CPMCBA Minutes

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting was held on November 08, 2023, at 3:30 p.m., with Chairman Anderson presiding. The members present were Mr. Martin, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Rocha. Mr. Campana was absent. The staff members present were Mr. Kopp, Mr. England, Ms. Eisenbraun, Ms. Brown, Ms. Duca, Mr. Osika, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Sherman, and Mrs. Walls. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Martin moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article X - Rental Dwellings, Division 2 - Permits, Section 22-351 - Generally) - Appeal of Citation and Fines- 406 Cold Spring Place (Mike Snodgrass) Ms. Lauren Eisenbraun, Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed the case history for 406 Cold Spring Place. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Eisenbraun stated that the clerical error applied to the sixth, the notice that was sent out on the 22nd of September. There had already been five notices that were sent out prior to that, and she was notified via phone. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Eisenbraun stated that no she had not received any of the return receipts for the notices. Responding to Mr. Martin, Ms. Eisenbraun stated that it is common to send out notices on a weekly basis and that the citations will accrue. They have to be paid within 14 days but as far as obtaining the rental permit, she gave him a week. Responding to Mr. Martin, Ms. Eisenbraun stated that she never heard from Mr. Snodgrass. The first time that she heard from Mr. Snodgrass was when he came into the office to discuss. Then there has not been anything additional sent out or anything like that, so it was after the seventh notice. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer stated that the 2022 case was Velvet Johnson's case. It originated February 10th, 2022 for not having a rental permit. There were no citations with this case, and he believes that the reason was because Velvet transitioned to her current role, which is why this case was closed. It was just basically voided out since Velvet departed. Mr. Kopp read Ms. Johnson’s comments in the case file. Mr. Knopp stated that Velvet noted that “on February 10th, 2022, tenant contacted customer service concerned that the electricity was going to be shut off. Patricia Marney, Customer Service Director contacted me and informed me it is, "I'm sending notice to obtain a rental license". Mr. Kopp continued that on February 9th, 2022, Velvet put a comment in there. "Per our discussion, Mr. Snodgrass can be reached at 302-399 and the remaining four (4) of the number. He has confirmed that he is renting the unit. The tenant does not have a long-term lease agreement at this time. He is negotiating terms with her. He has never rented the house before. She is the first tenant. I verified this and it is not Airbnb." "He prefers that she have the utility services transferred to her name. However, the tenant does not want to go through the transfer process. I will be sending the owner the release form. The tenant has called multiple times regarding outstanding utility bills and disconnections. We cannot discuss the account details with her. The only information I have for the tenant is that her first name is Kim and she called on a blocked phone number". So that was the notes that Velvet Johnson

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 08, 2023 PAGE 2 put in the system when she was working on this case. She also put that on March 17, 2022, she emailed Mr. Snodgrass to inquire about the rental license. He still has not applied for one. Mr. Snodgrass stated that he would start back with February 2022 and work his way up. He was taking care of his mother-in-Law, she was terminal. He was not in his home, and somebody had broken a window out. A friend of his that he worked at the transport center with at Dover Air Force Base contacted him, said, "Mike, there is a lady staying here downtown at a hotel near the base. She cannot sleep. I wonder, I thought of you, you are only going to be here for three (3) months. I thought of you. It would be a way you can rent your place out. You do not have to worry about security or worry about somebody breaking your windows in." Mr. Snodgrass explained that he really had reservations then. His thought process was that he was not planning on renting his place. So they talked for a while, and she needed a place to stay. So she came over and they had a quick discussion and she said, "I got a job at Dover Behavioral Health." She said, "I will only be here for three (3) months and then after that they could extend the contract with three (3) months additional, but more than likely they probably will not." Mr. Snodgrass said, "okay, not a problem." They were going to leave the electricity in his name. She was adamant about not putting it in her name. So he said, "okay." So his intentions were that she was going to be there for three (3) months. This was not something that he was continuing, renting his property out. Mr. Snodgrass was planning on moving back anyway. So then Covid happened, and she was there. She got there probably at the end of 2021, early part of 2022. Mr. Snodgrass explained that he believes she should have been gone by January or February. Then Covid came and she told him that she could not move because of Covid. So that went on for another year and he did not press the issue with her. Then she had fallen way behind in rent, about seven months and he was really wanting her just to move. So that he could gain control and move back into his property. Mr. Snodgrass continued to explain that in February, when he received a phone call, he did apply for an application, and he was inspected. As a matter of fact, he was inspected twice. They came in and reinspected to make sure, he thinks it was like some electrical outlets needed to be GFI for his pond and they checked the stairwell. So he corrected everything and then she came over. Mr. Snodgrass notes that he did apply, and Ms. Johnson told him, “Everything is perfect. You are good to go." So he was good to go, and he did not think twice about it. So this is the first time that he heard that he did not follow through in 2022. So this past year, his mailbox was still going to this house. That was the agreement because he was moving back into his home, but she kept staying. So he ended up having to go to court. On October 13th of this year, they went to court, worked it out and she is moving this month. Then at the very end she rushed into her pocketbook, and she gave him three (3) certified letters from the inspection. Mr. Snodgrass stated that he did not even open them. He went right from the courthouse, and he came right here. He thought, "okay, so these are certified letters." So he gave them to Ms. Eisenbraun and showed them that he had them in his possession. Ms. Eisenbraun told him that there is nothing that she can do because he would have to appeal and have a hearing. Ms. Eisenbraun told him, “You actually have another letter coming in the mail as well for some weeds and stuff in the front of the place.” She said that it was not connected with the actual permit issue. Mr. Snodgrass stated that, that following Monday, he went back over to his place to go figure it out. He went out and started working out in the yard. Mr. Snodgrass noted that he had not even received the letter she had told him about yet because it had not been delivered. She said it was probably enroute and he did not get an opportunity to even read that letter. Ms. Snodgrass stated that he has been back there every week since. So again, on the 15th of October, his tenant hands him these letters. They already had issues and he was not going to be combative. He did not even want to argue, and it was not even worth, "why did you keep them?" It was not worth it to him, so he just went straight to Ms. Eisenbraun because he wanted her to know. When he started reading the letters, it said that he needed

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 08, 2023 PAGE 3 to have a hearing. He applied for a hearing, and he thinks that it was within 14 days of receiving the letter. He said, "First of all, I have not received any letters because she kept them from me." They were literally kept from him, and she had three letters in her pocketbook. Then he went on Monday to work on the property, his tenant comes out and he hands him three (3) more certified letters. Mr. Snodgrass stated that she said, "if you need me to go in" and that is when she tells him, “Well, I called down there." She was already working the system, had already made phone calls, and kept him in the dark. Mr. Snodgrass noted that he had never seen one letter. Had he received a letter, he would have taken care of it. Mr. Snodgrass continued to state that he was like, “I am paying a $1,000 fine for something that I was unaware of?” He definitely would never have ignored a letter from her if he had received it. So that is why he has appealed. He was upset when he first got it and he knew that she was upset with him because he told her she had to move. He told her said, "I am moving, I want to move back into my property." Now backtracking about the permit, he was unaware that he needed to go back and get a permit for this year. So being ignorant of that rule, he takes responsibility for that. As far as everything else after that, that kind of flowed, he was unaware, or he would have taken some type of action. Mr. Snodgrass noted that he would have called or taken steps to do what he needed to do. Mr. Snodgrass mentioned that he did apply in 2022 and he did not know that it was annual, because he had never rented before. His intent was not to rent, his intent was to move back into his place. He has been trying to move back in and unfortunately, he has not been able to until the end of this month. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. Kopp stated that there is no record of any license of any kind ever issued for 406 Cold Spring Place. Responding to Mr. Martin & Mr. Kopp, Mr. Snodgrass stated that yes it was a prorated charge, but he had to pay because it was like June or July by the time, they got the inspection done. Then after that she told him, “You are good." Mr. Snodgrass continued to state that he thought she was mailing the rental license to him, but that he did not get one in the mail from her. As far as he knew he was good to go and that is exactly what she told him after she came in to do the last inspection. So he did apply, or she would not have even been there to do an inspection. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Kopp stated that he received a complaint from Customer Service, which received the complaint from the tenant. Mr. Kopp stated that the tenant called Customer Service to complain that it was a rental unit without a permit and upon investigation it showed no history. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Kopp stated that there is no fee when someone fills out the application. The fee is charged once the permit is issued or once the permit is approved. Licensing staff will reach out to the property owner and let them know, "Hey, your permit is approved. You have to pay whatever the fee is." It is a prorated fee, and once the fee is paid, they actually issue a license. So it is a license that is issued once that fee is paid, and that permit is printed. According to the record for this address, there was no activity ever of a rental/business license being issued. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Kopp stated that he was not sure if the application was actually received. He can tell him now on this current case, he has not received the application. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Snodgrass stated that he came in, filled it out and signed it at the front desk. Mr. Snodgrass stated that he did not make a copy of the application and that he did not receive anything back after he filled out the application. Mr. Snodgrass stated that that was it and then he had to get onto the schedule in order for Velvet to come out and inspect. She did come out to inspect and she failed him on a couple of things. He had an

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 08, 2023 PAGE 4 electrician and an HVAC person come out to install some electric units and some other things. Then Ms. Johnson came back and said, "You are good to go for the year." Mr. Kopp stated that for clarification, code enforcement does not issue the license. It is issued through licensing staff upfront. So once they complete their inspection then they submit it to the licensing staff, and they will issue the permit. They have no say in the permit actually being able to be issue. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Kopp stated that they have to call the person to obtain payment before they issue the permit. So if the payment is never received, then that permit is never issued. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that the rental permit case was closed out on March 24, 2022. The housing inspection was completed on March 21, 2022. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp stated that there is no record of it being issued so it may never have been paid for. Mr. Kopp stated that for further clarification, just so everybody is aware that the rental permit expires every year on January 31st. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Snodgrass stated that the tenant is still in there until the 22nd of this month, November, then she has to move out. Mr. Snodgrass stated that once he made the appeal, he did not do anything at that point because he had not applied anyway. He had not applied for an application, but he was not aware that he had to. That is what he apologized for, being ignorant of it. Mr. Snodgrass did not know that he had to go fill out another application. He did not know that he would have to be reinspected. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Snodgrass stated that what he meant was in 2022, he came in. He did fill it out, but then he did not know that he had to go fill out another application in 2023, is what he was saying. Mr. Snodgrass did not know that there was another inspection involved and he did not know any of that. He just thought once she approved of him, and said "you are good to go," then he was good to go. Mr. Snodgrass noted that he did not know it was annual and that is where he said he would take responsibility for not understanding that piece of it. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Snodgrass stated that the tenant had to pay him in court, then she had to pay him another $1,000 and then he just let her off for the other $1,800. He said he did not worry about it because he was just trying to get into his property. He just wanted to move back into my own property. His home was fully furnished when he left, most people would never have left their home because he thought it was for three (3) months. It would be like just walking out of your house and letting somebody come in there. All his stuff is still on the walls, and it is like he still lives there. He just cannot get access to it and so that is where he was with his tenant. She is moving out and he gets to move back to his own home. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. Snodgrass stated that he is currently staying in Pennsylvania, right over the borderline, going toward Philadelphia Airport. One of the agreements was the address; he was maintaining his address. He did not want to change his address and have to move and then in three (3) months move right back in and then change it again. He left it, his tenant understood that, and it was only supposed to be for three (3) months. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Eisenbraun stated that the seventh notice was issued on October 9th with a citation of $1,000. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Eisenbraun stated that the certified mail receipts came back unclaimed.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 08, 2023 PAGE 5 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Kopp stated that by code in the event it is unclaimed by code, they post it to the front door of the property in violation. Mr. Anderson stated that his thoughts are that it is obvious that he did not have a permit and it is obvious that there should be fines associated and Mr. Snodgrass got lucky with 2022. It is also obvious that the conspiracy of circumstances, he may not have gotten the notices, all part of that was his fault because he did not put with the post office even a forwarding address for that, which could have kept going, but there was a minor clerical error. So Mr. Anderson’s thought would be that they should look to allow that. In fact that they were so close that the certified letters with the way the post office works, that the one-week in between the other letter may not even have been received. His thought would be to get rid of the $1,000 and the $800 and leave the other fines in place but I do not know what members of the committee think about that. That way there is no argument about the minor error because the others went to the right address right when they are supposed to be and there were no problems with any of the actions that Code Enforcement took. They operated according to the law, and they operated according to the book in all circumstances throughout this entire ordeal. Mr. Rocha stated that he cannot find a discrepancy other than the fact that the person who is the alleged renter did not pass the letters on to Mr. Snodgrass. Code enforcement had whatever address they had on record. So he does not see how the postal part actually comes into play and it is unfortunate, and he knows that Mr. Snodgrass had reservations from the beginning, he probably should have gone with the gut right from the beginning. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp stated that in reference to the clerical error, their process is that they print out the letters, sign them, then they take them to the front staff and then they process them. The letter was put into the wrong addressed envelope and that was out of their control. Once they received the call from the property owner who received the wrong letter, they immediately retracted that citation, reissued a new citation, giving the 14 days for the citation to be paid before doubling. Responding to Mr. Martin, Ms. Eisenbraun stated that the citations go out weekly due to no valid rental permit. It is not trash in the yard, it is a business. So it is treated like a business, even though it is a rental property. They do not have to have a State of Delaware license, just a City of Dover Rental License under the business license category. Ms. Eisenbraun stated that due to this being sent out certified, usually certified mail will be issued within two days normally. The person that did receive the mail called that same day and that is how they were able to, before sending out anything additional, was able to correct it, resend it, give that extra week time before the $1,000 was cited. Mr. Rocha moved to remove the $1,000 citation that was issued but to uphold the remainder of the citations issued by the Planning and Inspections Department. Therefore, the $800 citation that was upheld by the board must be received by the City of Dover within 14 business days of the Board meeting or it will automatically double. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Mr. Kopp stated that Mr. Snodgrass owes a total of $2,200 but if that $800 fine doubles, then he will owe $3,000. Mr. Kopp noted that fines only double once. Property Maintenance Code Citation (2009 International Property Maintenance Code- Chapter 1 - Scope and Administration, Section 108.4.1 - Placard removal) - Appeal of Citation and Fines - 44 Girl Scout Lane (David & Mary Miller)

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 08, 2023 PAGE 6 Mr. John England, Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed the case history for 44 Girl Scout Lane. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Miller stated that when he moved in with his wife, who is black, one of the neighbors across the way took issue with that and he found my mailbox on the ground. He put it back up and then he found the whole post on the ground. He then put in a new mailbox post with a hard plastic top. That thing took a beating, but it never went down. Mr. Miller explained that he had gone to the post office and said, "Here is what happened." They said, "Oh, you should go to the police." So he went to the police, and they said, "Oh, you should go to the post office." So he always figured that they may not be familiar with the property. It is the only house on the street. It is an unpaved city street, it is back and out of sight. There are 30 to 40 foot pine trees on the three sides and other trees in front. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Miller stated that he would like to sell the property. Mr. Miller thinks that the teenagers are the ones who ripped the placards off, busted in the walls and ripped the cabinets off. Responding to Mr. England, Mr. Miller stated that he did not allow anybody to live there. His feelings are if you do the work at the time of day when people are likely to break in, then it is less likely that people will break in. So there is no point doing work during school hours if it is teenagers who are breaking in. So get somebody who can work at odd hours. That is what he had though the contractor had been doing. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. England stated that it has electricity currently. This gentleman told Mr. England that they were working on a hot water heater, he does not know if that is, in fact in operation. There was a mechanical permit pulled on October 27th for the heater, he guessed. They have not been back there for a reinspection of the interior. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Miller stated that they are supposed to be working on the property. He has not personally been there for a month. So as long as things keep moving in the right direction, that is what he wants to see. It is just very close to being ready to go. Mr. Kopp stated that just for clarification this property has been an active vacant building ordinance case against it since July 10, 2018. The reason why it was condemned is Ron, during one of his inspections, his 30-day inspections, he discovered the unlivable conditions and condemned it earlier this year. Every vacant building and dangerous building are inspected every 30 days to make sure there is no unlawful entry. Responding to Mr. Lewis and Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp stated that there is $500 owed on this case due to the placards being removed and people living in the building. Mr. Kopp noted that for clarification on this too, is that they pick one citation because by code they could cite every single citation, every single day. They pick one violation and cite only the one. Whatever they feel is the most severe violation, that is what they cite for a case. They would be writing citations all day and it would never end, but by looking at this property, it looks like there are 18 violations associated with this current case that are all active. Mr. Kopp stated that 2009 International Property Maintenance Code 108.4.1, Placard Removal. The code official shall remove the condemnation placard whenever the defect or defects upon which the condemnation and placarding actions were based have been eliminated. Any person who

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 08, 2023 PAGE 7 defaces or removes the condemnation placards without approval of the code official shall be subject to penalties provided by this code. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that for clarification on their placards, they use a sticky placard if they can. They put the placards on glass, and they are not very easy to come off. They literally have to scrape them off or in the event we put it on wood, they use a stapler and put at least four staples, one in each corner so the likelihood, unless a tornado is coming through, the placards are not just blowing off the property, they are very well secured to the property. Responding to Mr. Miller, Mr. Kopp stated that as they find them, color, discolored, so on and so forth, they will work to replace because they do fade. The sun fades them out all the time. So if they are faded, they are not able to be read anymore. They put one up to make sure it stays black. Mr. Martin moved to deny the appeal and uphold the citation issued by the Planning and Inspections Department; therefore, the fine associated with this citation, in the amount of $500.00, must be received by the City of Dover within 14 business days of the Board meeting or it will automatically double. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Appeal of the Decision of the Fire Marshal (Dover Code of Ordinances - Chapter 46- Fire Prevention and Protection, Article III - Fire Codes, Section 46-125 - Appeal; hearing) - Appeal of the Fire Marshal's decision to return the property to previous Occupancy Classification; submit proper plans from a licensed architect and obtain proper permits - 42 S. State Street (Lanzot Companies, LLC) Mr. Jason Osika, Fire Marshall, reviewed the case history for 42 S. State Street. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Osika stated that when they initiated the original, when they found out about it, they were in contact with the owner and had constant conversations leading up to it. So he was making an effort to come in compliance with the city. It was a newly acquired property for him and Mr. Osika thinks that he was new to the rental business. So he was meeting the steps that the city was proposing, and the goal was to get an Architect on board, which he did. Mr. Osika stated that he thought that they did a study of the property, which then is more than likely going to be a large cost. They have talked about that. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Osika stated that he is correct in stating that the sprinkler system is one of the top issues and that they have discussed it. Currently all four (4) units are apartments but on record they have two (2) apartments and two (2) offices. The previous owner converted the one office to an apartment which made it three (3) apartments and one (1) office. Then the new owner converted the last office to an apartment. Mr. Osika noted that there are no permits on either office being turned into an apartment. Mr. Michael Ruche, Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, LLC representing Lanzot Companies, LLC, stated that the city really left them no choice but to appeal because after his client bought the property, it is only when he converted that fourth unit to a rental that it became on their radar. He was trying to do everything properly and that is when it came to the city's attention and Code Enforcement and the Fire Marshal got involved. Mr. Ruche continued to state that his client received bad information unfortunately from his contractor and he went forward based on that bad information. Then after he had gone through the effort to convert that last apartment, he found out that there was a problem, and the real problem was the fire system. To do that fire system, Mr. Tetteh told him that it would cost him upwards of $50,000. Understanding that this building was built in 1880, it would be a massive undertaking to get it to current standards. He did contact the Becker Morgan group because he was

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 08, 2023 PAGE 8 trying to figure out what the best path forward was. Mr Ruche stated that he had provided a copy of that study to the board. Mr. Ruche stated that Section 5.0 is the that he believes is the relevant section. It is their argument that the sprinkler system should not be required because it is not technically infeasible due to the building being built in the 1880’s. It is not possible to actually do a sprinkler system without doing a complete overhaul and it would be prohibitively expensive. State Fire Prevention regulations do not require sprinklers for existing apartment buildings. They think that smoke detectors would probably be adequate. We are not talking about a large apartment building, it is probably less than five. He had the exact measurements, certain report, but it is less than 5,000 square feet for the whole building. So it is not a massive high rise, three story building or something like that. While it would be, and he agrees, a civil issue, it was advertised as a three apartment building when he bought it. Three of those four units are currently occupied. So someone would be displaced and there is going to be a tenant that loses their home. Mr. Ruche explained that no one really needs the commercial space right now. He stated that if you go to downtown Dover, there are all kinds of places empty, and people need places to live. People cannot find a place. You put a place up and it is gone in a day. So his client wants to be able to use this building for residential purposes and really has no choice but to appeal because the Fire Marshal said, “No, you cannot do that.” Mr. Ruche continued to state that what they are asking for is to allow a change of use so that all four (4) apartments can be rented, and his client certainly will be willing to do whatever is safe in order to do that short of a complete overhaul, which again, they believe is technically infeasible based upon it being cost prohibitive. Mr. Ruche noted that he has read through the codes, there is a lot in there trying to interpret what the best course of action is, but he is not changing more than 50% of the building. So there is some stuff in the administrative code. It is in section 1.0, Automatic Sprinkler Systems. It says that in Chapter four, Section 1.1, that this chapter shall apply to all building structures, marine vessels, premises, and places, which are modified by one than 50% after the effective date of the regulations. Mr. Ruche stated that he believes that the regulations were in 2009. Mr. Ruche explained that he is not 100% sure without going through the whole thing, but he has not modified more than 50% of the building. Three of those apartments were there when his client bought it in November of 2020. They would have to displace a person if they had to go back to the two (2) and two (2). So they at the very least asked that his client be allowed to have three (3) and one (1) that it is currently, that is how it has been operating for years or his client would like to be allowed to have all four (4) units. If that requires further application, so be it but that is what they are asking for because of the cost of the sprinkler systems, it is prohibitive. He cannot spend $50,000 plus on that system and that is why they have appealed. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Osika stated that whenever someone has more than one unit, they only issue one license for that property. So even if they had a duplex, they only had one license. It would be a different fee and they would be charged for each unit. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Osika stated that the answer to his question is twofold. Eliminate the 50% because that does not even apply to this. What is triggering everything is the change of the occupancy classification by going from a business to an apartment. So it will be for both businesses that were changed to apartments without permits. One being with the current owner and one with the previous owner. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Osika stated that the code does adopt the International Fire Code. What they stick with is the NFPA code. So the city ordinance adopts state regulations, of which 50% of the

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 08, 2023 PAGE 9 package they are speaking of is the state regulations. Within the state regulations they then adopt the most recent NFPA codes and that is what they are looking at right now. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ruche stated that he understands how he bought it and that it would be a civil issue. It is still a change of use from the other apartment. So they have the electric accounts and the signed permits. When the previous ones were done, they only did two units. They were not going three (3) and four (4) because they were business occupancies. So his interpretation would be two (2) and two (2). Two (2) apartments and two (2) businesses because the proper procedure was never followed to convert them over. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Osika stated that it was not always three (3) and one (1). The third apartment is what triggers the apartment definition. Mr. Osika noted that Mr. Anderson is correct that it would be a mixed use as the two (2) and two (2). As soon as you hit a third apartment unit, that is when it changes occupancy. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Osika stated that in the code there is nothing about grandfathering properties in. So in the building and fire code, there is existing, so an existing building that is self- explanatory versus new. That is why the change to occupancy is key because that triggers the new version of the building. They need an architect to say this was two (2) apartments and two (2) businesses. Now they are going to convert it to three (3) or four (4) which triggers this. So it would show what the existing occupancy classification is, what the new one is going to be, and then what needs to be done per the building code and fire code to bring it in compliance with a new use. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Osika stated that in the 1800’s, he is going to assume it was a single family residence. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Ruche stated that the city has not set a precedence before with something like this nor has anything in Delaware that he knows of offhand, but this is not a court proceeding so it may be a little bit more difficult to find. Mr. Ruche continued to state that they were left with no good way to go other than to file an appeal. His client has been a solid citizen, and he has done everything, has been completely cooperative. He is just in a tough spot, and they ask at a minimum be allowed to keep it a three (3) and one (1) and particularly just because there will be a person evicted from the unit. Responding to Mr. Ruche, Mr. Anderson stated that that they are very cautious about interfering with sprinkler systems particularly with the fact that they have had a death that occurred regarding usually illegal apartment including one just a couple of years ago. So they are very cautious and he just wanted to let him know why they do not immediately jump on the things because they are life safety issues, which are very cautious to delve into. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. Osika stated that one of the options to go back to what it originally was, two (2) apartments and two (2) businesses. That would not require a sprinkler system. It depends how much work is done to demonstrate the 50% per code. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Ruche stated that are four (4) units, only three (3) of them have tenants. The fourth one has never been rented out because they ran into this issue. The three tenants have been there for years. So his client has not attempted to rent that unit until this was resolved. Mr. Ruche noted that the third and fourth apartments did not have permits.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 08, 2023 PAGE 10 Mr. Martin moved that they allow the three (3) apartments and one (1) business that was preexisting to this owner acquiring the property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and failed due to a two (2) to two (2) vote. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. Rocha stated that in this case, he is not comfortable based on their history of fires in apartments. The fact that the third and fourth apartments did not have permits. He is not in agreement with Mr. Martin’s motion. Mr. Rocha moved that Lanzot Companies, LLC return the property back to the two (2) apartments and two (2) offices immediately after the tenant in the third apartment has moved out. Lanzot Companies, LLC may proceed with changing the property over to the four (4) apartments which will require a sprinkler system, fire alarms, and other items deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal's Office and proper permits from the City obtained. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and carried with a three (3) to one (1) vote, Mr. Lewis voted no. Mr. Osika stated that if they still want to move forward with the four (4) apartments they can still proceed if he wants with the change of use. Mr. Anderson moved for an adjournment of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting, seconded by Mr. Rocha, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m. David L. Anderson Chairman DA/aw