for the cost of demolition. Mr. Pendley responded that the property is more valuable cleared than in its current state. Mr. Cope asked if the job would be put up for bid. Mr. Pendley explained that a bid would be considered from three different contractors. Page 2 4/06/04 Substandard B~Iding Board Ms. Hammonds stated that the house is a health hazard in its current condition. In the neighborhood there are probably children that are curious. If those children get hurt, parents are going to come back to the City and ask why wasn't something done. Ms. Hammonds asked Mr. Pendley about the water. When water is cut off to a home, normally 10 days is given then a notice is sent to the address stating that it is against the building code to live in a home without running water. Was this done? Mr. Pendley explained that the building code doesn't state that, and he is unfamiliar with the procedure for termination of service by the Water Department. Mr. Orr stated that he drove by the property but didn't go in. He commented that the "property is a total disaster." Mr. Pendley summarized that a motion and vote by the Board is needed to confirm the order to tear down this house. Mr. Augustin asked Mr. Pendley about the minimum time set for demolition. Does the City have anything in writing that an agreement for demolition was made? Mr. Pendley stated that the City proceeded as if the owner had not agreed. Mr. Augustin asked Mr. Pendley if the owner needs to be notified within a particular period of time. Mr. Pendley responded that the owner's were notified according to the way the ordinance was set up. The owner was notified in writing that he has 15 days to obtain a permit and 30 days after that to get demolition obtained or appeal to the Substandard Building Board. That is the only not cation that is specified in the ordinance. Mr. Augustin stated that an appeal has not come forward. Gany Cope, seconded by Cheryl Hammonds, motioned that based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that the structure at 4116 Vance Road, case number S6604-01 is substandard and orders its demolition. Furthermore, the owner is ordered to secure the permits needed and begin demolition within 30 days of this date and that the lot be cleared to grade witltin 60 days of this date. ff the owner fails to do this, it is further motioned that the City demolish the structure and assess the liens necessary for the payment of all costs associated with the demolition. Mr. Augustin commented that the owner has already been notified with the opportunity to appeal. Ms. Hammonds stated that the City needs time to receive bids, which is about 15 to 20 days. Mr. Augustin added that is not necessary to place a stipulation back to the owner and give the owner an additional 30 days. Mr. Cope stated that he will amend his motion with less time. Page 3 4~/OBl04 Substandard Budding Board Mr. Augustin stated that when he saw the building last month when the Board met, his hopes were that the structure would be down and gone already. Mr. Orr added that rats and termites are becoming a problem to the neighboring homes. Mr. Cope asked Mr. Pendley how long it takes to obtain a permit. Mr. Pendley stated that it would take a maximum of two days. Garry Cope, seconded by Cheryl Hammonds, amended the motion to change the demolition time period to 15 days from this date and the lot be cleared to grade within 30 days from this date. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). 5. SBB04-02 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ABSTRACT 1209, TRACT(S) 2B1T ~ 2C2J, THOMAS PECK SURVEY, KNOWN AS 8401 GIFFORD LANE Dave Pendley, Building Official, presented the case. An inspection was first conducted on April 1, 2003. Staff went around and around with the owners for a while. The owners were hoping to replace the mobile home. The curcent City ordinance doesn't allow the replacement of a mobile home when a fire has occurced. The owners ignored Staffs letters and wouldn't return phone calls in order to resolve this matter. The house caught fire on March 31, 2003. Staff was called out as a result of the fire. There is an area behind the mobile home where an attachment was added on and used as a commercial machine shop, letting other people use the tools. Signage was up regarding the usage of tools and replacement of worn tools. Also, throughout the house was evidence of homemade electrical wiring. The panel was slightly burned up in the fire. At the end of the mobile home is a great deal of storage or salvage yard along with a huge pile of brush. Raw sewage was found on the property. The owners had a septic tank out in the field, east of the mobile home, running across the road. The septic tank was backing up. Located in the back comer is an unsecured refrigerator and atipped-over washing machine. Mr. Pendley asked Debbie Heizer, Code Enforcement Officer, about the location of an RV behind the fence. Ms. Heizer didn't recall seeing the RV there. Ms. Hammonds asked Code Enforcement if the owners were living in the RV after the fire. Ms. Heizer responded that the owners were staying with the neighbor next door. Mr. Pendley added that the RV was in run-down shape as well. Page 4 4Ja6/04 Substandard Building Board Mr. Augustin asked again when the fire occurred. Mr. Pendley responded that the fire took place on March 31, 2003. Part of the delay was that the owner was speaking with the City Attorney and the City Manager trying to get relief from the zoning regulations. Mr. Augustin asked Mr. Pendley why the owner can't replace the mobile home. Mr. Pendley explained that it is a nonconforming use. In other words, this property is not zoned for mobile homes. The current mobile homes can stay there as long as they are kept up. The City's ordinance is speck about when a mobile home is destroyed by fire. It can't be replaced. However, if someone would like to replace an existing mobile home that has not been destroyed, it can be replaced with one of equal or smaller size. The zoning ordinance is spec when a mobile home is destroyed by 51 °~ or more by fire. Ms. Hammonds asked if the ordinance includes natural causes. ff a tornado comes through and tears it up 51 °~, can the owner replace it? Mr. Cope responded that if a mobile home is destroyed by 51 °~6, it can't be replaced. Ms. Hammonds asked Mr. Pendley if the owners could have gone to the Zoning Board of Adjustment with a hardship. Mr. Pendley explained that the owners did not pursue that. However, due to the condition of the mobile home before the fire, the owners may not have been granted a variance. Mr. Pend{ey asked Code Enforcement if the owners had contacted the department in regards to this matter. Ms. Heizer explained that the owner was given a list of contractors when the owner had called initially when they received their letter last year from the department. The owner failed to follow through. The owner can-ently has two citations which have gone to warrant. Mr. Pendley stated that last week someone came in to get a permit to demolish the building, but the permit was never picked up. Mr. Cope asked Mr. Pendley for the date of that permit. Mr. Pendley responded that it was dated April 1, 2004. Mr. Cope asked Ms. Heizer what date the warrants were issued. Ms. Heizer responded that the citations were issued on August 28, 2003 and October 2, 2003. The owner set up a payment plan on both citations and stopped paying on them. At that point the citations became warrants. Mr. Augustin stated that there is some movement on the owner's part. Ms. Hammonds asked Mr. Pendley if staff has contacted the applicant for the demolition permit and what the status was. Mr. Pendley responded no. Mr. Cope stated that the Board could lock the owners into doing something with whatever motion is Beaded here. What happens if the applicant fails to use the Page 5 A~06/04 Substandard Building Board existing permit? The motion needs to include a time period for an appropriate permit and possible bids if applicable. Mr. Augustin stated that the condition of the whole street may not be as dire as this house, but it does represent the general conditions of the neighborhood. Because of this, the standard time limit of 30 days should be part of the motion. Mr. McCary asked how long a permit is in effect. Mr. Pendley responded that if a time limit is not placed in the motion, a permit can be good for 180 days. Ms. Hammonds asked if the Board can include in the motion that the City or company that pulls the demolition permit for this structure initiate the demolition within 30 days. Mr. Pendley responded that it could be included and he also explained that a permit doesn't require that the applicant immediately clear the land once the house is demolished. Mr. Pendley asked that a time period for the clearing and grading of the property also be a part of the motion. Ms. Hammonds asked Mr. Pendley if the motion should include the owner securing the permits. Mr. Pendley replied, "yes." Garry Cope, seconded by Bob McCary, motioned that based on the evidence presented, this Board finds that the structure at 8401 Gifford Lane, case number SBB04-02 is substandard and orders its demolition. Furthermore, the owner is ordered to secure the necessary permits and begin demolition within 30 days of this date and that the lot be cleared to grade within 60 days of this date. If the owner should fail to do this, it is further motioned that the City demolish the structure and assess the liens necessary for the payment of all costs associated with the demolition. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). 6. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:59 p.m. Chairman ~M~ ~, . ~, ~- 3/a3~o s Michael Augustin Vice Ch an ~u/o~- G ope Page 6 4/06/04 Substandard Building Board