| | |
|
FAIR
RENT COMMISSION
|
SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2007
ATTENDANCE: Commissioners: Richard A. Booth, Chair; Martin Bernard, Vice-Chair; Mary Geake; John Church; Maria Borges-Lopez; Patricia Genuario; Stacy Parrigin; Brenda Penn-Williams
STAFF: Adam D. Bovilsky, Director; Lawrence E. Patterson, Field Representative
OTHER: Don Miklovich, Nathan Dillard, Gloria Dillard
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Booth and it was decided that the next 30 minutes would be taken to review the documents provided for Case #1573-07.
Ms. Penn-Williams left the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
1. SCHEDULED HEARINGS AT 7:30 PM
a. Case # 1573-07 Miklovich
Chairman Booth called the hearing to order at 7:30 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, Mr. Bovilsky, the landlords, Gloria and Nathan Dillard, and the tenant, Donald Miklovich.
Exhibits:
The following Exhibits were introduced into evidence with the Commission by Mr. Patterson:
? Exhibit 1 Complaint filed by Donald Miklovich, dated 7/16/07
? Exhibit 2 Notice to Mr. Dillard of the Complaint filing, dated 7/16/07
? Exhibit 3 Memorandum to Donald Miklovich including notification of a sample
letter to be sent to his landlord.
? Exhibit 4 Letter to Mr. Dillard with copy of Fair Rent Field Inspection Report
? Exhibit 4a. Fair Rent Field Inspection Report conducted 7/18/07 by L. E. Patterson,
three pages and ten photos
? Exhibit 5 Letter to Mr. Miklovich including a copy of the inspection report,
dated 7/27/07
? Exhibit 6 Hearing notification to Mr. Dillard, dated 8/24/07
? Exhibit 7 Hearing notification to Mr. Miklovich, dated 8/24/07
? Exhibit 8 Income and Expense report from Mr. Dillard with documentation
? Exhibit 8a Appraisal report for 32 Commerce Street, email correspondence with
a prospective tenant, Craig’s List postings, multiple listing service listings,
redevelopment authority typical market rate
? Exhibit 8b Invoices for repairs on 32 Commerce Street and a letter, dated
8/03/07 from Glenn Iannaccone to Lawrence Patterson and a repair notice from
Barry’s Repair Center, dated 8/02/07
? Exhibit 8c Residential Leases for 32 Commerce Street, first and second floors
and 28 Commerce Street, second floor.
? Exhibit 8d Tenant background information filed by Nathan Dillard
? Exhibit 8e Five letters from landlord to tenant, dated 7/11/07 – 8/26/07
? Exhibit 9 October 5th, 2005 Fair Rent Commission Hearing on Case # 1529-05
for 10 Wall Street
? Exhibit 10 Article on median rents in the northeast provided by landlord
? Exhibit 11 Copy of State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles disabled
parking permit issued to tenant
? Exhibit 12 Letter to tenant from landlord, dated 7/1/07 with notes attached
presented by Mr. Miklovich
Let it be noted that the following comments and remarks by all speakers have been summarized and are not necessarily verbatim.
Mr. and Mrs. Dillard took turns reading the following, starting with Mrs. Dillard:
We are here today because we are asking for a signed six-month lease agreement with a monthly payment of $1300 per month. We are also asking for one-month security deposit of $1300 because we currently have no security or verbal or written lease agreement in place with Don Miklovich. We inherited Don Miklovich as our tenant when we purchased the building located at 32 Commerce Street. We currently reside at 28 Commerce St, which is next door to the property in question. 32 Commerce St was purchased on June 30th, 2007. Once the building was purchased, we realized that the rental payment agreement Don Miklovich had with the prior building owner was way below fair market rental value for a one-bedroom apartment in Norwalk. Don has lived at the property for close to four years and has not once received a rental increase
Mr. Dillard Continued:
During this time, Don and I had discussed a possible rental payment increase and during the discussion Don said to me if we raised the rent to a number that he couldn't afford then he would move out. We had no prior issues with Don as we have been neighbors for at least a year. We did send on a letter and lease agreement that asked for a $1500 rental payment two weeks after we purchased the building. Don did not move out as previously agreed upon but instead went to the Norwalk Fair Rent Commission.
Mrs. Dillard Continued:
We wanted to come to this hearing today because we believe that we are not asking for an unfair amount. And we'd like to receive a rental payment equivalent to the rent payments received in this area of town, as well as all over Norwalk. We ended up doing research and also renting the second apartment that was located in the same building, 32 Commerce St for $1300. The apartment is the same size as the bottom unit, which Don currently occupies. We rented the top apartment within two business days after listing it on Craig's List at a rate of $1300. We provided the Fair Market Rental Commission [sic] with the lease agreement that proves that the unit above Don has been rented at that rate. As we mentioned earlier, we live next door in a building with two-bedroom units, and we currently rent our two-bedroom units out for $1500 per unit. We've also provided that lease so that you could see that it is in fact rented for that amount. We also need to point out that the square footage of the two-bedrooms in our building, 28 Commerce St. is equivalent to the square footage of the one-bedroom that Don currently occupies
Mr. Dillard read on:
We also want to refer back to a hearing that was presented to you in 2005 that referred to the building located at 10 Wall St, which is less than 300 yards from our properties. The rent received in 2005 for a one-bedroom, located just up the street granted by the Fair Rent Commission was in the amount of $1200 per month. Our unit at 32 Commerce St is larger than the unit at 10 Wall Street. Also included in the package presented to the Commission were full printouts of numerous one-bedroom apartments in the Norwalk area that are all within the rental price range that we are asking. Quite a few are much higher than the $1300 that we are asking for. Also included was a slide taken from the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency stating that the rates for one-bedrooms ranged from $1367 to $1648. We are still asking far below that amount. In addition we’ve included articles from the National Association of Home Builders Multifamily Outlook, which stated median rents for the Northeast were $1150 per month. We also would like to mention that we have other rental applicants for the apartment in question that would love to pay $1300 and would like to sign a lease. Our packet provided you with an e-mail conversation stating just that. Since purchasing the building two months ago, we have made capital improvements, which have included painting the second floor unit and refinishing the wood floors. The first floor improvements were fixing the toilet, fixing the sheetrock, caulking windows and putting weather-stripping on the front entrance and egress door. As you can see by the Income Expense Sheet, we are taking a net loss. To further prove the cost of this building, please refer to the appraisal included in our packet. You will note that we included multifamily comparables, which show the rental income that they are receiving which are much higher than ours.
Mrs. Dillard finished:
We feel that our packet submitted to the Commission fulfills the 13 factors that the Commission considers when making a decision. We look forward to working with the town and we plan on making even more changes to 32 Commerce St., such as painting the outside to help improve the look and feel of Norwalk.
Mr. Miklovich had no questions based on Mr. and Mrs. Dillard’s statement.
Chairman Booth asked Mr. Miklovich if Mr. and Mrs. Dillard’s statement reflected the facts of the case.
Mr. Miklovich said that the only thing he questioned was Mr. Dillard’s statement that the two had spoken prior to Mr. Dillard’s purchase of the building about an agreed rental amount. He said that at the time, the only thing he said was not to ‘beat him up’ if Mr. Dillard bought the property
Ms. Genuario referred to Exhibit 8c, the residential leases for 32 Commerce Street, saying that on the first page there was an eviction section and in paragraph three it stated that rent would be considered late if not paid within three days of the first of the month and a late fee of $25 per day would be applied.
Mr. Dillard said that the document in question was the first lease that they
wrote up and that since it was drafted, he’d spoken with Mr. Patterson who’d
informed him that the tenant would have ten days from the first of the month
to pay rent and so the document would be corrected.
Ms. Genuario said it appeared that the landlord was making repairs to the building
and asked if there were any additional repairs that he planned on doing at this
juncture.
Mr. Dillard said that he wanted to do some painting and cosmetic work on the front of the building, adding that the previous owner had done extensive renovations to bring the building up to code in 1996 and 1997.
Ms. Parrigin referred to Exhibit 8e, the letter from landlord to tenant dated 7/11/07 informing Mr. Miklovich of a rent increase to $1300 as of September 1st and asking that should Mr. Miklovich decide to vacate the apartment, he provide that decision by August 1st. She said that on the same day that the letter was written to Mr. Miklovich, there was also a correspondence between the landlord and a woman named Melinda, informing this woman that while the second floor apartment was not available, the tenant would likely be vacating the apartment in early August.
Mrs. Dillard said that they'd assumed from a verbal conversation with Mr. Miklovich that he would be vacating the apartment because they planned to raise the rent. She went on to say that the reason they were corresponding with Melinda was that she'd originally looked at the second floor apartment and wanted that one but someone else got it first.
Ms. Parrigin said that her next question was based on the Income Expense Statement; Exhibit 8 which said that there was a first mortgage of $157,250 and a second mortgage of $73,848. She said that the paperwork the landlord provided showed $157,250 for the first mortgage, but the other document showed that the $73,848 appeared to be a home equity line of credit and not a second mortgage.
Mr. Dillard said that it was a mortgage and explained that when one purchases a property with 100% financing, the mortgage is backed up with a piggy back loan such as a second mortgage, home equity line of credit to eliminate Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) and that this was just a better way to suit his needs.
Mrs. Dillard added that Mr. Dillard was a mortgage broker.
Chairman Booth referred to Exhibit 8a, saying that on the small residential income property appraisal report it showed the property being in East Norwalk when they in fact were not. He said that the appraisal showed the boundaries at a different location than where they actually were and also that the property was not on a floodplain which Chairman Booth believed it to be. Chairman Booth wondered why all of these errors were in this document provided by the landlord.
Mr. Dillard replied that he wasn't sure and that he wasn’t from the area but that a lot of people, including realtors referred to that neighborhood as East Norwalk. He said that he didn’t know why an appraiser would say that it was East Norwalk when it wasn’t.
Chairman Booth asked if Mr. Dillard had an attorney represent him with regard to this appraisal.
Mr. Dillard said that he had.
Chairman Booth asked if the attorney had brought this discrepancy to his attention.
Mr. Dillard replied that he had not and that all of the appraisals went to the bank-underwriting department, which reviewed the risk factor, and that the bank pulled everything up on the MLS and also did a flood certification to make sure that the property was not in a flood zone.
Chairman Booth believed that it was in a flood zone and said that he was bothered by the errors on this document.
Ms. Geake referred to Exhibit 8a, page 1 of 7 and said that the document had represented that the stove was electric when in fact it was a gas stove and asked if that could have been a violation if it was not inspected as such.
Mr. Dillard said that he would have to check on that.
Mr. Church asked Mr. Miklovich to confirm that he’d stated in his complaint that there was no parking available at the property.
Mr. Miklovich replied that there was very limited parking.
Mr. Church asked if Mr. Miklovich was able to park on the street in front of the building.
Mr. Miklovich replied that he was and that he had a handicap sticker, which allowed him to park there 24-7, adding that if he did not have that sticker he would have to park off-street, move his car every two hours or get a ticket.
Mr. Church asked Mr. and Mrs. Dillard if the other tenant had a car, where that person parked.
Mrs. Dillard replied that the other tenants parked on the street and that since they worked during normal business hours they did not have to move their cars every two hours.
Mr. Church asked if it was correct that Mr. Miklovich had lived in his apartment for four years.
Mr. Miklovich replied that he thought he'd been living there for three years.
Mr. Church asked if he had any complaints about the condition of the apartment during that time.
Mr. Miklovich replied that he'd had problems but that his previous landlord always addressed them promptly. He added that he'd had a great rapport with his previous landlord and that the previous landlord never took a security deposit from him.
Mr. Church asked if there'd been any issues since the new landlords purchased the property, noting that repair work appeared to have been done fairly quickly.
Mr. Miklovich said that those repairs were not done per his request. He said that he'd made his complaint and that Mr. Patterson and Mr. Bovilsky conducted their inspection and that was when the repairs were made.
Mr. Bernard asked who had complained to the Health Department.
Mr. Patterson replied that he'd brought in the Health Department.
Mr. Church asked Mr. Miklovich if he had been satisfied overall with the conditions of the apartment.
Mr. Miklovich replied that he had and referred back to the parking issue. He said that he sometimes worked late at night and could not use municipal parking down the street because he could not walk that far. He said that he often wound up parking up on the walk across the street where a “no parking” sign was posted, and upon getting up in the morning for work he would find a $20 parking ticket on his car.
Ms. Borges-Lopez asked Mr. Dillard to further explain the question that was posed to him earlier in this hearing with regard to the second mortgage.
Mr. Dillard replied that it actually was a home equity line of credit. He explained that there was a first mortgage and a second mortgage and that this was done on this property because he’d gotten 100% financing and that generally in 100% financing, if one went a financial institution such as FHA or any other bank, one would be charged mortgage insurance if 20% was not put down. He said that this was a way for him to eliminate mortgage insurance by doing the first mortgage at 80% loan to value and the second one at 20% to equal 100% so he would not have to pay the mortgage insurance.
Ms. Borges-Lopez asked if it was correct that these amounts were principal plus interest.
Mr. Dillard said that the first mortgage was interest only for the first ten years, after which it would revert to principal and interest.
Chairman Booth referred back to Exhibit 8a, page one of the small residential income property appraisal report where it said that the kitchens and bath, windows and flooring were renovated and that the property was totally renovated with updated electric kitchens and bath, saying that these were done over 10 years ago.
Mr. Church said that in the original July 11th letter from the landlord to the tenant, the landlord referred to the Norwalk fair market rent value for a one-bedroom apartment and asked how that number was obtained.
Mrs. Dillard said that it was obtained through her and Mr. Dillard's own research of other comparables in the area.
Chairman Booth asked Mr. and Mrs. Dillard if the following (paraphrased) was true, inviting interruption if any of it was not:
The building was located on a Wall Street bypass snow route that partially circled Norwalk. There was heavy truck and car traffic that moved very swiftly. The rear of the building was very close to the railroad tracks where noisy trains were said to pass 12 times per day. The wall at the far side of the tracks was graffiti covered at the time. Directly across the street there was a large parking lot that was used by trucks often hauling ice and salt. Adjoining was a siding company building and store. Devine Brothers Company’s oil and building supplies company and parking lots adjoined 32 Commerce St. and many trucks entered and left it every day. Trucks occupied space on both sides of the street. Number 28 was the home and business address of the landlord. Apartment number 32, unlike some of the other apartments in the building did not have a rear porch. A very small triangular piece of property lay between the building and railroad tracks. A fire escape was included in this piece of land. The land was not used exclusively by the tenant at 32 Commerce St and reservations for its use were to be made with the landlord.
Ms. Dillard said that the triangular piece of land that Chairman Booth referred to was the outdoor patio for 32 Commerce St., where there was a grill and patio chairs and if tenants signed a lease, they would be allowed shared use of that patio and if they wanted to use it for a private party they could write a letter to her and Mr. Dillard requesting that.
Chairman Booth continued, again asking if the following was true:
There were two stone steps, no front porch and the apartment entered into the living room. The apartment was on one floor only. The building was built in 1880 and part of it was probably used for carriages and horses and later cars. The space had been converted to living quarters. Each apartment in Norwalk was supposed to have space for one car but this building, due to its age had been grandfathered in without meeting that requirement. Chairman Booth paused to ask if there were any documents supporting the last statement.
Mr. Patterson said that this building was pre-existing nonconforming and didn't require 1½ or two parking spaces per unit like most other properties in Norwalk.
Chairman Booth went on in the same fashion, once again asking if the following was true:
The rental costs shown on Craig's List were asking prices only and not actual rentals. Generally these apartments away from Commerce Street seemed to be in mostly private homes. Generally, there appeared to be parking on the property and land surrounding the buildings. There appeared to be no close train tracks. Porches, which may or may not have been available for use by tenants, were on most buildings. They could not be used to justify the rental for 32 Commerce Street and the only comparable property was also the property of this landlord.
Chairman Booth added that that there were two apartments in the neighborhood on Smith Street which were rented for what he thought to be $600 or slightly more. He said that the apartments had the same floor space as 32 Commerce Street and also had parking space for more than one car for each of the two apartments and was a more accurate comparable.
Mr. Dillard begged to differ, saying that 32 Commerce Street was in a historical firehouse and had ten-foot ceilings, claw foot tubs, exposed brick and Casablanca fans. He said that he thought that they’d proven that they could get the rent amount that they wanted.
Mrs. Dillard asked with regard to comparables, if people were not willing to live in the area, why they would pay $1500 for a two-bedroom apartment and give them no hassle whatsoever and how they were able to rent the apartment above Don Miklovich for $1300?
Mr. Dillard added that there were condos in another part of Norwalk, which got more rent and had train track running behind them and provided no parking.
Ms. Geake said that the landlord reported that they’d done a lot of repair work but only a few paid bills were presented.
Mr. Dillard said that he’d done the work himself and that it was inspected.
Mr. Patterson added that in Exhibit 8b, the landlord had submitted a receipt from Norwalk Plumbing and Drain for a toilet repair that was needed with his inspection report as well as one other page behind that, a receipt from Barry’s Appliance who checked for gas hazard with the stove.
Ms. Geake asked why Mr. Patterson thought that there was a problem and Mr. and Mrs. Dillard did not.
Mr. Dillard responded that their thinking that there wasn’t a problem with the gas line was based on having a professional come to the property and spending $82 for that professional’s inspection, which found no problem.
Mr. Patterson added that he thought Mr. Dillard even smelled the gas when Marilyn Maitland, the Norwalk Health Department Housing Inspector was at the property.
Mrs. Dillard said that when the stove was turned on and off there was a little lingering smell of gas.
Mr. Patterson said that he could not refute if a professional appliance service had come in and said this was clear to the homeowners. He said that the appliance service representative had signed off on it and charged the homeowners but that he believed that there was a problem and that he’d talked to the landlord and the tenant about the possibility of bringing Yankee Gas in instead because it was believed that there was an additional problem with the line above and beyond what the landlord was charged for and that he believed that Marilyn Maitland also voiced her opinion. Mr. Patterson referred to Mr. Pastorello’s appraisal, Exhibit 8a and said that while he didn’t want to belabor the point, there are obviously several errors and flaws in the appraisal. He also added that a comparable page submitted with the appraisal for 32 Commerce St. listed the comparable as 28 Commerce St, which was a property that the landlord bought the year before and it shouldn’t have been used as a comparable as it was a conflict of interest.
Mr. Dillard said that since it was so unique, that was the best comparable available.
Mr. Patterson asked in 2006, when 28 Commerce St was purchased what the rent was in the three units.
Mr. Dillard said that the only rental at the time of closing was an older woman on the second floor paying $650. He said that she had to be moved to the third floor, and the building was completely gutted. He said that the Health Department would have ordered that she be moved right away had they seen it because the apartment was in such poor condition.
Mr. Patterson asked what the tenant above Mr. Miklovich was paying for rent
when the landlord closed on 32 Commerce Street.
Mrs. Dillard responded that the owner was occupying that apartment.
Mr. Dillard added that TJ Chariot owned the property with his daughter and son-in-law, Kathy and Mark Young.
Mr. Patterson asked if Mr. Miklovich was living in the apartment when Mr. Falcone owned it and Mr. Chariot bought the building from Mr. Falcone.
Mr. Miklovich answered that he was not.
Mr. Church asked Mr. Miklovich what he believed to be a fair rent amount given all the evidence presented and that he hadn’t had a rent increase since he’d lived there.
Mr. Miklovich said that he’d spoken to Mr. Dillard and to Mr. Patterson at one point and said that he was willing to go up 25%.
Mr. Patterson said that on the appraisal, 32 Commerce Street was listed as being owner occupied on page one of seven. He said that after the comparables on the operated income statement it listed the property address of 32 Commerce Street but he believed that it was referencing 28 Commerce St. because it was listed as having three units, the first floor being owner occupied and the second floor being month-to-month rental. Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Dillard if he was receiving $950 for the second floor apartment at 28 Commerce Street.
Mr. Dillard answered that they were currently getting $1500 for rent for the second floor apartment at 28 Commerce Street.
Mr. Patterson asked what the rent was for the third-floor apartment.
Mr. Dillard answered that they were currently getting $1000 per month for that apartment.
Chairman Booth said that it was shown that $500 was paid by the landlords to Karen Bullock for capital improvements and asked what those capital improvements were and where they were done.
Mr. Dillard answered that those were done on the second floor of 32 Commerce St., which was noted on the cleared check from the bank and that it was just to refinish the wood floors.
Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Miklovich if he'd had a lease when he'd moved in 2004.
Mr. Miklovich answered that he had a lease with Mark and Kathy Young, which he believed was signed by Kathy Young.
Mr. Patterson asked if that lease was renewed.
Mr. Miklovich said that the lease agreement was simply continued.
Ms. Genuario asked if Mr. Dillard had said whether or not the property was on a flood plane.
Mr. Dillard answered that he was not aware of the property being on a flood plain area, and his insurance company said that it was not.
Ms. Genuario said that she didn’t think it was either and it obviously wasn’t or they’d be paying flood insurance. She then recommended that Mr. and Mrs. Dillard call Yankee Gas to re-inspect the gas line.
Mr. Dillard said that he knew some people at Yankee Gas and since they were so close he would call them.
Mr. Patterson added that this was not just for Mr. Miklovich’s benefit but for the safety of the entire block.
Chairman Booth asked if Mr. and Mrs. Dillard considered Mr. Miklovich to be a good tenant.
Mrs. Dillard replied that Mr. Miklovich had only been a tenant of theirs for two months.
Mr. Bovilsky asked Mr. Miklovich if he had any other documentation with regard to his disability.
Mr. Miklovich said that he was unable to put that documentation together given the limited amount of time.
Mr. Bovilsky then spoke to Mr. Dillard, referring to the last document of Exhibit 8a, Redevelopment Authority Typical Market Rate and asked if it was true that the first number listed under one bedroom apartments was for brand-new developments and not older buildings.
Mr. and Mrs. Dillard both said that this was correct.
Mr. Bovilsky went on, asking if the first number, the $1648 was not only for brand-new, but also mostly larger buildings.
Mr. Dillard said that that information was not disclosed to them.
Mr. Bovilsky asked if Mr. and Mrs. Dillard were aware of how the Norwalk Housing Authority number was determined.
Mr. Dillard answered that they were not.
Mr. Bovilsky asked if it was Mr. and Mrs. Dillard’s understanding that the number given for the Redevelopment Authority typical market rate was for all of Norwalk as opposed to their neighborhood only.
They both answered that it was.
Chairman Booth said there was some concern about wetness under the toilet on the bathroom floor and asked if Mr. Patterson had seen that in his inspection.
Mr. Patterson said that the problem had already been resolved and Mr. Dillard provided receipts for that and that his physical inspection attested to the fact that that leak was fixed.
Mr. Patterson asked as a point of reference if there was a basement for the property.
Mr. Dillard answered that there was no basement.
Chairman Booth said that it appeared that the apartments at 28 Commerce Street had a back porch.
Mrs. Dillard said that they did not and that he was actually looking at 26 Commerce Street and pointed out their building in photo #2 of the rear of 32 Commerce Street.
Ms. Parrigin asked if the rents they’d come up with as average rents for the area included utilities because according to Mr. Miklovich’s statement, his $800 per month did not include gas, electric or water.
Mrs. Dillard said that they paid for water and that she was not sure if the rent amounts taken from the Redevelopment Agency included utilities.
Ms. Parrigin asked if the other tenants were all paying utilities.
Mr. and Mrs. Dillard answered that they were.
Chairman Booth asked Mr. and Mrs. Dillard if they’d looked at or at least driven by the comparables shown in their documents.
Mr. Dillard answered that he had.
Chairman Booth asked Mr. Dillard where he would prefer to live if he were looking for a place to live.
Mr. Dillard answered that perhaps he was a little biased but he loved historical properties and so would prefer to live at his property. He said that all across America people loved to live in original firehouses so the marketability was there.
Mrs. Dillard said that part of the reason they’d bought 28 Commerce St. in the first place was that they loved brick buildings so they tried to replicate their building like a New York Brownstone and had spent the last year doing that and then they’d gotten the opportunity to buy the first original firehouse in Norwalk so they went for it and once they put it on Craig’s List saying it was the first original firehouse, it was rented in two business days, so it was apparent that there were people who liked that older charm versus the new “cookie cutter” apartments.
Chairman Booth asked when the property was built.
Mr. Dillard said that they and the previous owner dated it back to 1862 because half of the building was built as the firehouse and it could be seen from the upstairs where the roofline was added onto, becoming the police station as well.
Chairman Booth asked if they had a plaque indicating this.
Mr. Dillard said that they were going to get a plaque and that they were trying to get it in bronze.
Chairman Booth asked Mr. Miklovich if he had a rabbit.
Mr. Miklovich answered that he did.
Chairman Booth said he noticed in each of the leases that it showed that the tenant was allowed a cat and a rabbit.
Mrs. Dillard said that they knew Mr. Miklovich had a rabbit and thought if Mr. Miklovich stayed they would let the rabbit stay.
There were no further questions and so Chairman Booth moved to close the hearing on CASE #1573-07 at 8:26 p.m.
Chairman Booth called for a recess at 8:26 p.m. and the Commission reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING – AUGUST 2007
The following changed were noted:
Page 1 under Staff, Human Relations should be deleted.
? Starting on Page 2, every occurrence of “North Walk” should be changed to
“North Walke”.
? Page 3, line 1, “presentation” should not be capitalized.
** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.
** MS. GENUARIO SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Chairman Booth said that he thought that the Commissioners should all be keeping their eyes on the information in newspapers about sub-prime mortgages because they would be very relevant to them in the future. He said that the more familiar the Commission was with what was happening with these sub-prime mortgages and how they were being supported and foreclosures and so forth, the better off they would be.
3. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Mr. Bovilsky distributed copies of his report, updated Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Statistics, several newspaper clippings and New Housing Construction data to the Commissioners and reviewed them for the Commission.
Ms. Parrigin asked when Mr. Bovilsky said that a large number of intakes were related to questions about eviction, if those were people who were afraid that they’d be evicted.
Mr. Bovilsky answered that that was not necessarily so and said that the three most common questions related to tenants receiving eviction notices from the Norwalk Housing Authority and wondering what they could do about it, tenants being told they have to vacate right away because a landlord was renovating the apartment or had just found out that the apartment was illegal and more traditional evictions for people who couldn’t make their rent payments. Mr. Bovilsky added that he thought that evictions were fairly common in the month of September because of people wanting to get new tenants in.
Mr. Bernard added that the Housing Authority sometimes gave tenants pre-term notices even if their rent was paid.
Chairman Booth asked if requesting of the Mayor that a new Commissioner be appointed was in order.
Mr. Bovilsky said that it was certainly appropriate and he believed that it was required of either the Chair or the Director. He said that the Mayor had been notified of the vacancy but it certainly would not be inappropriate for one of them to send a note and said that he would do that.
4. OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business.
5. NEW BUSINESS
a. Formation of Nominating Committee
Chairman Booth said that over the years he’d served as Chair and whenever he’d had a problem and need to be covered Mr. Bernard had always been available, sometimes without too much notice. He said that Mr. Bernard was Chair before he was and got him involved with the Commission. He went on to say that his term would run out in July of 2008 and that he’d decided that he would not accept a reappointment and since that was the case, he thought it was a good time for him to step down as Chair, adding that he would stay on the Commission until his term ran out. He said that he thought they had a very strong Commission at this time with good people and that all positions were nearly filled and so he thought that this was a good time for this decision. Chairman Booth asked for several volunteers for a Nominating Committee rather than having him appoint them. He said that it wasn’t too big of a job because they would have a list of all of the members that could be chosen from, adding that the nominee had to have served for over a year and that their attendance was an important factor. He said that a discussion with the Field Investigator and the Director certainly was called for. He then asked again for volunteers.
Ms. Geake and Ms. Parrigin volunteered.
Chairman Booth said that Wendell Simms had agreed to be on the Nominating Committee as well. He said that the Committee would have to get together reasonably soon and suggested meeting at the Fair Rent Office. He said that he appreciated Ms. Geake and Ms. Parrigin volunteering and said that he would be available to assist them. Chairman Booth then said that normally, a Chair and Vice Chair were elected but that if there were only two or three nominees, the person with the most votes would become Chair and the person with the next highest number of votes would become Vice Chair.
6. REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND MOTIONS ON OPEN CASES
Mr. Patterson said that cases 1555-06, 1571-07, 1574-07 and 1575-07 were all recommended no action adding that these cases were all pending and self-explanatory.
** MR. BERNARD MOVED THAT NO ACTION BE TAKEN ON CASE # 1555-06.
** MS. GENUARIO SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
a. Case # 1570-07
Mr. Patterson said that this case was going to be a second hearing for this meeting but that fortunately the parties were able to agree on an increase amount and a lease was signed by both parties. The tenant filed a withdrawal and staff recommended closing this case.
** MS. PARRIGIN MOVED THAT CASE # 1570-07 BE CLOSED.
** MR. BERNARD SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
b. Case # 1571-07
** MS. GENUARIO MOVED THAT NO ACTION BE TAKEN ON CASE # 1571-07.
** MR. CHURCH SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
c. Case # 1572-07
Mr. Patterson said the complainant in this case had withdrawn and he recommended the case be closed.
** MR. CHURCH MOVED THAT CASE # 1572-07 BE CLOSED.
** MS. GEAKE SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
d. Case # 1574-07
** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ MOVED THAT NO ACTION BE TAKEN ON CASE # 1574-07.
** MR. BERNARD SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Patterson added that this case may come up for discussion the following month.
e. Case # 1575-07
** MS. GENUARIO MOVED THAT NO ACTION BE TAKEN ON CASE # 1575-07.
** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PRESENTATION OF NEW CASE
a. Case # 1576-07
Mr. Patterson recommended that this case be heard.
** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO HEAR CASE # 1576-07.
** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION ON HEARING CASES
Standards:
In reaching its Decision, the Commission gave due consideration to each of the
Standards set forth in C.G.S. Title 7 § 148c and Section 39-9 of the Code
of the City of Norwalk:
1. The rents charged for the same number of rooms in other housing accommodations in the same and in other areas of the municipality;
2. The sanitary conditions existing in the housing accommodations in question;
3. The number of bathtubs or showers, flush water closets, kitchen sinks, and lavatory basins available to the occupants thereof;
4. Services, furniture, furnishings and other equipment supplied therein;
5. The size and number of bedrooms contained therein;
6. Repairs necessary to make such accommodations reasonably livable for the occupants accommodated therein;
7. The amount of taxes and overhead expenses thereof;
8. Whether the accommodations are in compliance with the Ordinances of the municipality and the General Statutes relating to health and safety;
9. The income of the complainant and the availability of accommodations;
10. The availability of utilities;
11. Damages done to the premises by the tenant, caused by other than ordinary wear and tear;
12. The amount and frequency of increases in rental charges;
13. 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 all of the above standards are relevant in this case except for numbers 9 and 11.
The Fair Rent Commission met on September 5, 2007 and, based upon the testimony and exhibits at the hearing, made the findings of fact and consequent decision as set forth below.
VOTE: Unanimous.
FINDINGS:
1. The lease offered by the landlord to the tenant contains improper terms. The landlord was made aware of certain improper lease terms prior to the Fair Rent Commission’s hearing.
2. The repair work requested by the Fair Rent Commission’s Field Representative was addressed by the landlord.
3. The Metro-North railroad tracks are in very close proximity to the apartment and have trains passing multiple times a day.
4. Due to the constant vibrations of the building by passing trains, the age of the bricks, and the landlord’s having elected not to seal those bricks, there is a significant amount of cement dust accumulation in the kitchen/food prep and bath areas.
5. The tenant has been paying rental charges of eight hundred dollars ($800.00) per month since 2004.
6. The landlord purchased the building in June of 2007.
7. Within one month of purchasing the property, in a letter dated July 11, 2007, the landlord demanded that the tenant agree to an increase of five hundred dollars ($500.00), effective September 1, 2007, and sign a lease to that effect by August 1, 2007, or vacate the premises by August 15, 2007.
8. No off-street parking is available for the property.
9. The tenant stated that he has a physical handicap and submitted a handicap parking permit as evidence.
10. Several statements about the property found in the appraisal submitted by the landlord were determined to be incorrect.
11. 32 Commerce Street is an irregularly shaped 0.05 acre parcel of land with minimal yard space available for tenant use.
12. The landlord stated that it wants to use some of the increased rental charge
for use in cosmetic capital improvements to the façade of the building
such as painting.
Ms. Penn-Williams returned to the meeting at 9:35 p.m
13. The landlord stated that he makes many repairs himself which are not documented.
14. The landlord stated that he was requesting one thousand five hundred dollars ($1500.00) as a security deposit and a six month lease at one thousand three hundred dollars ($1300.00) per month.
15. The tenant stated he intends to find alternate housing.
16. The tenant stated that at one time he felt that a twenty five percent (25%) increase in rent would have been reasonable to ask of him.
DECISION:
The rent is set at one thousand dollars ($1000.00) per month effective October 1, 2007, for a period of no less than six months.
A security deposit of five hundred dollars ($500.00) is to be paid by the tenant on October 1, 2007.
** MR. BERNARD MOVED 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. GENUARIO SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. ADJOURNMENT
** MS. PARRIGIN MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MS. GENUARIO SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
This meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jessica Schroder
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |