Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-2009 NAMINUTES NUISANCE ABATEMENT HEARING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The regular Nuisance Abatement Hearing was called to order by Robin Chipman, Code Enforcement Manager at 4:30 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Robin Chipman. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARD MEMBER: FAGAN PRESENT: CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: CHIPMAN PRESENT: ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: WEINER Also present were: Code Enforcement Officer Fred Lopez, Code Enforcement Officer Shawn Slater and Office Specialist Joyce Teyler. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. The following Minutes were approved. Minutes for June 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARINGS Code Enforcement Manager Chipman opened the Public Hearing at 4:32 p.m. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 2 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 2. 3588 CHERRY BLOSSOM, APN 389-371-010, LAKE ELSINORE, CA Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked Code Enforcement Officer Lopez to address the case. Code Enforcement Officer Lopez indicated the property was brought to his attention through a routine inspection on March 12, 2009. He stated he observed the overgrown weeds and a swimming pool which contained green stagnant mosquito breeding water. He said a Notice of Violation was issued and subsequent re-inspections were conducted at which time there was no compliance on the part of the property owner and/or the tenants. He commented all notices were sent certified mail. He indicated he showed one notice being received on June 1, 2009 by Mark Martin whose name was on the tax rolls as being the individual who received mail on that particular property. He stated he was left messages by Mr. Martin stating that work was in the process of being done on the property. He commented he drove by the property that afternoon around 12:00 p.m. at which case he observed no changes in any of the conditions. He said the overgrown weeds were still present and the pool was in the same condition. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated he had received a call from Mr. Martin last week and he was going to contact Officer Lopez last Friday or over the weekend. Code Enforcement Officer Lopez stated he had left him a message. He commented he had called him back that morning to advise him he would be by the property that afternoon. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked Officer Lopez for his recommendation. Code Enforcement Officer Lopez stated he would recommend the property be declared a public nuisance to allow the City to go in and abate said nuisances by eliminating the overgrown weeds and draining the swimming pool of the green stagnant water. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked the Board if they had any comments. Board Member Fagan indicated he had looked at the property. He inquired as to what the very lightly framed structure was in the back. Code Enforcement Officer Lopez indicated the structure, which was not completed, appeared to be a trellis or gazebo. He stated he did not know if any permits had been pulled or not. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 3 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked if the structure was part of the initial Notice of Violation. Code Enforcement Officer Lopez indicated it was not. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated it was not in question even though he believed permits were not pulled on the structure. He commented that was a separate issue. He said he had not had a chance to go by the property that day but he had gone by on another day and if the property had not changed. He noted the property owner was not there. MOVED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER CHIPMAN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FAGAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO DECLARE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3588 CHERRY BLOSSOM, APN 389- 371-010, LAKE ELSINORE, CA, A PUBLIC NUISANCE. 3. 15096 TEAKWOOD STREET, APN 387-492-018, LAKE ELSINORE, CA Code Enforcement Manager Chipman addressed the case indicating there were two people present who wanted to speak on the case. Jeremy Schuster indicated he was an attorney from Los Angeles and a dog enthusiast. He stated he showed in obedience with his dogs so he was familiar with some of the difficulties that Mr. Hurd had been facing. He commented Mr. Hurd had contacted his office last week because he felt he had a problem. He explained when Mr. Hurd first approached his licensed contractor to do the project the contractor had come to the City and was told no permit was required due to the structure he was going to be putting together for his dogs was less than 600 square feet. He said that turned out not to be true or there was some miscommunication. He indicated he took occasion that day to meet with Joyce and Augustine at the Code Enforcement/Planning Commission office. He stated he could tell us that Mr. Hurd was not a scofflaw or someone who was looking to violate laws. He commented Mr. Hurd had a lot of difficulty between his contractor, himself and possibly the interpretation by the City as to what would be allowed or how the modifications should be made. He indicated he was an enthusiast like himself. He stated he himself had a male and a female Rottweiler and puppies one of which he would keep. He commented he lived in the City of Long Beach where they were allowed to have four dogs. He said he felt it was very easy for people who were not in the know to come along and see what he did or see him walk three dogs and think that it was some kind of commercial enterprise. He noted that this was where it might have gone a foul. He indicated he understood Mr. Hurd had a neighbor who was not thrilled with the dogs being Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 4 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 adjacent to his property much less on one unfortunate occasion where the dogs got out. He stated the purpose of the structure was to ensure safety for both neighbors, residents and the dogs so that type of thing did not happen. He commented that in an extensive conversation with Augustine that day he was kind enough to bring up maps on the monitor and they had talked about the different locations that were possible. He said Mr. Hurd had put a lot of money into a concrete slab and cinder block walls that would separate what was five kennels. He indicated that construction was completed by the time a notice was tacked to the door to cease construction. He stated the first thing he should address was Mr. Hurd had not violated any first notice because everything was completed by that time. He commented the secondary notice which came some ten or eleven days stated to remove illegal kennels. He noted to the Board that two had already been removed. He indicated Mr. Hurd removed the two at the foremost front of the property and it seemed what he had now could be modified to come a little farther from the property line and a little closer to the house and still be the five feet required from the side property line and ten feet required from the adjacent structure. He stated part of the trouble was Mr. Hurd was unclear from the City on exactly what he could do and he wanted to live within the bounds of logic. He commented Mr. Hurd had met with Mr. Chipman and he had stated he would have approved it but the issue was with Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated the Notice of Violation was not for the kennels. He stated it started as a complaint and he would have Officer Lopez correct him if he was wrong. He commented when it was realized what had been done with constructing the walls it needed approval from the Planning and Zoning, Divisions in order to issue any type of building permit for the construction of those walls. He said when it was reviewed under the Zoning Code it was considered a structure and thereby had to meet the setback requirements from the side property lines and the distance from the main structure of the house. Mr. Schuster noted with the original construction was the contractor incorrect in either what he was told or what was interpreted as not requiring a permit if under 600 feet. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated he was not privy with the contractor. He stated he did not believe he ever met the contractor. He commented unless he could have him there where they could actually ask him questions, they did not know what the contractor was told or by who. Mr. Schuster said he was available only by cell phone because he was on a site two hours away. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated the issue they were dealing with was more of a zoning issue and the fact that he could not have those particular Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 5 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 structures in that location. He stated the use of a kennel was up in the air as to whether or not we considered it a kennel or he considered it a kennel. He commented a kennel would not be allowed in a residential zoning like that and he would let Mr. Weiner speak regarding that since he was the expert. Mr. Schuster stated when he said kennel he did not mean a kennel like a commercial kennel. He commented he referred kennel to any place they put a dog for any length of time. He said his own dog for example; he would say he was in his crate or in his kennel. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman agreed. Mr. Schuster commented they were not talking about dog kennels for other people's dogs. He stated his brief look at the Municipal Code said you could have three of your own household pets so what they were talking about was Mr. Hurd was shown the limitation like if he was building a kennel the law allowed. He explained he had three dogs so he would build six so he could put three into the three clean ones while he was mucking out the other kennels. He noted this could have been Mr. Hurd's intent of putting up five. He indicated to further comply he knocked them down to three for the three household pets. He stated he just wanted to be clear the kennel was not like a venture just a space to put your own household pets. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated he would let Mr. Weiner speak regarding that issue. He commented all building permits that contain structures had to have been approved zoning wise before a permit could be issued building wise to construct them. Mr. Schuster agreed. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman noted in this particular case the walls were constructed without City approval and permits. He explained he had known there was a question as to what the contractor had said and if he was there they certainly would ask him questions about who supposedly had told him those things. He stated without that knowledge they were going on what they do know that it was constructed without permits and what they saw right now was it did not comply with zoning codes. Mr. Schuster explained he was there to tell them that Mr. Hurd was there and he could tell them the specifics of what happened and when and what the plan was. He stated he had enlisted his help to try to find a plan and that was why he met with Augustine that day and that was why he was there. He commented with any proceedings going forward he would assist Mr. Hurd in making sure there was no lack of communication or that they all had clear records going forward. He said it seemed by the drawing Mr. Hurd gave him that there was room to move from the Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 6 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 side property line to the five foot mark and make a five foot kennel rather than a seven foot kennel and still be more than ten feet from the residential dwelling. He indicated his rough read of the municipal code showed that would be okay and probably no permit would be required. He stated these were significant modifications. He commented Mr. Hurd had asked him a couple of days ago what to do because he did not want to be non-compliant but he also did not want to knock down a wall that had rebar, cement, all those things and just be guessing at what to do. He asked the Board to over-shadow with the understanding that the gentleman was there trying to find a solution and everyone seemed to be unclear because they started out with a misimpression of what he was doing or what the use was of the kennel. He stated with a continuance and a chance to sit down and meet. He said he would come back as necessary and as many times as necessary. He commented they could find a solution that would involve maybe removing the back wall but then becoming within the proper boundaries, five feet from the side, ten feet from the house. He indicated the biggest quandary right now would be how they would separate the animals because Mr. Hurd was told no chain link within the City of Lake Elsinore. He stated that was fine they needed to find some other barrier and if it was not true then they have an easy solution which would be chain link on some heavy mounted posts just separating the individual dogs. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman referred to Mr. Weiner for his opinion on the zoning and his interpretation. Acting Community Development Director Weiner indicated the zoning code was very clear about the number of dogs you could have on the property. He stated as far as the size of the structure typically 120 square feet or less was what they told people at the counter. He commented if there was something else told to his contractor then they would have to look into that. He said his two questions were, who did the contractor speak to and did they get any type of diagram or any consensual plans stamped and approved or did the contractor so he could do the work even without a permit. Mr. Schuster explained that Mr. Hurd could speak to this, the contractor had gone to the City offices, inquired and was told a permit was not required. He stated he received a copy of the municipal code regarding that area, brought it back to the property owner indicating it was less than 600 square feet and they could just go ahead and do it. He commented if that was a mistake or an error on his part so be it, but he urged them to work with the property owner, not find him non-compliant and extend it so they could find a solution because he was certainly willing to make modifications. He stated he had already removed two out of the five. He said he believed he was now at 140 square feet so they were pretty close. He indicated he believed they could quiet this given sufficient time not eleven days from the notice and Mr. Hurd calling him three days ago. He asked how you found a solution when you did not know what the real answer Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 7 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 was and that was where they needed to work together with zoning and planning. He commented he did not have a problem working with multiple departments and neither would Mr. Hurd but lacking the experience he ended up with the contractor predicament. He said as to the individual contactor they could call him and have him speak with one of the Board Members. Acting Community Development Director explained with regard to the chain link they did not prefer chain link be installed but if it was in the backyard and out of public view it was a different story. Mr. Schuster indicated it was a side yard and the chain link would be the divider between dogs one, two and three with the outer sides being cinder blocks so you would not see the chain link. He stated it would not be like a roadside view kind of eyesore. Acting Community Development Director Weiner explained you did not need building permits for chain link. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated the building permits would be required for the walls. Acting Community Development Director Weiner agreed. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman referred Mr. Weiner back to when he met Mr. Hurd at the counter and Augustine was there and how the code would play into the situation, he went to Senior Planner Matt Harris. He stated Matt used the determination of structure by zoning code standards to designate that it was a structure by zoning and therefore had to meet the setback requirements. He commented he was not sure if Mr. Weiner was involved at that point but they tried to find solutions as to how he could take away the wall section for a distance of five feet from the side property line to comply there but Matt fell back on the problem of having accessory structures in the front set back, he believed. Mr. Schuster stated he believed it was the side and when he spoke with Augustine on that day he stated if the walls were removed could the pad remain assuming the pad was the right distance and Augustine stated he would not have a problem with the pad. He commented they were sort of not quite halfway there but with communication they could all get together hopefully over lunch and figure out a solution. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked had there been neighbor complaints about the animals, noise or anything like that. Code Enforcement Officer Lopez indicated that the complaint had originally come in from a neighbor who was complaining of the smell of the dog waste due to it Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 8 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 being located right next to the property line. He stated it was a legitimate complaint. He said he forwarded those complaints over to Animal Control. He commented the other issue that had come about was the fact that possibly a commercial breeder. He explained Mr. Hurd had given him his website South Coast Rottweiler Center which at face value appeared to be a commercial breeding site run and owned by Mr. Hurd out of the property. He said this was part of the issue was this done for commercial purposes. He indicated at face value it appeared it was, he operated a website which he was in total control of with everything referred back to him for sale of puppies, things of that nature so that was another question thrown in the loop. Mr. Schuster stated there was no doubt the neighbor was not happy living next to a person who had three dogs especially because on one occasion the dogs did get out. He commented as a dog owner himself and someone who was constantly involved in breed specific legislation he was the most careful person you could have with dogs yet he had someone who did not secure gate, who thought they secured the gate but it took just the time for a snap of a finger for those dogs to get out and knock someone down at the sidewalk. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked if his dogs were Rottweilers. Mr. Schuster said yes. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked if he had gotten his dogs from Mr. Hurd. Mr. Schuster indicated he had not. He explained his dog had come from Oregon and although he was injured he currently was the number one Rottweiler in the country for obedience competition. He commented he could speak a little bit about the website. He indicated he had a website too for his dog and his dog had bred only once and the dogs were going to him and one was going to the person who produced him. He stated the other two were going to fellow obedience competitors. He commented that anyone could look at that site and think it was for a commercial breeder but the fact was he had the dog for five years and while he had all these fade clearances and headline kind of stuff that looked like we were promoting, he even had some ads in a couple of magazines that was sort of more competitor ego than anything else. He said he did not have a commercial venture he was a lawyer by trade. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked if the kennels on the side were for breeding purposes so they stay separate or what was the reason for them. Mr. Schuster stated no. He said he would have Mr. Hurd state their purpose. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 9 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Acting Community Development Director Weiner apologized to Board Member Fagan and if he had any questions to chime in. Board Member Fagan asked if one of the neighbors complained and that had been answered. Mr. Schuster indicated that was why they, were having it built because you were much better off with your neighbors if you had high walls and secure dogs. He stated you needed to keep your dogs quiet, clean and comforter so that they were not a nuisance to the neighbors. He commented that a neighbor was going to hear a dog bark occasionally and in 100 degree heat you could clean up after a dog but within ten minutes there could be some smell. He said he thought Mr. Hurd was doing a design with a slope to minimize all of that. He explained what he would like to see was the hearing at least continued to work with all of them if necessary to come to a solution that worked for both neighbors and the City. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman directed the comments to Mr. Weiner. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked why if they were pets, for his education, why cage them up. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked why keep them separated. Mr. Hurd indicated that the reason was he had small children, four year old, six year old and ten year old and if his kids threw a ball the dogs were so high driven, they would not attack the kids but they would knock them over. He stated he had a wrought iron gate that separated the dogs to the backyard so the dogs had their section and the kids had their section. He commented they had just moved from an area in Corona where the whole house was driven strictly for the dogs. He explained they had full run of the backyard and the kids did not have anything. He said he now separated the dogs from the kids. He indicated he had pictures of the kids walking the dogs. Acting Community Development Director Weiner inquired if he had a wrought iron gate that separated the kids from the dogs. Mr. Hurd explained it separated the area where the kennels were to the backyard. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked if he had kennels within that gated area. Mr. Hurd concurred. He commented so the kids could not get back there and the dogs could not get out. He said he wanted to make something clear when Mr. Schuster mentioned the neighbor complained and he remembered like it was Agenda Item No Page__ of PAGE 10 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 yesterday. He indicated that his brother had gone to Europe and he had brought his dog over for a week for him to house sit. He stated that female got out of her crate, went into his other female's kennel and there was an altercation. He commented he was not home just his wife and two days later Mr. Lopez had come and hung the notice on the door. He said he immediately that day had gone to Planning. He explained he was not trying to dodge anything. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked if he had gone to the neighbor about the circumstances. Mr. Hurd indicated he had tried but there was no talking to the guy. He stated he had lived there for three months and part of the reason why the dogs bark was because those people party until two or three o'clock in the morning. He commented he had small children so the dogs were going to bark whether they were Chihuahua or Rottweiler they were going to bark. He said loud music was being played on Saturdays. He stated last night they had a party so the dogs were going to bark he could not control that. He indicated he could bring them in the house or the garage and they were still going to bark. He explained he was trying to comply with as much as he could but the last time he left the City office he was told no chain link could be on the property, no wrought iron could be on the property. He indicated he was under the impression he could go to the local feed store and put some non-permanent kennels up. Mr. Schuster stated to bear in mind when you have a male and a female there was a season. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman explained when they go into heat. Mr. Schuster commented during the heat cycle there was approximately three weeks you wanted to keep your females away from the males. Mr. Hurd stated the question had come up from Mr. Lopez why such an elaborate system was because his wife initially refused to have chain link she wanted something nice. He commented so the cinder block went up and stucco was going to go on to match the house that was what the whole idea was. He said apparently his contractor gave him the wrong advice but he was $6,000.00 in the hole because he had paid him an extra $1,000.00 to tear down the existing walls when we left the office. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated he had several questions that kind of stuck out in his mind. He asked if South Coast Rottweiler Center was his website. Mr. Hurd said right. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE II - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked if he promoted the sale of Rottweilers, puppies and whatever. Mr. Hurd stated correct. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked if he was not breeding them at this kennel where was it taking place. Mr. Hurd indicated they were being taken care of in Riverside. He stated he had two females whelp now and they were in Riverside. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked if this was in another kennel or a house or where. Mr. Hurd stated it was at a kennel. He asked if he had 150 fishing poles lined up on the side of his house because he goes fishing in Lake Elsinore every day did that make him a commercial fisherman. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman answered no. Mr. Hurd said if he had quads in his garage and he was racing up and down the street, did that make him a commercial motocross person? Code Enforcement Manager Chipman clarified that the initial Notice of Violation was not about operating a kennel. Mr. Hurd agreed. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated the dogs barking brought the attention and then the fact the walls were constructed which were not in compliance with the zoning code. He commented they were not necessarily stating he had a kennel they were just trying to understand the reasons why you would need the walls. He explained the typical homeowner did not build, as he stated, $6,000.00 worth of masonry walls to contain their pets. He indicated they chain them up in the yard, they give them a dog house, or they put them in the house. He stated he had gone a little extreme for the average homeowner and they were trying to understand how the fine line was drawn between a kennel and a homeowner with some pets. Mr. Hurd asked if he could show them the evidence/photographs that were showed last time in front of the property line he put, on his side of the property where the wood fence was dividing the property, he put up a block wall so the dogs could not go through the wood fence into the their backyard. He stated it was something that his wife wanted and if it had been up to him he would have put up chain link and saved $5,500.00. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 12 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Mr. Schuster commented that a good example as to why, two years ago he decided that all the things he had liked to do or used to do with her he did not want to do anymore they were bad memories. He said he fell into obedience by accident because he got a Rottweiler that was healthy, the last one was not and someone said you needed to see this trainer and go do this obedience stuff. He indicated he had fallen into competition obedience and now they were at the top of the game. He stated he actually loved it and if you asked him what he spent on it, it would be embarrassing. He commented it was the one thing he did and the one thing he loved apart from his regular work so it was a passion for him it was not something the average person would understand. He said the hairs on the back of his neck bristled when he said he chained the dog out in the back. He explained he would never chain a dog. He indicated not to take issue with him but these were their companions, these were like family. He stated yes they separate them because he had children but his were on the bed with him. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated they would put aside the whole kennel issue and disregard it as any kind of kennel. He stated just let us deal with the fact of the structure itself. He asked if he was the owner of the property. Mr. Hurd stated yes. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman noted that according to the paperwork he had it was owned by a Patricia Matthews, was that correct. Mr. Hurd said that was his mother-in-law and Brianna Hurd. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated he did not have Brianna Hurd. He said he had him as the occupant. He asked if he had an official deed of trust to the house. Mr. Hurd answered yes. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked if it was in his name. Mr. Hurd answered yes, it was Quit Deed over. He said his wife was also on the house and she could come down. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated the reason why he asked was even if they had come to some conclusion wherein they reached an agreement on how they could legally permit the structures it could only be permitted to the owner of the property or an agent acting for those. He stated he took a ride by the property with Officer Lopez just an hour a half ago and when they had spoke at the counter approximately two months ago there was no roof over any portion Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 13 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 of the kennels and now there was a roof or a patio cover and he was not sure which ones were torn down and which ones remained. Mr. Hurd stated toward the gate. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman commented there was a wooden roof structure now even complicating matters more because now they were not just talking about walls they were talking about an overhead structure, was that correct? Mr. Hurd agreed. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked after all the conversations at the counter and he had known he spent a good half hour forty-five minutes with him, it was clear there were issues with the walls and now he had gone ahead and added another structure on top of that before they solved the issue with the walls. Mr. Hurd answered when he left the last time from City Hall and he had spent so much time at City Hall he should have had a time card. He indicated the last time he was with Augustine and his contractor and with him, he showed the photographs, building wise it was fine and he would permit it but there was a zoning issue. He stated that Augustine kept going up and down the steps so many times to resolve the matter his contractor said how about we tear out the last two kennels. He commented the last two kennels were torn out. He said it was a Wednesday or Thursday he had met with them on that Saturday the contractor had come out and demoed those three walls. He commented he had not heard anything else and thought everything was fine. He said he complied with what he needed to comply with and that was when the roof went up. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman directed to Mr. Weiner that he did not believe he could have the roof. He stated the roof was right on the property line. He indicated the structure as he saw it from the right of way, it extended right over onto the wall that parallels the property line, was that correct. Mr. Hurd said you had a wood fence as the property line and then he put the block wall. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated several inches away. Mr. Hurd agreed. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated the roof structure would without a doubt meet the five foot rule to be legal so the roof structure was not going to be allowed there. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 14 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Mr. Hurd said he understood that but when they tore out the three walls for the kennels he thought the situation was done. He commented he did not think there was anything else so the roof had gone up to provide shade for the dogs. Board Member Fagan indicated it was a misunderstanding. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked how far away the roof from the property line was. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated it was less than a foot. Mr. Schuster commented that Mr. Hurd was there that day to find solutions. He said everything was solvable without the declaration of a nuisance. Acting Community Development Director Weiner explained in a single family residential zone unenclosed structures you had to have some leeway for that and that was probably what your contractor took home and showed him out of the zoning code but that should not be construed as to mean it did not require a building permit so that was two different things. He indicated as far as what he was telling them he could probably have the structure he wanted in his backyard it just had to have some certain distances from property lines and other structures and they would work toward getting that done. He stated when he heard that a roof structure was a foot away from the property line that was a problem and it needed to get fixed. He explained it had to be five feet away so it met all the guidelines of the zoning code. He commented from the planning end there were no fees you just had to show that you were in compliance with the zoning code and that was part of the issue why he was there that day beside from the breeding stuff which was really not here nor there. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated he did not need a planning permit you only required their approval that you were meeting the zoning code then that would give him the opportunity to issue him a building permit to make it legal. He stated he could not do that until he complied with the zoning code and that was what he was told at the counter when they had met. Mr. Hurd concurred. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman commented he did not have a problem with the walls and the construction that was an easy thing just issue a permit, build the walls the correct way, get them inspected and they were okay. He said if he was not in compliance with zoning he could not issue him that permit. Mr. Schuster indicated without any disrespect to Mr. Hurd as a panel you had heard many times before not everyone who had come before you had a construction background or knowledge of setbacks or how many feet or exactly Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 15 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 how to do it so indifference to the contractor or the State or otherwise when you rely on a licensed contractor to pay a lot of money to you would think that everything would be in compliance and now was the oversight with the contractor, with you guys or just Mr. Hurd and your group together. He stated it was solvable just given a reasonable amount of time. Acting Community Development Director Weiner suggested any other work done on that property or any other property in the City kindly bring in at least a diagram to the Planning Department counter and if it was kosher they would be happy to stamp it and would not cost a thing other than a few minutes talking with a Planner. He indicated they stamped it, signed it, dated it and indicated what they were approving underneath and that would be something he would have so when there was an issue you hold it up and state you did have approval at least from zoning to do something like that. Mr. Hurd stated he had done that. Acting Community Development Director asked if he the Planning Division stamped and approved it. Mr. Hurd indicated it was after he had gotten the actual notice. Acting Community Development Director indicated he had generated a diagram Mr. Hurd stated he was not an artist but he had drawn something that he showed to Mr. Chipman and Augustine and he had even asked if he had taken a bulldozer and wiped out all those walls back there could they put chain link and he was told no chain link. He commented no wrought iron. He said he even made a joke what was left cardboard just let him know what he could do. He commented help me help you; tell him what he could do. Mr. Schuster indicated that was where they were they wanted to come in and be certain. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked Officer Lopez if there was anything they were not getting or were they missing anything. Code Enforcement Officer Lopez stated they had pretty much covered everything. He commented he believed part of what Mr. Hurd wanted to avoid was excessive cost because he had put so much money into it but he could not see a way around leaving up what was already there or tearing it down and starting over. He said he thought that was the issue where they were at, what do they do with the structure that was. He explained do they tear it down and start over or was there a way to salvage what was already there. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 16 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Mr. Schuster indicated the latter was the best but they would do the City requirements. Board Member Fagan stated the initial complaint stated there was five kennels in the back and the business was dog trainer and they were washing dog kennels out and draining them into the street. He asked if he had gone out and verified any of that. Code Enforcement Officer Lopez commented he had gone out to the property but he was never able to verify that but obviously that waste had to go somewhere when you had dogs in a concreted area you washed it out, it had gone into the drain there really was no other place for it to go. Board Member Fagan said it should go into the green bucket. He explained the trash company stated manure of that type went into the green bucket. Code Enforcement Officer Lopez indicated you were talking solid waste versus liquid waste with dogs urinating onto concrete. Mr. Hurd stated he had a company who would come by three times a week and they had given him a container called a pooper scooper, for $80.00 a week and he picked up the feces and took it away. He commented he thought he was referring to the urine. He explained he did spray the urine down and it did go down the driveway but he used a disinfectant an enzyme. He said he could provide receipts. He indicated he was doing everything he could do but the neighbor was just. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated he and Mr. Weiner were in agreement and he hoped Mr. Fagan was to make a motion to continue and they would work with Mr. Hurd to find a solution to what he could keep of the existing structure that would meet the zoning code, what they could legally permit. He commented he had thought the issue of the kennel was not really an issue any more provided he was not going to have more than three animals on the site. He explained he needed to show some type of legal ownership if he was going to be able to obtain permits. He indicated something that showed he was acting as an agent for the owner of the property or that he was the legal owner of the property. Mr. Hurd concurred. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked if we had his phone number. Mr. Hurd stated he could give it to them Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 17 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked Mr. Hurd to leave his phone number with Joyce or himself and a member of the Planning Division would contact him within forty-eight hours to set up a meeting to try to get everything resolved so he could tend to his dogs and come to a solution for his structure. Board Member Fagan confirmed it was a thirty day continuance. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated that was correct. Mr. Schuster asked if that would be automatically on calendar or would they send another notice. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated they planned to bring him back in thirty days to the next hearing and if there were any delays they would contact Mr. Hurd at least ten days in advance to let him know. Mr. Schuster inquired if they were still working on the planning could they advance that. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman commented they could advance that without coming back before the Board. Acting Community Development Director Weiner explained they needed to show progress when they come back. Mr. Hurd asked if anyone had gone by to see if the kennels had been removed. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated they had not but he could make arrangements with Officer Lopez. Code Enforcement Officer Lopez stated he had gone out there and saw that the two kennels had been removed but it was more of the entire structure at that point had to be removed because it was unpermitted. He explained just removing the first two kennels did not satisfy the requirements that they set forth. Mr. Schuster said it was a several thousand dollar waste Code Enforcement Officer Lopez said he always told people regarding construction and permits to refer to City Hall not just the contractor but property owner as well because there are a lot of shady contractors out there. He commented permits to contractors mean money and that was money and time they did not.want to extend. He said regardless of what his contractor told him he believed he took the money and ran and it was unfortunate Mr. Hurd was a Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 18 -NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 victim him. He indicated we would work with him the best they could to rectify the situation. MOVED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER CHIPMAN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FAGAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT FOR A THIRTY DAY CONTINUANCE REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15096 TEAKWOOD STREET, APN 387-492-018, LAKE ELSINORE, CA, A PUBLIC NUISANCE. 4. 30085 McBURNEY, APN 375-293-053. LAKE ELSINORE, CA Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked Officer Slater to give his presentation. Code Enforcement Officer Slater addressed the Board. He indicated this property was a residential house on the corner of Strickland and McBurney across from the Animal Shelter. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked Officer Slater to use the microphone. Code Enforcement Officer Slater stated this was a single family residence located on Strickland at the corner of McBurney, 30085 right across the street from the Animal Shelter. He commented it was a heavily driven street with lots of visitors locally and from other cities who frequented our Animal Shelter because our Animal Shelter services four or five other cities. He explained Strickland was also a short cut to local residences so they would pass the house frequently. He said within the five years he had been with the City he had noticed this house first when he wrote it up December 24, 2007 for trash, debris in the rear setback, furniture, appliances, construction material, supplies. He indicated it appeared the owner had started a construction project by doing a room addition or an addition to the rear of the house that exceeded the property line on the Strickland side of the house. He stated there were inoperable vehicles and just your classic nuisance case with all the violations present. He commented he mailed a Notice of Violation and shortly thereafter received communication from Mr. Cal Belini who was sitting there before them. He explained Mr. Belini had been responsive by means of whenever he had gotten a notice he called or had come into the City Hall to try to rectify something or find a solution. He indicated he had been informed by Mr. Belini that he had been in several meetings with the previous City Manager and Bob Brady, our Acting Community Development Director, and this project was allegedly approved, permitted, green lighted, rubber stamped and everything was good. He stated he still had to take care of the violations on the Notice of Violation such as trash, debris, construction material, inoperable vehicles, furniture, appliances, and etcetera. He commented the construction Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 19 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 project in the rear had brought the attention of our Building Official Mr. Chipman who had noticed the project was still ongoing. He said there were no valid permits to support the project. He explained there were no active inspections on any valid permits. He indicated any permitted work, the permits would have expired. He stated as time moved on he issued a few Warning Notices and ultimately a citation for $250.00. He commented Mr. Belini made contact with himself and the Building Official stating he was going to move forward, try to get plans submitted and therefore Mr. Chipman opted to work with Mr. Belini and void the citation conditionally if Mr. Belini maintained every active step as required, get the plans, submit them and proceed as everything was suppose to be on track without letting anything lapse or fall behind and stay in contact. He said as the months moved on the property maintained the same appearance with trash, debris, overgrown vegetation, inoperable vehicles, construction material and supplies in the front and rear setbacks. He presented some pictures he had taken in April of 2008. He indicated you could see the overgrown vegetation, construction material, trash and debris, and on the rear of the house you could see the two toned difference with all the stuff on the right which was the rear was all the construction projects/room additions. He stated looking at the rear setback all the construction material/supplies, debris, furniture, abandoned appliances intending to put them in later. He pointed out the corner of the structure that was going through the fence and hanging over the fence line. He explained looking at the pictures they were exactly as he recalled seeing them on December 24, 2007 and there were also some pictures that were not on the computer system due to some training that day they were not updated. He indicated standing on the lot next door being six foot this stuff was clearly visible without using any implements to step on elevating the camera he was just standing there looking at the addition. He stated the wood was treated back then, there was nothing to cover it or seal it to protect it from the elements and as they know having exposed to the weather deteriorates and rots the wood. He commented the structural integrity had a tendency to fall apart over the years. He said as they were progressing with the case giving Mr. Belini more time, they kept postponing, postponing and postponing any further follow up enforcement actions because as a letter of support for Mr. Belini on May 30, 2008 he brought in a certified letter stamped by an engineer stating he was the engineer, George McCreedy had taken on Mr. Belini as a client and he was drafting up the plans. He said Mr. Belini submitted the plans to the Planning Department and he understood the plans were reviewed and corrections were made and returned to Mr. Belini and to his knowledge no updates or changes had been made or submitted back to Planning and those plans had expired. He explained that being the case the original agreement made with Code Enforcement and the Building Official lapsed and the case continued. He indicated he did a follow up inspection and mailed Mr. Belini another five day warning notice that the project had to be fixed in five days or arrangements needed to be made to make the project ongoing again. He stated Mr. Belini had come into the counter shortly after he received the five day warning notice and after review of the photographs Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 20 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 and all the evidence with the Building Official and no change from 2008 to current it was decided the case needed to go to a nuisance hearing to rectify this problem that had been in effect long before 2007. He commented Mr. Belini had come to him and asked what he could do to address it. He said he told him the best thing he could do would be to go home and write a letter to tell him everything he could do or what could be done by a specific date. He explained he had received a letter from Mr. Belini indicating he would resolve a lot of the issues by July 29, 2009. He indicated he brought it in and Joyce signed for the letter. He stated due to the duration of time the case had been going on the decision was still final that it would go to a nuisance hearing and it would be that hearing that determined the final outcome once and for all what would happen to this property. He explained Mr. Belini's letter said "pursuant to our meeting last week this is a not to thank you for allowing me time to clean up the weeds and remove all the dead brush and debris in the front and backyard on the McBurney property barring any uncontrollable unforeseen circumstances the job should be completed by July 29, 2009 in the meantime I should keep you informed of any progress or work and upon completion I shall contact you immediately." He commented he was a little upset when he found out we were still taking it to a nuisance hearing. He stated he went out there on July 2nd and had done another inspection and would like to compare those photos to the ones you saw for April 2008. He commented same photo, same corner April 2007 to July 2009 there was no change on that property and if there was he could not see it. He noted the trash, debris, weeds, construction material, the same electrical outlet hanging, and no improvement. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked him to go back to the other picture. Code Enforcement Officer Slater noted sinks, roofing material, ladders, chain link fences, five gallon buckets, hoses, masonry, again the surface of the building was still the same untreated and exposed to the elements since before December 24, 2007, vegetation in the front yard in some areas approximately three feet high, in addition the vegetation was brown and appeared dead. He indicated they were weeds. He apologized for the blurring photo but you could see furniture and appliances stacked in the front yard and along the side rear yard on the left side of the house. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked if that was the current condition of the house. Code Enforcement Officer Slater said no that he had photos to show what he had done which he took an hour ago. He commented on of the vehicles which displayed expired tags he confirmed with the DMV although the registration sticker was not current on the truck, the truck was currently licensed and Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 21 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 registered. He explained some of the sections were removed from the nuisance case because he anticipated him correcting a lot of the things. Board Member Fagan indicated there were a bunch of automobile tires in the back on the adjacent property. He asked if that was still there. Code Enforcement Officer Slater stated he would show them the pictures he had taken that day. He commented it was much, much cleaner. He said the vegetation had been cut; furniture in the front yard was nearly all outside furniture. He commented there was a kitchen table underneath the blanket in the front. He said all the furniture and appliances with the exception of what was in the front yard on the right of the pick up truck was clean. He indicated the driveway was clean, curb appeal had been restored; landscaping was still not in living condition. He stated the tires on the side adjacent to the house, still the construction material. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked him to go back to the photo where the tires were located. He asked if that slab and tires were part of that property. Code Enforcement Officer Slater indicated he would have to look closer at the APN map and when Mr. Belini comes up to speak we could ask that question. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated it appeared to be outside the fence line, he was not sure if that was the true property line. Code Enforcement Officer Slater explained that was the GIS map that was uploaded from John Lavallee. Board Member Fagan commented it looked like a pile of stuff on the west side of the property which apparently had been there for quite awhile. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked Officer Slater if he had pictures of the rear of the property indicating that the front looked excellent. He said it looked cleaned up and he did not see any problems with that. Board Member Fagan indicated there was quite a bit of work going on yesterday. Code Enforcement Officer Slater stated he had a crew out there non-stop for three or four day's straight. He presented the backyard. He commented it was quite a change from what they had looked at before. He said all the construction material and supplies were stacked in a neat orderly fashion, buckets all organized. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman commented it looked like he stacked it neat but maintained a lot of it. He indicated from the pictures it had looked like Agenda Item No Page_ of PAGE 22 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 he organized what was there, threw away a lot of trash but it looked like he kept a lot of the construction debris just neatly stacked it. Code Enforcement Officer Slater stated according to Code it could still not be there and it was. He commented the only thing that would change that was if there was an active building permit and there was daily work going on at that property. He said in that case it would be tolerable to have that stuff in view to a degree as long as his work was progressing on a daily basis. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked the Board if they needed to see more pictures. He told Officer Slater they had a good handle on where the property was now and the history. He noted he had a request to speak from Ms. Vivian Belini. He asked her if she would like to speak on the property or did she just want to listen. Ms. Belini indicated she wanted to just listen. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman addressed Mr. Belini. He stated he did not sign the sheet to speak but did not believe there would be any objections from the Board if he would like to speak on the matter. He asked if that was what he wished. He asked Mr. Belini to step up to the podium and state his name for the record. Mr. Belini said his name was Cal Belini and he was the legal owner of the property together with Vivian. He commented he did know if they wanted an explanation regarding the relationship between Vivian and him. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated at that time he just wanted to focus on the case at hand. Mr. Belini stated he would state in two sentences about Vivian and him. He thanked Officer Slater. He explained he thought he was going to crucify him and he thought he was very honest and straightforward about the whole situation. He commented he was not there to fight with anybody. He indicated he agreed with ninety-nine percent of what was said. He stated he was right it was ongoing for the past five days. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked Mr. Belini to speak into the microphone so everyone could hear because it was important what he was saying. Mr. Belini commented for the last five days he had a crew of four people including two movers that was seven all together. He said he informed them they had to do it in four days. He indicated he thought they had done quite a lot but they were not quite finished. He stated he had to put treatment on the stuff that Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 23 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Officer Slater and he had talked about. He explained he had not done that and it would be done in a couple of days. He commented he would like to re-submit the permit and he would like to talk to Robin after to discuss the fees, but had not wanted to discuss that right now. He said he wanted included in the notes the very minor things that were not done and the reason he had not done it was because of three reasons. He noted it was not meant to be an excuse for not doing it but it was very difficult to do it. He indicated one was that he had a health problem, a prostate problem, an arthritis problem, he was seventy-four years old and he was still working very hard on the property. He stated it was not an excuse just a reason for the delay. He said two was a down fall in the economy that had affected him and several other people at the same time. He commented the third was that he was involved in three very major lawsuits which were suppose to go to trial two months ago but they had been postponed and postponed and now he had heard that the case would be heard on Monday. He said Monday meant they were going to trail but he had a feeling it would be postponed. He explained it was not meant to be an excuse and apologized but he had always received something from the City he was down talking to Robin and down talking to Officer Slater. He indicated lately Officer Slater and he had been cold with each other but that day he had shown he was a wonderful Code Enforcement Officer and he had complained to Robin but took back whatever he had said about Officer Slater, he was wonderful. He stated as far as this going on if they would allow him without declaring a nuisance at this stage of the game give him until the 29th or 27th. He commented he had done quite a lot and there were still a few more things he had to do. He said he would re-submit the plans as soon as he could right after the case. He explained the case may last a week or two weeks, if it goes to trial. He asked if they could talk about that. He indicated he had shown things about this property that he had done that had shown what his intention had always been. He stated he had always gotten along with Mr. Chipman and when he said something he did it. He commented he may be late but he did it. He said he disagreed with the notice to him because it was sent it to Vivian and he had not gotten the notice at the time Vivian got it. He explained he had come in about it and then he only had approximately twelve days. He indicated that did not mean there were not notices prior to that but not as serious as this one. He stated he wanted to address one more thing, was that okay. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman said okay. Mr. Belini commented he wanted to say two sentences about the property. He explained Vivian was the legal owner of the property as far as the records show. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked on the title? Mr. Belini informed the Board and since there was a confidentiality agreement he could not go into details but the facts. He indicated we could send her the stuff Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 24 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 but he made all the decisions, it was his right because the court had ordered it and they were still in the middle of litigation. He stated they had signed a settlement agreement. He commented she was represented by her attorney, he was represented by his attorney and they signed the agreement under the authority of the Superior Court of California, Riverside County. He explained they signed it, and their respective attorneys signed it approving the content and the form. He indicated among the agreements without going into detail was that property shall be deeded to him and the only reason it had not been done was because she owed money on that property. He stated she had been ordered to pay off that money. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman informed him that they were not there to determine property rights. Mr. Belini commented that in case she disagreed she had no say in the matter at all. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman said they were not even discussing that. He explained that was a civil matter between him and his ex-wife. Mr. Belini thanked him. He commented he was surprised to see her that day and he did not see her until the last minute. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated they were there to discuss the nuisance case. He stated he believed Mr. Belini asked for an extension of time again. Mr. Belini asked that he delay the declaration of nuisance because he could handle it. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman said they went back approximately fifteen or more years. Mr. Belini stated ten years. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman commented he was the one who personally wrote him a stop work on this room addition. Mr. Belini said he did not tell him. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman explained that was probably ten years ago. Mr. Belini agreed. He stated they did not get along. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 25 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Code Enforcement Manager Chipman agreed they did not get along and that he said the same things about him as he did about Officer Slater. Mr. Belini agreed and stated he had changed. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked him why they should continue it again. Mr. Belini answered that it would be in the best interest of justice. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated he did not have any reason to believe that anything had changed since this had been going on for ten years on the room and even though he had done an excellent job of cleaning up the property there was still a lot of construction debris that could not be there. He stated the structure he had started out to construct probably would not be approved or allowed and would have to be torn down anyhow. Mr. Belini asked that he repeat that. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman explained the structure that he started to construct the patio cover/room addition had been sitting for so long it was structurally unsound the wood was dried to a point wherein it could not be structurally sound any more or used and would have to be torn down. He commented if he submitted any new plans it would have to be like starting from scratch, nothing in the past would matter. He said he did not see any reason to keep extending it; they needed to handle it and get it done now. He noted that even though he had the best of intentions his track record spoke for itself. He asked how many years could it go on. He indicated that it was no reflection on him as a person it was just not getting done and that was why he was there that day. He stated he had a lot of history with him and he would let the other Board members speak and if they chose to continue he would go with their wishes but in his mind there was no point in continuing it. Mr. Belini asked if he could speak before they made a decision. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman said certainly. Mr. Belini commented that if he had already decided that he wanted that thing removed and he said because it was structurally unsound he would have an engineer look at the property again and tell him what had changed or if there had been any mold. He indicated he was somewhat familiar with the building trade. He stated he also would have had a contractor look at the property and now he was going to get an expert to come and look at the property to declare whether the building was dangerous to have or was it going to cause some kind of disease or molds that could not be removed. He commented he was willing to Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 26 -NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 work with that but he had spent a lot of money and he asked that they consider that. He said the fact that Officer Slater had said about him, one thing about Cal he does what he says. He explained he was not intending on not finishing the property, he really had those three problems he had mentioned. He asked that you do not declare it a nuisance and give him a chance. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman referred it to the Board. Board Member Fagan asked if he had been doing all that construction with outdated permits. Mr. Belini answered no. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated he had no permits. Mr. Belini answered no. Board Member Fagan asked no permits. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated he had never had a legal permit on it. Mr. Belini stated he had a legal permit on the structure when it was a patio and he had gotten a permit. Acting Community Development Director Weiner stated he had the same question that Mr, Fagan had. He commented that from a zoning standpoint based on the R1 code he was seeing things that would not cut the mustard regarding setbacks and things of that nature. He said he saw a structure right on the property line so his concern was there was no building permits and if you were going to pursue building permits you would have to demolish a good chunk of the structure in order to meet minimum setback requirements and other things. He said he did not know if that was a patio or room addition. Mr. Belini answered it was a patio that was converted where he submitted permits or plans to convert two bedrooms. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked if he was saying he had plans approved. Mr. Belini answered yes. He indicated Mr. Chipman had plans and they were returned to him for some corrections. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated they had never had approved plans on that. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 27 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Mr. Belini indicated they were not approved yet Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked Mr. Belini to turn his phone off. He told Mr. Weiner that there never had been approved permits on it. He explained he had submitted plans several times over the course of the last ten years each time he had gotten them back with corrections and failed to re-submit and his application had expired which was what had happened this most recent time for the third submittal process. He commented in the meantime the codes had changed dramatically. He explained he did not meet the setback requirements and whatever he had there that started out legally as a patio cover no longer existed. He said he did not see how they could continue it and he did not see any reason to continue it. Mr. Belini indicated the setback was very important. He commented a question was brought up by Mr. Fagan if the tires were still there. He stated those tires were supposed to be picked up that day and they were put out by the crew for the truck that picked up the garbage that morning. Board Member Fagan commented he agreed that there was a lot of work that had been done that day but his major question was if he was to complete all the construction that he had at that minute, and his understanding was that he would have to tear it down. Mr. Belini stated that was why he wanted to get an expert's opinion to see what he would say regarding if the structure was sound or not sound. Board Member Fagan said it had nothing to do with whether the structure was sound or not, it was illegal construction. He explained he was building something that would not get a permit. Mr. Belini explained that in the past, on the last application when he submitted the plans it was not objected. He indicated most of it was approved and the only thing that was not was minor. He stated it was also addressed by the architect or the engineer. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman indicated that each time he submitted he had gotten structural corrections back but he had never gotten any type of Planning Department approval for the setback requirements for the property lines or architectural design or any of that. He explained that he always failed to re- submit and supply that information. Mr. Belini expressed his surprise that it was not done already. He stated he would have to look into that. He commented if you look at the property the setback was fifteen feet past that line was property that he owned. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 28 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Code Enforcement Manager Chipman asked if it was the same parcel. Mr. Belini stated it was not. He stated it was part of one whole parcel. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated it did not comply. He commented it was possible he could merge the two parcels but that would be something he would have to deal with. Mr. Belini explained when they bought it there was two lots and another lot they got right next to it. He indicated it was five feet on the other side above it on the right hand side from where the fence was and they had fifteen feet from where the fence line. He stated anything you saw outside the property that seemed to be the property line was their property. Board Member Fagan stated the records showed that a year ago he was given a five day warning. Mr. Belini questioned the five day warning. Board Member Fagan commented that was what the records had shown. Mr. Belini asked for a reminder of what it was. Board Member Fagan asked if he was unable to conform within a five day period and you had a year from then to do he did not see any continuance would be beneficial to anyone at that time. Mr. Belini stated he would be willing to with the City. Board Member Fagan told him it looked like he would have to go back to the planning stage. Mr. Belini agreed and indicated he thought planning had come on when he submitted the plans and maybe he was wrong. Board Member Fagan stated there seemed to be a lot of misunderstanding there. Mr. Belini commented that Planning had to approve it. He explained when you submit plans and they were all drawn up and signed by the engineer he had approved it, he was the one who decided on the structure. He indicated it was the engineer across from the City Hall. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked if it was Mr. McCreedy he was referring to. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 29 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Mr. Belini answered right, George McCreedy. Acting Community Development Director Weiner commended Officer Slater because we were all tied up in a mandatory training that day and he barely had time to check emails and phone messages and he did not know how he had gotten out there to get the pictures snapped but that he appreciated his efforts. Mr. Belini stated he was out there about twenty minutes before he had seen him through the window. Acting Community Development Director Weiner directed to Mr. Belini that he wanted to thank him for making the effort to clean up the property stating there was not a lot of houses out there but still a road people traveled and there were residents there. He stated it needed to look acceptable and was starting to get that way so he appreciated the fact that he cleaned up the property substantially. Mr. Belini indicated it was not done but would be done by next week. Acting Community Development Director Weiner commented that he had done a lot of work and thanked him for that. He said the problem that he had was with the structure he constructed that aside from it being construction sound, he had a structure that was on the property line if not exceeding it. He indicated he knew the adjacent property was his but you still had a lot line running down that parcel. Mr. Belini asked if there would be problem combining the two. Acting Community Development Director Weiner stated no, but he had to go through that process and until he did having that roof line go to the property line like that for the patio or room whatever that was going to be was not something that could be approved based on what the R1 code said. He commented that was aside from the fact that he was going to get the appropriate building permits for it. He indicated that was where the issue was as Robin Chipman stated if they were to continue it or defer it what good would it do if he basically had and illegal structure constructed all the way to the property line. Mr. Belini stated if it was an illegal structure he would tear it down himself. He commented he did not believe it was illegal and that was why he needed time. He asked for a reasonable amount of time to just allow the experts to come in at his expense. Acting Community Development Director Weiner indicated he would not call himself an expert but being that he had been in the planning field for fifteen years he could tell him right there that the structure was built to the property line and their R1 Code for the City of Lake Elsinore did not allow that. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 30 -NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Mr. Belini stated he understood that. He asked if he could extend the property to the other fifteen feet of his adjoining property. He commented it was explained on a map and no mention was made of it. He said he was sure the plans he submitted was looked at Planning. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked Mr. Chipman how long had the structure been in that state or a similar state just framed. Board Member Fagan stated a year in a half. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman explained longer than that, ten years. Mr. Belini denied that it had been there ten years. Acting Community Development Director Weiner asked if it was five years. Mr. Belini stated six years. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman explained he had been in the office for five years he no longer went out in the field and he had written that up personally. Code Member Fagan noted it was documented for at least a year and a half ago. Mr. Belini agreed at least a minimum. Acting Community Development Director Weiner indicated they were looking at maybe five or six years. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman commented they were not too far off with the ten. Mr. Belini said the reason he was asking they not make that decision that day was because he wanted to be allowed to bring the experts in. He indicated he was not saying he was not an expert. Acting Community Development Director Weiner stated that was fine. Mr. Belini asked for a break and that he would not do anything that would break the law, he promised. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated he would leave it to the Board. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 31 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Mr. Belini asked how could it hurt if he could show them how could it hurt. He indicated he could not do anything next week because he had to concentrate on the case. Board Member Fagan indicated he had seen a lot of work being done in the last couple of days and if that level of effort could be maintained but not so much in cleaning up the property as putting the effort into what was legal and what was not legal and to get the complaints all straightened out. He stated he had no assurance that that was going to happen. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated he did not have a good track record with him. Code Enforcement Officer Slater pointed out to the Board members that part of the property that was protruding over; Mr. Belini did not own that parcel that the corner of the patio cover extended over the property. He stated he did not own that parcel there. He presented a map of the parcel that the corner hung over. Mr. Belini asked if you were facing the property, the property on the right was that the property line. Code Enforcement Officer Slater stated that was correct. He explained that was the front of his and off to the right where the parcel. Mr. Belini indicated the property line went out five feet past the fence and that was done by a surveyor. Acting Community Development Director Weiner called everyone's attention to the Board. He directed to Mr. Belini that he was very flexible when it had come to those things, when he saw progress was being made he liked trying to work with someone especially if you were in mid-construction given the economic situation and all that. He indicated when they had construction that was done without permits and looking at five years. Mr. Belini told him he must let him bring the paperwork. Acting Community Development Director Weiner stated there were no Planning approvals for it and according to the Building Official there were no approved permits. He commented that things happened and they could work with him to say okay how do we do this but when this had been going on for five years that was where he was torn into how flexible they could be to try to get that either straightened out or demolished. Mr. Belini commented he would like to get it straightened out. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 32 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 Board Member Fagan indicated the quickest way to get it straightened out was to declare it a nuisance then. Code Enforcement Manager Chipman stated he would have ten days. Mr. Belini indicated he did not know what the implication of declaring it a nuisance was. Code Enforcement Officer Slater explained he would have a ten day appeal period and twenty-one day period for them to act. Board Member Fagan commented it would force the issue. Mr. Belini asked if he could suggest an alternative. Board Member Fagan indicated Officer Slater would be able to work with him to solve whatever these misunderstandings which may have occurred over the last ten years. Mr. Belini stated he would bring in the experts but he could not do it next week. Board Member Fagan told him he could work that out with Officer Slater. MOVED BY ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WEINER, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FAGAN AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO DECLARE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30085 McBURNEY STREET, APN 375-293-053, LAKE ELSINORE, CA, A PUBLIC NUISANCE. 5. Code Enforcement Comments: Code Enforcement Officer Slater wished a quick recovery to Ms. Watts. 6. Nuisance Abatement Board Comments: Acting Community Development Director Weiner thank Code Enforcement for the job they were doing. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER ROBIN CHIPMAN TO ADJOURN THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT HEARING AT 5:49 P.M. Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 33 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT MINUTES - JULY 21, 2009 o Board tuber, Jack Fagan Respectfully Submitted, yce M. Teyler ice Specialist II ATTEST: Robin Chipman, Secretary to the Board Agenda Item No Page of