Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/11/2009 - Building Appeal - Minutes -- i - June 11, 2009 BOARD OF BUILDING APPEALS Meeting Minutes June 11, 2009 A public hearing of the Board of Building Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held after due and proper notice in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 9:00 p.m., on June 11 2009. The Board, constituting a legal quorum, presided together with Steve Yost, City Attorney; Charles B. Aldridge, Building Official/Zoning Administrator; and Mary Lutz, Secretary; and the following business was transacted: I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Hildebrand called the hearing to order at 9:15 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: David A. Botts; Robert S. Fry, III; Vice-Chair Scott E. Gardner; and Chairman John R. Hildebrand. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This hearing is to further discuss the structure located at 905 Kyle Lane (Tax Map # 39 – 1 – 5). It has been deemed by the City of Salem Building Inspections Office to have deteriorated to the extent that it has become unsafe, unsightly, and is so dilapidated as to become dangerous to the safety of the inhabitants of the City of Salem. Chairman Hildebrand: I’d like to convene this meeting to consider notice to show cause of why the structure at 905 Kyle Lane should be demolished. This is the purpose of our meeting. Mr. Aldridge is to ask Mr. Banks or his representative to respond to our show cause order. Mr. Aldridge: Let me fill you in on what we did up until this point. This has been an ongoing situation for many years. It has been a situation where Mrs. Banks lived out of town and we dealt with that over quite a long period of time and then she became ill and passed in fact and then we went through a period with Mr. Banks and I think Mr. Dorsey can fill you in on some of that. We did deliver notices to them by the Sheriff’s Department. We had to deliver one to Mrs. Banks, which came back undeliverable of course, because she is deceased. Mr. Jerold Banks did get served notice by the Stafford County Police Department that this hearing would be held today, so they have been notified. Now we will just call on the ones that present the case for or against this. Mr. Dorsey, please come up and introduce yourself and share your role in this. Mr. Dorsey: I’m Jeff Dorsey and glad to be here today. There are a number of issues in this case and I will tell you how I have been involved and I guess am still involved. I originally represented Ms. Clarissa Banks and from the title to this property is somewhat messy. I can talk to Mr. Yost about that but there was a Mary Alice Marshall, I think that the notice that was sent for today. It was sent to Jerold Banks on behalf of a Mary Alice - ii - June 11, 2009 Marshall. I’m not exactly sure of her involvement. She passed away and I believe she might have left a half interest of this property to Richard Herby. I don’t know if he’s been notified or not but I don’t know what his status is. Clarissa Banks owned I believe a third interest, her son Jerold Banks owned a two-third interest, would be my understanding. Clarissa Banks passed away and Jerold Banks is the executor of her estate and he had been in contact with me for quite awhile as we attempted to negotiate the possible sale of this property. That did not occur. Clarissa Banks, who was an older lady, I believe she believed that she could get this property fixed up and obviously that was not going to happen and didn’t happen. She understood that eventually it was going to have to be torn down and I can represent to you all that I think that that it is clear today that it needs to be torn down and should be torn down. So, I can say that I formally represent Jerold Banks in this through Clarissa Banks, I guess via her original retaining of my services. There is a couple of issues regarding this property that I think are significant. One is what I would request, the practical issue is what I would request today is that I did not get notice of this hearing. I found out about this hearing just a few days ago. That’s not the end of the world but what I would have like to have had prepared for you, possibly is a breakdown of some of the title issues. The other issue is that Mr. Aldridge was good to provide me awhile back with some of the layout of this property. This property is landlocked. You can’t get to this property except by going through Mr. Kyle’s property. Mr. Kyle has been very patient. His property kind of surrounds this property and Mr. Kyle, I know, has been very patient in trying to deal with this issue. This is an eye sore obviously for him and his property. I guess what I am requesting that the Board do today is, I think that there are some possible notice issues as to, I don’t know whether there are any other possible owners is the issue. I don’t know if that is significant or not but what I am requesting that the Board do today, if the Board is so inclined, is to give the owner(s) sixty days to remedy this problem via demolition. I guess I don’t want the City to have to demolish it and incur an unknown expense when I believe that the owner(s) might indeed be able to have that done in a more cost effective manner. Secondly, there is an access issue. I guess I would like some statement by the City that Kyle Lane is a public street or a recognition from Mr. Kyle and I don’t believe that this would be a problem that access in an out of this property is not going to be an issue because it is landlocked, if Kyle Lane is not a public street. That is my issue. I don’t think there is any dispute that it needs to be demolished. Chairman Hildebrand: We’ve heard Mr. Dorsey’s request but I have one question though. Kyle Lane, is it or is it not a public street? Mr. Aldridge: It is not a public street. Chairman Hildebrand: Then how will, to meet the other condition of his proposal, get access to demolish this property. Would that be granted? Mr. Aldridge: There is an unofficial easement through there and I think maybe if Mr. Kyle would like to come forward, maybe he could better explain it than I can. - iii - June 11, 2009 Mr. Kyle: Thank you gentlemen. I am Joseph Kyle and am at 801 High Street. That is my address. There were three houses in this section. I live in one; my address is 801 High Street. There is a house that I owned next door which is 903 Kyle Lane. Kyle Lane came about because we have had instances in the past when the emergency crew and fire trucks and what have you could not find the place. One day I came home and saw the sign Kyle Lane. It was a way of marking it for the emergency squad and so forth. The City also uses Kyle Lane because it is one way of getting into the other properties in that we adjoin Stonewall Forest. That is basically it. The thing about this property, I guess I’ve been dealing with it ten or fifteen years and have made requests to get it torn down over the last four or five years at least. I know a lot about the property because once I looked after the property for Mrs. Banks when she was living. I guess over the last ten or fifteen years, I’ve cut the grass and taken care of this property just to keep it up and not work against the other properties. The house itself, in terms of whether it needs to be torn down, certainly it does because this house really has not foundation. On one end, it sits on bricks and it is not on a level lot because it is almost like a triangle. One end sits right near the property line. I don’t think anything could really be done with the property in that sense. I think the expenses on it just keep rising to do anything with it. Of course, my issue is that it really does need to be torn down and I think the description given to you is that is dilapidated. You cannot fix it. My fear is that someone is going to set it on fire. This is in a wooded area there and I am always fearful of this. One reason is because it is on a private area and we don’t get a lot of transient people but I always fear that some derelict might get in there and set the whole thing on fire up there. I’m here today because I have been working on this for quite some time. We just need to demolish it. As far as Mr. Banks and them doing anything, I don’t think that is going to happen. We have been corresponding with Mr. Banks and the lawyer for some time and if he hasn’t responded up until this point, I doubt that he will. Second thing, I don’t think he would be interested because the worth of the property is such that the expense of it outweighs the gain. He had a chance to sell it a little earlier and he would have been wise to have gotten rid of it then. Now, what the property is worth actually and not having any frontage on High Street or anywhere, really, it is kind of a losing thing. My interest in it is that we do need to tear it down for the safety reasons and so forth. I think that is my biggest concern. I did not come with the idea of making a presentation but I think if you have been by and have seen it, then there should not be much there to defend. I don’t believe that sixty days would make any difference. I think we will be right back where we started. Chairman Hildebrand: Alright, thank you. Vice Chairman Gardner: I have a question, Mr. Kyle. You said that you have been maintaining the property for some years. Do you know the last time that someone lived there? Mr. Kyle: Yes, I’d say roughly 20 years ago. Vice Chairman Gardner: Who was that? Was that Mrs. Banks or one of her family members? - iv - June 11, 2009 Mr. Kyle: No, it was rented. Vice Chairman Gardner: The only other question I had was this Kyle Lane, there is no official reported easement across that property? Is that my understanding? Mr. Kyle: Well there is only the one lane in there and everyone uses it. When I say everyone, I mean it is the only way to get into Stonewall, the subdivision area. It is the only way of getting in there so the Electric Department and anything that has to be done goes through there. On the map, I think there is an easement across there at one end of that property. Vice Chairman Gardner: Okay, thank you. Mr. Aldridge: You may want to see if anyone else has anything to present. I noticed someone else has come in and also see if Mr. Dorsey has anything else to present. Mr. Dorsey: Jerold Banks is here and he was just a little bit late. Come up Mr. Banks and I have reviewed with him some of the issues. I think he agrees that it needs to be demolished. I have spoken with him and he lives out of the area, obviously and his concern is the same as my concern is this access issue and having some time just to get this resolved himself so that there wouldn’t be an unknown expense by the City doing it. I think he agrees it needs to be demolished and wants to have it demolished and again requests a thirty or sixty day period to get that done. Is that a fair statement Mr. Banks? Mr. Banks: That is a fair statement. First of all, good morning, I apologize for being late. I drove up from Stafford, VA and then I got about ten miles from here and had a medical emergency. My wife fainted at work so her boss had to call me and let me know that they just took her to the hospital but I am here. This property goes back my goodness, to the eighteen hundreds. The problem with this property is from my vantage point is getting rid of it. My mother hired Mr. Dorsey and she was working that way and then at her death, I hired Mr. Byrd, Mr. Raymond Byrd. He is not here today but he is representing me on this. Here is the problem with this property. The City of Salem sends me a notice for property taxes and my mother paid the property taxes up until the time that she died in 2006 and then I have been paying the property taxes. If you look on the tax report here in Salem, this property belongs to Mary Alice Marshall, who died in 1965. The City of Salem will not get any money from Mary Alice Marshall. She is dead; you will not get any money from her relatives. The problem being is that because this was family property, my mother who got it from my father, who got it from Stuart Banks, which was his brother, and Mary Alice Marshall and my father’s brother’s wife were sisters. Somehow, convoluted when this property came to us in 1843 and I have the deed in my truck. It has come down through generations. I personally don’t want the property. I want to sell it. I have someone who is willing to buy it with the house on it. My problem is that I cannot get a title with my name on it to get rid of it. Mr. Dorsey had tried when my mother was living. It is just that this thing with Mary Alice Marshall because this letter that I got from Mr. Aldridge, who I have talked to, it always comes out and the taxes come out the same way, Jerold Banks or Clarissa Banks in care of Mary Alice Marshall. To be honest with you, I’m 54 years old and I don’t even know who Mary Alice Marshall was. I never met the lady while she was living a day in my life. - v - June 11, 2009 Obviously she was my aunt’s relative but for her to stake any claim on this property somebody would have to come back and say for the last 29 years that we owe the Bank’s family some part of the property taxes that they’ve been paying on this property. I understand this gentleman’s (Mr. Kyle) concern about the property. I have the pictures, the house is dilapidated and it needs to come down and it is truly an eye sore. I don’t know if 60 days is going to be enough time. What Mr. Byrd is doing, along with Attorney Dorsey is trying to go through a title company and see if there is any way, with the documents that I gave him that we can just get a clear cut title to this property so I can just get rid of it. That is all I want to do is get rid of it. Chairman Hildebrand: It seems to me that this makes our job a little more difficult. It seems certainly easy enough when Mr. Dorsey requested 60 days to accomplish the demolition of the property. That does seem reasonable to me and if Mr. Kyle would provide the access since there is no official easement to the property. If Mr. Kyle, as the adjacent owner, would agree to provide access and allow any possible encroachment on his property by the necessary equipment and trucks and so forth, it looks like we could resolve it readily and reasonably. Would that compromise your position if we proceed with the request that Mr. Dorsey made for this sixty day period to accomplish the demolition? Let’s say it gets implemented and accomplished, would that leave you hanging? Would that compromise your position in any way with what you hope to accomplish? Mr. Banks: From a financial standpoint, it would. If the City demolishes it then I am responsible for reimbursing the City of Salem in some way. I don’t want to speak for Mr. Byrd because once again, he is representing me and now Mr. Dorsey is representing me since my mother’s death, but Mr. Byrd put it to me like this, I don’t want to quote him out of context but he said I could just not pay the property tax at all and the City would own the property because ultimately me and my mother never owned the property anyway. It belongs to Mary Alice Marshall. He says that he doesn’t know why out of just the kindness of my heart or I just wanted to keep the property in my family. He said he didn’t know that he would have paid property taxes on property that he didn’t own for the last 29 years. He says that he doesn’t see the reason why my family did that. Mr. Yost: May I make a comment or two, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Dorsey: Or can I have a moment to speak with him (Mr. Banks) about a couple of issues? Chairman Hildebrand: Certainly. Mr. Yost: What I was going to say, listen to this. There are two ways to do this. One way if this gentleman’s family demolishes the property themselves, they are going to have to come up with cash money without having the property sold or these title problems resolved. So, they would have to put the money up front. I understand where he is coming from. I mean again, the other way to do it for the City to simply to do it and what happens in that case, the cost of it are merely assessed just like real estate taxes. It would simply be a lien on the land that ultimately, I presume, would be paid off when the title problems are resolved and the property is sold. That way the family would not have - vi - June 11, 2009 to put the money up front without having the property sold. That is one issue. The second issue that concerns me, or at least I think we need to get straight is the state code gives jurisdictions very broad authority where in situations, where of course, buildings, structures are so dangerous or so dilapidated that they can create a danger for the public in general. Under those circumstances, the state code says that the City can go in and demolish the property. That is about all it says but we have an extensive ordinance where we have taken this authority that has been granted to the locality by the state and there are notice requirements. Let me just point this out, and maybe Mr. Dorsey and some others can help us here. In our ordinance, it says of course, that we give notice and we do that primarily, there are various ways, but the preferred way is to have a Sheriff’s Department in the jurisdictions where the owners live to actually serve it on them, which is above and beyond of course regular first-class mail or certified mail. I think that was what was attempted to be done here. The problem, of course, is that based upon the records of the Clerk’s Office, and those again are determined by what private individuals file in the Clerk’s Office, we don’t have all of the names of all of these owners that may exist by virtue of death and inheritances over these many, many years. We only have what these folks have recorded and there apparently has been very little recorded related to who heirs at law are, etc. since the time of Mary Marshall’s death in 1965. So, I guess my concern is that, under our ordinance, it states that if we do not know who all the owners are or if as it states here, through reasonable diligence, we can’t find out, then what we are supposed to do under those circumstances is to post a notice on the premises. I don’t know whether any notice has been posted. Mr. Aldridge: Yes Mr. Yost: In addition to that, which we’ve done that, we are to give written notice by registered mail to all other owners that may become known to us. I guess my concern is Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Banks may be able to give us names of other individuals. You may want to consider, certainly Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Banks may want to talk a minute and that is up to you, but it seems like a reasonable request to me to try to work this thing out as amicably as we can. It would seem to me that whatever you do we should set this over. You could say we are going to give you, for example, an opportunity to do it yourself or to allow the City to do it but what we would also want to do in the interim before anything is torn down is to get any other additional names, set another meeting, and give notice to these other folks that Mr. Banks or Mr. Dorsey may be able to provide us names. I hope I haven’t confused things. Mr. Dorsey: I think that would be exactly our request, I appreciate that. I guess the other piece of the puzzle that I would like to know from Mr. Aldridge is, is there or do you have any idea if the City does it, how much will that cost? Mr. Aldridge: No I don’t. Typically what we do on that is we get three bids from three different contractors and we take it from there. We, the City, do not do it. Mr. Dorsey: I would like to make a formal request that this be set over for sixty days in an attempt to either resolve it or provide further information. - vii - June 11, 2009 Mr. Yost: What you all (Board) will first have to do is make a finding that the building is so dilapidated, decayed or unsafe as to become dangerous to the safety of the inhabitants of the City. I think that is appropriate because there appears to be no dispute whatsoever about that. Then I would suggest that you (Board) continue this meeting for a period of time in order to allow us to give notice to any individuals that Mr. Banks and Mr. Dorsey can provide to us. I am talking about maybe thirty days or something like that in which we would give these folks, and again, I don’t want to tear down somebody’s property if all of the owners that we know of at least, have not been notified that is what we are planning on doing unless they can come in here and tell us otherwise. Chairman Hildebrand: Alright, as I understand Mr. Yost, you are looking to this Board for two actions. One is to make a formal finding that the property is dilapidated and should be demolished. Mr. Yost: Yes Chairman Hildebrand: We need to make a motion Board Member Botts: I make a motion that we find that the property is dilapidated and such a danger that it be torn down. Chairman Hildebrand: Do we have a second? Board Member Frye: I second. ON MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER BOTTS, SECONDED AND AMENDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRYE, AND DULY CARRIED, the Board is of the opinion and it is accordingly so ordered that; a. The decision to deem the property as dilapidated is hereby acknowledged. David A. Botts Aye Robert S. Fry, III Aye Scott E. Gardner Aye John R Hildebrand Aye Mr. Yost: I think Mr. Kyle wanted to make a comment. Mr. Kyle: Yes, I’m not sure what the procedures are but the old issue of tearing down the property and safety issues have been taken care of here but the legal issues could go on and on for some time. I think, as I remember, some of Mrs. Marshall’s relatives are probably up in Maryland or up that way. That may be quite a long thing. My interest is that we need to, since it is unsafe and if you have seen the pictures and everything, it needs to be torn down. The legal issues and all of that is another thing there. We just need to demolish it. Board Member Gardner: I don’t think we are looking at extending this very far. I think the problem the Board is going to have is just determining who the owners of the property are. If I understand the code correctly, we just have to make a reasonable effort to determine who they are. We don’t have to have some full fledged legal determination. We don’t have to go to a court to determine who the owners are or have a title done. We just have to make a reasonable inspection of the records. - viii - June 11, 2009 Mr. Yost: I agree with Mr. Gardner. What I would suggest, Mr. Kyle, is I would tell Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Banks that if they’ve got any names of any potential owners and addresses, give them to us. If we don’t get them, I don’t know what other reasonable effort we could make other than that. Mr. Kyle: Well, it is my understanding that Mr. Dorsey has, I thought, had done that. Mr. Dorsey: I represented one potential or alleged owner. Mr. Yost: Well, and if he has done that, wonderful. We don’t have that information yet and we need to send a mailing for another meeting to any of those folks. Again, I wouldn’t think that meeting should be more than thirty days off. We don’t have to make an exhaustive search, as Mr. Gardner said. We don’t have to get a court determination. We have to use reasonable diligence to find out the names and addresses of these folks and to my way of thinking, reasonable diligence is to ask Mr. Banks and Mr. Dorsey to provide us with any information they may have. If they provide that information, we’ll give notice of another meeting. At that next meeting, what I would envision happening, either this Board would tell the City to immediately proceed to demolish it or to give Mr. Banks and the family a certain period of time to do it themselves. And, if they don’t do it by a particular date that the City would take it over. I would think that you are looking at sixty to ninety days at the most before it is demolished, one way or the other. Again, I am not a member of this Board but I am trying to be as fair and honest with everyone here at least from the City’s perspective on this. To me that seems like a reasonable way to approach it. As an attorney, I am real concerned that we give anyone who we know that might even have the slightest ownership interest notice of what we are doing and we are required to do that by the ordinance. Mr. Kyle: Sounds reasonable. Mr. Yost: If that is satisfactory, Mr. Chairman, I guess we just need to try to set a date. Chairman Hildebrand: We appreciate Mr. Kyle’s patience as he indicated in his previous remarks. This has been a problem for a long time for him and we appreciate you letting us carry this meeting over for thirty days anyway. Hopefully we can resolve and proceed with the demolition. I would like to ask Mr. Banks though, if you would have any objection if everything proceeds as the City Attorney has indicated here that we proceed with demolition if everything comes out as outlined. Mr. Dorsey: I think the only issue that in addition to providing the additional names of potential owners, which we certainly appreciate and we will diligently do as much as we know between Mr. Byrd, Mr. Banks and what I know, we will deliver to Mr. Yost any other potential names and addresses that we know of but the other issue is and I assume that Mr. Kyle is stating that access is not an issue and that we are allowed access to the property. Mr. Yost: For the purposes of the demolition. Mr. Dorsey: For the purposes of demolition, that we are allowed access to the property. There may be a prescriptive easement but there is no easement of record that I know of. In the interim, I’m going to discuss with Mr. Banks and he has got to assess whether his ownership interest, if he has any at all, is significant enough to front money to do this - ix - June 11, 2009 himself or to let the City do it. Obviously he understands he can either come back to the next proceeding or not and I will talk to him about that. He’s got more lawyers than he can swing a stick at so council can appear for him and represent his interest. If he wants to come back, he can or cannot. In the interim, if he wants to hire somebody or other members of his family want to hire somebody to come in there and demolish the thing, obviously that would resolve the issue. Board Member Botts: How long would it take, Mr. Banks to get these names to Mr. Yost? Mr. Dorsey: We are in attempt to do that in the next couple of weeks or so. Board Member Botts: I’d like to limit it to two weeks at the most to provide the names of any possible owners so we can get this thing moving. Mr. Dorsey: I think that is reasonable, I can work with Mr. Byrd and find out what he has on the title. I have title notes and it may be that we don’t know anything further than what is known but we can do that in a couple of weeks. Mr. Banks: The documentation for ownership is in my truck now. When I met with Mr. Byrd, he ran copies of everything so Mr. Dorsey can get with Mr. Byrd and they surely can get that to Mr. Yost sometime next week because it is already here is Salem. Mr. Dorsey: That shouldn’t be a problem. Chairman Hildebrand: But then the question becomes, what period should we continue this meeting? Should we still stick with the thirty days or should we revise the motion to incorporate in here an interim deadline for two weeks for the ownership data to be furnished to the City Attorney? Mr. Dorsey: Here is my only concern on that issue is, I don’t have any problem with the two weeks on the notice issues, that is fine. If Mr. Banks or anyone decides to go forward with the demolition on their own, all of us are familiar with construction trades and all of that, I just hate to put a thirty day deadline on that and then have them not be able to get somebody within thirty days. That is why I said sixty. Chairman Hildebrand: It is thirty days to continue, to have another meeting. Mr. Yost: Conceivably, at this next meeting, whether it is thirty days off or whatever, if the family wants to demolish, they can be given an additional thirty days at that time if they want to. It would be up to this Board to make that decision. Mr. Dorsey: Okay, then that answers that question. Board Member Botts: Does this have to be put to a motion? Mr. Yost: I would appreciate that, Mr. Botts, that they will provide that information to the City Attorney within two weeks and that the City Attorney and staff (the Building Official) will proceed to give notice of the meeting to any names of those individuals prior to the meeting. Chairman Hildebrand: My question was should we then continue a meeting to resolve this matter and put a deadline of thirty days on it? Mr. Yost: You could set the exact date right now if you know your schedules. If you don’t, it may take some coordination. Chairman Hildebrand: Mr. Botts, please go ahead. - x - June 11, 2009 Board Member Botts: I’d like to make a motion that we give Mr. Banks and his attorneys two weeks to provide the City Attorney the names of any possible owners so that we may contact them to see if they have any ownership interest in this property and that we will get the correspondence out to those owners to establish if they do have an interest. Mr. Yost: And to advise them of the date of the next meeting. Board Member Botts: And to advise of them of the date of the next meeting which will be somewhere around thirty days when we meet again. We will look at our calendars later to establish the actual date of that meeting for you to provide the prospective owners. And at that time, we will discuss further demolition talks. Mr. Yost: That is fine. Chairman Hildebrand: Do we have a second on that? Board Member Frye: Second ON MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER BOTTS, SECONDED AND AMENDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRYE, AND DULY CARRIED, the Board is of the opinion and it is accordingly so ordered that; b. The decision to give Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Banks two weeks to provide the City Attorney with any possible owners and addresses and also continue this meeting within on or about thirty days is hereby acknowledged. David A. Botts Aye Robert S. Fry, III Aye Scott E. Gardner Aye John R Hildebrand Aye Mr. Yost: We would also notify Mr. Banks, Mr. Dorsey, and Mr. Kyle of the date and time of that meeting. Board Member Botts: I assume that there is nothing stopping Mr. Banks from the interim if they demolish on their own to circumvent any further action. Mr. Yost: That is correct. Mr. Aldridge: If you do decide to do that before then, just have your demo contractor, whoever that may be to come to my office and we will issue a demo permit so then it will all be on the record as doing such. Mr. Dorsey: Yes Mr. Aldridge: And if it comes to that and you would like some contractor names that do demo work in this area, please get in touch with my office and we will provide names of who we have. Board Member Botts: It wouldn’t hurt for you to get an estimate anyway so you know what you are dealing with. Chairman Hildebrand: Thanks to everyone for their patience in trying to work through this. Mr. Dorsey: Thanks for all of your help. B. There were no other petitions presented before the Board. VI. PUBLIC ADDRESSES - xi - June 11, 2009 None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hildebrand adjourned at 10:13 a.m. ATTEST: John R. Hildebrand, Chairman Board of Building Appeals