TranscriptMay 7, 2020 ~ Appeals Board Meeting

in on the discussion. Um, you know, given that there's a quorum here. So, I'm going to leave you guys to it and um hope that both parties here, all parties are able to reach an agreement. Thanks, Paul. Thank you. And and I also want to thank staff uh and of course the uh the appellant um for the work that they've done on this. Thank you. Okay.

Good night, everyone. So, um, good night. Good night. Um, I'd like everyone else who is on the line to identify themselves because I can see everyone and I'm not sure if the order in which you're seeing names is the same as mine. I'll add I'll go down the list and I'm going to start um who's who's right below the first person below me um to the left is Chief Moore. So, if you just introduce yourself and and give us of of who you are and what your role is.

Joseph Orm, the fire rescue chief here in the town of Durham. Um, I was initially the person that brought this matter to the code enforcement officer's attention to be reviewed. Okay. Thank you. And the next person whose name I see is Phyllis Brandon. And um, you may need to take yourself off mute.

watching tonight. That's all. Okay. Thank you very much, Miss Brandon. The next name is Tammy Q. That's me. That's your audio for the town for the All right, Tammy. Sorry about that. Um and then I see PIT town office. Forest, the code officer.

No, the PIT town office is their video that's live streaming onto town. Okay. This is my first experience doing this for the board. Oh, no, no, it's good. Okay. So, Bob, I see you as the next name of that is not a member of the board. So, if you would introduce yourself, please.

Bob Forest, code enforcement officer. Okay. And um next to you is um uh the name Sasha. And again, you might need to take yourself off mute. Arabeno. We are Helen Lord's neighbors. Thank you very much. And then Miss Lord, um if you could introduce yourself, please.

Yes, this is Helen Lord. I'm sorry I can't see all of you. I have no internet at my home but I will be uh happy to discuss the matter in general. Okay. Um typically, um just for everyone who has not been part of one of our hearings before, typically um we we actually um will typically ask the code enforcement officer to give us an overview um so that you know we have received um in effect many papers that constitute the record in this matter. But it's often the case that the town officials who have been involved in something um can can frame a little bit of um the

background, what brought the action and what they did and and and that's usually our first step. But before I do, I want to make sure that all the members of the board are um are are are have the new have the new ordinance. um and then are are familiar with what we're applying um to this case. Um this

is as I understand it on appeal from the action of a code enforcement officer. So our powers and duties are on page 169 17.3 A one. And that says that that tells us how we must decide any matter um that is an appeal from the action of a codes enforcement officer. So for the members of the board um this is really our first matter with the new ordinance that was enacted in December. So that's where you'd find it 169 of um and it's no

different than the old ordinances provisions. Yeah. Um, Barbara Gary Wood speaking. I I would suggest that for the benefit of both the board, um, the town's officers and Miss Ms. Lord in particular, you read that section one in so far as it describes our jurisdiction, what we can do and what we can't, and where the burden of proof in this matter lies.

Happy to do that, Gary. Um, it's right in front of me. The board of appeals may hear and decide appeals by an agrieved party where it has been alleged that there is an error in any interpretation, determination, requirement or decision made by the code enforcement officer or

in any other matter involving the code enforcement officer in the administration or enforcement of this ordinance. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the code enforcement officer errored. The board shall not conduct a denovo review, but shall act in a purely appellet capacity and shall limit its review to the record evidence that was before the code enforcement officer and the party's arguments based on that record evidence. In acting on administrative appeals, the board of appeals may sustain, modify, or reverse the action of the code enforcement officer. The board of appeals may reverse the code enforcement officer's action only upon a finding that said action was clearly contrary to applicable provisions of the ordinance or that the record evidence compels a different conclusion.

for for the other participants and particularly Miss Lord I asked Barbara to read that because the key provision in there for you Miss Lord as the appellant is you have to provide us with evidence and arguments that the town is wrong in this case in terms of either they they have or don't have the authority to the original order that you appealed or if they do have the authority that they made some mistake in the way that they interpreted it or applied it in your case. So, you have to present to us whatever you're relying on

uh to support those conclusions that we need to reach if we're going to do anything other than sustain the decision of the code enforcement officer. Yes, I will be happy to talk when it's time for me to talk. Okay, great. Thank you.

All right. Um, so what I would like to ask is, um, perhaps it may make I don't think there's any background noise particularly. Tammy, you can tell us. Um, if you're comfortable being on mute, um, it might be good to go on it. Um while we ask for Bob to give us a little bit of an overview um from his perspective of uh of of this enforcement action.

be great. Okay. Um, so I I got a call from the fire chief about this property. They had gone over um for a fire or smoke call and I called Helen up and asked her if I could come and look at the dwellings um and before I went over I looked for any permits or conditional use permits for the multif family dwelling. I didn't find any. Um, and Helen told me that she

bought it that way. So, I did find um inadequate smoke detectors. Um, there was a carbon monoxide detector in one unit out of three. Um, the egress windows on the second floor did not meet the requirements. Um there were two people living on the second floor with one considered bedroom. So both of

the rooms had a a very small window in them. Um and then the other issue that I found were fire doors. Um, in the hallway leading up to the second floor, there was a door on the left and a right going into the two units on the first floor that were holocore wood doors. Um, and they need, you know, they need to be a one-hour fire rating between units. So, I I when I saw that, I went back to my office and I emailed the fire marshall

and told him what I had found. Um, and asked him, you know, what he thinks I should do. Um, and he explained to me that nothing is grandfathered in a multi-unit. um and he cited a bunch of um stuff from NFPA 101 um pertaining to that. Um so I I looked at the most important issues with the problem and addressed those issues only and then I sent Helen a violation letter

and that's the gist of it. Um, could I ask Bob just a couple of questions? Um, um, Barbara, do you want to wait and let everybody go and then we'll come back? No, I I think it's I would like I have some questions too. So So I think it would be fine, Gary. Um, and then we can kind of hear from various people afterward after that. So go ahead and and ask because

Yeah. Um, so I've got two or three questions, Bob. Um, about what you just said. Um, you said there was one carbon monoxide detector and that was in the first uh the unit on the first floor. Is that correct? That Yes, that's correct.

And is that a battery powered and plug-in CO detector or is it just battery powered? No, it was plugged in on the kitchen counter. Okay. Thank you. Um, now on the second floor, I thought I heard you say that both the main living unit and then this second room that I understand is being

used as a bedroom by uh the tenant's son without the landlady's permission, but nevertheless being used. Both of those uh both of those rooms in that second unit have a small window. Is that what you said? Yes. Okay. Um and then um

and so in in relation um to those windows, I take it that the egress requirement that uh you imposed in your initial violation order was to have a a bigger window in both of those unit both of those rooms. Is that uh Yes, that's correct.

Okay. because it's it's got to be big enough for somebody to get out in other words, right? Well, there are size requirements on an egress window. Okay. Yeah. You have to have 5.7 square ft of clear opening. Um it can be no less than 24 in wide and

the opening can be no less than 20 in high. Okay? Now that that doesn't equal 5.7, but those are the minimum opening requirements along with the square footage. Okay, that's that's very helpful. Now, you said you contacted by email the state fire marshall's office. Um, so so you were in direct contact with the fire marshall's office, not with our uh our Durham fire chief.

Um, I was in contact with both. Okay. Yeah, because it looked like the fire chief properly was playing, you know, a role here in terms of what what might apply, what might Okay. Um but but then but then you said um the information that you originally received and I understand in in looking at the uh fire chief's proposed compromise and consent agreement that it's not as clear as everyone would like but that the that there is no grandfathering for any structures under the National Fire Protection Act

multi-unit structures M multi-unit structures, no grandfathering. Okay. Um I I'm just making some notes here. Um because this I found in all honesty very complex. Yeah. So so I can read something um for you. Transfer of dwelling. A

person who after October 31st, 2009 acquires by sale or exchange a single family dwelling or a multi- apartment building, shall install smoke detectors um within 30 days of AC acquisition or occupancy of the dwelling. Um, and this particular paragraph deals

only with smoke detectors. There is an identical paragraph for CO detectors as well. Right. And and correct me if I'm wrong, either Bob or the chief. Those are found in the state law, title 25, the sections that were were referenced um in some of the material you got from MMA and then I think um some other correspondents I saw cited

title 25 section 2464. that's being read and applied by our chief, the fire marshal, state fire marshal, and and you, Bob, as not grandfathering anything purchased after that trigger date that you you read from the statute, October 30th, 2009.

Yes, that's correct. Okay, great. Um, now the the last thing that I have in terms of what you just said is about the fire doors and the fire separation requirement because as I was looking at the documents and some of the laws, I was trying to figure out if the fire separation requirement um is is separate and distinct from a fire door or does the fire door itself just to have have to have that one our fire separation requirement in order to be a suitable door. So um from Mark Balo who is the fire marshall um in NFPA 101 section 31.3.6.1

6.1. It talks about walls. Um, exit access corridor walls shall consist of fire barriers in accordance with section 8.3 having a minimum 1 halfhour fire resistant rating. fire resistant rating and initially I thought you said that at least the door

has to have a 1 hour fire separate. I'm just trying to get an understanding here. The door the fire doors are 20 minute fire door. Okay. And so what what does that one hour and does that apply to the walls then or the half hour?

in in the IRC it states that you need so the inside of the corridor needs a halfhour fire resistance and the interior of the apartment also needs a 1 half hour fire resistance according to IRC which makes a 1 hour fire rating.

Oh, between the hall and the wall into the unit. Is that between the hall and the unit? Each side of that wall needs a half hour fire rating. I see. Okay. Now, um, unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding your original citation notice. Did that site the fire separation requirement uh for the walls? I s I know it contained the fire door requirement. It it did. I've got it here, Gary. It says installation of two fire doors or

remove and install the required one-hour fire protection between units. So, so Bob, did that mean as an alternative to putting in the doors, you can close that area off somehow by putting a wall in there? Abs. Absolutely you can do that. Yeah. And I explained that to Helen that she had the choice of doing one or the other.

And if but I mean obviously I'm sorry. I'm sorry Chief. Go ahead. No, I'm sorry to interrupt. Uh Bob and I did discuss that today. And if I could offer a thought that that is our that is our recommendation simply because that doorway on the second floor apartment leading down those stairs to the first floor is then an obstructed door on the first floor. That's a recipe for someone getting trapped if there's an emergency situation. Um the the better option would be to simply ask her to if we if and when we get to that point, ask her to to simply close that off rather than put a fire rated door uh on a stairwell that then just leads an occupant to be trapped.

Okay. Um I guess what I'm a little confused about not being anywhere near as well versed as you folks is um does that mean she has to close the unit off? No, you can't use that room. You can't get in and out of No, no. This is this is a this is an interior stairwell that when it was obviously a single family home at some point led from what is the first floor forward apartment to the second floor.

There's now a separate stairwell that leads outside to that second apartment. still confused if I I get the fire door. It's this fire rating in the walls. I'm not quite understanding what should she do or what should anyone do to comply with what what you're saying what in this situation.

Well, if she wanted if she wanted to keep that access open to someday make that, you know, into an upstairs upstairs downstairs access to make it a single two-floor apartment. She could put the doors in uh that have to be raided. Uh, my concern is that leaving those doors there in an emergency situation is confusing to somebody disoriented by smoke or darkness. They try to get through that door. They go down a stairwell that leads them to a door that's essentially blocked on the first floor apartment by the refrigerator. So unless she has plans to offer that as a as a single occupied two-story apartment, she's probably better off in the long run just removing the doors and sheetrocking over it on

and putting the wall in that meets the fire rating. Okay. Because you Okay. One thing you said I did not pick up before was that there's another entrance access way to that second floor apartment that runs outside the Yes. the structure. Yeah.

And and Chief and and or um Bob, it is that access that is utilized by the dwellers of that apartment number three on the second floor. That's correct. And in in that hallway is a door on the left and a right. One the one on the left goes into the back apartment and the one on the right goes into the front apartment. Those are the other two fire doors. that she could also block off too.

Question instead of using because they're not being used presently. If I can ask a question. Go ahead, Mil. So, if if the the door in question was replaced with a wall, does that mean we're left with a stairway that goes up to a wall?

Yes. So from both empty block, you would block the bottom and you would block the top in effect having a an empty stairwell. Stairwell. An empty stairwell. That's correct. Yeah. And and so if I understand it, um the entrance to the dwelling leads to two apartments on the first floor. And

there are separate entrances. Yes, they also they also have an entrance on the driveway. So there those entrances again like the chief was saying were probably there when it was a single family unit. Okay. But but if this um I'm just to understand it. If the if the stairwell was enclosed um and the walls were enclosed as I read these notices of violation um would there be any requirement for an additional door?

No. Okay. But the doors that are there would have to be brought up to the fire uh door rating that that the chief for you. Yes. Yes. Because they're all a different unit and the separation has to be between units. But what the what the rule says is you need one door in one egress window.

So both units on the first floor have a door going to the exterior other than the hallway up to the third floor. Okay. So say that one more time. And in other words, if you block the doors to the stair you closed off the doors to the stairwell, would there be any requirement for new doors?

No. Okay. No. The the stairway to the second floor is an interior stairway. Got it. Okay. The only the only reason why that would need to be a raided door is if she wanted to keep those with the intent of possibly utilizing that later on. Um but if she's going to keep the apartments broken up the way they are, either the doors need to be raided and locked on both sides or they need to be removed.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Quest a question to the chief, please. Go ahead, Chief. So if if that stairwell is closed off both upper and lower with a wall, does that present any imminent danger should the structure have a fire? It it does it does create a void space where the fire can travel. That's why the the walls need to be on both sides rated.

Yeah. Um, if it were if those if that was like open to the studs, that would be a dramatic concern and a very easy way for that fire to spread through the building. But if that is closed off with raided material, it's just simply a void space

like an have a couple. So, when do I get a chance to talk? Oh. Oh, we're just going to ask a few questions and you're going to get all the time uh you want. Helen, we're hoping some of these is Helen is right, isn't it? Uh

yes. Yeah, it is. Yeah. I I just We're hoping some of these questions may be some that you would have too. You might not, but we need to get a real clear picture of what the town saw as a violation and what they're suggesting would fix it just to just to get the base facts established. and then you definitely will get your time. Um I I have a couple of questions for Bob that are not related to what he said but um are are related to the use and in this zone and is is a is a a two family with

an accessory apartment which is essentially it seems to me a threeunit is that a permitted use in the zone where the property is located? Um it presently with the new ordinance they got rid of multi-units but prior to that um I think it was 19

81 was when NFPA 101 came into effect statewide. Yeah. And in 1990, you needed a conditional use permit for a multi-unit in the rural residential area where she is. And in 2004, for some reason, the ordinance said that you could only have a duplex in that area. There were no more multi-units, such as the present ordinance says. So in the '9s it was allowed

and in 2004 it was not allowed and it was allowed in the the prior ordinance which I believe started in 2006 and was amended and amended to 2016. So they were allowed with a conditional use permit. Okay. So they were allowed they they were an allowed use but they required a conditional use permit. Okay. Um and then um

can I Gary before we get off for this I want to I want to understand what in our new land use or ordinance what district is this in and is it in any overlay? No it's in no overlay. It's in the rural residential area. Okay. And previously

southwest Ben district because that's No, it was not. It wasn't. No, it was not. No. And that's why it was a conditional use under previous ordinances. Yes. Okay. because as as I read the what I guess is the italicized commentary um it in on page 12 of the ordinance it says multifamily was only allowed in the southwest bend district and will be eliminated with it. So that is in the kind of 2005 to 2019 version of the

ordinance. All right. So that so we were the reason that this was operating as a multi-unit dwelling was because it was at least prior to 2005 Lord later but but I'm gonna Okay. So so are we so the the issue is what this really is a conditional use. Is that how you see it?

Yes. Okay, everybody with me? Gary, does that make sense to you? Yep. Okay. All right. I have a question. Sure, Terry. Uh, on these apartments, the chief of Bob can answer this question. Uh if they block off the hallway doors, does there in fact need to be two avenues of egress from each apartment?

Yes. One is a door and one is an egress window in the bedroom. Do any of these have that now? Yes, they all have two doors. Except there's no egress window upstairs. Well, we're going to block off the hallway doors. Does that mean

Yeah, I guess it's kind of hard to understand, but the hallway going to the second floor, you go in the back of the house, you walk down the hall a little bit, then you take a left and go up the stairs, and right when you take a left, there's room on both sides of the stairway, and there's a door on each side that goes into each other unit. Those doors are not being used. They were probably there when the original farmhouse was built. So if those doors are blocked off, they will meet egress because they have the door and the bottom apartments.

The requirement for that egress window is five feet, not 5.7 because it's existing. So those egress windows are okay. It's larger than it's really only Yeah. It's the second unit, the second floor unit that's causing most of the issues here from what I'm hearing. Is that right, Bob?

Yeah, that Yeah. And that's correct. I Yeah. And I And I think just to just to uh kind of clarify Mr. Kirk's question, eliminating it's not a stairwell that's in use right now. Neither one of those doors are actually being utilized as egress doors. they couldn't be. So, eliminating those doors

uh and putting up a wall or making them fire rated doors is simply eliminating an unprotected void space. We're not cutting down the number of egress options out of any apartment. And the chief is talking about the center stairway, not the stairway that the tenants use for the second floor. There's two,

just check one second, Bob. Um, let's see. Uh, questions I have. I'm still, I think, a little puzzled by the current status that that this building might have, but looking back, at least at 1990, from what everyone's saying, it was a multi-unit was allowed, which would be more than in this case two units, it would be three. Um, as a as a conditional use.

Yes. Okay. But then again, it changed in 2004. where multi-units were not allowed. Right. So, the the ordinance has changed over time. Hold on for a second. They it wasn't allowed in 2004 and then allowed again in 2005. I believe the last ordinance that we had had been amended, amended, amended, amended. I don't have it in front of me, but I think it was the next year. Yeah. So, so the the previous ordinance to

this one was it was adopted in 2005 and then amended in 6 7 8 9 16 and 19. In any of those periods or in all of those periods was multi-use allowed in the district where this house is? that part. I know the 2016 ordinance allowed it. So, sometime between 2004 and 2016, they started allowing them again with a conditional use permit.

Okay. Yep. All right. That's that's the that's all the questions I have right now. Barbara, thanks. Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for Bob? Is there a conditional use permit for this now? No, there is not. add anything to what we've asked or heard or if he doesn't maybe we should let Miss Lord make give her the

right or even Yes. But Chief Moore, do you have anything? No, I don't have anything else to add at this point. No. Okay. Um, so, Miss Lord, um, we'd ask you to explain, um, your position and one of the things that I'd like to in advance ask you to address is somewhat of the ownership history. Um, because that's a big fact that's not in in the materials. Um and I

I I think even whether or not we decide to take notice of that, it's just important for the sto for understanding status here. So um we'll uh go I'll go on mute and I'll ask the other members to do that so that you can um respond.

So, I have managed and before I owned it, I managed it for 20 years. Overall, I've taken care of this building for 50 years. I did it during the 70s and the 80s and then I bought it after Mr. Wy died. Um, I found an old letter that I had

written. I was trying to find the heirs and the executive. He had died very unexpectedly and that was in 1986 and prior to that I had managed it for at least 15 maybe more than that 15 years. We I've never changed any of the arrangement and it has worked out perfectly. the um staircase that is not in use. People have respect for the uh other the

upstairs and the downstairs and uh no one has ever had a problem with that at all. I do want my property to be safe, but I think some of this uh does not have to happen for it to be safe. It has been safe for the 50 years of my management. Um, I have decided uh to have the electrical upgrades done. I'm going to use Frank Hilton uh from Harpsswwell to

take care of it. He is a very capable licensed electrician. He is also a retired fire chief from the town of Harpsswwell. He kind of gets a feeling of what is needed there. Um, regarding the egress windows, they are almost large enough. They're large enough. They would be large enough in some towns. However, if a person smashes the window, the edges will make it larger anyway. Currently, if we leave the staircases alone, we would have two ways of getting out of the building, one on each side. And I am opposed to blocking that off. I'm also opposed to taking out a brand new window to put a larger window because I don't think it's necessary. Um, regarding fire doors, my electrician says it's a waste of time and money with the exception of one door that was suggested. Said, uh, you know, he is going to do a very good job of putting smoke and CO detectors so that everything is going to be automatic.

Um he was saying they should be put in the center of the room. He is small enough that he can go into the overhead and do a lot there. It will be done very well. There's no question in my mind. Uh if you want I have that old letter if if anybody wanted a copy of it. It verifies the fact that the property has been as it is for the last 50 years with no

necessary changes. And I think it's a little bit historical and I am really opposed to the idea of changing those upstairs windows. Um, I'm also opposed to some of the fire doors, but I'm going to be spending quite a bit of money doing the electrical upgrades. That should be uh that should please you. And also, I think it would be reassuring to know that Frank Hilton is a very capable and he understands uh being a fire chief.

So, in a nutshell, that's where I'm at. Yeah. M Laura th this is Gary Wood and and we certainly understand the dilemma you're in and um it's it's uh it's one I've had some experience a while ago trying to to deal with because it's very hard for people who have owned old buildings to uh have to bring them up to some reasonable level of compliance with new codes which is is why the law usually has triggers um that that that put those requirements

on a homeowner. When when did you buy this property? It was in the late 80s. Mr. Wy had died in I think 85 or 86 and um I put it on they put it on the market and I was so horrified with what people were saying they might do that I just decided to buy it myself. Yeah. So, I think it was in 80 maybe 87 or 88.

Yeah. And um um you bought it in the late 1980s. And at the time you bought it, did was it in the the same configuration that it's in now in terms of units? There were three different living units. Exactly. Yes, there were three. There were two that I was in the process of managing and Mr. WY himself used to come to Maine for one week out of every month and he kept that third unit, the one toward the barn, uh, for himself.

manager, it was also in the same configuration and used as a three-unit in the 1970s. Yes, it was. Exactly. Yeah. Um, now, um, I I just want to say a couple of things and and I hope they, you know, are heard the right way. I think everybody's in agreement from everything I've said I've I've seen and the testimony tonight and my knowledge of some of the people involved and the way you you've presented yourself which I think is very nicely in both your letter and tonight as someone you know who is interested in doing the right thing and I think everybody's in agreement and I'm sure most of the board is going to be in agreement that the safety of the tenants is has got to be foremost most here in in whatever you know is going to happen. Um does that make sense to you? Um Miss Lord,

well I've done it for 50 years. Yeah. I I am beginning to wonder if you are also checking other income properties in Durham. Are you singling me out? Uh this seems very odd. Yeah, if I could speak to that, Gary. Mhm. Uh because I I was the one that initiated this complaint with the code enforcement office. I'm not singling anybody out. This didn't come from a a random stop and inspection. It came from a 911 call about an alarming smoke detector.

Once I've arrived on a premises and I've found something that is an unsafe manner. I'm I'm bound by my moral responsibility as well as my legal and ethical and job responsibility to get this managed correctly. That is my position here in town. So, no ma'am, you're not being out by anybody. And if I were to go to any other property tomorrow belonging to anyone else and finding the same condition, we'd be in the same circumstance.

The smoke detector was old and it beeped. There was no smoke. I'm aware of that, ma'am. I was the first one in the building. Yeah. Yeah. I I can say uh you know based on some experience, Miss Lord, um in relation to the town's action that many many communities in in Maine from the smallest to the largest, including Portland, respond on a complaint basis for the most part because they most of them I don't think Portland falls into this category, but most of them simply do not have the personnel, time, or money to send people uh working for the town around to every unit in town on a regular basis and and and conduct uh you know safety and compliance inspections which I think most people probably think is a good good a good situation but um they don't they don't pick on people for any particular uh you know non relevant reason. They just when they when their attention is brought to a unit or a

house or whatever it is, as the chief said, that's when that's what triggers really their responsibilities to take some some action. Uh they can't just look the other way or they wouldn't be doing their job and they wouldn't be fulfilling the oaths that they take uh you know when they take these jobs.

Lord, and this is, you know, you don't really have to to address this if you don't want to, but as as I looked at your letter and what it it was suggesting and and hoping for. And I looked at the chief's consent agreement that was sent out on April 20th as as a

suggested compromise. It seemed like both sides were very close. So I don't know what were you did you were you close or or did you uh still feel he couldn't explain it to me. So I had no idea what he was really talking about and I decided then he said well maybe we should just move forward with the the meeting. So I said okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. you know, I don't want to belabor this any longer, and I do think it's very important that you get underway with with some some of the safety improvements that you've talked about and agreed to um to to do. Um,

and I don't I'm not an expert in this area, but if if we go forward and decide this case tonight, ma'am, Miss Lord, and and we don't grant your appeal, what you need to to understand is the original town's enforcement order is what's going to be upheld and what you're going to have to comply with unless you decide you want to appeal our decision to court. And you know that will is certainly something you and every landowner and the town quite frankly if we decide it in your favor can do. They can appeal but it takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of money. It often doesn't result in in a great result for anyone. And the money that's spended is much better spent in my in my view anyway trying to trying to fix things, you know, that can be fixed hopefully with a reasonable cost. Um and so

I'm doing a lot when I get it hardwired. That is a lot. And he is going to do a splendid job. Yeah. You know, I I would invite the chief to come in a little on that because um you know, he offered to you in that consent agreement as I as I as

nothing was offered. Nothing was shown to me. Nothing was off. He mentioned something on the phone that he couldn't really explain and I said, "Well, what kind of cost are we talking about?" Okay, let let me let me back up then. I I'm referring to a specific letter that has an April 20th date on it that says um proposed consent agreement and it's authored by

I never saw the letter. Never saw the letter. This chief chief, what what I forward I forwarded my recommendations to the code enforcement officer and to my understanding she didn't want to have the discussion with us. I've never spoken with Miss Lord before today.

Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, that Okay, I think we I think we've solved that issue. But, Miss Lord, I'm going to strongly recommend that you accept the letter, take a look at it, and talk with these officials because they came a long way toward you in that letter. One thing, for example, that they're proposing in relation to the smoke detectors is they're going to let you go with, you know, certified battery operated uh connectors. And if you can plug a CO2 director in uh detector in um

to an existing outlet, you wouldn't have to do all that rewiring. And I know what you're talking about because I actually had some done in my house. And you're right, it's not only expensive, but it, you know, it tears a lot of stuff up. Um, so that would be a big saving for you if you if you talked with them and went that way. And I think, you know, as I looked at the state law with the trigger date of October 30, 2009 imposing the um uh CO2 d uh detector,

you you and the town might be able to agree, you know, that if you can plug them in, I would think to an existing outlet or even use one of the certified battery operated CO2 detectors, there could be some progress. have to be rewired for the plugins anyway. And I think I would prefer

Well, you could talk to them. You could talk to them about that though because there might be some I'm not saying there is. This is up to to to the chief and and the code enforcement. There might be some way they could work with you on that. The fire the fire issue though in that hall with the fire doors. Um I you

know that to me seems like something you've really got to address one way or the other. Like one one fire door would be sensible, the rest would be a waste of time and money. Well well in relation to that internal staircase though and the two doors there if if what the chief is saying is is correct that it's not being used now and in fact it's blocked off by a refrigerator. Um I just

he was confused with that. Okay. So it is being used. It's not being used but it's not being blocked by a refrigerator. The refrigerator goes uh on the back on the back side the ent it could be used if if necessary and you'd like to

it could be used. Yeah. and and it would be another escape so I don't have to tear my brand new windows and put in large windows on this nice historical looking old building which I totally object to changing agress window in bedroom is a required

window right yeah um so there are some that 5.3 works this is on the first 5.7 Seven. I thought Gary, can I ask a question because I wanna I I guess I want to understand the basis for not grandfathering this just so that I can hang my my mind legally because this was

acquired before October 31st of 2009. this if if I could ask a question because I have I have a record here from from the town from that we have in the town records which Bob has done the best he can to decipher some of these they're not

well done um there is an ownership by Helen S Lord um and then listed at 177 Pleasant Street and then Helen S Lord soul Helen S Lord living trust transitioned 411 of 13 so there was a transfer of Okay, that that's as long if there's a transfer of ownership after I I just didn't see that's not in the record, but you're representing

the same person. Same person. Excuse me. But it's a different entity that's made an acquisition and that has meaning in the law especially when you've got a use that is allowed in the district because it's a conditional use. So it it it sounds like it's a formality but it's one of those formalities that sometimes in the law has meaning. Um the and I guess the the other question that I have is an understanding of in in this period of time since the late 80s there have been no renovations done to this building at all. I mean for example you said you put in some new windows

I did. Did you? Yeah. Okay. Nothing was re redone. No walls changed. None of that. We just clean and paint and when somebody would move, it's always been easy to rent. So I saw no need to make changes and and she didn't need to replace she didn't need a permit to replace a window with another window as long as no framing members were added or removed.

Okay, exactly the same. Yeah, that's that's help. And I see that our article in non-conforming uses allows unpermitted normal upkeep and maintenance um of non-conforming uses. So I get that. Um um and and it may be and there

is something in the record that talks about having renovations done. Bob, in your mind, were there renovations done in any period of time that would have triggered a permit requirement? like it was years ago. It is. Yeah. Yeah. Um, if if I could if I could get back a little bit on the track of of why I think you should at least uh sit down with the town, look at the letter and talk with them and then we could reschedu and come back quite quickly because I do think things have to to start moving as the chief and code enforcement officer are saying. But the other reason I I'm suggesting that, Miss Lord, and I don't know if if you've talked with anybody about this situation, for example, a lawyer. Um, but if it

Yeah, I know. And it's it's so costly. I mean, I'm not encouraging you to do it, but you have a right to, of course. And the one thing quite frankly I would be concerned about if I were in your shoes is my insurance coverage because

Oh, the insurance is very expensive. Well, it it I I'm sure it is expensive. But where I was going with that, and this is also based on some experience, is if if a property has code violations and the owner knows about them, whether they agree with that they should be a violation or not, um, somebody and you

or somebody that knows how to read an insurance policy better read your policy very carefully because I have had experience in cases involved ving serious property damage and personal injuries where insurance companies are not inclined to pay and they look for reasons not to pay and they as part of

as part of periodically they go through my buildings periodically right but if you just let me finish here periodically and definitely after an incident occurs but you know definitely when something happens that they might have to spend money they make and a formal request of towns of any documents

related to that specific property. And so if they find documents in a case that demonstrate that there are even real questions about whether that property is in compliance with existing codes, you may find you've got a battle with them going on. And your your own

personal um wealth and and liability may come into play because if they if they have a clause, for example, in these incredibly complex insurance documents that says if if a building isn't in compliance with local codes, we don't the coverage doesn't pertain. You're going to find yourself in an awful situation. And uh that's another reason I'm suggesting it would be really in everyone's best interest for you to sit down with the town, look at the April 20th letter, and try to come to the best

Well, why don't somebody mail me the letter so I can at least see the letter? I have never seen the letter and my address is 82 Pleasant Street, Brunswick, May. Yeah. But well, the chief said I mean, and I don't know if it's maybe you're disagreeing that you didn't have any interest in talking with the town about trying trying to

I would I would uh I would review it with my electrician. Okay. Well, you know, back to that electrician and you can go forward on those grounds if you want to. It will definitely meet existing code requirements, but I'm not sure you have to um in terms of having them hardwired. Um I the chief in his letter when you get to see it is willing to let you go with battery operated on the uh the smoke alarms and and maybe that could also apply somehow to to the CO2 directors that detectors. That's something for you folks to talk about.

The CO the CO detectors have to be hardwired. After speaking with the fire marshall's office, the plug-in CO2 CO alarms, excuse me, um with a battery backup meets the intent of the code because because it is it is viewed as an extension of the hard wiring of the building with the battery backup in case there's

there's power failure. Well, I guess I guess then it would depend on what your electrical service is and why why you're being told you got to rewire it to plug in the CO2 direct if it's you know I don't know the answer to that. But what I'm trying to do is find a way for you to not spend a fortune to get your building into compliance in a way that's safer for everybody and that nobody has all these worries that right now we all have. And uh I I just think you're going to find it it's in in your best interest to do that, Miss Lord, because as I said before, if we uphold this decision, the town doesn't have to put that April 20th offer on the table. They can stick right with that original enforcement order and you're going to be stuck appealing that to to a court. And that that that has in all honesty has more expensive requirements in it. and and also looking at precedents set after the Noise Street

fire in Portland in 2014, it's going to be hardressed for any landlord to appeal and object and successfully overturn a life safety code violation. It's just not very unlikely. Yeah, I can if I can chime in, Miss Lord, if it helps. It sounds like uh your money would be better spent on a carpenter to take care of either the doors or the walls instead of spending the money on an electrician. the town is willing to get a help you get around the need for an electrician because instead of hardwiring the CO2 detectors, there's now the concession that you can buy a CO2 uh detector that will plug into an existing outlet. So, from what I'm hearing is there's no need for you to hire the services of an electrician. You simply need the services of a carpenter to help with the fire rated door or walls.

I'm going to consult a historical society. You want me to tear my building apart just in case a fireman wants to go in a window and I a fireman could get in that window? Just take your axe to it and slice off some of the edge.

It's it's as much for the person who is inside to get out. I believe it, you know, to be able to jump into a net as it is, I think, right, Chief Moore, for the person to get out as much as for someone to get in. As much about the person getting out to us on a ladder compared to us going in. But

if a if a person has two staircases to use, one on each side of the building, that should do it. What if they're on fire? to go out on the roof sometimes. Okay. Until I stopped it. Regardless of what tenants have done and regardless of that, they also cannot it's a completely different code issue having a a means of egress from a second floor apartment emptying out into another living quarters. That's a whole other different part of that chapter that I don't really think that you want to get into as far as expense and renovation if you're concerned about a historic building. Well, well, also also to add what the chief to what the chief just said, Miss Lord, I worked in Portland. Historic preservation does not trump safety issues. We had to we had to

uh you know, we had to allow the gas company to put in uh access ways right through historic buildings and put their pipes and meters on the outside in our historic district as long as they were protected by ballards. we couldn't make them put those pipes inside the house, inside the the units that we were talking about or the structures. Um, we just couldn't do it because the the, you know, the safety code said, you know, no no gas pipes inside this type of building and the meters had to be outside along with the pipe. So you walk down some of the old streets in the in ex around Exchange Street, specifically Market Street, and look at the Regency Hotel and on the outside of that building of four three or four ugly pipes with ballards on both sides. Um, so you know, throwing historic preservation into this, I think, is is really not going to help. But I I and so I'm just going to ask you once more and it sounds like you don't

really want to meet with the town and talk with them about the uh proposal. Send a letter and I could review it. seen this letter that's been talked about. Send it to my address and I will review it. Um let me get let me get a response. I don't know what you want to say if I were from Bob and and the chief about um you know what kind of time frame it seems to me we've got to meet next week on this and so a week to get a letter and either agree to get with to get together with the town with a with an attitude of compromise is is about enough no more than two weeks um I don't know what the chief and and uh

this is this was an issue that was first discovered on March March 25th We're we're well over a month into this. Um it became initially contentious about just getting her to put actual temporary smoke detectors in the apartments. Uh

each apartment had a smoke detector. Yes, ma'am. Because I had to tell you that if you didn't do it within 24 hours, we were going to actually petition to have your building emptied. So, I was waiting to have hear about this meeting and there were already smoke detectors in each unit.

Okay. I'm not I'm not going to argue this point with you any further. My position on this, Gary, is this has been going on for more than a month now. Uh I am happy to email her the letter and and mail it as well to make sure that she has it. I don't want this this is a life safety issue. I don't want this going any further than a week before we have some resolution. Um, and that's that's what I'd ask of the board.

Sure. Uh, this would be to Bob. Bob, does she have to get a conditional use permit? And if she does, would that also the conditional use permit hinge on these improvements that have been requested? answer to that is no. It it would be an existing three-unit. Presently with our December ordinance, multi-units are not allowed. Um, but this is an existing multi-unit. So, the answer is no. She doesn't need a conditioner. or she doesn't she just needs to follow the life safety minimum requirements. There are much more things that a new building would require than we're asking her to do.

Can I ask a question? I I understand the the smoke detector and the CO2 detector provisions. What is it that that requires that says that um a a pre-existing building must also have the firewall or fire doors? Is it the same provision or a similar provision that that makes those apply to an older

structure? I believe those are located I I don't have those directly in front of me, but I believe those are also located within that title 25 because that addresses that addresses all of the different NFPA standards and which addition that the state has adopted.

Okay. So, so we're basically as a matter of law, as a result of a 2013 transfer, all of these provisions apply. And and to answer your question, Terry, to some degree, if there was to be some kind of permit required in the future or a proposed change in use or ex or or something that would definitely trigger a conditional use hearing, which would mean that it would really have to apply with comply with with all kinds of things in order to get it. So to some degree this staves off a you know something in the future to too I mean even if you know that there's no need for a conditional use permit unless you're trying to do something new or change something is Gary you'd agree with that?

Um actually I thought I heard Bob say that now the town doesn't allow any multi-units. It's limited to two family rights. So, so there would be no conditional use permit available for a three unit. Is that right, Bob? Yes, that's right.

Right. No, she couldn't you couldn't get a conditional use permit now. But if you're an existing use, you don't need to get a permit to have a conditional use because you are an existing conditional use. Right. It's been a three unit since 1970.

Right. Right. Yeah. So, I think that that's a long time ago and whether the town required any permits ever back then, you know, I don't know. The the owner was an attorney and I think he did things very carefully. He was a very nice man. I appreciated working for him.

Well, I didn't see the three unit on the tax card until 1989. The prior Well, it was there in 1970. Yeah, that could have been when the assessor picked it up uh in a in a reval or reinspal Yep, there was. Yeah. Um so that's that also isn't unusual that things

don't get picked up until uh there's a there's a reval. Um, so Miss Lord, I mean, you know, I'm willing to to move that we postpone uh this for one week and meet at the same time next Thursday, everybody being available, then I hope if the rest of the board agrees. But, you know, before I move that, ma'am, I really need to get a sense from you that you'll not only read the letter, but you know, if if it has some things in it that you know are encouraging to you that you'll you'll sit down with the town and try to work this out because I I don't want to waste anybody's time, including yours. If if if you want us to decide it tonight, we're going to decide it. Well, doesn't it count that the

electrician, former fire chief, who is really smart, would need to approve what I'm doing because he is my electrician and I want his opinion. But I don't think though that that addresses the firewall and the doors necessarily. It addresses the fact that he told me that there's only one place that a fire door would make any sense. He said the rest is a waste of time and money.

And that was told to me also by another person. All three of those units need to be fire separated. Yeah. I mean, you know, Helen, if if you want to get him to come on and get on the record and cite all of the authority he's got for that position, that's one thing. But saying he said that and he said this in light of what both the chief and the code officer have shown us is hard letter law. I mean, you're not going to win that fight.

to come with me to meet. I mean, he he's very personable and very intelligent man. Well, he's he's got to do more than come. He's got to provide us with a written statement as to why the requirements the town is is is saying are required are not legally required and he's got to cite the authorities for that

in time for us to review it. So, he's got, you know, he's got to do that in the next three or four days, get it to the town so we can take a look at it, let the code officer, but if you go down that route and come back to us, then we're going to decide this under that original order. That's that's look that you're looking at. So, I would suggest you show him the letter before you decide to go to war on this. And that's the last

I don't have the letter. I don't have even have the letter, but you're going to you're going to um and also when you send the letter, if you could also send the law that says I need to make these changes to the windows and to the fire and the fire doors that are useless.

cited that. Yeah, I agree. I don't think they have to do that. They've cited it in their original notice. They've cited language in the letter that I know you haven't received, but I'm thinking the town will do everything to get that to you, you know, as soon as they can and quickly as

they can. You said you have no internet, so they can't email it to you is what I heard. Is that correct? I have email at the office, but I I Well, how about if they email it to your office and you go and get it, Miss Lord?

the next couple of days. Actually, in the original letter that she was sent March 30th by Bob, um, upon inspection, I found three of the units very unsafe for a multi-unit dwelling. Most pressing issues with the smoke, CO, and egress. These fall under maiden title 25, section 2464 for the detectors, and 2468 for the CO detectors. egress is found in 2015 IRC chapter R302. So she's already been

right. And then the last paragraph of that March 30th letter um points to the NFPA sections that require the fire doors or the the the retardant wall. So, so that really, you know, that puts you on notice, Miss Lord, of the of the provisions of law that the town's relying upon. And unless you show us meeting the burden of the proof that it's it's one thing to say it's a waste of money, that doesn't have the same status as saying they got the law wrong. And if you believe they got the law wrong, then it's incumbent upon you to to to show us the law you believe to be right. Because the fact that it's a waste of money is again one one of those things that doesn't necessarily trump the formality of the of the legal requirement.

the members of the board and because we we have to all be able to be there for this able to do this um at 6:30 next week and then I'll check with Ruth who hopefully is still on or Tammy to make sure there's no conflict that would prevent us from reconvening. There doesn't seem to be a conflict right now. So,

okay, great. Um, other members of the board, are you all able to attend next week, same time on I am. Gary Wood, I am. Okay. Milt, yes, I would be available. And Terry, yes, I would be available. Would it be the same address? Are we going to get a new address?

That that's to be determined. Um, it would be a different Zoom address every time. It's announced in the news. Um, and then we'll send out emails to all the parties involved, but every time the meeting is going to be a different Zoom address. Can

Can the chief and Bob be here? Yes, I can be. Yes. Yes, I can also. Mhm. Um and so I I'd like to hear a little discussion um from you, Barbara, and some of the other board members before I move for this postponement because quite frankly, I'm really not sensing that Miss Lord is particularly interested in in sitting down with the town and trying to work uh things out. And I I don't, as I said, I I don't want to delay this if that's the case.

uh an opinion as if she wants to come back next week or does she just want us to vote on this tonight or what? Uh I am. And I think I'm going to see my lawyer first before I make a decision. It's not right. Okay. All right. I'm not going to move to postpone, Barbara.

Okay. So, let's let's address the merits and and so far I've heard no legal evidence that this that the town got this wrong in relation to the uh original notice of violation. the you know the provisions are are are cited that form the basis of the violation. Um, and it it is interesting to me because I do I do take a little bit of kind of you know argument from from the provisions of our languages too. Um because when you look at you know this provision that says that um the provision of non-conforming uses that says um the ordinance allows without a permit the normal upkeep and maintenance of non-conforming uses and structures including repairs and renovations that do not involve the expansion of the non-conforming use and such other changes um as in a non-conforming use or structure as federal ederal, state or local building and safety codes may require that kind of contemplates that that codes are

going to come up and buildings are going to have to change and adopt to them. I mean that's why that provision is written this way because you know you you we do learn how to make our living arrangements safer and what works for for prior for fire prevention and protection and safety and just because a building's been lucky that's nothing's happened bad doesn't mean you can rely upon that if you know that modern building and construction technique can be safer and our ordinances allow a conditional use like this to be kept up. It you can almost read that we want it to be kept up which is why we don't require them to be permitted if that makes sense.

who else is here? It's Milt. Uh we Milt Terry me and you Barbara. Correct. And we don't have a fifth member tonight. No, because we didn't. We're okay. Yeah, we have five members available right now, Gary. We do. Me, you,

four. Four. Four. I didn't know if Dean was on. See, that's why when Paul was on, I didn't think we needed a fifth, but uh um No, we Hold on. Yeah. That's that's the only reason I I raised that. Our quorum is four. We're fine.

Okay. All right. Um our quorum is four. on the basis of the evidence, both the documents and the testimony provided by the town code enforcement officer and the town fire chief. um and the lack of any contrary evidence uh presented by the appellant that this appeal be denied and the decision of the code enforcement officer to issue the notice of violation be sustained.

I'll second that. Gary Wood. Terry Mil Simon I I'm in favor. As am I. opinion. Um, Gary, our typical way of drafting probably doesn't work in the era of social distancing. Well, I'm particularly distant now, but if you want to send me a draft, I'll do what we've done and and give you some feedback and then uh you can mod, you know, accept the changes or not and run them by the board and then just sign it and present it in behalf of the board, which is I think what we've done in the past. Typically, G Gary, are you out of town right now?

I'm out of country. Out of country. Unable to get back, I assume. Then yeah, you are correct. You are correct. Yeah, but uh I'll be glad to do that. And my email is working fine. And so um what we will need I think and should always put in our decisions is that the appellant um Miss Lord has a right to appeal and uh the time frame within which she has to appeal our decision which I can't remember what the ordinance says. Is it 30 days or

Yes. I believe 30 days. Yeah. Just so you're clear, Miss Lord, we've just sustained the decision of the code enforcement officer and denied your appeal. You'll get a written decision from us that says that and then you will have 30 days to file an appeal with the superior court if you choose to do that.

business before the board um I want to thank everyone for their time including those members of the public. um who were here. We often will ask for input from the members of the public um uh but but in this case it didn't seem as if there was um relevant abutters or

or tenants. Yeah. No one was there I think who had particular standing with us Barbara. So I agree. Right. Right. Um and so I will again circulate this to everyone and um thank you for your time. Thank you as well Miss Lord. We know it's not the outcome you were looking for. Um, but it's sometimes better to have a definitive decision to base off of um, than to leave things hanging.

I'll move to adjourn. Barbara, I'll second. All in favor just by favor. Okay. Thank Thank you everyone. And thank you all. And Tammy Tammy, could you just answer me when you might have this up? Um, it's up right now. It went right to the town hall streams. So you can go on right now and and rewatch.

All right, that sounds great. Pull an all nighter with it. No, not going to do that. All right. And and do will you do minutes as usual or No. Uh Kathy actually does them. So she'll do those again. Okay. Yep. Yep. Sounds good. Thank you very much everyone.

All right. Thank you. Good night. Good night. Bye. Good luck, Gary. Good night.