From: Lea Terhune
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:59 AM
Subject: correction, update on swimming pool, broken trees not removed
Testimony of Director of Code Enforcement:
Public Works Commission hearing on Ch 17
Part 1
Part 2
Public Works Commission hearing on Ch 17
Part 1
Part 2
~This property has been very well maintained. This particular property and the owner has been fairly easy for us to manage.~We have responded to every complaint.~Our paperwork is not always exactly what it should be.~There was no substantive issue that was ignored.~ There was no neglect of conditions at the property.~We treated this property in the way that we treat every vacant property.
REBUTTAL by Appellant:
1. Photos placed in the record by Code Enforcement refer to stagnant water in a pond on the right as one enters Staniford Rd. Extension, aka Appletree Point Lane. The pond is fresh water, fed by springs, and the water flows year round through the Townsend-Lauber Pond, into Appletree Point Stream, and on to Lake Champlain. The surface green shown in the photo is living duckweed.
2. A hanging tree limb above the road is not the result of a recent storm, as stated by Director Butler. It has been there for about a year. Code Enforcement makes several incorrect assumptions like this one. The recent (one month ago) storm damage is in the next photo of the pile of debris next to Dr. Seleen's driveway.
3. Photos of the brush along the road is also land neglected by the property owner. The mowing along the Seleen-Terhune driveway was done by Seleen, and mowing at the end of Staniford Rd. Extension was done by Secker-Walker. The road maintenance was recently done by the neighbors. The owner of 2 Appletree Point Rd has neglected his property and caused blight and unsafe conditions in our neighborhood, and Code Enforcement did not remedy this situation.
4. Currently the abandoned swimming pool at 2 Appletree Point Road does not have an automatic sump pump. All of us who live in this area have automatic sump pumps. If the pool is going to be drained automatically, the sump pump needs to be in the pool, and plugged in, with the power turned on. It is not plugged in. We request that the Board of Health ORDER the property owner to place an automatic sump pump in the pool, in a manner that drains the pool automatically when it rains, which includes placing the pump at the lowest point as well as plugging it in.
5. An orange extension cord for the sump pump is rolled up by a back door that appears to be rotted and not secured. If I remember correctly, this door provides direct access to the interior of the house. We will call the police and ask them to check this door, and if it is not secure, we will ask them to check the house. [Police checked the house, door was open, they found no one in the house. They told me they did not go down into the basement, and they did not check the outside bulkhead door to the basement. Police advised that we report the open door to the property owner. We reported it to Code Enforcement.]
6. If we see suspicious activity at the house, or open doors/windows, we are going to call the police, NOT Code Enforcement because this is an issue of public safety and Code Enforcement has proven itself to be incompetent or otherwise unable to protect us from possible harm. (Called police June 2, and July 18.)
7. If there is not a police report of the call on June 2, we want to know why. The police received a phone call, I also went to the police station, and an officer visited the house at least twice to check the doors and found door/s unlocked. If there is no police report, that is very serious. Because we have concern for our safety, in the future we will call the police, NOT Code Enforcement.
8. The broken trees have NOT been cleared away. They can be recycled at the woodchip plant.
9. We are angry with the city for allowing our neighborhood to be blighted like this. We have a good Vacant Property section in our Municipal Code. If the Code had been enforced, if the property owner had been required to get a vacant building permit, including a maintenance plan consistent with the municipal code, a lot of time and taxpayer money could have been saved! A vacant building needs to be maintained regardless of whether the property is for sale, in the permit process, or abandoned.
10. Of course a cooperative, voluntary relationship with the property owner is best, but in this case the property owner caused blight in a neighborhood while having smiling chummy talky meetings with the Code Enforcement Director. 2 years of inaction! Two years with no vacant building permit, and no maintenance plan. Testimony that the Director and her staff were repeatedly at the property during this time, witnessed the neglect, knew very well the state of the property, and still testify that the property owner was in full compliance with the code, THAT does not pass the straight face test! THAT is a very serious problem. They weren't enforcing the code, but were following some phantom code that existed in their mind which is referred to as "the way things were done."
11. Finally, "pattern of malfeasance" IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT to this case because the Director's excuse for not enforcing the code is that it wasn't enforced in the past. The review boards have been telling you this, and residents have been telling you this. Our experience is not unique, and there is a pattern of malfeasance.
12. The vacant building permit application IS in the 28 page appeal packet. You were looking at it, but didn't know what it was -- probably because it is undated, unsigned, incomplete, and incorrect, and that application is the permit! And you did not have the packet to review before the hearing. Now that you have had time to review the material, I request the opportunity to address several issues that were uninformed during the discussion on July 9.
13. I would like the opportunity to address these and other misinformations presented to the Public Works Commission at the next meeting. The commission showed remarkable understanding of the issues, but there was misinformation presented that they would have no way of discovering without testimony of parties involved.
14. I was told by the Code Enforcement Director that, in regard to the swimming pool, the ONLY relevant code was a requirement for a fence. In fact, the pool equipment is required to be maintained. I was told by the Code Enforcement Director that there were no other codes that related to my concerns, when in fact EVERY concern we have is CLEARLY addressed by the code.
15. Repeated references to hundreds of complaints is hyperbolic, and has no place in a fact-finding hearing. Testimony by the property owner that he has been exonerated of all reported violation is not true. The recent order by Code Enforcement, which was issued AFTER we filed the appeal, substantiates the code issues we address in this appeal and orders remediation.
