New to the forum, and glad to have found it! Now, a question...

[Showme]

I've just found this site, and from what I've read, I wish I would have come across it long ago. I'm a retired Ironworker in St. Louis, but live in a small town south of STL. I'm familiar with (sort of) the IBC and UBC's, but today I heard something from the city inspector while in the city administrators office that I've never heard of.
The problem is an old, defunct gas station just down the hill from us that some guy has bought. It's become an eye sore that I have to pass any time I leave the house or come home. The new owner has had derelict cars in front of it since last June when he bought it. I copied 7 different city ordinances which show that it's not up to code and the vehicles are derelict/junk, and that the building falls under "non conforming use" of the structure. The city gave him a 30 day temporary water permit last year for him to get it right. He applied for a business permit, but was refused by the city.
It seems the inspector is hinging his lack of code enforcement on the idea that as a business (commercial property), and the fact that the owner had an architect "draw up plans" last year, that he, the inspector, can't act on the many city code's this guy is breaking, and has been breaking since last June, even though there has been zero constructive changes in the property. From what I understand, the only thing he has done is gutted the interior somewhat. When the inspector brought up the Universal Building Code, which the city claims it uses by default since switching from the IBC, I told him the code is exactly why he should be cited and forced to straighten the place up. It's an old building that's out of code in multiple areas. But the inspector says that the UBC has a clause in it that says the owner gets 180 days before he can be cited. I told the inspector that the UBC is a set of rules on what and how projects get done, not on time frames of how long a person gets if he doesn't go by them. (Since it's been over 6 months, and the owner doesn't have a business permit, and was refused a business permit, and he shouldn't have water service there after his 30 day permit expired, this would all be a moot point anyway.)
So, my question for all of you who have a deeper knowledge of the UBC than I do is this- Are there any sections in the UBC that set time limits or prescribe mandatory "grace" periods, or allowable time, for the owner to continue to evade the city ordinances? I find it hard to believe there's anything to that argument. Thanks in advance for any information on this. It just sounds like they're shielding this guy and his dump, but if there are instances of the rule book that the city follows, I'd like to find out what they are. Lee Butcher

 

[RLGA]

I think you’re confusing the UBC (Uniform Building Code) and the IBC (International Building Code). The UBC is the old code and the IBC is the new code.

The building code covers the construction of new buildings and, through the IEBC (International Existing Building Code), alteration, repair, or addition to an existing building. If the owner submitted for and obtained a building permit, then the owner has 180 days to begin the work. They can get an extension for another 180 days. If the building work is not started within that timeframe, then the permit is voided and the process starts over again.

However, if no work is permitted and the structure is unsafe for occupancy, then the building official has the authority to condemn the structure. If it is just an eyesore as you say, then the building code will not help you there. Your best avenue for action is probably through the jurisdiction’s code enforcement department (not building code enforcement). The code enforcement department (or their equivalent) enforces property maintenance.

 

[jpranch]

RLGA, you nailed it.

 

[cda]

Welcome

 

[cda]

Show

You may be talking about something other than the building code

Some. I tied ha seperate set of codes/ ordinances for what is known be some as code enforcement
Deals with high grass, property maintance, junk vehicles etc

What is the population of your city??

Does the city have an office that deals with high grass and such??


What I advice people to do is write/ email city officials

Start at the bottom and profess to the top till you find someone who cares.

If that does not work contact the media about city inaction. They are always looking for a story.


Is this problem of inaction typical around the city?? As in are there quite a few junk properties??

 

[fatboy]

Welcome.........and yes, a good portion of what you are talking about are going to be zoning issues. If there is work, then yes, Existing Building Code (IEBC) starts it, and then could end up in the International Building Code (IBC).

Good luck

 

[steveray]

Town ordinances and codes are usually two entirely different things and a property being an eyesore is usually not a code issue....

 

[Showme]

Thanks for your replies, everyone. and RLGA, the 180 day time frame is what I was looking for, and how it works, since this is what the city "inspector" (which I've come to find out is actually considered the "community development director") told me the 'problem' is. So it sounds to me that if the place in question hasn't made any progress in 180 days, then it is no longer under the protection of that 6 month filing, is that correct? And, where can I find this information?
A big factor that I've noticed in our small town (around 8500) is that the people they hire for the positions seem to have minimal knowledge of the actual rules, and tend to cherry-pick what will help the city (in this case the empty promise of a tax producing "business") over the wants of the taxpayers to keep the so-called businesses up to snuff. This case is a text book example of 'hoping' the owner will turn this dump into a profitable, taxable business, when all he's doing is storing junk vehicles on an old gas station lot that just happens to sit on the main drag that residents pass daily. Sorry to rant, but this is a problem for my wife and me because we're getting ready to put our house up for sale and any junk shop that people have to pass to get here will only serve to hurt our possible selling of the house, and devalue all the property in the neighborhood. Thanks again, I really appreciate it.

 

[JCraver]

Welcome.

Can you tell us the name of the Town/City/Village you live in? If they have their codes on-line, then we might be able to find you something.

I agree with the other guys that this is a code enforcement issue, and not a fight you'll win with the building code.

 

[SCBO1]

See if that city has adopted the IPMC (International Property Maintenance Code). If not city ordinance should be followed to abate the issues with proper notifications. Missouri, I believe may have minimum required dates to comply.

The city zoning ordinances may spell out the time allotted for compliance. Here we send out a courtesy letter sometimes with photo's from a public viewing point, giving the bad guy a few days to become compliant with a re-inspection date. If no compliance a "Notice and Order" is sent giving additional time to comply. If no activity, a third letter with summons to court is issued by code enforcement. Now he gets to see the Judge. The judge with his powers can fine them, give more time, dismiss if the procedures are done wrong, make them abate the issue or other remedies he/she feels is appropriate. Then again the Judge could be the dudes cousin.

Good luck,

 

[RLGA]

Thanks for your replies, everyone. and RLGA, the 180 day time frame is what I was looking for, and how it works, since this is what the city "inspector" (which I've come to find out is actually considered the "community development director") told me the 'problem' is. So it sounds to me that if the place in question hasn't made any progress in 180 days, then it is no longer under the protection of that 6 month filing, is that correct? And, where can I find this information?
A big factor that I've noticed in our small town (around 8500) is that the people they hire for the positions seem to have minimal knowledge of the actual rules, and tend to cherry-pick what will help the city (in this case the empty promise of a tax producing "business") over the wants of the taxpayers to keep the so-called businesses up to snuff. This case is a text book example of 'hoping' the owner will turn this dump into a profitable, taxable business, when all he's doing is storing junk vehicles on an old gas station lot that just happens to sit on the main drag that residents pass daily. Sorry to rant, but this is a problem for my wife and me because we're getting ready to put our house up for sale and any junk shop that people have to pass to get here will only serve to hurt our possible selling of the house, and devalue all the property in the neighborhood. Thanks again, I really appreciate it.

Not knowing the specific edition of the IBC adopted, I’m assuming it is the 2015 edition. Section 105.3.2 addresses time limitations for applications for building permits. That allows 180 days once an application is made to get the permit. It also allows extensions up to 90 days. Section 105.4 addresses time limitations for permits once they are issued. That allows 180 days for construction to start with 180-day extensions.

 

[cda]

Thanks for your replies, everyone. and RLGA, the 180 day time frame is what I was looking for, and how it works, since this is what the city "inspector" (which I've come to find out is actually considered the "community development director") told me the 'problem' is. So it sounds to me that if the place in question hasn't made any progress in 180 days, then it is no longer under the protection of that 6 month filing, is that correct? And, where can I find this information?
A big factor that I've noticed in our small town (around 8500) is that the people they hire for the positions seem to have minimal knowledge of the actual rules, and tend to cherry-pick what will help the city (in this case the empty promise of a tax producing "business") over the wants of the taxpayers to keep the so-called businesses up to snuff. This case is a text book example of 'hoping' the owner will turn this dump into a profitable, taxable business, when all he's doing is storing junk vehicles on an old gas station lot that just happens to sit on the main drag that residents pass daily. Sorry to rant, but this is a problem for my wife and me because we're getting ready to put our house up for sale and any junk shop that people have to pass to get here will only serve to hurt our possible selling of the house, and devalue all the property in the neighborhood. Thanks again, I really appreciate it.

The 180 might be how long s Building permit is good for,,, Before it expires.


But, a building permit and trash, junk vehicles, etc are seperate issues.


Just because a Building has a building permit,,, It does not negate maintaining the property

At least in most cities


Sounds like you have a one horse inspector town.

Besides going up the line in city officials, and contacting the media

Some citizens like to speak before council meeting, every meeting ,,, till something is done, because council gets tired of you telling them what a lousy job they are doing!!!

 

[Showme]

JCCraver- Yes, the town is Park Hills, Missouri, which was formerly 4 small lead mining towns that sit edge to edge and were incorporated in 1995. What once use to be economically healthy towns thanks to the mines. The most I can find are the city "codes" on the city's web site http://www.parkhillsmo.net/ .

 

[cda]

ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Whenever a nuisnance is reported or spotted during active patrol, the alleged violator will be issued a written warning. The warning will define the area(s) of violation(s) and will allow a time for the violator to resolve the problem without legal action. If upon expiration of the written warning the violator has failed to comply with the notice, the violator will be cited into Municipal Court.

PENALTIES
220.190 - Any person, persons or corporation who shall violate the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be assessed a fine with a maximum of five hundred dollars and or ninety days in jail, each day the property remains in violation shall be considered a seperate offense, therefore the fine may be assessed for each day the violation occurs.


http://www.parkhillsmo.net/Default....rchID=31426863&ObjectID=12857689&ObjectType=1

 

[cda]

https://www.ecode360.com/29078489

 

[cda]

https://www.ecode360.com/29081029

 

[cda]

https://www.ecode360.com/search/PA3394?query=Junk+vehicle

 

[cda]

Problem is

Law on the books

If no enforcement

Might as well not have them !!!!

 

[ADAguy]

Welcome Show,
1. Is your city large enough to have a city attorney? If so, have you tried to contact him/her?
2. Also, a former gas station you say, have the underground tanks been pulled? Potential environmental hazard.

 

[JCraver]

From the City's website: https://www.ecode360.com/PA3394

This is the code section the City can cite:

Section 220.070 Storage or Parking of Unlicensed Motor Vehicles or Trailers.
[CC 1994 §34.205; Ord. No. 288-99 §1, 8-10-1999; Ord. No. 381-01 §§1 — 2, 11-13-2001]
A.
The parking or storing of any motor vehicle or trailer which is not currently and legally licensed under the Statutes of this State is prohibited, unless such motor vehicle or trailer is inside a wholly enclosed structure or screened from view by an approved fence sufficient to screen such vehicle or trailer from view from any public property.
B.
This Section shall not apply to any motor vehicle or trailer being displayed for sale and which is in such condition as to pass inspection under the Missouri Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Statutes and Regulations promulgated thereunder providing such vehicle or trailer is on a new or used car or trailer lot duly licensed by the State of Missouri and the ordinances of this City.
C.
This Section shall not apply to any house trailer which is permanently affixed to City utilities and is used as a residence.

This is how they go about citing it:

Section 220.100 Notice of Abatement — Failure to Comply Unlawful.
[CC 1994 §34.215; Ord. No. 288-99 §1, 8-10-1999]
A.
Whenever the City Administrator or his/her duly authorized representative determines that any vehicle or junk constitutes a nuisance, he/she shall cause written notice to be served upon the owner of the vehicle or junk, if he/she can be located, or the person in custody of the vehicle or junk, by registered mail or by personal service. The notice shall state that the vehicle or junk is deemed to be a nuisance within the provisions of this Chapter, and shall briefly state facts deemed to constitute the vehicle or junk a nuisance within the terms of this Chapter, and state that the nuisance shall be abated within seven (7) days from receipt of the notice.
B.
Any person receiving the notice provided for in Subsection (A) shall comply with the provisions of the notice requiring abatement. Failure to comply with this provision is unlawful.

This is what they can do when he doesn't comply:

Section 220.120 Disposition of Nuisance Property.
[CC 1994 §34.225; Ord. No. 288-99 §1, 8-10-1999]
If not removed within the times specified in the notice, the vehicle or junk shall be transported to a storage area by or at the direction of the City Administrator or his/her duly authorized representative at the expense of the owner or person in custody thereof. It shall then be stored for a period of at least thirty (30) days, and the person entitled to possession thereof may redeem the property by payment to the City of the actual cost of its removal and a reasonable storage fee. If the vehicle or junk is unredeemed after the expiration of the thirty (30) day period, the City Administrator or his/her authorized representative may sell it to the highest bidder or, if it has no sale value, may otherwise dispose of it. Any money received from disposal of any vehicle or junk shall be applied to the expenses charged to the owner or person in charge thereof.

There is a Code Enforcement Officer listed; he should be your first contact. Go to the "Home" tab, click on "Administration", scroll down and click on "Click here for City Department Directory", and then scroll down and look for his name/email. If that doesn't work, you can talk to the City Administrator; his contact info. is on the website too.

If you're a decent human being, then please give the Code Enforcement officer time and a chance to do his job first, before you make a big stink with his boss. He's got a thankless, miserable job that some of the rest of us have to do too - he doesn't need his boss hollering at him for something he's already working on...

 

[Showme]

When I went to speak with the city administrator, who happens to be a resident and was raised in the section of town called Elvins that we live in, I handed him a list of the codes/laws that I found that include some mentioned above.
Sect. 220.060 (damaged or disabled vehicles, no longer than 72 hours)
Sect. 220.070 (storage of vehicles "Except for sale" which must be able to pass inspection, must be kept out of view of public). These vehicles all have prices of $999 painted on their windows with white shoe polish, even though none of them could be deemed 'passable'.
Sect. 220.080 (Damaged/disabled vehicles "shall not create or maintain such nuisance"
Sect. 220.090 No storage of junk
Sect. 220.120 (if not removed within specified time, city will remove, by authorization of city administrator, owner pays
city for removal)

The biggest problem I encountered was the administrator agrees with me, told me there have been complaints filed from last June, and the city "development" stooge has only been on the job since about December and claims he hasn't heard any complaints about it. On top of that, he kept saying, "if he the guy gets a business permit...", "he says he's going to get a business permit", "when he gets a business permit", to which I persistently replied "this is all a moot point, because he doesn't HAVE a business permit, he's been refused a permit, and the only progress he's made in almost a year is to take out insulation of the ceiling and put it in trash bags. Besides, this former gas station has no service bay and as far as I can tell doesn't even have electricity or water. I asked the flunky if he knew the guy or if he was a friend because it sure looks to me like he's protecting him instead of going after him for all the codes he's not following.

ADAguy- good point on the gas tanks. I'll have to ask about that.

 

[cda]

Media

 

[ICE]

It is obvious that you have a particular disdain for the "flunky". If you are not adept at hiding that, you may have alienated the "stooges", and yes there will be more than one at City Hall .

 

[Showme]

It is obvious that you have a particular disdain for the "flunky". If you are not adept at hiding that, you may have alienated the "stooges", and yes there will be more than one at City Hall .

Well, yes, since I only met him that day and had no previous conversations with him, from the responses he gave (repeatedly the same excuse, which, as I've said, is moot since the owner of the property hasn't attempted to get a business permit after he was told what it entails, after 11 months), I can only presume he has no intention of following the city's ordinances and still letting the owner of the dump to carry on as usual.

Let me say that I went in with an open mind and a respectful attitude, and even was impressed with the city administrator's attentive ear and agreeing the place is an embarrassment. I've lived through 3 Park Hills administrators, and the present administrator seems like a really good guy who cares about the section of town that I live in getting cleaned up. It wasn't until the so-called community development character came in and presented his case, which seems to be a fear of doing his job, that I started getting a little disgusted. And when he said, "Well, I haven't seen it in a while or been over there...", it was just icing on the cake. (This place is on the same street as city hall, about a quarter mile down the road.) I even told the administrator before the aforementioned no-nothing came in the office that I wanted to be civil about the complaint, and had even tried to let it go. But working around Ironworkers for 30 years has hardened my attitude towards men who don't know how to do their job and aren't educated enough in their field to deserve respect from others who do. The idiot did everything but say he was going to take care of the problem, while the administrator looked at him wide-eyed as if he couldn't believe he was actually defending the slob that is trashing up the neighborhood. I've dealt with a lot of inspectors, engineers and safety dicks on the job, and, I'm sorry, but I've seen way too many who have been handed a book of rules and with no solid training or experience that tried to pass as seasoned construction men that really didn't have a clue in the real world of the trades. That said, I've worked with many that I have all the respect in the world for. They knew what they were. So did the flunkies.
So, yes, I definitely obtained "a particular disdain for the flunky", and it only took about 5 minutes of his hem-hawing to gain it. I know everyone else that works for the city. The last administrator (got drunk and wrecked his city vehicle- he's gone) and his "community development boy" who quit when the former got fired, weren't any better. I had to go to the city council when an old, former grocery store about 2 blocks from this gas station was housing a "resale shop" (i.e., junk store) started filling up the sidewalk in front of the place with their wares daily, which is against 2 different city codes. Although I presented the council with copies of these codes, the former administrator had the gall to tell the council that "I believe Mr. Butcher has mis-interpreted the city codes." I said there can be no misinterpreting the codes, they're in black and white, and the word 'shall', whether in legal, biblical or business terms means that you MUST do what it says, not that you MAY do it, or have a choice. It just so happened that the mayor at the time was the owner of a tiny comic book shop, and actually turned to the city attorney and said, "Any business is better than no business." In other words, our washed up, now impoverished little town(s) is so hard up for any business to begin here, they're hitching their wagon to any bum who leads them on with promises of more tax dollars rolling in while the real taxpayers (the residents) get thrown under the bus to accommodate them. Actually, ICE, I'm preparing to sell our house by the end of the summer after I put on a new roof and get the heck out of this place. But the last time I put it up for sale, I was told by 2 different real estate agents that people who came to look at the house didn't get past the shoddy former businesses of what use to be downtown Elvins before turning around and saying "never mind". I've been telling my wife for years that this house (that she found and insisted would be a 'great investment') that it's the worst mistake I've ever made. And now, when I'm ready to put it on the market, we have a new eyesore that people have to pass (or turn around at) to deal with.