The URL can be used to link to this page

97-264/�/��n1J�.r9 3 �fz/99 � t t I �' � � 9 �t � . �•� r. �:•ts�,. ,...o MINNESOTA Presented Council File # 'q "� — � (. Green Sheet # V�Q"+��iC� � COv Referred To ' Committee Date i BE TT RESOLVEA, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the March 4,1997 2 decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer: 3 Pro�ert�A�pealed A e lant 4 719 WiLson Avenue .� /�,p Oi/� �/�� y-�� Laura Jelnick 5 Decision: Deny appeal. 6 408 Lexington Parkway Daue Beaudet 7 Decision: Appeal was withdrawn by appellant. 8 568 Beaumont Street 9 Decision: Deny appeal. 10 2224 Mailand Road ll Decision: p,p p eAl,�ra.Y.� e 12 2087 Skyway Drive 13 Decision: L^u'r°°r *° r..,,a ,-, , oo� r ort;�i +• u a• a ------- a• �p��.\ rav.�e� o 14 2114 Skyway Drive 15 Decision: Be�-ag�. A�p�� l r4,��e � . Albert Palumbo Delmer Swanson Steven Mariano Tom Dimond Requested by Department of: Bosffom Harris ✓ By: Rettman Thune Adoptedby cil: Date Adoptioy{Certified by Council � B}': �� / � ApprovedbyMayo : Date � l� 3 �Y BY: �./� Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � �� -c� n�i�b�i DENIRTMENTNFFlCEKIOUNCIL OATE INITIATED `t V J J V CITYCOi3NCII. 315l97 GREEN SHEE CON(ACTPERSON & PHONE INRIAVDATE INfTIAVDATE � OEPApiMENT DIRE � CffY COUNCIL Gerry Strathmau 266-8575 ASSIGN O CITY ATTORNEY � CRY CLERK NUYBEPFOR MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENOA BY (DAiE) A p�� g�J�Ef OIRECTOR O FM. 8 MGT. SERVICES OIR. Mazch 12, 1997 ONDER �� t � A �� T07AL # OF SIGNATURE PA6ES (CUP ALL IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACiION REQUE$T�ED: Approving the decision of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the Mazch 4, 1997 meeting. RECOMMENOA7ipN5: npprove (A) w Raject (R) pER50NAL SERVICE CONTRACTS INUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: __ P4.0.NNiNG CqMµISStON __ CNIL SERYIGE CqMMI$SION �� Has this personlfirm ever worked under e contract for this departmerrt? _ CIB CAMMITTEE _ YES NO _ SiaFF 2. Has this personKrm ever been a city employee? — VES NO _ �IS7RIGT CoURT _ 3. Doas this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any curtent city employeel SUPPORTS WHICM WUNCIL OBJECTVE? YES NO Explaln all yes answers on saparete sheet anA attach to gresn sheet MITNTING PROBLEM. ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, What, When, Where, WhyJ: ADVANTACaES IFAPPROYE4: OISADVANTAOES IFAPPROVED: • ,�'��,.w' ° . f .��30� . �..:'�� v 4 3�97 ��---�. DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED. iOTAL AMOUN7 OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIfAG SOURCE ACTIYfTY NUMBER FINANqAL INFORMATION: (IXPLA�N) Property Code Enforcement Meeting �� ""� March 4,1997 � : �� Laiva Jeinick, attumey represenfsng tenants Marion Brown, Mary Edwazds, Sherry Leck and Marschelle Waits, appeared. She stated that they had appeared in Housing Coutt that moming and that all items had been repaired with the c�ceprion of two items. She presented a copy of the Housing Court Order and indicated that ifthe tvro *pTM+?..`^�*±a items were not completed, they would appear agasn in Court on March 11. She requested that the Housing Court action take precedence over tbis proceeding. Gregg 3ohnson, property owner, appeared and stated that he had made all of the repairs, however, there were permits wluch needed to be signed off by the city elec�ical iaspector and a heating contractor. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the roo� wlrich had been repaired, needed to be iuspected and the pemut signed off. Also, the RHl report needed to be signed off by the heating conhactor for repairs that were made to the heating units and the petmit for the electricai work wbich had been done needed to be signed off on. She stated that the Court ordered her to submit a written report within seven days and if the work was all comgleted, the hearing date scheduled for March 11 would be canceled. Mr. S4-atbman stated that since all of the work was ordered to be completed by March 11, and assuming that it was completed by that date, the City Council would not need to take any action concerning this matter. Therefore, he denied the appeal. 1: ��i ,�• Appeal was withdrawn hy appellant. �.�1:): _ „ � � _ , Albert Palumbo, property owner, appeared and stated that he was in the process of making the repairs but needed additional time to complete them. He believed that some of the items listed by the inspector as needing repair were ea�aggerated. There was one window screen which needed to be installed and two cracked windows which needed to be replaced. He was uncertaitt what would need to be done to provide fire sepazation between the attached garage and the house. He intended to make some of the repairs himself and would hire a conhactor for some of the others. There was presenfly a tenant living in the house. Mr. Strathman reviewed the records and stated that the order was for condemnation. Dick Lippert, Public Fiealth, stated that the building was originally condemned by F'ue Prevemion in July, 1996 and the condemnafion order was still in effect The owner was aware of the condemnation, however, he decided to rent the house in November, 1946. T'here was an action pending in court against the owner. He re-inspected the house after the tenants moved in and many of the violarions still had not been conected. The tenant had several ssnall children and he believed the family was at a grave risk by remaining in the building. D'1r. Palumbo stated that the house had been condemned by Pat Fish in July,1996. She returned to the house in October, 1996 and he stated that she thought the house was fixed up and he requested that he be able to Property Code Enforcement Meeting Mazch 4, 1997 Page - 2 - a�.l�y remove the condemnation notice. He claimed that she agreed that he could remove the sign. He then found new tenants to occupy the house. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the property owner also owaed a three-unit duplex wluch was located on the same parcel of property. During an inspection at the duplex, she condemned the single-family home because of its hazazdous condition. Since this was a single-family home, Public Health had the proper jurisdiction to monitor this property. She met with Mr. Lippert and the property owner and indicated to the owner that Mr. Lippert would be the inspector of the single-family home. She stated that she repeatedly told the owner that the house could not be re-occupied until Mr. Lippert removed the condemnation order. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal since the condemnation order was still in effect and there were outstanding violations which had not been conected. 2224 Mailand Road Delmer Swanson, property owner, appeared and stated that he was notified by Licensing that he had a failed septic system and he was requesting additional time to explore lus options. He had written a letter to Public Works regazding the city installing a sewer system in lus azea, however, he never received a response. He was especially concemed about the cost to install a sewer system and where the location would be in conjunction to his property. Dave Dickhut, Public Works, stated that a technician in Public Works was exploring options for installing a sewer system for the entire Highwood azea. There was not a firm proposal or timeline for constructing a sewer on Mailand Road as Public Works would need a petition from one of the residents to begin the process. He pointed out that filing a perition would be free of charge and that the proposal was not binding. Tom LeClair, LIEP, stated that the septic system inspection report indicated that the system had a drywell which was considered a failed system according to the Legislative Code. The opdons to correct the failed system included petitioning Public Works to install a sewer for his properiy, that the system be repaired, or that a new holding tank be installed. Mr. Sh�athman recommended laying the matter over in the Legislative Hearing to June 17, 199'I to allow the properiy owner additional time to explore the available oprions. 2087 Skyway Drive Steven Mariano, property owner, appeazed and stated that he disagreed that lus septic system was a failed system because he had a drywell. He had esplained to the inspectar that a drainfield had been installed the yeaz previous to his purchase of the pmperty. He was not sure where the drainfield was located on his properry. He also did not agree with the inspector's report as he believed that the inspector did not take the time to make a determination that the system was operating conectly or not. Tom LeClair, LIEP, stated that explained why a drywell was a failed system. He suggested that the properiy owner contact the inspector as to the legitimacy of his report. Properry Code Enforcement Meeting Mazch 4, 1997 Page•3- q� .��y Dave Dickhut, Public Works, stated that they had not received a petition to install a sewer system on this street Mr. Strathman recommended laying the matter over in the I,egisiative Hearing to Tune 17, 1997 to allow the property owner additionai time to ea�plore the available options. 2119 5ky�vav Drive Tom Dimond, property owner, appeared and stated thaY he was appealing the order to correct lus failed septic system. He presented a letter he had received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MN PCA) conceming septic systems. It was lus opinion in reviewing the letter from the MN PCA that a drywell was not considered a failed system and that there was no proof of evidence that a drywell caused contamination of the groundwater. He had attended several neighborhood and city meetings concerning this issue. He believed that the Legislative Code was in error in not ailowing a variance or granting a waiver for dtywell systems. He azgued that the Legislative Code should be amended per the consideration of the MN PCA's opinion concerning drywells. He aiso stated that he would not be abie to afford the cost to repiace his septic system. Tom LeCiair, LIEP, stated that the state statute had the provision to grant a variance in certain instauces concemang a septic system with a drywell. The Legislative Code did not aliow a variance for what was considered a failed system. Mr. Strathman stated that since the main issue was regarding city policy, he believed that the City Council should be the deciding authority. He recommended dettying the appeal. vms /�/��n1J�.r9 3 �fz/99 � t t I �' � � 9 �t � . �•� r. �:•ts�,. ,...o MINNESOTA Presented Council File # 'q "� — � (. Green Sheet # V�Q"+��iC� � COv Referred To ' Committee Date i BE TT RESOLVEA, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the March 4,1997 2 decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer: 3 Pro�ert�A�pealed A e lant 4 719 WiLson Avenue .� /�,p Oi/� �/�� y-�� Laura Jelnick 5 Decision: Deny appeal. 6 408 Lexington Parkway Daue Beaudet 7 Decision: Appeal was withdrawn by appellant. 8 568 Beaumont Street 9 Decision: Deny appeal. 10 2224 Mailand Road ll Decision: p,p p eAl,�ra.Y.� e 12 2087 Skyway Drive 13 Decision: L^u'r°°r *° r..,,a ,-, , oo� r ort;�i +• u a• a ------- a• �p��.\ rav.�e� o 14 2114 Skyway Drive 15 Decision: Be�-ag�. A�p�� l r4,��e � . Albert Palumbo Delmer Swanson Steven Mariano Tom Dimond Requested by Department of: Bosffom Harris ✓ By: Rettman Thune Adoptedby cil: Date Adoptioy{Certified by Council � B}': �� / � ApprovedbyMayo : Date � l� 3 �Y BY: �./� Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � �� -c� n�i�b�i DENIRTMENTNFFlCEKIOUNCIL OATE INITIATED `t V J J V CITYCOi3NCII. 315l97 GREEN SHEE CON(ACTPERSON & PHONE INRIAVDATE INfTIAVDATE � OEPApiMENT DIRE � CffY COUNCIL Gerry Strathmau 266-8575 ASSIGN O CITY ATTORNEY � CRY CLERK NUYBEPFOR MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENOA BY (DAiE) A p�� g�J�Ef OIRECTOR O FM. 8 MGT. SERVICES OIR. Mazch 12, 1997 ONDER �� t � A �� T07AL # OF SIGNATURE PA6ES (CUP ALL IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACiION REQUE$T�ED: Approving the decision of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the Mazch 4, 1997 meeting. RECOMMENOA7ipN5: npprove (A) w Raject (R) pER50NAL SERVICE CONTRACTS INUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: __ P4.0.NNiNG CqMµISStON __ CNIL SERYIGE CqMMI$SION �� Has this personlfirm ever worked under e contract for this departmerrt? _ CIB CAMMITTEE _ YES NO _ SiaFF 2. Has this personKrm ever been a city employee? — VES NO _ �IS7RIGT CoURT _ 3. Doas this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any curtent city employeel SUPPORTS WHICM WUNCIL OBJECTVE? YES NO Explaln all yes answers on saparete sheet anA attach to gresn sheet MITNTING PROBLEM. ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, What, When, Where, WhyJ: ADVANTACaES IFAPPROYE4: OISADVANTAOES IFAPPROVED: • ,�'��,.w' ° . f .��30� . �..:'�� v 4 3�97 ��---�. DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED. iOTAL AMOUN7 OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIfAG SOURCE ACTIYfTY NUMBER FINANqAL INFORMATION: (IXPLA�N) Property Code Enforcement Meeting �� ""� March 4,1997 � : �� Laiva Jeinick, attumey represenfsng tenants Marion Brown, Mary Edwazds, Sherry Leck and Marschelle Waits, appeared. She stated that they had appeared in Housing Coutt that moming and that all items had been repaired with the c�ceprion of two items. She presented a copy of the Housing Court Order and indicated that ifthe tvro *pTM+?..`^�*±a items were not completed, they would appear agasn in Court on March 11. She requested that the Housing Court action take precedence over tbis proceeding. Gregg 3ohnson, property owner, appeared and stated that he had made all of the repairs, however, there were permits wluch needed to be signed off by the city elec�ical iaspector and a heating contractor. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the roo� wlrich had been repaired, needed to be iuspected and the pemut signed off. Also, the RHl report needed to be signed off by the heating conhactor for repairs that were made to the heating units and the petmit for the electricai work wbich had been done needed to be signed off on. She stated that the Court ordered her to submit a written report within seven days and if the work was all comgleted, the hearing date scheduled for March 11 would be canceled. Mr. S4-atbman stated that since all of the work was ordered to be completed by March 11, and assuming that it was completed by that date, the City Council would not need to take any action concerning this matter. Therefore, he denied the appeal. 1: ��i ,�• Appeal was withdrawn hy appellant. �.�1:): _ „ � � _ , Albert Palumbo, property owner, appeared and stated that he was in the process of making the repairs but needed additional time to complete them. He believed that some of the items listed by the inspector as needing repair were ea�aggerated. There was one window screen which needed to be installed and two cracked windows which needed to be replaced. He was uncertaitt what would need to be done to provide fire sepazation between the attached garage and the house. He intended to make some of the repairs himself and would hire a conhactor for some of the others. There was presenfly a tenant living in the house. Mr. Strathman reviewed the records and stated that the order was for condemnation. Dick Lippert, Public Fiealth, stated that the building was originally condemned by F'ue Prevemion in July, 1996 and the condemnafion order was still in effect The owner was aware of the condemnation, however, he decided to rent the house in November, 1946. T'here was an action pending in court against the owner. He re-inspected the house after the tenants moved in and many of the violarions still had not been conected. The tenant had several ssnall children and he believed the family was at a grave risk by remaining in the building. D'1r. Palumbo stated that the house had been condemned by Pat Fish in July,1996. She returned to the house in October, 1996 and he stated that she thought the house was fixed up and he requested that he be able to Property Code Enforcement Meeting Mazch 4, 1997 Page - 2 - a�.l�y remove the condemnation notice. He claimed that she agreed that he could remove the sign. He then found new tenants to occupy the house. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the property owner also owaed a three-unit duplex wluch was located on the same parcel of property. During an inspection at the duplex, she condemned the single-family home because of its hazazdous condition. Since this was a single-family home, Public Health had the proper jurisdiction to monitor this property. She met with Mr. Lippert and the property owner and indicated to the owner that Mr. Lippert would be the inspector of the single-family home. She stated that she repeatedly told the owner that the house could not be re-occupied until Mr. Lippert removed the condemnation order. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal since the condemnation order was still in effect and there were outstanding violations which had not been conected. 2224 Mailand Road Delmer Swanson, property owner, appeared and stated that he was notified by Licensing that he had a failed septic system and he was requesting additional time to explore lus options. He had written a letter to Public Works regazding the city installing a sewer system in lus azea, however, he never received a response. He was especially concemed about the cost to install a sewer system and where the location would be in conjunction to his property. Dave Dickhut, Public Works, stated that a technician in Public Works was exploring options for installing a sewer system for the entire Highwood azea. There was not a firm proposal or timeline for constructing a sewer on Mailand Road as Public Works would need a petition from one of the residents to begin the process. He pointed out that filing a perition would be free of charge and that the proposal was not binding. Tom LeClair, LIEP, stated that the septic system inspection report indicated that the system had a drywell which was considered a failed system according to the Legislative Code. The opdons to correct the failed system included petitioning Public Works to install a sewer for his properiy, that the system be repaired, or that a new holding tank be installed. Mr. Sh�athman recommended laying the matter over in the Legislative Hearing to June 17, 199'I to allow the properiy owner additional time to explore the available oprions. 2087 Skyway Drive Steven Mariano, property owner, appeazed and stated that he disagreed that lus septic system was a failed system because he had a drywell. He had esplained to the inspectar that a drainfield had been installed the yeaz previous to his purchase of the pmperty. He was not sure where the drainfield was located on his properry. He also did not agree with the inspector's report as he believed that the inspector did not take the time to make a determination that the system was operating conectly or not. Tom LeClair, LIEP, stated that explained why a drywell was a failed system. He suggested that the properiy owner contact the inspector as to the legitimacy of his report. Properry Code Enforcement Meeting Mazch 4, 1997 Page•3- q� .��y Dave Dickhut, Public Works, stated that they had not received a petition to install a sewer system on this street Mr. Strathman recommended laying the matter over in the I,egisiative Hearing to Tune 17, 1997 to allow the property owner additionai time to ea�plore the available options. 2119 5ky�vav Drive Tom Dimond, property owner, appeared and stated thaY he was appealing the order to correct lus failed septic system. He presented a letter he had received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MN PCA) conceming septic systems. It was lus opinion in reviewing the letter from the MN PCA that a drywell was not considered a failed system and that there was no proof of evidence that a drywell caused contamination of the groundwater. He had attended several neighborhood and city meetings concerning this issue. He believed that the Legislative Code was in error in not ailowing a variance or granting a waiver for dtywell systems. He azgued that the Legislative Code should be amended per the consideration of the MN PCA's opinion concerning drywells. He aiso stated that he would not be abie to afford the cost to repiace his septic system. Tom LeCiair, LIEP, stated that the state statute had the provision to grant a variance in certain instauces concemang a septic system with a drywell. The Legislative Code did not aliow a variance for what was considered a failed system. Mr. Strathman stated that since the main issue was regarding city policy, he believed that the City Council should be the deciding authority. He recommended dettying the appeal. vms /�/��n1J�.r9 3 �fz/99 � t t I �' � � 9 �t � . �•� r. �:•ts�,. ,...o MINNESOTA Presented Council File # 'q "� — � (. Green Sheet # V�Q"+��iC� � COv Referred To ' Committee Date i BE TT RESOLVEA, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the March 4,1997 2 decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer: 3 Pro�ert�A�pealed A e lant 4 719 WiLson Avenue .� /�,p Oi/� �/�� y-�� Laura Jelnick 5 Decision: Deny appeal. 6 408 Lexington Parkway Daue Beaudet 7 Decision: Appeal was withdrawn by appellant. 8 568 Beaumont Street 9 Decision: Deny appeal. 10 2224 Mailand Road ll Decision: p,p p eAl,�ra.Y.� e 12 2087 Skyway Drive 13 Decision: L^u'r°°r *° r..,,a ,-, , oo� r ort;�i +• u a• a ------- a• �p��.\ rav.�e� o 14 2114 Skyway Drive 15 Decision: Be�-ag�. A�p�� l r4,��e � . Albert Palumbo Delmer Swanson Steven Mariano Tom Dimond Requested by Department of: Bosffom Harris ✓ By: Rettman Thune Adoptedby cil: Date Adoptioy{Certified by Council � B}': �� / � ApprovedbyMayo : Date � l� 3 �Y BY: �./� Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � �� -c� n�i�b�i DENIRTMENTNFFlCEKIOUNCIL OATE INITIATED `t V J J V CITYCOi3NCII. 315l97 GREEN SHEE CON(ACTPERSON & PHONE INRIAVDATE INfTIAVDATE � OEPApiMENT DIRE � CffY COUNCIL Gerry Strathmau 266-8575 ASSIGN O CITY ATTORNEY � CRY CLERK NUYBEPFOR MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENOA BY (DAiE) A p�� g�J�Ef OIRECTOR O FM. 8 MGT. SERVICES OIR. Mazch 12, 1997 ONDER �� t � A �� T07AL # OF SIGNATURE PA6ES (CUP ALL IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACiION REQUE$T�ED: Approving the decision of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the Mazch 4, 1997 meeting. RECOMMENOA7ipN5: npprove (A) w Raject (R) pER50NAL SERVICE CONTRACTS INUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: __ P4.0.NNiNG CqMµISStON __ CNIL SERYIGE CqMMI$SION �� Has this personlfirm ever worked under e contract for this departmerrt? _ CIB CAMMITTEE _ YES NO _ SiaFF 2. Has this personKrm ever been a city employee? — VES NO _ �IS7RIGT CoURT _ 3. Doas this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any curtent city employeel SUPPORTS WHICM WUNCIL OBJECTVE? YES NO Explaln all yes answers on saparete sheet anA attach to gresn sheet MITNTING PROBLEM. ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, What, When, Where, WhyJ: ADVANTACaES IFAPPROYE4: OISADVANTAOES IFAPPROVED: • ,�'��,.w' ° . f .��30� . �..:'�� v 4 3�97 ��---�. DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED. iOTAL AMOUN7 OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIfAG SOURCE ACTIYfTY NUMBER FINANqAL INFORMATION: (IXPLA�N) Property Code Enforcement Meeting �� ""� March 4,1997 � : �� Laiva Jeinick, attumey represenfsng tenants Marion Brown, Mary Edwazds, Sherry Leck and Marschelle Waits, appeared. She stated that they had appeared in Housing Coutt that moming and that all items had been repaired with the c�ceprion of two items. She presented a copy of the Housing Court Order and indicated that ifthe tvro *pTM+?..`^�*±a items were not completed, they would appear agasn in Court on March 11. She requested that the Housing Court action take precedence over tbis proceeding. Gregg 3ohnson, property owner, appeared and stated that he had made all of the repairs, however, there were permits wluch needed to be signed off by the city elec�ical iaspector and a heating contractor. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the roo� wlrich had been repaired, needed to be iuspected and the pemut signed off. Also, the RHl report needed to be signed off by the heating conhactor for repairs that were made to the heating units and the petmit for the electricai work wbich had been done needed to be signed off on. She stated that the Court ordered her to submit a written report within seven days and if the work was all comgleted, the hearing date scheduled for March 11 would be canceled. Mr. S4-atbman stated that since all of the work was ordered to be completed by March 11, and assuming that it was completed by that date, the City Council would not need to take any action concerning this matter. Therefore, he denied the appeal. 1: ��i ,�• Appeal was withdrawn hy appellant. �.�1:): _ „ � � _ , Albert Palumbo, property owner, appeared and stated that he was in the process of making the repairs but needed additional time to complete them. He believed that some of the items listed by the inspector as needing repair were ea�aggerated. There was one window screen which needed to be installed and two cracked windows which needed to be replaced. He was uncertaitt what would need to be done to provide fire sepazation between the attached garage and the house. He intended to make some of the repairs himself and would hire a conhactor for some of the others. There was presenfly a tenant living in the house. Mr. Strathman reviewed the records and stated that the order was for condemnation. Dick Lippert, Public Fiealth, stated that the building was originally condemned by F'ue Prevemion in July, 1996 and the condemnafion order was still in effect The owner was aware of the condemnation, however, he decided to rent the house in November, 1946. T'here was an action pending in court against the owner. He re-inspected the house after the tenants moved in and many of the violarions still had not been conected. The tenant had several ssnall children and he believed the family was at a grave risk by remaining in the building. D'1r. Palumbo stated that the house had been condemned by Pat Fish in July,1996. She returned to the house in October, 1996 and he stated that she thought the house was fixed up and he requested that he be able to Property Code Enforcement Meeting Mazch 4, 1997 Page - 2 - a�.l�y remove the condemnation notice. He claimed that she agreed that he could remove the sign. He then found new tenants to occupy the house. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the property owner also owaed a three-unit duplex wluch was located on the same parcel of property. During an inspection at the duplex, she condemned the single-family home because of its hazazdous condition. Since this was a single-family home, Public Health had the proper jurisdiction to monitor this property. She met with Mr. Lippert and the property owner and indicated to the owner that Mr. Lippert would be the inspector of the single-family home. She stated that she repeatedly told the owner that the house could not be re-occupied until Mr. Lippert removed the condemnation order. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal since the condemnation order was still in effect and there were outstanding violations which had not been conected. 2224 Mailand Road Delmer Swanson, property owner, appeared and stated that he was notified by Licensing that he had a failed septic system and he was requesting additional time to explore lus options. He had written a letter to Public Works regazding the city installing a sewer system in lus azea, however, he never received a response. He was especially concemed about the cost to install a sewer system and where the location would be in conjunction to his property. Dave Dickhut, Public Works, stated that a technician in Public Works was exploring options for installing a sewer system for the entire Highwood azea. There was not a firm proposal or timeline for constructing a sewer on Mailand Road as Public Works would need a petition from one of the residents to begin the process. He pointed out that filing a perition would be free of charge and that the proposal was not binding. Tom LeClair, LIEP, stated that the septic system inspection report indicated that the system had a drywell which was considered a failed system according to the Legislative Code. The opdons to correct the failed system included petitioning Public Works to install a sewer for his properiy, that the system be repaired, or that a new holding tank be installed. Mr. Sh�athman recommended laying the matter over in the Legislative Hearing to June 17, 199'I to allow the properiy owner additional time to explore the available oprions. 2087 Skyway Drive Steven Mariano, property owner, appeazed and stated that he disagreed that lus septic system was a failed system because he had a drywell. He had esplained to the inspectar that a drainfield had been installed the yeaz previous to his purchase of the pmperty. He was not sure where the drainfield was located on his properry. He also did not agree with the inspector's report as he believed that the inspector did not take the time to make a determination that the system was operating conectly or not. Tom LeClair, LIEP, stated that explained why a drywell was a failed system. He suggested that the properiy owner contact the inspector as to the legitimacy of his report. Properry Code Enforcement Meeting Mazch 4, 1997 Page•3- q� .��y Dave Dickhut, Public Works, stated that they had not received a petition to install a sewer system on this street Mr. Strathman recommended laying the matter over in the I,egisiative Hearing to Tune 17, 1997 to allow the property owner additionai time to ea�plore the available options. 2119 5ky�vav Drive Tom Dimond, property owner, appeared and stated thaY he was appealing the order to correct lus failed septic system. He presented a letter he had received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MN PCA) conceming septic systems. It was lus opinion in reviewing the letter from the MN PCA that a drywell was not considered a failed system and that there was no proof of evidence that a drywell caused contamination of the groundwater. He had attended several neighborhood and city meetings concerning this issue. He believed that the Legislative Code was in error in not ailowing a variance or granting a waiver for dtywell systems. He azgued that the Legislative Code should be amended per the consideration of the MN PCA's opinion concerning drywells. He aiso stated that he would not be abie to afford the cost to repiace his septic system. Tom LeCiair, LIEP, stated that the state statute had the provision to grant a variance in certain instauces concemang a septic system with a drywell. The Legislative Code did not aliow a variance for what was considered a failed system. Mr. Strathman stated that since the main issue was regarding city policy, he believed that the City Council should be the deciding authority. He recommended dettying the appeal. vms