Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/21/2023 - Building Appeal - Minutes -1 Board of Building Appeals September 21, 2023 Minutes A meeting of the Board of Building Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held on September 21, 2023, in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 4:00 p.m. concerning the dilapidated structures on the properties located at 702 Front Avenue and 2500 West Main Street in the City of Salem, Virginia. The Board—Robert Fry, III, David Botts, Nathan Routt, and Joe Driscoll; presided together with Troy D. Loving, Building Official; Jim Guynn, City Attorney, and Krystal M. Graves, Secretary; and the following business was transacted: It was noted that notice of such hearing was published in the September 7 and 14, 2023, issues of the Salem Times-Register, a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City of Salem. Secretary Graves called the meeting to order. Secretary Graves stated that the first item on the agenda is to elect a chair and noted that a chair is elected at the first meeting of the calendar year. ON A MOTION MADE BY MEMBER DRISCOLL, SECONDED BY MEMBER BOTTS AND DULY CARRIED, Nathan Routt was elected chairman – the roll call vote: all – aye. Secretary Graves stated that the next item on the agenda to be heard is 702 Front Avenue. Troy Loving, Building Official of the City of Salem, stated that the information in the packet that the City has been working with the property owner since March to try to get some resolution of the violation against Section 18-38 and asked the Board for guidance in the matter. The structures are next to the sidewalk and poses a threat of possibly falling on people. He stated that the property owner apparently has health issues and has been in and out of the hospital. It was noted that the property owner, nor a representative was present at the meeting. Member Botts noted that he has been going by the structure for approximately 30 years and it has not improved in condition in 30 years—it has only gotten worse. Mr. Loving stated that the owner has done some unpermitted work on the structures, and he has not been asked on the property to fully inspect the condition—he has only been able to look at the structures from the right-of-way. 2 A discussion was held regarding a timeline for repairs. ON MOTION MADE BY MEMBER BOTTS, SECONDED BY MEMBER FRY, AND DULY CARRIED, the property owner of the property located at 702 Front Avenue has 30 days from the date of the meeting to obtain a permit to repair the structures to the City’s acceptance and 60 days to complete the repairs – the roll call vote: all – aye. Secretary Graves stated that the next item on the agenda to be heard was 2500 West Main Street. Patrick Cooper, downtown Roanoke, Adams Construction and OVB Investments, appeared before the Board on behalf of Rick James. Member Botts stated that this is a major issue as there are a lot of buildings on the property that have not been touched, serviced, or maintained in nearly a decade. Fences are falling down, buildings are wide open for any vagrant or arsonist to go into. The property is a mess and questioned if there are any plans for the property. He noted that the correspondence states that there are plans, but nothing gets done. Mr. Cooper handed the Board a timeline of what has been done on the property since January of this year. He stated that he and Mr. James met with Salem Police on-site in January/February 2023 about what they can do to help the police. He further stated that after that he took charge of taking care of some loose ends—boarded up the main office building, placed no trespassing signs on the property, etc. to try to keep people off the property and giving the police department the ability to do something when they had to. He has cleaned up the property—removed brick debris, mobile trailers, etc. He has reached out to Griffith and WEL for estimates to demolish many of the buildings and just received a quote back this week, which he has not seen. The plan is to utilize some of the buildings as a shop, which was used as a main brick building in the center. Many of the metal roof building on the back of the property and a shed behind the main office are covered with steel structures that are being housed on the site. He further stated that they have heard the City, and they plan to move ahead with parts of the demolition as quickly as they can. He feels the property looks pretty good from the street. Member Driscoll questioned if the property was rented. Mr. Cooper stated that the property is not rented. Member Driscoll then questioned the trusses being stored on the property. Mr. Cooper stated that the trusses are just being stored on site until they can be moved and there is not a rental agreement that he is aware of but cannot say for certain. 3 Member Driscoll noted that there is some red fencing that has been destroyed and is laying on the property. Mr. Cooper stated that the fencing has been removed and noted that the sign on the property has been refurbished and is now a historic sign. He presented the Board with some recent drone photos of the property. Member Driscoll questioned why the fence was removed and not restored. Mr. Cooper stated that the fencing was beyond repair and was covering materials. Member Driscoll again asked about the large number of trusses on the property and if the property was being rented. Mr. Cooper stated that he could not say for sure, and it was probably an agreement before his time. Member Driscoll questioned if Mr. Cooper was notified each time someone was on the property to remove or place the trusses on site. Mr. Cooper stated that was handled more through Rick James than himself—could be an email, but he does not receive that correspondence. Member Driscoll noted that people are allowed to come and go on the property as they please. Mr. Cooper then stated that there is an agreement in place with the truss company that states what they can and cannot do, but he is not privy to the specifics. A discussion was held regarding the number of structures on the property— approximately ten with four needing to be demolished; the number of structures to be demolished in the proposal from WEL and Griffith; the buildings to be repaired and utilized by the company, asbestos reports, etc. Member Botts questioned if contact has been made with a scrap company for the scrap materials. Mr. Cooper stated that they scrap things all the time. Member Botts stated that he feels better about the property than he did initially, but the property is still wide open for anyone to wonder onto it. He questioned if a fence could be placed around the property until the demolition took place. Mr. Cooper stated that he just realized earlier today that a fence is what separates this lot from surrounding lots. Member Driscoll questioned if the company stored anything on the property other than the trusses from the other business. 4 Mr. Cooper stated that trucks and equipment are sometimes stored on the site. A discussion was held regarding the need for more time for the owner to review the proposals from WEL and Griffith to determine what can be done this year and into next year; what the Board can require of the property owner; and what information the Board needs, goal of the property, etc. Mr. Cooper stated that he plans to continue to clean up the property and would like another six months to clean up the property. A discussion was held regarding the safety of the property—buildings are wide open and accessible to the public, the need to secure the buildings and for a fence to be placed around the property or around the buildings to keep people out. Mr. Cooper questioned if Mr. Loving has walked onto the property and through the buildings. Troy Loving, Building Official of the City of Salem, stated that he has not ever been invited onto the property. He has only seen the property from the right-of-way. Mr. Cooper questioned if it would be beneficial for Mr. Loving to tour the property for a sounder decision to be made. Member Driscoll stated that public safety is the number one priority and questioned if it would be in the owner’s best interests to fence the property. Mr. Cooper stated yes for sections of the property. A discussion was held regarding a proposed motion to continue the item to a future date, to allow city officials on the site, timeline, safety, code compliance, etc. ON MOTION MADE BY MEMBER BOTTS, SECONDED BY CHAIR ROUTT, AND DULY CARRIED, the item was hereby continued until October 18, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. and the Building Official, Fire Marshall, and any other City official(s) be given a tour of the property prior to and a timeline/proposal of plans for the property is to be provided to the Board at the next meeting – the roll call vote: all – aye. There were no other items for discussion. ON MOTION MADE BY CHAIRMAN ROUTT, SECONDED BY MEMBER BOTTS, AND DULY CARRIED, the meeting was hereby adjourned at 4:43 p.m.