Loading...
Minutes 11-06-14 MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6,2014, AT 4 P.M., IN CHAMBERS AT CITY 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BLVD, BOYNTON BEACH, FL PRESENT: Beverly Agee Nancy Byrne, Development Director Sanford Guritzky Andrew Mack, Building Official George Neger Jim Cherof, or Counsel Roger Zona Diane Springer, Code Compliance Manager Andrew Podray, Alternate Patrick Hart, Code Compliance Officer ABSENT: Carmel anton, Dr, Timothy Rurey A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 4 p.m. by Mr. Guritzky, Roll call established a quorum was present. B. Elect New Chairperson Since former Chairman Michael Bessell resigned in August 2014, Mr. Zona nominated Andrew Podray as Chair. Ms. Agee seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations received and the vote was unanimous. Attorney Cherof pointed out Andrew Podray was an Alternate, and Alternates could not serve as Chair. He suggested Mr. Podray serve as Chair Pro Tern for the meeting and, if desired, the Board could request the City Commission move Mr. Podray to Regular member status, which would permit him to serve as Chair thereafter. Motion Ms. Agee moved Mr. Podray be made Chair Pro Tern for the meeting. The motion was seconded and unanimously passed. C. Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors Since roll call had been taken, Attorney Cherof explained as the case moved forward, interested parties will state who they are and introduce their representatives. Meeting Minutes Building Board of AdjL nents and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 6, 2014 D. Approval of Agenda and Minutes of November 7, 2013 Motion Mr. Guritzky so moved. Mr. Neger seconded the motion that unanimously passed. E. OLD BUSINESS None. F. NEW BUSINESS Applicant: Leon Jenkins Reference: 132 NW 10 Ave. (a.k.a. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.) Explanation: Applicant is appealing a demolition order issued as allowed by Section 116.4, inclusive, of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2010 Florida Building Code. The applicant is requesting a stay of the demolition order and additional time to conduct the work stipulated by the Notice of Unsafe Building dated 9/02/14. Gail Jenkins, 16049 Rio Del Sol, Delray Beach, the Petitioner, was represented by Counsel, who was delayed due to traffic. By consensus, the Board recessed at 4:06 p.m. to allow Counsel for the Jenkins time to arrive. The Board reconvened at 4:22 p.m. Attorney Cherof explained this case was an appeal and the meeting was a quasi-judicial matter. He administered an oath to all those intending to testify. Andrew Mack explained he is a licensed General Contractor, Civil Engineer, and the City's Building and Building Code Administrator. He explained the following: • In April 2014, he sent a notice to the Jenkins declaring the property to be unsafe and unsanitary and to repair the premises or demolish the building within a specified time. • When the letter was received, Mr. Jenkins indicated he wanted to repair the premises. They wrote a letter detailing their plans, including a time frame. • On April 28th, the City stayed its demolition order. The owner was in the process of hiring a contractor and requested another extension in May, which was granted. 2 Meeting Minutes Building Board of AdjL m s and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 6, 2014 ---------- • Permits were submitted on June 19 from the plumbing contractor the owner hired and since then, nothing has been done. The property is still unsecured, unsafe and unsanitary. • After that time period elapsed, a second notice was sent on September 2, 2014, advising the violation still existed and the Jenkins were ordered to repair or demolish the building within 10 calendar days. • After the 10 days, notice was provided to the owner by certified and regular mail that the City would demolish the property. • Mr. Jenkins came to the Building Department, after the deadline, indicating he wanted to repair the property. • Mr. Mack explained the time to do so had elapsed, and his only recourse would be to submit an appeal to the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The owner submitted an appeal application on September 26 which was past the deadline; however, the City opted to allow the appeal to come before the Board. Mr. Mack tried to arrange a meeting twice, but the meetings had been twice delayed. Mr. Mack explained the property was boarded up because it was unsecured, there are plumbing and electrical issues, damaged drywall, the electric service was missing and there was no water to the property. Chair Podray inquired if 10 days would have been enough time to cure the violations and Mr. Mack explained if the applicant meets with the Building Department, extensions are granted. He also explained 10 calendar days was enough time to obtain a contractor to make repairs, restore the premises to a satisfactory condition and meet with staff. Usually, the applicant hires an engineer, architect or contractor to create plans and submit for a permit and Mr. Mack explained staff usually expedites the permits. The purpose of the letter was to ensure the applicant would move forward with the plans. Ms. Agee inquired if there was asbestos in the premises. Mr. Mack explained the City hired a demolition contractor who, as part of due diligence, checked for and found asbestos, which would delay demolition of the property until the asbestos was abated. Mr. Mack explained the owner has owned the property since 1984. There have been 73 Code cases since then and 201 documented criminal activities at the property. There are $5,845 in unpaid water, sewer, storm water and refuse fees. Since the initial meeting, 211 days have gone by. The owner has other properties in the City, and understands how to manage property. Attorney Lewis, Counsel for Mr. Jenkins, referenced Code Section 116.1 permitting the Board to declare a structure unsafe; however, once that determination has been made, the Code requires the City to provide a written notice stating the defects. She asserted the notice provided to Mr. Jenkins did not. 3 Meeting Minutes Building oar f AdjL nents and Appeals Boy nton each, Fl v r 6, 201 Mr. Mack explained the letter referenced the entire building and typically, the owner would hire a person to provide detailed drawings of the repairs. The letter said to fix the building. Attorney Lewis commented when a letter is sent, Mr. Mack anticipates a meeting will occur, but the Code still required the notice. Mr. Mack asserted the owner knew of the repairs when Mr. Jenkins hired Newbold as a contractor. They listed what needed to be addressed. There were visual defects, and staff does not list every outlet, fan, leak, drywall repair needed. They received written notices on April 2 and September 2 nd to repair the entire building and the Jenkins hired a professional to provide drawings and detail of what needed to be done. Mr. Jenkins did this. His plumbing application detailed what would be done. Attorney Lewis commented the Board was requiring the Jenkins to follow and comply with the Code and asserted written notice must contain the violations and it was obvious Mr. Jenkins, as a non - contractor, may not know what to ask. The written requirement could be taken to a professional to obtain estimates to fix the building as required by the Code. Ms. Agee read Section 1161. 1.1 which listed the defects, and inquired if the meeting with the Building Official and the owner, stating all of those items were the defects met the spirit of the Code. She noted Mr. Jenkins owned the property since 1984. He owns other properties and was not a novice. He knows plumbing, electrical, drywall and asbestos are serious violations. Ms. Agee thought Mr. Jenkins may have waived written notice when he met with the Building Official who pointed out each and every item as a defect, and then indicated he would hire a contractor. Attorney Lewis did not think the breadth was a sufficient requirement to which Mr. Jenkins had to be held. Ms. Agee reiterated all of the items in Section 116.1 were listed as a defect, including asbestos. Mr. Mack reiterated when he met with Mr. Jenkins, they reviewed all of the items that needed to be repaired which was why he hired a plumbing contractor. Mr. Jenkins indicated he wanted to get the plumbing done first, followed by electric. Mr. Jenkins obtained a proposal from an electrician. The last person hired was a general contractor because Mr. Jenkins could not secure each individual trade by himself. Mr. Mack stated Mr. Jenkins knew what was required and he had received two notices, stating what needed to be done. Mr. Neger explained the matter was a common sense issue. Attorney Lewis referenced Exhibit B which pertained to Code violations. The last notice issued was 2013 from a Code violation in 2013 that was cured. There were no Code violations from 2013 to 2014. Discussion ensued Mr. Jenkins met with Mr. Mack. Mr. Mack testified he reviewed all of the violations. The notice says to repair the building. It was not just one specific item. If it were just electric, he would specify electric, but in this case, it was everything and the entire building had to be repaired. Diane ri r, Code Compliance Coordinator, explained Code Compliance did not cite Mr. Jenkins because the Building Department proceedings on the property had started. The last two violation notices Code Compliance had issued were to secure the building and the other for overgrowth and both were corrected. When the Building Department initiated action, and the Jenkins were cited, Code Compliance stopped Meeting Minutes Building r of AdjL nents and Appeals B oy n t o n Beach, Florida Nove 6, 2014 pursuing the matter because they were the same violations Code Compliance would have cited. Mr. Mack explained a major problem was the building was unsecured. It could have been secured in August, but when it got to Mr. Mack, there was a lag in the Code case. One problem was the notice went to the property address and not to the owner's address. Mr. Mack got involved in March and when he viewed the property, it was unsecured just as it remains to -date. Prior to that, Code Compliance handled the matter. Ms. Agee noted the discussion does not address the problems from March to the present. She did not understand how an individual who owns numerous properties could come to the meeting and indicate he did not know what to do. She recalled Mr. Jenkins had indicated he would address the plumbing first and other items after that. Attorney Lewis explained Mr. Jenkins met with Mr. Mack, hired a plumber, pulled a permit and went through the process. The reason for the Code is to hold citizens to a standard of living, building and /or structure within the community. She contended he needed to be provided with the information to comply. If he made no attempt, she understood demolishing the building, but he hired a general contractor who attempted to pull a permit in September, which was denied because the building was set for demolition. There was discussion if the contractor was licensed. Mr. Neger explained the company was qualified by a licensed contractor, but not the contractor. Attorney Lewis requested Mr. Jenkins be given a reasonable timeline, asserted 10 days for the magnitude of repairs the building needed was not reasonable, and be given specific information. Mr. Mack explained from April to November was over 211 days. He reiterated he stayed the demolition order based on correspondence Mr. Jenkins sent. There had been no activity from April 28 It took from May 5 th to June 1 g over 40 days, to hire a plumbing contractor because the owner chose to address the issues one piece at a time. There had been no movement on the property from June until September, other than when he received notice of the demolition. He had met with Mr. Mack and knew what needed to be done and did nothing. He was given another 10 days to comply and after the 10 days, he meets with Mr. Mack asking what could be done and he hired a contractor. Mr. Mack pointed out the building could be demolished within 10 business days. Mr. Mack thought it would take three or four days to get quotes to remove the asbestos. Attorney Lewis countered it would take longer to tear the building down than the time given. The letter gave 10 days to come in. The first order was stayed and Mr. Jenkins was given 14 days to obtain a permit and 14 days afterward to start construction. Mr. Guritzky commented Mr. Jenkins did nothing. Ms. Agee surmised Mr. Jenkins was a knowledgeable property owner and he owned other properties, which she assumed were in good repair. He received the notice, met with Mr. Mack and. reviewed the repairs. Mr. Jenkins chose to make the repairs one at a time, starting with the plumbing repairs, then the electric, until they were done. Ms. Agee did not view Mr. Jenkins as ignorant, but it appeared to her he was using it as a defense. There was a six -month period and he wanted more time. He had a contractor, but it appeared the contractor was not licensed. 5 Meeting Minutes Building oar jL ments and Appeals Boynton each, Florida No 6, 2014 Attorney Lewis pointed out that was only evidence he was trying. He needs reasonable time and a specific list of what was needed to make the building safe and emphasized 1 days was not enough time. Six months had elapsed; however, Attorney Lewis explained in September, Mr. Jenkins was not permitted to pull a permit due to the demolition order. Chair Podray commented if Mr. Jenkins held a mortgage on the property and was a personal guarantor, giving 10 days to completely renovate a home was unreasonable. After 10 days, if the loan is called and he goes into foreclosure because of the lack of collateral, a cascade effect will ensue and the bank will pursue Mr. Jenkins on his other properties until the bank is made whole. He suggested when full renovations are required, more time should be given. Mr. Mack explained the 10 days in the notice was to meet. Attorney Lewis explained that was not what the letter stated. Chair Podray opined the Code is so broad, a Building Official could site an owner for anything. He felt the issue was Mr. Jenkins had 10 days to correct all of the issues. Mr. Mack read the first letter sent to Mr. Jenkins into the record, which is attached to the meeting materials. Attorney Lewis questioned the 10 days to demolish the building, not to pull a permit and fix everything. The only correspondence indicating he could pull a permit was April 28 That letter gave 14 days to pull a permit and another 14 days to do the work. Mr. Jenkins then sent a letter. Attorney Lewis put it on record he was not given 10 days to get a contractor, only 10 days to fix it or the City would demolish it. Mr. Mack explained the building was unsafe and needed to be secured immediately and it was not. The notice was sent April 2n and they met on April 12 Mr. Jenkins informed Mr. Mack of the work he would do. Mr. Mack stayed the demolition which gave him additional time. Mr. Jenkins requested additional time and he did not send another unsafe notice. On May 5 ", the plumbing contractor submitted for a permit and from June until September there was no contact or activity. On September 2 r. Mack sent another notice. Mr. Jenkins was already aware he should have had a general contractor and other contractors lined up. Only after Mr. Jenkins received a demolition order a second time on September 15 did he want to come in after the fact. Mr. Mack explained this was Mr. Jenkins motive. Each time Mr. Jenkins received correspondence, he came in and asked for extensions after the fact, not taking into consideration Mr. Mack dealt with him in a fair and equitable manner. He granted him every extension he needed, but Mr. Jenkins had done nothing. When he pulled the permit, there were no inspections scheduled. Mr. Mack went back on site at the end of August. The condition was still the same with the doors wide open. A second notice was sent on September 2 that there was an unsafe structure and he was given 10 days to address the matter. On September 15 nothing was done. A second notice was sent notifying him the home would be demolished. Only after Mr. Jenkins received the demolition order did Mr. Jenkins do anything. It was the motive. Everything was delayed even the Board Hearing originally scheduled for October 16, 2014, when Mr. Jenkins asked for an extension because he was trying to work something out with the mortgage. He was granted another extension, bringing the matter to the present day. Mr. Mack explained Mr. Jenkins had over six months to do something to the property and it remains the same way it was in March. 6 Meeting iu Building or jc nents and Appeals Boynton each, Florida November 6, 201 Ms. Agree agreed. Mr. Jenkins came in on the 10 day of receiving the first letter and is given all the information he needs to make the repairs and he was told what they were. He chose to make the repairs in a piecemeal fashion. She contended Mr. Jenkins had the responsibility to repair the property between March and November. He does nothing until he receives a notice, then he brings in someone else. She was concerned because the the latest entity hired may not be licensed. There would be an unsafe building for another month because he did not hire the appropriate contractor. There are repeated delays and a new contractor tactic occurring. Attorney Lewis commented they were requesting Mr. Mack meet with Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Mack provide, in writing, what needs to be done to the building and to provide a reasonable timeline. Mr. Jenkins was attempting to address the matter in a way he was assuming would meet the Code's requirements. If Mr. Jenkins does not meet the timeline, the building will be demolished. Mr. Guritzky explained the notice was to provide 10 days to move forward. It has repeated delays. The notice does not say it had to be completed. Attorney Lewis countered the notice indicates in 10 days the building will be demolished. Attorney Cherof suggested Mr. Jenkins testify to what he thinks is a reasonable time period to meet with Mr. Mack and to correct the violations. Leon Jenkins explained he had dealt with Code Compliance for years, but nothing to this magnitude. He treated it as a Code Enforcement issue. When he received the initial notice, he realized the building was unsafe. When he spoke with Mr. Mack, he was advised the doors needed to be secured, there was damaged soffit, and the windows had to be secured properly. He got people out to secure the building. Mr. Albert Williams had been managing the property and he was watching. If something was askew, he would address it. He commented there were times he left doors open. In August, he had six or seven plumbing contractors. Had he known the best way to deal with the matter was to retain a general contractor, he would have done so, but he thought it was like a Code Enforcement matter. He had never hired a contractor. When questioned, Mr. Jenkins did not know about the asbestos and he has no clue how to abate the asbestos. He spoke with a plumbing and electrical contractor and was advised it would take 45 to 60 days. Chair Podray wanted to ensure the City had the authority to make Mr. Jenkins remove the asbestos, because if looking for hazards, every home constructed in the city before 1978 should be tested for lead based paint and be fulyl abated. Normally, that is a requirement from a lender who will want an operations and abatement plan to monitor the asbestos in lead based paint, but he wanted to ensure they had the jurisdiction to ensure he had to abate it. Mr. Mack clarified the only reason why the asbestos survey is done is because it is a legal requirement when executing a demolition order. He noted the asbestos was contained in the floor tiles. If he was not removing the tiles, they can remain. If demolishing the entire structure, they have to be removed of properly and disposed of in the proper manner. 7 Meeting Minutes Building'Board of Adj men ts and Appeals Boynton Florida November 6, 2014 Attorney Lewis explained Mr. Jenkins was seeking notification in writing from Mr. Mack and appropriate time to correct. Mr. Jenkins explained if asbestos was not an issue, he did not see why he could not do this within 60 days. Mr. Jenkins explained it would be best for him to rehab the building one unit at a time. In this neighborhood, he did not want to do a lot of work and then transients take everything out. Mr. Jenkins commented he will ensure he has all the security to ensure items are removed from the premises. Mr. Jenkins explained he has had vandalism. The new plumber will not use copper because copper is expensive and transients steal it. They go in the shower, knock a hole in the shower stall, and pull the copper out of the entire building. All of the electric was pulled. Mr. Mack explained the letter from Mr. Jenkins dated October 13 indicates he enclosed all the necessary approved engineering stamped drawings, and the permit application obtained by Alphonse Newbold Construction. Other paperwork was enclosed and Mr. Mack noted the contractor was ready to move forward. If so, Mr. Mack did not see the need for more than 45 days. Mr. Mack explained Mr. Newbold has pulled permits in the City before. Attorney Lewis inquired if he c ' ould get a detailed list of what he needs to accomplish within the 45 days from Mr. Mack. Mr. Mack responded he already has written drawings from an engineer and contractor detailing the repairs. He obtained these when he hired the contractor and engineer.. Mr. Mack explained if the Board thinks Mr. Jenkins will follow through on the repairs and was willing to grant him an extension, 45 days was more than sufficient to have all addressed in the structure. Mr. Guritzky inquired what would occur if the work was not done in 45 days. Mr. Jenkins explained he has never done this before and did not see how he could not complete at least one unit. Mr. Mack explained the issue is the entire building has to be rehabbed, not just one unit. There were four units in the building and they are unsecured. Attorney Lewis explained the Board could include that throughout the 45-day period the building be secured. Mr. Mack emphasized it was the entire building. Chair Podray agreed security was important. Ms. Agee i whether if they agreed to give 45 days, and all parties meet to learn what had to be done, whether could they put in the order that if the work is not done in 45 days, the property could be demolished. Attorney Cherof counseled the Board would need to determine if the building is unsafe and dispose of counsel's assertion of whether or not sufficient notice was provided. Once that is addressed the Board can set a date for demolition beyond the time period the Board thinks would be necessary for correction of the property. The Board could reserve jurisdiction to reconsider the matter if something extraordinary occurred between now and then. Attorney Lewis agreed the stipulation was reasonable provided Mr. Mack provided in writing what has to be done within that time period. 8 Meeting Minutes Building -Board of AdjL nentsandAppeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 6, 2014 Attorney Cherof explained Mr. Mack testified the work needing to be done was the work specified in the plans Mr. Jenkins submitted. He suggested Mr. Jenkins had no doubt what needed to be done, and Attorney Lewis agreed. There was brief discussion of encapsulation of asbestos which was quicker and cheaper and it protects the occupants. It was noted removal was very expensive. Attorney Cherof explained the Board does not have to assist in the rehabilitation project, only make a determination whether the building is unsafe and that the time period where rehabilitation of it can occur. Ms. Agee was willing to make a motion that reasonable notice was provided and based on the presentations, the Board could allow 45 days to take the building to a safe condition., that was appropriate for Boynton beach, would look right in Boynton Beach, and give Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins their property. She did not want to see demolition, but did want to see the Jenkins pay attention to the notices when they are received. She was unwilling to admit the notice was not sufficient, but was willing to say that based on what they are indicating and all the evidence presented, the Board allow 50 days to do what is necessary what Mr. Jenkins now knows, and that he doesn't need anything in writing. Mr. Mack explained the plans were not submitted or reviewed, so he would have to submit for them and they would be expedited. Provided the plans are correct, they could be approved in one day; if not, they would have to be corrected and resubmitted by the contractor. Mr. Jenkins was satisfied with the time frame. Attorney Cherof suggested due to upcoming the holidays the Board pick a deadline of January 5 or January 12 2015. Motion Ms. Agee moved to give Mr. Lewis until January 12th to submit plans, to make sure they are approved and the plans have to include everything that needs to be done to make the building safe. If not done by January 12, 2015, than the Building Official has the authority to proceed with demolition. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the entire building is rehabbed, and vandalism occurs or a Code Enforcement matter arises, if that would count against him. Attorney Cherof explained in addition to the responsibility to maintain and bring the property to Code, that it is his responsibility to ensure it is secure from vandalism. Mr. Neger inquired how the property got to its current state. Mr. Jenkins explained Code Compliance saw the round meter was off the cover at the building. He called FPL and they came out and said everyone in the building stole their meters and they were going to pull the meter and they disconnected the main service wire to the building. He had one tenant at the premises at the time, and he had to move. Mr. Jenkins checked with FPL and the account was in Mr. Jenkins name, and he would need to pay a deposit for service. He thought he only had to check on the meter. He got estimates to fix it. Each time he got estimates to fix the meter, and they would come out, there was additional damage. 9 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adji men ts and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 6, 2014 Had FPL not disconnected power, he would have had someone living there watching the building. ' Attorney Cher of clarified the motion as follows: The Board finds the property that is the subject of this appeal is unsafe. The property owner is given until January 12, 2015, to restore it to a condition of a safe structure. If the property is not restored to a safe condition by January 12, 2015, the Building Official may proceed with the demolition of the property. Ms. Agee so moved. Mr. Guritzky seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. The motion failed 2 to 3 (Messrs. Zona, Neger and Chair Podray dissenting.) Chair Podray offered an amendment that it would be sufficient as three of the four units were secure. He would fully renovate one unit and secure the other three. Ms. Agee rejected the amendment. Mr. Mack pointed out to operate a rental unit, he has to have a Business Tax Receipt and he could not obtain the license for only one unit. It had to be for the entire building. The unit could be improved, but no one could live there. Chair Podray explained there was interest in the building. He read correspondence to the City of Boynton Beach from the Family Advocate from the Palm Beach County Adopt- - Family Housing Stabilization Program in support of Mr. Jenkins' character and that Mr. Jenkins has provided housing to Adopt -- Family participants. Chair Podray ray suggested as long as Mr. Jenkins complied with the plumbing and electrical, there were no safety hazards and the property was boarded up to prevent vandalism, he could still lease out the other units. Mr. Mack explained he would have to pass the Business Tax Receipt inspection for the whole building. Attorney Cherof explained a motion that conformed to what the applicant has stated he could do was needed. He believed the motion was consistent with what Mr. Jenkins stated he could accomplish. If the 60 days was not sufficient, a substitute motion should be made. Mr. Jenkins inquired about the first inspection for plumbing and electrical, and if he could receive a rough and final inspection for one unit to allow a tenant to move in, and Mr. Mack explained he could not. The motion passed 3 to 2 (Mr. Neger and Chair Podray dissenting). G. ANNOUNCEMENTS After the meeting, Board members would view the Ethics Training video in compliance of the scheduled re-training for all Board members and employees. Any Board members unable to watch the video after the meeting must watch it later on his or her own and must 10 Meeting Minutes Building Board of AdjL :nents and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 6, 2014 submit the signed Code of Ethics Training Acknowledgement form to the City Clerk's office. H. Adjournment Motion Mr. Guritzky moved to adjourn. Chair Podray seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:54 p.m. Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 1202014 BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS - ROLL CALL VOTES YES NO YES NO YES NO Beverly Agee V � / V Roger Zona V • Sanford Guritzky / George Neger ✓ I Timothy-Rufey. Andrew Podray YES NO I YES NO I YES NO Timothy Rurey George Neger Sanford Guritzky Roger Zona Beverly Agee Carmela Nanton Andrew Podray YES NO I YES NO I YES NO YES NO I YES NO I YES NO s: \cc \wp \minutes \bbaa \roll call sheets.doc CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS IN RE: APPEAL FROM ORDER OF DEMOLITION Applicants: LEON AND GAIL JENKINS ORDER GRANTING STAY OF DEMOLITION The September 26, 2014 appeal filed by LEON and GAIL JENKINS (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") came before the City's Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals on November 6, 2014 for hearing. The Applicant appealed a September 2, 2014 Notice of Unsafe Building issued by Andrew Mack, Building Official of the City of Boynton Beach. The Applicants were represented by Alicia Lewis. The City's Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") after review of the testimony and evidence provided by the Building Official, and the arguments of Applicant and his attorney finds: 1. The Building Official has determined that property owned by Applicant located at 132 W. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard (NW 10th Avenue) in Boynton Beach, Florida is unsafe, unsanitary, a fire hazard, and dangerous to human life is supported by the record and is not disputed. 2. By issuance of his September 2, 2014 Notice of Unsafe Building, the Building Official advised the Applicants of his findings and ordered the repair, rehabilitation or demolition of the unsafe building. 3. The Applicants filed their appeal of the Building Official's notice and sought an extension of time to repair and rehabilitate the property and thereby avoid its demotion by the City. 4. The applicants do not contest the unsafe condition of the building but asserted that the building can be repaired to a safe condition if given a reasonable period of time to effectuate the repairs. 5. The Board, following testimony of the Applicant and the Building Official finds that Applicant can reasonably be expected to repair the property to a safe habitable condition by January 12, 2015. 6. The Board finds that the building is unsafe but that the Applicant should be granted until January 12, 2015 to repair the entire building to a safe habitable condition. Demolition is therefore stayed to that date. 7. The Applicants will apply for permits to effectuate the repairs identified by the Building Official which he deems necessary to restore the property to a safe condition. 8. In the event the Applicants fail to remedy the unsafe condition of the building by January 12, 2015, the Building Official is authorized to proceed with demolition of the structure. 9. The public record, including, but not limited to, the Building Official's reports, memoranda, comments, and recommendations on the appeal, agenda back-up before the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals, along with the record established before the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals on November 6, 2014, are hereby incorporated by reference. 10. The Board retains jurisdiction of this appeal to issue supplemental orders it deems necessary to remedy its finding that the building owned by Applicants is unsafe. DONE AND ORDERED this /41 day of NOV. , 2014 in the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. Y g 1' nctot i 7>Y:w CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH 4 t BUILDING BOARD OF AD - i►•� T `ky4 AND APPEALS s^ Vt7 ��13 a�y p � BY: ATTEST: �`' �3` A Sirri • • ditti_,.�: JA ET M. PRAINITO, MMC TY CLERK