CPMCBA Minutes

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting was held on January 24, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., with Chairman Anderson presiding. The members present were Mr. Campana, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rocha. Mr. Lewis was absent. The staff members present were Mr. Kopp, Mr. England, Ms. Duca and Mr. Junge. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Rocha moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Campana, and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Citation (2009 International Property Maintenance Code- Chapter 3 - General Requirements, Section 305.4 - Stairs and walking surfaces) - Appeal of Citation and Fines - 1700 N. DuPont Hwy, K102 & K103 (CT Management, LLC & GM Cedar Chase Apartments) Mr. John England, Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed the case history for 1700 N. DuPont Hwy, K102 & K103. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, explained that he interpreted the appeal letter as an appeal of the floor. He pointed out that at the time of the appeal, the engineer's report submitted was not specific to the violation itself. However, upon reviewing the new engineer's report, it was noted that while the units are structurally sound, the recommended repairs caution against closing the violation without addressing the extent of the recommended repairs. Mr. Kopp emphasized that their priority is to ensure the recommended repairs are completed to guarantee the welfare and safety of anyone on the property. Despite the report stating that the units are structurally sound, the wording of the recommendations is concerning. Mr. Kopp then proceeded to discuss the pictures in the engineer's report with the members. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England clarified that there are four (4) apartments on the ground level. He emphasized that the recommended repairs would need to be done for the entire crawl space area, not just for specific sections. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp clarified that there are currently two (2) apartments in the building. While they were conducting their investigation, the residents of these specific units requested inspections. Mr. Kopp mentioned that the original call was regarding the conditions of the stairways. During their inspection, they noticed that the floor in one of the units was spongy. Mr. Kopp further explained that residents approached them while they were on-site and asked them to inspect the units. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England indicated that he believes the appellant is only appealing the last citation of $800 for each apartment. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp mentioned that it was not clear from the appeal that was submitted what exactly they are appealing. He also noted that as of this meeting, all outstanding balances have been paid. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Katrina Doran, Hudson, Jones, Jaywork and Fisher, LLC, Attorney for the appellant, stated that her client is appealing the original violations. She explained that at the time of the appeal, her client believed the issues were more cosmetic but still felt the

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2024 PAGE 2 need to have an engineer inspect the area. They filed the appeal while waiting for the engineer's inspection of the crawl space. Upon receiving the engineer's reports, it was found that at least for unit K102, there were structural and non-structural issues inside the apartment and with all trusses. Other recommended repairs will be addressed in the future when there are no tenants in the units. Ms. Doran clarified that their position is that these issues are cosmetic. She also mentioned that they have obtained an estimate from a contractor for the work needed. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Doran stated that her clients are requesting a refund for the fines they have already paid. She mentioned that they have signed a proposal and are planning to obtain permits. Ms. Doran explained that while there are other matters that are not currently issues, they were given a deadline of January 31st for certain violations. However, due to weather conditions and other factors, they are concerned about meeting this deadline. They are requesting an extension to the deadline to ensure they can address all necessary repairs without holding up other violations that were supposed to be addressed as a package deal by January. Responding to Ms. Doran, Mr. Kopp explained that according to the violation process, even though efforts are being made to correct the violation, it remains active until everything has been fully resolved. Despite the submission of a report, the violation is still considered outstanding. Extensions have already been granted for this property, as the original deadline was May 9th, 2023. Code Enforcement's position is that there has been ample time to bring the violations into compliance, and they will oppose any future extensions. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp mentioned that while he is not an expert, in the past, they have placed tenants in temporary housing in similar situations. Their concern is to avoid prolonging the issue and risking the possibility of it worsening over time. While the structure may be sound currently, there are recommended repairs, and there's no guarantee in the engineer's report that it will remain structurally sound in the future. Therefore, their suggestion is to ensure that repairs are made promptly, in whatever form that may take. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Doran explained that the tenants are unhappy with the sloping or dipping floor, as they believe it is cosmetic rather than structural. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. England confirmed that the repairs would indeed involve the entire length of the crawl space. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England clarified that while the trusses were found to be structurally sound with no required repairs, resolving the sagging and leveling the floor would necessitate intermittent support. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Doran explained that unit K102 has water damage to the floor. The violation pertains to repairing or replacing the sagging apartment floor, which is distinct from just addressing the floor in the bathroom. Therefore, their position on K102 is that this is not a violation, as it is not a structural problem that is currently needed. While the report does suggest it should be addressed in the future, it is not an immediate structural issue. On the other hand, unit K103 is different and does require attention, as it has two (2) trusses that need to be replaced. The proposal, which she had sent in as an exhibit, covers both K102 and K103 for all of the work, including the necessary repairs.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2024 PAGE 3 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Doran mentioned that her clients signed the proposal that day and are requesting time to address the violations. They hope to avoid incurring any further fines. Mr. Kopp explained that when permits are issued, as long as there is a good faith effort towards the permit and work is actively being done, they will provide updates every 30 days to indicate progress. He noted that they often see situations where permits are obtained but no work is done within the six (6) month validity period. In such cases, they extend the permit for another six months. Therefore, even if a permit is obtained and work is underway, they continue to follow up to ensure that a good faith effort is being made to complete the necessary work. Mr. Kopp stated that he has explained to Ms. Doran’s client’s that as long as they are showing visible progress, they can see the progress with there. They will not obtain more violations or additional notices, but once that work stops and we do not see the good faith effort to correct this, then the violations will be pursued. So unfortunately there was a contract signed today, but just to remind them again, this case is back from May of last year. A contract was just signed today, which is why they are a little uneasy because this has been ongoing for close to a year with little result of repairs. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp explained that damage, whether it is from water, heat, or other sources, results in the loss of good repair. Good repair, in his interpretation, aligns with the manufactured specifications. Therefore, any object, piece of wood, or appliance is considered in good repair if it meets the manufacturer's expectations. For instance, if there is water-damaged wood, it is not in good repair because it does not align with the manufacturer's original specifications. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. Kopp explained that they only inspected the units that were being complained about at the moment. He added that their intention is to conduct full inspections of all the units, but they have not requested them yet due to the amount of repairs currently underway, particularly regarding the stairways. While they regularly inspect apartment buildings and condo units, they have delayed inspections due to feeling overwhelmed, which hinders their ability to succeed. Once the stairwells are repaired and the current violations are addressed, they will pursue inspecting the other units and buildings. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. Kopp explained that for property maintenance, they conduct routine inspections of buildings unless there is a complaint. Every building or rental in the city is subject to an inspection. The process involves sending a notice to a property, such as Marriott Apartments (a name not in the city), and then coordinating inspections for all their buildings. Each apartment unit is inspected for compliance with regulations regarding floors, smoke detectors, life safety issues, unsanitary conditions, and more. When they conduct full inspections, they capture everything that is in violation of the property maintenance code. Mr. Kopp has informed Jay Brandon and the Property Manager at Cedar Chase to expect such inspections in the near future. Responding to Ms. Doran, Mr. Kopp stated on the property, they have two (2) units on one side of the pad and two (2) units on the other side that face each other. Responding to Ms. Doran, Mr. England noted that they inspected two that where across from each other. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. Kopp stated that they would have to repair both units.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2024 PAGE 4 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Doran explained that for K102 and K103, her clients had fees in the amount of $200 and then later $400 for each. Responding to Ms. Doran, Mr. Anderson noted that the appeal time for those has passed. The current, $800 for each, so $1,600 that has been present and is currently under consideration. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Doran stated that her clients are requesting the removal of the $800 fine on each unit and extend the deadline. She suggested February 29th as a suitable date by which they will resolve the issues to avoid incurring further violations. Responding to Ms. Doran, Mr. Kopp clarified that they cannot issue any more citations until February 29th for those two (2) units, as Ms. Doran mentioned that her clients aim to avoid incurring any more violations until that date. Mr. Kopp explained that it would just be for that one violation of 305.4. If someone were to call them today for a collapsed ceiling, they would have to address that violation the same. So this would be specific to the floor violation, but it does not relieve them of any future violations that could be issued due to something else. Responding to Ms. Doran, Mr. Kopp explained that due to the severity of the case, they can request that the permits be reviewed as a priority. While he cannot guarantee approval, as he is not the approval authority for permits, he can work with the relevant authorities to expedite the process. Mr. Kopp believes that it could be possible to expedite approval as long as the permits are submitted with the correct drawings, blueprints, and any other required documentation. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp stated that their goal is to make a complete effort to correct the issues. For example, if the 29th arrives and there is still a week's worth of work remaining, they will not penalize them. However, they do require tangible evidence that the work will be completed within that additional week, rather than dragging on for another month or longer. Code Enforcement's primary goal is compliance, and they are simply trying to ensure that the property meets the required standards. They are willing to work with the property owners to achieve compliance as soon as possible. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. England stated that the fines were actually due to double on January 2nd, but they appealed before that date. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that at this point, all of the fines on the property have been cleared or rectified. This includes the fines for this particular case, as they were enforcing the Clean Hands Ordinance against the property. These two (2) cases were specifically included in that enforcement action, which is indicated by the letter C on the Fire Marshal’s letterhead that is included in the package. All of the fines have been paid and nothing is outstanding. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England stated that the two (2) $800 citations were waived. Responding to Mr. Rocha, clarified that with the appeal board, property owners have the right to appeal Code Enforcement’s interpretation of the code if they believe the violation is unjust or inaccurate in any way. They can also appeal the financial aspect of the citation that was issued. Therefore, they have the option to appeal either aspect. In this case, it is his understanding that the property owners are appealing the violation itself.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2024 PAGE 5 Mr. Martin moved to give CT Management, LLC & GM Cedar Chase Apartments until February 29th to bring the violation for Units K102 and K103 into compliance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campana and unanimously carried. Mr. Kopp requested the appellants to send Code Enforcement an email once they obtain their permits, informing them of the start date and the projected end date. This information will be attached to their case file. Mr. Rocha moved to deny the appeal of the citation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campana and unanimously carried. Mr. Martin moved for an adjournment of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting, seconded by Mr. Campana, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. David L. Anderson Chairman DA/aw