One notable issue discussed was the property on South Delon Avenue, where the owner, Sua Wall Massy, faced a violation for not meeting landscape maintenance standards. The owner requested an extension to install grass pallets and argued that steps, such as installing fencing to prevent parking on the lot, were already taken. Despite these efforts, the city and the code enforcement officer did not support the extension due to the lack of progress before the initial compliance deadline. The special magistrate found the property to be in violation and imposed a daily fine.

Another case involved a property on South Washington Avenue with non-compliant windows. The property manager and owner were present, and while the owner’s daughter claimed that some efforts had been made, such as removing tape and sticks from the windows, the city representative pointed out that the windows had broken latches and that multiple windows were in violation. The property manager mentioned that a window company had been contacted to address the issues but scheduling had delayed the process. Despite these explanations, the board denied an extension request and emphasized the owner’s responsibility to ensure compliance.

In case number 24-72, the board issued a verbal order for a property on Roosevelt Street, citing a violation of property maintenance code related to openable windows. The respondent, identified as the owner, was ordered to pay a daily fine of $100 starting on July 6th, 2024, until the violation was corrected. The owner was also instructed to obtain any necessary permits for window replacements and to notify the code enforcement department once the property was in compliance.

The board also addressed a case involving property on D Lane, where the owner, Janette Mcquiston, was cited for a lack of power and water services at the occupied townhome. Despite attempts to reach out to the owner, no compliance had been achieved. With no representation for the respondent present, the board found the respondent in violation and ordered the reestablishment of water service or the vacation of the premises, along with the imposition of a $234.19 administrative cost.

A different scenario unfolded for a property on Ridgewood Drive, where the code enforcement officer reported that all violations related to an accessory structure, a fence, a swimming pool, and a pool enclosure had been resolved before the compliance date. The property was found to be in compliance, and no further action was required.

The board also deliberated on a property on Winchester Drive that faced multiple violations, including the presence of inoperable and unlicensed vehicles, overgrown weeds, and grass. The board considered the definition of inoperable vehicles and the condition of the property’s yard while discussing the potential imposition of fines if the violations were not corrected by the deadline.