CPMCBO Minutes

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting was held on September 7, 2016 at 3:30 p.m. with Mr. Perza presiding. Members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Martin (arrived at 3:37 p.m.). Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mr. Coburn, and Mrs. Stein. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Election of Chair Mr. Lewis moved to nominate Mr. Anderson to serve as Chair, seconded by Mr. Perza. Mr. Anderson was unanimously elected to serve as Chair. Property Maintenance Citation (Vacant Building) - Appeal of Decision (Annual Vacant Building Registration and Registration Fee) - 168 North Edgehill Avenue (Atkins) Mr. Perza explained that the owner of property at 168 North Edgehill Avenue filed an appeal on June 29, 2017 indicating that she objected to the City’s declaration that this property was vacant. He noted that there had been several hearings regarding this matter had been rescheduled for a variety of reasons relating to inconvenience. Mr. Perza advised that members were present to take evidence and testimony from the property owner; however, the property owner was not present and had not filed an application for a continuance of the meeting. He questioned whether members should proceed and take testimony from the City and make a decision based on that without having the petitioner present. Mr. Perza indicated that, after reviewing the meeting packet, there did not appear to be a letter of advocacy, noting that there was email correspondence indicating objections to the declaration of vacancy and a request for the hearing. He advised that he did not read or observe a document that reviewed the substance of why the property should not be declared vacant, and he did not know what the basis of the property owner’s appeal was. Mrs. Townshend noted that there was nothing stating that the property was not vacant. Mr. Anderson stated that Ms. Atkins did not indicate that she was under medical care, the property was being marketed, or any of the normal exceptions. Mr. Perza indicated that the Sec.22-405 of the Dover Code includes the types of buildings that are eligible for exemption status; however, no documentation had been provided and there was no denial that the property was vacant. Mr. Lewis moved to dismiss the appeal in lieu of the fact that the applicant was not present and had not provided any substance to why was she was appealing. Mr. Perza stated that the City had issued a vacancy notice and, although it would not be opposed today, he thought it would be prudent for purposes of creating a record to proceed and document why

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PAGE 2 the notice was issued. Mrs. Townshend stated that this would include how staff determined the property to be vacant. Mr. Ron Coburn, Inspector II, stated that he had been a Code Enforcement Officer with the City for 15 years and had been in charge of vacant buildings for approximately the last two (2) years. He advised that on May 5, 2016, he received an email from the licensing staff stating that 168 North Edgehill Avenue was no longer a rental and was vacant, per Ms. Angela Atkins, the owner. Mr. Coburn indicated that he had checked electric usage, which had been very minimal at under 100 KW per month since March 13, 2015. Mr. Coburn stated that there had been no water usage at the property since the last tenant vacated the property on December 31, 2014. He advised that he checked both County and City tax records and determined that Ms. Atkins was the owner and her mailing address was 211 Ingram Street. Mr. Coburn indicated that the electric service was active; however, the bill was being sent to 211 Ingram Street. He stated that a certified letter was mailed to the owner at that address on May 5, 2016, asking her to register the dwelling as vacant within 30 days and to advise of any exemptions that may apply. Mr. Coburn explained that the letter was returned and the property was posted on June 6, 2016. He noted that a certified letter was mailed on June 6, 2016 stating that the City had registered the dwelling as vacant, with payment due within 30 days. Mr. Coburn indicated that Ms. Atkins filed an appeal on June 29, 2016 with the City Clerk’s Office, and it appeared that she was determined that it was not vacant; however, he did not know what the basis of her appeal was. Mr. Anderson stated his understanding that there had been no occupancy for approximately 17 months before Mr. Coburn became involved. Responding, Mr. Coburn explained that staff typically uses water usage rather than electric usage as a measure because residents need water to flush toilets, brush their teeth, and do dishes and laundry, and there had been no water use since December 31, 2014. Mrs. Townshend stated that when licensing staff renews rental permits, they are sometimes informed by permit holders that a property is no longer a rental but is vacant. She explained that this property was turned over to Mr. Coburn because the owner had advised that she was not renewing the rental permit. Mr. Anderson asked when the owner had stated that the rental permit would not be renewed. Responding, Mr. Coburn stated that he received an email from Mrs. Kristen Mullaney, Licensing and Permitting Supervisor, on May 5, 2016 indicating that Ms. Atkins had called and stated that her property at 168 North Edgehill Avenue had been posted for not renewing her rental license. She stated that her property was vacant and no longer a rental. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Coburn advised that buildings that are vacant for 90 days must be registered as vacant by Code. He noted that in December 2016, this building will have been vacant for two (2) years, and it had been more than 90 days since the owner indicated that the property was vacant.

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PAGE 3 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Coburn stated that, as of this morning, the building was still vacant. Mr. Coburn indicated that he had checked the utilities this morning and there was still no water usage, and he expressed his belief that the electric usage last month was very minimal at approximately 50 KW. Mr. Perza asked if this amount of usage was consistent with what the City records in other unoccupied dwellings, and Mr. Coburn stated that it was. Mr. Perza stated that, pursuant to Sec. 22-400, a vacant building is defined as “a building, structure, or dwelling that has been unoccupied for more than three consecutive months.” He noted that testimony proved that the property was believed to be vacant since December 2014, and utility use tracked by the City was consistent with other unoccupied or vacant buildings within the City. Mr. Perza advised that no persons had been observed to be occupying the premises at anytime since December 2014, and the license for the rental unit had been surrendered or was no longer in force. He stated that, based on the property owner not residing on the property and being addressed at a different location, there was no reason to believe that the premises were occupied. Mr. Perza noted that there had been no exemptions claimed or reasons stated under Sec. 22-405 as to why it may be vacant but exempt. Mr. Perza moved to uphold the decision of Code Enforcement staff to declare the property vacant and to deny the appeal, based on the testimony provided and failure of the appellant to make any exceptions known to the City and to provide the City with any documentation as to the basis of vacancy or non-vacancy. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Jody Stein, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, referred to the history of Scheduling of Meeting to Hear Appeal of Decision and advised that there were repeated attempts to reschedule the meeting, noting that the dates were changed several times at the request of the applicant. She explained that she had spoken with Ms. Atkins on the previous day to let her know that she had an opportunity to request a continuance and asked that Ms. Atkins let staff know whether or not she wanted to do so. Mrs. Stein stated that she had also encouraged Ms. Atkins to file any additional paperwork related to her case; however, no additional information was received. Mr. Perza stated that members would have been receptive to any type of application for continuance and that the Board is always best served when those who are affected are present. He indicated that Ms. Atkins probably would have been given the benefit of doubt if a reason had been given to reschedule the meeting for a future date. Mr. Perza noted that no request for a continuance was made. Mr. Anderson advised that he likes to make sure that people’s rights are protected, and it appeared that the City had gone out of its way to ensure this. He stated that it appeared the building was vacant; however, Ms. Atkins had a right to appeal and nothing to lose by doing so.

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PAGE 4 Mr. Lewis noted that the email from Ms. Atkins dated June 29, 2016 stated in the last sentence that, “I have some questions I would like to have answered when possible.” He asked if anyone in the room had been asked those questions. Responding, Mrs. Townshend advised that the email also stated that Ms. Atkins had indicated that she “spoke with Tom,” which Mrs. Townshend stated she believed was a reference to Mr. Tim Taraila, Chief Building Inspector. Mrs. Townshend expressed her belief that, if Ms. Atkins had spoken to Mr. Taraila, he would have been able to answer any questions. She advised that staff could answer the questions; however, at this point the fee would stand if the motion were approved. Mr. Perza moved to uphold the decision of Code Enforcement staff to declare the property vacant and to deny the appeal, based on the testimony provided and failure of the appellant to make any exceptions known to the City and to provide the City with any documentation as to the basis of vacancy or non-vacancy. The motion was unanimously carried. Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 3:48 p.m. Adam Perza Chairman DLA/JS/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS\09-07-2016 CPMCBO Minutes -MR.wpd