The URL can be used to link to this page

08-430Couucii File # � �K� Green Sheet # 3051992 Presented by BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative hearing record and testimony heazd at the public hearing on Apri12, 2008, hereby memorializes its decision to certify and approve the Mazch 25, 2008 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the following address: �6 1 2 3 4 > 6 7 8 9 10 ADDRESS 955 Jenks Avenue APELLANT Jennifer Baluyut Decision: Appeal denied and extension granted to April 4, 2008 to vacate the property. Carter Bostrom Harris Helgen Thune Adopted by Council: Date RESOLUTION CITY OF.�S.AI,NT P,AUL, MINNESOTA ✓ Adoption Certified by Counc' Secretary BY� � rri Approved b yor: Date T��p q' �Y �, �(.r�'.��-f�.�...� Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � ��30 CO �� 07-APR-0B Green Sheet NO: 3051992 Contact Person 8 Phone: Marcia Moemwntl 6-8570 Must Be on Council Agenda by Doa Type: RESQ�UTfON E•DOCUment Required: Y DocumentContact: MaiVang Contact Phone: 6-8563 ToWI # of Signaiure Pages ! (Clip Ali Locatinns for SignaWre) Resolution memoria]izing City Council action taken April 2, 2008 denying the appeal and extension granted to April 4, 2008 to vacate the property at 955 Jenks Avenue, per the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer. iaacwns: Npprove (N) or ne�ea �rc): reroonai aervice wnvaas musi.vnswer me rouowmg uuesnons: Planning Commission 7. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/irm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: TransacGon; Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) Q noc�1 1 oanc0 De ar[menfDirec[or 2 Clerk Ci Clerk 3 4 5 �► Assign Number For Routing ONer CosURevenue Budg¢ted: Activity Number. April 7, 2008 8:38 AM Page 1 9 6 ��*' �'�. iR� a W ��f a? ?: 9'ie°i�inn ,. '4 � e ' a C".xa a � March 19. 2008 Jennifer Baluyut 719 Laurie Court Maplewood, MN 55117 RE: appeal for 955 Jenks Ave. Dear Ms. Baluyut: CITY OF SAINT PAUL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Your application for an appeai has been received and processed. b�l Please attend the public hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 2:OQ. p.m. in -Roorra 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider youc-appeal concerning the above referenced property. Atthattimethe Legislative Hearing O�cerwill hear ail parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in denial of your appeal. Sincerely, � `��/` Shari Moore City Clerk �� cc: Mike Urmann, DSI (Fire) Phil Owens, QSI (Fire) Leanna Shaff, DSI (Fire) Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney IS 4VEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, 5UITE 310 SAINT PAUI, MINNESOTA55102 Tel: 651-266-8fi88 Fax: 651-266-8574 cvwwsPpaul.gov AA-ADA-EEO Employer b�-�3o APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Saint Paul City Clerk 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., 31� City Hall Saint Paul, Nlinnesota 55102 Telephone: (651) 266-8688 � � ��iL C'/ j� �� 1. Address of Property being Appealed: 2. Number of Dwelling Units: 3. Date of Letter Appealed: `��5� �� -� 2 � f �1b � 4. Name of Owner: \ F�VN � E 1 � YCi lJ�� I" V 1 Address: �� -e- `� City: — ��(�—State: �� Phone Nu rs. iness �� Residence _(� �/� 3 Gellulaz Signature: i 5. Appellant / Applicant (if otlier than owner): City: State: Zip: Phone Numbers: Business Residence Cellulaz NOTE: A$25.00 filing fee made payable to the City of Saint Paul must accompany this application as a necessary condition for filing. You must attach a copy of the original orders and any other correspondence relative to this appeal. Any person unsatisfied by the final decision of the City Council may obtain judicia] review by timely filing of an action as provided by law in Dishict Court. For Office Use Date of C+� ��$ � ��k"I�t� v''�'�(,�F/G' d'► �1�' �'. 6 State specifically what is being appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary): CTI`Y OF SAIN'I' PAUL Christopher B. Colem¢n, Mdyar March 14, 2008 TENNIFER BALUYUT 719 LAi.JRIE CT ST PAITL MN SS1I7-1863 RE: 955 JENKS AVE Ref. # ; G3�.�2. Dear Property Representative: Your building was inspected on March 14, 2008. DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS Fire Inspecrion Division Robert Kessler, Director a D°��30 I DO East 17`" Street Telephone: 657-228-6230 Saim Paut, MN 55101 � �� 5 The building was found to be unsafe, unfit for human habitation, a public nuisance, a hazard to the public welfaze or otherwise dangerous to human life. A Condemnation Placard has been posted on the building. The following deficiency�list must be completed immediately ar the building vacated. A reinspec�i6� will be made on March 31, 2008 at 2:00 PM. CONDEMNATION OF THE BUILDING REVOKES THE FIRE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. Failure to complete the corrections may result in a criminal citation. The Saint Paul Legislarive Code requires _ that no building be occupied without a Fire Certificate of Occupancy. DEFICIENCY LIST Basement -.- SPLC 34.11, SBC 2902.1, SPLC 34.17, MPC 415.0220 - Repair or replace and maintain the plumbing drain system in accordance with the plumbing code.-Drain line flows uphill in the pipes in the ceiling. 2. Basement Entry -.- MSFC 1003.3.1.8 - Remove unapproved locks from the unit doors. The door must be openable from the inside without the use of keys or special lrnowledge or effort.-Remove the hasp lck assembly from the basement door. ✓ 3. Both units - MN Stat. 299F.362 - Immediately provide and maintain a smoke detector located outside each sleeping area. �,��- . - 4. Downstairs unit - Front enhy door - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Repair and maintain the door frame. �i{� 5. Downstairs unit - Reaz enhy door - SPLC 34.09 (3) i- Provide and maintain an approved one-inch V(V throw single cylinder deadbolt lock. (1�-�3D 6. Downstairs unit - SPLC 3410 (7), 3433 (6) - Repair and maintain the floor in an approved manner.- Floor in the kitchen at the entry to the bathroom is rotted and sagging. Repair ar replace the floor using approved materials and methods. This work will require a pemut, call: (651) 266-9090. 7. Extezior -.- SPLC 34.08 (10) - Repair, replace and maintain exterior sidewalks, wallcways and stairs. 8. Exterior -.- SPLC 34.08 (2) - Provide and maintain the property grade to slope away from the building to minimi�e the accumulation of water near the building. This work may require a permit(s). Call DSI at(651}266-9090. 9. Exterior - Laundry room - SPLC 3419 - Provide access to the inspector to all areas of the building. 10. Fence - SPLC 34.08 (5}, 3431 (3) - Repair, replace and maintain all exterior surfaces on fences, sheds, garages and other accessory structures free from holes and deteriorarion. Provide and maintain exterior unprotected surfaces painted or protected from the elements. v�� ll. Garage - Alley side - SPLC 71 A1 - Provide address numbers on buiiding per attached HN-1 handout. �)p 12. Garage - SPLC 34.08 (5), 3431 (3) - Repair, replace and maintain all exterior surfaces on fences, sheds, garages and other accessory structures free from holes and deterioration. Provide and maintain exteriar ��, unprotected surfaces painted or protected from the elements. 13. House - SPLC 34.09 (1) b -3432 (1) b,c - Provide and maintain all exteriar walls free from holes and deterioration. All wood exterior unprotected surfaces must be painted or protected from the elements J � y„ and maintained in a professional manner free from chipped or peeling paint. 14. Interior stairs to 2nd floor urut - Broken tread - SPLC 34.10 (3), 34.33(2) - Repair or replace the unsafe stairway in an approved manner. p�*r;� 15. Stairs - Closest to the sidewalk - SPLC 34.09 (2) 3432 (2) - Provide an approved handrail. The top of the handrail must be between 34 and 38 inches above the treads and run the enfire length of the stair. �� 16. Stairs - Closest to the sidewalk - SPLC 34.09 (2) 3432 (2) - Provide an approved guardrail with v GP intermediate ballustrade or rails 4 inches or less apart. This work may require a pernut(s). Call LIEP at (651) 266-9090. :7. Tr.roughe�at the b�,zilding - Multiple locz±ions - SPLC 3410 (7), 34.33 (6) - Repair and maintain the walls in an approved manner.-Patch the holes andior cracks in the walls. Paint the walls. 18. Throughout the building - Multiple locations - SPLC 34.09 (3), 3432 (3) - Repair and maintain the door in good condition. 19. Upper unit -.- SPLC 34.10 (4), 3433 (3) - Provide a bathroom floor unpervious to water. 20. Upper unit -.- SPLC 34.10 (7), 3433 (6) - Repair and maintain the floor in an approved manner.-Repair or replace the carpeting. 21. SPLC 39A2(c) - Complete and sign the provided smoke detector affidavit and return it to this office. �€1n 22. SPLC 34.10 (6), 34.33 (5) - Exterminate and control insects, rodents or other pests. Provide documentation of extermination. �t�' You have the right to appeal these orders to the Legislarive Hearing Officer. Applications f�o�r app�als may be obtained at the City Clerks Office, Koom 310, (651-266-8688), and must be filed within 10 days of the date of the oraginal orders. If you have any questions, you may contact me at 651-228-6236. Sincerely, Leanna Shaff Fire Inspector Ref. # 108642 cc: Force Unit cc: Dish Council AA-ADA-EEO Employer D$'�30 MTNUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING CONDEMNATION OF 455 JENKS AVENUE Tuesday, Mazch 25, 20Q8 Roam 330 City Ha11, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 2:00 p.m. STAF'F PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspection (DS� - Fire Appeal of Jennifer Baluyut to a Certificate of Occupancy Revocation, which includes Condemnation, for property at 955 Jenks Avenue. Jennifer Baluyut, appellant and property owner, appeared. Frederick Newell, Nails Construction Company, appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that on March 16, 2007 a complaint was received on water dripping through an electrical outlet and an inspection was made of the property. The inspector determined that the complaint was founded and sent a letter to the property owner indicating that he wanted to inspect the entire property on the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O). There were a series of inspections beginning Apri16, April 16, May 4, and May 21, 2007 and the correction was not made; there was also an issue with over-occupancy. The matter on the over-occupancy issue was appealed and hearings were conducted on May 1 and May 15, 2007. The owner was given until the end of June to vacate the units. The tenants then sought representation through Southem Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SNIRI,S) who filed a Tenants' Remedies Action (TRA) in Housing Court to haue the deficiencies on the C of O made. Various bids were received and in November, Naiis Construction was selected to make the repairs. The property was inspected in March, 2008 and most of the deficiencies still remained and other life/safety issues were found. Those deficiencies being: a rat; the floor in the lower unit was rotted and sagging; and smoke detectors either were not working or were hanging off the walls. The owner was given four days to make the corrections and upon re-inspection, the work had not been done. Ms. Moermond reviewed Ms. Baluyut's appeal wherein she indicated that she wanted to give the tenants 30 days to vacate; some other items needed to be completed when the weather is above 60 degrees on exterior item 8; other items are completed. Ms. Baluyut responded that this was correct. Ms. Moermond began reviewing the list of deficiencies. Item 1- Basement - repair or replace and maintain the plumbing drain system. Ms. Baluyut responded that this had been done. She claimed that they cut and capped the pipe that went to the laundry room which was not being used by the tenants. Ms. Shaff asked whether a permit had been pulled to do this work. Ms. Baluyut responded that she was told by St. Paul Plumbing and Heating that she didn't need to pull a permit unless the pipe was being changed. Ms. Shaff stated that any mechanical, elech or plumbing work done on the house needed to be done by a licensed contractor and a permit would be required. Ms. Moermond asked whether 5t. Paul Plumbing and Hearing cut and capped the pipe for her. Ms. Baluyut responded that the plumber inspected the plumbing and advised her on cutting and capping Mazch 25, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes 955 Jenks Avenue bg �� Page 2 the pipe; however, he did not do the work. Ms. Moerxnond responded that according to the inspector, this was not an acceptable repair and would need to be done under pernut by a licensed contractor. Ms. Shaff stated that when she inspected the basement, she found a series of drain pipes that when being used, would force the water to flow uphill. Since she could not gain access, she was unaware where these pipes lead to. She explained that under the plumbing code, a pernut was required unless there was an emergency situation. This clearly was not an emergency situation. Ms. Moermond told Ms. Baluyut that she may indicate that items on the deficiency list have been completed; however, this would need to be confirmed by the inspectar. Ms. Moermond returned to the list of deficiencies. Under Item 2- Basement Entry - remove unapproved locks from the unit doors; the doar must be openable from the inside without the use of keys or special knowledge. She asked whether this had been corrected. Ms. Baluyut responded that she had removed the padlock and the lock. Ms. Shaff asked whether she had removed the entire lock assembly. Ms. Baluyut responded that she had. Ms. 5haff clarified as to whether she had removed the hasp lock so that when the basement doar was closed, someone couldn't stick a pencil in the lock and trap a person in the basement. Ms. Baluyut responded that she hadn't understood and had not removed the hasp lock. Ms. Moermond went back to the deficiency list where Ms. Baluyut indicated that the smoke detectors had been installed. Ms. Shaff stated that she had a signed affidavit from the owner that the smoke detectors had been installed; however, she would need to confirm on re-inspection. Ms. Moermond stated that Item 4- Downstairs unit - front entry door - repair and maintain the door frame. She asked whether this had been completed. Ms. Baluyut said that the siding on the door had been changed and a deadbolt lock had been installed. Ms. Moermond clarified that the lock was listed as Item 5; Item 4 indicated that the doar frame needed to be repaired and asked whether this had been done yet. Ms. Baluyut said that this had been done. Ms. Moermond stated that there was a lengthy list of repairs and one of her main concerns was the condition of the kitchen floor. She asked whether this had been repaired. Ms. Baluyut responded that they had put plywood down and they sti11 needed to put cement down to level it. She said that the inspector would then need to inspect it before they covered it with vinyl. Ms. Moermond asked whether they had repaired the supporting structure underneath the floar in the basement. Ms. Baluyut said that "7im" indicated to her that she only needed to put plywood down and level it with cement. Ms. Shaff stated that the list cleafly indicates that a permit would be required to do this work. Ms. Baluyut responded that a permit had been pulled and the inspector needed to come out and inspect it. Ms. Shaff reviewed the recards on STAMP which indicated that a permit had been pulled. She said that she would need to talk to the building inspector concerning the floor. Ms. Moermond stated that her concerrA with the floor sagging was that the supporting beams, or joists, underneath the floor were rotting. Ms. Shaff responded that the building inspectar will have to make the decision on the floor and whether the joists need to be replaced. Mazch 25, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes 955 7enks Avenue b$ �� Page 3 Ms. Moermond stated that currently, the building is ordered to be vacated by March 31. Ms. Baluyut stated that the tenant in the upstairs unit wanted time to find another place to live and did not want to have to vacate before Apri130. The tenant in the downstairs unit did not want to move out and wanted to stay. She asked if she fixed the ldtchen floor whether he would be able to stay. The only other issues with the downstairs unit that she was aware of was the deadbolt on the front and back doors and the smoke alann. She again asked if she fixed these items whether he could stay, Ms. Moermond deferred to Ms. Shaff. Ms. Shaff responded that the owner had adequate time to maintain and make the repairs to the building. She believed that the entire building would need to be code compliant in order for the building to remain occupied and she believed a vacate date of March 31 was fair considering the continued conditions of the property. It was her opinion that in order to bring the enrire building into code compliance, an entire team inspecrion of the building would need to be conducted. Ms. Moermond explained that the building was condemned and the C of O revoked as there were numerous violations that had continued to exist for over the past year. In order for tenancy to continue in the building, the entire building needed to be brought up to Code, requiring minimum safety standards. Ms. Shaff said that a team inspection will consist of pluxnbing, electrical, mechanical, building, and fire inspectors going through the entire building to determine what minimum, safety-standard conections need to be made. Ms. Baluyut stated that they were attempting to make the repairs on the deficiency list and she didn't understand why this inspection would need to be done. Ms. Shaff responded that the problems at the building had been going on for far too long a time. She indicated that when she had first met Ms. Baluyut at the property, she was basically told by her that she collected rent from the tenants but didn't do any of the maintenance. Ms. Baluyut responded that this was not hue and that when a tenant would call, they would make whatever repairs needed to be done. She said that when the tenant moved out, she planned to replace the carpet and paint the walls. The downstairs tenant helped to keep the property clean and offered to paint; she told him she would reduce his rent for the work he did. She said that she was not in disagreement with the list of deficiencies, she just needed more time. She pleaded to allow the downsta3rs tenant to conrinue living in the unit and when the upstairs tenant moved out, she would be able to make the remainder of the repairs. Ms. Shaff responded that they had attempted to do this last year and that didn't work. Ms. Baluyut said that they didn't make the exterior repairs because the administrator wouldn't allow them to do it. Ms. Moermond responded that under the TRA, the administrator may not agree to do exterior work; however, she could have made those repairs on her own. Ms. Baluyut said that she didn't Irnow this and asked that they be lenient with her. Ms. Moermond stated that she had a copy of a deficiency letter addressed to Ms. Baluyut dated May 4, 2007 which indicated "Item 3- Downstairs unit - repair and maintain the doar frame." In looking at the deficiency letter dated March 14, 2008 "Itein 4- Downstairs unit - repair and maintain the door frame." Almost a year had passed and this correction was never done. Now she is indicating March 25, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes 955 Jenks Avenue D$ '�f30 Page 4 that she is going to make these repairs which evidence was to the contrary since she had not made those repairs. She told her that this was evidence that she had a bad track record. Ms. Baluyut asked to be forgiven as this was part of the responsibility of the administrator which was why they had not made the repairs. The inspector could inspect the property on March 31 to see that these repairs had been made, except for the kitchen floor in the downstairs unit. Ms. Shaff responded that in order to lift the condemnation, all repairs would need to be made. Mr. Newell stated that accarding to the deficiency list, the only items that would not be possible to repair at this time were the exterior items due to the season. The cement work could not be done until after the frost season and the painting could not be done as we1L They anticipated the other repairs to be completed by Mazch 31. Ms. Baluyut stated that those items that could not be completed were items 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12. Ms. Moermond asked why they could not complete item 7. Mr. Newell responded that this would involve cement work which needed to be done after the frost season. Ms. Shaff stated that blankets and heaters could be used to cure cement. Mr. Newell responded that this was correct; however, they wanted to wait until the season changed. Exterior work would include cement wark, painting...Ms. Shaff interrupted handrail, guardraiL Mr. Neweil said on the issue of the guardrail, he believed it did meet the DeparhnenYs standards and was gripable. Ms. Shaff responded that a guardrail was different from a handrail. Mr. Newell stated that the guardrail was not necessary according to the City unless there was a 30 inch drop-off, based on grade. Ms. Moermond clarified that there was a handrail for the stairs that was not Code compliant. Mr. Newell responded that he believed it was installed correctly. Ms. Moerxnond stated that Ms. Shaff was a certified building official who told him the handrail was not installed correctly. Mr. Newell stated that the handrail was signed off as being installed cortectly. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff whether the handrail had been signed off by the building inspector. Mr. Newell stated that the inspector looked at the footings and then went back out to inspect the handrail and it was approved. Ms. Shaff stated that she had not been out to re-inspect the property; however, the original handrail and guardrail were about Irnee-high and they needed to be Code compliant with today's standards. A guardrail was required when there are three or more steps or if stairs were more than 30 inches offthe ground. There were more than three steps and since it had been changed, it needed to meet today's Code. Mr. Newell responded that he had checked with the Deparhnent to determine what was required under the Code for a guardrail and was contesring the issue of the guazdrail on the deficiency list as it was not above 30 inches grade. Ms. Shaff responded the code also states that a guardrail was necessary if there were more than three steps. Mr. Newell stated that the inspector signed off on the guardraii as it did meet the Code. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Neweil to see the building permit. Mr. Newell stated that if there was a Code beyond what was required, they would meet the condition. March 25, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes 955 Jenks Avenue �' �3d Page 5 Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Newell when he was hired by the administrator to contract the repairs. Mr. Newell responded that according to his records, he re-submitted a proposal in November and received approval somerime in December; however, he did not have the actual dates. After they received approval, they obtained a permit and put in the footings for the rail as they were hying to get that work done prior to winter. They also began prepping the gazage to paint; however, had to stop because of the weather. Ms. Moermond asked why the doorframe in the lower unit was not repaired. Mr. Newell responded that he had difficulty gaining access to the interior of the property; scheduling was also a problem. Ms. Baluyut stated that she hired an exterminator who came out on March 17 and she presented a receipt from the externunator. The exterminatar was scheduled to come back to externrinate for rodents again. She said that the carpet will be replaced once the tenant moves and she asked again that the tenant be allowed to stay unril Apri130. They were also fixing cracks and holes in the walls; but they couldn't paint yet. Ms. Moermond responded that it wasn't a matter of them not being able to paint but a matter of it being inconvenient. Ms. Baluyut responded that it would be inconvenient to paint now and wanted to wait until the tenants moved out. She again asked that the tenant on the first floor be allowed to stay if the kitchen floox were inspected and approved. Ms. Moermond recessed the hearing to review the records to make a decision on her recommendation. Ms. Moermond stated that the building was in "very, very bad condition" and had been that way for a very long time. She did not believe that Ms. Baluyut had demonstrated that she was a responsible owner before the condemnation, during the condemnation, or now. There was a pattern of her not taidng responsibility for the repairs as well as not determining what her responsibility was for repairs. Yet she continued to collect rent which, of course, was out of her jurisdiction. The most recent deficiency list was done merely as follow up to the condemnation and revocation that had been issued in 2007. Many of the orders that were written in 2007 still had not been addressed at the time of this re-inspection; the conditions had deteriorated; specifically, the kitchen floor in the downstairs unit and the presence of rodents. It was her opinion that the work had not been adequately addressed by Ms. Baluyut or the Court appointed administrator. The C]ty Code does allow for a building that is in this bad a condition, has been condemned and ordered vacated, to become completely Code compliant. Minimum safety standards would need to be met before the building could be re-occupied. She believed Ms. Baluyut had had plenty of opportunity to bring the building into compliance. She had heard an appeal on a condemnation for this property in 2007 and at that time, she recommended Ms. Baluyut and SMRLS, representing the tenants, be granted unfil June 30 to make the repairs. Since she was unaware that the deficiencies had not been conected by June 30 or she would have recommended the building be completely vacated at that time. Other mistakes had been made by SMRLS, by VIl', by Nails, by Ms. Baluyut and now the conditions of the building were worse than when the property was condemned in 2007. She did not feel confident that if she recommended granting additionai tune to make the repairs would bring the building into compliance. She believed that the enrire building needed a full-team inspection as she believed there were likely other safety issues that had not yet been discovered. She stated that she will recommend to the City Council at the Public Hearing on Wednesday, April 2 that they deny the appeal and extend the vacate date from Monday, March 31 to Friday, April 4. The Council has the ability to accept or deny her recommendation and Ms. Baluyut had the right to address the Council to argue why the condemnation should be lifted. March 25, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes 955 Jenks Avenue b$' LF7j b Page 6 Ms. Baluyut asked whether she could present to the Council the repairs that she had completed which were scheduled to be inspected on Mazch 31. Ms. Shaff responded that she would not be able to make tl�e re-inspection on March 31 since Ms. Baluyut had filed this appeal. Ms. Moermond responded that this was conect. The inspector could inspect the building; however, based on the appeal, the inspection would not be definitive and wouid only be advisory to the Council. The City Council would make the ultimate decision on the outcome of this appeal. The hearing ad}ourned at 3:00 pm. Submitted by: Vicki Sheffer