Upload
oldlouisvillezoning
View
211
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Initial presentation to BOZA on March 21, 2010
Citation preview
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
Timeline Overview2002 BISCO Properties LLC, owner.
2002 + City Directories offer conflicting information, NP, 0, 1
2005 Address appears on Abandoned Urban list (AUP)
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)
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)
An Open Records Request to Codes and Regulations produced the following:
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)
An Open Records Request to Codes and Regulations produced the following:
2007 File notes non-conforming rights lost in May
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 Note from Codes and Regulations file stating the property lost non-conforming rights in May of 2007
2008-09 Codes and Regulations lists address as “Court Vacant Structure”
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
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:
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: 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.
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: 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
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: 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
Staff DeterminationPer Mr. Hendrix, “Louisville Metro Code Enforcement Inspection History reports that show occupancy in 2003 through 2009”
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
“ 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
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.
“ 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. ”
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
2008-2009Property Maintenance Detail Reports dated:
March 19, 2008 February 11, 2009May 28, 2008 March 19, 2009September 3, 2008 May 12, 2009November 25, 2008 June 24, 2009
July 23, 2009August 5, 2009
list 224 East Oak St. as a “Court Vacant Structure” – a period of 17 months
May 19, 2009 MetroCall complaint “no garbage carts because carts were collected by Metro when the house went vacant.”SWMS work order placed on 8/9/06 resulted in removal of the six carts assigned to 224 E. Oak on 8/10/2006 & 8/11/2006 referring to 224 as a "vacant house“. - a period of 33 months
July 24, 2009 Electrical Contractor restores power. Note on Permit reads “Electrical service has been off for over a year.”
Staff Determination
3.19.09 Cornice deteriorating 8.05.09 Cornice no improvement
6.24.09 Gutter falling 2.11.09 Gutter hanging