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 July 14, 2014 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, Horst Hrinciuc - Code Enforcement Officer, Dana Vietto - Recording Secretary 3. Report from City Liaison – Denice Gerstenberg a. An update regarding property address 9004 Birkhill Drive, Ms. Gerstenberg stated that as of today the property owner has applied for a building permit. The building permit has not been approved. The property owner has a number of items to address which he is working on. Another report will be given in August. 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 – G14-0113, G14-0114, G14-0118, G14-0120, G14-0123, G14-0126, G14-0127, G14-0128 & G14-0131 4. Removal of Consent Items to New Business a. Moved item 8 to New Business 9a. G14-0119 Awad, Joyce – 39856 Pinebrook Drive b. Moved item 14 to New Business 9b. G14-0125 Martin, Eric J. & Joevia – 12246 Sorrento Blvd c. Moved item 21 to New Business 9c. G14-0132 Shakir, Hana – 2121 Lindell Road d. Moved item 22 to New Business 9d. G14-0133 Di Piero Investments – 11928 Steven Drive e. Moved item 25 to New Business 9e. G14-0136 Grablowski, Mark & Charlene – 8851 Houghton Drive 5. Approval of Agenda 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 June 23, 2014, as presented. 2. G14-0115 Dobrin, Eugene & Murariu, Alina C. – 35336 Connecticut Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 35336 Connecticut 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. G14-0116 Elias, Rimoun & Faieza – 3532 Franklin Park Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 3532 Franklin Park 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. 4. G14-0117 Harrison, Steven D. – 40376 Langton Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 40376 Langton 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. 5. G14-0121 Schieck, Gayle & Judith – 11182 Fairway Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 11182 Fairway 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 Ordinance Board of Appeals July 14, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 2 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. G14-0122 Fannie Mae – 37756 Alper Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 37756 Alper 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. 7. G14-0124 Jaszczak, Stanislaw & Teresa – 8863 Pemberton Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 8863 Pemberton 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. 8. G14-0129 Dixon, Oliver & Sandra – 15040 Elrond Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 15040 Elrond 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. 9. G14-0130 Kouyoumdjian, Alice – 39134 Roland Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 39134 Roland 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. 10. G14-0134 Yousif, Fadi – 35308 Vito Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 35308 Vito 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. 11. G14-0135 Wehmeyer, Josef A. & Adele – 11500 Farthing Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 11500 Farthing 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. 12. G14-0137 Kreger, Jami – 8635 Kidley Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 8635 Kidley 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. 13. G14-0138 Barylski, Marie E. – 11400 Shilling Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 11400 Shilling 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. 14. G14-0139 Shull, Laura B. – 11550 Silver Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 11550 Silver Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the Ordinance Board of Appeals July 14, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 3 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. G14-0109 Akers, Jordon R. – 14251 Hillsdale Drive Fence variance- asking Board approval to allow a 6’ vinyl privacy fence 1’ from the property line on the side yard along Brown Street. This fence will replace the existing cyclone fence with a 25’ angle on each side of the driveway. Jordon Akers, owner, was present. Mr. Akers stated he wants the privacy fence because he lives on a busy road. Mr. Cooper stated the fence is supposed to stay 25 feet away from corners or driveways not at a 25 degree angle. He asked if he is planning on using the driveway still. Mr. Akers stated that he won’t be using the driveway anymore because he plans on putting a driveway in off of the front of the house so he can get vehicles off of the road during a snow emergency. Mr. Cooper asked him if he planned on putting up a garage. Mr. Akers stated, “No”. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Akers discussed a new plan for the fence variance. Mr. Akers stated that he could put the gate and new driveway off of the front of the house. Mr. Cooper stated that the concrete approach and pad would have to be removed and replaced with fill dirt, top soil and sod then it would be all green space. Mr. Pitrone interpreted the discussion. Mr. Akers plans to remove the driveway all the way from the curb as far back as it goes and then you are considering putting a new driveway off of Hillsdale Drive. Mr. Akers stated that he would have to do a new driveway. Mr. Pitrone asked him if he would be putting up a garage. Mr. Akers stated, “No”. Mr. Pitrone stated he would support a variance for his fence provided there is no gate along Brown Street and the driveway and approach are both removed and seeded or sodded. Mr. Akers said, “O.K.”. Mr. Pitrone asked if he would be putting the driveway off of Hillsdale in at this time. Mr. Akers stated that he would like to get it done this summer but it would be in the near future. Mr. Ervin stated that the property line starts one foot inside the sidewalk and he agrees with the two Board members. Moved by Cooper, supported by Ervin, RESOLVED, to approve case G14-0109 at 14251 Hillsdale Drive with the following conditions: 1- that the petitioner agrees to abide by and comply with all applicable rules and regulations and orders of every lawful agency or governing authority having jurisdiction, 2- that the decision the Board will remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Board in public hearing are found to be correct and that the conditions upon which the motion is based are maintained as presented to the Board, 3- that the existing concrete approach and parking pad be removed and sodded and no gate along Brown Street. Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. b. G14-0110 Mile, Kelly – 40058 Fraser Drive Fence variance- asking Board approval to allow a 6’ vinyl privacy fence to be erected on the property line located on the side yard along Branch Street. This fence will replace the existing cyclone fence. Kelly Mile, owner, was present. Ms. Mile stated that she wants a 6’ privacy fence around her property for security and privacy for her kids. Mr. Cooper explained to her to make sure that when she hires a contractor that they know she has a pool. Mr. Cooper has no issues with driveways or corner clearances for this fence variance. Mr. Pitrone stated that all aspects of the fence have to comply with the pool regulations. Moved by Ervin, supported by Cooper, RESOLVED, to approve case G14-0110 at 40058 Fraser Drive with the following conditions: 1- that the petitioner agrees to abide by and comply with all applicable rules and regulations and orders of every lawful agency or governing authority having jurisdiction, 2- that the decision the Board will remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Board in public hearing are found to be correct and that the conditions upon which the motion is based are maintained as presented to Ordinance Board of Appeals July 14, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 4 the Board. Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. c. G14-0111 McHale, Elizabeth – 39276 Della Rosa Drive Fence variance- asking Board approval to allow a 6’ vinyl privacy fence to be erected on the property line located on the side yard along Vanessa. Elizabeth McHale, owner, was present. Ms. McHale stated that she wants the fence for safety and privacy. Mr. Ervin asked her, what the distance is from the driveway to the back of the house. Ms. McHale stated that she thought it was eighteen and a half feet. Mr. Cooper stated that he would agree with that. Moved by Cooper, supported by Ervin, RESOLVED, to approve case G14-0111 at 39276 Della Rosa Drive with the following conditions: 1- that the petitioner agrees to abide by and comply with all applicable rules and regulations and orders of every lawful agency or governing authority having jurisdiction, 2- that the decision the Board will remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Board in public hearing are found to be correct and that the conditions upon which the motion is based are maintained as presented to the Board, 3- the fence be at the back corner of the house which is approximately 18 ½ feet from the driveway. Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. d. G14-0112 Leach, Carolyn – 14200 Plumbrook Road Concrete variance- asking Board approval to allow the newly installed asphalt driveway rather than replace the prior asphalt driveway with concrete. Carolyn Leach, owner, was present. Ms. Leach stated that the Board granted her husband a variance in 1981 to allow the asphalt driveway to be installed but if ever removed it must be replaced with concrete. Ms. Leach stated that she did not know about the condition of the variance. Mr. Cooper stated that he does not have a problem with the asphalt staying. He saw a lot of asphalt in the area and the driveway looks nice. If it was in the middle of a concrete sub than Mr. Cooper would be against it. If approved he would agree with adding a clause that if ever replaced than the homeowner should have to get another variance. Mr. Ervin explained that in the staff report it states that engineering has no objection to the variance but if ever it deemed necessary to have concrete sidewalks the owner of the property will install the required concrete work promptly at her own expense. The building department requires that you secure a building permit for the driveway. Moved by Ervin, supported by Cooper, RESOLVED, to approve case G14-0112 at 14200 Plumbrook Road with the following conditions: 1 – that the petitioner agrees to abide by and comply with all applicable rules and regulations and orders of every lawful agency or governing authority having jurisdiction, 2 – that the decision of the board will remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the board in public hearing are found to be correct and that the conditions upon which the motion is based are maintained as presented to the board, 3 – the petitioner requires that the owner of the property agree that if and when the City deems it necessary to require the installation of subject concrete work, the owner of the property will install the required concrete work promptly at her own expense or will be subject to a special assessment in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of such installation by the City. Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. 8. Old Business a. G14-0127 Schroeter, Rolf M. – 9004 Birkhill Drive Report from City Liaison on progress of property. Ms. Gerstenburg stated that as of today the property owner has applied for a building permit. The building permit has not been approved. The property owner has a number of items to address which he is working on. Another report will be given in August. Ordinance Board of Appeals July 14, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 5 9. New Business a. G14-0119 Awad, Joyce – 39856 Pinebrook Drive Code Enforcement Officer, Horst Hrinciuc, stated as of today there were no changes to the property. Pictures were shown at this time. Thomas St Aubin, neighbor, was present. Mr. St Aubin stated that the previous owner was deceased. He has been told that the house is in probate and wants to know what can be done. The power has been shut off and he is worried about the sump pump. The shed needs to be torn down. The grass and weeds are high and when the city came by and cut them they left all the clippings. He cleaned them up because they started to smell but he can’t continue to clean the clippings up. He wants to know what happens to these types of cases. Ms. Gerstenberg stated, at this time now that we are aware that the home is vacant. There are two things that we work on doing. Our city contractor canvases the city on a regular basis and tags grass that is over 6” then the owner has until the next day to take care of it. If the property owner does not cut the property then the contractor will cut it. The bill will go onto the taxes if it is not paid. The code enforcement officer will have this property on his list and will be checking it regularly. He will check with our assessing records to see when the property changes ownership. At some point it will change to a bank or a property management company and we have developed a list of contacts to notify. If they fail to maintain the property than we will bring the property back to the Board and if the Board votes to abate the property the contractor will be out there to clean up the property within ten days. The bill will be sent to the property owner and if not paid it will go onto the taxes. Mr. Pitrone asked Ms. Gerstenberg what can be done if the power is shut off and the lack of a sump pump is causing damage. Ms. Gerstenburg stated that typically if there is a management company and bank involved they coordinate with them to keep the power on. If the power has already been turned off the city can’t get into the house. That is why we like to monitor the property to see when a bank takes a possession of the property and let them know that there is an issue. Moved by Hartson, supported by Cooper, RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 39856 Pinebrook 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. Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. b. G14-0125 Martin, Eric J. & Joevia – 12246 Sorrento Blvd Code Enforcement Officer Horst Hrinciuc, stated as of today there were no changes to the property. There was a plan review applied for but was disapproved by Frank Bayer and no other plans have been forwarded. Pictures were shown at this time. Eric and Joevia Martin, owners, were present. Mr. Martin stated that he did not know that he needed a permit. He stated that he put rocks next to the neighbors’ yard and then put pavers down. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Hrinciuc why the permit was denied. Mr. Hrinciuc stated that the inspector needed additional information and the homeowner did not pay for the permit. Mr. Martin stated that he did not know what he needed to do. Mr. Pitrone told Mr. Martin that he needs to speak to the inspectors and find out exactly what he needs to do. Mr. Cooper asked if he was willing to remove these on his own. Mr. Martin stated that he would rather not because it was a lot of work. Mr. Cooper stated that the pavers are within 18 inches of the property line, which is wrong. The water is pitched down and probably flowing straight into the neighbor’s yard. The pavers go to the back of the garage and you get all the rain water run-off from the garage roof that has no gutters. The water runs off and goes into your neighbor’s yard. Mr. Martin stated that the water runs off and goes next to the garage where the concrete is lifting. Mr. Pitrone asked what was being accomplished by putting the pavers in the back behind the garage. Ms. Martin stated it was for storage. Mr. Pitrone explained that outdoor storage is not allowed. Ordinance Board of Appeals July 14, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 6 Todd Camarata, neighbor, was present. Mr. Camarata stated that he told Mr. Martin that he is doing work that needs to be done to code. He showed several pictures indicating that his brick pavers have shifted due to the erosion from the property dropping grade between 4” to 8”. The water that builds up is all tipped towards his property line. His patio is splitting and falling in and making it difficult to use his wheelchair. Mr. Camarata is concerned that after one winter of a thaw his patio will be blown out. The water is now trapped between two buildings. Mr. Camarata is requesting that Mr. Martin pay for the damage done to his property or bring the grade back to where it was and fix his pavers. He wants him to make it right. Moved by Cooper, supported by Ervin, RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 12246 Sorrento Blvd 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. Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. c. G14-0132 Shakir, Hana – 2121 Lindell Road Code Enforcement Officer, Horst Hrinciuc, stated as of today there were some changes to the property. Mr. Hrinciuc stated that the homeowner is planning on demolishing the house. In two weeks consumers energy should be shut off, if not we will pursue circuit court. Pictures were shown at this time. Lilly Rozkowski, the neighbor, was present. Ms. Rozkowski stated that she was here a year ago when this property was brought before the Board. The Board had voted for an immediate abatement but minimal work was done. Mr. Rozkowski showed pictures from 2013 of the overgrowth and damage/nuisance to her property. She has been told the house is filled with trash and is falling down. She went to the city and found out that there is a new owner and he will be demolishing the house. She is concerned about the asbestos shingles on the house with the house being torn down. On July 7, 2014 she spoke to Mr. Viazanko and he stated that the state governs asbestos and not the city. She asked him if a note could be put on the permit so they are aware of the asbestos. Ms. Rozkowski showed the Board the petition to the homeowner and the city that has been signed by the neighbors for an immediate action to clean up 2121 Lindell. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Hrinciuc if a demo permit has been applied for by the property owner and if he is waiting for consumers energy Mr. Hrincuic stated yes and it should be shut off in about two weeks. Mr. Cooper asked if the owner is only going to address the structure. Mr. Hrinciuc stated that the property owner plans on addressing the structure, overgrowth and entire lot. Ms. Rozkowski stated that the neighbors don’t want a clean cut that they just want the property line cleaned up and the debris cleaned up on the property. Mr. Cooper stated that before the Board tonight is just nuisance growth and not the structure. We abated the nuisance growth last year and it sounds like nothing happened. It will be expensive and sometimes funds are watched but sometimes money has to be spent. It is not going to be cheap to clean this one up. Will the whole lot be cleaned up? Mr. Hrincuic stated that they do have equipment out there now and are starting to clear some of the foliage. If we do abate it we will probably have to get an estimate from the city contractor and get that approved because it will be over our threshold dollar amount. Mr. Cooper stated that this will be an expensive one. This nuisance needs to be abated immediately. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that this property went to the Board last summer. The property owner was in the process of negotiating the sale of the property. We did have a cost estimate from the city contractor to clear the nuisance growth only and it was well over $20,000. We did do some clean up at the time but it was minimal amount because the property was in transition of being sold. The city did not want to spend that kind of money if the new owner was going to take care of it. It ended up taking longer for the sale of the property. The property transfer took place in November. The existing owner would not leave the property so the new owner did not have access sooner to clean it up as he would have liked to. He did apply for a demo permit in February. The water has been shut off and DTE is shut off. He talked to Mr. Viazanko about the issuing of the demolition permit. He was in today to see if we have heard anything about Ordinance Board of Appeals July 14, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 7 consumers energy. Our inspector Mr. Sergott has been in contact with consumers to see if he can do anything to push the process along to get the gas shut off. We are trying to get it demolished as fast as we possibly can. Mr. Cooper stated that the property is a mess and we need to address the nuisance growth. We can’t wait another year. It is a lot of money but something needs to be done with the nuisance growth. Are you aware of the property owners’ plans for the property? Ms. Gerstenberg explained that the property owner has talked about clearing the property. The new owner is a Sterling Heights resident and lives close to the property. He has not talked about building in the near future. Ms. Gerstenberg suggested if it is the Boards wish to approve the nuisance abatement wait until the property is demolished and see what is left before we get an estimate to clear the nuisance growth. That might be a possible option. He said he will be clearing out the property but not clear cutting the property. He will be removing the nuisance growth. He knows he is in violation. Mr. Cooper asked if the homeowner is aware of the meeting today. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that the property owner was at the counter today so he is aware of the meeting. Mr. Pitrone stated that he agrees with Mr. Coopers comments. The issue before us is nuisance growth. The structure will be removed soon but right now we are discussing the nuisance growth. It is a huge mess and he would not want to live next to it. He will vote for an immediate abatement and if we don’t want to clear cut the property someone on site could determine how far we have to go around the property. Mr. Ervin explained that if we have a vacant field we do not cut the whole field we cut a perimeter. The neighbor mentioned that they don’t want it clear cut. He purposed that we cut a border around all the property lines approximately ten ft. It will eliminate the nuisance that is affecting all of the neighbors. It allows the lot to look nice until the structure can be taken down. Mr. DiGaetano made a motion for an immediate abatement. Mr. Cooper asked about the motion. He asked if the motion is to trim every tree on the property or go with what Mr. Ervin is talking about. Mr. DiGaetano stated the motion would include no overhang going onto other properties. The border idea is fine within a couple of feet. Mr. Ervin seconded the motion. Mr. Pitrone stated that the motion before us is for an immediate abatement with a ten ft border on all sides of adjacent properties. Mr. Pitrone asked if this could be step one. Are we going far enough or are we going to hear this property again? Mr. Ervin explained that if we maintain a perimeter around the property then the city can maintain that buffer if we need to. Mr. Cooper stated that he could except the ten ft perimeter but does not know if that will be the ultimate solution. Mr. DiGaetano stated that there is a lot of uncertainty about this property. We don’t know what the homeowner is planning on doing. At least for right now with the ten ft clearance all around the property this is something that can work. When we have a property maintenance issue it is one and done or can the city monitor this property and trim any growth after the abatement is done if it is needed. Ms. Gerstenberg explained that as for the maintenance of the grass we can continue to monitor that we will tag the property and then go out within 24 hours and cut it. As for this issue if we were to clear a ten ft perimeter and we go out again and the property is in violation again. We would have to start the process all over again. She agreed with Mr. DiGaetano that there is a lot of unknown about this property. Mr. Pitrone observed that the property owner is not here. Mr. Cooper stated that he would support the ten ft perimeter with the stipulation that this comes back to the Board at our first meeting in August. He doesn’t want to see this case closed tonight and maybe some of the unknowns will be answered. Patty Mullins, a resident, stated he would hate to see them kick the can down the road. This is a residential area so cut it down and don’t bring it back. Mr. Pitrone agreed. Mr. Ervin stated that it’s a start, it’s not the finish. He agreed with Cooper about bringing this property back he doesn’t want to close this case out. Mr. Pitrone stated that initially he mentioned a two step process. How would we do this procedurally and bring this back. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that we have brought cases back before and kept track of the improvements; we could do something like that. If we were to find something additional that was new, we would have to start the process all over for that violation. Mr. Pitrone stated that we could do a partial abatement, bring this case back in a few weeks for an update and then see if the Board needs to take further action. Ordinance Board of Appeals July 14, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 8 Mr. Ervin asked the neighbor if the ten ft perimeter clearance will satisfy them. Ms. Rozkowski stated that they want a trimmed landscape lot with trees. Right now they want at least a border until someone knocks the house down. Just clean it up. We don’t want all the trees gone but we want something done to the property. Mr. DiGaetano stated that if this was the same property owner we would do an immediate abatement because nothing was done. He would like clarity about what the homeowner intends to do. He would hate for the city to spend over $20,000 when the homeowner was planning on doing something. Mr. Cooper asked if he would bring this case back to the Board and not close it. He said “Yes”. Mr. Ervin gave it amended support. Mr. Pitrone stated that the motion before us is for the abatement of the nuisance conditions to the extent that immediately we create approximately a ten ft wide clearance around the property line and this case comes back in front of the Board at the first meeting in August for further consideration. Moved by DiGaetano, supported by Ervin, RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 2121 Lindell Road and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports, which give rise to this finding immediately and they need to create an approximate 10 ft border around the property line and this case comes back in front of the Board on August 11, 2014. 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. d. G14-0133 Di Piero Investments – 11928 Steven Drive Code Enforcement Officer, Horst Hrinciuc, stated as of today there were some changes to the property and he added garage door needs repair to the violations that still exist. Pictures were shown at this time. Ken Durham, neighbor, was present. Mr. Durham stated that he has been a resident for 44 years and retired from the city as the fire chief. The last seven years the property next door has been bringing down the other properties. The property is not maintained. He would like the Board to do something about it. Larry Gerbe, neighbor, was present. Mr. Gerbe stated that the last seven years it has been awful living by this property. The property stinks and he can’t open his windows. He wants the Board to make the property owner in tune about his property. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that there is a non-homestead inspection done every two years. A code enforcement officer is assigned to a certain section and every season they drive around the city viewing their area. This particular property did go to OBA in 2011 and it sounds like it is a particular property owner that is a repeat offender. We also have our new fee system in which property owners are charged $57 each time a code enforcement officer goes out to the property and does a re-inspection. When the property is placed on the Board agenda there is a $222 fee. If the Board moves to abate the property then there is the cost of the contractor clean up plus 25%. Our code enforcement has increased 211% from last year and we are seeing people comply now before going in front of the ordinance board. The re-inspection fee is new but the Ordinance Board fee has changed. In the past if you cleaned up your property prior to the Board hearing your case, you were not charged. Now if you are placed on the agenda you are charged. The residential non homestead inspection fee is an additional fee $125 every two years. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that residents can always call and let us know anonymously what the complaint is about. Moved by Cooper, supported by Ervin, RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 11928 Steven 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. Ordinance Board of Appeals July 14, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 9 Yes: Cooper, DiGaetano, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. e. G14-0136 Grablowski, Mark & Charlene – 8851 Houghton Drive Code Enforcement Officer, Horst Hrinciuc, stated as of today there were no changes to the property. Pictures were shown at this time. Mark Grablowski, owner, was present. Mr. Grablowski stated that he has been having hardships and is requesting thirty days to fix this. Mr. Pitrone asked Mr. Grablowski what he plans to get done in thirty days. Mr. Grablowski stated all five items will be done. Mr. Cooper stated that he is not sure if he will be able to get this all done whether the Board gives him time or not. Mr. Cooper stated that thirty days is a long time in the middle of the summer. Mr. Grablowski stated he believes he can get it done. Moved by Cooper, supported by Hartson, RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 8851 Houghton 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. Yes: Cooper, Ervin, Hartson, Pitrone No: DiGaetano. Absent: None. Motion carried. 9. Public Participation a. Douglas Wehmeyer, owner, 11500 Farthing Drive was present. He wanted to know what happened with his case. Mr. Pitrone told him that his property has already been approved on the consent agenda and nobody was here to speak about the property when the meeting began. Mr. Pitrone suggested to him to take care of the property before the contractor shows up and call the city. b. Patty Mullin, resident, was present. Mr. Mullin stated that he did not get answers to why 3005 Belcher was taken off of the agenda for tonight’s meeting. Mr. Mullin stated that by Holden Elementary School there is a pumping station that needs work around it and within the past few weeks progress has been made. Mr. Mullin asked how he could contact the Board members. He stated that he would like to get Mr. Cooper and Mr. Pitrone’s email address. c. Stanislaw Jaszczak, owner, 8863 Pembertone Drive was present. Mr. Jaszczask stated that he was here to talk about his property that was on the agenda tonight. Mr. Pitrone told him that his property has already been approved on the consent agenda and nobody was here to speak about the property when the meeting began. Mr. Pitrone suggested to him to contact the code enforcement officer assigned to his property tomorrow morning. 11. Adjournment Motion by Cooper, supported by Ervin to adjourn the meeting. Yes: All. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 pm Respectfully submitted. John Pitrone Joseph DiGaetano John Pitrone, Chairman Joseph DiGaetano, Secretary Ordinance Board of Appeals Ordinance Board of Appeals