BOARD OF CODE STANDARDS AND APPEALS MINUTES August 6, 2007 Members: Francisco Banuelos, Randy Coonrod, Randy Harder, Richard Hartwell, Bernie Hentzen, Ed Murabito, Warren Willenberg, John Youle Present: Banuelos, Coonrod, Harder, Hartwell, Hentzen, Ed Murabito, Willenberg Staff Members Present: Deb Legge, Julie Irvin, Darlene Hultman, Maria Bias, Sharon Dickgrafe, Elaine Hammons The regular meeting of the Board of Code Standards and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Murabito Monday, August 6, 2007, at 1:33 p.m. in the Metropolitan Planning Commission Board Room, 10th floor, City Hall, 455 N. Main, Wichita, Kansas. Before addressing the first item on the agenda, Chairman Murabito requested that the Board Members and City Staff introduce themselves to the public in attendance. 1. Approval of the Minutes of the July 9, 2007, meeting. A motion was made by Board Member Hartwell to approve the July minutes as submitted. Board Member Coonrod seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. 2. Approval of the Contractor License Examination Applications for August. There were no license examination applications submitted for August. 3. Appeal action against Jason L. Serviss d/b/a Action Roofing & Restoration. There was no representative present for Action Roofing & Restoration. Darlene Hultman, Building Construction Inspector Supervisor, informed the Board that when Action Roofing & Restoration renewed their contractor's license for 2007, they did so under fraudulent circumstances. The company submitted an insurance certificate from Royalty Insurance that stated Action Roofing & Restoration was insured through that company. The contractor had been issued several permits under the renewed license. Royalty Insurance contacted Central Inspection by phone, and supplied a written document stating that Action Roofing & Restoration did not have insurance through that company, and that no insurance had ever been purchased by Action Roofing & Restoration through Royalty Insurance. At the next attempt by Action Roofing & Restoration to purchase a permit, administrative staff inquired about the certificate of insurance; the individual attempting to purchase the permit left Central Inspection. A police report was filed against Action Roofing & Restoration. Board Member Coonrod inquired whether Action Roofing & Restoration still had open permits. Ms. Hultman responded that the company still had open permits. Board Member Hartwell asked whether the individual trying to obtain a permit admitted or denied that the insurance information was false when confronted with the false documentation of insurance. Maria Bias, Administrative Supervisor, told the Board that the individual did not respond and left the office of Central Inspection. BCSA Meeting August 6, 2007 Page Two It was also noted that Central Inspection sent a letter of notification to Jason L. Serviss d/b/a Action Roofing & Restoration that the Board of Code Standards and Appeals would be hearing the complaint regarding that company at the August 6, 2007, hearing. The letter was sent both regular and certified mail. The receipt from the certified mail, showing a signature of acceptance, was received by Central Inspection. Board Member Harder asked if Ms. Hultman was requesting that the Board revoke the contractor's license of Jason L. Serviss d/b/a Action Roofing & Restoration. Sharon Dickgrafe, staff attorney with the City of Wichita Law Department, explained to the Board that it had three options. The Board could vote to put the contractor on probation for a specified period of time; the Board could vote to temporarily suspend the license of the contractor until he provides adequate proof of insurance; or the Board could vote to permanently revoke the contractor's license. The particular act that Ms. Hultman had brought before the Board was the misrepresentation of a material fact by application in obtaining a license or permit. Board Member Coonrod expressed concern about the permits that were issued under the assumption that Action Roofing & Restoration had the required certificate(s) of insurance. He asked Ms. Hultman about the inspections for the permits that had already been issued, and liabilities that could befall the homeowners for whom the company was doing work. Ms. Hultman said that she believed that Action Roofing & Restoration was no longer actively working. Ms. Bias also stated that Wichita Police Department filed a case with the Sedgwick County Consumer Fraud office, and that any homeowner for whom work was done had the same option. Ms. Dickgrafe agreed that Central Inspection staff should follow up on any open permits and any jobs performed by Action Roofing & Restoration that were currently awaiting inspection, notifying the property owners of the company's failure to provide an adequate certificate of insurance. She added that Central Inspection staff should also make those property owners aware of the determination of the Board regarding Action Roofing & Restoration's license status. Board Member Harder made a motion to suspend the contractor's license of Action Roofing & Restoration. Board Member Willenberg seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Ms. Dickgrafe asked the Board to clarify whether Action Roofing & Restoration would be required to appear before the Board prior to allowing the license to be reinstated to an active status. Board Member Harder confirmed that the company would have to appear before the Board before the license would be removed from suspension. 4. Condemnation Hearings Review Cases: 1. 1151 N. Spruce Maria Estrada was present to represent this property. This property has been before the Board numerous times under different owners. The most recent purchase of the property was through an auction. The property was first BCSA Meeting August 6, 2007 Page Three before the Board in January 2007 and again in March 2007. At the June 2007 hearing, the Board approved a motion to allow sixty days to complete the exterior repairs or to send the property to the City Council for condemnation action. In the meantime the previous owner, Ms. Audrey Tamatt, sold the property at auction. The taxes are current. The new owners provided photographs showing that some repairs had been completed. Board Member Harder asked Ms. Legge why the property was before the Board once again since the motion had previously been approved to pursue condemnation action. Ms. Legge explained that since the property had recently been sold, the intent was to give the new owners an opportunity to make the required repairs. Ms. Estrada addressed the Board, stating that she had been unaware that the property was in the process of being condemned. She found out about the pending condemnation procedures when purchasing a repair permit from Central Inspection. Ms. Estrada told the Board that clearing the debris from the property had already begun, and new windows had been installed. Board Member Harder asked how long it would take Ms. Estrada to have the exterior repairs completed. She estimated that it would take another five or six weeks. Board Member Coonrod made a motion to allow sixty days for the exterior repairs to be completed or Ms. Estrada would have to reappear before the Board. Board Member Banuelos seconded the motion. The motion carried without opposition. (Board Member Banuelos translated the Board's action for Ms. Estrada to ensure that she understood the requirements.) 2. 818 S. Emporia Javier Galindo appeared before the Board on behalf of this property. Most of the exterior work has been completed. The staff recommendation for this property was to return it to regular code enforcement. Board Member Hartwell made a motion to return this property to regular code enforcement. Board Member Coonrod seconded the motion. The motion carried unopposed. 3. 1430 S. St. Francis Present to represent this property were Dana Winkler, attorney; Jim Lawing, attorney; and Mike Outhouse, stepfather of the minor heirs. This property was most recently before the Board at the July 9, 2007, hearing. At that time a prospective buyer had appeared on behalf of the property; the Board approved a motion to allow thirty days to complete the exterior repairs to the property, maintaining the site in a clean and secure condition, or report back to the Board. Since that action, the circumstances surrounding the property have changed due to legal issues. Photos of the work done since the Central Inspection staff photos were taken were distributed to the Board. BCSA Meeting August 6, 2007 Page Four According to the Sedgwick County Real Estate Records as of July 31, 2007, the property taxes for 2005 and 2006 were delinquent in the amount of $881.30. A 2006 special assessment for weed mowing had also been assessed against the property in the amount of $116.50 and a 2007 special assessment for weed mowing in the amount of $116.50. At that time there were tall grass, weeds and some bulky waste on the premises. Some painting has been started. Jim Lawing, attorney and administrator of the estate, addressed the Board. Mr. Lawing explained that the woman that had owned the property was deceased; and although she had left a will, the will had never been executed. The deceased owner had five or six adopted children, three of whom were minors at the time of her death. The minor children are represented by a guardian, Ed Liles. A petition to establish homestead rights for the minors has been filed by another party. His task, Mr. Lawing told the Board, was to do whatever was appropriate to carry out his mandate. At least two of the children were still under the age of eighteen. In addition to the delinquent taxes, the City of Wichita also holds a $12,000 no-interest-bearing note on the property from a loan previously made to the owner for repairs to the property. Mr. Lawing yielded the floor to Dana Winkler. Mr. Winkler, attorney representing one of the minor heirs of the estate, explained that the photographs passed to the Board were evidence of repair work that had been done within the previous two weeks. Mr. Winkler said that he understood that a probate judge had upheld the homestead rights of the minor children, and that they will be assigned the property as their part of the estate as their homestead. Furthermore, once the property has been restored to a livable condition, the minor children would be allowed to live in the structure with an adult guardian. Mr. Winkler said he understood that when the minor children became adults, they would assume the note held by the City of Wichita. Mr. Winkler said that he had been in touch with Michael Hollimon, Neighborhood Services, and that Mr. Hollimon advised him that the City could not loan further monies for the home, however, the City would likely allow a resident adult relative or guardian to assume the loan if that person is within the income guidelines. Mr. Winkler requested that the Board allow the minor children to continuing working with their step-father, Mike Outhouse, to make the necessary repairs to the structure. With the exception of replacing the roof on the house and repairing the garage, the work has started, and in some cases completed, on all other items. Chairman Murabito asked if Mr. Winkler could provide a time table for completing the work. The step-father of the children, Mike Outhouse, estimated that the work could be finished within sixty days. Board Member Hartwell asked if that time frame included replacing the roof. Mr. Outhouse confirmed that it would include the roof; he told the Board that his job was in construction. Until the property was released to the heirs, Mr. Outhouse said he was unable to begin any work on the property. Once the court had assigned the property to the minor heirs, Mr. Outhouse immediately started making repairs. Mr. Lawing interjected that he had had a prospective buyer and had filed a petition to sell the property. A petition was then filed by another party, on behalf of the minor children, to establish the homestead rights. The probate judge sustained the homestead rights of the minor children. BCSA Meeting August 6, 2007 Page Five Board Member Coonrod asked about the status of the delinquent taxes. Mr. Winkler said that issue of the delinquent taxes would have to be addressed once the property was brought into code compliance. Board Member Coonrod told Mr. Winkler that the usual procedure for allowing time to work on the property was granted only if all delinquent taxes had been paid. Ms. Legge mentioned that the Board had given a time period for the payment of delinquent taxes while allowing an extension of time for required repairs to be completed. Board Member Harder made a motion to allow sixty days to continue working on the property, keeping the site in a clean and secure condition in the interim, and to attempt to pay the delinquent taxes and special assessments. Board Member Banuelos seconded the motion. The motion was approved. New Cases: 4. 910 N. Ohio. Robert Dixson, son of the owner, Ruby Murray, was present as a representative for this property. This two-story frame dwelling is approximately 25 X 41 in size; the structure is vacant. The stone foundation is shifting; there is rotted and missing wood lap siding; the composition roof is sagging; the wood front porch is rotting and collapsing; the concrete front porch stoop is cracked and shifting; the 8 X 10 accessory shed is dilapidated. Central Inspection has had a case on the property for a number of years. Within the previous two days, the structure had caught fire and was burned almost to the ground. Mr. Robert Dixson confirmed that the structure had been totally burned down. He told the Board that the only thing left to do was to clean up the debris from the fire. His mother had asked him to attend the Board hearing and request additional time to be allowed to clean up the premises. Chairman Murabito asked if the clean up could be accomplished in thirty days. Mr. Dixson said he felt he could probably complete the clean up within thirty days. Chairman Murabito advised him that it would be less costly to the property owner if the City did not have to be involved in the removal of the remaining structure and the clean up. Board Member Hartwell made a motion to allow thirty days to finish removing the damaged structure and clear the site of debris. Board Member Willenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. 5. 937 N. Indiana There was no representative attending the hearing on behalf of this property. This one and one-half story frame structure is about 28 X 50 feet in size; the dwelling has been vacant for at least three years; it has a cracking and shifting concrete block foundation; it has deteriorated wood lap siding; it has a badly worn and sagging BCSA Meeting August 6, 2007 Page Six composition roof; the front porch is rotted. Board Member Harder made a motion to refer the property to the City Council, recommending demolition, with ten days to begin removal of the structure and ten days to complete the removal and clean up. Board Member Willenberg seconded the motion. In a consensus, the Board voted to approve the motion. 6. 1014 N. Indiana There was no one representing this property at the hearing. The structure is a one-story frame building that has been vacant for about five months; the dwelling is approximately 26 X 40 feet in size; the concrete block foundation is cracking and shifting; the composition roof is badly worn and has holes. Board Member Coonrod made a motion to send the property to the City Council with a recommendation of demolition, with ten days to begin wrecking and ten days to finish the removal of the structure. Board Member Willenberg seconded the motion. The motion was approved. 7. 912 N. Cleveland Darryl Ott, owner of the property, was present at the hearing. Approximately 30 X 53 feet in size, this two-story frame dwelling has been vacant for many years. The concrete block foundation is cracking and shifting; the vinyl siding is deteriorated; the composition roof is badly worn and is sagging; there is rotted and missing soffit and fascia. The active case on this property was started in 1991. The property has been in court in previous years. The owner did bring the exterior into minimum code compliance, and maintained the structure in a clean and secure condition for a number of years; however, in recent years, the structure has started to deteriorate again. The 2005 taxes are delinquent in the amount of $45.93; there is a 2007 special assessment for lot clean up in the amount of $1,061.17. At the last site inspection by Central Inspection staff, there were tall weeds and some debris on the premises. Mr. Darryl Ott told the Board that he had purchased the property at a tax sale in 1990. He said that he had repaired the structure and had rented it out for awhile. He explained that he had encountered some financial difficulties and had not made any definite decisions on the disposition of the property. He said that he was only aware of the tall weeds that were immediately surrounding the building; he stated that he mowed and maintained the property regularly. The clean up assessment was due to a neighbor depositing his trash onto the site after receiving a notice from the City of Wichita to clear the debris from his own property; Mr. Ott made a police report about the illegal dumping as well as contacting Environmental Services. Mr.Ott said that he had met with a representative of Interfaith Inn and may be working with that gentleman on possible options for this property. The siding purchased for the house is in storage. As he understood, Mr. Ott said that the major deterioration was on a small laundry room addition, which could be removed if necessary. Mr. Ott requested BCSA Meeting August 6, 2007 Page Seven that the Board grant thirty to sixty days in order for him to determine a plan of action for the property, whether he is financially able to repair the structure. In the meantime, Mr. Ott assured the Board that he would get the brush and undergrowth cleared from the site. He informed the Board that he owned six other properties that he actively maintained and was unable to afford repair or demolition costs for the Cleveland property at that time. If he were granted an extension, he felt he could arrange to finance the demolition or repair, or possibly sell the property. Board Member Hartwell commented that there would be little cost involved in cleaning up the exterior of the site. He asked Mr. Ott if he had the roofing materials for the structure. Mr. Ott said that he had scaffolding available and that he could remove the guttering. Reroofing the structure would be a major project as he would be required to remove several layers of roofing and replace the decking. He suggested that the Board allow him at least thirty days to investigate his options and report back to the Board. Board Member Hartwell asked whether the interior of the structure would make the building worth saving from demolition. Mr Ott said that the inside needed some repairs; however, for the most part, it was in good condition. He continued to describe the building as a very large structure that had been divided into two units. On the south side, a two-bedroom apartment runs the length of the house; on the other side, there are three upstairs bedrooms, a bath, a large dining room and a large kitchen. The utility room in the rear is the portion of the building that may need to be removed. The major issues with the property are the needed foundation repairs and the roof. He said that he had some interested parties that may want to take over or purchase this property. Chairman Murabito asserted his concern that the property had been in the Central Inspection active housing files since 1990. Mr. Ott reiterated that he had continued to mow and maintain the property and pay the annual taxes since that time. A matter that also might have bearing on the Board's decision, Mr. Ott remarked, was that a portion of the lot had been lost due to highway construction in previous years. The size of the lot was reduced by approximately one-third; if the house was demolished, Mr. Ott suspected that the decreased size of the lot would prevent any new construction, thus leaving the site as a vacant lot. Board Member Hartwell made a motion to allow thirty days for the premises to be cleared of debris; to fix or remove the guttering; properly secure the structure; and sixty days to complete the remainder of the exterior repairs or report back to the Board on the status of the property. Board Member Harder seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. 8. 1045 N. Mathewson This is a one-story frame dwelling about 26 X 40 feet in size; it is vacant and open; the structure has a cracking and shifting block basement wall; the composition roof is deteriorated and has holes; there is rotted and missing wood lap siding. Board Member Hartwell made a motion to send the property to the City Council with a recommendation of demolition, with ten days to commence wrecking and ten days to complete the job. Board Member Coonrod seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the Board. BCSA Meeting August 6, 2007 Page Eight 9. 713 N. Minneapolis The owner of the property, Ms. Lewis, was present as a representative for the property, accompanied by her brother, Willis Moore. This one-story frame dwelling is about 31 X 54 feet in size; it has been vacant for at least three years; it has a cracking concrete slab; rotted and missing masonite siding; broken and missing transite siding; the soffits are fire-damaged; the composition roof is sagging; the front porch is dilapidated. The active file was initiated on this property on April 10, 2004. The property sold in December of 2004, and the property has been maintained secure since then; however, no repairs have been made. There are delinquent taxes for 2006 in the amount of $402.86; at the last site inspection there was minor debris on the premises. A permit was obtained for roofing and siding, and the vinyl siding was in the process of being installed. The structure was secure. Ms. Legge distributed updated photographs of work that had been done on the structure, along with a receipt showing the payment of the delinquent taxes. Ms. Lewis informed the Board that she had purchased the property in 2006; although she knew that there had been fire damage, she had been unaware that there were housing violations on the property. At the time of purchase, the structure was occupied, and the tenant requested that she allow him to stay in the house until he could make other arrangements. Ms. Lewis said she agreed that the tenant could temporarily reside in the house. In June of 2006, she obtained a permit for roofing and siding. Board Member Coonrod asked how long she expected it would take to complete the work on the exterior. Ms. Lewis responded that it would require approximately six months; she added that the siding was almost complete. Board Member Harder explained that although the roofing/siding permit was good for six months, the Board could not extend the time for completion of the repairs for six months. Board Member Hartwell asked what other repairs were still needed. Ms. Lewis replied that once the siding was finished, the roofing and the repair of the windows needed to be done. Board Member Harder asked if Ms. Lewis was doing the repairs or if she had hired a contractor. Ms. Lewis said that she was doing whatever work she could perform and then would hire a contractor for the rest of the work. Board Member Coonrod asked if the work could be finished within sixty days. Mr. Willis Moore, Ms. Lewis' brother, interjected that it was his opinion that the completion of the work would take ninety days. He stated that the back area of the house would be used for storage. The front portion of the structure would be a living area. Board Member Hartwell wanted to know what repairs would be addressed first. Mr. Willis said the roofing would be started as soon as the siding was finished. Mr. Willis told the Board that the rafters would have to be assessed for stability since there had been a fire in that area. Board Member Coonrod made a motion to allow ninety days for the exterior to be brought into compliance, maintaining the site in a clean and secure condition in the meantime, and the taxes kept current. Board Member Willenberg seconded the motion. The Board approved the motion. BCSA Meeting August 6, 2007 Page Nine 10. 2326 E. Mossman No representatives were in attendance on behalf of this property. Twenty-two by thirty-six feet in size, this one-story frame dwelling has a shifting concrete foundation; the structure has fire-damaged wood lap siding; the composition roof is deteriorated and has missing shingles; the concrete porch slab is shifting; the dwelling has been vacant for at least one year. Board Member Harder made a motion to send the property before the City Council with a recommendation of demolition, with ten days to begin razing the building and ten days to finish the demolition. Board Member Willenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. 11. 1230 N. Crestway No one was present to represent this property. Badly damaged by fire, this structure has been partially demolished. Once the owner received the Pre-condemnation letter advising him of the hearing, the owner hired a wrecking contractor to raze the structure. The staff recommendation is to send the property to the City Council for condemnation procedures to assure the completion of the demolition. Board Member Coonrod made a motion to submit the property to the City Council with a recommendation of demolition, with ten days to initiate the razing and ten days to finish the demolition. Board Member Willenberg seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. 12. 2101 S. Washington James Frye, the owner, was present as a representative for this property. A one-story frame dwelling, approximately 26 X 36 feet in size, the structure has been vacant for at least six months. The concrete block foundation is cracking and has missing blocks; the wood lap siding is deteriorating; the composition roof is sagging; the concrete front porch is cracked; the enclosed rear porch is dilapidated; there are rotted rim joists; the 16 X 20 foot accessory garage is deteriorated. The active case was commenced on this property in January 2007. Since that time, a Notice of Improvement, a Notice of Violation and a Pre-condemnation letter have been issued. Although the taxes are current and the structure is secure, there are overgrown weeds and some debris and bulky waste on the premises. No repairs have been made. Speaking to the Board, Mr. Frye imparted that the yard had been cleared of debris and that he planned to demolish the structures. He asserted that the "missing block" on the foundation was actually the crawl space access. His intention, Mr. Frye said, was to do the demolition himself unless it proved to be more work than he could accomplish; if necessary, Mr. Frye indicated that he would hire a contractor. When asked by Chairman Murabito about the anticipated time frame, Mr. Frye responded that he wasn't certain BCSA Meeting August 6, 2007 Page Ten how long it would take to remove the structures. Board Member Coonrod made a motion to grant sixty days for the razing and clean up of the property, maintaining the site in a clean and secure condition, or the property would be submitted to the City Council with a recommendation of demolition, with ten days to begin demolition and ten days to complete the demolition. Board Member Hentzen seconded the motion. The Board passed the motion. Mr. Frye asked if there was anything else that he needed to do. Ms. Legge advised him to obtain a licensed drain layer to obtain permits and to seal off the sewer. Board Member Willenberg made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member Hentzen seconded the motion. The motion passed. With no other business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.