Sandusky appeals board gives owner 30 days to secure contractor and permit for fire‑damaged house

The Residential Building Code Board of Appeals voted 5–1 on [date not specified in transcript] to give owner Mildred Ivette Darden a 30‑day window to line up a licensed demolition contractor, present a signed contract to the city and obtain a demolition permit for 602 West Osborne Street.

Darden, who was sworn before testifying, told the board she "dispute[d] the city's damage determination and I request the opportunity to obtain an independent structural evaluation before any irreversible action is taken." She said she received the city's demolition notice in late December but did not get the regular-mail copy until about Feb. 6, 2026, and asked the board to preserve the property's fire‑escrow funds while she pursues an owner‑managed demolition or potential restoration.

Her daughter, who said she has assisted with the case, described repeated problems securing contractors listed by the building department and said two previous demolition permits had expired after vendors failed to perform. Darden said they have a signed contract with an abatement firm (identified at the hearing as H&H) but that abatement work had been delayed; she also said a restoration firm, Certified Restoration, had told them the house might be salvageable and had discussed a roughly $200,000 estimate but no written itemized proposal was provided at the hearing.

A city representative identified in the hearing as Mr. Tom explained his damage assessment methodology and testified that he had issued the earlier demolition permit(s) and two extensions. "I issued the first demolition permit that they come in and obtained. I issued two extensions on it and then when that expired, we issued another demolition permit," he said, describing the property as increasingly deteriorated and citing public‑health concerns such as mold, open windows and water damage. Mr. Tom said his inspection added a conservative percentage to prior reported losses because the house had been exposed for a prolonged period.

Darden argued the city did not provide a written code citation when it refused to issue an additional permit on Feb. 9 and said the city's mailed notice was sent to the burned property rather than to a current mailing address, which she called "defective service." City staff and board members responded that the city generally will not issue duplicate permits once it has begun the process to have the city demolish a property and that the fire‑escrow fund is held until a property is either restored or demolished.

Board members said they were sympathetic to the owner's difficulties but emphasized they needed documentary proof to justify delaying city action. One board member outlined a path forward and proposed a motion: give the owner 30 days to secure a licensed contractor, present a firm dollar contract and obtain a city demolition permit; the contractor would then have 30 days from date of permit to complete demolition. The board voted to approve that motion; votes were recorded as Mr. Fe Yes; Mr. Gunlock Yes; Mr. Fresh Yes; Mr. Sammons No; Mr. Schmid Yes; Mr. Gallagher Yes.

The board instructed staff to prepare the motion in writing; the owner agreed to provide an email and a mailing address for follow‑up. The first 30‑day period was to begin the day after the hearing. With no further business, the board adjourned.

What the vote means: the owner has a limited, board‑approved opportunity to show a contractor, permit and contract that would allow owner‑managed demolition to proceed, or to demonstrate a feasible restoration plan. If those conditions are not met within the agreed timeframes, the city may proceed with its demolition process according to its procedures.