01-20-21 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 January 20, 2021 at 3:31 p.m. with Chairman Anderson presiding. Members present were Mr. Neil, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rocha. Ms. Steger was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Hugg, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Kopp, Ms. Bowen, Mr. Junge, Ms. Tauchus, and Mrs. Ramsey. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Due to Mr. Anderson’s limited access, Mr. Rocha presided over the remainder of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 8.4 - Uses Prohibited) - Appeal of Violation - 1131 South Bay Road (MHP Investments, LLC) Mr. Neil stated that he and Mr. Peter Schaeffer, Avenue Law, had a professional relationship. He explained that Mr. Schaeffer had done work for him, the previous owner of the property, which is Kings Cliff. Mr. Neil stated that he was an investigator of a complaint that was made on a change in the leases for the folks there that ended up costing him a large amount of money before it was sold. Mr. Neil asked Mr. Junge if he should recuse himself from this item due to his familiarity with that particular property and with Mr. Schaeffer on the other side, who he regarded as a friend. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Junge suggested that Mr. Neil recuse himself due to his friendship with Mr. Schaeffer. Mr. Neil recused himself from consideration of this item due to the conflict of interest at 3:34 p.m. Mr. Schaeffer of Avenue Law and serving as legal representation for MHP Investments, LLC, reviewed the history of 1131 South Bay Road. Mr. Schaeffer introduced Mr. Kevin Vallen, owner of MHP Investments, LLC, who purchased Kings Cliff in June 2016. Mr. Schaeffer stated that on Mr. Vallen's knowledge and belief, he obtained, in negotiating, the purchase of Kings Cliff, recreational vehicle lot rentals, was a continuous use of the property for approximately the past three decades with no interruption in use. Mr. Schaeffer stated that the City of Dover Ordinance #2018-01, Section 8.4, imposed a ban on year-round dwelling of RV’s in a manufactured housing zone. All references to dwelling seemed to indicate that the term was defined as a year-round residential arrangement. He noted that RV’s are typically not used as year-round dwellings, and that they are short-term lot rentals of less than six months, as such, there appears to be no violation under ordinance #2018-01. Mr. Schaeffer stated that even if temporary RV lot rentals fit into the definition of dwelling, Appendix B - Zoning, Article 7 - Non-conforming Buildings and Uses, states that any non-conforming use, except those non-conforming uses specified in Subsection 1.5, may be continued indefinitely. He noted that the non-conforming uses not permitted by this indefinite allowance are parking lots, junkyards, or open storage yards for materials and equipments which do not apply to RV lot rentals. Mr. Schaeffer stated that Kings Cliff rents the RV lots on a short-term basis, no longer than six months.

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2021 PAGE 2 Mr. Schaeffer stated that he previously discussed with Mr. Junge, the purpose statement of ordinance #2018-1, which states that the ordinance is intended to supplement rather than replace Delaware State law, Title 25 - Property, Part VI - Manufactured Home Communities, Chapter 70 - Manufactured homes and Manufactured Home Communities Act, which govern manufactured home community management and Title 24 - Professions and Occupations, Chapter 44 - Manufactured Home Installation, which governs mobile home installation. He stated that neither of these Delaware laws forbid RV lot rentals in an area containing mobile homes. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Code Enforcement, reviewed the City of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 8.4 - Uses prohibited. He stated that RV’s are not considered a manufactured home, there is a difference between a mobile home and a trailer and that what is in Kings Cliff is mixed use. He advised that there are vehicles which are RV’s, and mobile homes. Mr. Kopp stated that was where they were running into the conflict. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Mr. Junge stated that he and Mr. Schaeffer had discussed whether this is continued use. Mr. Junge advised that Mr. Schaeffer's stance was that it is because it was still an RV. He stated that he was not sure that was true. Mr. Junge stated that Mr. Schaeffer's interpretation may prevail if it was appealed to the Supreme Court, but that this was an analogy to a shed being on a property that becomes non-conforming. Mr. Jungle stated, regarding Mr. Kopp's statement, that if there was a mobile home on one of the lots that did not meet the current code, it would be grandfathered in until such time as they moved the mobile home. Mr. Junge advised that it does not mean one can move another mobile home on that lot that does not conform with the current code. He stated that he believed the City was on safe footing by saying that because the RV lots are no longer allowed by code, once the RV moves off of that lot, another one cannot be put there. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp stated that this violation was complaint driven and that since issuing this violation, he had received two other complaints from tenants. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Junge stated that this was not about any particular RV, it was about the use and that it was one interpretation. Mr. Junge stated that this case was open to interpretation, but his take was that since the RV's are there for a period of time, once they left it would no longer be non-conforming, however, that there was no case law on this situation other than the case that Mr. Schaeffer previously mentioned which was not exactly analogous to this case. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Junge stated that he was not aware of any code sections dealing with short term rentals. Mr. Jungle noted that the lack of case law was not necessarily a detriment. He explained that cases go to court all the time where there is no definitive case law either way. Mr. Junge stated that is what the courts are for, when it enter gray areas, the courts decide, then they have case law moving forward. He stated that if the City did have to go to court and lost, it would not mean that they made the wrong decision, it would just mean the court wanted a different decision. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. Schaeffer stated that 17 lots are utilized for RV's at any one time and that number had not changed since 2016 when it was purchased and presumably that was the same number of lots it had for decades.

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2021 PAGE 3 Mr. Martin stated that it seemed like a continued use for those lots, but he felt that they would be grandfathered uses since it was that way before there was a change. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that the initial complaint was a safety issue. He stated that the complaints he had received were an RV electrical box sparking at lot 152, trash and debris within the community, and the regular coming and going of RV's in the community. Mr. Kopp stated, regarding short-term use, that some of the RV's were well established with skirting around them and appeared to have been there for several years, much more than six months. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that the code had been written in 1976 and that it was written based on a manufactured home, which an RV is not, so it does not meet the standard of manufactured home. He stated that there is not a dedicated section in the community for RV's, instead they are mixed in with the manufactured homes. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Schaeffer stated that he imagined that there were records of when a RV arrived and left, however that was not in the issue, which instead was whether RV lots could be used at all within a manufactured home community. Mr. Schaeffer stated they could try to get records on specific separate transactions at least from 2016. Mr. Anderson stated that a few years ago there was a committee to examine non-conforming use and one of the things they found was that if the use of the property is done consistently without an interruption of a year, that the non-conforming use stays valid. He stated that there are non-conforming uses as old as him and at the time, they understood it to be used. He noted that with that in the records, he was weary of changing that interpretation at all. Mr. Anderson moved to grant the appeal made by MHP Investments, LLC. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, and the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code) - Appeal of Citation and Fines - 8 South New Street (James Sloven) Ms. Velvet Bowen, Code Enforcement, reviewed the case history for 8 South New Street. Mrs. Ramsey advised that she received correspondence from Mr. James Sloven, prior to the meeting, stating he would be unable to attend the meeting and that he would pay the $100.00 fine and continue to make the necessary repairs to the property (Attachment #1). Mr. Anderson moved that the $100.00 fine be reinstated, but that it would be frozen at $100.00. The case would start over again and it would be up to everybody to make sure the repairs were being made. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Martin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried.

CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2021 PAGE 4 Meeting adjourned at 4:16 p.m. Gerald L. Rocha Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Member GLR/MR/jt S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS\2021\01-20-2021 CPMCBA.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Correspondence dated January 20, 2021 from Mr. James Sloven

ATTACHMENT #1 Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Meeting of 01/20/2021 From: James Sloven To: Ramsey, Megan R. Cc: City Clerks Office Subject: Re: Appeal of Citation #19-00003386 and Related Fines - 8 South New Street, Dover Delaware Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:26:05 AM Ms. Ramsey, I was called in to work today and therefore will be unable to participate in today's teleconference. I will just pay the $100 fine and continue to make whatever repairs are still necessary. James Sloven 302-538-0153 -----Original Message----- From: Ramsey, Megan R. <mramsey@dover.de.us> To: James Sloven <jsloven@aol.com> Cc: City Clerks Office <CityClerk@dover.de.us> Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2021 2:46 pm Subject: Appeal of Citation #19-00003386 and Related Fines - 8 South New Street, Dover Delaware Mr. Sloven: Attached please find a letter regarding your appeal scheduled to be re-heard virtually by the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals on January 20, 2021 at 3:30pm. For your convenience, below please find the meeting participation information: Dial: 1-408-418-9388 Link: https://cityofdoverde.webex.com/cityofdoverde/onstage/g.php? MTID=eab13c222214d26e8eb9f8599e7d76756 Event Number/Access Code: 179 001 7731 Event Password: DOVER (if needed) Thank you, Megan Ramsey Administrative Assistant City of Dover, Delaware Email: mramsey@dover.de.us Phone: 736-4462 Fax: 736-5068