Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-09 - Special City CouncilMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING City of Stephenville - City Council TUESDAY, JULY 99 1996 - 5:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Stephenville, Texas, convened in special session on July 9, 1996, at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 354 N. Belknap Street, with the meeting being open to the public and notice of said meeting, giving the date, time, place and subject thereof, having been posted as prescribed by Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, with the following members present, to wit: Mayor John Pollan C ouncilmemb ers : Barbara Terrell Joel Hillin Marshall Shelton Scott Evans Billy Bob Hodges Bill Corbin Others Attending Don Davis, City Administrator Cindy L. Stafford, City Secretary Randy Thomas, City Attorney I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pollan called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and declared a quorum present. II. CONDUCT A HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF PHILIP CRAIG SHAFFER TO A RULING BY THE DANGEROUS BUILDINGS ABATEMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF STEPHENVILLE CONCERNING PART OF LOTS B AND C OF BLOCK 6 OF THE CITY ADDITION IN THE CITY OF STEPHENVILLE, AND WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 178 NORTH BELKNAP STREET, STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS, AND IS KNOWN AS THE MAJESTIC THEATRE BUILDING Mayor Pollan swore in the following witnesses: Betty Chew, Director of Community Development; Troy Curtis, Building Official; Gary Nabors, Fire Marshal; and Philip Craig Shaffer, Appellant. Mayor Pollan turned the meeting over to City Attorney Randy Thomas for the purpose of conducting the hearing. July 9, 1996 Minutes of Special Meeting Thomas called Troy Curtis, Building Official, who testified to the following statements: That he, Troy Curtis, is the Building Official as set out in the Dangerous Buildings Abatement Code. He has participated in one other hearing concerning the Majestic Theatre owned by Philip Craig Shaffer. He is aware that all official notices required to be given by the City to Mr. Shaffer have been given in a timely manner. In his capacity as Building Official, he conducted an investigation of the Majestic Theatre building. Curtis stated that the Fire Marshal joined him in the initial investigation. They looked at the building and took pictures of the roof. They found numerous holes and leaks which led them to believe there was possible structure damage. They also looked at the south wall, which, in Curtis' opinion, looked like it either needed to be checked or portions of it could fail. In one instance, there was an air conditioning unit that appeared to have sunk several inches, and he was concerned that the unit might fall through the roof. Curtis stated that he first began investigating this building at least a year ago (in 1995). He stated that at that time, Curtis did not have any discussions with Shaffer about repairs to the building. Since Curtis sent Shaffer notices in May, 1996, he has had some discussion with Shaffer. Curtis testified that the classification of a dangerous building assigned to the Majestic Theatre building was a valid classification as described in the Dangerous Buildings Abatement Code. He stated that he is aware that the City of Stephenville employed an engineer, and the engineer conducted an inspection of the building. Curtis has received and has read the engineer's report. There was nothing contained in the engineer's report that changed his mind about the building being dangerous. It is his opinion that the condition of the roof makes the building a dangerous one. Gary Nabors was then called to testify. He stated that he is the Fire Marshal for the City of Stephenville and has duties which fall under the Dangerous Buildings Abatement Code. He stated that he has investigated the Majestic Theatre building. Further, he stated that as long as one year ago he investigated such building. According to Nabors' file, he stated that the first notice he sent to Shaffer was January, 1995. He testified that the notices which were sent to Shaffer in 1995 were basically the same as the notices that were recently sent to Shaffer in 1996. However, there was additional concern now over the south wall of this building being exposed since the Terrell -Nix building had been demolished. Nabors clarified the difference in the notices sent in 1995 from those sent in 1996. The primary problems found in 1995 were that the building was insecure, which allowed children/juveniles to enter the building at will. There was still electrical power to the building at that time, and light fixtures were hanging from the ceiling. There was also the obvious problem to the roof --numerous leaks and holes and roofing that was missing. He stated that the only one of these problems which was addressed was that the building was secured so no one could gain entry and the electricity was disconnected. To his knowledge, the roof has remained in the same state of disrepair since January, 1995. Nabors said he believes the condition of the roof has worsened since 1995. He also stated that he has noticed that a large air conditioning unit on the back roof of the building is beginning to settle. One end has dropped 4-6 inches, which indicates to him that the wooden supports beneath it are rotting. This could possibly allows the air conditioning unit to fall July 9, 1996 Minutes of Special Meeting through the roof. In his opinion, the disrepair of the roof makes this a dangerous building under the Dangerous Buildings Abatement Code. Nabors stated that he is aware of the structural investigation of this building that Charles F. Terry conducted at the request of the City and that he has a copy of same. It was determined that each councilmember had been furnished with a copy of this report. Nabors stated that nothing in the engineer's report makes him feel differently about his own determination that the Majestic Theatre building is a dangerous building under the Dangerous Buildings Abatement Code. He stated that the report is specific about the roof being unsafe. Nabors read from Charles Terry's report, "In the opinion of the engineer, the entire roof structure is unsafe." Nabors testified that just that statement by itself tells you that the structure is a dangerous building under the Dangerous Buildings Abatement Code. Thomas announced that this concluded the City's testimony at this time. City Attorney Thomas clarified for Shaffer the fact that Councilmembers Terrell and Corbin had filed an affidavit of conflict and would not be joining in any discussion, deliberation, or voting of this matter. Shaffer gave his testimony, stating that he received notice of this meeting (July 9, 1996) on Saturday, July 6, 1996. He had understood that after the engineer's report had been submitted, the he and Randy Thomas were to meet and go over the report. He stated that has not happened and that he (Shaffer) has made a special effort to be here on this day. He stated he was not sure what was "happening here today" and what "it is that we should be addressing here today". He said that the issues he has brought up for some period of time are not being brought up now with regard to anything having to do with the building. He cites the "particular problem of the building and the repair of the roof, which I had said when this began, that doing the repairs once this problem with this standing wall and this partial demolition was addressed, that it was no problem to repair the roof." Shaffer's testimony continued, "I have a great deal of documentation with people saying that the wall was the problem. I have documentation now with people saying who have issued this --not report, as I understand it, this is a letter --that this gentleman named Terry has written. And, with regard to that, I'm not sure what it is that we're relying upon in this letter to do anything. It says in the very beginning that all he conducted was a brief walk through. He did not do anything to test really anything. He doesn't show that he was on the roof. It says clearly that all he did was a brief walk through of the building. We had understood that the major factor here that was involved from a structural standpoint was not that we needed to do some roof repair on the roof which is not the problem, in and of itself, but the problem is this wall that remains on the adjoining people's property and all of the damage and everything that's been done pursuant to that wall. And the ultimate request of us to participate in an investigation of that on property that I don't have anything to do with. It's not mine. It has nothing to do with us. "Assertions made to us by Phillip Hale, who did the demolition, or partial demolition of this building, were that the wall that's there is not ours. It doesn't have anything to do with us except for the July 9, 1996 Minutes of Special Meeting subsequent damage by it being left there, and not only the eyesore, but now the structural problems that are delineated in his letter are a significant problem. And that's what should be being dealt with here. I have the letters from the roofing people who have gotten involved who have said that until that wall is dealt with that's on that property, they can't fix the roof. And I've got clear documentation of that. This was known to several people prior to us having the hearings or coming to this extent to deal with this. And I have a number of questions that somebody needs to answer, and a number of problems with what is going on with this with regards to nobody seeming to want to address what the problem really is here and what's going on here. My concern is that this letter, which I have not had a chance to go over since I received it with Randy Thomas, purports to make a number of conclusions from assumptions drawn from a brief walk through of a building. I have a real problem with that. But more importantly, constantly throughout this letter --it's not a report, this is a letter --where this gentlemen, in sentence after sentence, not only disclaims the number of aspects of this, that he is not involved in or qualified to make any assumptions, let alone assertions to the Council or otherwise about, is replete with things, saying "my opinion", "a rough estimate", "I estimate", "I observed", "no plans or drawings were given", "no information about the public alley", "I was told", "it is obvious from my observations". I see all this throughout the report, and it doesn't specifically delineate anything other than saying (or doesn't say) that in any way the building is unstructurally or structurally unsound. That is not in here anywhere. But the problem that has been created by this partial demolition and what has been left here, as I understood it, was a significant part of the problem. I have stated since the beginning. I have no problem with doing the roof repair as soon as we can get on the roof with what's on the sound wall and attached and leaning up against it and some six or eight feet above the wall, that we don't have any problem with repairing that as soon as the damage that's been caused by that demolition, and that wall still standing, is addressed. To date, I know of not a piece of paper, a warning, a notice, anything being given to the property owners who are responsible for this problem. Why? I don't know. We have asked this repeatedly so that ... If you go to your Building Abatement Code, as well as your city building code, it makes mention in there of a number of things having to do with the building itself, the structure of the building that was left over there, and the wall. Violations include that run all the way through Section 3 02(G)(3 ) clear to Section 302, S, 6, 75 8, 10, 11--the Uniform Building Code that Stephenville, as I understand it, and I'm not an expert on this, but I'm rapidly trying to get to speed on what's going on here. The Uniform Building Code makes mention of a number of problems that seem to address the problem left by this partial demolition, not the least of which is the damage to my property and to me as a result of all this; and the fact that if, as I understood it, an engineer was coming into do a "report", not a letter, not a brief walk through, and a guesstimate, having never been up and seen anything on top of the building or otherwise. We had no problem and continue to have no problem with, as soon as the damage is mitigated on our south exterior property, repairing the roof over there on that side which is where, on that side, the hole in the roof is. So I don't come to you today to talk to you about the problem in regard to us repairing the roof. That has never been an issue, in that we will be more than happy to repair the roof, as soon as we have, I guess, and you or the City addresses the mitigation of damage caused by this partial demolition and by what was left there for the rest of us, and I guess if the City has bought the property now, to deal with, and to that end we have continued to try to have an we're hopeful that we would have a dialogue with the City Attorney regarding those issues and a number of issues that come into play here. The first notice I got of this hearing arrived in Dallas on Saturday, so we've had 48 hours to know that instead of having the continuing discussion about the problems and how best to resolve this, we have this hearing called hastily to do July 9, 1996 Minutes of Special Meeting what, I'm not altogether sure. But to the extent that we need to put on the record what is heappening here, what's going on here, I will be happy to ask all of the questions that I intended to ask of Mr. Thomas and will be happy to ask anybody on the Council about what is going on here --what's happening, to the extent that we don't have any problem with trying to hold up our end of the bargain to repair the roof, which is fine. The problem that we were confronted with when all this really got started was the request that we investigate the potential damage caused to everyone by this south wall that's standing on Ms. Terrell's property. And to the extent that the City didn't give a partial demolition permit in the first place. We have a situation here which is replete with problems with what has been allowed to occur and what has happened. I would be happy to participate in whatever mitigation of damage has been done to us in regard to this, but certainly hold up my end of doing whatever I need to do with fixing the hole in the roof. But, at this point, I'm in a quandary as to understand why it is that we seem to have been singled out for a hole in the roof, and there's buildings all over town that have holes in roofs. But folks are wanting to talk about condemning a building as the result of a hole in the roof. But more importantly, why it is that we are the only ones that have received these notices and had to deal with this and come to hearings and be involved in this aspect of it when we are the party being damaged by the continuation of this process with each exceeding step, and yet the people who are involved in that problem have not been served with a notice, with anything causing them to have to come forward, for example, how it is that they were allowed to have a demolition of a building, partial or otherwise, and it clearly states in the codes that there should have been not only structural reports but engineering reports that should have accompanied any move to put our building in jeopardy and our property in jeopardy. That's never been addressed. Nobody's ever noticed anybody about the problem, that I'm aware of --never seen anything. And yet, we stand here today talking about a roof problem that I can give you, we will be happy to supply the copies to whomever, with the professional roofers who have been up there to talk about this problem and the south wall and what the problem is in terms of trying to fix this as a result of what's happened over there. And to that extent, I don't have any problem in dealing with this, but I'm wondering why it is that we are being singled out here in this and the problem which was addressed to us in the beginning, the folks involved in that have not been noticed for anything or been told in any way that they have a severe problem here. So, to that extent I'd like for someone to address me and tell me why it is that this is occurring like this when, as I said at a meeting we had weeks and weeks and weeks ago --no problem with fixing the roof, we need to figure out how we're going to do this with this dangerous wall standing on somebody's property that's about to fall in. I will be more than happy to cooperate to do our part on what we need to do, but at what point do we start to deal with the real problem here." Mayor Pollan then asked Shaffer if he recalled getting the notices in 1995. Shaffer stated that he got notices in 1995 concerning vandals breaking in our building. Pollan clarified that Shaffer had received the notices which were .mailed to him in 1996. Shaffer said that he had received them. Pollan asked Shaffer if he had considered getting his own engineer to come in and inspect the building. Shaffer said he was willing to go along with City Attorney Thomas on the report and engineering study that he understood was going to take place and rely upon that. However, Shaffer stated that Charles Terry's letter is far from objective. Shaffer stated again that he is unable to make the repairs to the roof of the Majestic Theatre building because of the danger which the south wall of the Terrell -Nix property imposes. when Mayor Pollan indicated that the wall in question was July 9, 1996 Minutes of Special Meeting partly owned by Shaffer, Shaffer stated that he has nothing in his records that purports that it is a common wall. Shaffer mentioned that statements which were made to him when the demolition was going on contradict the opinion that the wall in part ins owned by Shaffer. At this time, Mayor Pollan turned the hearing back over to City Attorney Thomas. Thomas asked Shaffer, "Do I understand Mr. Shaffer that you are agreeing that we need a roof on the property?" Shaffer: "Let me just categorically say this one more time so everybody understands. I don't have any problem, once this situation is resolved on this exterior and what's been left [Mayor Pollan: "He's just asking for a simple answer."] A simple answer is I don't have any problem repairing the roof once this other is dealt with." Thomas: "You're agreeing that there needs to be a roof." Shaffer: "Well, certainly, roof repair, yes." At that time, Thomas indicated the end of questioning of Mr. Shaffer and called Gary Nabors as a rebuttal witness. Thomas asked Nabors to verify the notices that were sent to Philip Craig Shaffer in 1995 and 1996. Nabors submitted copies of the following notice letters sent to Shaffer: January 23, 1995 and February 26, 1996. Nabors read from these letters the problems that were addressed in these two official notices. The letter dated January 23, 1995 pointed out that the building was unsecured against the entry of unauthorized persons. The second condition was the leaking roof, which contributed to the deterioration of the building. The third condition was that several light fixtures were suspended only by the electrical wiring, and had fallen from the ceiling and were suspended by the wiring. Steps were specified in the letter that should be taken in order to remedy these conditions. Shaffer was asked to secure the building against the entry of unauthorized persons and to keep out animals. The second remedy to be taken was to repair the roof to prevent further deterioration. The third remedy was to disconnect electrical service to the building. Concerning the notice given by letter dated February 26, 1996 set out the leaking roof and the weakening roof structure, and an unstable condition in the south exterior wall of the building. Shaffer was asked to repair the roof structure and make the roof structurally sound. Shaffer was asked to have the southerly exterior wall inspected for structural soundness and make necessary repairs. Upon instruction by Thomas, Nabors submitted these to the Mayor. Betty Chew, Director of Community Development, was the next person to testify on behalf of the City. She testified that she has been aware of the situation with the Majestic Theatre building and Mr. Shaffer's property. She is certain that all official notices have been served and sent out as required by the Dangerous Buildings Abatement Code. Specifically, she is aware of Charles Terry's report on the subject property. In her opinion, she feels that the report and the material and information she has gained from the employees of the City of Stephenville are sufficient proof to render the Majestic July 9, 1996 Minutes of Special Meeting Theatre building as an unsafe building and a dangerous building under the Dangerous Buildings Abatement Code. She stated that on this day (July 9, 1996) she had a discussion with Charles Terry concerning the roof and the south wall. Terry told Ms. Chew that in his opinion he saw no reason that the south wall would need to be sealed prior to the repair of the roof. Basically, he said that the roof could be repaired before any repairs were made to the wall. City Attorney Thomas announced that he had nothing further to present to this hearing. Philip Craig Shaffer had rebuttal. He asked Betty Chew if she had ever been on top of the building in question. She stated that she has been inside the building but not on top of it. Shaffer reiterated previous statements made by him. Shaffer began questioning Councilmember Terrell, at which time Mayor Pollan informed him that Ms. Terrell had filed an affidavit of conflict of interest and could not enter into any discussion on this subject. Shaffer stated that he has not been supplied with a copy of the structural and/or engineering report that was required before the demolition of this building was done. City Attorney Thomas informed Shaffer that the hearing that was taking place had nothing to do with the building which had been demolished. In closing, Shaffer asked, "To the extent that we're having this meeting, and to the extent that we can repair the roof with the existing problem that exists, to what extent are we going to address that problem?" Mayor Pollan stated that, at this point, dialogue was closed. Pollan asked for a motion to continue this action as set out in the Dangerous Buildings Abatement Code, that Shaffer be given 30 days to bring the building up to the code requirements. No motion was made. Mayor Pollan declared that this matter will be continued. Mayor Pollan advised Attorney Thomas to direct his correspondence and communications with Philip Craig Shaffer. M. ADJOURN There being no other business to come before the Council at this time, Mayor Pollan adjourned the meeting at 6 : 3 5 p.m. C)20�/ John P ran, Mayor ATTEST: Cindy L.retary ffor , City Sec July 9, 1996 Minutes of Special Meeting