The foremost topic at the meeting involved the landlord of 506 Central Avenue, Tej Dip LLC, seeking an exemption from the city’s rent control ordinance. The landlord, represented by Vishnu Patel, argued that the property qualified for a 30-year exemption under state law intended for new developments. This exemption was contested by the rent leveling administrator, who maintained the property was subject to rent control. Patel highlighted construction delays and financial burdens, including an annual deficit of approximately $250,000, as reasons for the necessity of the exemption.

Discussions centered on whether the landlord had achieved substantial compliance with statutory notification requirements to tenants and the local building department. The landlord acknowledged delays in notifying tenants of the exemption but argued these were unintentional and later rectified. Patel emphasized efforts to inform tenants of the exemption status once the oversight was recognized. However, board members expressed skepticism about the landlord’s claims of substantial compliance and noted the importance of strict adherence to notification guidelines.

Board members voiced concerns over the landlord’s procedural compliance, with a focus on the significant 25% rent increase imposed on tenants. According to the board, state law mandates a 30-day notice for such increases, yet tenants reported receiving only a 10-day notice. This discrepancy raised questions about the landlord’s adherence to legal requirements, and the board ultimately upheld the hearing officer’s determination that the landlord failed to provide sufficient proof of compliance with state law. The board’s decision confirmed that the property remains subject to rent control, emphasizing the importance of following regulations.

In another significant agenda item, the board addressed a Vacancy Capital Improvement appeal for a property on Randolph Avenue, which involved costs associated with a bathroom renovation. The property owner, Demitri Galeto, claimed renovation expenses of $13,000, a figure disputed by an inspector who estimated costs at $6,800. The board debated the validity of the presented estimates, noting the lack of proper documentation required for a fair decision.

The board considered a compromise on the renovation cost, proposing a $10,000 valuation. This figure aimed to balance the original contractor’s charge and the inspector’s assessment while acknowledging that the renovation excluded a bathtub replacement. Ultimately, the board decided to remand the case for further consideration, requiring Galeto to resubmit necessary documents to support his claims.

Tenant Brad Parrott addressed the board about issues at his building, such as poor security and maintenance, compounded by an unexpected 25% rent hike after his first year. Another tenant, Daniel Divine, corroborated Parrott’s concerns, highlighting the short notice period for the rent increase, which contradicted state law.