10/10/1983 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e October 10, 1983, when a contractor applied for a permit to repair and rebuild the front and rear steps of the building. He said the owner contacted him later that day and he had inspected the building at 2 p.m. Mr. Reed said he found the property to be in worse condition than imagined, having sewer problems, (sewage on the floor, water dripping through the first floor) and wiring problems. He stated that the upstairs was a fire hazard because the wiring was done with extension cords. He said there was no ceiling in the living room, the furnace/heating system was in very poor condition, there was an unapproved/unsafe woodstove, the shingles on the house were deteriorated, and there was evidence of carpenter ants and termites. He also said the rear porch was unsafe and other violations existed. Mr. Reed said the house was obsolete and he estimated the cost of fixing just the hazardous items at between $7,000 and $10,000, stating that the cost might be higher after examining for any structural damage due to the ants and termites. Mr. Reed said the owner and his contractor were present at the hearing. The public hearing was opened. Christopher J. siRe, R. D. Box 263, Newberg, stated that he was the owner of the building at 1862 incaid. He disagreed with Mr. Reed's description of the house's condition, stating that the only dangerous items were the front and rear steps. He said he was working with a contractor to have this condition remedied. He said the kitchen ceiling was torn out to repair some plumbing and would be replaced within the week. He explained the raw sewage present in the basement was due to major plumbing work. He acknowledged that some retro wiring work could be done upstairs in the building. He asked if a time frame could be e established to repair the house, stating he would like to have a year to perform the required repairs. He said he had received only one notice, referring to the HCC notice, and stated he had talked with HCC staff at that time. He said he had heard of the present hearing through a tenant at the building. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Reed said it was his professional opinion that the house should not be occupied, stating the hazards in terms of the electrical safety and the struc- tural problems were too great. He said the property should be brought up to code. He said that the building was not ready to fall down, but the plumbing, electrical, and other safety items were major violations. He said the council should consider passing the resolution, giving the owner some time frame to rehabilitate the house. He stressed that the owner must be aware that the rehabilitation must be done completely to eliminate those hazardous conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Reed explained that passage of the resolution would give the owner a time line to perform the work. He said that if the work were not completed within that period, then the City could complete the abate- ment by demolition or by performing the rehabilitation. Mr. Sercombe added that the resolution would give the City the option to abate the nuisance either by correction of the deficiencies or by demolishing the building. He said this would be an administrative choice of the staff if the resolution were passed. He said that the owner would have 15 days to correct the deficiencies under the time frame of the resolution or the City could then correct the deficiencies if - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 19