Building Code Board of Appeals

BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING September 25,2012 1:00 p.m. Conununily Development Department (CDD) Hardy Cash Conference Room, 3"^ Floor, Hampton City Hall Board Members Present: Herman Dorsey (Chair), Laurence Nisley (Vice Chair) Frank Feagan, Charlie Richardson CDD Staff Present: Steven Shapiro, Building Official Debra Petteway, Board Secretary Philip Russell, Inspection Supervisor John Millette, Property Maint, /Zoning Inspector Others Present: Ms. Calletta Ellsworth-Wicker, Community Group Ms. Melissa Haynes, Community Manager Lantana Residents: Dennis Perry, Doreen Lamont, Mary Leggett, Lawrence Tyler, Gilbert Taylor Purpose of Meeting: Case §02-12, IO8-II0 Lantana Dorsey: Opened the meeting by asking all present to give their name and how this case pertained to them. Then asked Mr. Shapiro to give a short background of the case. Mr, Shapiro: Stated that the case was concerning the Notice of Violation dated July 20,2011 sent to Erica Baker, President of the Condominium Owners Association, CT Corporation System-Registered Agent for Community Group, Inc., Melissa Haynes, Community Group Accounts Manager for Lantana Condominiums and Scott Meardon, President, Community Group, Inc., relative to property maintenance violations at the Lantana Condominiums for building 108-110. The Community Group's attorney sent the City correspondence wherein he states that his client, the Community Group, Inc., has no ownership interest in the parcels and further that the Community Group's authority to perform work or repairs is limited by the Home Owners Association Board of Directors and constrained by available funds. The Condominium Owners Association has not noted an appeal and it is the City's position that Community Group, Inc. is responsible for correcting the violations. Mr. Shapiro then asked Inspector Millette to add his comments and allow the before and after pictures to be shown. Stated that the issues for him began in October of 2010. Work was being done, but came to a stop, so a Notice of Violation was issued. They requested and were given a 90-day extension. After the first 2 buildings were completed, work again stopped, so letters were sent and the Notice of Violation was reissued, dated July 20, 2011, for bldg. 108-110. Asked if there had been an appeal from the Condominium's Association. Stated, no. Stated that there was work done, but done poorly. Further stated that a piece of metal is falling off Asked if the pictures could be denoted as before and after. Stated that they were denoted. Asked what Code was violated. Stated the Virginia Maintenance Code, 2009 Edition. Stated that the violations for the first 2 buildings which were cited have been completed. Stated that she has tried to communicate her concerns with the Lantana office, but no one answers the phone and she has been told not to come to the ofTice. Stated that the violations appeared to be true. Explained that the management company. Community Group, is separate from the Owners Association, which are the owners. Also, explained that the Community Group is not the owner and their name should be removed from the Violation Notice; the Owners Association's name should be in their place. Further stated that Lantana's condos are owned by the residents. OCT-25-2t)i:i: I 1 I I-1-1 3 - Shapiro: Stated that the Owners Association was notified. Wicker: Stated that the Board of Directors for Lantana is in charge, not Community Group. Lantana has no money. Community Group has done an assessment on behalf of Lantana, but money is their issue. Haynes: Some buildings have been repaired, but not inspected because the contractor has not received final payment for the work was done, Lantana has asked Community Group to help with financing. Wicker: Stated they will help as much as they can. Dorsey: Asked if Community Group was taking on the responsibility of getting the work completed. Wicker: Answered, that this has not been confirmed because they have not received approval by Lantana's Board of Directors. Dorsey: Asked City Attorney Yeatts what is the Owners Association's responsibility since they chose not to appeal the Notice of Violation. Yeatts: Community Group, Inc. has no ownership, but they are still responsible. Virginia Maintenance Code, section 104.5.4 requires correction notices to be sent to the owner and those responsible for the maintenance of the structure. It is true they cannot spend the funds without the Board's approval, but the Building Official was correct in issuing the Notice of Violation. Dorsey: Stated, based on the City Attorney's statement, it is a joint effort to correct the violations and Community Group, Inc.'s name should not be removed. Haynes: Interjected that Lantana is incorporated. Nicely: Asked why no Board member was present at this hearing, but regardless. Community Group is partly responsible. Shapiro: Stated that the Community Group's attorney appealed the Notice of Violation. O C T - 2 3 - 2 0 1 2 11 : 2 8 PM H E R M R N _ U U K S> t T p . wo 4 - Lawrence: Asked for clarification that Community Group is just management and the Board makes the decisions. Wicker: Answered, yes. Lcggett: Stated that there needs to be a change in the Board of Directors. Lamont: Asked what happened to the money, $260,000.00, which turned over to them and why aren't they using that money to make the repairs. Dennis: Asked where was the previously paid money? Nicely: Stated that if the residents felt something illegal had happened, they should notify the Police Department, but this hearing was not the forum to make a decision pertaining to that. Feagan: Asked how many members are on the Board and are they residents and/or owners. Haynes; Answered that there are 5 Board members and they are either residents or owners and they are all local. Feagan: Asked how the funds were allocated. Haynea: Once a year, starting in 2010, the residents were asked to pay an additional amount of $100.00. Feagan: Asked has money been collected for building 108-110 and has the assessment been collected. Haynes: Stated that not all monies have been collected. Russell: Stated that he was the area inspector prior to 2011. C'ommunity Group did what they could do, but the City has always sent Notices to the Community Group. Haynes: Clarified that the letters were sent to Community Group in care of Lantana. U U l — 2 3 —2W1.£ n 5 - Shapiro: Asked that the discussion return to the reason for the hearing, which is to have the Building Code Board of Appeals determine if there are violations and if so, was the proper entity sent the Notice of Violation, which was Community Group, Inc. Dorsey: Called for a motion. Nicely; Moved that the Building Official was correct in issuing the Notice of Violation. Dorsey: Asked Mr. Nicely to amend his motion to include the Community Group, Inc. Nicely; Moved that the Building Official was correct in issuing the Notice of Violation and Community Group, Inc. is the correct entity to have received the Notice of Violation, in addition to the Owners Association Board of Directors. Feagan 2"** the Motion Dorsey: Called for the vote and it was unanimous. Shapiro: Explained to Wicker and Haynes that Community Group, Inc. has the right to appeal this Board's decision by appealing to the Techni- cal Review Board in Richmond VA. Dorsey: Called for the vote to adjourn and it was carried. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:46 p.m. Mr. Herman Dorsey. Q « r i f \