Property Review Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Meeting Page - 1
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD
July 25, 2012 Meeting
City of Huber Heights
I.Chair Eva Newby called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00p.m.
II.Present at the meeting: Mr. Demland, Mr. Yoe, Mr. Winkler, Ms. Hawthorne, and Ms. Newby.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present:Chris Lohr, Code Enforcement Administrator and Margaret Muhl, Administrative Secretary, Planning Department.
III.Swearing of Witnesses
Ms. Newby 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.
Ms. Newby stated that since several property owners were present this evening she would take those cases first, and then would follow with the remaining items on the agenda.
IV.Financial Update
Chris Lohr proceeded to explain the financial information provided to the Board. He stated there are unspent funds totaling about $12,000, and $8,000 of that would go towards the quote he received for the repair of the parking lot by the post office. There should be sufficient funds until the end of the year.
Ms. Hawthorne asked if the road by the post office was going to be repaired. Mr. Lohr confirmed and explained that a better price was obtained because they would use the contractor that the Engineering Department was using for street repairs.
Mr. Yoe asked if there are sufficient monies for demolition of the properties previously discussed. Mr. Lohr explained that grant monies were covering those demolitions. He proceeded to reference the properties listed for demolition on the financial report.
Mr. Demland asked why asbestos was being discovered in Huber homes. Mr. Yoe stated that asbestos was used in the ‘60’s in many materials. Mr. Lohr stated that prior to the mid-‘70’s it was common for construction materials to consist of asbestos. Mr. Demland stated the situation bothered him because a contractor could take the products to a landfill. Mr. Lohr stated they were not supposed to do that, but were to dispose of such materials in an approved manner.
Mr. Yoe stated that contractors were licensed and knew what had to be done to dispose of such materials. He added that landfills knew what to do with the materials.
Mr. Lohr mentioned the company the City dealt with for such things, and stated they were a reputable company who also dealt with the County.
Mr. Lohr proceeded to review other expenses listed on the report.
Mr. Demland asked about the property that had been involved in an explosion and remarked that the slab was still at the site. Mr. Lohr confirmed and stated at that time there was no requirement to have the slab removed from the site. Therefore, the slab is considered code compliant. This question arises occasionally, and possibly he could speak to the City Attorney and see if something could be done about it.
V.Pending Business
Case Updates
PMRB Case No. 12-01 – Mark Bishnow (8800 Taylorsville Road)
Chris Lohr stated that he met with the property owner at the site yesterday. He reminded everyone that the original violations were:
- A number of unlicensed and inoperable vehicles
- Junk
- Overgrowth
Originally, the violations had been significant. At present, Mr. Lohr felt the majority of the violations had been corrected. The remaining violations have been located on the property so they are no longer visible from neighboring properties. There are remaining zoning violations in connection with the vehicles. At this point, he would recommend that this Board close this case, and the remaining vehicle violations would be addressed between the property owner and staff.
Mr. Bishnow stated that he had nothing additional to add.
Motion made by Mr. Yoe to close PMRB Case No. 12-01, and that the remaining vehicle violations would be addressed between the property owner and staff.
Seconded by Mr. Demland. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Demland, Mr. Yoe, Mr. Winkler, Ms. Hawthorne, and Ms. Newby. NAYS: None. Motion to close Case PMRB 12-01 carried 5-0.
PMRB Case No. 12-10–Raymond Weaver, Jr. (4460 Pennyston Avenue)
Chris Lohr stated that initially some significant improvements had been made at the site, but it appears those improvements have stopped. He thinks there is now some additional debris on the property due to the windstorms that have occurred recently. The property owner has until September to bring the property into compliance. At that time, a final review would be done of the site.
PMRB Case No. 12-17 – Anthony Madden (4511 Pennyston Avenue)
Chris Lohr stated that violations at this property consisted of overgrowth at the rear of the house and garage, and a severely damaged roof on the detached garage. He stated that he contacted the property maintenance company listed at the site, who stated they would have the bank approve the repair, but so far nothing has been done. At this time, he is not sure if repairs would be made. He sent an e-mail to the maintenance company and was waiting for a response.
Staff recommends that the Board declare the violations a nuisance, and order Zoning to abate the violations. He stated that he would have the overgrowth removed, and have the loose shingles removed off the roof of the detached garage. Neighbors were complaining about them going into their yards. If he hears from the maintenance company, he would put things on hold. Otherwise, he would proceed with the abatement.
Motion made by Mr. Yoe to declare the existing violations a nuisance, and order Zoning to abate the overgrowth at the site and remove loose shingles from the roof of the detached garage.
Seconded by Mr. Winkler. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Winkler, Ms. Hawthorne, Mr. Demland, Mr. Yoe, and Ms. Newby. NAYS: None. Motion to approve abatement carried 5-0.
PMRB Case 12-13 – Oakcrest Manor (6540-6600 Brandt Pike)
Chris Lohr explained that this was the site of the Oddlot Shopping Center.He stated that the graffiti on the rear of the building has been corrected. The existing violations are as follows:
- Severely deteriorated parking lot
- Damaged signage
Mr. Lohr stated that he spoke with a representative of the owner of the property who asked for an extension so quotes could be obtained for repairing the parking lot and removing the damaged signage. He received an e-mail from the owner of the property stating that the property is in the bankruptcy process which should be completed within a month or so. He asked the owner if any quotes for correcting the violations had been received, but so far he has not received any response. He stated further that the repair of the parking lot is beyond the City’s ability to correct due to cost. He received a quote of $70,000 to $90,000. Removal of the damaged signage would be within reason, but would not make a massive impact on the site.
Staff recommends that this Board declare the violations a nuisance, and order Zoning to obtain quotes for the removal of the signage.
Mr. Demland asked for clarification as to what signage was to be removed. Mr. Lohr explained the damaged cabinets underneath the Big Lot sign would be removed, along with the cabinet on the overhang in front of the store.
Mr. Winkler asked what would happen with the parking lot since it was out of the City’s realm to address. Mr. Lohr stated the parking lot would be difficult to repair, but he would work with the City Attorney and see what options are available. He added that the City Code prevents the sale or transfer of ownership of the property when Code violations exist. He believed their options were limited, and they would have to come up with other tools to get the violations corrected.
Motion made by Mr. Demland to declare the violations a nuisance, and order Zoning to obtain quotes for removal of signage at the site.
Seconded by Ms. Hawthorne. Roll call showed: YEAS: Ms. Hawthorne, Mr. Demland, Mr. Yoe, Mr. Winkler, and Ms. Newby. NAYS: None. Motion to approve staff’s recommendation carried 5-0.
VI.New Business
- PMRB Case No. 12-22
The property owner, RONALD M. DALBOTTEN,is in violation of Sections 1313.04, 1313.05, and 1193.02 of the Property Maintenance Code at property located at 9768 Palmer Road.
Chris Lohr stated that part of the property that fronts on Palmer Road is located within Bethel Township, and everything south is within the City of Huber Heights. Back in September, 2011, there was a fire and explosion and the residence was deemed a total loss. Evidently, the entire structure collapsed into the basement. In order for an investigation of the fire to occur, the contents had been pulled out of the basement. This is what remains on the property as of this time.
Prior to the damage of the structure, violations for grass and two unlicensed/inoperable vehicles had been cited at the property. Mr. Lohr stated that in walking around the property with the owner today, it was discovered that there were three unlicensed and inoperable vehicles at the site. The violation process was put on hold pending the State Fire Marshal’s investigation of the property.
Mr. Lohr stated that in conjunction with the State Fire Marshal, the violation process was begun again earlier this year. A notice was sent to the property owner, who had informed staff that the insurance case was still pending. After discussing the matter with several other parties, Mr. Lohr stated he decided to stop the violation process since the insurance payment was still pending.
Mr. Lohr stated that in April and May he began speaking with the insurance company. The City Code requires that when a structure is damaged more than 60%, an insurance deposit is required from the insurance company. In May, the City received a portion of the insurance disbursement totaling approximately $24,000 to $25,000. The funds are pending correction of the existing violations at the site. All State is the insurance company involved, and that the City’s receipt of the deposit should be evidence that a payment was made to the property owner on the claim. Mr. Dalbotten stated that there is paperwork pending before he receives the check.
Mr. Lohr continued stating that there is a severe violation at the site. Notification was made to the property owner, who states that he would correct the violation once he receives the insurance payment. Mr. Lohr stated that regardless of the status of the insurance claim, he feels there is a severe nuisance condition at the site which has been an issue for a long period of time. There is no guarantee when this violation would be corrected. Therefore, he feels they should move forward with the demolition process to ensure that the situation would be corrected in a timely manner.
Mr. Lohr stated that if this Board declares the property a nuisance and order Zoning to move forward with the demolition, as with the other properties the Board considered for demolition, a title search would be required, along with an asbestos inspection. Once the results of the title search are received, staff would be required to notify any financially interested parties such as mortgage companies and lienholders. A 30-day notice would be provided to those individuals, and an additional hearing with this Board would have to occur. Staff is eventually recommending that this property be demolished. Due to the requirements that have to be met in the process, a final review would probably be scheduled before this Board for the first meeting in September.
Staff recommends this Board to declare the property a nuisance, and order demolition with a final hearing to be held on September 13, 2012 regarding demolition of the structure.
Mr. Dalbotten agreed to staff’s recommendation. He stated that everything would be taken care of prior to that date. He continued stating that he did not want the City to do the demolition, and he would take care of it. He further stated that this City was not his favorite city. He added that he spoke with Mr. Lohr this morning and asked for information regarding property lines, and ownership of the 10’ of the property he showed Mr. Lohr. He stated that possibly the City has to maintain that 10’ due to how the sale had been done of the property to Coca-Cola.
Mr. Lohr stated that he did not believe that the City acquired any property in that area. Mr. Dalbotten asked who was responsible for the 10’ of property. Mr. Lohr stated that he and Mr. Dalbotten needed to meet to determine the property lines. He stated that either Mr. Dalbotten owned the 10’ or Coca-Cola. Mr. Dalbotten stated that maybe Mr. Lohr should meet with Coca-Cola and discuss responsibility of the 10’ of property. He added that he would take care of the demolition of his property prior to September 13, 2012. He did not want the City to get involved.
Mr. Dalbotten stated that the front of the property is located in Miami County, and therefore, the City of Huber Heights does not do anything regarding that property. When the house blew up, one of the City’s detectives came to the site three days later who was provided with names and license plate information of individuals who had been on his property. Many things have been stolen out of his garage totaling probably about $15,000. He never heard back from the detective or the City’s Police Department regarding the matter. Now, he believes he knows who blew up his house, and that individual may be living in Sydney. The City is doing absolutely nothing. He has no street lights or curbs, and no snow removal service. Therefore, he does not understand why the City is now so excited about nosing into his affairs when they don’t take care of their own business. He referred to the potholes in Huber Heights by the post office, along with some of the parking lots. He referred to several areas where grass has not been mowed all year. He added that he wished his property was located entirely in Miami County because he is not happy with Montgomery County or the City of Huber Heights.
Mr. Dalbotten again reiterated that the demolition would be taken care of before September 13, 2012.
Ms. Newby stated that this Board can only discuss the matter before them this evening. If Mr. Dalbotten has other concerns with the City, he would need to contact the proper authorities within the City.
Mr. Demland asked if the Huber Heights Fire Department had responded to the situation. Mr. Dalbotten stated they had not.
Mr. Lohr stated that as far as he knows the matter was handled by the Bethel Township Fire Department, and then it was referred to the State Fire Marshal’s Office for further investigation. Mr. Dalbotten commented that the State Fire Marshal had done a very good job regarding his matter. In his opinion, he feels that All State Insurance Company and the City of Huber Heights are suspects. He stated that he was never cleared by the insurance company to go on his property. He understands that when an arson occurs the property owner is always a suspect, and in many cases arson was done for insurance purposes. He stated he did not blow up his house and will not make money off the matter. Now, since he knows the first name of the individual he suspects, possibly the person could be prosecuted. He once again reiterated that he would handle the demolition of his property before September 13, 2012. He stated that the City would have to release the insurance deposit to him.
Mr. Lohr agreed. Mr. Dalbotten stated he would work with staff regarding the matter. He reminded Mr. Lohr about the information he has requested in connection with property lines. He added that he would take care of the vehicles at the site. He referenced properties within the City where inoperable vehicles and motorcycles were stored. He added that he would have his vehicles towed where they could be used as lawn ornaments. He reminded Mr. Lohr that the City did not have any jurisdiction over those vehicles. He added that he was upset and would take care of the vehicles.
Mr. Demland asked why the City had received the insurance deposit. Mr. Lohr explained there was a provision in the City’s Code that requires once a structure was damaged beyond 60% of its value, the City is to receive a portion of the insurance disbursement to ensure that violations were corrected. The monies could be used for boarding up the property and for demolition. The funds remaining would be refunded to the property owner. Mr. Demland clarified that the funds given to the City were not the total claim. Mr. Lohr stated the monies given to the City was just a small portion of the claim.
Mr. Dalbotten stated that he would not give the money to the City because he could take care of the demolition. He reiterated he was upset with Montgomery County and the City of Huber Heights. He also stated that he was not happy in how the property had been rezoned. He stated that originally the property at the rear was to be used for low income housing, but lawsuits had occurred. He brought up the issue of the 10’ strip of property once again. He felt there had been some shady deals within the City.