CPMBCA 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 June 25, 2020 at 3:06 p.m. with Chairman Anderson presiding. Members present were Mr. Neil and Mr. Martin. Staff members present were Mr. Junge, Mr. Hugg, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Lewis, Ms. Bowen, Mr. Akers, Mrs. McDowell, Mr. Young, Ms. Tauchus, and Mrs. Ramsey. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Chapter 22 - Building and Building Regulations, Article XII - Vacant Buildings, Section 22-403 - Registration and Registration Fee) - Appeal of Registration Fee - 135 Lotus Street (Ronald D. LaSana, & Constance R. Maher) Mr. Ron Coburn, Code Enforcement, and Mr. Hugg, Planning and Inspections, reviewed the case history for 135 Lotus Street. Mr. Maher stated that he and Mr. Lasana are co-owners of the property and it is presently on the market. He stated that he spoke to their realtor and was told there was a signed agreement and it should be sold shortly. In response to Mr. Maher’s statement, Mr. Martin confirmed that the property had been on the market for nine (9) days and was being actively marketed by Monica LeBlanc from Diamond State Cooperative. Mr. Neil stated that if that is the case there is no need for the board to take action and wished Mr. Maher luck with getting the property sold. Mr. Neil moved to accept this appeal contingent upon the listing being delivered to Planning and Inspections. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Chapter 22 - Building and Building Regulations, Article XII - Vacant Buildings, Section 22-403 - Registration and Registration Fee) - Appeal of Registration Fee - 108 West Loockerman Street (Hogan J. & Sung S. Lee) The appellant was having trouble entering the virtual meeting, Mr. Anderson stated he would entertain a motion to defer this item until the end of the meeting to give the appellant an opportunity to appeal. Mr. Neil moved to defer the item to the end of the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Violation (Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds, Section 114-32 - Maximum Height) - Appeal of Citation and Fines- 44 South Governors Avenue (Nicholas Calvano) Mr. Phillip Lewis, Code Enforcement, reviewed the case history for 44 South Governors Avenue. Mr. Lewis stated that due to COVID-19 the department had modified its practice for issuing a tall grass reminder to two weeks instead of the usual one week allotted.

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PAGE 2 Mr. Calvano stated that he had not received a summons in the mail, he only received the final citation with the fine which arrived after he had already cut his grass. He explained that the carburetor on his lawn mower was malfunctioning and he was unable to take it to be fixed because shops were closed due to COVID-19. He stated that because of this he had to take it apart and clean it himself to get it back in working order; after the lawn mower was fixed he cut his grass. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Calvano confirmed that since his lawn mower has been fixed his grass has remained cut and he was asking for leniency due to the state of emergency preventing him from getting his lawn mower repaired. Mr. Neil stated that he commended Mr. Lewis for doing the job he was hired to do but felt that leniency at this time was worthwhile in light of the pandemic and its restraints on citizens as well as the financial strain associated. He stated that because Mr. Calvano rectified the situation promptly he was willing to dismiss the case. Mr. Neil moved to dismiss the citation and fine. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Violation (Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds, Section 114-32 - Maximum Height) - Appeal of Citation and Fines- 448 North State Street (Alan P. & Janis T. Gaddis) Ms. Velvet Bowen, Code Enforcement, reviewed the case history for 448 North State Street. In response to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Bowen stated that the wild flowers Mr. Anderson was referring to at Dover High are a part of a designated meadow, which is something that the Planning department designates as not needing to be mowed. She stated that she had informed Ms. Gaddis that she was not aware of any other designated meadows, but if she wanted to have the property certified as a designated meadow she would have to go through Planning and Inspections. Mrs. Gaddis explained that it is not a meadow but a planted garden of clover they specifically planted for bees. She stated that if anything other than clover pops up she pulls it including flowers and grass. She stated that it had taken two years to get the clover to grow fully. Mr. Gaddis stated that they had provided updated pictures to show the work that had been done to the garden including edging and a pathway around it to show that it was a purposely planted area. He stated that the pictures that Ms. Bowen had taken on June 2nd did not reflect what the area looks like now. Mr. Gaddis explained that he and his wife have been Wildlife Habitat certified by the Wildlife Federation for the past two years. He stated that they had attempted to grow grass since purchasing the house in 2008 and even had a lawn service for four (4) or five (5) years and regardless of what they tried they were unable to grow grass. In response to Mrs. Gaddis, Ms. Bowen stated that this violation was not the result of a complaint, she was responding to a complaint down the street but it is a code enforcement practice to address any visible violations in the direct vicinity of the property they were called to. She stated that another

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PAGE 3 property down the street was in a similar situation and she had explained to that property owner that gardens have to be cultivated and maintained free of weeds. Ms. Bowen stated that after the work that the Gaddis’ had put into fixing up their garden she believes Planning would need to determine whether it’s cultivated or not. Mr. Anderson stated that the first pictures taken by Ms. Bowen it did not look like a garden but after the notice was given he felt that their actions to beautify the area had paid off and in his opinion fell within the code for a garden. Ms. Bowen agreed with Mr. Anderson and stated that after a brief discussion with Mr. Hugg he would be willing to accept it as a garden as well. She stated that if she were to receive a complaint in the future, she would be able to reference back to this appeal to show that it is a clover garden and has been approved by the director of Planning and Inspections. Mr. Neil moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Chapter 22 - Building and Building Regulations) - Appeal of Decision and Vacant Building Registration Fee - 40 Ridgely Street (Robert A. & Nancy M. Kauffman) Mr. Greg Akers, Chief Building Inspector, reviewed the case history for 40 Ridgely Street. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Akers confirmed that the square footage and change in occupancy classification trigger different requirements like sprinklers and other code requirements. In response to Mr. Neil, Mr. Akers stated that there are codes adopted by the City of Dover including property maintenance code, international building code, and the existing building code which are also inclusive of the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations which is what’s being referenced in this case. He stated that pursuant to the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations as adopted by the City of Dover sprinklers would be required for anything exceeding 10,000 square feet, and the building’s most recent submission was 15,232 square feet. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Akers stated that the International Building Code is used specifically for commercial construction, International Residential Code is used for single family dwellings and two family, and Existing Building Code (IEBC) is used when referencing existing buildings. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Akers stated that the previous potential tenant (Agmatic) was proposed as a Factory One (1) and the existing permit was issued as is without change until the Fire Marshal’s Office approached him to say it is not a factory, it is being used as storage. He stated that in his original meeting with Agmatic, Mr. McGinnis was not onsite and the tenant was not aware of the previous use, so the submission was based on the information he provided as a F1, the assembly of sprayer equipment and machinery for agricultural.

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PAGE 4 In response to Mr. McGinnis, Mr. Akers stated that after a brief discussion with Mr. Coburn the appeal of the vacant building fine would be contingent on the outcome of the appeal of decision. Mr. McGinnis stated that while a plan was submitted for Agmatic and Carl DiPiazza about eighteen (18) months prior, that plan was never approved and they never got a building permit for that company or use. They did get a structural permit to fix the exterior walls. Mr. McGinnis stated that his understanding of the code was that a property being 10,000 square feet alone does not trigger a need for sprinklers. If however, a property is 10,000 square feet and has a change of use, or is 10,000 square feet and you make more than a 50% modification to the building you trigger the need for sprinklers. Mr. McGinnis stated that he believed the property was zoned M (Manufacturing) from it’s construction date or sometime before until it was rezoned. He stated that the M zoning permits storage and warehousing as well as manufacturing. Mr. McGinnis stated that the previous owner, UL Harmon, used the building for storage since it was constructed in 1965. He stated that the current owners, Mr. and Mrs. Kaufman, had purchased the building in 1985 for storage of furniture inventory. Mr. McGinnis explained that the Kauffmans leased the building in 1997 to Playtex for storage of product and display material. After Playtex terminated their lease in 2001 the building was leased to M&M Pallet Company and was used for storage and some repairs if pallets were damaged. Mr. McGinnis called attention to the letter that Mr. McLaughlin wrote stating that he only ever used the property for storage. Mr. McGinnis stated that Mr. McLaughlin’s business license as a manufacturing use dates back to 2008 because the building was zoned M at that time and Mr. McLaughlin was a small business man trying not to ruffle too many feathers. Mr. McGinnis stated that the Manufacturing zoning would have expired one year after Mr. McLaughlin closed without a replacement tenant in the manufacturing use at which point it should have reverted back to the previous use of storage and warehousing. He stated that in July of 2010 the property was rezoned C3 to accommodate an auto repair business in the small building next to the Kauffman’s. He explained that he had been marketing the property as a warehouse for a long time, he believed since 2010. Mr. Akers stated that land use is very important but they do not speak to the specific requirements for the building’s occupancy classification nor does the tax assessment. Mr. Akers stated that the permit that Mr. McGinnis provided for this appeal is a residential renovation permit and that the repairs in question were not a code issue so he was unsure of where this permit came from. In response to Mr. Akers, Mr. McGinnis stated that the permit was issued by the City of Dover Department of Planning and Inspections. Mr. McGinnis stated that in April of 2020 he contacted Mr. Akers to inform him that he had a prospective tenant and needed to execute construction plans that he had submitted a year prior for Agmatic. Mr. McGinnis stated that Mr. Akers informed him he would need to resubmit the plans.

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PAGE 5 Mr. Akers stated that he required a re-submission because the permit had been approved and issued when submitted on behalf of Agmatic as an F-1, and changes were made after the fact as an addendum for S-1 use. Mr. McGinnis stated that the issue of sprinklers is life safety and he believed there are more employees in manufacturing than storage, and there is a fire hydrant located across the street. He stated that the tenant, by virtue of his contract, is required to install fire detectors and heat sensors so there will be adequate fire detection in the builidng. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. McGinnis stated that he has a prospective tenant, Bonnie Moving and Storage, and they are ready to go and there are no clean hands issues on the property. Mr. Neil moved to wipe out the existing case and start over without penalty provided the Kaufman’s put in for what the use will be, and if it requires heat that it be implemented and the vacant building fee be waived provided Mr. McGinnis submits a signed lease for the property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Chapter 22 - Building and Building Regulations, Article XII - Vacant Buildings, Section 22-403 - Registration and Registration Fee) - Appeal of Registration Fee - 108 West Loockerman Street (Hogan J. & Sung S. Lee) Mr. Ron Coburn, Code Enforcement, reviewed the case history for 108 West Loockerman Street. Mr. Lee stated that his building had been vacant for seven (7) years and during that time he had tried to sell it numerous times. He stated that he is requesting a six (6) month extension on the lease and for fees to be waived due to the pandemic’s effect on the economy. Mr. Lee stated that he also felt that the tax assessment for his building is too high. He explained that he previously had a gentleman make an offer but they refused to buy once they saw how high the assessment was. Mr. Lee stated that he had also tried to use the building for the Korean Senior Center or worshiping center for the church but was denied twice by the City. Mr. Lee stated that he is retired and living on a limited income and is unable to pay the fees associated with the building but the national economic situation is making it impossible to sell. Responding to Mr. Lee, Mr. Anderson stated that he felt a Korean Center was a fine idea and encouraged Mr. Lee to work with Planning and Inspections on that matter. He also encouraged Mr. Lee to speak with the Tax Assessor’s office regarding the assessment of the building. Mr. Neil moved to grant the extension for 3 months beginning on June 25, 2020 after which time the board will check back with Mr. Lee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PAGE 6 David L. Anderson Chairman *AMP/JS/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS\06-25-2020 CPMBCO Minutes - MR.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Correspondence from Alan P. Gaddis received on June 24, 2020

ATTACHMENT #1 Contrstuction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Meeting of 06/25/2020 06/24/2020 Thank you for the opportunity to appeal the citation referring to the height of our “grass” dated June 2nd, 2020 (received on June 6th) with a compliance deadline of June 12th. The lawn used to be sod, installed by the previous owner, and looked good in 2008. However, despite our using a lawn service for several years, the grass began to die off due to the shade from the linden tree on the left side, two trees on the right side and the two trees at the curb. Over the years we tried reseeding with shade tolerant grasses but to no avail. After some research we decided to plant a shade tolerant clover garden. As a Master Gardener with organic practices, I take this very seriously. We installed a “Rain Garden” in the back with mostly native plants five years ago. In May of 2018 our property became a “Wildlife Habitat”; both are registered with the National Wildlife Federation (attached are the Habitat requirements.) We planted the clover garden in a section of the right side of the front yard. Clover is a valuable addition to a landscape, adding nitrogen to the soil, requiring low maintenance, effectively reducing runoff due to no added fertilizer or excessive watering and – most important of all – attracting honeybees and other bee species which pollinate 80% of all U.S. grown crops. Our clover garden compliments the pollinator garden planted further back in the right side of our yard. We found nothing in the City Codes indicating that we shouldn’t do this. It has taken us these past two years to develop a plan for our front yard and gardens and to put it in place. It takes a while for two people in their 70’s to get some things accomplished, particularly considering the heavy rains and heat. The Code Officer stated that the included photo was taken from a car. Had it been taken from the sidewalk, the clover would have been obvious.