Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2005 NA MINUTES NUISANCE ABATEMENT HEARING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDA Y,SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 ****************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER The regular Nuisance Abatement Hearing was called to order by Building and Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman, at 5:00 p.m. ROLLCALL PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: WATTS ABSENT: FAGAN Also present were: Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman, Senior Planner Matt Harris in as a replacement, Office Specialist Staley and Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Loraine Watts. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. The following Minutes are Pending: A. Nuisance Abatement Meeting - August 16,2005. MOVED BY WATTS, SECONDED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER CHIPMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO MAINTAIN STATUS OF AUGUST 16, 2005 MINUTES AS PENDING. PAGE 2 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 17401 Baker Street Board Member Watts asked Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon to glVe an overview of the property. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that the property involves a single family house on Baker Street. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that the location is a rather rural road across from the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon stated that the owner of the property made arrangement to rent out a portion of the property that was not inside the fence line of his tenant to an individual who was raising nursery plants. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that the individual was also occupying a travel trailer on the property so that he could tend to his plants. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that while it was not open to the public, it was not an allowable use on that property, nor were there any type of licensing or any other types of regulations applied to that use. The owner was notified that the Nursery operation had to vacate his property. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon stated that an inspection was conducted and the plants were gone as well the travel trailer. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon recommended that the property be dismissed at this time. MOVED BY CHIPMAN, SECONDED BY HARRIS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO DISMISS THE CASE AT 17401 BAKER STREET. 2. 606 Minthom Street Board Member Watts asked Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon to give an overview of the property. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that this was a single family property in a very rural area. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that this was not the first time Code Enforcement has had to take action on this property. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon stated that this property was operating a car repair business that has continued to grow in size. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that the owner is also using part of the property to advertise commercial vehicles and other types of construction equipment for sale. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that the property owner was notified that all commercial operation was to be removed from the property and that the property was to be returned back to the residential property that it is currently zoned for. PAGE 3 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon stated that after an inspection was conducted, it appeared that no changes have occurred. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon recommended that the property be declared a nuisance at this time. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that he had conducted an inspection of the property and agreed that the property should be declared a nuisance Senior Planner Harris stated that he had also conducted a field inspection of the property and stated that the pictures don't do the property justice, that the property is much worse than the pictures indicate. Senior Planner Harris also indicated that the property be declared a nuisance. MOVED BY WATTS, SECONDED BY CHIPMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO DECLARE THE PROPERTY AT 606 MINTHORN STREET A NUISANCE. 3. 1411 W. Pottery Street Board Member Watts asked Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon to glVe an overview of the property. Senior Code Enforcement Gordon indicated that this was a case that involved the installation of a manufactured home on a vacant lot near Chaney and Pottery Streets. Officer Gordon indicated that Engineering and Planning releases were sent on July 8, 2005, however there has not been complete approval for the actual construction and installation of the manufactured home. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that a Notice of Violation was issued to the property owner to remove the manufactured home from the property pending final approval for the home. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that the attorney for the property owner was present. Attorney Robert Rosenstein introduced himself as representing the property owner at 1411 W. Pottery Street. Attorney Rosenstein requested a thirty day extension on the case. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that they were attempting to work with the City to resolve the issue. Attorney Rosenstein stated that his partner would arrive with documents that show proof that the septic tank had been approved and all other items that were discussed while at the city recently. Attorney Rosenstein stated that they were just waiting for fmal approval. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that the home had not been actually installed, that it is just sitting on the property without any construction. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that it was a misunderstanding on whether it could be stored or not on the property. Attorney Rosenstein stated that he and his client apologize for the misunderstanding. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that they are putting four different units on four different properties that are all identical and all four properties are going through PAGE 4 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 the process. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that if the City was not willing to grant a 30 day extension, that his partner would be there soon with the documents to support their statement. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that he would certainly like to see any documentation that would indicate that 30 days would be enough time for him to gain the required approval and permits to install the home on the property. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that at this stage, the work that has taken place has been without permits and without City approval. City records indicate that there has not been any approval from the Planning Commission, that this has not even gone through Planning Commission and been approved at this point. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated that if they could show that documentation, then he would be willing to look at that. Attorney Rosenstein stated that his partner was stuck in traffic and that he had the necessary documents with him. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that there were copies of checks and payments of some of the stuff that was questioned. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that when he came to the City a week ago and Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman was on vacation, unfortunately some of the documentation was missing and may have been combined because the four units are identical. Attorney Rosenstein gave an example, that when one of them was approved, that all four of them were all stapled together. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that Emile Jackson, the Building Technician at City Hall, was very helpful and looked for the documents. Emile could verify that some of the documents were at different places and not where they were supposed to be. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that he thought this was the problem with the documentation. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that the documentation was necessary at this time. The Board Members decided to go on with the next case while waiting for Attorney Rosenstein's partner to arrive with the documentation. 4. 29080 Gunder - Continued from August 16, 2005 Hearing Board Member Watts asked Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon to give an overview of the property. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that this was a single family property. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that the occupant, Edward Wouker was present to talk about the case. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated that the pictures taken recendy show much improvement from the previous pictures. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon indicated even though Edward has made great improvements on the property, that there is still a considerable amount of items on the property that need to be removed. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon named items such as: inoperable vehicle, furniture, steps, wood and other miscellaneous items. PAGE 5 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 The occupant, Edward, indicated that he has made progress and is aware that he still has more items to remove, but feels they are minor. Edward asked that the City give him another 30 day extension to complete the work. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that the City had already given him a 3D-day extension twice, and the work still had not been completed. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated that he was inclined to declare the property a nuisance. Senior Planner Harris stated that he had also conducted a field inspection of the property, and that he concurred with declaring the property a nuisance. MOVED BY WATTS, SECONDED BY CHIPMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO DECLARE THE PROPERTY AT 29080 GUNDER AVENUE A NUISANCE. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman directed the Hearing back to the last case at 1411 W. Pottery. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked Attorney Rosenstein ifhe had the documentation ready, since his partner had arrived. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that he was still sorting through the paperwork. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that what the Board Members were looking for at this point was documentation that would show that he was going to be able to get approval and obtain the proper permits necessary to install the home within the next 30 days. Attorney Rosenstein stated that on August 17, 2004, one of the questions he had while at the City on September 19, 2005 was whether or not the City was able to locate any grading plans that were submitted for the property. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that he had a letter from the City that indicated what had been submitted and that there had been some minor issues. But it does refer to the issue that there was a site plan that didn't match. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that was one of the problems they were having, locating the site plan and if one had been submitted at all. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that the document in hand indicated that a site plan had been submitted. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that some of the other problems they were having was locating permit fees and existing documentation regarding various permits having been paid. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that the documentation just given him was a Minor Design Review submittal and that the response to the submittal by the City was that the application was incomplete. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked if he had anything indicating that they had resubmitted. PAGE 6 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 Attorney Rosenstein indicated that his meeting and the search for certain documents with the City on the previous day showed that there was a site plan submitted. Attorney Rosenstein stated that it was referenced in the document given to the Board Members. Attorney Rosenstein also indicated that school fees, county fees, plan check and various permits had been paid. Attorney Rosenstein provided copies of the issuance of the grading permit. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that there was some confusion on fees due to the four properties having identical floor plans and being processed at the same time. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman verified with City Planner Harris that when plans go through a Minor Design Review and are approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant would receive some type of documentation that would show that the Planning Commission granted approval. City Planner Harris stated that the information was correct. City Planner Harris indicated that an approval letter with conditions of approval and an approved stamped site plan would be sent to the owner of the property. Attorney Rosenstein asked the Board Members again to grant a 30-day extension. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman expressed that the Board's concern at this time was that the City had conducted the necessary research on this case and the City cannot find any confirmation of approval through the Planning Commission. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated a field inspection of the site gave them great concern on whether or not the manufactured home would meet the required setbacks and dedications. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman expressed that unless they could show some type of documentation that they have those approvals then the 30 days would not be enough time to meet all the requirements needed. Attorney Rosenstein indicated that there were no hazardous conditions existing since there had not been any construction conducted. Attorney Rosenstein requested again to have the City give them more time to conduct their research so that they could meet the requirements. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that the City considered the property to be a risk due to the fact that the manufactured home is propped up on jacks with an open trench. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman expressed that the City cannot allow any more work done on the property without approval or permits. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman also stated that the City had concern whether or not the project would be approved based on the location on the property and the improvements that would have to be done. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman expressed that through the Planning & Building Departments research, there was no proof of approval. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated that the only document that the owner had provided was the documentation that states PAGE 7 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 that there was an incomplete submittal and there was no other documentation provided that shows the owner resubmitted or obtained any type of approval from Planning or the Planning Commission. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that what existed at this point was a violation of the owners moving a manufactured home on their property without any approval from the City. Board Member Watts expressed concern on the property. Board Member Watts indicated that the owner received the proper notices from the City and yet the owner did not respond immediately on the issues. Board Member Watts has driven past the property on several occasions and commented about the graffiti on the manufactured home and questioned where the garage would be. Board Member Watts recommended that unless something could be done in 10 days, she recommends the property be declared a nuisance. City Planner Matt Harris indicated that since there is no evidence that the City had approved this property, or that it will even meet the required setbacks, he recommended the property be declared a nuisance within 10 days. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon stated that if the Board Members decided to declare this property a nuisance, the property owner does have the option to appeal the decision to City Council which would stop any deadlines pending Council appearance. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman recommended that the property be declared a nuisance. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that the owner would have 10 days to show that they have had documentation of approval on this property. Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated that this did not mean that they could submit documents now to gain approval but that they already had approval. If that could not be done within 10 days, the owner has the right to appeal. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY WATTS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO DECLARE THE PROPERTY AT 1411 W. POTTERY STREET A NUISANCE. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS None. CODE ENFORCEMENT COMMENTS Senior Code Enforcement Officer Gordon expressed that she wanted to welcome Karen Staley back to work after a long convalescent after a white water rafting accident. NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD COMMENTS PAGE 8 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 None. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY CHAIRPERSON WATTS AND SECONDED BY CHIPMAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE NUSIANCE ABATEMENT MEETING AT 6:01 p.m. Jf~tc)~ Loraine Watts, Chairwoman Respectfully Submitted, ~aA0~ ~~ Karen Staley Office Specialist III A TIEST: t ~k~ Robin Chipman, Secretary to the Nuisance Abatement Board