Loading...
84-91 WHITE - CITV CLERK PINK - FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PALTL Council �/ /� CANARV - DEPARTMENT File NO. �/ �_ / / BLUE - MAVOR � o nc ' Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date BE IT �tESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the action of the City of Saint Paul Board of Appeals and Review pertaining to the following listed property and as shown by the excerpted minutes of said Board of Appeals and Review, dated January 10, 1984, and ma.rked EXHIBIT A, and attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference : DATE OF BOARD MITJUTES CASE N0. PROPERTY APPELLANT 1-10-34 93-83-H 634 r7arshall Ave. P�artha Harris , Tenant Tom Vasaly, Attorney for Ms . Harris BOARD ACTION: Granted a one mon.th extension on the vacate date on the con e�ation order; and ordered that any action taken at the December 13, 1983 meeting of the Board of Appeals and Reuiew be rescinded. Property Description: Holcombes Addition � , Lot 5 , Block 1 ------------------------------------------- 1-10-84 102-83-H 271 Summit Avenue Thomas L. Moellerman BOARL ACTION: Granted an extension of time of thirty months on condi- tion cvae ing be limited to no more than nine units . Property description: Auditors Subdivision No. 52 Lot 20 ------------------------------------------- COUIVCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays � Fletcher Drew In Favor Masanz MNee�i� scheibe� � __ Against BY Tedesco Wilson Adopted by Council: Date JAN 2 6 198� Fo�m AP .o by City Attorne Certified P ss b Council ret BY � � �� �y By !#pp ov by iNavor: JAN 2 7 �95� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By By PUBUSMEp FEB 4 1984 � �� �"�9/ E X H I B I T "A" 93-83-H 634 Marshall Avenue Martha Harris Tenant � (2 units) Tom Vasaly, Attorney for Ms. Harris APPEARANCE: Martha Harris, tenant Tom Vasaly, Attorney for Ms. Harris SUBJECT: Requests a change in the vacate date contained in the con- demnation order dated 10-18-83, as appellant feels owner should be made to comply with orders to do the work rather than having tenant move. PROCEEDINGS: Mr. Vasaly addressed the board stating that Ms. Harris has been trying to get the violations corrected but to date has been unsuccessful. Ruby Land, the owner of the property, would rather evict Ms. Harris and allow the building to be condemned rather than � riake the repairs. Mr. Vasaly stated Ms. Harris started renting the apartment in August 19f32 and in September of 1983 she reported the code violation to the Building Code Department. Early in October the premises were inspected by the Building Department and notice of violation was sent to Ruby Land. She responded in a letter to tY�e department that she would not do the repairs because she lacked the finances, and the department condemned the building on October 17, 1983 and ordered it vacated by one month later. Martha Harris withheld 1/2 of her rent and the landlord commenced an eviction or an unlawful detainer against the tenant. At this time the landlord retained an attorney who then met with Mr. Vasaly and agreed that she would do the repairs. In December of 1983 a gas shut off valve was taken care of, a smoke detector installed and the cockroaches and rodents were dealt with. Mr. Vasaly continued stating that he first appeared before the board on November 8 , 1983 and his client was granted a one month extension of time to allow her to pursue court remedies. When it became apparent to Mr. Vasaly, that the landlord would not do the repairs in 30 days, he asked to be on the December agend.a, but this was not possible. However, he stated, following the �December meeting he found that the matter was discussed at this meeting so he contacted the Assistant City Attorney and asked whether another extension of time could be granted-. TYie �City �Attorney' s office granted 30 days:=� Mr. Vasaly informed the board that in the courtroom he moved that the landlord be held in contempt of court for not fallowing through. The judge issued the order yesterday (1-9-84) and ��hat the judge said �vas as far as an eviction proceeding is concerned, the case is closed, she was not going to hold the landlord in contempt and the judge in- dicated that the appropriate remedy was for the tenant to initiate a new legal action. The judge also indicated that in the event the landlord attempts to commence an eviction action against the tenant, the tenant would have available the defense of retaliation. � Primarily Mr. -Vasaly stated he is asking the board to extend the vacate date indefinitely to allow the tenant to pursue her remedy w�,th the court system. He said he is also asking that any proceedings and orders issued at the December meeting regarding 634 Marshall Ave. be cancelled_because he was not notified of that meeting and that the Exhibit A . . ,Page 2 � �F d�`�- 91 de�artment ot inspection consider tagging the landlord. It is Mr. Vasaly's understandinq that no action of a criminal nature �has� been taken yet_ against the landlond to this date. Mr. Vasaly further stated he does not feel the situation at 634 Marshall warrants a condemnation as he feels it does not constitute a hazard. John McCormick, Assistant City Attorney representing the board on legal matters , addressed the board stating that he woulc� clarify some of the things Mr. Vasaly stated for the record. He stated the , reason Mr. Vasaly could not get on the December meeting was because it was unti�r�ely. When he called and requested, it was past the date to be placed on th� agenda. The extension of time was granted without a meeting of the board.-because of some problems� he observed � in the procedures used by the Board of Appeals & Review. � First, was the fact that I�1r. Vasaly was not present at the meeting when the ordex was issued, although he attempted to get on the agenda and �.second, because there was an outstanding court order at the time in- • dicating a time requirement by which the landlord was to complete these repairs. rir. McCormick stated it was his position at that time (and at the December meeting the board �vas not aware of that) that the order had controlled anything that the Board of Appeals did regarding a "vacate". That was why the extension of time was given. Mr. McCormick stated he talked with Frank Staffenson and Frank was not aware at that time of any outstanding court order, and when they c�ere aware of it, the department agreed to contine the matter so that Mr. Vasaly could go before the board and make his statements and so that he could get an attempt of court order. � Frank Staffenson noted that the owner has never been seen by this board. To recap what has happened, Frank stated, a� complaint�� -=••- '� was received by the department on October 4 , 1983 from a Joe Conners for the tenant, Aiartha Harris. An inspection was made on 10-5-83 and the first letter was sent to Jeno Szabo and Roscoe Hutchinson and the department was informed neither of them was the owner of the property-that a Ruby Land is the owner, administrator. A certified letter was received from Mrs. Land on October 10, 1983 stating that in fact she was the representative for the property and she could not handle the repairs because of her f inancial situation. On Octob�r 17 the .department had a reinspection done and on the 18th. ordered a condemnation because they felt that the items were unhealthy and unsafe and could certainly be hazardous to the occupant. Mr. Staffenson stated there are two children living there, approximately 3 and 4 years old and he read through the inspection report explaining how some of these violations are hazardous, especially to small children. Mr. Staffenson noted there have been three hearings now before this board and agrees that what transpired at the December meeting regarding 634 Marshall should be rescinded because of the outstanding court order. However, now this " court order has been vacated as of yesterday by' a judge and yet t�r. Vasaly is asking for an indefinite extension of the vacate order. Mr. Staffenson stated there is no such thing as an indefinite vacate order and felt if the board wishes to lift the condemnation, he will close the file on the case. He felt if code enforcement can't work, if we're not allowed to proceed with it, then he feels the board lift the placard and deal with it legally. He felt a condemnation is far more severe than a tag as 50$ of them are cancelled. Con- demnation would correct the prob�.em and he feels when there is a frank statement that no one is willing to correct the problems in this dwelling, for the safety and welfare of the people that are there, he took this action. , Exhibit A . � . C��� ��'�� . , . page 3 Mr. Tilton questioned if a tag was issued by the city why it could not be prosecuted criminally. Frank explained that a tag does not put the case in court, possibly a Summons and Complaint might be used for criminal action. � In answer to a question from Ron Glassman as to why she wants to live there and if she has looked for other housing in the neighbor- hood, Ms. Harris replied she likes the school her children are in (Webster} and that she had a hard time getting them in there to begin with. She stated she has been looking for other housing and that the Housing Information Office has also been helping her, but 1 and 2 bedroom homes are hard to find, especially in the low in- come range. �9illiam Tilton asked Mr, Vasaly if he feels the landlord has the money to do the repairs as this seems to be what Mr. Vasaly and the tenant want. Mr. Tilton felt if the house is salvagable, coul.d the tenant possibly recover the money. N,r. Vasaly explained his client is not interested in the money - her aim is to be able to live there. He feels the landlord should fix - the property up or sell the building. Frank Staffenson at this time read part of a letter from Ruby Land, the owner, stating she is over 55 years of age, disabled and living on a small income. She states she cannot and will not make the repairs. Mr. Tilton said it appears the landlord does not care if the property is condemned, but he feels the tenant is asking to stay and her attorney feels he can make the landlord do the repairs by court remedy. BOARD ACTION: Mr. Tilton moved to postpone the vacate date until the next meeting and any action on the condemnation order and that any action taken at the December 13, 1983 meeting be rescinded. Harold Knutson seconded the motion. NlOTION CARRIED, TH�: Ayes S Nays 0 � Abstentions p Ron Glassman stated there was no way he would vote for an indefinite extension tir�e, but felt if 30 days might allow Mr. Vasaly to resol.ve this in a court of law, he was willing to do this. : ��= ��t_q� � Exhibit A page 4 102-83-H 271 Summit Avenue Thomas L. Moellerman APPEARANCE: Thomas L. Moellerman, Owner A. L_ James, Attorney for Mr. Moellerman SUBJECT: Request an extension of time of 30 months, at which time - appellant plans to have enough equity to obtain a loan and make all repairs to insure that the amended structure meets the intent of the building code. PROCEEDINGS: Mr. James addressed the board stating that when Mr. . Moellerman purchased the dwelling it had eighteen units. He has since reduced the number of units to 9 , including the carriage house at the back of it. He plans to further reduce the number of units and complete all repairs. Alice Bijjani said the inspectors saw the building was operating in a clean manner and if he is changing the structure it could change the requirements by the city. She stated there is a smoke alarm in the heating� plant area and at the top of the basement stairs. Mr. Moellerman informed her they are now installed in all units and re- numbered and self-c�.osing doors are being put in starting this after- noon. BOARD ACTION: Rosann Bostrom moved to grant an extension of time for 30 months on condition dwelling be limited to no more than nine units. Harold Knutson seconded �the motion: MOTION CARRIED. THE VOTE: Ayes S Nays 0 Abstentions 0