|
|
|
|
FAIR
RENT COMMISSION
|
REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
DECEMBER 6, 2006
ATTENDANCE: Richard Booth, Chairman; Martin Bernard, Patricia Genuario,
Mary Geake, Andrew Mattiello, Maria Borges-Lopez (7:10 p.m.)
STAFF: Elisabeth Youngerman, Director; Lawrence Patterson, Field
Representative (7:20 p.m.)
OTHERS: Gregory Nirschel, Marie Nirschel, and Susan Bucciarelli
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Booth called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A quorum was present
1. APPROVAL OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES – NOVEMBER 2006
The following correction was noted:
Page 9, in the motion – please change the following case number:
** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO APPROVE THE ABOVE FINDINGS AND DECISIONS FOR CASE # 156s-06 AVALOS, AS STATED.
To:
** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO APPROVE THE ABOVE FINDINGS AND DECISIONS FOR CASE # 1565-06 AVALOS, AS STATED.
** MS. GEAKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS ACCEPTED.
** MR. BERNARD SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Mr. Booth reported that Ms. Jean-Pierre had participated as a translator in a Literacy Volunteer program at the SONO Library.
Mr. Booth displayed a copy of a publication produced by the Historic Commission entitled “Historic Homes Tax Credit” to the Commission. He then gave the copy of the publication to Ms. Youngerman for inclusion in the Fair Rent files.
Mr. Booth asked if the Commission members had been able to access the Website and download the information regarding the upcoming hearing. A discussion about how to do this and the various problems encountered followed.
In conclusion, Mr. Booth encouraged all the Commission members to call Nilsa in advance with the dates that they are unable to attend meetings, as it will help with scheduling.
1. APPROVAL OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES – NOVEMBER 2006 CONT’D
Ms. Genuario stated that she had several more corrections for the minutes of November 2006. The following corrections were noted:
Page 7 - Please change the following decision from:
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH FIVE IN FAVOR (BERNARD, SIMMS, GEAKE, PENN-WILLIAMS,
PARRIGIN) AND TWO AGAINST (BORGES-LOPEZ AND JEAN-PIERRE)
to:
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH SIX IN FAVOR (BOOTH, BERNARD, SIMMS, GEAKE, PENN-WILLIAMS, PARRIGIN) AND TWO AGAINST ( BORGES-LOPEZ AND JEAN-PIERRE)
Page 8, Under Findings for Case # 1565-06 (Mr. and Mrs. Avalos): please delete the following duplicate finding:
15 The Respondent stated that the Complainant had a lower rent than the other unit in the duplex because the Complainant shoveled snow and mowed the grass.
Page 9 – Please change the following decision from:
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH FIVE IN FAVOR (BERNARD, SIMMS, GEAKE, PENN-WILLIAMS, PARRIGIN) AND TWO AGAINST ( BORGES-LOPEZ AND JEAN-PIERRE)
To:
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH SIX IN FAVOR (BOOTH, BERNARD, SIMMS, GEAKE, PENN-WILLIAMS, PARRIGIN) AND TWO AGAINST (BORGES-LOPEZ AND JEAN-PIERRE).
3. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Ms. Youngerman stated that the number of intakes in November was lower than October. No new Fair Rent Complaints were filed with the Commission.
Ms. Youngerman went on to report that she had attended a meeting between the public housing officials and various residents from Meadow Gardens. Tenants with repair issues at the housing projects are now being referred to the CT Legal Services for assistance.
Ms. Youngerman then gave a brief overview of the budget. When asked for copies of the budget, she stated that she would send those copies to the Commissioners in the mail. Mr. Booth commented that it was important to remember that the budget is a combined budget for both the Fair Rent and the Human Relations Commissions.
In conclusion, Ms. Youngerman commented that progress was being made and referred the Commissioners to the copy of a Greenwich Time editorial on affordable housing in their packets.
4. SCHEDULED HEARING AT 7:30 P.M. – CASE #1566
Chairman Booth called the hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and explained the procedure for the hearing. There was no attorney present for either of the parties involved. Chairman Booth then administered the oath to Mr. Patterson, Ms. Youngerman, the plaintiffs: Mr. and Mrs. Nirschel, and the defendant, Susan Bucciarelli.
Exhibits:
The following Exhibits were introduced into evidence with the Commission:
Exhibit 1 Complaint (filed 10/11/06)
Exhibit 2 Notice to Respondent concerning Complaint filing
Exhibit 3 Notice to Complainant concerning Complaint filing
Exhibit 4 Fair Rent Field Inspection Report
Exhibit 5 Fair Rent Inspection Photos
Exhibit 6 Letter to Respondent with Inspection Report
Exhibit 7 Letter to Complainant with Inspection Report
Exhibit 8 Inspection Report from Norwalk Health Department
Exhibit 9 Letter to Respondent with Hearing Notice
Exhibit 10 Hearing Notice
Exhibit 11 Letter to Complainant with Hearing Notice
Exhibit 12 Hearing Notice
Let it be noted that the following comments and remarks by all speakers have been summarized and are not necessarily verbatim.
Mr. Booth started off by asking Mr. Patterson to clarify which unit of the duplex was involved as the various photographs submitted to the Commission were not clear on this issue. Mr. Patterson stated that when a duplex is being inspected, it is customary to identify the unit as right or left from the street. However, the landlord refers to the unit occupied by the Nirschels as the right, as viewed from the house orientation. The postal service delivers the Nirschel’s mail to them as the “right” side. Mr. Patterson stated that according to the standard, the unit in question would be identified as the “left”. Mr. Booth asked about the location of the unit in terms of the driveway. Mr. Nirschel replied that their unit was not the closest unit to the driveway, although they do share the use of the driveway with the other tenants.
When asked if he would like to add anything to the documents already submitted, Mr. Nirschel stated that he and his wife had occupied the unit for over eight years and he felt that they were model tenants.
Ms. Bucciarelli stated that she raised the rent for a standard cost of living raise. She also stated that the Nirschels had two large dogs and she felt that dogs are destructive. Ms. Bucciarelli informed the Commission that she regularly receives complaints from the neighbors about the dogs being in the backyard. She also stated that the Nirschels do not clean up after them.
A unregistered van was parked in the driveway in July, Ms. Bucciarelli stated. She asked the Nirschels to move it because she was renting the other unit. Ms. Bucciarelli stated that the van remained there for a number of months. She also stated that Mr. Nirschel had informed her that he would cut the grass, but did not do so. Ms. Bucciarelli stated that she was able to get tenants for the second unit and the rent amount was approved. So, she raised the rent for the Nirschel’s to the same amount, although their unit has a finished basement downstairs. Ms. Bucciarelli stated that the Nirschels were using the finished basement as a bedroom, but it had been stated originally that this basement area was to be a family room, not a bedroom.
When asked if he had any questions based on Ms. Bucciarelli’s statements, Mr. Nirschel commented that he had been told by the City of Norwalk that this basement area was not a finished basement. By law, he stated, he had been told the family could not live down there and they no longer do so. As far as maintaining the lawn, Mr. Nirschel stated that there is no lawn because the trees are so overgrown. He claimed that Ms Bucciarelli made threats regarding the dogs and other things. The neighbors in the next unit are from Section Eight. Mr. Nirschel stated that because of this, the next unit tenants are not really paying what he pays. While the rent amounts may be similar, the Norwalk taxpayers are paying the rent for that unit. Mr. Nirschel stated that the lawn does not have grass. He also stated that previous tenants in the second unit had dogs and the Nirschel’s were not able to use the front lawn because of the other animal’s droppings. Since then, the Nirschel’s cleaned up the area. A fence that had been up was taken down out of spite two years ago and since then, the Nirschel’s have walked their dogs. The new occupants of the second unit also have dogs.
Mrs. Nirschel stated that the finished basement had flooded. Mrs. Nirschel stated that the room only has ceilings that are seven feet high. He stated that there is an enclosed oil tank.
Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Nirschel about the extensive list of repairs, which Mr. Nirschel claims to have made to the unit. Mr. Nirschel stated that those were repairs he had done. Mr. Bernard wished to know which repairs had been made since the Health Department inspection. Mr. Nirschel replied that none of them had been made. Regarding the repairs on the Health Department list, Ms. Bucciarelli commented that she did not know where to start. She claimed that she was not informed about these repairs until she raised the rent.
Ms. Geake asked whether Mr. Nirschel had completed the request that Mr. Nirschel rake and bag the leaves in the front yard. Mr. Nirschel replied that he had. Ms. Geake then asked whether Mr. Nirschel received calls from the landlord in the past to assist with problems in the second unit. Mrs. Nirschel replied that Mr. Nirschel had assisted with issues in the second unit.
Mr. Booth asked Ms. Bucciarelli if she had brought any bills for the Commission
to review. Ms. Bucciarelli stated that she had brought her income tax reports,
but no bills.
She stated that she had the trees in the back cut down approximately two years
ago, which cost her three thousand dollars. She also commented that she had
purchased a new water heater and removed the fence.
Ms. Genuario asked about the portion of the report that mentioned a lack of doors at certain locations. Mr. Nirschel stated that the doors upstairs had come off and were stored in the attic. The doors downstairs in the family room were removed when the oil line developed problems. Between 45 to 50 gallons of oil was in the basement and the doors were removed and discarded by the workman during the clean up process because they were destroyed.
Ms. Genuario then asked about the flooding problem in the family room. Mr. Nirschel stated there had been three times when the basement/family room had been flooded, not including the oil spill. Ms. Bucciarelli pointed out that the last incident of flooding had happened during some heavy rains, which had flooded all of South Norwalk. She said that while she feels badly that this happened, she can not prevent that from happening. Ms. Genuario asked if the other unit had gotten water. Ms. Bucciarelli replied that they had some water in their basement, but their basement area is not finished. She went on to explain that the Nirschel’s basement area has heat, closets, and a sheet rocked room.
Mr. Patterson then reviewed his report for the Commissioners. He asked Ms. Bucciarelli who had performed the work in the backyard. Ms. Bucciarelli replied that the neighbor and the new tenant had cut down the tree. She claimed that the neighbor had complained about the chestnuts falling on his truck and that the tree was rotted. One weekend the neighbor and the new tenant had decided to take the tree down without informing her. Ms. Bucciarelli stated that she had not been aware that the tree was taken down until after the fact, but paid the neighbor for his efforts. She noted that the job clean up was never finished.
Mr. Patterson asked when this had taken place. Ms. Bucciarelli said that she
believed it was in September or October. Mr. Patterson said that there was a
large amount of branches that need to be removed. He commented that while half
the pile had been removed during his last visit, a pile of branches has now
appeared on the abutting lot.
Ms. Bucciarelli stated that she had been told that kids were cutting through
the yards and that possibly the branches and brush had been moved there as a
deterrent.
Mr. Patterson stated that he had been at the property the previous day and attested to the fact that there had been some changes. The basement area is no longer being used as a bedroom. Mr. Booth asked for some clarification regarding the number of people who lived in the unit and why the basement area was used as a bedroom. Mr. Nirschel explained that when his three children were home, the area had been used as a bedroom. Ms. Geake had some questions about a family event where an adult child returned for a visit, did some repair work in the second unit and was originally told that the landlord would pay for this work. According to Mrs. Nirschel, the landlord did not pay her visiting son, but complained about the fact that he was visiting his parents. Ms. Geake asked about the length of the visit and was told that the son, his wife and grandchild live in Minnesota. They had come for six and a half week visit with his parents.
Mr. Patterson commented that the tenants had painted the upstairs bedroom a neutral off white recently. The back door has been primed and a smoke detector has been installed. Ms. Bucciarelli commented that she had no problem paying for the smoke detector if the Nirschels provided her with a receipt.
Mr. Booth had several questions about the number of people who live in the house, because the complaint form stated that there were three people in residence when in fact, it appeared there were four.
Ms. Bucciarelli asked if the Nirschel’s were still doing daycare in the unit. Ms. Nirschel replied that her friend drops her granddaughter off between the start of her job and the beginning of the child’s school. She also commented that she does not get paid for this.
Mr. Bernard then reviewed the Health Department report, which was an extensive, five page list. Ms. Bucciarelli claimed that she did not receive the report. Ms. Youngerman explained that it was part of the packet. Ms. Bucciarelli repeated that she did not receive the report. Ms. Youngerman asked Ms. Bucciarelli if she has spoken with the Health Department. Ms. Bucciarelli replied that she had not. Mr. Bernard stated that the listing had been mailed on November 13th and that the Health Department usually sends two copies out, one by registered mail and one by regular mail. Ms. Bucciarelli said that she did not receive any registered mail from the Health Department. Mr. Bernard then reminded Ms. Bucciarelli that she had said that she did not know where to start regarding the repairs. Ms. Bucciarelli showed him the list from the Fair Rent Commission and reiterated that she had not received anything from the Health Department. Ms. Geake then said she would read through the list and Ms. Bucciarelli could indicate if anything had been completed. Ms. Bucciarelli said that nothing had been done off the list because she did not receive the list. Ms. Geake asked Ms. Bucciarelli if she had stated earlier that some repairs had been completed. Ms. Bucciarelli said that she had not known where to start and displayed the Fair Rent list she had received. Ms. Bucciarelli then asked about some of the items on the list. The Commissioners then reviewed the particulars of the Health Department violations with Ms. Bucciarelli.
Ms. Bucciarelli stated that she had not been in the apartment in the last eight years. Mr. Nirschel claimed this was untrue. Ms. Bucciarelli amended her statement to the last four years.
Mr. Booth asked Ms. Bucciarelli if she had contacted a contractor to start the repairs. Ms. Geake asked for his name. Ms. Bucciarelli replied it was Mr. Dawson, who lives in Darien. Mr. Booth asked if there was a time line. Ms. Bucciarelli stated that she had spoken to Mr. Dawson the previous day and that Mr. Dawson did not know where to start. She went on to say that the contractor has not been in the building yet. She was planning on meeting with the contractor on the 8th and deciding which repairs should be done first. Mr. Booth asked Ms. Bucciarelli if she had brought along documentation on the repairs that had been done in the last eight years. She said that she had not brought it with her. Mr. Booth pointed out that the Fair Rent letter had requested that she bring the documentation with her.
Ms. Genuario commented that Ms. Bucciarelli needs to review the Health Department list herself and make appropriate arrangements with Mr. Dawson. Ms. Bucciarelli also needs to call the Health Department about this matter. Mr. Patterson suggested that Ms. Bucciarelli make copies of the two lists, and give one of each to the contractor. Ms. Genuario commented that the Health Department will not sign off on the inspection until the repairs are completed.
Ms. Bucciarelli asked about the fact that the dogs damaged the screens. Mr. Booth asked about the dog crates in the kitchen. Mr. Nirschel said that they had two dogs and raised them from puppies.
Ms. Bucciarelli was asked about the fact that she was raising the rent because
of the cost of living, and had mentioned that the property taxes had gone up.
The Commissioners wished to know if she had an estimate of how much the property
taxes had increased. Ms. Bucciarelli replied that she believe it had increased
approximately $500 to $6,000 now. She also commented that she had not received
any security deposit from the Nirschel’s.
When Mr. Booth asked Ms. Bucciarelli if she had a request in writing about the
lack of a security deposit, Ms. Bucciarelli replied that she usually did things
over the phone.
Mr. Booth asked about the new boiler. Mr. Nirschel explained that the old boiler had cost him about $700 out of his pocket over the six years to have it maintained by friends of his because the unit was so old, no one would give the Nirschel’s a contract on it. He also commented that the gauge on the oil tank was not accessible. Ms. Bucciarelli asked if Mr. Nirschel had told her. Mr. Nirschel replied that they had. Mr. Booth asked if this compliant had been put in writing. Mr. Nirschel stated Ms. Bucciarelli’s response was “If you don’t like it, leave.” Ms. Geake asked if there was a maintenance contract on the new furnace. Mr. Nirschel replied that although they pay for the oil, he had no idea if there was a service contract. Ms. Bucciarelli said that Mr. Nirschel had said he would have someone clean the new furnace. Mr. Nirschel had a friend clean the nozzle because the unit is very efficient. As long as the tank has oil, then the furnace is fine. If it runs out of oil, then the unit will require service. With the tank behind a sheet-rocked wall in the basement, the Nirschels have no access to the gauge. There was a discussion about the details of this issue.
Mr. Booth asked about the van that was in the driveway. Mr. Nirschel said that he had been given the van and that it would be towed away on the 11th. A pick up truck was also on the property and received a ticket, which Mr. Nirschel felt was out of spite. He also commented that there were spaces for five cars. Ms. Bucciarelli said that each unit has two each. There was a discussion about the details of this issue.
Mr. Booth asked about the shed that was torn down and property that was disposed of without permission. These items included a picnic table, chairs, grandchild’s balls, and toys. Mr. Booth asked Ms. Bucciarelli about the fact that she had not been at the property in four years, how this was accomplished. Ms. Bucciarelli replied that she had not been inside the unit in four years. Outside, there were complaints about the shed and rats that were supposedly living near it. Ms. Bucciarelli paid someone to tear the shed down and had it put in the dumpster. She claimed that she had asked the Nirschel’s if there was anything in the dumpster that they wanted. Mr. Nirschel said that when he arrived home from work, everything was smashed and in the dumpster.
Ms. Bucciarelli commented that there was a stove along side the house for a year and she finally had it dumped in September. Mr. Nirschel stated that he had purchased a new stove for the apartment. He claimed that he had to pay $60 to haul away the stove, which was in fact, Ms. Bucciarelli’s property. He stated that she had made a number of calls about the stove and threatened him with having to get rid of his dogs if the stove wasn’t removed. Mr. Nirschel then reviewed the details around the incident. Mr. Booth commented that he would have moved somewhere else. Mr. Nirschel asked him where he would move. Ms. Geake asked about the details of the stove not working and its ultimate replacement.
Ms. Youngerman asked about the Health Department’s report stating there was furniture outside. Mr. Nirschel said that the old tenants in the second unit had left items. Ms. Bucciarelli commented that she had removed those items in a dumpster. Mr. Patterson listed some of the items that the Health Department had found. Mr. Nirschel stated that was not his property.
At this point, there were no further questions. Mr. Booth moved to close the hearing on CASE #1566 at 8:40 p.m.
RECESS
Mr. Booth called for a recess at 8:40 p.m. The Commission reconvened from recess at 8:50 p.m.
6. DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION ON HEARING CASES
Standards:
In reaching its decision, the Commission gave due consideration to each of the Standards set forth in Section 39-9 of the Code of the City of Norwalk and C.G.S. 7-148c:
A The rents charged for the same number of rooms in other housing accommodations
in the same and in other areas of the municipality;
B The sanitary conditions existing in the housing accommodations in question;
C The number of bathtubs or showers, flush water closets, kitchen sinks, and
lavatory basins available to the occupants thereof;
D Services furniture, furnishings and other equipment supplied therein;
E. The size and number of bedrooms contained therein;
F Repairs necessary to make such accommodations reasonably livable for the occupants
accommodated therein;
G. The amount of taxes and overhead expenses thereof;
H Whether the accommodations are in compliance with the ordinances of the municipality
and the CT General Statutes relating to health and safety;
I The income of the complainant and the availability of accommodations;
J The availability of utilities;
K Damages done to the premises by the tenant, caused by other than ordinary
wear and tear;
L The amount and frequency of increases in rental charges;
M Whether, and the extent to which, the income from an increase in rental charges
has been or will be reinvested in improvements to the accommodations.
The Commission finds that Standard A through I, K, and L of the above standards are relevant and incorporates them in this case.
Based upon the testimony and the exhibits presented at the Hearing, made the findings of fact and the consequent decision as set forth below:
Findings of Fact:
1 The property that is the subject of this Hearing is known as the “right side”
of a two family side-by-side building located at 22 Lenox Avenue in Norwalk,
CT.
2 The unit has three bedrooms and a bath and a half.
3 The Complainants have occupied the premises for 8 years since September 1998.
4 The Respondent testified that she had not visited the unit for 8 years; she
subsequently stated that it had been 4 years since she had visited the property.
5 The rent increases listed on the Complaint form include; 2 for $50, 4 for
$100 and the current requested increase that is the subject of this hearing--$200.
6 The Respondent originally supplied a stove for the apartment unit. The tenant
replaced the stove after it fell into disrepair.
7 There is no written lease for the unit.
8 The Respondent provided no documentation of expenses or expenditures in response
to the request from the Fair Rent Commission.
9 The Complainant pays for all of the utilities except for water.
10 The complainant and Respondent agreed that there had been no written communication
between them concerning the repair problems at the unit.
11 The Complainant stated that he had made all of the repairs as needed and
that he had done maintenance on his unit as well as to the unit next door.
12 The Complainant stated that the only repairs that had been made by the landlord
were related to the furnace and the hot water heater.
13 The Complainant stated that he had maintained both the old and new furnaces
himself.
14 The Respondent stated that she had provided service contracts, but then retracted
the statement.
15 The Norwalk Health Department inspected the premises on November 8, 2006
and gave notice to the Respondent that the repairs be completed by December
3, 2006.
16 The Respondent stated that she had not received a copy of the report from
the Health Department.
17 The Respondent stated that she had only received the report from the Fair
Rent Field Representative and that she did no know where to begin work.
18 The basement/family room of the unit has flooded 3 times during the tenancy
of the Complainant. It was also damaged when an oil spill from an exploding
oil line occurred in the same area.
19 All of the carpeting in the family room was destroyed by the flooding and
was removed by the tenant and disposed of by the tenant.
20 There is debris and brush in the back yard of the property that needs to
be removed.
21 The Complainant stated that he paid for removal of the defective stove in
the unit.
22 The other half of the duplex is identical in configuration to the Complainant’s
unit without a basement and it is occupied by a tenant with a Section 8 voucher
from the Norwalk Housing Authority. That tenant pays $1,800.
23 The rent range in the November 2006 Fair Rent Commission Survey shows a range
for 3 bedroom units from $1550 to $2880.
Decision:
1 The rent for the apartment is stayed at the current rent of $1600 monthly
beginning December 1, 2006 until all of the Norwalk Health Department and Fair
Rent Inspection Report violations have been corrected.
2 If the repair work on the violations is not completed by February 1, 2007,
the Commission orders payment of the rent in escrow to the Commission until
such time as the Respondent has corrected the health and safety violations noted
in the 2 reports.
** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE FINDINGS AND DECISION
IN THE NAME OF THE COMMISSION IF, IN HIS OPINION, IT REFLECTS THE DELIBERATIONS
OF THE COMMISSION.”
** MS. GEAKE SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. MOTION/VOTE ON OPEN CASES, AS NECESSARY
1555-06 - Gaby – 1 Elmcrest Terrace #9. Complaint filed 05/02/06.
No Action at this time.
1561-06 Valenzuela, 15 Burritt Avenue. Complaint filed 7/19/06.
No Action at this time.
1564-06 Richmond, 19 Quintard Avenue, Complaint filed 09/06/06.
No Action at this time.
Mr. Patterson reported that he had visited the unit on December 5th and that there were contractors on site, but they did not have a copy of the inspection report and therefore did not know what to do. Additional water has been leaking into the unit from the flashing. A warrant has been issued for the arrest of the landlord.
1565-06 Avalos, 19 Quintard Avenue, Complaint filed 09/06/06.
No Action at this time.
Mr. Patterson reported that he had visited the unit on December 5th and that there were contractors on site, but they did not have a copy of the inspection report and therefore did not know what to do. Additional water has been leaking into the unit from the flashing. A warrant has been issued for the arrest of the landlord.
1566-06 Nirschel, 22 Lenox Avenue, right side. Complaint filed 10/17/06.
Hearing tonight.
ADJOURNMENT
** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MS. GENUARIO SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |