CPMCBA Minutes

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting was held on August 07, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., with Mr. Neil presiding. The members present were Mr. Campana, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Martin and Mr. Boggerty (in at 3:45 p.m.). The staff members present were Mr. Kopp and Ms. Brown. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Rocha moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Martin, 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 - 3074 N. Dupont Hwy Ms. Sierra Brown, Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed the case history for 3074 N. Dupont Highway on behalf of John England. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Brown noted that payments have been made for two (2) of the four (4) years. She confirmed that the first year's registration fee was paid. However, she did not find a payment for the second year. The third year's $1,500 fee was paid, but the $5,000 and $750 from the second year remain unpaid. Therefore, this appeal addresses the $5,000 fee for the vacant building. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Brown referred to Mr. England’s notes, which indicate that roof work was performed. According to Mr. England, the active permits show that some work was done on the roof. Ms. Brown further explained that it appears Mr. England reported that the roof was being raised, but he noted that there was no evidence of additional interior work, and that progress had stalled for some time. This information was provided on July 12th. Mr. Jesse Allen noted that his divorce occurred shortly after he moved into the city. He had been under the impression that the city would provide sewer and water services up to the curb, but this was not the case. Although Mr. Allen understood the impact fees and associated costs, he found that he had to access the sewer across the highway. The divorce process took about two and a half years and was not finalized until February 2022, largely due to delays caused by COVID-19. Following the divorce, Mr. Allen sought architectural advice from Mr. Byler, who advised him to obtain a plan. Mr. Allen secured a plan but was unable to proceed with any work during the divorce. Once the divorce was finalized, Mr. Allen resumed working with Mr. Byler, who helped him finalize the plan. They completed this process by June 2023. With the plan in hand, Mr. Allen obtained the necessary permits from the City of Dover and began the project. He successfully completed the top roof and arranged for an electrical inspection. The shed was finished around October or November of last year. This year, rain caused some delays, but Mr. Allen managed to install the beams as instructed by Mr. Byler. He is now prepared to put on the roof, having installed the necessary supports. Regarding the sewer, Mr. Allen realized that he needed to install a septic system, for which he has obtained a permit. In September, he visited the City of Dover to arrange for his electric lines to be buried, as the existing overhead lines were tangled in a tree. However, he was informed that this could not proceed as planned due to a well in the area. Despite these challenges, Mr. Allen has been diligently working on the property for about a year, starting from September of last year.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 07, 2024 PAGE 2 Mr. Allen clarified that he purchased the house in its existing condition, which was vacant and lacked running water or utilities at the time of purchase. There may have been running water previously, and the property has heating, but he does not use it. The electricity remains connected, but he turns it off when he leaves to prevent break-ins. The property, which is near a trailer park, was in poor condition when he bought it, and he has encountered some problematic issues. Nevertheless, he continues to work on improving it. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Brown stated that, according to Mr. England’s notes, during his monthly 30-day inspections of his vacant properties, the building is always vacant, appears to be secured, and has no active electric service. Responding to Ms. Brown, Ms. Allen stated that it is active and that he gets a City of Dover bill every month. The bill is roughly $12, and the account is in his name. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that it could just be a service fee. The intent of having electricity in the property is to prevent expedited decomposition. Without active utilities, the building rapidly deteriorates due to exposure to the elements, especially since there are no windows. Heat, humidity, and cold air cause everything to buckle under these conditions. Mr. Kopp clarified that it appears that Mr. Allen purchased this property around May 20, 2013, according to Kent County records. This property remained vacant for six years until the first vacant building case was discovered in 2019, meaning it has been vacant for 11 years, assuming Mr. Allen bought it in the condition that he described. Based on the research and current records, a permit was issued on August 7, 2024, but there have been no inspections on that permit as of today. When they talk about an expedient manner, it is concerning that over a year has passed with no inspections since the permit was issued. Mr. Kopp apologized that he misspoke earlier, the permit was actually issued on June 20, 2023, not August. So, it has been over a year with no inspections, no work, nothing done on this building which has been vacant for 11 years. That is why Mr. England’s interpretation is that this does not meet the definition of an expedient manner as prescribed in the Dover Code ordinances under the vacant building provisions. Mr. Allen stated that the city has two different addresses listed with the City of Dover Electric Department which is causing some confusion. Mr. Allen noted that the city has mixed up the addresses, and he has let them know what in the past. The correct address should be 3074, not 1643 North DuPont Highway. He has let the city know that he pays his bill for 3074. Responding to Mr. Allen, Mr. Kopp stated that the bill shows just $12, which is only a service fee, not for actual electric usage. Responding to Mr. Kopp, Mr. Allen stated he is using electric to run my saws and everything else. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Allen stated that he is doing all of the work himself. Mr. Allen continued to state that he is asking for two (2) years and that includes all of the work. Mr. Allen noted that he has not been communicating with the city, he just has the permit. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Allen explained that this is the first notice he has received, as he did not receive any prior notices. He mentioned that he had the property up for sale and received a notice, after which he spoke with Code Enforcement. Last year, they informed him that everything was fine, but this year the situation is completely different, leaving him unsure why he is even here.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 07, 2024 PAGE 3 Mr. Kopp explained that the purpose of the vacant building ordinance, which was adopted by city council, is to prevent vacant buildings within the city. That is his interpretation of the ordinance. It works by gradually increasing fees each year as a deterrent. In the first year, the fee is $375; in the second year, it is $750; the third year is $1,500; the fourth year is $3,000; and for the fifth year and beyond, the fee is $5,000. The reason for these escalating fees is to discourage long-term vacancies within the city. In his view, the ordinance is designed to motivate property owners to take action on their vacant buildings. Mr. Kopp stated that the issue at hand is that he has previously been granted exemptions from the fees. However, now that they are in the fifth year, they need to start making decisions about fairness. Both code enforcement and Mr. England’s interpretation is that it is neither just nor fair to continue granting exemptions at this stage. The building has now been vacant for 11 years, not just five. In his opinion, as the Chief Code Enforcement Officer, it is not justified to grant any further extensions. They have other citizens who are paying their fees for buildings that have been vacant for five (5) years, and the penalty is intended to deter prolonged vacancies. Granting an exemption under these circumstances contradicts the purpose of the ordinance, which is to address extended vacancies and to serve the interests of the community. This is why they are addressing this issue today. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that he is unsure what was on the property before it became vacant but recalls that it has been a vacant building since at least 2013. Mr. Kopp noted that Mr. Allen purchased the property in 2013, so it is unclear how long it has been vacant since then. The purpose of the ordinance is to address and reduce the number of vacant buildings. This property technically falls under the Dangerous Building Ordinance, as any building that remains vacant for more than 90 days is subject to this ordinance and potentially to demolition. While the Vacant Building Ordinance aims to prevent such demolitions, this property’s extended vacancy and lack of utilities contribute to its rapid deterioration, making it subject to the Dangerous Building Ordinance. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Allen stated that Mr. England has not gone inside the building and that he plans to turn it into a hair salon. Mr. Allen explained that as he mentioned, he feels like he has not been given enough time. He has been working on this property for almost a year, though it might not even be a full year yet. The property was indeed vacant, but he did not want to start significant work without doing things properly. He could have just started tearing it apart without notifying anyone, but he chose to handle it the right way. Mr. Allen would just like to complete this project. He understand the reasons for the ordinance and why the property has remained as it is. The situation was complicated by personal issues, including a difficult divorce that delayed progress. Mr. Allen was hesitant to invest in the property while facing the possibility of losing it. It took me about three (3) years to resolve those issues, and that is why the property has been sitting for so long. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. Kopp stated that the $5,000 fee is the maximum amount, but it will be charged annually. Each year, the fee will be $5,000. The purpose of this fee is to encourage the elimination of vacant buildings. The ordinance has a graduated fee structure for the first five (5) years: it starts at $375 in the first year to give property owners the opportunity to address issues. This case originated in 2019, and there may have been exemptions granted previously, but the fee structure is designed to escalate to incentivize timely action.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 07, 2024 PAGE 4 Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that there has been leniency and exemptions granted in good faith over the years. However, when they reach the fifth year, it becomes difficult to justify granting another exemption, especially after providing them in years one (1) through four (4). The initial exemptions were intended to offer grace and time to bring things up to standard, but by the fifth year, it is hard for the city to continue offering exemptions. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated the code does not specify exact timelines, but it does require that work be completed in an expedient manner. In his interpretation, if work is only starting in the fourth or fifth year, that does not meet the standard of expediency. Years one (1), two (2), and three (3) are when the work should have been underway. Waiting four (4) or five (5) years to begin work and then seeking an exemption for expediency does not align with the intent of the code, especially since the project has already been delayed for three (3) years. That is not what they would consider expedient. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp explained that the way the code works is that they are paying for the actual year. So, for instance, they might be exempted from paying the $375 fee for one (1) year, but if they are not exempted in the second year, the fee increases to $750. The exemption only applies to that specific year’s fee and does not prevent the escalation of fees in subsequent years. There are cases where people pay the fee and continue working on their building. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Allen stated that he believes he received his divorce decree in 2022. Mr. Allen continued to state that the property settlement came after and was completed in 2022. He went right to Mr. Byler afterwards to get the paperwork done which took a year to complete the plans. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that if it was in the second year the fee would be $750. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Allen stated that if he had a deadline, he would most likely be able to complete everything in less than two (2) years. Responding to Mr. Kopp, Mr. Allen stated that regarding the timeline, it depends on how fast he works. As he mentioned, he has had some difficulty getting things done, but his plan is to finish within two years (2), hopefully before then. That is what he is aiming for. Responding to Mr. Allen, Mr. Kopp noted that this is where code enforcement finds it challenging, when a building has been sitting for as long as this one has. Mr. Kopp explained that to be fair, they do have compassion for Mr. Allen’s situation, but they must also consider the broader responsibility they have to the citizens of Dover. So, is it fair just grant Mr. Allen a two (2)-year extension from today to complete this work when they are holding others to the same standard? The big question here is, how do they justify giving Mr. Allen two (2) years? If they granted Mr. Allen two (2) years today, they would need to pause enforcement for everyone else to be fair, consistent, and just in upholding the code. That is just not feasible. Ms. Brown clarified that, despite earlier claims of no communication with Mr. Allen from the city, he was indeed informed about the situation. Mr. Allen is actually the one who registered the building as vacant. He was met on-site by Ron Coburn in December 2021, during which they discussed the condition of the building, the interior was gutted, and half the roof was missing. Mr.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 07, 2024 PAGE 5 Allen acknowledged that he was aware he would need permits and mentioned that Bill Byler would be drawing up plans for submission. This conversation took place in December 2021. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp explained that to obtain a permit for this project, they would need to undergo multiple inspections. Since the building is down to the studs, the Mr. Allen needs inspections for electrical work, plumbing, mechanical systems, and the roof, among others. The permit process involves several steps, including pre-drywall and pre-plumbing inspections, depending on what is required. It is not a matter of simply completing the work and then moving on; each stage needs to be inspected to ensure compliance with code. One issue they have encountered is that people sometimes complete all the work and then have to tear it out because inspections were not performed at the appropriate stages. Ideally, inspections would be conducted as the work progresses, such as when the building inspector signs off on pre-drywall work to ensure everything is done correctly and in an expedient manner. Mr. Kopp continued to explain that, for the permit issued on June 20, 2023, there have been zero inspections recorded. This indicates that, despite the permit being renewed, the required inspections have not been completed, meaning the work is not progressing as required. Their interpretation is that the completion of inspections demonstrates that steps are being taken towards compliance. Without these inspections, the project is not considered to be moving forward in an expedient manner. Responding to Mr. Allen, Mr. Neil stated that he is asking them to support his project for his benefit, which places a heavy burden on taxpayers to accommodate Mr. Allen’s timeline and costs. No one else can do that, no one else is allowed to delay or defer their responsibilities in the same way. Mr. Neil did not understand why this situation should be treated differently. If everyone else had the same approach, saying they are working on it and will pay when they have extra funds, there would be no end to such delays. If Mr. Allen cannot afford the project, perhaps he should consider selling the property or recouping his investments in other ways. Mr. Neil explained that they cannot support his budget or extend the timeline for completing this work. Their priority is to protect the city, especially given the number of vacant properties they already have. Mr. Neil noted that Mr. Allen is asking for an extension that could stretch beyond two (2) or even three (3) years. If that is the case, the building will remain open and problematic, whereas other projects must meet specific deadlines. It seems unreasonable to make an exception in this case. Therefore, Mr. Neil cannot support any changes to the current requirements because the extended timeline Mr. Allen proposes is not feasible for bringing the property into compliance. Responding to Mr. Allen and Mr. Neil, Mr. Boggerty stated that he definitely echoes his colleague’s concerns and understands Mr. Allen’s situation well. However, even considering that things can happen, they are now faced with the reality of a two(2) year delay. They need to figure out how to move forward from here. While he does not believe in scrutinizing another person’s finances, Mr. Allen has mentioned having $10,000 available this year and possibly another $10,000 next year. From his perspective, it seems likely that the total cost of the project will exceed $20,000. For context, Mr. Boggerty previously owned a barber shop and a hair salon, and just the initial furniture alone cost more than $10,000. In essence, Mr. Allen is asking the board to accept a $10,000 budget for this year and wait to see progress, which is a significant concern. They need to consider whether this approach is viable and fair to everyone involved.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 07, 2024 PAGE 6 Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Allen stated that he anticipates the entire project will cost roughly $80,000. He explained that he will begin incurring more expenses once work starts on the blacktop, sidewalk, electrical work, and other related tasks. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Allen explained that while he does have the funds available, he does not plan to invest all of it in the project this year. His budget for this year is $10,000, and he estimates that next year’s budget could be either $20,000 or $30,000, depending on how quickly the work progresses. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. Allen stated that right now he is just working on the building on the weekend. Responding to Mr. Allen, Mr. Campana noted that he has experience in construction and used to sell materials to contractors. He stated that the project at hand is quite extensive and typically requires more than one (1) person to complete. It is not feasible for a single individual to handle all the tasks necessary for the property. Additionally, the longer the work is delayed, the more the condition of the property will deteriorate, and the costs will continue to rise. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that next year, it will be an additional $5,000 fee. Mr. Allen is currently at the maximum amount, so every year, it will be an extra $5,000 until the work is completed. They are at $5,000 now because they are in the fifth year. Mr. Kopp noted that he believes that code enforcement’s interpretation of the code was correct. On behalf of code enforcement, he feels that the $5,000 fee is justified and that the appeal should be denied. Mr. Rocha moved to deny the appeal made by Mr. Jesse Allen and to uphold the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer to declare this property in its fifth year of vacancy and to apply the fifth-year vacant building registration fee, in the amount of $5,000. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campana and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for an adjournment of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting, seconded by Mr. Rocha, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Andre Boggerty Chairman AB/aw