Loading...
02/15/1995???,d Y?"}? ? e ';•r:1yf',} a --'-? :` ?''' ?+IY ? a .. .. . g .. - ? 7 '??fl . , MIN UTE S {.:. BAS 'BUILDING & FLOOD Ir. , DATE S y ? 1 ' ?h, r r?:-. .. .' ? • • , ? v i0.! ?, ?'? ' r .. it W, _. f ] i S.v J BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL, BUILDING/FLOOD CONTROL . WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1995 Members Present' John Logan, Chairman Michael Corcoran Andrew Nicholson P. J. Shah Edward Walker. Members Absent: None. Others- Present: Arthur F. Kammer, regarding 1910 Overbrook case Mark C. Koeller, regarding.1910 Overbrook case' Curtis Jenney, regarding'1910 Overbrook case Edie Solovick, regarding'1910 Overbrook case Roy Cadwell, representing 1910'Overbrook case Priscella Cadwell, representing 1910 Overbrook case Graham Clift, Walker & Associates, representing Yacht Basin Apts. Victor C. Chodora, Assistant Director, Central Permitting Kevin Garriott, Central Permitting Supervisor Vern Packer, Inspector, Central Permitting Bill Wright, Inspector, Central Permitting John Witkowski, Inspector, Central Permitting Freddie Hinson, Community Response Team Barbara Borgan,' Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Logan at 2:15 p.m. 1. 1910 Overbrook Avenue, Clearwater, Florida - Cadwell Properties, Ltd., Owner. Roy and Priscella as interested party.' Request to appeal the building official's notice of unsafe building.' Located in Sunset Point 2nd Addition Subdivision, Block G, Lot 63 , . Parcel ## : 03/29/15/88128/007/0630. Mr: Cadwell explained whether we are entitled to continue the subject property which they, have, had for 30 years and purchased as a mean of supplementing their retirement income and now the question is before the board of 'whether it should be demolished' without any compensation and whether the City, at the present time, has the right to demolish it. He went onto say within the last month the property has been rented as,it is a duplex and the upper and lower apartments and the rents are'$400.00 per month which on an actuarial basis and if you multiply that by 10 that.gives you 1 -., . . 't .i' 11? F ? the value of the property. Mr. Logan interjected and, again, asked Mr. Cadwell to state what his request is for. Mr. Cadwell stated the wants the board to grant his appeal and if necessary, to make a physical inspection of the property that they would do so. Mr. Cadwell stated if the board was unable to grant the appeal indefinitely, that the board would, at least, give them two years ,to recoup some of the money they have already spent on this property.. If it were to be demolished it would be simply we've simply wasted our money. Mr. Cadwell stated he did not mind spending money on the property but he does not like wasting it. Victor Chodora made a general comment explaining that we have a building over 30 years old and has not had very little or no maintenance to it. The termites have basically destroyed the building and is in danger of collapsing. The tenants were evicted from the building approximately 15 days ago. Vern Packer spoke about the history of the, case. This case has been going on since July 12, 1993. The case had appeared before the board when Mr. Cadwell was appealing the housing report. When that appeal was denied we continued to seek compliance for the repairs mentioned in the original report. That was not accomplished and we then went to the Code Enforcement Board. The Code Enforcement Board heard the case and found Mr. Cadwell in violation of the items that were listed and they gave him a compliance date of October 20, 1994, to make the repairs., The repairs were not made, in fact the Code Enforcement Board made an order that the building, the bottom unit, not be occupied until the repairs were made. The unit was rented anyway. At that point we cited the building as an unsafe structure and we had the tenants leave the premises and cited Mr. Cadwell with an unsafe building. Mr. Packer then stated there were recent photographs of the property and proceeded to show the photographs. Mr. Packer showed Mr. Cadwell, the photos first. Mr. Cadwell made several comments and questions regarding the photographs, asking about Mr. Packer's report, what report they were in, what areas do the pictures cover, trying to ascertain a'dimension from Mr. 'Packer. Mr. Cadwell continued to ask Mr. Packer questions as to the structure being rodent proof, and if there was a hole in the wall, disputing what the pictures actually show. A picture came up with the posted notice, Mr.,Cadwell asked about the ordinance justifying.to post the building. Mr. Packer stated he as well as Mr. Chodora have given Mr. Cadwell copies of the requested ordinances. Mr. Cadwell stated he has not received them. Mr. Cadwell continues to question Mr. Packer about the structure, if Mr. Packer has been to the structure recently and if it is in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Packer assures Mr. Cadwell the structure is not in compliance and Mr. Cadwell states Mr. Packer is seeing a different wall than Mr. Cadwell knows. At that point the pictures are passed around to each board member. 2 Curtis Jenney, 1911 Cverbrook Avenue, then spoke to the board. Mr. Jenney lives across the street. Mr. Jenney states the neighborhood is in a transition stage and is improving. The property owners in the same block have all made improvements to their houses and improve the neighborhood that was questionable 10 to 15 years ago. His mother-in-law, Edie Solovick, who was also present purchased the house he presently lives in 17 years ago and has made continual improvements. The concerns Mr. Jenney has is the.subject structure seems to be a dangerous structure. Mr. Jenney feels 'the owners have owned a property and benefitted from the income of that property without putting any type of maintenance monies back into the property, to continue a safe condition. Mr. Jenney states there have been other problems with the type of people living in the structure. The lower unit is crumbling under the upper unit. Mr. Logan asks Mr. Jenney if he concurs with the city's assessment of the building being an unsafe building, Mr. Jenney replies absolutely.. Mr. Jenney asks something be done regarding this structure as quickly as possible. Mark Koeller, also living across the street, and he stated he supports the city 100 on this. Mr. Koeller states the sooner the, better something gets done about this. Mr. Logan then reads from a letter from Scott Shuford, Director of Central Permitting, stating unsafe structures devalue surrounding properties, create a hazardous environment for nearby residents, and contribute to the blighting of the city. Consequently, we have revised our code requirements, to expedite the removal or alternately require code compliance as fast as legally possible. Arthur Kammer laving 1146 Sunset Point Road which is adjacent to the subject property. This is on the'' north side. When he purchased his house and moved in he felt,ilike he was moving,in to Tobacco Road. His house was a wreck and had been vandalized. He has been there a year and a half and it was to be his home but it is absolutely impossible to stay there because of what goes on next door to him. The type of people Mr. Cadwell rents to are trash in plain English. This is what he has been up against and has put his house up for sale. He can not sell it as people look next door and question what type of place it is. Mr. Kammer also concurs with the city assessment. Mr. Jenney again states his feeling about going to the city and asking for a revaluation to. reduce the value of their property because of the condition of the subject property. Mr. Walker questions Mr. Chodora regarding the status of the time frame as far as the next step. Mr. Chodora states if the board upholds his decision the next step is to obtain a title search and asbestos report. This usually takes two to three weeks. If there is no asbestos then we would go directly out for bids for demolition which takes about three to four weeks. The actual 3 r .F demolition the contractor has 20 days to complete the work. We are looking at the city's standpoint of view at approximately three months before we can demolish the building. Mr. Nicholson states he has heard facts and reviewed the file and photographs and says 'there is no evidence of any monies being spent on this property following the building code. This is not an economic issue to begin with, this is a technical board and our concern is safety, public safety, and a safe structure. We try to accommodate when we see people moving quickly and really working to make it safe. We heard this matter a year and a half ago and these items were discussed and although some money may have been spent, it was not spent in any kind of correct action to make it correct. We should be looking mainly at safety of the structure'from Mr. Nicholson's view. Mr. Chodora stated the property appraiser has the building and land valued at approximately $26,000 and the estimated costs range from any where from $16,000 to $35,000 for repairs, which is more than 50% of the value of the structure according to our ordinance which allows us to demolish it. Mr. Packer states the property according to the property appraiser's office the structure was built in 1925. They have 1994 year improvements of $14,800 and for the land $11,200 fora total assessment of $26,000, printed January 10, 1995. Mr. Packer also states the city has been to three different board concerning this structure. Mr. Nicholson asks if there is any further discussion that it be directly to the safety of the structure within the next couple of days or not. Mr. Walker states confusion over the fact it was brought before the board in October 1993. Mr. Chodora states that was for housing. This was initially written as a housing report. and gave Mr. Cadwell the opportunity to make repairs. Mr. Cadwell appealed that decision and felt there were no housing code violations. Mr. Logan stated this is the first time the board has had an unsafe building situation. Mr. Packer states the city is not out to demolish structures but to have safe, affordable housing. We followed the due process requirements. • Mr. Cadwell has had the opportunity to make the repairs which was not accomplished. For the record there is a fine of $250 a day running against the bottom unit as we speak. Mr. Cadwell has not complied with the code board. That started October 20,,1994 because of non-compliance.' 4 4 Mr. Walker moved with regard to the request for the property located at 1910 Overbrook Avenue in Clearwater, owned by Cadwell Properties, Limited,•the board finds within its authority to act upon the request and the request for variance from the building department's determination of unsafe building be denied. Mr. Logan asked if Mr. Walker's motion upholds the decision of the building department that this an unsafe•structure. Mr. Walker acknowledged yes., The motion was seconded by Mr. Shah and was the request to deny was approved unanimously. 2. 501 Mandalay Avenue, Yacht Basin Apartments, Clearwater, Florida - Lima Lake, Inc., Owner. Representative, Graham Clift, Walker &• Associates. Variance request to construct toilet rooms for proposed pool per the health department's requirements for toilets. Construct toilet floor below required 11' base flood elevation. Located in Yacht Basin Subdivision, Lots 1-9, • Parcel ##: 05/29/99216/000/0010. Mr. Walker is abstaining from this presentation. Mr. Graham C1ift, with Walker and Associates Architects in Safety Harbor, Florida. The owner's of the Yacht Basin Apartments are hoping to build a swimming pool and in order to do that they will need toilet facilities for.thati swimming pool. We are requesting a variance on • the height of the floor of the toilets at 6.8' in , lieu of the required elevation of 111. Mr. Nicholson stated this is a very common request but special attention needs to be paid to the utilities with respect to floodproofing, electrical,or sewer. Mr. Nicholson made the motion that the request 'for the variance of the height restriction of x1' in that zone be granted within the power of the board to act. Pay special attention to utility adjustments for electrical or sewer which may be need to be made as a flood hazard. Mr. Shah asked Mr. Chodora what was the building department's recommendation? Mr. Chodora stated our city ordinances allows for non-residential structures to be placed below the base flood elevation as long as they are flood proofed, that the variance is from Chapter 39. Mr. Nicholson stated it was listed in Chapter 39 in Zone 3. The motion was seconded by Mr. Corcoran and passed unanimously. 5 f . + 1 =I I 1 3. 602 Marshall Street, Clearwater, Florida - Paul S. Charles and Robert S. Mitchell, Owners. Leonard Bauman, Representative. Owners-wish extension of time to complete unsafe housing notice. Property in' present condition due to, fire. Negotiations with the insurance company is not complete. Located in Norwood Subdivision, Block A, Lot 8, Parcel 10/29/15/61740/001/0080. Mr. Packer went to look for any representatives for this case. Mr. Packer returned to the meeting without any representative. Mr. Packer stated Mr. Bauman, the representative for the owners, indicated to him they were looking for a variance of time. The case is damage. from a fire and an. insurance claim settlement. They, are not disputing the unsafe notice which was sent, they needed time to get the money from the insurance company. The unsafe letter went out in November 1994. Florida State Insurance Adjustors' is the insurance company involved and the actual applicant for the variance of time., The length of time was not discussed with Mr: Packer, who assumed the representatives would be here for the board meeting. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Chodora if a variance is not granted at this time what happens? Mr. Chodora stated we would then start the procedure to take corrective action and demolition. Conversation ensued with the board members regarding time frames to be granted or not to be granted regarding the time variance request. A specific length of time was not requested in the application paperwork. Mr. Nicholson moved that, with respect to an 'application for an extension of time for 30 days to submit permit applications for the repairs of 602 Marshall Street and if permits are issued then an additional 60 days is granted for construction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shah and was passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 3:10PM. 6JAn Logan, hairman arbara Borgan Recording Secretary 6 1