12/15/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the HCC inspection was done. He said that he felt morally obligated to show the inspection report to any prospective tenant and that he had no desire to place any tenant in the middle of the struggle surrounding the dwelling. Mr. . Farrar cited the names of prospective tenants whom he had turned away as a result of the report and subsequent proceedings. He said that the report and subsequent appeal had cost him $5,000 so far and that he had $2,000 in unpaid bills. Public hearing was closed. Councilor Lindberg asked if the City would incur any liability by granting exemptions on the appeal items. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that the City could be liable if it acted negligently, but that if the action of the council was reasonable, there was little likelihood of a suit. Councilor Ball asked if Mr. Farrar was legally allowed to rent his dwelling during the appeal process. Mr. Sercombe said he was not sure, although Mr. Reed had indicated that the building could have been rented. Councilor Lindberg said that staff and the appellant seemed to agree on most points regarding the appeal. He suggested that the council approve the appellant's request. Councilor Ball asked if the height of the upstairs bedroom doorways could be raised without major structural change. He asked Mr. Reed if the center of the doorways could be raised, with the outside corners being allowed to follow the slope of the roof. Mr. Reed said that staff had examined the area over the doors and found that it was not load-bearing. Therefore there are no major e structural changes involved in raising the door heights. He felt that the slight diagonals in the corner would be acceptable. Councilor Ball felt that the existing 5111" height was not tall enough to prevent injury in an emergency. Councilor Schue said that she was glad to have had this illustration of the problems that exist between the Housing Code and landlords in the city. She said she had felt some reluctance regarding proposed changes to the Housing Code, but she agreed that the City should not be interfering by requiring non-essential processes on minor matters. Ms. Schue said that Mr. Farrar had presented an interpretation of what codes applied at the time of construction. She asked if City staff agreed with this interpretation. Mr. Reed said that staff did not agree with Mr. Farrar's interpretation that he was exempt from stair rise height requirements. Mr. Sercombe said that if the council asked questions of City staff after the public hearing was closed, the appellant should be allowed to comment on the staff response. Public hearing was reopened to allow rebuttal of the staff comment. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 7