|
|
|
|
FAIR
RENT COMMISSION
|
JUNE 7, 2006
ATTENDANCE: Richard Booth, Chairman; Maria Borges Lopez; Andrew Mattiello;
Wendell Simms;
John Church; Martin Bernard, Vice Chairman; Patricia Genuario; Jeannette Jean-Pierre
(7:35 p.m.)
STAFF: Elisabeth Youngerman; Nilsa Martinez
OTHER: Marissa & Christopher Lowthert; Maya Liepa; Ralph Keen, Attorney
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Booth called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The board members reviewed information in preparation for the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
SCHEDULED HEARINGS AT 7:30 P.M. – CASE #1551-06 MERRITT RIVER APARTMENTS
Chairman Booth said they would hear Case #1551-06, tenants Mr. & Mrs. Christopher Lowthert, vs. Merritt River Apartments, 399 Main Avenue, Norwalk, CT. The landlord is represented by Attorney Ralph Keen and Property Manager Maya Liepa. He said a settlement has just been reached today regarding Case #1556-06, between Kenneth Angelo DePieno and Merritt River Apartments.
Chairman Booth explained the procedure regarding the Fair Rent Commission scheduled hearing. He then swore in Mr. & Mrs. Lowthert, and Ms. Maya Liepa. Mrs. Marissa Lowthert stated that she lived at 399 Main Avenue, Apt. 512. Mr. Christopher Lowthert stated that he lived at 399 Main Avenue, Apt. 512. Ms. Maya Liepa stated that she was the Property Manager for Merritt River Apartments at 399 Main Avenue. Mr. Dana Artis and Mr. Paul Arcario were present, and they stated that they were the Assistant Manager and Maintenance Manager, respectively, for Merritt River Apartments at 399 Main Avenue. They were not sworn in, however.
Ms. Youngerman read the list of exhibits that will be reviewed this evening. They were 17 in total, and they were noted in chronological order.
Ms. Marissa Lowthert spoke about the issues concerning her lease agreement with Merritt River Apartments. She said the high increase in rent was the first complaint. She said they have lived there for three years and have not had any improvements done to the apartment, i.e. painting, carpet cleaning, etc. The controlled access system to the apartment has been out of service since May of 2006, and she said she did not receive a clear answer as to when the system would be operational again. As a result, she said that anyone can walk in and out of the building. She was charged a non-reimbursable fee of $50.00 for an additional FOB (building/elevator access device) for her parents when they visited. That brought up a concern that anyone could enter the elevator and the building, creating what she felt was a major security lapse. She mentioned that the amenities originally available in the business center and the fitness center were no longer provided. She also mentioned that there has been a recurring problem with the toilets in her apartment.
Mrs. Lowthert said she had just received the papers at around 5:00 p.m. this evening, which did not give her much time to review them prior to the meeting. She said she was surprised to see the comparables they provided, as they had already looked at those apartments in the Stamford area that were more expensive than Merritt River. She mentioned that she was able to call one of the apartments listed in the information provided to her. It was Avalon Grove in Stamford, and they requested a 10% increase over the current rent for a 6-month lease. She said Merritt River was asking for 10% to renew the current lease, plus an additional $300.00. Mr. Lowthert said that he had not had a chance to review the information on the comparables.
Attorney Keen began his cross-examination. He confirmed that Mrs. Lowthert had testified that she received a FOB (security pass), and asked what the purpose was. She replied that the additional FOB was for her parents. She said she did not lose her other FOB and said that she now owns three FOBs. She further explained that management told her they would provide the third one free of charge if it was for them, or as a replacement. As it was for her parents to use when they visited, she said a $50.00 charge was applied and they would have to fill out an application. Mrs. Lowthert explained for Ms. Youngerman that a FOB was an elevator access device that is swiped over the elevator panel to allow access to one or two floors. Attorney Keen asked Mrs. Lowthert if she felt it was a security breach to prevent someone else from getting on the elevator with her, and she replied yes, as it was supposed to be a “controlled access” building. She said that the application process should apply for everyone who requests an additional FOB, as she had to do that for her parents, who were not residents of the building.
Mr. Lowthert explained the security system would work after a certain time of the day by having an access number punched in. That system is no longer in place, which means the door was accessible at all hours to anyone. Attorney Keen asked where the door led. Mr. Lowthert replied that it was to the P4 parking garage and lobby, and that anyone could come in from the street and gain access to the building and elevator. The Lowtherts said that since May 1, the security system has not been in place. When asked when it would be back in working order, they were told that it was a lengthy repair process, and no exact date was given. Chairman Booth felt that enough time had been spent on the security issue. Attorney Keen wished to pursue this issue. Chairman Booth clarified that Mrs. Lowthert felt that there was a decrease in the amount of security provided.
Attorney Keen asked Mrs. Lowthert to explain her comment about the fitness center amenities not being adequate. Mrs. Lowthert said they were told that the fitness center would be stocked with water, paper towels, cleaning material, weights, but none of these items are available anymore. She said that the last time she used the fitness center was about 4 or 5 weeks ago. Prior to her last visit, she couldn’t remember the last time she had been there.
Mrs. Lowthert said that the toilets in her apartment have not been fixed, and that the handles need to be held down in order to flush them. Also, the toilets back up frequently. She said she was told that the construction people had poured cement down the pipes. During the past year, they have had repeated problems. As of the last time an attempt was made to repair it, it is still no longer working, although she has not reported it again.
Mrs. Lowthert mentioned that she found it surprising that Attorney Keen called her at 5:00 p.m. this evening to discuss the case.
Attorney Keen asked Ms. Liepa to speak about the security issues. Ms. Liepa said that the direct dial access to the security system is currently being replaced. She said that it is a $10,000 project. She said that it was an amenity that was offered, and even without it working, you can’t get to any apartment level without a FOB. She wanted to note that they are a part of a condo association, and the garage is shared with the building adjacent to theirs. They are allotted 157 parking spaces of the total 700 spaces in the garage. They can’t provide security as it is too much of a liability. There is a courtesy patrol officer on duty in the garage from midnight to 8:00 a.m. as part of the condo association.
Ms. Liepa explained the situation surrounding the first time she met Mrs. Lowthert, when she was in a discussion with Meredith, the Leasing Consultant about the FOB. According to Ms. Liepa, Mrs. Lowthert told Meredith that she had lost her FOB, and she would need a new one. Ms. Liepa said she told Mrs. Lowthert she would de-activate her old FOB, if she had indeed lost hers, and if not, she would need to fill out an application, with a subsequent criminal background check, for a new one if it was for someone else other than herself.
Ms. Liepa said that the business center’s printer, fax and copier is new and is awaiting installation. She explained that the original one had been accidentally disconnected by a resident, and she is waiting for the computer technician to set it up. She said that Mr. Arcario, her Maintenance Manager, has won several awards for the property. She said she prides herself on her team. There is a 24-hr maintenance guarantee. On one occasion, Ms. Liepa said she received a call from Mrs. Lowthert about the pilot light on the stove being out, and the toilets being clogged. As the call came in after hours, and after the maintenance team had left for the day, Ms. Liepa called the emergency number and Franco came out right away. She said there is an 800 # that residents have access to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week where someone is always on call. Mrs. Lowthert had used the webpage to report the problems, and according to Ms. Liepa, that was not a valid way to communicate requests for assistance due to the link not connecting properly.
She said they can’t offer a 6-month lease renewal because it is not available in their lease matrix. They are on a bell curve, with their busiest time of the year being the summer months. They don’t have any competitors in Norwalk as far as luxury high-rises. They use Stamford as their competitor, even though they are not a true competitor. There are no properties that are A+, which means brand new. They have a heated, outdoor pool and a fitness center. She said she was unclear by Mrs. Lowthert’s statements that she uses the gym often, but then saying that she hadn’t been to gym in some time as it had been too crowded. She mentioned that the housekeeper, Elva, has won the Sparkle Award three years in a row for cleanliness. She said Ms. Youngerman has been out to visit the property. Ms. Liepa said that Mrs. Lowthert claimed she doesn’t use the pool because there are young children there. Ms. Liepa disputed that children use the pool. She did mention that she has seen Mrs. Lowthert and her parents at the pool. She said that if Mrs. Lowthert’s parents are going to be living with them, they need to be listed on the lease, per the policy.
She explained that they leased 9 apartments today, and there is nothing available with a similar floor plan to the Lowtherts’ floor plan. There are 56 units total in the building that are all leased starting at a $2,200 base and going up. Attorney Keen confirmed that a new lease was offered to the Lowtherts at $2,295, which they rejected because they wanted a shorter term of 6 months. He confirmed with Ms. Liepa that she told the Lowtherts that she couldn’t offer them 6 months, but could offer them a shorter term lease of 3 or 4 months, along with the upcharge of 10% for the shorter term lease. Ms. Liepa said the Lowtherts have the luxury of going month-to-month, which is market rent plus 10%, and a 30-day notice. He further confirmed with Ms. Liepa that she was willing to offer the Lowtherts the month-to-month lease along with a monthly amenities fee, instead of an annual amenities fee. He also wished to confirm that she would be willing to offer the Lowtherts the month-to-month lease with a 5-day notice prior to the end of the month if they were going to stay an additional month. She replied yes. She was not aware of any outstanding service requests for their apartment at this time, nor had she received any service requests for their apartment in the last 30 days. She said she has responded to every request of the Lowtherts properly, completely, and in a timely manner.
Ms. Liepa said she has been in the industry for 10 years. In response to Attorney Keen’s question, she said she has been to Avalon Grove in Stamford, which is considered a garden-style apartment community, B-property complex that is not comparable to Merritt River. She mentioned some of the differences between the two buildings. The repairs to the Merritt River property include a $90,000 roof repair, the security system repair, and a $150,000 dryer vent repair. Two treadmills have been added to the fitness center, the windows are cleaned annually, and there are gas grills in the courtyard. They spent $15,000 on the replacement of dead trees in the courtyard. She explained that they budget $350 monthly for snacks and coffee, etc. She said that they compete with A+ properties in White Plains, New York.
Ms. Liepa added that they had 14 new leases signed last week, at full market rent, with no concessions given back. She explained that the building is located “off the beaten path”, and they don’t have direct competitors. They have struggled with the occupancy rate at Merritt River. She said that people would rather pay $2,200 and live in Stamford. The reason they have a bell curve is because if they have less activity in Quarter Four and Quarter One, then they won’t have to worry about the occupancy dropping significantly since they are the busiest during the summer months. If a lease expires in October, November, December, or January, there is a good chance the apartment will sit vacant until the spring. She mentioned that they have leases with the corporate tenants in the corporate park, and if they are the busiest during the summer months, Merritt River will be also. They have more vacancies during the winter months because no one is moving, and they revamped the bell curve based on that information. She said they were trying to accommodate the Lowtherts by having the lease extend three or four months out from the lease expiration, instead of six months, but that wasn’t what the Lowtherts were looking for. She said they had the option to go month-to-month. She has to abide by the Fair Housing laws, and cannot accommodate some residents without accommodating others. They cover some of their potential losses in month-to-month leases by incurring the upcharge. Attorney Keen confirmed that Ms. Liepa did offer the Lowtherts a three or four month lease, with a termination date of mid to late summer in an attempt to accommodate them. There was a premium over the market rate for that, but it wasn’t as much as 10%.
Mr. Simms asked some questions directed to the landlord. Ms. Liepa confirmed
for him that the fitness center was accessible to the residents on a 24-hour
a day basis; the owner pays for the real estate and insurance; and the landlord
provides garbage removal. Ms. Liepa also confirmed that the fee for the second
car is only if a tenant requests a reserved spot. She said that they have to
abide by the rules of the association.
Ms. Genuario asked what needs to be done to get the toilets working properly.
Ms. Liepa said this is the first she heard of the problem in the Lowtherts apartment,
and no one else in the building has complained of non-working toilets. She confirmed
for Ms. Genuario that no one other than the residents have FOB’s. Anyone visiting
the building has to sign in, leave a form of identification, and have the resident
sign a release form for them to enter the apartment. There is also a system
in place to record who has obtained keys.
Mr. Church asked when the market rate was set at $2,295. Attorney Keen replied that it was set three years ago, and even though it was comparable with the competition, because of vacancies and low occupancy due to being a new building, they offered concessions. He added that substantial discussions with the Lowtherts broke down into nothing getting accomplished, so they chose to let them continue on for a period of time. Management then decided, after having them there for 8 months without a lease, that they either sign the lease with the rent being the same as the previous 8 months, or they move them out. The Lowtherts did sign the 8 month lease.
Mrs. Lowthert explained that the first year’s rent was $1,913. For the second
year, a term sheet was provided, but when they went to sign the lease, Management
said they had made a mistake and then provided a new term sheet with higher
prices. The second year stayed the same amount, as a result of that mistake,
at $1,913. In September of 2005, the Lowtherts signed for $2,103. Attorney Keen
said the amount of $2,103 was still a concession from the market rate, but not
as big as the one they were offered prior. There was not a separate amenity
charge, nor a separate parking charge.
Mr. Bernard brought up the security issue regarding the elevators and the FOB
device. Mrs. Lowthert claimed that the FOB will allow access to two floors in
the elevator. Ms. Liepa claimed that she was not aware of two floors being accessed
with one swipe of the FOB. Mr. Bernard suggested that this be looked into. Ms.
Liepa said that there are monitors near the main entrances to each level of
the garage.
Chairman Booth asked about the condominium association. Attorney Keen replied that the condominium association is operating a condominium, which is the building and includes parking, residential floors and office space. The units that comprise the rental facility and garage space are owned by the landlord who leases out the units and is responsive to the condominium rules and regulations. Ms. Liepa said that potential tenants are asked if they are sensitive to noise, as the building is close to the railroad tracks.
Ms. Genuario asked Mrs. Lowthert about the carpet cleaning. Mrs. Lowthert said that Management had promised it to her when they discussed renewing the lease for the 2nd time.
Attorney Keen said that the eviction notice was a result of the Lowtherts failing
to sign the lease. Ms. Youngerman mentioned that the Lowtherts are original
tenants, and she asked Ms. Liepa how many original tenants are still in the
building. Ms. Liepa replied that 2-3% of the tenants are original tenants.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Chairman Booth gave his report. He said he received a letter from Mayor Moccia
expressing his apologies for not being able to attend the recent FRC dinner.
The FRC dinner was held at the Silvermine Tavern, and it was an enjoyable evening.
He said that Ms. Borges Lopez was named Volunteer of the Month for the Norwalk Senior Center satellite facility at Cedar Court.
He provided copies of the article in the paper about the Human Relations Commission.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Ms. Youngerman gave her report. She provided copies of articles on two interesting topics, the Roodner Court eviction case, and the study of how expensive it is to live in the area.
She said May was a busy month. They had three new complaints, as well as two new complaints for the first week of June. There are two vacancies for the alternate slots on the board, and she suggested that they write a letter to Mayor Moccia. They did some outreach with the Healthy Families Collaborative, in which Ms. Martinez provided translation services. They have been asked to do mediation work with Monterey Village. She said that they have reached successful resolutions regarding evictions. The budget has been approved for next year, without any decreases.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING – MAY 2006
The corrections to the minutes are as follows:
On page 3, 5th paragraph, change “a few” to “several”.
On page 3, 8th paragraph, the 3rd sentence should read “SNEW will now have to give tenants notice if they are going to shut off the utilities supplied by landlords.”
On page 4, 2nd paragraph, 7th sentence, change “this” to “the issue of Fair Rent Commission sanctions”.
On page 4, 2nd paragraph, 10th, 11th and 12th sentences, it should read “#39-18, #39-20, and #39-21”.
On page 4, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, change the word “went” to “were”.
On page 4, 3rd paragraph, 10th sentence, add “for the security deposit” after “additional monies”.
On page 4, 3rd paragraph, last sentence, change “someone” to “another party”.
On page 6, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, change “not” to “no”.
On page 6, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence, change “anything regarding this” to “any repairs”.
** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 2006 AS AMENDED.
** MS. GENUARIO SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION/VOTE ON OPEN CASES, AS NECESSARY
1548-05 Nunez, 33 Merwin Street #2. Complaint filed 12/22/05.
Recommend No Action.
This will be kept open until next month.
1549-05 Kinch, 10 Renzulli Road. Complaint filed 12/23/05.
Discussion on Sanctions for failure to comply with the FRC Decision on 5/3/06. Tenant vacates apartment 6/3/06 following eviction action filing in Housing Court by LL. Recommend Close/Pursue Sanctions?
** MR. SIMMS MOVED TO CLOSE CASE #1549-05 WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
** MS. BORGES LOPEZ SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
1551-06 Lowthert, 399 Main Street, (Merritt River). Complaint filed 4/04/06.
Hearing 6/07/06.
This case was heard this evening. The decision on the case follows below.
1553-06 Echavarria & Jacome, 73 Glenwood Ave. Complaint filed 4/28/06.
Recommend Dismiss.
** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO CLOSE CASE #1553-06.
** MR. SIMMS SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
1554-06 Suneja, 93 Richards Ave (Riverview). Complaint filed 5/01/06.
Field investigation 6/05/06.
No action required.
1555-06 Gaby, 1 Elmcrest Terrace #9. Complaint filed 5/02/06.
No action required.
1556-06 DePino, 399 Main Avenue, #505. Complaint filed 5/02/06.
Hearing Scheduled 6/07/06.
A settlement was reached today.
1557-06 Thomas, 49 Glasser Street. Complaint filed 6/02/06.
Recommend Hear.
** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO HEAR CASE #1557-06.
** MR. CHURCH SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
1558-06 Weekes, 13 Lincoln Ave. Complaint field 6/05/06.
Recommend further investigations.
It was recommended that the Commission not accept this case, in order to let the Staff work on it.
DELIBERATIONS AND DECISIONS ON HEARING CASES
Lowthert, #1551-06.
Ms. Genuario read the standards. The findings and decision are as follows:
Findings:
1. The tenant moved in during July of 2003, and the building was new at that time. The initial rent was $1,913 due to a concession given, according to the landlord. The concession was that the building was new, and they wanted to get it up and running. The tenants were original tenants. The apartment has 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, and is 1,019 square ft.
2. The landlord testified that all apartments of similar configuration are currently rented at the base rate of $2,295.
3. The initial rent was in effect from July of 2003 through June of 2004, and from July of 2004 through August of 2005. They did renew without an increase. In September of 2005, the tenants took an 8-month lease at $2,103 per month, which is a 10% increase over the previous rent amount. They had an amenity fee of $350, but no parking fee. The amenity fee was then increased to $400.
4. The tenants stated that they had two reserved parking spaces.
5. The landlord claimed that no comparables in Norwalk were presented. Those in Stamford were not considered comparable.
6. The tenants stated that the amenities had declined since the date of their original lease.
7. The landlord stated that all corporate rentals pay the published rate. The Property Manager stated that over 40% of the building rentals are corporate rentals that pay the advertised rent without concessions.
The lease fees for 12 months would be $2,295, plus a $400 amenity fee, plus a $75 parking fee.
The 4 month lease they were offering would total $2,670.
The month-to-month fees would be $2,635, which is the base of $2,525, plus
a $75 parking fee, and the amenity charge of $35 per month for a month-to-month
lease, per the Attorney.
8. The new proposed rent doesn’t include any concessions.
9. The Property Manager, who was present, stated that she lives on site.
10. The recurring toilet handle problem needs to be corrected.
11. An offer was made by Management to clean the carpets, which has never been done.
Decision:
The rent will be fixed at $2,128 per month, with an additional fee of $75 for parking, and a fee of $35 for amenities, for a total of $2,238 per month with no other charges added on, effective 6/1/06.
** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO APPROVE THAT THE CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE FINDINGS AND THE DECISION OF THE FAIR RENT COMMISSION IF IT IS IN FITTING WITH THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF THE OPINION.
** MS. BORGES LOPEZ SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The next meeting of the Fair Rent Commission will be held on July 5, 2006.
MOTION TO ADJOURN
** MR. SIMMS MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MS. BORGES LOPEZ SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Marr
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |