342 W. 10th (Patterson Appts)

Moderator: Board Members

AlexS
Preservation SOS Member
Preservation SOS Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:15 am

342 W. 10th (Patterson Appts)

Post by AlexS » Fri Apr 22, 2011 8:49 am

I copied this info from another thread (dated Apr 30, 2010) as it was the only info I could find for the Patterson Appts. I left a voice mail for the owner to see how much he is asking for it.
342 W. 10th - they wouldn't stop the order due to a large hole in the roof. It can still take up to a year for the house to actually be demolished and the commission knows we will pursue every avenue to force the owner to fix the roof or sell. By having the order, there will be more pressure.
There are 3 years back taxes due on this property.

Code: Select all

Prior Year Taxes Due 
Year  	Folio  	Status  	Cert.  	Cert. Yr.  	Amount  	 
2007 	1118139 	  	7449 	2008 	$2,192.03 	 
2008 	1114456 	  	12319 	2009 	$2,385.51 	 
2009 	1115083 	  	12687 	2010 	$1,703.38 	 
Prior Years Total  	$6,280.92
Additionally a nuisance lien exists.

Code: Select all

Lien Details 
Type  	Number  	Date  	Base Amount  	Interest  	Due Amount 
Nuisance Lien 	NBNL11003744 	2/9/2011 	$325.54  	$6.52  	$332.06  

AlexS
Preservation SOS Member
Preservation SOS Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:15 am

Re: 342 W. 10th

Post by AlexS » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:24 pm

Picture from 12/29/2007.
Attachments
0720580000.JPG
0720580000.JPG (438.86 KiB) Viewed 2593 times

movedsouth
Preservation SOS Member
Preservation SOS Member
Posts: 2053
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: 342 W. 10th

Post by movedsouth » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:42 pm

Permit History:

4/9/2009 2:58:42 PM James De Vera
Property Condemned Code Changed from to Prop. Maint. Hold - Contact 391-3600 mcc@coj.net

4/9/2009 3:01:24 PM James De Vera
case#05-490 officer Mike O'loughlin order hold on all permits as well as JEA. . . all letters should have historic requirements. . jdev 04.09.09


4/4/2011 - Sewer Disconnect

movedsouth
Preservation SOS Member
Preservation SOS Member
Posts: 2053
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: 342 W. 10th

Post by movedsouth » Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:14 pm

The HPC Meeting Notes:
MS. MARTINAGE: The first one is a duplex at 30- -- 342 West 10th Street. It's a mostly brick structure with some siding towards the rear.
My site visit, you can see it looks mostly -- mostly in pretty good shape. I talked with Elaine Lancaster and she showed me a photo that I didn't have viewed from Perry Street
where you see the back portion of the hip roof. It's in your packet up there, but it appears there's a large hole forming in the roof on the back portion above this porch area (indicating) on the back side of the building, and so that's why they're bringing it forward today. It's been vacant for quite a while I understand. So while it's not falling in yet, it's -- if the roof is not addressed, it could be a problem down the road.

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any -- anyone have any questions of the staff?

COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.)

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Go ahead and open the public hearing. Anyone here to speak on behalf of these properties?

(Ms. Lancaster approaches the podium.)

MS. LANCASTER: Good evening or afternoon, should I say. Actually, this -- my name is Elaine Lancaster. I'm with the City of Jacksonville's Code Compliance Division. We actually do have -- in your pictures, there's actually not a hole forming. It is actually a huge hole. And it actually -- I even showed a close-up of it because we have parts that are in danger of collapsing and wind blown. The picture is actually -- that's where I zoomed in (indicating). And actually part of the front is that middle -- the last page of your pictures is actually from the front where it is actually -- when I was taking the picture yesterday with the wind conditions, the shingle parts up there was blowing in the winds. They were already flapping. So now you got the hole that's in the rear, and it has come around going towards the front. This is not going to be very long and it's going to be a hole. Unfortunately, a still camera can't -- you know, I was trying to get it to where it was showing when it was actually up. But every picture I snapped, they wanted to drop on me. So the wind conditions yesterday was pretty strong, and it would not take much for that to go flying off. In addition, I was actually able to speak with the neighbor who lives at 448 yesterday. He came out while I was there. And in one of your pictures, I actually showed where they have -- the prostitutes have kicked in the back door and now are doing their business inside the house. They've actually just busted the door completely. He is actually an elderly man, and he had concerns of that.

What I'm asking the commission today is actually to start the process under the formal track, which we have stated many, many times how long it takes. I was actually giving Autumn examples today. We have several that it is actually about up and due. It's been signed off and we're going forward. There's five of them. And two of those, we actually started in April of 2009, and one of them we started in December of 2008. So please be -- you know, please be aware that it is not a quick process.

The latest -- out of the five, the shortest time period I have on one of them is nine months. So I would actually like to be able to start this case and go ahead and get it processed. However, with the condition if this roof continues, I'm going to have no choice but to put it on the emergency track and talk with OGC about that, about going in front of a judge. That's my case.
[... more to come... ]

movedsouth
Preservation SOS Member
Preservation SOS Member
Posts: 2053
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: 342 W. 10th

Post by movedsouth » Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:19 pm

MS. SHAW: That would be -- that would be delayed as well, wouldn't it, Elaine? I'm sorry. I just wanted to clarify. If it's going to be on emergency track, wouldn't that be something that I file?

MS. LANCASTER: Yeah. Even that process takes -- you know how --

MS. SHAW: To file the complaint?

MS. LANCASTER: You still have to file the injunction and complaint and all that. So even that's time -- that can be two or three months.


MS. LANCASTER: I'm just wanting to go ahead and try to start the formal track to know that we're addressing it because I've had no contact with the property owner. This is
actually a 2005 case, so we're five years down the road already. And I'm sorry I didn't mention that. But, you know, we're already five years into this being unsafe. And, obviously,
nothing is being done. It's continued to deteriorate.

THE CHAIRMAN: Elaine, if you could stay there for one second. Any of the commissioners have any questions of Elaine?

COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.)

MS. LANCASTER: I'm sorry.

THE CHAIRMAN: That's okay. You're going to be doing three --

MS. LANCASTER: I'm having senior moments today.

THE CHAIRMAN: You're probably going to be doing three reports today.

MS. LANCASTER: I've got them lined up. I'm ready.

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right. Is there anyone else here to speak on this?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to thecommissioners.

MS. SCHIFANELLA: Seems like it's in need of immediate attention. I'm willing to support that application.

MR. CASE: As much as I don't like to, I will.

MS. SCHIFANELLA: I move that we -- is this a -- what is this? An approve request fordemolition?

MS. SHAW: Yeah. You just -- approving it to put it on the formal track for demolition It's just that simple.

MS. SCHIFANELLA: Okay. I move that we put the property at 342 West 10th Street on the formal track for demolition.

MR. CASE: Second.

THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second. Any discussion?

COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor say aye.

COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.

THE CHAIRMAN: By your actions, you've approved to put 342 10th Street West on formal track.

movedsouth
Preservation SOS Member
Preservation SOS Member
Posts: 2053
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: 342 W. 10th

Post by movedsouth » Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:29 pm

Just picking through the HPC proceedings, a few observations: First of all, how long did this take? 5-10 minutes? Nobody from the public present spoke up? I haven't been at a lot of HPC meetings, but there are fences that get more time then this demolition.

Ms. Martinage states "My site visit, you can see it looks mostly -- mostly in pretty good shape". But then, even though Ms. Martinage saw it herself, Ms Lancaster showed her photos to proof that what she saw in person was wrong?

Later, Ms. Lancaster comes back to those photos, she sees "flapping shingles" in still photos. She also states first that "It is actually a huge hole.", but later says "This is not going to be very long and it's going to be a hole. ". What is it Ms Lancaster? A hole or a hole in the making? Maybe too many shingles flapping in the wind to tell?

Overall, the evidence appears to be week compared to the colorful embellishment it was presented with. The goal is clear: "MS. LANCASTER: I'm just wanting to go ahead and try to start the formal track ... "

The End:
MS. SCHIFANELLA: Okay. I move that we put the property at 342 West 10th Street on the formal track for demolition.
MR. CASE: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second. Any discussion?
COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor say aye.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.

AlexS
Preservation SOS Member
Preservation SOS Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:15 am

Re: 342 W. 10th

Post by AlexS » Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:44 pm

Since the commission voted to put the property on the "formal track for demolition", I think it would be fair to ask what exactly the "formal track" is, where it is described and based on what authority. At least someone should should be able to produce a document, otherwise what was really voted on ?

iloveionia
Preservation SOS Member
Preservation SOS Member
Posts: 3304
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: 342 W. 10th

Post by iloveionia » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:27 pm

Ah, hem.
There is no such thing as a "formal track."
Ask all you want, it is not a policy, just a practice.

We will have to fight for this one like Walnut Court.
I'm so flipping mad.
I once believe Louise was a positive force in Springfield.
I wish I would have blazed over SPAR with this demolition thing sooner.
I trusted SPAR and I trusted Louise.
Nicole Lopez

“One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making exciting discoveries.” A.A. Milne

User avatar
jmarkusic
Preservation SOS Member
Preservation SOS Member
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:55 pm

Re: 342 W. 10th

Post by jmarkusic » Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:28 pm

<gloria>

Those are some tough prostitutes to kick down doors like that.

Nicole, can you attempt to contact the homeowner. I talked to an investor today who may be interested in it if it is cheaper enough and shoot, it ought to be pretty darned cheap.

User avatar
jmarkusic
Preservation SOS Member
Preservation SOS Member
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:55 pm

Re: 342 W. 10th

Post by jmarkusic » Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:36 pm

<gloria>
AlexS wrote:Since the commission voted to put the property on the "formal track for demolition", I think it would be fair to ask what exactly the "formal track" is, where it is described and based on what authority. At least someone should should be able to produce a document, otherwise what was really voted on ?
This is the direction I believe we should head into. Since the commission acted to put it in something which "doesn't exist" what is there to appeal?

Post Reply