08/2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I0 Regular Council Meeting August 13, 2012 Page 8 1i _ � . had been an eye opener for him. He said that PEDC had a plan they were working towards, which should remove any concerns. 16. First reading, discuss and possibly act on ORDINANCE NO. 2012 -021: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PARIS, TEXAS, AMENDING SEC. 7 -20 ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 7, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS BY ESTABLISHING A BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF SECTION 7 -21 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS, AND DECLARING THE SAME TO BE NULL AND VOID AND OF NO EFFECT; MAKING OTHER FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; AND PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, A PENALTY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mayor Hashmi said this arose as a result of meetings with contractors, there had not been as many complaints about the permitting process. Shawn Napier explained creation of this Board would offer an opportunity to submit an application to appeal orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official or fire code official. He said Section 112 of the Building Code states the general purpose, limitations of authority and qualifications for the board members. Mr. Napier said the board must include an electrician, plumber, mechanical contractor and general contractor. He also said the fifth member would be an engineer, architect or design professional and the two alternates should qualify for one of the previously listed positions. Mayor Hashmi referenced page 121 item c and stated that he thought the Board's number of days to render a decision should be fifteen days not thirty days. Mr. Napier expressed concern about being able to get a quorum together on a shorter notice. Following a brief discussion, it was a consensus of City Council to reduce the number of days to fifteen for the Board to render a decision. Mayor Hashmi said Paul Denney, Bobby Smallwood, and Bryan Hargis had all expressed an interest in serving on the Board. A Motion to invoke the super majority rule was made by Council Member Grossnickle and seconded by Council Member Lancaster. Motion carried, 7 ayes — 0 nays. A Motion to approve this item was made by Council Member Grossnickle, and seconded by Council Member Lancaster. Motion carried, 7 ayes — 0 nays. 17. Update and discuss possible future use and funding for the Grand Theatre, and provide direction to city staff. Council Member Frierson gave an update of the Grand Theatre Project and started with a history of the facility. He said the City assumed possession of the property in May 2009 and work performed since that time included electrical work on the sign, initial fagade work, asbestos abatement and roof repair. Council Member Frierson told the Council that approximately $100,000 of City funds had been spent to date on the Project. He also said that the asbestos abatements had been completed at a total cost to date of $240,000, $200,000 of which was from grant money and $40,000 was from City funds. He stated that in November 2011, the facility