CPMCBA Minutes and Attachment

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting was held on May 08, 2024, at 3:33 p.m., with Chairman Anderson presiding. The members present were Mr. Campana, and Mr. Rocha. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Martin were absent. The staff members present were Mr. Kopp, Mr. England, and Ms. Duca. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Campana moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, 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 –19 North American Ave. (Mark & Robin Achenbach) Mr. John England, Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed the case history for 19 North American Avenue. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England stated that they work with the residents and if they extend the permit, then he considers that in good faith to not proceed with the fees. So, they waive the fees because they have active permits. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England stated that he cannot answer the question legally and he is not in the permit section. So how they handle permit issuing would fall under the permits department. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England stated the utilities are being used and that the window permit, which was initially pulled in 2020 has been extended four (4) times. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, stated that to clarify, the permit by code is subject to extension. It is not something that they can control by code. It says the permit can be extended every six (6) months. It is not an approval or denial. Once the permit is issued, they can extend it. Right. So, they would have to come to City Hall and pay for an extension. He believes it is $25 for each extension but it is not an approval process. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. England stated that per the City of Dover Code under Article 12, Vacant Building, Section 22-405, Exemptions, B number two. It says that for the exemptions part of it, the owner has obtained a building permit and is progressing expediently to prepare the premises for occupancy. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. England stated that the last extension that he could see on record was April 10th, 2023, which extended the window permit for the fourth year. Mr. England noted that the building has been vacant for 10 years. Mr. Kopp stated that since they are talking about permits, it looks like currently all the permits have been closed. The window one, it looks like the final inspection was done. There are no active permits for the property.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 08, 2024 PAGE 2 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. England stated that because the code says for the 1st year vacant, the building is $375, the second year is $750, the third year is $1,500, the fourth year is $3,000 and 5th year and longer is $5,000. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England stated that the permit paused the citation or fee but that the property has still been vacant for years. Ms. Achenbach explained that she and her spouse jointly purchased their home, which is a duplex. They live at 21 North American Avenue, and the vacant building that is being discussed is 19 North American Avenue, which is attached to their property. When they bought 21 North American, it was an old house built in 1900, full of quirks like uneven floors and creaking windows. They took on the challenge of remodeling it, transforming it from a modest six-room duplex into a three-story, 12-room home. This project involved a lot of hard work from an architect, a construction leader, and their family members, including her husband, father, father- in-law, and herself. They added three (3) floors, tore off the kitchen, and created a 17 x 34-foot addition. The result was a beautiful home valued at $450,000, which they believe contributes positively to the City of Dover. They had hoped to do something similar with 19 North American Avenue, but the journey has not been easy. Ten years ago, the property was a source of constant trouble. The previous owner, who had rental properties in Dover, unfortunately, allowed it to become a problematic place. The police were frequently called, and there were issues with drugs and violence. The house is located just half a block from a school, and it was distressing to see students pass by a place where such activities were happening. One morning, she found syringes and other debris on the street, which pushed them to buy the house to put an end to the problems. However, this property has turned into a money pit. They have spent roughly around $11,000 a year on renovations, fees, and fines. They have done a lot of the work themselves with some help from professionals. For example, the windows were delayed during the pandemic due to supply issues, and two (2) were broken when they finally arrived. Despite these challenges, they have kept the utilities on, maintained the property, and tried to keep it presentable. They have also continued to maintain the property by keeping the utilities on, cutting the grass, and paying city taxes. As for the ongoing work, they have been diligent in following guidelines. Last year, they were advised that no permit was needed for the electrical work, as the electrician would handle that. The electrical system in the house was outdated, with screw-in fuses and exposed wiring, which was unsafe. They have made significant progress, and the electrician is scheduled to finish the work. Mr. Achenbach stated that over the years, they had Rose Construction working on the house, and the gentleman in charge was responsible for gutting the interior. They were under the assumption that he was handling the necessary permits, but unfortunately, due to medical and physical issues, he had to leave the project. Since then, they have taken over to keep the renovation moving forward. Currently, they are working with Mr. Byler, an architect, who is preparing the renovation drawings. During a recent walkthrough, Mr. England suggested that they simply cut a door through the wall, which got them thinking about their future needs. He will be 69 this year, and his spouse will be

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 08, 2024 PAGE 3 67. With her mother, who is 95 and suffering from dementia, potentially needing to move in with them, they decided it was the right time to renovate for their elderly years. They have already been to the city, updated the deed to consolidate the properties into one (1), and received approval to convert the duplex into a single-family dwelling. This is the direction they are heading with the project. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Achenbach stated that April 12, 2024, was the date that the plot plan was recorded with the Recorder of Deeds. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp clarified that they have completed the initial site plan. The building is treated separately from the site plan, as construction typically begins with a site plan. This plan addresses elements like the number of trees required, parking spaces, and other similar details. The building itself is exempt from the site plan because it requires a separate process, including architectural designs and a building permit. To explain further, while the land has been consolidated into a single parcel, the buildings remain two distinct entities. So, even though it is now one piece of land, there are still two separate buildings on that land. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Achenbach stated that they started this process in February 2024. She continued to state that she contacted the city to ask about the process they needed to follow to get this done. She spoke with Dawn over the phone and then met with them in person. They submitted their paperwork, including an application. Since they had two different deeds and surveys, and the original surveyors were no longer available, one had passed away, and the other had sold their business, they had to hire Siteworks to create a new plot plan. This cost an additional $1,200 to file. Responding to Mr. Campana, Ms. Achenbach stated that yes, they would get rid of one of the addresses and make it one house. They have an architect; Mr. William Byler is their architect. He has been working on this. They put him on hold until they got the approval from the City. Now the next step is that they bring in their plans and the architect is working on those right now as they speak. They will come, the city will then approve those and then they can then file for the construction permits because they do not know what they need at this point in the construction. The next step involves submitting their plans, which the architect is currently working on. Once the city approves the plans, they can apply for the necessary construction permits, as they are still determining what specific permits will be required. Mr. Achenbach explained that after Mr. England and his supervisor visited the property, he halted work because he was unclear about the situation. They had not applied for any permits yet, as they were receiving conflicting information, one person said they did not need a permit, while the city indicated they did. He emphasized that they have no issue with obtaining a permit once the matter is resolved. Mr. Kopp read into the record an email from Katherine Oehmke, sent on April 15th, 2024, at 11:33 am, regarding her meeting with Mrs. Achenbach. (Attachment #1) Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Achenbach explained that there is an existing door between the two buildings. When they renovated their side, they simply drywalled over it, but the door is still present on the other side. He mentioned that he could easily cut out the drywall with a utility knife, revealing the passageway. It is not large, but it is there on the second floor.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 08, 2024 PAGE 4 Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mrs. Achenbach noted that the door was built when the house was built, but they also have plans to put another existing door downstairs too obviously. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp clarified that it is common to find older homes, especially from that era, with a dividing door between duplex units. Even if the property was originally built as a duplex, these doors were often included. Many people later sealed them off, so they might not even realize the door exists. He noted that this feature is common in very old homes throughout the city, particularly in historic Dover. These doors were typically locked with a skeleton key, similar to old hotel room doors. It is a practice he has seen frequently in his experience, where duplexes had these doors, and some have since been converted into single-family homes with the doors sealed over. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp noted that they can transfer it to a single-family dwelling, but it takes an architect and building permit. Responding to Mr. Kopp, Mrs. Achenbach noted that is where they are now. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Achenbach noted that they have another question for the city regarding the electrical setup. Specifically, they need to know whether they require one meter for both sides or if adjustments need to be made. When they rebuild, the current power panel would need to be routed to the other panel in the existing house. These are some of the questions they need to address. Mr. Kopp clarified for the record that the city's position on this matter is that the vacant building ordinance is intended to ensure buildings are occupied, especially in cases like this one where the property has been vacant for 10 years. Although the owners are now going through the renovation process, the city believes that sufficient time has already passed to complete the necessary work. Given the age of the case, the city cannot justify granting further extensions or exemptions. Other property owners have been held accountable and completed full remodels within similar time frames, so the city is maintaining the same standard here. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp noted that during the February inspection, the house was down to the studs, and new electrical wiring had been installed. In his opinion, taking 10 years to complete such work is not expedient. Mr. England noted that when Mr. Coburn initially assessed the property 10 years ago, the plan was for only minor renovations as the son and mother-in-law were moving in. However, the current interior inspection reveals major renovations and installations throughout the property. Mr. Kopp noted that they took a picture to prove that the work was completed, and the roof was finished to close out their permit. He has not verified whether a permit was obtained. For clarification, Kent County does not have jurisdiction in this matter. Mr. Kopp clarified that electrical work does not require a permit on its own; it is considered a separate entity. However, renovations like those done in this case do require a permit. The city does not have a licensed electrician for inspections, which is why electrical work is handled separately. It requires an electrical inspection with a control number, and a meter will be placed as part of this process. For other building work, such as a major renovation, they still need to submit electrical details within your architectural drawings. While the city reviews these details, they do not conduct inspections of the electrical work itself to ensure everything is correct.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 08, 2024 PAGE 5 Mr. Kopp stated that Kent County permits are available online if someone searches by the address. He did not find any permits for this address. It seems they pull records from the county. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. Kopp clarified that according to Kent County records, which are based on the deed, 19 North American Avenue is listed as a single-family dwelling. This means it is considered a separate entity and not attached to any other property. It can be changed but it is a process. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mrs. Achenbach stated that they are working on the necessary process, but they need to complete certain steps first. Unfortunately, they had to pause Mr. Byler's work, but he is now back on track. They expect to have the final plan ready to submit to the city next week or the week after, along with the required documents and a PDF. They are following the city's instructions and are committed to meeting their requirements. Over the past 10 years, they obtained permits as requested. Unfortunately, they had a contractor who they believed was handling the permits but, as it turns out, was mismanaging the funds instead. She just wanted to clarify the situation. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mrs. Achenbach noted that such issues can occur, and they have been transparent about them. Ron worked with them over the past 10 years, during which the city approved extensions and exemptions. They are concerned that they are being penalized for the 10- year timeframe, despite having received the necessary extensions. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Achenbach stated that they had initially considered setting up 19 North American Avenue to satisfy city requirements so it could be rented, while also exploring the possibility of moving to their property in Farmington for retirement. However, after reflecting on Mr. England’s comments and the situation, it became clear that it made more financial sense to combine 19 and 21 North American Avenue. His son, who was supposed to live there, got married and is now living elsewhere. They are now focused on potentially accommodating his wife's mother, who will likely need continuous care in the near future. Currently, her three (3) daughters visit daily to ensure she receives her meals and medication. Additionally, he wanted to address the 10-year timeframe, as they have been responsible for property expenses during this period. Mr. Achenbach stated that the house is paid. During that time, they were still paying for the property, which limited the amount of income they could invest in it. Now that those payments are completed, they are ready to move forward, but it feels like progress is being hindered. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr England stated that when they send out the letter and assess the fee, it is entered into the system. If an exemption is requested and granted, the fee is removed from the system. If no exemption is requested, the fee is transferred to customer service. The fee he implemented is based on the ordinance for buildings that have been vacant for 10 years or more. According to the ordinance, the fee for such a vacant building is $5,000. Mr. England stated that Mr. Coburn may have let others slide but he is following the Ordinance. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Achenbach requested a list of specific metrics that they need to meet. They are currently operating in the dark, relying only on what the previous enforcement officer told them. When he researches online, there are no clear definitions or timelines for what constitutes 'expedient.' For example, does 'expedient' mean five (5) years, ten years, or something else? They need clear, established metrics to understand what is expected and how to proceed.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 08, 2024 PAGE 6 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Achenbach stated that they did understand, and by good faith, they thought they were following what the city wanted. They had one of their city representatives there, code enforcement that was with them and checking what they were doing. Until last year, there were not any pictures taken. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Achenbach stated that if that gentleman had informed them that they needed a renovation permit, they would have gone to the city. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Achenbach noted that they are not avoiding the permits. Mr. Kopp explained that looking through the system, he could see that items three (3), four (4), and five (5), based on the notes, were placed on the tax bill, which means that fees were assessed. So that would have been a fifth-year registration. They grant extensions, and they do it all the time, but they are 10 years into this case, and people have been held accountable for far less. Their interpretation of the code is five (5) years. The code does not really grant them, especially in code enforcement, the leniency for compassion. They have to follow the code as written. If they were to grant any kind of leniency on this, he would highly recommend setting a clear deadline, whether it is one (1) year, six (6) months, or so on, after which all fees would resume. Set a firm date, and it looks like $5,000 was previously assessed, so that is what they would base their assessment on moving forward. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp noted that it looked like year three (3), four (4) and five (5) had all been assessed, after which exemptions were granted, resulting in a six (6) year exemption period. One of Mr. Kopp’s recommendations, as discussed in the context of the code, is to further specify the guidelines and implement a two-year cap on exemptions for permits. This would prevent situations where a subjective decision is required. Therefore, his recommendation, if an exemption is granted in this case, is to set a definitive cutoff date for when fees resume, with no further exemptions allowed beyond that point. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England stated that permits typically last six months. He noted that because permits have not been issued, the city has shown leniency, as they could have issued violations for the absence of permits but chose not to. Which then the violations could turn into citations but that has not taken place. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mrs. Achenbach stated that Mr. Byler, their architect, indicated that he would have the final plans ready to submit to the city within two weeks. Mr. Achenbach was unsure of the timeline for approval but noted that, according to Dawn, it would likely take three to four weeks. Once the next approval is received, they can file for the construction and demolition permits. The process will take some time, as it involves tearing down and rebuilding a room due to the foundation issues. Responding to Mr. Campana, Ms. Achenbach stated that she believed the project would take approximately 18 months to complete but expressed hope that it could be finished in under a year. Mr. Kopp clarified that when they close out a case, whether it involves a vacant building or demolition, the process is not complete simply by issuing a permit. The permit must be signed, sealed, delivered, and officially closed. Once it is closed, the issue is resolved, and they document it, accordingly, noting the closure date. The reason for this is that building inspections are handled by professionals in that field, while their role in property maintenance is to verify that permits are

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 08, 2024 PAGE 7 fully closed out. So, within the timeline, the requirement is that permits are finalized, with no outstanding issues or delays. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp noted that it appeared they were aware of the $5,000 assessment. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mrs. Achenbach confirmed that they were aware of the fee, although they did not agree with it. They paid the fee and moved on. Responding to Mr. Kopp, Mrs. Achenbach stated that they encountered issues due to not having a permit on time. The records show that they made multiple calls and were in communication about the permit, but there were delays. The process is bound by a strict timeline. She submitted the form on the 8th, and the city contacted her on the 12th, which left a short window for compliance. They received the $5,000 assessment bill before the actual closing, which was on April 11th. She indicated that they had completed the necessary steps and that this was approved on that date. They then proceeded with the single-family plan, and the plot plan was approved. Now, they need to present the next plot plan with all code assessments and levels to the planning office for approval. Once that is done, they can obtain the necessary permits for demolition. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that the initial $5,000 payment would have been made years ago, with the last $5,000 payment occurring in the fifth year. Since 2019, there has been an exemption. Mr. Kopp explained that, according to the code, a vacant building is not assessed by steps or the number of citations issued but rather by years. He assumed this was the intended approach when the ordinance was enacted. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. Kopp stated that once the permit is closed, it will effectively close the case. The finalization of the permit is crucial, as it consolidates the address into a single- family designation. Even if the work is ongoing, the case remains open until the permit is finalized. He mentioned that obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is part of the process, which confirms the transition to a single family. While this will require some effort, it is certainly achievable. Once the permit is finalized and the final CO is issued, the case will be considered closed, with records showing that all required steps have been completed. Mr. Rocha moved to grant the appeal and give the appellants until May 8, 2025, to bring 19 North American Ave. into compliance. Subsequently, this property may undergo a review by Code Enforcement and the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campana and unanimously carried. Mr. Campana requested that the appellants keep Mr. England updated with their timeline and next steps. Responding to Mr. Campana and Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Achenbach stated that from this point on, they will adhere to the guidelines the board has provided. They are working with an architect to ensure they follow the proper process. She previously obtained written guidelines and took them to Siteworks to confirm their requirements. Mr. Byler also reviewed these requirements for the next step. As deeds and other documents are returned, they will provide the requested items, including a PDF of the deed, three (3) copies of this document, and their site plan for the next approval phase. Once everything is submitted, she will send them an email to confirm that it has been filed with the city. She is unsure of the exact next steps, but she assumes the documents will go to planning.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 08, 2024 PAGE 8 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Achenbach stated that if they fail to keep the timeline, they will automatically be assessed the $5,000. Mr. Rocha moved for an adjournment of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting, seconded by Campana, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. David L. Anderson Chairman DA/aw Attachments Attachment #1 – Email from Katherine Oehmke

Attachment #1 Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting of 05/08/2024 Walls, Ashley A From: Kopp, Eddie L Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 2:59 PM To: Walls, Ashley A Subject: FW: 19 N American Ave Eddie Kopp Chief Code Enforcement Officer City of Dover, Delaware 302- 760-4929 Phone 302-736-4217 Fax ekopp@dover.de.us From: Oehmke, Katherine M. <koehmke@dover.de.us> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:49 AM To: England IV, John G <jengland@dover.de.us> Cc: Kopp, Eddie L <ekopp@dover.de.us>; Bailey, Michael <mbailey@dover.de.us> Subject: RE: 19 N American Ave PS-She has not provided the City the required copies of the recordation at the county.. The engineer is “working on it”. From: Oehmke, Katherine M. Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:33 AM To: England IV, John G <jengland@dover.de.us> Cc: Kopp, Eddie L <ekopp@DOVER.DE.US>; Bailey, Michael <mbailey@DOVER.DE.US> Subject: RE: 19 N American Ave Meeting with Mrs. Auchenbach is complete. We told her she needs to submit her building permits. That any activity (and made a point of referencing internal demolition) needs a permit. The lot line adjustment only modifies the property boundaries, not the building itself. She asked for our time frame for permits, Dawn said that usually its 30-60 days. She supposedly has an architect on board, she would not say who. We told her at this point if she has any questions about what is required for her building permits, she should talk to the building department. She intends to take the back portion down and rebuild in the same footprint. That supposedly they were always 1 building, with a door opening. They will “open it back up”. Still needs to be documented and follow building code. I hope we were clear enough. From: England IV, John G <jengland@dover.de.us> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 7:51 AM To: Oehmke, Katherine M. <koehmke@dover.de.us> Subject: 19 N American Ave Good Morning, Can you stop and see me this morning in reference to Final Plan Approval MI-24-04 1

Thanks, John England Code Enforcement Officer / Inspector II City of Dover 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE. 19904 302-736-7015 P 302-736-4217 F jengland@dover.de.us 2