City of Lawrence, KS

Community Development Advisory Committee

August 30, 2012 Minutes (City Commission Room)

MEMBERS PRESENT:		Deron Belt, Eric Hethcoat, Quinn Miller, James Minor, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, David Teixeira, Patti Welty, Patrick Wilbur

MEMBERS ABSENT:		None

STAFF PRESENT:		Brian Jimenez, Dan Johnson, Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts, Dustin Chase

PUBLIC PRESENT:		Patricia Sinclair, Diane and Jake Trybom

Chair Teixeira called the meeting to order at 5:30pm.

1. Introductions

Members and staff introduced themselves.

2. Approval of the April 12, 2012 Minutes.

Norwood moved to approve the CDAC meeting minutes from

April 12, 2012. The motion was seconded by Mitchell and passed 11-0.

3. Environmental Code Violation Appeal – Patricia Sinclair, 331 Johnson Avenue.

a. Presentation from Brian Jimenez, Code Enforcement Manager

Jimenez stated that an appeal regarding this same property was heard by this board in December of 2009. The property had been cited for non-compliance with the City’s environmental code and Ms. Sinclair appealed the Notice and Violation. At that time, the CDAC voted 7-0 in favor of City staff that the code was interpreted correctly. In the three years since this hearing, the property has remained in non-compliance with the code. There have been court cases and a district court appeal. The task before the CDAC this evening is to determine if staff acted in compliance with the code and the violation of the property was merited. This case stands on its own merits, and each violation on a specific day is a separate complaint. Since June of 2009, City staff has received 39 complaints regarding this property from neighbors and other citizens. Dan Johnson, Code Enforcement Officer, cited the property on July 18 of 2012. The code allows for an appeal of this citation. Ms. Sinclair requested an appeal on July 31. Staff responded with the date of this evening’s meeting within thirty minutes to Ms. Sinclair. The code requires a five-day notice for appeal. Ms. Sinclair was given a 29 day notice. She was given instructions at that time as to how she could submit information for this appeal so that the Committee could see the items before the meeting. There were no items submitted.

The CDAC will review the evidence of the violation and determine if staff acted appropriately. The CDAC will then provide a written summary of their decision. If the staff action is upheld, staff may take the issue to the City Commission for adoption of a resolution allowing Ms. Sinclair 20 days to clean up the property. If she fails to comply with the resolution within that time then the violations on the property will be abated for her.

Memorandum from staff.

Photographs from July 18, 2012.

Included in the presentation are photos of neighborhood homes. One section of the code asks if the conditions of the property are commensurate with those of the neighborhood homes. The photographs presented show a cross section of the neighborhood home conditions. Staff is requesting Ms. Sinclair remove the items in question from the porch of her house and the surrounding areas included in the citation. Jimenez said staff has tried to work with Ms. Sinclair on several occasions. Each time there has been no compliance with the request. This appears to be a hoarding-type situation and there appears to be a pattern of this type of behavior in looking at the property as well as Ms. Sinclair’s vehicle where there are many items that fill up the car. The charge of the CDAC this evening is to determine if the staff acted in accordance with the code in citing Ms. Sinclair for violations of the environmental code. All other items and arguments are irrelevant.

b. Presentation from Ms. Sinclair, Appellant

Ms. Sinclair stated she did not believe this was a fair hearing as she has been trying to get copies of her requested open records and they have not all been provided. She said she had other obligations and the time limitation has made it difficult for her. She stated she felt she was not notified correctly and that staff is guilty of criminal trespass and malicious selective enforcement. She spoke of the prior violation in 2009 and the fact that in the court case, the City ultimately decided to waive the charges. She reported a neighbor running an unauthorized business in the neighborhood that has not been cited.

Ms. Sinclair stated the reason for the accumulation of belongings on her porch and the surrounding areas was due to the fact she needs to make some changes in her basement. She needs to move her washer out of the basement, and in order to work on her basement she received approval to use her front porch as a staging area. She stated her neighbor has a broken rain gutter and this has caused problems with water on her property. Ms. Sinclair said she cannot move some things out of the area without moving other things around which is why there are items on the porch and under the porch. She said she had to put quite a few items in storage when her parents got sick and she wanted these things out of storage as it is taking all her savings. Ms. Sinclair stated there should be concern about those that are filing the complaints about her property. She stated she had a stalking order against one of her neighbors, and in addition she has had trouble with Diane Trybom as well. She stated a male in her neighborhood had filed a false felony charge against her and she was arrested and her car was towed. She said she was a retired social worker with no moving violations. She gives to the Social Service League. She donates to the library. She throws things away. Every time she worked on her basement she would move a bin to the porch. She again stated that Jimenez and staff are lying to the CDAC. She said she sees that her property is on the list of the 15-16 worst cases in the City of Lawrence. This is untrue as she has all her utilities and her electric work is modern, her plumbing is copper, and the house is structural and sound. She takes pride in her yard.

Ms. Sinclair said the previous case against her property was dismissed by the City because they knew that they would lose it. There was no explanation regarding the change in the ordinance, and just because it is in the city code does not mean it complies with the US Constitution. Her lawyer stated the City cannot post her property when she has a no-trespassing sign. There is a current case in Municipal Court regarding this property. She said she has seen properties in bad condition all over Lawrence and there are lots of dilapidated structures in town. She said in her case the items are on and around the porch so she can do work and get her items out of storage. Ms. Sinclair said in addition there had been a weed violation reported against her. She said her yard was an organic place for birds and flowers.

Ms. Sinclair reported that there are many “drunken parties” in the neighborhood and people working on their homes without a permit. She provided photos to the CDAC members showing pictures of her home as well as neighboring homes. She said she felt as if she was being picked on because of her advocacy. She said she was one of the main advocates for the fireworks ban and has complained about police treatment of the homeless. This citation has nothing to do with the quality of the home. She said it was very frightening that people can come in and take your home. Within her neighborhood she said there is plenty of illegal parking, an illegal TV repair shop, and other items of note.

Ms. Sinclair spent several minutes of her presentation showing photos of neighborhood homes.

c. CDAC questions, deliberation, and determination

Norwood asked Jimenez what the cost would be if the city chose to abate the property.

Jimenez said he was unsure what the total costs would be but the City would store anything that was valuable, and in this particular situation likely everything would be stored. Ms. Sinclair would ultimately be responsible for charges stemming from cleanup of the property and storage.

Polson asked why the items would be retained.

Jimenez said in this situation it would be appropriate to keep the items as opposed to disposing of them.

Norwood asked if the Notice of Violation was sent certified mail.

Dan Johnson said it was, and in addition a copy was posted to the front porch.

Miller asked if this case was strictly about the items on and around the porch.

Jimenez said that was correct. He said staff was not worried about the trash cans on the property. The citation was based on the totality of the situation including how much is there and how long this has been going on. Jimenez said technically staff could have issued a citation each day since July 18 when the original violation was documented but they have not.

Wilbur said this contained a list of items on the violation. He asked if the violation was the same if there was one item or ten.

Jimenez said yes.

Polson asked if it was limited to a type of item.

Jimenez said it was not. It could be plastics, bins, trash bags, or another material. He added that most of the time these cases are resolved before they get to the point of appeal.

Polson asked Ms. Sinclair how she gets into her house if the porch is full of items.

Sinclair said she goes in through the back door. She said City staff takes shifts looking at her house. She put a gate in her backyard and there is an illegal TV repair business on the corner. People would approach her house and pound on the door and ask for the TV repair shop. She said due to the felony against her and the Protection From Stalking (PFS) order she does not want anyone to be able to see her. She said she checked with the Fire Department and the fact that the front door is blocked is not a fire code violation. She is not required to use her front door. She said when someone is watching your every move it is frightening.

Norwood asked Ms. Sinclair why it has taken her this long to clean up her property.

Ms. Sinclair answered that with the pending case in Municipal Court she had to prioritize. She said on the date of the violation, July 18, she had no central air. She is working on an appeal in district court and she tried to go through open records. She said during this time she has kept up her yard beautifully as she did not want to have any problems with that. She said it was not that she did not do anything towards cleaning up the property. She has been working on her basement and she had a yard sale in November. She tried to fence her yard in. She needed to get things in and out of storage. She said she had to choose and she chose to work on her district court appeal.

Nunez asked if the garage on the property was empty.

Ms. Sinclair said it was a dirt-floor barn and it is not empty. She said it was not anyone’s business what was in that structure and the doors cannot be propped open.

Nunez asked if Ms. Sinclair had help moving the items to the barn would she use it for storage.

Ms. Sinclair said she would not. There are hazardous yard items in that space and as she said she cannot really shut the doors all the way. It is also a long way to walk. She said she had a plan to clean up the area and it would be done if the City would leave her alone and let her proceed. The City has changed their story and did not let her do what she wanted to. The intention was to move forward with cleanup. She said only a fool would not exercise their right to appeal.

Minor said as there have been multiple violations over the years, has Ms. Sinclair tried to work with staff to remedy the situation.

Ms. Sinclair said she has photos that she did not show the CDAC. She said after her mother passed away her father got sick and lived for four years. She had moved things into storage and little by little she tried to move those items out of storage. She said every time she tried to take something out of storage there was a violation reported.

Teixeira said it was the job of the CDAC to determine if staff properly enforced the code in the case of this particular violation.

The CDAC heard public comment.

Diane Trybom said she was the neighbor to the direct east of Ms. Sinclair’s property. She said her property was the property Ms. Sinclair claimed was being worked on without a building permit. This was not the case. The proper building permits were pulled for the work on the house. She said her family moved to their house in 1993, and Sinclair moved into her home in November of 1993. Directly after she moved in items began accumulating on her porch and in the back yard. In the early 2000’s there were so many items on the front porch that she stapled plastic around the area. She said this is an issue that the neighborhood has dealt with since Ms. Sinclair moved in. Trybom said at this point she is at her wit’s end. She said Ms. Sinclair goes around the neighborhood with a camera and takes photos of all the homes in the neighborhood. Trybom said she takes pride in her home but is thinking about moving but is not sure she can sell her property since it is located next to Ms. Sinclair’s.

Trybom showed the CDAC several photos of Ms. Sinclair’s property.

Ms. Sinclair asked when she would be allowed her rebuttal. She said she was told she would have rebuttal time. She said that the violation states that all items must be removed from the porch and the back yard. She said it was a scary thing with someone says they are going to take your belongings away. Ms. Sinclair said she has tried to read the code and understand it. She suggested a longer notification period as a change to the code. She also said the abatement wording seems to say that if there has not been an appeal this is the result.

Teixeira said the CDAC was not there to decide if abatement was appropriate. They were just there to review the violation and determine if staff acted appropriately.

Ms. Sinclair stated Jimenez has always said this was about abatement. She said she has read and reread the code. What the code says is if the CDAC upholds the staff determination the City Commission will pass a resolution. She said she needed time to get together information for the City Commission. She said the code states if a person does not appeal the decision then staff can proceed with abatement. She said it sounds like a given.

Swarts said if the CDAC finds the staff has acted in accordance with the code then staff can pursue abatement with the City Commission. Teixeira was correct in his statement that this hearing was not about abatement. If the staff elects to pursue abatement Ms. Sinclair will be notified about the process. There will be ample time for gathering materials and making comments.

Sinclair said it seemed that many of these processes were done on the fly.

Swarts said a procedure was established for the CDAC with these appeal hearings. The previous appeal hearing this body presided over allowed for 15 minute presentations. The first appeal for the property at 331 Johnson Avenue was allotted 20 minutes which is why the time allowance for this appeal was changed to allow 20 minutes.

Ms. Sinclair said Jimenez sent letters to her in the past and she would come to City Hall and talk to then Mayor Amyx. She said she did not plan to go to jail and be falsely charged with a felony.

Norwood moved to uphold staff’s interpretation of the City’s environmental code violation for 331 Johnson Avenue. The motion was seconded by Miller.

Polson said she has driven past Ms. Sinclair’s house in the past and the porch has been full of items for a very long time. She said while it did not look good, her thought is the bigger issue is how Ms. Sinclair gets along with her neighbors. Polson said she felt as though this would be something Ms. Sinclair would want to work on more than cleaning up the porch. She said she felt that the items on the porch do not look good, but it may not match up with the intent of the environmental code.

Belt said he lauded Ms. Sinclair for her work on behalf of the parks as well as advocating for the fireworks ban. He said he also implored her to reach out to her neighbors and that there seems to be multiple people on that block that are prisoners in their own homes. It is not good neighbor behavior. He said it was important to rebuild those relationships and this goes beyond moving things off the porch.

Ms. Sinclair responded that her neighbors have said slanderous things about her and about the neighborhood feuds and she said she believed that is the situation with the City, in that they are listening to the neighbors.

The motion passed 10-1.

4. Miscellaneous/Calendar.

Swarts asked the CDAC to cancel the September 13 meeting because staff will be attending the Kansas Housing Conference in Manhattan on that day. The September 27 meeting will be their public hearing, and it will be held in a TBD location. The Committee will discuss the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) and the upcoming grant application. Swarts said at one time the Committee had talked about inviting the neighborhoods to the public hearing as well. Staff will need direction on this request if the CDAC wishes to pursue this.

Swarts mentioned that the next meeting will be the final meeting for Welty and Nunez. Teixeira and Norwood have been reappointed to a second terms. There will be two positions open on the CDAC for low-moderate income neighborhood representatives.

Norwood said her preference is to invite the neighborhoods to an October meeting.

Polson moved to cancel the September 13, 2012 meeting of the Community Development Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Minor and passed 11-0.

5. Public Comment.

Ms. Sinclair stated that she wanted to rebut items that were presented that were untrue. She said she and Trybom got along for years, and then there were times they did not. She said there were police incidents and intimidation tactics to keep her from testifying. She said she was upset about her foundation damage but she had to let it go. She said she showed neighborhood photos to the City Commission on a prior appeal and because she showed Trybom’s home this is what she got. Ms. Sinclair said with neighbors it is hard because everyone does not like everyone. She said over the 19 years she has owned the property she has gotten along with her neighbors. There have been five different owners on one side of her. She appropriately talked to their children. She said when people had power the issues snowballed with a small group of people. She said she believes in give and take with neighbors. Ms. Sinclair states she just wanted to see fair enforcement and that changes to the code have only been proposed in order for the city to get a conviction.

There was no additional public comment.

6. Adjourn.

Polson moved to adjourn the August 30, 2012 meeting of the CDAC at 7:00 pm. The motion was seconded by Wilbur and passed 11-0.

Attendance Record

Members

Jan 12

Jan 26

Feb 9

Feb 23

Mar 8

Mar 22

Apr 12

Apr 26

May

Jun

July

Aug 9

Aug 30

Sept 13

Sept 27

Oct 11

Oct 25

Nov 8

Dec 13

Deron Belt

Eric Hethcoat

Quinn Miller

Julie Mitchell

Vern Norwood

Brenda Nunez

Aimee Polson

David Teixeira

Patti Welty

Patrick Wilbur

James Minor

E Excused Absence

U Unexcused Absence

X Meeting Cancelled – Weather Conditions

- Meeting Cancelled – Committee Vote/No Business

* First meeting after appointment

** Last Meeting Prior to expired term