September 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Guidelines. Mr. Duvall Observed that the use of the term restore in Dr. Klopfer's application provided a baseline for the Standards and Maintenance Committee's interpretation. President Oxian proposed that it was necessary for the committee to make a site observation prior to the writing of recommendations. Mrs. DeRose reiterated the necessity of reasonable notice to the owner of all activities undertaken. Commissioner Hostetler questioned what notice need be given. Mrs. DeRose indicated that the director should draft a letter to the owner which should be approved by counsel prior to posting. Commissioner Eide observed that it was highly irregular for the commission to provide the scope of work for an applicant. Mrs. DeRose allowed that it was highly irregular and noted that the commission had never had an applicant disregard the HPC's process in this manner previously. Commissioner Hostetler observed that if the applicant had employed the term rehabilitate in the submitted application that this would have been too vague but that the application for restoration was sufficient for the Standards & Maintenance Committee to interpret. Commissioner Eide asked if the applicant understood this, and Mr. Duvall read a paragraph from his letter of 6/23/94 (see letter attached) which provides definition of the term. Commissioner Eide expressed concern that this activity was going to consume the efforts of the committee members when the applicant had little invested in the process. Commissioner Hostetler commented that the committee could only proceed with the inspection if granted permission of the applicant. President Oxian noted that the commission did need to act on the COA application and that if the COA is denied, reasons need to be given. Mrs. DeRose .indicated that the alternative is to deny the COA for lack of information and then consider Code Enforcement's pending application for demolition. Commissioner Eide asked who had talked with him. Mrs. DeRose indicated that he will not talk to anyone. Mr. Duvall indicated that he has received our letter. Commissioner Eide speculated that this was a tactic on the part of the owner to avert Code Enforcement. Mrs. Dempsey exhibited a large file folder commenting that this represented only a portion of their record on this case and that the applicant had a long history of doing absolutely nothing. Commissioner Eide indicated that he felt we were cooperating with the applicant in subverting Code Enforcement and that the applicant needed to show more good faith in his dealing with the HPC. Mrs. DeRose reiterated that the HPC does have the choice of denying the COA and considering the application for demolition. Discussion continued briefly with no substantial new points of view or fact being presented. Mrs. Dempsey recalled that Code Enforcement's current request for demolition is a repetition of a previous application filed and denied in 1.993. She briefly reviewed their record of performing necessary public nuisance related maintenance at the subject yard and structure for the last seven or eight years. Commissioner Eide inquired about the resultant placement of liens on the property. Mrs. Dempsey noted that they had taken the owner to small. claims court. She also stated a that in her last conversation with him, he had indicated that the property was for sale but that he had found no interested buyers at the purchase price which he proposed. She stated that price to be in