Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/3/2016 - Building Appeal - Minutes -1 Board of Building Appeals March 3, 2016 Minutes A meeting of the Board of Building Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held on March 3, 2016, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 4:00 p.m. concerning the unfinished addition on the property located at 353 Red Lane, Salem, Virginia (Tax Map #87-6-5). The Board—John R. Hildebrand; Robert S. Fry, III; David A. Botts; and Nathan A. Routt; presided together with Todd W. Sutphin, Building Official; Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., City Engineer; Stephen M. Yost, City Attorney, and Krystal M. Farmer, Secretary; and the following business was transacted: WHEREAS, it was noted that notice of such hearing was published in the February 18 and 25, 2016, issues of the Salem Times-Register, a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City of Salem. WHEREAS, Mr. Sutphin called the meeting to order and requested that the Board elect a chairman and secretary; ON MOTION MADE BY MEMBER FRYE, SECONDED BY MEMBER BOTTS, AND DULY CARRIED, John R. Hildebrand was elected Chairman of the Board, and Krystal M. Farmer was elected Secretary to the Board – roll call vote: all – aye. WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the Board is to hear a case regarding 353 Red Lane in which the Board is to determine whether the structure situate at 353 Red Lane constitute an unsafe or dangerous structure to the inhabitants of the City of Salem; if the Board determines that the structure is unsafe or dangerous, the Board will then determine whether the structure is susceptible to repair or should be demolished; he further stated that proper notice has been given to the property owner, Mr. Perry Smith, and noted that The property owner was not present; it was advertised for a public hearing, the neighbors were notified and noted that there were two people sitting in the audience; Mr. Yost reviewed the process of the hearing and noted that the owner has the right to appeal the Board’s decision to the State Technical Board in Richmond, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the statute states that all people who wish to speak, including members of the public, must be sworn in and he asked Chairman Hildebrand to administer the oath; and WHEREAS, Chairman Hildebrand administered the oath. Chairman Hildebrand requested that the City present its findings; and 2 WHEREAS, the Building Official appeared before the Board and gave a chronological timeline of the project; he noted that the first building permit was issued on March 2, 2001, for a bathroom addition that had one approved footer inspection; no work was done until 2005 when another permit was issued on July 19, 2005, for the garage addition and included the bathroom addition, which had one approved footer inspection; the property owner updated the permit on June 18, 2008, and February 9, 2010; a letter was sent to The property owner on August 16, 2011, stating that the permit had expired, the structure was a safety hazard, and the electrical service needed to be moved; the property owner obtained a new/updated the permit on September 16, 2011, and November 26, 2012; no inspections were performed on either of those permits; November 4, 2014, a letter was sent to the property owner stating that the permit was not valid, and that a full set of plans and a timeline for completion would need to be submitted before a permit would be issued; there was no response from the property owner; on February 18, 2015, the City Engineer submitted a report about the structure due to a complaint received; on February 26, 2015, a letter was sent to the property owner requesting a meeting within 30 days regarding the unfinished addition and the site assessment by the City Engineer, a copy of the report was enclosed with the letter; a meeting was held with the property owner, along with the City Engineer and the Assistant City Engineer, on April 21, 2015, regarding the site assessment; the property owner was given one (1) month to submit plans and obtain a permit to complete the unfinished addition; the property owner indicated that he intended to complete the project by fall 2015; on April 30, 2015, a letter was sent to the property owner with a synopsis of the meeting; multiple phone messages and letters were sent to the property owner regarding plan submittal; application and plans from the property owner were finally received on July 1, 2015; a building permit with conditions was issued to the property owner on July 27, 2015, and he was given six (6) months to complete the project; the conditions of the permit were that he had to submit a letter from an architect that the existing CMU block was structurally sound and could continue to be built upon, permit was only valid for six (6) months, he shall “weather in” the structure as soon as possible with windows, doors, roof, and paint the block; the addition needs to be attached to the house in some fashion prior to final inspection; and he needed to remove and clean up all trash and junk from the site; on August 27, 2015, a letter was sent to the property owner stating that a signed and stamped letter from an architect stating that the CMU structure is structurally sound and safe to continue building upon; on September 30, 2015, a letter was sent to the property owner stating that good progress was made over the last month and a letter was still needed from an architect; numerous letters were sent to the property owner during the six-month period in an attempt to keep communication lines open; he noted that it has been a struggle to get the property owner to communicate his end goal and work being done on the project; a letter was sent to the property owner on December 7, 2015, stating that construction has come to a standstill; another letter was sent to the property owner on December 30, 2015, reminding him that the permit expires January 27, 2016; on January 15, 2016, the property owner called and stated that he did not have the money to finish the project and it would be mid-February before he could get any more money; he was reminded of the conditions of the permit and that if he did not abide by the conditions, the case would be brought before the Board of Building Appeals; on January 28, 2016, a letter was sent to the property owner stating that the permit was expired, all work must stop on the project, and the City was going to proceed to take the 3 case to the Board; a letter was sent to the property owner on February 22, 2016, via regular and certified mail, a copy of the letter was posted on the house, and the Sheriff’s Office also served the property owner a copy of the letter notifying him of the meeting; the Building Official then referred to Section 18-38 of the Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, regarding the amendments for unsafe building structures; he stated that he feels that the structure located at 353 Red Lane is in violation due to it having less than 50 percent of a roof covering or lack thereof, which makes the structure unsafe; as well as it has become unsafe and dangerous to the safety of the inhabitants of the city; he has numerous construction materials on the property that children in the neighborhood, if they were on the property playing or something, they could get seriously injured; steel beams sticking up, block laying around, construction equipment that shouldn’t be on the property; and there are parts of the structure that could fall or otherwise become detached due to the time it’s been exposed to the elements—the mortar is not covered with paint, there’s no roof structure; it has survived some winds but that does not mean that at any certain time something couldn’t pull lose and hurt or damage someone or something; he then asked the Board if they had any questions; and WHEREAS, Member Fry inquired if a set of plans were submitted; and WHEREAS, the Building Official presented the set of plans submitted by the property owner to the Board; and WHEREAS, the Board reviewed the plans and a discussion was held regarding the plans, connection of the structure to the house, if bond beams are present, CMU block not being painted or waterproofed, etc.; and WHEREAS, Member Routt questioned if there had been in influx of materials or if a lot of work had been done since July 2015; and WHEREAS, the Building Official stated that other than the one section of wall where the beam was installed and laid several rows of block, that is the only work that has been done since the permit was issued and no inspections were performed under the new permit; and WHEREAS, Member Botts questioned if the property owner was doing the work himself, or if he had someone else doing it; and WHEREAS, the Building Official stated that he believed that the property owner was doing the work himself as he is a masonry contractor, but he does not know for sure; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer appeared before the Board and stated that he was asked in February 2015 to do a site visit to evaluate the structure located at 353 Red Lane; he was asked to determine the safety of the structure to the best of his best abilities and to also evaluate the structure in relation to other city ordinances, including stormwater, erosion and sediment control, and zoning; he stated that no destructive testing was done on the structure, all inspections were basically visual; he stated that he is a registered engineer with the state of 4 Virginia and he has over 25 years’ experience in the construction/engineering field; he then reviewed his site assessment with the Board; and WHEREAS, it was noted that the stormwater issue on the north side of the structure has been corrected since the site visit took place; and WHEREAS, Member Botts inquired if the City Engineer noticed any lateral movement of the existing walls; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that he noticed some cracks that ranged from 1/16” to 1/8” in width; however, he did not notice any displacement other than the cracking; the issue he has is that he cannot tell if there is rebar inside of the walls to resist the displacement or is the cracking just the early signs; he stated that some destructive testing will need to be done to determine if there is rebar in the walls; he didn’t notice any indication of any rusting of the rebar that may bleed through, which does not help; he did notice a lot of effervesce that was bleaching through the block, which is not a good sign; and WHEREAS, Member Fry stated that is not necessarily a destructive situation; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that it just means that it has been exposed to the weather and that water is infiltrating and freezing and thawing; and WHEREAS, Member Fry questioned it if was possible to go through and do cursory x- raying of the structure instead of having to tear down a portion of the structure to determine the support system, if any; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that there are various non-destructive methods available and can be used on bridges; he stated that there still would need to be some sort of destructive testing to ascertain whether it is there in a patters, which would probably be enough to satisfy most architects/engineers that it was built to that standard; bond beams would be very difficult to detect in that type of test; he stated that it may be cost prohibitive to do that type of non-destructive testing on a residential structure; and WHREAS, Donald Hale, 357 Red Lane, appeared before the Board; he stated that he grew up on Red Lane; he questioned when enough would be enough instead of looking for any little thing to save this project, which he feels is hideous on a good day; he asked the Board to bring the project to a halt and restore the neighborhood; he feels like the project has devalued the surrounding properties; he feels as though the project should have been dealt with years ago; he again asked the Board to restore the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the public hearing; and WHREAS, Chairman Hildebrand inquired if the Board was ready to make a determination if the structure was unsafe and a hazard to the citizens of the City; and 5 WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the code sections referenced which pertain to this property; It was noted that the property owner did not appear during the course of the public hearing. WHEREAS, Member Routt questioned the Boards limitations in deciding what to do with the structure; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the Board has a good bit of discretion; if the Board determines that this is a dangerous structure, the Board then has the right to determine if the structure can be repaired and then give time to the owner, whatever the Board feels is appropriate, to make the repairs; or if based upon the evidence heard, the structure is not susceptible to repair, the Board can order the demolition of the structure; again, the Board can give the owner time to demolish it himself, and can include in the motion orders that if as of a particular date chosen by the Board, if the owner has not demolished the structure by that point in time, the City has the authority to proceed with demolishing the unsafe and dangerous structure; and WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the process for the City to have a third party demolish the structure, how costs associated with the demo would be recouped by the City, etc.; and WHEREAS, Member Fry stated that he feels the Board needs to be specific in any motion it makes; and WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding whether to allow the property owner more time to complete the project or to require the owner to demolish the structure; property owner not being present at the hearing, etc.; ON A MOTION MADE BY MEMBER ROUTT, SECONDED BY MEMBER BOTTS, AND DULY CARRIED, the Board determines that based on the expert testimony and evidence presented, the structure, an unfinished addition, located at 353 Red Lane shows a deterioration, dilapidation, decay, danger, etc. and is dangerous and unsafe to the inhabitants of the City of Salem – the roll call vote: all – aye. Chairman Hildebrand noted that the next issue before the Board was to determine what to do with the structure—allow more time to complete or demolish the structure; and WHEREAS, Member Botts stated that when a homeowner is living next to a project like the one in question, when it is short-term, maybe a year, is doable; but for the property owners to have dealt this this project for 15 years and to have the project continually extended, oftentimes having to “prod” the property owner to respond; he further stated that there may 6 not be a lot of children in the area, but there are obviously children with access to the property and heaven forbid that a child or someone gets hurt or killed on the site if the Board doesn’t take action; he feels that the property owner should be given 30 days to respond whether he is going to demolish it himself or let the city do it; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney questioned if the property owner is going to be given 30 days to respond, how much time then would he have to actually demolish the structure; and WHEREAS, Member Botts stated that the property owner would be given six (6) months for total demolition and to return the site to its natural state; if it is not done within that time frame, then the City would then be authorized to take charge; and WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the time frame to be given for demolition; if the construction materials are salvageable; lack of communication by the property owner; fencing on the property, etc.; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that whatever the Board decides, notice would have to be served on the property owner of the decision; he again noted that the property owner has the right to appeal the decision within 21 days and the Board could not require him to do anything within the appeal period; and WHEREAS, Chairman Hildebrand noted the Board was in agreeance that the structure should be demolished; the motion also needs to state the length of time the property owner has to respond and the length of time he has to demolish the structure; he suggested that three months or two months would be ample time for the structure to be demolished; he feels that the Board needs to act in a timely and concise manner; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that the property owner would have to obtain a demolition permit to demolish the structure; and WHEREAS, the Building Official noted that any permit issued is valid for six (6) months but stipulations can be placed on the permit based upon the Board’s decision; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that the Board could give the property owner 30 days to secure a demolition permit if he wants to demolish the structure himself; and if so, then he would have “x” number of days to complete the demolition; and if he does not complete the demolition by that date, then the City would have the authority to take charge and demolish the structure, etc.; and WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding a “reasonable” timeframe to allow for demolition of the project to encourage the property owner to complete the work; liability of the City if the project is allowed to be extended; etc.; 7 ON A MOTION MADE BY MEMBER BOTTS, SECONDED BY MEMBER ROUTT, AND DULY CARRIED, repair is not a viable option for the structure; therefore, the property owner, Mr. Smith, has 30 days from notice to secure a demolition permit and 90 days after securing the permit to complete the demolition and restore the site to its natural state; if the permit is not secured within 30 days or the demolition is not completed within 90 days, the City is directed to proceed to complete the demolition and restore the property to its natural state – the roll call vote: all – aye. ON MOTION MADE BY MEMBER ROUTT, SECONDED BY MEMBER BOTTS, AND DULY CARRIED, the meeting was hereby adjourned at 5:06 p.m.