CPMCBA Minutes

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting was held on March 05, 2025, at 3:30 p.m., with Mr. Boggerty presiding. The members present were Mr. Campana, Mr. Neil, and Mr. Rocha. Mr. Martin was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Kopp, Mr. England, Ms. Brown, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Walls. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Rocha moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil, and unanimously carried. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE VIOLATION: Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XII - Vacant Buildings, Section 22-403 - Registration and Registration Fee - Appeal of Registration Fee – 851 West North Street (Olivia Smith) Mr. John England, Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed the case history for 851 West North Street. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. England stated that he closed case #14-0913 on January 15, 2025. He noted that on the same day, he opened a new case #25-0641, and after reviewing the utilities, he determined that the property was still vacant per the utility usage. Mr. England explained that as of this meeting, there had been 50 months of no water usage at this property. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. England stated that yes, the exterior of the property is maintained. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. England stated that he discovered this property when he did a report on vacant properties within the city. This is not an address that he checks month to month. After doing some research, that is where he found that it was a previous case from 2014. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Smith stated that she resides between her house and her mother’s house next door. She noted that she maintains both properties, but she lives at 847 West North Street. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England stated that they determine if a property has been unoccupied for 90 days, three (3) months, by examining its utility records. If the records show zero (0) water usage during that period, they consider the property unoccupied. Their reasoning is that even with minimal activity, such as flushing toilets or washing hands, would result in measurable water consumption. Mr. England noted that on their vacant building form that gets mailed to everyone who has a vacant property, it states that a vacant building means a building structure or dwelling that has been unoccupied for more than three (3) consecutive months or a commercial tenant space, greater than 10,000 square feet in an otherwise occupied building. This also includes a strip mall that has been left unoccupied for more than three (3) consecutive months. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England stated that when he took this position over, he was told that the standard electric usage for a house would be about 900 kilowatts. Mr. England noted that minimal electric could be the running of a refrigerator. Ms. Smith stated that 851 West North Street has been a mark of achievement and pride for her as her family home. She explained that she has had to sacrifice being at this property all of the time

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 05, 2025 PAGE 2 so that she could be next door, taking care of her mother, who has now passed away. She continued to state that she plans to look out for her family, but right now is not a good time for a family member to move in. Responding to Ms. Smith, Mr. England stated that he is appreciative of her taking care of the property as she has, but he is just doing his job. He is just following the ordinance that Council has set forth. He explained that if she were to pay the fee and register the home as vacant, it would not take the property away from her. It will give her a year to come up with a better plan to get someone moved into the property. Mr. England stated that when the fire department goes to the property, they need to know if someone may be trapped in the home or if it is a vacant property. It is currently a vacant property that must be registered, which includes a required fee. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. England stated that he sent his letter to her regarding her vacant building, asking her to register it and pay the vacant building registration fee. Mr. Neil moved to uphold Code Enforcement’s decision to declare the property vacant in its first year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Smith stated that, to be honest with him, she cannot give him a date because, financially, she is unsure of where her family is at the moment. She hopes that she is not forced to sell her home. Responding to Ms. Smith, Mr. Boggerty stated that they cannot force her to sell her home. It was just a suggestion of Mr. Neil’s in case there is no other recourse. Mr. Boggerty suggested renting the home as well. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Smith stated that she checks the home daily and makes sure that everything is working. She also noted that she stays overnight there sometimes as well. Ms. Smith explained that it has been a struggle to maintain the property on a fixed income. She stated that it is not a sore spot for the neighborhood. She prides herself on what she has done and what she is doing in that respect. Responding to Ms. Smith, Mr. England explained that Council implemented the fees in an effort to discourage properties from sitting vacant and falling into disrepair. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Sierra Brown, Code Enforcement Officer, stated that when she is traveling in the area of the city that she is assigned to and she sees a property that someone is not consistently sleeping in, she will send it to Mr. England to see if it is a vacant property. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Brown stated that in her professional opinion, yes, it is a vacant property. From a sympathetic standpoint, she can absolutely understand where Ms. Smith is coming from, but from a code standpoint, and as an inspector who does not do Mr. England’s job daily, she would still consider it a vacant building. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, clarified the definition of a vacant building according to ordinance 22-400. This includes any building or structure, as well as commercial tenant spaces larger than 10,000 square feet within an occupied building, that have been unoccupied for three consecutive months. Additionally, he highlighted section 22-401, which outlines the monitoring, inspection, and condition standards for vacant buildings. Specifically, it

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 05, 2025 PAGE 3 requires that these buildings be secured, that their exteriors be maintained in compliance with city requirements, and that their interiors maintain reasonable conditions, including functional utilities and freedom from trash and debris. Mr. Kopp stated that the property is not to be used as a storage that is unrelated to the form of use. So, although Ms. Smith is keeping the building upkept, she is keeping the building in accordance with code as spelled out in the vacant building ordinance. Mr. Kopp thinks that the intent currently, and the purpose of Code Enforcement, is to interpret the definition of the vacant building ordinance. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Rodriguez stated that, as Mr. Boggerty pointed out in subsection four (4), the property is currently undergoing environmental cleanup and assessment. That is an exception to the building. Mr. Rodriguez noted that four (4) exceptions could apply to her case. Responding to Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Kopp stated that the property is not going through an environmental cleanup; Ms. Smith is just maintaining the property. Environmental cleanup in this case refers to remediation efforts, such as asbestos removal. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that he is correct in that asbestos removal would be an excuse for the property being vacant due to it being unsafe for a period of time. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England noted that if they decide not to enforce the vacant building ordinance, they are going to set a precedent because he has another case where the subject clearly lives in Rehoboth Beach and is not at the property in Dover. So, if they allow one (1) case, then they are going to have to allow all cases. He believes that they are going to open up a big can of worms. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to prevent and deter vacant buildings, not to find loopholes in why they can allow vacant buildings. Mr. Kopp explained that if the building was not being maintained, then they would start the Dangerous Building process on it. Mr. Kopp continued to explain that any building left unoccupied for more than 90 days is a dangerous building by definition in the code. They use the vacant building ordinance to try to get these buildings occupied, but not cause the building to be demolished. Based on the facts, and due to the age of this building being vacant, it would not be at the top of list of the dangerous buildings if they were to pursue it. He knows that the vacant buildings keep coming up a lot and that there is a lot of effort that goes into this. He would just like to make sure that they are fair and consistent because he knows that Code Enforcement has been under attack quite a bit regarding consistency. He wants to make sure they are treating every citizen in Dover equally and that they are not picking or choosing in any way. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. England stated that there are numerous times that he goes to a building and finds individuals inside that should not be there. The safety concern is that she may be placed in a dangerous situation should she enter the property after a break-in. It becomes a safety issue for her, and he sees it happen all of the time. Responding to Mr. England, Mr. Boggerty stated that the property has been there for a period of time, and nothing has happened this far.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 05, 2025 PAGE 4 Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Smith stated that she has security at the 851 West North Street property and that she can monitor it on her phone. That will give her the protection that she needs, and it gives her a comfortable feeling. She also noted that she has security at the 847 West North Street property as well. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he understands that Code Enforcement is worried about setting a precedent, but he believes that it would be really hard to have Ms. Smith’s facts duplicated somewhere else. She set a precedent because she really is paying for the heat. The only thing that she is not using is the water. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that the issue does arise from time to time, and they are open to considering recommendations. He explained that their role is to enforce the ordinance established by Council, and if exemptions are to be added, they want to ensure those exemptions are properly incorporated into the code. Responding to Mr. Kopp, Mr. Boggerty noted that this is a growing opportunity while also pointing out that every case is situational. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. England stated that he understands the board’s position and that they want to make things right in good faith. The property is still vacant, so he suggested that they meet in the middle and not charge her the fee for this year. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. England stated that if, after the first year, there is still no water usage at the property, she would be required to register it again and pay the fees for the second year. Mr. Neil moved to uphold the Building Inspector's decision to declare the property vacant in its first year and waiving the associated vacant building fee for the first year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Responding to Ms. Smith, Mr. England stated that after one (1) year, it appears to be occupied by the usage amount, and he will close out the case. Mr. Boggerty 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 4:25 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Andre Boggerty Chairman AB/aw