hpdmin 03-07-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Bullock asked about the condition of the parking structure behind the IA building. Mr. Parmelee indicated that it is in bad shape. The owners skipped the meeting with the city's prosecutors. They merely patched concrete where it was damaged on the garage and did not fix the water intrusion. He added that Ordinance 05-2022 would help, but the Building Department already has them on the hook and in court to address the needed repairs. Councilmember Kepple asked whether if viewing the facade gives building inspectors a sense of whether there are interior structural issues. Mr. Parmelee indicated that it could, especially if there are air gaps in the masonry that could cause an exterior wall to draw water in. Councilmember Baker queried whether the ordinance should require a report from a structural engineer or architect, as it seemed more in a structural engineer's wheelhouse. Mr. Parmelee noted that a registered design professional is all that's required in the state building code. He added that either parry could give detailed information on the building and that it's not the city's responsibility to know whether an engineer/architect is qualified to look at a structure. However, reports will be subject to internal review after their submission. Councilmember Baker asked whether the city could use registered design professional language in its code. Mr. Parmelee did not oppose using that definition. Councilmember Baker cited language about undue delay and sought to limit the city from liability under a scenario where the Building Department had the report for a period of time, was not able to impose any corrective action, and negative effects arose from a structural disrepair. Commissioner Parmelee stated that Cleveland has language in its code about imminent risk and that the city could change the language to match it. Mr. Baker added that the current verbiage puts pressure on the Building Department and suggested tying it to a building permit, which is good for 6 months. Mr. Parmelee stated that if his inspectors found something substantial in a structure, the owners would need a permit for repairs and special approvals. He indicated that he was happy to work with the councilmember to come up with new language. Mr. Baker concluded that the term imminent risk is a good qualifier, and that the commissioner can use his discretion to determine timeline for structural repairs. Mayor George stated that she had spoken with Assistant Law Director Swallow about the verbiage of the legislation, and that she was open to making it as strong as possible. Director Corrigan added that the legislation gives the commissioner discretion to set the deadline for repair as he sees fit, based on the violation or risk. Councilmember Shachner noted that it seemed the commissioner does have a significant amount of discretion on the timeline and that a reasonable read of the ordinance indicates that the commissioner can decide on when delay is undue. Mayor George and Director Corrigan that the commissioner can enforce stricter timelines in the event of serious risk or imminent harm. In the event of minor repairs, the commissioner has more flexibility over a 6-month period upon good justification of the owner, as they may be encountering obstacles such as limited contractor availability.