All right. I'd like to call the meeting of the city of huber heights, property maintenance review board order.
madam secretary, would you please call the roll? All right,
ms. Kromer? Here. Mr. Darren? Here. Ms. Hess?
mr. Roberts? Here. Mr. Vaughn? Mr.
shack. Man madoff. Here. Mr. Winkler here. And
I did hear from the other two that they would not be here.
okay. So if
there's no objection without objection, I will accept
the agenda for tonight's meeting. So
approved. Alright. In accordance to the rules,
I need to swear in whoever is speaking tonight. Mr. Lar,
would you raise your right hand? You need to hold
on. We're gonna back up. I need a motion to approve. Oh, I thought just
speaking it was good. Alright. I need a motion to approve the agenda
from july the 10th, or I'm sorry, for this evening,
I believe we approve the agenda. Okay. I second. Okay. We don't have to
take a vote. No vote. That's it. Okay. Now in accordance, we
swear in. Yeah. And I shall ask,
let's see. Do you hereby swear or affirm on a
threat of perjury to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? I
do. Alright. Thank you.
alright. And I see there is no pending business. So we'll
get right into our new business, which is our first
case. Tonight is pmrb case 25 dash 24.
property owner gault property holdings. Llc is in violation
of section 1313 of the property maintenance code at property. Located
at 57 37 harshman mill road.
mr. Chairman, thank you. Good evening. Good everyone glad you're here. Good
evening. Give jerry just a moment to catch up. I really apologize.
this just isn't working greatly. Yeah. So we're, we wanna make
sure you get to see the, the photos. Okay.
property at 5 7 3 7 harshman road is in violation
of city code pertaining to junk stored on the property under a carport.
this consists of discarded doors and drywall section
13, 13 0 4 states. All permissible items stored
outside must be in good condition and usable as intended
by the manufacturer. No such items that are broken,
dilapidated, or discarded shall be stored outside. Inspection,
verifies the property does not meet the standard set forth in the code, therefore the
property is in violation. Your attached case review illustrates the
violation process and non-compliance of the property.
the city's zoning letter mailed to the owner of record have not been
returned. There has been no communication from the owner to the code enforcement
office. Tax records shows property
taxes are traditionally paid. If declared a nuisance by
the board, the property will be abated by the city's contractor. Any costs
incurred by the city will be invoiced to the property owner. Staff
recommendation is as follows, the board to declare the property a nuisance,
the board orders staff to have the city contractor abate the property.
if so ordered, the city contractor will bring the property into compliance by removal
of nuisance. Alright,
thank you. Anyone have any questions?
looks, this is probably a rental home. Not sure sir.
uh, we assume there's at least been some remodeling
done, but we're not sure what the status is of the occupant,
whether it's unoccupied or not. You have anything from anyone in regards to
this one? No. Nothing.
alright. Do anyone else have a question?
entertain a motion please. You, you'll make a motion to
declare the property a nuisance and have the city abate it.
I have a second. Second.
and vote please. Alright. Mr. Darren? Yes. Mr.
sch mangrove. Yes. Mr. Kromer? Yes. Mr. Roberts?
yes. Mr. Winkler? Yes. Passes five to zero. Alright.
motion carries for pmrb case 25 dash 24.
the next case is pmrb case 25 dash 25.
wg dome is in violation of section 1313
of the property maintenance code at property located at 65 38
glen ivy drive.
just wanted to let you get a full view of the
property. So the property at 6 5 3 8
glen ivy is on via violation of city code
pertaining to many miscellaneous items stored throughout the yard.
there is also substantial trimming of vegetation needed.
the house is unoccupied and apparently visited on rare occasions by the owner
who now lives elsewhere. This has been a nuisance property for years.
it has previously been before this board section
13, 13 0 4 states. All permissible items stored
outside must be in good condition and usable as intended by the
manufacturer. New as such. Items that are broken, dilapidated
or discarded shall be stored outside inspection
verifies the property does not meet the standard set forth in the code. Therefore the
property is in violation. Your attached case review illustrates the
violation process and non-compliance of the property.
city zoning letters mailed to the owner of record have not been returned.
there's been no communication from the owner to the code enforcement office.
additionally, the posting was placed on the front door advising my intent
to bring the property to this board. The posting is attached
to the report file. That tax record shows property taxes
are traditionally paid. If declared a nuisance by the board, the
property will be abated by the city's contractor. Any costs incurred by the city
will be invoiced to the property owner. Staff recommendation as
this follows the board declare the property a nuisance. The board offers
staff to have the state contractor abate the property. If
so ordered, the city contractor will bring the property into compliance by removal
of the nuisance. This will include removal of all items regardless of
the condition and trimming of all vegetation. Um,
additionally, I had the zoning officer go by today. There's been no improvement at the
property. Okay. Okay.
anyone have a question? Mr.
lar, can you tell me when the last time it was brought to us?
you said it's been before, it has been before the board.
this will be a guess on my, I would say a couple of years ago. Same thing?
same thing. Pretty much. And, um, yes. And the,
at that time the owner was living there. There was a language barrier.
uh, had a zoning officer last year that was working
with her. He's no longer with us, but trying to
move her along. Um, she would make some very slight improvements
to the front yard. Uh, vietnamese
lady, culturally quite different from us as far as what
you do in your yard or don't do. Right. And, uh,
he worked with or to no avail. And uh, we've had a couple
of very concerned neighbors. One living next door as you can imagine. Right. So
enough's enough where, you know, we're not even looking to see if the,
the garden tools that are being stored outside our
serviceable or not. We're taking everything that's not bolted down.
is that including the bags of soil I saw on the picture as well, sir. Is
that including the bags of soil? Soil I saw on the pictures? Yep. Because you're not supposed to
store anything in the front yard according to our outdoor storage and use
code, regardless of what it is or what is intended to use sis.
so we'll take, we'll take everything.
I was just curious as to, nobody's
complained for two years or oh no, no. We, I get calls periodically.
the problem is there would be a little bit of an improvement. The zoning
officer who was working with her, um,
I believe gave her too much time. It was too considerate.
and sometimes you just enough's enough. We're
we're there that this as a repeat offender so to speak? Uh, yes. Absolutely. Yeah.
we've been to this property many times. Not this bad
before. It comes before us. Well we're, we're hoping that since she is
no longer living at the property, 'cause she had been previously living there,
um, that once we clear all of this up, clean up all of this yard
mess, all of the vegetation that we will have this occur again.
but we'll be watching it, believe me. Okay. Alright. Cool.
thanks. Anybody else
have a motion please? I move for the property of nuisance and have staff
abate it and I second, I'll second that. Okay.
then we'll have a vote please. Mr. Kromer? Yes.
mr. Shack. Madoff. Yes. Mr. Darren? Yes. Mr. Roberts?
yes. Mr. Winkler? Yes. Object to zero five to zero. Motion
carries for pmrb case 25 dash 25.
next case is pmrb case 25 dash 26. The
property owner silver bears real estate is in violation of section 1189
of the property maintenance code at property located at 76 31
dash or through 77 77 old troy pike.
yeah. Mr. Chairman board members of the property also known as
wayne town za, is in violation of city code as it pertains
to sign maintenance. The south facade of the old
troy pike multi-tenant sign that's a large one out by the road
is so deteriorated that the wayne town letters have actually peeled away from
the facade. They're also birds living in it. So, uh, section
11 89 0 4 states every sign whether
requiring a sign permit or not, shall be maintained in a safe, presentable,
and good structural condition at all times, including replacement
of a defective part, painting, cleaning, and other acts
required for the maintenance of the sign. Inspection verifies
the property does not meet the standards set forth in the code, therefore the property is
in violation. Your attached case review illustrates the violation
process and non-compliance of the property. The attached photo shows
the deterioration city's own letters mailed to the owner
of record have not been returned. There has been recent communication
from the owner of the code enforcement office. The owner's
representative states they have contracted with a signed company to make repairs,
but this is after months of no communication nor
action regarding this violation. The tax record shows
property taxes are traditionally paid. If declared a nuisance by the
board, the property will be abated by the city staff. Recommendation
is as follows. The board declare the property a nuisance. The board orders
staff to have the city abate the property. If so ordered,
the city will bring the property into compliance by removal of the nuisance. This
will involve obtaining quotes from signed vendors to determine the price
for making the needed repair and moving forward with repairs. Now
this report was written for last month's meeting. I
have an update. Uh, the sign face that was there has been removed,
completely removed. The uh, owner
has contracted with fast signs, a signed company in
huber heights. Spoke with them today because I
had issued a permit for it. And they currently have the production
done in their, uh, in their building.
but they have to attach clips because they have to reattach
the sign panel. So it's ready to go back up as soon as they, everything's
fastened. And it will be a nicer sign 'cause it'll have led lighting in inside.
so, uh, what if you would look at it today, you would see
that panel is gone. The one that says wayne town, it's empty and that's the reason
why. So there, there in my report.
so you're saying it's in the midst of being repaired? Yes.
I talked, talked to the sales rep at, uh, fast signs who I deal with on
a regular basis. She went back to their manufacturing area and said
yes, it's back there. We're just waiting for the tip, the clips to
be attached so we can reattach it to the sign
once we have the led lighting in place. So
she's telling me by the end of october it should be in place.
um, and so my question is, you still want to, your recommendation
is still declare a nuisance and have it abated when it's in the process or
do we yes. Would you recommend no? Yes.
so she told me today we are gonna finish this up when we get
paid by the, by the customer. She was going to
contact the customer and verify that the check's in the mail,
for lack of a better word, I have not heard back from her. So I'm going to go on the
premise. This is still a violation. This is still in the work. So
yes. Declare it a nuisance. Order me to have it abated. I'll handle the
abatement with the signed contractor. 'cause I'm quite certain it's
going to be taken care of. But I don't think we make an exception to this case just because
we have a promise of them fixing it. 'cause it's
not fixed as of the date of the meeting. Okay,
fair enough. That makes questioning, that makes sense to
me. Alright, anybody
else have any questions? Alright, uh,
question. Okay, you have a motion please.
I'll make a motion to declare the property a nuisance and to have the city contractor abate
the property. Alright. And a second. Second,
and then a vote, please. Mr. Roberts? Yes. Ms. Cromer?
yes. Mr. Shack. Madoff. Yes. Mr. Darren?
yes. Mr. Winkler? Yes. All
right. Motion carries for pmrb case 25 dash 26.
nick case is pm rrb 25 dash 28
property owner susan gordon is in violation of section 1313 of the
property maintenance code at property located at 71 58 mandrake
drive. Excuse me. Yes sir.
the property at 71 58 manda mandrake drive is
in violation of city code as it pertains to exterior maintenance
of the house. The vacant house has several issues that are abundantly
clear, falling, softening, deteriorated, garage
door molding, loose downspouts and mold on the siding
section 13 13 0 4 states. The exterior of a structure
shall be maintained at good repair, structurally sound, and san
sanitary. So as not to pose a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare,
the owner shall keep the exterior of all premises and every structure there
on in good repair. All exterior surfaces shall be maintained
free of conditions, reflective of deterioration or inadequate maintenance.
maintenance inspection verifies the property does
not meet the standards set forth in the code. Therefore, the property is in violation.
your attached case review review illustrates the violation process
and non-compliance of the property. The attached photo shows negligence
and deterioration city's owner enter may for the owner
of record have not been returned. There has been no communication
from the owner to the code enforcement office. The tax record shows
property taxes are traditionally pla paid if declared a nuisance by
the board or the property will be abated by the city. Any costs incurred
by the city will be invoiced to the property owner. Staff.
recommendation is is as follows, the board declare the property a nuisance.
the board orders staff to have the city abate to the property. If so ordered,
the city will bring the property into compliance. By removable of nuisance,
the city's contractor will make any necessary repairs to bring the
property into a proper state of exterior maintenance.
thank you. Are those windows broken?
a couple of 'em. Yes sir. Or is it just a reflection? I think it's a combination of, I
think you have both situations there. Okay.
any idea if the owner is deceased or not? No idea sir.
anybody else have any questions?
alright. I obtain a motion. Please make a motion
to declare the property of nuisance and have staff abate it. Alright, second,
second. And vote please. Ms. Kromer?
yes. Mr. Darren? Yes. Mr. Shack man.
rob? Yes. Mr. Roberts? Yes. Mr. Winkler? Yes.
motion carries for pmrb case 25 dash 28.
next case is pm rrb 25 dash 30. The property owner,
shirley criswell, is in violation of section 1313 of the property maintenance
code. The property located at 59 0 1 pennywell
drive. Yes sir. The property at 59 0 1
pennwell is in violation of city code as it
pertains to the maintenance of the landscaping. Specifically
noxious weeds not being trimmed and removed from the property, particularly along
the house and fence line's. Looks like that picture might
be a little over scanned. I can't kidding. Take my word for it.
the sky's really. There we go. There we go. And go to
the other side. Jerry, bring the house the other way. I'm sorry other way.
there we go. Holy goodness. Section
13 13 0 4 h four states. All land shall be
properly maintained with lawns, hedges, bushes, trees, and other vegetation
to be trimmed and kept from becoming overgrown and unsightly. Where exposed to
public view or such vegetation may constitute a
lighting influence on adjoining property inspection. Verifies
the property does not meet the standards set forth in the code. Therefore,
the property's in violation city's own letters mailed to the owner
of record have not been returned. There has been no communication to the owner to the code
enforcement office. Tax records show property
taxes are traditionally paid. If declared a nuisance by the board,
the property will be abated by the city. Any costs incurred
by the city will be invoiced to the property staff. Recommendation
is as follows, the board declare the property a nuisance. The board orders
staff to have the city abate the property. If so ordered, the city will bring the
property in compliance by removal of the nuisance.
if you have any questions, you may have answered this already, but
is the property vacant? No. No, no. Just ignored
all. Any other questions? Anyone?
alright. Entertain a motion please. I make a motion to
declare the property a nuisance and have the city abate it. Alright,
second. Second. Unanim a vote please.
alright, mr. Shack madoff. Mr. Darren? Yes.
mr. Roberts? Yes. Mr. Kromer? Yes. Mr. Winkler? Yes.
motion carries for pmrb case 25 dash
three zero. Mr. Chairman, I realize
the same thing gets said over and over and over in these case reviews,
but for the records, I think we need to, we need to make that
same statement with each case. That's why you hear the same
verbiage in each, in each case. So it seems unnecessary, but I
I think it probably is necessary for legal records. Yeah, I agree.
alright, next case is pmrb case 25 dash 31.
the property owner, danny caldwell, is in violation of section
1313 of the property maintenance code located at property.
uh, look property located at 62 19 apache street. The
picture does tell the story here.
the property at 62 19 apache street is a violation of the city's outdoor
storage code. Numerous junk and discarded
items have accumulated on this property. The property has
been a nuisance for years and has appeared before this board. Previously.
we've also done numerous trash abatements at the property, which don't require
board hearings. Uh, there are, uh,
as stated, uh, section 13 13 0 4 states.
any items a user stored outside of an enclosed building or structure
shall be limited to items manufactured for, intended for
or customarily used in outboard environments. No items
manufactured for, intended for or customarily stored or used
indoors may be placed or stored outside. Lawn
and power equipment must be kept in the backyard even when used on a regular
basis. All permissible items stored outside must be in
good condition and usable is intended by the manufacturer.
no such items that are broken, dilapidated or discarded shall be
stored outside. Investigate, inspection, verifies the
property does not meet the standards set forth in the code. Therefore the property is in
violation. You attach case review illustrates the violation process
and noncompliance of the property. The attached photo shows
the items stored on the property as of august 19th, 2025.
it has been, reinspected has not gotten any better. City
zoning later made. The owner of record have not been returned.
there has been no communication from the owner occupant to the code enforcement
officer. While the listed owner has been deceased for several years,
his son occupies their property and has been spoken to by an
officer and is well aware of the violation. His normal
practice is let the city clean up the property as he knows fees will be
accessed to property taxes. The tax record
shows property taxes are not traditionally paid. They are years in
arrears. If declared a nuisance by the board, the property will be
abed by the city. Any costs incurred by the city will be invoiced
to the property. Enter staff recommendation is as follows, the board
declare their property a nuisance. The board orders staff to have the city
abate the property. If so ordered, the city will bring their property in compliance
by removal of the nuisance.
so I think you may have partially answered this already, but I know this has been before our board several times before
the both the name and the address sound familiar to my years. Yes. Um,
essentially the same thing keeps happening. It is, it is picked up and then trash is new. Trash
is thrown out there essentially. He, so it's a, it is an unfortunate
situation. The, the person who lives there is the son of the owner. He is disabled
in a couple of different ways now physically as well.
um, he will go to
properties. This is in the miami villa's development, which is down off rip
rap road. Yep. He'll go around the development cleaning people's yards
up for remuneration. Um,
and then just brings it home and dumps it on his property. And
he knows at some point we will come by and say,
I'm gonna get it cleaned up. Nothing ever happens. It's, it's a repeat.
he's lived there before with no electricity in that area. That means no water
because they're on wells. So we've had issues before at
that property,
um, where there were five gallon buckets being used
for purposes that they're not
intended to. That had to be removed. And we have been notifications from the board of health at
that time. So this, as long as this man is living
there, we'll be dealing with this property. We have to go in occasionally
and just clean it up. And that's where we are at this time.
and he knows we will. And he's, he knows that we will send a bill
and he knows he has no money to pay it. So it'll go onto the property taxes. And
because of where this is and the net worth of that property
to begin with, the taxes are probably already
owed on it or more than what the property's worth in all likelihood. Yes. So,
and we don't want, that's not a property that I'm interested in
the city taking possession of and tearing down because of what I'm afraid
we might find inside as far as the condition of the
property and the sanitary conditions and so forth. So we're going to continue to
clean it up until such a time as is goes away naturally,
if, if you understand what I mean. Mm-hmm . And giving the amount back
property taxes is, is any likelihood the county might foreclose on it eventually?
um, I, we could probably have it reevaluated on though. I'm
guessing the property since it's been in this relative condition for years,
as long as I've worked here that it's probably,
I would imagine the taxes at least equal or outweigh.
I'd have to look through the folder here. The, the tax records are in your, in
your reports. But, uh, it, it may be something we wanna look
at in the future. So there about 10 k less than the auditor's value looks like.
yeah. So my guess is that the auditor went by there and looked
at it right now, I don't know if the condition on the outside would make a difference.
probably the clutter probably would not make a difference at the property value. It would
be a matter of if it had, you know, if the, if it had been partially burned,
something like that, that really made it unlivable.
you don't do anything with like, uh, I know you as far as evading
the property, you go and remove all the junk and stuff that's in the yard.
do anything about cleaning the house, the front of the house, washing it down from
the mold or anything like that? Or is that the owner's responsibility? I mean as far as
I'm concerned, that's the owner's responsibility. Um,
at this point in this situation, getting the yard cleaned
up and getting all the junk removed,
uh, is I think what a priority should be. It's
not saying we couldn't spray down the house with, um, a
deterrent that would kill it. Sim you know, something that will just eventually
cause all the stuff to die. But, but cleaning or
spraying a house is something I'm not sure the city's I got. It is,
you know what I mean? Yeah, yeah. I was just curious if never been
done, but not to my knowledge. Okay. I noticed one of the, uh, gutters
like it's hanging. Is that included in this or is this just the junk? Um,
I think that we better leave that. At least there's a gutter.
so yeah, it's hanging down. That's certainly not the worst of the problems
of that property. No. My, my primary concern, the impact
this is having on the neighbors 'cause they've been living around this gentleman for years. Everybody
knows him is getting the yard cleaned up again.
cool. Interesting. Anybody else have any
questions, comments? Alright,
entertain a motion please. I'll make a motion to declare the
property new since and have the ct contractor abate it. Okay. Have
a second. Second. And vote please.
mr. Darin? Yes. Mr. Roberts? Yes.
ms. Kromer? Yes. Mr. Shack. Madoff. Yes. Mr. Winkler?
yes. Motion carries pmrb case 25 dash 31.
uh, next case is pmrb case 25 dash
32. The property owner isha jones
is in violation of section 1313 of the property maintenance code. That
property located at 61 33 faulkland avenue
answer the property at 61 33. Faulkland drive is in violation
of city code as it pertains to maintenance of gutters and downspouts.
the entire front section of spouting has become disconnected from the house and
must be repaired or removed. Spouting is not a requirement,
but if installed it must be property maintained. Section
13 13 0 4 states the exterior of a structure shall
be maintained in good repair, structurally sound and sanitary. So as not
to pose a threat to the public health, safety or welfare.
the owner shall keep the exterior of all premises and every structure there on in good
repair. All exterior surfaces shall be maintained free
of conditions, reflective of deterioration or inadequate
maintenance inspection. Verifies the property does not meet the
standards set forth in the code. Therefore the property is in violation.
you attach case review illustrates the violation process and non-compliance
of the property. The attached photo shows negligence and deterioration.
city zoning letters mailed to the owner record have not been returned. There
has been no communication from the owner to the code enforcement office. The
tax record shows property taxes are traditionally paid. If
declared a nuisance by the board, the property will be abated by the ci by the city.
any costs incurred by the city will be invoiced to the property
owner. Staff recommendation is the board declare the property a
nuisance. The board order staff to have the city abate to the property.
if so, order, the city will bring the property into compliance by removal of the
nuisance. The city's contractor will make the repair needed to reattach
the spouting. We're not going to remove it, we're going to reattach it.
alright. Questions? Anyone?
we have a motion please. I move the
third property of nuisance and have staff abate it. Second. I'll second that
and a vote please. Mr. Shack. Mangrove? Yes. Ms.
kromer? Yes. Mr. Darren? Yes. Mr. Roberts?
yes. Mr. Winkler? Yes. Five to zero. Alright. Pmr case
25 dash 32. Motion is carried.
and I see we don't have any additional business for tonight. That was our last case.
and without objection, the minutes of july the 10th, 2025 pmr
beating pmr beating meeting is approved.
no objections. It's been approved. So I guess our next meeting
then is oct or november the 13th. So I can
tell you that the november meeting will still be here at this city
hall. The december meeting will probably be at the new building,
but that's not confirmed just yet. They are scheduling like an open house.
I hope you all come. That's gonna be a little bit before that. A couple days before that. So
in november? Uh in december. Oh december. Okay. So we're all getting kind
of excited. Okay. I'm ready to, will we be the first board to meet there?
of course not. Um, council will be the first. Those are the other reasons. Ceremonial
meeting with city council. I'm sure council will be first. Um, bza usually meets before
you guys do, but they meet before council also so they'll
get missed. So it might be you guys after council. Awesome.
cool. Yeah. Alright. That's when the open house is gonna be at.
yeah. I think the open house is the ninth. No, but they're
supposed to be getting something out. Perfect. There you go. Alright.
anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
do we adjourn? We are so adjourned. Thank you all.