Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/24/2021 - Building Appeal - Minutes -1 Board of Building Appeals February 24, 2021 Minutes A meeting of the Board of Building Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held on February 24, 2021, in the Community Room at the Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 3:00 p.m. concerning the dilapidated structures on the property located at 329 Chestnut Street; the dilapidated structure on the property located at 625 Union Street; and to hear an appeal of the decision of the Building Official regarding the property located at 901 S. Colorado Street in the City of Salem, Virginia. The Board—Robert S. Fry, III; David A. Botts; Nathan A. Routt; and Chris Vaught; presided together with Troy D. Loving, Building Official; Jim Guynn, Interim City Attorney, and Krystal M. Graves, Secretary; and the following business was transacted: WHEREAS, it was noted that notice of such hearing was published in the February 4 and 11, 2021, issues of the Salem Times-Register, a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City of Salem. WHEREAS, Mr. Guynn called the meeting to order and requested that the Board elect a chairman; ON MOTION MADE BY MEMBER FRYE, SECONDED BY MEMBER ROUTT, AND DULY CARRIED, David Botts was elected Chairman of the Board for this meeting – roll call vote: all – aye. WHEREAS, Chairman Botts stated that the first item on the agenda to be heard is 329 Chestnut Street and asked if there was anyone present who would like to speak; and WHEREAS, Henry Duncan, property owner, appeared before the Board and stated that he is the caretaker of the house; it was left by his mother and father who passed away; he stated that he has not lived in the house for 10 years; he stated that the city has put dangerous signs on it; he’s paid all the taxes and utilities on the property; the utilities have been cut off to the property; he stated that it’s time to clean the house out and get what he needs; tear the house down; he further stated that he has 10-12 people come by and offer to buy the house, but no one has offered the price for the house; no one has offered to help him clean and vacate the house; all his brothers, sisters, cousins are gone so he has no one and he is in poor health; he stated that he met a gentleman a few minutes ago who says he would like to buy the house, but he does not know what else the gentleman can do to help him alleviate this problem; he asked the board if they have any questions; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts stated that he has read the reports; he has gone out and looked at the house and there are animal infestations in the shed and under the house; the 2 entries are unsecure, which presents a danger to the community; it’s an eyesore; he stated there is more than cosmetic damage to the house; he questioned when the property owner could either sell the property or have the house demolished; and WHEREAS, the property owner stated that there are four generations of household products in the house he has to do something with; he stated that he feels it would be best to tear the house down; he realizes the Board wants it done by a certain time, but he cannot say when he will have it done; he thanked the City for putting up with the property for as long as it has; he does not know what else is left to do with the property other than tearing it down; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts questioned the options the Board has at this point; and WHEREAS, the Building Official stated that the property is in violation of Section 18-38 of the City Ordinance which states the property either has to be repaired or demolished; and WHEREAS, Member Routt questioned if the property is sold, then the next person who purchases the property has the same issue; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts stated that if the property owner cannot afford to demolish the property, the City will demolish it and place a lien against the property; if the property was sold, it would be a liability on the property; he further stated that the first thing that needs to be done is to secure the property; the house is dangerous; and WHEREAS, the property owner questioned if securing the house meant boarding it up; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts confirmed that is what he meant; and WHEREAS, the property owner pointed out the gentleman interested in buying the property; and WHEREAS, Lewis Flowers appeared before the Board and stated he first met the property owner in 2008 and tried to purchase the house then, but the property owner did not want to sell the property at the time; he stated that he would like to buy the house, but he does not want to buy the place and then have to tear it down; he wants to fix the property like new; he stated that he had a property catch fire in 1985 and has been renting since 2008; he has lived in Salem for six years and he would like to buy the house and fix it up like new; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts questioned if the house is structurally sound; and WHEREAS, the Building Official stated that he has not been inside the house other than the basement; he stated that the basement flooded years ago and none of it was cleaned up so he is unsure if the structure has rotted or not; and 3 WHEREAS, Chairman Botts stated that just from an exterior view of the structure, there are parts that are not structurally sound—mainly the additions that were put onto the original house, the soffits are rotted out at the corners; and WHEREAS, Mr. Flowers stated that he has been in construction since 1967; he has outlived 28 drywall finishers and hangers in this area; he used to work for Acoustical Service for 31 years; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts questioned if he had been inside the house recently; and WHEREAS, Mr. Flowers stated that he has not ever been inside the house; he has seen it from the sidewalk, but has never been inside it; he stated again that he would like to buy the house and property without having to tear the house down and fix it up like new; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts questioned if it’s a possibility to repair the house; and WHEREAS, the Building Official stated that it is a possibility but he did not know how long the Board would give him to repair the house; and WHEREAS, Member Routt questioned if a price for the property has been agreed upon; and WHEREAS, Mr. Flowers stated that a price has not been agreed upon; and WHEREAS, Member Routt questioned how soon he would be able to close on the property; and WHEREAS, Mr. Flowers stated he could close in two days if the property owner wants to sell the property; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts questioned if Mr. Flowers could make a commitment in writing to bring the house up to code; and WHEREAS, Mr. Flowers stated that he would and that the property would look like new; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts questioned how long it would take Mr. Flowers to repair the house; and WHEREAS, Mr. Flowers stated that he could have it repaired within two months if the property owner wants to sell it; and WHEREAS, the property owner stated that he would be willing to sell the property if Mr. Flowers offered a decent price; he stated the house is worth about half a million dollars in 4 taxes—40 for the land and 10 for the house; he further stated that everyone around the property has sold their houses and tore them down to build condominiums; he feels that whoever buys the house would tear the house down and put at least four condominiums on the property that would sell for $75,000 to $85,000 each; that’s his thinking on it is that he’ll sell his property for half a million dollars, then the buyer will make $10-$12 million on it; he stated that it doesn’t add up to him, but that is where we’re at right now—tear the house down, haul it off, build big condominiums; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts stated that the Board cannot tell what is going to happen in the future with the sale of the house or demolition of the house; the Board is presented with a case where the house either has to be repaired or demolished; the Board doesn’t know if Mr. Flowers is going to buy the house or not; the Board cannot keep this going month after month; and WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding repairing the house, etc.; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the public hearing; ON A MOTION MADE BY CHAIRMAN BOTTS, SECONDED BY MEMBER FRY, AND DULY CARRIED, the property must be secured with 15 days; if the building permits with plans are not applied for within 60 days, the City will demolish the structure on the property with the costs borne by the owner of said property – the roll call vote: all – aye. WHEREAS, Chairman Botts stated that the next item on the agenda to be heard is 625 Union Street and asked if there was anyone present who would like to speak; and WHEREAS, Frank Staley Hester, Jr., President of Hester Coal and Oil Corporation, which is still an active corporation even though it does not deliver products; the corporation is the property owner; he stated that the property is emotional to him; the building was used as office and storage for W. R. Hester Coal Company; in 1964 a new building was built and the business operation was actually moved over; he has documentation where a railhead was put in back in 1906 and he assumes that the building was built sometime in that vicinity; he is sure the building has already passed its relevant business purpose but it has meaning to him and his family; it represents the family’s past business interest in serving the people of the Salem community; up until now, he has been unable to come up with a plan for a future purpose if the building was rehabbed; therefore, that is why he is present now and why he did not respond to certain things as he has not been able to come up with an acceptable business plan to rehab the building; at this point, he has contacted the City offices and obtained a copy of a demolition permit, he’s contacted a demolition company but does not have a contract; he has also contacted a company that does asbestos surveys; he further stated that his definition of worry is the inability to come up with an acceptable solution for your problems and that’s where he finds himself; he further stated that he has been a resident of the City of Salem all his life and the City has a reputation of not harassing their businesses or their residents unless provoked; he thinks there is a noticeable relationship in the influence of people don’t think it’s “pretty” to 5 them; he feels there has been some influences recently within the City of Salem and he does not know how significant those influences are; he then questioned the Board if each of them have view the building and their opinion of the building; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts stated that he used to work right next to the building in an industrial complex on the other side of the railroad track and has seen the building for over 30 years; he stated that he likes history, but there does come a point in time when you have to either repair or remove for the safety of the community; he would love to see the building at least brought to the point where it could stand on its own again; he further stated that he has been in Salem for almost half his life now; he likes the community; he likes the older structures, but the Board has to respond to complaints; it comes down to demolishing the building or if you can say that within six months you will clean it up and make it structurally sound; he does not know what the property owner is going to do or can do, but he knows what the Board is tasked with; and WHEREAS, Member Vaught stated that he drives by the property frequently as he lives in the Karen Hills area and pass it driving back and forth; his background is in structural engineering; he stated that when he drives by it and sees it, especially the settlement in the back of the building, he is curious to see how long the building will stay up; his concern is the structural safety of the building, not aesthetics; the Board has to make sure the structure is safe for the community and whoever is around; and WHEREAS, Member Routt stated that he has seen the building since he was born and is very familiar with the building; he feels the building is beautiful, has a great history, has a lot of character, and you can see the past potential; he stated that the structural integrity of the building is why we’re here today, but it’s either repair or demolish; it is up to the property owner to decide; he can see the potential in the building, but it will take a lot of work to repair; and WHEREAS, Member Fry stated that he is familiar with the building and has been for most of his life; he feels it is a credit to Salem and its history; personally he would like for the building to stay intact, but from the standpoint of making a decision the board only has two choices—either make it structurally sound and safe or demolish the building; and WHEREAS, Member Routt questioned if the property owner was leaning more toward repairing or demolishing the structure; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hester stated that he does not have a vision of what can be done with the building to make it cost effective to bring it up to standard; he stated that he appreciates the Board’s vision and that it is not just the “snowball” that is going through Salem; it is a very difficult time during the pandemic; he had one contractor working for him on an apartment complex in March who just left and did not come back until November; he doesn’t appreciate this issue being brought to him at this particular time; it is going to be very costly and he is not looking forward to that; the safety of the structure is what concerns him; he has not been able 6 to come up with a decision of what to do with the property; he then asked if the Board had any questions; and WHEREAS, Member Fry asked how long the property owner felt was a reasonable amount of time to make a decision and move forward; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hester stated 90 days would be sufficient; he further stated that if the structure was brought back to its former self, it would still be a wooden building with no plumbing in it and he does not know what it could be used for; and WHEREAS, Member Routt questioned where Mr. Hester was in conversation with the contractor; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hester stated that a price was given, but other fees and reports needed were unknown; and WHEREAS, there was a discussion regarding asbestos—what is asbestos, removal, etc.; materials in the structure; timeline for demolition, etc.; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hester stated that this is emotional to him as it’s part of his family’s history, but he knows there is some risk to passersby on the front side of the property; and WHEREAS, Member Routt noted that Mr. Hester has been dealing with this from the City since October 2020, and questioned if Mr. Hester is resolved to demolition of the building; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hester stated that he hasn’t resolved to demolishing the building, but does not know what other choice he has at this point; and ON A MOTION MADE BY CHAIRMAN BOTTS, SECONDED BY MEMBER ROUTT, AND DULY CARRIED, the owner of the property at 625 Union Street will submit concrete plans for renovation or apply for a demolition permit within 90 days; if no action has taken place within 90 days, the City will proceed with demolition of the structure with the costs borne by the owner of the property – the roll call vote: all – aye. WHEREAS, Chairman Botts stated that the next item on the agenda to be heard is 901 S. Colorado Street and asked if there was anyone present who would like to speak; and WHEREAS, Danny Carter, property owner, appeared before the Board; and WHEREAS, it was noted that the property owner would like to separate the property into two separate parcels; there are currently two structures on the property that are 19 feet apart; and 7 WHEREAS, Member Routt questioned when the plat was submitted; and WHEREAS, Mr. Carter stated the plat was drawn a few weeks ago; he stated that the Building Official tried to work with him, but per the Building Code the buildings needed to be 30 feet apart; he further stated that he appealed the decision of the Building Official because the buildings have been there “forever” and if you divide the lot, it doesn’t change anything; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts noted that dividing the lot does make the building available for separate sale; he stated that there is a reason for fire rating between buildings; because of the closeness of the structures, fire rating is necessary; and WHEREAS, Mr. Carter stated that one building is cinderblock and the other building is concrete from about 8-10 feet so he feels like there is some fire rating; he does understand, but he is not building or moving anything; therefore, he feels the property would be “grandfathered” because he isn’t doing anything other than splitting the lot; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts stated that he feels the key issue is that it makes the property available for separate sale; another owner could come in and it would place the burden on the next owner; and WHEREAS, Mr. Carter stated that the buildings cannot be 30 feet apart; and WHEREAS, Chairman Botts stated that the walls could be fire-rated; and WHEREAS, Member Routt questioned what the property was zoned and if the zoning of the property is what required it to be fire-rated; and WHEREAS, the Building Official stated that is depends on what use groups are in the building and the construction type of each building; he stated the property owner didn’t know what would be in the buildings; the fire resistance construction, according to the table in the code book, is anything less than 10 feet and more than 10 feet up to 30 feet has to be fire rated according to use groups; since the property owner did not know what use group would be in the buildings, it had to be one-hour rating based on the chart; and WHEREAS, Member Routt noted that the buildings are 20 feet apart and the minimum is 30 feet; and WHEREAS, the Building Official stated that the measurement is from the property line, not the distance between the buildings; the property owner wants to move the property line to where the buildings are 9.5 feet away from the property line; and WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding code requirements, building distances, zoning requirements, etc.; and 8 WHEREAS, it was noted that the property is zoned Light Manufacturing; and WHEREAS, Member Routt questioned if Mr. Carter knew what he wanted to do with the property; and WHEREAS, Mr. Carter stated that part of it is rented and he plans to renovate the former Hickson Lock building, but he is not sure what would go into the building; he further stated that he spoke with the Zoning Office before he had the plat drawn up and was told there wasn’t an issue so he had the plat drawn up, spent $2,400 to have the property surveyed and a new plat drawn up to only find out there is an issue; he has spent $3,000 during this process (including fees to appeal) and feels there should be a different process in place to prevent this from happening; and WHEREAS, the Building Official noted that zoning is separate from building inspections; things go through zoning first before it comes to his office; and WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding zoning, etc.; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared before the Board; ON MOTION MADE BY CHAIRMAN BOTTS, SECONDED BY MEMBER FRY, AND DULY CARRIED, the request to separate the property into two parcels was denied – the roll call vote: all – aye. ON MOTION MADE BY CHAIRMAN BOTTS AND DULY CARRIED, the meeting was hereby adjourned at 3:53 p.m.