CPMCBA Minutes and Attachment #1

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting was held on October 9, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. with Chairman David Anderson presiding. Members present were Mr. Martin and Mr. Neil. Mr. Lewis was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Hugg, Mr. Taraila, Mr. Coburn, and Ms. Devine. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Violations (Chapter 3 – General Requirements, Section 304 – Exterior Structure, 304.13 – Window, Skylight and Door Frames of the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code) – Appeal of Decision – 120 West Water Street (Edward Larrivee) Mr. Coburn reviewed the case history for 120 West Water Street. Mr. Larrivee handed out pictures to the board for review of other buildings within the City that have boarded windows. Mr. Coburn stated that while unfortunately it is true that other buildings in the City have boarded windows, most of them are vacant/abandoned, buildings that have been condemned, or buildings that are on the City’s dangerous buildings list to be demolished. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Coburn stated that a window can be removed if done properly which would include removing, framing, and putting siding over it. Mr. Larrivee’s painted board would not be considered acceptable per the code. The code refers to workmanship like manner, meaning a broken window is replaced with a fully operational window or fully removed. Mr. Larrivee stated that his store, Larrivee’s Designer Hardware had been in business in Downtown Dover for forty-four (44) years. He explained that the reason the window was boarded up was because birds kept flying into it and breaking it, which became expensive. He also stated that the window had been boarded up for fifteen (15) years during which time he had not received any complaints, so he felt it was acceptable. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Mr. Larrivee stated that the building is a tailor shop, a rental property above the tailor shop, and above that is the attic, which is unused. Mr. Larrivee stated that originally the board wasn’t the same color as the building, but when he repainted the entire building, he painted the board the same color so it wouldn’t look as bad. Mr. Neil stated that the board was trying to create a better environment within the City, and just because other buildings also are boarded up it does not make it okay. He stated that the pictures that Mr. Larrivee had provided all need to be taken care of and in order to do that they must start one house at a time. Responding to Mrs. Larrivee, Mr. Larrivee stated that the code does not specify that windows must be glass, it states that it must be airtight with no leaks, which it was and had been for fifteen (15) years.

Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Coburn stated that plexiglass windows are not usually allowed because they do not offer the same insulation as glass and in case of fire are hard to break and tend to melt. However, because this is an attic window it would not have the same rescue requirements as the first or second floor so it could be looked in to. Mr. Hugg stated that is was his understanding that the missing window sashing could legally be replaced with an attic ventilator which would keep the birds out and meet the code. Mr. Martin stated that he may need to recuse himself from the vote regarding this appeal because he worked with Mrs. Larrivee in the real estate business and considered the appellants to be friends. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Larrivee stated that he did not want to put a ventilator in because birds would go through it. He stated that he felt his only other option to keep animals out would be to put a big piece of plywood across the window which would look worse. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hugg stated that a pair of solid decorative shutters would work. Mr. Larrivee stated that because of the age of the house it is difficult to find shutters unless they are custom-made. He stated that he felt that if the City were to force him to replace the window every time an animal flew into it, that they should do the same for all the buildings he supplied pictures of in the City. Mr. Anderson stated that because Mr. Martin had chosen to recuse himself from the vote that he would serve as the second to allow for a vote. He stated that if Mr. Martin did not leave the room, the board would have a quorum and could proceed with the vote. Mr. Neil moved to uphold the inspector’s report. The motion failed for lack of a second, with Mr. Anderson voting no. Mr. Anderson stated that he opposed because the violation had been in its current state for years without issue. He stated that the ruling would stand because there were not enough votes to overturn it. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. Coburn confirmed that there was no fine issued currently. He stated that he would be willing to work with Mr. Larrivee and would give him the option to install plexiglass because it was not an occupied third floor or glass. Responding to Mr. Larrivee, Mr. Anderson questioned if thirty (30) days would be enough time for him to have the repairs completed, Mr. Larrivee confirmed that it would be. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. David Anderson Chairman RRC/TM/jt

S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS\10-09-2017 CPMCBA Minutes and Attachment 1.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Handouts provided by Mr. Larrivee

ATTACHMENT #1 Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Meeting of 10/09/2017