Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSBB 2019-02-12 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SUBSTANDARD BUILDING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD AT THE COUNCIL WORKROOM, 4301 CITY POINT DRIVE FEBRUARY 12, 2019 The Substandard Building Board of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas met on the 12th day of February 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Workroom. Present: Brian Crowson Chairman, Place 6 Bill Wait Place 2 Deryl Brown Place 3 Billy Parks Place 5 Robert McCary Place 7 Absent: Lynn Motheral Place 1 Staff Members: Stefanie Martinez Director of Neighborhood Services Audrey Cappallo Executive Secretary Kellie Brady Assistant City Attorney Dave Pendley Building Chief Official Clayton Comstock Director of Planning Rayneice Jones Lead Code Compliance Officer Brian Thomas Code Compliance Officer 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Crowson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 8, 2019 SUBSTANDARD BUILDING BOARD MEETING. MR. BILL WAIT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 8, 2019 SUBSTANDARD BUILDING BOARD MEETING. MR. BILLY PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 5-0. 3. SBB 2019-70 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION WHETHER THE STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6608 DAVIS BLVD, KNOWN AS BLOCK 1, LOT 1R2, SMITHFIELD AN ADDITION IN THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS AND AT 8101 MAIN STREET, KNOWN AS JOHN M CROCKETT SURVEY, ABSTRACT 273, TRACT 5, IN THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TARRANT COUNTY, Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 1 of 12 TEXAS IS SUBSTANDARD WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCES AND ORDER REPAIR OR DEMOLITION. APPROVED Before proceeding forward with the case, Chairman Crowson sworn in city staff, Colin Richardson, John Albury, Susan Cawley, and Jane Birkes. Chairman Crowson called on Stefanie Martinez, Director of Neighborhood Services, to present the case. Ms. Martinez presented an aerial photo of the property located at 6608 Davis Blvd and 8101 Main Street. The property is zoned TOD. Ms. Martinez provided the Board with an overview of action taken to date for the structure located at 6608 Davis Blvd and 8101 Main Street. • August 23, 2018 - Case initiated and notice issued to property owner via certified mail. • August 27, 2018 — Chief Building Official David Pendley sent email sent to Colin Richardson advising of required criteria prior to a permit for repair being issued. • August 28, 2018 - Title Search received • August 28, 2018 - Notice and Order mailed certified to Chase Bank as listed on title search. • September 27, 2018 - Email sent to Colin Richardson by David Pendley requesting interior inspection of the property. • October 8, 2018 - Written request to inspect interior of property sent to property owner Colin Richardson as well as lienholder Chase Bank. • October 16, 2018 - Email letter sent to property owner Colin Richardson by NRH Mayor Oscar Trevino Requesting property owner's willingness to work with the City. • October 29, 2018 - Email sent to property owner Colin Richardson from Deputy City Manager Paulette Harman requesting property owner's willingness to work with City. • November 14, 2018 - Administrative Warrant obtained allowing interior inspection of property. • January 15, 2019 - Notice Of Hearing mailed certified to property owners and lienholder • January 15, 2019 - Notice of Hearing posted on the front of the property Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 2 of 12 • January 17, 2019 - Notice of Hearing published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram Ms. Martinez presented the following photos: • Photos of both the Notice and Order and Notice of Hearing posted at 6608 Davis Blvd and at 8101 Main Street, as the structure is located on both properties. • Photo of the damage structure taken from the Railroad right of way, which shows the violation of Sec. 98-462. • Photo of the structure portion located on 8101 Main Street and accumulation. • Photo of the structure showing the roof where the metal had been recently removed showing the exposed wood to be rotten. • Photo taken of the interior structure looking up through the ceiling/roof. • Photo taken of the corrugated roof close up and the damaged joists. • Photo taken of the corrugated roof material located on behind the building, which is believed to have come from damaged building. Additional photo of the corrugated metal located behind the building on the ground. • Additional photo of the damaged corrugated roof and joists. • Photos showing the joist cracked. • Photo taken of the interior of the restroom/laboratory showing damage. The sink is broken. It appears the plumbing has been disconnected. The toilet is damaged and possibly disconnected. • Additional photos of the exterior of the structure showing where the metal on the side has been pulled off. The property is very insecure. • Additional photo of the structure taken from the Right of Way. • Updated photos taken on February 9, 2019 and February 11, 2019 showing the structure still damaged and no improvements made on the property. The prior photos were taken in November 2018. Ms. Martinez advised the Board that it is the opinion of staff that this structure is in violation of each portion of the NRH Code of Ordinances referenced in this presentation and is substandard. Staff recommends that the Substandard Building Board find the structure to be substandard and order that: • All roofing material be removed immediately to reduce the hazard to the public. • All required permits be obtained within 15 days of the board order. • The building be demolished or removed within 30 days of the board order. Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 3 of 12 • If the property owners fail to bring the property into compliance, the lienholder should be granted the same time to demolish or remove the structure. • If the property owners and lienholder fail to bring the property into compliance, the city should be authorized to demolish the structure. Chairman Crowson asked the Board if they had any questions for the city. Mr. Brown asked Ms. Martinez if she had received any response from the property owner prior to the meeting. Ms. Martinez replied personally she has not received any response directly from the property owner but believed there have been some emails exchanged between the property owner and other city staff who have been in communication with the property owner. Mr. Brown asked Ms. Martinez if she knows how long the property has been in this condition. Ms. Martinez replied the initial complaint was filed back in August 2018. "If my memory serves me correctly, there was storm that came through about that time." Mr. Brown said he noticed adjacent structures that looked to be in good condition in one of the photos presented and wanted to know if that was located on the same property or on a different property. Ms. Martinez replied yes it is located on the same property but the damage structure in question is located on two different properties. Mr. Wait asked are we to assume that the building is continuing to deteriorate based on the photographs done in August of 2018 and the photograph done on Saturday, which looks like the roof is almost completely gone. Ms. Martinez replied she is not going to assume anything but the photos taken in November are very similar to the photos taken this week and she has not seen any improvements. Mr. McCary asked if the corrugated metal is leaning up against the other building based on the photos presented. Ms. Martinez replied the corrugated metal is between the gap of the damaged building and the other building. Chairman Crowson asked Ms. Martinez if she knows anything about the cement railroad ties, if they were going to store them there or get rid of them. Ms. Martinez replied she does not know and it does not appear they are in the photos taken yesterday or in the photos taken on Saturday. It does not look like they are there in front of the building as they were in the photos taken in November of 2018 so they may have been removed by now. Chairman asked Mr. Matt Lannon to step forward so that he could be sworn in. Chairman Crowson opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Colin Richardson to come forward to speak on the item. Chairman Crowson asked Mr. Richardson if he was the property owner. Mr. Richardson responded that he is a partial owner of the property. It is also owned by three other women. He is a minority owner and is managing the property. Mr. Richardson advised the Board that this property is unique as a portion of the building is sitting on the railroad property. When he purchased the property in 2004, he made a Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 4 of 12 deal with the railroad selling him a piece of the surplus land where a portion of the building sits on so that some of the issues could be corrected. Shortly after the agreement, the rail system came into existence and it put a hold on everything as environmental study had to be done and deadline repairs to be made. He had been leasing the property and he was dealing with the railroad not wanting him to lease out their portion of the building and agreed to maintain that portion of the property. In 2004, he got a certificate of occupancy for the property with approval. He does not have a certificate of occupancy any longer. As time went on, he leased the property to several individuals and he leased it to a group of criminals. These criminals were recyclers. "They would rent properties like mine, bring in all the recyclables, dump them, and leave" which happened to him. It turned to be about 17 semi loads of recyclables and about 32 tons of garbage he had to get rid of. It took him approximately 2 years, to make that go away. He still maintained the building but it got this way due to a storm that took the roof off. He got a management company to manage it and wanted to lease out part of the building but the TOD came into effect and there are some confusion on who actually occupied the building. According to the City, I never occupied the building, which is incorrect because the certificate of occupancy was issued to him. The City says he never occupied the building when he tried to get some tenants in there. There are some emails from August 6, 2018 to and from Mr. Pendley about getting these tenants into the building. Mr. Pendley sent an email to the person managing the property that we had lost our grandfather clause on the occupancy of the building. They could no longer occupy the building unless they came up under the new rules. He has the emails from them both communicating about leasing this property. Chairman Crowson informed Mr. Richardson he knows he has a long list of things that are preventing him from leasing the building but the Board is here to direct him on getting this building up to standards or demolish the structure. "If you could direct your statements on what you plan on doing with this property to get it up to standards." Mr. Richardson replied that is what he is trying to get to, as he does not know what the standards are. Chairman Crowson asked if Mr. Richardson had been informed by the city what the standards were. Mr. Richardson replied the City said he lost occupancy of the property. Chairman Crowson replied that is not relevant to getting the structure up to standards. You need bring the property up to standards so that you can get another certificate of occupancy. Mr. Richardson replied is he grandfathered in or not and will determine how the property can be used for. Chairman Crowson asked Mr. Pendley if he could answer that. Mr. Pendley replied in regards to this building there have been several notices over the last 10 years including the other property management where several inspectors including himself have visited the site and observed the building empty. When this other property management company came in, that person was also notified as well that this building had lost its grandfather status and it could only have approved uses in it that met the TOD. Mr. Pendley asked if that answered Mr. Richardson question. Ms. Brady, Assistant City Attorney, informed Mr. Richardson that this is the Substandard Building Board and this Board can only deal with the condition of the building. Any zoning or certificate of occupancy issues are not anything that this Board can hear or consider in this hearing. Those issues would go through a different Board or different Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 5 of 12 department within the city. This hearing is strictly focusing on the condition of the building. Mr. Richardson replied he understands that but how does he repair the building; does he repair it to the original occupancy or does he repair it to the new TOD's rules. There is a warehouse to the west, a warehouse to the north and a warehouse to east. He is not allowed to warehouse under the new TOD's rules. That has been eliminated even though other properties have been vacated and purchased as a warehouse. He needs to know how exactly where he is and how to do this building. Part of it was owned by the Railroad. He has not ignored this and has not sat back and waited. This storm happened and shutdown DFW for 4 hours when it took this roof off. He immediately got involved with it. The insurance company said do not touch anything until they got there which was over a month before they made a decision on what they could or could not do. All the material you saw on the ground in the photos, are cleaned up now. Some of the roof he has taken it off which is why it looks like it does now. He is trying to do things so that it is not a hazard. He is only one individual. He has been choked back for 6 years from leasing this property because of this rule that he believes fraud has been committed against him. He wanted this hearing because no one will talk to him. He has a letter from the Mayor saying we cannot talk to you. He cannot talk to these people because they are the ones who created the letter that he lost the occupancy after the fact. He was like where is the letter and in August they were here it is, the letter where you lost the occupancy. We never lost it. Where did this come from? It came after the fact. He knows we are talking about whether he can fix this building or not. He can repair the building. He has two issues the railroad owns part of it and he owns part of it. How do he fix a building that he doesn't know what he can do with, when the City eliminates his ability to lease it. Chairman Crowson informed Mr. Richardson that the Board needs him to bring certain things up to code where the building is no longer substandard and satisfies this Board such as repairing the roof, repairing the joist, and the plumbing. Chairman Crowson asked Mr. Pendley would these repairs do. Mr. Pendley replied those would be fine but in the photos presented showed the trusses damaged and they are damaged to the point they can't be repaired. They will have to be replaced just about every single one of them. Chairman Crowson asked if Mr. Pendley could provide Mr. Richardson a list of repairs that need to be done. Mr. Pendley said yes he can but it's basically what's written in the notices. Mr. Richardson informed the Board that he has had discussions with the Railroad about selling the surplus land adjacent to his property to bring the property into cohesion back to the property. This grandfather clause is a big deal because if he has to follow the new rules under TOD, he doesn't have the parking for the type businesses that are allowed there. He has the parking for warehouses. How does he put $100,000 investment in a building, not knowing if he can even lease it again. Chairman Crowson replied he feels his pain but unfortunately there is nothing we can suggest for you to do with those issues. The City has requirements for operational purposes. Again, this Board is here to either allow you time to repair the damages to the building or demolish it. We need to know from you what are you going to do to bring this building up to standards and not what kind of business you can put in there. Mr. Richardson replied he understands that. He is trying to work that way. One of the letters he got from the City said he could not do Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 6 of 12 anything to the building until the city determined the value of the repairs and doesn't understand why the City needs to determine the value of the repairs on how the building is to be repaired. Chairman Crowson asked Mr. Pendley to explain this to Mr. Richardson. Mr. Pendley responded that staff had some discussions about this. What he is referring to is when a nonconforming building or structure is damaged more than 50% and that everything goes in has to be in compliance with the current zoning ordinance. There are some reason to believe that the repairs to this building would exceed that. I also believe that staff believed the roof would get repaired quickly and the City would deal with those issue at a later date. The roof can be repaired with a Permit provided however there are no standards on how that roof is to be prepared based on use that might come later. We just need the roof repaired to the similar way that it is now. Chairman Crowson asked Mr. Richardson did you get that. Mr. Richardson replied that he did not hear him. Mr. Pendley repeated the information for Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richardson replied so fix it and we may or may not allow you to rent it, which he was hearing or fix it under the TOD rules to be able to rent it. He has a company who would like to lease the space and use it as a warehouse. They would assist him with repairs. This company would come up with the money to do the repairs if they were allowed to warehouse the space and he mentioned it to Paulette Hartman. We could have done this a long time ago and I get nothing. I have someone who is ready to lease it if I can warehouse this property. They will pay for the repairs and we can go on from here with the money to make repairs. He has been restricted from leasing this property since 2012 and it's killing him. He is paying the taxes and the liability insurance. He is not making any money from this property as he can't lease it. The building was in good shape until the storm but he is not entirely convince that the storm did all the damaged. The Railroad was storing their property on my property under my eave of that building with their tracks. They also used big heavy equipment to move those tracks. One of the truss is damaged and gone and it is quite possible, as when he went down there the materials weren't there any longer and they could have hit it with that beam but he can't prove that but it looks very suspicious to him. All the rafters are strapped down. We have corrugated tin and some of it went away. He has removed a lot of the tin that was loose and secured the other tin. He is one guy. He has to get the money to do the work. Because of the railroad issues on part of the building and mine on the other side of the building I'm locked out of getting any kind of loans. He is trying to work it out but with the city saying he has lost his occupancy which he has always been there. He has asked them what date did he lose it and they came up with a letter after the fact. It is very frustrating. He is trying to do what he need to do but I've got to have funds to do it. Chairman Crowson asked Mr. Pendley if he puts anything other than a warehouse in there if the roof might be made of a different material or is corrugated roofing ok with no matter what kind of business goes in there. Ms. Pendley replied with a new roof corrugated metal wouldn't be allowed as it isn't made for that purpose well at least based on today's standards but another metal roof could go on such as a standing steam kind of roof. Chairman Crowson asked Mr. Pendley so he couldn't use the corrugated tin for the roof. Mr. Pendley replied correct, he couldn't use corrugated tin. Mr. Richardson responded he has no intentions on doing that. He can't remove the roof until he puts a roof on to keep the structure straight. This building is a steel upright every Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 7 of 12 25 feet with special equipment in it i.e. a crane which I understand that you don't lose occupancy because of special equipment down the middle. It's sealed with poured concrete walls. It's solid concrete. The building itself is sound. The corrugated roof came off because the porch began peeling back. When we looked at the trusses, there are probably 16 trusses that are actually damaged and the others are ok. He thinks the building can be repaired. He had contractors out looking at it. They think it can be repaired too. He needs to know what he can do with it after he gets the repairs done. He can't put $100,000 in it and the City say no we are not going to allow you to warehouse it even though they are allowed to warehouse across the street or permitted to do outside storage. He is denied from permitting outside storage. The reason the toilet and stuff are destroyed because he had three breaks in that particular building with attempted arson. They even broke into my other buildings by busting in the doors. That is why the doors are open because of the vandals. They took an axe to the toilets and the restrooms. He didn't leave the toilets like that. This happened after the storm which damaged the door and he secured it but they kicked it in and broke in. We have an alarm system but the Police show up half hour later and they are gone. He is trying to get things done right but he needs to know where he can go so he isn't throwing his hard earning money away in the wind. Mr. Pendley informed Mr. Richardson that there is a zoning process to get certain things approved but it sometimes involves other improvements. There is an avenue that he can take to see what could be utilize in the building but it would take what we call a Special Development Permit and those are granted by City Council. Chairman Crowson asked Mr. Richardson if he understood that. Mr. Richardson replied something about him getting a special permit. Mr. Pendley responded that it's not a guarantee because it has to go through staff, Planning and Zoning, and City Council levels. It involves some preparations where drawings are required. Mr. Richardson responded that the quote he got from his contractor was $50,000 to $70,000 depending on how much damage he really runs into to get it repaired with a new metal roof not corrugated. His property value is much higher than that. He needs to fall back on that grandfather clause that he has always been there. He has always had his equipment in there. He has always stored things in there. That building has never been emptied and I don't know how Mr. Pendley ever say that. He has always had equipment in that building. He could not lease the Railroad portion so he kept that. He has told Mr. Pendley this numerous times. Mr. Lannon asked if he can make some clarification to the Board in regards a couple of things Mr. Richardson mentioned. Chairman Crowson replied yes, please come up to the microphone. Mr. Lannon stated one of the things Mr. Richardson mentioned was the surplus property conversations that were taking place, that conversation took place in 2004, 15 years ago and that's not something that is on the table currently. He just wanted that on the record. In regards to the Railroad storing equipment on the Railroad corridor which is certainly allowed by the Railroad. The railroad ties and other items you saw in those pictures were for the TEXRail project which has gone into place since then and Mr. Richardson mentioned that the Railroad might have ruined the roof with their equipment. When I look at the pictures, the portion on the Railroad corridor is on the far right hand side and I don't understand how moving the equipment would ruin everything to the left which made me questioned it. Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 8 of 12 Chairman Crowson asked Mr. John Albury to step forward. Mr. John Albury informed the Board that he is speaking in favor of this property. He drives by this property on a daily basis. He understands this specific meeting is about how to correct this specific problem. It really sounds like it would be preferably if the Board would table the final decision for about 90 days so Mr. Richardson and the City can sit down and talk face to face. As a businessman, you can't make a business decision to spend $100,000 unless you know the future what you can do with your business. There seems to be some disagreement on he said she said so that seems to be the most fairest thing to do is to give Mr. Richardson 90 to 120 days to consult with Mr. Pendley and come up with plan with what kind of business can go there. Chairman Crowson asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the property. No one stepped forward. Chairman Crowson asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of the property, please step forward. Ms. Susan Cawley stepped forward. She informed the Board that she lives at 8301 Main Street in the townhomes. Her townhome faces this property. She works from home all day long. She keeps pestering her HOA about planting trees or other things to hide the site. She just moved here from Grapevine and her taxes are about the same as in Grapevine. She is puzzled to see what she is paying for especially seeing that building and the storage buildings to the left. If trees could be planted to hide the building from site that would help. Davis is actually a nice street until you get to this area. Chairman Crowson asked if anyone else would like to speak in opposition of the property, please step forward. Ms. Jane Birkes stepped forward. She informed the Board that she lives at 8321 Main Street and she has a business just on the other side of this building at 8200 Northeast Parkway. She knows that it was the storm in August that caused the damaged as she had gone out that evening to Southlake. Southlake had no damages but when they got back home the roof off that building had peeled and our kids were home. It's more than an eye sore. I've had to clean up metal from our HOA where it has blown across the street into our fences. It's a safety concern. We have children in the neighborhood. She understand the finance difficulties that Mr. Richardson is talking about but as a HOA to spend $20,000 in shrubbery to just block that view. She can't relate to not wanting to spend the money to make that a safe place. She understands the TOD and restrictions with that. Honestly, she doesn't believe in waiting 90 days because it is too much of a safety concern. She doesn't think any child life is worth losing. There is a bus stop across the street where a child waits for the bus every day gets on the bus and off the bus. His life is not worth the money or the time waiting for Mr. Richardson to do it. She has waited almost a year and she is one of the citizen that emailed the City mostly because of the safety issue and secondary it's not something we want to look at on a daily basis. We spent a lot of money on our properties. We like to maintain our properties. She thanked the Board for her consideration. Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 9 of 12 Chairman Crowson asked if anyone else would like to speak in opposition of the property. Chairman asked Mr. Lannon if there was anything else he would like to add. Mr. Lannon replied if this things gets tabled everything here is part of a License Agreement that Perch Properties made with the Dallas Area Rapid Transit. We sent a letter advising for it to be fix on December 5, in our agreement they have 10 days to procure that but we gave them 30 days and the remedy hasn't taken place. Also, within that License Agreement if we decide it's not something that is safe, which also in the agreement, we would consider terminating the License Agreement. If it is safe, we would ok with it being there. Chairman Crowson asked Mr. Lannon if Dallas Area Rapid Transit own or does Dallas Area Rapid Transit leases a portion of the property from Mr. Richardson. Mr. Lannon replied there is a License Agreement for the corner of the building which was in the presentation showing the small portion of the building built on the Railroad corridor. Mr. Richardson has a license Agreement on that portion with the Dallas Area Rapid Transit. Stefanie Martinez advised the Board she wanted to clarify a few things. She knows the Board has a heard a lot in this discussion. You've heard from the property owner. She wanted to clarify that the property owner is actually Perch Properties and Mr. Richardson is a part of that group. When the notices went out it they did go to Perch Properties as well as Mr. Richardson. It has already been discussed that DART owns property where a portion of this structure sits on. This is why DART has also been notified of this violation. There was also discussion about communication with Ms. Hartman. There were letters and emails that were exchanged and all the history was clarified in that as far as when the property became TOD, the restrictions, and everything that went along with that which occurred back in the fall so this notice and the violation occurred at this property in August. In October and November is when the discussion between Ms. Hartman and Mr. Richardson via email and through letter and here we are in February and nothing has happened. The property has continued to sit the way it is. I understand some of the things may have been removed. The metal is still up there and still blowing off. You've heard it from the citizens and the neighbors. She agrees tabling it for 90 days it not good as she is not willing to take anybody's life in her hands for that long to give them time to consider what they are going to do with the building. We notified them back in August, they had discussions in October and we are 90 days passed that and still nothing has happened. She doesn't believe giving them 90 additional days is going to get us to where we need to be and actually addressing the structure. At this point, staff still believes the best remedy is to remove the structure in totality. Even if they take down the roof and replace it, she doesn't know that will get us where we need to be. She doesn't know the condition of the walls. It's hard for her to believe that just the roof is damaged. She thinks there is more. Additional, in Mr. Richardson testimony he stated that vandal's have gotten into this property and caused some of the damage. That just goes to prove this property is totally accessible. People can get to. It's not being taken care of whether it is just the minor maintenance. So again, staff request is going to be to have the Board order the building demolished. Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 10 of 12 Chairman Crowson recognized Billy Parks. Mr. Parks asked there was some discussion about a period of time when the grandfather clause expired, did he understand that correctly that for whatever reason that had expired. Mr. Pendley replied yes, that is correct. According to our ordinance, if a nonconforming use is vacated for more than 6 months, it loses it's grandfather clause. Mr. Parks asked how long has Mr. Richardson know that was the case. Mr. Richardson asked if he could address some of the issues that Ms. Martinez brought up. Ms. Martinez replied she is fine if Mr. Richardson wants to rebut about anything she said. Mr. Brown asked Chairman Crowson if he could say something. Mr. Brown stated he is not sure that there is any value in the discussion if the discussion is not pertinent to bringing the property up to standards. Chairman Crowson replied we will allow Mr. Richardson to speak. Mr. Richardson responded that Ms. Martinez mentioned she has no idea of the other conditions of the building and he can't believe we are in a meeting here if there were other conditions in the building that those wouldn't have been presented in this meeting such as the building walls are crumbling. Ms. Martinez is implying that this building is unsafe. They want it torn down. That is what they have been trying to do to him for years. To stand here in front of the Substandard Building Board where they created a great power point presentation with all the bad and that the bad of the walls didn't exist. It surely would have been in that presentation. There is nothing wrong with the solid concrete walls of the building and the steel reinforce structure with a crane running down the length of the building and a second steel reinforce structure. Chairman Crowson replied they will take that into consideration. Mr. Parks stated based on the discussion he has heard the Board is considering whether or not to allow more time to try to figure things out and the city recommendation is not allow more time. Mr. Parks question is how long has this been known and could this have been taken care of. How long has this idea of we need to try to figure out what we can use this for, is that something new or is something that has been known for sometime and was never acted upon, as this will influence him on which way he goes. Ms. Martinez replied as Neighborhood Services staff that wouldn't be something we would consider as that is more of a zoning issue and a use. She doesn't know when that was. Again, she wants to clarify to the Board that this has been brought up in the last training meeting that the Substandard Building Board can not consider zoning. Mr. Parks replied he understands that. Ms. Martinez replied that she would have to ask someone in the Planning Department. She asked Mr. Pendley if he could explain that part. Mr. Pendley responded Mr. Martinez had referenced some correspondence that Ms. Hartman made with Mr. Richardson, in that correspondence was a timetable from the beginning was around 2014 based on his recollection. Shortly after that there were notification to the property management and Mr. Richardson that the building was consider nonconforming and had lost it nonconforming use. That didn't mean the building had to be torn down at that time it just meant the conforming use had to go back in. Chairman Crowson closed the public hearing. The Board discussed different options on whether to table the issue, allow time to bring the property up to standards or demolish the structure. Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 11 of 12 MR. BILL WAIT MOVED TO ENTER THE FOLLOWING ORDER FOR SBB 2019-70 DETERMINING THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 6608 DAVIS BLVD KNOWN AS BLOCK 1, LOT 1R2, SMITHFIELD ADDITION, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS AND 8101 MAIN STREET KNOWN AS JOHN M CROCKETT SURVEY, ABSTRACT 273, TRACT 5, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS IS HEREBY FOUND TO BE A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE BY REASON OF CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE NOTICES OF THIS HEARING AND SUCH NOTICES ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED IN THIS ORDER THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OBTAIN ANY REQUIRED PERMITS WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE BOARD ORDER; THE ROOFING MATERIALS BE REMOVED AND THE STRUCTURE BE DEMOLISHED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE BOARD ORDER; IF THE PROPERTY OWNER FAILS TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE, THE LIENHOLDER SHALL BE GRANTED THIRTY (30) DAYS TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE; AND IF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND/OR LIENHOLDER FAILS TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE, THE CITY SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE AND A LIEN WILL BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY FOR ALL COSTS INCURRED IF THE CITY DEMOLISHES THE STRUCTURE. MR. ROBERT MCCARY SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 5-0. 4. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Crowson adjourned the meeting at 6:59 p.m. naboe,v-i- m( C&c.,j 4°cting Chairman ATTEST: Audrey Capp'allo, '- utive Secretary Substandard Building Board Meeting February 12, 2019 Page 12 of 12