Scribd
Upload
9K views3 pages

Statement from Vanessa Denier

Statement from Vanessa Denier

Uploaded by

webeditors
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9K views3 pages

Statement from Vanessa Denier

Statement from Vanessa Denier

Uploaded by

webeditors
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

CONDOMINIUM

5300 Hamilton Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 40224

Date: January 17, 2025


To: Alex Null, WCPO 9 Multimedia Journalist
From: Vanessa Wibberley Denier, Board President
Re: Owner Vote to ‘Not Repair’ that Subjects the Condominium Property for Sale

Dear Mr. Null,

I have received your request to discuss condo owners’ latest concerns on the upcoming owners vote
with a Board member on camara and a statement from the Board. Michelle Frigault, Vice President,
will come to your station for an on-camara interview. I am also providing you this background
statement for your report. See two financial documents attached related to this matter that you may
use in your report.

First, we experienced two major fires in 11 months. The first fire was in March of 2022, and the
second fire was in February of 2023. Before the first fire was fully repaired, the second fire
happened, creating extensive damage throughout the building and extreme hardship for our
community.

Second, after the second fire, a newly-elected Board was confronted with the challenge of fully
repairing and restoring the building. Ohio condominium law and our governing documents require
that the Board fully mitigate all fire damage, including soot damage, and restore the building to its
original condition. (Board are volunteers who are owners and residents of the condo.) We hired an
architect, an industrial hygienist, a building code analyst, a mechanical engineer and construction
manager. This rebuild team* created a plan to fully repair and restore the building, and to bring it
into compliance with Ohio Building Code.

Third, the City Building Department determined that our building was not in conformance with the
building code, and, we would have to bring the building into conformance. Our architect and
building code analyst developed a plan (Alternative Engineering Design, AED) to comply with code.
This plan included a building-wide sprinkler system, as well as other life safety measures. The City
Building Department approved our plan and issued a building permit based on our implementation
of that plan.

Fourth, following both fires, our insurance carriers cancelled our policies. To obtain insurance,
HOA premiums went from $180,000 a year to over $1,000,000 a year. As a result, owner condo fees
increased by 53%. The implementation of the rebuild plan is required to obtain insurance and to
control the costs of HOA fees. If we fail to fully mitigate and implement the life safety systems,
including the sprinkler, we face the possibility of not only increased insurance premiums, but the
inability to obtain insurance on the building at all. The Board has a legal obligation to take necessary
steps to obtain adequate insurance to protect the property interests of owners.

Fifth, the reconstruction plan and the building permit required that unit owners in the building
would need to vacate their units while their floors were fully reconstructed and brought into code,
including the installation of a sprinkler system. Some owners (hereinafter the Plaintiffs) went to
court to stop implementation of the plan.

There was a court hearing in September. Judge Nestor ruled in favor of the Board and held that,
“The plan approved by the board is reasonable, appropriate, and consistent with the Board’s duty
to remediate, repair, and replace the damage caused by the fires.” Further, the Judge also stated that
the Board’s plan to repair was essential for life safety, and the court granted the Association an
injunction against the Plaintiffs who refused to move. The court ruled, “The board proved the
conditions of the entire building are an imminent risk of harm to owners, third parties, and public
safety… An injunction in favor of the association is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the
association and unit owners.” The Plaintiffs have appealed the decision, and the Association
continues to incur exorbitant legal fees and construction delay costs of millions of dollars, adding to
a very large potential assessment in the immediate future.

Sixth, the damage to the building was so extensive that the cost to repair has reached maximum
policy limits of the insurance coverage and, most importantly, the HOA insurance policy in effect at
the time of the second fire did not include coverage for correction of building code
nonconformance. During the building permit process, it was discovered that Hammond North was
not built in conformance with the Ohio Building Code. There are significant threats to the safety of
residents that must be corrected. The building requires significant improvement in life safety
systems, like a sprinkler system, to bring the building into compliance with the building code and to
protect the life safety of occupants and the structural integrity of the building.

The cost to bring the building into compliance with Ohio Building Code is not covered under the
insurance policy, which has led to the need for potential owner assessments to cover these expenses.

The Board has projected that assessments could range anywhere between $30,000 to $200,000.
Factors include whether costs are recoverable from owners who started the fire and from those
litigation-related delays that the Plaintiffs continue to impose on the Association. The Association
financials are in a dire state, and already displaced owners—many who are elderly and on a fixed
income—do not have the ability to pay such a large assessment.

According to the HOA Governing Documents, if there is substantial damage to the building in the
event of a property loss, the Board can place the decision to not repair before the ownership to
decide if they want to stop repairs. If 75% (135 units) of the voting power of the Association
affirmatively vote to not repair, this subjects the condominium property to a sale. The Board has
voted to place the decision to not repair before the owners so they can make the choice whether
they want to pay a large assessment. The building has been appraised, and there is an opportunity
for owners to make money from a sale of the property rather than pay a large assessment. The
decision will be up to the owners. The Board believes owners have a right to self-determination of
the future of the building and the Association.
The Board cannot stop the reconstruction plan. The Plaintiffs, and a small number of owners who
support them, want us to stop the plan. We cannot do that. We must adhere to the building permit
requirements outlined by the City of Cincinnati, and these requirements are that we install life safety
systems to make the building safe. We must also do this so that the building is insurable in the
future. Lastly, the HOA Certified Industrial Hygienist has identified a public health hazard in the
building from fire residue. The Board must continue to fully mitigate and repair for public safety.

Lastly, the HOA attorney determined that, under Ohio law, if an owner is actively involved with
litigation against the Association, they have a conflict of interest serving on the Board of the
Association.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement.

Sincerely,

Vanessa Wibberley Denier


Board President

*Rebuild team members include Denis Back & Associates (architect and code analyst), HAL-PE
(mechanical engineer), Auburn Environmental (industrial hygiene), Hunt Builders (construction
manager), Total Restoration Solutions (mitigation), Driehaus Insurance Agency (risk consultants),
Blue & Co. (financial advisor), Droder & Miller (HOA counsel).

You might also like