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 May 1, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. with Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, presiding. Mr. Martin was present. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend (arrived at 10:19 a.m.), Mr. Coburn, Mr. Hudson, and Ms. Devine. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Martin moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Koenig, and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Vacant Building) - Appeal of Decision (Annual Vacant Building Registration and Second Year Registration Fee) - 1510 W. College Road (Edward W. Demby) Mr. Ron Coburn, Code Enforcement Officer, advised that it came to staff’s attention in November 2013 that the property at 1510 West College Road was possibly vacant. He stated that he sent a notice to Mr. Edward Demby at 82 Washington Street advising him to register the property as vacant on November 20, 2013, and Mr. Demby did not respond to that notice. Mr. Coburn indicated that he sent a second notice to Mr. Demby on December 20, 2013 stating that the City had registered the property as vacant. He indicated that on January 14, 2014 Mr. Demby sent notice that the owner was moving to the property; however, by this time the property had already been registered by staff. Mr. Coburn noted that the property was not exempt from the registration fees because it was staff registered. In response to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Coburn stated that Mr. Demby originally submitted a City of Dover Vacant Building Registration form on January 14, 2014 indicating that the reason for exemption was that he was moving to the property. Mr. Coburn explained that a second year registration form was sent to Mr. Demby on January 20, 2015, since the property still appeared to be vacant. Mr. Coburn provided an updated Customer/Location Consumption History Inquiry dated May 1, 2015 (Attachment #1). He explained that this report reflected zero (0) consumption of water from September 5, 2014 through April 6, 2015, which indicated to staff that there was no one living there. Mr. Coburn indicated that billing may reflect electric usage when no one is living at a property; however, if someone is living in a residence there is typically water usage for personal hygiene, using the toilet, washing dishes, etc., and no water usage is a strong indication that a property is vacant. Mr. Coburn informed members that he had been to the property several times and had never seen people or cars there. Referring to the photographs of the property, he stated that he had taken a picture in 2015 approximately three (3) days after a snowstorm, the steps had not been cleared of snow, and there were no footprints. Ms. Barbara Cook asked if the photos had been taken in 2015, and Mr. Coburn stated that they were. Ms. Cook explained that, at the time the photo was taken, relatives were no longer coming to the property; therefore, it was decided to come in and apply for a renter’s license. She indicated that staff advised them that a rental license would not be issued until the vacant building registration was resolved. Ms. Cook stated that as of the last part of 2014 and into 2015, no one was at the property; however, she indicated that staff should at least have seen her vehicle there a few times. Responding, Mr. Coburn stated that he had never seen a vehicle there, noting that he may have

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 1, 2015 PAGE 2 missed Ms. Cook’s vehicle. Mr. Demby noted that other relatives also check the property because there is a central air conditioning and heating unit there. Ms. Cook stated that the property was not vacant in 2013 and most of 2014; however, it would now be considered vacant because relatives were no longer coming back and forth to stay there. Ms. Cook advised that if it had been vacant, it would have been cited during the summer months for the grass not being cut. She indicated that there had been no citations because they always made sure that the grass was cut. Referring to the Customer/Location Consumption History Inquiry dated 11/20/13, Mr. Koenig noted that from August 2012 through November 2013, no water usage was registered on the water meter. He stated that electric usage was registered during this period and that he assumed the power bill was being paid every month. He asked if people were living in the building or just visiting. In response, Ms. Cook advised that their relatives come back and forth and stay at the property periodically. She noted that they come when there are deaths in the family, and there had been several deaths in the past few years. Ms. Cook stated that they use the property occasionally. Mr. Martin stated that he found it hard to believe that people were staying at the property but not using the bathroom or drinking water, noting that there was no water usage. He stated that water usage is a good indication of someone actually using a property, since residents need to drink water and use the bathroom. Ms. Cook stated that there was no water usage for 2013; however, during 2014 there was quite a bit of use. Mr. Koenig advised that the records showed that 3,000 gallons were used in a nine-month period in 2010, and from August 2012 through November 2013 there was no usage at all. He advised that in December 2013 and January 2014 there was no use, and 45,000 gallons were used in February 2014, which indicated a leak. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Demby stated that there had been a leak that was fixed by a plumber. Mr. Koenig noted that it was extremely cold during the month of February and asked if the line broke. Responding, Ms. Cook advised that the break was caused by corrosion. Mr. Koenig indicated that it appeared that some of the results of the line break were reflected in the March billing; however, there had been no other usage since then. Ms. Cook explained that in 2014 they decided to do something about the property because so many of the relatives had ceased coming. She stated that in 2013 the idea was for Mr. Demby to live between the two (2) properties. Mr. Koenig asked if the building was now vacant, and Mr. Demby responded that it was not. Ms. Cook asked how the City deems a building vacant. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that the City would consider a property vacant if there is no one living there and no normal use of facilities. Mr. Coburn indicated that the grass being cut does not indicate non-vacancy, noting that there are several vacant properties registered by banks and mortgage companies where the grass is cut by contractors.

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 1, 2015 PAGE 3 Mrs. Cook stated that the owner is required to have the grass cut at properties that are vacant and do not belong to banks or mortgage companies. She indicated that Mr. Demby was going between the two (2) houses. Ms. Cook stated that she could not speak to the water usage but could speak to the grass on the property. Referring to the City of Dover Vacant Building Registration form dated January 20, 2014, Mr. Koenig asked what the City’s position was on the amount currently owed by Mr. Demby. Responding, Mr. Coburn advised that the first year registration fee was $250, as reflected on the invoice dated December 20, 2013. He stated that a second invoice for the current year’s registration fee was issued on January 20, 2015 in the amount of $500, which was being disputed by Mr. Demby. Ms. Cook stated that there was a new bill for an additional $250. Mr. Coburn advised that this was an invoice from the Customer Service Department, who was trying to collect the $250 first year registration fee. In response to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Coburn stated that the bill dated December 20, 2013 for $250 was never paid. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Ms. Cook stated that this bill was not disputed. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Coburn stated that there had been no appeal to the Board for that bill. Ms. Cook advised that she was not made aware of the bill until the amount reached $500. Mr. Koenig stated his understanding that the bill dated January 20, 2015 in the amount of $500 had not been paid, and Mr. Demby was present to dispute that bill. In addition, he advised that it was his understanding that other fees, utility bills, and taxes had been paid, to staff’s knowledge. Mr. Coburn stated that, to his knowledge, all other payments were current, and noted that he had checked the tax roll. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Coburn stated that those who wish to appeal have 30 days to do so. Mrs. Cook advised that they had met the requirement to appeal within 30 days; however, Mr. Demby took a fall and was hospitalized. She explained that when he was able to return, she called to reschedule the meeting and was told by Mrs. Jody Stein, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, that the meeting had been rescheduled for May 1, 2015. Ms. Cook asked if an additional $250 had been added to the total bill because the date was now May 1st. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that Mr. Demby had met the time frame to appeal the $500 bill, although it had taken a while to schedule the hearing. He indicated that the $250 bill that they received was the re-billing of the fee charged in December 2013 that had not been paid. Mr. Koenig explained that the first bill from 2013, in the amount of $250 had not been disputed; therefore, the City’s records indicated that Mr. Demby had agreed with that fee. He stated that the second bill was for $500 for 2015, because the property was in its second year of vacancy. He noted that adding the two (2) amounts together resulted in a $750 bill. Responding to Ms. Cook, Mr. Koenig stated that it was possible that the current meeting would not have been held if Mr. Demby had disputed the first bill of $250.

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 1, 2015 PAGE 4 Mr. Martin stated that if Mr. Demby had disputed the bill a year ago and it was found that the building was not vacant, there would have been no charge. He explained that, because it had not been disputed, the building had been considered vacant for a year and was now in its second year of vacancy. Mr. Martin advised that Mr. Demby was disputing the $500 fee, noting that the $250 fee would stand and had never been part of the question. Ms. Cook asked members to consider Mr. Demby’s age. She explained that the only reason they were now present was that she had stepped forward to help Mr. Demby when she knew what was happening, noting that he had not shared this information with her previously. Mr. Koenig expressed his understanding; however, he advised that staff is required to do certain things by code. He stated that the first thing an individual must do after receiving a letter from the City is to contact the Code Enforcement Officer who signed it. He noted that contact information is provided on the letter and the officer will advise why they wrote the letter and what the conditions were. Mr. Koenig stated that the letter had not been disputed. Ms. Cook expressed her understanding that Mr. Demby had spoken to the Code Enforcement Officer when he received the first letter but did not appeal in writing. Mr. Demby indicated that he had come in and shared with staff from Planning Office in November that someone was living at the property and it was not vacant. Mr. Koenig noted that there was no lease, utility bill, or record indicating that someone was living at the property and, from the City’s standpoint, this could not be documented. He explained that the property met all the criteria of a vacant building since the owner was not renting the building, there was no water or sewer usage, the trash can may have been set out occasionally but not regularly, and electric usage was at the minimum needed to keep the building in working order. Mr. Demby stated that the property was not vacant, noting that it would have been sold or rented if it was vacant. Mr. Martin questioned who was living there and spending the night without using water, if it was not vacant. Responding, Mr. Demby stated that he had been there during the past summer, stayed overnight, and cut the bushes back, and he noted that he had flushed the toilet. Mr. Martin suggested that there may be something wrong with the water. Responding, Mr. Koenig noted that it had worked earlier in the year because a leak was registered. Mr. Martin pointed out that this had occurred in February 2014 and the water was working at that time. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Ms. Cook advised that technically they were appealing the second year fee. Mr. Koenig stated that it had been said earlier in the meeting that the property was currently vacant and not being used. Responding, Ms. Cook stated that this was correct. She advised that they wanted to rent it out; however, staff would not issue a rental license until resolving the vacant building registration. Ms. Cook advised that this is what brought them here today, five (5) months later.

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 1, 2015 PAGE 5 Mr. Martin asked if the second year fee could be waived provided the $250 was paid, Mr. Demby was given 90 days to present a signed lease indicating that someone was living there, and there was consumption at the property. Mr. Coburn advised that one (1) of the four exemptions to the vacant building registration fee can be applied if the property was actively being marketed for rent or sale. He explained that it would still have be registered; however, Mr. Demby would be exempt from the fee while the property is being marketed. Mr. Coburn noted that staff would have to inspect the property to make sure that it meets minimum code. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Coburn explained that the definition of being marketed for rent would include being advertised according to code in a local paper, through a real estate agent, etc. He explained that the City would then have a listing sheet showing that the apartment is for lease or rent. In response to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Coburn stated that Mr. Demby was beyond the appeal period for the $250 bill. He advised that if the property was actively marketed as a rental, staff did a rental inspection, and any issues related to the rental inspection were corrected, Mr. Demby could be provided a rental license. Mr. Coburn indicated that the inspection must occur before the rental license could be obtained. Ms Cook stated her understanding that the rental license could be issued before the inspection occurred. Responding, Mr. Coburn advised that the license could be issued; however, the property must be inspected before it is occupied. Ms. Cook noted that Mr. Demby could apply for the license and the inspection could then take place. Mr. Koenig stated his understanding that the $500 fee could be rescinded under the conditions discussed. Mr. Coburn advised that it could be rescinded, noting that the property would still have to be registered but would be exempt from the fees. Responding to Mr. Martin regarding when the fee could be paid, Mr. Demby advised that he would be paid on Sunday, May 3, 2015. Mr. Martin stated that if the $250 was paid within a week’s time, this would allow for property to be advertised. He asked if a “For Rent” sign could be placed in his yard. In response to Ms. Cook, Mr. Coburn indicated that the code states that the property must be advertised, and a “For Rent” sign would be advertising. Ms. Cook pointed out that literature she had received stated that a property can be registered to be occupied by American Homeless Veterans, and she asked if this property would qualify. Responding, Mr. Koenig indicated that the City’s position was that the property must be completely occupied; however, the City is not involved in whom it is rented to. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the literature Ms. Cook referred to was related to landlord training that was part of the Mayor’s Challenge to End Veterans’ Homelessness. She explained that identifying properties for this

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 1, 2015 PAGE 6 program is done through the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Veterans Administration, and the City is not part of this process. Mrs. Townshend advised that someone would be present at the Safe Communities Workshop scheduled for May 9, 2015 to discuss how to get into the queue for this program. Mr. Martin noted that it would not matter how much rent is collected as long as the building is occupied and there is utility usage. Mr. Koenig stated that if it is truly a rental situation, there must be an active rental permit. Mr. Coburn noted that they had applied for this; however, it was on hold due to the matter being considered. Mr. Martin noted that this would not be granted until the matter was resolved. Mr. Martin moved to waive the $500 fee if the $250 fee is paid by May 8, 2015, a rental license is applied and paid for by May 8, 2017, and the property is advertised, seconded by Mr. Koenig and unanimously carried. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. Scott D. Koenig Chairman SDK/DD/js Attachments Attachment #1 - Customer/Location Consumption History Inquiry dated May 1, 2015 S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS\05-01-2015 Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Minutes - JS.wpd

ATTACHMENT #1 Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals of 05/01/2015