[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:04]
CALL THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER FOR JANUARY 24TH, 2024.
UH, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE TIME IS NOW 6:40 PM MY NAME IS SHADY AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL CALL, ROLL AND ASK FOR THE COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO ARE PRESENT TONIGHT TO, TO PLEASE SIGNIFY THAT YOU'RE HERE.
AND A QUICK REMINDER TO OUR COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE REMOTING IN.
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO TURN YOUR CAMERA ON AND KEEP IT ON AT ALL TIMES SO THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN QUORUM.
AND ALSO, UH, PLEASE REMEMBER TO SEND IN YOUR SIGN IN SHEET IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE SO.
UM, IF YOU PREFER, YOU CAN CERTAINLY EMAIL MS. ALI JUST TO CONFIRM THAT YOU ARE ATTENDING TONIGHT'S MEETING.
SO BEFORE THE CASES ARE CALLED,
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL ]
THE COMMISSION WILL, UM, ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMUNICATION ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALL ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES OR SIX MINUTES FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE REQUIRING INTERPRETATION SERVICES.
TONIGHT, THE COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A HEARING FOR FIVE CASES ON THE POSTED AGENDA.
THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THREE CASES FROM THREE PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS TWO APPEALS.
THE CASES WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE A CASE OUT OF ORDER IF IT'S APPROPRIATE.
ALL ATTENDEES AT THIS HEARING ARE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE APPROPRIATE DECORUM AND CIVILITY SO AS NOT TO IMPAIR THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS CODE REVIEW.
ANALYST MELANIE ALI WILL CALL EACH CASE ON THE AGENDA, FOLLOWED BY TESTIMONY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
STAFF WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO AN, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY MUST COME FORWARD AND TAKE A SEAT NEAR THE PODIUM, OR IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, PLEASE REMEMBER TO UNMUTE YOUR PHONE OR YOUR MIC.
WHEN, WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY MUST COME FORWARD AND TAKE A SEAT NEAR THE PODIUM.
AND IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, PLEASE DO UNMUTE YOUR MIC OR YOUR PHONE.
THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE FIRST AND ITS WITNESSES.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MAY THEN ASK THE WITNESSES ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY.
AFTER THE CITY HAS PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.
YOU'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.
WHEN THE TIMER INDICATES THAT YOUR TIME IS UP, YOU MUST FINISH YOUR SENTENCE AND CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION.
WE'LL, OUR DESIGNATED TIMEKEEPER FOR TONIGHT, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF, JAMES CANEZ FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AFTER YOU AND THE CITY HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, THE COMMISSION MAY THEN ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER SIDE.
AFTER THE COMMISSION MEMBERS ASK QUESTIONS, I WILL ALLOW OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENT TO PRE TO OFFER RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CASE.
BOTH SIDES AND THE COMMISSION MAY THEN ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, AFTER WHICH THE OWNER OR THE APPELLANT MAY SUMMARIZE THIS OR CASE.
UM, AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IS CONCLUDED, THE COMMISSION WILL DISCUSS THE CASE AND VOTE ON A DECISION.
THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WILL BE ANNOUNCED TONIGHT, AND A COPY OF THE DECISION WILL BE MAILED TO YOU.
A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION IS FINAL AND BINDING UNLESS APPEALED TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS AS PROVIDED IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT TONIGHT'S PROCEDURE, PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
UM, AND I ALSO WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ROLL TO SEE WHO'S HERE.
AND, UM, FOR THE COMMISSIONERS REMOTING IN, UM, AS I SAID, PLEASE REMEMBER TO SEND IN THE SIGN IN SHEET OR IF YOU PREFER, YOU CAN EMAIL SPECIFICALLY SAYING, I WILL BE ATTENDING THE MEETING VIRTUALLY AND HAVE NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST RELATED TO ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
COMMISSIONER BENIGNO IS ABSENT.
HE, HE'S GOING TO BE HERE, BUT HE'S RUNNING LATE.
[00:05:01]
HERE.AND WE ALSO HAVE FIRE MARSHAL STEVEN TRUDEL HERE.
UM, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, HAVE WITNESSES WHO IS TESTIFYING TONIGHT TO TAKE AN OATH.
ANY PERSON THAT WANTS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IN ANY CASE, INCLUDING THOSE REMOTING IN, PLEASE STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SO THAT YOU MAY BE SWORN IN.
DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I DO.
IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE'LL PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING AND OH, THE MINUTES.
WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
DO WE HAVE MR. JANA CARAN ONLINE? YES.
THAT'S HIS FIRST NAME? YES, HE IS ONLINE.
HE JUST NEEDS TO UNMUTE HIMSELF.
MR. JAN RAJA, IF YOU COULD PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
AND DO WE ALSO HAVE, UH, BARRAJ, JAN RAAN? THEY'RE BROTHERS, RAJ.
AND, UH, WE HAVE NOW RAJ, I'M HERE TOO.
UM, IS IT TWO OF YOU ON THE SAME LINE, OR JUST OH, I SEE BOTH OF YOU NOW.
YEAH, WE ARE ON DIFFERENT LINE.
SO YOU MAY PRESENT WHAT YOUR REQUEST IS TO THE COMMISSION TONIGHT.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? OH, UH, ROGER, ARE YOU GONNA GO? OKAY.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE? UH, OKAY.
UH, RAJ, CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU, SIR.
START STILL ON MUTE, RIGHT? STAR SIX.
IS IT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE? YES.
UH, SO, UH, SIR OR MADDEN, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE THREE, UH, CL 20, 21, 0 5, 0 1, 6, 3 C 20, 21, 0 5, 0 3, 9, 3, AND 20, 21, 0 5, 0 1, 8, 0.
SO WE RECENTLY GOT TWO INVOICES FOR AROUND 150 K, RIGHT, WHICH ALMOST GAVE US A HEART ATTACK.
AND WE STILL HAVE SLEEP SLEEPLESS NIGHTS.
AND NOT TO MENTION THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE ARE SEEING THE INVOICE FOR SALE.
UH, IF YOU HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING BEYOND THE DOLLAR, WE HAVE INVESTED IN THIS BUILDING, WHICH IS IN EVERY DIRECT TRAFFIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'LL NOT BE ABLE TO UPLOAD IT, AND THEN WE HAVE TO SELL THE RENTAL AT A HUGE LOSS.
UH, WE ARE PUTTING IN A REQUEST TO THE AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE.
UH, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, YEARNING FOR PENALTY RELIEF.
UH, WE BOUGHT THIS PORTEX IN, IN JANUARY, 2020 BY PULLING IN MONEY BETWEEN THE TWO OF US BROTHERS TO SAVE FOR OUR FAMILIES RETIREMENT.
WE ARE NOT, UH, BIG REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS, INVESTORS.
WE ARE NOT LOCAL TO AUSTIN, AND WE RELIED HEAVILY ON, ON REAL ESTATE, UH, PROPERTY MANAGERS.
RIGHT? SO WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2020, WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN AND OWN THIS PROPERTY FOR A LONG TERM.
UH, BUT AS OF TODAY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NO PENDING CODE VIOLATIONS, AND WE MANAGED TO HIRE A PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGER, UH, TO SERVICE THE BUILDING.
RIGHT? UH, SO, YOU KNOW, ALSO INVESTED NOT TO MENTION, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO ZERO INCOME THAT WE HAD IN 2020 AND 2021.
WE STILL WANT TO HOLD AND MAINTAIN THIS BUILDING FOR A LONG TERM.
RIGHT? SO HERE ARE SOME ISSUES.
WE, WE HAD AND WANTED TO REQUEST SOME HEARING FOR PENALTY RELIEF.
UH, BUILDING WAS ALREADY IN THE BUILDING, WAS ALREADY IN THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM EVEN BEFORE WE BOUGHT IT.
AND MOST OF THE ISSUES, I LATER WERE ALREADY EXISTING.
WE WERE NOT INFORMED BY EITHER THE SELLER OR THE LISTING AGENT.
[00:10:01]
TO GET THE PERMITS, INCLUDING THE PM UH, CONTRACTORS WOULDN'T BE BECAUSE THE AREA AND ISSUES WOULD RESURFACE.WE WOULD FIX WINDOWS, AND IT COULD BE BROKEN AGAIN THE NEXT DAY OR WEEK DUE TO THE NEIGHBORS.
UH, AND TWO UNITS HAVE NOT PAID RENT FOR 12 MONTHS, WILL NOT EVEN LET US INTO THE UNIT BASED ON COVID.
MR. UH, LASTLY, OUR PM WAS SIX.
SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO SUMMARIZE YOUR REQUEST BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE IF THE COMMISSIONERS DECIDE THAT, UM, WE CAN HEAR YOUR REQUEST AT THE NEXT MEETING OR ANY OTHER MEETINGS YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO GO INTO.
I'LL JUST TAKE A 32ND, UH, CLOSING STATEMENT THEN.
UH, SO IN CLOSING, RIGHT, UH, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WE HAVE INVESTED SO MUCH TIME, EFFORT, AND MONEY INTO THE RENTAL.
UH, WE STILL HAVE MORE EXPENSES TO REPLACE.
OUR HVAC WAS STOLEN LAST WEEK, AND TWO OF OUR UNITS WERE TRASHED AFTER WE GOT THE TENANTS EVICTED.
UH, WE REALLY CAN'T AFFORD ANY MORE EXPENSES ON OUR PENALTIES, AND WE REQUEST TO DISCUSS, UH, THE ISSUE FURTHER AND REQUEST A FURTHER YEAR FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT PENALTY RELEASE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SUMMARIZING THAT.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOUR BROTHER WANTS TO ADD? UH, HE IS NOT ABLE TO, UH, UNMUTE HIMSELF, BUT, UH, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE, UH, YOU KNOW, WANTED, WE WANTED US TO SAY.
I MEAN, LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WERE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BEING, UH, OUT OF STATE INVESTORS.
AND THEN, UH, THIS, A THIRD PROPERTY MANAGER.
THE FIRST TWO PROPERTY MANAGERS FLED OUR MONEY AND TOOK ALL THE MONEY AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE NOT DOING ANYTHING.
AND MY BROTHER RA, HE'S BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH, UH, THE INSPECTORS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, UH, TO GET EVERYTHING ADDRESSED BY HIMSELF, WHICH INCLUDES LIKE, YOU KNOW, WEEKLY PHONE CALLS ALL UP, AND WE WOULDN'T EVEN, WE DIDN'T EVEN GET CONTRACTORS TO COME INTO THE AREA BECAUSE, YOU KNOW HOW, UH, UH, ROUGH IT WAS.
SO, UH, WE STILL NOT THERE YET.
WE WERE HOPING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING WE JUST GOING TO GET FRESH START.
UH, BUT YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE TO SAY SINCE WE GOT IT, WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO, UH, HAVE A, A GOOD, UH, SEVEN HOURS OF SLEEP.
WELL, WE'LL HAVE THE COMMISSIONERS TAKE YOUR REQUEST INTO CONSIDERATION, UM, AND YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THAT DECISION.
WE CAN PROCEED WITH, UM, THE, YEAH.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, UM, THOSE CASES THAT HE WAS REQUESTING, UM, TO HAVE HEARD FOR PENALTY RELIEF ARE ALL IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BSC ORDER.
MM-HMM,
UM, COMMISSIONER, PASTOR LUGO.
UM, CAN WE MAKE SURE HE'S RECORDED AS BEING PRESENT AND, AND CHAIR
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
BEFORE WE MOVE ON? WE HAVE THREE SETS OF MINUTES THAT NEED TO BE APPROVED.UH, THE SEPTEMBER MINUTES THAT WERE AMENDED, THEY WERE NOT APPROVED IN OCTOBER, WE MADE AN AMENDMENT TO THOSE, AND THEN THE OCTOBER 24TH, 2023 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.
AND THE DECEMBER 1ST SPECIAL CALLED MEETING MINUTES.
UM, I THINK WE'LL NEED A COUPLE OF MINUTES FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO BE ABLE TO OKAY.
ARE THOSE ALL IN OUR FOLDERS? THEY'RE ALL IN THE GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER AND IN YOUR READERS, AND, UH, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE PRESENT TO, FOR, TO THE RESPECTIVE MEETINGS IN ORDER TO VOTE.
ALRIGHT, CHAIR, MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? OF COURSE.
UM, QUESTION TWO, UM, UM, UM, THAT STAFF, CAN WE DO ONE MOTION TO APPROVE THEM ALL AND VOTE OF THEM AS ONE AS SUCH? OR DO WE NEED ONE MOTION FOR, UM, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE AMENDING THE MINUTES, AND I DO BELIEVE THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT, UM, FROM THE SEPTEMBER MEETING, I WOULD RECOMMEND DOING THAT SEPARATELY.
BUT IF THE OTHERS ARE NOT GOING TO BE AMENDED, THEN YOU CAN DO THAT AS ONE MOTION AND I'LL ADD TO THE SEPTEMBER MINUTES.
UM, WERE NEVER, THEY WERE VOTED ON, BUT THERE WAS, THEY WERE NOT SECONDED, SO WE NEVER DID HAVE AN APPROVED SET OF MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER MEETING EITHER.
WELL, UM, HAS ANY, HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER AND ALSO FROM DECEMBER, MELANIE? SO,
[00:15:01]
I'M SORRY, CHAIR MEL.SO THE SEPTEMBER ONES HAVE ALREADY BEEN AMENDED OR NOT? YES.
THE, THE AMENDMENTS WERE THAT, UM, YOU HAD BEEN RECORDED AS PRESENT AND MAYBE YOU WERE ABSENT, I BELIEVE.
AND, UH, MR. BENOS VOTE WASN'T COUNTED BECAUSE HE NEVER TURNED IN HIS, UH, SIGN IN SHEET AND THEN WE DIDN'T HAVE A SECOND ON THE VOTE EITHER.
SO THERE WERE THREE THINGS THAT REASONS WHY WE'RE VOTING TONIGHT.
APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2023, OCTOBER 25TH, 2023, AND SPECIAL CALL MEETING DECEMBER 1ST, 2023 MINUTES.
UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, I'M SORRY, IF I MAY RECOMMEND, UM, IF WE COULD DO A MO UH, OF SEPARATE VOTE FIRST ON THE SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2023 MINUTES AS AMENDED.
UH, AND THEN LET'S HAVE A VOTE ON THAT, AND THEN THERE CAN BE A SEPARATE MOTION ON THE OCTOBER AND THE DECEMBER MINUTES.
SO WE'RE NOT AMENDING THEM TONIGHT.
WE MADE A CORRECT CLERICAL CORRECTION.
SO JUST TO, WELL, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE SEPTEMBER 27TH MINUTES, UH, THERE NEEDS TO BE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE AS THEY'VE PREVIOUSLY BEEN AMENDED.
UM, AND THEN A VOTE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN ON ON THAT MOTION.
AND THEN WE CAN MOVE INTO A SECOND MOTION ON THE OCTOBER AND THE DECEMBER MINUTES.
I'LL CHAIR, AMEND MY MOTION TO WITHDRAW THOSE THREE DATES AND JUST APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2023 MINUTES.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS FOR THE SEPTEMBER MINUTES.
ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS? SECOND? OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND AS WELL.
SO UNLESS THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTES.
AND I'M IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER SESTAD.
THAT MOTION THAT, UM, THOSE MINUTES ARE ADMITTED.
NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ONES FOR OCTOBER AND DECEMBER 1ST, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 25TH AND DECEMBER 1ST SPECIAL CALLED MEETING.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND I'D SECOND WHO SECONDED.
DO WE, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? AMENDMENTS? SO, SORRY, I, I BELIEVE THAT THE OTHER, UM, MEETING MINUTES FOR APPROVAL WOULD BE AUGUST 23RD MEETING.
THAT, THAT, THAT'S AT LEAST WHAT WE HAVE.
I, I MISREAD, UM, OCTOBER 25TH.
SORRY, THAT WAS JUST DIFFERENT DATES ON IT.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO ADMIT THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 25TH AS WELL AS DECEMBER 1ST, 2023.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY, UH, BY FROM COMMISSIONER SUGAR.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE VOTE IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS.
AND I'M IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER TOAD AYE.
COMMISSIONER SIG, I'M IN FAVOR.
SO WE'VE ADMITTED THE MINUTES, ALL THE MINUTES FROM LAST YEAR,
AND CHAIR BEFORE I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT ONE LAST THING BEFORE WE CALL, BEGIN CALLING THE CASES, ITEMS TWO AND SIX HAVE COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND ARE BEING PULLED FROM THE AGENDA THIS EVENING.
THIS IS REGARDING 5,800 WELLINGTON DRIVE, WHICH IS AN APPEAL AND 2121 BURTON DRIVE, BUILDING FOUR.
[2. Case Number: OL 2018-151137]
TWO ON THE AGENDA.CASE NUMBER OL 2018 1 503 7 IS AN APPEAL REGARDING THE RENTAL REGISTRATION IS SUSPENSION AT AT A REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51 5800 WELLINGTON DRIVE, ALSO KNOWN AS MUELLER PLACE APARTMENTS.
THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANTS AND WILL NOT BE HEARD, SO I'M JUST STATING THAT ON RECORD.
ALRIGHT, I JUST NEEDED TO STATE THAT ON THE RECORD.
SO, UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA IS AN APPEAL REGARDING 6 9 1 1 MOONMAN DRIVE.
[3. Case Number: CV 2023-126552]
NUMBER IS CV 20 23 1 26 5 5 2.THE CASE CAN BE FOUND IN THE AZURE BLUE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
THIS APPEAL BEGAN AS A COMPLAINT ABOUT UNSANITARY CONDITIONS AT THE PROPERTY, WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND LED TO THE CITATION OF AN ADDITIONAL CODE VIOLATION.
THE OWNER FILED AN APPEAL OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HERE TONIGHT.
HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
[00:20:01]
THE INITIAL COMPLAINT DATE IS AUGUST 31ST, 2023.THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION INCLUDED ONE STRUCTURE, MAINTENANCE VIOLATION, AND ONE PROPERTY ABATEMENT VIOLATION.
THE PROPERTY ABATEMENT DEFICIENCY HAS BEEN CLEARED IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND STAFF EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO.
EXHIBIT ONE CONTAINS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S APPEAL LETTER, THE COMPLAINANT CASE HISTORY, A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD, AFFIRMING OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, NOTICES FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS.
AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO F AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
RECOMMENDATION SUPERVISOR JOSEPH LUCAS IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE CITY'S CASE AND WILL TESTIFY TO THE SPECIFICS PRIOR TO THE APPEAL SUPERVISOR.
LUCAS, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
I'M A CODE SUPERVISOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CODE DIVISION, UH, SOUTH AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ENFORCEMENT TEAM.
UH, THE COMPLAINT FOR 69 11 MOON MOUNT DRIVE ORIGINATED ON AUGUST 31ST, 2023 THROUGH A THREE ONE ONE CALL CONCERNING TREE LIMB DEBRIS IN THE FRONT YARD FOR MANY MONTHS.
AUSTIN CODE INSPECTOR DONNA DUNN RESPONDED TO THE PROPERTY AND OBSERVED THE TREE LIMB DEBRIS, UH, THAT WAS DESCRIBED IN THIS COMPLAINT.
INSPECTOR DUNN ALSO OBSERVED A CARPORT STRUCTURE THAT WAS OBVIOUS TO BE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
A CORNER POST FOR THE CARPORT IS CLOSER TO THE ROAD THAN THE FIRST EXPANSION, UH, JOINT IN THE DRIVEWAY, AND THEN THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AND MEASURED CLOSER THAN 10 FEET FROM THE CURB.
UH, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR SSF THREE ZONING, WHICH THIS HOME IS, IS, UH, 25 FEET.
SO THE CARPORT'S AN OBVIOUS VIOLATION.
THE RESIDENCE ALSO HAD, UH, WALLS SIDING A DOOR AND WINDOWS WHERE THE GARAGE DOORS WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN.
A SEARCH OF THE AMANDA DATABASE SHOWED THAT THERE WERE NO PERMITS EVER ISSUED FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE GARAGE DOORS AND NEW WALLS, DOORS, WINDOWS TO BE ADDED TO THE STRUCTURAL FRAMING WHERE THE GARAGE DOORS HAD BEEN LOCATED.
ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH WAS NUMBER OH 4 4 7 3 5, THIS RESIDENCE WAS BUILT IN.
19, WAS DESCRIBED AS A ONE STORY FRAMED RESIDENCE WITH BRICK VENEER AND ATTACHED GARAGE.
UH, OBVIOUSLY THE GARAGE WAS GONE.
NOW, UM, IT IS UNKNOWN WHEN THE ORIGINAL WORK TO REMOVE THE GARAGE DOORS AND REPLACE THEM WITH WALL SIDING, WINDOWS AND DOORS WAS DONE.
BUT THE EARLIEST GOOGLE STREET VIEW PHOTOS THAT I CAN FIND SHOW THAT THEY WERE REMOVED IN THE NOVEMBER OF 2007, UH, PHOTOS THAT, UH, GOOGLE POSTED ONLINE.
THE VIOLATION OF IPMC 3 0 1 0.4 WAS INCLUDED IN A DEFICIENCY TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE WORK THAT WAS PERFORMED PREVIOUSLY WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THIS REMEDY, THE REMEDY IS TO OBTAIN THE PROPER PERMITS FOR THE WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT A PERMIT ON THE GARAGE AS WELL AS THE CARPORT.
I'LL NOW GO OVER THE PHOTOS TO SHOW YOU HOW THE, UH, PROPERTY APPEARED.
PHOTO TWO A IS SHOWING THE ADDRESS 69 11 IN THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE SOME FROM A DISTANCE.
YOU CAN SEE SOME TREE LIMBS IN THE FRONT YARD UP ON THE LEFT.
NEXT PHOTO, UH, TWO B IS SHOWING, UH, THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, PART OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF TREE LIMBS AT THE ROAD.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE DRIED OUT.
THEY'VE OBVIOUSLY BEEN THERE FOR A BIT.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE FRONT OF THE CARPORT, WHICH IS A METAL TYPE OF STRUCTURE WITH A METAL TYPE OF ROOF ON IT, UH, RIGHT UP AGAINST THE SIDEWALK AND, UH, BEFORE THE EXPANSION JOINT.
NEXT PHOTO, IT'S A CLOSER UP PHOTO SHOWING THE ACTUAL, UH, SUPPORT FOR THE CARPORT THAT IS, UH, SET IN CONCRETE RIGHT THERE, UH, UH, OFF THE SIDEWALK IN THE ACTUAL RIGHT OF WAY.
NEXT PHOTO, UH, 2D IS SHOWING MORE TREE BRANCHES AND, UH, TREE DEBRIS IN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR OUR ORIGINAL CALL OUT THERE.
NEXT PHOTO, THIS PHOTO SHOWS, UM, MORE OF THE CARPORT AND HOW LONG IT IS, IT'S ACTUALLY ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A DOOR AND STUFF IN FRONT OF THIS WHITE VEHICLE IN THE DRIVEWAY AND SOME WINDOWS WHERE GARAGE DOORS USED TO BE.
NEXT PHOTO, UH, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER PHOTO SHOWING, UH, WHAT THE WALL LOOKS LIKE NOW THAT USED TO BE GARAGE DOORS, UH, FROM A DIFFERENT, UH, ANGLE.
[00:25:01]
NEXT PHOTO.OKAY, THAT IS THE END OF MY, UH, PRESENTATION.
I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
STAFF, STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO F, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
RECOMMENDATION STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE AND DENY THE APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE REMAINING DEFICIENCY WITHIN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE AND EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO F.
UM, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, MS. CORA ON THE PHONE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
AND MR. ARIA AND CHAIR, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE AN EXHIBIT AS WELL.
OH, THEY DO? I DIDN'T SEE THAT.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT THE APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS AS WELL, UM, IN ANTICIPATION THAT THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, CORRECT.
NO OBJECTIONS FROM STAFF ON THAT.
UM, DO WE HAVE A MS. NICOLE CORUM ON THE PHONE? SHE WAS ONLINE, BUT, UH, HER, THE CALL DROPPED, SO I'M TRYING TO CALL HER AGAIN.
I THINK WE CAN START WITH MR. MR. ARIA, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE STARTING OFF ON YOUR OWN? UM, SURE.
I, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT TO SAY, BUT, HELLO? OH, I THINK SHE'S HERE.
I'M SORRY I MISSED THE BEGINNING OF, UM, I MISSED THE BEGINNING.
I HAD TO GET OFF THE CALL, SO, BUT I'M BACK.
UM, YOU ARE GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MR. ARIA BEFORE HE JOINS IN, IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH, UM, THAT'S FINE.
DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO HEAR, UM, STAFF'S PART OF THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT? I DID NOT.
IF YOU GUYS COULD QUICKLY JUST GO OVER IT AGAIN.
I WAS ON THE LINE FOR LIKE ALMOST 35, 40 MINUTES PRIOR TO, AND SO I HAVE TO JUMP OFF.
I HAVE ANOTHER CALL, BUT GO AHEAD.
UM, IF YOU GUYS CAN REVIEW REALLY BRIEFLY.
THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY ASKING FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT TO DENY THE APPEAL.
YOU, YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE APPEAL IS FOR, RIGHT? UM, YEAH, THE APPEAL WOULD BE FOR WHAT THEY'RE CONSIDERED TO BE ENCROACHMENT, CORRECT.
I APOLOGIZE, HAS SHE BEEN SWORN IN? OH, YEAH.
I WAS ON THE PHONE WHEN YOU GUYS SWORE IN.
SHE, SHE WAS ONLINE DURING THE SWORN IN PROCESS, BUT THEN DROPPED LATER.
YES, I WAS HERE FOR THE SWEAR.
SO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE OATH THAT YOU TOOK.
SO YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND TELL US WHY YOU ARE APPEALING TONIGHT, AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT AS WELL.
SO, SO THE PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL AND THE REASON WHY WE WERE APPEALING WAS BECAUSE, UM, IN 2020 AT THE PURCHASE AND THE TIME OF A HOME PURCHASE, NONE OF THE VIOLATIONS WERE, UM, BEKNOWNST TO THE NEW HOMEOWNER TO AKASH.
AND BEYOND THAT, THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE ENCROACHMENT OF, OF LIKE THE, THE CARDBOARD IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED AND, AND BEEN AT THAT RESIDENCE FOR OVER 15 YEARS.
UM, FOR HIM TO HAVE TO DEMOLISH IT UNDER A FIXED INCOME AND STUFF, JUST, HE CAN'T AFFORD TO DO IT.
AND IN ADDITION TO, IN ADDITION TO THE SECONDARY PORTION OF THE GARAGE, UM, THE CHANGES THAT, THAT ARE MADE THERE, SAME THING CLIENT DOESN'T IS IS, YOU KNOW, FINANCIALLY DESOLATE, UM, POST THE PANDEMIC AND CAN'T AFFORD TO MAKE THE CHANGES.
BUT THE CHANGES WERE ESTABLISHED OVER 15, 20 YEARS AGO, AND THERE WERE NEVER ANY VIOLATIONS, UM, PRIOR TO THIS.
THE, UM, THE OVERGROWN LAWN AND ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WERE THERE, UM, CONSIDERING THE PROPERTY TO LOOK AS IF FOR PEER THIS WAS MAKING AN MAINTENANCE IS, UH, THE ONLY, UM, IS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THE CLIENT HAS HAD REPAIRED AND CLEANED UP AND FIXED.
AND SO THOSE ARE THE REASONS WHY HE, UM, WAS ASKING THAT YOU GUYS GO AHEAD AND VACATE THE VIOLATION.
SO YES, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONERS.
WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR EVERYTHING? SORT OF, YEAH.
UM, DOES MR. ARIAT, DO YOU WANNA ADD
[00:30:01]
ANYTHING TO THAT? UM, YEAH, IF, IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY SOME THINGS.UM, THE BRANCHES AT THE CURB, UH, THEY WERE THERE BECAUSE OF THE CITY BRUSH COLLECTION, WHICH OCCURRED ON THE THURSDAY OF THAT WEEK OF THE COMPLAINT.
UM, UM, IN ADDITION, UM, I'M THE FIFTH OWNER OF THAT HOUSE.
UM, IT WAS OWNED BY MULTIPLE GENERATIONS OF A MILITARY FAMILY.
THE OWNER OF THAT FAMILY WAS IN A WHEELCHAIR, WHICH IS WHY THE CARPORT WAS BUILT ORIGINALLY AND WHY I PURCHASED THE HOUSE FOR A DISABLED MEMBER OF MY FAMILY, WHICH IS WHO WILL BE MOVING IN WITH ME.
UM, I'VE DONE CONSIDERABLE REPAIRS ON THAT HOME MYSELF ALREADY.
UM, REPLACING THE WATER HEATER, UM, I, IT'S MY FIRST HOME.
MY ENTIRE LIFE SAVINGS IS IN THE DOWN PAYMENT OF THAT HOME.
UM, I WORK IN THE SERVICE INDUSTRY.
I ACTUALLY WORK ACROSS THE STREET AT THE AUSTIN FILM SOCIETY THEATER AS A BARTENDER.
UM, I DO NOT MAKE, LIKE THE COST OF DEMOLISHING THAT CARPORT IS, EXCEEDS MY ANNUAL INCOME.
UM, IN TERMS OF LIKE THE LANDSCAPING, ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED.
YOU COULD SEE THAT IN THE PHOTOS THAT I PROVIDED AS WELL.
UM, I ACTUALLY DID ALL THAT MYSELF USING MULCH FROM THE CITY YARD.
UM, YEAH, I, NONE OF, UM, THE CARPORT ITSELF IS LIKE LISTED ON TCAD AS BEING AN ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION TO THE HOUSE, WHICH I ALSO INCLUDED.
UM, IT'S ALSO INCLUDED ON THE ORIGINAL SURVEY OF THE HOME, WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO ME WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOME.
UM, I JUST, I FIND IT ODD AND, AND A LITTLE BIT UNFAIR TO MAKE ME RESPONSIBLE FOR DEMOLISHING A STRUCTURE THAT'S EXISTED SINCE I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL AND LIVED IN A DIFFERENT STATE.
I WAS 17 YEARS OLD WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO, UM, YOUR RECORDS THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED.
UM, WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY? UM, YEAH, I JUST, IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING TO ME THAT THE CITY DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT FOR 15 PLUS YEARS UNTIL I MOVED IN.
UM, THAT'S KIND OF A, A POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
UM, YEAH, THAT'S GOING TO BE A TOUGH ONE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS, I BELIEVE.
UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, THANK YOU CHAIR.
UM, THE, UM, UH, THE GENTLEMAN REFERRED TO PHOTOS AND DOCUMENTS THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO US.
DO YOU ALL HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE? YES, IT'S ACTUALLY JUST THE PLAT.
UM, IT'S, UM, IT'S THE SURVEY AND THE PLA IT'S ON THE LIGHT BLUE.
I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THAT AND THAT ONLY HAS THE, THAT THAT JUST HAS THE, THE MOON LIKE THAT JUST HAS THE LIGHT LAYOUT OF THE HOUSE AND RELEVANT INFORMATION.
IT DOESN'T HAVE A, THE OTHER STUFF DOES IT, IF YOU SEE THE, UM, EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO THAT SHOWS YOU THE TAX OFFICE'S, UM, HISTORY OF OWNERSHIP AND EVERYTHING.
AND YOU'LL ALSO SEE THAT THE PICTURE OF FROM STAFF, I BELIEVE THAT SHOWS THAT THAT PORT HAS BEEN THERE.
UM, WHERE IS THE SECOND PICTURE THAT HE REFERRED TO WHERE HE HAD CLEARED THINGS UP? OH, WHERE HE CLEARED THINGS UP.
I'M SPECIFICALLY THE, THE ATTACHMENTS THAT, UH, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, THIS WAS THE ONLY THING SUBMITTED TO US WAS THIS ONE PHOTO.
UM, NO, I, I SUBMITTED FOUR DIFFERENT, UH, DOCUMENTS IN THE EMAIL, SO WE DIDN'T GET THE OTHERS.
UM, MR. ARIA, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, YOU SAID THAT YOU CLEARED UP THE OTHER VIOLATIONS IS WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO, CORRECT? YEAH, THE, THE OVERGROWN, UM, THE BRANCHES AND ALL THAT.
UM, I SUBMITTED FOUR PHOTOS, UM, WITH THE LAST MEETING THAT WAS, UH, CANCELED.
AND THEN I SUBMITTED THE SAME, UH, PHOTOS AS WELL FOR THIS ONE.
UM, BASICALLY I COVERED THE LAWN, CUT ALL THE GRASS, COVERED THE LAWN WITH MULCH, UM, PUT AN EDGING OF, UH, ROCKS AROUND THE BORDER, UM, OF THE LAWN.
UM, AND ALL THE BRANCHES ARE OBVIOUSLY REMOVED AND THEY WERE TAKEN BY THE CITY THAT WEEK, UM, AS PART OF THE LARGE BRUSH COLLECTION.
I THINK IF YOU LOOK IN THE REPORT AND I'LL LET STOP SPEAK AS WELL.
UH, I WAS JUST, UH, A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED THROUGH THE MISALIGNMENT OF, OF THE,
[00:35:01]
THE, UM, EXHIBITS THAT HE CLAIMED WERE IN THE, IN, IN THAT HE SUBMITTED VERSUS WHAT I WAS SEEING ON MY END, BUT YEAH.SO ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, EITHER TO THE OWNERS OR TO STAFF? MADAM CHAIR? YES.
COMMISSIONER, STILL STAFF, GO AHEAD.
I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR, UM, I GUESS, UH, FOR SUPERVISOR LUCAS.
UH, SO THE SUPERVISOR, THE, THE OWNER IS EXPRESSING CONCERN WITH THE, UM, POTENTIAL COST OF DEMOLITION.
UM, ARE YOU, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF 3 0 1 0.4 THAT WHEN WORK UN PERMITTED WORK HAS BEEN PERFORMED, THERE'S SORT OF A, THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PERMIT BE OBTAINED RETROACTIVELY.
DO WE HAVE A, A SENSE OF WHAT THE OUT-OF-POCKET IS ON JUST THAT PROCESS ALONE TO HAVE AN ENGINEER COME IN AND LOOK AT IT AND THAT SORT OF THING? UM, I WOULDN'T KNOW, SIR, BUT WHEN THEY, UM, WHEN THEY WOULD SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR, TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, THERE WOULD BE A, A LENGTHY REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION.
UM, AND THIS WOULD NOT PASS BECAUSE OF THE ZONING ISSUES OF THIS BEING IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, WHICH IS OBVIOUS.
SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THIS.
AND I GUESS THAT WAS MY, MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
UH, I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED IT THOUGH.
IT'S UNLIKELY THAT ANY SORT OF VARIANCE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO SOMEONE WHO FINDS HIMSELF IN THIS SITUATION FOR ENCROACHING THE RIGHT OF WAY AND SO FORTH.
I CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ON ISSUING A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
UM, IT'S, IT'S A COSTLY, UH, DEAL TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE A HARDSHIP FOR THAT TO, UM, TO BE APPROVED.
AND, UH, HARDSHIP CANNOT BE ABOUT FINANCES.
THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF, UM, PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTE TO THE PROPERTY THAT, YOU KNOW, MADE THEM DO THIS PARTICULAR THING.
UM, THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS.
I HAD THE SAME, I HAD THE SAME QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, GO AHEAD.
UH, CAN I, CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT? SURE.
UH, TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING, WOULD, AND, UH, MR. CARIA HAS EXPRESSED THAT THIS IS IN PART DUE TO, UM, THAT THE PART OF THE REASON HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY WAS DUE TO, UH, A DISABLED FAMILY MEMBER.
WOULD THAT POTENTIALLY QUALIFY AS THE KIND OF HARDSHIP THAT WOULD JUSTIFY? UH, I, I'M NOT PART OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR, UH, WHAT THEIR CRITERIA WOULD BE, BUT I JUST KNOW THEY HAVE TO HAVE A HARDSHIP OF SOME SORT.
UM, OH, COMMISSIONER SHUGART, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I GUESS I, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE MAIN ISSUE WITH THIS CARPORT IS THAT IT IS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF THE PROPERTY AND IT'S ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE AND IT'S, UH, PROBABLY OVER 200 SQUARE FEET, UH, IF WE WERE TO MEASURE IT, WHICH ALL WOULD REQUIRE PERMITS.
UM, I GUESS, UH, I MEAN THERE HAS BEEN, AT LEAST RECENTLY IN COUNCIL THE PASSING OF HOME PHASE ONE, WHICH I THINK REDUCED THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 15 FEET WITH THE POTENTIAL TO REDUCE IT EVEN MORE.
SO I'M JUST SAYING LIKE, IF WE CAN CLARIFY THAT IT IS A SETBACK ISSUE, THERE IS A POTENTIAL THAT IF HOME PHASE TWO PASSES IN A COUPLE MONTHS, THEN IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE ANY LONGER.
THAT I BELIEVE PART OF THAT WOULD MOSTLY BE ACCURATE, BUT IT'S ALSO IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
OH, THOSE POSTS, LIKE YOU SAID, THOSE FRONT POSTS ARE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH NORMALLY, TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEALS WITH ANYTHING, A STRUCTURE THAT'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, UH, BUT THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN.
UM, SO I WANTED TO VERIFY A FEW THINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE SORT OF SEPARATE ISSUES AT PLAY.
UM, YOU MENTIONED ZONING, YOU, THAT'S TO DO THE SETBACK OF ANY STRUCTURE THAT IS BUILT FOR THE PROPERTY.
IS THAT CORRECT? FOR THAT STRUCTURE BEING IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK? YES.
THAT'S, SO, UM, GETTING ADJUSTMENTS FOR ZONING WOULD BE MAYBE DIFFICULT.
AND THEN THERE'S A RIGHT OF WHAT IS THE, UM, WHAT IS THE SORT OF RADIUS FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY? LIKE HOW FAR DO YOU HAVE BACK, DO YOU HAVE TO BE? IT DIFFERS ON IN, IN DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS DEPENDING ON IF THERE'S A SIDEWALK AND EVERYTH THE THINGS.
UH, BUT ALL THE UTILITIES ARE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, NORMALLY THAT FIRST EXPANSION JOINT AND THE DRIVEWAY IS WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY ENDS.
AND BECAUSE THIS IS ON, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE SIDEWALK, RIGHT? CORRECT.
I GUESS IT, IS IT JUST TOO CLOSE? IS IT, DOES IT DO CAN'T BE WITHIN A FEET OF
[00:40:01]
IT OR, OR WHAT EXACTLY IS THE IT'S, IT'S IN THAT SECTION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN THE EXPANSION JOINT AND THE ROAD.NOT JUST THE POLE, THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE, THE ROOF, THE FRAMING GOES INTO THAT RIGHT OF WAY AREA.
AND SO THEN, IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN DEMOLITION TO BE ABLE TO, TO GET THIS DONE? UH, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE IF, IF ZONING WERE TO CHANGE AND MAKE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK 15 FEET OR 10 FEET, UH, THEY COULD TAKE IT TO THAT POINT, UM, EVENTUALLY.
I MEAN, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE, IT'S METAL.
SO I'M SURE IT COULD BE, UM, FABRICATED TO, TO WORK BECAUSE IT'S WELDED TOGETHER.
AND THEN, SO THEN IF, IF THE SETBACKS WERE CHANGED, THEN THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MATTER WOULD BE, UM, THE RIGHT OF WAY INFRINGEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.
NOW WE DON'T KNOW THE REST OF THE VIOLATIONS FOR THE INSIDE OR FOR THE WALL.
AND THAT'S WHY WE WENT WITH THE VIOLATION OF OBTAIN A PERMIT BECAUSE, UM, THEY, WE KNOW THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO PASS UNTIL HE SATISFIES THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK, I FRANCIS.
SO THE TWO ISSUES ARE THE CARPORT AND THEN THE GARAGE CONVERSION.
AND, AND I CAN'T CALL IT A GARAGE CONVERSION BECAUSE I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEEN DONE INSIDE, BUT THERE WAS NO PERMIT PULLED.
THERE WAS NO PERMITS TO REMOVE GARAGE DOORS AND MAKE IT WALLS AND WINDOWS AND DOORS AND SIDING.
AND WHAT DOES CODE REQUIRE? PE SO CODE BASICALLY SAYS IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS SORT OF WORK ON YOUR HOME, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PULL A PERMIT WITH THE CITY, HAVE INSPECTIONS.
ACTUALLY, OLD IN YOUR WORDS, GARAGE CONVERSION, WHICH IS WORK WITHOUT PERMIT.
UM, AND THERE IS A, A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR SUCH A PROJECT, AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT REVIEW, THERE'S INSPECTIONS DONE FOR LIFE SAFETY ISSUES.
SO THAT COULD BE AN OPTION POSSIBLY TO GO THROUGH THAT PROTOCOL AND TO SEE IF EVERYTHING WAS IN COMPLIANCE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THERE, THERE WOULD BE TWO DIFFERENT PERMITS.
SO THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT ISSUE TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THAT PERMITTING.
AND THE OTHER ISSUE THEN IS THE CARPORT.
THE CARPORT, AND THE FACT THAT IT'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND, AND BECAUSE IT'S A STRUCTURE THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE, TO THE STRUCTURE TO THE HOUSE, AND IT'S MORE THAN 150, 200 SQUARE FEET.
BUT E EVEN IF IT'S LESS THAN 200 SQUARE FEET, IF IT'S ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE, IT STILL REQUIRES A PERMIT.
SO IF IT WAS 200 SQUARE FEET AND YOU DISCONNECTED IT FROM THE HOUSE, DOES HE GET THERE? IF IT'S UNDER 200 SQUARE FEET, IT IS DISCONNECTED FROM THAT HOUSE.
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN GET YOU INTO, INTO COMPLIANCE.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY COMPLIANCE, UM, IT DOES MAKE SENSE.
UM, I JUST WANT TO SAY THOUGH, I, I'M A BARTENDER.
I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION.
LIKE, HONESTLY, EVERYTHING YOU GUYS ARE SAYING ABOUT, UM, WELDING AND FABRICATION, UM, I MEAN, IT, IT FRANKLY SOUNDS A LITTLE INSANE TO ME.
UM, I AM THE FIFTH OWNER OF THIS HOUSE.
THERE'S BEEN FOUR OTHER PEOPLE DOING CONSTRUCTION IN THIS HOUSE BEFORE ME.
UM, SOME OF THEM, YOU KNOW, LIVED THERE BEFORE I WAS EVEN BORN.
SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT IF I MAY.
ALSO, I JUST WANT YOU THE COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT A PROACTIVE AGENCY.
UM, AND IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, MORE THAN LIKELY THERE WAS NO COMPLAINTS AT THIS PROPERTY UNTIL WE GOT THE COMPLAINT FROM 3 1 1 ABOUT THE BRUSH.
AND WHEN WE GO THERE, IT'S OUR JOB TO, UM, WHEN YOU SEE AN OBVIOUS VIOLATION, WE DO TAKE IN ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THAT.
UM, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS GENTLEMAN CREATED THIS PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IT, UH, HE PURCHASED IT LIKE THAT.
UM, AND THERE'S NO DUE DILIGENCE TO VERIFY THAT PERMITS WERE EVER MADE OR PULLED, IS THERE? NO, THANK YOU.
JUST I'LL HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU BEFORE THIS.
UM, SUPERVISOR LUCAS, UM, COMMISSIONER LUCCO, GO AHEAD.
AND THEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS MYSELF.
SO TO VERIFY THERE'S NO LAW REQUIRING A DISCLOSURE OF CODE VIOLATIONS AT POINT OF SALE OR BY, BY OR ANY, ANY, ANYTHING LIKE THAT? THERE WERE NO CODE VIOLATIONS WHEN HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO INSPECTIONS ON IT TO REVEAL THE, UM, SO WE HAD NOT CREATED A VIOLATION BECAUSE WE WERE UNAWARE OF SUCH PROBLEM.
[00:45:01]
THE FRONT YARD.BUT IT'S, YOU CAN, THERE'S OUR, OUR PERMITTING PERMITTING SYSTEM IS PUBLIC RECORD.
UM, AND IT'S READILY AVAILABLE ONLINE WHERE YOU CAN SEE EVERY BUILDING PERMIT THAT'S BEEN PULLED FOR A PROPERTY.
SO AS A PURCHASER IN AUSTIN, IT'S EASY TO DO THAT RESEARCH AND SEE IF THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH THE HOME THAT YOU'RE GONNA BUY.
UM, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. ARIA.
SO YOU ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN APRIL, 2020, IS THAT CORRECT? IN, UH, I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE IT WAS FEBRUARY OF 2020.
HAVE YOU DONE ANY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY SINCE THEN, OR WERE ALL THESE IMPROVEMENTS DONE PRIOR TO YOU OBTAINING THE PROPERTY? UM, THE, THE GARAGE ESPECIALLY I, I KNOW THE PORT WAS DONE PRIOR TO YOU.
UM, THAT GARAGE CONVERSION WAS ALSO DONE PRIOR TO YOU OBTAINING THE PROPERTY.
THE, THE GARAGE DOOR REMOVAL AND CHANGE, UM, ACCORDING TO TAD HAPPENED IN 1979.
UM, SO YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS, I SUPPOSE IS MY MAIN QUESTION.
I PERSONALLY HAVE DONE NO IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HOUSE BESIDES REPLACING, UM, FAULTY APPLIANCES SUCH AS A WASHING MACHINE AND THE WATER HEATER AT THIS POINT.
AND YOU DID MENTION THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT DEMOLITION WOULD BE VERY COST PROHIBITIVE FOR YOU.
HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED TO GET ANY BIDS FOR DISMANTLING THE PORT AS OPPOSED TO, UM, THE WHOLE THING OR THE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES? POTENTIALLY? DID YOU GET ANY BIDS? I GOT ONE QUOTE THAT, UM, WAS AROUND THE $29,000, UM, AMOUNT.
AND THAT WAS JUST FOR THE, THE PORT THAT WAS FOR THE CARPORT AND THE, UM, GARAGE, UH, WALL.
AND I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION,
UM, DID YOU TRY TO REC RETROACTIVELY GET THE NEEDED PERMITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO SEE WHETHER THERE COULD BE A VARIANCE THAT WILL BE APPROVED OR ANYTHING AT ALL? UM, I DID RESEARCH OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA THAT HAD SIMILAR ISSUES.
THERE'S AROUND 42 OTHER HOUSES IN THE BUCKINGHAM RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE EXTREMELY SIMILAR ISSUES, UM, INVOLVING CARPORTS AND GARAGE DOOR CONVERSIONS.
WHAT DID YOU, WHAT WAS YOUR CONCLUSION? I'M SORRY, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT? UM, YOU SAID YOU RESEARCHED ABOUT DIFFERENT PROPERTIES, BUT DID YOU SEE HOW THE OTHER PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO GET PERMITTED OR WERE THEY PERMITTED TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? UM, I RESEARCHED SOME OF THEM, UH, SOME OF THE, UH, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST DOCUMENTS ONLINE.
UM, THE MAJORITY OF THEM WERE GRANTED VARIANCES.
UM, I, AGAIN, I WORK IN THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRY.
I DON'T KNOW, LEGAL INFORMATION AND LANGUAGE.
I'M NOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH IT.
I CAN'T HONESTLY SAY WITH CONFIDENCE IF I GAINED ANY REAL INFORMATION FROM LOOKING AT THOSE DOCUMENTS BESIDES THE FACT THAT THEY EXIST AND THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DONE THIS TO THEIR HOUSES AS WELL.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE MAIN DIFFERENCES THAT IN ALL OF THOSE CASES THAT I DID LOOK UP, THE 42 THAT WERE AVAILABLE, ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE DID THE CONSTRUCTION THEMSELVES, WHICH IS NOT SIMILAR TO MY CASE FOR MY HOUSE.
SO YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY INTERACTIONS WITH THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT OR ANYTHING? NO, NOT SINCE, UM, THIS PROCESS HAS STARTED, NO.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED MS. COCHRAN TO WEIGH IN ON REGARDING THIS PART OF THE DISCUSSION? I THINK SHE'S STILL ONLINE.
UM, UM, SHE, UH, TEXTED ME AND ASKED THAT I, UM, UH, REQUEST AN EXTENSION.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL THAT SHE REQUESTED.
SO, UH, YEAH, I THINK THIS ONE IS A TRICKY ONE AND VERY DIFFICULT ONE.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION WE NEED TONIGHT, UH, TO BE ABLE TO
[00:50:01]
OR MAYBE COME PREPARED WITH THE RESPONSE FROM THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT.THAT WOULD'VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO US TONIGHT, I THINK.
BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND LET THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ALSO COMMENT AND HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, AND THEN WE MIGHT HAVE TO VOTE IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
HERE ARE THE OTHER EXHIBITS WE WERE ABLE, THIS IS WHAT THEONA SENTENCE.
WE'LL TAKE A A MINUTE TO LOOK AT THOSE.
IF I COULD EXPLAIN A LITTLE OF THIS DOCUMENT.
HERE IS THE MLS LISTING, UM, THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PREVIOUS SELLERS, WHICH DOES LIST THE CARPORT AS AN AMENITY OF THE HOME.
WE DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE, I THINK WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AND IN AGREEMENT THAT YOU DID PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AS IS.
UM, I GUESS THE PROBLEM WE WOULD HAVE TONIGHT IS WHETHER THE YEAH, THAT'S IN OUR FOLDER.
YEAH, SO I THINK THE QUESTION AND THE CONCERNS WE'LL HAVE IS WHETHER YOUR, UH, I GUESS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHETHER THE PERMITTINGS, WHETHER THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE DONE PROPERLY ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OR NOT.
WHETHER WE SHOULD USE THAT AS A REASON TO SAY THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY VIOLATION.
AND TYPICALLY I SEE THE SELLER'S DISCLOSURE HERE AND THERE'S ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE YOU SHOWING THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE MADE.
UM, BUT SINCE THERE WERE FIVE DIFFERENT OWNERS, PROBABLY THE, THOSE PEOPLE THAT SOLD IT TO YOU COULD GET AWAY WITH THE FACT THAT THEY WEREN'T THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY MADE THE IMPROVEMENTS THEMSELVES.
BUT ULTIMATELY, THE RESPONSIBILITY WILL LIE WITH YOU AS THE BUYER.
SO, UM, IF I COULD, COULD ALSO ADD ALL, ALL PREVIOUS FOUR OWNERS.
UM, WERE ALL RELATED TO EACH OTHER, AND AT ONE POINT THEY ALL LIVED WITH EACH OTHER IN THE HOME BEFORE I PURCHASED THE HOME.
UM, YES, THIS IS RATHER UNFORTUNATE.
WE DO HAVE, I THINK OUR HANDS MIGHT BE TIED.
I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE SOME PARAMETERS WE HAVE TO WORK WITHIN.
SO, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, GO AHEAD.
UH, CHAIR, UH, IF I MAY, THIS REALLY SEEMS LIKE A SITUATION WHERE YOU SEEM TO BE A BIT OF A VICTIM OF CIRCUMSTANCE HERE.
FRANKLY, IT SEEMS LIKE THE ONLY REASON WHY THIS CODE VIOLATION WAS EVER DISCOVERED WAS BECAUSE OF A VERY BRIEF SITUATION INVOLVING SOME TREE BRANCHES, WHICH CERTAINLY SEEMS LIKE A VIOLATION.
CERTAINLY SEEMS REASONABLE ALSO, ACCORDING TO YOU, HAS BEEN RESOLVED AT THIS POINT.
UM, SO I MEAN, THAT, THAT KIND OF SEEMS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE AT THIS POINT, BUT PERSONALLY, I'D BE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT ISSUING A, A SERIOUS PENALTY OR ANYTHING OVER THIS BECAUSE IT, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A PUBLIC DANGER TO ANYONE.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOES APPEAR TO BE A VIOLATION, GENUINELY, BUT NOT ONE THAT IS CAUSING HARM AND ONE THAT PERHAPS COULD EVEN BE RESOLVED BY AN ADJUSTMENT FROM THE ZONING DEPARTMENT.
UM, I, IN LIGHT OF THAT, I, I, I THINK THAT THE BEST MOVE HERE MIGHT BE TO TRY AND GET AN EXTENSION HERE, MOVE THIS TO A LATER MEETING, AND HOPEFULLY GIVE, UH, MR. CATIA SOME TIME TO PURSUE THAT ADJUSTMENT.
I, I, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHETHER THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE, BUT I, I, I'D JUST FRANKLY LIKE TO GIVE YOU AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WAY I, I MEAN, AGAIN, I, I FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT ISSUING A PENALTY FOR A SITUATION THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE CAUSING A REAL PUBLIC ISSUE AND ALSO DOES NOT SEEM TO BE YOUR FAULT.
OH, I WAS GOING TO CLARIFY SOMETHING, BUT GO AHEAD.
I THINK YOU, YOU'RE ABOUT TO SAY THE SAME THING.
WELL, I WAS ACTUALLY JUST SEEKING RECOGNITION TO MAKE A MOTION.
I WAS GONNA PROPOSE THAT WE, WELL, I WAS GONNA MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, BECAUSE I THINK THE CONVERSATION HAS ALREADY DRIFTED INTO DISCUSSION AND AWAY FROM Q AND A.
DIVISION MANAGER, ROBERT MOORE.
UM, YOU ARE NOT HERE TO, UM, RECOMMEND AN ORDER OR A PENALTY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF AN APPEAL, AND SO WE JUST NEED THE COMMISSION TO EITHER SAY, YES, THERE IS A VIOLATION OR NO, THERE'S NO PENALTIES, THERE'S NO ORDERS, THERE'S NO NOTHING LIKE THAT.
THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP.
THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO SAY.
[00:55:01]
TONIGHT'S, UM, APPEAL IS ABOUT THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION ITSELF.WE'RE NOT YET HEARING THE ACTUAL VIOLATIONS, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS GIVEN MR. UM, GUTTER SOME HINTS, THINGS THAT HE CAN PREPARE AHEAD WHEN THERE IS AN ACTUAL MEETING AND THIS PARTICULAR CASE COMES ON THE AGENDA.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND, UM, IF, IF YOU COULD JUST GO OVER VERY QUICKLY WHAT EXACTLY, UM, YOU SAID, UM, UH, CONSULTING WITH THE, THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND THERE WAS ONE MORE THING.
UM, I JUST SUGGESTED THAT IT MIGHT BE NICE TO KNOW ALL YOUR OPTIONS.
SO IF YOU GO IN THERE AND ASK THEM, HOW CAN I MAKE THIS, UM, HOW CAN I CORRECT THIS THING THAT I DIDN'T CAUSE BUT IT'S, IT'S FALLING ON MY LAP RIGHT NOW.
SO THEY MIGHT HAVE A PROCESS THAT YOU CAN RETROACTIVELY GET THIS THING PERMITTED, OR WORST CASE SCENARIO YOU MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE THINGS AROUND A LITTLE AND AT THAT POINT, MAYBE GET SOME BIDS FROM CONTRACTORS TO ACTUALLY SHOW US SO THAT WE ARE NOT JUST SPECULATING AT THAT POINT, BUT TONIGHT NOTHING'S HAPPENING.
THIS IS A NOTICE THAT I BELIEVE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE TONIGHT ON IT BECAUSE OUR HANDS ARE TIED DEPENDING ON WHETHER A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS VALID OR NOT.
THAT'S ALL THAT'S HAPPENING TONIGHT, SO YOU STILL HAVE TIME TO FIND OUT ALL THE OPTIONS.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER SOAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING, UM, AND THEN THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD MAKE A DECISION.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
IS ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THAT OR SHALL WE? OKAY.
DO WE VOTE ON THIS? WE DON'T VOTE ON THIS PART.
DO WE? CLOSING THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING? THERE'S NO NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
YOU CAN JUST, IF IS ANYBODY OPPOSED AND HEARING IS ANYONE OPPOSED? NO.
UM, CAN I JUST GIVE SOME ADVICE TO THE GENTLEMAN BEFORE WE MOVE ON? SURE.
YOU'RE GONNA WANT TO EMAIL JESSICA COHEN, SHE'S THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
JUST TELL HER I TOLD YOU TO REACH OUT TO HER.
WE, WE CAN'T HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN, UM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR OF ANY COMMISSION WITH, UM, POTENTIAL APPLICANTS.
UM, THERE'S NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, SO SOUNDS GOOD.
PLEASE DO NOT REACH OUT DIRECTLY TO THE CHAIR.
PLEASE REACH OUT TO THE BOARD LIAISON.
UM, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.
WE HAVE TO KEEP THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SITUATION EXACTLY CLEAR.
UH, WELL CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF ASIDE, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE TONIGHT, UH, IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO, UH, DENY THE APPEAL.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE IMPOSING A CIVIL PANEL KEY AT THIS TIME, BUT CERTAINLY I WOULD, I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT EVERYONE ELSE ON THE COMMISSION WOULD, UH, TRY AND GIVE MR. KARE SOME TIME AS THAT DOES COME UP.
BUT CERTAINLY IT SEEMS LIKE THE VIOLATION IS CORRECTLY NOTED AND, UH, WAS THE, THE NOTICE SEEMS VALID ESSENTIALLY, BUT I HOPE THAT WHEN THIS ACTUALLY COMES UP, WE WILL TRY AND GIVE A LOT OF LENIENCY INTO SPACE.
OH, IS IT COMMISSIONER SEK? DO YOU, OH, MR. MOORE.
I JUST HAD HEARD SOMETHING EARLIER.
I MEAN, YOU'LL NEVER SEE THIS CASE AGAIN.
I MEAN, IF WE CHOOSE TO PURSUE IT, IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REALM.
UM, WORK WITHOUT PERMIT CASES, DON'T COME TO THE BUILDING OF STANDARDS COMMISSION.
SO THIS IS REALLY ALL WE CAN DO WITHIN THE SCOPE OF TONIGHT'S, UM, APPEAL, BUT WE HAVEN'T MADE A DECISION YET.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
I MOVE, MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL.
AND A SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OR SHOULD I CALL THE VOTE? I'LL CALL THE VOTE.
AND, UM, RELUCTANTLY IN FAVOR,
[01:00:01]
YOU MR. ARIA, AND I WISH YOU ALL THE LUCK.THE BEST OF LUCK WITH THE PROPERTY.
[4. Case Number: CV 2023-125026]
FOUR ON THE AGENDA IS AN APPEAL REGARDING 8 1 0 3 FORBES DRIVE.THE CASE NUMBER IS CV 20 23 25 26.
THE CASE CAN BE FOUND IN THE BLUE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
THIS APPEAL BEGAN AS A COMPLAINT ABOUT STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS AT THE PROPERTY, WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND LED TO THE CITATION OF AN ADDITIONAL CODE VIOLATION.
THE OWNER FILED AN APPEAL OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HERE TONIGHT.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THE INITIAL COMPLAINT DATE IS SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2023.
THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION INCLUDED TWO STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS AND ONE PROPERTY ABATEMENT VIOLATION IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND STAFF'S EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO.
EXHIBIT ONE CONTAINS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S APPEAL LETTER, THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY, A COPY OF THE TRAVELS, TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD, AFFIRMING OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, THE REQUIRED NOTICES OF HEARING, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS, AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO E, AND DEVELOPS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
RECOMMENDATION INSPECTOR SANDY VAN CLEVE IS HERE TO PRESENT THE CITY'S CASE AND WILL TESTIFY TO THE SPECIFICS PRIOR TO THE APPEAL.
INSPECTOR VAN CLEVE, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS SANDY VAN CLEVE AND I AM THE ASSIGNED CODE OFFICER FOR THIS CASE THIS EVENING.
UH, THIS COMPLAINT ORIGINATED ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2023 THROUGH A THREE ONE ONE CALL CONCERNING THE FENCE THAT HAD FALLEN DOWN AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 81 0 3 FORBES DALE DRIVE.
I INSPECTED THE PROPERTY ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2023 AND DID OBSERVE A PORTION OF THE FENCE WAS MISSING.
HOWEVER, HOWEVER, THAT HAS SINCE BEEN REPAIRED FROM THAT INSPECTION.
ALSO, DURING MY INSPECTION, I MADE A, A PRELIMINARY CHECK OF THE PROPERTY IN OUR PERMIT AND DATABASE SYSTEM AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS A PENDING BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT DATED JANUARY 14TH, 2000 FOR A DECK AND A SPA, UH, WHICH SHOWED THAT WAS STILL BEEN PENDING IN OUR SYSTEM.
HOWEVER, AFTER DOING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER RESEARCH, UH, IT SHOWED THAT THE PERMIT DID EXPIRE ON AUGUST 29TH, 2007.
AND I DID CONFIRM, UH, WHILE I WAS AT THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF DECK AND OVERHANG THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF THE STRUCTURE, UH, THAT WAS NOT PERMANENT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS PERMIT WAS PART OF THAT, UH, FOR THAT, UM, STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.
THE FOLLOWING PHOTOGRAPHS ARE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT I OBSERVED AT THE PROPERTY DURING MY INSPECTION ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2023.
AND SO PHOTO TWO A IS JUST THE ADDRESS OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.
NEXT PHOTO, UH, PHOTO TWO B IS THE CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
NEXT PHOTO, UH, FELLOW TWO C SHOWS THAT WOODEN DECK AND A AND AN OVERHANG ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF THAT STRUCTURE.
AND NEXT PHOTO, THIS IS, UH, A PICTURE ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE I THAT'S A PICTURE THAT'S ZOOMED IN FROM WHERE I WAS STANDING BY THE FENCE LINE SHOWING, UH, THAT IT IS ATTACHED.
THIS IS A SCREENSHOT OF OUR, UH, AMANDA DATABASE.
IT SHOWS ALL OUR PERMIT AND, UH, IN THAT DATABASE.
AND THIS DOES SHOW NO ACTIVE OR FINAL PERMIT, UH, FOR THAT DECK OR THAT OVERHANG.
UH, THE PERMIT, THE CURRENT BUILDING PERMIT ON IN THIS, UH, DATABASE ONLY SHOWS, UH, THE BACK IS AN UNCOVERED PORTION.
IT'S AN UNCOVERED TERRACE IN THE BACK, DOES NOT SHOW ANY DECK OR ANY TYPE OF COVERING FOR THE PACK OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
[01:05:01]
STAFF ASKS THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO E, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.RECOMMENDATION STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE AND DENY THE APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DEFICIENCIES WITHIN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE IN EXHIBIT TWO A THROUGH TWO E UM, I'M SHOWING AN OWNER'S NAME, JOSEPH JOHNSTON.
IS ANYBODY HERE FOR THIS PROPERTY TONIGHT? ONLINE? THE OWNER'S ONLINE.
OKAY, MR. JOHNSTON, MR. JOHNSON, IF YOU COULD PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
SO WERE YOU SWORN IN EARLIER WHEN WE TOOK THE OATH FOR EVERYBODY THAT WILL BE SPEAKING? YES.
I'VE BEEN ONLINE SINCE ABOUT SIX 20.
UM, SO YOUR CASE JUST CAME UP ON THE AGENDA, AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL THE COMMISSIONERS WHY YOU'RE APPEALING THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND, UH, YEAH, SURE.
I'LL BE, UH, COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT.
I'M KIND OF IN THE SAME SITUATION AS THE GENTLEMAN BEFORE, UH, WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOUSE I WAS ALREADY ATTACHED TO IT.
NOW HEARING HOW EVERYTHING HAS GONE IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, I WILL JUST SAY I DO WANT TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY TO REMEDY THIS AS I'M NOT A CARPENTER OR A MANUAL LABORIST.
FINANCIAL IS OBVIOUSLY GONNA BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS OF MINE, BUT AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO AS FAR AS HOW TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION.
UM, I JUST WANTED IT TO BE KNOWN THAT THIS IS HOW THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AND THAT I HAVE, YOU KNOW, NO SKILL IN ORDER TO FIX OR DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO BRING IT UP TO CODE.
UM, I JUST WANT TO BE IN WITH COMPLIANCE AND JUST NEED, I GUESS, BETTER DIRECTION AFTER HEARING EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY.
UM, I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, GO BACK AND FORTH.
I JUST WANT TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW LIKE THIS IS THE SAME SITUATION THAT THE GENTLEMAN WAS IN BEFORE.
WELL, I APPRECIATE YOU, UM, BEING REALISTIC ABOUT
AND I'M SORRY, I, YEAH, I JUST, UM, JUST TRYING TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION, HONESTLY, BECAUSE I DIDN'T BUILD IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN COME AFTER THE PERSON THAT DID BUILD IT, WHO FAILED TO DO THE PERMITS, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND AND REALISTICALLY, IT'S WHOEVER THE OWNER IS TAKES RESPONSIBILITY.
SO THAT'S THE SITUATION THAT I'M IN.
UM, AS FAR AS THE GATE GOES, I DID TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT I HAD A TRACTOR COME TO THE BACK TO MOW THE LAWN, SO I HAD TO KNOCK DOWN THE GATE SO THAT I COULD FIT, BUT, UH, I HAD JUST LEFT IT DOWN SO I, UH, QUICKLY PUT IT BACK UP TO REMEDY THAT SITUATION.
THANK YOU FOR SUMMARIZING EVERYTHING.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF TONIGHT? UM, I JUST, UH, AS THE GENTLEMAN BEFORE, I GUESS WAS ALLOTTED SOME TIME, I GUESS I, I'M KIND OF UNDERSTANDING THE WAY THE FUNCTION GOES TONIGHT.
AS FAR AS DECIDING YES OR NO, UM, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO BE GIVEN SOME GRACE AS FAR AS NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS AS IT'S KIND OF FALLEN IN MY LAP, AS YOU SAID.
UM, LET ME TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND IF THEY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU, JUST BE ON STANDBY.
COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, GO AHEAD.
UH, MR. VAN CLEVE, UM, THIS IS JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT EXACTLY IS STILL AT ISSUE HERE.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE, UH, VIOLATIONS THAT WE HAVE.
UM, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE TWO PENDING VIOLATIONS ARE THE LACK OF A PERMIT AND THE GRASS AND WEEDS BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THE, THAT'S CORRECT, BUT THE GRASS AND WEEDS AND THE FENCE VIOLATION HAD BEEN CORRECTED.
SO, UH, FOR THIS VI, FOR THIS NOTICE OF VIOLATION, THE ONLY THING THAT IS PENDING IS THE, UM, DECK AND THE OVERHANG NEEDS TO BE PERMITTED.
AND, UH, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW OF ANY REASON WHY THIS WOULDN'T GET PERMITTED? UH, NO.
[01:10:01]
OF ANY REASON WHY THEY WOULD NOT PERMIT IT.UH, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO TALK TO DSD AND THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN PROBABLY REACTIVATE THE, UH, ORIGINAL PERMIT FROM 2000, UH, WHICH IS ONLY A $20 FEE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE STILL ALL THE PAPERWORK, UH, A DECK AND EVERYTHING WAS STILL THE SAME.
AND THEN PROCEED WITH THE, UH, PERMIT IN ACTION AND RESPOND TO ANY OF THE COMMENTS, UH, AND MAKE ANY CORRECTIONS FROM THE COMMENTS IF THAT'S THE CASE, UH, IF THEY CAN REACTIVATE THE PERMIT.
UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT INFORMATION.
MR. VAN CLEVE, MR. JOHNSTON, DID YOU, UH, GET EVERYTHING THAT HE JUST SAID? I, I GRASPED MAYBE 50% OF IT AS FAR AS, UH, CONTACTS AND STUFF.
UM, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO CONTACT SOMEBODY TO GET THIS INFORMATION.
UH, I WAS TRYING TO WRITE AS FAST AS I COULD.
AND, AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY ONE PARTICULAR THING HE SAID, UH, DSD IS THE DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
SO YEAH, THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD.
IF THERE WAS A, A PERMIT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ACTIVATED, I WAS KIND OF UN I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING, DID IT EXPIRE? DID THEY LIKE NOT FINISH A CERTAIN STEP? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LANGUAGE.
SO THEY DIDN'T COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH, UM, OBTAINING FINAL INSPECTIONS AND OR IF THERE WERE ANY, UH, COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BACK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER WHEN THEY REVIEWED THE PERMIT TO SAY THE MINES THAT WERE DEFICIENT, THAT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED.
UH, THE OWNER MAY NOT, MAY NOT HAVE RESPONDED TO THOSE, I'M NOT REAL SURE, BUT THEIR OVERALL ISSUE IS HE STOPPED RESPONDING AND THEN THE PERMIT EXPIRED AND NOBODY DID ANYTHING TO REACTIVATE IT OR FOLLOW THROUGH.
I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION.
UM, STAFF HAS SOMETHING TO ADD.
COULD YOU RECOGNIZE STEVE LEACH? HE'S, UM, HE'S HERE WITH DSD AND HE IS ONLINE.
AM I PRONOUNCING IT RIGHT? UM, COULD YOU PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF? OKAY.
UM, YOU WANTED TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE PERMITTING PROCESS? YES, MA'AM.
SO THIS, THIS PERMIT WAS PULLED, UH, UNDER A SYSTEM THAT PRE-EXISTED, OUR CURRENT DATABASE.
UM, AND, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PERMIT, IT DOES INDEED SAY THAT IT'S AN, IT'S AN A PENDING STATUS, WHICH IS, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT ODD.
TYPICALLY, THAT'S A STATUS FOR A PERMIT THAT HASN'T BEEN PAID FORWARD YET.
UH, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE FEE TAB OF OUR DATABASE, IT, IT DOES INDICATE THAT THE FEE WAS PAID.
IT IN FACT SAYS THAT IT WAS PAID IN CASH.
UM, AND THIS PERMIT ALSO SHOWS, WHILE IT DOES SHOW AN EXPIRATION DATE, WHICH EVERY PERMIT HAS AN EXPIRATION DATE, IT'S JUST SIX MONTHS FROM WHEN THE PERMIT WAS PULLED, OR IF IT'S EXTENDED, UH, AS INSPECTIONS GO, IT, IT, THAT EXPIRATION DATE EXTENDS OUT AT SIX MONTHS FROM, FROM EACH VALID INSPECTION.
BUT THIS PERMIT ALSO SHOWS A FINAL DATE, WHICH IS VERY UNUSUAL.
AND FINAL DATE TYPICALLY ONLY SHOWS ON A PERMIT WHEN A, WHEN ALL THE INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN PASSED.
AND SO, SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT, WHAT I THINK THIS IS, IS A CASE OF, OF, OF, OF A, A PERMIT WAS PULLED AND INSPECTIONS WERE CALLED AND PASSED.
BUT WHEN THIS INFORMATION WAS MIGRATED INTO OUR NEW DATABASE, CERTAIN INFORMATION WAS LOST, IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME.
SO THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE, OH, A VERY GOOD, UH,
SO THE NEW SYSTEM THAT'S THERE.
NOW, YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS PERMIT, WOULD IT SHOW AT ALL IN YOUR NEW DATABASE OR THE, THE PERMIT DOES SHOW.
BUT IT SHOWS, BUT IT SHOWS, THERE'S NO INFORMATION.
YOU KNOW, IT SAYS, IT SAYS WOOD SPA AND ELECTRICAL, THE SPA, WOOD DECK AND SPA AND ELECTRICAL ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL.
AND THERE WAS AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT THAT WAS PULLED ALSO.
AND IT ALSO SHOWS A FINAL DATE.
UM, YOU KNOW, FOR EX I COULD SH WELL, I CAN'T SHARE A SCREEN, BUT OKAY.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK UP A PERMIT, A CURRENT PERMIT THAT'S ONGOING, THAT HAS NOT PASSED ALL OF ITS INSPECTIONS, THAT FINAL DATE WILL BE BLANK.
IT SHOULDN'T BE THE, THAT FINAL DATE, THAT FINAL DATE ONLY POPULATES WHEN YOU PASS YOUR FINAL INSPECTION.
[01:15:01]
GOOD.THERE, THERE'S NO INSPECTION HISTORY IN THIS PERMIT EITHER.
BUT THAT, AGAIN, THAT'S, IN MY EXPERIENCE, THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR THESE OLD PERMITS.
SO I GUESS MY, THIS INFORMATION WAS LIKELY MANUALLY TRANSFERRED INTO OUR NEW DATABASE.
AND, AND PROBABLY JUST IN THE, IN THE INTEREST OF EFFICIENCY, THEY PUT INTO WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS THE MOST, YOU KNOW, RELEVANT INFORMATION.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
WERE YOU SWORN IN EARLIER AS WELL? YES, MA'AM.
SO WE'LL TAKE YOUR TESTIMONY, UM, IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING WE'VE HEARD.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, MR. JOHNSTON, THIS IS YOUR LUCKY DAY, SO I'LL LET THE
BUT I'M THINKING THERE IS NO WAY THAT THERE WILL BE A VIOLATION IF THERE WAS A COMPLETION DATE, WHICH I'M LOOKING AT, UM, OF JULY 12TH, 2000.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN ERROR, UM, IN TERMS OF THAT VIOLATION.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WEIGH IN ON THIS, UM, CHAIR, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHEN YOU SAY WEIGH IN, WILL YOU GO, WILL YOU BE MOVING INTO DISCUSSION AND DO WE NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? NO, IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
WE'RE STILL, IT'S STILL, UM, THE OPEN HEARING, PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, OR ANY MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING? I'LL MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING.
SO, UM, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT.
AND WE WILL NOW SEE IF WE WANT TO FURTHER COMMENT, OR IF WE WANT, IF I CAN CALL THE VOTE FOR WHAT? OH, TO VOTE ON THE APPEAL.
WE STILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THE APPEAL.
SO YOU NEED A MOTION? YES, I DO GET A MOTION.
CAMPBELL, UH, I WAS GOING TO, UH, MOTION TO, UH, DENY THE APPEAL AND TO UPHOLD STAFF'S FINDINGS, FACTS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
UM, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT PLEASE? UH, I'M MOTIONING TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD STAFF'S FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
DO WE WANT TO, OKAY, LET ME CLARIFY THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN UPHOLD, THERE IS NO VIOLATION.
SO THE, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE, THAT A VIOLATION EXISTED AT THE TIME THAT THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS, UH, SERVED UPON, UH, MR. JO, MR. JOHNSTON, EXCUSE ME, OR IF THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.
UM, IT DOES SOUND LIKE THERE WAS SOME NEW INFORMATION PRESENTED TONIGHT, WHICH DOES HAVE ME A LITTLE CONCERNED, UM, AND WONDERING IF WE MIGHT ACTUALLY WANT TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE AND DETERMINE WHETHER, UM, WE, WE NEED TO LOOK FURTHER INTO THIS NEW INFORMATION.
BUT THAT, THAT MIGHT BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT I'M MAKING, UM, JUST IN LIGHT OF WHAT MR. LEACH PRESENTED.
I'M, I'M, PERSONALLY, I, I KNOW HOW I'M LEANING.
I AM PRETTY SATISFIED BECAUSE OF THE RECORD IN FRONT OF ME, WHICH IS ONE OF THE EXHIBITS.
UM, THIS IS FROM THE DATABASE FROM, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, DEPARTMENT, AND IT DOES SHOW, AND WITH THE TESTIMONY TAKING THOSE TWO TOGETHER, IT DOES SHOW THAT THE PERMIT WAS OPEN IN JANUARY, 2000 AND CLOSED OUT WITH THE FINAL DATE IN JULY, 2000.
I'M SATISFIED WITH THAT, BUT I'LL LET THE, A COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN IS SINCE THE ACTION IS SLATED ONLY ONE ACT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, POSTPONING MAY BE BETTER BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA TAKE THE ACTION IF WE WERE, IF THERE ACTUALLY WASN'T A VIOLATION.
IT'S MORE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF, ARE YOU ALL SATISFIED WITH THE INFORMATION THAT MR. LEACH HAS PRESENTED TONIGHT? YOU KNOW, IS THAT ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR YOU ALL TO MAKE A DECISION, UM, ON, ON THIS NOV APPEAL? OR DO YOU ALL FEEL THAT MORE INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE TO BE DONE? UM, I'M CHOOSING TO EXERCISE A LITTLE BIT MORE CAUTION AND MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION ONLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NEW INFORMATION PRESENTED, UM, THAT HADN'T YET BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE APPEAL AND, AND KIND OF THIS SHIFTING FROM ONE DATABASE TO ANOTHER.
HOWEVER, IF YOU AS A COMMISSION OR INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS FEEL THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED ENOUGH INFORMATION, UM, AND FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD ON THIS NOV APPEAL, AGAIN, A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A VIOLATION IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME, UM, THAT IS CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION.
SO I GUESS JUST FOR CLARITY ON, IF WE'RE NOT, IF WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE THIS, THAT WOULD MEAN ADDITIONAL ACTION WOULD NEED TO BE TAKEN INTERESTING OUT LOUD WITH YOU, BUT DENYING THE APPEAL
[01:20:01]
WHEN THERE REALLY WASN'T A VIOLATION WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE.IT WOULD SEEM LIKE A POSTPONEMENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
I'M, I'M, I'M WONDERING HOW WE WOULD END THIS.
DON'T BELIEVE, IF WE WANTED TO END IT, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION AT THE TIME, THEN YOU WOULD'VE, YOU WOULD IN ESSENCE, BE GRANTING THE APPEAL BECAUSE MR. JOHNSTON HAS APPEALED ARGUING THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.
AND SO GRANTING THE APPEAL WOULD BE AGREEING THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.
NOW, IF YOU DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION, THEN YOU WOULD ENACT, THEN YOU WOULD BE DENYING THE APPEAL.
DOES, DID EVERYBODY GET THAT
UH, COMMISSIONER, OH, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL? BUT YOU CAN EXPLAIN GO FIRST.
UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY I, UH, WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
UH, CERTAINLY JU JUST WITH THE CLARIFICATION, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE OKAY.
UH, I, I DON'T THINK THAT AT THIS TIME WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DETERMINE FULLY WHETHER A VIOLATION HAS BEEN MADE.
IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THAT TURNS ON WHETHER OR NOT THE PERMIT WAS ACTUALLY OBTAINED, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE UNCLEAR DUE TO THE SYSTEM CHANGE.
SO I, I THINK POSTPONEMENT IS THE RIGHT MOVE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT.
UM, SO THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS WE HEARD FROM STAFF AND THEN WE HEARD FROM MR. LEACH WHO WORKS WITH THE DATABASE ALL THE TIME.
SO HE IS A SOURCE OF AUTHORITY, IN MY OPINION, PLUS I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE OLD MIGRATED DATA WITH MY NAKED EYES, AND IT, I CAN SEE WHAT HE'S EXPLAINING.
WOULD YOU, IN AN EFFORT NOT TO KICK THIS DOWN THE ROAD FURTHER, AND OF COURSE, BECAUSE I FIND MR. LEECH'S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE, WOULD IT HELP IF HE CLARIFIED FURTHER TONIGHT AS OPPOSED TO US MOVING THIS FORWARD? SO THAT'S JUST A COMMENT, BUT GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER A LUGO.
UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE, UH, A FEW THINGS, WHICH IS THAT I THINK IT'S CONSIDERING BOTH THE CONTEXT GIVEN BY MR. LEACH, WHICH TO ME WAS QUITE, I MEAN, IT'S VERY, IT'S AN EXTREMELY COMMON PROBLEM WITH IT SYSTEMS. UM, HONESTLY AMAZED THAT IT DOESN'T COME UP MORE OFTEN, AND ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING HOW WE'RE ALREADY BEHIND AND HAVE HAD TO DO ANOTHER SPECIAL CALLED MEETING FOR FEBRUARY.
I WOULD, UH, I, I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS JUST APPROVING THAT IT DID THE APPEAL SINCE TO PERFECT.
FRANK, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS NOT A PROBLEM AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THE REST OF THE, UH, WORK THAT WE HAVE FOR TODAY ON THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETINGS.
SO I WILL, I WILL MAKE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL.
UM, SECONDED, JUST TO CLARIFY, TO GRANT THE APPEAL, GRANT THE APPEAL, NOT APPROVE THE APPEAL.
I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL, UM, BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SUGAR.
UM, I, I, I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I THINK I'M ABOUT TO COMPLICATE EVERYTHING HERE.
UM,
UH, I, I THINK THAT THERE'S A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY THAT UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION IT WILL EMERGE THAT, UM, THAT, UH, THE MR UH, MR. JOHNSTON IS NOT, IS NOT IN VIOLATION, THE PROPERTY'S NOT IN VIOLATION.
THAT IT, YOU KNOW, IT MAY COME TO LIGHT THAT, THAT THE PERMIT WAS COMPLETE.
UH, THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH THE MOTION, THE SECONDED MOTION THAT'S PENDING, IS THAT, UM, IN LIGHT OF THE POSTURE IN WHICH THIS CASE COMES TO US, I THINK THERE ARE REALLY ONLY, THERE ARE ONLY THREE CHOICES.
CAN WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE VIOLATION SUCH THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ENTITLED TO APPEAL? CAN WE CONCLUDE THAT, THAT THERE PROBABLY IS A VIOLATION SO THAT WE SHOULD LET THIS GO FORWARD? UH, CAN WE CON OR SHALL WE PUNT IT DOWN THE ROAD AND, YOU KNOW, RISK TOUCHING THIS CASE TWICE, WHEN IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, EVEN IF WE WERE DENY, WE'D NEVER SEE IT AGAIN ANYWAY, BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT THAT, THAT SORT OF CASE.
UH, AND, AND OF THOSE THREE OPTIONS, I'M AFRAID THE ONE THAT THAT MAKES ME THE LEAST UNCOMFORTABLE IS THE ONE IN WHICH WE SAY I DON'T THINK THE OWNER HAS, HAS, EVEN WITH THE TESTIMONY FROM MR. MR. LEACH, I'M NOT PERSUADED THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF US TO CONCLUDE THAT YES, THIS WAS ALL DONE.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE KNOW THAT THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THE LEGACY SYSTEM.
WE KNOW THAT THERE IS SOME INDICIA
[01:25:01]
OF A PROBABLE PRIOR CLOSING OF THE PERMIT THAT WOULD BE EXPLAINED IF, IF EVERYTHING HAD HAD BEEN DONE, UH, AS, AS CONTEMPLATED IN OUR, IN OUR CODE.UH, BUT I, I, I CAN'T BE CERTAIN OF THAT.
AND SO, UH, I'M HESITANT TO SAY, OH, THIS, THIS, THIS APPEAL IS GRANTED.
YES, THERE WAS NEVER ANY VIOLATION, BECAUSE I, I, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK THAT INSPECTOR VAN CLEVE, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR HERE.
I I THINK THAT THERE'S SORT OF MORE, UH, TO BE DONE.
UH, SO, UH, BUT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY NEED FOR THIS COMMISSION TO, TO WEIGH IN ON THIS.
AGAIN, I THINK THE SIMPLEST PATH TO THE EXIT WAS COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL'S INITIAL MOTION.
UH, INSPECTOR VAN CLEVE GOES BACK IN THE FIELD, TALKS TO MR. LEACH, THEY DO SOME MORE WORK, THEY WORK IT UP.
THEY MIGHT FIND THAT IT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN DROP LATER ON, BUT, BUT I, I'M JUST NOT CONFIDENT AND I DON'T THINK THAT I CAN VOTE TONIGHT IN FAVOR OF A MOTION THAT JUST GRANTS THE APPEAL AS THOUGH THE ENTIRE THING HAS BEEN IN ERROR.
SO, I, I THINK THAT'S JUST WHERE I AM ON IT, SO THANK YOU.
UM, SO I GUESS I COULD DO SOMETHING HERE THAT MIGHT HELP US ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
OH, BECAUSE IF WE'RE MOVING THINGS AROUND, OH, NO.
THERE, I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WAITING.
JUST ONE QUESTION TO MR. LICHI.
ARE YOU STILL THERE? HELLO? YES, MA'AM.
I'M SO ASSUMING THAT WE SEND THIS BACK TO YOU TO LOOK INTO THIS FURTHER, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DIG UP FROM YOUR OLD DATABASE TO CONCLUSIVELY SHOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE PERMIT FROM JU UH, FROM JANUARY, 2000? NO, NO.
I DON'T THINK THERE THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY THAT I COULD FIND ANY MORE INFORMATION THAT THE OLD DATABASE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T EXIST.
THERE'S NO, THESE DAYS DRAWINGS OF A PERMIT LIKE THIS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THERE, BUT BACK THEN, I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THEY REQUIRED DRAWINGS TO, TO ISSUE A PERMIT LIKE THIS.
AND AS I SAID, THERE'S NO INSPECTION INFORMATION IN THIS PERMIT, SO I CAN'T TELL IF THE ONLY THING I CAN SEE IS THAT IT HAS A FINAL DATE.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, AND THAT'S ALL I THINK THAT I WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO DETERMINE.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY FOR EVERYBODY HERE, WHENEVER THAT DESIGNATION OF FINAL, IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD, IF THERE IS A DATE IN THAT FIELD, WHAT DID THAT TYPICALLY MEAN TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? THAT INDICATES THAT THE PERMIT, THE INSPECTION PROCESS HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
AND, AND ALL THE INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN PASSED.
UM, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, AND THEN COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL.
NO, HE JUST ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, IT SEEMS LIKE FROM MR. LEACH'S TESTIMONY THAT PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT NEEDED TO GET DONE TO GET THE PERMIT GRANTED WAS DONE.
IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE THE PERMIT WAS LIKE, IT SEEMS LIKE THE PERMIT WAS NOT ACTUALLY FINALIZED OR PUT INTO THE SYSTEM PROPERLY.
UH, I, I, I DO JUST WANNA ASK MR. LEACH, IF WE JUST POSTPONE THIS, YOU KNOW, DOES IT SEEM REASONABLE THAT THIS COULD GET RESOLVED IN A PROMPT MANNER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, JUST TO ACTUALLY GET HIM THE PERMIT AT THIS POINT? DO YOU MEAN TO, TO REISSUE THE PERMIT? UH, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, I'M NOT SURE.
I, I MEAN, CERTAINLY A PERMIT COULD BE CREATED.
I MEAN, THAT, THAT WOULD, WOULD INVOLVE FEES.
AND AS I SAID, THESE DAYS, YOU KNOW, BACK IN 2000, A PERMIT LIKE THIS WOULD'VE BEEN ISSUED JUST, YOU KNOW, WITH A VERBAL REQUEST, REALLY JUST, YOU KNOW, FILL OUT A LITTLE BIT OF PAPERWORK, NO DRAWINGS REQUIRED THESE DAYS.
IT WOULD REQUIRE DOCUMENTATION, DRAWINGS, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND A PLAN REVIEW.
SO, SO IT'D BE A LITTLE, IT WOULD BE A MORE OF A, OF A PROCESS.
I, I, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO EXISTING PROCESS JUST TO REACTIVATE OR, OR, OR REISSUE A, A A 23-YEAR-OLD PERMIT, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.
IT, IT, IT, JUST IN LIGHT OF THAT, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T HONESTLY SAY, AND, AND THIS GOES TO COMMISSIONER SOTO'S, UH, POINT, I, I CAN'T SAY CONCLUSIVELY AT THIS POINT THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
I CAN'T SAY CONCLUSIVELY THAT IT HASN'T, LIKE, I THINK THAT I'D FEEL MOST COMFORTABLE IF WE JUST POSTPONE THIS AND HOPEFULLY ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PURSUE THAT PERMIT, BASICALLY.
I'M NOT SURE I'M CLEAR, BUT GO AHEAD.
[01:30:01]
AND THEN COMMISSIONER OTE LUGA.WELL, AGAIN, THE DATE IT'S BEEN FINALIZED, HE SAID IT'S BEEN FINALIZED.
THERE'S NO OTHER INFORMATION TO BE GOTTEN.
SO WE ARE SENDING HIM OFF TO DO WHAT? THERE'S NOTHING TO DO.
I AGREE THAT THIS NEED, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO DRAG THIS GENTLEMAN THROUGH A BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS.
I SUPPOSE, LET ME REFER THIS QUESTION BACK TO STAFF THEN.
UM, BASED ON THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US AND THE TESTIMONY OF MR. ALICHE, UM, SAYING THAT HE'S PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THIS PERMIT WAS IN INSPECT, THIS WAS OBTAINED, AND THEN THE INSPECTION WAS DONE AND THE PERMIT WAS PROPERLY CLOSED OUT, UM, WOULD YOU STILL FIND A VIOLATION IF THAT TESTIMONY WAS FOUND TO BE CREDIBLE AND VALID? YEAH.
IF THE INFORMATION WAS CREDIBLE AND VALID, THEN YES, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT WE CAN CLOSE IT OUT.
AND I WOULD ASK, UH, MR. LEACH, IF IT IS, THAT'S TRULY THE FACT, UH, IF, WHY CAN'T HE CHANGE OR WHY CAN'T THE DATABASE CHANGE BE CHANGED? UM, WHERE IT SAYS OPEN STILL TO FINAL, LIKE ALL THE OTHER PERMITS.
AND ALSO, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, THERE IS AN EXPIRATION DATE OF AUGUST 29TH, 2007, WHICH IS SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE FACT.
IT'S NOT SIX MONTHS AFTER THE FACT.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT, IF NORMALLY WHEN THAT DATE IS EXTENDED OUT LIKE THAT, THAT MEANS THAT SOMEBODY HAD TO EXTEND SOMETHING, UH, BECAUSE SOMETHING WAS NOT BEING PASSED OR SOMETHING WAS NOT BEING LOOKED AT.
OR SOMETHING WAS NOT BEING FOLLOWED UP WITH.
UM, COMMISSIONER SLUGO FIRST, AND THEN WHERE IS THE 2007 NUMBER? IF YOU, YOU HAVE TO OPEN UP THE PERMIT ON THE DATABASE, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE DATABASE RIGHT NOW, AND IT DOESN'T, YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO OPEN THE ACTUAL PERMIT AND IT WILL SHOW YOU THE EXPIRATION DATE THAT SAYS, YEAH, AUGUST 29TH, 2007.
THE COMMENT THAT, I GUESS THAT I WANTED TO MENTION IS, I THINK WE'RE RUBBING UP AGAINST THE PROBLEM THAT PERMITS USED TO BE ISSUED ON SPIT SHINE AND A REAL CONFIDENT LOOK IN YOUR EYES.
AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN, THERE'S NOT, WE CAN POSTPONE IT AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY FOR ARBITRARY KIND OF NO REASON UHHUH
AND CONSIDERING THAT THIS ISN'T REALLY HURTING ANYONE, THIS IS JUST SORT OF RED TAPE FOR, FOR RED TAPE'S SAKE, I WOULD SAY WE GRANT THE APPEAL AND WE PUT THIS BEHIND US, AND WE DO ALL THE MILLION OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO.
BECAUSE IF THERE'S NO HEALTH AND SAFETY THING AND THERE IS NO REAL, IT'S JUST A TECHNICALITY ABOUT DATA INTEGRITY, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A USEFUL THING FOR US TO SPEND OUR TIME ON.
SO I REMAIN JUST SAYING, GRANT THE APPEAL, UM, ON MR. RELIGIOUS TESTIMONY AND KEEP IT PUMPING.
MADAM CHAIR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M SORRY TO DOUBLE, I'M PART OF THIS DIALOGUE NOW.
SO
I GUESS WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, UH, I, IS TAKE THE, TAKE THE BOARD'S TEMPERATURE ON, ON SORT OF A THIRD WAVE.
MAYBE JUST MOVE THE TABLE INDEFINITELY AND JUST DON'T RETURN, LIKE TAKE NO ACTION
WELL, BECAUSE I, HERE'S, HERE'S MY THINKING.
I MEAN, ON THE ONE HAND, SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT POSTPONEMENT, I, I THINK OF CONTINUANCES, I THINK OF PUTTING IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
AND THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO SUBJECT STAFF TO THAT, TO HAVE TO, TO WORK THIS UP A SECOND TIME AND THEN USE A VALUABLE TIME OF OUR OWN.
UH, AND, AND I THINK IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE STAFF MAY ULTIMATELY CHOOSE NOT TO PURSUE THIS FOR WHATEVER REASON.
THEY COULD BE CLEARED ADMINISTRATIVELY SOMEHOW.
BUT, BUT I, I, I JUST CONTINUE TO HAVE DISCOMFORT.
I'M NOT PERSUADED THAT INSPECTOR VAN CLEVE IS READY TO, TO SAY, OH, YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.
UH, MY MISTAKE, UH, THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS COMMISSION, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO TELL THE STAFF THE APPEAL IS, GRANTED, YOU CAN'T DO THIS, THIS, THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.
SO STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND DON'T REVISIT THIS.
I, I, I, I HAVEN'T BEEN PERSUADED OF THAT.
I, I GET THAT THAT'S A PROBABLE OUTCOME, BUT I, I'M NOT PERSUADED AND I, AND I CAN'T VOTE FOR THAT.
SO SOME SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD LEAVE THE APPEAL LIVE, THAT WOULD LEAVE THE, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION LIVE AND, AND LET MORE WORK BE DONE.
AND POTENTIALLY, I THINK IF IT PASSED BEFORE, MAYBE IT'LL PASS AGAIN.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE ARE, UH, THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S OUR PLACE TO TELL STAFF NOT TO, NOT TO WORK THIS ANY FURTHER.
JUST A REMINDER, THE CHAIR, THERE
[01:35:01]
IS A MOTION AND SECOND ON THE FLOOR.THERE WAS A MOTION AS A SECOND.
IT IS, IT IS A MOTION TO GRANT.
AND THAT WAS, UH, MADE BY COMMISSIONER OLUGO AND IT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER.
SO, SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS WITH RON.
OKAY, WE'LL GO TAKE A TEMP, TAKE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ROOM REAL QUICK AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
WE SHOULD, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE VOTE.
OH MY GOSH, YOU GUYS ARE AWAKE TONIGHT.
OKAY, WELL, YOU SAID TAKE OUR TEMPERATURE AND I'M LIKE, NO, TAKE MY TEMPERATURE.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER STILL LUCA.
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS? AYE, I'M IN FAVOR.
OH, COMMISSIONER STILL? I VOTE NO.
COMMISSIONER SALLY, ARE YOU THERE? I VOTE NO.
IT PASSES, RIGHT? NO, WE FAILED FIVE TWO.
TERRY, WE HEAR, HEAR THAT MEETING THAT WE, WE HAD ONE CASE THAT WENT FOR TWO HOURS.
UM, OKAY, SO THAT ONE DID NOT PASS, SO I JUST HAVE A FEW COMMENTS, BUT OF COURSE, UM, YES, WE, WE HAVE SOME EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF US, AND THEN WE HAD NEW INFORMATION TONIGHT.
AND I THINK WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS UPHOLDING A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WHEN, WHEN, WHEN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PEOPLE THAT I IN CHARGE TELLING US THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE ANYTHING ELSE TO DIG INTO FURTHER, TO PROVE THE, YOU KNOW, TO, I GUESS TO NEGATE THE FACT THAT THIS PERMIT WAS NOT PROPERLY, I MEAN THE, THE IMPROVEMENT WAS NOT PROPERLY PERMITTED.
SO I'M WONDERING WHY WE'RE SENDING IT BACK.
AND THEN THE MORAL QUESTION THAT I HAVE ALSO IS CAN WE UPHOLD A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, UM, WITH ALL OF THAT FLOATING AROUND? SO MAYBE, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE ARE THREE CONSIDERATIONS.
APPROVE, DENY, OR JUST TABLE IT AND LEAVE IT ALONE.
BUT THE OWNER STILL DOES NOT HAVE ANY KIND OF RESOLUTION.
IT'S STILL HANGING OVER HIS HEAD.
SO I'M A LITTLE HESITANT ON THAT, ON THAT NOTE.
BUT I'LL UNDERSTAND ANY OTHER MOTIONS? OF COURSE, IF YOU WANT US TO TRY TO TABLE IT OR, UM, IF YOU WANT US TO TRY TO APPROVE IT ALSO, I MEAN TO DENY THE APPEAL.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SUPPORT OUR COUN, OUR GENERAL COUNSEL'S SUGGESTION AND POSTPONE.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO SPECIFY THE MEETING WITHIN 90 DAYS.
UM, I THINK WHEN A, THE COMMISSION TAKES THE POSTPONEMENT ACTION, IT HAS TO SPECIFY WHICH MEETING IT POSTPONES IT TO.
'CAUSE WE'VE DONE THAT FOR EVERY OTHER TIME WE'VE POSTPONED IT.
SO WE HAVE TO SAY I'M POSTPONING IT TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING, MARCH MEETING.
SO WHICH MEETING? UH, SO LET'S REDO THE MOTION THEN.
UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION AND RESTATE IT, COMMISSIONER SIG? SURE.
I'D GO, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT WE'LL FOLLOW OUR GENERAL COUNSEL'S RECOMMENDATION AND THAT WE POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF THIS TILL THE MARCH MEETING.
SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.
COMMISSIONER SHUGAR? I GUESS IT DOESN'T MATTER AT THIS POINT, BUT, AYE.
SO THAT ONE DOESN'T PASS EITHER.
[01:40:02]
FIVE TWO COMMISSIONER HAS TO LOOK UP, WHAT WOULD IT MEAN? UM, EFFECTIVELY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POSTPONING INDEFINITELY AND POSTPONING TO A TABLING IT FOREVER VERSUS POSTPONING IT UNTIL MARCH OR WHATEVER.DOES ANYONE, CAN ANYONE FROM STAFF CLARIFY WHAT EXACTLY THAT WOULD MEAN PRACTICALLY LY? OH, IF YOU DON'T MIND ME JUST CHIPPING IN REAL QUICK.
I THINK THE ISSUE WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE IS IF IT'S POSTPONE INDEFINITELY AND THIS GENTLEMAN WANTS TO TRANSFER THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE, IT WILL STILL BE AN ISSUE, WOULDN'T IT? IF THE PERMIT SHOWS THAT IT'S NOT CLOSED OUT PROPERLY, SO HE STILL RISKS THE ISSUE OF EITHER BEING BROUGHT BACK OR THE POTENTIAL BUYER, UH, BACKING OUT IF THERE SOME VIOLATIONS.
SO I, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS THAT I SEE AND I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE, UM, SHIFTING THAT TO THE OWNER PERSONALLY.
ALSO, BASED ON YOUR OWN RULES AND REGULATIONS, IT CANNOT BE POSTPONED INDEFINITELY.
THERE HAS TO BE A, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A DATE SET.
YEAH, I THINK WHAT, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, YOU'RE SAYING IF WE DO SAY MOVE IT TO MARCH, AND THEN WE COME BACK AND WE SAY THE VIOLATION IS, UH, THE NOTICE IS VALID, THEN WHAT HAPPENS? I WAS SPECIFIC, I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION.
I WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKING ABOUT, UM, COMMISSIONER SIL SAT'S PROPOSAL TO TABLE IT INDEFINITELY, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S NOT AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO US.
FROM WHAT I'M READING ON THE, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, THERE MUST BE A DATE DISTURBED.
SO WE EITHER POSTPONING IT TO A SPECIFIC DATE, WE'RE DENYING THE APPEAL, OR WE GRANTING THE APPEAL.
THOSE ARE THE THREE OPTIONS THEN.
AND IF WE, WITH THE IMPLICATION THAT IF WE DO DENY THE APPEAL, THE NOTICE IS THE NOTICE STAYS AND THEN WHAT, HOW IS THE OWNER GOING TO PROVE THAT THE PERMITTING WAS DONE PROPERLY IF WE CANNOT EVEN GET THAT TESTIMONY TONIGHT? YES.
COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE IS THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE PERMIT.
EVEN IF WE GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY CHANGE THE STATUS OF THE PERMIT.
THE REASON WHY I SUGGESTED THAT WE SIMPLY POSTPONE IS BECAUSE THAT WOULD GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER TIME TO WORK IT OUT WITH PERMITTING, POTENTIALLY SEEK A NEW PERMIT.
THAT THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY PROCESS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY TRULY MAKE THE PERMIT OFFICIAL HERE.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE EVEN THOUGH THE PERMIT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO THE SYSTEM, IT WASN'T PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FROM MR. LEACH'S TESTIMONY.
I THINK THAT THE ONLY QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER WE AS THE COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO TELL MR. JOHNSTON TO GO AND TO TRY TO SEEK A NEW PERMIT OR NOT.
PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS NECESSARILY TOO BIG OF A BURDEN EITHER WAY.
BUT CERTAINLY ONE MEANS THAT HE HAS CERTAIN COSTS AND I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE A REASON WHY WE WOULD CARE THAT MUCH TO IMPOSE THOSE COSTS, ESPECIALLY FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE HARMING ANYONE.
BUT ULTIMATELY THAT SEEMS TO BE THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO ASK MR. JOHNSONS TO GO TO THE PERMITTING AND TRY AND GET A NEW PERMIT.
I MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED HERE.
I THOUGHT I ACTUALLY HEARD MR. VAN CLEEF JUST SAY THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION OR WAS THAT MR. LYCHEE LIKE GETTING A NEW PERMIT FOR WHAT NO, HE CAN, HE CAN APPLY FOR NEW PERMIT FOR THAT DECK IF WE CAN'T PROVE HE IT'S EVER BEEN PERMANENT FOR A RETROACTIVE.
YES, MR. I, I THINK AT THIS POINT, JUST TO KEEP MOVING, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE WOULD SUPPORT POSTPONING TILL MARCH AND THEN WE CAN TRY TO TALK WITH PERMITTING AND SEE IF IT'S A SIMPLE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THEY CAN JUST CHANGE THE STATUS OF, OR SINCE IT'S TECHNICALLY IN THE SYSTEM BEEN PAID FOR, WE CAN GO OUT AND JUST INSPECT IT, MAKE SURE IT'S, IT'S GOOD, AND THEN SIGN OFF ON IT THAT WAY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT, UH, UH, I THINK WE NEED SOME TIME TO JUST DO THAT AND,
[01:45:01]
YOU KNOW, AND WE, WE WOULD, OKAY, SO I'M SURE, UM, YES, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT I THINK YOU MIGHT BE SAYING THE SAME THING.I WAS, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT JUST IN LIGHT OF DIVISION MANAGER MOORE'S, UH, CONTRIBUTION, I WOULD, I WOULD DEFINITELY VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT IF, IF ANYONE MOVED IT.
SO, UM, JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT IN AND SPECIF SPECIFICALLY IF SOMEBODY MOVED FOR THE MEETING FOR THIS APPEAL TO BE POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH UNCONDITION THAT SOME THINGS HAVE TO HAVE HAPPENED IN THE MEANTIME, OTHERWISE WE'RE JUST COMING BACK.
BUT IN MARCH, IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY NEW INFORMATION OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY NOT WORKING EFFICIENTLY, SO WE WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER OFF HAVING A MOTION REQUIRING STAFF TO BRING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, UM, TO SHOW THE STATUS, THE TRUE STATUS THIS TIME OF THE, THAT THAT OLD PERMIT OR THE TRUE STATUS OF A NEW PERMIT.
SO MAYBE THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WE HAVE TO DO.
COMMISSIONER LUGA? UM, IN THE INTEREST OF PEACEMAKING, UH, AND, AND I DO THIS VERY, UH, PAINFULLY, UH, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE UNNECESSARY, UH, RED TAPE AND UNDUE BURDENS, UH, REGULATORY BURDENS BECAUSE JUST, JUST TO MAKE SOMEBODY DANCE, TO MAKE, MAKE THEM FOLLOW THE RULES.
BUT, UM, I WILL POST, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS CASE UNTIL OUR MARCH MEETING, UM, CONDITIONING THAT HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN MOVE IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOES NOT PRICE ANY FINES OR EXTRA FEES UPON THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA BE PART OF THE CONDITION OF A MOTION, BUT THAT IS, UH, THAT IS THE MOTION THAT I'M PUTTING FORWARD IN THE HOPE THAT WE CAN GO TO HOME, UH, BEFORE MIDNIGHT.
COUNSEL, WAS THAT MOTION PROPERLY WORDED? JUST TO, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT I WROTE DOWN.
SO IT IS SIMPLY A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO THE MARCH MEETING.
YOU DID NOT INTEND TO INCLUDE CONDITIONS.
AND THAT WAS, I DON'T THINK THE CONDITIONS COULD BE VALID.
SO YEAH, SO WITHOUT CONDITIONS POSTPONED TO MARCH AND THEN SECONDED BY, I JUST ASK OF OF STAFF TO TRY THEIR BEST TO, YOU KNOW, TRY THE PROPERTY OWNER OUT OF THIS
AND WE HAD A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER STTA.
IMAGINE IF I SAID NO, NO, YES, YES, YES, YES.
AND I'M IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER SOAD.
COMMISSIONER SIG? WELL, OF COURSE, I'M IN FAVOR,
THANKS EVERYONE FOR HANGING IN THERE.
MR. JOHNSTON? UH, I, I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S, HE'S
WELL, IF YOU'RE STILL THERE, WE CONCLUDED THE MEETING AND THE CASE HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO MARCH.
YOU'LL BE GETTING THE DECISION IN THE MAIL.
[5. Case Number: CL 2023-140660]
AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 23 1 4 0 6 6 AND IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1719 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE.THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GREEN BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE IS ABOUT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THAT IS UNOCCUPIED.
THE CASE WAS OPENED IN MARCH, 2023 AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT.
THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY RELATED TO THE SIGHTED VIOLATIONS.
CONDITIONS ARE CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD, HAZARDOUS, AND UNSANITARY, AND REQUIRES REPAIR.
IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY.
A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS.
AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO N.
AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INSPECTOR JUAN VIAL IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED INSPECTOR VIAL.
UH, BEFORE I START, I'D LIKE TO SEE, ASK THE, THE COMMISSION TO, UM, APPROVE MY SUPERVISORS TO SWORE HIM IN.
HE WAS THERE AT SOME OF THE INSPECTIONS, JUST IN CASE YOU GUYS HAVE, UM, QUESTIONS FOR HIM.
[01:50:01]
HE WAS NOT HERE WHILE WE WERE GETTING SWORN IN.ALL RIGHT, LET ME TRY THIS FROM MEMORY.
WOULD YOU STATE, STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? DIETRICH KNOX KNOX.
AND DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE WHOLE TRUTH TONIGHT AT THE, AT THIS MEETING TONIGHT? I DO.
UH, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS JUAN AND I AM WITH THE, I'M AN INSPECTOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
UM, THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT THE PROPERTY.
THE OWNER OF RECORD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS KIM KUNKEL ON MAY 25TH, 2023, CITY OF AUSTIN RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FOR THIS PROPERTY, LOCATED AT THE 1719 TIMBERWOOD VIA 3 1 1, UM, FOR UN INTERIOR UNSANITARY CONDITIONS.
ON MAY 25TH, 2023, INSPECTOR EDWARDS, CHARLES EDWARDS PERFORMED AN INSPECTION, OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS, UNSANITARY CONDITIONS, RODENT INFESTATION, OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE STRUCTURE.
UM, INSPECTOR EDWARDS DOCUMENTED THE CASE AND MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER DETAILING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATIONS ON MAY 26TH, 2023.
AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE ADJO, UH, ADJOINING NEIGHBORS THE HOA VICE PRESIDENT AND PERFORMING FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS, I OBSERVED THAT THE VIOLATIONS FOR THE INTERIOR UNSANITARY CONDITIONS HAD NOT BEEN CORRECTED.
ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2023, A SEAT, UH, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT WAS EXECUTED TO ABATE THE INTERIOR CONDITIONS.
AND AFTER DOING SO EXPOSED THE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES BEING PRESENTED TONIGHT, I PERFORMED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION ON NOVEMBER 15TH, 2023, AND OBSERVED THAT ALL STRUCTURAL VIOLATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTED, THUS ESCALATING THIS CASE FORWARD DUE TO THE OWNER NOT RECTIFYING THE VIOLATIONS.
I WILL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED FIRST PHOTO EXHIBIT TWO WAYS, A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE, OF THE CONDOMINIUM.
HERE YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE, THE, UM, THE, UM, BOARDING AND SECURING OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE.
THAT IS A WINDOW THAT WAS BOARDED, UH, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ENTRANCE DOOR ENTRANCE.
THIS IS A, THIS IS A, UH, A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY AFTER THE ABATEMENT OF, OF, UH, THE TRASH AND, AND MATERIALS.
I BELIEVE IT WAS LIKE 110 SQUARE FEET.
IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS ABOUT 110 SQUARE FEET OF, UM, DEBRIS, UH, REMOVED FROM THE INTERIOR.
THIS IS A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR CONDOMINIUM.
UM, HERE YOU CAN, YOU CAN CLEARLY MAKE OUT THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT THE, THE WOOD TILES, UM, ALONG THE FIR THROUGHOUT THE FIRST FLOOR HAVE DETERIORATED DUE TO, UM, BOTH RODENT ACTIVITY AND, UH, FOR TERMITES EXPOSING THE DECKING UNDER THE, UNDER THE TILE.
NEXT PHOTO, EXHIBIT TWO C IS FROM THE LIVING ROOM AREA ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS WELL.
HERE YOU CAN CLEARLY MAKE UP THE, THE VINYL TILES HAVE BEEN DETERIORATED DUE TO THE CONDITIONS INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
NEXT PHOTO EXHIBIT 2D IS FOR STAIRS AND WALKING SURFACES.
UM, HERE YOU CAN MAKE OUT THE CONDITIONS FOR, UH, FOR THE STAIRS LEADING UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR.
UM, AGAIN, THAT IS COMP, COMPRESSED RODENT FECES, URINE AND POOP.
UM, ON THROUGH LEADING UP TOWARDS THE, THE SECOND FLOOR, PLUS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT PHOTO, THE CONDITION OF THE, OF THE FIRST FLOOR THAT, THAT WE HAD JUST PREVIOUSLY SEEN.
YOU CAN CLEARLY MAKE OUT THE DECKING, UM, THROUGHOUT THE FIRST FLOOR DUE TO THE DETERIORATION.
EXHIBIT TWO E IS FOR RECEPTACLES.
UM, HERE YOU CAN MAKE OUT THAT NONE OF THOSE, NONE OF THOSE THREE RECEPTACLES IN THE SECOND FLOOR, UM, HAVE ANY FACE, P FACE PLATES, UH, COVERINGS FOR THE, FOR THE, FOR THE ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES, NOR WERE THEY KEPT OFF, THUS EXPOSING THE, THE CONNECTING, UH, WIRES FOR THE, FOR THE ALL THE RECEPTACLES.
THIS WAS THROUGHOUT THE, THE BOTH THE FIRST AND THE SECOND FLOOR OF THIS PROPERTY.
THIS IS AN, UH, EXHIBIT TWO F UH, IS ANOTHER VIEW OF ANOTHER ELECTRICAL OUTLET THAT ACTUALLY ART AND, UM, UH, CHARRED THE,
[01:55:01]
THE FACE COVERING.SO THIS IS A POTENTIAL FOR A FIRE, UM, HAD, HAD, HAD THE ELECTRICITY STILL BEEN ON UTILITY, STILL BEEN ON.
OKAY, EXHIBIT TWO G IS FOR THE INTERIOR SURFACES.
INTERIOR SURFACES WOULD BE THAT WALL RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE, OF THE, OF THIS PHOTO.
UM, ALSO YOU CAN CLEARLY MAKE OUT THE, THE VIOLATIONS FOR THE DETERIORATED TILES, UM, ON THE, ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
PLUS OF COURSE, THE, THAT HOLE IN THE WALL THAT WAS ACTUALLY CAUSED BY THE RODENTS.
I ALSO WANT YOU TO NOTE THAT IS AN ELECTRICAL OUT, ANOTHER ELECTRICAL OUTLET THAT AREN'T AND CHARRED IN THE FIRST FLOOR.
NEXT PHOTO, EXHIBIT TWO H IS FOR THE INTER INTERIOR SURFACES FOR UNSANITARY CONDITIONS.
THAT TOILET SEAT IS ACTUALLY NOD BY THE RODENTS.
UM, AND AS WELL AS, UH, FECES INSIDE THOSE RECEPTACLES, WHICH IS A PUBLIC, UH, SAFETY HAZARD.
UH, NEXT PHOTO, EXHIBIT TWO I IS FOR INFESTATION.
I, I DID YOU GUYS A PRIVILEGE.
I DID FIND ABOUT EIGHT OF THESE RODENTS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.
I TOOK THE BEST PHOTO
YOU CAN CLEARLY MAKE OUT THAT WHAT WE WERE WORKING WITH WHILE WE WERE DOING THAT ABATEMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
THESE, UM, UM, THE CITY CONTRACTORS DID WITNESS APPROXIMATELY NINE RODENTS THAT WERE ACTIVELY RUNNING AROUND WHILE WE WERE ABATING THE PROCESS.
UH, THE, THE, THE STRUCTURE, UM, HERE AS WELL.
YOU CAN SEE IN THE KITCHEN, YOU, THE, THE DETERIORATION OF THE FLOOR, UM, WAS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY AND, AND EXPOSING THE DECKING IN THERE AS WELL.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE EXTENT OF THE, OF THE DAMAGE THAT THE RODENTS DID.
THIS IS A, A CABINET RIGHT UNDER THE INSIDE A A KITCHEN CABINET NEXT TO THE REFRIGERATOR.
UM, YOU CAN, YOU SEE, MAKE OUT THAT THAT'S THE RODENT ACTIVITY, RODENT TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT OF THAT LITTLE HOLE INTO THE INTERIOR WALLS.
UM, NEXT PHOTO, EXHIBIT 2K IS A, UM, CONSENSUAL PHOTO OF THE SECOND ENTERTAINMENT AREA ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
UM, THERE YOU CAN CLEARLY MAKE OUT WHERE THE BOXES WERE ABATED.
UM, AND THAT IS RODENT FECES AND DROPPINGS, UH, THROUGHOUT THE, THE, THE CARPET AREA, AGAIN, BEING UNSANITARY FOR, FOR HUMAN OCCUPATION.
UM, SO THIS ONE IS FOR PLUMBING SYSTEM HAZARDS.
UM, UNDER THIS, UNDER THIS KITCHEN SINK WHERE THE GARBAGE DISPOSAL THERE IS, THERE WAS ABOUT, UM, I WANNA SAY A PINK PONG SIZE HOLE FOR THE, FOR THE VENT, FOR THE, FOR THE VENT OF THE, OF THE GARBAGE DISPOSAL TO, TO, INTO THE INTERIOR.
UM, I TRIED OBTAINING A PHOTO, BUT IT'S, IT'S LIKE HOLDING YOUR FLASHLIGHT AND TRYING TO TAKE A PHOTO THROUGH LITERALLY ABOUT A HOLE.
THIS BIG
UM, THE, WHERE THE RATS ACTUALLY NOD INTO THOSE, UH, PLUMBING FIXTURES TO, FOR WATER, TYPICALLY THEY'LL DO THAT TO FIND WATER.
UM, AND IT, IT WAS ACTUALLY HABIT SPACES AS WELL.
OKAY, SO THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT DARKER.
UM, OF COURSE, LIKE I SAID, MENTIONED ALL UTILITIES HAVE BEEN OFF.
UM, THIS IS A, THIS IS A PHOTO JUST SHOWING THE, THE KITCHEN, UM, UM, THE SINK IN THE BATHROOM FOR THE SECOND FLOOR THERE.
THERE'S AGAIN, UM, RODENT DROPPINGS, JUST THE CONDITIONS OF THE, OF THE INTERIOR PLUMBING SYSTEMS AND THE HAZARDS.
UM, AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL INSPECTION, INSPECTOR EDWARDS NOTICED THAT THE DOOR WAS KICKED IN.
UM, HERE YOU CAN CLEARLY MAKE OUT THAT THE, THE DOOR FRAME, UM, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE, OF THE SILHOUETTE OF THE DOOR, YOU CAN MAKE OUT THAT THE, THE, THE DOOR FRAME WAS DAMAGED FOR SOMEONE KICKING IN, MAKING, MAKING ENTRANCE INTO THAT PROPERTY.
UM, THAT HASN'T BEEN REPAIRED AS WELL.
THIS WOULD, THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND SERVICE.
BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE WITH SUBSTANDARD, HAZARDOUS AND UNSANITARY CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASK THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO.
STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THAT THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING,
[02:00:01]
ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B, CORRECT ALL SIDE VIOLATIONS TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
C REQUESTED INSPECTIONS FROM AUSTIN, FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITHIN ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY, IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE AND EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO N.
UH, OKAY, I I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SEE IF ANYBODY'S HERE FOR THE OWNERS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, I BELIEVE WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES HERE FOR THE OWNERS.
UM, LET ME LOOK AT MY LIST REAL QUICK.
MR. HABER, YOU HERE, YOU SHOULD HAVE PAUL HAYBURN AND KATE THORN.
I SEE THIS IS, UH, PAUL HAYBURN.
CAN YOU HEAR ME, MR. HAYBURN? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
IS YOUR, IS THE OTHER ATTORNEY ALSO PRESENT? NO, NO, IT WAS EITHER OR.
LET US KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS PROPERTY AND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO DO TONIGHT.
WELL, UH, I'D FIRST LIKE TO POINT OUT I DO, I DO NOT REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DECEASED.
UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER DIED IN TEST STATE.
UH, PROBATE HAS BEEN FILED, UH, IN 2023.
UH, THE APPLICANT WHO I DID NOT REPRESENT, UH, INITIAL PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION TO HANDLE THE PROPERTY BACKED OUT, UH, AS FAR AS I KNOW, AND I DON'T BELIEVE ALL THE HEIRS HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR, UH, THERE ARE NO HEIRS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
UH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING, THE COUNCIL INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, UH, FOR THE VARIOUS HEIRS HAVE BEEN WORKING, AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION, UH, IN WHICH WE HAVE A HEARING SET IN PROBATE COURT THIS FRIDAY.
MY, UH, EXPECTATION AND HOPE IS THAT THE COURT WILL APPROVE THE, UH, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION AND THEN WE'LL HAVE SOMEBODY THAT ACTUALLY CAN DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING, UH, SELLING THE PROPERTY, UH, PRESUMABLY AND ADDRESSING THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN, UH, THIS HEARING.
UH, WHAT I WOULD ASK, AND, YOU KNOW, I WROTE DOWN SOME OF THE DEADLINES YOU'VE HAD, BUT JUST KNOWING THE PROBATE PROCESS AND ASSUMING EVERYTHING GOES AS PLANNED AND THAT WE HAVE ADMINISTRATION IN PLACE THIS FRIDAY, UH, I WOULD ASK FOR A 60 DAY CONTINUANCE OR EXTENSION BEFORE CONSIDERATION OF VIOLATIONS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S GOING TO HAVE TO DO THINGS TO CHANGE OVER AND GET THE ABILITY TO SELL THE PROPERTY.
I ALREADY BELIEVED, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S AT LEAST TWO PARTIES THAT ARE INTERESTED IN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY AND JUST THE TRANSITION PHASE, AND TO GIVE THE NEW OWNERS TIME TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATIONS, UH, WITHOUT HAVING, UH, PENALTIES POTENTIALLY ON TOP OF IT THAT MIGHT HARM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY.
BUT UP TO THIS POINT, THERE'S BEEN NO, THERE'S BEEN NO PARTY OR ENTITY AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE ISSUES SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE PROBATE PROCESS.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS TO STAFF AT THIS POINT? UH, I DO NOT.
YOU KNOW, I'VE READ THE LETTERS THAT WERE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN GAVE NOTICE TO THE HEIRS AS WELL.
I'VE HAD HAD SOME, UH, COMMUNICATIONS, UH, WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE SEEN OF ANY PHOTOGRAPHS.
AND OBVIOUSLY THE PLACE NEEDS WORK EXTENSIVE, RIGHT? YES.
UM, THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE CONTEXT AS FAR AS THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE HEIRS AND THE COURT CASE.
UH, PLEASE BE ON STANDBY 'CAUSE COMMISSIONERS WILL PROBABLY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
AND WE ALSO ACTUALLY HAVE AN INTERESTED PARTY HERE BY THE NAME OF BRADEN KENNEDY.
[02:05:05]
HELLO, MR. KENNEDY.HI, HOW ARE YOU? I'M FINE, THANKS YOURSELF? GOOD, GOOD, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M THE NEIGHBOR OF 1719 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE.
UM, JUST CAME TONIGHT TO LISTEN AND LEARN MAINLY, BUT WANTED TO INFORM THE COMMISSION.
UM, YOU KNOW, MY HOPE TO GET TO A RESOLUTION AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, UM, AS THIS HAS IMPACTED MY PROPERTY, UM, DIRECTLY IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
SO, UM, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MANY STAKEHOLDERS TO GET TO A RESOLUTION QUICKLY.
UM, UH, I REALLY JUST WANTED TO THANK CITY STAFF AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE COMMISSION FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.
UM, AS MR. HAYBURN SAID, UM, DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO HARM THE, THE SALE OR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT IMPEDE US MOVING FORWARD ON THE PROPERTY, AS I JUST WANT TO GET THIS BACK TO WHERE IT SHOULD BE AND REPAIR IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
SO, UM, I CAN MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL MAY HAVE, BUT APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
AND
UM, I'LL TURN THIS OVER TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO SEE IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YES COM.
UM, I HAD A QUESTION FOR COUNSEL.
SINCE THIS IS ON IN PROBATE COURT, WOULDN'T WHATEVER ORDER WE PUT IN BE ABLE TO BE PUT INTO INJUNCTION OR SOME, SOMEONE BE STOPPED? 'CAUSE I BELIEVE WE'VE, WE'VE HAD THIS PROBLEM COME UP SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST.
UM, I WILL NEED TO CONFIRM TO, BUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES I KNOW THE ISSUE IS WOULD IT BE ABLE TO HELP ADVANCE? UM, BUT I KNOW IT ALSO CAN DEPEND ON, ON THE JUDGE AND WHO THE JUDGE IS.
UM, SO I WOULD JUST SAY IT DEPENDS.
UM, OH, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, GO AHEAD.
OH, I WAS GOING TO MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING AND THE SECOND DISCUSSION.
SO WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING.
UM, IS ANYBODY, DID YOU SECOND THAT? OKAY.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO CLOSING THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING? NO.
UM, I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION TO, TO MR. HAYBURN.
SO, IN YOUR OPINION, DO YOU TRULY THINK THE 60 DAY TIMEFRAME, NOW THAT YOU'VE SEEN THE PHOTOS ALONG WITH THE LETTER THAT YOU RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF, I GUESS ONE OF THE HEIRS, DO YOU THINK THE 60 DAY TIMEFRAME IS REASONABLE OR SUFFICIENT? I KNOW YOU REQUESTED 60 DAYS.
OBVIOUSLY I WOULD TAKE MORE IF YOU'RE WILLING TO ALLOW.
I, I TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA.
I, I, MY EXPECTATION IS THAT WE'LL HAVE ADMINISTRATION IN PLACE ON FRIDAY.
I KNOW THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME TRANSFERS AND OBVIOUSLY PROPERTY SALE ISSUES ARE SEPARATE FROM THAT.
UM, WE'VE CLO WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING THEN, 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OBJECTION? NO.
COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, UH, I'M JUST GONNA SAY THAT IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THE PROBATE ISSUE IS GETTING RESOLVED REASONABLY PROMPTLY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT HERE OBVIOUSLY.
BUT, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THE QUICKEST ROUTE TO RESOLVING THIS JUST IN GENERAL FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED IS PROBATE COURT GETS RESOLVED, PROPERTY GETS SOLD TO SOMEBODY WHO'S WILLING TO REPAIR IT FULLY.
AND YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE GRANTING THE EXTENSION TO 60 DAYS WOULD POTENTIALLY FACILITATE A QUICKER SALE JUST SO THAT WAY THERE ISN'T ALREADY THE FINES PILING UP AT THAT POINT.
AND IT DOESN'T EVEN REALLY SEEM LIKE, YOU KNOW, HAVING 45 DAYS WOULD MAKE IT ANY MORE PROMPT.
SO I'M INCLINED TO JUST GRANT THE 60 DAYS AND WE CAN ADOPT THE ORDER, IF THAT SOUNDS GOOD WITH EVERYONE ELSE.
UM, SO MY THOUGHTS ON THIS, I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT? BECAUSE ANYTIME WE HAVE A TIMELINE, WHICH IS AN ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME, USUALLY IT DOUBLES.
SO I KNOW COUNSEL IS ASKING FOR 60 DAYS.
I THINK COUNSEL IS SAYING 60 DAYS BECAUSE HE THINKS THAT'S WHAT THE MAXIMUM IS THAT WE CAN DO NOW.
[02:10:01]
ALLOWED TO GIVE UP TO 90 DAYS IF WE WANTED TO.SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE FOR EVERYBODY TO CONSIDER WITH THE WAY COURT, YOU KNOW, THE COURT PROCESS GOES AND THE FACT THAT, YEAH, THERE ARE BUYERS ON STANDBY, BUT THAT'S ALSO A PROCESS IN ITSELF.
SO I WOULD HATE FOR US TO RETURN PREMATURELY JUST TO DO THIS ALL OVER AGAIN.
SO, COMMISSIONER SUGAR? YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I MEAN, THIS SEEMS ABOUT AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS A CASE COMES TO US.
WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF 45 DAYS.
THIS PLACE IS HONESTLY PRETTY GROSS.
I AM, YOU KNOW, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO NEIGHBORS.
I'VE LIVED IN PLACES LIKE THIS, UH, THROUGHOUT COLLEGE AND STUFF.
I'M FINE JUST ADOPTING STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION AS IS PROBATE FOR COURT CAN BE FIGURED OUT.
HOPEFULLY THAT GETS DONE ON FRIDAY AND EVERYTHING'S RESOLVED PAST THIS.
SO I GUESS I WOULD FORMALLY TAKE, MAKE A MOTION TO JUST ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS.
UM, OH, HE HAS NOT MADE IT YET.
OR DID YOU MAKE ONE? JUST MAKING A MOTION.
TO ADOPT STAFF'S FINDING FINDINGS.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER OLUGO.
SO I'LL GO AROUND AND TAKE A VOTE UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY OTHER COMMENTS.
SO COMMISSIONER, OH, GO AHEAD MS. SAY THE FULL AMOUNT, I MEAN THE FULL READOUT.
I THINK YOU HAVE TO SAY THE FULL READOUT.
UM, SO I, YEAH, I GUESS I JUST, UH, PUT FORWARD A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS, UH, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THAT THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED, OBTAINED.
AND FINALLY, IS ALL NECESSARY PERMITS, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, REQUESTS INSPECTIONS FROM CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B.
AND ON THE 46TH DAY, IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRE THIS ORDER.
COMPLETE COMMISSIONER AND INTEREST ORDER.
COMMISSIONER SHEER, YOU COULD HAVE JUST SAID RECOMMENDED ORDER.
SO WE'LL GO AROUND AND VOTE ON THAT PARTICULAR MOTION TO ADOPT.
SO, COMMISSIONER ESTO LUGA AYE.
UM, MR. VERN, I THINK YOU'RE STILL THERE.
UM, THE COMMISSION HAS MADE A DECISION AND YOU'LL BE RECEIVING THAT IN THE MAIL, AND MAYBE THAT WOULD ALSO HELP EXPEDITE THINGS IN PROBATE COURT.
WELL, BUT JUST, AGAIN, I'M NOT THE OWNER NOR DO I REPRESENT THE OWNERS, SO OF COURSE, OF COURSE.
AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO FIND THE OWNER BECAUSE THE OWNER'S DEAD.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT MAYBE JUST HAVING THAT ORDER WOULD HELP MOVE THINGS ALONG QUICKER.
BUT, UM, YEAH, IF YOU DO HAVE TO COME BACK HERE, THEN I'M, I SUPPOSE WE'LL SEE YOU AGAIN.
[6. Case Number: CL 2023-128143]
IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 23 1 2 8 1 43.AND REGARDING THE PROPERTY AT 2121 BURTON DRIVE, BUILDING 12, UNIT ONE 14, ALSO KNOWN AS 1919 BURTON DRIVE, ALSO KNOWN AS EMERSON APARTMENTS AT THE REQUEST OF FIELD STAFF.
THIS CASE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA DUE TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STRUCTURAL CONDITION VIOLATION CITED IN THE NOV AND THE CL CASE HAS BEEN CLOSED.
FIELD STAFF ALSO NOTED THAT PENDING A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION, THE CASE MAY BE RESUBMITTED TO CREDIT AT A LATER DATE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION.
SO THIS CASE WILL NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT.
AND THE NEXT CASE, THE NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA
[7. Case Number: CL 2020-018039]
IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 2 1 4 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE.AN ORDER WAS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THIS PROPERTY IN FEBRUARY, 2020.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS ACHIEVED COMPLIANCE AND NOW WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING RELIEF FOR THE ACCRUED PENALTIES.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CL 2 2 0 1 8 0 3 9.
THE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE CHARTREUSE BOOKS
[02:15:01]
IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE IS ABOUT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONSISTING OF A SINGLE STRUCTURE.
AN ORDER WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE FOR REPAIR WITHIN 45 DAYS, WITH A PENALTY OF $1,000 PER WEEK BEGINNING ON THE 46TH DAY.
IF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ACHIEVED, THE TOTAL PENALTY AS OF TODAY'S DATE IS $130,343 AND 72 CENTS, WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST ACCRUED.
SINCE COMPLIANCE WAS ACHIEVED THROUGH TODAY'S DATE.
IN YOUR READER OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO M, WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED.
EXHIBIT THREE CONTAINS AN UPDATED COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY.
A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP, THE NOTICES FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, PROOFS OF MAILING, AND THE REQUIRED POSTINGS.
A COPY OF THE RECORDED BSC ORDER ISSUED FEBRUARY 26TH, 2020, AND A PENALTY STATEMENT AND EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS AND THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION CODE INVESTIGATOR FAIR PRESLEY IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS AND WE'LL DISCUSS THE CORRECTED VIOLATIONS AND TIMELINE FOR COMPLIANCE CODE INVESTOR CODE INVESTIGATOR FAIR PRESLEY, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
OH, GOOD, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS FARRAH PRESLEY AND I'M THE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CASE REVIEW AND ESCALATION TEAM OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THIS CASE IS BEING BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BSC COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF REDUCTION OF THE BSC FINES THAT ACCRUED DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE BSE ORDER.
THIS CASE STARTED ON MAY 11TH, 2019.
IT WAS BROUGHT TO BSE ON FEBRUARY 26TH, 2020.
A REPAIR ORDER WAS ISSUED FOR THIS CASE.
THE OWNER WAS CONVERTING IT FROM A CHURCH TO A GROCERY STORE.
THEY ALSO BOUGHT THE GAS STATION NEXT DOOR, INCLUDING THIS PROJECT.
THIS WAS RESULTED IN SEVERAL SITE PLAN REJECTIONS AND PERMIT REJECTIONS.
THEY DID DO THE REPAIRS WHILE THEY WERE WAITING ON THE PERMITS.
THE REPAIRS WERE DONE ON 10 29, 20 20, BUT WITHOUT PERMITS.
THEY ENDED UP GETTING AN APPROVAL AND GETTING ALL WORK DONE WITH PERMITS FINALIZED ON SIX 15 OF 2022.
THIS PROPERTY OWNER COULD HAVE JUST GOTTEN PERMITS FOR REPAIRS TO COMPLY WITH THE BSE ORDER, THEN WENT ON TO DO THE HUGE PROJECT OF THE REMODEL TO THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, BUT ALL PERMITS WERE ROLLED INTO THE HUGE PROJECT.
THIS WAS EXPLAINED TO THE OWNER, BUT IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED.
I WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH A FEW PHOTOS.
THIS IS THE, UH, ORIGINALLY WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE WHEN IT CAME, UH, TO BSC.
IT WAS, UM, THE, A SIMPLE THING OF NEEDED IT, THE SIDING AND THE, UH, ALL THE GRAFFITI GONE, THE SIDING REPAIRED, AND THEN ALL THE WINDOWS AND DOORS REPAIRED.
NEXT PHOTO, THIS WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
THEY ENDED UP DOING THE HUGE PROJECT, TAKING ALL OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING AWAY ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE AND BUILT THE WHOLE NEW SIDE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND THEN THIS WAS THE, UH, WHEN I CLOSED THE CASE, ALL THE PERMITS WERE FINALIZED.
THEY JUST HADN'T FINISHED THE OUTSIDE EXTERIOR OF IT YET.
AND THEN I WENT BY A COUPLE DAYS AGO ON THE NEXT PHOTO.
OH, DID Y'ALL NOT PUT THAT ONE IN THERE? IT SHOULD BE.
AND THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW.
JUST, IT'S A REAL NICE GROCERY STORE.
KIND OF A REALLY GOOD THING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THERE NOW.
AND THEN, IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY.
STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.
AND EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS.
STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING.
ONE AFFIRM THE CIVIL PENALTY OF $130,343 AND 72 CENTS ASSESSED FROM THE FEBRUARY 26TH, 2020 ORDER, TRV 20 20 0 8 8 9 5 1, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TWO, IF THE CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT IS REDUCED, ALLOW 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE MODIFIED ORDER IS MAILED TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY IN FULL AT THE REDUCED AMOUNT AND THREE ON THE 31ST DAY FROM THE DATE THE MODIFIED ORDER IS MAILED.
IF THE CIVIL PENALTY HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL AT THE REDUCED AMOUNT, REINSTATE THE UN UNPAID PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL PENALTY AMOUNT, INTEREST SHALL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT EXHIBIT THREE AND EXHIBIT FOUR.
[02:20:02]
OKAY, SO I DON'T HAVE YOU ON THIS LIST FOR A MOMENT.CAN YOU TELL ME YOUR NAME, PLEASE? MY NAME IS NOVIA.
SO IS YOUR LAST NAME YAKI? YES.
SO WHAT'S GOING ON? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE THE COMMISSIONERS TO KNOW AND WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO TONIGHT? SO, UM, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT IT TOOK US 10 YEARS TO GET A PERMIT TO THIS PROJECT.
NOT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO OR DIDN'T TRY, WE JUST HAD SO MANY ISSUES BACK AND FORTH.
THE PLANS BEING LOST, DIFFERENT REVIEWERS.
I MEAN, THIS PROJECT WAS A NIGHTMARE.
EVERY TIME WE FIX SOMETHING, A MONTH LATER, WE GET A CODE VIOLATIONS.
WE GO BACK, WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE, WE GET A CODE VIOLATIONS.
SO WE DID HAVE A MEETING IN FEBRUARY AND THEY DID GIVE US 45 DAYS.
AND I HAVE PROOF THAT WE FIXED EVERYTHING I HAVE.
I HAVE PHOTOS BEFORE AND AFTER, AND I HAVE THE PAYMENTS THAT WERE MADE TO THE CONTRACTOR ALONG WITH THE CONTRACT.
HE WAS COMPLETED BY, UM, BY FOUR SEVEN.
SO WE GAVE HIM A FINAL PAYMENT ON 4 24.
AND THE FUNNY THING IS, WE HAVE NOT HEARD, I NEVER GOT A PHONE CALL.
I NEVER GOT ANOTHER CODE, CODE VIOLATION, NO COMPLAINTS OR ANYTHING FOR THREE YEARS.
AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU GUYS SEND ME A DEAL, 430,000.
SO HOW, HOW IS THAT FAIR? BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I WAS NOT AWARE.
I THOUGHT I COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING.
AND I BELIEVE ONE OF THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS, UH, ON, UM, ON THE PANEL, HE WAS ONE OF THE INSPECTORS.
I JUST CAN'T FIND THAT EMAIL ANYMORE BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT EMAIL.
I DID SEND HIM PHOTOS EVERY, AND I, AND I, AGAIN, I NEVER HEARD ANYTHING BACK.
AND I FIGURED THAT WE COMPLIED AND WE, EVERYTHING WAS DONE.
AND IT WAS A, IT WAS A SHOCK TO SEE THIS BILL BECAUSE WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED AFTER THAT, AFTER THAT COUNCIL MEETING THAT WE HAD.
WE HAD 45 DAYS, WE COMPLETED EVERYTHING AND THEN I NEVER HEARD BACK.
SO HOW IS IT FAIR FOR YOU GUYS TO TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT I HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO PAY THAT $130,000 WHEN WE WERE NOT EVEN AWARE THAT WE, WE WERE IN VIOLATION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.
SO I GUESS WE DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
UM, MS. PRESLEY, DO YOU, I KNOW YOU'RE ON THE CASE CURRENTLY, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ANY PHOTOS BEING SENT, UM, AFTER THE NOTICE, AFTER THE, THE UM, ORDER, THE PREVIOUS ORDER WAS SENT TO THE OWNERS? NO.
AND, AND LIKE I SAID, UM, THEY DID HAVE THE WORK DONE.
THEY JUST DIDN'T PULL PERMITS FOR DOING THE WORK.
WE WERE GIVEN 45 DAYS TO COMPLETE WHAT YOU GUYS ASKED, AND WE DID.
AND SO HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO PULL A PERMIT? MISS YAKI? JUST, JUST ONE SECOND.
MISS YAKI, IF YOU DON'T MIND JUST LETTING HER FINISH JUST SAID SO THAT WE CAN HAVE EVERYTHING ON THE RECORD.
SO I, I AM ASSUMING THE EMAIL SHE'S TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S, THAT WAS MY ONLY COMMUNICATION TO HER.
AND I GUESS SHE WASN'T RECEIVING THOSE.
I JUST THOUGHT I WASN'T GETTING A COMMUNICATION BACK.
BUT I DID GO TO THIS PROPERTY ONCE A MONTH FOR THE WHOLE ENTIRE THREE YEARS AND TALK TO ALL THE WORKERS THAT WERE THERE, CONSTANTLY HANDED OUT MY CARD, TOLD THEM TO TELL THE OWNER TO CALL ME.
I NEVER GOT ANY KIND OF CALL BACK, WHICH IS NORMAL.
I DON'T GET A LOT OF COMMUNICATION WITH SOME OWNERS.
AND SO THAT'S THE ONLY COMMUNICATION WE HAD, WAS IT THE WORK WAS GETTING DONE.
SO, AND I JUST KEPT TELLING THEM, HEY, WHENEVER I'D GO UP TO THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS THAT WERE THERE, I'D ASK THE BOSS THAT WAS THERE AND SAY, HEY, COULD YOU PLEASE GET THE OWNER TO CALL ME? YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS, AND THIS.
AND I NEVER GOT ANY KIND OF CALL BACK OR ANY COMMUNICATION.
I WAS EMAILING, BUT I GUESS THAT EMAIL DIDN'T WORK AND I JUST DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
I DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL IN JUNE OF 2020 FROM ANGEL, UH, ANGELINA OR ANGELITA SAYING THAT, UM, AND SHE SENT IT TO THE ADDRESS, THE, THE CURRENT EMAIL THAT I'M USING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE, DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH EROSION CONTROLS AND THAT WE, WE WERE NOT DOING, UM, THE REPAIRS PROPERLY.
WE INSTALLED ALL, ALL THE EROSION CONTROLS.
SO THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME THAT I WAS AWARE THAT, UM, WE WERE IN VIOLATION IN ANYTHING.
BUT AS FAR AS THE WORK, I MEAN, I HAVE PAYMENTS THAT WE PAY THE CONTRACTOR TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DID BRING, BRING EVERYTHING UP WITHIN THE 45 DAYS THAT WE WERE GIVEN.
UM, SHANA CAMPBELL, UH, IF I CAN, IF I CAN JUST GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS, IT SEEMS TO ME, AND, UH, UH, MS. PRESLEY, IF YOU, IF
[02:25:01]
YOU DON'T MIND CLARIFYING THIS A LITTLE BIT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ISSUE WASN'T THAT Y'ALL WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE DURING THIS PERIOD, BUT RATHER THAT THERE WAS, UH, A A LACK OF PERMITS FOR THOSE SPECIFIC THINGS.IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, AND IN LIGHT OF THAT, YOU KNOW, IT FRANKLY SEEMS TO ME LIKE, YOU KNOW, UH, THE WORK HAS SINCE BEEN RESOLVED.
WE CAN GO MORE INTO THIS WHEN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT PERSONALLY, I'M INCLINED TO REDUCE THE CIVIL PENALTY, BUT WE CAN GET MORE INTO THAT LATER HAPPEN.
UM, I WAS GOING TO REDIRECT MS. UM, YAKI TO ASK EXACTLY WHAT ARE YOU ASK, WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO TONIGHT IF YOU HAD AN IDEAL OUTCOME? HONESTLY, I AM SHOCKED THAT THERE IS EVEN PENALTIES BECAUSE ALL THIS TIME I'M, I'M A, I'M A VERY HIGH, STRONG PERSON AND THAT'S WHAT KEEPS ME REALLY FOCUSED TO MAKE SURE THAT I DO A JOB CORRECTLY AND I REALLY FOCUS ON THE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IF THEY ARE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION.
AND SO IT WAS REALLY SHOCKING TO ME THAT THERE WAS EVEN ANY PENALTIES ACCRUED.
IF I WOULD'VE KNOWN THAT OR IF I WOULD'VE KNOWN THAT I WOULD NOT IN COMPLIANCE, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN MY NUMBER ONE PRIORITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ADDRESSED RIGHT AWAY.
SO AGAIN, I I DON'T THINK I SHOULD, I THINK ALL THE PEN PENALTIES SHOULD BE FORGIVEN.
AND THEN THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
'CAUSE YOU DID MENTION EARLIER THAT YOU SENT SOME PHOTOGRAPHS TO A CERTAIN PERSON, UM, WITH THE CODE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT TONIGHT? I, THAT, THAT'S THE THING.
THE EMAIL THAT I, I WAS WORKING FROM, IT KEPT LOCKING ME OUT AND I WOULD CHANGE THE PASSWORD.
HE WOULD LOCK ME OUT, I WOULD CHANGE THE PASSWORD, AND THEN IT COMPLETELY LOCKED ME OUT.
SO I HAD TO CREATE THIS NEW A CR.
AND SO, NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE MYSELF NEGLECTING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UM, MS. PRESLEY, JUST A REAL QUICK CLARIFICATION.
ALL THIS WORK WAS DONE, BUT IT WASN'T DONE UNTIL MAY 21ST.
AND WE DID SEND A FAILURE TO COMPLY NOTICE JULY 28TH, 2020, INFORMING THE OWNER THAT THEY DID COMPLY, BUT THEY DIDN'T COMPLY ALL THE WAY WITH THE BSE ORDER BECAUSE OF THE NO PERMITS.
I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I MEAN, UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE A MASSIVE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT.
WHY DIDN'T YOU PULL THE PERMITS FOR THE CODE VIOLATION? WE COULDN'T.
WE COULDN'T BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE HAD SO MANY ISSUES WITH THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT, THEY WOULD LOSE THE PLANS, THEN WE WOULD HAVE A NEW REVIEWER COME ON BOARD, THEN WE'D HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN.
AND THEN THE PLANS WERE MISPLACED.
I MEAN, IT WAS, I HAVE EMAILS I SHOULD HAVE PRINTED OVER THE YEARS.
I TRIED TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT TO THIS PROPERTY.
WE WERE JUST HAVING A REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT TIME.
AND I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME WHEN WE WERE HERE IN 2020, I EXPRESSED THAT.
I EVEN ASKED THE CITY COUNCIL, HELP ME GET A PERMIT SO WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THIS PROJECT SO WE CAN WRAP IT UP.
IT TOOK ME, IT TOOK ME ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF TO GET A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT, AND I WOULD CALL AND A COMPLAINTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND YOU CANNOT GET AHOLD, YOU CANNOT EVEN TALK TO A PERSON THAT CAN HELP YOU.
IT'S ALL BY EMAIL OR COMPUTER OR LEAVE A MESSAGE.
NOBODY, IT, I MEAN, YOU CAN'T GET AHOLD OF ANYBODY AND TO, TO HAVE A QUESTION.
WELL, YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.
IF, IF I, IF I HAVE A QUESTION THAT I WANTED TO TALK TO SOMEBODY, AND THEN NOBODY WOULD RETURN YOUR PHONE CALL.
AND THIS IS IT, IT'S STILL HAPPENING TODAY.
YOU CANNOT GET AHOLD OF ANYBODY IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO HAVE CONVERSATION SO THEY CAN LEAD YOU IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
DSD WELL, YOU HAVE TO REACH OUT TO THIS PERSON.
I, I CONSTANTLY EMAILS AND YOU, I NEVER GOT THE RIGHT ANSWER SOMEHOW BY PERSEVERANCE.
WE FINALLY OPENED THE STORE AFTER 10 YEARS.
AND SO CAN YOU GUYS FEEL OUR FRUSTRATION? AND THEN WE SPENT, THE STORE IS BEAUTIFUL.
I HAVE PHOTOS, AND THEN AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON PERMITTING AND CITY REVIEWS AND YOU NAME IT, WE GET PENALIZED FOR WHAT? BECAUSE NOBODY WAS, NOBODY REACHED OUT TO ME.
I, I MEAN, I'M THE PERSON THAT COMMUNICATES.
IF YOU TELL ME, HEY, YOU'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, I PROMISE YOU WITHIN 24 HOURS IT'S GONNA BE DONE.
I JUST, I JUST NEVER GOT HER CARDS OR EMAILS OR WHATEVER.
I WOULD BE THE FIRST PERSON ON 'EM.
I MEAN, YOU ARE THE PROPERTY OWNER IF YOU DIDN'T GET THE, THE CARDS
[02:30:01]
OR THE EMAILS.I WORK FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I WORK THAT IS YOUR OWNER, HUH? I WORK FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
WELL, IF YOU WALK FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO, TO WORK WITH YOUR CREW TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT IF THEY'RE GETTING INFORMATION RIGHT, AND THE THING IS, ANYTIME THAT THEY GOT SOMETHING, I ALWAYS RESPONDED, THEY'LL, THEY'LL, THEY'LL TELL ME, HEY, THE CODE VIOLATION GUY STOPPED BY OR WHATEVER.
IF I GOT IT, IF THEY GAVE ME ANY TYPE OF INFORMATION, I RESPONDED RIGHT AWAY.
I'M NOT THE PERSON TO SIT ON SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT.
SO YOU CLAIMING THAT THE WORKERS GAVE YOU THE CARD AND YOU CALLED, UH, INTERPRET.
WHENEVER THEY GAVE ME THE, THE, THE PERSON THAT I KNOW THAT THEY GAVE ME A CARD WAS ANGELINA ANGELITA.
SHE SAID THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH EROSION CONTROLS.
I HAVE AN EMAIL SOMEWHERE ABOUT THAT.
AND THEN WE HAD A HOMELESS ISSUE.
I CONTACTED HER, I WAS WORKING WITH HER VERY CLOSELY.
BUT TO GET A CODE VIOLATION, UM, CARD FROM ANYBODY ELSE, I NEVER RECEIVED ONE.
AND, AND I'M BEING HONEST, OKAY.
AND, AND MY SUPERINTENDENT, HE'S, HE'S, HE'S, HE'S A STRICKLER ON THAT TOO.
HE WOULD ALWAYS CONTACT ME, HEY, THE CODE VIOLATION GUY STOPPED BY, HEY, YOU NEED TO DO THIS.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WAS GIVING IT TO THE CONTRACTORS, THE SUBCONTRACTORS THAT WERE THERE INSTEAD OF THE SUPERINTENDENT.
BUT I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, I WOULD'VE NEVER, NEVER NEGLECTED SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
UM, AND I HAD A QUESTION FOR INSPECTOR PRESLEY.
UM, SO I'M A, I'M MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE SORT OF SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS FOR LARGE SCALE PERMITTING.
IF YOU ALREADY HAD A PERMIT FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW, WHAT IS THE PROCESS THEORETICALLY TO GET A NEW PERMIT JUST TO FIX THE CODE VIOLATIONS? IS THAT POSSIBLE? AND, AND IF SO, HOW? WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? SINCE THEY DIDN'T START BUILDING ON THE BUILDING YET, WHILE THEY WERE DOING THE SITE PLAN STUFF, THEY COULD HAVE JUST PULLED A SIMPLE BUILDING PERMIT FOR JUST WINDOWS, DOORS REPLACEMENT AND THE SIDING.
AND THEN AFTER THAT WAS DONE, FINALIZED IT AND THAT WAS IT.
AND THEN WENT ON WITH THEIR SITE PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WERE HAVING SO MANY DIFFICULTIES WITH, WAS THE SITE PLAN.
UM, AND THEN THE ANGELINA THAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT, DSD IS NOW COMBINED WITH US, BUT BEFORE THAT WAS JUST A DSE EMPLOYEE THAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
AND, AND I HAVE BEEN, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, IF THERE WAS ANY VIOLATION OR ANY ISSUE THAT WAS, THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME, I ADDRESSED IT RIGHT AWAY.
AND THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING, I DID NOT HEAR ANYTHING SINCE THE MEETING THAT I HAD IN FEBRUARY OF 2020 AFTER I FIXED ALL THE ISSUES.
AGAIN, I HAVE THE PAYMENTS THAT I MADE TO THE CONTRACTOR.
THE ISSUES THAT WE FIXED THAT YOU GUYS GAVE US 45 DAYS NOW, WAS I AWARE, WAS I TOLD THAT I NEEDED TO PULL A PERMIT TO FIX THESE ISSUES.
NO, I, I, THAT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION.
SO WE WENT AHEAD, WE HAD 45 DAYS, WE COMPLIED AND WE FIXED EVERYTHING.
BUT AGAIN, THAT, THAT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL.
IF I DIDN'T DO THAT, THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY BAD.
BUT I PROMISE YOU I FIXED ALL THE ISSUES.
THAT WAS THAT YOU GUYS GAVE ME 45 DAYS TO ADDRESS.
UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER FRANCIS AND THEN COM OH, COMMISSIONER SUGAR, AND THEN COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
UM, I'M JUST GONNA SAY, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF GETTING A LITTLE CIRCULAR IN OUR BACK AND FORTH, SO I'D JUST LIKE TO MOVE TO, UH, CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE CAN STILL ASK QUESTIONS IF WE WANT TO AS WE DISCUSS, BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'RE JUST KIND OF GOING BACK AND FORTH.
UM, SO WE, SHOULD I MOVE TO YEAH.
IS EVERYBODY FINE WITH US CLOSING THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING? ANY OBJECTIONS? NO.
PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING IS CLOSED.
SO MISS YAKI, WE'VE HEARD YOUR TESTIMONY TONIGHT AND WE'VE ALSO HEARD STAFF'S TESTIMONY, SO COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU OR NOT.
UM, MIGHT JUST HAVE DISCUSSIONS.
UM, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, UH, OFFICER PRESLEY.
SO AT THE LAST TIME THEY WERE HERE IN 2020, I'M LOOKING AT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER AS I READ THIS NOW.
LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THE ITEMS ON THERE FOR THAT RECOMMENDED ORDER WAS TO OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
UM, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, UH, I'LL JUST SAY THAT IN THIS SITUATION, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS SOME MISTAKE WITH THE PERMITTING THAT HAPPENED AROUND THE TIME THAT THE VIOLATION AT ITS CORE WAS ACTUALLY RESOLVED.
[02:35:02]
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO TOWARDS SOME KIND OF, UH, REDUCTION IN THE CIVIL PENALTY.PERSONALLY, I, IT, IT'S, AND, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, MS. PRESLEY, IT, DID YOU SAY THAT THERE WAS A POINT AFTER THE 45 DAYS AT WHICH THEY WERE STILL TECHNICALLY IN VIOLATION? YES, THEY WERE IN VIOLATION TILL MAY 21ST, 2020.
AND IT JUST IN LIGHT OF THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD PERHAPS REDUCE THE CIVIL PENALTY BY SOMETHING LIKE 95% THAT STILL LEAVES A LITTLE BIT OF A PENALTY FOR THAT GENUINE VIOLATION PERIOD, BUT REMOVES MOST OF IT FOR WHAT SEEMS LIKE A GENUINE ACCIDENT.
UM, I THINK THAT'S, WE'RE GETTING SOMETHING, GETTING SOMEWHERE.
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, MR. MOORE, HAVE YOU WORKED SOMETHING UP FOR US? UM, KNEW THIS WAS COMING? YEAH.
UM, I DON'T, I DON'T DISAGREE.
I THINK 130,000 IS STEEP FOR SOMEONE THAT'S NOT A GREAT COMMUNICATOR AND, UM, TAKES 10 YEARS TO, TO DO PROJECTS.
UM, I KNOW THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DID HOOD DID HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS FOR A WHILE, AND IT DID TURN INTO A, A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
SO THAT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WE, WE TRY TO ASK FOR PERMITTING TO BE DONE, UM, BEFORE YOU START A GRANDIOSE PLAN 'CAUSE THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPENS.
UM, SO I MEAN, AGAIN, I CAN'T REALLY, I'M NOT A DEAL MAKER KIND OF THING, YOU KNOW, BUT I WOULD JUST REFER YOU TO OUR, YOU KNOW, UH, RETREAT WHEN WE KIND OF WENT OVER THE NUMBERS RIGHT.
AND WHAT IT COST US, UH, AS CITY WORKERS TO MAKE TRIPS OUT THERE FOR, UM, RE-INSPECTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UH, AND JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, AND TO UPHOLD A LITTLE BIT OF INTEGRITY TO OUR, OUR, UM, OUR NOTICE.
I MEAN, I'M SORRY, OUR ORDERS AND WHATNOT.
SO, SO MY QUESTION TO YOU THEN, MM-HMM,
IF, IF I WAS GONNA PUT A NUMBER ON IT AS FAR AS WHAT CITY MANPOWER, WOMANPOWER AND, AND ALL THAT HAS GONE INTO IT.
SO NO, NO REAL ANALYSIS WAS DONE.
WELL, I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS IF, IF THAT WOULD HELP.
SO JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL ORDER THAT IT, THAT INITIATED THOSE PENALTIES DID NOT, WAS NOT IN EFFECT UNTIL FEBRUARY 20TH, 2020.
AND MS. PRESLEY JUST TESTIFIED THAT SHE'S AWARE THAT THE, UM, PROPERTY CAME INTO COMPLIANCE, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, UH, BY MAY 30, 21ST OF 2020.
SO, UH, THIS ORDER FROM FEBRUARY, 2020 GAVE THE OWNERS 45 DAYS, AND IT WOULD'VE KICKED IN ON THE 46TH DAY.
SO IF WE LOOK AT THAT, UM, THEN THEY WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE, UM, STARTING FROM APRIL, UH, I GUESS STARTING FROM MARCH 30TH, 45 DAYS, WELL, APRIL 6TH, ACTUALLY, 45 DAYS FROM FEBRUARY 20TH.
SO BETWEEN APRIL 6TH AND MAY 21ST, I BELIEVE THERE ARE 45 DAYS.
AGAIN, MY MATH MIGHT BE WRONG, SO I'M LOOKING AT MAYBE PENALTIES FOR 45 DAYS.
THE ORDER WAS MAILED ON MARCH THE SIXTH.
SO IT'S 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
SO WHAT WOULD THAT BE THEN? UH, APRIL 6TH, 30 DAYS.
OH, SO THE, THE END OF THE PENALTY, THE, WELL, ACTUALLY WE SHOW THAT THE COMPLIANCE DATE WAS, PICK A DATE, I THINK IT WAS JUNE, PICK A DATE, 5 21 20 OH OH, PICK A DATE.
WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO, SO IF WE SAID 5 21 20 WAS THE DATE? YES.
UM, THEN IT WOULD BE $4,571 AND 43 CENTS THE PEN, IF THE PENALTIES DIDN'T START UNTIL 45 DAYS AFTER MARCH 6TH, YEAH, APRIL 20TH.
IF THEY STARTED ON APRIL 20TH, UHHUH.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT FOUR, THAT IS 45 DAYS, SO YES.
SO IF THEY STARTED ON APRIL 20TH, THEN IT WOULD BE $4,500 AND SOME CHANGE.
[02:40:01]
I, I JUST WANNA SAY A FEW THINGS.UH, I WANT TO FIRST SAY THAT PERMITTING IS HOW WE MAKE SURE THAT THE WORK BEING DONE IS SAFE AND APPROPRIATE AND ACTUALLY CHECKED AND YOU DON'T END UP DOING SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA LEAD TO THE BUILDING COLLAPSING.
UH, SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY.
THE SECOND THING I WANT TO SAY, AS SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS A FEW DEVELOPERS, I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS THE MONEY AND CONNECTIONS TO A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR PROJECT OVER 10 YEARS DOESN'T KNOW THAT ALL WORK MUST BE PERMITTED.
YOU CAN'T JUST START HAMMERING AT BUILDINGS AND JUST NOT MAKE SURE THAT SOMEBODY CHECKS IT.
SO THOSE TWO THINGS I WOULD SAY I ARE FOUNDATIONAL TO, I THINK WE SHOULD EVALUATE THIS BECAUSE IT'S, IF THIS IS JUST A REGULAR INDIVIDUAL, THAT WOULD BE ONE THING.
I THINK REGULAR FOLKS USUALLY DON'T REALLY KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE LAW AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT A LARGE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR DEVELOPER HAS A, PRESUMABLY LAWYERS TO BE ABLE TO ADVISE THEM ON THESE KINDS OF THINGS.
AND IF THEY DON'T, THAT IS MALPRACTICE.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T ACCIDENTALLY COMMIT FRAUD AND THEN BE LIKE, I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS COMMITTING A CRIME.
UM, WE INSTALLED, WE INSTALLED ALL DUE RESPECT, WE INSTALLED MS. UM, THEY CLOSED THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING.
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONERS MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS, THIS ONE.
SO TO YOUR POINT, I DO THINK PROBABLY THE, THE CURRENT FEE AMOUNT IS, UM, STEVE, BUT I WOULD NOT, I DO NOT THINK THAT THE REDUCTION, I I I, I WOULD CLASSIFY THIS LESS AS AN ACCIDENT AND MORE AS, AS A, UH, MALPRACTICE OR, OR SOMETHING MORE AKIN TO AN INTENTIONAL FAILURE OF DUTY.
UM, BECAUSE IT'S, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, YOU TOOK LONGER, BUT YOU DID EVERYTHING RIGHT THE WAY WE THINK WE'VE DONE IN PREVIOUS CASES LIKE THAT ONE, UM, THAT ONE, UH, BUSINESS WHO WENT TOO LONG TO FIX THEIR ROOF, BUT THEY DID IT ALL THE RIGHT PROCESS VERSUS IGNORING ALL THE PROCESSES, ALL THE PROCESSES THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS SAFE.
SO I GUESS THAT'S SORT OF HOW I VIEW THINGS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY HERE.
SO YES, I CHAIR, MAY I, MAY I SAY SOMETHING? UH, COMMISSIONER SELLEK, GO AHEAD.
WELL, IN LIGHT OF MR. MOORE'S COMMENTS A FEW MINUTES AGO, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REDUCE THE PENALTY BY 90%, THAT LEAVES A PENALTY OF $13,000.
AND THAT'S WITHIN THE RANGE OF WHAT MR. MOORE WAS SAYING BETWEEN 10 AND $15,000 OF STAFF TIME AND, UM, OTHER KINDS OF EXPENSES.
AND SO THAT ADDRESSES HIS CONCERN, AND AT THE SAME TIME, IT ADDRESSES THE APPLICANT'S CONCERN ABOUT REDUCING IT, BUT THERE, THERE'S STILL SOME SORT OF PENALTY, UM, ASSESSED TO THE BUDGET.
SO I MOVE THAT WE, WE REDUCE THE PENALTY BY 90%, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SO THAT IT WOULD BE A $13,000.
UM, DID YOU SPEC STATE THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT? DO WE COUNSEL, DO WE HAVE TO STATE THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT OR PERCENTAGE IS OKAY.
I THINK WE DO HAVE TO STATE THE AMOUNT.
UM, PREFERABLY IT WOULD BE A PERCENTAGE AND, AND A SPECIFIC AMOUNT IF WE CAN PULL OUT OUR CALCULATOR AND DETERMINE THAT MOTION.
I THINK 13, MAKING IT SO THAT THE PENALTY IS $13,000, 1334 AND 37 CENTS.
DO YOU WANNA RESTATE THE MOTION PLEASE? SORRY, I MOVE THAT WE REDUCE THE PENALTY BY 90% OR TO BRING IT TO THE PENALTY IS $13,343 AND 72 CENTS.
UH, IF I CAN ACTUALLY GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION.
WOULD THAT ALSO INCLUDE THE OTHER LANGUAGE IN THE RECOMMENDED ORDER THAT YES, IT WOULD ALLOW 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE MODIFIED TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY? NO.
ALL THE OTHER LANGUAGE STAYS THE SAME EXCEPT THAT WE'RE REDUCING IT DOWN TO THAT 13,000 AMOUNT.
UM, DID WE HAVE A SECOND? I WILL SECOND, YES.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL.
UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS.
WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING ELSE? WE'LL CALL THE VOTE.
UM, UM, SORRY, EDWARD, I VOTE NO SHUGART.
[02:45:01]
APPRECIATE YOU DOING EVERYTHING YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD DO TO MOVE EVERYTHING FORWARD.AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT, IT CAME OUT BEAUTIFULLY.
YOU'LL GET A COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE MAIL AND THEN, UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CERTAINLY ASK AT THAT TIME.
[8. Case Number: CL 2020-018491]
THE NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, A COMMERCIAL DUPLEX PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 1 3 1 1 WALNUT RIDGE DRIVE.AN ORDER WAS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THIS PROPERTY IN JULY, 2020.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS ACHIEVED COMPLIANCE AND NOW WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING RELIEF FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE ACCRUED PENALTY.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CL 2 2 0 1 8 4 9 1.
THE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE LIGHT BROWN BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE IS ABOUT A COMMERCIAL DUPLEX PROPERTY CONSISTING OF A SINGLE STRUCTURE.
AN ORDER WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE FOR REPAIR WITHIN 45 DAYS, WITH A PENALTY OF $1,000 PER WEEK.
BEGINNING ON THE 46TH DAY OF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ACHIEVED.
THE TOTAL PENALTY ASSESSED WAS $136,000 5 130 $6,571 AND 43 CENTS.
THE CURRENT OWNER WAS ELIGIBLE FOR AND RECEIVED AN IN-HOUSE PENALTY OFFSET TOTALING $17,718 AND 76 CENTS.
THE REMAINING PENALTY AS OF TODAY'S DATE IS $118,852 AND 67 CENTS.
IN YOUR READER OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO M, WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED.
AND EXHIBITS THREE AND FOUR EXHIBIT THREE CONTAINS AN UPDATED COMPLAINT IN CASE HISTORY.
A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP.
THE NOTICES FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, PROOFS THE MAILING AND POSTINGS.
A COPY OF THE RECORDED BSC ORDER ISSUED FEBRUARY 26TH, 2020, AND A PENALTY STATEMENT AND EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS AND THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION CODE.
INVESTIGATOR FAIR PRESLEY IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS AND WE'LL DISCUSS THE CORRECTED VIOLATIONS AND TIMELINE FOR COMPLIANCE CODE INVESTIGATOR FAIR PRESLEY, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
MY NAME IS FARRAH PRESLEY AND I'M THE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CASE REVIEW AND ESCALATION TEAM OF THE PLANNING AND BILL DEPARTMENT.
THIS CASE BEING BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BSE COMMISSIONERS FOR CONSIDERATION OF REDUCTION OF THE BSE FINDS THAT ACCRUED DUR DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE OF A BSE ORDER.
THIS CASE STARTED ON FEBRUARY 22ND, 2012.
IT WAS BROUGHT TO BSE ON JULY 22ND, 2020 ORDER WAS FOR REPAIR.
AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF NO CONTACT WITH OWNER WITH SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, A LOT OF ILLEGAL DUMPING AND CITY CLEANUPS, SEVERAL BOARD AND SECURES DONE TO THE STRUCTURE, THE CITY EVEN PUT UP A FENCE TO PREVENT A LOT OF THE ISSUES.
NEIGHBORS WERE CONSTANTLY CALLING IN THEIR CONCERNS OF THIS STRUCTURE.
IT WAS FINALLY SOLD TO A DEVELOPER ON 12 7 22.
THE STRUCTURE WAS REPAIRED AND ALL PERMITS FINALIZED BY 4 27 20 23.
THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER PAID FOR ALL OF THE LIENS FROM THE BOARD AND SECURE DONE ON THE STRUCTURE SINCE 2013, AS WELL AS ALL THE CLEANUPS AND THE RENTAL OF THE FENCING THAT WAS PLACED AROUND THE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE TO TRY AND PREVENT FURTHER ISSUES.
WHILE IT WAS SITTING AND REPAIRED, THIS PROPERTY OWNER TOOK A DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE, COMPLETELY REMODELED IT TO BE A DUPLEX.
WITHIN FOUR MONTHS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CO EN CODE NO LONGER HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS BLIGHT ON THE COMMUNITY.
I WILL NOW TAKE YOU THROUGH THE PHOTOS.
THIS IS WHEN WE FIRST ORIGINALLY GOT THE CASE AT BSE.
UH, THIS IS WHAT IT NORMALLY LOOKED LIKE ALMOST EVERY SINGLE DAY.
THIS WASN'T EVEN A LOT OF BUILT UP TRASH, WHICH WAS NORMAL, WHICH THIS WAS JUST AN EVERYDAY LOOK TO IT ALL THE TIME.
THIS IS THE FENCE I PUT UP, WHICH WAS CONSTANTLY BROKEN INTO CONSTANT ILLEGAL DUMPING.
AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE AFTER WE CLEANED UP ALMOST 40 YARDS OF TRASH.
THIS WAS WHEN THE, THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER HAD BOUGHT IT, STARTED REMODELING IT, UM, COMPLETELY LOOKED COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WITHIN A, A WEEK OR TWO OF HIM BEING THERE.
AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW AND A TON OF NEIGHBORS CALLING ME ALL THE TIME ABOUT HOW AMAZING THIS LOOKS.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
NO STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS.
STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING.
ONE, AFFIRM THE CIVIL PENALTY OF $118,852 67 CENTS.
[02:50:02]
ASSESS FROM THE JULY 22ND ORDER, TRV 20 20 0 1 5 0 1 5 1 2.OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IF THE CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT IS REDUCED, ALLOW 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE AMENDED ORDER IS MAILED TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY IN FULL AT THE REDUCED AMOUNT AND THREE ON THE 31ST DAY FROM THE DATE THE AMENDED ORDER IS MAILED.
IF THE CIVIL PENALTY HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL AT THE REDUCED AMOUNT, REINSTATE THE UN POURED PATIENT UNPAID PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL PENALTY AMOUNT, RA SHALL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT EXHIBIT THREE AND EXHIBIT FOUR AND CHAIR.
YES, I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER ALSO HAS EXHIBITS.
OH, YES, WE HAVE, UM, THE OWNER'S EXHIBITS AS WELL.
THOSE WILL BE ADMITTED AS WELL.
UM, AND I BELIEVE WE ALSO HAVE COUNSEL AND 3 0 3 PEOPLE TOTAL.
SO YOU MAY START WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
UH, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
UH, WE HAVE A CAST HERE, SO I'LL JUST DO A QUICK INTRODUCTION.
MY NAME IS JOSH EAMES AND I REPRESENT THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, KENTON PV.
UH, WITH ME HERE IS MR. CLINTON ROSENTHAL.
HE'S ALSO AN ATTORNEY, BUT HE'S HERE TODAY AS A WITNESS.
UM, AND WE ALSO HAVE, UH, UH, JUSTIN AS WELL.
HE IS A A, HE WORKS FOR THE COMPANY AND IS ALSO, UH, INVOLVED IN THE REPAIRING.
AND HE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THAT.
UM, I, I GUESS THE FIRST THING I JUST WANTED TO START OFF TO SAY WAS, I THINK TO BE CLEAR, I THINK WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT, UH, THE COMMISSION REDUCE THE PENALTY AND WAIVE IT COMPLETELY.
UM, I THINK JUST AS A A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WHICH MAY BE DIRECTED AT THE STAFF, UH, IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STAFF WAS NOT OPPOSED TO A REDUCTION OR WAIVER OF THE FEE.
AND, UM, I HAVE SOME EMAILS IF OF COURSE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THAT.
BUT I, I, I AM SLIGHTLY CURIOUS AS TO WHY THAT IT, AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE AGENDA, IT LOOKS, THEY'RE ASKING THE FEE TO BE UPHELD.
SO THAT MAY BE A QUESTION YOU WANT TO DIRECT HER TO THE STAFF.
UM, MR. EAMES, IS THAT EMAIL IN THE OWNER'S EXHIBITS? 'CAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT, UH, IT, IT MAY OR MAY NOT.
UM, WE JUST PULLED THE, UM, WE JUST PULLED THE AGENDA THIS AFTERNOON OKAY.
SO IT MAY NOT HAVE MADE IT THAT WAY, BUT I, I KNOW I'VE SPOKEN TO, UH, MELANIE AND JAMES ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND I WAS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STAFF WAS NOT OPPOSED TO OUR REQUEST FOR REDUCTION.
SO OUR USUAL RECOMMENDATION IS WE DON'T USUALLY RECOMMEND LIKE, HEY, YOU SHOULD REDUCE THIS BY 50% OR TAKE $10,000 OFF.
AND, AND, UH, SO WHEN I MENTIONED THAT WE DON'T OPPOSE ANYBODY COMING BACK, I MEAN, WE NEVER DO, UH, IT'S YOUR ORDER.
SO YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU FEEL LIKE YOUR PREDECESSORS DID AND EITHER UPHOLD THAT OR REDUCE IT.
UM, DID THAT SATISFY YOUR CURIOSITY, MR. AMS? UM, UH, SOMEWHAT.
I, I GUESS JUST TO BE CLEAR, IS IT THE POSITION OF THE STAFF THAT THE, IT SHOULD BE REDUCED OR SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED? UM, THE POSITION, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE PENALTIES, PENALTIES SHOULD STAY AS IS AT THE 118.
AND IF WE DO REDUCE, THEN WE SHOULD ALLOW A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DAYS FOR PAYMENT, WHICH IS 30 DAYS.
BUT, UH, WHEN I FINISH, SORRY.
UM, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DO HAVE AN EMAIL, UM, IF YOUR EMAIL SAYS SOMETHING, OTHERWISE, THEN OF COURSE YOU CAN.
I'D BE HAPPY TO APPROACH AND GIVE YOU A COPY IF YOU'D LIKE.
OH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPROACH, BUT, UM, CAN WE GET A COPY OF THAT EMAIL? I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN CONSIDER IT IF IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED AS AN EXHIBIT.
HE'S ABOUT TO, I THINK, I THINK PROCEDURALLY THAT HAS TO BE OB UH, SUBMITTED PRE PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IS IT CURRENTLY HOW OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS OPERATE? UM, BUT I CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION VERY QUICKLY JUST TO MAKE SURE.
AND WE CAN AT LEAST MOVE THIS WAY.
WE CAN AT LEAST MOVE FORWARD WHILE I'M, I'M GETTING THAT CLARIFICATION.
WE, WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST.
SO IF YOU DON'T MIND CLARIFYING FOR US WHETHER WE COULD ACTUALLY TAKE EXHIBITS IN PERSON.
AND JUST, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, I, I'LL JUST QUOTE THE EMAIL, WHICH SAYS CHAIR, JUST ONE MOMENT.
CAN, CAN'T DO THAT EITHER IF WE'RE NOT ADMITTING IT.
BUT JUST GIVE US A FEW MINUTES FOR COUNSEL TO CHECK INTO THAT.
AND IN THE MEANTIME, DID COMMISSIONER
[02:55:01]
CAMPBELL, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ASK? UH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT FROM, UH, THAT, THAT WHENEVER WE GET A, A CASE LIKE THIS, OUR ACTUAL RECOMMENDED ORDER IN HERE KIND OF GIVES US THE OPTION OF EITHER MAINTAINING IT OR REDUCING THE PENALTIES.I, I, I MEAN, WE'RE ULTIMATELY THE FINAL DECISION MAKERS, SO YOU KNOW, WHAT'S ON THE AGENDAS, THE RECOMMENDED ORDER ISN'T NECESSARILY WHAT WE'RE GONNA GO WITH.
UM, IT, IT, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE, UH, STAFF IS NOT OPPOSED TO IT.
THEY JUST DON'T NECESSARILY EXPLICITLY RECOMMEND THAT.
IF, IF THAT PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY.
UM, SO, UH, I THINK OFFICER PRESLEY DID A GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING WHERE THE CASE IS RIGHT NOW.
UM, BRIEFLY, A BIT OF BACKGROUND.
I THINK BACK IN 2017, UM, THE INITIAL VIOLATIONS WERE ISSUED.
THERE'S A LETTER HERE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS PART OF OUR EXHIBITS.
UM, THAT INITIAL LETTER NOTED 10, UH, VIOLATIONS REGARDING THE STRUCTURE.
UM, AND THEN IT LATER ON, THERE WAS AN ORDER ISSUED IN JUNE OF 2020, WHICH ONLY CITED TWO OF THOSE VIOLATIONS.
UM, PART OF THE ISSUE, AND I THINK PART OF THE REASON WHY, UM, I GUESS THE STAFF WANTED THIS TO COME BACK IS THAT, UM, BECAUSE THOSE OTHER EIGHT VIOLATIONS WERE NOT PART OF THE INITIAL ORDER, UM, THOSE EIGHT VIOLATIONS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE OFFSET.
SO I THINK YOU HEARD HER SAY THAT, UM, THERE WAS AN OFFSET IN THE AMOUNT OF LIKE $17,000.
UM, UH, MY CLIENT SPENT A HUN OVER $128,000 TO REMY THE PROPERTY.
AS YOU SOFTEN THE PICTURES, UM, IT'S IN MUCH BETTER CONDITION NOW THAN IT WAS.
UM, BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ORDER WAS STRUCTURED, UM, WE, AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE STAFF IS CONCERNED, WE CAN'T GET THE FULL OFFSET BECAUSE OF WHAT THE ORDER SAYS.
SO I THINK ONE THING WE WOULD ASK THE COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER IS THE, THE FULL SCOPE OF THE REPAIRS THAT WERE MADE BESIDES JUST THE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE NOTED IN THE ORDER.
UM, THE OTHER THING ON, OF COURSE, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC REPAIRS, UM, JUSTIN HERE CAN ANSWER THOSE TO YOU AS WELL.
UM, AND I THINK WE ALSO INCLUDED, UH, SPECIFIC INVOICES THAT DO ADDRESS EACH AND ONE OF THE VIOLATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL FEBRUARY, 2017 VIOLATION LISTS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE OTHER THING I WOULD BRING UP TO IS THAT, UM, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING, AT LEAST IN THESE TYPES OF CASES WHERE, UH, A NEW OWNER COMES BY AND TAKES THE PROPERTY WHEN THERE IS A VIOLATION THAT, UM, THE CUSHION ROUTINELY DOES, UH, WAIVE OR MODIFY THOSE PENALTIES.
UM, THE, IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, THE PRIOR OWNER OF THIS, UH, PROPERTY, RICHARD COGBILL, UH, WAS NOT ABLE TO BE FOUND.
UM, THERE WAS NOT ABLE TO GIVE HIM ACTUAL NOTICE.
THEY DID SEND, UH, SOME, UH, LETTERS THROUGH CERTIFIED MAIL, BUT THOSE WERE TO A PO BOX, AND THOSE WERE NOT, UH, RECEIVED OR SIGNED BY ANYONE.
UM, I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES WE RAISED WITH THE STAFF IN THIS CASE IS THAT, UM, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A P BOX THAT WAS BEING USED AS HIS ADDRESS, MR. COWELL ACTUALLY DOES LIVE HERE IN TRAVIS COUNTY.
AND A, UH, UH, A CURSORY SEARCH OF THE, UH, TCAD WEBSITE REVEALS THAT HIS HOMESTEAD ADDRESS IS A DIFFERENT ADDRESS, WHICH WE PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION.
SO, UM, IT WAS UNCLEAR WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THAT ADDRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE NOTICE AS WELL.
UM, WE, WE, IN OUR, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, IN OUR, UH, OUR PRESENTATION, WE SORT OF RAISED SOME LEGAL ISSUES AS WELL, BUT THIS MAY NOT BE THE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THAT.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WANT TO YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE CAN GO BACKWARDS BECAUSE THAT ORDER WAS ALREADY ENTERED.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, I CAN HELP ANSWER THOSE.
BUT I THINK THE, THE MAIN CRUX OF WHY WE'RE HERE IS I THINK, UM, THERE WERE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY, UH, CODE OFFICER PRESLEY THAT IF, UM, THE, UH, PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, UM, IT WOULD IN FACT THE PENALTIES WOULD BE WAIVED.
AND SO, UM, IN FACT, I THINK WE DID SUBMIT THAT AS WELL.
WE HAVE A TEXT MESSAGE THREAD, AND I'M HAPPY TO SORT OF, UH, SEND THIS TO YOU AS WELL IF YOU'D LIKE.
UM, SO SHE CAN VERIFY THE TEXT MESSAGE.
UM, BUT, UH, IT, IT SEEMS TO BE THAT SHE, UH, BUT OFFICER PRESLEY WAS SAYING THAT IF THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY OUR CLIENT, THE DEVELOPER, THEN IT WOULD IN FACT BE, UH, WAIVED.
UM, AND THE CODE VIOLATIONS AND, AND THE CODE VIOLATIONS WOULD BE OVER FIXED.
SO MADAM CHAIR, WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME FOR YOUR PART OF THE HEARING, JUST SO YOU KNOW.
SO IF YOU WANTED, IF THERE'S SOMETHING CRUCIAL THAT MR. ROSENTHAL NEEDS TO TALK ABOUT AND THE ORDER NEEDS TO TALK ABOUT, JUST LET US KNOW.
BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER STILLED, GO AHEAD.
I JUST, UM, I HAVE QUESTION, I GOT A QUESTION OR TWO FOR, UH, CODE INVESTIGATOR PRESLEY, UM, INVESTIGATOR.
IF I UNDERSTAND MR. EAMS SUMMARY OF HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION, IT'S THAT THERE WAS THIS BODY OF VIOLATIONS THAT WERE OBSERVED, THE 10 VIOLATIONS, BUT ONLY TWO WERE NOTED THAT, THAT WERE NOTED, ONLY TWO BECAME A SUBJECT OF THE ORDER.
SO THAT DESPITE REMEDYING ALL OF THEM, THEY REALLY ONLY GOT CREDIT FOR THE TWO FOR PURPOSES
[03:00:01]
OF THE OFFSET SO THAT THE SORT OF SPIRIT OF THE OFFSET PROVISION WAS NOT HONORED BY THE ORDER AND SUBSEQUENT REMEDIES.DO YOU SHARE THAT VIEW OF THE SITUATION? SO I GET THIS PHONE CALL A LOT FROM PEOPLE WANTING TO BUY THESE PROPERTIES, AND WHAT IT IS, IS IF IT'S AN ACTUAL, IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL, IT'S JUST RESIDENTIAL, THEY CAN BE OFFSET, BUT ONLY BY HOW MUCH YOU SPEND ON THE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE ON THE BSC ORDER.
SO THERE WERE A LOT MORE VIOLATIONS THAN WHAT WE JUST HAD ON THE BSC ORDER, WHICH IS WHY IT TOOK SO MUCH TO FIX THE PROPERTY.
INVESTIGATOR ONE, ONE MORE THING, IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THIS, FEEL FREE TO DECLINE BECAUSE I, I DON'T WANNA PUT YOU IN A POSITION OF, I'M NOT TRYING TO DIVIDE STAFF IN TERMS OF THE CITY'S POSITION, BUT, BUT IF YOU CAN ANSWER IT, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, THE CURRENT, UH, PENALTY, UH, SHOULD BE REDUCED? UM, WHAT I CAN SAY WITH WHAT I CAN SAY IS THE, THE MONEY THAT THEY SPENT ON ALL THE LIENS FROM THE CLEANUPS AND THE FENCING AND ALL THAT WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT ALREADY THAT THEY'VE SPENT ON THIS PROPERTY.
SO I DO HAVE, UM, SOMETHING TO GO OVER WITH YOU SINCE COUNSEL SAID THAT WE COULD LOOK AT ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUBMIT ANYTHING ELSE INTO EVIDENCE FOR US? WE COULD JUST PASS IT AROUND? SURE.
I HAVE A COPY OF THE EMAIL AND, UH, I, I THINK THE TEXT MESSAGES IN THERE WELL, BUT I'M HAPPY TO SUBMIT COPIES OF THOSE AS WELL.
AND DO YOU, ONE CLARIFICATION, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A TEXT MESSAGE FROM MS. PRESLEY THAT WAS SENT TO ME.
THAT'S WHY I WAS, I WAS HERE TO TALK ABOUT THAT PRIOR TO US BUYING THE PROPERTY.
SHE SENT IT TO ME ON DECEMBER 7TH.
WE BOUGHT IT ON DECEMBER 12TH.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN THE RECORD, BUT WE CAN SUBMIT IT.
YOU HAVE IT ON? UH, YES, MA'AM.
CAN YOU PASS THAT ALONG? SURE.
I BELIEVE THE TEXT MESSAGE THEY'RE REFERRING TO IS ON PAGE 12 OF THE 24 PAGE PDF, UH, THE HEADING KENSINGTON RELIED ON AN AUSTIN CODE OFFICER.
AND THEN IT'S THE ITALICIZED PARAGRAPH.
BUT THAT I, I ACTUALLY HAVE THE ACTUAL TEXT MESSAGE.
I WAS, IT, IT WAS SENT TO MY PHONE, NOT TO, UH, THE PRINCIPAL OF THE, OF THE COMPANY'S PHONE.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR IT AND I FOUND IT.
COMMISSIONER IS STILL, I'M LOOKING AT THE ONES YOU ALREADY SUBMITTED, BUT YEAH, YOU CAN PASS AROUND THE WHATEVER THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT, THAT WOULD INFORM ANYTHING.
SORRY, WE HAVE A, I HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO, UH, MAKE THIS AVAILABLE TO COMMISSIONER SIG.
WELL, BUT, UM, LET ME, LET ME WORK ON THAT, BUT I'LL PASS THESE AROUND.
JUST HOLD IT UP AND I CAN READ IT.
MR. ROSENTHAL, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR TESTIMONY THEN? OH, I, I WAS JUST GONNA READ THE TEXT INTO THE RECORD.
UH, AND I MEAN, I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS GONNA BE ADMITTED OR NOT, BUT IF IT'LL BENEFIT, CHAIRMAN, IF YOU CAN DO IT IN A MINUTE.
WE'RE WAITING ON MR. ROSENTHAL, I THINK.
OH, YOU, YOU WANT ME TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT? OKAY.
TH THIS IS, UH, A TEXT FROM, UH, CODE OFFICER PRESLEY TO ME DECEMBER 2ND, 2022, FOLLOWING UP ON A CONVERSATION, UH, IN WHICH I INQUIRED ABOUT P PENALTY WAIVERS, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT FACTORED INTO MY CLIENT'S DECISION ON WHETHER TO BUY THIS PROPERTY OR NOT.
UH, AND SHE SAID IT'S IN OUR BYLAW AS AN SAPI CAN SEND YOU THAT LANGUAGE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU A HUNDRED PERCENT THAT WE DO RELEASE ALL FINES ON THESE EXACT SCENARIOS.
I JUST RECENTLY HAD THE SAME SITUATION WITH A DIFFERENT PROPERTY.
I COULD ALWAYS CALL HIM AND SEE IF HE WOULDN'T MIND TALKING TO YOU, TALKING TO THE NEW OWNER ABOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS.
I KNOW IT SOUNDS CRAZY LIKE IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN, BUT IT ACTUALLY DOES.
WE ACTUALLY CLOSED OUT SEVERAL BSC CASES THAT WERE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN FINES, AND WE COMPLETELY WIPED THEM CLEAN.
JUST THIS PAST YEAR, THE ONLY PROPERTIES THAT KEEP ANY KIND OF FINES ARE ORIGINAL OWNERS AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
AND, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS PASSED ON TO MY CLIENT, AND THAT FACTORED INTO HIS DECISION TO BUY IT.
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IT HAS KIND OF A CHILLING EFFECT ON PEOPLE COMING IN AND DOING THE RIGHT THING AND REHABBING THESE PROPERTIES IF THEY'RE BEING TOLD THE STUFF BY CODE OFFICERS.
AND THEN AFTER THE FACT, WHEN, WHEN WE REMEDY EVERYTHING, I WAS EMAILING WITH MR. UH, CANALES AT THE, AT CODE COMPLIANCE, AND HE COMES BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO 17 GRAND TO REDUCE IT.
AND THE CLIENT WAS LIKE, I'M NEVER DOING ONE OF THESE AGAIN.
IF THERE, IF I'M NOT GONNA GET PENALTIES WAIVED, THERE'S NO INCENTIVE TO DO IT.
SO THIS PLACE WOULD STILL JUST BE SITTING THERE IN THE STATE IT WAS IN BEFORE
[03:05:01]
WE BOUGHT IT.UM, I'LL GIVE COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL AND THEN I'LL GIVE MS. PRESLEY A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN THAT.
OH, I, I WAS GOING TO MOVE TO, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION PORTION, JUST SO THAT WAY WE COULD HAVE, UH, JUST A MORE OF A DISCUSSION BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS.
I'LL SECOND, UM, BEFORE WE DO THAT, LET ME MAKE SURE, DID WE GET THE EXHIBITS TO COMMISSIONER SIG? OKAY.
FOR THE, FOR THE RECORD, YOU'RE ADMITTING THIS ONE, THE EMAIL, I WOULD ADMIT IT.
UH, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE ARE ADMITTING AN ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT FROM THE OWNERS.
UM, AND THAT'S AN EMAIL FROM STAFF TO COUNSEL TO MR. RUTO.
AND I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE.
AM I MISSING SOMETHING ELSE? THE TEXT MESSAGE.
UM, WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? FRANCIS COMMISSIONER
IS ANYBODY OPPOSED TO CLOSING THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING THEN? NO.
UM, SO COMMISSIONERS, ANY THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, UM, ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL? UH, PERSONALLY, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT IT'S OUR BUSINESS TO TALK ABOUT ANY RELIANCE INTEREST.
WE'RE NOT ANY KIND OF COURT OF LAW.
I AM PERSONALLY IN, IN FAVOR OF, UM, JUST WIPING THIS.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE OWNERS, THE, THE CURRENT OWNERS HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.
UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY REVITALIZED THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY EXTREMELY DILAPIDATED, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THEY BEAR ANY OF THE BURDEN OR ANY OF THE BLAME OF THE ORIGINAL CODE VIOLATIONS.
SO I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE PEOPLE'S COMMENTS, BUT PERSONALLY I THINK THAT A MOTION TO COMPLETELY NEGATE THE CIVIL PENALTIES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
UM, SO THERE'S A SCENARIO THAT OCCURS NOT INFREQUENTLY HERE IN MY EXPERIENCE, UH, IN WHICH, UH, SOMEONE WILL BUY A PROPERTY, UH, SUBJECT TO, UH, EXISTING PENALTIES AND FIX IT UP, AND THEN TURN AROUND AND SAY, LOOK, I FIXED IT UP, THEREFORE I SHOULD HAVE ALL THESE PENALTIES WAIVED.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A CERTAIN SORT OF INTUITIVE APPEAL TO THAT APPROACH, BUT I, I, I THINK THAT ON A MOMENT'S REFLECTION, I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, LIKE A WHARTON SCHOOL GRAD OR ANYTHING, BUT I'M, THERE'S THIS THING CALLED THE EFFICIENT CAPITAL MARKETS HYPOTHESIS, RIGHT? THE IDEA THAT UNDER, YOU KNOW, EQUAL INFORMATION CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, THAT SORT OF, THAT SORT OF, THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PENALTIES PENDING AGAINST THIS PROPERTY ARE GOING TO BE REFLECTED IN THE, IN THE PURCHASE PRICE, RIGHT? SO IT'S GONNA BE SORT OF BAKED IN TO THE VALUE OF THE ASSET, UH, SUCH THAT IF SOMEBODY COMES ALONG, BUYS THE PROPERTY AT THIS DISCOUNT FROM WHAT IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, PRESUMABLY SELL FOR, ABSENT THE, THE PENALTIES, AND THEN FIXES IT UP AND GETS THE PENALTIES WAIVED BECAUSE THEY FIXED IT UP, THEN, THEN THEY'RE SORT OF GETTING, THEY'RE GETTING THE BENEFIT TWICE, RIGHT? IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SORT OF A WINDFALL.
AND, AND SO, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST I HAVE BEEN HESITANT TO, UM, TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF, UH, SIGNIFICANT, UH, REDUCTIONS, UH, UNDER THOSE, UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE, UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF ERODE CONFIDENCE IN THE PENALTY, THEN EVENTUALLY IT, IT, IT'S GONNA, IT'S GONNA SHRINK THAT, THAT DELTA, RIGHT? AND, AND IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA, IT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE TEETH OUT OF OUR ORDERS.
UH, I WILL SAY, HOWEVER, THAT THIS STRIKES ME AS, AS MAYBE A SPECIAL CASE OR MAYBE AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE, UH, FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
I THINK THAT, UM, THE FACT THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON THE PROPERTY WAS UNREPRESENTED HERE, I WAS ACTUALLY, I THINK I AND SHADAY WERE THE ONLY TWO ACTUALLY ON THE COMMISSION
I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS UNREPRESENTED ENTIRELY.
AND SO, LET'S FACE IT, WHEN THEY'RE UNREPRESENTED, THEY DON'T GET A CLOSE LOOK.
UH, IT IS, UH, SORT OF ANOMALOUS THAT THERE WERE THESE 10 THINGS AND, AND WE ONLY, YOU KNOW, FORMALLY, UH, ORDERED ON TWO OF THEM.
UM, THEY EXHIBITED EXTREME DILIGENCE WHEN THEY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY AND, AND, AND TURNED IT AROUND TO THE POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, CODE INVESTIGATOR PRESLEY CERTAINLY SEEMS IMPRESSED, FAVORABLY IMPRESSED BY THE WORK THEY DID.
AND, AND SO I THINK THAT THIS IS A, A RELATIVELY RARE CASE WHERE NOTWITHSTANDING, I THINK THE RISK THAT WE'RE GOING TO WEAKEN OUR FUTURE ORDERS, IF WE GET IN THE HABIT OF, OF JUST, YOU KNOW, WAIVING PRIOR PENALTIES THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED
[03:10:01]
FOR EVERY NEW, EVERY NEW BUYER.I, I, I, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO GIVE FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION TO SUCH A MOTION IN THIS CASE.
UM, I'M, UM, I'M KIND OF TORN TO MYSELF AND, UM, I SUPPOSE I DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS 'CAUSE I'M NOT CLEAR ON THIS.
UM, SO CAN YOU TRY TO CLARIFY FOR US AGAIN WHY THERE WERE ONLY TWO, UH, VIOLATIONS THAT THEY RECEIVED AN OFFSET FOR INSTEAD OF ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS INSIDE THAT ORDER? UM, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT THE REPAIRS HAVE TO BE DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE VIOLATIONS.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO TELL US, JUST LET ME KNOW.
BUT HOW WAS IT DECIDED THAT ONLY TWO VIOLATIONS WILL BE COVERED UNDER THE OFFSET? I SUPPOSE I DON'T DEAL WITH THE OFFSET, SO I'M GONNA SEND THIS TO JAMES LES.
SO OUR OFFSET AGAIN, AGAIN, WAS JUST BASED ON WHAT WAS IN THE ORDER.
WE ONLY PUT TWO VIOLATIONS IN THE ORDER BECAUSE ALTHOUGH CITED FOR SEVERAL ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO VERIFY THE VIOLATIONS BEFORE.
UH, IT, IT ACTUALLY WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION, UH, BECAUSE OF THE 'CAUSE IT WAS BOARDED.
UH, AND AGAIN, WE HAD INTENTIONS OF PERHAPS BRINGING IT BACK AT SOME POINT TO ADDRESS THE ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS THAT WE JUST DIDN'T GET TO AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST HEARING.
THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT.
UM, CONVO AND COUNSEL HAS A, I'M SORRY, VERY QUICKLY.
WE ARE ABOUT EIGHT MINUTES AWAY FROM 10 O'CLOCK, AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF WE NEED TO EXTEND SOME TIME, WE AT LEAST DO SO BEFORE WE, WE HIT OUR, OUR LIMIT.
I THINK, UM, WE MIGHT WANNA DO THAT, MAYBE EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER SEK? I'M SORRY.
COMMISSIONER SEK, WOULD YOU BE OKAY? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXTENDED BY 10 MINUTES, BUT I WAS PREPARED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT HAND.
I'LL SECOND BUT GO, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING BY, BY 10 MINUTES.
SO, UM, IS ANYBODY IN, DOES ANYBODY OBJECT TO EXTENDING FOR 10 MINUTES PAST NINE? NO.
PAST 10 MEETING COMMISSION PAST 10.
SO I THINK AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, WHENEVER AN AN OWNER TAKES AN ONEROUS AMOUNT, THE TIME AND IN A CLEAR SORT OF VIOLATION OF THE PROCESS AND THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO RESULT IN WHAT WE ULTIMATELY WANT, WHICH IS LIKE A HEALTHY AND AND SAFE CITY, I USUALLY WANNA PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE PRESSURE ON THE ORDER.
BUT IN, IN THIS CASE, I THINK I AM VERY HAPPY TO SET THE PRECEDENT THAT, AND IF IN, IF IN THE COURSE OF FOUR MONTHS YOU BUY A PROPERTY, FIX IT ALL, TAKE IT OFF THE MARKET, I DO THINK THIS STILL COUNTS AS DOUBLE DIPPING, BUT IT IS ULTIMATELY DOUBLE DIPPING THAT I'M FINE WITH AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE, UH, ABSOLUTE, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY A, A PANDEMIC FESTERING HUBS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY.
UM, SO I GUESS IN THAT REGARD, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, UH, TO ADOPT TASK FINDING REPOSING A FACT, INCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND, UH, TO, UH, UH, ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER EXCEPT TO REDUCE THE CIVIL PENALTY TO $0 AND 0 CENTS.
I'LL SECOND WHO SECONDED? OH GOSH, CAMPBELL.
DOES ANYBODY WANNA COMMENT OR ANYTHING BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE? OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER SELLI COMMENT.
WELL, BASED ON THE, UM, INSIGHT THAT WE GATHERED FROM MR. MOORE, UM, FROM THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY, THAT THERE WAS STAFF TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CITY, DOLLARS WERE SPENT ON THIS OVER TIME, AND WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A 90% REDUCTION WAS AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT.
AND SO BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS FROM THAT PREVIOUS PROPERTY, I THINK THAT WE SET A PRECEDENT TONIGHT THAT PERHAPS WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS ASSESS THIS ONE BY 90% AS WELL, AND THAT THE FEE SHOULD BE BROUGHT DOWN TO 11,885.
[03:15:04]
OKAY.COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, WERE YOU COMMENTING OR, UH, YES, I, I, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT, UM, AND SPECIFICALLY WHY I, I I AM SUPPORTING 0% HERE, WHEREAS IN THE PREVIOUS ONE I SUPPORTED, UH, ONLY A PARTIAL, UH, REDUCTION IS THAT, UM, THE OWNERSHIP CHANGE, UH, WAS REALLY THE THING THAT TRIGGERED THE VIOLATIONS BEING COMPLETELY RESOLVED HERE.
AND IN ADDITION TO COMMISSIONER SO'S POINT THAT, UM, THIS DOES SEEM TO BE A PRETTY EXCEPTIONAL CASE WHERE LIKE THERE PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN A SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER OFFSET HAD THE ORDER BEEN PHRASED DIFFERENTLY.
UM, CERTAINLY IT JUST SEEMS LIKE DIFFERENT ENOUGH SITUATION TO WHERE WE, UH, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE NECESSARILY BOUND BY ANY PRECEDENT OR NEED TO HOLD OURSELVES TO, UM, NECESSARILY IMPOSING THE SAME, UH, NUMBER IN TERMS OF ORDER.
SO I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT AS CLARIFICATION FOR WHY I INITIALLY SAID ZERO.
UM, COMMISSIONER SLUGO, AND I THINK TO, UH, COMMISSIONER SAL'S POINT, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DETERMINE WHAT INCENTIVES WE'RE MAKING.
I WOULD'VE BEEN PERFECTLY HAPPY LAST OWNER TO PUT THE FULL FINE AMOUNT BECAUSE THEIRS WAS A COMMITMENT COMMITTED AND CONTINUAL FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE PROCESSES AND THE RULES IN ANY CAPACITY FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.
I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T TREAT PEOPLE WHO, WE TREAT PEOPLE WHO DO EVERYTHING CORRECTLY QUICKLY.
WE SHOULD NOT TREAT THEM THE SAME WAY, THE WAY WE TREAT PEOPLE WHO DO THINGS EXTREMELY SLOWLY AND INCORRECTLY.
SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DIFFERENTIATE, WE INCENTIVIZE THE KIND OF BEHAVIOR THAT WE WANT TO SEE.
AND IF WE TREAT AN OWNER THAT TOOK THREE YEARS TO EVEN, YOU KNOW, REALLY CHECK THE WORK BY THE CITY THE SAME WAY WE TOOK SOMEONE WHO DID IT ALL ROUGHLY CORRECTLY IN THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD, WE ARE GOING TO NOT, WE'RE NOT GONNA GET PROPERTIES THAT COME INTO ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WE WANT.
UM, SO THAT IS I THINK THE COMMENT THAT WE'LL, THAT WE WILL MAKE THAT I WOULD WANT TO MAKE THERE.
UM, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, MR. MOORE, DID WE DO ANY ANALYSIS ON THIS ONE? EITHER? YES.
UH, NO, WE TYPICALLY DON'T DO THE ANALYSIS.
THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF GAVE A RANGE IN THE, UH, RETREAT JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A BROAD SPECTRUM.
I WILL SAY THIS IS ON THE HIGH END OF THE SPECTRUM JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SO LONG IN VIOLATION AND ALL THE CLEANUPS WE'VE BEEN OUT THERE FOR AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
UM, I'M IN AGREEANCE WITH YOU ALL THOUGH.
I LIKE TO, UM, INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO COME IN AND CLEAN THINGS UP.
I MEAN, I WOULD'VE LEVERAGED IT FOR SURE IF, IF WHEN I WAS BUYING IT, UM,
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M ALWAYS GOING TO SPEAK FOR THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN AND THEIR TAX PAYING DOLLARS AND THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO LOOK TO RECOUP IN THESE TYPES OF THINGS.
BUT AGAIN, Y'ALL ARE HAVING A GOOD CONVERSATION, SO I APPRECIATE IT.
I, I THINK WE DO NEED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION BY THE WAY.
UM, YEAH, WE OF COURSE DO NEED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION.
UM, I'M, I'M JUST ENTERTAINING COMMENTS JUST IN CASE.
YEAH, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP DISCUSSING IT, I CAN WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION AT ALL.
UM, IF YOU WANT US TO VOTE RIGHT NOW, WE CAN, OR WE CAN TELL YOU HOW WE ARE LEANING AS WELL.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT THE COURT COUNSEL USUALLY PUSHES US TO VOTE IMMEDIATELY.
LET'S VOTE IF, WELL, BEFORE YOU VOTE, IF YOU COULD AT LEAST REITERATE THE MOTION.
'CAUSE I KNOW IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE, WE'VE AT LEAST GONE THROUGH IT.
I'LL, THE QUESTIONS, CAN WE HAVE OPEN DISCUSSION WHILE A MOTION IS IN THE AIR? UH, YOU CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ITSELF.
YEAH, NO, THAT, THAT'S PERMITTED.
IT'S JUST WHEN WE COME TIME TO VOTE, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE YOU ANNOUNCED IT.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE JUST RE REITERATE IT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I, I WAS JUST NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE RULES.
UM, COMMISSIONER FRANCISCO AHEAD.
AND, AND THE, THE LARGER AMOUNTS GET ATTENTION, WHICH IS WHAT HAS ESSENTIALLY HAPPENED THERE.
THE ATTENTION HAS GOTTEN GOTTEN INTO COMPLIANCE.
I'M ALL ABOUT BRINGING MORE HOUSING ON THE MARKET, BUT THE TAXPAYERS SHOULDN'T BE KEEPING, KEEP CONTINUING TO TAKE A HIT FOR THIS.
SO MY FRIENDLY MOTION AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO ADOPT MR. EK'S, UH, 90% REDUCTION ON THE, ON THE BASIS AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
I WOULD SAY ON THE BASIS THAT WE GIVE A 90% TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER WHO WAS
[03:20:01]
NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO US, UM, QUALITY AS THE CURRENT ONE.I REJECT THE AMENDMENT, I'M SORRY, AS QUALITY.
WELL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE AND THEN WE'LL, YEAH, WE, WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A, A VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED.
SO THE MOTION AS AN THERE WAS NO AMENDED AMENDMENT.
SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER OLUGO IS THAT THE PENALTIES BE ZEROED OUT.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION, SO I'M GOING TO CALL THE VOTE AND THEN WE CAN SEE WHERE WE ARE.
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS NAY AND AM A NO COMMISSIONER,
UM, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL IN THE SPIRIT OF COMMISSIONER FRANCIS'S, UH, ATTEMPTED AMENDMENT, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION TO ADOPT THE POST FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER A CIVIL PENALTY REDUCTION OF 95%, WHICH WOULD LEAVE IT AT ONLY $5,942 AND 63 CENTS WITH THAT CIVIL PENALTY TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT ONE? I'LL SECOND COMMISSIONER.
OKAY, SO I'LL GO AROUND AGAIN AND VOTE.
COMMISSIONER O, COULD I PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT? OF COURSE.
UH, I PROPOSE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT REJECTED TO PUT IT AT 98%.
I'LL ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
I I WILL SECOND THE, THE MOTION AS AMENDED.
COMMISSIONER
SO THAT ONE DID NOT PASS EITHER.
UM, AND I'LL JUST EXPLAIN HOW I'M LEANING AND THEN EVERYBODY ELSE CAN SEE IF WE CAN HAVE A COMPROMISE OR MAYBE WE HAVE TO MOVE THIS TO ANOTHER MEETING.
BUT, UM, I, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER TOAD IN HIS, THE POINTS THAT HE MADE REGARDING HOW THESE TRANSACTIONS WORK AND THE FACT THAT THERE WAS FULL DISCLOSURE, MOST LIKELY ABOUT THE STATE OF THIS VAL VIOLATIONS AND THE FI THE PENALTIES AS AT THE TIME THAT THE NEW OWNERS, UM, OBTAINED THE PROPERTY.
SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, THAT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
UM, WE SHOULD PROBABLY, UM, AND IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT STAFF HAS PUT IN THE TIME, THE EFFORT TO FOLLOW THIS PROPERTY AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE, UM, YES, WE, WE CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE SOME PENALTIES STAY.
UM, SO THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH, RIGHT? SO WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT, AND THE OWNERS DID A FABULOUS JOB GETTING EVERYTHING INTO COMPLIANCE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, A NOMINAL AMOUNT OF 2% WILL PROBABLY NOT.
I, I MEAN, BASED ON THE RETREAT THAT WE HAD AND THE INFORMATION WE HAVE, THAT DOES NOT EVEN COVER THE COSTS TO BRING THIS CASE BEFORE US.
SO THAT'S WHAT I PROBABLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.
MADAM CHAIR, MAY THEY RECOGNIZE FOR A MOTION? YES.
I'M GONNA, I WANT TO, UH, BE THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRD, UH, SUCCESSIVE MOTION TO BE VOTED DOWN, BUT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND
UH, AS MUCH AS I RESPECT COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER SELIG'S THINKING IN GENERAL, I DID VOTE NO ON THE PREVIOUS CASE, RIGHT? UH, I UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE THAT LIKE CASES SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE TREATED ALIKE.
UH, AND I, AND I DO AGREE THAT, UM, WELL, I THOUGHT THAT THE REDUCTION IN THE PRIOR CASE WAS TOO GENEROUS.
I DO AGREE THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, UH, OWNERS AND THEIR CONDUCT IS, IS IT'S A STARK CONTRAST.
UM, NEVERTHELESS, WE ARE WHERE WE ARE, WE'RE ON THIS, THIS ITEM.
AND SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS MOVE, UH, BASED ON COMMISSIONER SELIG'S PRIOR SUGGESTION, WHICH I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS MOVED YET, WHICH IS A 90%, I THINK WE'VE DONE A ZERO AND THEN A 95 AND
[03:25:01]
THE 98.AND, UM, SO I I I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PHRASE IT WITH THIS ONE, UH, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE, UM, IT'S NOT THE ORDER.
UM, YEAH, I GUESS I WANT TO ADOPT, I WANNA ADOPT THE ORDER, BUT REDUCE THE PENALTY.
DOES ANYBODY STILL HAVE THE NUMBER? I, I'M SORRY.
SO I WANNA ADOPT STAFF'S FINDING OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND, UH, EXCEPT TO REDUCE THE, UH, FINE TO THE PENALTY RATHER TO 11,008, $11,885 AND 27 CENTS, $11,885 AND 27 CENTS.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SLUGO.
ALRIGHT, SO WE WILL GO AROUND AND DO A VOTE 'CAUSE WE ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT UNLESS WE WANNA EXTEND AGAIN.
AND, UM, YEAH, SORRY THAT IT TOOK A LONG TIME.
YOU'LL BE GETTING THE ORDER AND HOPEFULLY THAT AT LEAST HELPS.
IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE STILL HAVE THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE EXTEND THE TIME ONCE MORE OKAY.
AS WE ARE THREE MINUTES AWAY FROM 10 10.
COMMISSIONER SIG, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO, UH, STAY FOR A FEW MORE MINUTES? SURE.
SO ANYBODY WANT TO MOVE TO EXTEND? GOODNESS, I'LL MOVE TO EXTEND FOR FIVE MINUTES.
SO WE'LL MOVE TO EXTEND TILL 10 15.
DOES ANYBODY OBJECT TO THE EXTENSION? NO.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE FUTURE AGENDA
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ITEMS. I'M TRYING TO FIND MY PLACE HERE.YOU HAVE TO DECIDE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT UP AT A FUTURE MEETING AND WHEN, WHICH WAS THE PENALTY RELIEF CASE THAT SOMEONE PRESENTED AT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? WE HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION NOW.
IF YOU WANNA HEAR IT AND WHEN, YES.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, YOU REMEMBER THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS ON THE PHONE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING? MM-HMM,
SO WE WOULD, HE WANTED A, AN APPEAL HEARING.
HE WANTS TO HAVE PENALTY RELIEF.
HE WANTS IT BE BROUGHT BACK FOR PENALTY RELIEF PENALTY.
HE HAS THREE CASES THAT ALL HAD PENALTIES.
COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, UH, I JUST WANTED TO ASK MELANIE, IS UM, THERE SPACE IN THE FEBRUARY MEETING TO HEAR THAT CASE? WE WOULD MAKE ROOM FOR IT IF THAT'S, UH, WHAT DO WE HAVE RIGHT NOW? SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE END OF FEBRUARY OR SPECIAL CALL? FEBRUARY.
UM, LET ME JUST ASK IT THIS WAY.
WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST CONVENIENT TIME FOR STAFF? WE DON'T HAVE THE FEBRUARY 26TH MEETING SET YET.
THE CASES, WE DO HAVE CASES SCHEDULED FOR THE FEBRUARY 12TH MEETING IN THAT CASE, JUST FOR JOEL'S CONVENIENCE AND ALSO JUST, YOU KNOW, GET IT REASONABLY PROMPTLY DONE.
UM, CAN I ASK THAT WE HAVE THAT DONE FOR, HAVE THAT SCHEDULED FOR THE FEBRUARY 28TH MEETING? I HAVE SIX.
DO I NEED TO MAKE A FORMAL MOTION FOR THAT? NO.
I THINK, UH, IS ANYBODY 28TH? 28TH? FEBRUARY 28TH? YES.
DOES ANYBODY OBJECT TO THAT? OKAY.
AT THE FEBRUARY 28TH MEETING? YES.
AND THEN YOU, ARE YOU INTERESTED IN, IN HOLDING AN ELECTION FOR VICE CHAIR AT THIS TIME? YOU COULD EITHER SCHEDULE IT.
WE HAVE THREE MEETINGS BEFORE APRIL, WHICH, WHICH IS THE TIME.
AND WE'LL HAVE OUR ANNUAL ELECTIONS.
SO YOU COULD ELECT SOMEONE NOW OR YOU CAN WAIT, UM, IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO AHEAD AND ELECT SOMEONE NOW, THEN THERE WOULD BE A NEW ELECTION IN APRIL.
I SAY LET'S DO THAT IN MARCH, FEBRUARY 26TH AT THE MAIN MEETING.
[03:30:01]
THAT NOW.UH, NO, WE DON'T, WE CAN'T DO IT RIGHT NOW.
WE'LL, LIKE TO ELECT SOMEBODY FEBRUARY 26TH.
I, AND UM, AND THEN WE HAVE ONE SUSPENSE ITEM THAT WAS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD TONIGHT.
THAT'S BEING MOVED TO THE, THE, IT WAS AN APPEAL, BUT IT'S BEEN MOVED TO THE FEBRUARY 28TH MEETING.
SO, UH, THAT WILL BE ON THAT AGENDA.
AND JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, UM, WE HAVE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING TO ADDRESS BACKLOG OF CASES, WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH AT 6:30 PM IT'LL BE HERE AT 6:30 PM ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH.
AND THEN WE HAVE A REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28TH.
WE'LL PUT THAT IN THE CABINET.
ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
AND CAN YOU CALL THE TIME, UM, THE TIME? YES.