Rent Board

RENT BOARD February 11, 2026 5:30 PM ZOOM INFORMATION: Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://portlandmaine- gov.zoom.us/j/82000484963?pwd=k8dV8hTLfVGNSu0F00PdLtXmbOPaMg.1 Passcode:460935 Phone one-tap: +13052241968,,82000484963#,,,,*460935# US +13092053325,,82000484963#,,,,*460935# US Join via audio: +1 305 224 1968 US +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 931 3860 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 719 359 4580 US +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US Webinar ID: 820 0048 4963 Passcode: 460935 International numbers available: https://portlandmaine- gov.zoom.us/u/kbuCKODw2E Page 1 II. ROLL CALL: III. COMMUNICATIONS: Please note: Written public comment must be received via email (rentboard@portlandmaine.gov) by 12pm the day before the scheduled meeting. The subject line needs to read "Written Public Comment" IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Approval of Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law b. Rent Increase Appeal Appellant: Portland Tenant's Union Address: 33 State St, all units Property Owner: Atanas Dinkov CBL: 044-B-016-001 c. Tenant Rights Appeal Appellant: Lizeth Gallardo Address: 183 Brackett St, Unit 208 Property Owner: Redfern WEP LLC CBL: 045-E-039-001 V. Adjourn Page 2  City of Portland – Licensing & Housing Safety Division TENANT RIGHTS COMPLAINT Date of Hearing: December 2, 2025 - Tabled to December 17, 2025 - Tabled to January 28, 2026 - Tabled to February 11, 2026 Appellant: Portland Tenants Union Owner Name and Address: Atanas Dinkov 33 State St Portland, ME 04101 Property Address and Unit: 33 State St CBL: 044-B-016-001 Page 3  Portland Tenants Union info@portlandtenantsunion.org September 25, 2025 City of Portland Rent Board Mr. Mathew Lax Via email: rentboard@portlandmaine.gov dorr@portlandmaine.gov Dear Mr. Lax, Pursuant to the standing granted to tenant unions under section 6-243(a) of the city code, we submit this appeal under 6-263(c) contesting the City’s amended ruling in Code Case: RCD2500009 regarding 33 State Street. We submitted a complaint to the City of Portland on May 8, 2025 asserting the rights of all tenants residing at 33 State Street since 2024, when Atanas Dinkov first purchased the property. While the city initially ruled in our favor and rescinded Mr. Dinkov’s owner-occupied exemption, they amended their ruling a month later to grant the exemption after Mr. Dinkov provided circumstantial and irrelevant evidence claiming he had been living somewhere in his building while it was fully occupied by leased tenants for the bulk of 2024 and into 2025. To be clear, and as our evidence and testimony will show, Mr. Dinkov has not resided anywhere in the building over the past year and, according to the law, even if he had slept on a mattress next to the water heater and oil storage tanks in a boarded up basement room below the first floor tenants for six months, his residency would not meet either the letter or the intent of the rent control law. According to the law, as defined by Section 6-231(d), a building with fewer than five units is exempt from rent control if one of the said units is currently occupied by the owner as their primary residence. Primary residence is defined in Section 6-150.1 as, “... the dwelling in which a person resides as his or her legal residence for more than one half of a year and registers as his or her address for tax and government identification purposes.” The definition of “rental unit” in Sec 6-232 states, “any dwelling unit that is rented or otherwise made available for rent for residential use or occupancy, together with all additional rights, privileges, or services connected with use or occupancy of such a unit…” In short, there are only three units in this property available for rent, as per the city assessor’s office and the housing inspection department, and all three of those units were occupied within three months of Mr. Dinkov purchasing the property, and all three were fully leased and occupied for the subsequent year. The only units, by law, Mr. Dinkov could have lived in to be granted the owner-occupied exemption, were fully occupied by tenants for a year within three months of Mr. Dinkov Page 4 purchasing the property. There is simply no way he could have met the requirement for said exemption. Our complaint and backup documentation. Based on reviewing CSS data and documents related to present tenancies at said property, we believe the violations of the rent control ordinance at this property include: 1.​ Mr. Dinkov falsely claimed an owner-occupied exemption, as 33 State was not Mr. Dinkhov’s principal residence when he registered it as such, nor was it during the entirety of the tenancies in this complaint, in violation of 6-231(d). a.​ Mr. Dinkov first purchased the property on January 5, 2024 (see exhibit 1) and all three of the units were occupied by tenants by April 1, 2024 (see leases for all three units respectively: exhibit 2, exhibit 3, and exhibit 4), making it impossible for him to claim this as his principal residence. b.​ Included are five signed and notarized affidavits from all five tenants occupying all three units, stating, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Dinkov never lived at the property, that they never saw him sleep at the building, that they only saw him at the property when he was doing work renovating the basement, and, indeed, that he told all of them he was a renter in Ogunquit (see exhibit 5, exhibit 6, exhibit 7, exhibit 8, exhibit 9) c.​ Also included is video and photographic evidence showing the basement being torn apart in November of 2024, during the period Mr. Dinkov appears to be claiming he lived in the basement (exhibit 10). d.​ Additionally, Venmo transactions show him making home rent payments to property owner Ms. Donna Lewis in Ogunquit during the period of January, 2024 to March of 2024 (and the rest of the year), adding to the evidence that he resided elsewhere (see exhibit 11). In fact, the Venmo payments actually use the emoji for rent. 2.​ Mr. Dinkov illegally raised rents on all three units in the building in violation of Sec. 6-234. a.​ Because 33 State Street was not owner-occupied, Mr. Dinkov was not allowed to raise rents in the building between tenancies by more than 10%. The registration of the units for 2023, when the building was owned by the previous landlord, shows the prior rents of the units to be $1,225, $1,175, and $1,125 respectively. Mr. Dinkov raised the rent the following amounts: i.​ Unit 1: 59.1% - From $1,225 to $1,950, as seen in exhibit 2 ii.​ Unit 2: 61.7% - From $1,175 to $1,900, as seen in exhibit 3 iii.​ Unit 3: 86.7% - From $1,125 to $2,100, as seen in exhibit 4 3.​ Mr. Dinkov failed to provide 1 month’s rent as reimbursement for the inconvenience of terminating tenant leases in units 1 and 2 between 60 and 90 days, In violation of section 6-236(a)3. Page 5  a.​ Mr. Dinkov notified the tenants of unit 1 and 2 that their tenancies would not be renewed and that they must vacate the units with less than 90-day notice (see exhibit 12 and exhibit 13), with no compensation provided as is required by law. Mr. Dinkov’s “evidence” Because there is no way, according to the law, for Mr. Dinkov to have actually lived in the building to earn the right to an owner occupied exemption, we are reluctant to discuss any of the circumstantial evidence he submitted attempting to claim he lived in an illegal dwelling in the basement. However, in case he still wants to argue that he spent 180+ days and nights in this windowless room, we will address a few of his more specious submissions. Parking Tickets: ​ Mr. Dinkov provided three parking tickets showing his car was parked in front of his building, two of which were in the middle of the night (see exhibit 14) as evidence he lived there. It should not need to be said, but by any means of legal analysis, having a picture of one’s car outside of a building does not provide any meaningful context about whether that building is one’s primary residence. That said, even if this did suggest he lived in the building, in reality, two of the parking tickets do not even cover the period in question. One was before the building was fully occupied by tenants (February 6, 2024) and the second was after the tenants left (May 20, 2025). The only one covering the period in question, from August 22, 2024, was issued at 5:49 pm according to the city of Portland parking division, a time when even the tenants testified he was sometimes present demolishing the basement. Car Registration: Mr. Dinkov provided his car registration, which claims his legal address as “33 State Street, Apt. 1.” First of all, apartment one was occupied, as evidenced by the lease we submitted. Second, this registration covers from August 1, 2024-July 31, 2025 (see exhibit 15). He claimed the owner occupied exemption back in February of 2024, when, according to the city of Portland, his car was not registered in Portland (see exhibit 15). When we called the State DMV, they confirmed the car was not registered in Portland prior to August 1, 2024. We’d suggest you ask for the registration of his car for the year covering February, 2024 when he claimed he lived in the building. Note from neighboring landlord: Mr. Dinkov provided a note from the owner of the property next door (31 State St.) claiming that in August, 2024, Mr. Dinkov told him that he could no longer share the laundry room with 31 State Street. The reason was that Mr. Dinkov claimed to be moving into the basement at that time. However, we know this claim to be false because the laundry room remained in use by the tenants of 33 and 31 State Street until November 11, 2024 when Mr. Dinkov informed his tenants that it would no longer be safe to enter the basement due to his “improving the heating system” (see exhibit 16). Again, this bolsters our claim he did not live in the building when he registered it as owner-occupied and that his “evidence” is false. Page 6 Text from upstairs tenant: Mr. Dinkov provided a text from the tenants in Unit 1, just above the area he claimed to live. In the text he quotes the tenants as saying, “It feels like there is very little separation between us and anything going on in the basement. This morning you woke us up at 7:30am.” (see exhibit 17). However, when you read the full text, you see it was from November 2 and clearly talks about hammering and power tools, which makes sense since he was renovating the basement by this time. As the tenants state in their affidavit, the disturbance on this occasion was caused by Mr. Dinkov entering the basement with a contractor below their bedroom early in the morning. The tenants in unit 1 never sent any messages complaining about noise from the basement prior, because no one was living there. Appraisals claiming a “finished basement”: Mr. Dinkov provided partial documentation from three appraisals of the property. Two from November, 2023, before he purchased the property and one from October, 2024, after he had owned it for 10 months. Although we do not have the full appraisals, and hence do not know what he is refusing to share, none of the appraisals describe a dwelling unit in the basement. In fact, the appraisal from 2024 describes only a laundry room as finished, and it awards the value of that space at only $12 per square foot, vs $55 per square foot for the livable spaces. The second appraisal shows three pictures of the basement, none which show a livable space (they show the laundry room, the meters, and the water heater). And the first says that while the basement is “finished” it says, “most of the finishings are old and/or damaged” and recommended that they be removed. Beyond this, there is no evidence whatsoever that insinuates the boarded up room in the basement of 33 State St. meets the robust minimum habitability standards for a “dwelling unit” outlined in Chapter 6 of the City Code, even if all of these other falsehoods were hypothetically true. From what we can tell, there wasn’t even a toilet. We could go on and on... In light of these violations, and this brazen attempt to sidestep the law, gouge his tenants, and make these three units unaffordable, we request that the Rent Board: 1.​ Revoke Mr. Dinkov’s primary residence exemption from rent control for 2024. 2.​ Repeal all rent increases imposed by Mr. Dinkov in 2024 and restore rents back to the last compliant rent ($1,225, $1,175, and $1,125 for units 1, 2, & 3, respectively). 3.​ Require Mr. Dinkov to fully refund tenants the amounts they were overcharged over the course of their leases, which, by our account, looks to be at least $725 per month for Units 1 & 2, and $975 per month for Unit 3. 4.​ Ensure that the tenants of Unit 1 and Unit 2 are each given one month’s rent (at the illegally high price that they were paying) as compensation for being given less than 90-days notice to vacate the unit. Page 7  5.​ Due to the egregious nature of these violations, impose fines on Mr. Dinkov similar to recent rent board levies: $100 per month per unit for illegal rent increases collected ($3,600) and $100 per violation for inadequate notice compensation ($300). Plus, $1,000 for his filing false information in regard to owner-occupancy, in violation of Section 6-150.1. 6.​ Additionally, we request $100 per instance for not providing the tenant rights document (as outlined in the amended NOV), $100 for not posting the tenant rights document (as outlined in the amended NOV). The landlord was not fined for either of these. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. We are happy to answer any questions about this complaint and provide additional backup documentation regarding any and all the matters discussed in this letter. We request that all communications regarding this complaint be sent to the union in response to our complaint and all documents pertaining to this investigation be made public upon completion. Portland Tenants Union Steering Committee Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31  SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF MARIETTA MALLON ​ I, Marietta Mallon, being duly sworn, state as follows: 1.​ I was a tenant at 33 State St, Unit 1, Portland, Maine, from April 1, 2024 to April 4, 2025. I lived at this address with my partner, Sophia Thomas, where we rented from Mr. Atanas Dinkov. 2.​ Our lease included access to the laundry room, which took up about half of the basement. The rest of the basement was locked and windowless. 3.​ At the beginning of our lease term Mr. Dinkov told me that he was a renter in Ogunquit, ME and he discussed living in Ogunquit on multiple occasions. 4.​ Our apartment was on the first floor of the three story building and was located directly above the basement. 5.​ Ms. Thomas and I slept in the unit almost every night during the year of our tenancy, and in the bedroom above the enclosed area of the basement. 6.​ Due to the absence of soundproofing between the floor of my apartment and the basement, as well as gaps around pipes that allowed light through, I was aware of any activity taking place below us. Noises as subtle as a heavy sigh, mumbling, and footfalls were audible in our apartment, and when a light was turned on, I could see it through the cracks. 7.​ At no point during the entirety of my tenancy did my landlord, Mr. Atanas Dinkov, make the basement of the building his residence. I know this based on what I saw and heard, and based on Mr. Dinkov’s own statements to me. 8.​ From April 1, 2024 to May 4, 2024, Mr Dinkov did not live in the basement, nor was he at the property much. 1 Page 32 9.​ On May 4, 2024, Mr. Dinkov informed us that he would be out of the country for an extended period of time. 10.​On August 13, 2024, he informed us of his return to Maine. 11.​For several days in early September, Mr. Dinkov came to the building after work to remove an old oil tank in the basement. The fumes from this process were so strong that my partner and I had to spend a night elsewhere. Mr Dinkov confirmed this when I texted him about the chemical fumes (see exhibit A). 12.​His work in the basement continued sporadically through Sept/Oct. 13.​On November 2, 2024, I texted Mr. Dinkov to say that this work was disruptive and that he and his contractor had woken me and my partner up at 7:30am as they were discussing moving the water heater (see exhibit B). 14.​On November 11, 2024, Mr. Dinkov texted all five tenants of 33 State St. informing us that it would no longer be safe to use the laundry room because he was “improving the heating system” (see exhibit C). 15.​My partner and I went into the basement on November 11, 2024 and saw parts of the ceiling ripped out, wires hanging down, wood and rusty metal debris scattered throughout the space, and a large portion of the wall torn down (see exhibit D). 16.​On November 24, 2024, a Sunday, the sound of a smoke detector’s low battery beep was audible through the floor from the closed section of the basement. When my partner texted Mr. Dinkov in our shared group chat at 12:16pm to let him know, he replied by saying that he would stop by the property in a few hours (see exhibit E). 17.​After providing notice of lease non-renewal on January 29, 2025, Mr. Dinkov informed me that he needed our unit so that he could move into the property. 2 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Rent payments made by Mr. Dinkov to Ms. Donna Lewis by Venmo from January 2024 - April, 2025 Page 47 Rent payments made by Mr. Dinkov to Ms. Donna Lewis by Venmo from January 2024 - April, 2025 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 10/28/25, 3:47 PM City of Portland Mail - Rent Board Public Hearing - 33 State St (CBL: 044-B-016-001) Dylan Orr <dorr@portlandmaine.gov> Rent Board Public Hearing - 33 State St (CBL: 044-B-016-001) 2 messages Atanas Dinkov <addinkov01@gmail.com> Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 12:10 PM To: rentboard@portlandmaine.gov Hi there, My name is Atanas Dinkov and I own the property located on 33 State St (CBL: 044-B-016-001) Portland Maine. I am reaching out regarding a request for a hearing submitted by Portland Tenants Union in regards to a potential violation of the City of Portland's Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Please note that Portland Tenants Union has already notified Housing Safety/Permitting and Inspection department regarding potential violation of the City of Portland's Rent Stabilization Ordinance. As a result investigation was completed by Adam O’Conner (Rental Registration Inspector Licensing) that concluded the property located at 33 State Street was owner-occupied as defined under Sec 6-150.1 of the City Code from January 2024 to present, exempting the property from Article XII. All this started in May 2024 and I do not understand why I have to go through this again? I am providing the following information in addition to investigation completed: 1. Amendment of Notice of Violation and Order to Correct 2. House inspection completed by Department of Planning and Urban Development CITY OF PORTLAND – please note this is a clear evidence Basement Unit was a Legal rentable unit including operational bathroom/shower and toilet. 3. Property data card – uploaded from City of Portland website. See towards the end of page This is an additional prove (besides Home inspection and two apprisals.) regarding Finished Basement status which is considered a livable area. 4. Extraction Bank statements regarding Venmo Payment – this is a proof I am paying $500.00 per month for an Office space including parking plus $70.00 for a Verizon phone line. Bank statements were provided to Adam O’Conner too. 5. CPA license for the state of Maine. – I need an office to complete my accounting work. 6. First pages of 2024 tax return and Tax Transcript showing my legal address 33 State street Portland ME. 7. Copy of Drivers License. - please note I changed my address beginig of the fiscal year 2024. 8. Copy of email from Portland Tenant Union insisting me paying $35,937.50 to tenants and identifying my going forward rents. Just wondering does the union have the right to enforce City of Portland Housing Safety Department Notice of Violation? 9. Portland Tenants Union Constitution – Please see page 3/5 section Financial Reimbursement from Landlords and consider the reason and more specifically the incentives Portland Tenant Union is trying to receive. This file was dowloanded from Portland Tenant Union website. 10. Link where the Portland Tenants Union Constitution was found. 11. Birth Certificate - explaning the reason I spent few months out of the country. I will provide copy of flight tickets if you would like. Let me know if you have any additionla questions/requests. Plese confirm you have received this email and all files attached Thank you. 11 attachments CPA License.pdf 166K Bank stmts Venmo payments.docx 107K ID.docx 488K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=11a4336f94&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1847152072845833463&simpl=msg-f:184715207284583346… 1/2 Page 56 10/28/25, 3:47 PM City of Portland Mail - Rent Board Public Hearing - 33 State St (CBL: 044-B-016-001) Gmail - Fw_ NOV for 33 State.pdf 639K Birth Certificate.pdf 1264K LINK Portland Tenants Union Constitution DRAFT link.docx 14K Property data card.pdf 51K PTU Constitution DRAFT (2025) - Google Docs.pdf 137K Amended 33 State Street Notice of Violation (1) - Copy.pdf 2205K Tax return.pdf 1530K 33 State St Housing Inspection 4 units.pdf 3172K Dylan Orr <dorr@portlandmaine.gov> Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 11:30 AM Cc: rentboard@portlandmaine.gov got it Dylan Orr Rental Registration Coordinator City of Portland 389 Congress St, Portland, ME 207-874-8966 dorr@portlandmaine.gov [Quoted text hidden] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=11a4336f94&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1847152072845833463&simpl=msg-f:184715207284583346… 2/2 Page 57 10/30/25, 2:03 PM City of Portland Mail - Rent Board Public Hearing 33 State St - additional information Dylan Orr <dorr@portlandmaine.gov> Rent Board Public Hearing 33 State St - additional information 1 message Atanas Dinkov <addinkov01@gmail.com> Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 9:29 AM To: rentboard@portlandmaine.gov Good morning, I am providing additional information regarding my case. I am kindly asking to consider Rule 80B of Maine Rules of Civil Procedure according to which each side of the case has the right to appeal a City of Portland decision to Superior Court within 30 days. Portland Tenants Union DID NOT appeal CIty of Portland decision to Superior Court or to the Rent Board within the time frame (30 days) according to rule 80B which is explicitly stated within initial email and Notice of Violation by itself. (See attached) Notice of Violation was issued on 07/17/2025 and Portland Tenants Union letter requesting public hearing is dated 09/25/2025. I believe this is about a 70 days time period without response. In my understanding if you do not appeal a Government decision within time frame defined in this case by Rule 80b of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure you agree with it. Thank you very much for your consideration. Rule 80b.pdf 1160K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=11a4336f94&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1847413679445515727&simpl=msg-f:1847413679445515727 1/1 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 City of Portland | Permitting and Inspections Zachary Lenhert, Licensing and Housing Safety Manager 07/17/2025 License #: LTR-006077-2024 Code Case #: RCD2500009 Atanas Dinkov 33 State St Portland, ME 04101 AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND ORDER TO CORRECT A Notice of Violation and Order to Correct (NOV) was issued on 06/24/2025 and required the violations related to property at 33 State Street (“Property”) to be corrected by 07/24/2025. The NOV alleged violations of Section 6-155 (d) (providing false information) and of Section 6-234(c) (improper rent increases) based, in part, on the finding that the Property was not owner-occupied prior to the Owner, Atanas Dinkov (“Owner”), moving into Unit 1 on or about April 15, 2025. At the time of an on-site inspection on June 11, 2025, the Owner was residing in Unit 1. Unit 2 was being renovated, and Unit 3 was tenant occupied. The basement was also being renovated and was torn down to the studs. Given the condition of the basement, it was determined that the Owner could not have lived in the basement prior to moving into Unit 1. As a result, the City issued the NOV based on the premise that the Property was not owner-occupied when the Owner increased the rent in January 2024. Following the issuance of the NOV, the Owner provided additional information which, after careful review and consideration, the City finds sufficiently demonstrates that the Owner resided at the Property from January 2024 to present and, therefore, the Property was exempt from Article XII of Chapter 6 of the City Code. In reaching this conclusion, the City considered the following information from the Owner: The Owner indicated that he resided at the Property from January 2024 to present. The Owner explained that a personal family situation required him to travel to and from his home country of Bulgaria. The Owner initially resided in Unit 1, then relocated to the basement of the Property, and moved back into Unit 1 after the unit was vacated on or about April 15, 2025. The Owner also provided the following exculpatory information to support his contention that he resided at the Property at all times relevant to the NOV: • A Home Inspection report dated 11/15/2023 from Square One Inspections, Matthew Tycz (inspector). The inspection report refers to the basement as “Finished”. The report goes further to say, “Most of the basement ceilings, walls, and floors have been covered with interior finishing”. The report contains photos of the basement in a finished state. • An Appraisal of Real Property report dated 11/17/2023. The report contains photos of the basement in a finished state. 389 Congress Street, Portland, Maine 04101 | 207-874-8900 | rentcontrol@portlandmaine.gov Page 61 City of Portland | Permitting and Inspections Zachary Lenhert, Licensing and Housing Safety Manager • An Appraisal of Real Property report dated 10/18/2024 from Class Valuation, Christina Strong (appraiser). The report refers to the basement as “finished”. The report contains photos of the basement in a finished state. • A text message from a tenant to the Owner dated 11/2/2024 informing the Owner that the noise from the basement was disturbing them. The text states, “the sound of voices when someone speaks from below is loud enough that they seem to be almost in the same room with us.” The message also states, “This morning you woke us up at 7:30 am.” • A Google Maps Street View photo dated December 2024 that shows the Owner’s car in front of the building. • Three parking tickets with photos that show the Owner’s car in front of the building. The tickets are dated 2/6/2024, 5/20/2024, and 8/22/2024. • A copy of the Owner’s vehicle registration showing the vehicle cited in the parking tickets is their registered vehicle. • A signed letter dated 7/1/2025 from Dimitry Shevorski, resident of 31 State St, Apt 3, the letter states that in August 2024, the Owner told Mr. Shervorski he “will no longer be able to use the washer/dryer that was located in the basement unit of his building because he was going to live there. Moving forward, I frequently saw him going in and out of that unit, lights being on there, and his car being parked by the building.” • A signed letter dated 7/3/2025 from UPS driver Joe Dubber that states, “Based on how often I see him making deliveries on 33 State Street Portland ME and nearby I believe Atanas resides at 33 State Street Portland ME.” • A signed letter dated 7/12/2025 from Donna Lewis of 62 Cherry Lane, Ogunquit, ME 03907. The letter states that “Atanas Dinkov rents a room in our house in Ogunquit, ME which he uses as a workspace from time to time. He pays us $500 per month for the room and a parking space; plus $70 per month for his Verizon phone line.” The Owner reports that he uses that space as his office to conduct his professional accounting work and does not live there. • The Owner presented bank records showing a payment of $570 from his Venmo account. • The Owner had their own mailbox at the Property to receive correspondence. Copies of the aforementioned documents are attached for reference. Given the documents and information provided by the Owner it can reasonably be assumed that the Property was owner-occupied as defined under Sec 6-150.1 of the City Code from January 2024 to present, exempting the property from Article XII. The following violation(s) have been resolved as a result of the additional information received: • Sec 6-155(d) – Providing False Information • At the time of the Short-Term Rental Registration, the information provided by the Owner was accurate. Article VI of the City code requires registration for new owners within 30 days of purchase, but does not require the City to be notified if an owner vacates the occupied unit. There is no evidence that the Owner rented Unit 1 as a Short-Term Rental while it was occupied by the long-term tenant. • One count of providing false information will remain for Long-Term Registration. The penalty for which is $1,000. • Unit 1 was not properly registered as a Long-Term Rental in 2024 or 2025. The Owner will be required to register the unit for those years and pay all applicable fees and penalties. 389 Congress Street, Portland, Maine 04101 | 207-874-8900 | rentcontrol@portlandmaine.gov Page 62 City of Portland | Permitting and Inspections Zachary Lenhert, Licensing and Housing Safety Manager • Sec 6-234(c) – Increase in Rent of over 10% • The property is Owner-occupied as defined by Sec 6-150.1 and exempt from this requirement. • Sec 6-236 – Termination of Tenancy • The property is Owner-occupied as defined by Sec 6-150.1 and exempt from this requirement. • The Owner provided the 30-day minimum notice as required by the State of Maine. • Sec 6-234(f) – Remedy • The property is Owner-occupied as defined by Sec 6-150.1 and exempt from this requirement. • As an exempt property, no rent overcharges remain. In conclusion, the Owner has demonstrated through contemporaneous documentation and signed letters that the property was owner-occupied at all times relevant to the NOV. A new Notice of Violation has been issued with the current violations and sent to the Owner. Thank you, Adam O’Connor Rental Registration Inspector 389 Congress Street, Portland, Maine 04101 | 207-874-8900 | rentcontrol@portlandmaine.gov Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Please see pages: 6/8 and 8/8 Note: This is a clear evidence Basement Unit was a Legal rentable unit including operational bathroom/shower and toilet. Dwelling units 4 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Basement Page 86 Page 87  Four dwelling units Basement dwelling unit. Page 88 Property Search | Portland ME 11/13/23, 5:23 PM PARID: 044 B016001 33 STATE ST GAY ERIC H AND HEATHER GAY JTS Parcel Parcel ID 044 B016001 Property Location 33 STATE ST Unit Living Unit 3 Land Use Code 13 - THREE FAMILY Land Area (acreage) Land Area (square footage) .0436 Notes 1899 44-B-16 STATE ST 33 1901 SF Utilities 1 - ALL PUBLIC - - Owners Owner GAY ERIC H & HEATHER GAY JTS Address 33 STATE ST City, State, Zip PORTLAND ME 04101 Deed Date 10/19/2018 Book 35230 Page 147 Assessed Values Land $197,900 Building $375,200 Total $573,100 Homestead / Veterans Exemption $0 Other Exemptions $0 Taxable Value $573,100 Sales History Date Price Grantee Grantor Book Page 10/19/2018 $350,000 GAY ERIC H & CBPC HOLDINGS LLC 35230 147 04/16/2010 $330,000 CBPC HOLDINGS LLC MID-TOWN PROPERTIES LLC 27715 023 05/20/2009 $0 MID-TOWN PROPERTIES LLC SIMPSON WILLIAM P 26907 165 03/25/2008 $0 SIMPSON WILLIAM P 25917 129 11/16/2007 $0 MID-TOWN PROPERTIES LLC 25624 059 Residential Card 1 Style OLD STYLE Year Built 1900 Stories 3 Attic 1 - NONE Fuel Type 4 - OIL Heat System 5 - STEAM Heat/AC Type 2 - BASIC Fireplaces 1 Total Rooms 15 Bedrooms 6 Full Baths 3 Half Baths Basement 4 - FULL Basement Garage Spaces Finished Basement Area 200 Basement Rec Room Area Unfinished/Cathedral Area Living Area 1,973 Assessment History https://assessors.portlandmaine.gov/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=0…eq=0&card=1&roll=REAL&State=1&item=1&items=-1&all=all&ranks=Datalet Page 1 of 2 Page 89 Property Search | Portland ME 11/13/23, 5:23 PM Standard Other Taxable Year Land Building Total Exemption Exemption Value 2023 $197,900 $375,200 $573,100 $0 $0 $573,100 2022 $197,900 $375,200 $573,100 $0 $0 $573,100 2021 $197,900 $375,200 $573,100 $0 $0 $573,100 2020 $133,100 $120,000 $253,100 $0 $0 $253,100 2019 $133,100 $120,000 $253,100 $0 $0 $253,100 2018 $133,100 $120,000 $253,100 $0 $0 $253,100 2017 $133,100 $120,000 $253,100 $0 $0 $253,100 2016 $133,100 $120,000 $253,100 $0 $0 $253,100 2015 $133,100 $120,000 $253,100 $0 $0 $253,100 2014 $133,100 $120,000 $253,100 $0 $0 $253,100 https://assessors.portlandmaine.gov/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=0…eq=0&card=1&roll=REAL&State=1&item=1&items=-1&all=all&ranks=Datalet Page 2 of 2 Page 90 Page 91  State of Maine DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL REGULATION OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY License Number CP10739 Be it known that ATANAS DIMITROV DINKOV has qualified as required by Title 32 MRS Chapter 113 and is licensed as: CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT ISSUE DATE EXPIRATION DATE September 30, 2025 Joan F. Cohen, Commissioner September 30, 2026  Detach STATE OF MAINE STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL REGULATION OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY 35 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0035 (207) 624-8603 License Number CP10739 ATANAS DIMITROV DINKOV CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT Joan F. Cohen, Commissioner ISSUED 09/30/2025 EXPIRES 09/30/2026 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 10/26/25, 8:27 AM Gmail - Fw: NOV for 33 State Atanas Dinkov <addinkov01@gmail.com> Fw: NOV for 33 State 1 message Atanas Dinkov <addinkov@yahoo.com> Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 8:26 AM To: Atanas Dinkov <addinkov01@gmail.com> ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Portland Tenants Union <info@portlandtenantsunion.org> To: "addinkov@yahoo.com" <addinkov@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 12:33:10 PM EDT Subject: NOV for 33 State Good afternoon Mr. Dimitrov, We are Portland Tenants Union. We represent tenants throughout the city of Portland in regard to rent control issues and have helped negotiate a number of settlements to resolve complaints and notices of violation. In this case we are reaching out at the request of your former tenants at 33 State Street. As you know, the city of Portland issued a notice of violation on June 24, 2025 regarding their tenancies, with a deadline of July 24, 2025 to resolve those violations in order to avoid fines and possible legal action. Based on that notice, we believe that you owe the tenants the following amounts: 1-0 | | Unit 1 - $10,650 1-1 | | 10,650.00 Unit 2 - $13,587.50 1-2 | | + 13,587.50 Unit 3 - $11,700 1-3 | | + 11,700.00 Please keep in mind 10% would go to the union. See work 1-T | Total | = 35,937.50 paper PTU Constitution DRAFT 2025 attached. And the rents for the units going forward must be set at: Unit 1 - $1,125 1 bedroom apartment Unit 2 - $1,175 1 bedroom apartment Unit 3 - $1,125 2 bedroom apartment We are reaching out to see if we can help facilitate the resolution of these matters. We are certainly willing to work with you to find the best way to make this work for everyone. As the tenants have asked us to represent them in this matter, please reach out to us with any questions and to discuss payment details, rather than contacting the tenants directly. We look forward to resolving this matter with you before the deadline of July 24, 2025, so you can present something to the city saying the matter is satisfied. Sincerely, PTU Steering Committee https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=b2a7492f9c&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1847047333486892585&simpl=msg-f:1847047333486892585 1/1 Page 96 See page 3/5 ​Portland Tenants Union Constitution DRAFT​ ​Table of Contents​ ​Introduction​ ​Article I – Name​ ​Article II – Objectives and Principles​ ​Article III – Organizational Structure​ ​Article IV – Membership​ ​Article V – Tenant Council​ ​Article VI – Elections​ ​Article VII – Amendments​ ​Introduction​ ​We are a city wide union run by and for Portland tenants. We believe that all people deserve a safe and​ ​affordable place to live and we are dedicated to fighting for the rights and dignity of all tenants. We​ ​come from all backgrounds and walks of life, including different races and ethnicities, cultures and​ ​religions, genders and sexual orientations. We are united by our shared commitment to justice for​ ​tenants and we are building a powerful union to fight for our rights.​ ​We prioritize affordability and the fundamental right to housing over the profits of a few wealthy​ ​landlords, developers, and Wall Street hedge funds. We will work toward a future in which Portland​ ​guarantees a home for all and where housing is not a speculative investment. Where landlords are held​ ​accountable to providing safe, well maintained, beautiful housing that is comfortable, stable, and​ ​affordable.​ ​Article I – Name​ ​Portland Tenants Union [PTU].​ ​Article II – Objectives and Principles​ ​The objectives of PTU are:​ ​1)​ ​To educate, organize, and unite Portland tenants.​ ​2)​ ​To win improved housing conditions and stable and affordable rents.​ ​Article III – Organizational Structure​ ​3.1 Annual Membership Convention​ ​Each year, in January if possible, a Convention of PTU’s membership will decide key matters of​ ​organization and strategy for the year to come.​ ​3.2 Tenant Council​ ​The Tenant Council will carry out the mandate of the membership between Conventions. The Tenant​ ​1​ Page 97 ​Council will be composed of two Co-Chairs, a Secretary, and a Treasurer, and up to seven (7) members,​ ​elected by dues-paying Union members.​ ​Article IV – Membership​ ​4.1 Membership Criteria​ ​1.​ ​All renters in Portland are eligible to become members of PTU.​ ​a.​ ​A renter shall be defined as any person who pays rent to a landlord for housing or who​ ​lacks stable housing.​ ​2.​ ​Any renter who lives in Portland may join PTU by filling out the official member sign up form​ ​and paying monthly dues.​ ​4.2 Rights of Members​ ​1)​ ​Full backing from PTU in disputes with their landlord.​ ​a)​ ​Advise members on their rights.​ ​b)​ ​Contact the landlord on behalf of members, upon request.​ ​c)​ ​Provide Tenant Advocates to attend meetings with the landlord.​ ​d)​ ​Recommend lawyers and provide financial support for legal representation, when​ ​possible and approved by the Tenant Council.​ ​e)​ ​File complaints on their behalf upon request to the city.​ ​f)​ ​File complaints on their behalf upon request to the rent board.​ ​2)​ ​To vote in all Union elections in accordance with these bylaws, agreements directly affecting​ ​the member as a tenant, and to run for any position on the tenant council.​ ​3)​ ​To attend, participate, and vote on all questions at the yearly Membership Convention and all​ ​regular and special membership meetings of PTU.​ ​4)​ ​To utilize all services provided by PTU and to participate in all social, educational, and cultural​ ​activities.​ ​5)​ ​Ability to purchase any PTU merchandise at cost.​ ​6)​ ​Access to member-only communication channels.​ ​4.3 Responsibilities of Members​ ​1)​ ​Support and defend PTU and members.​ ​2)​ ​Comply with decisions of PTU made pursuant to this constitution.​ ​3)​ ​Participate in PTU activities when requested (such as attending rent board meetings, emailing​ ​city council etc.)​ ​4.4 Dues​ ​1)​ ​Portland Tenants Union collects dues from all Union members to further the activities of PTU,​ ​such as administrative costs, events, and legal support.​ ​2)​ ​PTU collects dues as a percentage of rent (minimum .5%, not to exceed 1.5%). Landlords are​ ​encouraged to stand with PTU in solidarity by pledging to pay these dues on behalf of their​ ​tenants.​ ​2​ Page 98  ​a)​ ​Tenants receiving public support (section 8, voucher, general assistance, etc) pay dues​ ​based on their portion of rent.​ ​Dues Exemptions:​ ​Tenants may request dues waivers in the following circumstances:​ ​1)​ ​Rent is more than 50% of monthly income and income is below 80% of median average​ ​income ($68,500 as of 2024).​ ​2)​ ​Tenants who are unemployed.​ ​3)​ ​Unhoused.​ ​4)​ ​Other extenuating circumstances.​ ​Financial Reimbursement from Landlords​ ​In the case that PTU assists a member, or group of members, in receiving monetary​ ​compensation from their landlord in relation to a violation of tenants rights, a donation of 10%​ ​is recommended back to PTU from the member.​ ​Article V – Officers and Tenant Council​ ​5.1 Co-Chairs​ ​1)​ ​The Co-Chairs will be elected by the general membership of PTU. The term of the Co-Chairs​ ​shall be 2 years with no term limit (terms will be staggered).​ ​2)​ ​The Co-Chairs are empowered by their elections to carry out the plans and programs decided on​ ​by the Tenant Council and are responsible for the day-to-day administration of PTU, including,​ ​but not limited to:​ ​a)​ ​Facilitates broad rank-and-file participation​ ​b)​ ​Grows the membership and power of PTU​ ​c)​ ​Represents PTU publicly and with key coalitional partners​ ​d)​ ​Drives strategic planning, including providing an annual budget to the Tenant Council​ ​for approval​ ​e)​ ​Calls and chairs regular and emergency meetings of the Tenant Council.​ ​f)​ ​Create committees as needed​ ​g)​ ​Sign official documents​ ​5.2 Secretary​ ​The Secretary will be elected by the general membership of PTU. The term shall be 1 year.​ ​1)​ ​Maintain PTU documents and organizational systems​ ​2)​ ​Maintain PTU communication channels including the website​ ​3)​ ​Manage membership lists and CRM​ ​5.3 Treasurer​ ​1)​ ​The Treasurer will serve as PTU’s chief fiscal officer.​ ​2)​ ​The Treasurer will receive, manage, and distribute dues/funds according to the principles of​ ​PTU, as authorized by the Tenant Council, as executed by the Co-Chairs.​ ​3​ Page 99 ​5.4 Tenant Council Members​ ​1.​ ​In addition to the officers, the tenant council shall consist of up to 7 members of the Portland​ ​Tenants Union willing to take an active role in developing and promoting the activities of PTU.​ ​2.​ ​Tenant council terms shall be one year, with no term limit.​ ​3.​ ​The Tenant Council will meet at least 10 times a year and will be chaired by one of the PTU​ ​Co-Chairs.​​The Council may decide to meet more frequently,​​and may also meet on an area or​ ​committee basis.​ ​4.​ ​At any time, one-third of the members of the Council may request that the Co-Chairs Convene a​ ​special meeting of the Council which must be held within ten days after receipt of such request.​ ​5.​ ​An elected Tenant Council member who fails to attend three Council meetings in a year,​ ​without proper excuse, will cease to be a member of the Council. The vacancy will be filled by​ ​a special election no later than six weeks from the time the vacancy occurs. Procedure for other​ ​elections, except as otherwise provided in these bylaws, will be determined by the Tenant​ ​Council.​ ​The Tenant Council will have the following powers:​ ​1)​ ​To formulate plans, programs, and policies for PTU.​ ​2)​ ​To receive and act upon reports of the Co-Chairs and other​​officers.​ ​3)​ ​To approve an annual budget recommended by the Co-Chairs, including the expected dues​ ​level, and authorize the officers to execute said budget.​ ​4)​ ​To call rent strikes, when authorized by the members direc​tly affected as tenants.​ ​5)​ ​To recommend a city-wide rent strike with 70% support of the membership.​ ​5.5 Recalls​ ​All Officers and Tenant Councilors may be recalled through procedures developed by the full Tenant​ ​Council and approved by membership​ ​Article VI – Elections​ ​6.1 Voting​ ​1)​ ​The officers and members of the Tenant Council shall be elected at the annual Membership​ ​Convention by majority vote through ranked choice.​ ​2)​ ​The first two Co-Chairs will be elected to staggered terms (one for two years, and one for one​ ​year). Thereafter, one or the other will be up for re-election annually.​ ​3)​ ​The Tenant Council reserves the right to revise these election proceedings after the 2024​ ​Membership Convention.​ ​6.2 Vacancies​ ​1)​ ​Each officer elected at the Membership Convention shall take office immediately upon the​ ​officer’s election and shall serve until the officer’s successor is elected.​ ​2)​ ​In the event of a vacancy in the office of either Co-Chair or the Secretary or Treasurer, the​ ​remaining Tenant Council will appoint an interim within 30 days of the vacancy until a​ ​replacement is elected at the next Annual meeting to fill the remainder of the term.​ ​4​ Page 100  ​Article VII – Amendments​ ​Amendments to these bylaws may be initiated by:​ ​1)​ ​A majority vote of the Tenant Council; or,​ ​2)​ ​A petition signed by ten percent (10%) of the members of PTU who are in good standing.​ ​The Tenant Council shall submit the proposed amendment(s) to a vote of the general membership with​ ​at least 30 days notice at any membership meeting. Amendments will be approved with a 3/5ths vote.​ ​5​ Page 101 Portland Tenants Union Cons�tu�on DRAFT htps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OwHMLK2tMa4NhsbE4bKgZ1CgoH82GdMMiCAtUmhO 5rg/edit?link_id=4&can_id=2a122f020fc2a9cf67d9a1c5332407b9&source=email-ptu-march- 5th-general-mee�ng-2&email_referrer=&email_subject=ptu-goes-to-city-council-and-may- general- mee�ng&&&link_id=7&can_id=1be104dc5f419c213ba0cc0�4e5fa94&email_referrer=email_27 21751&&&email_subject=portland-tenants-union-events-this-week&tab=t.0 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 RENT BOARD HEARING Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Page 110  WHO WE ARE Portland Tenants Union was founded by tenants across the city who came together to defend their rights. We aim to educate tenants, support them in addressing violations with their landlord, and help submit complaints with the City of Portland. Page 111  We are here today asserting the rights of the former tenants of 33 State Street “Any Tenants Union shall have standing as a party to assert the rights or interests of ANY Tenants,individually or collectively, under this Chapter in any complaint, appeal, or other proceeding …” Sec. 6-234(a) (emphasis added) Page 112 Mr. Atanas Dinkov falsely registered 33 State Street as Owner- Occupied in order to raise rents well above the allowable limits and avoid 90-day notice requirements Unit 1: 59.1% - From $1,225 to $1,950 Unit 2: 61.7% - From $1,175 to $1,900 Unit 3: 86.7% - From $1,125 to $2,100 Mr. Dinkov failed to compensate tenants for lease termination notice of less than 90 days “(d) Rental Units within a building containing only two (2), three (3) or four (4) dwelling units, one of which the property owner currently occupies as his or her principal residence” Page 113  Timeline to Deception Jan. 5, 2024 Mr. Dinkov purchased 33 State Street Page 114  Timeline to Deception Jan. 5, 2024 Mr. Dinkov purchased 33 State Street Jan. 10, 2024 Only units 2 & 3 are applied for LTRs Page 115  Timeline to Deception Jan. 5, 2024 Mr. Dinkov purchased 33 State Street Jan. 10, 2024 Only units 2 & 3 are applied for LTRs Apr. 1, 2024 All 3 units were rented out Page 116  Timeline to Deception Jan. 5, 2024 Mr. Dinkov purchased 33 State Street Jan. 10, 2024 Only units 2 & 3 are applied for LTRs Apr. 1, 2024 All 3 units were rented out Page 117  Timeline to Deception Jan. 5, 2024 Mr. Dinkov purchased 33 State Street Jan. 10, 2024 Only units 2 & 3 are applied for LTRs Apr. 1, 2024 All 3 units were rented out Page 118  Timeline to Deception Jan. 5, 2024 Mr. Dinkov purchased 33 State Street Jan. 10, 2024 Only units 2 & 3 are applied for LTRs Apr. 1, 2024 All 3 units were rented out Apr. 17, 2024 Only units 2 & 3 are registered Page 119  False Claim of Owner Occupancy Mr. Dinkov repeatedly claimed Apt #1 as his residence, a unit that was occupied by tenants. Apr 1, 2024 Apt 1 rented out Page 120  False Claim of Owner Occupancy Mr. Dinkov repeatedly claimed Apt #1 as his residence, a unit that was occupied by tenants. Apr 1, 2024 Apt 1 rented out Claimed Apt 1 as Apr. 22, 2024 residence on license Page 121  False Claim of Owner Occupancy Mr. Dinkov repeatedly claimed Apt #1 as his residence, a unit that was occupied by tenants. Apr 1, 2024 Apt 1 rented out Claimed Apt 1 as Apr. 22, 2024 residence on license Claimed Apt 1 as Apr. 23, 2024 voting address Page 122  False Claim of Owner Occupancy Mr. Dinkov repeatedly claimed Apt #1 as his residence, a unit that was occupied by tenants. Apr 1, 2024 Apt 1 rented out Claimed Apt 1 as Apr. 22, 2024 residence on license Claimed Apt 1 as Apr. 23, 2024 voting address July 1, 2024 Claimed Apt 1 on his car registration Page 123  False Claim of Owner Occupancy Mr. Dinkov repeatedly claimed Apt #1 as his residence, a unit that was occupied by tenants. Apr 1, 2024 Apt 1 rented out Claimed Apt 1 as Apr. 22, 2024 residence on license Claimed Apt 1 as Apr. 23, 2024 voting address July 1, 2024 Claimed Apt 1 on his car registration Claimed Apt 1 as his residence on notarized Nov. 7, 2024 STR affidavit Only submits 2025 LTRs for Units 2 & 3 again Page 124 Exposed. Fined. Page 125  And Then The Story Changes After this, Mr. Dinkov submited claims that he lived in the basement/laundry room rather than unit 1, contradicting every legal document he submitted during the tenancies in question. Page 126  And Then The Story Changes After this, Mr. Dinkov submited claims that he lived in the basement/laundry room rather than unit 1, contradicting every legal document he submitted during the tenancies in question. “And in the beginning of August 2024, he told me that I wil no longer be able to use the washer/dryer that was located in the basement unit of his building because he was going to live there.” Neighbor. Page 127  And Then The Story Changes After this, Mr. Dinkov submited claims that he lived in the basement/laundry room rather than unit 1, contradicting every legal document he submitted during the tenancies in question. “And in the beginning of August 2024, he told me that I wil no longer be able to use the washer/dryer that was located in the basement unit of his building because he was going to live there.” Neighbor. “I believe he was residing in his basement unit for a certain time.” Neighbor. Page 128  And Then The Story Changes After this, Mr. Dinkov submited claims that he lived in the basement/laundry room rather than unit 1, contradicting every legal document he submitted during the tenancies in question. “And in the beginning of August 2024, he told me that I wil no longer be able to use the washer/dryer that was located in the basement unit of his building because he was going to live there.” Neighbor. “I believe he was residing in his basement unit for a certain time.” Neighbor. “The Owner [told us that he] initially resided in Unit 1, then relocated to the basement of the Property...” City of Portland Page 129 Now Mr. Dinkov claims to have lived in the basement rather than unit 1. However, there was no 4th dwelling unit in the basement. Page 130 Now Mr. Dinkov claims to have lived in the basement rather than unit 1. However, there was no 4th dwelling unit in the basement. Page 131 Now Mr. Dinkov claims to have lived in the basement rather than unit 1. However, there was no 4th dwelling unit in the basement. Page 132 Now Mr. Dinkov claims to have lived in the basement rather than unit 1. However, there was no 4th dwelling unit in the basement. Page 133 Now Mr. Dinkov claims to have lived in the basement rather than unit 1. However, there was no 4th dwelling unit in the basement. Page 134  Rooming Unit vs Dwelling Unit -Mr. Dinkov’s testimony -City memo All parties concede that the basement of 33 State Street is not a dwelling unit. Page 135  Decision Avenue #1: Mr. Dinkov needs to have lived in a dwelling unit to be exempt from rent control -33 State Street LTR Registration Page 136  Decision Avenue #2: Mr. Dinkov provided no evidence that the basement unit was his principal residence under the law -City memo The “rental unit” currently under question for owner occupancy is the supposed “basement unit”. All of Mr. Dinkov’s tax and government identifications list Unit 1 as his address, which is a rental unit that was occupied by tenants the entire year. Page 137  Decision Avenue #2: Mr. Dinkov provided no evidence that the basement unit was his principal residence under the law -City memo Page 138  Decision Avenue #3: The basement did not, and still does not, meet the standards of habitability for a rooming unit -Sec. 6-111. Minimum plumbing standards. Page 139  Decision Avenue #3: The basement did not, and still does not, meet the standards of habitability for a rooming unit -Sec. 6-111. Minimum plumbing standards. Page 140  Decision Avenue #3: The basement did not, and still does not, meet the standards of habitability for a rooming unit -Sec. 6-111. Minimum plumbing standards. Page 141  Decision Avenue #3: The basement did not, and still does not, meet the standards of habitability for a rooming unit -Sec. 6-111. Minimum plumbing standards. -City memo Page 142  Boarded up windows to 33 State Street Basesment. 1/20/2025 Page 143  Adding to the evidence that the basement did not meet the living standards of a rooming unit, Mr. Dinkov texted his tenants on November 11, 2024, “Based on some safety issues concern and conversation with certified plumber the laundry room will not be available till the end of the year” Page 144  Decision Avenue #4: Mr. Dinkov did not live anywhere in 33 State St. All five tenants, occupying all three units, confirm, under oath, that the landlord never lived at the property Page 145 Mr. Dinkov did not live anywhere in 33 State St. Tenants confirm, under oath, that landlord never lived at the property Page 146 Mr. Dinkov did not live anywhere in 33 State St. Tenants confirm, under oath, that landlord never lived at the property Page 147 Mr. Dinkov did not live anywhere in 33 State St. Tenants confirm, under oath, that landlord never lived at the property Page 148 Mr. Dinkov did not live anywhere in 33 State St. Tenants confirm, under oath, that landlord never lived at the property Page 149 Mr. Dinkov did not live anywhere in 33 State St. Tenants confirm, under oath, that landlord never lived at the property Page 150  Mr. Dinkov’s “Evidence” Doesn’t Add Up Mr. Dinkov has failed to provide meaningful evidence that he lived anywhere at 33 State Street during the time period in question. Page 151  Mr. Dinkov’s “Evidence” Doesn’t Add Up The UPS Driver’s note The letter provided by a UPS driver was signed 3 months after the tenants had moved out, and does not contradict the evidence provided. Page 152  Mr. Dinkov’s “Evidence” Doesn’t Add Up The Neighboring Landlord’s note The neighboring landlord claims he could no longer use the laundry room, as Mr. Dinkov was moving into the basement in Aug., 2024. However, the laundry room remained in use until Nov. 11, 2024, when Mr. Dinkov informed his tenants that it would no longer be safe, reducing their rent by $15. (As a side note, if what the note said were true, it, again, contradicts his having registered 33 State as owner-occupied in April, 2024.) Page 153  Mr. Dinkov’s “Evidence” Doesn’t Add Up The Parking Tickets Mr. Dinkov provided 3 parking tickets from in front of his building. Two were imposed outside the time period in question. Only one covers the time period and it is during the afternoon – a time when even the tenants testified he was sometimes present demolishing the basement. Page 154  Mr. Dinkov’s “Evidence” Doesn’t Add Up Text From Apt #1 Mr. Dinkov uses a text from the first floor tenants about noise at 7:30am on Nov. 2, 2024 to suggest that he was there overnight. In truth, the full text references demolition noise from the basement. The tenants confirm this fact in their affidavit. Page 155  Mr. Dinkov’s “Evidence” Doesn’t Add Up Appraisals Mr. Dinkov provided two partial appraisals of the property, neither of which describe a room that fits the city’s habitability criteria for a dwelling unit. Indeed, the 2024 appraisal valued the basement at $12 per sf, vs $55 per sf for “Living Areas.” Page 156  Mr. Dinkov’s “Evidence” Doesn’t Add Up 1983 Inspection This inspection is 42 years old, and every official document surrounding his purchase of the property, and his ownership, shows there are only 3 dwelling units and only 3 bathrooms in the building, as shown in slides 17-21. Page 157  Mr. Dinkov’s “Evidence” Doesn’t Add Up Where did he live? While we cannot prove where Mr. Dinkov lived from 4/1/2024 to 3/31/2025, (because all his documents claim he lived in Unit 1, when clearly he did not), nor is it necessary, we suspect he lived at 33 Cherry Lane in Ogunquit, as he issued monthly Venmo payments to the owner of this property often using the “rent” emoji 🏠 , which corresponds with what he told his tenants. Page 158  Mr. Dinkov’s “Evidence” Doesn’t Add Up Where did he live? Despite a note from his landlords claiming that he was merely renting office space, a note not given under oath, the same landlords posted on Mr. Dinkov’s Facebook page over the years: “Nasco [his nickname] moved into our home in Ogunquit...” “Will clean the crackers off your bed!” “See you back at Cherry Lane soon.” Page 159 Where Did He Live? More than just a rented “work space”? Page 160 Summary Findings Page 161  Summary Findings There are only 3 dwelling units in the building. Page 162  Summary Findings There are only 3 dwelling units in the building. All 3 dwelling units were occupied by tenants. Page 163  Summary Findings There are only 3 dwelling units in the building. All 3 dwelling units were occupied by tenants. Mr. Dinkov falsely claimed to live in Unit 1. Page 164  Summary Findings There are only 3 dwelling units in the building. All 3 dwelling units were occupied by tenants. Mr. Dinkov falsely claimed to live in Unit 1. After our complaint, Mr. Dinkov changed his story to claim he lived in the unfinished basement. Page 165  Summary Findings There are only 3 dwelling units in the building. All 3 dwelling units were occupied by tenants. Mr. Dinkov falsely claimed to live in Unit 1. After our complaint, Mr. Dinkov changed his story to claim he lived in the unfinished basement. The basement is not a dwelling unit. Page 166  Summary Findings There are only 3 dwelling units in the building. All 3 dwelling units were occupied by tenants. Mr. Dinkov falsely claimed to live in Unit 1. After our complaint, Mr. Dinkov changed his story to claim he lived in the unfinished basement. The basement is not a dwelling unit. Nor is it a rooming unit. Page 167  Summary Findings There are only 3 dwelling units in the building. All 3 dwelling units were occupied by tenants. Mr. Dinkov falsely claimed to live in Unit 1. After our complaint, Mr. Dinkov changed his story to claim he lived in the unfinished basement. The basement is not a dwelling unit. Nor is it a rooming unit. Regardless, all tenants testified he never lived at 33 State. Ever. Page 168  Conclusion Mr. Dinkov did not live at 33 State Street in Unit 1 or the basement between April 1, 2024 and April 1, 2025. Page 169  Accountability In light of these violations, and this brazen attempt to sidestep the law, gouge his tenants, and make these three units unaffordable, we request that the Rent Board: Page 170  Accountability In light of these violations, and this brazen attempt to sidestep the law, gouge his tenants, and make these three units unaffordable, we request that the Rent Board: 1. Revoke Mr. Dinkov’s primary residence exemption. Page 171  Accountability In light of these violations, and this brazen attempt to sidestep the law, gouge his tenants, and make these three units unaffordable, we request that the Rent Board: 1. Revoke Mr. Dinkov’s primary residence exemption. 2. Repeal all rent increases imposed by Mr. Dinkov in 2024 and require that tenants be fully refunded the amounts they were overcharged. Page 172  Accountability In light of these violations, and this brazen attempt to sidestep the law, gouge his tenants, and make these three units unaffordable, we request that the Rent Board: 1. Revoke Mr. Dinkov’s primary residence exemption. 2. Repeal all rent increases imposed by Mr. Dinkov in 2024 and require that tenants be fully refunded the amounts they were overcharged. 3. Ensure that the tenants of Unit 1 and 2 are each given one month’s rent as compensation for being given less than 90-days notice to vacate the unit. Page 173  Accountability In light of these violations, and this brazen attempt to sidestep the law, gouge his tenants, and make these three units unaffordable, we request that the Rent Board: 1. Revoke Mr. Dinkov’s primary residence exemption. 2. Repeal all rent increases imposed by Mr. Dinkov in 2024 and require that tenants be fully refunded the amounts they were overcharged. 3. Ensure that the tenants of Unit 1 and 2 are each given one month’s rent as compensation for being given less than 90-days notice to vacate the unit. 4. Impose fines on Mr. Dinkov of at least $100 per month per unit for illegal rent increases collected; $100 per violation for inadequate notice compensation; $1,000 for filing false information in regard to owner- occupancy in his STR application; and $100 per instance for not posting the tenant rights document. Page 174  City of Portland – Housing Safety Division TENANT RIGHTS COMPLAINT Date of Hearing: December 17, 2025 - Tabled to January 28, 2026 - Tabled to February 11, 2026 Appellant: Lizeth Gallardo Owner Name and Address: Redfern WEP LLC 120 Exchange St, Ste 330 Portland, ME 04101 Property Address and Unit: 183 Brackett St, Unit 208 CBL: 045-E-039-001 Page 175 11/20/25, 3:20 PM City of Portland Mail - Retaliation Concern & Non-Renewal of Lease Dylan Orr <dorr@portlandmaine.gov> Retaliation Concern & Non-Renewal of Lease Lizeth Gallardo <liz.gaall@gmail.com> Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 6:52 PM To: Rentboard@portlandmaine.gov Hello, I hope you are well. I am writing to provide an important update regarding my living situation at 183 Brackett Street, Apartment 208, Portland, Maine. After approximately four years of tenancy during which I maintained rent payments and complied with lease obligations, I submitted a formal written maintenance complaint to my landlord and property management on a date in September 2025, to which I received no written response. On October 2, 2025, a noise complaint was called in against my unit. Shortly thereafter, on October 8, I was issued a written lease‐violation notice by my property manager, citing “obnoxious behavior” and referencing the earlier noise complaint. I responded by email acknowledging receipt of the notice, pointing out procedural concerns (including the inclusion of my guarantors despite lease language and Maine privacy statutes), and stating that I preferred all future communication be directed to me and my co‐tenant. The next day I submitted a complaint via Portland 311, which the Housing Safety Division officially assigned. Then, on November 17, 2025, I received a 90-day notice of non-renewal of lease from my landlord—less than six weeks after my municipal complaint. In addition to the non-renewal, maintenance entered my unit to move the washer and dryer and left my home in disrepair: rugs and padding were pulled up and not replaced, debris and dust were left on my clothing, bathtub and floors were dirty, and I noticed new scratches on the floor. Given the sequence—complaint, violation, complaint to city, non-renewal—this appears to match the legal definition of retaliation under local Portland tenant protections and Maine statute. I believe I have acted in good faith at all times and request your assistance in reviewing this matter for possible retaliatory treatment by my landlord. I am more than willing to submit supporting documentation including the maintenance complaint, email correspondence, lease‐violation notice, non‐renewal letter, and photographic evidence of the damage and condition in my unit. Thank you for your time and for the work you do to protect tenant rights. I look forward to your guidance on how best to proceed. Sincerely, Lizeth Gallardo Tenant, Apartment 208 183 Brackett Street Portland, ME 04102 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=11a4336f94&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1849083644029566772&simpl=msg-f:1849083644029566772 1/1 Page 176 11/26/25, 9:31 AM City of Portland Mail - Retaliation Concern & Non-Renewal of Lease Dylan Orr <dorr@portlandmaine.gov> Retaliation Concern & Non-Renewal of Lease Lizeth Gallardo <liz.gaall@gmail.com> Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:53 AM To: Dylan Orr <dorr@portlandmaine.gov> Hi Dylan, Thank you for your email. I’m writing to provide the full timeline and to request that this matter be reviewed as soon as possible. The way the notices were handled has caused me stress, and I want everything to be clearly documented. On September 28, maintenance entered my unit to replace a gasket. When I came home, my apartment had been left in very poor condition. My rugs and rug padding had been displaced and balled up, my socks were covered in dust, my bathtub had dust inside it, and all of my paper towels had been used. My kitchen rug was also stained. My partner later told me they had cleaned part of the heat pump in our sink, which explained the staining. I emailed Ethan with photos. He called the next day, but there was no written follow-up and he never came to look at the scratches or the condition of the apartment, which worried me because of the impact on our security deposit. On October 2, at around 2:40 in the morning, my partner and I had a brief argument. It was loud for a moment and then ended. Later that morning, around 7:30, we argued again. At about 7:35, Ethan knocked on our door and said a neighbor had reported noise. He left shortly after. At around 7:46, the Portland Police arrived. They said everything was fine, took no names, issued no citation, did not separate us, and left within minutes. On October 8, I returned home from work and found a written lease violation taped to my door. This was our first and only violation during the time we have lived here. Throughout almost four years of tenancy, we have never had any complaints, and we have always paid rent on time without any issues. Because of that history, it was very surprising to receive a non- renewal over a single incident that happened that morning. The notice referenced both the 2:40 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. moments and stated that a neighbor had reported noise, describing it as “yelling/obnoxious behavior.” That same evening at 5:37 p.m., I submitted a housing concern through the Portland Fix-It system regarding the maintenance issues and the violation. Around 6 p.m. that same day, Ethan emailed us the violation again and copied both of our guarantors, even though this was not a financial issue. This was extremely uncomfortable because it was a private matter between me and my partner. I emailed him back and explained that guarantors are only responsible for financial obligations and should not have been included. He did not reply until October 9 at 9:47 p.m., and his message simply said that including guarantors was courtesy, without addressing my concerns. After that, communication stopped. On November 17, I came home around 4:20 and there was nothing on my door. I left briefly around 5:30 to go to the grocery store, and when I returned around 6:20, there was a 90-day non-renewal notice taped to my door. The email version of the notice appeared in my inbox at 6:27 p.m., also after business hours. This timing felt very unsettling. I also want to note that Ethan lives in my building. I have lived here for almost four years and have never felt uncomfortable until recently, but receiving notices after hours from someone who also lives in the building has made me uneasy. The timing raised concerns for me in relation to the issues I had reported earlier. This is the complete timeline. I appreciate your help reviewing this, and I can provide photos, emails, or anything else the Board may need. Thank you, Lizeth Gallardo, Peterson Silk 183 Brackett st unit 208 Portland, ME 04102 [Quoted text hidden] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=11a4336f94&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1849234664340262440&simpl=msg-f:1849234664340262440 1/2 Page 177 11/26/25, 9:31 AM City of Portland Mail - Retaliation Concern & Non-Renewal of Lease [Quoted text hidden] Notice: Under Maine law, documents - including e-mails - in the possession of public officials or city employees about government business may be classified as public records. There are very few exceptions. As a result, please be advised that what is written in an e-mail could be released to the public and/or the media if requested. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=11a4336f94&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1849234664340262440&simpl=msg-f:1849234664340262440 2/2 Page 178 Page 179  WRITTEN NOTICE OF LEASE VIOLATION October 8th, 2025 TO: Peterson Silk, Lizeth Gallardo, and All Other Occupants 183 Brackett St, Apt. 208 Portland, ME 04102 RE: Premises located at 183 Brackett St, Apt. 208, Portland, Maine 04102 NOTICE OF LEASE VIOLATION It is the position of the Redfern WEP, LLC, (Landlord) that you are in violation of the terms and conditions of your lease. You are in violation of the following covenants of your Lease for the Premises located at 183 Brackett St, Unit 208, Portland, Maine, 04102 and your lease dated March 4, 2025. 20. PROHIBITED CONDUCT. You, your occupants or guests, or the guests of any occupants, may not engage in the following activities: behaving in a loud or obnoxious manner. The below-described events are violations of your lease that you have engaged in conduct that is disruptive and disturbing to the tenants, neighbors and the landlord as well as specific violations of the lease as set forth below. You are hereby notified that this is in direct violation of your lease at 183 Brackett St, Apt. 208, Portland, Maine 04102. Please note this is your first written lease violation. You have engaged in the following lease violation: On the morning of Thursday, October 2, 2025, a noise complaint was filed for loud, obnoxious behavior starting at 2:50AM, interrupting the sleep of neighbors. A second incident occurred around 7:30AM the same morning, which police responded to. This is the 2nd noise complaint filed; therefore an official lease violation is being issued. Each of these events is a specific and individual violation of your lease. This written lease violation is without prejudice to the Landlord’s right to pursue eviction proceedings against you. If a forcible entry and detainer eviction court action is commenced against you, you have the right to contest this notice and defend the termination and eviction action in court. Redfern Properties, Landlord Ethan Shrestha Property Manager Representative of Redfern WEP, LLC Redfern Properties | 120 Exchange St. Suite 330, Portland, ME 04101 | (207) 261-5151 | liveredfern.com Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196  NINETY (90) DAY NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL OF LEASE Date: 11/17/2025 From: Redfern WEP, LLC To: Lizeth Gallardo, Peterson Silk, and All Other Occupants CC: Guarantor Re: Property located at 183 Brackett St. Apt 208, Portland, ME 04102 This letter is notice to you that the current Lease/Rental Agreement for the above described premises will expire at midnight on March 3rd, 2026 and that this lease will not be renewed per Section 3 and 43 of your lease. You are required by law to surrender the premises to Redfern Properties, LLC upon lease expiration no later than March 3rd, 2026. Please return the premises to the same condition as you found it upon move-in, normal wear and tear excepted. You are required to return all keys when vacating the premises no later than March 3rd, 2026. You are hereby notified and advised that your Lease in the above captioned premises is hereby terminated at the expiration of March 3rd, 2026 and you are further notified that you are to vacate said premises by no later than March 3rd, 2026. This Ninety (90) Day Notice of Termination and Notice to Quit does not relieve you from your obligation to pay the full amount of rent due and owing to the Landlord. If you do not pay said amounts to the Landlord in accordance with Maine law, the Landlord will take appropriate actions, including legal proceedings, to collect all amounts owed. You are not permitted to apply your security deposit being held by the Landlord to your last month's rent. If a forcible entry and detainer eviction court action is commenced against you, you have the right to contest and defend this Notice the termination and eviction in court. Signature: Ethan Shrestha Property Manager Redfern Properties, LLC Re: Property located at 183 Brackett St. APT 208, Portland, ME 04102 Redfern Properties, LLC | 120 Exchange St. Suite 330 | Portland | ME | 04101 | 207-261-5151 Page 197  MAINE JUDICIAL BRANCH RESIDENTIAL FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER (EVICTION) INFORMATION SHEET AND MEDIATION REQUEST You have been served with an eviction notice OR a court complaint and summons with your scheduled court date and time. Here is some important information that may help you. PLEASE NOTE: If you do not go to court on the date your case is scheduled, you will likely lose your case and have to move out of your home. HELP AND INFORMATION: Legal Help – You might be able to get free help from a lawyer: • Pine Tree Legal Assistance (PTLA) is free for low-income tenants. Hotline hours are Monday 12:00 – 2:30, Tuesday and Thursday 9:00 – 11:30. Call 207-774-8211. • Legal Services for Maine Elders – is free for those 60 and older: Call 1-800-750-5353. Information - Find out more! • PTLA holds a free information session about the eviction process in Maine every Tuesdays at 9:00 am. Go to ptla.org/fed for phone or internet options to learn more about the eviction process in Maine. NOTICE TO QUIT OR NOTICE TO TERMINATE The “notice to quit” or “notice to terminate” is generally the first step a landlord must take to start an eviction case against you. Once the notice period ends, your landlord may file an eviction case (called a “forcible entry and detainer” case) against you by having a sheriff give you a summons and complaint that tells you when to come to court. It is important to get legal help. If you can’t afford an attorney, you may call PTLA or Legal Services for the Elderly. Their phone numbers are above. You may be eligible for free legal help. COURT HEARING DATE  Go to Court: If you have been given a court summons, you must attend your court hearing on the date listed on the summons. The summons says when to go to court for your hearing, and if the hearing will be by video or phone, how to join. If you do not attend your hearing, you may be evicted.  Mediation: You can ask for mediation. Mediation gives you the chance to settle your case. You can ask for mediation before the hearing date using the Request for Mediation Form (see next page). You can also ask for mediation at the court. Alternatively, the judge might order your case to mediation.  Hearing: If your case does not settle in mediation, the judge will hold a hearing to listen to both sides and decide what will happen. ADA Notice: The Maine Judicial Branch complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you need a reasonable accommodation, contact the Court Access Coordinator, accessibility@courts.maine.gov, or a court clerk. Language Services: For language assistance and interpreters, contact a court clerk or interpreters@courts.maine.gov CV-256, Rev. 04/24 Page 1 of 2 www.courts.maine.gov Residential Forcible Entry and Detainer (Eviction) Information Sheet and Mediation Request Page 198  MAINE JUDICIAL BRANCH MEDIATION What is mediation? In mediation, a neutral person approved by the court tries to help the parties come to an agreement. This person is called a mediator and is trained to help parties explore solutions without taking sides. Options for agreement: Some options for agreement are: a payment plan for back rent to keep a tenant in the rented home, setting a move-out date, a plan for repairs, a reasonable accommodation for a disability, or some other solution that the tenant and landlord both agree to. Mediation is usually held in person but can be held remotely by video or phone. Who will be there? The mediator, you, your lawyer if you have one, the landlord and the landlord’s lawyer if they have one. Others might also be present for support. How to ask for mediation: If you would like to mediate your case, send or bring the Request for Mediation form below to the court. You can also write a letter to the court. You can ask for mediation at court when you go on the hearing date. Questions? Contact the court at the number listed on the summons. REQUEST FOR MEDIATION I would like mediation in my case. I am (select one) the defendant (tenant) the plaintiff (landlord). My Name is (please print): My cell phone number is: My email address is: The name of the other party listed on the summons and complaint is: To the best of my knowledge, the other party’s cell phone number is: To the best of my knowledge, the other party’s email address is: The address of rental property is: Date (mm/dd/yyyy): ► Signature Personal information in this form will be used only for court purposes and will not be shared with the public. ADA Notice: The Maine Judicial Branch complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you need a reasonable accommodation, contact the Court Access Coordinator, accessibility@courts.maine.gov, or a court clerk. Language Services: For language assistance and interpreters, contact a court clerk or interpreters@courts.maine.gov CV-256, Rev. 04/24 Page 2 of 2 www.courts.maine.gov Residential Forcible Entry and Detainer (Eviction) Information Sheet and Mediation Request Page 199