Kostyk: I don’t have a problem with the deficiencies other than the 3rd one. The
basement is cited as a hazardous area as defined in the incidental use area in Code
1105.3. There are actually two areas of the basement, neither of which meet the
definition of an incidental use area. One area is a large utility room that is locked and
inaccessible to tenants which contains two small boilers. The other area was once a
laundry area but is not operable since the laundry equipment was damaged and
disconnected before I bought the building in 2013. I sent pictures in showing the
equipment is inoperable but since then I’ve even removed them. I sent in updated
pictures Monday morning showing it isn’t even a laundry room anymore. It definitely
isn’t an incidental use area because a laundry room greater than 100 square feet. The
definition of incidental use area under that section includes a room with boilers with the
largest one exceeding 400,000 BTU. A 400,000 BTU boiler would heat an 8,000
Square foot apartment. None of these apartments are anywhere near that. The two
boilers are only 60,000 BTUs far below that threshold. The utility room doesn’t meet
the definition of a hazardous area. Although it is not in the deficiency list, yesterday I
had an ORSAT test done on the boilers that show they are operating efficiently and
safely. I sent this report to your email address. At the time of inspection the Inspector
said he didn’t know how many BTUs the boilers were and so was citing the utility room.
The pictures I sent in show the BTUs listed on the side of the boilers clearly. Likewise,
for the nonfunctioning laundry area, the equipment did not function and never has since
I bought the building. Inspector said it didn’t matter because it could be made to work
and so was citing this area as well. That room has fire rated sheetrock and 3M fire
stop foam. I talked to 3M about it. It is missing in a couple of the openings and the
inspector said the 3M product was unacceptable and all that needed to be replaced
was caulk. I sent some emails to him with questions regarding possible products but
he has never responded to me. The building has been a rental for many years before I
purchased it and it was obviously passed by the City. There has been no change in
condition. The person I bought it from said it was inspected by the City before I bought
it and it has been inspected by the Fire Safety Department since then. There have
been no changes to the utility room since I bought it and it has passed all other
inspections. It has been inspected by Section 8 when I had such tenants living there
and passed. I’m requesting the list be corrected and the item about the basement be
removed. I originally requested this hearing to request the reinspection date be pushed
back because various contractors I spoke with were unavailable until May. When I first
received the notice I called Thomas and told him that I was out of town and that is how
that was scheduled February 23. I felt I had no choice but to this appeal since the
Inspector had previously refused to reschedule the initial inspection when I told him a
few days prior to the 23rd that the picture window and adjacent window were smashed
by a tenant’s ex-husband. I knew that would be a problem already but he refused to do
it. That’s why I thought ok, he’s refusing rescheduling so that’s why I filed the appeal.
The original purpose of the appeal was to try to fix the timing issue to get it corrected
but since I have read the definition and assuming this deficiency is removed can we
reschedule the inspection this Thursday?
Moermond: that inspection is stayed pending the outcome of this appeal, so sit tight
on that. Ms. Shaff, any comments?
Shaff: when you site incidental use areas you are citing MN State Fire Code. You’re
talking about section 1105.3 which was not cited in your deficiency list.
Kostyk: yes it was, it cites 110.5.1 which refers to the stuff below.
Shaff: it cites 1105.1 that talks about the occupancy separations have to be
maintained. It also cites section 704.1 which says it has to be maintained as well. It is
quite clear from both the Code Compliance report and conditions of the building that
the basement separation hasn’t been maintained. It has changed. We don’t know what
the foam is. You haven’t provided any paperwork on it. It is clear there was