1520 25TH ST 2024-02-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

David Hall,Esq. June 2,2017 Page 3 r while it sends such documents annually to each of Clermont Holdings' affiliates that own elevator-equipped buildings. Another topic that was discussed at the April 21, 2015 meeting was the fire ratings of the proposed fire doors and the walls adjacent to the fire-proof stairwell. The elevator shaft is not and cannot be fire rated because its walls are too thin, having been constructed in 1940 with un- plastered lath. Thus the City directed Clermont to seal the elevator doors shut, which it did by screwing them shut. This signage and door-sealing work was inspected by the City and approved. Enclosed as exhibits 6, 7 and 8 are photographs of the fire doors, exit signs and former elevator doors as they were specified, inspected and approved by the City and appear today. Also enclosed is a copy of the notes taken during the April 21, 2015 meeting, including references to the discussions about fire ratings and sealing the elevator doors (exhibit 9). Additional Considerations There are several other factors that should be considered in connection with this matter. 1 The City's code enforcement personnel told us that they have no discretion in enforcing the IPMC to the letter,without consideration of the realities of the building at issue, and thus they are obligated to pursue the subject enforcement action against Clermont Holdings. However, the City took a very different approach when maneuvering Clermont Holdings into building the fire- safe stairwell. Shortly after Clermont Holdings submitted its initial plans for the fire-safe stairwell, it received the enclosed April 13, 2015 letter from Meg Haley, Everett Plan Review s Architect, identifying numerous additional items that needed to be installed and multiple code sections that needed to be complied with for the plans to be approved (exhibit 4). However, as can be seen from the final permit (exhibit 5), many of these "necessary" items ultimately were not required due to their impracticality. As such, it is clear that the City does have discretion in the interpretation and enforcement of the IPMC, and has in the past used that discretion to waive code requirements with respect to the very building here at issue. In light of the facts described above, similar discretion should be used to dismiss this case. Moreover, the City's code enforcement action here at issue constitutes a very troubling"bait and switch" by the City of Everett. Clermont Holdings was encouraged to purchase the subject building by Rick Robinson, who was Everett's Fire Marshall at the time, because there had been fatalities from a fire in a similar building owned by the then owner of the Clermont Apartments, and the Fire Marshall wanted the building purchased by someone who was willing and able to install a fire-safe stairwell. Mr. Robinson stated to Clermont Holdings' manager, Josh Alhadeff, that if he installed the fire-safe stairwell —which was not required by code —the City would be very grateful and would work with him on any code-related issues, including approving construction of the fire-safe stairwell through an expeditious over-the-counter filing. The promised expeditious processing of the permit turned into a full-blown permit review process,for j 4 3 1 i 7� I