 Well, good evening everybody. It is 6.30 on Monday, September 25th, 2023, and I call this meeting of the Burlington Housing Board of Review to order. My name is Betsy McGavisk. I am the chair of this board. The other board members present here are Olivia Taylor, Evan Litwin, Josh Ronsky, and also present is Lisa Jones, who is the clerk for the board. This evening we have two cases on the agenda, which we will hear in the order that they appear. The third case, I believe, on the agenda has been settled in advance. Each hearing is going to proceed in an orderly fashion. So when I call each case, you may come forward and have a seat at this table along with any witnesses. If there's room, we're also able to do any configuring, but I don't think that'll be necessary. We will also include anybody who is joining virtually into a virtual hearing so that they can participate as well. Our hearings are recorded, so it is important to speak slowly and clearly and to not interrupt or talk over someone else when they are speaking. Like I said, we have two cases on the agenda for tonight. Both will begin with a swearing in, confirming any basic information, and then at that point I will turn things over to each party for a brief opening statement. And then at that point, board members will ask any questions necessary for their decision making on the case for tonight. Each party is going to be given a full opportunity to be heard, including by testifying on their own behalf, calling witnesses, and introducing evidence in support of their case, and posing challenges to the testimony and evidence presented by the opposing party. We request that any anything said is not directed to members of the opposing party, but instead directed to members of the board. If we find it relevant, we will rephrase the question and then ask it to the opposing party. Any documents you want submitted into evidence must be provided to the clerk who will enter them into the record. So with that brief introduction, I'm going to call up the first case, which is involving 184 Church Street Certificate of Compliance case brought forward by DPI, involving Sisters and Brothers Investment Group, which is owned by Matt and Joseph Handy. So Cynthia, I see that you have your hands raised. Generally, if anybody is involved in this case, we ask that they raise their hands so that they can be led into this room. Do other board members want to see if there's a question here from Cynthia? Okay. Lisa, would you be able to unmute Cynthia? Hi, Cynthia. We've brought you. I saw that your hand was raised. We brought you into the virtual meeting. If you have any questions. Well, seeing that Cynthia may not actually have a question, we are going to ask that if you were involved in the case regarding 184 Church Street. Oh, Cynthia. Go ahead. No, I raised my hand earlier just to make sure that the Wyatt Garrett, Lawrence Hillel cases was canceled for this evening. Oh, okay. Great. Thank you for letting us know. So that's, this is the only case then on the agenda for tonight. Thank you. No, no. Is, is, I'm asking if that was, if that was the one that was canceled. Does that move forward? No. I'm here for that. No, that's all. Okay. I'm thinking. Yeah. Is there anybody else in the Zoom room who is here for this case? Hi, yes. Kim Sturmit from the city attorney's office. Hi, Kim. I am here for this case. Also, attorney Brian here who represents the Handys is also was trying to get in by phone. I'm going to double check with him to make sure he's got them accurate. It looks like Brian is in the Zoom, so we can let him in as well. Brian here, right under Cynthia. And we'll do introductions and swear everybody in soon. Just right now we're making sure that we have all parties and all people that need to be in the room here. So if there's anybody else involved, please raise your hand. If not, I will move us along to getting sworn in. Seeing none. Kim, since you've already started, how about we start with you and then we'll move on to Brian. And what I'm going to ask is that you say your name, identify yourself for the record and how you'd like to be referred to during this meeting. So for example, my name is Betsy McGavisk. I'm the chair of this board. I use she, her pronouns. You can call me Betsy. And then I'll have everybody swear in. So Kim, want to go for it? Yes, thank you. So Kim Sternemann, Director of Litigation in the Bryan City Attorney's Office, representing the Department of Permanent Infections, billboard in this matter. I will let Bill and Kim and Spine, I will let Brian here also speak to, we believe we have an agreement to work that we're working through for this property. It will be requesting support to, you know, well, I'll let Brian. Yeah, we can get into that. I just want to make sure everybody is introduced and sworn in and then we can, we can get into that. But thanks, Kim. Okay, thank you. Brian, if you don't mind introducing yourself. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Yeah, Kim is correct. Would we have the outline of the agreement? Brian, we'll get into that in just a few moments. If you don't mind just stating your name for the record, we'll swear everybody in. And then we'll start taking testimony on whatever agreement is being worked out. Well, I'm a lawyer, so I'm not testifying. I'm just summarizing the outline of the agreement. Okay. My name is Brian here and I'm the attorney for the owners of 184 Church Street. Thank you, Brian. And then Bill. I'm Bill Ward and I'm the director of permitting and inspections. I use he, him, pronouns. Thanks, Bill. Okay, so wherever you are, if you don't mind raising your right hand and do you swear under the pains and penalties of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you're about to provide in the case under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Kim and Brian. I'm not testifying as a witness. I'm not testifying as witnesses. Oh, okay. Okay. Well, with that, we can start with opening statements. Kim and or Brian, I don't know if either of you would like to start and explain what's been going on or the agreement that you've reached and what you're bringing to the board. I don't mind if it's one or the other of you that starts. Kim, how about you start? Sure. So the parties are working on a tentative agreement. We've, well, we've got a tentative agreement. What we're coming to the board tonight is there's a request to, you know, postpone and continue to make certain these proceedings to allow us to get that agreement finalized and then bring that back to the board for their order. The agreement itself and Brian, are you comfortable with me outlining terms or generally outlining the terms? Yes, of course. Great. Thank you. So basically the agreement will allow the parties to move forward to ultimately get the property vacated and then allow it to be renovated while it's vacated. And what is the timeline for that? There are 17 units in this building. Currently five are vacant. Three are under eviction process. Eight of the nine remaining will be vacated within the next 30 days. There is one tenant that is not had it indicated apparently that voluntarily would vacate but will now, if they don't, voluntary vacate will be served with an eviction notice by October 2nd and during this timeframe there will also be further, you know, management provisions put on the property to help secure it more. And then what is your ideal timeline then for the board to hear this order? Two weeks, which I understand falls on the holiday so it would be October 10th. Can I ask why two weeks is necessary if it sounds like you're quite close to an agreement? What is the sticking point? I think there will be other documents that will be drawn up like a management plan and such so we want to make sure to give time to be able to have all that included. When was the first meeting that the two of you had to discuss a tentative plan? Today. And can I ask why that only happened today and not when this was warned? Does anybody, Brian or Kim, want to address that? It, the city was receptive to seeing and discussing it when we were approached to. And when was, when were you approached, Kim? Today. So, attorney here, can you address why that the city was only approached today with your request? Uh, settlements frequently happen on the eve of a hearing or a trial. Okay, thank you. Yep. Okay. I would like to ask some questions of Bill. So does, I guess based on the evidence that you've already provided, it sounds like and it seemed like the case was that there is some very real health and safety concerns at this property and so do you have any concerns regarding waiting an additional two weeks in order to hear this case and potentially make an order? I don't because I was personally involved in this afternoon's negotiations with the city attorney representing me. I feel confident by that time we will, we will have already seen some evidence of good faith efforts that the property owner's attorney had shared were happening over the next week to 10 days. So with those assurances, I feel comfortable that this is an appropriate plan and probably gets me to a place where I feel more comfortable faster than if it had gone through a potential board hearing and then a subsequent appeal. Yeah. If one party or other was not satisfied with the board decision, it could have gone much longer. So I think this expedites the ultimate safety for the people who are in the building, which has been my priority from the first inspection. So I'm in agreement that this is not only acceptable but preferable in my opinion. It sounds like Bill that so based on what Kim was saying that three folks are under the eviction process, which I know can be time consuming, and that there's eight more within 30 days potentially and another tenant possible that's going to have to start an eviction process. So do you have any concerns about leaving folks in for what could be quite a bit longer in that property than anyone would necessarily want if there are health and safety concerns? So is there a relocation plan or what would you do if this, even with the agreement this lasted for potentially months? So the people that would be vacating within the next 30 days are the people that we were trying to expedite through this hearing process. The people who were in eviction are effectively asking for court relief to stay in the building. So that's not my place. It's for a superior court judge to make that decision. And I feel comfortable that with what the city attorney had negotiated with the property owner's attorney, there is or will be a management plan that we will have reviewed and approved so that I can work with my counterparts at both the fire department, the fire chief is here tonight. You know, you have letters from the police chief and fire chief in the superior court about their concerns. I feel like this is a faster way to bring some resolution to this and that that property management plan that we would review will have that assurance that the people that remain in there are not causing more problems for themselves. That's not being regulated by someone and then overseeing by city staff. So there are appropriate measures for checks and balances in my opinion. And could you explain if, yeah, could you just explain the the tenants who are seeking my hearing bill, would you use court order approval in order to be able to say? Could you just explain a bit more what that means for me? So they are the property owner prior to our actions had been noticed by the property owner that they were under eviction. So that would supersede my actions because a judge is going to make a decision about that. So to that extent, I was just paraphrasing that that's them upholding their ability to get legal counsel and say, I'm asking that the court say, I should be able to stay here. That's going to be for a judge to decide, to decide in my opinion. My job is to see that the building meets the minimum housing code. That's what these next steps will do. Provide some measure of safety for people to make repairs where they can be. And for our management plan to see that those people who remain in the building don't make matters worse. And so I have a question on the tentative management plan for Kim and or Brian or Bill if you're if you're able to chime in. But something that is in article 1820 that if we have a hearing that this board will be beholden to is that the property owner will be responsible for any relocation costs of tenants that are forced to move as a result of needing to make these repairs. Could you share if there's any anything currently in the management plan to ensure that, you know, tenants who are not already under the eviction eviction process are going to be receiving relocation services or funds during the interim. We haven't written the management plan yet. Is that your intention to include in the management plan? Pardon me. Is that your is it your intention to include language around relocation costs in the management plan? Those, yes those tenants are actively being relocated. There are units available for them and the owner is facilitating their relocation. But yeah, we will reference that in the management plan of course. And should we try and reschedule this hearing for any date less than two weeks away from now? So say one week away from now. Two weeks away please. Okay, but if we were to schedule it for one week from now what would where would the status of your agreement or your order be? It wouldn't be complete. Kim is that your understanding as well? I mean we would work on it as soon as we can but I think two weeks gives sufficient time for it to actually you know to make sure it can get through the both parties and be acceptable just in yeah. So do other board members have questions for any of the parties here? No, I could go for a vote on the request for continuance. Well yeah I would just ask for the folks currently under eviction orders presuming that they you know you were saying they're currently in front of Superior Court right? So if Superior Court finds that they are not subject to eviction how that play into the management plan wouldn't speak to that? I would say since the management plan is not written it would need to be written into that and that's where I think from my perspective allowing the property owner's attorney to work with them to have the few days to complete that we had these discussions earlier today is not unreasonable for them to if they're providing it to us by the end of this week I'm certain there will be given this afternoon's back and forth there may be some back and forth in that as well I think it would be appropriate and I will say it may be harder to reach next week I'm out of state next week at a conference it's not that I couldn't log in remotely but it would be a little bit more challenging for me to have documentation and so forth as easily as if I was here in person next week but I would be back in state as of the 9th or 10th for a hearing. And so to clarify for our procedural purposes the 10th has been scheduled as a virtual meeting already um is the would be a let I guess what's the reason for that? yeah right yeah yeah I totally get that but why is that a virtual like are you not going to be here Lisa is that why it's a virtual meeting because I couldn't find space oh okay that makes sense um I want to push it out further but I do think that it would benefit us to have this rescheduled hearing in person if we are going to especially if we're going to push it out two weeks um I don't know how we can check in on the availability of of the 11th for a meeting space but is this something that we need to decide right now Lisa? well I wouldn't know what those are okay I mean I think that so I think the meeting could be held virtually should it be necessary um there are plenty of parties that could have been here this evening that have not come so um I don't see why we couldn't keep it as a virtual meeting yeah should we need to reschedule and um so I you know if you're comfortable um with that we could go to a vote on whether or not and discussion and vote on whether or not to um accept or to decline the request to continue the case unless anybody has more things we want to discuss I don't think I need any more information from from the parties here um I do have a another procedural question which is if we do make a vote to uh around continuance do we need to determine the the date right now or is that something we could determine in executive session with the order this will be two eight times certain date certain in that you at least have one meeting location identified even if that is an online location um to so that the hearing doesn't have to go through the process of being re warned and reposted at the property by bill okay so this vote should include the time and date and place okay great um do I need to do a motion to move us into like any type of further discussion on this I feel like we've already been discussing but I think a point of process would be that the chair could entertain a motion to continue this hearing to uh date time and location certain which is the pleasure of the motion maker okay um anybody interested in making a motion for a date and time for a continued meeting um I will make a motion to um for us to consider whether or not um to vote yes or no on the continuance and set the date and time right now and for us to discuss it now okay so motion for discussion no motion for vote and there's and then vote yes okay do I have a second second all if they were for discussing yes okay yes I um so I would vote to uh accept based on the testimony of director ward particularly I think if director ward is comfortable with with a two-week wait which was my initial concern regarding health and safety issues then I'm inclined to trust his judgment on that and I would move that we accept the continuance until October 10th at 6 30 during our normal meeting time which would be virtual only and should the parties come to an agreement before then which would be ideal then we did not have to have that but we can cancel that on the agenda so so that's my motion to postpone until October 10th at 6 30 for the virtual meeting okay can I ask or amend that we move it to 6 p.m. earlier in case we can set any I mean has this meeting been warned Lisa so we would have to reform it um it has not been to go public okay so we could move it to 6 if that is that I would accept that motion and amend that we meet earlier that day does that work for the two of you or what are you thinking are you inclined to support this so you know my concern is that you know it seems like conversation has just begun today and I appreciate that it sounds like the parties are moving quickly towards an agreement I am concerned that there's no there it sounds like there's not been any conversation on the management plan so I do worry that in two weeks you know we're going to come back and there's not going to have been an agreement and then we're two weeks out from you know everything that the ward has said that we're still 30 than 30 days plus out from actually implementing an order but I guess I'm open to so that's my concern and I guess I'm torn on it but I'm also open to going along with the board that's where everyone else is at I think ultimately the concern you have which I share to a degree um is that there's already quite a few process people that are already in judicial processes and so I'm not really confident that extending two weeks is really going to have a big uh difference and um Director Ward's down in town next week and he would be it would be very important to have him here although he could remote he did say he would be remote and the two parties have said that they don't the city has also said that they don't feel that they could come to a management plan in an agreement within two weeks so I think by for that regard I would you know ask you to consider to support my vote to extend for two weeks until 6 p.m. which is Olivia's request yeah I don't have anything to add okay so all in favor yeah do we have a I'm motion first October 10th at 6 p.m. virtual hearing and all parties should be present virtually should they not come to an agreement before that okay um all or do I have a second second all in favor hi hi hi okay great unanimous you have your extension thank you thank you thank you good night game thank you thanks brian thanks kim thanks bill thank you see y'all in a couple weeks um so you don't you want to you know if the people are here for the third case um they're not physically here but I do not see why it or lauren well Cynthia yeah right with the tenants and I think Cynthia responded correct yes hi you're here for the the third case Wyatt Garrett Lauren Chalell Jason Siler and Cynthia Warwick could you raise your hand Cynthia are you the um you can unmute yourself uh are you the landlord or the tenant party okay thank you why or are the tenants present on zoom or in the room so okay um if the parties aren't here I feel that they've had ample amount of time to arrive so I would ask our chair to move us into executive session um and of course the standard caveat of if there was a good reason for the parties not to be here and we validate that reason then we could reschedule yeah so Cynthia and Jason we will reach out to Wyatt and Lauren to see if there is a justifiable reason for them not making it here tonight in which case we will reschedule if not we usually consider a case dropped if the petitioners have not arrived within 15 minutes of we were muted yeah so we will reach out to the tenants to see if there is a justifiable reason for them to not be here tonight we usually give parties 15 minutes to show up and then consider the case from the petitioner dropped if that has not happened so seeing that they're still not here and it's 30 30 minutes past the start of the meeting we will consider it dropped unless heard otherwise so I'm willing to find um a clerk of the board should be in touch with you pretty quickly um Lisa how long does that would that take you to just until you make contact with the or attempt to make contact with the tenants I guess yeah do you guys have you received anything from them Lisa so um Cynthia have you received email communication from the clerk yet Lisa Jones no okay have you emailed her before or do you email her okay so Cynthia the clerk will respond back to you within a few days yeah a few days to email yes okay yeah I had emailed her photos receipt of notification returning to deposit great yep and I am seeing those things in the folder so if I get three scheduled those will be put to use but if not thanks thanks anyways for taking the time okay I just I'm not a quick question I also mailed out a packet of photos and I was wondering if you got them yes we did we received them on the 20th okay so we're all set then thank you very much thank you thank you have a good night okay so with that I think I adjourned this meeting and we will move into executive session 703 at 703 for the record for the record