Code Attorney

The recent case of Armstrong v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 2009 WL 217867, expanded the definition of  “single housekeeping unit” to include an apartment with four bedrooms  and a common area with kitchen and bath facilities shared by 4 unrelated people, each of whom had a separate lease with the developer. The apartment building was made up of 26 four-bedroom suites.  The City contended that the apartments in the building were rooming units but because the ordinance did not have a strict definition of what constituted a single housekeeping unit, the court did not agree.  The code provided that a dwelling unit may not be occupied by more than one family.  A family was defined as no more than four unrelated individuals who live together.   None of the tenants had access to each other’s bedroom.  It seems to me that the lack of a clear definition of what constituted a “single housekeeping unit” led the court to make its decision.  It highlights how important definitions can be in zoning ordinances.   I had a case where the landlord chopped up a single family home into 3 units with a common kitchen.  Thankfully, the code was clear enough that he was forced to return the home to its single family character after his appeal was denied. Unless a local government doesn’t mind this type of result, it may want to check the definitions in its zoning code.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Zoning Tag(s):

This does not bode well for reducing the number of foreclosed properties anytime soon now that the foreclosures are spreading to regular mortgages due to the owners’ loss of employment  This article from the Washington Post describes the problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081703035.html

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Foreclosure Tag(s):

The National Vacant Properties Campaign has an interesting summary of different approaches being taken around the country regarding vacant and abandoned property. You can find the summary at http://www.vacantproperties.org/strategies/tools.html I especially like the Chula Vista, CA ordinance approach. This is a description if its ordinance.

The Abandoned Residential Property Registration Program is intended to address those properties that are vacant and financially distressed. The program requires mortgage lenders to inspect defaulted properties to confirm that they are occupied. If a property is found to be vacant, the program requires that the lender exercise the abandonment clause within their mortgage contract, register the property with the City and immediately begin to secure and maintain the property to the neighborhood standard.

They must also hire a local company to inspect the property on a weekly basis. The property must be posted with the name and 24-hour contact number of the company responsible for the weekly inspection, maintenance and security of the property. This will remove the City’s Code Enforcement Section from spending limited resources to act as the property manager. It also allows neighbors to have direct contact with a responsible party. It is hoped that the combination of observant neighbors and an accessible local responsible party will deter and arrest any potential deterioration of the property and thus preserve the neighborhood.

This seeks to address the time between the default on the loan and the sheriff’s sale when the lender actually gets title. Here’s a link to the actual ordinance. http://209.242.175.50/weblink7/docview.aspx?id=52169

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Foreclosure, property maintenance Tag(s):

I was visiting Milwaukee this past weekend when I came across an interesting article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about a case in Florida where a district attorney in northern Wisconsin was litigating with the city of Fort Lauderdale over fines in excess of $700,000 on property worth only $200,000.  His mother had owned the property prior to her death and it had incurred damage due to a hurricane and eventually she ended up with enormous fines due to its condition and the work done without permits.  The son contended the large fines were excessive but the the federal court of appeals recently disagreed with him and stated:

In this case, the fine is properly characterized as a $150 per day fine for each day their house was not in compliance with the Fort Lauderdale Code. The Moustakises do not allege in their Complaint that a $150 per day fine for violating the Code is excessive, only that the cumulative fine of $700,000, which is more than the value of the house violating the Code, is excessive. But the $700,000 fine was created by the Moustakises’ failure to bring the house into compliance with the Code each day for 14 years. Rather than being grossly disproportionate to the offense, the $700,000 fine is, literally, directly proportionate to the offense. The Moustakises have not alleged any facts that demonstrate that the lien and underlying fines are excessive under either the Florida Constitution or the United States Constitution.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Building Codes, Code Enforcement Tag(s):

Last weekend I went to visit Frank Lloyd Wright’s home, Taliesen in Spring Green, WI.  When you realize that architects were still building Victorian homes when he began working, his genius is truly amazing.  It’s definitely worth the trip.  A person on the tour asked whether Frank Lloyd Wright ever had problems with building inspectors.

The tour guide said that he had, in fact, run into problems with building inspectors over the course of his career.  I did a little research and found some interesting information.  Here is an example from the book Frank Lloyd Wright and the Johnson Wax Building which discusses how Wright submitted to a load test for the “petals” holding up the structure. The state inspector required it to hold 12 tons.  That wasn’t good enough for Wright. (He had a very large ego).  Wright continued to have more weight added to the top.  The “petal” ended up holding 60 tons.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RalDFRIwofgC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=Frank+Lloyd+Wright+and+building+inspectors&source=bl&ots=IffRCAO7dS&sig=qJo78FBSAgdweLa5WAUvr5DwvUU&hl=en&ei=9iSCSsWnC42AMsH2mZQL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Building officials have the power they need to work with geniuses like Wright by approving alternative methods of construction, design and materials under IBC 104.11 if the intent of the code is met.  Many inspectors are dealing with green technology and using this provision to approve techniques and materials that were unheard of 50 years ago.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Building Codes Tag(s):