Appeals Hearing Board Meeting

APPEALS HEARING BOARD MINUTES Thursday, November 6, 2014 11:00 AM FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Board members Present: Hawkins, Stocker, Villalpando Absent: None Board Staff Present: Principal Planner Kim Cole, Assistant City Attorney Karin Salameh, Chief of Inspection Services/Building Official John Kuehl, and Engineering Surveyor Norman Green CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC APPEARANCE 1. Elect Board Chair (City Attorney's Office - 701-06) Mr. Villalpando made a motion to keep Mr. Stocker as the Appeals Hearing Board Chairperson. Mr. Hawkins said he respects Mr. Stocker’s experience on the Planning Commission and he seconded the motion. After a unanimous vote David Stocker was selected as Chair of the Appeals Hearing Board. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Domenica Gianino, TR - 560 Monroe Street - Adoption of Administrative Order for failure to comply with the Compliance Order issued September 8, 2014 regarding the following violation: 1. Monterey City Code § 38-23; Monterey City Code § 9-1.1; Monterey City Code § R105, CRC. The property is in violation of setback requirements; Building Permit B07-0092 has expired; Incomplete lot line adjustment application. (City Attorney's Office - 705-02) *Chair Stocker said that he spoke with a representative for the property owner the previous day. He said he did not speak directly about the specifics of the particular items but he did speak about the board, the makeup, and the function of the board. Gail Hatter-Crawford, the consultant for Ms. Gianino representing her on land use matters, thanked staff for the waiver of the Variance permit fee. Ms. Hatter-Crawford said the work that was required was not completed prior to recording the map. She said a lawsuit was filed and during that time the issue of moving the house came up and the court ruled that Ms. Gianino did not have to move the house as it was not monetarily and historically feasible. Ms. Hatter- Crawford believes it took as long as it did to get where the issue is today is because there was a misunderstanding between the two parties. She went on to say that since she has taken over the case she has supplied the map to the City for the lot line adjustment that the parties have agreed to. Appeals Hearing Board Minutes Thursday, November 6, 2014 Ms. Hatter-Crawford said she feels as if she has removed the deadlock that was keeping this from moving forward and does not see a reason for it to stop moving forward. She went on to say that she has some concerns with using finite deadlines as her client would be subjected to fines. She said this is because of the terms of the settlement and the encroachment of the sewer line from Ms. Amato’s property. The sewer line goes from Ms. Amato’s property through Ms. Gianino’s property and connects directly into the sewer line of her client. She said she does not want to record the map for the lot line adjustment prior to having the issue of the sewer line resolved. She also said this will cause undue pressure by the City on Ms. Gianino. Chair Stocker asked Ms. Hatter-Crawford if she objected to staff’s timeline in the report. Ms. Hatter-Crawford said she does not object to the documents that are asked for and what they can supply but she does not want to record anything until all the pieces of the settlement have been satisfied. Fluvio Picerno, the attorney representing Ms. Gianino on civil matters, said a lawsuit had been ongoing for some time and he has been working with the City to try to resolve it. He said the lot line application had to be signed by both parties but he could not get the other party to sign because a settlement agreement was never signed. He said all parties have signed and he is requesting as a little more time to have the agreement come to fruition. Chair Stocker asked staff about the missing signature that staff mentioned in their report. Karin Salameh said we are missing a signature on lot size setback and a signature from the neighboring property owner regarding the lot size. She said she spoke with representatives for the neighboring property and they have stated that they would be signing since they already signed off on the Variance it would only make sense to sign off on the lot line adjustment as well. Chair Stocker asked Ms. Hatter-Crawford what are the other concerns besides not being able to control when the signatures come from the lenders. Ms. Hatter-Crawford said she is concerned about the sewer line connection and that it would need to be removed prior to recording. Ms. Salameh said the lot line adjustment cannot be recorded until the lenders have signed off. Ms. Salameh also said the City does not enforce private settlement agreements. She said the City does not know what was agreed upon between the two parties regarding the sewer. She went on to say the sewer was not a condition of the subdivision agreement and the City is not seeking resolution on that issue today. Ms. Salameh said the City does not require property owners to separate sewer lines as this is an old city and many properties share sewer laterals. However, the City does encourage property owners to work together to separate those lines or have a shared maintenance agreement that could be recorded against their properties. Ms. Salameh said the City is seeking resolution on the lot line adjustment and the violation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. She went on to say the sewer lateral issue should be resolved privately. Chair Stocker asked Ms. Salameh if the proposed timeline is realistic. Ms. Salameh replied yes and she thought it was important to keep up the momentum. 2 Appeals Hearing Board Minutes Thursday, November 6, 2014 Chair Stocker asked Ms. Hatter-Crawford why it matters when recording the subdivision if the sewer laterals are resolved. She replied because it was part of the conditions of the subdivision and it is in the Building Code that sewer lines need to be on the same property as the building they are serving. Chair Stocker asked Building Official John Kuehl to comment on the issue of the sewer lines. Mr. Kuehl said he thought the code Ms. Hatter-Crawford was citing was in the Pluming Code. He said the Plumbing Code does allow for shared laterals and there are some instances of this within the City. He said when there is a discharge and the sewer line needs to be replaced that is when the City would require either separating the laterals lines or a maintenance agreement. Chair Stocker asked Mr. Kuehl if there was anything about the lot line adjustment that would cause him to require the sewer laterals to be separated. Mr. Kuehl replied no. Chair Stocker then asked Mr. Kuehl if he agreed with the Assistant City Attorney in that the sewer lateral is a civil matter and outside of the City of Monterey’s jurisdiction. Mr. Kuehl replied that he agreed with the Assistant City Attorney and the only time it would become a City issue is if the sewer line failed or if it needs to be replaced. Board Member John Villalpando asked if the maintenance agreement was separate from the recorded easement for utilities. Mr. Kuehl agreed with Mr. Villalpando’s question and stated that the maintenance agreement is an agreement between the two parties saying who will pay if the sewer lateral fails or if it needs maintenance. Mr. Villalpando asked Mr. Kuehl what about recordation of a utility easement across a lot line that has been adjusted. Mr. Kuehl said it has been the practice of the City to record the maintenance agreement on both properties but not require an easement. Chair Stocker asked if a maintenance agreement was on file for these properties. Mr. Kuehl replied he was not aware of one on file. Chair Stocker asked Ms. Salameh what the goal of the City was with regards to this property. Ms. Salameh replied the goal of the City is to bring the 560 Monroe Street property into compliance with the Zoning Code and get the lot line adjustment completed. Ms. Hatter-Crawford said she believes it is the City’s obligation to make sure that all the pieces of the settlement agreement, that were reached through mediation and settlement conferences, are satisfied or the parties will end up in court again. Chair Stocker asked Mr. Kuehl if the garage was demolished would that trigger the need to separate the sewer line. Mr. Kuehl said the goal is to have a maintenance free sewer lateral. 3 Appeals Hearing Board Minutes Thursday, November 6, 2014 Board Discussion Board member Daryl Hawkins said he believes that the City is headed in the right direction to keep this issue moving and he supports staffs’ recommendation. Mr. Villalpando said in the last few months the owners have tried to bring this property into compliance and he is pleased to see things moving forward. He said he supports staffs’ recommendation as well. Chair Stocker said he agrees with both the other members. He went on to say that the sewer lateral is a civil issue and it is not a City issue. He said what Ms. Hatter-Crawford is asking is outside the purview of what the City is asking and it is not in the Administrative Order. Chair Stocker read into the record the Administrative Order as follows:  We are changing the date to December 10, 2015 to allow Planning Commission enough time to review the applications.  We are waiving the fees of $1660.00 for the Variance applications.  We are changing the due date of the deeds’ legal descriptions to be 30 days after the Planning Commission approval of the lot line adjustment and Variances. Chair Stocker suggested making the legal description be due 30 days after December 10, 2014, when the Planning Commission meets, making the descriptions due January 9, 2015. He said that way it is a date certain and gives the applicant a little more time. Chair Stocker asked Ms. Salameh if she wanted the Findings read into the record and she replied yes. Chair Stocker read into the record the Findings in the Administrative Order as follows: WHEREAS, BASED UPON ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE MONTEREY APPEALS HEARING BOARD AT ITS DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER HELD NOVEMBER 6, 2014, THE BOARD FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Findings: 1. Ms. Domenica Gianino is the owner of the property at 560 Monroe Street, Monterey, California, 93940, responsible for the code violations existing on the subject property. 2. The property at 560 Monroe Street has been in continuing violation of Monterey City Code §38-23(D) since 2002. 3. Complete compliance with the requirements set forth in the Compliance Order dated September 8, 2014 was not accomplished by the deadlines therein, or thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE FINDINGS SET FORTH ABOVE, THE APPEALS HEARING BOARD HEREBY ORDERS PROPERTY OWNER DOMENICA GIANINO TO COMP WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1. Compliance Actions: The Board hereby orders that the property owner shall cause all outstanding violations set forth in the September 8, 2014 Compliance Order (Exhibit “A”) to be corrected by: 4 Appeals Hearing Board Minutes Thursday, November 6, 2014  Obtaining approval of the lot line adjustment no later than December 8, 2014, December 10, 2014 and then submitting the required deed, legal descriptions, and related paperwork to the City’s Engineering Department for review and approval by December 22, 2014 January 9, 2015. In order for the Planning Department to deem the project application complete such that the Planning Commission may take action on it, signatures of all affected property owners must be included; OR Chair Stocker said he would like Ms. Salameh to add a clause that would state it would not be the fault of the appellant if the Planning Department or Planning Commission was not able to accommodate the deadlines. Ms. Salameh said she would be able to do that. Ms Salameh also said the following portion of the Administrative Order could come out as the application for the lot line adjustment had been completed.  Proceed with moving the structure to bring it into compliance with MCC 38-23(D) according to the following deadlines:  Submit a new building permit application with new plans, documents any required structural calculations and a new plan review fee by December 8, 2014;  Obtain a new building permit, including all new building permit fee by January 12, 2015; and  Foundation inspection approved for new location and structure moved by February 23, 2015. 2. Additional Penalties for Failure to Comply with Deadlines and Discount for Compliance: If full compliance with paragraph 1 above (i.e. Compliance Actions) is not achieved by the deadlines therein, administrative penalties in the amount of $50.00 per day from the first missed deadline, and continuing until the date that the Board’s Order is fully complied with, up to a maximum of $100,000.00, will be imposed. Chair Stocker said it is up the appellant to ensure that this item is heard by the Planning Commission no later than the December 9, 2014 meeting. He also said he wanted to make sure that certain portions of this Order were read into the record and to clarify the dates. Mr. Hawkins made a motion approving the Administrative Order as amended. Mr. Villalpando seconded the motion. Chair Stocker called for the vote. All in favor. None opposed. The Appeals Hearing Board voted to approve the Administrative Order for failure to comply with the Compliance Order issued September 8, 2014 regarding the following violation: 1. Monterey City Code § 38-23(D) – Development Standards. The structure continues to violate minimum side yard setback requirements. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None. 5 Appeals Hearing Board Minutes Thursday, November 6, 2014 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Alicia Salas David Stocker Recording Secretary Chair 6