06/02/2025 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L �! over the past decade. They detailed structural concerns, lack of repairs, health and safety issues, and questioned the owner's history of property neglect. One resident emphasized the presence of mold and other hazards predating the fire, while both challenged the claim that the tenant was responsible for delays. The building department clarified that, in addition to the fire -related violations, there were other open exterior code violations, and a separate request for extension on those had been submitted by a different attorney but not yet acted upon. The board acknowledged the legal complexities involving tenant rights and the difficulty of beginning restoration while the property remained occupied. Board members discussed the challenges of completing restoration within 30 days and recognized that six months could be excessive if no progress occurred. Concerns were raised about the potential for continued inaction and the impact on neighbors due to ongoing fire - related odors and unsafe conditions. The board expressed a preference for a shorter extension period, such as 90 days, paired with regular updates to ensure the work was actively progressing. The board continued deliberation on the request for a six-month extension to address fire -related repairs at 23112 Virginia Avenue. It was clarified that the initial fire occurred on March 25, 2025, and a 30-day condemnation letter was issued on April 30 due to lack of response from the property owner. With the initial 30-day period having lapsed, the applicant was effectively requesting an additional 90 days from the present date. The board discussed the legal limitations imposed by the tenant's continued possession of the property, noting that full access for restoration could not begin until the eviction process concluded. The building commissioner confirmed that similar cases typically involve early mitigation efforts by contractors, though the lack of possession complicated that process in this instance. Concerns were raised about the potential for inaction during a full six-month extension, and the board agreed that a shorter period with required updates would be more appropriate. It was confirmed that the structure had no major structural damage and posed no imminent danger to the public, but remained uninhabitable. Mr. Mackey made a motion to grant a 90-day extension from the date of the hearing to allow for fire damage remediation and restoration; seconded by Mr. Papotto. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Board members emphasized that the extension applied only to the fire -related repairs and did not impact any separate existing code violations, which remained under the authority of the building department. 266-2025; Robert and Catherine Russ; 24710 Mitchell Rd. Representative: Catherine Russ The board reviewed a variance request for 24710 Mitchell Road related to a proposed patio extension and installation of a small freestanding tiki bar. Two variances were requested: an 3