Dispute over burned-out apartments draws concern as repairs delayed
Ypsilanti Township is prepared to move forward with legal action against the owner of an apartment complex where a building has sat vacant and burned out since last July.
The insurance company and Sharrock Management, which owns the building at 716 Woodcreek off East Forest Boulevard, are embroiled in a dispute over the insurance settlement.
Township officials say their patience is wearing thin and charged that the owner, Ken Sharrock, has received and cashed a check for more than $600,000 from the insurer, Hastings Mutual, but has not pulled permits to make repairs or demolish the property.
At its April 8 meeting, the Ypsilanti Township Board of Trustees approved township staff taking legal action against Sharrock if the property isn’t brought up to code or demolished.

An eight-unit building at the Woodcreek Apartments still remains damaged 9 months after it burned.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
“We normally see (a rebuild or demolition) occur much faster than this in a similar situation,” said Mike Radzik, director of the office of community standards.
The building was damaged in an arson on July 10.
A public adjuster Sharrock hired, Craig Trombley, said he is seeking an additional $120,000. At the heart of the dispute is which set of building codes must be met when a building is renovated after a fire and how much of the building is damaged.
Trombley based his assessment on a report from an architect hired to perform a code review. According to that architect’s report, Sharrock must make significant upgrades to the fire suppression system that includes fire doors, fire suppressant walls, fire stops, smoke control, draft control, sprinklers and more.
But Township Building Director Ron Fulton said Trombley and the architect are going by code for new buildings, and Michigan Building Rehabilitation Code regarding fire safety only requires the installation of hard-wired smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors in this case. He said he cannot legally order the rehabilitation to meet new building standards.
To a degree, both parties agreed on what is damaged in the interior. Four of eight units must be stripped down to the studs. Six of eight trusses also were damaged.
But Fulton said that damage is not considered structural or major, and 50 percent of the building -including its structure- must be damaged to require major upgrades to fire suppression systems. Fulton said Trombley is basing his argument on building code that isn’t relevant to the case.
Sharrock and Trombley contend 50 percent of the building is damaged.
The insurance company agreed with Fulton’s assessment, not Trombley’s.
That dispute led to arbitration between Hastings Mutual and Woodcreek. Based partly on Fulton’s assessment, the arbitrator ruled in Hasting Mutual’s favor. Trombley said he will appeal the decision to the township and State of Michigan Bureau of Building Codes, if needed.
In the meantime, township officials say they want to see work proceed whether it's demolition or rehabilitation.
“I don’t know if the will and intent is to get it rebuilt or demolish it, but at this point it needs to be resolved sooner rather than later,” said Township Attorney Doug Winters. "It cannot stand."
“In light of the circumstances, the delay in repairing or demolishing the damaged building is unreasonable and action should be taken to cause the case to be resolved,” Radzik told the Board of Trustees.
Tom Perkins is a freelance reporter. Reach the AnnArbor.com news desk at news@annarbor.com.
Comments
SafeApartments
Tue, Apr 23, 2013 : 7:28 p.m.
The Insurance Policy the owner paid for states that all code work must be updated to 2013 code levels if the building is more than 50% damaged. Four of eight units were completely destroyed down to the studs along with all electrical & most of the plumbing in these 4 fire damaged units. The fire started on and burned the 1st floor, went through the 2nd floor then attic and roof. The roof needs to be completely replaced along with two thirds of the burned trusses. The remaining 4 of 8 total units sustained smoke damage through out. One of the reasons the owner hired the Public Adjuster, Craig Trombley, was because the insurance company refused to remove and replace the smoky, soot filled insulation in these 4 smoke damaged units. Everywhere a hole was cut in the drywall we found insulation that had soaked up the dark smoky soot and had a terribly pungent odor. This left no doubt that the insulation and drywall should be removed and replaced. However the insurance company refused to do this. It turns out that this replacement of soot damaged insulation and drywall along with other damage in the smoke damaged units pushed the total damage for the project to well over the 50% mark that would then require the insurance company to also pay for updating the code to 2013 levels. Something that was indeed covered in the insurance policy was refused by the insurance company which compromises the safety and livibility of all future residents of the building.
jondhall
Thu, Apr 11, 2013 : 11:02 a.m.
The problem lies with the fact that the Insured hired a greedy Public Adjuster. IF the the local municipality is good going back without this trumped up stuff the Public adjuster wants then so be it! My guess is the Public Adjuster nor the Insured would ever install this system he merely hired "his architect" to make these statements. Once a Public Adjuster is involved the "public is never served". I had thirty years of dealing with this "Public Adjusters", there are always issues. I say lets get the building condemn. I trust that the Insurance Carrier held back 15% of the funds and the Township is holding them to insure repairs or demolition. I agree with Mr Fulton.
Hugh Giariola
Thu, Apr 11, 2013 : 10:49 a.m.
This sounds like a dispute between the building's owner and his insurance company. IF he wishes to reconstruct with higher code standards, HE should bring the money to the table and NOT hold the township and tenants hostage with his inaction.
RuralMom
Thu, Apr 11, 2013 : 11:56 a.m.
Years (2001 - 2003) ago I rented from Mr. Sharrock, he will NEVER put his OWN money into this place! Beat him at his own game in court myself, when he arrogantly showed up without his lawyer, he thought I didn't know my rights as a tenant and could take advantage of me while providing substandard housing. I do not have any positive to say about this person due to my first hand experience.