Loading...
99-1167Council File # q9 - \ � (prl Vt��Vi��� Presented by Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 18, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer as follows: 3 Pro�ert�Ap ep aled Aproellant 4 1000 Shon Road (Laid over from 11-16-99} Bnxce J. Holdhusen for ThermoRetec Cons. 5 Decision: 1) The appeal is denied because there is no basis for this appeal as no orders have been issued, 2) Fire 6 Prevention will write a letter to the State Fire Marshal's Office that this matter is being deferred to their office, 7 3) The City will not take any enforcement action on this matter while it is under appeal at the State Fire 8 Marshal's Office. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey j� Coleman t� Harris � Benanav ✓ Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry � Cp O 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Adopted by Council: Date }�� .`�'i l�q �_ Adoption Ce fied by Council S retary ` BY� � c� �� � Apprwed by Mayor: Date ��,� �� ��! � By: G���C�� K�'/i�e Green Sheet # 101640 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1 Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor fox Submission to Council � GREEN SHEET Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 December 8, 1999 � wn ROUiBiG OR�F1t TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PACaES n:�� -.� 9g-���R No 101540 � arv�nouav ❑ rnc�ruc ❑ NiwruLfflMCCSat ❑ w�w�olltfFRlnAetra ❑ WYat1�MAtMMIn ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for 1000 Shop Road. . VUA I ION AppfOVe (A) of KeJeCt PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITfEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IFAPPROVED Has this persoNfirm e+uworked under a cor�act forNis dePartmeM') YES NO Has mis ce�irm ever eeen e cm emabree9 YE3 NO Does this pelSwJfirtn P� a skt9 not mm�alyPOSaesse0 by anY curtent cilY emG�%'ee7 YES NO Ic Uiis D��rm a targeteA venda? YES NO � ° r , e.�qf'i5 �Ci.' i,r�9�?S�� Liu..w.3. n vu�v.* €'v�`J � � 1999 APPROVED IIy:P)I.1a::APi��7 �Y) COSTIREVENUEBUD6ETED(GRCLEONE) YEE NO SOURCE ACTNRYNUMBER INFORMATION(IXPWNj `tq -���.� NOTES OF TF� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, November 18, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathxnan, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 131 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Philip Byrne, Deputy City Attomey; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention 1000 Shon Road (continued from 11-16-99) Gerry Strathman stated this meeting is being held to hear an appeal filed on behalf of the Soo Line Railroad Company, dba Canadian Pacific Railway. The initial hearing was Tuesday, November 16, and is being continued today to allow Phillip Owens, Commercial Building Inspector, to be present. Phil Byrne, CiTy Attorney, is also here. There is no representative present from the 50o Line. The issues that led to this continuation are as follows: 1) what was being appealed, 2) whether it was timely, 3) what is the relafionship between the appeal to the City and the discussions at the State Fire Marshal's related to this satne issue. Phillip Owens reported one of the tanks at the Soo Line was probably installed in the 1950's, and has been in service until a few months ago, at which time it was taken out of service to refit it. That tank is 500,000 gallons. While that was being taken out of service, a 225,000 gallon tank was put into service. The State Fire Code requires that plans and specificafions have to be submitted to and approved by the State Fire Marshal's Office for all above ground tanks that store and dispense combustible liquid. They also haue to be submitted to the municipal authority for approval of the site and location. (At this point, the appellants appeared, and Mr. Owens reiterated his comments and continued.) The building department issued a building permit instead of a mechanical permit, stated Mr. Owens. They are not sure how the permit was issued. The tank was installed and the building department came to the knowledge that the plans and specifications were not submitted. An onsite review of the situation was done. The State took the lead in code enfarcement issues in regazd to the tank. The City Fire Department has not issued any orders for compliance because they were going to await the State's decisions. The railroad is in violation of dispensing Class II liquid, but the appellanYs azguments haue merit and should be heard. Fire Prevenfion filed for formal interpretation of the code section in regard to dispensing of fuels to a motor vehicle, but it has not been received. Fire Prevention feels trains may not have been necessarily included in the term "motor vehicles." Mr. Owens stated the City's position is as follow: 1) Orders have not been issued; therefore, there is nothing to appeal, 2) When it comes to a hearing at the State, Fire Prevention would support the theory that this section is not applicable. Mr. Owens asked that the hearing officer defer the matter to the State Fire Mazshal's Office for their deternrination. Fire Prevenfion will also file briefs or appear in person in regazd to the applicability of this code section. The process qq -���.*� 1000 SHOP ROAD, CONTTNUAT'ION OF LEGISLATIVE HEARING Page 2 is as follows: the matter has to be appealed to the local jurisdicfion; the local jurisdiction has the right to grant the appeal, deny it, or defer to the State; either the appellant or the City can appeal to the State's Code Advisory Panel, which makes a decision; if the determination is unacceptable, the appellant or the City can appeal to the State Fire Marshal and an adininistrafive law judge. The State Fire Mazshal can sustain or overturn the findings of the appeals board. After that, it can be carried to court. A point made at the hearing on November 16, stated Mr. Strathman, is the inability to use the tank was causing a business hazdship. He asked what would happen if the railroad began using the tank. Mr. Owens responded nothing will happen from the City's perspective at this point. No orders have been issued and Soo Line has not been prohibited from using it. Philip Byrne stated the secrion from the legislative code that governs Gerry Strathman's powers to hear appeals is quite specific. In this case, there is no order, decision, or determination to appeal from; therefore, Mr. Strathman would have no jurisdiction to heaz this issue and make a recommendation to the City Council. One possible route is to have the City Fire Mazshal write a letter to the State Pire Marshal indicafing that the City does not haue a position and is deferring to the Sta#e to make their decision first. It may be that in the future, the City will issue arders with respect to deficiencies, but that is premature to speculate on. Bruce Holdhusen stated he has two items that will provide addifional information and explain why ThermoRetec feels they haue to be here: instructions they received from the State about how to request a vaziance from the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, and a letter from Steve Zaccard advising them that they should appeal here. Step 1 in the State Fire Marshal's procedure to obtain a variance is to obtain a certified copy of a decision by a local governing board. The appeals process has to start at the local level. (Mr. Huldhusen gave Mr. Strathman two items.) Mr. Byrne stated there needs to be an application for a permit, a decision, or an order, and that would go to the local fire marshal, they would make a decision, and then you would have something to appeal from. In this case, there is nothing to appeal. Mr. Owens stated one of two things can be done: 1) the appeals officer can autharize a deferral, but that may not be possible because of jurisdicfion, 2) Steve Zaccazd, CiTy's Fire Marshal, could provide correspondence to the State that the matter is being deferred to them. If Mr. Zaccard writes a letter to the State, stated Mr. Byrne, that would trigger their ability to hear the case. Mr. Strathman stated he does not know the City's final position, but he doesn't get the sense that the City is in opposirion to the tank being put in service. There does not seem to be a conflict between the City and the railroad; rather, it is a procedural problem, and Mr. Owens has qq-�ie'1 1000 SHOP ROAD, CONTINIJATTON OF LEGISLATIVE HEARING Page 3 deseribed a way to get out of the procedural pzocess. The City will formally step out of the way. Mr. Owens has not issued any orders, is not inclined to issue any orders in the neaz future, and will defer this matter to the State. Mr. Byrne stated the rules say the City can defer to the State, and Mr. Owens choice is to defer to the State. Scott Pazadise thanked everyone for addressing this issue, and appreciates the offer to write a letter. Mr. Strathman decision is as follows: 1) The appeal is denied because there is no basis for this appeal as no orders have been issued, 2) Fue Prevenrion will write a letter to the State Fire Marshal's Office thax this matter is being deferred to their office, 3) The City will not take any enforcement acUon on this matter while it is under appeal at the State Fire Marshal's Office. The meering was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. rrn Council File # q9 - \ � (prl Vt��Vi��� Presented by Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 18, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer as follows: 3 Pro�ert�Ap ep aled Aproellant 4 1000 Shon Road (Laid over from 11-16-99} Bnxce J. Holdhusen for ThermoRetec Cons. 5 Decision: 1) The appeal is denied because there is no basis for this appeal as no orders have been issued, 2) Fire 6 Prevention will write a letter to the State Fire Marshal's Office that this matter is being deferred to their office, 7 3) The City will not take any enforcement action on this matter while it is under appeal at the State Fire 8 Marshal's Office. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey j� Coleman t� Harris � Benanav ✓ Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry � Cp O 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Adopted by Council: Date }�� .`�'i l�q �_ Adoption Ce fied by Council S retary ` BY� � c� �� � Apprwed by Mayor: Date ��,� �� ��! � By: G���C�� K�'/i�e Green Sheet # 101640 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1 Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor fox Submission to Council � GREEN SHEET Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 December 8, 1999 � wn ROUiBiG OR�F1t TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PACaES n:�� -.� 9g-���R No 101540 � arv�nouav ❑ rnc�ruc ❑ NiwruLfflMCCSat ❑ w�w�olltfFRlnAetra ❑ WYat1�MAtMMIn ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for 1000 Shop Road. . VUA I ION AppfOVe (A) of KeJeCt PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITfEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IFAPPROVED Has this persoNfirm e+uworked under a cor�act forNis dePartmeM') YES NO Has mis ce�irm ever eeen e cm emabree9 YE3 NO Does this pelSwJfirtn P� a skt9 not mm�alyPOSaesse0 by anY curtent cilY emG�%'ee7 YES NO Ic Uiis D��rm a targeteA venda? YES NO � ° r , e.�qf'i5 �Ci.' i,r�9�?S�� Liu..w.3. n vu�v.* €'v�`J � � 1999 APPROVED IIy:P)I.1a::APi��7 �Y) COSTIREVENUEBUD6ETED(GRCLEONE) YEE NO SOURCE ACTNRYNUMBER INFORMATION(IXPWNj `tq -���.� NOTES OF TF� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, November 18, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathxnan, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 131 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Philip Byrne, Deputy City Attomey; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention 1000 Shon Road (continued from 11-16-99) Gerry Strathman stated this meeting is being held to hear an appeal filed on behalf of the Soo Line Railroad Company, dba Canadian Pacific Railway. The initial hearing was Tuesday, November 16, and is being continued today to allow Phillip Owens, Commercial Building Inspector, to be present. Phil Byrne, CiTy Attorney, is also here. There is no representative present from the 50o Line. The issues that led to this continuation are as follows: 1) what was being appealed, 2) whether it was timely, 3) what is the relafionship between the appeal to the City and the discussions at the State Fire Marshal's related to this satne issue. Phillip Owens reported one of the tanks at the Soo Line was probably installed in the 1950's, and has been in service until a few months ago, at which time it was taken out of service to refit it. That tank is 500,000 gallons. While that was being taken out of service, a 225,000 gallon tank was put into service. The State Fire Code requires that plans and specificafions have to be submitted to and approved by the State Fire Marshal's Office for all above ground tanks that store and dispense combustible liquid. They also haue to be submitted to the municipal authority for approval of the site and location. (At this point, the appellants appeared, and Mr. Owens reiterated his comments and continued.) The building department issued a building permit instead of a mechanical permit, stated Mr. Owens. They are not sure how the permit was issued. The tank was installed and the building department came to the knowledge that the plans and specifications were not submitted. An onsite review of the situation was done. The State took the lead in code enfarcement issues in regazd to the tank. The City Fire Department has not issued any orders for compliance because they were going to await the State's decisions. The railroad is in violation of dispensing Class II liquid, but the appellanYs azguments haue merit and should be heard. Fire Prevenfion filed for formal interpretation of the code section in regard to dispensing of fuels to a motor vehicle, but it has not been received. Fire Prevention feels trains may not have been necessarily included in the term "motor vehicles." Mr. Owens stated the City's position is as follow: 1) Orders have not been issued; therefore, there is nothing to appeal, 2) When it comes to a hearing at the State, Fire Prevention would support the theory that this section is not applicable. Mr. Owens asked that the hearing officer defer the matter to the State Fire Mazshal's Office for their deternrination. Fire Prevenfion will also file briefs or appear in person in regazd to the applicability of this code section. The process qq -���.*� 1000 SHOP ROAD, CONTTNUAT'ION OF LEGISLATIVE HEARING Page 2 is as follows: the matter has to be appealed to the local jurisdicfion; the local jurisdiction has the right to grant the appeal, deny it, or defer to the State; either the appellant or the City can appeal to the State's Code Advisory Panel, which makes a decision; if the determination is unacceptable, the appellant or the City can appeal to the State Fire Marshal and an adininistrafive law judge. The State Fire Mazshal can sustain or overturn the findings of the appeals board. After that, it can be carried to court. A point made at the hearing on November 16, stated Mr. Strathman, is the inability to use the tank was causing a business hazdship. He asked what would happen if the railroad began using the tank. Mr. Owens responded nothing will happen from the City's perspective at this point. No orders have been issued and Soo Line has not been prohibited from using it. Philip Byrne stated the secrion from the legislative code that governs Gerry Strathman's powers to hear appeals is quite specific. In this case, there is no order, decision, or determination to appeal from; therefore, Mr. Strathman would have no jurisdiction to heaz this issue and make a recommendation to the City Council. One possible route is to have the City Fire Mazshal write a letter to the State Pire Marshal indicafing that the City does not haue a position and is deferring to the Sta#e to make their decision first. It may be that in the future, the City will issue arders with respect to deficiencies, but that is premature to speculate on. Bruce Holdhusen stated he has two items that will provide addifional information and explain why ThermoRetec feels they haue to be here: instructions they received from the State about how to request a vaziance from the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, and a letter from Steve Zaccard advising them that they should appeal here. Step 1 in the State Fire Marshal's procedure to obtain a variance is to obtain a certified copy of a decision by a local governing board. The appeals process has to start at the local level. (Mr. Huldhusen gave Mr. Strathman two items.) Mr. Byrne stated there needs to be an application for a permit, a decision, or an order, and that would go to the local fire marshal, they would make a decision, and then you would have something to appeal from. In this case, there is nothing to appeal. Mr. Owens stated one of two things can be done: 1) the appeals officer can autharize a deferral, but that may not be possible because of jurisdicfion, 2) Steve Zaccazd, CiTy's Fire Marshal, could provide correspondence to the State that the matter is being deferred to them. If Mr. Zaccard writes a letter to the State, stated Mr. Byrne, that would trigger their ability to hear the case. Mr. Strathman stated he does not know the City's final position, but he doesn't get the sense that the City is in opposirion to the tank being put in service. There does not seem to be a conflict between the City and the railroad; rather, it is a procedural problem, and Mr. Owens has qq-�ie'1 1000 SHOP ROAD, CONTINIJATTON OF LEGISLATIVE HEARING Page 3 deseribed a way to get out of the procedural pzocess. The City will formally step out of the way. Mr. Owens has not issued any orders, is not inclined to issue any orders in the neaz future, and will defer this matter to the State. Mr. Byrne stated the rules say the City can defer to the State, and Mr. Owens choice is to defer to the State. Scott Pazadise thanked everyone for addressing this issue, and appreciates the offer to write a letter. Mr. Strathman decision is as follows: 1) The appeal is denied because there is no basis for this appeal as no orders have been issued, 2) Fue Prevenrion will write a letter to the State Fire Marshal's Office thax this matter is being deferred to their office, 3) The City will not take any enforcement acUon on this matter while it is under appeal at the State Fire Marshal's Office. The meering was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. rrn Council File # q9 - \ � (prl Vt��Vi��� Presented by Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 18, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer as follows: 3 Pro�ert�Ap ep aled Aproellant 4 1000 Shon Road (Laid over from 11-16-99} Bnxce J. Holdhusen for ThermoRetec Cons. 5 Decision: 1) The appeal is denied because there is no basis for this appeal as no orders have been issued, 2) Fire 6 Prevention will write a letter to the State Fire Marshal's Office that this matter is being deferred to their office, 7 3) The City will not take any enforcement action on this matter while it is under appeal at the State Fire 8 Marshal's Office. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey j� Coleman t� Harris � Benanav ✓ Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry � Cp O 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Adopted by Council: Date }�� .`�'i l�q �_ Adoption Ce fied by Council S retary ` BY� � c� �� � Apprwed by Mayor: Date ��,� �� ��! � By: G���C�� K�'/i�e Green Sheet # 101640 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1 Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor fox Submission to Council � GREEN SHEET Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 December 8, 1999 � wn ROUiBiG OR�F1t TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PACaES n:�� -.� 9g-���R No 101540 � arv�nouav ❑ rnc�ruc ❑ NiwruLfflMCCSat ❑ w�w�olltfFRlnAetra ❑ WYat1�MAtMMIn ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for 1000 Shop Road. . VUA I ION AppfOVe (A) of KeJeCt PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITfEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IFAPPROVED Has this persoNfirm e+uworked under a cor�act forNis dePartmeM') YES NO Has mis ce�irm ever eeen e cm emabree9 YE3 NO Does this pelSwJfirtn P� a skt9 not mm�alyPOSaesse0 by anY curtent cilY emG�%'ee7 YES NO Ic Uiis D��rm a targeteA venda? YES NO � ° r , e.�qf'i5 �Ci.' i,r�9�?S�� Liu..w.3. n vu�v.* €'v�`J � � 1999 APPROVED IIy:P)I.1a::APi��7 �Y) COSTIREVENUEBUD6ETED(GRCLEONE) YEE NO SOURCE ACTNRYNUMBER INFORMATION(IXPWNj `tq -���.� NOTES OF TF� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, November 18, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathxnan, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 131 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Philip Byrne, Deputy City Attomey; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention 1000 Shon Road (continued from 11-16-99) Gerry Strathman stated this meeting is being held to hear an appeal filed on behalf of the Soo Line Railroad Company, dba Canadian Pacific Railway. The initial hearing was Tuesday, November 16, and is being continued today to allow Phillip Owens, Commercial Building Inspector, to be present. Phil Byrne, CiTy Attorney, is also here. There is no representative present from the 50o Line. The issues that led to this continuation are as follows: 1) what was being appealed, 2) whether it was timely, 3) what is the relafionship between the appeal to the City and the discussions at the State Fire Marshal's related to this satne issue. Phillip Owens reported one of the tanks at the Soo Line was probably installed in the 1950's, and has been in service until a few months ago, at which time it was taken out of service to refit it. That tank is 500,000 gallons. While that was being taken out of service, a 225,000 gallon tank was put into service. The State Fire Code requires that plans and specificafions have to be submitted to and approved by the State Fire Marshal's Office for all above ground tanks that store and dispense combustible liquid. They also haue to be submitted to the municipal authority for approval of the site and location. (At this point, the appellants appeared, and Mr. Owens reiterated his comments and continued.) The building department issued a building permit instead of a mechanical permit, stated Mr. Owens. They are not sure how the permit was issued. The tank was installed and the building department came to the knowledge that the plans and specifications were not submitted. An onsite review of the situation was done. The State took the lead in code enfarcement issues in regazd to the tank. The City Fire Department has not issued any orders for compliance because they were going to await the State's decisions. The railroad is in violation of dispensing Class II liquid, but the appellanYs azguments haue merit and should be heard. Fire Prevenfion filed for formal interpretation of the code section in regard to dispensing of fuels to a motor vehicle, but it has not been received. Fire Prevention feels trains may not have been necessarily included in the term "motor vehicles." Mr. Owens stated the City's position is as follow: 1) Orders have not been issued; therefore, there is nothing to appeal, 2) When it comes to a hearing at the State, Fire Prevention would support the theory that this section is not applicable. Mr. Owens asked that the hearing officer defer the matter to the State Fire Mazshal's Office for their deternrination. Fire Prevenfion will also file briefs or appear in person in regazd to the applicability of this code section. The process qq -���.*� 1000 SHOP ROAD, CONTTNUAT'ION OF LEGISLATIVE HEARING Page 2 is as follows: the matter has to be appealed to the local jurisdicfion; the local jurisdiction has the right to grant the appeal, deny it, or defer to the State; either the appellant or the City can appeal to the State's Code Advisory Panel, which makes a decision; if the determination is unacceptable, the appellant or the City can appeal to the State Fire Marshal and an adininistrafive law judge. The State Fire Mazshal can sustain or overturn the findings of the appeals board. After that, it can be carried to court. A point made at the hearing on November 16, stated Mr. Strathman, is the inability to use the tank was causing a business hazdship. He asked what would happen if the railroad began using the tank. Mr. Owens responded nothing will happen from the City's perspective at this point. No orders have been issued and Soo Line has not been prohibited from using it. Philip Byrne stated the secrion from the legislative code that governs Gerry Strathman's powers to hear appeals is quite specific. In this case, there is no order, decision, or determination to appeal from; therefore, Mr. Strathman would have no jurisdiction to heaz this issue and make a recommendation to the City Council. One possible route is to have the City Fire Mazshal write a letter to the State Pire Marshal indicafing that the City does not haue a position and is deferring to the Sta#e to make their decision first. It may be that in the future, the City will issue arders with respect to deficiencies, but that is premature to speculate on. Bruce Holdhusen stated he has two items that will provide addifional information and explain why ThermoRetec feels they haue to be here: instructions they received from the State about how to request a vaziance from the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, and a letter from Steve Zaccard advising them that they should appeal here. Step 1 in the State Fire Marshal's procedure to obtain a variance is to obtain a certified copy of a decision by a local governing board. The appeals process has to start at the local level. (Mr. Huldhusen gave Mr. Strathman two items.) Mr. Byrne stated there needs to be an application for a permit, a decision, or an order, and that would go to the local fire marshal, they would make a decision, and then you would have something to appeal from. In this case, there is nothing to appeal. Mr. Owens stated one of two things can be done: 1) the appeals officer can autharize a deferral, but that may not be possible because of jurisdicfion, 2) Steve Zaccazd, CiTy's Fire Marshal, could provide correspondence to the State that the matter is being deferred to them. If Mr. Zaccard writes a letter to the State, stated Mr. Byrne, that would trigger their ability to hear the case. Mr. Strathman stated he does not know the City's final position, but he doesn't get the sense that the City is in opposirion to the tank being put in service. There does not seem to be a conflict between the City and the railroad; rather, it is a procedural problem, and Mr. Owens has qq-�ie'1 1000 SHOP ROAD, CONTINIJATTON OF LEGISLATIVE HEARING Page 3 deseribed a way to get out of the procedural pzocess. The City will formally step out of the way. Mr. Owens has not issued any orders, is not inclined to issue any orders in the neaz future, and will defer this matter to the State. Mr. Byrne stated the rules say the City can defer to the State, and Mr. Owens choice is to defer to the State. Scott Pazadise thanked everyone for addressing this issue, and appreciates the offer to write a letter. Mr. Strathman decision is as follows: 1) The appeal is denied because there is no basis for this appeal as no orders have been issued, 2) Fue Prevenrion will write a letter to the State Fire Marshal's Office thax this matter is being deferred to their office, 3) The City will not take any enforcement acUon on this matter while it is under appeal at the State Fire Marshal's Office. The meering was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. rrn