Property Review Board Minutes
May 13, 2010 Meeting Page - 2
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD
May 13, 2010 Meeting
City of Huber Heights
I. Acting Chair Richard Boggs called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.
II. Present at the meeting: Mr. Demland, Mr. DeThomas, Ms. Flayler, Mr. Winkler, and Mr. Boggs.
Members Absent: Ms. Newby whose absence was excused.
Staff Present: Christopher Lohr, Code Enforcement Administrator; and Margaret Muhl, Administrative Secretary.
iii. Swearing of Witnesses
Mr. Boggs administered the sworn oath to all persons wishing to speak or give testimony regarding items on the agenda. All persons present responded in the affirmative.
IV. Pending Business
None.
V. New Business
1. PMRB Case 10-14
The property owner, JENNIFER SIERAKOWSKI, is in violation of Sections 1193.02 and 1313.04 of the Property Maintenance Code at property located at 5006 Powell Road.
Chris Lohr explained that an anonymous complaint had been filed regarding this property, and proceeded to provide a brief history regarding the site. Attempts have been made to contact the property owners, but there has been no response. There is debris at the site, along with an inoperable and unlicensed vehicle. Some of the debris has been removed, but there still remains debris at the rear of the property.
Staff recommends that the Board approve removal of the debris with the cost assessed to the property owner, along with initiation of court proceedings regarding the unlicensed vehicle not to occur before May 27, 2010. This would provide time for staff to alert the property owner of the Board’s decision, and provide time for the property to come into compliance before further action is taken.
Ms. Flayler asked who signed for the mail. Mr. Lohr stated he was not aware of the relationship of the person who signed for the letter to the owner. Ms. Flayler further stated that she was not in support of granting an extension, and asked why staff was making that recommendation. Mr. Lohr stated the violations were minor. Ms. Flayler reiterated that the violations have existed for some time, and notice has been provided to the property owner. Therefore, she did not feel they should grant extra time. Mr. Lohr stated that it appears the property is occupied. Ms. Flayler stated the issue is whether the City would get reimbursed for the clean-up. She stated that she had previously asked how the reimbursement worked. Mr. Lohr stated that he spoke with the Finance Department, and was informed that it took six months to one year for the City to get reimbursed. If property taxes remain unpaid, the City does not get reimbursed until the property is sold or it goes into foreclosure.
Mr. Demland asked what amount of money remained in the budget for this type of work. Mr. Lohr stated he was not aware of the remaining amount, but prior to grass cutting season they had spent about $2500. He believes they have cut about 20-25 properties, and the amount would probably be significantly different since his last report. Mr. Demland stated that he was cautious about spending money because the funds possibly could be used for worse situations.
Ms. Flayler reiterated that violations did exist.
Motion made by Mr. Demland and seconded by Mr. DeThomas to continue PMRB Case 10-14 until May 27, 2010 when staff would provide an update regarding violations at the site. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Demland, Mr. DeThomas, Mr. Winkler, and Mr. Boggs. NAYS: Ms. Flayer. Motion carried 4-1.
2. PMRB Case 10-15
The property owners, TERESA & RODNEY RATLIFF, are in violation of Section 1313.05 of the Property Maintenance Code at property located at 5739 Rousseau Drive.
Chris Lohr stated that upon inspection of the property, a large amount of the debris had been removed from the site. There remain some cages that were going to be put out for trash pick-up. Therefore, staff was recommending dismissal of this case.
Motion made by Ms. Flayer and seconded by Mr. Winkler to dismiss PMRB Case 10-15. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. DeThomas, Ms. Flayer, Mr. Winkler, Mr. Demland, and Mr. Boggs. NAYS: None. Motion carried 5-0.
3. PMRB Case 10-16
The property owner, ELIANA K. THOMAS, is in violation of Section 521.08 of the Property Maintenance Code at property located at 4450 Kitridge Road.
Chris Lohr stated that this case was from last year. Upon inspection of the property, it appears the property is currently compliant, and that a maintenance company has been hired to keep the property maintained. Therefore, staff recommends dismissal of this case.
Motion made by Mr. Winkler and seconded by Ms. Flayler to dismiss PMRB Case 10-16. Roll call showed: YEAS: Ms. Flayler, Mr. Winkler, Mr. Demland, Mr. DeThomas, and Mr. Boggs. NAYS: None. Motion carried 5-0.
4. PMRB Case 10-17
The property owner, DARRYL KING, is in violation of Section 1313.05 of the Property Maintenance Code at property located at 6216 Falkland Drive.
Chris Lohr stated that the subject property was now compliant, and therefore, staff was recommending this case be dismissed. He advised that there was about a 50% success rate regarding such properties.
Motion made by Mr. Demland and seconded by Mr. DeThomas to dismiss PMRB Case 10-17. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Winkler, Mr. Demland, Mr. DeThomas, Ms. Flayler, and Mr. Boggs. NAYS: None. Motion carried 5-0.
5. PMRB Case 10-18
The property owner, STEPHEN VIAU, is in violation of Section 1313.05 of the Property Maintenance Code at property located at 6219 Falkland Drive.
Chris Lohr stated that an anonymous complaint was turned in regarding this property. He proceeded to explain the process that was followed regarding this site due to the severity of the violations. He then provided a list of the issues at the site. It appears there could be structural problems. He added that the property was scheduled for Sheriff’s Auction on May 14, 2010.
Staff recommends that this case be continued until May 27, 2010. This would provide time for a qualified building inspector to check the property, and to see if the property gets sold at auction.
Mr. Demland remarked that the same property owner had other properties go into foreclosure. He asked if staff was aware of the status of the other cases regarding properties owned by the same individual. Mr. Lohr stated that the Board had approved abatement of another site and that property was now in compliant. He was not aware whether the other property had been sold or not.
Ms. Flayler stated that the damage done to the brick veneer could present a problem in regard to the sale of the property. She stated that if the property is sold tomorrow, the City should be reimbursed sooner than six months. She felt the property could end up in foreclosure. Mr. Lohr stated the worse case scenario would be if structural problems exist, then the Building Inspector or the City’s Fire Marshall had the authority to condemn the property. He would have to seek approval for funds from City Council to have the structure demolished. He stated further that in some cases the veneer can be repaired.
Mr. Demland asked what was the difference between an auction and a Sheriff’s sale. Ms. Flayler explained that a Sheriff’s sale was two-thirds of the appraised value of the house. She stated there were companies who dealt with foreclosures and determined the starting bid for an auction.
Mr. Demland asked if the property had been vandalized. Mr. Lohr stated that there is graffiti inside, but he did not notice any other damage to the interior.
Ms. Flayler asked if the property had gone through the pre-sale inspection process. Mr. Lohr stated the house had not been inspected. Sheriff’s auctions did not typically go through the Zoning Office. Ms. Flayler stated that since it was a Huber house did they not have to respond to the City’s requirements. Mr. Lohr stated that staff had not yet figured out how to get the Sheriff’s Office to handle such things.
Mr. Demland asked what would be done if the house did not pass a pre-sale inspection. Mr. Lohr explained if the property did not pass a pre-sale inspection, there is the option to have the buyer sign a transfer of responsibility agreeing to make the necessary repairs or the Zoning Office could refuse to issue a pre-sale certificate and there could not be a closing on the property.
Ms. Flayler stated there appears to be a glitch in the system. Mr. Demland agreed. Ms. Flayler asked about the cost of a pre-sale inspection. Mr. Lohr stated the cost of a pre-sale inspection was $40.00. He further explained that prior to the sale of a property through foreclosure, a Judge orders the property to be appraised and sold at an auction. He assumes the Judge would have to order a pre-sale inspection for the property. He was not sure how to make the Judges aware of the pre-sale inspection requirement prior to an auction. Ms. Flayler remarked that the Judges need to be notified that pre-sale inspections were a City requirement.
Mr. Demland stated that he believed pre-sale inspections were an intrusion by the City into an individual’s private affair. He stated that if someone was purchasing a house, it was “buyer beware” just like anything else one might buy.
Ms. Flayler stated that pre-sale inspections were required in this City. Mr. Demland stated that the matter could still be challenged. Ms. Flayler stated that the issue would not be resolved by this Board. Mr. Demland agreed, but emphasized that the matter was questionable. Ms. Flayler stated that the inspection was only done for the exterior of the property. An individual would not know if things were working inside the house. She was not sure what was inspected in regard to the exterior. She further stated that it is what it is.
Mr. Winkler stated that if the house did not sell, he believed the property should be secured for safety reasons, and to prevent further damage to the structure. Mr. Demland agreed.
Motion made by Mr. Winkler and seconded by Mr. Demland to continue PMRB Case 10-18 until May 27, 2010, and if the house was not sold at auction that the property be secured with costs assessed to the property owner. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Demland, Mr. DeThomas, Ms. Flayler, Mr. Winkler, and Mr. Boggs. NAYS: None. Motion carried 5-0.
6. PMRB Case 10-19
The property owner, MEMPHIS A. STEVENS, is in violation of Section 1313.05 of the Property Maintenance Code at property located at 7860 Selwood Circle.
Chris Lohr stated that an anonymous complaint was filed in regard to this property. He proceeded to provide a brief history of the site, and listed outstanding violations. He advised the property is vacant and had a winterization sticker on it. Notices were sent to the property owner, but as of this date no response has been received. He believes the bank re-acquired the property. He feels the Board could order abatement of the property or continue the case until May 27, 2010 in order to provide staff an opportunity to contact the new property owners. Staff’s recommendation is to provide time for voluntary abatement, and to contact the bank to see if they would correct the violations at the site.
Mr. Demland agreed since the case had only been filed on May 3, 2010. Mr. Lohr advised that the process began in March, but there had been a change in ownership. Ms. Flayler asked if a pre-sale had been done for the property. Mr. Lohr stated that a pre-sale had not been done. Ms. Flayler remarked that the site could have been brought into compliance had there been a pre-sale. She felt the City was “missing the boat” on collecting some money since these types of issues were falling through the cracks.
Mr. Lohr stated he was not sure if there had been a sale of the property or a transfer of ownership. Code requires a pre-sale inspection for the sale of a property, but not for a transfer of ownership.
Mr, Winkler asked if this issue should be taken before City Council for a recommendation on how to have this requirement of the Code enforced. Ms. Flayler stated that the issue needed to be resolved. Mr. Winkler stated that it appears there is a glitch in the system. Mr. Lohr stated that he felt this issue could be resolved on an administrative level, and he did not think City Council approval was needed. He would address the issue with the City Manager and the City Law Director. He felt they would be better able to identify how to have the Judges address the pre-sale inspections. He would attempt to see how this could be corrected.
Ms. Flayler asked for this to be placed under Pending Business for the next meeting.
Motion made by Mr. Winkler and seconded by Mr. Demland to continue PMRB Case 10-19 until May 27, 2010. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. DeThomas, Ms. Flayler, Mr. Winkler, Mr. Demland, and Mr. Boggs. NAYS: None. Motion carried 5-0.
VI. Additional Business
Update of PMRB Case 10-01 (Radar – 4690 Longfellow Road)
Chris Lohr stated that he inspected the property today. He stated that this Board had granted an extension of time in lieu of Court proceedings. No additional improvements had been made to the property. Therefore, staff recommends that Court proceedings be initiated for each violation. The property owner had been to Court previously and had been charged with a minor misdemeanor.
Motion made by Ms. Flayler and seconded by Mr. Winkler that Court proceedings be initiated for each violation in connection with PMRB Case 10-01. Roll call showed: YEAS: Ms. Flayler, Mr. Winkler, Mr. Demland, Mr. DeThomas, and Mr. Boggs. NAYS: None. Motion carried 5-0.