Item Coversheet
      

5919 MAIN STREET .  NEW PORT RICHEY, FL 34652 . 727.853.1016


TO:City of New Port Richey City Council
FROM:Lisa L. Fierce, Development Director
DATE:3/21/2017
RE:Appeal of Order to Demolish - 6143 Cecelia Drive - Freitas Property

REQUEST:

This is an appeal from an Order to Demolish a residential structure located at 6143 Cecelia Drive.  It is based on the Building Official’s determination that a structure meets the criteria for demolition set forth in Section 6-185 of the Code.  City Council shall hear and consider all facts material to the appeal and may affirm, modify or reverse the Order to Demolish.  The matter shall be handled as a quasi-judicial proceeding.



DISCUSSION
:

Site Information:

The subject property is 0.12 acres located on the north side of Cecelia Drive, approximately 900 feet east of Madison Street.  It is within the Tanglewood Terrace subdivision.  The site contains a 1,572 square foot single-family home that was built in 1973.  The City discovered the problems with the property after a neighbor contacted Code Enforcement.

 

Order to Demolish:

On January 20, 2017, the structure was inspected by the City’s Building Inspector and by the Building Official on January 27, 2017.  The Building Official determined that the structure meets criteria for demolition, per Code.  The Order required that the owner demolish the structure and clear the site within 60 days or by Tuesday, March 28, 2017.

 

The Code states that the Building Official must find the existence of one or more of seven possible criteria.  The Order to Demolish was issued based on existence of the following three criteria:

·    Section 6-185(2) – The structure is so unsanitary or so utterly fails to provide the amenities essential to decent living that it is manifestly unfit for human habitation, or is likely to cause sickness or disease, so as to work injury to the life, health or safety on the general public or occupant.  “Amenities essential to decent living” include, but are not limited to, the availability of potable water, at least one working toilet, and protection from exposure to the elements.

 

Building Official findings:  The water was turned off from the property on September 9, 2017, due to non-payment.  Billing charges have been accruing and to date total $1,673.82.  Duke Energy turned off the electricity on October 1, 2014.   The dwelling unit had not been kept in a clean and sanitary condition.   The interior had been damaged so that it is unsafe and unsanitary.  The presence of many large holes were noted in the walls. The roof had not been properly maintained and had collapsed at back of house.  Soffit and fascia are in need of attention for rodents and insects.  There is substantial debris in the back yard including an abandoned jet-ski.

 

It also meets the definition of "dilapidate, deteriorated or decayed structure" by reason of inadequate  maintenance, obsolescence or abandonment, is unsafe or unsanitary and constitutes a fire hazard or other danger to life or property or is inadequate for the purpose for which such structure was intended.  By definition, unfit or unsafe structures are a nuisance and unlawful..

 

·   Section 6-185(3) – The structure, or a portion thereof, as a result of decay, deterioration, or dilapidation is likely to fully or partially collapse.

 

Building Official findingsThe roof had not been maintained in a proper manner and had been perforated by a tree growing inside the lanai area to the destruction of the ceiling joists and decking. Shingles have completely deteriorated.

 

§  Section 6-185(7) – The structural parts have become so dilapidated, decayed or deteriorated, or there is an unusual sagging or leaning out of plumb of the building or any part thereof caused by deterioration or over-stressing of the structure or structural parts, that the structure is manifestly unsafe.

 

Building Official findings:  The collapse of the ceiling joist has put undue pressure on exterior walls.  The roof had not been maintained in a proper manner and has defects which admit rain and cause dampness in the walls of the interior portion of the building.  The presence of many large holes were noted in the walls. Kitchen cabinets are missing.

 

Appeal:

Under Section 6-190 of the Code, the owner or an “interested party” may appeal an Order to Demolish.  On February 22, 2017, an appeal was filed by property owner Jeffrey A. Freitas (“petitioner”).  The $400 filing fee was submitted on February 22, 2017.

As part of the appeal, the petitioner may appear to show:

 

1)   That the structure does not meet the criteria for demolition set out in, Section 6-185.

2)    That the structure cannot be demolished within the time specified by the order.

3)   That the structure can be reconstructed, repaired, or restored. If a petitioner is appealing based on this subsection, the petitioner must submit, with the written petition for appeal, the following documentation regarding the proposed reconstruction, repair, or restoration:

           a) list of proposed work to the structure; estimated cost;

           b) timetable for obtaining permits; and

c) timetable for completion of the work. (City Council may stay a Demolition Order to give the petitioner time for such reconstruction, repair, or restoration.)

 

It is the petitioner’s burden to provide competent, substantial evidence that one or more of the above criteria are applicable.  Competent, substantial evidence is fact-based and reliable evidence.  Based on Staff’s knowledge of the property from the January 20, 2017 inspection and a more recent exterior inspection on March 6, 2017, the report to repair the structure provided by the applicant, addresses all required improvements.  It includes a list of the proposed work to the interior and exterior of the structure with an estimated cost of $44,900.  The timetable submitted, however, is not adequate which lists completion by March 29.  Staff would recommend 90 days to make the necessary repairs or by June 21, 2017.     



RECOMMENDATION:

City Council is to consider all facts material to the appeal as a quasi-judicial review.  Any person aggrieved by the decision of the City Council may seek judicial review in Circuit Court.  Council may affirm, modify or reverse the Order to Demolish within three alternatives: 

1.       Affirm the Building Official’s determination that the structure meets the criteria for demolition and direct the owner to demolish the structure within 30 days with valid demolition permit; or

2.       Affirm the Building Official’s determination that the structure meets the criteria for demolition, but require the owner to repair or restore the structure by obtaining the required permits and completing the work, including final inspections within 90 days (June 21, 2017); or

3.       Reverse the Building Official’s determination.

 

Staff recommends approval of alternative 2 to direct the owner to repair the structure within 90 days with a valid permit.  



BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT:

If the City is to demolish the property, the estimated impact to the budget is $9,000. Costs incurred to date include certified mailings, advertising and title search. 

ATTACHMENTS:
DescriptionType
Exhibit “A” - Site Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit “B”- Case History TimelineBackup Material
Exhibit “C”- Code Section 6-185, Criteria for DemolitionBackup Material
Exhibit “D”- Demolition Investigation FormBackup Material
Exhibit “E” - Site PhotographsBackup Material
Exhibit “F”- Order to Demolish Backup Material
Exhibit “G”- Code Section 6-190, Appeal to the City CouncilBackup Material
Exhibit “H” - Appeal ApplicationBackup Material