Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/29/2024 - Building Appeal - Minutes -Board of Building Appeals May 29, 2024 Minutes A meeting of the Board of Building Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held on, May 29, 2024, in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 4:00 p.m. concerning the dilapidated accessory structure on the property located at 702 Front Avenue in the City of Salem, Virginia. The Board— Nathan Routt, Robert Fry III, Patrick Snead, and Steve Poff; presided together with Troy D. Loving, Building Official; Krystal M. Graves, Secretary, and Tammy Dunn; the following business was transacted: It was noted that the item was continued from the September 21, 2023, meeting. Nathan Routt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Tammy Dunn stated that the first item on the agenda was to hear the case of the dilapidated accessory structure located at 702 Front Avenue. Tammy Dunn stated that there was old business. The minutes from t he previous meeting were presented. Robert Fry III, made a motion to approve the minutes. Nathan Routt seconded the motion. Tammy Dunn called the role: Patrick Snead; Aye, Robert Fry III; Aye, Nathan Routt; Aye, and Steve PoJ; Aye. Nathan Routt acknowledged that no one representing 702 Front Avenue was present. Mr. Routt then asked Troy Loving to give a brief summary, in his words, of what he would like done today at this meeting. Troy Loving stated that the City had given as much time as it could to see if anyone was going to try and fix, tear down, or even sell the property. The owners of the property had put ratchet straps on the structure trying to hold it together. Emails were exchanged between the owner/beneficiary asking them to be at the meeting. Nobody showed up or emailed me back. Nathan Routt asked what the last conversation was between Mr. Loving and Mr. Mathews. Rather to tear the structure down or fix it. Mr. Loving stated that Mr. Mathews said he was going to tear it down. Mr. Routt asked Mr. Loving if the owner/beneficiary was going to sell the property. Mr. Loving answered with a yes, and the owner/ beneficiary stated that it had been sold. Mr. PoJ asked what would be done in the interim, to the transfer of the deed. Mr. Loving stated that it would become the new owners’ responsibility and the case would have to start all over again. Mr. Fry, to clarify asked if Mr. Loving had not heard anything from the owner/beneficiary. Mr. Loving answered he had not heard anything. According to the City’s GIS system the property was still in the name of the owner/beneficiary. Mr. Routt wanted to know if the motion was made today whatever happens, happens. If the property is sold, then the order is to transfer to the new owners. Mr. Loving stated that he didn’t know the answer. That would be a question for the City Attorney, who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Fry made a motion to tear the accessory structure down in 30 days max. Mr. Loving asked if the board wanted him to send out another letter giving the current owner/beneficiary 30 days to obtain a demo permit and tear it down. Mr. Routt wanted to know if it could be a short window of time for tearing the accessory structure down. Mr. Loving stated that a 30-day notice in writing had to be given. Mr. Routt seconded the motion. Mr. Routt stated that the owner/beneficiary has 30 days from the date to tear down the accessory structure. Mr. Snead questioned the fact that this accessory structure was helping to contain what was is going on in the back yard and would tearing down this structure cause a future concern. Mr. Loving answered yes, then it would be a zoning issue. Mr. Loving questioned the board about what to do, or what would happen if the property were to be sold. Mr. Fry stated that the accessory structure had been a eyesore for so long the board needs to take positive action and no matter what may or may not happen needs to be ignored and the plan needs to be to tear it down. The response is not ours, it is somebody else’s. Mr. Fry stated that if the owner/beneficiary sells it, that consideration needs to be given that this accessory structure is going to be torn down, or that contract is going to go to pieces. That is not the board’s responsibility. Tammy Dunn made clarification that only one dilapidated accessory structure was going to be demolished. The motion is to read that the board is giving 30 days, until June 28, 2024 for the owner/beneficiary or future buyer to demolish the white accessory structure with the ratchet straps holding it together. Mr. Routt seconded the motion. Tammy Dunn called roll: Mr. Snead; Aye, Mr. Fry; Aye, Mr. Routt; Aye, and Mr. PoJ; Aye. Mr. Routt closed the meeting at 4:09 p.m.