Board of Adjustment Meeting Packet

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, June 17, 2026 at 9:00 AM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA IN-PERSON & VIRTUAL MEETING This Board of Adjustment Meeting for June 17, 2026 will be held in City Hall, City Council Chambers. The public is welcome to attend in person. The Meeting will also be provided as a Virtual Meeting using Webex, an audio/video conferencing system as an electronic means of communication. See participation information below to join by phone or computer. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION To Attend City of Dover Board of Adjustment Meeting of June 17, 2026 Join by Phone: Dial +1-650-479-3208 Access Code: 253 393 93321 Password from Phones: 36837262 Join Online: https://bit.ly/BOA06172026 Webinar Number: 2533 939 3321 Webinar Password: DoverBOA If you are new to Webex, get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. For problems accessing the meeting, please call the Planning Office at (302) 736-7196. Written comments are accepted via mail to City of Dover – Board of Adjustment, P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 and via email at CompPlan@dover.de.us. WELCOME ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Adoption of Minutes of May 20, 2026 1

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - June 17, 2026 PAGE 2 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Meeting Reminder: The next Board of Adjustment Meeting date is Wednesday, July 15, 2026 at 9:00 AM. OLD BUSINESS 2. Update on Draft Rules of Procedure for Board of Adjustment NEW BUSINESS The following Appeal Application was filed for Review and Public Hearing before the Board of Adjustment: 3. Appeal Application #V-26-03 Property at 1131 S. Bay Road known as Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park. An Appeal Application has been filed by the owner’s representative regarding the Zoning Violation issued as Code Enforcement Case #25-00004632 (and associated Case #20-00003344) and the allowance of a non-conforming use for recreational vehicle lots and recreational vehicle lot rentals. This Appeal pertains to a determination of the City of Dover Division of Code Enforcement to prohibit the addition of new non-conforming mobile homes, house trailers or recreational vehicles (RVs) on lots in the community. This Appeal is related to the enforcement of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 3 Section 8.4 Uses prohibited with Sections 8.41 and 8.42. The subject area of the property is zoned MH (Manufactured Housing Zone). The owner of record is Kings Cliffe MHP, LLC. Property Address: 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover DE. Tax Parcel: part of ED-05-086.00-01-080.000-000. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY - An opportunity is given for members of the public to provide comments to the Board of Adjustment not specifically related to Applications with Public Hearings. ADJOURN Posted Agenda: June 10, 2026 THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING 2

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES May 20, 2026 A Regular/Hybrid Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 9:05 A.M. in person in the City Council Chambers and using the phone/videoconferencing system Webex. Members present were Mr. Wagner, Mr. Senato. Ms. Brinkley and new member Mr. Albert “Bill” Holmes Jr. Mr. Coburn was absent. Staff members present were City Solicitor Mr. Daniel Griffith, Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Savage-Purnell, and Mrs. Walls. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Holmes moved for approval of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Brinkley and unanimously carried 4-0. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF March 18, 2026 Ms. Brinkley moved for approval of the meeting minutes of March 18, 2026 with any necessary corrections. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wagner and unanimously carried 3-0 and one not voting. Mr. Holmes stated that he did not vote on the meeting minutes of March 18, 2026 as he was not a Board member at that time. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that there are no other items. The Planning Staff has no other items right now and there will be one application for the June meeting. Chairman Senato mentioned that the next Board of Adjustment Meeting is Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 09:00 A.M. Chairman Senato asked if there were any other items. Special Recognition Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned on your agenda today is a Resolution honoring the service of Christian J. Swalm to the Board of Adjustment. The Resolution reads as follows: RESOLUTION Whereas, Mr. Christian J. Swalm became an appointed member of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment on July 22, 2024 and has served with diligence in this capacity to ensure that the spirit of the City’s Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done; and, Whereas, Mr. Christian J. Swalm has played a role in ensuring fundamental fairness and careful forethought in the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure undue hardship and 1 3

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. exceptional practical difficulties are mitigated by the granting of variances through his service on the Board of Adjustment; and, Whereas, Mr. Christian J. Swalm in reviewing and deliberating on variance applications considered a property’s zoning classification, character of the area, effects on neighboring properties and uses, and the creation of exceptional practical difficulties for property owners seeking to make normal improvements to their properties; and, Whereas, Mr. Christian J. Swalm shared his knowledge of real estate matters when deliberating and in the consideration of applications while learning more about land use and zoning matters; and, Whereas, Mr. Christian J. Swalm ended his term of service on the City of Dover Board of Adjustment as of May 1, 2026. Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the City of Dover Board of Adjustment does hereby express its sincere appreciation to Christian J. Swalm for his service to the Citizens of the City of Dover as an active member of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment and extends it best wishes to Christian J. Swalm in future endeavors. Ms. Brinkley moved to adopt the Resolution honoring the services of Christian J. Swalm to the Board of Adjustment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wagner and unanimously carried 4-0. Chairman Senato thanked Mr. Swalm for his service. He stated that Mr. Swalm was an asset as a member of the Board who also contributed a lot of information. On behalf of the other members, we wish you the very best in the forthcoming years in whatever you do. Mr. Swalm said thank you very much. I just want to say something really quick. Serving on the City of Dover Board of Adjustment has been a meaningful experience for me. I had the opportunity to work alongside dedicated Board members, City Staff, Attorneys, Engineers and Planners on important Land Use and Zoning matters that directly impacted the community. This role gave me experience on seeing how decisions related to development, property rights, infrastructure and many other things that impact real people and working families every day. I would like to thank the City for placing trust in me at a relatively young age and allowing me the opportunity to serve in this capacity. As many of you may know my resignation comes as a result of me relocating back to Middletown. But while closing this chapter, my commitment to public service and community involvement is not. I look forward to continuing to stay involved in land use, housing and community issues and variance and zoning matters moving forward. And thank you again to the Board and the City Staff and everyone that I have worked with during my time here. I truly appreciate the experience and the relationship I have developed with all of you along the way. Chairman Senato mentioned again, thank you for your service. We really appreciate it very much. Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS Continued Discussion of Draft Rules of Procedure for Board of Adjustment 2 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned you begin this process back in September of last year. Included in your packet was the original Draft that you started with that the City Solicitor Mr. Griffith offered as a kind of a starting point making use of other examples that he was aware of. And throughout the ensuing months predominantly in December and then in March of this year, you worked through that document kind of line by line, and making suggestions, and corrections to that. As a result, we have attempted to capture all of those suggested revisions and changes in what we are calling the Draft May 26 version of the document. What I've done is placed any new language in red and red strike through if we were eliminating something. I will let you know that the March minutes were not fully prepared when I finalized this document, so there may be things that we need to go back and capture. There are a couple of things that I left in blue where we need to either clarify what the intent was or some additional information needs to go in that area. If the Solicitor has some opening remarks and then beyond that we can probably just quickly kind of look through this. I would not anticipate that it would be officially ready for formal adoption today. We may have a few more edits, but we're certainly getting there. City Solicitor: Thank you, Dawn. I just had a couple of comments. Because we've been working through this in and out for about eight months. I thought it might be a helpful reminder as to why we're doing this. Most larger Boards of Adjustment in the State of Delaware have Rules of Procedure. And the reason is not just to guide us in terms of how we conduct our meetings, although that’s certainly helpful for that purpose; but it's really for the purpose of the public to be able to know how we do things. To be able to look at the Rules of Procedure and know how to present an application and to know what we are thinking about and to incorporate open public meetings requirements of the FOIA. So, what we are doing is tedious exercise and I get that. We are working through language paragraph by paragraph. But it really is important for the members of the public in the City of Dover to understand when they come before the Board how things work and know that we are not just flying by the seat of our pants. That we are guided by Rules and Procedures that we follow. Thank you for the painful process of working through it paragraph-by paragraph and word-by-word. It has been a very conscientious endeavor. I certainly appreciate it as somebody who will ultimately have to defend the Board if an applicant, landowner, or taxpayer challenges something we do. In the same way, I want to express my really deep appreciation to the Planning Staff. We worked through this during our multiple meetings and just say this should be changed, that should be changed. And it's a little easier to just say it in an open meeting, but then the task of having to go back and try to parse through what we decided and then incorporate those changes for the strikethroughs and additions, and then present this document to us had to be hard for you know a very busy and probably overworked Staff. The extra work it took to incorporate the changes we've already made. To be able to look today at where we started in September and where we are now as of May, it was herculean for the Staff to do this. So, I want to express my appreciation for the Staff for getting us to where we are. Now that we have the documents before us, I think the most helpful way to do it would be to go through the May version. In the packets, I have it as 35 pages with the Draft May edits on page 20 of 35 (out of the packet). If the Board members would be so kind as to scroll or get to that page where the red edits start, I think we could just kind of walk through what has been done and confirm that the red reflects what we want. Mrs. Melson-Williams: If you have your paper version of the packet, it's the one that says Draft May 2026 as you see on the screen. It is page number 1 of 16. The packet numbers that City 3 5

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. Solicitor Griffith would be packet page numbers for your entire meeting packet if you were looking at it on your computer. City Solicitor: If everybody is on the same page literally with the heading Rules and Procedure, you will see the first red edit is the Planning Staff putting in the authority of the Board and how we have been created and what the statutory authority for our work is. I think that's absolutely appropriate. The public should know where we get our authority from. Does anybody have any comments on that edit? After that, the next edit is definitionally. I think it was Chairman and, we changed it to Chairperson. I assume that there are no comments on that. The next definitions that were changed were to identify what a variance is and the difference between an Area Variance and a Use Variance. These definitions are pretty much taken as under Delaware State Law. Applicants can know whether they are applying for a Use Variance or an Area Variance. We apply a different standard for each. The next edit is an Appeal and how we define an Appeal. As you may recall, we not only hear original applications for things like Area Variances and Use Variances, but we also hear Appeals from zoning determinations. Mr. Wagner asked if they jumped over Area Variances. What are “related bulk standards?” Mrs. Melson-Williams: Under the term “Area Variance” related bulk standards would be things like setbacks from property lines, size of something, height, and other limitations. They're kind of “number” things that are part of the Zoning Ordinance that would limit how and where development could happen. For example, on a property the bulk standards would govern how close the building could be from property lines, the height of the building, and things like that. City Solicitor: We were just talking about Appeals. So, what I was explaining is that sometimes you hear an original application for some type of variance, like we just said either Area Variance or a Use Variance. But also, you all have the authority to consider and determine Appeals from zoning determinations that have been made. If an applicant gets a letter from an administrative official in the City concerning land use issues and wants to appeal that then there's original jurisdiction for this body to consider that Appeal as well. Mr. Wagner: Does that clarify 18.2? My question becomes if there is an Appeal. To who do you request the Appeal to and what is the procedure. We had a considerable discussion on 18.2. City Solicitor: Said 18.2 is the Request for a rehearing. I don't know if that relates to Record of an Appeal. Request for a Rehearing is 18.2. Oh, now I get it. So, one of the things we were talking about when we came to 18.2 is what happens if an applicant is disenchanted with your decision, and what are their opportunities for recourse? What do they do? In the original Draft of these, we had a provision where they can ask you to reconsider your decision. We struck that. So, if they are disenchanted with your decision and this is consistent with Delaware Code and the Municipal Code, their recourse is an Appeal to the Superior Court and not coming back to you and asking you to change your mind. 4 6

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. City Solicitor: Just so you know, the difference between an Appeal and the definitions and this provision. An Appeal, there are some cases where you have the original jurisdiction for an Appeal of a decision that another City Code Official makes. So, for instance if a landowner says I think my neighbor's use of their property exceeds what the property is zoned for and they write a letter to the City for that. And then a mystery official for the city says I reviewed this and NO. It looks like I think your neighbor is using this property the exact way it is zoned for; and you decide well I'm going to appeal that, then that comes before the Board. Mr. Wagner: He said okay. City Solicitor: There are some matters where you hear Appeals and there are some where you hear initial Applications. This definition part that we are on now relates to when you hear an Appeal. Rule 1 – Duties 1.1 City Solicitor: Moving back to where we were on definition. The last definition was Appeals. The first red edit we changed “Chairman” to “Chairperson.” 1.2 The only real edit here is the obligation and role of the Office of the Board of Adjustment to send out notices and to keep records. Correction: It's not the role of the Officer of the Board of Adjustment to keep those records; it's the Department of Planning and Inspections to keep records and send out notices. 1.4 Here we added the provision that the Office of the City Clerk shall provide guidance to ensure appropriate Record retention practices are followed because it is the Office of the City Clerk who is responsible for retention of City Records. Chairman Senato: In 1.4 you have the Board of Adjustment activity as required by law, he would presume is more general than anything else. City Solicitor: What that really says is for the Office of the City Clerk, one of their main rules is to maintain all official City Records. Because we are an agency or an administrative body of the City of Dover, the Records shall be maintained by the Office of the City Clerk. Rule 2 2.1 City Solicitor: The only edit we made was to include a Public Comments Opportunity on the agenda. And the reason we did that is because it's a requirement under the Delaware Open 5 7

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. Meetings Law. Every one of our meetings that you might recall has to include an opportunity for public comment. Mrs. Melson-Williams: That opportunity for public comment is outside of a particular Application appearing before you. I think there was some confusion about that during our discussion. So, you have an Application for a Variance or an Appeal that has a public hearing, that is not what we are talking about here. This is a separate opportunity for public comment. It can be a comment on how the Board is functioning or something like that. It's not tied to a specific Application that has come before you. 2.2 City Solicitor: And that ties into the next edit as well. If you look at 2.2. There was a sentence stricken. That sentence says “the privilege of the floor may be granted to the public at any time by the presenting officer.” That's not really the case. There is a time for public comment and there is a time for the presentation of an Application or an Appeal. We do not want the presiding officer to simply open up the floor for public comment at any time during the meeting. 2.3 City Solicitor: There's a small edit to 2.3, but it's kind of important because it changes having comments or testimony. What we are talking about is setting reasonable time limits on the testimony and support of an application, which is different from public comment. I think the edit makes that clear as to what we are talking about. It’s limits on testimony in support of an application. The Chair can also set limits on public comments as well. 2.4 City Solicitor: These are minor semantic edits when all we did was add terminology to make it clear what we're talking about is the business schedule at a meeting. Are there any comments on 2.4? Chairman Senato: The reason is we anticipated the presentation and/or the meeting may be suspended by motion and approval of majority of the Board of Adjustment members present. I just have a note/wording and I could be wrong. “May be suspended by the Chairperson by the motion and approval of majority of the Board of Adjustment members present.” How does the Board feel about that? Again, the meeting may be suspended by motion, and I am suggesting “and the meeting may be suspended by the Chairperson with a motion and the approval of the majority.” City Solicitor: So, action by the Board has to be by the majority of the Board. My concern is that it says the Chairperson is the one doing the adjourning of the meeting, even though it makes clear that it's after the motion. I think we might be better served if the provision makes clear that it is the Board that is suspending the meeting and not one person. Chairman Senato: Okay, thank you. 6 8

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. Mrs. Melson-Williams: So, your recommendation would be to leave that as is without the reference to the presiding officer or Chair? Chairman Senato: Yes, according to the Solicitor. 2.6 City Solicitor: So that does two things. The first thing it does is make clear that there is going to be a Public Comments Opportunity during all of our meetings, and then it talks about how the public comment obligation will be carried out. So, we don't anticipate it. We haven't had it since I've been here, but the presiding officer or the Chairperson can take action if we have either a speaker who is going beyond a reasonable time or, you know, a hundred speakers that wanted to take 3 hours. The Chairperson has the right to limit the time for public comment. And that's consistent with the open public meetings law that allows a public body to impose reasonable time restrictions on public comment. And then the other thing is, how those public comments can be made. You are not limited to showing up in person and making a presentation or a public comment here. An individual may submit a written statement in addition. And then it gives the presiding officer discretion to strike unduly, competitive, or irrelevant comments. Chairman Senato: I want to go to 2.5 regarding administrating the oath directed by the presiding officer. Basically, either the Chair or the Chairperson or the attorney, if I am reading this right can issue the oath. I believe it is in one of the Codes. This is a point of information. City Solicitor: That is right. The way we have been doing it is that I've been administering the oath to people testifying, but what this provision says is that, whether I'm here or whether I’m not here, you can designate somebody to administer the oath. Chairman Senato: Thank you for the clarification. Rule 3 – Meetings of the Board of Adjustment 3.1 City Solicitor: This makes clear that if for some reason this room is not available, then our meetings can be held at another location made available by the City. The only comment I would make for 3.1 is if the meetings are going to be held at a different location other than City Hall, then it will need to be put on the agenda. 3.2 City Solicitor: The first edit has to do with meeting times. Regular meetings shall convene at 9:00 A.M. But then the edit makes clear that the meeting time may be adjusted by the Chairperson in consultation with City Staff or by a majority vote of the Board. You have the ability to change the time of your meetings. We would have to be in compliance with the public notice requirements. That would have to be sufficiently noticed in advance. You can't wait until the morning of and say let’s do this at 10:30 instead of 9. But you do have the discretion to change the time of your meetings. 7 9

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. Mrs. Melson-Williams: Staff added that one about the adjustment by the Chair and in consultation with City Staff. My thoughts there were that if for some reason there was a weather delay and the City opening did not happen until after the start of the meeting time. So, something along those lines unexpected to be then able to adjust it somewhat administratively. For example, this morning's meeting was scheduled at 9; however, we had a freak snowstorm last night and City Offices weren't opening until 10 to be able to adjust that time. City Solicitor: Thank you for that edit. 3.3 City Solicitor: Just a couple edits. The first just makes clear that we refer to Title 29, Chapter 100 of the Delaware Code (Freedom of Information Act) FOIA, and then we changed “Chairman” to “Chairperson.” 3.4 – No changes 3.5 City Solicitor: This is also a requirement of the FOIA of the public meetings. It just makes clear that minutes will be kept and they will be made available for inspection and copying as authorized by FOIA. So, any member of the public can make a FOIA request for the minutes of our meetings. And they are considered public records. Ms. Brinkley: Just an observation to add “be” after the word can. It should read “such minutes can be made available instead” of “can made”. City Solicitor: Yes, you are right. You found a grammatical error. City Solicitor: We might have to workshop this a little bit. The first sentence says minutes of all meetings including executive sessions shall be kept and then such minutes can be made available for public inspection. Actually, executive session minutes cannot be made available for public inspection under FOIA. Maybe what we should do is say in the second sentence that minutes of public meetings can be made available for public inspection. City Solicitor: Is there any objection to that language? There were none. City Solicitor: So, the way it reads now is it says, “minutes of both public meetings and executive session can be made available to the public.” The actual statement of the law for minutes of executive sessions states that if we moved into executive session back in that room and away from the public and we held an executive session, there would be minutes kept of that, but those minutes are not public. So, what we're trying to do is to distinguish between minutes that are made from our public meetings can be available for inspections or available for the public, but minutes of executive sessions are not available to the public. I think the way to do that would be in the second sentence say, “minutes of public meetings can be made available.” If there's consensus for that, we can move on to the next item. 8 10

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. Rule 4 – Public Notice of Meetings 4.1. City Solicitor: The only edit is to make clear that the public notices will be provided at least 7 days before the meeting date. That is the requirement under the public meetings Law. That should not be controversial. 4.2 City Solicitor: The first edit eliminates “property” because that doesn't apply here. The next editing includes hearings from variance requests and appeal applications. That's really what this Board does. What you do is variance requests and appeals applications. So, that's what you have hearings for and that just makes it clear that what we are doing is providing public notices and advertisements for these types of hearings. And then the last edit on this paragraph is the Department of Planning and Inspections is responsible for completing notices, and that's the way it has always been done. 4.3 City Solicitor: This was inserted by Staff because they know the rules of notice better than we do. They inserted this provision to comply with the Law. 4.4 / 4.5 City Solicitor: It is the same for 4.4 and 4.5. Staff inserted these edits to make sure that it is clear how Staff provides notices. Mrs. Melson-Williams: Yes, public notice is actually outlined in how it occurs. It's actually outlined in the City's Zoning Ordinance in Article 9 that deals with the Board of Adjustment. So, this language is basically lifted from that as notice of all hearings. There is a mailing that goes out to adjacent property owners that by Code has to be completed 10 days prior to the hearing and it is also subject to a newspaper legal ad as well with the same time notice. Then there's also provisions if the subject application is in proximity of an adjacent municipality. Rule 5 – Agenda City Solicitor: Again, the provision regarding the agenda is largely dictated by the public meetings law. 5.1 City Solicitor: We changed “one week to 7 days” which I think is the right thing. It makes it clear and it is the language used by the public meetings law. Chairman Senato: He asked about the 7 days. Did it used to be 10 days? 9 11

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. Mrs. Melson-Williams: The public notice is very specifically in our Code as ten. For the agenda posting, our Code is silent about that and absent of any kind of Rules of Procedures, we chose to follow the FOIA requirement which is the 7 days. You may not have your packet at that 7 day point, but you will have the agenda in hand. Ms. Brinkley: The Agenda for the Board of Adjustment meetings shall be available to members of the Board of Adjustment at least seven days prior. She asked if the 7 days prior were in delivery of the packets to the Board members or is it available somewhere else at 7 days? Mrs. Melson-Williams: So, this talks specifically about the agenda and at that 7 day timeframe that agenda has to be posted. Referring back to Rule 4, its where the agenda is posted on a bulletin board here in City Hall. It is posted on the website. What we do if the packet is not going out to you on that day, which is what happened this time, we are very specifically emailing the Board of Adjustment, that yes, you're having the meeting and here is the meeting agenda. You can mark your calendar for one week, 7 days prior to your meeting, which in this case would have been last Wednesday. You're either getting your packet delivered to you that day or you're getting an email that at least has the agenda in it. Ms. Brinkley: I was just trying to clear that up in my head, thank you. Mr. Holmes: What about if there's a holiday in that week? Mrs. Melson-Williams: We still count calendar days. 5.2 City Solicitor: It’s the Staff because all applications and appeals come first to the Staff. They place them on the agenda for the next meeting date. And then the second part provides authority for you members of the Board if there is some type of matter that you believe should be on the agenda for a particular meeting to contact Staff. You contact the Director of Planning and Inspections and let them know that there's an item you would like to put on the agenda. So, in other words, the Staff will create the agenda based on the applications and appeals that they receive, but if you want something else in addition to that, you can feel free to contact Staff and make that request. Mrs. Melson-Williams: This is why we left that paragraph that is in blue italics. That was in your original Draft, and it was a little unclear as to what the Board had decided about the ability of others to place items on the agenda. So, I think that may need some more discussion or clarification. Ms. Brinkley: When I was reading this under 5.2 “The Department of Planning and Inspections shall be responsible for the preparation and contents of the agenda based on the applications as filed meeting established deadlines and other matters and correspondence that may come before the Board.” That just wasn't clear to me. City Solicitor: It might be confusing because it might be interpreted as referring to a meeting that we have. What it really means is the application has to meet the deadline. In other words, if an application was filed two days ago, and the applicant said, “hey, can I have it on Wednesday's 10 12

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. agenda?” We cannot do that; we have to meet the applicable deadline. The “meeting” there is not referencing an actual “meeting” of the Board. It’s referring to the obligation of the applicant to meet the appropriate deadline. Ms. Brinkley: Is there a way you can clarify that a little bit? City Solicitor: I think we can say as far as “complying” with established deadlines. Ms. Brinkley: Thank you. City Solicitor: Did the Board want to have any discussion on the blue edits which really apply to Applications and Appeals that go to the Planning Staff? The Planning Staff creates the agenda based on those Applications and Appeals. This provision has to do with any additional items on the agenda and how the Board wants to handle either requests from members of the public to put things on the agenda or requests from members of the Board to put things on the agenda. I think the way it reads; I'm not on the Board so I don’t get to vote here. All roads are run through the Planning Department. In other words, if you members of the Board want something on the agenda, you go to the Department of Planning and Inspections. If members of the public want something on the agenda, they do the same thing. In my view, the Planning Staff has special expertise. Dawn in particular has special expertise in determining what matters the Board has jurisdiction over and what matters the Board does not have jurisdiction over. Because what this process involves really is going to be determining whether this is an appropriate matter for the Board or not. To me it makes sense for the people with specialized expertise to make the determination. So, that if either a Board member or a member of the public believes something should be on the agenda, that request should be made to the Staff. Chairman Senato: Yes, definitely if they have the expertise. I would presume that any addition to the agenda by the Board or the public would have to relate to the particular applicant or particular meeting that is coming up or have to deal with an application. Is there any other factor? Would that leave it open to other items coming to the agenda that perhaps would not be related and have to be determined by Ms. Melson-Williams at that time? Ms. Melson-Williams: The only thing that Staff would note is we'll probably revise this too instead of specifically saying the Director of Planning and Inspections, to just use the term Department of Planning and Inspections because technically at the moment that individual position is not filled. That’s one thing that Staff would note here. It looks like there are probably four instances of that. City Solicitor: It would just be a matter of taking the word “Director” out and putting the word “Department” in. But I think otherwise this provision makes sense in terms of having the Department make the decision as to what items go on the agenda including requests from the Board to go on the agenda. Mr. Holmes: Yes, I agree with the City Solicitor. I would like the Planning and Inspections Department to take care of all of it and present me with an agenda. I want the public to go to them and not to me. I want the Department of Planning to handle it. Thank you. 11 13

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. City Solicitor: Other than the substitution of the word “Department” for “Director,” we will keep that in. 5.3 There are no edits. There is a blue provision about adding the statement about the Board of Adjustment meeting packet. I think what we talked about is not necessarily the content of the packet but the timing that packets are received. Is that right Dawn? Mrs. Melson-Williams: Yes, I think since there is a packet that is distributed to the Board of Adjustment, we want to make some reference to that. Probably a statement of what the general contents of that are being the agenda and then the documents submitted. Also, we should probably indicate that it would be delivered to the members of the Board, and the word “delivered” I would not define it more than that. Right now, we do distribute via hard copy, but we also can distribute electronically. I think we would also note that the meeting packet would also be posted on the city's website, which is the practice we have today. City Solicitor: I can propose language for that and circulate it. I don't think I realized that the packet got posted. Now in terms of the timeframe for the posting, I don't want to put any pressure on the Staff for that. I don't know if there's a requirement or deadline for the posting of the packet. Would it be the preference of the Staff for that to be just as soon as reasonably practical to be posted? Mrs. Melson-Williams: Yes, because it doesn't always meet seven days, but by FOIA we only need the agenda posted by seven days. So, we strive to have it certainly within five days of your meeting. City Solicitor: We will try to add a provision to 5.4 which I can circulate and which can say something to the effect of the Department of Planning and Inspections will prepare a meeting packet for the members of the Board as soon as reasonably practical in advance of the meeting. The package shall include, among other things, the agenda, minutes from the prior meeting if available, and all materials supporting any Applications or Appeals. Ms. Brinkley: This is just in reference to the agenda, but not the informational content of what we would be dealing with. I know I need time to be able to consider it to do my best job on this Board. Receipt in seven days of that information is a really good time period because this is a one day out of a month kind of a deal that we do here, but we want to have time and give our best to it. We need time to be able to read it and think about it. City Solicitor: Yeah, I think that's the ideal. I don't know that including it as a requirement is helpful because Staff is really busy. I don't want it to be a violation of the Rules and Procedure if you get it five or six days before the meeting. So that's why I thought it might be helpful to say it's as soon as reasonably practical. That way, it’s no gun to the Staff’s head to have it out by seven days in advance, but the Staff can use its best efforts to get it out as soon as possible. Chairman Senato: The only comment I have is that this is a lot of work that goes into these packets from my experience and I know the Staff has been under the gun with most of this probably with everything you had to do. But I feel that the Board members need adequate time to 12 14

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. review, particularly if it's going to be a long case with a lot of information. I'm sure that Mrs. Melson-Williams will as quickly as possible provide the information and give us at least give us three or four days rather than the day before. I know the Minutes haven't been coming out and they're supposed to be ready for the next meeting to be approved and there's no way we can approve minutes two months later. We received a hard copy of the minutes today. I didn't have a chance to get on my computer last night because I got in late to read the electronic minutes that were sent a day before the meeting. I think we have to have some consensus of allowing the information to be presented to the Board members rather than that at the meeting or two days before. I'm hoping that at least with the Minutes we will have them every meeting month after the previous meeting and not two or three months later. As far as the packet, I would like to see that packet at least five days prior to the meeting. Not putting any restraints on Mrs. Melson- Williams and her Staff. But at least to give the members of the Board who do their due diligence to spend enough time to come into the meeting and make a sound judgment rather than rushing through it. It is important to the applicant that we do the best we can. With that being said it will be up to Mrs. Melson-Williams, I’m sure. Ms. Brinkley: It is a consideration I think of the Board and for the Planning Staff. I do understand you feeling like you are under the gun and not able to do your best job. You may not be able to get it out in seven days. Maybe just some compromise there, so it’s as close to seven days as possible. We need to put some kind of timing on it. I would not want it to end up either being two or three days before the meeting. City Solicitor: If the Board members feel like it's been working sufficiently so far and trust the Department to get it out as reasonably soon as possible, I wonder if we even need to include a provision here about that. As they said, trust the process. Ms. Brinkley: We have like seven days there now, right? City Solicitor: Yes, there's seven days for the agenda, but not the packet. Ms. Brinkley: I trust the Staff at this point. I've been receiving my information in a timely manner. Mr. Holmes: I’m on a lot of other Commissions and was on the City of Dover Planning Commission years ago. Staff always do a good job. They always get it out to you. I take my hat off to all the different Staffs. I’m sure they will take care of us. Thank you. Chairman Senato: They haven’t failed the Board yet. City Solicitor: There might be a consensus just not to put a deadline on the packet and materials and leave as it is. Rule 6 – Attendance of Members of the Board of Adjustment at meetings; Quorums 6.1 City Solicitor: Instead of just notifying one person, if a member is not able to make a meeting, the member shall be responsible for notifying both the Chairperson and the Director of Planning 13 15

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. and Inspections or Staff member. So, it could be Mr. Senato and/or another Presiding Officer or either Dawn or Staff. Chairman Senato: In doing all of this, something is missing. I believe it was a couple of months ago that the attendance of the City Solicitor at the meetings it was suggested and that we add that the City Solicitor should attend all meetings. If not, a representative from his office should be in attendance at the Board meetings. I believe Mr. Coburn made a motion and it was approved by the majority of the Board. When it was brought up and discussed very seriously, it was dropped from Rule 6. And my first question is, why was it dropped if the Board had agreed; correct me if I'm wrong, I believe there was a motion and Ms. Brinkley and Mr. Wagner, you were here, to that effect. So, whether the Planning Department or the City Solicitor agreed or disagreed with it, it should have been in this packet as requested by the majority members of the Board at that time and maybe further discussed. Mrs. Melson-Williams: I will note that discussion occurred at your March 18 meeting and it is found on page 20 of those minutes. As I noted, this main version of your “Rules of Procedures” was ready for basically distribution before those minutes were officially completed. So, it would be an item. I don't know if we specifically said where it should go, but it was mentioned and we just need to find the proper location in these rules for it to go. It was right after the discussion of Rule 19, so it was kind of at the end when we were at the section of any other questions and thoughts about the “Rules of Procedures.” So, it was discussed and it can be made part of your “Rules of Procedure.” Rule 9 talks about the attendance of the members of the Board of Adjustment. I'm not sure if there's a better location in these rules or if there needs to be an additional rule or statement. Chairman Senato: I believe at the time it was mentioned and that's why it was brought up by Mr. Coburn because we were talking about attendance of members of the Board of Adjustment. Of course, the City's Solicitors considered a member not necessarily of the Board members himself, but he's here at the Board meetings. That's why it was suggested at that time it would go under 19.1 where Rule 6 is attendance and members. Maybe that's a technicality and maybe we should have 6.1. I think that’s where it was agreed upon at that time and that's why it was brought up because we were discussing attendance. It could either go in there as a numbered paragraph just for the City Solicitor. But it seems logical that it would be the place to go. Mr. Holmes: Yes, I think that is where it should go, number one and number two. I think the City Solicitor should be at all the meetings. I don’t want to do business without someone here. I don’t expect him to be at every meeting because he has his life to live, but I think he could always make sure that somebody is sent to represent (another attorney). I remember one time when I was head of the Planning Commission for the County and the Solicitor did not show up, we didn't have the meeting. We dismissed the meeting and had it the following week. I think it's very important that you have legal representation at these meetings because you will never know what might happen, especially when you are dealing with the public. City Solicitor: We can add it to Rule 6. The only question I have in my head is whether an administrative body of the City can require the City Solicitor to be at their meetings. That might be a City Council decision. I don’t know if the City's Human Rights Commission decided that the City's Solicitor should be at other meetings or whether they have the authority to just make that determination on their own. I think it might be a City Council decision as to how I spend the 14 16

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. City money. I think we can put it in, but it might be worthwhile to say if there's any objection later on, we recognize that it might be beyond the authority of the Board to require the City Solicitor to be at all of their meetings. Ms. Brinkley: With the unavailability of a City Solicitor at each one of our meetings, I could see where that goes to extend issues that we might have or concerns about because we might need that legal consultation. And we're thinking about a Staff that's overworked, that works really hard and they do a good job. And just waiting and waiting and waiting for an issue to be resolved, I think that puts more work into our Planning Office. And on something that we have fresh in our minds, trying to think about, why not just go and get it out of the way. That's really important, I think getting something out of the way. Just a comment to be considered. Mr. Wagner: Because this requires expenditure, let's pass it on to the City Council to get it resolved because I think that's the issue. City Solicitor: I won't say as a matter of practice that I won’t be at the meeting. I’ve been here almost a year. As better practice, either I or somebody from my office will be covering every meeting. There are only two meetings that I attend every one of and that’s City Council meetings and these meetings. Mr. Wagner: Was it resolved? City Solicitor: When I was first hired as City Solicitor, I kind of asked, hey, what meetings do I go to? And I was told by I think the City Manager, you go to every Board of Adjustment meeting, every City Council meeting and then you go to other meetings at the request of either the City Council or the Department Head. Chairman Senato: I guess the reason why this was brought up to the solicitor personally. For the presiding officer or the Chair if we have a request not brought forward prior to (the meeting) with the exception of one that he had to be dismissed from the meeting, and the thing that bothers me is when we have an applicant in front of us. We are a quasi-court which means similar or like in a sense as everyone knows. I don't want to be here conducting a meeting and have an applicant here participating and the frustration of what he has to go through if that’s the case and then have the City Solicitor say I’ve got to stop the meeting because I have to take a call with the Judge. I'm not being critical of the City Solicitor because he has his work to do and that's fine. What I have to worry about as the Chair, I have to consider the Board members. I have to consider Mrs. Melson’s time and the work that the Staff has put in. I have to consider the work that you have put in, but I have to consider the citizens in the audience and mainly the applicant in my mind. And I don't want an applicant to wait. We just get ready to vote on something and I'm going to call for a 15 minute recess. That's not going to happen. It's not going to happen when I all of a sudden have whispered I got to leave for 10 minutes because I have to make a call. Maybe it sounds as if I’m being critical and I apologize to the City Solicitor. Believe me, I have a lot of respect for the City Solicitor since I have known him. That's not the reason; I'm just talking about policy. I'm talking about how the Chair feels about interrupting a meeting with the applicants or whoever else is there anticipating some kind of a decision from this Board without any kind of delay. It should never be. In the 27 years, possibly, I have been on the Board, we have never had this problem. We have never missed a City Solicitor here at the meeting for the Executive Session. So, my obligation is to the Board, Mrs. Melson, to the citizens, and the 15 17

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. responsibility that I have to the City of Dover. With that being said I hope that we can come up with an agreement that a City Solicitor or representative will be here at all times. For the City Solicitor, this is the meeting committee or Boards they should be attending. Because if he is not here, not through his fault, and then all of a sudden we need to go into an Executive Session and we don't have an attorney. Or a Board member asks a question and we need a legal opinion and he's not here. What do you do? I don't want that situation to happen at all. City Solicitor: Why don't we have a vote to include a provision in the Rule that the City Solicitor or a representative be present at each of the meetings. I don't have any difficulty in including that in the Rules of Procedure. The only caveat I would have is it's not in conceivable that members of City Council can override that. So, we'll include that provision under Rule 6. Ms. Brinkley: I do have one question. On “or a Representative from,” would we include that? It would say something to the effect that the City Solicitor or his or her Representative. City Solicitor: It might make sense to put that in as the last part of 6.1. rather than add a new provision at the end. Because that provision relates to attendance. It would be another sentence added to 6.1. 6.3 City Solicitor: It previously said when a quorum is not present, the members may adjourn, it makes sense. You can't do business if the quorum’s not there. So, that edit makes clear that when a quorum is not present, it’s required to adjourn. 6.4 City Solicitor: This just changes Office of Planning and Inspections to the Department of Planning and Inspections. It makes it clear again that if no members are present Staff members shall adjourn the meeting. 6.5 City Solicitor: Previously said that three affirmative votes would be required. But that's not actually the case, because if three members of the Board are present at a meeting you have a quorum and two affirmatives’ votes would be sufficient. So, we took that provision out. It previously said that a majority of the members of the Board present can vote on these. So, because a quorum can be three, there can be two votes. This provision previously said you need three votes to approve a variance application. That is not actually the case. If only three of you are here, you only need two votes. The new 6.5 is just a semantic change. Rule 7 – Voting Procedure City Solicitor: There are no substantive changes other than 7.1 rather than the presiding officer calling a vote. The presiding officer request a call of the vote. 16 18

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. Rule 8 – Record Keeping 8.1 City Solicitor: This is also a requirement of the FOIA. A file shall be kept in the Department of Planning and Inspections of all Board of Adjustment meetings. Rule 9 – Minutes of Board of Adjustment Meetings 9.1 City Solicitor: Describes what the minutes consist of. One edit is that it includes the meeting format so that if it is both in person and video availability. The minutes will include not only the members of the Board that are present but also the Staff members who are present. So, subsection “F” here was a subject of discussion at a prior meeting. We talked about what should be included in the minutes. The language we came up with is included in the edit so that the minutes will describe and summarize what was said. It will not be a verbatim transcript. That’s the way it has been done. I think that's what we agreed on. And then “G” the minute shall reference the reports, exhibits, and other documents submitted for the record. I think this is all consistent with what common practice has been. Chairman Senato: I believe there was a general discussion if I remember, there was some opposition by a couple of Board members. Ok, let me ask you this. The minutes that we are going to approve would be as said, but the full transcript of the minutes will not be presented on the agenda for approval; just the short version, am I correct? City Solicitor: So, you have the minutes in front of you from the March meeting. This is typically what minutes look like. It's a kind of a summary of what's said rather than verbatim transcript. Although this looks much like a transcript. But we are not requiring the Staff to put together the full transcript of everything that was said at every meeting. What it does is just kind of summarize what was said by everybody. Chairman Senato: We vote on a summation. And not on the total minutes that were transcribed. Could this in the future bring up a bring up a legal situation? In other words, here is my problem with that. But the problem is to me the legality. If the Board is voting on the minutes that were said and discussed in an hour’s meeting with an applicant, and here we are voting on a short version. The problem I have with that is what happens with the full version? Is that without voting and coming up in front of the Board a legal document? If anything happens or if there's errors or omissions or miswording on those full minutes that the Board members haven't had a chance to look at prior to the meeting and saying “yay” or “nay” That's my problem. We are approving something that we are not really seeing. We are just seeing a summation. Errors can be made. Things could be misinterpreted. If you have an Appeal or anything like that, I’m sure the Superior Court is going to want the full version and not the short version. City Solicitor: So, the way it typically works when we go to the Superior Court of handling probably a hundred Appeals from administrative decisions, is that the first thing after an Appeal is taken is that the Superior Court will order that the record below be transmitted to the Superior Court. So, what does the record below consist of? The record below consists of the materials that 17 19

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. were given to the Board as part of the meeting and the minutes of the meeting. The Superior Court is pretty used to seeing that the record consists of the minutes, not necessarily a verbatim transcript. Now, that goes back historically. More recently, most meetings are recorded; so, we have either a video recording or an audio recording of all meetings. So, we can go back later if there is ever an Appeal and find and create a transcript of that meeting. I think an audio recording is made of these meetings. So, if there is ever an Appeal that a transcript can be created. But for your purposes, what you're really doing in each meeting when you look at the minutes, it's just making sure that they accurately reflect what happened generally in terms of yes, I voted that way or the other person did not vote that way. This is a fair summary of the Application that was brought. So, you don't really need a verbatim transcript for purposes of creating accurate records for an Appeal. That can be done after the Appeal is taken. Chairman Senato: I just want to make sure that if they go to Superior Court or something happens that the Board actions for whatever decisions are made and whatever are in the full minutes, we are not going to be held accountable because we never really voted on it like the procedures has been for the last 27 years. That’s my only concern. Other than that, based on what you just told me, I don't have a problem with that. He asked the Board if they had any problems? He asked the Board if they were in agreement. Mr. Holmes said he did not have a problem. Mrs. Melson-Williams: Staff would like to note that your meeting minutes are fairly detailed. If you really wanted to see what short looked like, we could show you what short looks like. Because under some of the Robert's Rules, it really is: who's here, who made the motion, what the motion was and what the vote was without any of the presentation of the applicant talking and any of that. So that's the minimum, and we have never done the minimum. We have been fairly complete in reflecting the presentations by staff, the applicants, the questions back and forth, as well as the votes that we are required to do. Is it verbatim? No. But it's fairly close. I would say it's a cleaned up verbatim. We put things in sentences because if you really wanted to do verbatim, you would have captured all the ums that I would say by habit I can't break. The fact that you don't talk in sentences and all of that. So, it's a clean-up version of what transpires in each meeting. You certainly shouldn't feel like you're not voting on the full actions that happen. Chairman Senato: I agree with Mrs. Melson. I know the Robert Rules of Order. I have no problem with shorting this version down to eliminating all the work that you have to do. But as Chair, some of the questions I have might not be in agreement, but I have a reason to bring them up. It is now settled. I'm in agreement and the Board is in agreement and we are fine with that. I appreciate what you do with the Planning Department and the minutes. Mr. Holmes: I would also like to add to the Record that I have represented over 15 municipalities in Delaware, and I have never seen minutes this detailed from any type of proceeding. The minutes that I have seen are much more detailed than the County. 18 20

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. Rule 10 – Conduct During Meetings City Solicitor: There were not very many controversial comments about the Draft Rules. The only matter of discussion was Rule 10.3 which originally provided that if one of the members of the Board transgresses the Rules, any other member of the Board can call that member to order. We changed that. So, if any member of the Board transgresses the Rules, the Presiding Officer and the Presiding Officer alone can call that person to order. Rule 11 and Rule 12 – There are no proposed changes. Rule 13 – Standards of Conduct City Solicitor: We did make wholesale changes to Rule 13 Standards of Conduct. You'll see that they were pretty detailed in prescribing appropriate attire and things like that. We had some First Amendment concerns about prescribing what people are allowed to wear and how they're allowed to present themselves. So, we made changes to be a little more consistent to balance the fact that members of the public who come here do have the First Amendment rights of expression, but you all also have the ability to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. And so proposed new Rules 13.1 and 13.2 that you see in blue, they're offered for additional discussion. What it really provides is some discretion on the part of the Board to make sure that members of the public conduct themselves in an orderly fashion and follow the direction of the Presiding Officer. No cell phones going off or being loud and no applause or disruptive behavior. It really just gives the Presiding Officer the right to maintain order in the chamber without imposing upon any First Amendment rights. Rule 14 – Appeals and Variance Applications to the Board of Adjustment 14.1 City Solicitor: You will see in the blue edit, we mentioned a few times now that your responsibilities are sort of divided between hearing Variance Applications on the one hand and hearing Appeals from zoning determinations and other decisions by Code Officials on the other. So it’s whether or not, we need to clarify and separate those two things or combine them and determine how we proceed with them. So, the way that has been done, is the way we originally had it combined here as Appeals and Variance Applications in 14.1. We added Variance Request Applications and Appeals and it's just a general statement about how the applications are made. They have to be on the right forms; they have to be approved by the Board. You have the right to reject Applications and Appeals that are not conformed to the forms and have not paid the proper fee. 14.2 City Solicitor: One of the things we took out is if you look at 14.2. The original version had that all appeals and applications include a recent survey. That has never been, as far as I know, an actual requirement; so, that has been taken out. No survey is required. 19 21

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. 14.3 City Solicitor: We added a provision that in addition to people speaking on behalf of or in opposition to an application or Appeal, the applicant or an opponent can also submit the exhibits that could be entered into the Record. It's both an oral presentation and a documentary presentation both in support and against. Mr. Wagner: My only intent is to make sure anybody who appears before us fully understands what options they have in front of this Board. I understand and explain to me that Appeals will go to the particular court. What does the person do or how do they understand if you say to them, they had a right to an Appeal. How are we involved in that if the court is going to be involved in that? So, does that make sense? City Solicitor: It does and so the provision allowing appeals from Board of Adjustment are included in the Delaware Code. So, they should know from that. I will say what it would be analogous to is if you're present in an actual Superior Court. If you go down the street here and you appear in front of the Superior Court Judge and the judge rules against you. The judge doesn't then say I'm dismissing your case. By the way, now you have the right to file an Appeal to the Supreme Court. It's not the burden of the governing body to tell the applicant how to appeal. If they ask, we can answer, but we typically don't give that type of advice and sometimes it can create some type of liability. We've had cases where city employees have been accused of giving advice by saying you have 30 days to do this. Well, it turns out they had ten days to do that and then the City creates a liability for itself. I think it's a little cleaner to just make a decision on the application without providing the applicant any advice on what happens if we rule against them unless they ask. Mr. Wagner: We make a decision, the Board? City Solicitor: Sure, so let's assume we deny a Variance Application. That's as far as you have to go. Mr. Wagner: Excellent. 14.4 City Solicitor: There are no substantive changes. 14.5 City Solicitor: We made it clear that it is both Appeals and Variance Applications. Rule 14.5 City Solicitor: There was a substantive change to conform with the way, we actually do things. So, it's an important provision because we've had this happen fairly recently where an applicant for a variance after public notice of the hearing has been made cannot change the application. That's sort of a FIOA requirement that you cannot; if the public gets noticed of what's happening seven days in advance then an applicant can't come here and on the fly change what's being requested. However, an applicant can reduce the variance request. So, in other words, an 20 22

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. applicant can't walk in and say, I have applied for an area variance to allow me to build a little closer to the curve a little closer to the end of my property line and then come in and have multiple variance applications. Then when they come before us they add more and ask for more than what was in the original application. What they can do is reduce the number. They can come in and say, hey, when this was originally filed, I was looking for four different variances. We've worked out two or three of them. Now, I only need one or two. So, what this provision does is make it clear that an applicant can reduce what they're asking for when they come before us, but they can't make additional requests after the agenda has been posted. 14.6 City Solicitor: This is about conduct during the hearing. You see one of the edits is no cross examination of witnesses or applicants will be permitted by the public during the public hearing. The reason we made that change is because the Board is permitted to ask questions of applicants or witnesses and you can do it in the nature of cross examination. We just wanted to make sure that members of the public aren't cross-examining each other during the course of a proceeding. Only the Board can ask those types of questions of the applicants or witnesses. 14.7. City Solicitor: If you do not believe you have enough information ahead of time or if an applicant requests, you can make a motion and upon approval, you can continue the hearing or vote to leave the record open. So that they won’t have to start all over again when they come back. It's consistent with pretty standard practice. 14.8 City Solicitor: We struck the portion that was not consistent with our current practice. It reads “any oral discussion of or vote upon the application by the Board shall be deemed in the nature of preliminary deliberations to the rendering of a final written decision and only the written decision, as adopted by a majority of the Board, shall constitute a decision of the Board.” What that makes for you is, your decision is final when it is made after the hearing. When you vote at this hearing on an application, your determination is effective then and it doesn't have to wait until the final written decision. For those of you who have been on since September, you should be getting final decisions from me, but I have not gotten them to you. I have been too backed up. Hopefully within the very near future, you will be getting a final written decision on what you've decided so far. What this provision says is you don't have to wait to get my draft of the written decision to sign off on it. Your decision is final at the time of the hearing when it gets made. That's why we took out that provision. That provision suggested that your decision doesn't take any effect until I get you a proposed written decision and you sign off on it. 14.9 City Solicitor: The blue portion is whether the Board should consider establishing a method for extension of the Board's action. That would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and then to consider the establishment of the Administrative Variances. I'm not exactly sure what we discussed concerning extension of the Board's action. He asked Dawn if she had any recollection of that? 21 23

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. Mrs. Melson-Williams: I think that was in our March meeting and I think the concern was adding it in and to not add that into Rules of Procedure until there was an item in the Code that would allow for such extension. If that's something to pursue, Staff will have to work on some Code changes and have that move through a process before you could have that. Right now, the Code says that your Board’s action has a basically an approval for one year. We've interpreted that one year and during that time frame, the applicant has to take actions to implement what they're asking for. Whether that's a size of a sign, they have to make their permit submission and move towards getting that sign installed or any other kind of permitting or plan review process subsequent to your action. Extensions that we cannot just drop in your Rules of Procedure, it would have to be actually in the Zoning Ordinance. City Solicitor: Okay, and it looks like that's the same for Administrative Variances. Mrs. Melson-Williams: Yes, the same thing. There's provisions in Delaware Code that allow for Administrative Variances. Currently that is not reflected in the City's Zoning Ordinance. It would have to be Code and Text Amendments written and adopted in order to make it part of our process. City Solicitor: So, we'll keep an eye out for any Code amendments that we would have to incorporate into the Rules. Rule 15 – Order of Proceeding 15.1 We were discussing this at our last meeting. This is how our meeting can be conducted. The Chairperson and Staff will describe the general nature of the proceeding, whether it's an Appeal or a Variance Application. She'll describe the property. The Staff will also brief the matter and enter the exhibits into the record. So, it's kind of Staff to start the proceeding and to describe the type of application you're going be considering, the land, where it is, and the type of application that is being applied for. And then staff will also state whether any correspondence pertaining to the application has been received. That stuff will typically be in your packet. 15.3 and 15.4 City Solicitor: Sections 15.3 and 15.4 which are really just the description of how the Application will be presented. There are no real edits to those. 15.5 City Solicitor: We make clear that during the public hearing that any person desiring to make a statement can. The reason why that edit was important because we wanted to distinguish people who are speaking in favor of or are against an application to make sure they are doing it during the presentation of that application and not when we have our public comment portion. So, we have what the comment portion of our meetings; it is not designed to relate to any one particular application. It's just designed usually for members of the public to make general comments about 22 24

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. the Board and about no specific application, but it’s really just grievances they have or anything complimentary they have to say. We want to make clear here that if a member of the public is going to speak in favor of or against an application, it is during that presentation of that Application. The same thing for 15.6 15.7 City Solicitor: We removed the opportunity for a “sur rebuttal.” The manner in which an Application or Appeal is presented goes as follows. Application is presented and the people who are in favor of it speak in favor of it. Once that is completed, then any opponent can speak in opposition to that Application or Appeal. Once the opposition is completed, the original applicant or appellant can then respond to that opposition, but that's it. What this had previously provided for was the opposition to respond again. It's a second bite of the apple, and we took that out. So, its opening, answering, response, and that's it. 15.8, 15.9, and 15.10 no substantive changes 15.12 City Solicitor: We took out the part where the Board can vote to leave the public record open once all of the testimony evidence is presented. Once a public hearing is closed, it’s closed. No new testimony or evidence after its closed. Rule 16 – Delaware Freedom of Information Act. City Solicitor: It’s making clear that we are complying with FOIA. Rule 17 City Solicitor: We took it out because it said that members of the Board are subject to the statue Officials Code of Conduct. We already know that without having to put it in there. Right here we were referencing the State Code provision, and as you can see in the blue the comment was there has to be a Dover Code of Ordinance citation on ethics and any code of conduct references. I think what we decided was there's no reason to keep a separate ethics obligation, you know, rules. These are Rules of Procedure, not any ethical rules of conduct. Rule 18 City Solicitor: We agreed that once your decision is final, applicants and appellants who lose can't come back and say I want you to hear it again. There is no provision for that in Dover Code of municipal ordinances. Their recourse is an Appeal (to the court). Rule 19 City Solicitor: The adoption and the effective date that the Rules become effective will be once these are all finalized, they are reviewed and you vote to adopt them. That’s when they become 23 25

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2026 Item 1. effective. I think we have walked through now all of the proposed edits. We still have some additional ones to make after we discuss them, but I will turn it back to the Chair. Mrs. Melson-Williams: So again, we've gone through these and the kind of next step are I think we ought to wrap this up. Staff and the City Solicitor still have a little bit more work to do. I'm not sure that we'll have that done by the June meeting. But, what we would probably envision is creating another Draft version and be able to provide that to you at a meeting but not necessarily act upon that at that same meeting. Just kind of say here's the latest and then schedule, formal consideration at a subsequent meeting; if that makes sense. Mr. Holmes: It does make sense so let's move on. Mrs. Melson-Williams: Yes. So, we'll work on it again, get you another version of it, and go from there. Chairman Senato: Thank you. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Senato asked if there were any items of New Business? Mrs. Melson-Williams: Mr. Chair, in the adoption of your agenda, you did not add any items under New Business. Public Comments Opportunity Chairman Senato mentioned as the open meeting, the public are given an opportunity to provide comments to the Board of Adjustment for anyone wishing to speak. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned to Mr. Chair that there are no members of the public in the audience and there are no members that have joined us online today. If there were, they would have been given that opportunity to make a brief statement limited to items under the purview of the Board of Adjustment. So, I believe that there are no public comments today. Chairman Senato: Thank you. He thanked the Board members, City Solicitor, and Staff for hard work that has been put in and probably it still will be another month or two. Thank you very much for that. Mr. Holmes made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Ms. Brinkley and unanimously carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:59 A.M. Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 24 26

Item 1. 25 27

Item 3. City of Dover Board of Adjustment Meeting of June 17, 2026 Appeal V-26-03 Location: Property at 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover, Delaware Known as Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park Part of ED-05-086.00-01-080.000-000 Current Property Owners: Kings Cliffe MHP, LLC Present Zoning: Residential Area: MH (Manufactured Housing Zone) Part of parcel also in AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Noise Zone A Non-Residential Area: Part of Parcel in C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Application Date: Appeal Received May 4, 2026 and with Addendum of May 19, 2026 Scheduled for June 17, 2026 Meeting Appeal Filed By: Peter K. Schaeffer Jr., Esq. as representative of Kings Cliffe MHP, LLC Application Signed by Robert B. Shue, Manager Director Appeal Requested: An Appeal Application has been filed by the owner’s representative regarding the Zoning Violation issued as Code Enforcement Case #25- 00004632 (and associated Case #20-00003344) and the allowance of a non-conforming use for recreational vehicle lots and recreational vehicle lot rentals. This Appeal pertains to a determination of the City of Dover Division of Code Enforcement to prohibit the addition of new non- conforming mobile homes, house trailers or recreational vehicles (RVs) on lots in the community. This Appeal is related to the enforcement of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 3 Section 8.4 Uses prohibited with Sections 8.41 and 8.42. Request for Appeal Kings Cliffe MHP, LLC (as represented by Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr., Esq. of Avenue Law) has filed an Appeal pertaining to a determination of the City of Dover Division of Code Enforcement to prohibit the addition of new non-conforming mobile homes, house trailers or recreational vehicles (RVs) on lots in the community. This is regarding the Zoning Violation issued as Code Enforcement Case #25-00004632 (and associated Case #20-00003344) and the allowance of a non-conforming use for recreational vehicle lots and recreational vehicle lot rentals. 28

Item 3. V-26-03 Appeal Regarding Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park at 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover DE Report to Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 10 Property Description The subject property (parcel) is located on the east side of S. Bay Road and south of Lafferty Lane. It is known as the Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park (also previously referenced as the Kings Cliffe Mobile Home Park). It consists of individual unit placements (referred to as ‘stands’ and ‘lots’ by the Code) which have lot numbers and may also be referenced by the named internal street network. This portion of the property is zoned MH (Manufactured Housing Zone). There is a portion of the southeast corner of the parcel that is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Noise Zone A. The southwest corner of the overall parcel includes other non-residential uses and is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The development of Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park began prior to 1954 and the parcel was part of a larger area annexed into the City of Dover on December 15, 1970 (Application #70-2). In the non-residential area a mini-storage facility was created prior to 1992. See Exhibit 6 – Aerial Map. Code Citations Procedures The Board of Adjustment procedures for Appeals are outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and within Delaware Code. See the following code citation excerpts. Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning, Article 9. Board of Adjustment: Section 2. Powers and duties: The board of adjustment shall have the powers and duties as specified in Delaware Code Annotated (22 Del. C. § 301 et seq.) and as articulated below: 2.2 Appeal of administrative order, requirement, decision, or determination. The board shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Appeals to the board may be made by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of an administrative officer. Zoning Ordinance, Article 9 §3. Procedure further outlines the procedures for both Variance and Appeal applications. Appeals are subject to a Public Hearing before the Board of Adjustment which must be noticed by publication in the newspaper and by mailed notice to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. The legal ad was published in the Daily State News and BaytoBayNews.com on June 5, 2026 and Planning Staff completed the mailing of the Notice Letter on June 5, 2026. The Appeal Application must be filed in writing on prescribed forms and is subject to a filing fee. See Exhibit Series 1 for application submission. The filing fee was paid. It is noted that this fee or part of fee may be returned to the applicant (Zoning Ordinance, Article 9 §3.4) under certain provisions: Article 9 §3.4 The board of adjustment may, in its discretion, return to the applicant part or all of the fee paid by him in the event that his appeal under section 2.2 Appeal of administrative order, requirement, decision, or determination hereof is partially or wholly successful. The Appeal Applications (submission items of written application and documents as exhibits) as filed shall consist of the following per the Zoning Ordinance, Article 9 §3.5: 29

Item 3. V-26-03 Appeal Regarding Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park at 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover DE Report to Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 10 Article 9 §3.5 Each variance application or appeal shall fully set forth the circumstances of the case. Every variance application or appeal shall refer to the specific provision of the ordinance involved, and shall exactly set forth, as the case may be, the interpretation that is claimed, the details of the variance that is applied for and the grounds on which it is claimed that the same should be granted. • A copy of the Appeal as filed by Kings Cliffe MHP, LLC, is attached as Exhibits 1A and 1D and related document Exhibits 1B and 1C. o Exhibit 1A – Application to Board of Adjustment for Appeal. ▪ Cover Letter dated April 30, 2026 from Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr. Esq. of Avenue Law submitting Appeal Application to Board of Adjustment ▪ Application Form (3 pages), Application for Mailing List Form, Project Contact List Form, Board of Adjustment Checklist Form ▪ Application Exhibit A – Copy of January 21, 2021 Letter on Action of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals ▪ Application Exhibit B – Copy of Violation Detail for Case Number 25- 00004632 o Exhibit 1B – Email to Peter K. Schaeffer Jr. from Dawn Melson-Williams (Planning Staff) on Appeal submission receipt and request to clarify o Exhibit 1C – Letter of May 11, 2026 from Peter K. Scheaffer, Jr. Esq. to Daniel A. Griffith, Esq. on Kings Cliffe MHP, LLC, Appeal of City of Dover Zoning Violation: Case #25-00004632 o Exhibit 1D – Letter of May 19, 2026 from Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr. Esq. of Avenue Law as ADDENDUM TO APPEAL Application with Separate Narrative and Attachments: ▪ Addendum Exhibit A – Copy of November 23, 2020 Letter of Violation from Code Enforcement Officer and Violation Detail of Case Number 20-00003344 ▪ Addendum Exhibit B - Copy of January 21, 2021 Letter on Action of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals ▪ Addendum Exhibit C - Copy of October 17, 2025 Letter of Violation from Code Enforcement Officer and Violation Detail of Case Number 25-00004632 The provisions of Delaware Code (22 Del. C. § 301) also note a procedure for Appeals: 22 Del. C. §324 Appeals to board. Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of the administrative officer. Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time as provided by the rules of the board by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. Planning Staff requested transmittal of records from the administrative officer (City of Dover, Division of Code Enforcement. 30

Item 3. V-26-03 Appeal Regarding Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park at 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover DE Report to Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 10 • Copies of materials from the Case File of City of Dover Division of Code Enforcement are attached as Exhibits 2A to 2O o Exhibit 2A – Letter of October 17, 2025 as Letter of Violation from Code Enforcement Officer and Violation Detail of Case Number 25-00004632 o Exhibit 2B - Letter of February 15, 2019 on Amendments to Dover Code of Ordinances and Zoning Ordinance concerning Mobile Homes, Manufacturing Homes, and Land Lease Communities to Kings Cliffe Mobile Home Park from Director of Planning & Community Development o Exhibit 2C - Construction Code and Property Maintenance Boards of Appeals Meeting Minutes from January 20, 2021 Meeting o Exhibit 2D - Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 3 Section 8. – Manufactured housing (MH) zone (Section 8.4 highlighted) o Exhibit 2E - Letter of November 23, 2020 as Letter of Violation from Code Enforcement Officer and Violation Detail of Case Number 20-00003344 to MHP Investments LLC o Exhibit 2F - Letter of November 23, 2020 Letter of Violation from Code Enforcement Officer and Violation Detail of Case Number 20-00003344 to Kings Cliffe Mobile Home Park o Exhibit 2G - Letter of December 1, 2020 RE; Case #20-00003344 to Mr. Koop, Division of Code Enforcement from Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr. Esq. o Exhibit 2H - Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 7 – Nonconforming Buildings and Uses (print date 12/02/2020) o Exhibit 2I - Photograph Series of Recreational Vehicles in Kings Cliffe with photographs dated 11/13/2020, 11/23/2020, 01/04/2021, 01/06/2021 o Exhibit 2J - Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 7 – Nonconforming Buildings and Uses (print date 7/16/2025) o Exhibit 2K - Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities o Exhibit 2L - Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 3 Section 8. – Manufactured housing (MH) zone (print date 7/16/2025) o Exhibit 2M - Letter of January 21, 2021 as Letter on Action of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals o Exhibit 2N - 42 USC Ch. 70 Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards from Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare 31

Item 3. V-26-03 Appeal Regarding Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park at 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover DE Report to Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 10 o Exhibit 2O -Fax Cover Sheet and Attachments: Letter of November 24, 2025 as Request for Appeal on Case #25-00004632 from Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr. Esq. and Violation Detail Case Number #25-00004682 Planning Staff requested transmittal of the record from the Construction and Property Maintenance Board of Appeals (CPMBOA). The CPMBOA Board is supported by the City Clerk’s Office. • Copies of materials from the January 20, 2021 City of Dover Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Meeting on Appeal of Violation – 131 South Bay Road (MHP Investments, LLC) are attached as Exhibits 3A to 3G o Exhibit 3A - Email Series on Receiving Appeal Request to Construction Code and Property Maintenance Board of Appeals o Exhibit 3B - Letter of January 11, 2021 to MHP Investments scheduling the Construction Code and Property Maintenance Board of Appeals Meeting o Exhibit 3C - Construction Code and Property Maintenance Boards of Appeals Agenda for January 20, 2021 Meeting o Exhibit 3D - Case Packet for Construction Code and Property Maintenance Boards of Appeals for January 20, 2021 Meeting o Exhibit 3E - Construction Code and Property Maintenance Boards of Appeals Meeting Minutes from January 20, 2021 Meeting o Exhibit 3F - Letter of January 21, 2021 as Letter on Action of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals o Exhibit 3G - Appeals Procedure – Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals (for City Clerk’s Office actions) Action by the Board of Adjustment It is the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide the Appeal where it has been alleged that the determination of the administrative official was in error in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. This Appeal is regarding the Zoning Violation issued as Code Enforcement Case #25-00004632 (and associated Case #20-00003344) and the allowance of a non-conforming use for recreational vehicle lots and recreational vehicle lot rentals. The Appeal is of a determination of the City of Dover Division of Code Enforcement to prohibit the addition of new non-conforming mobile homes, house trailers or recreational vehicles (RVs) on lots in the community. This Appeal is related to the enforcement of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 3 Section 8.4 Uses prohibited with Sections 8.41 and 8.42. see Code Excerpt below: Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 8. – Manufactured Housing (MH) zone. 8.4 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 32

Item 3. V-26-03 Appeal Regarding Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park at 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover DE Report to Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 10 8.41 Mobile homes, house trailers, and recreational vehicles as principal uses on a lot. Any such structures or vehicles located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non-conforming uses in accordance with article 7. 8.42 Any other kind of factory-built housing that does not meet the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code as approved June 15, 1976, unless it can be demonstrated that such housing is constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations. Any such housing located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non- conforming uses in accordance with article 7. Background Information Code Citations MH (Manufactured Housing Zone) Zoning District The MH (Manufactured Housing Zone) zoning district regulations are found in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 3 Section 8. See Exhibit 4 for a full copy of this code section. AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) Zoning District The AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) zoning district regulations are found in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 3 Section 22. There is a portion of the southeastern area of the property that is subject to the AEOZ – Noise Zone A. The AEOZ regulations include provisions that limit certain land uses; these are found in Article 3 Section 22.6 Land use compatibility table. Specifically, mobile home parks or courts and manufactured homes are not permitted in Noise Zone A. Nonconforming Buildings and Uses Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 7. Nonconforming Buildings and Uses outlines provisions related to buildings and uses that may not conform to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. See Exhibit 5 for a full copy of this code section. Definitions Specific terms are defined in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), Article 12 – Definitions. See below some of the terms related to this Appeal Application. Zoning Ordinance excerpt of Definitions: Dwelling unit: A building or entirely self-contained portion thereof containing complete housekeeping facilities for only one family, including any domestic servants employed on the premises, and having no enclosed space (other than vestibules, entrance or other hallways or porches) or cooking or sanitary facilities in common with any other dwelling unit. A boarding[house] or roominghouse, convalescent home, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, hotel, inn, lodging, nursing, or other similar home, travel trailer, recreational vehicle, or other similar structures or vehicles shall not be deemed to constitute a dwelling unit. 33

Item 3. V-26-03 Appeal Regarding Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park at 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover DE Report to Board of Adjustment Page 7 of 10 Dwelling, one-family: A permanent dwelling unit placed on a permanent foundation and designed and intended for use by only one family. One-family dwellings shall not include manufactured homes or mobile homes but shall include modular homes constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22—Buildings and Building Regulations. Land lease community: A residential development typified by single ownership of the land within the development, with the landowner retaining the rights of ownership. Home sites or individual lots within the community are leased to individual homeowners, who retain customary leasehold rights. Manufactured home means a factory-built, single-family dwelling: a. Transportable in one or more sections, which is either eight body feet or more in width and 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, has more than 400 square feet in living area; and b. Designed to be used as a year-round dwelling when connected to the required utilities; and c. Manufactured after June 15, 1976, and built in accordance with manufactured home construction requirements promulgated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (The HUD Code). Mobile home means a factory-built, single-family dwelling: a. Transportable in one or more sections, which is either eight body feet or more in width and 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, has more than 400 square feet in living area; and b. Designed to be used as a year-round dwelling when connected to the required utilities; and c. Manufactured before June 15, 1976, and not built in accordance with manufactured home construction requirements promulgated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (The HUD Code). Prior to the HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to uniform construction or safety standards. Modular Home: A factory built housing unit constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22—Buildings and Building Regulations. Permanently placed manufactured home means a manufactured home that has been placed upon a permanent, unmovable foundation. Trailer, house: Any vehicle mounted on wheels, movable either by its own power or by being drawn by another vehicle, and equipped to be used for living or sleeping quarters or so as to permit cooking. The term "house trailer" shall include vehicles if mounted on temporary or permanent foundations with the wheels removed 34

Item 3. V-26-03 Appeal Regarding Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park at 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover DE Report to Board of Adjustment Appendix of Exhibits (Attachments) Page 8 of 10 GUIDE TO EXHIBITS (ATTACHMENTS) Exhibit Description/Author # Pages 1 Appeal Application Documents 1A Application to Board of Adjustment for Appeal: 9 Appeal • Cover Letter dated April 30, 2026 from Peter K. Application Schaeffer, Jr. Esq. of Avenue Law submitting Appeal Application to Board of Adjustment • Application Form (3 pages), Application for Mailing List Form, Project Contact List Form, Board of Adjustment Checklist Form • Application Exhibit A – Copy of January 21, 2021 Letter on Action of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals • Application Exhibit B – Copy of Violation Detail for Case Number 25-00004632 (Appellant Submission) 1B Email to Peter K. Schaeffer Jr. from Dawn Melson-Williams 2 Appeal (Planning Staff) on Appeal submission receipt and request to clarify Submission 1C Letter of May 11, 2026 from Peter K. Scheaffer, Jr. Esq. to 2 Appeal Daniel A. Griffith, Esq. on Kings Cliffe MHP, LLC, Appeal of City of Dover Zoning Violation: Case #25-00004632 Submission 1D Letter of May 19, 2026 from Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr. Esq. of 10 Appeal Avenue Law as ADDENDUM TO APPEAL and Attachments: Application • Addendum Exhibit A – Copy of November 23, 2020 ADDENDUM Letter of Violation from Code Enforcement Officer and Violation Detail of Case Number 20-00003344 • Addendum Exhibit B - Copy of January 21, 2021 Letter on Action of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals • Addendum Exhibit C - Copy of October 17, 2025 Letter of Violation from Code Enforcement Officer and Violation Detail of Case Number 25-00004632 (Appellant Submission) 2 Code Enforcement Case File documents 2A Letter of October 17, 2025 as Letter of Violation from Code 3 Enforcement Officer and Violation Detail of Case Number 25-00004632 35

Item 3. V-26-03 Appeal Regarding Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park at 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover DE Report to Board of Adjustment Appendix of Exhibits (Attachments) Page 9 of 10 2B Letter of February 15, 2019 on Amendments to Dover Code 2 of Ordinances and Zoning Ordinance concerning Mobile Homes, Manufacturing Homes, and Land Lease Communities to Kings Cliffe Mobile Home Park from Director of Planning & Community Development 2C Construction Code and Property Maintenance Boards of 4 Appeals Meeting Minutes from January 20, 2021 Meeting 2D Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning 3 Ordinance), Article 3 Section 8. – Manufactured housing (MH) zone (Section 8.4 highlighted) 2E Letter of November 23, 2020 as Letter of Violation from 2 Code Enforcement Officer and Violation Detail of Case Number 20-00003344 to MHP Investments LLC 2F Letter of November 23, 2020 Letter of Violation from Code 2 Enforcement Officer and Violation Detail of Case Number 20-00003344 to Kings Cliffe Mobile Home Park 2G Letter of December 1, 2020 RE; Case #20-00003344 to Mr. 2 Koop, Division of Code Enforcement from Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr. Esq. 2H Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning 4 Ordinance), Article 7 – Nonconforming Buildings and Uses (print date 12/02/2020) 2I Photograph Series of Recreational Vehicles in Kings Cliffe 10 with photographs dated 11/13/2020, 11/23/2020, 01/04/2021, 01/06/2021 2J Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning 3 Ordinance), Article 7 – Nonconforming Buildings and Uses (print date 7/16/2025) 2K Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 - Manufactured 6 Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities 2L Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning 3 Ordinance), Article 3 Section 8. – Manufactured housing (MH) zone (print date 7/16/2025) 2M Letter of January 21, 2021 as Letter on Action of the 1 Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals 2N 42 USC Ch. 70 Manufactured Home Construction and 32 Safety Standards from Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare 2O Fax Cover Sheet and Attachments: Letter of November 24, 5 2025 as Request for Appeal on Case #25-00004632 from Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr. Esq. and Violation Detail Case Number #25-00004682 36

Item 3. V-26-03 Appeal Regarding Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park at 1131 S. Bay Road, Dover DE Report to Board of Adjustment Appendix of Exhibits (Attachments) Page 10 of 10 3 Construction Code and Property Maintenance Board of Appeals documents 3A Email Series on Receiving Appeal Request to Construction 5 Code and Property Maintenance Board of Appeals 3B Letter of January 11, 2021 to MHP Investments scheduling 2 the Construction Code and Property Maintenance Board of Appeals Meeting 3C Construction Code and Property Maintenance Boards of 1 Appeals Agenda for January 20, 2021 Meeting 3D Case Packet for Construction Code and Property 28 Maintenance Boards of Appeals for January 20, 2021 Meeting 3E Construction Code and Property Maintenance Boards of 4 Appeals Meeting Minutes from January 20, 2021 Meeting 3F Letter of January 21, 2021 as Letter on Action of the 1 Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals 3G Appeals Procedure – Construction and Property 3 Maintenance Code Board of Appeals (for City Clerk’s Office actions) 4 Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning 3 Ordinance), Article 3 Section 8. – Manufactured housing (MH) zone 5 Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning 3 Ordinance), Article 7 – Nonconforming Buildings and Uses 6 Aerial Map of Kings Cliffe Manufactured Home Park with 1 Location and Zoning Districts (Planning Staff) 37

EXHIBIT 1A Item 3. Shue, Robert 38

Item 3. 39

Item 3. 40

Item 3. 41

Item 3. 42

Item 3. 43

Item 3. 44

Item 3. 45 EXHIBIT A

Item 3. 46

EXHIBIT 1B Item 3. From: Melson-Williams, Dawn To: "Peter Schaeffer"; Griffith, Daniel A. Cc: Duca, Sharon Subject: Receipt of Appeal to City of Dover Board of Adjustment RE: Kings Cliffe Appeal Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 4:44:00 PM Attachments: image001.png Mr. Schaeffer: RE: Kings Cliffe Appeal The Planning Office acknowledges receipt of your email of May 4, 2026 with attachments and the hard copies (by Priority Mail Express delivery of 5/4/2026) of the Appeal Application RE: Kings Cliffe MHP, LLC Appeal of Zoning Violation 733 dated 10/17/2025 (Case #25-00004632). This Appeal Application is filed with the City of Dover Board of Adjustment. This submission includes a cover letter, application forms, Exhibits And B, and the filling fee. The Planning Office will schedule this Appeal for the Board of Adjustment meeting of Wednesday, June 17, 2026 at 9:00am. While we did see that your Letter asked if the matter could be heard on May 20, 2026, this May meeting date of the Board of Adjustment is not available. The May meeting date is not feasible due to the deadlines/tasks needed to complete public notice and other meeting preparations for the Appeal to be heard. The submission was received after the April filing deadline for items to be scheduled for the Board’s May Meeting. This submission was received prior to the May 15, 2026 filing deadline for items to appear at the June 17, 2026 Board of Adjustment Meeting and as such will be scheduled for June. The Board of Adjustment Meetings are Hybrid (both In-Person and Virtual) Meetings; however, it is highly encouraged that the Applicant appear in-person at the meeting if possible. The Planning Staff has noticed in your submission for the Appeal Application that responses were provided on the Application form under the criteria items for Area Variances and Use Variances. The responses in these sections are not where you present information on the Appeal as Area Variances and Use Variances are a different process and criterion consideration before the Board of Adjustment. For Appeals, we suggest that a separate narrative of your Appeal Request (describing the interpretation that is claimed) and referencing the Exhibits A and B be submitted. Your may submit this separately by pdf to the Planning Office to be included in the application submission. In the future, you will receive more detailed information on the Board of Adjustment Meeting for June. If you have any questions on this process, please contact me as Planning Office staff. Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP Principal Planner City of Dover, Delaware Department of Planning & Inspections (302) 736-7196 Planning Office phone (302) 736-4217 fax 47

Item 3. dmelson@dover.de.us From: Peter Schaeffer <peter.schaeffer@avenuelaw.com> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 11:01 AM To: Griffith, Daniel A. <DGriffith@whitefordlaw.com>; Melson-Williams, Dawn <DMelson@dover.de.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Kings Cliffe Appeal WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dan and Dawn, Attached is the .pdf of the Appeal Application. Eight hard-copies and check for $300.00 were sent to the City of Dover and picked up on May 2, 2026 by J Allen. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Peter K. Schaeffer Jr., Esq Avenue Law avenuelaw.com 20184 Coastal Highway Ste 205 Rehoboth Beach DE 19971-8020 Email: peter.schaeffer@avenuelaw.com Phone: 302.674.2210 Fax: 302.674.2099 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed to and may be privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or telephone at 302.674.2210 and destroy the original message. 48

EXHIBIT 1C Item 3. 20184 Coastal Highway Ste 205 Rehoboth Beach DE 19971-8020 Tel: (302) 674-2210 office@avenuelaw.com May 11, 2026 Via email Daniel A. Griffith, Esq. Courthouse Square 600 North King Street, Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19801 dgriffith@whitefordlaw.com RE: Kings Cliffe MHP, LLC, Appeal of City of Dover Zoning Violation Case #25-00004632 Dear Dan: Thank you for the teleconference last week. I’m writing because of the email I received from Dawn Melson at City of Dover after we talked (you were cc’d). It is my understanding that your representation is involved in this matter, so I am uncomfortable dealing directly with Ms. Melson. I respectfully request that if she/City of Dover has any issues, that such issues are presented to me via you. Ms. Melson’s email yesterday (you were cc’d) does raise some significant issues, as follow: - A representation was made to Superior Court by you that the appeal process was available, and that appeal hearings occur monthly. As a result of this representation, I timely filed the Appeal Application for a hearing on May 20, 2026. Ms. Melson states that this date is not available. I believe such position contradicts what was stated to Judge Green-Streett. - Ms. Melson states the Appeal Application requests consideration of area variances and use variances. It does not. On the first page of my client’s Appeal Application, the designation “Appeal”, not “Area Variance” or “Use Variance”, is clearly noted. As my client’s request is not asking for changes in area type or use, Ms. Melson’s claim that public notice is required appears incorrect. Public notice for a use that has been ongoing for decades and that the City of Dover granted in the 2021 appeal in my Client’s favor is unnecessary. No “change” is being requested that would require public notice. - Ms. Melson’s claim that the Appeal Application is incorrect without any mention of specific omissions or unsuitable details appears to be an exercise typically described as “arbitrary and capricious”. The pleadings in the Superior Court case filed earlier and the statements in the Appeal Application make it quite clear that Kings Cliffe is seeking City of Dover compliance with its own 1 49

Item 3. decision made in 2021 regarding the use of lots for recreational vehicles. Use of recreational vehicle lots occurred both before and after 2021 as a result of the prior appeal, and the recent self-generated reversal of the City’s decision to continue to allow such use was done with no explanation how the City justifies reversal of its own decision. - 22 Del.C. § 325. Per statute, the present appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the recent violation regarding recreational vehicles. The City’s ultra vires suspension of electric utilities, unavailable anywhere else, is a violation of this statute as well as an unconstitutional taking that has been present since October, 2025. I respectfully request that you provide legal advice to your client to resume providing electricity to Kings Cliffe recreational vehicle lots (as well as any necessary electric hardware needed, i.e., ) electric meters. Should the City of Dover refuse to hold a hearing on May 20 and not dispense with the affectation of confusion as to what the appellant is seeking, the most appropriate avenue appears to be a motion to reopen the Superior Court matter. I await a response well prior to May 20, 2026. Yours, /s/ Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr., Esq. Landlord by Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr., Esquire cc: Kings Cliffe MHP, LLC 2 50

EXHIBIT 1D Item 3. 51

Item 3. 52

Item 3. 53

Item 3. 54

Item 3. 55

Item 3. 56

Item 3. 57

Item 3. 58

Item 3. 59

Item 3. 60

EXHIBIT 2A Item 3. 61

Item 3. 62

Item 3. 63

EXHIBIT 2B Item 3. 65

Item 3. 66

EXHIBIT 2C Item 3. 67

Item 3. 68

Item 3. 69

Item 3. 70

Item 3. EXHIBIT 2D 71

Item 3. 72

Item 3. 73

Item 3. EXHIBIT 2E 75

Item 3. 76

EXHIBIT 2F Item 3. 77

Item 3. 78

Item 3. EXHIBIT 2G 79

Item 3. 80

EXHIBIT 2H Item 3. 81

Item 3. 82

Item 3. 83

Item 3. 84

Item 3. EXHIBIT 2I 85

Item 3. 86

Item 3. 87

Item 3. 88

Item 3. 89

Item 3. 90

Item 3. 91

Item 3. 92

Item 3. 93

Item 3. 94

Item 3. EXHIBIT 2J 95

Item 3. 96

Item 3. 97

Item 3. EXHIBIT 2K 99

Item 3. 100

Item 3. 101

Item 3. 102

Item 3. 103

Item 3. 104

Item 3. EXHIBIT 2L 105

Item 3. 106

Item 3. 107

EXHIBIT 2M Item 3. 109

EXHIBIT 2N Item 3. 111

Item 3. 112

Item 3. 113

Item 3. 114

Item 3. 115

Item 3. 116

Item 3. 117

Item 3. 118

Item 3. 119

Item 3. 120

Item 3. 121

Item 3. 122

Item 3. 123

Item 3. 124

Item 3. 125

Item 3. 126

Item 3. 127

Item 3. 128

Item 3. 129

Item 3. 130

Item 3. 131

Item 3. 132

Item 3. 133

Item 3. 134

Item 3. 135

Item 3. 136

Item 3. 137

Item 3. 138

Item 3. 139

Item 3. 140

Item 3. 141

Item 3. 142

Item 3. EXHIBIT 2O 143

Item 3. 144

Item 3. 145

Item 3. 146

Item 3. 147

EXHIBIT 3A Item 3. From: Kopp, Eddie L To: Tauchus, Janella M Cc: City Clerks Office; Hugg, Dave; Coburn, Ron Subject: Request for Appeal 20-00003344 Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 9:18:57 AM Attachments: Scanned Files_001.pdf Good Morning, I have received a request for an appeal for case 20-00003344. The property address is 1131 S Bay Rd Kings Cliff Mobile Home Park. Eddie L. Kopp City of Dover Code Enforcement 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover DE 19901 Phone (302)760-4929 Fax (302) 736-4217 E-Mail: ekopp@dover.de.us 148

Item 3. From: Kopp, Eddie L To: Ramsey, Megan R. Subject: RE: Request for Citation - Review of Appeal - 1131 S Bay Rd - Peter Schaeffer Jr. Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 12:15:50 PM I have uploaded the case 20-00003344 into docuware. It will not allow me to send the PDF file I have created do to the size. I can send it to you in pieces if I need be just let me know. Eddie L. Kopp City of Dover Code Enforcement 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover DE 19901 Phone (302)760-4929 Fax (302) 736-4217 E-Mail: ekopp@dover.de.us From: Ramsey, Megan R. <mramsey@dover.de.us> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 10:12 AM To: Kopp, Eddie L <ekopp@dover.de.us> Cc: City Clerks Office <CityClerk@dover.de.us>; Hugg, Dave <dhugg@dover.de.us>; Coburn, Ron <RCoburn@dover.de.us> Subject: Request for Citation - Review of Appeal - 1131 S Bay Rd - Peter Schaeffer Jr. Good Morning, Attached please find an appeal that has been received by the City Clerk’s Office from Peter Schaeffer Jr., Esq. in regard to the property located at 1131 S Bay Rd. Please provide the citation which was issued in this matter so that we may determine if this appeal should be heard by the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals. Thank you, Megan Ramsey Administrative Assistant City of Dover, Delaware Email: mramsey@dover.de.us Phone: 736-4462 Fax: 736-5068 149

Item 3. From: Kopp, Eddie L To: Ramsey, Megan R. Cc: Coburn, Ron; Hugg, Dave Subject: 20-00003344 Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 2:22:38 PM Attachments: 20-00003344 Appeal.pdf I was able to compress the file. Here is the documents I am submitting for the appeal. Eddie L. Kopp City of Dover Code Enforcement 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover DE 19901 Phone (302)760-4929 Fax (302) 736-4217 E-Mail: ekopp@dover.de.us 150

Item 3. From: Ramsey, Megan R. To: gjunge@schmittrod.com; "Nick Rodriguez" Cc: City Clerks Office Subject: RE: Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Legal Opinion Needed Date: Monday, January 11, 2021 9:45:45 AM Importance: High Good Morning Mr. Junge, The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals will be hearing this appeal in the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 3:30pm via WebEx. Can you please advise who has the right of appeal? Thank you, Megan Ramsey Administrative Assistant City of Dover, Delaware Email: mramsey@dover.de.us Phone: 736-4462 Fax: 736-5068 From: gjunge@schmittrod.com <gjunge@schmittrod.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 4:16 PM To: Ramsey, Megan R. <mramsey@dover.de.us>; 'Nick Rodriguez' <nrodriguez@schmittrod.com> Cc: City Clerks Office <CityClerk@dover.de.us> Subject: RE: Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Legal Opinion Needed Megan, It should go forward. He was discussing the issue with me. He was attempting to settle the matter in good faith but had to file the appeal one it was determined we couldn’t come to an agreement. Gary Gary E Junge | Attorney Schmittinger & Rodriguez 414 South State Street Dover, DE 19901 T: (302) 674-0140 This message is intended for the exclusive use of the named addressee and may contain information that is privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you have received this message in error or are not the named addressee or his or her authorized agent, please notify me immediately by e-mail, discard any paper copies and delete all electronic files of this message. From: Ramsey, Megan R. <mramsey@dover.de.us> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 3:33 PM 151

Item 3. To: Nick Rodriguez <nrodriguez@schmittrod.com>; 'gjunge@schmittrod.com' <gjunge@schmittrod.com> Cc: City Clerks Office <CityClerk@dover.de.us> Subject: Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Legal Opinion Needed Importance: High Mr. Rodriguez: We have received an appeal for the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals from Mr. Peter Schaeffer which I have attached to this email as well as supporting documentation provided by the Code Enforcement Office. Upon reviewing the case history, the original violation was discovered by Mr. Kopp on November 23, 2020. The appeal was received by Mr. Kopp on January 5, 2021. Below please see Section 22-1b of the Dover Code: (b) Appeals: Whenever any person is aggrieved by a decision of the building inspector with respect to the provision of this chapter, it is the right of that person to appeal to the construction and property maintenance code board of appeals. Such appeal must be filed, in writing, within 30 days after the determination by the building inspector. Our interpretation of the code is that the determination was made by the building inspector on November 23, 2020 and therefore is outside of the 30 day window allotted. Can you please provide a legal opinion as to whether or not this violation can be appealed? Thank you, Megan Ramsey Administrative Assistant City of Dover, Delaware Email: mramsey@dover.de.us Phone: 736-4462 Fax: 736-5068 152

EXHIBIT 3B Item 3. City of Dover January 11, 2021 MHP Investments, LLC Avenue Law 1051 Tuckerton Road Attn: Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr., Esq. Marlton, NJ 08053 1073 South Governors Avenue Dover, DE 19904 peter.schaeffer@avenuelaw.com Re: Appeal of Violation - Dover City Code of Ordinances - 1131 South Bay Road, Dover, DE Case #: 20-00003344 MHP Investments, LLC: I have received your request to appeal the violation of the Dover City Code of Ordinances - Appendix B - Article 3, Section 8.4 - Uses Prohibited at 1131 South Bay Road, Dover Delaware. Per your letter dated December 1, 2020, Violation 255 is uncontested and will not be considered in this meeting. Section 8.4 of the Dover Code states the following: Section 8.4 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 8.41 Mobile homes, house trailers, and recreational vehicles as principal uses on a lot. Any such structures or vehicles located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non- conforming uses in accordance with article 7. 8.42 Any other kind of factory-built housing that does not meet the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code as approved June 15, 1976, unless it can be demonstrated that such housing is constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations. Any such housing located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non-conforming uses in accordance with article 7. A meeting of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals has been scheduled for Wednesday, January 20, 2020 at 3:30 p.m. to hear your appeal. This meeting will be held through WebEx and may be accessed through a computer, smart phone or through a telephone call. Below I have listed the information needed to access the meeting. Please feel free to contact me by email at cityclerk@dover.de.us or by phone at (302) 736-7008 if you have any questions or concerns. Dial: 1-408-419-9388 Link: https://cityofdoverde.webex.com/cityofdoverde/onstage/g.php?MTID=eab13c222214d26e8eb9f8599e7d76756 Event Number/Access Code: 179 001 7731 Event Password: DOVER Sincerely, Megan Ramsey Administrative Assistant TAM/mr S:\APPEALS\2021\1. 1131 S Bay Rd - Appeal - Property Maintenance - Exterior - MHP Investments LLC\Receipt of Appeal - Property Maintenance - Exterior - 1161 South Bay Road.wpd P.O. Box 475 ˜ Dover, Delaware ˜19903 153 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

EXHIBIT 3C Item 3. Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Agenda January 20, 2021 - 3:30 p.m. This meeting will be held electronically. Public participation information is as follows: Dial: 1-408-418-9388 Link: https://cityofdoverde.webex.com/cityofdoverde/onstage/g.php?MTID=eab13c222214d26e8eb9f8599e7d76756 Event number/Access code: 179 001 7731 Event password: DOVER (if needed) If you are new to WebEx get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts Adoption of Agenda 1. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 8.4 - Uses Prohibited) - Appeal of Violation - 1131 South Bay Road (MHP Investments, LLC) 2. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds, Section 114-32 - Maximum Height, Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, and the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code) - Appeal of Citation and Fines - 8 South New Street (James Sloven) 3. Adjournment /mr S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Agendas\CPMCBA\2021\01-20-2021 CPMCBA AGENDA.wpd THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(E)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH 154 ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

EXHIBIT 3D Item 3. 155

Item 3. 156

Item 3. 157

Item 3. 158

Item 3. 159

Item 3. 160

Item 3. 161

Item 3. 162

Item 3. 163

Item 3. 164

Item 3. 165

Item 3. 166

Item 3. 167

Item 3. 168

Item 3. 169

Item 3. 170

Item 3. 171

Item 3. 172

Item 3. 173

Item 3. 174

Item 3. 175

Item 3. 176

Item 3. 177

Item 3. 178

Item 3. 179

Item 3. 180

Item 3. 181

Item 3. 182

EXHIBIT 3E Item 3. CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS The Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting was held on January 20, 2021 at 3:31 p.m. with Chairman Anderson presiding. Members present were Mr. Neil, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rocha. Ms. Steger was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Hugg, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Kopp, Ms. Bowen, Mr. Junge, Ms. Tauchus, and Mrs. Ramsey. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Due to Mr. Anderson’s limited access, Mr. Rocha presided over the remainder of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals meeting. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 8.4 - Uses Prohibited) - Appeal of Violation - 1131 South Bay Road (MHP Investments, LLC) Mr. Neil stated that he and Mr. Peter Schaeffer, Avenue Law, had a professional relationship. He explained that Mr. Schaeffer had done work for him, the previous owner of the property, which is Kings Cliff. Mr. Neil stated that he was an investigator of a complaint that was made on a change in the leases for the folks there that ended up costing him a large amount of money before it was sold. Mr. Neil asked Mr. Junge if he should recuse himself from this item due to his familiarity with that particular property and with Mr. Schaeffer on the other side, who he regarded as a friend. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Junge suggested that Mr. Neil recuse himself due to his friendship with Mr. Schaeffer. Mr. Neil recused himself from consideration of this item due to the conflict of interest at 3:34 p.m. Mr. Schaeffer of Avenue Law and serving as legal representation for MHP Investments, LLC, reviewed the history of 1131 South Bay Road. Mr. Schaeffer introduced Mr. Kevin Vallen, owner of MHP Investments, LLC, who purchased Kings Cliff in June 2016. Mr. Schaeffer stated that on Mr. Vallen's knowledge and belief, he obtained, in negotiating, the purchase of Kings Cliff, recreational vehicle lot rentals, was a continuous use of the property for approximately the past three decades with no interruption in use. Mr. Schaeffer stated that the City of Dover Ordinance #2018-01, Section 8.4, imposed a ban on year-round dwelling of RV’s in a manufactured housing zone. All references to dwelling seemed to indicate that the term was defined as a year-round residential arrangement. He noted that RV’s are typically not used as year-round dwellings, and that they are short-term lot rentals of less than six months, as such, there appears to be no violation under ordinance #2018-01. Mr. Schaeffer stated that even if temporary RV lot rentals fit into the definition of dwelling, Appendix B - Zoning, Article 7 - Non-conforming Buildings and Uses, states that any non-conforming use, except those non-conforming uses specified in Subsection 1.5, may be continued indefinitely. He noted that the non-conforming uses not permitted by this indefinite allowance are parking lots, junkyards, or open storage yards for materials and equipments which do not apply to RV lot rentals. Mr. Schaeffer stated that Kings Cliff rents the RV lots on a short-term basis, no longer than six months. 183

Item 3. CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2021 PAGE 2 Mr. Schaeffer stated that he previously discussed with Mr. Junge, the purpose statement of ordinance #2018-1, which states that the ordinance is intended to supplement rather than replace Delaware State law, Title 25 - Property, Part VI - Manufactured Home Communities, Chapter 70 - Manufactured homes and Manufactured Home Communities Act, which govern manufactured home community management and Title 24 - Professions and Occupations, Chapter 44 - Manufactured Home Installation, which governs mobile home installation. He stated that neither of these Delaware laws forbid RV lot rentals in an area containing mobile homes. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Code Enforcement, reviewed the City of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 8.4 - Uses prohibited. He stated that RV’s are not considered a manufactured home, there is a difference between a mobile home and a trailer and that what is in Kings Cliff is mixed use. He advised that there are vehicles which are RV’s, and mobile homes. Mr. Kopp stated that was where they were running into the conflict. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Mr. Junge stated that he and Mr. Schaeffer had discussed whether this is continued use. Mr. Junge advised that Mr. Schaeffer's stance was that it is because it was still an RV. He stated that he was not sure that was true. Mr. Junge stated that Mr. Schaeffer's interpretation may prevail if it was appealed to the Supreme Court, but that this was an analogy to a shed being on a property that becomes non-conforming. Mr. Jungle stated, regarding Mr. Kopp's statement, that if there was a mobile home on one of the lots that did not meet the current code, it would be grandfathered in until such time as they moved the mobile home. Mr. Junge advised that it does not mean one can move another mobile home on that lot that does not conform with the current code. He stated that he believed the City was on safe footing by saying that because the RV lots are no longer allowed by code, once the RV moves off of that lot, another one cannot be put there. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp stated that this violation was complaint driven and that since issuing this violation, he had received two other complaints from tenants. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Junge stated that this was not about any particular RV, it was about the use and that it was one interpretation. Mr. Junge stated that this case was open to interpretation, but his take was that since the RV's are there for a period of time, once they left it would no longer be non-conforming, however, that there was no case law on this situation other than the case that Mr. Schaeffer previously mentioned which was not exactly analogous to this case. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Junge stated that he was not aware of any code sections dealing with short term rentals. Mr. Jungle noted that the lack of case law was not necessarily a detriment. He explained that cases go to court all the time where there is no definitive case law either way. Mr. Junge stated that is what the courts are for, when it enter gray areas, the courts decide, then they have case law moving forward. He stated that if the City did have to go to court and lost, it would not mean that they made the wrong decision, it would just mean the court wanted a different decision. Responding to Mr. Martin, Mr. Schaeffer stated that 17 lots are utilized for RV's at any one time and that number had not changed since 2016 when it was purchased and presumably that was the same number of lots it had for decades. 184

Item 3. CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2021 PAGE 3 Mr. Martin stated that it seemed like a continued use for those lots, but he felt that they would be grandfathered uses since it was that way before there was a change. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that the initial complaint was a safety issue. He stated that the complaints he had received were an RV electrical box sparking at lot 152, trash and debris within the community, and the regular coming and going of RV's in the community. Mr. Kopp stated, regarding short-term use, that some of the RV's were well established with skirting around them and appeared to have been there for several years, much more than six months. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that the code had been written in 1976 and that it was written based on a manufactured home, which an RV is not, so it does not meet the standard of manufactured home. He stated that there is not a dedicated section in the community for RV's, instead they are mixed in with the manufactured homes. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Schaeffer stated that he imagined that there were records of when a RV arrived and left, however that was not in the issue, which instead was whether RV lots could be used at all within a manufactured home community. Mr. Schaeffer stated they could try to get records on specific separate transactions at least from 2016. Mr. Anderson stated that a few years ago there was a committee to examine non-conforming use and one of the things they found was that if the use of the property is done consistently without an interruption of a year, that the non-conforming use stays valid. He stated that there are non-conforming uses as old as him and at the time, they understood it to be used. He noted that with that in the records, he was weary of changing that interpretation at all. Mr. Anderson moved to grant the appeal made by MHP Investments, LLC. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin and unanimously carried. Property Maintenance Code Citation (Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, and the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code) - Appeal of Citation and Fines - 8 South New Street (James Sloven) Ms. Velvet Bowen, Code Enforcement, reviewed the case history for 8 South New Street. Mrs. Ramsey advised that she received correspondence from Mr. James Sloven, prior to the meeting, stating he would be unable to attend the meeting and that he would pay the $100.00 fine and continue to make the necessary repairs to the property (Attachment #1). Mr. Anderson moved that the $100.00 fine be reinstated, but that it would be frozen at $100.00. The case would start over again and it would be up to everybody to make sure the repairs were being made. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Martin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. 185

Item 3. CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2021 PAGE 4 Meeting adjourned at 4:16 p.m. Gerald L. Rocha Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Member GLR/MR/jt S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS\2021\01-20-2021 CPMCBA.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Correspondence dated January 20, 2021 from Mr. James Sloven 186

ATTACHMENT #1 Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Meeting of 01/20/2021 Item 3. From: James Sloven To: Ramsey, Megan R. Cc: City Clerks Office Subject: Re: Appeal of Citation #19-00003386 and Related Fines - 8 South New Street, Dover Delaware Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:26:05 AM Ms. Ramsey, I was called in to work today and therefore will be unable to participate in today's teleconference. I will just pay the $100 fine and continue to make whatever repairs are still necessary. James Sloven 302-538-0153 -----Original Message----- From: Ramsey, Megan R. <mramsey@dover.de.us> To: James Sloven <jsloven@aol.com> Cc: City Clerks Office <CityClerk@dover.de.us> Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2021 2:46 pm Subject: Appeal of Citation #19-00003386 and Related Fines - 8 South New Street, Dover Delaware Mr. Sloven: Attached please find a letter regarding your appeal scheduled to be re-heard virtually by the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals on January 20, 2021 at 3:30pm. For your convenience, below please find the meeting participation information: Dial: 1-408-418-9388 Link: https://cityofdoverde.webex.com/cityofdoverde/onstage/g.php? MTID=eab13c222214d26e8eb9f8599e7d76756 Event Number/Access Code: 179 001 7731 Event Password: DOVER (if needed) Thank you, Megan Ramsey Administrative Assistant City of Dover, Delaware Email: mramsey@dover.de.us Phone: 736-4462 Fax: 736-5068 187

EXHIBIT 3F Item 3. City of Dover January 21, 2021 MHP Investments, LLC Avenue Law 1051 Tuckerton Road Attn: Peter K. Schaeffer, Jr., Esq. Marlton, NJ 08053 1073 South Governors Avenue Dover, DE 19904 peter.schaeffer@avenuelaw.com Re: Appeal of Violation - Dover City Code of Ordinances - 1131 South Bay Road, Dover, DE Case #: 20-00003344 MHP Investments, LLC: On Wednesday, January 20, 2020, the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals considered your appeal of the violation of the Dover City Code of Ordinances - Appendix B - Article 3, Section 8.4 - Uses Prohibited at 1131 South Bay Road, Dover Delaware. Section 8.4 of the Dover Code states the following: Section 8.4 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 8.41 Mobile homes, house trailers, and recreational vehicles as principal uses on a lot. Any such structures or vehicles located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non- conforming uses in accordance with article 7. 8.42 Any other kind of factory-built housing that does not meet the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code as approved June 15, 1976, unless it can be demonstrated that such housing is constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations. Any such housing located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non-conforming uses in accordance with article 7. After reviewing the case history and considering your testimony, it was the decision of the Board to grant your appeal. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Department of Planning and Inspections at (302) 736-7010. Sincerely, Megan Ramsey Administrative Assistant TAM/mr S:\APPEALS\2021\1. 1131 S Bay Rd - Appeal - Property Maintenance - Exterior - MHP Investments LLC\Hearing Action - 1131 S Bay Road - MHP Investments, LLC.wpd cc: Nicholas Rodriguez, City Solicitor Gary Junge, Deputy City Solicitor David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ronald Coburn, Inspector Eddie Kopp, Inspector P.O. Box 475 ˜ Dover, Delaware ˜19903 188 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

EXHIBIT 3G APPEALS PROCEDURE CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS Item 3. APPELLANT: MHP Investments LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1131 S Bay Rd CASE # 20-00003344 REASON FOR APPEAL: Property Maintenance - Exterior REVIEWING THE FILE: Date/Initials 1. Scan the appeal and any supporting paperwork and save it to the appeal folder. 1/6/21 MR 2. In Outlook/Clerk's Office Folders/Drafts/Appeal-Constr & Prop Maint, open the draft email 1/6/21 MR Subject: Request for Citation - Review of Appeal - Address - Name of Appellant. Revise the email for the current appeal and send it to the Case Inspector for this appeal. Copy the Director of Planning and Community Development and the Chief Building Inspector. 3. Review the appeal to ensure it is allowable by code, that the appeal has been submitted G. Junge within 30 days of the date the citation was mailed, and the appellant is the property owner. confirmed Make sure the appellant has provided contact information, including a mailing address and that request is phone number. appealable on 1/6/21 via email 4. Open APPEALS LISTING-ALL and add the appeal to the listing. 1/6/21 MR 5. Open the S:\APPEALS\(current year) folder and create a new folder named using the 1/6/21 MR following example: 59 Village Drive - Appeal - Tall Grass and Weeds - Name. 6. If the appeal WAS NOT filed within 30 days of the date the citation was mailed, open N/A Exceeds 30 day Deadline, S:\CLERK'S OFFICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES\APPEALS\TEMPLATES\CPMCBA save in this appeal folder, and revise for this appeal. 7. If the appeal WAS filed within 30 days of the date the citation was mailed, in 1/8/21 MR Outlook/Clerk's Office Folders/Drafts/Appeal-Constr & Prop Maint, open the draft email Subject: Appeal - *(Address) - Scheduling of Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Meeting. Revise the email for the current appeal and send it to the Director of Planning and Community Development. SCHEDULING THE APPEAL HEARING: 189

8. A meeting of the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals must be 1/11/21 MRItem 3. scheduled no sooner than 10 days and no later than 30 days from receipt of the appeal. (Code of Ordinances, Part I Related Laws - Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I. - In General, Sec. 22-1 - Construction and property maintenance code board of appeals.). The Planning Director, Code Enforcement Supervisor or Chief Building Inspector, Case Inspector, and the City Hall Conference Room should be available for the meeting. Select a date for the meeting and call the appellant to verify their availability and advise them that they may provide additional support documentation if desired. Call the City Manager’s Administrative Assistant to reserve the City Hall Conference Room. 9. In Outlook/Clerk's Office Folders/Drafts/Appeal-Constr & Prop Maint, open the draft email N/A Subject: Appeal -*59 Village Drive (*Sammak) - Documentation for Appeal Hearing. Revise the email for the current appeal and send it to the Case Inspector for this appeal. 10. Once the date is set, send an Outlook calendar invitation for the meeting to the Director of 1/8/21 MR Planning and Community Development, Code Enforcement Supervisor (PMCBA) or Chief Building Inspector (CCAC), Case Inspector, members of the appeal board/committee, and the City Clerk’s Office. 11. Prepare a letter to the appellant notifying them of the time and date of the hearing. Select 1/12/21 MR the appropriate block from S:Appeals\BLOCKS\BLOCKS\LETTERS TO APPELLANT\Receipt of Appeal and/or Hearing Notification. Copy the Director of Planning and Community Development, City Solicitor, Code Enforcement Supervisor (PMCBA) or Chief Building Inspector (CCAC), and Case Inspector. 12. Prepare the agenda using a specific block, if available. (S:AGENDAS...MISC AGENDAS 1/12/21 MR ...) 13. Prepare the meeting packet, including the appeal and support documentation provided by 1/13/21 MR the appellant, code citations, and the case documentation provided by the inspector. Redact personal information (leave addresses but remove account numbers, location I.D., account balances, Social Security and driver’s license numbers, cell phone numbers, etc.) from the meeting packet according to sample at S:\CLERK’S OFFICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES\APPEALS\BLOCKS\Sample Redacted Utility Report and save the packet as redacted. 14. Circulate the packet for review and, once approved, update the Meeting Checklist and treat 1/13/21 MR it as with all other meetings, posting the redacted meeting packet. 15. After sending the normal email to the Agendas and Notices email distribution list, in 1/13/21 MR Outlook/Clerk's Office Folders/Drafts/Appeal-Constr & Prop Maint, open the draft email Subject: Printed Packets - Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Meeting - *August 1, 2016 - 3:00 p.m., revise for the current appeal and send the email to the two (2) civilian members advising them that printed copies of the packet will be available at the meeting. FOLLOWING THE APPEAL HEARING: 16. Prepare a letter to the appellant notifying them of the hearing action using one of the 1/21/21 MR samples at S\:CLERKS OFFICE POLICES AND PROCEDURES\APPEALS\BLOCKS\BLOCKS - LETTERS TO APPELLANT - Hearing Action. Circulate the letter to the City Clerk for review and approval. 190

17. Mail the letter to appellant and, using Outlook/Clerk's Office Folders/Drafts/Appeal-Constr 1/22/21 MRItem 3. & Prop Maint, open the draft email Subject: Notice of Hearing Action ..., email a copy to the Director of Planning and Community Development, Code Enforcement Supervisor or Chief Building Inspector, Case Inspector, City Solicitor, Deputy City Solicitor, City Clerk’s Office and, if applicable, to Patricia Marney, Billing Supervisor. 18. Update APPEALS LISTING-ALL. 1/22/21 MR 19. Index the letter and all documentation in Fortis in City of Dover database under 1/22/21 MR “APPEALS.” 20. If necessary, set an Outlook calendar event for follow-up action. N/A Prepared by: City Clerk's Office /tm Revised 05/25/2018 S:\APPEALS\2021\1. 1131 S Bay Rd - Appeal - Property Maintenance - Exterior - MHP Investments LLC\1131 S Bay Rd Kings Cliff Mobile Home Park APPEALS PROCEDURE.wpd 191

Item 3. EXHIBIT 4 Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning (Zoning Ordinance) Article 3. District Regulations Section 8. Manufactured housing (MH) zone.1 8.1 Uses permitted. In a manufactured housing zone, no building or premises shall be used, and no building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses, except the following: 8.11 Manufactured homes on individual lots, held in any type of ownership. 8.12 Multiple manufactured homes on a lot, provided that: (a) The lot is operated as a condominium, including, but not limited to, condominiums formed pursuant to 25 Del. C., Chapter 71; or (b) The lot is operated as a land lease community; and (c) There are at least 15 manufactured homes on the lot, or else sufficient home sites for rent or sale on the lot to accommodate 15 manufactured homes. Such home sites need not be expressly delineated but must be improved so as to be complete and ready for occupancy by a manufactured home. There shall be no mixing of manufactured homes and permanently placed manufactured homes on one lot. 8.13 Permanently placed manufactured homes on individual lots, provided that the home and the lot are under common ownership. 8.14 Multiple permanently placed manufactured homes on a lot, provided that: (a) The lot is operated as a condominium including, but not limited to, condominiums formed pursuant to 25 Del. C., Chapter 71; or (b) The lot is operated as a land lease community; and (c) There are at least 15 permanently placed manufactured homes on the lot, or else sufficient home sites for rent or sale on the lot to accommodate 15 permanently placed manufactured homes. Such home sites need not be expressly delineated but must be improved so as to be complete and ready for occupancy by a permanently placed manufactured home. There shall be no mixing of manufactured homes and permanently placed manufactured homes on one lot. 8.15 One-family detached homes on individual lots, held in any type of ownership. 8.2 Conditional uses. Conditional uses shall be consistent with those conditionally permitted in the one- family residence zones. 8.3 Accessory uses. Accessory uses shall be consistent with those permitted in the one-family residence zones, with the following additions and exceptions: 8.31 Management facilities. The following shall be permitted accessory to lots providing home sites for multiple manufactured homes: 1 Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 2016-16, adopted August 8, 2016, in effect, repealed § 8 and enacted a new § 8 as set out herein. Former § 8 pertained to similiar subject matter and derived from Ord. of 10-13-1981; Ord. of 3- 20-1983; Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. of 4-28-2008(2); and Ord. No. 2010- 29, adopted January 10, 2011. 192

Item 3. (a) Management offices with rooms for the usual office furniture and supplies, limited to one per lot; (b) Storage space for utility connection supplies in quantity, manufactured home accessories and maintenance materials and equipment; (c) Laundry facilities equipped with washing machines and dryers; (d) Community building facilities, including indoor recreation areas; (e) Commercial establishments consistent with uses permitted in the C-1 neighborhood commercial zone, limited to one such establishment per lot; (f) One-family detached homes intended for the use of a manager or caretaker, limited to one such dwelling per lot. 8.32 Accessory home occupations. Accessory home occupations shall be permitted consistent with the conditions outlined for home occupations in the one-family residence zones, with the exception that no home occupation shall be permitted if not also permitted by the owner of the lot on which the home is sited. 8.4 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 8.41 Mobile homes, house trailers, and recreational vehicles as principal uses on a lot. Any such structures or vehicles located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non-conforming uses in accordance with article 7. 8.42 Any other kind of factory-built housing that does not meet the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code as approved June 15, 1976, unless it can be demonstrated that such housing is constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations. Any such housing located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non-conforming uses in accordance with article 7. 8.5 Minimum occupation length. No lot or home site within the manufactured housing zone reserved for occupation by a manufactured home shall be leased or occupied for residential use except for periods of 30 consecutive days or more. 8.6 Land lease communities. The following regulations shall apply to land lease communities within the MH zone: 8.61 The entire land area occupied by a land lease community, regardless of the number of home sites or individual lots therein, shall be maintained in single ownership, or if in multiple ownership, under the provisions of the laws of the state dealing with unit properties and condominiums. 8.62 Changes to site plan. After initial site development plan approval of a land lease community, reapproval for the entire community shall not be required prior to the issuance of building permits for alterations to individual manufactured homes, or their accessory buildings such as storage areas and patios, which, in the judgement of the city planner, do not materially alter the site development plan approval by the planning commission and are requested as adjustments to the individual manufactured home sites or lots leased by an individual family and designed for the convenience and comfort of the individual lessee. 8.7 Performance Standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8. 8.8 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all Created: 2026-04-06 10:27:54 [EST] (Supp. No. 43) Page 2 of 3 193

Item 3. structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall also be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use. 8.81 For purposes of preparing a site development plan for approval by the planning commission, and all subsequent improvements, alterations or additions, the applicant shall conform to current submission requirements and site development standards as set forth by the National Fire Protection Association publication 501A,"Standard for Fire Safety Criteria for Manufactured Home Installations, Sites, and Communities." Where applicable, the approving authority shall be the fire marshal's office. 8.82 No site development plan proposing the siting of a manufactured home outside of a land lease community shall be approved unless the plan shows the manufactured home is to be permanently placed, as defined in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66—Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities. 8.9 Maximum density. The gross residential density in an MH zone shall not exceed six dwelling units per acre. 8.10 Signs. Signs shall meet the regulations found in Article 5—Supplementary Regulations, Section 4— Supplementary Sign Regulations. (Ord. No. 2016-16, 8-8-2016; Ord. No. 2018-01, 9-24-2018) Created: 2026-04-06 10:27:54 [EST] (Supp. No. 43) Page 3 of 3 194

EXHIBIT 5 Item 3. PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES APPENDIX B - ZONING ARTICLE 7. NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES ARTICLE 7. NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES Section 1. Nonconforming buildings and uses. The following provisions shall apply to all buildings and uses existing on the effective date of this ordinance, which buildings and uses do not conform to the requirements set forth in this ordinance; to all buildings and uses that become nonconforming by reason of any subsequent amendment to this ordinance and the zoning map which is a part thereof; and to all conforming buildings housing nonconforming uses: 1.1 Any nonconforming use, except those nonconforming uses specified in [sub]section 1.5, may be continued indefinitely, but: 1.11 Shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or placed on a different portion of the lot or parcel of land occupied by such uses on the effective date of this ordinance, nor shall any external evidence of such use such as traffic, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat or glare be increased by any means whatsoever; or 1.12 Shall not be changed to another nonconforming use without a special permit from the board of adjustment, and then only to a use which, in the opinion of said board, is of the same or a more restricted nature; or 1.13 Shall not be reestablished if such use has been discontinued for any reason for a period of one year or more, or has been changed to, or replaced by, a conforming use. Intent to resume a nonconforming use shall not confer the right to do so. 1.2 Except as provided in paragraph [subsection] 1.4 below, no building which houses a non-conforming use shall be: 1.21 Structurally altered or enlarged; or 1.22 Moved to another location where such use would be nonconforming; or 1.23 Restored for other than a conforming use after damage from any cause exceeding 75 percent of the replacement cost of such building, exclusive of foundations. Any such building damage[d] to a lesser extent may be restored, but not enlarged, and the nonconforming use reinstated within one year of such damage; [however,] if the restoration of such building is not completed within the said one-year period, the nonconforming use of such building shall be deemed to have been discontinued, unless such nonconforming use is carried on without interruption in the undamaged portion of such building. 1.3 Normal maintenance and repair, structural alteration in, and moving, reconstruction or enlargement of a building which does not house a nonconforming use, but is nonconforming as to the district regulations for lot area, lot width, front yard, side yard, rear yard, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, or minimum livable floor area per dwelling is permitted if the same does not increase the degree of, or create any new nonconformity with such regulations in such building. 1.4 Nothing in this article shall be deemed to prevent normal maintenance and repair of any building, or the carrying out, upon the issuance of a building permit, of major structural alterations or demolitions necessary in the interest of public safety. In granting such a permit, the city planner shall state the precise reason why such alterations were deemed necessary. Dover, Delaware, Code of Ordinances Created: 2026-04-06 10:27:57 [EST] (Supp. No. 43) Page 1 of 3 195

Item 3. 1.5 Each of the nonconforming uses specified below is deemed sufficiently objectionable, undesirable, and out of character in the district in which such use is located as to depreciate the value of other property and uses permitted in the district, and blight the proper and orderly development and general welfare of such district and the city to the point that each of such nonconforming uses shall be terminated on or before the expiration of the specified period of time after the effective date of this ordinance; which period of time is specified for the purpose of permitting the amortization of the remaining value, if any, of such use. 1.51 In any residence zone, any nonconforming use of open land, including such uses as a parking lot, junkyard, or open storage yard for materials or equipment, may be continued for three years after the effective date of this ordinance, or after annexation of the property into the City of Dover, provided that, after the expiration of that period, such nonconforming use shall be terminated (see also article 6, section 1.12). Any "mobile home" as that term is defined in article 12 hereof, that was located within the limits of the City of Dover at the effective date of this ordinance [November 22, 1976], or that was in place on any land subsequently annexed into the City of Dover, shall constitute a nonconforming use and shall be permitted to be maintained as a nonconforming use indefinitely. However, such mobile home shall be required to connect to city sewer and water mains, if available, and such mobile home shall be subject to and shall comply with all other city codes and ordinances applicable to structures and residences. 1.52 In any residence zone, any sign not of a type permitted, or of a permitted type, but greater than two times the maximum permitted size may be continued for one year following the effective date of this ordinance, provided that, after the expiration of that period, such nonconforming use shall be terminated. 1.53 In any residence zone, any non-conforming use of buildings which is not permitted under the provisions of this ordinance may be continued for a period of: (a) Twenty years after the effective date of this ordinance, or (b) Forty years after the initial construction of the building containing such use or of any addition thereto adding 50 percent or more to the floor area occupied by such use, whichever is the longer period, provided that, after the expiration of that period, such nonconforming use shall be terminated. However, no such nonconforming use shall be permitted to continue for a period exceeding two years, unless such use shall be operated in conformance with performance standards established in article 5, section 8. 1.6 Residential occupancies that meet the definition of "student home," as provided in article 12 of this ordinance, that can be proven to have been in existence as a student home use prior to the enactment of regulations governing student homes, shall be permitted to remain as legal nonconforming uses as to location and shall not be subject to the conditional use approval requirements set forth in article 10, section 2, provided that all such uses shall be made to conform with all other provisions of article 3, section 2.4, subsection (b), with regard to licensing as a student home, off-street parking requirements and number of students in residence in the student home, within six months of the effective date of the ordinance amendment establishing article 3, section 2.4, subsection (b). Documentation to prove that a student home use existed prior to the enactment of this ordinance shall be limited to executed lease agreements, City of Dover licensing data, and/or [a] sworn legal affidavit from the owner of record of the property. Failure to bring a nonconforming student home use into compliance within the specified six-month period shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance and subject to penalties as set forth in article 8 of the zoning ordinance [this appendix] and all applicable provisions of [the] Dover Code of Ordinances. Any student home use that existed prior to the enactment of this ordinance, that ceases to exist or that is changed to any form of occupancy other than a student home use for a period in excess of 120 days, Created: 2026-04-06 10:27:57 [EST] (Supp. No. 43) Page 2 of 3 196

Item 3. shall not be reactivated as a student home use without conditional use approval as set forth in article 3, section 2.4 and article 10, section 1 of this ordinance. Created: 2026-04-06 10:27:57 [EST] (Supp. No. 43) Page 3 of 3 197

Planning & Inspections View Map - Kings Cliffe MHP EXHIBIT 6 Item 3. 6/11/2026, 10:18:41 AM 1:4,514 0 0.04 0.09 0.17 mi Dover_Boundary 75 DNL C CZ Noise Zone Areas 80 DNL D Zoning Boundary Line 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km 65 DNL A AEOZ Airport Environs Overlay Zone Parcels Outside Dover VGIN, Vantor 70 DNL B APZ I Dover Parcels 198 City of Dover, Delaware - Planning Department USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service | EarthData/PhotoScience Inc. | State of Delaware Department of Transportation and EarthData | EarthData International of Maryland | Sanborn Mapping Company | Digital Aerial Solutions, LLC | Surdex Corp | State of Delaware, Sanborn Map Company, Inc. |