CPMCBA Minutes

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting was held on March 19, 2025, at 3:32 p.m., with Mr. Boggerty presiding. The members present were Mr. Campana, Mr. Neil, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Rocha. Staff members present were Mr. Kopp, Mr. England, Ms. Duca, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Walls. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil 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 –74 Carnoustie Road (Craig Forster) Mr. John England, Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed the case history for 74 Carnoustie Road. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. England clarified that the water usage issue involved random periods of non-use, not a continuous six (6) month period. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. England stated that there had not been three (3) straight months of water usage. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England explained that they define a vacant property as being unoccupied for at least three (3) months, and they use water usage as a key indicator. Normal occupancy involves regular water use, such as flushing toilets and showering. Therefore, roughly 20 months of no water usage suggests that the property is vacant. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. England stated that they rarely encounter situations where homeowners claim extended absences, such as a six (6) month stay in Florida, to dispute vacancy. If they did, the Code Enforcement department would document their absence and work with them. However, most vacancies arise from complaints or visual inspections, not homeowner reports. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. England pointed out that the continuously lit porch light when Ron Coburn first entered the case suggested the property was unoccupied. He stated that the driveway remained snow-covered for days after a snowfall, indicating a lack of regular maintenance. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. Forster stated that his permanent residence is at 74 Carnoustie Road but that he is living in a rental house down at the beach. Mr. Forster noted that he spends most of his time down at the beach. Mr. Craig Forster stated that he understands the intent of the ordinance, which he believes was written in 2006, and was likely adopted due to neglected properties. He would not want to live next to an unmaintained house. He values his neighborhood and is aware of the issues. He is trying to comply with the regulations. If he intended to use the property solely for storage, he would disconnect all utilities. However, he uses the house periodically. Responding to Mr. Forster, Mr. Neil stated that what troubles him is the undeniable evidence of minimal water use. A dollar here, two (2) dollars there, nothing for months. This is not a maintenance issue; it is the fact that it is a crime magnet. Vacant houses are a major problem in

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2025 PAGE 2 the City of Dover, attracting criminal activity. The sporadic water usage, or lack thereof, suggests the property is vacant and vulnerable. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Forster stated that he does use the water. Responding to Mr. Forster, Mr. Neil noted that if the property's facilities are not being used, it is vacant. Even if he is maintaining it, a vacant property attracts criminal activity that impacts the entire neighborhood. While he has his reasons for keeping the house, they must address the risks it poses to the community. Someone would value that property and purchase it at a fair price, given its location. While Mr. Forster’s beach trips are understandable, the property attracts crime. The minimal water usage, a dollar here, two (2) or three (3) there, proves it is not being used as a residence. While they appreciate Mr. Forster’s maintenance efforts, the property still qualifies as vacant. Responding to Mr. Neil and Mr. Forster, Mr. Rocha stated that he always follows up with the comment that they are not advising Mr. Forster to sell his house. Mr. Rocha noted that the house would me a good rental property. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Forster indicated his goal is to sell the house within the next few months, after completing the painting. He has lacked storage at his beach property, but that does not mean he has not been using the house. He does acknowledge the low water usage. However, his combined electric and water bills are around $1,000 per month, and his gas bill is approximately $600 per month. Responding to Mr. Forster, Mr. Neil stated that typically, Code Enforcement will suggest a timeline, perhaps three (3) months. They are not focused on the fee; they are concerned about the property's current impact. If that is the case, he is willing to explore a suitable agreement. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Forster stated his intention to sell the house this year, as soon as he finishes painting. He could not provide a specific date. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, read into the record the definition of a vacant building as written in the code. Section 22-400, Vacant building means a building, structure, or dwelling that has been unoccupied for more than three consecutive months; or a commercial tenant space greater than 10,000 square feet in an otherwise occupied building, that has been left unoccupied for more than three consecutive months. He noted that he knows the water usage is disputed here, but he thinks that the major issue here is the definition of code. So, their definition of being unoccupied is that nobody is living there. So, he believes the question for the board now is to define unoccupied, since it is not fully spelled out in code. So, their interpretation of it is that nobody is living there. Although he knows there was a discussion regarding vacation houses, and this could potentially be a vacation house. There is no exemption for a vacation house or that kind of property in the code. So, Mr. Kopp noted that the biggest question for this board is to define unoccupied. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that technically his property would be vacant if he got rich and moved out of state because the water usage is a tool that they use to determine vacancies. An individual cannot live in the house without taking a shower, brushing their teeth, or flushing a toilet. No one is in the house for more than 24 hours without flushing a toilet. That is going to register some kind of water. So that is why they use the water usage report. To Mr.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2025 PAGE 3 Boggerty’s point, if he won the lottery and moved away, his house would be a vacant building according to the code by their interpretation, because it would be left vacant for more than 90 days. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. Forster stated that he has gas heat in the home. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. England stated that for the first year registration, the fee would be $375. Mr. Kopp clarified that, in regard to the exemption in the code, the exemption applies if the property is currently for sale. However, since they do not have a confirmed sale date, they cannot grant an indefinite exemption. Providing a specific timeline would allow them to better assess the situation. Mr. Kopp explained that to qualify for the exemption, they would need proof of an active listing from a real estate agent. While Mr. Forster does not have that currently, it would be a straightforward exemption next year if the property remains listed. However, a four (4) month timeframe is too long; their standard processing is within 30 days. Given the extended vacancy, the exemption is not applicable at this time. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Kopp stated that ultimately, the board will decide. However, his primary concern is maintaining consistent application of their policies. They generally operate within a 30-day timeframe, and he is hesitant to deviate from that, as it would create a perception of inconsistency. Therefore, he recommends adhering to 30 days, though the final choice is theirs. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Forster noted that 30 days will be challenging, but he thinks that 60 days would give him more time. Mr. Forster explained that it is a possibility to have the home listen within 30 days, but can continue to work on it. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that Mr. Forster would be covered for a year without needing to list it immediately, if he pays the $375 fee. Mr. Forster would still need to register it as vacant and pay the associated fee, but he would not face additional penalties for the next year. If he lists it before next year's registration date, he will qualify for the exemption and save $750, as the second-year fee is $750. This is just an option available to Mr. Forster, not a requirement. Mr. Kopp noted that they are offering this as a potential way to alleviate the financial burden, not forcing a sale. Responding to Mr. Kopp, Mr. Forster stated that he cannot confidently commit to listing the house in 30 days. He genuinely wants to sell it as quickly as possible, but that timeframe feels unrealistic. Mr. Forster disagrees that it is a vacant house because he has been actively using the house, visiting regularly, and working on it. If they are unwilling to grant him a reasonable timeframe, like two (2) months, he will have to formally challenge the vacant status. It is not vacant. Responding to Mr. Forster, Mr. Kopp explained that for Code Enforcement, they have to be consistent. Though they do not have the final say, it is important that they document their established practices and recommendations for the board's consideration. Mr. Martin stated that he is a Real Estate Associate Broker and that there is a 'Coming Soon' category in the multiple listing service. This would allow Mr. Forster to get a signed listing agreement and a sign in their yard within 30 or 60 days, even if the property is not immediately available for showings. 'Coming Soon' listings were previously limited to 21 days, but that

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2025 PAGE 4 restriction has been removed. This approach would satisfy the listing requirement, as it demonstrates a formal listing agreement. Responding to Mr. Campana, Mr. Martin explained that there is no longer a time restriction. The 21-day 'Coming Soon' limit was removed in August of last year due to ongoing lawsuits against the real estate industry. While he personally felt 21 days was sufficient, the legal challenges forced a change. However, it is important to note that no agent would realistically keep a property in 'Coming Soon' status for an extended period, like six (6) months. This option is meant for short term. Mr. Kopp recommended a 'Coming Soon' listing within 30 days, followed by an active listing within 60 days of this meeting. This provides a contract and a 60-day limit, potentially resolving the issue if the owner lists. Mr. Kopp noted that failure to comply would reinstate the $375.00 fee. Responding to Mr. Forster, Mr. Kopp acknowledged that Mr. Forster was disputing the building's vacancy status. Mr. Kopp explained that Mr. Forster resides in Rehoboth Beach permanently, and he visits the 74 Carnoustie Road property periodically. Unoccupied is not spelled out in the definition within the code, which is up to the board to interpret to determine if the Code Enforcement Officers interpreted the code correctly. That is the intent of this board. So, if Mr. Forster does not live in the property, at least 30 days out of the month, then it is unoccupied. That is their opinion, and anytime somebody challenges their opinion or interpretation, because they are all subject to interpretation, that is the point of this board. When their interpretation is incorrect, which there are times that they interpret things incorrectly, that is the purpose of this board. So, he would think that what is up for interpretation right now is unoccupied. So, although Mr. Forster visits the home, they consider it unoccupied, but the board may consider it occupied. Responding to Mr. Kopp, Mr. Martin noted that the interpretation that has been used for as long as he has been on this board is utility usage. If Mr. Forster is not using utilities, then he is not there. Mr. Campana noted that if Mr. Forster paid the $375 registration fee, then he would have a year from when he registered the property vacant to complete any work on the home before listing the property. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp explained that if Mr. Forster does not comply within the 60 days, the city will register the property, and the billing will be forwarded to Customer Service for placement on the tax bill. Mr. Neil moved for Mr. Forster to list 74 Carnoustie Road as a 'Coming Soon' listing within 30 days, and as an active listing within 60 days of the meeting, with a signed realtor agreement for both. Failure to comply with these directives will result in the city registering the property as a vacant building after 60 days. Applicable fees will then be transferred to Customer Service and added to the property tax bill. The motion was 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 –266 East Sheldrake Circle (Tawana McCutcheon)

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2025 PAGE 5 Mr. John England, Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed the case history for 266 East Sheldrake Circle. Ms. Tawana McCutcheon stated that regarding the water usage, she spoke with Mr. England and reviewed records back to August 2024. Her new job as a registered nurse requires frequent travel to Philadelphia, often with overnight stays. Since August, she has been spending more time there. She had gathered bills showing the highest electricity and water usage during those periods. Her schedule is now more consistent as she is home from Friday to Monday night, and in Philadelphia for about three (3) nights a week. Initially, during her new job's training period, she stayed in Philadelphia more frequently. However, she has adjusted my schedule. Her utility bills, including this month's Chesapeake bill, reflect this change. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. England stated that there were only four (4) months of active usage within a 14-month timeframe. Mr. Martin stated that he wanted to know if there are more than three (3) consecutive months with zero (0) water usage. He noted that he does state that there are three (3) such months. Responding to Mr. Campana, Ms. McCutcheon stated that this is her permanent home and that when she is in Philadelphia, she stays at her parents’ home. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. McCutcheon stated that a single person uses significantly less water than a family. It is just her and her dog living there. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that they use the consumption that is listed on the reports. He also noted that water charges on the bills could be the monthly service fees. Mr. Kopp clarified that zero (0) means zero water usage for the month. A one (1) signifies usage between one (1) and 1,000 gallons. A two (2) means between 1,001 and 2,000 gallons, and a three (3) means between 2,001 and 3,000 gallons. Essentially, each number represents thousands of gallons. Even using just one (1) gallon will register as a one. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, stated that she was previously a Public Works Manager and in charge of the water/wastewater utilities. She pointed out that they should remember the water meter measures in thousands of gallons. That is not a single gallon of water on the report, it is 1,000 gallons. In order for the meter to turn to that next reading, it has to have 1,000 gallons of water to go through it. So, if she only uses 500 gallons this month, which considers 1,000 gallons is equated to one (1) person, if she is there less than seven (7) days a week, she may not turn that extra notch to get to 1,000 gallons. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Duca stated that zero (0) means that they have not met the 1,000 mark. Ms. Duca noted that one (1) of the things that they want to look at is multiple zeroes in a row. If an individual goes six (6) months in a row with zeroes, she doubts that they are using only 100 gallons a month if they are taking a shower on a regular basis. Responding to Mr. Campana, Ms. Duca stated that yes, they are slowly turning the dial on the meter. She continued to state that the meter readings do not actually say one (1), they say like 5,452, so next month it will be 53 and so forth.

CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2025 PAGE 6 Ms. McCutcheon clarified that she is not a travel nurse and that she does have a permanent position. With her new schedule, she will be there four (4) days a week. She may still stay out two (2) to three (3) times a week, but four (4) days a week. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. McCutcheon stated that this is opposed to driving an hour home. She is trying to save some time on the road to be safe, not sleepy while driving. Responding to Ms. McCutcheon, Mr. Kopp stated that he wanted to just point out that in looking at her usage, there is a nine (9) month gap with nothing but zeros with no one (1) in between. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that the 1,000 gallons of water per month per person is an estimate. Ms. Duca continued to state that they needed to think about the fact that the 1,000 gallons is an estimate over a 30-day period for one (1) individual. Responding to Mr. Martin, Ms. Duca explained that in terms of the last case, she thinks it should be noted that there were numerous months in a row with a zero (0). If there are only 14 months over a 60-month period and it took them that long to get to one (1), then that is not continuous. Mr. Kopp suggested that when reviewing the ordinances, maybe they should include something for travel nurses or medical doctors so that it is more clear-cut for Code Enforcement. Mr. Kopp noted that they do not have leniency, but they could when they are looking into adopting ordinances. Mr. Campana moved to suspend the vacant building registration fee. Mr. Rocha moved to grant the appeal and not place the property of 266 East Sheldrake Circle on the Vacant Building Registry. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campana and unanimously carried. Mr. Boggerty moved for an adjournment of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting, seconded by Mr. Campana, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Andre Boggerty Chairman AB/aw