Irving getting nailed on overzealous code enforcem - May 23, 2008 - 01:29 PM
BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 27, 2007
“C. BSCR0706-0005 – 1923 Senter, Sam Kim, Owner
Code Enforcement Director Adrian gave a status report on this case on behalf of the City. She provided a PowerPoint presentation, as well as a chronological report on the condition of the property which failed to meet deadline, and she noted staff was not making a recommendation. The August 30, 2007, Order authorized the City to demolish the building for owners failure to have property occupied with full functioning businesses by September 26, 2007.
Sam Kim, 1923 Senter, Owner addressed the Commissioners.
Sue Harper, 1117 S. Delaware, spoke in opposition of the item. She said she personally monitored the property, and she questions the work that has been done inside of the building. She said Mr. Kim had lots of opportunities and this item needs to be resolved.
Sam Kim, 1923 Senter, Owner, asked for additional time to come into compliance. He said he made application for water service but he could not understand why the water service was not provided to his building. He also asked for a 30 day stay for the demolition order so that he could get the property ready for operation.
Code Enforcement Director Adrian requested that the Commissioners refrain from making a change to the original Order. She stated the intent would be to bring the case back to the October 25, 2007, meeting as a “closed” case.”
However, Mr. Kim took the city to court. Ultimately, the city agreed to the following settlement. Some at least of it was for “damages”, done by the city to Mr. Kim
“Ultimately, the parties agreed to the following terms proposed by Defendants:
1. The lawsuit would be dismissed and each party will pay their own attorneys' fees;
2. The case pending before the Irving Building and Standards Commission (`BSC") would be closed;
3. The City would pay Plaintiff $225,000.00;
4. The City would demolish and dispose of the improvements (including any asbestos abatement) on the Property at the City's expense;
5. The City would rezone (from commercial to residential S-P-2 for R-6 use) and replat (from one (1) commercial lot to two (2) residential lots) at the City's own cost and expense;
6. Plaintiff could remove any personal property he desired from the Property prior to demolition;
7. Plaintiff would sign an Application for Zoning Change; and
8. Plaintiff would retain title and ownership of the Property after the demolition, rezoning and replatting.”
Irving getting nailed on overzealous code enforcem - May 23, 2008 - 01:29 PM
BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 “C. BSCR0706-0005 – 1923 Senter, Sam Kim, Owner Code Enforcement Director Adrian gave a status report on this case on behalf of the City. She provided a PowerPoint presentation, as well as a chronological report on the condition of the property which failed to meet deadline, and she noted staff was not making a recommendation. The August 30, 2007, Order authorized the City to demolish the building for owners failure to have property occupied with full functioning businesses by September 26, 2007. Sam Kim, 1923 Senter, Owner addressed the Commissioners. Sue Harper, 1117 S. Delaware, spoke in opposition of the item. She said she personally monitored the property, and she questions the work that has been done inside of the building. She said Mr. Kim had lots of opportunities and this item needs to be resolved. Sam Kim, 1923 Senter, Owner, asked for additional time to come into compliance. He said he made application for water service but he could not understand why the water service was not provided to his building. He also asked for a 30 day stay for the demolition order so that he could get the property ready for operation. Code Enforcement Director Adrian requested that the Commissioners refrain from making a change to the original Order. She stated the intent would be to bring the case back to the October 25, 2007, meeting as a “closed” case.” However, Mr. Kim took the city to court. Ultimately, the city agreed to the following settlement. Some at least of it was for “damages”, done by the city to Mr. Kim “Ultimately, the parties agreed to the following terms proposed by Defendants: 1. The lawsuit would be dismissed and each party will pay their own attorneys' fees; 2. The case pending before the Irving Building and Standards Commission (`BSC") would be closed; 3. The City would pay Plaintiff $225,000.00; 4. The City would demolish and dispose of the improvements (including any asbestos abatement) on the Property at the City's expense; 5. The City would rezone (from commercial to residential S-P-2 for R-6 use) and replat (from one (1) commercial lot to two (2) residential lots) at the City's own cost and expense; 6. Plaintiff could remove any personal property he desired from the Property prior to demolition; 7. Plaintiff would sign an Application for Zoning Change; and 8. Plaintiff would retain title and ownership of the Property after the demolition, rezoning and replatting.”