12/15/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Reed read from the October 12, 1982, report of the Construction Code Board of Appeals regarding Item 14 of the original inspection report. He also read from the minutes of the board's September 27,1982, hearing. He said that the e matter had to deal with the 5111" door openings to upstairs bedrooms in the dwelling. He said the board had ruled that the door height must be increased to correspond with the ceiling height allowed under another appeal, Item 13. He said under Item 13 the board had allowed continuance of a substandard ceiling height. He said unfortunately the board and staff had not realized that there was a built-in conflict between the adopted standard related to this item as described in the lCBO Housing Code and that in the adopted City Code. Mr. Reed said that in 1940 there was no standard door height requirement. He referred to application of code requirements at the time of construction and said that since there were none the doors at the time of construction conformed with applicable law. He noted that the bedrooms, however, did not comform with ceiling height requirements in the Eugene Building Code at the time of construction. Mr. Reed said staff recommended that the council follow Option 1 presented on page 5 of the November 8, 1982, fact sheet and refer the matter back to the Construction Code Board of Appeals, based on the newly discovered facts. Public hearing was opened. Mayor Keller noted that the procedure to be followed for the hearing would include testimony by the appellants, those supporting the appeal, those opposing the appeal, staff comments, and final comments from the appellant. Pat Vallerand, 767 Willamette Street, Suite 302, said she was representing Mr. Farrar in his appeal and noted that this hearing represented the third step in the appeal process. She said that because this was an appeal of contested matter, the due process of constitutional law would apply, including the right e of the appellant or his attorney to crossexamine witnesses. She concurred with the City Manager's suggestion that discussion of the appeal be limited to the facts related to this case and not to the larger code issues. She asked that the record reflect that supplementary materials received by the council are a part of the official record. She said her client would speak for himself, but noted that she had worked with him on the legal points he would be making in his testimony and believed these points were legally accurate. Paul Farrar, 23348 South Central Point Road, Canby, Oregon 97013, referred to the technical issues covered in a folder of materials which he had distributed to councilors. He noted that material on the right side of the folder included fact sheets with evidence related to his appeal and a proposed motion for consideration by the council. He said material on the left side represented evidence not included in materials previously provided to the council by staff. Regarding the appeal on Item 4 of the HCC inspection report, Mr. Farrar said he was in agreement with staff's remarks on the item and therefore asked the council to dismiss the complaint. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 4