Neighbors band together to resist zoning "favor" for out-of-town landlord

Greetings All !
 
I would like to make a rather long post here this morning in order to relate a long story to you.  Part of this story did, in fact, make it to the Examiner last week.  But I thought I'd relate as much as possible here as well.
 
Last December, right before Christmas, a duplex on Winner Road had a fire.  I've heard that something electrical in the attic caught fire.  The renters were able to get out without injury.  But the duplex was a total loss.
 
If you have driven on Winner Road at any point since then, up until and including today... you have already seen this:
http://www.winnerneighbors.org/images/burned_duplex_1.jpg
http://www.winnerneighbors.org/images/burned_duplex_3.jpg
 
(Ain't it amazing, folks?   More than eight months have gone by and this thing STILL isn't torn down.  And it's on a highly-travelled street !)
 
I should mention that I live a block north of this duplex.
 
Since then, we've been waiting patiently for this thing to be torn down.   But, as we walked by the house, every now and then we'd notice something stapled to the plywood in front of it.
 
The first thing we saw was code violations for trash.
 
And then, about two months ago, we saw a dumpster appear and 3-4 guys with a bobcat were out there starting to clean it up!  Hurray!    Or so we thought, because that one day was the last we saw of them.
 
Then we walked by and saw a notice nailed to the structure:    The city had STOPPED the demolition because there was no "demo permit" !!
 
Then, about a month ago, neighbors received a letter from the City.  This was a notification that the property owner was going to the Board of Zoning Adjustments.    It seems that this duplex, along with three other duplexes owned by the same owner, are all on a SINGLE LOT.    The property owner was asking the City to subdivide that lot into FOUR lots.   Now, a copy of the actual letter from the property owner to the City was included at that time.  And it said that the property owner wanted to SELL the one burned-down duplex lot.   And, without the rezoning, he could not do that.
 
Now, we knew that those duplexes had a history of a large number of code violations.   They aren't kept up very well and there have been numerous weed and trash violations.   ( I personally do not live within direct sight of that property, but quite a few of my neighbors do. The street configuration puts that lot as being quite viewable by many homes.)
 
We looked up the voilations on the City's website.   There were at least a dozen of them, most since 2007.   What was most troubling was that several of them were classified as being of the type "Top Offender".
 
Several of us neighbors got together and attended that Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting approximately three weeks ago.     Six of us stood up to speak against the rezoning.    My understanding is that the rezoning to allow the subdividing of the lots is only allowable in a "hardship" situation.    We said that this landlord had a history of code violations.... something the City department that worked with this landlord either didn't research, or didn't care about.   We complained loudly about the fact that this duplex still is not torn down, months after the fire.  Clearly, we had allowed plenty of time for an insurance payment to come through!
 
I stated that we should not be doing any "favors" for an out-of-town landlord (Lee's Summit) who has shown a history of irresponsibility.
 
We also pointed out that the one lot itself was also very crowded.   This burned-out duplex, in fact, has almost zero back-yard.    The previous tenants always had a swing set and lots of toys scattered in the front yard, because there was nowhere for the kids to play.
 
The property owner is actually an LLC.... which in turn is apparently a partnership of two men.  One of them lives in Lee's Summit.  I'm not sure about the other one.
 
In my humble opinion, they expressed a lot of ignorance about the property:    When asked how long they'd owned it, they said "One - to - two years".  (In fact, it's been over two years.)    They claimed complete ignorance of any code violations.   And, when asked why they had not yet torn down the duplex, they used the same excuse that they continue to use to this day:
 
"We've been waiting for the City to make these zoning changes.  Then, the third-party whom we are giving this duplex to is going to do the demo and rebuilding."
 
(Yes, it should now be noted that instead of them having a verbal agreement to SELL the property to a third party, pending this zoning change, they now are saying that they have a verbal agreement to GIVE the property to that third party.)
 
I really believed that they were "dancing around the issue".  Clearly, they didn't want to pay for the demo.  But they had started demo-ing it and then stopped!
 
Anyways, despite our opposition, the vote was 4 to 1 in favor of the landlord.    In the remarks that the various board members made, it was apparent that most of them didn't care about what the neighbors said.  They were focused solely on the technical aspects of the case (what I call "drawing the little lines").
 
We were very disappointed.  And we didn't think we had any recourse.  We learned that the "rules" in Independence have changed recently:    This rezoning case would now go to the Planning Commission and City Council as CONSENT AGENDA items, with no public hearing allowed.    So, at the time, I thought we were finished.
 
However, one neighbor asked the City a few questions and found we had two options:    Sue the Board of Zoning Adjustments.... or send a letter to the Planning Commission in time to make the meeting  (which, by this time, about a week away).
 
Well, all of us neighbors were pretty well tied-up.   But we used email to pass back-and-forth a letter.    And then, on the Sunday afternoon before the Tuesday night meeting, I went door-to-door and collected 12 signatures.... the husband-and-wife-households who had attended the original Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting.    One neighbor had kindly researched and obtained all street addresses and home phone numbers of the Planning Commission members.
 
But then came a problem:   If we put them in the mail on Monday, there's no way on earth those Planning Commission people would receive them in time enough for them to read and digest the info for Tuesday night's meeting!
 
So, I quickly printed off Google Maps to all 7 Commission members' homes, plus one master map showing where all of them were located.    There were three distinct "clusters".  One north, one south, and one central.   My wife and I and two other couples split up the work.
 
And so, that Sunday evening, we hand-delivered those letters to Planning Commission members homes.
 
But then we realized:    Oh, gee, the Planning Commission meeting was Tuesday night.  How many of us could attend?   ( We knew that it was on the Consent Agenda, but we thought somebody should be there, just in case.)    Unfortunately, almost everybody was tied up.  I had to work until 7 PM.   But one neighbor couple, Fred and Leah Burton, said they'd go.
 
(I watched a DVD of that Planning Commission meeting last night, so my comments that follow are based on that knowledge.)
 
To the surprise of us neighbors, one Commissioner took the zoning issue OFF of the "consent agenda" and made it available for public discussion.   (We had received a hint that this might happen earlier in the day, when somebody got a look at that night's meeting agenda.   Apparently, there was a clause on there that said that any Commissioner could "pull" such an item into the public realm.)
 
Now, I was really pissed when I heard Stuart Borders, key rep for the City, was asked to explain the issue and talk about the Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting.    He said that, while there were several citizens who stood up at the BZA meeting and had QUESTIONS about the zoning change, there was "no opposition" to it!        WHAT A CROCK !!      Proof to me that Mr. Borders' memory is bad or that he is not-so-subtely on the property-owners' side.
 
However....
 
I was truly surprised and humbled by the reaction of the Planning Commission.   While, yes, several of them admitted that on a purely technical basis, the Code Violations (including a lien of something like $245 that is currently held against the property for not dealing with those violations) and the lack of demolition of the duplex didn't matter (much).     However, every single member said they understood why the neighbors were upset.
 
Commissioner Lyn Westfall really "held the property owners feet to the fire" regarding why that duplex still hasn't been torn down.    The property owners gave their same answer that they were "waiting on the City".... something that Lyn didn't seem to accept as an excuse.
 
The property owners said they themselves had WANTED to rebuild the duplex, but the bank wouldn't give them a loan.  They claim they're "getting zero out of this deal".  And yet they say the duplex had been insured.  (So, insurance money must have went to pay off the mortgage?   Which would explain why they don't want to do the demo?   They're too broke ??)
 
There were only 5 out of the 7 Planning Commissioners there that night, but in hearing their comments, I at least feel that our concerns were heard by all of them.   Some of them even made reference to how the City has been trying to improve conditions in Western Independence and then here we have this burned-out duplex sitting for months.  One member said she was concerned about what will happen in the future (on that property) if they do approve this rezoning request.
 
At least three of the five Commissioners said that they had stopped by the site and taken a look, prior to that night's meeting.   That made me feel very proud of them and humbled by them.   That's the kind of honest action we need from our public servants.
 
All Commissioners also found technical reasons to question the rezoning.  The fact is, the property owner was asking for a very high number of variances.   And the lot size and configuration for the burned-out property wasn't very good for any house anywhere.
 
In the end, the Planning Commission decided to come back to the issue in two weeks.   The motion was made "for continuance back to the applicant and staff for the elimination of lot 1-D and the configuation of the remaining lots to reduce the number of continuances" (he meant to say "variances" there.)
 
The next day, I received a sudden, surprise email from one of the property owners... at my day job!    It turns out, he's a Senior Manager at the company I work for (but he works at a different location in a different division).    I won't go into the full details of his letter, but basically, he was asking me to have the neighbors contact him directly in the future regarding any problems they have.   I said that I could make that promise for myself and that I'd communicate it to the neighbors, but I couldn't say for sure that nobody would call it into the Code Compliance Department first.   He seemed to understand that.    
 
But I did tell him that in my opinion, the fact that that duplex has not been torn down yet is HIS responsibility....not the city's.  
 
And so now, we wait until next Tuesday night, for the next Planning Commission meeting.   Ideally, we'd like to see that duplex be torn down and NOT built again.   Why?  Well, it's on a very crowded lot already.  We have PLENTY of duplexes over here.... quite a few of them down 14th and 15th streets are empty and have been for some time.    Of course, we may get some sort of compromise instead.
 
When asked how soon we could expect that duplex to be torn down, the property owner says that they have until October 15th!    What?  10 months total?     Who at the City came up with that rule?    That's ridiculous.
 
In my humble opinion:     Being a landlord comes with a responsibility to the PEOPLE.... both the tenants AND the neighbors of the neighborhood.   I know several landlords personally who agree with this.  I know of one who practically adopts her tenants, she helps them out so much!   But this city seems to have an awful lot of landlords of this type:    Where they do the bare, bare minimum for their structure, the neighborhood, and their tenants....most of the time.   And then some of the time, they don't even do that.....racking up code violations and letting their properties "go".    And then when you call them on it, they claim ignorance.
 
But it irks me when they come to the City wanting a special favor.... and it's the NEIGHBORS... not the people working at the City.... who have to take the time to dig through and come up with Code Violation records... who have to look up how long the landlord has owned the property.... who have to tell Boards and Commissions about Code Violations, leins, and other tidbits of the landlord's "history with the City"... stuff that City staff should have looked up already !!
 
Somebody told me:   Well, that's because at these meetings, the City staff representative has to have a neutral role.
 
Well, what about BEFORE the meetings, when they're working one-on-one with the property owner, telling them what requirements they must meet?   They act in both an advisory and in an adversarial role there, right?   Well, they're not doing due diligence there.
 
Pretty sad when the neighbors have to go to the City's website to look up stuff and present it to various Boards.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

So, in closing this long post (and I know I've still left some things out).... I just wanted to say:
a)  Hand-delivering a letter (signed by homeowners) to the Planning Commission members definitely helped get their attention to the issue.
b)  Kudos and THANK YOU  to the Planning Commission members.... for actually going out to look at the property and for taking our complaints seriously.    Whatever the outcome, we feel like we have been heard.... which is something I can't say about our Board of Zoning Adjustments experience.
 
After the Planning Commission, whether yes or no, I believe this must go on to the City Council for approval.   So, we'll probably be sending that letter to the Council within a week.
 
I'll keep you all up-to-date on what happens.    (And please realize, when my "voice" was a little silent for the past two weeks on the sales tax issue, this is where my attention was at the time.   Sometimes, when some of us aren't here to argue the other side of an issue, it's because we're fighting fires elsewhere.)
 
Thanks!
 
-= Dave =-