Mar 05, 2026 Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals

THAT'S WHY PEOPLE CALL ME. SAY. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BUILDING CODE

[00:00:10]

[1. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 512 Quebec Street, Birmingham, AL 35224. (Part 1 of 2)]

35224. HOW WOULD YOU ALL LIKE ME TO PROCEED? DO YOU WANT ME TO JUST GO THROUGH THE, I GUESS, THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE AND KIND OF SET OUT OUR ARGUMENT? YES, PLEASE. SO FOR ALL OF THESE, YOU ALL I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ALL HAVE IN YOUR PACKET AS FAR AS THE RECORD IS CONCERNED, BUT THERE APPEARS TO BE A A LETTER FROM THE COUNTY IS DATED JANUARY 8TH OF 2026.

YES, I HAVE ONE FOR EACH PROPERTY. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SAME FOR EACH ONE OF THE PROPERTIES, BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FRAMING OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE DEALING HERE WITH THESE, THIS THIS LETTER DATED JANUARY 8TH, BUT THIS LETTER WAS NOT ISSUED UNTIL LAST WEEK. SO THAT THAT IS A CRITICAL POINT THAT I'D LIKE YOU ALL TO FOCUS ON. THE PRIMARY ISSUE WE'RE DEALING HERE WITH HERE IS WE HAVE WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS. THE CODE IS VERY CLEAR AS TO WHAT PROCESS THE COUNTY IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE BEFORE THEY DEEM A BUILDING UNSAFE. THAT INVOLVES ISSUING A NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, IDENTIFYING THE SPECIFIC STRUCTURAL ISSUES WITH THAT PROPERTY THAT ARE CAUSING THE BUILDING TO BE UNSAFE. TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT WITH A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE BUILDING IS UNSAFE, TO PROVIDE A PERIOD OF TO CURE THAT, AND THEN AFTER THE CURE, TO DEEM THE BUILDING UNSAFE. WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS THE COMPLETE REVERSE. THEY CAME IN, THEY POSTED AN UNSAFE BUILDING NOTICE. THEY POSTED STOP WORK ORDERS WHEN NO, NO WORK WAS BEING PERFORMED AT ANY OF THESE PROPERTIES. AND THEN WEEKS LATER, THEY ISSUED WHAT IS PURPORTED TO BE ALL OF THE ISSUES WITH THE BUILDING. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS IN YOUR RECORD AS WELL, THAT I SENT THE COUNTY A LETTER FOR EACH ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES JANUARY 20TH AND JANUARY 27TH, RESPECTIVELY, REQUESTING THE RECORD FOR EACH ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES SO THAT WE COULD GET CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE SPECIFIC ISSUES WERE THAT THEY HAD WITH THESE BUILDINGS TO DEEM THEM UNSAFE. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE TO THAT LETTER. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE RECORD. SO I COULDN'T TELL YOU AS WE STAND HERE TODAY, OTHER THAN THAT JANUARY 8TH LETTER THAT THEY DATED, THAT WAS ISSUED A WEEK BEFORE THIS HEARING, WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIMS UNDER THIS UNSAFE BUILDING STRUCTURE.

AND WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY'VE ESSENTIALLY THEY'VE REVOKED THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, DEEMED THESE BUILDINGS UNSAFE, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHAT THEY CITE FALL WITHIN TWO CATEGORIES. SO I'LL START WITH QUEBEC STREET. THEY HAVE DEEMED IT UNSAFE BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO THEM, THE BUILDING FALLS UNDER A2 CLASSIFICATION. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, IT REQUIRES A LITANY OF THINGS. PRIMARILY BEING A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. NOW THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS, NUMBER ONE, THE COUNTY CAN'T JUST MAKE A UNILATERAL DECISION THAT A PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN A2 CLASSIFICATION AND THEN DEEM A BUILDING UNSAFE AND THEN SHUT IT DOWN. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF DUE PROCESS, WHICH THEY IGNORED. HERE. THE SECTION THAT THEY CITE THAT THEY UTILIZE TO PUT THIS WITHIN THE A2 CLASSIFICATION. AND IF YOU'LL GIVE ME A MOMENT, I'LL PULL IT UP. I APOLOGIZE. OH HERE IT IS. SO THEY USE A SECTION 300 AND 3.3 OF THE

[00:05:11]

YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A BUILDING. YOU HAVE TO EXCLUDE RESTROOMS, OFFICE SPACES, STORAGE AREAS, AREAS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BE OCCUPIED BY INDIVIDUALS. ALL OF THAT HAS TO BE DONE WHEN YOU'RE DOING YOUR CALCULATION, AND YOU HAVE TO DOCUMENT YOUR CALCULATION, AND YOU HAVE TO DOCUMENT THE DATE THAT YOU VISITED THE PROPERTY AND CONDUCTED THE INSPECTION, WHICH IS THE REASON THAT WE ASKED FOR THE RECORD THAT WE WERE NOT PROVIDED WITH. SO AS WE STAND HERE TODAY, WE HAVE A UNILATERAL A2 DESIGNATION WITH NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE IT. WE HAVE A UNILATERAL CALCULATION OF THE OCCUPANCY FOR THESE BUILDINGS THAT IS INCORRECT, WITH NO SUBSTANTIATION AND NO RECORD. AND THE BUILDING HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN. AND THEN THEY LIST SOME INDEPENDENT VIOLATIONS IN THE LETTERS AS WELL, WHICH AGAIN, NONE OF THOSE ARE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT A BUILDING SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN FOR A DANGEROUS PURPOSE. AND IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEY HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT IN THEIR NOTICE THAT AND EXPLAIN WHY IT'S A DANGEROUS CONDITION, WHICH THEY DID NOT DO IN ANY OF THEIR NOTICES. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY MAY CLAIM THAT THEY WERE EXERCISING THE EMERGENCY POWERS OF THE COUNTY TO DESIGNATE SOMETHING A DANGEROUS BUILDING CONDITION, THEY STILL HAVE TO ARTICULATE THAT IN WRITING AND PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIATION AS TO THEIR BASIS FOR DEEMING IT A DANGEROUS STRUCTURE. SO AGAIN, I'M NOT STANDING HERE TODAY ARGUING THAT THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR POWER TO DEEM A BUILDING UNSAFE, BUT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW. THEY CAN'T JUST DEEM SOMETHING UNSAFE, TAKE A PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY'VE DONE BY SHUTTING IT DOWN, AND THEN STONEWALL AND REFUSE TO COMMUNICATE, NOT PROVIDE A RECORD, NOT PROVIDE A BASIS. AND THEN A WEEK BEFORE THE APPEAL, COME UP WITH ALL THESE REASONS AS TO WHY THE BUILDING IS UNSAFE. SO AGAIN, I CAN GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT'S SPECIFIC TO 512 QUEBEC IS WE'RE DEALING WITH THE A2 ASSEMBLY CLASSIFICATION, WHICH AGAIN HAS NO SUBSTANTIATION. THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT SERVE FOOD OR DRINK. IT IS NOT AN ASSEMBLY HALL WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF IPC 303.3. AND THEY HAVE NOT SUBSTANTIATED THEIR OCCUPANCY CALCULATION TO SUBSTANTIATE THE NEED FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEM. AND AGAIN, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO THROUGH DUE PROCESS AND YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE IT, ONE OF THE PRIMARY CURES THAT BUSINESSES OFTEN DO, WHICH IS AGAIN, WHY YOU HAVE TO DESIGNATE WHAT AREAS OF THE BUILDING YOU ACTUALLY MEASURED IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH YOUR OCCUPANCY CALCULATION IS YOU CAN REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE AFFECTED AREAS. SO IF THEY'RE BASICALLY STATING THAT THIS IS THE GAMING FLOOR FOR THIS FACILITY BECAUSE IT IS X SQUARE FOOTAGE IT UNDER THIS CALCULATION YOU HAVE THIS NUMBER OF PEOPLE UNDER OCCUPANCY. YOU CAN CUT THE GAMING FLOOR IN HALF OR BY A THIRD OR HOWEVER MUCH YOU NEED, YOU CAN DESIGNATE OTHER SPACES. ALL OF THOSE ARE CODE COMPLIANT WAYS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ISSUES WITH OCCUPANCY. THEY WERE NOT AFFORDED THAT OPPORTUNITY IN THIS MANNER BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE PROPERTY WAS JUST TAKEN AND THEN WEEKS LATER WE WERE PROVIDED WITH, YOU KNOW, A PAPER BASIS FOR THAT WITHOUT ANY RECORD. SO THAT'S 512 QUEBEC. IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYTHING THAT. ANY QUESTIONS GENTLEMEN. EXACTLY WHAT IS THE CURRENT USE OF THIS PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE IT IS USED AS A BINGO HALL, WHICH AGAIN IS IRRELEVANT AS IT RELATES TO CODE VIOLATIONS. I UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY'S POSITION AS IT RELATES TO THOSE BUSINESSES. I'M A REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY, SO I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE BUILDING CODE SAYS, BUT THAT IS WHAT IS UTILIZED FOR WHICH AGAIN, CAN BE USED FOR BASIS FOR DEEMING A CLASSIFICATION FOR A BUILDING. BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. THERE'S NOT A SPECIAL PROCESS FOR BUSINESSES TO COUNTY DOES

[00:10:03]

UNDER THEIR CODE, THEY PROMULGATED THESE RULES. THEY STATED THAT THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY THEM, AND THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW IT. WHAT WAS THE BUILDING USED FOR BEFORE? IT WAS A BUILDING HALL. I CAN'T SAY I'M NOT SURE. HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN USED AS A BUILDING HALL? I'M NOT SURE WHEN THE USE CHANGED TO THAT OF A BUILDING. HALL DID A CHANGE IN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WAS IT REQUESTED? I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE, BUT AGAIN, WITHOUT THE RECORD, I COULDN'T TELL YOU. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE REQUESTED THE RECORD.

BECAUSE AGAIN, IF YOU'RE COMING IN AS THE COUNTY AND YOU'RE ARGUING THAT THIS REQUIRES A CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY, ONE OF THE PRIMARY BASIS FOR THAT IS, WELL, WHAT WAS THE PRIOR OCCUPANCY DESIGNATION? AND, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY HAS THAT RECORD, I PRESUME. BUT THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE THAT TO US. SO I'M NOT SURE. WITHOUT REGARD TO WHEN IT WAS ISSUED. INCIDENTALLY, DID YOU ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING DATE? I DID NOT, BECAUSE, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, BUSINESSES, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY OPERATE ON MARGINS. YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE CLOSED, THEY'RE NOT MAKING MONEY. AGAIN. WE WE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS ACCORDING TO WHAT THE BUILDING CODE SAID.

SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE WHEN THE COUNTY IS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CODE. IF THEY DON'T HAVE A RECORD AND THEY DID NOT ISSUE THINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE CODE SAYS, THEN THEY SHOULD BEAR WHATEVER PUNISHMENT RESULTS FROM THAT. I HEAR YOU ON THAT. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER, ARE YOU SATISFIED THAT THAT GIVES YOU A PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THE THE AT LEAST THE OBSERVED KNOWN VIOLATIONS ARE STATED, AND THEN VERY CLEAR DIRECTION IS GIVEN. REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY, INCLUDING THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPER APPLICATION, THE APPROPRIATE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THEIR BASIS. I MEAN, I DON'T DISPUTE WHAT'S IN THE LETTER. THE PROBLEM IS THAT IS THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW THAT TO BE A BASIS FOR DEEMING A BUILDING UNSAFE. SO OCCUPANCY STANDING ALONE IS NOT A BASIS FOR DEEMING A BUILDING UNSAFE.

I MEAN, ALL OF THIS GOES BACK TO WHAT THE CODE SAYS AND DUE PROCESS. LIKE, AGAIN, THEY CAN'T JUST MAKE UP RULES AS THEY GO ALONG, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY'VE DONE.

I'M NOT STATING THAT THEY CAN'T DEEM A BUILDING UNSAFE, BUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS. THEY HAVE TO DOCUMENT THAT. THEY HAVE TO COMMUNICATE THINGS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. THEY HAVE TO STATE WHAT THAT BASIS IS, WHICH AGAIN, OCCUPANCY IS NOT A BASIS FOR DEEMING A BUILDING UNSAFE. AGAIN, IF THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THAT LINE OF, WELL, IT HAS TO BE A TO ASSEMBLY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. WE'RE SAYING THAT THE BUILDING IS UNSAFE. ALL OF THAT HAS TO BE DOCUMENTED AND CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, WHICH IS NOT. SO AGAIN, I'M NOT DISPUTING WHAT'S IN THE LETTER. I'M JUST SAYING THAT WHAT'S IN THE LETTER IS INSUFFICIENT. IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE CODE AND IT DOESN'T FULFILL DUE PROCESS. I MEAN, I THINK AGAIN, OUR HOPE IS THAT WE CAN RESOLVE THIS MATTER. AND IF THE COUNTY WANTS TO COME BACK AND THEY WANT TO DO THE PROCESS THE RIGHT WAY, THEN YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO NOT COMPLY WITH THE COUNTY. BUT I CANNOT SEE A COURT UPHOLDING THIS. I MEAN, IT IS IT IS FACIALLY A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. IF THE LETTER HAD BEEN ISSUED TO YOU OR YOUR CLIENT THE DAY AFTER THE INSPECTION, WOULD YOU STILL ARGUE IT'S A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS? THE LETTER HAS TO BE ISSUED BEFORE THEY SHUT THE BUILDING DOWN. THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS. SO YOU KNOW THE TIMING. THE TIMING IS RELEVANT TO WHEN THE BUILDING WAS SHUT DOWN AGAIN. THEY SHUT IT DOWN.

I WANT TO SAY SOMETIME IN JANUARY, I CAN'T SAY EXACTLY WHEN, BUT IF THEY HAD SENT THIS LETTER LIKE THEY STATED ON JANUARY 8TH, THEN THEY STILL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SHUT THE BUILDING DOWN WHEN THEY HAD, BECAUSE THERE HAS TO BE SUFFICIENT TIME TO ACTUALLY COMPLY WITH WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. SO AGAIN, YOU ISSUE IT JANUARY 8TH. IF YOU GIVE 30 DAYS, SAY, HEY, YOU GOT 30 DAYS TO DO THIS, THEN WHAT WE COULD HAVE EVEN DONE THEN IS COME TO YOU ALL ONCE THE LETTER WAS ISSUED. BECAUSE IF THEY'RE ONLY BASIS WAS OCCUPANCY, YOU CANNOT DEEM A BUILDING UNSAFE BECAUSE OF OCCUPANCY UNLESS YOU FOLLOW A STRICT LINE OF REASONING TO GET TO WHY YOU ARE STATING THAT IT IS AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE. AGAIN, EVERYTHING IS ABOUT COMMUNICATION. WE'RE NOT THE GOVERNMENT. SO YOU KNOW WE CAN'T SHUT ANYBODY'S PROPERTY DOWN. THEY CAN. AND SO THAT'S WHY THE BURDEN IS ON THEM TO CLEARLY ARTICULATE THEIR BASIS FOR TAKING PROPERTY. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT SHUTTING PROPERTY DOWN IS. IT'S TAKING IT. WHAT

[00:15:02]

IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR REASONING. AND SOMEBODY HIGH UP SAYS, I DON'T LIKE THAT INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS, GO SHUT IT DOWN. THEN THEY GET TO GO IN THERE, THEY GET TO LOOK AROUND, THEY GET TO SAY, OH, WRONG OCCUPANCY. WE SEE A FEW CODE VIOLATIONS OVER THERE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION. WE'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP ANY RECORD. WE'RE GOING TO SHUT YOUR BUILDING DOWN. AND THEN IF YOU APPEAL IT, WE WILL TELL YOU WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. I MEAN, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I'M A PROPERTY LAWYER. THAT'S I'M AN INVESTOR. I'M A PROPERTY LAWYER. I CARE ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS. I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT IN A POSITION WHERE THEY CAN JUST DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AND JUST TAKE PROPERTY, AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES. I MEAN, AGAIN, I'M NOT THIS IS TO ME IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT BINGO OR WHETHER THEY LIKE BINGO OR DON'T LIKE BINGO. THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE CODE MATTERS. IF IT DOESN'T MATTER, THEN WE SHOULD JUST SAY THAT AND JUST LET THE COUNTY DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. IF IT DOES MATTER, THEN THEY SHOULD BE HELD STRICTLY TO WHAT THE CODE SAYS. IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HOLD THEM STRICTLY TO WHAT THE CODE SAYS. AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHY. YEAH. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT OCCUPANCY IS FOR THE BUILDING? THE OCCUPANCY RATING CLASSIFICATION, I DON'T KNOW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T KNOW WHO TO DIRECT IT TO, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THE THE EXISTING CODE THAT YOU'RE NOT SURE OF WHAT IT IS, IS THAT PUBLIC INFORMATION? WAS THAT THE OCCUPANCY? OCCUPANCY YOU KNOW, ALL ALL OF THAT IS COUNTY RECORDS? I MEAN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN JUST GO ONLINE AND LOOK UP. SO AGAIN, LIKE THE RECORD, EVEN THE RECORD FOR THIS APPEAL, YOU KNOW, IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON THE RECORD THAT THEY GENERATED FOR THESE VIOLATIONS. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT LIKE, WE'RE NOT RELITIGATING THIS. I MEAN, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT SAID THAT IT'S A DANGEROUS BUILDING. SO THERE SHOULD BE WITHIN THEIR RECORD EVERYTHING THAT IS NEEDED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT. AND IF IT'S NOT, THEN THEY HAVE NO BASIS FOR IT. AND THAT'S THAT'S BASED ON THEIR CODE. I DIDN'T WRITE THE CODE. THEY WROTE THE CODE. I MEAN, IF IT'S NOT IN THERE, THEN I DON'T I DON'T SEE HOW THEY CAN SUBSTANTIATE THEIR FINDING. YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT IT JUST BECOMES AN ARBITRARY FINDING WITHOUT ANY BASIS. WE ALL KNOW IN THE LETTER THAT I SENT YOU, THEY CITED THAT IT'S BASED ON MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS. AND I KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN BOTH A BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL INSPECTION AND A SUBSEQUENT FIRE MARSHAL INSPECTION. SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN THE MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS WERE OTHER THAN THE DAY THAT THEY CAME AND POSTED THE NOTICE AND SHUT IT DOWN. THERE CERTAINLY WAS NOT ONE. PRIOR TO JANUARY 8TH. WE DIDN'T GET THIS LETTER ANYTIME IN JANUARY. WE DIDN'T GET THE LETTER PRIOR TO THE BUILDING BEING SHUT DOWN. SO AGAIN, I HEAR WHAT THE COUNTY IS SAYING, BUT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE GOING BASED ON WHAT THEIR RECORD SAYS. AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE A RECORD, THEN WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS IRRELEVANT. THEY CAN SAY ANYTHING. THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A RECORD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, I ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE. YES. SO JUST TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE PRINCE'S STATEMENTS, AS WE SAID EARLIER, YOU KNOW, A TO ASSEMBLY INCLUDES CASINOS, GAMING AREAS WITH REGARDS TO THE NET VERSUS

[00:20:04]

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO TO GAUGE THAT WE GET THAT WE DO THAT EVERY TIME WE GET A PLAN REVIEW.

YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE'S SAYING IF WE GET A SET FROM AN ARCHITECT SAYING THIS IS A FLOWER SHOP AND IT'S A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANUFACTURER, WE DON'T JUST GO OFF OF WHAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT SAYING, WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IN TANDEM WITH THE ARCHITECT. WE DIDN'T HAVE AS BUILTS FOR ANY OF THESE. THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED. AND SO, AGAIN, BASED OFF THE DETERMINATION OF THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL AND WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE, CASINO OCCUPANCY MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE TYPE OF OPERATIONS THAT WERE GOING ON IN THIS BUSINESS AT THE TIME IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THAT, WHETHER OCCUPANCY IN AND OF ITSELF IS A GROUND FOR POWER, TERMINATION, STOP WORK ORDER, VACATE THE PROPERTY. THE CODE DOES SAY IN WHERE THERE IS IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY RISK, WE DO HAVE THAT RIGHT TO DO IT. WE DON'T HAVE TO. YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO USE AN EXTREME EXAMPLE, BUT IF IT WERE A HIGH HAZARD OCCUPANCY TYPE. WE'RE NOT OBLIGATED IF THEY'RE STORING CHEMICALS IN AN IMPROPER WAY TO GO IN AND SAY, HEY, WE NEED YOU TO SUBMIT US PLANS IN 30 DAYS AND GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE LENGTHY PROCESS WHEN THERE'S IMMINENT LIFE, LIFE SAFETY THREATS. AND I BELIEVE WE FOUND THAT WITH EACH ONE OF THESE SITES, AND THE MAIN ONE BEING THE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO INCLUDE ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS. NOW RESPOND TO THAT. CERTAINLY. SO THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT TODAY IS NOT A TRIAL. TODAY IS AN APPEAL. SO WHATEVER THE COUNTY IS SAYING TODAY OR WHATEVER THEY'RE PRESENTING TODAY IS NEW INFORMATION. IT IS NOT INFORMATION THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE RECORD, NOR WAS IT PRESENTED TO US. SO WHAT THEY'RE COMMUNICATING TODAY STILL DOES NOT CURE ANY DUE PROCESS ISSUES. AND AGAIN, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BASE IT ON THAT EMERGENCY DESIGNATION TO OR IMMINENT THREAT TO LIFE AND SAFETY, THAT HAS TO BE CLEARLY ARTICULATED IN THEIR LETTER THAT THEY SENT LAST WEEK, WHICH AGAIN, IS NOT AND IT'S NOT IT'S NOT ARTICULATED ANYWHERE. SO AGAIN, I READ THE CODE VERY THOROUGHLY. I'VE SPENT ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF READING THE CODE, AND ONE OF MY PROCESSES WHEN I'M DOING THIS IS I COME UP WITH MY ARGUMENT, WHICH I ASSUME TO MYSELF IS THE MOST GENIUS ARGUMENT EVER, AND THEN I FIGURE OUT WAYS TO UNDERMINE IT. AND SO AGAIN, I CANNOT FIGURE OUT HOW THEY GET PAST DUE PROCESS BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS DONE BACKWARDS. THEY SHUT THE BUILDING DOWN. THEY COMMUNICATED THE LETTER LAST WEEK. THEY BACKDATED IT TO THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY. AND NOTHING THAT THEY'RE COMMUNICATING TODAY IS CONTAINED IN THE RECORD. SO AGAIN, ON AN APPEAL, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT LITIGATING THE CASE. WE ARE LOOKING AT WHAT IS IN THE RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE DECISIONS THAT THEY HAVE MADE.

AND THE RECORD DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THE DECISION. ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK INSTEAD, JOSH, MAY WE HEAR ALL SIX APPEALS AND THEN VOTE ON EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY. OR DO WE NEED TO TAKE TAKE EACH ONE UP AS WE HEAR THEM? I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU GO THROUGH AND LIST THEM BY ADDRESS AND THEN DO A ROLL CALL VOTE PER ADDRESS, IF THAT'S MAY WE DO THAT AT THE CONCLUSION AFTER WE'VE HEARD ALL OF MR. OKAY. THAT ALL RIGHT WITH EACH OF YOU? THAT'S GOOD. GO THROUGH PROPERTY BY PROPERTY OR, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER Y'ALL WANT. YEAH. NOW THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP AND A LOT OF SIMILARITIES, BUT THERE ARE

[2. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 1109 Forestdale Boulevard, Birmingham, AL 35214. (Part 1 of 2)]

AND, BRANDON, EXCUSE ME, MR. PRINCE, THERE'S NO NEED TO REPEAT SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE SAME TO THE EXTENT SAME ARGUMENTS APPLY. BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING UNIQUE IN EACH ONE OF

[00:25:03]

I MEAN, DUE PROCESS CAN'T BE OVERLOOKED. IT'S NOT A SMALL ISSUE. IN FACT, IT MAY BE THE LARGEST ISSUE IN ALL OF THESE. YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY IS THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH MEANS THAT THE COUNTY HAS AN OBLIGATION NOT JUST UNDER ALABAMA LAW, ALABAMA CONSTITUTION. THEY HAVE THAT UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION, THEY HAVE TO GIVE DUE PROCESS. THEY CAN'T JUST OVERLOOK IT, AND THEY CAN'T JUST GLOSS OVER IT AS IF IT'S SOME SIDE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. YOU KNOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS. I DON'T I MEAN, I GET WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, I GET THAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY FOUND ALL THESE ISSUES, BUT IF THAT WERE IN FACT THE CASE, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED WITH THE CODE SAYS THEY THEY INSPECT PROPERTIES EVERY DAY. THEY KNOW WHAT THE CODE IS. THEY'RE NOT IGNORANT OF THAT. AND SO THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT. THEY JUST DID NOT DO IT. I'M TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT YOU ARE. I FAIL TO SEE HOW YOU HAVE BEEN PREJUDICED IN ANY WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, IN EACH OF THESE LETTERS, YOU NOW HAVE ALL THE VIOLATIONS. AND THIS PROPERTY, UNLIKE THE OTHER ONE, WHETHER IT'S BEING USED AS A CASINO OR SOME OTHER COMMERCIAL USE, IT'S A COMMERCIAL USE. THE PUBLIC ARE INVITEES TO THIS BUSINESS, AND I DON'T HAVE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM, AND I HAVE NO EMERGENCY LIGHTING, AND I HAVE NO FIRE ALARM AND I HAVE NO SECONDARY EGRESS EXIT. AT WHAT POINT DOES THIS BUSINESS OWNER ADDRESS THE LIFE SAFETY CONCERNS, WHICH TO ME, TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER PROCEDURE? I BELIEVE THE DUE PROCESS CONCERNS ARE SATISFIED, EVEN IF THEY WERE SOMEWHAT OUT OF ORDER, BECAUSE THE BUILDING OWNER NOW HAS ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. IF YOU WERE HERE, TAKE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR EXAMPLE. IF YOU WERE HERE PRESENTING EVIDENCE THAT NO, IN FACT, WE'VE DONE A MORE DETAILED MEASUREMENT. HERE'S A PLAN VIEW OF THE SPACE. HERE'S THE TAKE OFF OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND IT'S ONLY 980 SQUARE FOOT, BUT WE DON'T SEE ANY OF THAT. WELL, IT'S JUST THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY DID THE MEASUREMENT. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS IT THIS WAY IN THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T RETROACTIVELY CURE DUE PROCESS. AND WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY IS PREJUDICED OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT TO A DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT. YOU EITHER HAVE DUE PROCESS OR YOU DON'T. THE GOVERNMENT, IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T JUST ARREST SOMEBODY AND THEN SAY, OH, WELL, NOW YOU KNOW WHAT THE CHARGES ARE. YOU KNOW, WE'VE CURED DUE PROCESS.

YOU'RE STAYING IN JAIL. YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT HOW DUE PROCESS WORKS. I MEAN, IT, IT'S A MAJOR THING. SO AGAIN, I GET THE NOTICE PART OF THAT, AND I GET THAT THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE ANY PREJUDICE. I MAY DISPUTE THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT AS FAR AS DUE PROCESS IS CONCERNED, THAT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE AND IT DOESN'T CURE IT. YOU KNOW, THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. THAT'S NOT A WE DO IT WHEN WE WANT TO. AND IF WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT IN THIS SITUATION, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO. AND SINCE WE GAVE YOU SOME NOTICE, WELL, EVERYTHING'S FORGIVEN. YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT DUE PROCESS. SO JUST RESPECTFULLY, I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT IT HAS CURED DUE PROCESS. I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LITTLE PREJUDICE THAT I GUESS THAT IT MAY HAVE CURED, WHICH I DON'T THINK IT HAS. I DON'T THINK THAT GETS OVER DUE PROCESS. I MEAN, THAT IS A, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S IN ALABAMA LAW. I MEAN, IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW DUE PROCESS, THEN YOU CAN'T DO ALL THE THINGS THAT COME AFTER IT AND YOU DON'T AND YOU CAN'T RETROACTIVELY CURE DUE PROCESS. THEY'VE ALREADY TAKEN THE PROPERTY. SO, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT THEY PUT US ON NOTICE A WEEK BEFORE THE HEARING, YOU KNOW, WHICH AGAIN, I'M, I'M, I'M SUSPICIOUS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD HAVE EVEN GOTTEN THAT HAD WE NOT APPEALED THIS, BECAUSE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY APPEALS IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AND, YOU KNOW, ALMOST A DECADE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD HAVE EVEN GOTTEN THAT BEFORE IF WE HAD NOT APPEALED IT. YOU KNOW, I HAD TO SIFT THROUGH THE CODE JUST TO FIND AN AVAILABLE ROUTE, ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTE TO ADDRESS THIS, WHICH IS THIS APPEAL PROCESS. SO AGAIN, I DON'T THINK IT HAS CURED DUE PROCESS. I DON'T THINK A COURT WOULD AGREE THAT HIS CURE DUE PROCESS, YOU CAN'T RETROACTIVELY CURE DUE PROCESS. IF YOU DIDN'T GIVE DUE PROCESS, YOU DIDN'T GIVE IT. AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. MR. JOHNSON, JUST TO ADDRESS

[00:30:04]

AND WE SAY THIS IS WHY IT'S AN UNSAFE BUILDING. NOW TURNING TO PRINCE'S POINT. YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL AS A CODE DEPARTMENT TO SAY, OKAY, HERE'S THE EXACT LAUNDRY LIST OF EVERY VIOLATION THAT HAS BEEN FOUND AT THIS SITE, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S PROBABLY AN ACCURATE STATEMENT WITHOUT AS BUILTS, WITHOUT SHOP DRAWINGS, ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS. WE DON'T REALLY EXACTLY KNOW WHAT'S IN THIS BUILDING. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WORKS SPECIFICALLY BEEN DONE. SO OUR OBSERVATIONS ARE JUST THAT, THEIR OBSERVATIONS OF WHAT'S OUT THERE, THE BIG ONE AGAIN, BEING THAT THE LACK OF A SPRINKLER SYSTEM, WHICH HAS MADE THE DETERMINATION TO VACATE THE PREMISES AND ULTIMATELY TERMINATE THE OUT.

BUT ALL THESE WE POSTED PLACARDS UP ON THE ON EACH DOOR FOR EACH BUILDING. WE DID SEND AN INITIAL LETTER OUT, AND WHILE THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTIVE OF EACH VIOLATION, WE STILL DON'T KNOW AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF EACH VIOLATION. WE'RE STILL, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT IS THAT REMAINS TO BE DETERMINED, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY COME IN AND BRING A PERMIT TO AS WELL. SO AGAIN, THIS IS A ISSUE OF WE DO NOT GET A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO BACKTRACK. I KNOW WE'RE OUT OF ORDER, BUT 512 TREBEK QUEBEC STREET THE LAST THE LAST TIME WE SAW THAT BUILDING, IT WAS A MINISTRY OR SOME TYPE OF CHURCH, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S A BIG LEAP AND A BIG A LOT OF STRUCTURAL AND A LOT OF ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS TO GO FROM A PLACE OF WORSHIP TO A, YOU KNOW, A TO ASSEMBLY GAMING AREA. SO THE INITIAL LETTER THAT WAS SENT OUT, IT DID NOT CONTAIN AN ENTIRE LAUNDRY LIST. AND OUR SECOND NOTICE MAY NOT HAVE THAT IN THERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION. AGAIN, WHAT WE DECIDED WAS WHAT WE OBSERVED, AND WE PROVIDED THE MOST EGREGIOUS VIOLATION, WHICH WAS IN THE FIRST AND SECOND LETTER, THAT THEY AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS REQUIRED BASED OFF THE OBSERVED DOCUMENTS. SO JUST JUST TO ADDRESS JUST A FEW THINGS. SO FIRST THING IS I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ALL HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT THE COUNTY CANNOT COME TODAY AND CREATE THEIR RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR ACTIONS. SO IF IT'S NOT IN FRONT OF YOU, IT'S NOT A PART OF THE RECORD.

IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT NOTICES THEY'RE REFERRING TO BECAUSE AGAIN, ANY NOTICE AND QUOTES WAS SENT AFTER THE ACTION WAS ALREADY TAKEN, AND POSTING SOMETHING WITH VAGUE ASSERTIONS AS TO WHAT THE ISSUES MIGHT BE, IS NOT NOTICE OF ANYTHING. AND AGAIN, BY THE TIME THEY HAD DONE THAT, THEY HAD ALREADY SHUT THE BUILDING DOWN. AND EVEN THOSE NOTICES DON'T ALIGN WITH THE NOTICES THAT THEY BACKDATED. SO AGAIN, EVERYTHING IS BASED ON THE RECORD. AND THIS IS NOT A IT'S NOT A LIKE A A TRIAL WITH THE COUNTY. I'M NOT COMING IN HERE AND CROSS-EXAMINING THEIR WITNESSES AND ASKING WHEN THEY LOOKED AT WHAT AND WHAT THEY LOOKED AT AND WHAT PICTURES THEY TOOK. I MEAN, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO ALL OF THAT, SO THEY CAN'T COME TODAY AND SAY, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW, REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE BUILDING. ALL WE KNOW IS WE TOOK THIS MEASUREMENT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF WHEN THAT HAPPENED. AND WE'VE DESIGNATED IT AN A-2. BUT WE CAN'T SUBSTANTIATE HOW WE CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION. AND WE DETERMINE THAT THIS IS AN UNSAFE BUILDING. BUT WITHOUT MORE INFORMATION, WE CAN'T TELL YOU HOW WE ARE REACHING THAT. ALL WE KNOW IS THERE'S NOT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. I MEAN, AGAIN, IT'S A BUNCH OF VAGUE STATEMENTS THAT DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE IT. AND I GUESS THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, IF THIS WERE NOT A BUSINESS, THAT THEY DID NOT CARE FOR WHAT THEY HAVE FOLLOWED THIS SAME PROCESS FOR ANY OTHER BUSINESS, ARE THEY FOLLOWING THIS SAME PROCESS FOR EVERY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE COUNTY? I DON'T THINK THAT THEY ARE. SO AGAIN, IF THEY'RE GOING TO IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TREAT BUSINESS AS EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW, WHICH THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO DO, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T JUST PICK AND CHOOSE WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT. AND AGAIN, I STILL GO BACK TO THE DUE PROCESS. YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T GLOSS OVER IT. IT CAN'T BE CURED AT THIS POINT. THEY'VE ALREADY TAKEN THE PROPERTY. THEY DON'T HAVE A RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR ACTIONS.

THOSE THINGS ARE NOT DISPUTED. SO IF THEY'RE NOT DISPUTED, THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY CAN MEET A DUE PROCESS STANDARD. THEY CAN'T MEET IT HERE AND THEY CAN'T MEET IT IN COURT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S JUST THE BOTTOM LINE. I MEAN, I'M, I'M NOT A I'M NOT A BUILDING CODE INSPECTOR. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO GO BEHIND THEM AND TELL THEM THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WIRE IS CORRECT. YOU KNOW, I'M A LAWYER, SO BUT I UNDERSTAND DUE PROCESS AND THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW IT HERE. AND ANYTHING THAT THEY'RE COMING HERE SAYING TODAY IS NOT A PART OF THE RECORD, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T CREATE THE RECORD ON THE SPOT. I THOUGHT THAT THEY MIGHT

[00:35:01]

BECAUSE AGAIN, WE ASKED FOR WE ASKED FOR ALL OF THIS A MONTH AND A HALF AGO. SO IF ALL OF THIS, IN FACT, WAS THERE PRIOR TO THEM TAKING THIS ACTION, THEN THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY ISSUE PROVIDING THAT A MONTH AND A HALF AGO WHEN WE ASKED FOR IT, THAT WAS WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO COOPERATE. THAT WAS BEFORE WE FILED THE APPEAL. I SENT THOSE AS CLARIFICATION LETTERS. THEY WERE NOT DEMAND LETTERS OF YOU ALL DID ALL OF THIS WRONG. TAKE IT BACK. IT WAS YOU ALL STATE ALL OF THIS AS INCORRECT. PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH THE RECORD OF THAT IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT. I CAN SHOW YOU THE LETTER. MAY I APPROACH YOU ALL AND GIVE YOU ALL? SURE. I. THINK IT WAS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE LETTER AND IT ASKED SPECIFICALLY FOR EVERYTHING THAT THEY ARE CITING TODAY. SO AGAIN, IF IT WERE, IF IT WERE GOING TO BE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THESE APPEALS, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THEY WERE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE TO US. AND AND THOSE ARE THINGS THEY WERE OBLIGATED TO CONTAIN ANY RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR ACTIONS.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IN THE RECORD, I ASSUME, BECAUSE IF IT WERE, THEY WOULD NOT BE PRESENTING IT TO YOU. ALL HERE WOULD ALREADY BE IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT IT'S NOT IN FRONT OF YOU BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PART OF THE RECORD. AND YOU SAY, THAT WAS SIX WEEKS AGO. YOU REQUESTED THAT. I GUESS WHATEVER DATE IS, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAS THIS BUILDING OWNER OR ANY OF THE OTHER BUILDING OWNERS DONE TO ADDRESS THE CITED BUILDING CODE ISSUES? I DON'T I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO THAT. I MEAN, AGAIN, IF THE COUNTY HAS NOT CLEARLY ARTICULATED A BASIS, I MEAN, LIKE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE $60,000. SO THIS IS NOT LIKE A SMALL SITUATION OF LIKE GO, YOU KNOW, GO HAMMER A FEW NAILS IN, MAKE THESE CORRECTIONS SO WE CAN COME BACK AND FIX IT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BASICALLY HAVING TO TAKE EVERYTHING THE COUNTY IS SAYING AND DOING AT FACE VALUE, REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO AND SPEND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS UNDER THE THREAT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION, WHICH IS WHAT HAS OCCURRED HERE. AND NOW. WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING, WELL, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ADDRESS IT? I MEAN, WHAT IS THE COUNTY DONE? THE COUNTY HASN'T DONE ANYTHING.

THEY HAVEN'T PRODUCED THE RECORD. THEY HAVEN'T SUBSTANTIATED THEIR ACTIONS.

THEY HAVEN'T SUBSTANTIATED THEIR CLAIMS. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE INSPECTIONS OCCURRED.

THEY DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF IT. WE DON'T KNOW WHO DID IT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DAY THEY WERE THERE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY MEASURED. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY MEASURED THE RIGHT ADDRESS.

SO I MEAN, AGAIN, ALL OF THESE THINGS, THAT IS THE POINT OF DUE PROCESS TO CHALLENGE THOSE THINGS. WE DON'T JUST COME AND SAY THE GOVERNMENT GOT IT RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO TRUST THEM 100%. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY DUE DILIGENCE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO PRODUCE ANY BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND THEN WE GET ASKED, WELL, WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO ADDRESS WHAT THEY'VE STATED? YOU KNOW, IF THIS WERE A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW, FIXING SOME MINOR ISSUES AND YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD I WOULD COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION. BUT WE'RE NOT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIX FIGURE DEMANDS FOR ALLEGED REPAIRS THAT NEED TO TAKE PLACE, AND THEY HAVEN'T SUBSTANTIATED WHY THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR. SO AGAIN, WE COULD WHAT IF WE DID IT? WHAT IF WE WENT AND SPENT $60,000 PUTTING A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN, AND WE APPEALED IT TO THE COURT? AND THEN THE COURT SAYS, WELL, THE COUNTY GOT IT WRONG, AND NOW MY CLIENTS ARE IN DEBT. THEY'RE OUT OF 60 GRAND. THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PAY BACK SOMETHING THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED TO SPEND ON. SO, I MEAN, AGAIN, IT IS NOT IT'S NOT AN EFFORT TO BE OBSTRUCTIVE TO THE COUNTY, BUT IT'S JUST PRACTICAL. I MEAN, AGAIN, IF YOU DON'T IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THE COUNTY DID THEIR JOB, WHICH WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY DID, THEN I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE OBLIGATION IS ON US TO COMPLY WITH DEMANDS THAT WE DON'T FEEL LIKE HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIATED, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY ARE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. WELL, A SECONDARY EGRESS EXIT IS NOT $60,000. USING PERMANENT WIRING INSTEAD OF EXTENSION CORDS IS NOT A $60,000 ISSUE. REQUIRING INSULATED CONDUCTORS IN WET LOCATIONS IS NOT A $60,000 ISSUE. WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THESE ISSUES REQUIRES A BOXER CONDUIT BODY AT EACH CONDUCTOR SPLICE, OUTLET SWITCH OR JUNCTION BOX. AND I DARE SAY

[00:40:02]

YOU KNOW, WE'RE BASICALLY RUBBER STAMPING THEIR ACTIONS AND THEN SHIFTING THE BURDEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO COMPLY WITH SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY DIDN'T COMPLY WITH. SO, AGAIN, ALL OF THESE THINGS COST MONEY. I MEAN, THIS IS NOT LIKE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A BUILDING OVER IN AVONDALE THAT MY OFFICE IS IN. MY NOTE IS EXTREMELY HIGH ON THAT BUILDING. PEOPLE CAN LOOK AT ME AND SAY, HEY, YOU GOT THAT BUILDING. YOU MUST HAVE A BUNCH OF MONEY IN YOUR POCKETS.

THE BANK HAS A BUNCH OF MONEY BECAUSE I GIVE IT TO THEM, BUT I DON'T. AND SO, YOU KNOW, ASKING PEOPLE TO JUST GO AND SPEND MONEY TO COMPLY WITH SOMETHING WHEN THE COUNTY HASN'T DONE THEIR JOB, I DON'T THINK IS A REASONABLE ASK. YOU KNOW, IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THEN AGAIN, WE SHOULD JUST IGNORE DUE PROCESS. AND IF THAT'S IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, THEN WE SHOULD JUST SAY IT. YOU KNOW, WE SHOULDN'T TRY TO FIGURE OUT WAYS AROUND, YOU KNOW, WHY THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE TO GIVE DUE PROCESS. THEY EITHER DID OR THEY DIDN'T. AND I DON'T SEE HOW IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT THEY DID IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

[00:45:06]

[3. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 1124 Pratt Highway, Birmingham, AL 35214. (Part 1 of 2)]

SO AGAIN, THERE IS NO RECORD. I MEAN, AGAIN, UNLESS YOU ALL HAVE DOCUMENTS IN FRONT OF YOU THAT I DON'T HAVE, THEN THERE IS NO RECORD. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CURED.

JUST SO IT'S NOT A MYSTERY. WE HAVE THE JANUARY 8TH LETTER FROM THE COUNTY TO YOUR CLIENTS, AND WE HAVE YOUR NOTICES OF APPEAL FOR EACH OF THE SIX APPEALS. SO THAT'S THE RECORD.

SO AGAIN, I MEAN, AS WE STAND HERE TODAY, YOU KNOW, I ASKED FOR A LONG LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR ACTIONS. I PRESUME THEY DID NOT PROVIDE THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THEM. THAT'S THE REASON YOU ALL DON'T HAVE THEM. AND SO AGAIN, LIKE, I DON'T I JUST I DON'T WANT TO LIKE BEAT A DEAD HORSE. BUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T JUST GLOSS OVER DUE PROCESS. YOU KNOW, IF WE IF WE GLOSSED OVER DUE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE POINT OF ANY OF THIS IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT THEY'RE DOING? AGAIN. BECAUSE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST TAKING EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE SAYING AT FACE VALUE, EVEN THE EVEN THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE SAYING TODAY ABOUT HOW WELL WE WENT OUT AND MEASURED THIS BUILDING, WE ARE ASSUMING THAT THAT OCCURRED, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE EVERYTHING THAT THEY PUT IN THIS LETTER AND THE REASONING THAT THEY'VE COME UP WITH TO SHUT THIS BUILDING DOWN IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME A LOT OF STUFF. WE'D HAVE TO ASSUME THAT WHOEVER WAS THERE DID THEIR JOB RIGHT. WE'D HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THEY MEASURED THE CORRECT BUILDING. BECAUSE HERE'S THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE WITHIN SHOPPING CENTERS.

AND SO IF THE BUSINESS THAT THEY ARE TARGETING ONLY OCCUPIES ONE SUITE, BUT THEY MEASURE THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND USE THAT AS THEIR GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE AN OCCUPANCY ISSUE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DID THAT OR NOT. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THAT'S THE POINT OF THE RECORD. LIKE, I'M NOT I'M NOT TRYING TO LIKE BE DIFFICULT. BUT AGAIN, LIKE I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO REPRESENT THE RIGHTS OF MY CLIENTS. AND THAT'S WHAT THESE ARE, THEIR RIGHTS, THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS. THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, GRANTED BY THE COUNTY.

THE COUNTY IS NOT A KING. THIS IS NOT A KINGDOM. THEY DON'T GET TO JUST MAKE RULES AS THEY GO ALONG. AND THEY DON'T JUST GET TO JUST DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO. I MEAN, IF THEY IF THEY WANT TO COME IN AND DO THIS, THERE'S A CLEARLY ARTICULATED WAY IN THE CODE FOR THEM TO DO IT. THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT. THEY CHOSE NOT TO. AND SO THEY DON'T GET TO COME TODAY AND TRY TO CLEAN IT UP AND SUBSTANTIATE THEIR DECISIONS AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE DID. WE'RE TELLING YOU TODAY. SO NOW THAT WE'VE TOLD YOU, YOU KNOW, DO DO WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO, I MEAN, AGAIN, I JUST I DON'T I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS A POSITIVE THING FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY. AND AGAIN, I DON'T I DON'T SEE HOW SETTING THAT TYPE OF PRECEDENT IS A GOOD THING FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY. DO. CAN YOU CITE ME TO ANY PROVISIONS

[00:50:03]

103 511 WHENEVER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FINDS ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR PORTION THEREOF TO BE UNSAFE, AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION, HE SHE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES FOR LEGAL NOTICE, GIVE THE OWNER, AGENT, OR PERSON IN CONTROL OF SUCH BUILDING OR STRUCTURE WRITTEN NOTICE STATING THE DEFECTS THEREOF. THIS NOTICE SHALL REQUIRE THE OWNER WITHIN A STATED TIME, EITHER TO COMPLETE SPECIFIC REPAIRS OR IMPROVEMENTS, OR TO DEMOLISH AND REMOVE THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR PORTIONS THEREOF, SO THAT IS FROM, YOU KNOW, ORDINANCE NUMBER 1840 2-2. THIS IS THE COUNTY'S BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE. THAT'S THE ORDINANCE WHERE THEY'VE ADOPTED THE IBC, ON WHICH THEY'RE RELYING TO MAKE A LOT OF THESE DECISIONS. AND AGAIN, THE CODE IS CLEAR. IT'S NOT A THERE'S NO THERE'S NO WORKAROUND FOR DUE PROCESS. I MEAN, THEY THEY DIDN'T DO IT. YEAH. BUT OTHER THAN THE OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE LETTERS YOUR CLIENTS RECEIVED WERE DATED JANUARY 8TH AND YOU DIDN'T GET UNTIL THE END OF FEBRUARY SOMETIME, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS TOO LATE. WELL, IT'S NOT ABOUT IT BEING TOO LATE. IT'S ABOUT THE ACTION PRECEDING THE NOTICE. THAT'S THE ISSUE. SO I MEAN, YEAH, IT IS TOO LATE, BUT YOU CAN'T CURE THAT. YOU KNOW, THEY'VE ALREADY THEY'VE ALREADY SHUT THE BUILDING DOWN. WELL, THEY COULD SHUT THE BUILDING. THEY COULD ISSUE A NOTICE TOMORROW, THIS AFTERNOON. I MEAN THEY COULD BUT AGAIN THAT STILL DOESN'T THAT STILL DOESN'T CURE THE RECORD ISSUE.

I MEAN, AGAIN, THEY COULD ISSUE A NOTICE TOMORROW, BUT THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE IN THE SAME BOAT AND THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT THEY'RE DOING. SO AND IN FACT, ISN'T THERE AUTHORITY UNDER, I THINK, SECTION 112 FOR A BUILDING OFFIC WHO IN HIS OR HER SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION, OBSERVES AN UNSAFE CONDITION OR A CONDITION POSING IMMINENT HARM, THEY CAN ORDER A DISCONNECTION OF ALL THE UTILITIES. WELL, ALL I MEAN, ALL OF THIS IS SUBJECTIVE. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT A BUILDING INSPECTION IS. I MEAN, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THEIR OBSERVATION. SO BUT AGAIN, ALL THE SUBJECTIVE FINDINGS STILL HAVE TO BE DOCUMENTED. AND I DON'T HAVE THE FIRE CODE IN FRONT OF ME. BUT BUT I BELIEVE THAT GENTLEMAN AND HIS COLLEAGUES CAN ISSUE AN ON THE SPOT CLOSURE NOTICE. IF THEY OBSERVE A FIRE THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE A RECORD. I MEAN, AGAIN, MY MY ARGUMENT TODAY IS NOT THAT THEY CAN'T DO ANY OF THESE THINGS. I DON'T I MEAN, THEY OBVIOUSLY CAN THEY, THEY WRITE THE CODE AND THEY MAKE THE RULES. AND SO THEY CAN DO THESE THINGS. THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT NOTICE, AND THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT PRODUCING A RECORD AS TO THE BASIS OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING. SO AGAIN, YEAH, THEY CAN DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS. BUT WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE ACTIONS, IT REQUIRES PROCESS. IT REQUIRES DUE PROCESS, AND IT REQUIRES CREATING A RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT THEY'RE DOING. BECAUSE, AGAIN, IF THEY'RE JUST TAKING UNILATERAL ACTION AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO DOCUMENT IT AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO PUT IT IN THE RECORD, THEN NO ONE COULD EVER DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST ANYTHING BECAUSE IT ALWAYS IS A MOVING TARGET. IT'S ALWAYS, WELL, NOW IT'S THIS PROBLEM AND NOW IT'S THIS PROBLEM. OH, AND NOW WE'RE COMING UP NOW AND SAYING THIS PROBLEM. SO AGAIN, THEY COMMUNICATED ONE THING WHEN THEY POSTED THOSE NOTICES. AND THEN WEEKS LATER THEY'RE COMMUNICATING ADDITIONAL THINGS. AND AND THAT IS THAT IS THE CORE ISSUE WITH NOT FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS IS THAT YOU HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE TRYING TO COMPLY WOULD LIKE TO COMPLY.

BUT IF IF THE COUNTY IS NOT COMPLYING, IF THE COUNTY WON'T COMMUNICATE, WHICH IS WHAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING BEFORE I WAS RETAINED, THEY FOLKS WERE TRYING TO CALL THE COUNTY AND ASK THEM, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHO SPECIFICALLY THEY WERE SPEAKING TO, BUT THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY TOLD THAT UNTIL YOU ALL GET THOSE MACHINES OUT OF THERE, THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO. WHICH AGAIN, YOU CAN'T USE THE BUILDING CODE TO ENFORCE POLITICAL ENDS. IT'S NOT WHAT'S THERE. AND YOU HAVE TO COMMUNICATE. YOU CAN'T JUST STONEWALL PEOPLE. YOU CAN'T SHUT SOMEONE'S BUSINESS DOWN AND THEN REFUSE TO COMMUNICATE.

ALL THE COMMUNICATION THAT THE LITTLE THAT WE'VE HAD STARTED WHEN I GOT INVOLVED, WHEN I STARTED SENDING LETTERS, WHEN I FILED AN APPEAL, I FINALLY HEARD FROM THE COUNTY'S ATTORNEY LAST WEEK, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHEN WE GOT FLOODED WITH ALL THE STUFF THAT YOU ALL HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, LIKE, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THEY

[00:55:05]

WE'LL TELL THE BOARD EVERYTHING THAT WE DID. WE STILL DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF IT. I MEAN, AGAIN, LIKE I'M JUST I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW THAT WHAT WOULD WE BE IN THIS SAME SITUATION IF THIS WERE NOT A BINGO HALL, IF THIS WERE A BURGER KING, WOULD WE BE IN THIS SITUATION? I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD BE. WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I CAN TELL YOU, AT LEAST FROM MY POSITION, MY ULTIMATE CONCERN IS LIFE SAFETY. I DON'T CARE IF THEY'RE SEWING DRESSES TO SEND TO MOTHER TERESA IN INDIA, FOR AT OR THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SPECTRUM, I WANT THE CODES TO BE HONORED. I WANT RESPONSIBLE OWNERS WHO DO S UNLESS THEY'RE CONFIDENT THAT THEY'RE IN FULL COMPLIANCE. THAT'S THE CORE ISSUE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. I WANT I WANT SAFE BUILDINGS ALSO. BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT ARE ARBITRARY ACTIONS BEING TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT WHERE THEY CAN UTILIZE THE CODE IN A WAY TO MEET POLITICAL ENDS AND THEN NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE IT. IF THE COUNTY CAME IN HERE AND YOU ALL HAD A RECORD IN FRONT OF YOU, AND THEY HAD ALL THE DATES THAT THEY WERE OUT THERE DOING THE INSPECTIONS, AND THEY HAD THE MEASUREMENTS THAT THEY TOOK AND THEY HAD AND THEY HAD EVERYTHING THAT WAS REQUIRED. THIS WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE A NON-ISSUE. I CAN'T I CAN'T ARGUE AGAINST A RECORD. I MEAN, IF THEY IF THE CODE SAYS ONE THING THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AND PEOPLE ARE VIOLATING IT, AND THE COUNTY GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEY DOCUMENT EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S DIFFERENT. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE TODAY.

WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE TODAY ARE ASSERTIONS, WHICH IS WHAT THAT LETTER IS. THERE'S NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE IT. AND THEN WE HAVE POP IN STATEMENTS DURING AN APPEAL ABOUT WHAT THE COUNTY ALLEGES, ALLEGEDLY DID IN ORDER TO CREATE THEIR RECORD TODAY. THAT'S NOT WHAT IS BEING SAID BY THE COUNTY. TODAY IS NOT A PART OF THE RECORD. I THINK THAT AND THAT ARGUMENT APPLIES TO ALL SIX OF THESE APPLIES TO ALL SIX OF THEM. WHATEVER YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET IS THE RECORD. OKAY, LET'S MOVE THROUGH WHAT I'M UNLESS I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF. HANG ON. LET ME FINISH WITH HIM. I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING UNIQUE ABOUT THE OTHERS THAT YOU WANT, YOU WANT US TO HEAR, LET'S TAKE THEM IN

[4. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 1317 Eastern Valley Road, Bessemer, 35020. (Part 1 of 2)]

[5. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 4153 Pinson Boulevard, Birmingham, AL 35215. (Part 1 of 2)]

[6. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 7590 Highway 78, Dora, AL 35062. (Part 1 of 2)]

COME OUT THERE. I THINK WE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT, YOU KNOW, MOST JURISDICTIONS WOULD DO IN THAT INSTANCE TO TRY AND ENSURE THIS. WE WERE OUT THERE WITH THE FIRE MARSHALS. WE ALL HAD THE SAME DETERMINATION. ANYTHING ELSE, MR. PRINCE? JUST I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, THE BOARD'S OBLIGATION UNDER THESE APPEALS IS TO BASE THE DECISION ON THE RECORD AND NOT WHAT WAS ARTICULATED TODAY IN THE HEARING BY THE COUNTY. BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS IS A THIS IS A SUBSTANTIATION OF ACTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED. AND DUE PROCESS IS CLEAR THAT AND THE

[01:00:05]

[1. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 512 Quebec Street, Birmingham, AL 35224. (Part 2 of 2)]

[2. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 1109 Forestdale Boulevard, Birmingham, AL 35214. (Part 2 of 2)]

[3. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 1124 Pratt Highway, Birmingham, AL 35214. (Part 2 of 2)]

[4. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 1317 Eastern Valley Road, Bessemer, 35020. (Part 2 of 2)]

CHRISTY. MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THAT APPEAL. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ABSTAIN ON THAT PROPERTY.

I'VE GOT A CONFLICT. ALL RIGHT. I WILL. I SECOND IT, AND SO LONG AS WE CONVENE WITH THE QUORUM, AN ABSTENTION DOESN'T DESTROY. DESTROY A QUORUM, DOES IT STILL HAVE IT? YOU HAVE A QUORUM RIGHT NOW. SO THE MAJORITY VOTE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WOULD BE LEGITIMATE. ALL RIGHT, NOW, I ALSO VOTE IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE STRUCTURE AT 1317 EASTERN

[5. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 4153 Pinson Boulevard, Birmingham, AL 35215. (Part 2 of 2)]

SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE APPEAL OF DECLARATION OF AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE AT 4153 PEARSON BOULEVARD. I I I. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPEAL THE DECLARATION TO GRANT OR DENY

[6. Appeal of the declaration of an unsafe structure located at 7590 Highway 78, Dora, AL 35062. (Part 2 of 2)]

[01:05:04]