Loading...
Minutes 08-14-19 MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2019, AT I I A.M. INTRACOASTAL PARK CLUB HOUSE, 2240 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Sanford Guritzky, Chair Shane Kittendorf, Building Official Andrew Podray John Kuntzman, Deputy Building Official Daniel Brink James Cherof, City Attorney Daniel Berger A. CALL TO ORDER Chair Guritzky called the meeting to order at 10:59 a.m. B. ELECT NEW CHAIRPERSON Mr. Podray nominated Sanford Guritzky as Chair. Tim Berger seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MEMBERS AND VISITORS None. D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & MINUTES (MINUTES OF 01/28/2019 MEETING) Motion Mr. Podray moved to approve. Mr. Brink seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. E. OLD BUSINESS F. NEW BUSINESS Applicant: Mr. Wing Kei Ho and Mrs. Karen Yeh Ho Reference: 1101-1103 N. Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, FL Explanation: Applicant is appealing a demolition order issued as allowed by Section 116.1, inclusive, of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 6th edition of the 2017 Florida Building Code. The applicant is requesting a stay of the demolition order and additional time to Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida August 14, 2019 conduct the work stipulated by the Notice of Unsafe Building dated 12/19/2018. Shane Kittendorf, Chief Building Official, explained the case is in reference to an unsafe structure at the above location. The City received a complaint with regard to homeless vagrants accessing the property climbing on the roof of the property and going to other adjacent roofs causing vandalism. The owner of the adjacent property allowed the city to conduct a visual inspection of the deteriorating conditions at the subject site. Staff found the roof was collapsing and created an unsafe condition. Fl-aff posted the property as unsafe and made many attempts to have the owner bring ane property into compliance. No action was taken. The structure is failing, the trust And roof system and sheathing collapsed in several areas. At this time, Mr. Kittendorf requested demolition occur. Mr. Brink asked when the structure was first deemed unsafe. John Kuntzman, Deputy Building Official responded the City received the complaint on December 10, 2018, and a site visit was conducted on December 20, 2018. The City posted the property on December 21, 2018. Mr. Brink asked if the damage to the structure occurred in 2009 due to a fire. Mr. Kuntzman was unaware of a fire. Mr. Ho is appealing this and requested a stay on demolition. James Cherof, City Attorney, administered an oath to all those intending to testify. Mr. Ho advised they received notice early this year and he and his wife had discussions with Mr. Kittendorf and Mr. Kuntzman. During the discussions, it was disclosed the property is used for warehousing and storage. He understood the possibility of demolition. They later found out they would not be able to build the same structure, if the building is demolished, because of the lot size. There was discussion about the zoning. Mr. Ho understands the zoning is C-4. When he looked at the use regulations, as to whether warehousing can occur, the regulations say no. He read the regulations under C-4, Warehousing is permissible and there is a note to say See 12. He thought that discussion should be completed as they move forward how they would use the property and how they could correct the problems. His wife was handling the demolition notice earlier, but she unfortunately was incarcerated because her brother stole her inheritance. Mr. Ho took over the discussions with Mr. Kuntzman in late April. His wife submitted a stay for demolition so they could make remediate the building, but they may not be able to build the same structure on the same footprint. Mr. Kuntzman informed him the stay Ms. Ho submitted was rejected. He had not seen any of the evidence. In a discussion, Mr. Kuntzman suggested the building be evaluated and remediated to maintain the use of the property. He submitted another stay on May 7, 2019. Afterward a meeting was set up to discuss how to move forward. The first meeting was in early June. He showed up, but there was a procedural issue about posting so he had to reschedule the meeting. 2 oil v 0 Meeting inues Building o r Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Floridas 14, 2019 involved. Someone will come out and decide what can be repaired and take it to the City so they can get to the point to bring it back to all's satisfaction. He requested 18 months, which Mr. Kuntzman thought was reasonable. Ms. Ye Ho explained C-4 is zoned for warehouse for storing their personal belongings and they do have the resources, but need competent people to do the job. Eighteen months should not be an issue. They would have to modify the building, replace the walls with concrete block and have a new structure. They would not know the cost until they get an engineer and submit the information to Mr. Kuntzman. The City shou.!d snow the lawn. Brightline cleaned up the land. When the train goes through, it spry ads trash. Her neighbors, who are renters, put a fence there and they never complai;,Ipd to her. Attorney Cherof asked when they acquired the property and le-r,ped they obtained the property from their son in December 2018. He owned the property for two or three years. Attorney Cherof asked if they used the property for her family business during the time the son owned the property. They used the building for family storage. When they acquired the building, they were aware of the condition of the property. Since owning the building, they have not paid any funds for inspections on the property, because the interior has not leaks. Attorney Cherof explained the Building Official determined the property is an unsafe structure under the Florida Building Code. Ms. Ho disputed the determination because it survived many hurricanes and had no damage. The windows are there. Attorney Cherof pointed out the outside walls are standing, but the Building Official is asserting the roof is damaged and not safe. Ms. Ho explained her husband was arranging for someone to come in and look at the roof. She noted Mr. Ho's brother is a professional civil engineer in New Jersey and is certified in several states, but not Florida. Attorney Cherof requested confirmation that during the entire time they have been discussing the condition of the property with the Building Department, they have not spent any money to make those determinations. Attorney Cherof noted they have not spent any money on any professionals during discussions with the Building Department. Mr. Kuntzman kept pushing for demolition. She asked if she demolished the building if she could rebuild and another department explained she could not, so she appealed. The lot size cannot be zoned for an unauthorized structure. The building is grandfathered in, so they can only rehab it. Attorney Cherof asked Mr. Kittendorf why the building was unsafe. Mr. Kittendorf explained a visual inspection of the roof showed the roof was collapsing. There were multiple indications of failure based on the pictures attached to the meeting materials. Based on the visuals, an extremely unsafe condition exists and that is why he was requesting immediate action be taken on the property. Ms. Ho asked if building is unsafe, why it was not leaking. Mr. Kittendorf explained the Building Department has taken opportunities to communicate to the owner, they need to bring the property into compliance, and in eight months' time, no action has been taken. Staff would like to move forward with the demolition as they have given the Ho's over eight months to bring the property into compliance and no action has been taken. Ms. Ho commented if the Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida August 14, 2019 Building Department takes her property rights they will be sued as the Building Official does not have the right to demand demolition when the inside of the building is perfectly sound and safe. She is not using it as a business rental, only storage and there is not a drop of water inside. She admitted the building is ugly. She can paint the building, but if the City demolished the building, she could not build on the property and the property would be devalued. She can turn the building into a nice property. Chair Guritzky explained at this point the Ho's have done nothing. Ms. Ho disagreed and commented they have cleaned the City property on the side of the building and the City was negligent in their care of the property. Mr. Ho clarified there were options in the beginning. They were inclined to demolish in March. After that, they understood the implication of demolition. Mr. Ho explained he is new to this. He stopped talking to Mr. Kuntzman. He asked to appeal the demolition and keep the building's structure. He commented, once demolished, they cannot have a C-4 Zoning because of the size of the lot. Ms. Ho understood it was still CA but they cannot build anything on it. When she spoke to Mr. Kuntzman, Mr. Kuntzman said they could demolish the building and construct a new building. She asked if he was certain and he asked Zoning and at a group meeting, the Zoning said they could not build the same building on the same lot. It was suggested they rehab the building to the existing building's square footage. She explained people get new roofs all the time and they did not have to demolish the entire building because of the roof. She explained that is the City's opinion and they want the Ho's to demolish the building so the CRA can buy it cheaply because they cannot do anything with the land anymore. Chair Guritzky explained there is a structural problem. Mr. Kittendorf commented as the Building Official, he has determined that there is a structural problem. The roof system is failing. He read F.S. Chapter 116 FC 116.1.4: "The decision of the Building Official shall be final in all cases of emergency, which in the opinion of the Building Official involved imminent danger to human life and health or the property of others and he or she shall promptly cause such building structure, electrical, gas, mechanical of plumbing systems or portion thereof to be made safe or cause its removal. For this purpose, he or she may, at once enter such structure or lane in which it stands, or abutting land and structures with such assistance has such as to cause the he may deem necessary, he or she may order the vacating of adjacent structures and may require the protection of the public by appropriate fencing or other means that may be necessary for its purpose and may close it a public way." Mr. Kittendorf made the determination that this structure is unsafe. Staff gave ample time to the Ho's to obtain evaluations from an engineer and to bring the building into compliance, but since then nothing was done. He noted it has taken some time for the building to get to its current condition. It has been occurring for years. He noted the property appraisers, aerial view, shows how the building has substantially deteriorated over the last 10 years. At said time, staff has done all they could to assist clients to come into compliance and nothing was done. The meeting is to hear a stay of demolition, and Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton each, Florida August 14, 2019 as a Building Official, he is requesting an immediate demolition as in eight months, they have taken no action or spent anything to bring the property into compliance. Ms. Ho commented the Building Official was using hearsay; she wanted an engineering report from Mr. Kittendorf to prove it. Mr. Kittendorf reiterated he is the Building Official and he made his determination. Mr. Kittendorf explained when Mr. and Mrs. Ho received the notice they were advised they needed an engineer to conduct a physical and visual assessment to bring the structure into compliance. He reiterated the City gave ample time to address the matter and nothing was done. Mr. Ho commented they eventually decided to get a design professional or someone licensed to see what is occurring. Mr. Ho explained everybody said they would rather the property be rehabbed than demolished. He heard it consistently. He wants the appeal and the extensions so they can maintain the structure all is advocating for rehab. Ms. Ho explained there is a cause of action. If the building is demolished, they cannot build on it and the property value is greatly diminished. She commented it was not in the City's best interests. The first time they heard of demolition was in December 2018. They have been taking care of the property for the train in the back and the side for the City. There is no lawn to mow. She asked what the benefit was to demolish the building except to depreciate their property value and asserted it was a cause of action. Mr. odray suggested giving them 30 days to come up with their own engineering report that shows that the structure's walls are actually fine, so there is no imminent danger to the public. He noted there is a difference between a structural compromise and a roof, which would collapse in and then the walls could collapse out and cause an issue. He suggested Ms. Ho spend the money in the next 30 days, so the liability is taken off the City and the Building Official and transferred to the Ho's engineer. If something were to happen after that, the City could say Mr. and Mrs. Ho had a certified engineer inspect the project who deemed it safe, and then the Board could talk about an extension to rehab the rest of the building. The City is not in the demolition business unless there is an imminent danger. Ms. Ho agreed and asked for two months to find a qualified engineer for the report. Chair Guritzky explained this case was postponed two or three months ago. When it was postponed, he had advised Mr. Ho to move ahead with something and nothing was done. Ms. Ho advised they were in bad situation two or three months ago and she was jailed. She tried to give her husband power of attorney because nothing could occur without her signature. They own the property together, but they were moving her around. Mr. Brink clarified Ms. Ho should seek a structural engineer. Ms. Ho understood a civil or professional engineer determined safety. Mr. Brink explained she needed a structural engineer. 6 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida August 14, 2019 Mr. Brink inquired if the building could be rebuilt if it was demolished and non-conforming, and further questioned if the Ho's could make repairs to the structure under the Florida Building and current Codes. Mr. Kittendorf responded it would be a level three alteration and they would be required to bring it into full compliance with the Florida Building Code. He explained with regard to conforming and non-conforming uses, it was a Planning and Zoning matter with a completely separate Board and a completely separate Board discussion, which the Ho's were made aware of. A building could be constructed on the property, but what they want to build and use the structure for is not an allowable existing use, nor can it be a future use at the location. What the Ho's were trying to maintain is not an existing use. The City's position is the building is an unsafe structure. The roof is collapsing and it needs a full structural analysis by a structural engineer who is proponent and focused in the structural integrity of a structure. When a roof system fails, it affects everything else including the walls, as the walls can push out if the building does not have a complete envelope in place. When a storm comes through, it creates an adverse environment and affects surrounding structures, as the materials can become projectiles. The City is taking action on this and several other properties for the same reason. This property at this time is unsafe and needs immediate action and they did nothing. Ms. Ho commented Mr. Kittendorf has never seen the inside of the building and he was expressing his opinion. She has not given anyone permission to enter the premises and even touching the building was not legal. She commented City officials can only go around the building and she asked how Mr. Kittendorf could give his opinion. Ms. Ho explained a board member recommended she get a structural engineer and she noted another name for structural engineer is civil engineer. An architect designed the building. A civil engineer designs the safety. Ms. Ho confirmed the building was wood framed. Mr. Berger advised the Ho's have four weeks to get an engineer. There is no time to draw anything, they will be able to walk in, look around and advise what has to be torn down. A four-week timeframe is reasonable for someone to say if the building is safe for the next six months. Mr. Brink explained the State of Florida and City have granted the Building Official the authority to make these decisions. Ms. Ho commented she would have to research that point. When she went to the City, she heard different people say different things, and they were all different opinions. She thought if more opinions were wanted, the Building Department should be brought in. They will say she is grandfathered in, and they can rehab the building to the same square footage, but they cannot build if they demolish the building. Ms. Ho was asked if she would let building officials inside the structure to look at the walls. Ms. Ho responded not yet. She wanted to wait until the building professional came. She advised she would have a professional come in and advise her whether it is safe or not within however long the Board's recommended time frame was and for how long the professional says the building will be safe, while they try to get a rehab done or something is done. 7 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida August 14, 2019 She appreciated the one-month's time to get someone in to take a look at the building. They did not try to ignore the building, she filed an appeal and then she was jailed. Attorney Cherof thought it would be appropriate to have a motion to continue the hearing to a date certain to a month after the report filed with the building official because the inspection report should be filed and reviewed by the Building Official before the hearing continues, so there is an opportunity to evaluate it. Motion Mr. Podray offered a motion for discussion. Mr. and Mrs. Ho have 30 days to get a structural engineer or the equivalent inside that building to deem it a safe structure and if that is satisfactory and he produces a report to the Building Official's satisfaction, give them the 18 months, because they would do so for the rehab. He thought as long as the building is safe, the Board should not enter a slippery slope argument that debates what constitutes a structurally compromised roof versus a leaky roof or what rot looks like on a soffit. He suggested 30 days to prove it safe, and if that is the case, they will bring it to the 18 months according to the motion and the Ho's could do whatever they want with the building. Chair Guritzky thought there should be a separate motion extending to 18 months. Ms. Ho was concerned about unknown circumstances if the civil engineer completes the report, but could not get the report to the Building Department within 30 days. Chair Guritzky explained the engineer has to submit it within 30 days. The motion is 30 days for the structural engineer to get the report to the City, the Board will give the City another week to review it and from there they will move ahead. It has to be a Florida licensed structural engineer. Ms. Ho advised she has a Florida Licensed Civil Engineer, but they are in New Jersey and Texas. The motion was repeated as: "The Florida Licensed Structural Engineer must submit a certified report to the City within 30 days and then the City has another week to review, and from there they will move ahead. It must be a Florida licensed professional." Mr. Podray wanted to offer a different motion because the engineer may show up to the property and say if you do this, this and this, then I will certify the property as structurally sound. He thought the Board would have to convene each month to ensure the building conforms. He suggested modifying the motion as follows: That within 30 days, Ms. Ho will produce a report that either the building is deemed safe or is unsafe with these deficiencies that have to be corrected within a certain period of time. Once the building is safe, the Board is irrelevant. Mr. Brink was ok with the suggestion. Mr. Berger questioned if it was the place of the engineer to put the deficiencies with a timeframe. Chair Guritzky thought it would be up to the City to develop an adequate timeframe to remedy them outside of the hearing. Once it is deemed safe, 8 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida August 14, 2019 Mr. Podray wanted the Ho's to have their 18 months. Chair Guritzky did not think they needed the 18 months. Attorney Cherof explained the purpose of the Board is to evaluate the evidence. Once the structural engineer files the report, the Building Official will review it, the Board would need to meet to evaluate the evidence, the Building Official's response to it, the engineers report itself and then make a determination how much time, if any, is necessary to effectuate repairs. He saw it as a two-step process. All agreed. Chair Guritzky asked who made the motion and learned Mr. Podray had, but discussion followed. Motion Attorney Cherof explained the motion as to continue the hearing on appeal to allow the property owner to retain a Florida licensed structural engineer to file a report regarding whether the property is safe or unsafe, plus time for the building official to review it and at that point, the building official would take care of the process of resetting the hearing. It was explained to Mr. and Ms. Ho they have one month from today for the structural engineer and another week or so for the building Official to review and a week or so to coordinate the calendar for a hearing. The Ho's end up with additional time in addition to the 30 days, but the important part is to get the structural engineer's report on file. Ms. Ho requested to add a civil engineer to the motion instead of structural engineer. Mr. Berger explained most structural engineers go to college for civil engineering and they major in that, and at some point out of college, they obtain there PE (Professional Engineer) License and a stamp structural engineer. It is sort of the same thing, but the Ho's needed to be talking to a licensed structural engineer. Civil Engineer is land development. Attorney Cherof asked if the Board was okay with the way he had praised the motion. Mr. Brink seconded the motion. Attorney Cherof requested a motion to restate that and then a second. Mr. Podray explained Mr. Brink had so moved. Chair Guritzky seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. G. ADJOURNMENT Motion There being no further business to discuss, Chair Guritzky moved to adjourn. Mr. Podray seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 9 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS IN RE: APPEAL FROM ORDER OF DEMOLITION Applicants: Wing Kei Ho and Karen Ye h Ho ORDER GRANTING STAY OF DEMOLITION The April 04, 2019 appeal filed by Wing Kei Ho and Karen Yeh Ho (hereinafter referred to as ('*Applicant") came before the City's Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals on August 14, 2019 for hearing. The Applicant appealed aDecember 19, 2018 Notice of Unsafe Building issued by Shane Kittendorf, Building Official of the City of Boynton Beach. The applicant represented himself. The City's Building Board ofAej ustment 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 1101- 1103 101-1103 N. Federal Highway in. Boynton. Beach, Florida is un safe,unsanitary,afire hazard,and dangerous to human life which is supported by the record and is not disputed. 2. By issuance ofhis December 19, 2018 Notice of Unsafe Building,the Building Official advised the Applicant of his findings and ordered the repair,rehabilitation or demolition of the unsafe building. 3. The Applicant filed their appeal of the Building Official's notice and sought an extension oftime to repair and rehabilitate the property and thereby avoid its demotion by the City. 4. The applicant 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 the Applicant has 30 days to come up with their own engineering report that shows the structure's walls are fine so there is no imminent danger to the Public and a continuance hearing scheduled. 1* The Board finds that the building is unsafe but that the Applicant should be granted 30 days for an independent engineering report by the Applicant's engineer to determine the safety of the building. The board motion to continue the hearing and granted 30 days to seek a structural engineering report and a copy filed with the Building Official before the hearing continues so there is an opportunity to evaluate it. 7. Motion: Mr. Podray offered a motion for discussion. Applicant have 30 days to get a structural. engineer or the equivalent inside that building to deem it a safe structure and if that is satisfactory and he produce a report to the Building Official's satisfaction, give thein 1.8 months, because they would do so for the rehab. Ile thought as long as the building is safe, the Board should not enter a slippery slope argument that debates what constitutes a structural compromised roof versus a leaky roof or what rot looks like on the soffit. He suggested 30 days to prove it safe, and if that is the case, they will bring it to the 18 months according to the motion and the Applicant could do with whatever they want with the building. Chair Guiritzky thought there should be a separate motion extending to 18 .months. The motion was repeated as: "The Florida I.,icen.ses Structural Engineer must submit a certified report to the City within 30 days and then the City has another `reek to review, and from there they will move ahead. It must be a Florida licensed professional." The Board would need to meet to evaluate the evidence, the Building Official's response to it, the engineer's report itself and then make a determination how much time, if any, is necessary to effectuate repairs. 8. 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 August 14, 2019, are hereby incorporated byreference. 9. 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. elt- DONE AND ORDERED this 2ST day of ,2019 in the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. Sanford Gu€itzk , Chairman CITY Ol'f BUY 1[) 3LACH BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS Cry tal Gibson, City Clerk