224 east oak st

268 views
231 views

Published on

Initial presentation to BOZA on March 21, 2010

Published in: Sports, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
268
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This is an Appeal of a Staff Determination regarding 224 East Oak Street, filed by Steve Zocklein, a neighbor, with the full support of his neighbors, the Ft. George neighborhood association, the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Old Louisville Neighborhood Council and the Old Louisville Neighborhood Council.
  • 224 East Oak is located in the Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District. TNZD is the zoning scheme for Old Louisville and Limerick. It is the only TNZD in the state and is therefore quite unique. In TNZD certain areas are designated for specific uses, but each individual property is mapped for the use appropriate for that property. Appropriate uses are those for which the property was originally designed, in order to maintain the historic character of this, the second largest National Register District and a Local Historic Preservation District. Hundreds of neighbors worked for nearly four years to craft TNZD. This task involved walking the neighborhood, taking pictures of each property, researching many properties and then designating each individual property for an appropriate use. Let me contrast that to other zoning schemas that you deal with on a regular basis. Unlike R5 or C1, where an entire area allows multiple uses, with TNZD individual properties have been mapped as to appropriate uses. The Old Louisville neighborhood worked hard, putting in years of effort to design TNZD which we believe will preserve the fabric of our neighborhood. Now, we ask you to stand with us in this Appeal and return 224 East Oak to single family status. We have created the TNZD map, but only you can preserve our vision.
  • 224 East Oak is mapped as one and two family residential. In other words, a single family dwelling, which is large enough to support a duplex. In TNZD, a duplex must have one unit that is at least 2250 square feet, with no required specific square footage for the remaining unit. This property meets the square footage requirement for a duplex. Because it was not originally built as a multi-family property, it would never have been mapped as multi-family. Under TNZD the highest and best use for 224 East Oak is as mapped – single family, with an option to duplex. In our presentation this morning we’ll begin with a high-level timeline of events surrounding the property. Next we‘ll examine each of the data points Mr. Hendrix relied upon in his Staff Determination. Last we’ll look at the LDC definition of abandonment.
  • 224 East Oak was a troubled property from the beginning of BISCO’s ownership through the time it went back into the bank’s hands. Purchased after a fire, it languished, fell into disrepair and as you will come to see was vacant for most of the time.
  • We will come back to the AUP later in this presentation.
  • In 2006 224 East Oak was briefly listed on MLS. However, there were problems with the listing and no signs appeared on the property. HANDOUT – CHARLES CASH AFFIDAVIT We offer an Affidavit from Charles Cash which we will refer to at other times also in this presentation, but for now please reference the last sentence, We never noticed a “for rent or sale” sign in the yard . . .” and this statement refers to the period 2003 through 2009.
  • HANDOUT – LOUISE VENETTOZZI AFFIDAVIT Additionally, we offer a sworn affidavit from Louisville Venettozzi who states in paragraph four, “ . . .the realtor . . .list(ed) the property on the market as “extensively renovated” and fully leased. This was totally inaccurate, a complete fabrication. Despite the 2006, there was never a FOR SALE sign in the yard; after 2006 there was no longer even a FOR RENT sign on the property.” So was the property for rent or sale during 2006? Neighbors attest that they think not. The MLS listing itself was called into question as being invalid. At best it is unclear.
  • This same note which was the result of the Open Records Request states “It is a multi-family unit that has lost it’s non-conforming rights as of May 2007.” While the note appeared without attribution, and not on letterhead, it is a product of an official file from a Metro Agency.
  • HANDOUT – Codes and Regulations listing As we researched this case we found the notation “Court Vacant Structure” quite curious. We wondered if the notation meant that a court had ordered the property vacated. In private correspondence with April Robbins of Codes and Regulations, she confirmed that no Order to Vacate was ever issued. The courts did not force this vacancy against the property owner’s wishes. In fact in our research we also found other properties with notations of “Court Occupied Structure”. Since we are certain that a court can not compel a structure to be occupied, and armed with the knowledge that no Order to Vacate had been issued, we came to understand that Court Vacant Structure really means that the property is in the Court system for something, somewhere, and is vacant. The notation “Court Vacant Structure” appears on records from Codes and Regulations from March 19, 2008 through August 5, 2009, a period of 17 months.
  • In 2009 BISCO surrenders the property back to the bank in lieu of foreclosure and in 2010 a Staff Determination is issued establishing non-conforming rights for a 5 plex. Let’s look quickly at the data upon which the Staff Determination was based.
  • Let’s look at the information that went into the Staff Determination. Mr. Hendrix drew a conclusion upholding non-conforming rights based on data that may have been incomplete or misinterpreted. We’ll look at each of these data points in turn. First the Carons and Polk Directories offer little in the way of definitive information. What the directories offer it conflicting information. Nancy Braxton-White using Polk Directories could not draw a conclusion as to the number of units in the building. Her work is what is contained on page 29 of your Staff Report. I looked at the Cris Cross Directories which weren’t any more definitive, listed the property as possibly vacant. However, the apartments were also vacant per IPL records. The lack of occupancy continued well into 2010. Via interoffice email dated September 28, 2010 from Jim Mims to George Pate, April Robbins and Steve Hendrix, Mr. Mims states, “For my part, I was in the structure with John King in March of this year (2010) and observed five-units: one that was occupied and four others that were unoccupied.”
  • We do not deny that the building had at some previous date but carved up into five apartments. Interoffice email from Sgt Lile of Louisville Metro Fire Department to Regina Thomas on March 10, 2010 states that his file “List(s) no inspections.” We also verified that there were no fire department inspections later than June 17, 2004. The fire inspection sheet shows the following gaps from 3/25/1999 until 6/17/2004, and from after 6/17/2004 until the present no further inspections recorded.
  • HANDOUT – ELECTRICAL PERMIT The Electrical Contractor is not only an unbiased third party, but a licensed professional who clearly states that the power has been off for over a year. This is confirmed by neighbor’s Affidavits that they noticed no lights on at night for more than a year. Note, the contractor was not pulling a permit to rehab or upgrade, but to restore power.
  • During this period the property was effectively abandoned. and unfit for human habitation by any generally accepted standard. In a private conversation with an inspector who had been on the property, he noted that he was not inside the building. Because trash was accumulating he was forced to assume that people were on the property. From Codes and Regulations records, there were 39 inspections of the property between July 28, 2003 and October 11, 2010. 39 Inspections; 39 failures. Inspections reports indicating multiple citations for::
  • MetroCall records documented the following complaints: On June 19, 2006: rodents in the walls Defective water heater sitting near a gas stove Mr. Cash’s Affidavit which you have, also notes: The front door back door and cellar door all were open, allowing access to squatters and vagrants The air conditioning unit had been vandalized and condensing coils had been stripped out. Ms. Venettozzi’s Affidavit which you also have, notes people wandering in and out at will There were numerous police runs to the property And there was 5 feet of standing water in the basement. In March 2007 there was an emergency boarding request On September 8, 2009 a caller is concerned about a possible squatter. He reports that the property has been vacant for 4 years and someone is living there without a lease. Followup call the following day to reiterate problem. Court dates were scheduled for the owner of this property 15 times between May 28, 2008 and October 26, 2009, including the issuing of one Bench Warrant. Five separate fines were levied ranging form $200 to $1,0000 resulting in liens being placed against the property. The owner pled guilty on May 12, 2009. The court case was for violations of Chapter 156 of the Louisville Metro Code of Ordinances (Property Maintenance) No one is disputing that the property was in a near complete state of disrepair.
  • Court dates were scheduled for the owner of this property 15 times between May 28, 2008 and October 26, 2009, including the issuing of one Bench Warrant. Five separate fines were levied ranging form $200 to $1,000 resulting in liens being placed against the property. The owner pled guilty on May 12, 2009. The court case was for violations of Chapter 156 of the Louisville Metro Code of Ordinances (Property Maintenance) No one is disputing that the property was in a near complete state of disrepair.
  • We can not deny that the building was once configured into apartments. Nor can we deny that it is a three story structure. However, the PVA has no knowledge of what’s going on inside a building. And in this building there were no occupants, it was not actively rented as a 5 plex and was in the process of falling apart. An interoffice email from Nancy Braxton-White to April Robbins dated October 27, 2010 states, regarding the PVA, “Their records don’t identify the number of units in a structure. They are concerned with the square footage and other data.”
  • HANDOUT – AFFIDAVIT PACKET It should be noted that the three Affidavits in the file are from three previous owners who have a vested interest in having you believe that this is a 5 plex. In contrast we present to you now, ten signed and notarized Affidavits from neighbors, each with a clear line of sight to 224 Eat Oak who attest to the house being vacant, uninhabitable and showing no signs of being actively rented for well over a year. The ten affidavits we present now are of course in addition to the two we’ve peviously quoted from Mr. Cash and Ms. Venettozzi. They also both attest that the property was vacant. Mr. Zocklein affirms that 224 was vacant and appeared abandoned from February 2008 until at least August of 2009, noting that there were no lights on at night, no evidence of tenants, and no visible evidence that the property was being marketed. Mr. Hill affirms that 224 appeared vacant, without lights, and that he had been told by an inspector from Codes and Regulations that the house was uninhabitable and had therefore lost non-conforming rights. He also notes that the numerous police runs halted when the tenants left and the house became vacant. Mr. Wells that his observations were that 224 East Oak was vacant from early 2008 until late 2009 when For Rent signs first appeared in the yard. He also notes that it was during this time that the condition of the property noticeably worsened when a dilapidated cornice and gutter were hanging and eventually fell onto a walkway. These problems were left uncorrected for the rest of that year. Mr. Flynn affirms that the property appeared vacant and abandoned from February 2008 until at least August 2009, and that there was no visible evidence through signs that the property was for rent or sale. Ms. Hoover specifically notes that the property was vacant and appeared abandoned from February 2008until at least August of 2009, No lights on a night, no for sale or rent signs. Mr. Mike Boss and Mr, Shea Boss in separate affidavits affirm that the property was vacant from 2006 through 2009, there were no lights on at night and there were no for sale for rent sings from February 2008 thru August 2009. Mr. Lyons, Mr. Burgin and Mr. Streible each note in separate affidavits the continuous state of disrepair of the property, the lack of tenants and no evidence for it being actively for sale or rent. The previously distributed affidavit from Mr. Cash attests to vacancy from May 2006 through July 2007 and that it continued to appear vacant into 2010. He describes 224 East Oak as “vacant and derelict.” The previously distributed affidavit from Ms. Venettozzi attests to vacancy from early 2008 through mid 2009, and that there were no for rent or sale sign on the property until early 2010. She describes the property as unsafe, unsanitary in complete disrepair, improperly maintained and managed, and most of the time, vacant or illegally occupied.
  • HANDOUT – ULRICH + MAWOOD Continuing with these two statements from the Staff Determination – In contrast to these statements relied upon in the Staff Determination, that the owners had tried to rent the apartments as a five plex, on March 3, 2010, Ms. Ulrich called the phone number listed on the For Sale by Bank” sign in front of the property. Without identifying himself the person answering the call stated “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.” Ms. Ulrich asked him to confirm that information which he did without further elaboration. She also reported this conversation in a MetroCall complaint the next day. In April a realtor called the number on the For Sale sign to inquire about the property for a client. The person answering the phone “said that 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.”
  • We did a reverse lookup on the phone number to verify that it belonged to the owner at that time.
  • We’d like to move from the Staff Determination, to look briefly at the Abandonment definition from the LDC. The first piece of evidence that 224 East Oak was abandoned and why it was abandoned comes from Louisville Metro itself. Louisville Metro states that property has been abandoned for at least a year – that’s the first criteria for a property being listed on the Abandoned Urban Property list. Additionally, one other criteria must be met for inclusion on the AUP. 224 East Oak qualified under items 1 and/or 2, and from our previous testimony you know the property was dilapidated by virtue of its extremely dilapidated condition and not the least of which were the vermin infested walls and the flies breeding on the property. The owner was taken to court by Codes and Regulations for those problems in addition to the accumulation of trash and debris, for years of neglect. There is nothing to question why this property was officially considered by Louisville Metro to be abandoned. The property clearly meets the condition that the property had not been regularly used for the purposes for which the nonconforming use status is claimed for one year, and we know that because Louisville Metro tells us it is so.
  • The subject property today, that has a history of 0-1 occupant reminds us of a case with some similarities that came before this Board in 2005. 1023 S. Third was not in disrepair. Although 1023 S. Third had been configured into 5 apartments sometime in he past, it had not been rented as such for years. BOZA ruled that that property had lost it’s not-conforming rights for several reasons, not the least of which was that it had not been used for the purposes for which the nonconforming use status is claimed , in this case as a multi-family for many years. There is no escaping the similarities between these two buildings. Once broken up into apartments, each was unoccupied or sporadically occupied for several years. 1023 S. Third lost non-conforming rights, and we’re asking you to use the same logical underpinnings in this case.
  • You are looking for “any substantial evidence” and we offer to you an abundance of evidence HANDOUT - SWMS that IPL records document a 14 month vacancy from 3/19/08 through 8/5/09; that the Louisville Metro Department of Solid Waste Management Service did not service the subject property for 33 months; that an Electric Permit pulled for the address to restore electrical power contained the notation “Power has been off for over a year”; that PDS staff on September 8, 2009 via interoffice email note the property lost non-conforming rights “by virtue of being vacant past 4 years. The owner has made no effort to repair, rent or sell the property.” that ten neighbors with a direct line of sight from their property to the subject property attest the property was vacant from February 2008 until at least August of 2009 The next door neighbor, Mr. Cash also attest that the property was vacant, as does Ms. Venettozzi, This is without doubt much more than “any substantial evidence.” It is a great quantity of evidence, and meets the condition to prove abandonment.
  • The property was simply uninhabitable and no one was trying to rent it. I remind you: 5’ of standing water in the basement Vermin infested walls Flies breeding Garbage, trash and debris piling up No utilities The property clearly did not act in the manner of a reasonable person trying to rent a property.
  • You have affidavits from two people who spoke directly with a representative of King Southern Bank the most previous owner to the current owner. The Bank clearly told these callers that the property had lost non-conforming rights. By their actions, King Southern bank clearly demonstrated their understanding hat they could not reinstate the nonconforming use in the foreseeable future and sated to two callers that the property had to revert to single family/duplex status.
  • The facts of this case are clear. The previous owners want you to believe that this property is a five plex. Louisville Metro’s records indicate something else. The property met the definition of Abandonment multiple times. Properties don’t go onto the Abandoned Urban Properties unless they have been abandoned for at least a year and have other issues that make then uninhabitable. IPL records support Abandonment as do SWMS and the licensed Electrical Contractor, plus 12 Affidavits from concerned neighbors. The neighbors want you to know the truth. That 224 East Oak has been a troubled property since a fire in 2000. That from 2002 through 2006 virtually no maintenance was done to the house. Neighbors witnessed the cornice and gutters falling off the house. Other neighbors saw the front, back and cellar doors standing open, unable to be closed. There is a report of vermin in the walls. An IPL inspector noted that flies were breeding on the property. Neighbors have given you sworn affidavits noting a long period of vacancy and that among other facts, that crime in the neighborhood went down when the property was vacant. As we stated at the beginning of this presentation,
  • HANDOUT – APPELLANTS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT At the beginning of this presentation we said that we’d look at each data point in the Staff Determination and give you the full information. We believe that we have completely refuted the basis for the Staff Determination. We also said that we’d review Abandonment as defined in the LDC. We believe that we have provided you not with just “any substantial evidence” as required but a multitude of evidence proving that abandonment has occurred, probably on several occasions. The neighbors of 224 East Oak St, the Fort George Neighborhood Association, the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Old Louisville Neighborhood Council all ask you to stand with us as we protect our heritage and the character of our neighborhood – a beautiful National Register and Local Historic Preservation District. We crafted TNZD to define how we want our neighborhood to look and function into the future. We know that the highest and best use of 224 East Oak is as a single family property as mapped by TNZD. One of the long-term assumptions of nonconforming rights is that in time they will eventually go away. The whole purpose of the nonconforming rights is to bring those properties into eventual compliance with their designated zoning requirements.  If property owners are permitted to ignore or thumb their noses at existing zoning regulations then the neighborhood will never achieve the usage and density status that neighbors fought so hard to achieve with the TNZD.  TNZD, simply put the Code we must all live by - a set of zoning rules that offer transparency of process to the homeowner, the developer, the corporations and banks, in short, everyone. You are the arbiters of non-conforming use. We know that this property has lost non-conforming rights on several occasions and should be immediately returned to single family status. Only you can make what we know to be true, a reality. We ask that you adopt the Appellants Proposed Findings of Fact and uphold our Appeal.
  • As we researched this case we found the notation “Court Vacant Structure” quite curious. We wondered if the notation meant that a court had ordered the property vacated. In private correspondence with April Robbins of Codes and Regulations, she confirmed that no Order to Vacate was ever issued. The courts did not force this vacancy against the property owner’s wishes. In fact in our research we also found other properties with notations of “Court Occupied Structure”. Since we are certain that a court can not compel a structure to be occupied, and armed with the knowledge that no Order to Vacate had been issued, we came to understand that Court Vacant Structure really means that the property is in the Court system for something, somewhere, and is vacant. The notation “Court Vacant Structure” appears on records from Codes and Regulations from March 19, 2008 through August 5, 2009, a period of 17 months. The Department of Solid Waste Management provided a copy of a work order verifying that the property was vacant and therefore the garbage carts were removed. Not until a call to Metro Call on May 19, 2009 was there any apparent need for garbage carts. On that date someone calling for a non-English speaking person stated that the carts had been removed “several years ago since it was a vacant structure at the time.” In July an Electrical Contractor pulled a permit to restore power to the property. Please note that the permit was not for repairs or upgrades to the electrical service – it was to restore power which had been off for over a year.
  • Via interoffice email from Debra Richards to George Pate dated September 8, 2009, Ms. Richards notes, “The owner has made no effort to repair, rent, or sell the property. During the ice storm the entire gutter system fell into the yard. All of the A/C units were cannibalized, and we could see pipes and debris from stripping lying in the open basement area when I lived there, and I sold in 8/07.” The problems Ms. Richards observed prior to August of 2007 continued into 2009.
  • 224 east oak st

    1. 1. An Appeal of a Staff Determination regarding 224 East Oak St Case B-15416-11
    2. 2. 224 East Oak St.
    3. 3. 224 East Oak St.
    4. 4. Timeline Overview 2002 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
    5. 5. Timeline Overview 2002 BISCO Properties LLC, owner. 2002 + City Directories offer conflicting information, NP, 0, 1 2005 Address appears on Abandoned Urban list (AUP)
    6. 6. Timeline Overview 2002 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)
    7. 7. Timeline Overview 2002 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) <ul><li>An Open Records Request to Codes and Regulations produced the following: </li></ul>
    8. 8. Timeline Overview 2002 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) <ul><li>An Open Records Request to Codes and Regulations produced the following: </li></ul>2007 File notes non-conforming rights lost in May
    9. 9. Timeline Overview 2002 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”
    10. 10. Timeline Overview 2002 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
    11. 11. Staff Determination <ul><li>Per Mr. Hendrix, “Listings showing several apartments in the 1999 through 2009 Carons Directories” </li></ul><ul><li>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.” </li></ul><ul><li>There may have been multiple apartments but they were mostly unoccupied </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2002 – 2008 0-1 occupant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>March 19, 2008 through May 12, 2009 IPL lists the property as Vacant </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Staff Determination <ul><li>Per Mr. Hendrix, “Fire Department Bureau building information dated June 11, 1975 that describes one apartment on the 1 st floor, two apartments on the 2 nd floor, and two apartment on the 3 rd floor.” </li></ul><ul><li>Later information from Louisville Metro Fire indicates there were no inspections which are required for apartment buildings. </li></ul>
    13. 13. Staff Determination <ul><li>Per Mr. Hendrix, “Louisville Metro Electrical Permit in 2009” </li></ul><ul><li>This Electrical Permit contains the following note “Electrical Service has been off for over a year” </li></ul>
    14. 14. Staff Determination <ul><li>Per Mr. Hendrix, “Louisville Metro Code Enforcement Inspection History reports that show occupancy in 2003 through 2009” </li></ul><ul><li>These records also clearly demonstrate the building is falling into serious disrepair and is quickly being coming uninhabitable </li></ul><ul><li>Inspection reports indicating multiple citations for: </li></ul>
    15. 15. Staff Determination <ul><li>Per Mr. Hendrix, “Louisville Metro Code Enforcement Inspection History reports that show occupancy in 2003 through 2009” </li></ul><ul><li>These records also clearly demonstrate the building is falling into serious disrepair and is quickly being coming uninhabitable </li></ul><ul><li>Inspection reports indicating multiple citations for: </li></ul>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.
    16. 16. Staff Determination <ul><li>Per Mr. Hendrix, “Louisville Metro Code Enforcement Inspection History reports that show occupancy in 2003 through 2009” </li></ul><ul><li>These records also clearly demonstrate the building is falling into serious disrepair and is quickly being coming uninhabitable </li></ul><ul><li>Inspection reports indicating multiple citations for: </li></ul>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
    17. 17. Staff Determination <ul><li>Per Mr. Hendrix, “Louisville Metro Code Enforcement Inspection History reports that show occupancy in 2003 through 2009” </li></ul><ul><li>These records also clearly demonstrate the building is falling into serious disrepair and is quickly being coming uninhabitable </li></ul><ul><li>Inspection reports indicating multiple citations for: </li></ul>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 <ul><li>Result - in multiple fines, five liens, a court case and a guilty plea </li></ul>
    18. 18. Staff Determination Per Mr. Hendrix, “Louisville Metro Code Enforcement Inspection History reports that show occupancy in 2003 through 2009” <ul><li>If 224 East Oak was “occupied” it was only because the building was unsecure and street people were wandering in and out </li></ul>
    19. 19. Staff Determination <ul><li>Per Mr. Hendrix, “Jefferson County, Kentucky Property Valuation Administration 2010 records listing the site as apartment in a 3-story structure” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Their records don’t identify the number of units in a structure.” – interoffice email from Nancy Braxton- White to April Robbins </li></ul>
    20. 20. Staff Determination <ul><li>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.” </li></ul><ul><li>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” </li></ul><ul><li>The 3 affidavits are from previous owners </li></ul><ul><li>TEN affidavits from neighbors attesting to their observations that the property was vacant </li></ul><ul><li>That a For Sale or Rent sign appeared only in late 2009 </li></ul>
    21. 21. Staff Determination <ul><li>Two Affidavits attesting to phone calls made to the number on the For Rent sign </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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.” </li></ul></ul>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”
    22. 22. Phone Number on For Sale sign
    23. 23. Abandonment – LDC 1.3.1.F This condition has been met : 224 East Oak was listed as an Abandoned Urban Property in 2005 Louisville 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. ”
    24. 24. Abandonment – LDC 1.3.1.F 1023 S. Third, a related case <ul><li>Case # B-19-05 </li></ul><ul><li>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 . . . </li></ul><ul><li>BOZA ruled non-conforming rights do not exist </li></ul>“ 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. ”
    25. 25. Abandonment – LDC 1.3.1.F <ul><li>March 19, 2008 through August 5, 2009 IPL lists the property as Vacant - a period of 17 months </li></ul><ul><li>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) </li></ul><ul><li>July 24, 2009 Electrical Contactor restores service, noting, “Electrical Service has been off for over a year” </li></ul><ul><li>September 8, 2009 PDS staff state the property has been vacant for four years </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>“ 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 :
    26. 26. Abandonment – LDC 1.3.1.F <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>This condition has not been met : </li></ul><ul><li>The property was vacant/uninhabitable </li></ul><ul><li>No electrical service 2008-2009 </li></ul><ul><li>No Metro garbage service </li></ul><ul><li>5 liens placed against the property by Metro Building and Housing related to ignored property maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>10 IPL complaints registered for “trash and debris” </li></ul><ul><li>Neighbors observe no activity indicating occupants </li></ul>
    27. 27. Abandonment – LDC 1.3.1.F <ul><li>2. there is a reasonable prospect that the nonconforming use will be reinstated in the foreseeable future. </li></ul><ul><li>This condition has not been met : </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    28. 28. Facts <ul><li>three affidavits from previous owners </li></ul><ul><li>Louisville Metro via AUP stating the property had been abandoned for one year </li></ul><ul><li>IPL listing the property as vacant for a period of 17 months </li></ul><ul><li>SWMS noting the property as vacant for 33 months </li></ul><ul><li>Independent electrical contractor noting the power had been off for over a year </li></ul><ul><li>12 neighbors affirming that the property was vacant for more than a year </li></ul><ul><li>PDS staff stating the property was vacant for four years </li></ul><ul><li>PDS staff stating that the owner had done nothing to repair, rent, or sell the property. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>Supporting non-conforming use of 5 apartments Supporting use as a single family/duplex as permitted
    29. 29. Proposed Findings of Fact <ul><li>The Appellant requests that the Board uphold the Appeal and find </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>This property meets none of the criteria for establishing non-conforming use . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The property was abandoned for a period of one year or longer on at least three occasions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The property was uninhabitable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PDS staff can not verify the number of units in the property </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PDS staff stated that the property was vacant for four years and had lost non-conforming rights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was no electric service for more than a year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There was no garbage service for 33 months </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The previous owner stated that the property had lost non-conformity – on two separate occasions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The non-conforming use was abandoned </li></ul><ul><li>224 East Oak St. has reverted to the properly zoned use as a single family/duplex </li></ul>
    30. 32. 2008-2009 <ul><li>Property Maintenance Detail Reports dated: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>March 19, 2008 February 11, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May 28, 2008 March 19, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>September 3, 2008 May 12, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>November 25, 2008 June 24, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>July 23, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>August 5, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>list 224 East Oak St. as a “Court Vacant Structure” – a period of 17 months </li></ul><ul><li>May 19, 2009 MetroCall complaint “no garbage carts because carts were collected by Metro when the house went vacant.” </li></ul><ul><li>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 &quot;vacant house“. - a period of 33 months </li></ul><ul><li>July 24, 2009 Electrical Contractor restores power. Note on Permit reads “Electrical service has been off for over a year.” </li></ul>
    31. 33. Staff Determination 3.19.09 Cornice deteriorating 8.05.09 Cornice no improvement 6.24.09 Gutter falling 2.11.09 Gutter hanging

    ×