Board of Ordinance Appeals I

CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Ordinance Board of Appeals held a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Monday November 25, 2013 at the Sterling Heights Municipal Center, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI in the Council Chambers, 586-446-2360. At this meeting the Board (1) considered variance requests of petitioners and (2) conducted hearings on abatement of nuisances relating to the property and property owners itemized on the following agenda. AGENDA 1. Chairman Pitrone called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm 2. Roll Call John Pitrone - Chairman, Kenneth Cooper - Vice-Chairman, Joseph DiGaetano - Secretary, Robert Ervin, Jennifer Hartson, Denice Gerstenberg - City Development Manager, Patrick Willis - Code Enforcement Officer, Dana Vietto - Recording Secretary 3. Report from City Liaison – Denice Gerstenberg a. The city requests that we add potentially dangerous dog – “Duke” to the last item under new business. Animal Control Officer Kim Walton is here to answer any questions regarding this issue. b. All petitioners were notified by first class mail about tonight’s meeting. Remove the following items from the consent agenda as they have been cleaned up prior to the meeting – G13-0377, G13-0379, G13-0382, G13-0386, G13-0387 and G13-0388. 4. Removal of Consent Items to New Business a. Moved item 6 to New Business 9a. G13-0380 Wurth, Douglas & Dorothy – 14036 Martha Street b. Moved item 7 to New Business 9b. G13-0381 Gardner, Glenn – 37351 Susan Street 5. Approval of Agenda Move to revise the Agenda to include the Potential Dangerous Dog case to the last item under new business. Motion by Cooper, supported by Hartson to approve agenda Yes: All. Motion carried. 6. Consent Agenda Moved by Cooper, supported by Ervin, RESOLVED, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended: 1. To approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 28, 2013, as presented. 2. G13-0376 Federal National Mortgage Assoc. – 35410 Moravian Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 35410 Moravian Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 3. G13-0378 Singh, Taranjit – 8065 Ogden Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 8065 Ogden Drive direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 4. G13-0383 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. – 39043 Quinn Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 39043 Quinn Drive to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 5. G13-0384 19 SH Venture – 2401 Nineteen Mile Road RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 2401 Nineteen Mile Road and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 6. G13-0385 Bagdad Market – 11540 Fifteen Mile Road RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 11540 Fifteen Mile Road and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 7. Public Hearings a. G13-0375 Gronow, Howard – 35801 Mound Road Request for fence variance: asking Board approval to erect an 8’ commercial galvanized chain link fence on the north property line. Howard Gronow, owner, was present. Mr. Gronow stated that they have a fence on the west end of the property that runs over a thousand feet between the residential and the buildings. There is a cyclone fence on the south side of the property that runs from the back to the front to Mound Road. They would like to put the fence on the north side from the back end of the property, west end, meeting the cement wall they have there and come up as far as the Ordinance allows them to come. They have a good number of military contractors in the buildings and a government agency that is part of the tank command. They have problems with people coming through the property from the north side. There are problems with people stealing on the property. Mr. Gronow stated that they take a lot of pride in the property and a fence would be helpful for the tenants. The fence they are putting up will be a privacy fence so no one can see through it. The fence will be a cyclone fence approximately 550 feet long with plastic or aluminum coated slats, which will match the building. The slats will fill in the gaps so no one can look through it. Mr. Cooper stated if he is voting for a fence variance he wants to know exactly what the fence will look like. It would be useful to see a brochure or a photo so it would be one hundred percent clear to the Board what it looks like. Mr. Cooper would like to postpone this case until the next meeting so Mr. Gronow can show the Board exactly what the fence will look like. Moved by Cooper, supported by Ervin, to postpone until the meeting of December 9, 2013. Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. 8. Old Business 9. New Business a. G13-0380 Wurth, Douglas & Dorothy – 14036 Martha Street Code Enforcement Officer, Patrick Willis, stated as of today there were some changes to the property. Pictures were shown at this time. Douglas Wurth, owner, was present. Mr. Wurth stated that his wife has been ill and he has been unable to maintain his property. He did state that the code enforcement officer has been working with him and giving him time extensions. Mr. Wurth stated that he has a quote for the gutters, he is getting a trailer to haul items away and will have someone point and tuck the porch. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Wurth if he could have his property cleaned up within two weeks. Mr. Wurth stated yes. Mr. Cooper stated this would be his final extension to clean up his property. Mr. Cooper advised Mr. Wurth that the porch steps need three equal rises because right now it is a safety hazard and any good mason will know how to fix the porch steps. Moved by Ervin, supported by Cooper, RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 14036 Martha Street and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports, which give rise to this finding after December 9, 2013. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance.  Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. b. G13-0381 Gardner, Glenn – 37351 Susan Street Code Enforcement Officer, Patrick Willis, stated as of today there were some changes to the property. Pictures were shown at this time. Glenn Gardner, owner, was present. Mr. Gardner stated that a lot of the photos were old and he has spent several weekends cleaning up his property. Mr. Gardner stated that the code enforcement officer has been working with him. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Gardner if he could have his property cleaned up within two weeks. Mr. Gardner stated yes. Moved by Cooper, supported by Ervin, RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 37351 Susan Street and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding after December 9, 2013. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. c. Potential Dangerous Dog - “Duke” Martin John Hayes – 41371 Birchtree Drive Martin Hayes, owner, was present. Mr. Hayes stated he did not request this hearing and does not understand why he is here. He decided to go in front of the judge. Mr. Pitrone stated that this is a disposition regarding the dog based on the Animal Control Officer determining it was a potentially dangerous dog. Mr. Hayes gave the Board a statement from a dog obedience expert. Mr. Cooper wants to address his first question as to why Mr. Hayes is here. Mr. Cooper stated that after reading the information provided, Mr. Hayes’s dog bit someone in the Dodge Park area and he was identified as the Owner. The Animal Control Officer and the Police visited his home a week or two after the incident and issued him a ticket. The dog was impounded and is sitting in the kennel at the county. He has not requested to come here to try and get his dog back he wants to go to court. Ms. Gerstenberg responded by stating that on October 18th the Police responded to a dog bite complaint in Dodge Park. On November 2nd the dog was impounded and the dog has been in the Macomb County Animal Shelter since that time period. Typically, dogs that have been impounded the Owners come to the Board and ask for an Appeal of the potentially dangerous dog designation. In this case Mr. Hayes, the Owner, has not submitted an Appeal. In discussions with the Owner he has stated that he would comply with the tenets of the Ordinance. However the Owner cannot comply with the requirements that secure fencing must be installed to restrain the dog while it is on the property because the owner resides in an apartment. The Owner cannot meet the requirements of the Ordinance for keeping a potentially dangerous dog. He has not forfeited ownership of the dog and we have discussed him removing the dog from the city but he has not made any arrangements to remove the dog from the city. So at this point the dog is in the Macomb County Animal Shelter. He has mentioned that he is going to court for the tickets he has received for harboring a dangerous animal and failure to restrain that animal. The judge will only be addressing those tickets. The judge will not have the power to release the dog to him. The judge will say you have not met the requirements of the potentially dangerous dog designation, which once again he cannot because he cannot install a fence. The City, Police Department, City Administration and Animal Control Officer are asking the Board to review the information and we have provided a number of options because we are looking for guidance as to what we should now do with the dog if there is no action being taken. Mr. Hayes stated that the test was improper that was given to his dog. He had the dog quarantined in his house sixteen days after the bite. His dog is always on a leash and his patio is eighty percent enclosed with a ten-foot thick cable going around a four by four. He stated he did not get any flexibility from the Animal Control Officer. Mr. Hayes stated that he is not trying to get out of anything, he has agreed to everything but he can’t do anything about the fence. Mr. Hayes asked the Board if he goes to court and the judge decides that his dog is not dangerous, then what happens? Mr. Cooper stated the judge cannot give you your dog back only the Board can. Mr. Hayes stated that the judge could drop the charges and if he does then we have another problem. He has to go by the law before the Ordinance. Mr. Cooper asked Ms. Gerstenberg if the Ordinance allows the City to bring this to the Board or is Mr. Hayes correct that he can only bring this case to the Board. If he does not want to appeal this case to the Board is there any language in the Ordinance that allows Administration to bring this case to the Board? Ms. Gerstenberg stated yes we had this discussion with the City Attorney. If no action is being taken, if arrangements are not made to remove the dog out of the city, if the Owner is not forfeiting ownership, if the Owner is not making an attempt to meet the requirements of the potentially dangerous dog ordinance and the Owner is not appealing the dangerous dog ordinance. The City Administration does have the ability per the Ordinance to bring it to the Board and ask what should we do now? What should we do next? The dog can’t stay there forever. There has to be some kind of a decision as to where we go with this next. The Owner received tickets for harboring a dangerous animal and failure to restrain that animal. Those are the only two items the judge will be addressing. Mr. Cooper stated if Mr. Hayes is not appealing it. Right now in my opinion, he has no right to stand before us and plead his case, because he is not appealing anything. He shouldn’t be standing there right now. The only time he should be allowed to approach the podium is when the Chairman asks if anyone from the public wishes to be heard on this item. If he starts with his testimony about how safe his apartment is then he is appealing it. He has not filed any paperwork to appeal it. When he takes us to court on this, somehow he has a tape of this meeting it looks like we heard his appeal but we never did because he never filed an appeal. He should not be at the podium right now. He is not appealing it. He has the right to come up here as a member of the public when the chairman asks for public comment on the case. The City is bringing this to the Board we can question Ms. Gerstenberg, the Animal Control Officer and any Police Officer that was there. The City is bringing this case to us so Mr. Hayes should not even be standing there right now. Ms. Gerstenberg agreed. Mr. Cooper told Mr. Hayes he could have a seat because he is not appealing it. Mr. Hayes agreed. Mr. Cooper advised Mr. Hayes that when the Chairman asks for public participation, because you are the member of the public, you are welcome to approach then. Mr. Cooper stated he would be interested in hearing from the Animal Control Officer now. Kim Walton, Animal Control Officer, was present. Ms. Walton stated that on November 2, 2013 is when she was able to make contact with Mr. Hayes and meet the dog that attacked the gentlemen that was walking in Dodge Park. Ms. Walton showed photos of the bite wounds at this time. Ms. Walton stated that the gentleman was walking in Dodge Park on October 18th, 2013 when Mr. Hayes was also walking in Dodge Park with his dog. The victim tried to walk by the dog and Mr. Hayes. The dog was on a retractable leash when the dog attacked the gentleman walking by. When Ms. Walton was able to make contact with Mr. Hayes on November 2, 2013 she was able to meet “Duke” the dog that caused these injuries. She had Mr. Hayes put the dog on a leash and bring him out of his apartment complex. She was accompanied by two Police Officers. She asked Mr. Hayes to hold the dog on a leash and try to meet the dog and see what his temperament was. As the dog got closer to her it started baring his teeth and growling. Eventually, she backed up and let him bring the dog to her to give the dog a fair chance to feel comfortable. The dog continued to display this and then lunged at her. Ms. Walton stated that she believes this dog is aggressive and without a fenced in yard it would not be safe for the public. Mr. Ervin asked why it took so long to make contact with the Owner of the dog. Ms. Walton stated that she tried to make contact with Mr. Hayes that day. Mr. Hayes gave the victim his information. She was unable to make contact because the address listed to his license was in Troy. So she had to determine if he was a resident of Troy or Sterling Heights. Which would determine if she was able to meet the dog. Mr. Pitrone asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to talk about this case. No one came forward. Mr. Pitrone closed that portion of the meeting. Mr. Pitrone addressed the Board to consider the four options in front of them. Moved by Cooper, supported by Ervin, Option one – The dog shall be forfeited to the City of Sterling Heights, effective December 23, 2013. All applicable impound fees shall be the responsibility of the Owner of the dog’s impoundment until that date. Upon taking ownership of the dog, Animal Control may exercise discretion to direct an appropriate disposition of the dog, except that it shall not be returned to the Owner, either directly or indirectly. Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. 10. Public Participation - None 11. Adjournment Motion by Ervin, supported by Cooper to adjourn the meeting. Yes: All. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 pm Respectfully submitted. John Pitrone, Chairman Joseph DiGaetano, Secretary Ordinance Board of Appeals Ordinance Board of Appeals