Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Security Door topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middletown commissioners press landlord for proof Stonegate security door meets repair order
Summary
The Middletown Fair Rent Commission heard competing videos and witness accounts about a security door repair at the Stonegate building, told the landlord to demonstrate the door locks (key or code) and agreed video proof or an inspection is required before the landlord can implement an agreed rent increase.
The Middletown Fair Rent Commission on Tuesday debated whether a landlord complied with a prior order to repair a security door at the Stonegate apartment complex, with attorneys for both sides presenting video evidence and witnesses.
Commission Chair (speaker 1) opened the discussion by summarizing prior findings that required both a repaired window and a security door. Attorney Ian Gottlieb, speaking for the respondent landlord, said his client repaired the door and provided a video and photographs showing the door closing and reopening. "The video shows that the door is on the hinge and it does close properly and the testimony is that it locked," Gottlieb told the commission.
Attorney Fennell, who represents tenants, countered that the repair was inadequate and that Gottlieb's clip did not demonstrate automatic locking as required by the commission's order. "It's not a security door, there's no lock on it," Fennell said, pointing to his own video that he said shows multiple defects, including a bent frame and a missing strike plate.
Commissioners framed two separate questions: whether the landlord had performed the repairs the commission ordered and whether the door as found is secure. Several commissioners said a functioning lock that requires a key or key/code entry would satisfy the security requirement; they stopped short of adding a buzzer or intercom requirement to the existing repair order. "If it's locked and then it can be open, correct," the Chair said when clarifying acceptable proof.
Tenants and commissioners also raised accessibility concerns about the buzzer/intercom system, noting elderly or disabled residents who rely on being buzzed in. Commissioners agreed the buzzer can be a convenience and a separate accessibility issue but that the immediate requirement is a secure, locking door. Several commissioners asked staff to coordinate a prompt inspection and suggested the landlord could provide a contemporaneous video showing the door locking automatically or arrange for a commissioner or building inspector to attend repairs.
The commission instructed the parties to provide evidence that the door locks (video proof or an inspection arranged with advance notice) and asked staff to confirm whether an erroneous rent increase had been applied; commissioners said any such overcharge should be corrected. The commission did not make a formal finding at the hearing on the Stonegate door beyond the guidance that the door must demonstrate secure locking as the order intended.
Next procedural steps include the landlord providing requested evidence and staff coordinating an inspection or email loop with commissioners and counsel.
