224 east oak st

An Appeal of a Staff Determination regarding224 East Oak St Case B-15416-11

224 East Oak St.

224 East Oak St.

4

Timeline Overview2002 BISCO Properties LLC, owner.

2002 + City Directories offer conflicting information, NP, 0, 1

2005 Address appears on Abandoned Urban list (AUP)

2006 Property briefly listed on MLS for sale (no signs appeared on the property)

2007 File notes non-conforming rights lost in May

2008-09 Codes and Regulations lists address as “Court Vacant Structure”

2009 BISCO surrenders the property in lieu of foreclosure

2010 Staff Determination issued for non-conforming use as 5 units












An Open Records Request to Codes and Regulations produced the following:





An Open Records Request to Codes and Regulations produced the following:






2007 Note from Codes and Regulations file stating the property lost non-conforming rights in May of 2007








2009 BISCO surrenders the property in lieu of foreclosure

2010 Staff Determination issued for non-conforming use as 5 units

Staff DeterminationPer Mr. Hendrix, “Listings showing several apartments in the 1999 through 2009 Carons Directories”

An interoffice report prepared by Nancy Braxton-White in September 2010 or previous states, “It is not clear from the listings in the Polk Directories if the structure on the site has one unit or six units.”

There may have been multiple apartments but they were mostly unoccupied

2002 – 2008 0-1 occupant March 19, 2008 through May 12, 2009 IPL lists

the property as Vacant

Staff Determination

Per Mr. Hendrix, “Fire Department Bureau building information dated June 11, 1975 that describes one apartment on the 1st floor, two apartments on the 2nd floor, and two apartment on the 3rd floor.”

Later information from Louisville Metro Fire indicates there were no inspections which are required for apartment buildings.

Staff Determination

Per Mr. Hendrix, “Louisville Metro Electrical Permit in 2009”

This Electrical Permit contains the following note

“Electrical Service has been off for over a year”

Staff DeterminationPer Mr. Hendrix, “Louisville Metro Code Enforcement Inspection History reports that show occupancy in 2003 through 2009”

These records also clearly demonstrate the building is falling into serious disrepair and is quickly being coming uninhabitable Inspection reports indicating multiple citations for:


These records also clearly demonstrate the building is falling into serious disrepair and is quickly being coming uninhabitable Inspection reports indicating multiple citations for: debris, rotting window frames, abandoned vehicle, garbage, graffiti, metal vent pipe terminated too low on the roof, windows broken out/open, inadequately secured building, missing mortar, and flies breeding.


These records also clearly demonstrate the building is falling into serious disrepair and is quickly being coming uninhabitable Inspection reports indicating multiple citations for: debris, rotting window frames, abandoned vehicle, garbage, graffiti, metal vent pipe terminated too low on the roof, windows broken out/open, inadequately secured building, missing mortar, and flies breeding. Rodents in the walls, defective water heater sitting near a gas stove, front, rear and cellar doors standing open, 5 feet of standing water in the basement


These records also clearly demonstrate the building is falling into serious disrepair and is quickly being coming uninhabitable Inspection reports indicating multiple citations for: debris, rotting window frames, abandoned vehicle, garbage, graffiti, metal vent pipe terminated too low on the roof, windows broken out/open, inadequately secured building, missing mortar, and flies breeding. Rodents in the walls, defective water heater sitting near a gas stove, front, rear and cellar doors standing open, 5 feet of standing water in the basement Result - in multiple fines, five liens, a court case and a guilty

plea


If 224 East Oak was “occupied” it was only because the building was unsecure and street people were wandering in and out

Staff DeterminationPer Mr. Hendrix, “Jefferson County, Kentucky Property Valuation Administration 2010 records listing the site as apartment in a 3-story structure”

“Their records don’t identify the number of units in a structure.” – interoffice email from Nancy Braxton-

White to April Robbins

Staff DeterminationPer Mr. Hendrix, “The letter dated September 23, 2010 from Ronnie J. Harris, Jr., Vice President of King Southern Bank, stating the building has five units, that each unit has its own entry door, kitchen, bath and bedrooms, and LG & E service.”Per Mr. Hendrix,“Three affidavits from previous owners Thomas Houchin, Edward Bishop of Bisco Properties, and Ronnie J. Harris, Jr. with King Southern Bank, declaring that there have been five apartments in the building since 1984 and the owners have actively tried to rent each apartment”

The 3 affidavits are from previous owners TEN affidavits from neighbors attesting to their observations that the property was vacant That a For Sale or Rent sign appeared only in late 2009

Staff Determination

Two Affidavits attesting to phone calls made to the number on the For Rent sign On March 3, 2010 a caller was told “the building currently

has 5 units but it has to be converted to two units when sold because the city doesn’t allow any more units than two.”

In April, 2010 a second caller was told “224 East Oak had lost its grandfathered status as a multi-family dwelling and could only be sold as a single family home, possibly a duplex.”

Per Mr. Hendrix, “The letter dated September 23, 2010 from Ronnie J. Harris, Jr., Vice President of King Southern Bank, stating the building has five units, that each unit has its own entry door, kitchen, bath and bedrooms, and LG & E service.”Per Mr. Hendrix,“Three affidavits from previous owners Thomas Houchin, Edward Bishop of Bisco Properties, and Ronnie J. Harris, Jr. with King Southern Bank, declaring that there have been five apartments in the building since 1984 and the owners have actively tried to rent each apartment”

Phone Number on For Sale sign

Abandonment – LDC 1.3.1.F

This condition has been met:

224 East Oak was listed as an Abandoned Urban Property in 2005Louisville Metro Codes Ordinance & KRS 132.012 definitions

* 38.09 ABANDONED PROPERTY CLASSIFIED AS REAL PROPERTY.

(A) Abandoned urban property is established as a separate classification of real property for the purpose of ad valorem taxation. As used in this section, abandoned urban property means any vacant structure or vacant or unimproved lot or parcel of ground which has been vacant or unimproved for a period of at least one year and which:

(1) Because it is dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin infested, or otherwise dangerous to the safety of persons, it is unfit for its intended use; or

(2) By reason of neglect or lack of maintenance has become a place for the accumulation of trash and debris, or has become infested with rodents or other vermin; or

(3) Has been tax delinquent for a period of at least three years.

“ a showing that the subject property has not been regularly used for the purposes for which the nonconforming use status is claimed for a period of one year shall create a presumption of such abandonment. . . The Board may accept any substantial evidence sufficient to show that the nonconforming use has been discontinued for a period of one year or more. ”

Abandonment – LDC 1.3.1.F 1023 S. Third, a related case

Case # B-19-05 Although the building had been configured

into 5 apartments, because only 1 had been occupied for a number of years . . . And that no permits were obtained for apartments . . .

BOZA ruled non-conforming rights do not exist


Abandonment – LDC 1.3.1.F

March 19, 2008 through August 5, 2009 IPL lists the property as Vacant - a period of 17 months

May 19, 2009 MetroCall request for return of garbage carts “because they were removed when the property went vacant” for a period of 33 months (From SWMS records)

July 24, 2009 Electrical Contactor restores service, noting, “Electrical Service has been off for over a year”

September 8, 2009 PDS staff state the property has been vacant for four years

Ten neighbors with a direct line of sight to the subject property have provided sworn Affidavits attesting that the property was vacant for more than a year.


This condition has been met:

Abandonment – LDC 1.3.1.F1. the property owner has undertaken to reinstate the discontinued

nonconforming use on the property by such acts as would be undertaken by a reasonable person with the intent to reinstate said nonconforming use; and

This condition has not been met:• The property was vacant/uninhabitable• No electrical service 2008-2009• No Metro garbage service • 5 liens placed against the property by Metro Building

and Housing related to ignored property maintenance• 10 IPL complaints registered for “trash and debris”• Neighbors observe no activity indicating occupants

Abandonment – LDC 1.3.1.F2. there is a reasonable prospect that the nonconforming use will be reinstated

in the foreseeable future.

This condition has not been met:

King Southern Bank actively marketed this property in March and April 2010 as a “single family/duplex.” Presumably the Bank, after doing it due diligence as the new owner, fully understood that non-conforming rights to a multi-family property had been lost by the previous owner.

Facts

three affidavits from previous owners

Louisville Metro via AUP stating the property had been abandoned for one year

IPL listing the property as vacant for a period of 17 months

SWMS noting the property as vacant for 33 months Independent electrical contractor noting the power

had been off for over a year 12 neighbors affirming that the property was vacant

for more than a year PDS staff stating the property was vacant for four

years PDS staff stating that the owner had done nothing

to repair, rent, or sell the property. A representative from King Southern Bank

informing prospective buyers that the property had lost grand-fathered status and must now be sold as a single family or possibly a duplex.

Supporting non-conforming use of 5 apartments

Supporting use as a single family/duplex as permitted

Proposed Findings of FactThe Appellant requests that the Board uphold the Appeal and find

From the testimony and records submitted at public hearing that the Appeal involves the use of an existing structure in a Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District, and multi-family is not permitted by right at his address in the TNZD, and

This property meets none of the criteria for establishing non-conforming use. The property was abandoned for a period of one year or longer on at least three

occasions The property was uninhabitable PDS staff can not verify the number of units in the property PDS staff stated that the property was vacant for four years and had lost non-

conforming rights There was no electric service for more than a year There was no garbage service for 33 months The previous owner stated that the property had lost non-conformity – on two

separate occasions

The non-conforming use was abandoned

224 East Oak St. has reverted to the properly zoned use as a single family/duplex

Documents

224 east oak st