6352-89 Confirm unsafe structure at 1467 Ridgewood

Home Browse Search

Board of Building Standards Public Hearing February 13, 1989 property and my client could get out from under a rather bad problem and the city could have the house rehabilitated. That estimate came in at approximately $29,800. I was advised today by the sheriff's office that the property has been reappraised and the new appraisal was $34,000 and the next sale is scheduled for March 23rd. My client would be proposing to bid the proper- ty, not with the idea of rehabilitating the property herself because we have been. approached by several buyers who are indi- cating a desire to do this. Given that we only had notice of approximately thirty days to do these major repairs, in terms of the city's intent to proceed and December, January, and February are the coldest most inclement months of the year, we hesitated to do any kind of work. As a matter of fact, the estimate only reached us in late January shortly before the sale--dated January 17th. I would also point out to the Board that by his own testi- mony, Mr. Ockington indicated that there are some points of this property that aren't of a nature that would cause them to be in violation of the criteria that Mr. Murman was indicating, but I don't dispute the fact that the place is not in good shape. It does need rehabilitation. What we would ask the Board to do is stay its hand to allow the sale to occur because this is the first opportunity at which my client would have an opportunity to bid the property in. At that point if we can arrange a private sale, I am told there are individuals from this particular neigh- borhood that' are interested in seeing that this property is rehabilitated. I have copies of the motion that I have filed with the court and attached to that is support of the motion for reappraisal and the list of violations submitted by Mr. Ocking- ton's office on November 22, 1988 and a copy of the January 17th estimate prepared by Doubrava Inc. indicating the items coded the violation list and the cost that he would estimate to pre- pare. We would ask the Board to stay its action, as I asked before, until we can put this property through final sale which we anticipate would be March 23rd. Thank you." Mr. Murman asked' Mr. Janis if he would make available to the secretary, the motion for reappraisal. Mr. Janis stated, 'abso- lutely". Mr. Murman then'asked Mr. Janis if in his experience with this case, the only owners of the property are the Reed's. Mr. Janis stated that that was correct. Mr. Murman then asked if the property had been abandoned? Mr. Janis stated that the Reed's were not living there now. That since he had no way of contacting the Reed'st that he would have to assume that the property was abandoned. Mr. Murman then asked if this had been over a period of four years? Mr. Janis responded, he did not know because he did not have the case at that time. Mr. Murman then asked Mr. Janis if he felt the property was more than 50% decayed? Mr. Jants responded, that he was not qualified to make that decision. Mr. Janis stated that he did not have an opinion one way or another. When asked by Mr. Murman what he thought the