CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board Meeting November 8, 2016

Transcription

1 CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board Meeting The Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board met in formal session at 3:00 P.M., Tuesday,, in the Alcazar Room at City Hall. The meeting was called to order by Clyde M. Taylor, III, Vice Chairman, and the following were present: 1. ROLL CALL Clyde Taylor, Vice Chairman Martha Mickler John Capra Stephen Simmons Dennis Wissel Judi Schuyler, Chair - absent Staff Present: Denise May, Esq., Assistant City Attorney David Birchim, Director, Planning & Building Department Richard Schauland, Code Enforcement Manager & Building Official Curtis Boles, Code Enforcement Inspector Robert van Mierop, Code Enforcement Inspector Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator, Recording The City staff was sworn in. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (September 13, 2016) MOTION Mr. Capra moved to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wissel and approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS in reference to the property at 125 Washington Street. Public hearing was opened, however there was no response. 4. VARIANCES/TREE REMOVAL None. 5. REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY HEARD CASES Mrs. Mickler, Mr. Capra, and Mr. Taylor all disclosed that they had received a letter from George Gardner

2 Item 5 (a) The Horn, LLC , , , , , , and Sunset Point City Code, Chapter 8, Section Release of Lien, Paid in full. Mr. van Mierop reported the following: The properties at Sunset Point were brought before this Board for unsafe conditions on January 13, 2015 and April 14, 2015, at which time the Board found the properties to be in violation and a fine in the amount of $1, was imposed in the form of a lien for administrative costs attached to the case. On October 24, 2016, payment in the amount of $ was received within the Planning and Building Department for said fine/lien. Staff requested the Board issue an order releasing lien and closing case for compliance. Public comment was opened, however there was no response. MOTION Mr. Wissel moved to approve releasing lien and closing case for compliance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Capra and approved by unanimous voice vote. 2 Item 5 (b) Norita D. McSwain 66 Julia Street City Code, Chapter 8, Section & Unsafe building abatement and permit required. Mr. Boles reported the following: On February 6, 2016 the structure at 66 Julia Street was destroyed by a fire. On February 12, 2016 the property owner obtained a demolition permit to remove the unsafe structure, that permit was valid for 180 days. In the subsequent months that followed, Code Enforcement opened a case in an attempt to bring the property into compliance, but was unsuccessful. On August 18, 2016, once the demolition permit had expired and with no work having been completed, an Official Notice of Hearing for September 13, 2016 was sent via Certified Mail, that notice was returned unclaimed. Additionally but to no avail, two attempts were made to hand deliver said notice to the owners last known address. A Posting Affidavit for the September 13, 2016 CEAAB Hearing was posted at both the property and City Clerk s Office. On September 12, 2016 Mrs. McSwain contacted Code

3 Enforcement Officer, Mr. Noel Mahr, giving notice that the property had been foreclosed and was now owned by the bank. On September 13, 2016 the Board continued the case to allow for proper noticing to be given to the new owner. Staff recommended the Board close case due to the property being foreclosed upon and now under new ownership. Mr. Taylor asked if it were just a formality to close the case to allow a new case to be opened under the new ownership. Mr. Capra asked for clarification as to why the Board was being asked to close the case. Mr. Boles responded that staff was requesting that the case be closed to allow for the hearing of a new case for the current owner. Mr. Simmons asked for clarification as to why the property had remained in an unsafe condition and why so much time had been allowed to take down a building that was already gone. Mr. Schauland responded that the original owner was issued a demolition permit and according to the building code that permit is valid for 180 days, that owner did not do anything within that 180 days and staff could not bring the case to the Board before the permit had expired. Once the permit expired staff was then able to bring the case to the Board. Mr. Simmons questioned that in this particular case, where we have a relatively unsafe building, the property owner can negate from doing anything for 179 days. Mr. Schauland replied affirmative. Public comment was opened, however there was no response. MOTION Mrs. Mickler moved to close case due to the property being under new ownership. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wissel and approved by unanimous voice vote. 6. REVIEW OF NEW CASES Item 6 (a) US Bank, NA/C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset 66 Julia Street City Code, Chapter 8, Section & Unsafe building abatement and Permit required. Mr. Boles reported the following: On February 6, 2016 the structure at 66 Julia Street was destroyed by a fire. On February 12, 2016 the property owner obtained a 3

4 demolition permit to remove the unsafe structure, that permit was valid for 180 days. In the subsequent months that followed, Code Enforcement opened a case in an attempt to bring the property into compliance but was unsuccessful. On August 18, 2016 once the demolition permit had expired and with no work having been completed, an Official Notice of Hearing for September 13, 2016 was sent via Certified Mail, that notice was returned unclaimed. Additionally but to no avail, two attempts were made to hand deliver said notice to the owners last known address. A Posting Affidavit for the September 13, 2016 CEAAB Hearing was posted at both the property and City Clerk s Office. On September 12, 2016 Mrs. McSwain contacted Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Noel Mahr, giving notice that the property had been foreclosed and was now owned by the bank. On September 13, 2016 the Board continued the case to allow for proper noticing to be given to the new owner. On September 13, 2016 an Official Notice of Confirmation of Action and Official Notice of CEAAB Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and via to the address provided by US Bank. Certified return receipt stamped by Rob Konesey was received by 4 the City of St. Augustine/Planning and Building Department. On October 28, 2016, US Bank hired contractor Progressive Builders of Central Florida and obtained a demolition permit for the removal of the unsafe structure. Staff requested that the Board stay the case 60 days or to date certain of January 10, 2017 to allow for the abatement/demolition of the unsafe structure. Mr. Simmons expressed concern that the property had been in an unsafe status for nearly one year and questioned whether the Board should stay the case when the new owner had been issued a permit that was valid for 180 days and would not expire until March Adding that once the permit was issued, technically the violation ceases when they apply for the demolition permit. Mr. Taylor commented that they were cited for having an unsafe building and so if the Board found violation, they could approve the City to abate the property. Mr. Schauland commented that staff was expecting the bank would proceed as they had a contractor, whereas the previous owner had not, and was looking to abate the property themselves. So staff was looking for the Board to continue for sixty days to allow for the work to be completed.

5 Mr. Capra questioned why the Board would stay the case when the permit would allow for 180 days to comply. Mr. Taylor commented that the City could abate the property themselves, but were requesting time to allow the new owner to correct the violation. Mr. Boles addressed the Boards concerns outlining that the new owners should not be penalized by the behavior of the previous owner. Noting that Permit had been issued for the demolition of the unsafe structure. And that he had visited the property and found that the contractor had a roll-off dumpster present. Public hearing was opened, however there was no response. MOTION Mr. Capra moved to continue the case to date certain of January 10, 2016 to allow the new owners to abate the unsafe conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Simmons and approved by unanimous voice vote. Item 6 (b) Michael R. Falkner 22 Clark Street City Code, Chapter 8, Section City Code, Chapter 19, Section 19-4 Unsafe building abatement and certain growth prohibited. 5 Mr. Boles reported the following: On June 14, 2016, staff received a complaint from Mrs. Billingsley of the unsafe conditions of the structure. On June 15, 2016, he visited the site and found that the house appeared abandoned and in a dilapidated state; the grass was overgrown with very little junk and debris; the building roof had a gaping hole of 10 x 10 or an approximate 100 square feet; the electrical service line was in disrepair with meter-can needing to be removed or repaired. On June 22, 2016 an Official Notice of Violation giving thirty days to correct was sent via certified mail to Michael Falkner with certified mail return receipt signed for on July 14, On July 8, 2016, staff received a second complaint regarding the dilapidated state of the above mentioned property from Ms. Jones, who believed the City was responsible for the abatement of conditions. He then explained that Ms. Jones came into this case by way of grant of easement. On July 11, 2016 staff received an from Ms. Jones related to other city issues, and was given a contact number for Mr. Falkner. On July 12, 2016, Ms. Jones received an Official Notice of Violation for the property of 22 Clark Street in which she

6 contacted the city requesting a retraction from the notice of violation. Staff explained to Ms. Jones that she had received a notice simply because her name appeared as the grantee on the grant of easement in county records. On September 14, 2016, an Official Notice of Hearing for the October 11, 2016 CEAAB hearing was sent via certified mail to Mr. Falkner and Ms. Jones. Return receipt for that notice was received and signed by Michael Falkner on October 11, 2016; and by Ms. Jones on September 16, On October 11, 2016, staff placed a telephone call to both Mr. Falkner and Ms. Jones to notify them that the CEAAB hearing had been canceled due to Hurricane Matthew, and advised them that the property would be placed on the CEAAB agenda. On October 11, 2016, staff posted the Alcazar Room with a notice that the CEAAB hearing had been cancelled and that all cases to have been heard that day would be moved to the CEAAB agenda. On October 28, 2016, the property at 22 Clark Street and the City Clerk s Office were posted with a Posting Affidavit of the CEAAB hearing. 6 Staff requested the Board find the case in non-compliance and issue an order approving an open abatement to allow the City to have the property cleared of overgrown weeds and grass and to board the structure as needed. He reported that Ms. Jones had provided him with a letter, which he read into the record and then handed to the recording secretary. Mr. Taylor clarified that the Board was hearing two issues on this property, the overgrown weeds and grass, and the unsafe structure. He also asked Mr. Boles if the structure was occupied, and if he had any direct contact with the property owner. Mr. Boles confirmed that was correct, and reported that the property was vacant and that he had no direct contact with Mr. Falkner. Mr. Simmons asked if the property could be rehabilitated or if staff was seeking demolition. Mr. Boles responded that he would recommend demolition. Mr. Capra asked Mr. Boles to clarify if Ms. Jones was responsible for the violations on the property. Mr. Boles explained that she was only noticed due to having easement access for utilities.

7 Mr. Simmons asked Mrs. May if the cost of the mitigation would come in the form of a lien on the property. Mrs. May replied affirmative. Mr. Simmons posed the question that when this case came back before the Board, do we start the abatement lien now for repairs and then proceed further in say a year. And would this lien place the owner on notice that the Board was serious. Mr. Birchim explained that staff was seeking an open abatement to allow the City to have the property abated as needed, and so as not to have to bring before the Board each time further abatement was required. He further explained that eventually when the value of the lien exceeds the assessed value of the property, we would have the option to auction the house off at the courthouse steps to recover our lien. But if that happened, it would be down the road. Mr. Capra asked if staff would keep a total of abatement costs on the property. Mr. Birchim explained the process of placing the property abatement out for bid, adding that the cost would be placed in the form of a lien. Mrs. May also explained the abatement/lien process to the Board. Mr. Taylor asked how the Board could determine a cost or scope of abatement work for the property when they had not entered the property. Mr. Capra stated that the scope of work requested was for the removal of weeds and grass, and the boarding up of the structure to remove the open to trespass condition. Mr. Taylor asked why a fine had not been recommended to the Board rather than an open abatement. Mr. Simmons commented that the case should be broken down into two sections; First, to impose a fine, and second, for a time certain for the placing the abatement out for bid. Mr. Taylor clarified the abatement process to the other Board Members. Mrs. Mickler questioned why the Board was not imposing a fine, because otherwise the burden of responsibility would fall on the City. Mr. Taylor added that staff was looking to have the property abated so as to clear up the violations on the property. Mr. Simmons asked what time staff would anticipate abatement. Mr. Birchim replied that giving the hurricane and contractors being inundated with work, a realistic time would be days. Mr. Taylor added that a fine would motivate the owner. 7

8 Mr. Simmons commented that should the Board order an open abatement to the City that would place the burden on the City. Mr. Taylor replied that the ordering of abatement would clear the property sooner than the process of fining. Public hearing was opened, however there was no response. MOTION Mr. Wissel moved to find violation allowing ten (10) days for compliance or a fine in the amount of $50 per day be imposed for each day of continued violation. And further ordered a continual open abatement to allow the city to monitor and maintain the property as needed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Simmons and approved by unanimous voice vote. Item 6 (c) Russell and Anita Thomas 125 Washington Street City Code, Chapter 8, Section City Code, Chapter 28, Section & Demolition without a permit, and without HARB approval. Mr. Schauland reported the following: On May 21, 2015, HARB heard case number F for the 8 demolition of 125 Washington Street, and denied the Certificate of Demolition. On October 1, 2015, a Demolition Permit was issued for exploratory interior demo. On November 6, 2015, a Building Permit was issued to lift cottage to determine foundation repairs. The permit had been amended several times to include new masonry pier foundation, replace existing sill beams, and to rebuild first floor and construct new second floor. On June 22, 2016, the Thomas contractor, Mr. John Valdes, requested an Emergency Demolition Permit from staff. The permit was denied and Mr. Valdes was advised to request a Certificate of Demolition from the HARB. On or after June 22, 2016, the residential building at 125 Washington Street, a building that was constructed in 1922 and contributing to the Lincolnville National Register Historic District, was demolished without a Certificate of Demolition from the Historical Architectural Review Board (HARB) or a Demolition Permit. On July 8, 2016, the Thomas made an application for an afterthe-fact Certificate of Demolition to the HARB. On August , the HARB considered an after-the-fact Certificate of Demolition and continued the case until the

9 September 15, 2016 meeting for additional information. On September 15, 2016, the HARB denied the after-the-fact Certificate of Demolition. Staff recommended that the Board find violation based upon the fact that the owner did not received an approved Certificate of Demolition from the HARB, and because the structure was demolished without a Demolition Permit. Mr. Taylor asked for clarification of whether the Board was being asked to find fact of the house being demolished without a permit or if they were revisiting everything that HARB decided twice. Mr. Birchim responded that the HARB had already determined by virtue they were not issuing a Certificate of Demolition and not approving staff s issuance of a demolition permit. But explained that what this Board was considering was construction without a permit, because it was a permitting issue at this point and not the basis of the decision of parties in the past that had already been imbedded by the HARB. He then reported that the administrative costs that had incurred from a staff perspective was about $ Mr. Birchim then stated that the Board had heard similar cases in the past, and gave examples of two other properties. One being a similar property at Martin Luther King Boulevard that was brought down without an approved demolition permit, in which a fine in the amount of $300 was imposed by this Board. And the second being a property on Spanish Street that was brought down under different circumstances without a permit and was fined $3,600. Explaining that it had also embarked that archaeology had not been done. He further commented that this was up to the discretion of the Board, and examples were only given as a comparative analysis. Mr. Taylor asked if the statute was a fine of up to $5,000, and was the City making a recommendation. Mr. Birchim stated that the City was not making a recommendation and only looking to recover costs. Mrs. May explained Florida Statute to the Board. Mr. Taylor asked for minutes from the HARB meeting, but the minutes were unavailable as they had yet to be approved. Mr. Birchim gave a brief of what had transpired at that HARB meeting concerning this case. Russell Thomas, 125 Washington Street, was present and testified to the following: That he and his wife resided at the property for 11 years and that they recognized early on that work needed to be done to the structure, but they had delayed the process of repairs. 9

10 That according to the report, it would appear that the building was demolished without an attempt to save the structure. That their termite technician had crawled under the house and advised them that their structure was ready to fall down. That they had called Mr. Valdes and consulted with him and an engineer about demolition of the structure, after flooding had occurred with water coming up to their front step in January He explained that this was the fourth time he had spoken in front of a panel, and it was quite frustrating to he and his wife, because had they been able to get the demolition permit when first requested, they would probably have been in their home since May of this year, but they were still living in a motor home. John Valdes, 1395 US 1 South, Suite A, was present and testified to the following: (He presented a construction timeline including photos to the Board and to the recording secretary for the record) He was familiar with the Code Board as he had sat on the CEAAB board from He recognized that the HARB had made their judgement, and that that they were before the CEAAB for determining at what level they were to be fined. 10 He acknowledged that they were guilty of demolishing the structure. He had evidence that would influence the amount of fine that would be imposed. He explained that they had done all the right things. That he had been doing work here for about 30 years in renovating and restoring buildings, and he pointed out that in the packet provided, he had included his resume and a list of addresses in which he had done significant work to in restoring, renovating, and preserving. That the reports included in the packet were originally prepared by a respected engineering firm out of Jacksonville, and his cost analysis of cost for demolition vs. new construction was included as well. One of the driving factors for preservation is private money. The owners are not rich people, this is their retirement that they are spending on this home. The calculated cost to renovate this structure would cost an additional $60,000 more than building a new structure. And reality was that they would have ended up with nearly 90% of a new building with the renovation. So while it may have looked like a preserved building, it would have been mostly new. The actual cost to date that his clients had expended was in excess of $45,000-$46,000 more than what

11 they would have expended had they demolished the building to begin with. They did try to do the right thing all the way through, But when they were trying to renovate the front of the building his framing crew contacted him stating that they could no longer safely stay on the site because as they were attempting to remove the metal roof, they were falling through the roof deck. He pulled his men off the job and called city staff notifying them that the building was not stable. Yes, he could have called an engineer, but he could not have shored the building up because there was no solid board to nail into. He could have shut the job down and hoped that the HARB would not continue the case another 30 days. He added that he had a legal obligation as a licensed contractor in the State of Florida and to the neighbors to present a safe construction environment and a safe building site. He also spoke to hurricane season, stating that should a storm come through, even if the site were fenced off, the possibility of construction debris becoming projectiles to neighboring persons/properties was not an option to him. So those were the factors in which he made his decision, he did not intend to disrespect the HARB s decision, he simply had a responsibility to the community. 11 He pointed out that the photographs included in the packet showed the termite damage and poor condition of the building. Mr. Wissel stated to Mr. Valdes, that he was probably aware of the condition of the home long before, and asked why he had not stopped the construction then. Mr. Valdes responded that in this game of restoring buildings, you replace one piece at a time, and it is not fair to the owners as it is private money that restores these structures. He gave a few examples of restorations in which they were in excess of 90% new materials. You cannot save all of them, they worked on the building until it was no longer safe and stopped. That the owners had already spent $42,000 on trying to meet the HARB s requirements, and to shut the job down would have cost the owners in excess of $3,500- $5,000, and the contractors would have gone to other jobs. You come to a point where you have to make a decision of where to stop, and compile that with the fact that the structure was in a residential area and posed a danger. Mr. Wissel commented that he had read through the packet, and stated that we all have to come to a point where we have to make a decision. Mr. Valdes responded that as a rule of thumb, they project cost of a job. But in this particular case he came to the realization that by the time he would

12 have done all of this, he would have a new building there. He elaborated that when the roof would come off, then what would they do with the walls because the top plates were shot. And he stated that they had kept part of it, the floor system had remained. It was on his list as one that he did not tear down, because parts of it still remained. Mr. Taylor asked if the after-the-fact analysis was for the extra cost that the owner incurred in an attempt to save the structure. Mr. Valdes confirmed that was correct, and explained that the building was raised by contractors, and in doing that they had to replace every seal beam on the structure. The other cost was for the hands on that required taking piece by piece and replacing. This is typical when going into a heavily damaged building and trying to restore it. It would have been more cost effective had they torn the building down. Mr. Taylor asked if he was correct in that sometimes you do not know the extent of the damage until you are well into the project. Mr. Valdes confirmed that was correct, that he understood the condition of the building going into it because his significant other had actually owned the property and had sold it to the Thomas, and had disclosed the condition of the building at that time. And even with that, you do not know the actual damage until you get into it. Mr. Wissel asked Mr. Valdes that if he were in another situation, would he do it again. Mr. Valdes replied that in his 30 years of working in the city he never demolished a building without a permit. Under the circumstances, having gone through hurricanes, he would take the building down, he had no choice and had to do the right thing by the client. Mr. Wissel stated that he understood what was being said, but he believed they should have waited the 30 days. Mr. Valdes commented that he believed the HARB had denied the after-the-fact application because of setting a precedence. You can t make things perfect without taking them down. With his experience and knowledge of what thunderstorms and hurricanes are able to produce, he does not leave his construction sites in an unsafe condition. Mr. Wissel stated that excluding hurricanes, could you not have put a fence around the structure if you had to wait 30 or 60 days. Mr. Valdes commented that it would need to be a 20 foot fence, and that he could not take that chance. It was terrible situation that he hoped to never be put in again. Public comment was opened. 12

13 Les Thomas, 32 Cordova Street, was present and testified to the following: That he was the architect for the project. He clarified that the structure was not completely demolished, that the floor system was raised with a new foundation underneath it. John had built the two story addition on what would have been the front of the building, the back of the building on the lake was the one story that they were going to keep. But when they look at things before, it had a stucco exterior and plaster interior, and it looked ok. That he had a grate note on his drawings that stated when you have a damaged board stud, you sister on a new one. But when you get to the point where the plaster is gone, the sheathing is rotted, the outside stucco is taken off and the studs don t quite touch the plate, and the plate that is there is completely rotted, you have to rethink fastening the 2x4 to what s there. He gave examples of other building where the boards were so deteriorated by termites that you could crush the board with your hand. He explained that going before the HARB can prove to be a long process. He was not sure whether John made the right decision. He also noted that he had worked with John on other jobs and 13 trusted his work and had confidence in him. Sue Agresta, 168 Oneida Street, was present and testified to the following: She has known and respected Mr. Valdes for 16 years. And while serving with him on the Planning and Zoning Board, she found his experience and knowledge of value in particular his opinion of structural aspects. He had been involved on many construction jobs in St. Augustine. She was also very aware of the structure of 125 Washington Street, and she often wondered how Mr. Valdes would be able to tie the obviously unsound and deteriorated section into the clean structural integrity of the new construction. It surprised her that given John s years of unstinting service and obvious knowledge and willingness to give of himself to preserve our architectural heritage that agencies of our city including HARB and our worthy Code Board have questioned Mr. Valdes decision concerning the safety of the workplace as well as the future integrity of the Thomas house. As she understood it, Mr. Valdes had petitioned the HARB to remove the rotten section in question several times and was rebuffed each time.

14 She believed that the only realistic option for such a conscientious builder was to remove the rot and instability threatening the project. Leonard Pellicer, 31 Spanish Street, was present and testified to the following: He complimented the board members and thanked them for their service to the CEAAB. He always did what was right but stubbed his toe many times. He commented that Mr. Valdes stubbed his toe when he removed the structure without a permit, however he believed that he used his professional judgement to do what he thought was right. Like with the previous speaker, he had been by that house a number of times and wondered what they were doing. He commented that the rules and regulations made it very difficult to do things in the City, however he understood that the reasoning was so that we could maintain our culture and the special feel that St. Augustine had. He was not saying to this Board not to penalize Mr. Valdes, but to consider that Mr. Valdes has given his time, money, and energy by not only restoring more than 30 buildings in the area, but also preserving four fountains in the City, and also moved the 14 WWI memorial away from the utility boxes. He believed Mr. Valdes to have been a voice for the preservation within the city. He believed Mr. Valdes to be a person of character and encouraged the Board to penalize Mr. Valdes, but not to make him an example. Kathleen Allen, 170 Washington Street, was present and testified to the following: She had been working corporate finance for many years and pinched pennies every day for years. She built a house with John and his team and entrusted $500, of her money and moved to Dublin Ireland and asked John to build her a house, exclaiming that was how much she trusted him. In reading the HARB requests, she interpreted that the Thomas s had been tortured enough and she believed only a minimal fine was in order. Wolfgang Shawl, 146 Inlet Drive, was present and testified to the following: He testified to Mr. Valdes character in performing construction of his home, adding that while performing repairs to secure a house during a storm Mr. Valdes had fallen and should have remained in the hospital,

15 but instead made the decision to continue his work on their home. He believed that Mr. Valdes had made the right decision on the structure at 125 Washington Street. Catherine White, 118 Avenida Menendez, was present and testified to the following: She testified that she had known Mr. Valdes for many years. She knew of the structure at 125 Washington Street for years and knew of its condition. She believed that Mr. Valdes had done the right thing. And she asked that the Board consider his character and reputation in their ruling. John Obrien, 74 Duero Street, was present and testified to the following: $30,000 more than anticipated because of his design to save every live oak tree on their property, and they did that joyfully and it was money well spent. They had a temporary certificate of occupancy, for which they then needed a full COO. He recalled that when two gentlemen from the city came to inspect their home, they made the statement that when John Valdes does a job they never have a problem. He further emphasized that Mr. Valdes had done much work in the city and proceeded to give examples. He urged the Board to not fine Mr. Valdes or the Thomas, as Mr. Valdes had acted in the best interest of his clients and their neighbors in the city. Public hearing was closed. He lived 2-1/2 blocks from the house in question. He requested that the Board impose no fines or fees to Mr. Valdes or the Thomas, as he believed it to be unwarranted. That had he been injured from flying debris he would had sued Mr. Valdes, the Thomas s and the City for not approving the demolition. That he had known John for twelve years, in fact John had constructed their home. Mr. Valdes was a preservationist and conservationists. That they had spent and extra $25,000 to 15 Mr. Taylor asked for the administrative costs involved in this case. Mr. Birchim again read the fines associated with this case along with the two similar cases that had been provided earlier. Mr. Taylor commented that he was involved in several cases while on this Board. That you have to consider the effort that was there to do the right thing in this case. That after being denied, they could have torn the house down and come before the Board and received a $5,000 fine and moved on, but they have spent well over $5,000.

16 He believed the reputation and character of the contractor be considered, as any contractor in a small historic town as this, would not want to tarnish their reputation. And he spoke of the safety factor as well. Mrs. Mickler commented that when making a decision of safety, she was a rule follower. But expressed concern that as a city, staff needs to look at efficiency in not making something wait 30 days 60 days. She believed that we should look at and review that process. While there are reasons that we have codes and rules, and we need to follow them, she stated that we need to be more efficient when making decisions. MOTION Mr. Taylor moved to find violation and impose a fine in the amount of $ for administrative costs involved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Capra and approved by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Valdes thanked the Board for their service. Item 6 (d) Genesis RE Holdings 10, LLC 86 Bridge Street City Code, Chapter 8, Section City Code, Chapter 28, Section & Partial demolition without a permit. 16 Mr. Schauland reported the following: On or after August 10, 2016, a rear one story portion of the building at 86 Bridge Street, a building that was constructed by 1899 and contributing to the Lincolnville National Register Historic District, was demolished without a Certificate of Demolition for the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) or a Demolition Permit. On August 10, 2016, a Demolition Permit was issued for and interior demo. He then read definitions from Chapter 28, Section 28-2, Demolitions means the act or process of demolishing; to tear down, destroy, raze or remove all or a significant portion of a building or structure, and including partial demolition. Partial demolition is defined on the HARP application for the Certificate of Demolitions as the permanent removal of any significant architectural features including porches, dormers, chimneys, walls, additions, etc. In accordance with Chapter 28, Section (4), staff has the authority to issue a Certificate of Demolition for exterior construction and equipment that is not visible. Staff was not afforded the opportunity to review the partial demolition to determine if the Certificate could be issued or if the case would have to go before the HARB.

17 On August 19, 2016, Mr. Brown made application for an after-thefact Certificate of Demolition. On September 15, 2016, the HARB denied an after-the-fact Certificate of Demolition application. Staff recommended that the owners be found in violation of Chapter 8, Section 8-608, Chapter 28, Section (2) (d), (3), Chapter 28, Section with the following findings: The owner did not receive an approved Certificate of Demolition from the HARB; and the structure was demolished without a Demolition Permit. Mr. Taylor asked for costs involved in the case. Mr. Birchim reported that the cost involved to be $78. That this case went to the same HARB meeting as the previous case, and because the addition was demolished prior to the HARB meeting, the HARB could not approve an after-the-fact application and it was brought before this Board. That the inspector did not communicate clearly to the contractor when he stated that the addition could not be saved, but did not clearly state that the demolition would require HARB approval. Mr. Birchim and the Board clarified that miscommunication had occurred between the inspector and contractor. Kyle Brown, 1536 Tony Marsh Court, was present and testified to the following: The owners were out of South Florida, and were not familiar with doing jobs in an area such as this. The contractor knew the inspector, Randy Hurry, who had commented that the HARB would not let you take the structure down without a permit, and that the back portion was useless. So they took the back portion down without a permit, they ve learned from their mistake. He complimented city staff stating that they were great to work with. That if he had it to do over again, he most likely would not attempt to save the building because of the extensive termite damage. And added that they could have rebuilt a new structure for less money. He agreed with Mrs. Mickler comments on the process. Public hearing was opened. B. J. Kalaidi, 8 Newcomb Street, commented to the following: That she would like to have the Code Enforcement hearings televised. The public needed to hear of the demolitions without a permit, and she expressed her displeasure with the process. Public hearing was closed. 17

18 Mr. Taylor commented that this case was different from the previous case. And he would fine more than the administrative costs involved. Mr. Simmons stated that he did not see much difference in this case from the previous, and he elaborated on similar cases that were previously brought before this Board. Mr. Taylor expressed concern that unless there was a significant amount of information to account to that. He was not aware of who the contractor was, but would like to send a signal to them to ensure that they were made aware of how to operate properly within the city. Mr. Wissel commented that eventually we would get contractors coming in and doing work without permission. Mr. Simmons commented that what he heard was that the contractor fell through the floor and that could happen at a lot of properties in Lincolnville. And without testimony from the builder or the city agent. All that was given was a casual reference to conversation, the City has reported that they have corrected this and that they have learned their lesson. He did not believe that punitive fines should be imposed as lessons had been learned all around. Mr. Taylor commented that this case was different, because there was no testimony given that they had done all that they could to save the structure, and that they could not wait for the HARB approval. He differentiated between the two cases, that the contractor should know what they need a permit for. He also stated that a fine should be more than the administrative cost involved. Mrs. Mickler mirrored Mr. Taylor s comments. Mr. Simmons stated that he would be willing to amend that a fine should be imposed beyond the administrative costs given by staff. MOTION Mr. Capra moved to find violation and impose a fine in the amount of $ The motion was seconded by Mr. Simmons and approved by the following voice vote. Ayes: Capra, Simmons, Mickler, Wissel. Nays: Taylor. 7. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS Mrs. May informed the Board of the status of the 7 Bridge Street case, that a settlement had been reached, and that she would be bringing it back before the Board once the payment of the fine had been received. Mr. Simmons stated that he did not have issue with the negotiations that were involved. Mr. Taylor asked if it had anything to do with this Board. 18

19 Mrs. May replied that it would come back before the Board when payment was received and the case required to be closed for compliance. 8. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Birchim reported that the conference room had suffered flood damage from the hurricane, and that repairs and replacement of the carpet would require future meetings be held at the Willie Galimore Center during the interim. 9. REVIEW OF CONFLICT STATEMENTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 5:25 P.M. Clyde M. Taylor, Vice-Chair Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator 19