Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Minutes and Attachment #1

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals met on January 28, 2015 at 2:32 p.m. with Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, presiding. Mr. Martin was present. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mr. Taraila, Ms. Bowen, Mr. Hudson, and Ms. Devine. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, the agenda was adopted as presented. Appeal of Property Maintenance Code Citation (Chapter 3 - General Requirements, Section 302 - Exterior Property Areas, 302.1 - Sanitation of the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code) - 303 West Division Street (Wayne C. Trader) Mr. Tim Taraila, Code Enforcement Supervisor, advised that a complaint was received through the CRM system on December 12, 2014 and was assigned to Ms. Velvet Bowen, Code Enforcement Officer, who followed up on December 16, 2014 and took pictures of the violation. He advised that a notice was sent on December 17, 2014 advising the property owner to remove the trash and debris from along the roadway or the City would pick it up for a charge. Mr. Taraila stated that a reinspection was done on December 30, 2014. Ms. Velvet Bowen, Code Enforcement Officer, explained that when she returned to the property on December 30, 2014 only the pile of furniture had been removed. Referring to the pictures dated 12/30/14, she pointed out that there were changes and the mattresses were no longer stacked; however, the pile was still there. Ms. Bowen advised that she took more pictures and sent out a second notice, along with a citation. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, noted that as recently as two (2) weeks ago the trash was still out there. She advised that on January 13, 2015, she contacted the City of Dover Sanitation Supervisor, asked him to remove it, and he stated that it would be a bulk pick-up. She advised that Sanitation picked up the trash and debris and there was a $75 charge which he provided to the Planning Department. Mrs. Townshend explained that the charge had not been forwarded for billing pending the outcome of the appeal. Ms. Bowen stated that when she initially responded, she put on gloves and dug through the debris to try to find out where it came from. At that time, one (1) of the neighbors came out and stated that it had come from the apartment upstairs and that workers were bringing everything out of the apartment and putting it on the curb. Responding to Mr. Taraila, Ms. Bowen stated that the apartment could be seen in the bottom left picture, and Mrs. Townshend advised that this property was owned by Mr. Trader. Ms. Bowen stated that the entrance to this upstairs apartment was on the other side. Referring to the photographs on pages 10 and 14 of the meeting packet, Mr. Trader stated that his property extended from Division Street to the end of the fence. He explained that his property was forward of where the stabilizer for telephone pole could be seen. Mr. Trader noted that his property ended at the fence.

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2015 PAGE 2 Mr. Trader indicated that the tree was located directly in front of the property that was demolished by the City, stating that it was very curious why the photographer used this angle to take a picture of debris that was in front of this property that used to exist at the back of his property, rather than from his property, which ends at the fence. Mr. Trader advised that they then came on the side and took a perspective from the end of his property, where the fence is, and took a picture of debris in front of the property that used to exist that had been torn down by the City. He pointed out the photo of the furniture and his property, noting that he was remodeling the apartment that he owned. Mr. Trader stated that a person had been evicted and left all the furniture, food, the refrigerator, and everything there. He indicated that he paid a contractor to take everything out, bring it down, and carry it away, and the contractor never went beyond the point where Mr. Trader instructed him was his property limit. Mr. Trader stated that he could only speculate that whoever was remodeling a building half-way up the block probably had put the trash and debris out in an attempt to get Mr. Trader’s contractor to take it away for free. He stated that there was no good reason why the photographer would take a picture of the property from the location that was used. Mr. Trader provided pictures that he stated he had taken himself (Attachment #1) as well as a receipt for the contractor that he paid to remove everything from the second floor apartment and throw it away. Mr. Trader stated that he thought his pictures showed a more accurate perspective and he pointed out his property limit in back of the fence. He stated that from the fence forward toward Division Street was his property, and this was where the contractor put everything and then removed it, and the other items belonged to someone else. Mr. Trader pointed out a driveway that went over to Queen Street stated that the debris was at another property that was torn down by the City. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader pointed out the material that his contractor brought out. In response to Mr. Martin, he stated that he thought the other material belonged to somebody else that was trying to get his contractor to take away. He reiterated that it was very curious that someone would come in front of where another property was and take a picture from this perspective toward the back of his property. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend stated that the pictures were taken by staff. Mr. Trader stated that staff should know where the properties are. Mrs. Townshend advised that staff was not looking at the property lines but at the trash pile. Mr. Trader stated that the trash pile was in front of someone else’s property and that his trash was put in front of his property and carried away. He reiterated that they were taking pictures of trash in front of another property. Referring to the first picture taken on December 16, 2017, Mr. Koenig stated that Mr. Trader’s contractor was supposed to remove everything to the south of the wire, which had already been out of there for seven (7) days. Mr. Trader advised that he had stayed after the contractor for quite a while to get rid of it and told him many times that he would be fined if he did not get it out of there, which is exactly what happened. He stated that he gave the contractor a copy of the paperwork from the city. Mr. Trader indicated that he did not appreciate somebody trying to put responsibility on him for trash that was in front of another property.

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2015 PAGE 3 Mr. Koenig stated that if he had been to the property on December 16th, he would have seen only a line of trash. Mr. Trader indicated that he would not have seen this because a fence is usually a property limit and noted that a fence sometimes may not be extended quite out to the property. He pointed out a driveway in the picture that extended to Queen Street and noted that his property could not go out to the driveway. He stated that it could be known from how the curb was constructed that this property did not extend over to the trash and it was common sense to him that the trash did not belong to his property. Mrs. Townshend advised that it was not uncommon for people to put trash out on the curb and not to stop at the property line, and staff sees this often with rentals. She stated that staff received the complaint, Ms. Bowen looked at the trash, which was one (1) large, continuous trash pile, not two (2) separate trash piles. Mr. Trader stated that he could understand this; however, common sense would tell him, if he were there inspecting, that there is a property line at the fence, and the fence continues out to the street. He stated that there was another property on the right side. Mr. Koenig stated that he did not think the City was disputing this; however, the question was whose trash it was. Mr. Trader advised that this was not the first time that he had to evict someone and have contractors come and take away debris out on the side of his property and there was no problem previously, noting that this had been done at least two (2) or three (3) times in five (5) years. He explained that there is a problem when somebody else puts trash in front of another property. In response to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader stated that he was not sure on what day the contractor cleaned out the apartment and that it may have been early December. He stated that the contractor was in New Castle and Mr. Trader had requested him to be present. Mr. Koenig asked why the contractor left the trash there if he was contracted to take it away. In response, Mr. Trader stated that he had no idea. He informed members that he had the receipt showing that he paid the contractor to take it away and had stayed after him to do so. Mr. Trader advised that he had explained to him where his property limits were and that there were specific criteria for putting trash out on the curb, such as so many feet high, wide, and long. He stated that the furniture had not looked like it was in the picture, stating that it had been stacked and someone else had torn it apart. Mr. Koenig stated that the debris was not stacked on December 8th, however, in that area if anything is left on the curb people go through it. Mr. Trader concurred, stating that this was exactly what happened, to the mattresses and that somebody had pillaged through that pile. Mr. Koenig asked how it could be known how much debris the contractor pulled out of the apartment. Responding, Mr. Trader stated that there was a lot of debris and the amount being seen was probably only 25% of the mess that was taken out of the apartment. Mr. Koenig asked how members could know the items lying on the curb were not what was taken out of the apartment. Responding, Mr. Trader stated that he had requested the contractor to be present to testify that the other property did not belong to Mr. Trader.

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2015 PAGE 4 Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Trader was suggesting that somebody else had trash to take out and carried it half a block to set it beside Mr. Trader’s staff. Responding, Mr. Trader stated that he was absolutely suggesting this, noting that another person was doing some kind of renovation about halfway up the block and Mr. Trader suspected it had to come from him because it was not his property. He reiterated that this is why he wanted the contractor to testify to the fact that he knew these mattresses and other materials did not belong and were not removed from his second floor apartment, noting that the contractor knew what he took out. Mr. Koenig asked what the amount of the violation was that is outstanding. Responding, Mrs. Townsend stated that it was $100 and asked if this was after it had been doubled. Ms. Bowen explained that the fine was never doubled. She stated that, originally, the Department of Public Works had made the charge to pick up the pile $100, which was included on the violation that she sent. However, when they actually picked it up they only charged $75. Ms. Bowen advised that the amount was $175 between the citation and the charge. Referring to the next set of photos, Mr. Trader stated that the item that looked like a blue mattress was located where the driveway is. He stated that to the right of this to the tree and then to the right again is where the house used to be and the debris was directly in front of another property. Mr. Koenig stated that he understood this. Referring to the photo on page 10 of the meeting packet, Mr. Koenig asked if what this picture reflected was the pile that was picked up by the City. Responding, Ms. Bowen stated that it was, and explained that when she was there on the 16th the furniture was there. She advised that when she went out on the 30th, the furniture had been removed but everything else was still there, and this was what caused her to send out the second violation along with the citation. Ms. Bowen stated that the notes say that Public Works had provided a quote of $100 to pick up the debris. Mr. Trader indicated that the one (1) person he could think of that could corroborate what he and his contractor were saying was his tenant on the corner property, stating his opinion that he may have seen the person bringing the trash down. He stated that this tenant might come and testify. Mr. Trader advised that he had taken property out of his building many times over the past five (5) years, and never had his property been put in front of another property by himself or a contractor, which he stated was absolutely absurd. He reiterated that he did not understand why somebody would take a picture from this perspective in front of another property which was not his property, and that his property starts at the fence and goes south to Division Street. Mr. Koenig stated that there are people all over the City who are willing to put their trash in front of other people's property, and Mr. Trader stated that he does not do this. He stated that this was not his property and the debris did not come from his building. Mrs. Townshend noted that there were two (2) issues, the $100 citation and the $75 dollar invoice from Public Works. She suggested that the Board deal with both of these issues.

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2015 PAGE 5 In response to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader stated that he was specifically appealing the fact that he was being fined $100 for something that did not belong to him but was someone else’s trash that was in front of somebody else’s property. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Ms. Bowen advised that the pictures were taken on December 16th and the letter was printed and sent on December 17th. Mr. Koenig stated that a violation existed on the 16th. Mr. Trader stated if there was a violation with respect to the furniture, that property was removed as he instructed his contractor to do. Mr. Trader stated that the other material was somebody else’s property. Mr. Martin stated his understanding that on December 16th the furniture was out there, and on December 30th the furniture was not there but the rest of the trash was still there. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. Trader stated that the rest of the trash did not belong to him and was not on his property; therefore, he should not be responsible for having it removed. He indicated that he took care of the trash that was in front of his property, as he was supposed to, through a contractor and he did not feel that he deserved to be fined for trash anywhere other than on his property. Mr. Martin stated his understanding that Mr. Trader was given notice on December 17th that he had two (2) weeks to take care of this. Mr. Trader indicated that, in his eyes, he took care of it within the two (2) week period and paid for this. Mr. Koenig asked how Ms. Bowen originally determined who she thought the property belonged to. Responding, Ms. Bowen explained as she was digging through the debris to try to determine where it came from, one (1) of the neighbors advised her that it came from Mr. Trader's apartment because he had workers doing work there. Ms. Bowen stated her understanding that people had just moved out and everything was brought down. Responding, Mr. Trader indicated that remodeling was being done to the apartment and was just about finished and he would be inspecting the work after he left the meeting. He noted that this was not the first time that items had been left in an apartment, stating that in April he evicted a woman who left everything in a two (2) bedroom apartment. He stated that he had to pay to have it removed, which took almost two (2) days. Mr. Trader advised that the cabinets and refrigerator were full of food, everything was rotten, and the apartment was full of furniture and it looked as if someone had just gone to the store or to school. He informed members that this was not uncommon, noting that he had to hire someone with two (2) laborers to remove all the furniture from a two (2) bedroom second floor apartment down the stairway and out to the curb. Mr. Trader stated that this is not the first time he had furniture removed; however, all of his debris had always been within his property limits according to where the office down the hall had prescribed to him where the property had to be to be picked up. He stated that he would not stand for being charged for something that was not his responsibility. Mrs. Townshend stated that, from a code enforcement perspective, it is not uncommon for a tenant to leave an apartment full of items, and staff is constantly dealing with the challenge of landlords putting everything on the curb. She explained that there had been issues in this particular area when the trash sits out on the curb for a month because that kind of waste is picked

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2015 PAGE 6 up only every other week, or because it is a chargeable pile and the landlord simply does not want to pay. Mrs. Townsend stated that she was not suggesting that this was the case; however, she noted that this is a constant challenge that code enforcement staff is dealing with. She advised that it was unacceptable to her that this curb, which was right off the main road, appeared this way for well over a month. Mrs. Townshend stated her belief that Ms. Bowen did the best she could to determine whose trash it was, right down to digging through the trash. She explained that, from staff’s perspective, there was no reason to conclude that the continuous trash pile belonged to one (1) person up to the vacant lot and to someone else in front of the vacant lot. Mrs. Townsend advised that she constantly advises code enforcement staff of the need to deal with trash piles because this is what makes people not want to drive through the City, much less work here. Responding to Mr. Martin, Ms. Bowen stated that the neighbor had advised her that she had seen the workers bringing the trash from the apartment upstairs. She noted that there were no pictures or she would have produced them. Ms. Bowen noted that she had sent the letter and gave Mr. Trader two (2) full weeks for the violation to be corrected. She stated that Mr. Trader could have easily called her and stated that he had removed the furniture, which was his, and that the rest of the trash was not his, noting that there was no communication. Ms. Bowen explained that when she went to the location two (2) weeks later everything was still there except the furniture and, for all she knew, someone could have come along and taken the furniture. She stated that she retook pictures and sent another letter and citation. Mr. Koenig asked why there was no response to staff. Responding, Mr. Trader stated that he told Ms. Bowen that the trash was not his. Ms. Bowen indicated that this did not occur until after the citation was given, noting that Mr. Trader came in to see her after the citation was given. Citation was sent and then Mr. Trader came in and saw me. Ms. Bowen stated that there is a snowball effect. She explained that Mr. Trader started the pile with the furniture and people see this as an opportunity to get rid of their trash as well, so it snowballs. Ms. Townshend explained that staff sees two (2) things with trash piles: 1) trash may be stacked very neatly and, over the course of a few days it is no longer neatly stacked; and 2) other people may add to a trash pile. She indicated that the presence of a trash pile causes that trash pile to grow. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader stated that he was unsure if the other trash was there when his contractor cleaned out the house; however, he noted that he took pictures of the trash on December 8th as proof that this was not his trash. He stated that he took them in such a way to show that this property belonged to somebody else and was in front of somebody else's property. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Ms. Bowen stated that the City had not sent out correspondence as of December 8th because the complaint from the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) came on December 12th, made its way through the system, and was given to her by Mr. Tim Taraila, Code

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2015 PAGE 7 Enforcement Supervisor. She stated that she responded on December 16th and took pictures from all different angles to show the magnitude of the pile and the length and width of the different items. Mr. Koenig noted that the pictures were taken on December 8th; however, the picture taken on December 16th still had the furniture there and stated that he did not think the contractor did what Mr. Trader asked him to do and left the furniture. Mr. Trader noted that, according to the receipt, the contractor was paid on December 8th. He indicated that the contractor picked it up, stating that he really wanted the furniture. He explained that he had stayed after the contractor to take it away and told him that if he did not do so soon he would be fined. Ms. Bowen asked if Mr. Trader instructed the contractor to put the trash on the curb or to take it away the day he removed it. Responding, Mr. Trader stated that he told the contractor more than once to take it away as soon as possible or he would be fined. Ms. Bowen asked if Mr. Trader had asked the contractor to put the material on the curb until he could remove it or to take it away the day that it was taken from the apartment. Responding, Mr. Trader indicated that there was a great deal of material and he indicated to the contractor to place the material on the curb from the small tree to the left of the driveway up to the telephone pole, where he had put material before. Ms. Bowen asked if Mr. Trader had intended to call Public Works. Mr. Trader stated that he did not because he had paid the contractor to take it away. Ms. Bowen asked why Mr. Trader had the contractor place the material on the curb if he was going to take it away. Responding, Mr. Trader explained that it took more than one (1) day to get everything out. The first day they took it down to the side to the back yard, the entire back yard was filled with furniture and debris from the apartment. He then sorted the debris into piles and moved them one by one to the curb and from there he’d take the debris away in his truck. Responding to Ms. Bowen, Mr. Trader stated that he was not sure if the contractor took the piles from the curb on the same day that they were moved there. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader confirmed that he instructed the contractor that he could place the debris and furniture on the curb temporarily as long as it was within his property limits from the driveway to the tree to the left of the telephone pole. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader confirmed that the contractor went beyond the telephone pole but stated that it was still on his property line and he did not go beyond that. Ms. Bowen stated that while Mr. Trader is responsible for the curb, it is not included in his property and things are not meant to be placed on the curb unless they are called in for pick-up.

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2015 PAGE 8 Mr. Koenig stated that from the standpoint of the City the things in the pictured piles looked like things that were just cleaned out of Mr. Trader’s apartment. The entire apartment was cleaned out and things were put on the curb, he could understand how everything blended together. Mr. Trader stated that he understood what Mr. Koenig was saying but thought that a person should be responsible for what is within their property lines, not what is outside of their property lines. Responding to Mr. Trader, Mr. Koenig stated that none of the debris and furniture was stored on Mr. Trader’s property, it was stored on public property. Responding to Mr. Trader, Mr. Koenig stated that it is correct that the sidewalk and the curb in front of his property belong to the City and that the property owner is responsible for the custodial maintenance which is why it is subject to violations. Ms. Bowen stated violations are generated when bulk items are placed on the curb too far in advance of bulk pick-up. She stated that on the week of bulk pick-up, items can only be set out a day before. Mr. Koenig reiterated that Mr. Trader had contracted his contractor to take away the debris, so the contractor’s error was putting the trash out on the edge of the road and leaving it there because he was not supposed to according to the contract. Responding to Mr. Trader, Mr. Koenig stated that he understood that the contractor could not back his truck into the backyard due to the amount of items brought down from the apartment, but he felt he could have left the material on Mr. Trader’s property while he was taking his truck to be dumped rather than leave it on the curb. Mr. Trader stated that this was a possibility and that he had instructed the contractor to take the material away, indicated his property limits, and stressed the fact that he would be fined if it was on the curb. Mr. Koenig stated that his view was that Mr. Trader’s contractor had put him in a position to get fined by moving the property outside of the fence which opened the question of what was or was not his debris. Mr. Trader stated that he felt he was being scapegoated on two accounts. First, he was being held responsible for the mistakes of his contractor which he felt he should not be, the contractor is an adult and should be responsible enough to follow instructions. Second, he felt he was being held responsible for whoever set additional trash out despite the fact that it was not on his property. He felt that the City should not be taking the word of somebody else when they did not know who’s trash it was. He restated that when he had a responsibility he took care of it, but he felt that he should not be fined or responsible for what somebody else did. In response to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader confirmed that the City did not know what the contractor did with the pile because he was not present to testify. He also confirmed that the City did not know who

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2015 PAGE 9 put the trash out and only had the word of a person saying it came out of the top of his property. In response to Mr. Koenig, Mr . Trader stated that he did request that the contractor be present at the meeting. Ms. Bowen stated that it was known that Mr. Trader had taken responsibility for at least a portion of the pile. Mr. Trader asked for clarification. Responding to Mr. Trader, Ms. Bowen stated that Mr. Trader had taken partial responsibility for the pile that was set out. Responding to Ms. Bowen, Mr. Trader reaffirmed that he took responsibility for what was taken out of his property and that had been taken away. He did not take responsibility for anything else. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader stated that he did not contact the City to report the additional trash because it was none of his business as it was not on his property. He stated that if it had been placed in front of the fence on his property the City would have heard from him. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader stated that he did not come in to talk to staff prior to the appeal meeting because he showed the initial violation to the contractor and told him to remove the pile or he would be fined. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader stated that he did not make any effort to contact the City about the violation because he had paid somebody to get rid of it. He went after him to get rid of the debris stating that he had a receipt in hand and the City was now sending him a letter about the debris he had paid him to remove. Mr. Trader stated that if it was his company and the contractor was his employee he would have been fired. Mr. Trader said that he was not accustom to chasing after adults stating that he had a national company that does the chasing for him. He stated that he did not appreciate having to chase him as much as he did to remove the final bit of debris and would not be hiring him again. Mr. Trader stated that he was not sure if that was why the contractor was not in attendance today. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Trader stated that he had originally planned to hire the same contractor to do the remodel but after the problem with the debris he hired another contractor to finish the apartment. Mr. Taraila stated that there were only a couple of options available because someone would have to pay the bill. Responding to Mr. Taraila, Mr. Trader questioned what would happen after this meeting. He stated that if he had to he would get an attorney to deal with it. He stated that this did not have anything to do with money, for him this had to do with principle. Responding to Ms. Bowen, Mr. Trader stated that he did not contact her about the additional debris after she sent the initial violation because he chased after his contractor to get rid of it. Ms. Bowen asked why he didn’t call to say that his contractor was going to pick up the furniture but the rest was not his trash. She stated that the City would have worked with him, but because there was no communication, it seemed like he never picked up the pile.

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2015 PAGE 10 Responding to Ms. Bowen, Mr. Trader stated that he never would have called regarding the additional debris because he didn’t see it as his responsibility because it was not on his property. Ms. Bowen stated that the additional debris was in the pictures provided with the initial violation letter so everything shown was a part of the violation. She stated that when she gave two (2) weeks to correct the violation it was for the entire violation. If the entire violation was not Mr. Trader’s there needed to be some sort of communication to inform her of that. Because there was not, when she went out two (2) weeks later and the majority of the violation was still there, that was grounds for her to send a second violation along with the citation. Responding to Mr. Trader, Ms. Bowen confirmed that he did communicate with her and indicated that the additional debris was not his but only after the second violation and citation were issued. Mrs. Townsend stated that at that point the trash pile had been out there for a month and had gotten progressively worse. She stated that when the CRM complaint came in on the 12th they said that it had been our there for an extended period of time. Mr. Koenig made a motion that the summons be dismissed and that the City not charge for the pile. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Mr. Koenig stated that he did think Mr. Trader’s contractor did the wrong thing and he also thought Mr. Trader did the wrong thing by not contacting the City and trying to resolve this over the phone. Mr. Koenig stated that he did not think staff acted inappropriately in any way and felt that this could have been resolved pretty easily over the phone which would have not taken up Mr. Trader’s or anyone else’ time. Mr. Trader stated that he felt one way or another this was going to be his responsibility, either through lack of communication or something else. Responding to Mr. Trader, Mr. Koenig stated that this was not true according to the motion. He stated that as a landlord and property owner he felt that it was Mr. Trader’s responsibility to contact the City to try to resolve the notice and he did not do that which caused the situation to escalate. Mr. Martin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Koenig and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 3:27 p.m. Scott D. Koenig Chairman

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2015 PAGE 11 SDK/DD/js Attachments Attachment #1 - Pictures provided by Mr. Trader dated 12/08/2014 S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS\01-28-2015 Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals - MR.wpd

ATTACHMENT #1 Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Meeting of 01/28/2015