Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/2023 - Building Appeal - Minutes -1 Board of Building Appeals October 18, 2023 Minutes A meeting of the Board of Building Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held on October 18, 2023, in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 4:00 p.m. concerning the dilapidated structures on the property located at 2500 West Main Street in the City of Salem, Virginia. The Board—Robert Fry, III, David Botts, Nathan Routt, Joe Driscoll, and John Hildebrand; presided together with Troy D. Loving, Building Official; Chris Dadak on behalf of City Attorney Jim Guynn, and Krystal M. Graves, Secretary; and the following business was transacted: It was noted that the item was continued from the September 21, 2023, meeting. Secretary Graves called the meeting to order. Chair Routt noted that the item was continued in order to obtain more details on the property located at 2500 West Main Street--there were a lot of questions that could not be answered at the previous meeting. He stated that the Board would like to know what the property owners intend to do in order to bring the property into code compliance and/or demolition; and a timeline for the work to be done. Rick James, President of Adams Construction Company and owner of the property, OVB Investments, appeared before the Board and stated that he has two proposals that have been a long time coming. He then gave a history of the property: it was purchased in 2015 as part of an auction where the property was auctioned off separately from the contents of the buildings. A variety of methods and means were done to remove the contents of the buildings which left the property in a less than perfect condition. It was the intent at that time, with scrap prices being optimal to go ahead and demolish the structures marked with a red “x” on the aerial photo given to the Board. Pursuant to that, an asbestos survey was conducted and removed; and a demolition permit was obtained. The City advised that we speak to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). DEQ stated at that time that they wanted a full comprehensive survey. The site is almost 17 acres in size and DEQ wanted contour plans, full erosion and sediment control plans, etc. It was approximately $50,000 to obtain the information DEQ requested. He did not see the point to go through that when the buildings could be removed without touching the foundations. At that time, the City would not allow the demolition to move forward without the approval from DEQ. He stated that he continued to speak with demolition contractors since then, but the price of scrap has “tanked” and then COVID happened, and it has been hard to find someone willing to do the job. Due to the current price of scrap, it is a sizeable investment to pursue a demolition plan. He does have a contractor he is proposing to use. In speaking with the contractor, he stated that his timeline is 2 approximately 30 days to begin the project with a total of 90 to 120 days to complete the project. Member Driscoll questioned if the 90 to 120 days was for every building marked in red on the paper in their packet. Mr. James confirmed that is what the contractor told her. Chair Routt questioned if Buildings 6, 7, & 8 on the paper submitted—the three long buildings on the property were the only buildings to remain on the site. Mr. James confirmed those buildings are to remain, as well as the office structure. Chair Routt clarified that the demolition contractor has the scope of work to demolish the buildings marked down to the ground without disturbing the soil. Mr. James confirmed that was correct, and he has not signed a contract with the contractor due to this meeting. He wanted to make sure the proposal addressed the Board’s concerns. Member Botts stated that his biggest concern is the safety and security of the property. He noted that the photos show where people have had access to the property who should not have access. There are a lot of pits in the buildings and if someone is on the property in the dark trying to find a place to spray paint of stay for the night and they could fall into one and get hurt or killed. He feels the safety issue needs to be addressed. He would like for a fence to be placed around the property, even temporarily, until the property is cleaned up. Mr. James stated that he has met with the police department on several occasions and was advised to post the property, which gives the police the authority to enforce, and give the police the authority to prosecute. He did what was the police department advised and he remains in contact and communication with the department, and he is not aware of any serious incident since then. The concerns that police department had have been addressed, and he has tried to be responsive to the concerns. Member Driscoll questioned if anyone was found to be living on the property. Mr. Loving stated that they did not find anyone living on the property. Chair Routt questioned if the buildings that are to remain on the property are code compliant. Mr. Loving stated that the structures would need to be upgraded. 3 Mr. James stated that they plan to utilize the remaining structures as storage for equipment in the winter months. Mr. Loving stated that the buildings would have to be secure and noted that it is all open along the left side and asked if the open area would be framed back in and enclosed like it was before so that the building would be secure. Mr. James stated that there have not been any building modifications done since the property was acquired by OVB Investments, and the previous business operated out of the structures as an on-going business. He stated that it is no more difficult to access the property now than it was when it was an on-going business. Mr. Loving stated that plans will need to be submitted that show what plans to be done on the property. Mr. James stated that a potential industrial use tenant could potentially rehabilitate the structures but feels that it would not be prudent to remove the structures at this time. Chair Routt noted that the Board’s role is to reinforce the building code and it is the Building Official’s job to make sure structures and properties are code compliant. He stated that Mr. James will need to work out the code compliance issues of the remaining structures with Mr. Loving the Building Official. Mr. Loving stated that the electrical service to the remaining structures would have to be upgraded as there currently is not any electrical service to the buildings. Mr. James questioned if the electrical would have to be upgraded just to store equipment in the structures and perform routine maintenance on the equipment. Mr. Loving stated that security lighting would be required around the structures, and interior lighting would be required for people to be able to see inside the building. Chair Routt questioned if the demolition contractor has plans to fill the pits located in the structures as part of the demolition process. Mr. James stated that it would be his expectation that the pits would be filled in on the property as part of the demolition process. He also stated that he is perplexed about the lighting and electrical requirements for the remaining structures. Member Frye asked Mr. James if he had a clear proposal on what was going to be done on the property. Mr. James stated that no, he does not have a clear proposal. He does have a proposal from a contractor, but he does not have a written proposal to give to the Board at this time. 4 Mr. Frye stated that he is looking for a proposal from the owners on what the plans are for the property. A discussion was held regarding a timeline for the demolition. No other person(s) appeared related to the item. ON MOTION MADE BY MEMBER BOTTS, SECONDED BY CHAIR ROUTT, AND DULY CARRIED, the property owner was given 30 days to obtain a demolition permit to demolish the structures except for Buildings 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as shown on photo submitted, 180 days to complete the demolition of the structures (buildings only, not foundations); the debris removed, and the remaining structures will be secured and brought into code compliance – the roll call vote: all – aye. Secretary Graves noted that the owner of 702 Front Avenue passed away October 14, 2023, and his family has been in contact with Mr. Loving regarding the depilated structure and requested an additional 30-45 days to address the matter. Chair Routt asked Mr. Loving to work with the family. 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 4:29 p.m.