Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 05/22/2003approved by the Board at the July 31, 2003 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — May 22, 2003 1:00 JR.M. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat IStaff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) 484-011 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday May 22, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEM 3ERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder Gene Little Bradley Massey John McCoy Leslie Jones Michael Smilie STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building and Zoning Director Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Stacie Soriano, Staff Support AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board member Massey made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 24, 2003, meeting. Board member McCoy seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: None. BRB 05/22/03 Page 2 3. Contractor License Hearing — Lance Landrum, d/b/a Climatech, License #H-1426, Case #07-03 Fielder explained the procedures for contractor license hearings. Lee provided an introduction to the hearing. Lee suspended Climatech's license on May 12, 2003, for repeated violations to section 15-162, of the City's contractor licensing regulations, specifically for proceeding installation without the required building permit. The properties include: 2917 Meadowlark Avenue (April 29, 2003) and 718 Columbia Road. Lee stated that the contractor has appeared before the Board twice once in November of 1999 and July of 2000 for commencing work without first obtaining a building permit. A suspension notice was issued for the following violations: (1) Knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the city related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the supervisor or license holder set forth in this Article; (2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the supervisor certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; (Lee remarked that adequate supervision was not provided in this case); (6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed; and (7) Commitment of any act of negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the performance of the contractor's specific trade which results in posing a threat to public health and safety. Lee stated the suspension was still in effect pending the Board's decision. Lee referred board members to the information in the packets including a listing of approximately 600 projects. Lance Landrum, Vice -President of Climatech, addressed the Board. Landrum stated that all of the violations took place during a very short period of time. Landrum stated that the number of permits obtained from the City of Fort Collins was 630 that illustrated the company's commitment to obtain the proper building permit. Landrum stated he was not appearing before the Board to offer excuses. Landrum remarked that he felt it was unacceptable to perform work without first obtaining a building permit. Landrum stated that the company had some personnel changes take place in Climatech's front office. Landrum said that a specific person was responsible to apply for and obtain building permits. Landrum noted that the position was full-time. The person in the permitting position did not understand the urgency of obtaining a building permit. There were misunderstandings regarding the process for obtaining building permits prior to commencing work. The employee was terminated and the process was delegated to someone of higher authority. Landrum stated that the suspension of his license has cost him approximately $75,000. Landrum said that the situation has been very painful. Landrum held a company wide meeting with his service and installation people regarding not beginning work without having the building permit in hand. Landrum explained others measures taken by Climatech to ensure that employees were aware of the importance of having a building permit. Landrum stated that he did not believe the company's failure to obtain building permits was willful or deliberate, but a breakdown in the company's internal procedures. Landrum stated that the permit application for Meadowlark had been faxed in, but not picked up due to the BRB 05/22/03 Page 3 emergency of situation. Landrum explained the situation on Columbia. There were problems with the heat exchanger and the installers decided to install a furnace as well as an air conditioner. Landrum stated that he took full responsibility for the situation because he owns the company. His reputation was important. Landrum stated the reason for the situation was the lack of supervision on his part. Lee stated that the last time Landrum appeared before the Board he recalled Landrum stating similar items to correct the situation. Lee wanted to know how Landrum was accountable for the recent episode. Landrum stated that he recalled the same thing and asked himself the same question. Landrum stated there is a lot of turn around in the industry, and he has gone farther this time with preventative measurers, such as revising employee job packets and employee manuals. There was a discussion held regarding the terminated employee, although Landrum blamed himself. Landrum made his closing statements and reiterated how many permits have been issued to Climatech. Lee made his closing statements and commented that Landrum has admitted to the violations and stated that knowing and deliberate are relative terms. Lee was encouraged to hear that Landrum was taking full responsibility for the situation. Lee noted that the issue is lack of supervision, which has been demonstrated. McCoy asked Landrum how the permitting process works for a typical job. Landrum explained how Climatech obtains building permits. The discussion was concluded that the permitting process could be accomplished in one day. McCoy asked if most of Climatech's work was for replacements or brand new items. Landrum stated most of Climatech's work was adding an air conditioner or replacements. McCoy asked staff about the report included in board packet information. Coldiron explained the abbreviations in the permit status column. McCoy stated that the vast majority of projects in the reports are expired. There was a discussion held regarding expired permits. Massey asked about the City's policy regarding emergency situations. Lee responded that the contractor has 24 hours to obtain a building permit. There was a discussion held regarding the scheduling of inspections. McCoy made a motion for the finding of fact that Mr. Landrum has violated numbers 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Section 15-162 of the Contractor Licensing Regulations. Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, and Massey Nays: None. Massey asked Landrum how long Climatech has been in business in Fort Collins. Landrum stated that he has been licensed with the City of Fort Collins since 1998. There was a discussion BRB 05/22/03 Page 4 held between Massey and Landrum regarding Climatech's financial losses since their license was suspended. The Board discussed if the suspension of the license should be lifted. Massey made a motion to reinstate Climatech's license. The suspension acted as time served. McCoy seconded the motion. Little wanted to place another letter or reprimand in Climatech's file stating that there would be an automatic revocation of the license for 30 days if Chmatech appears before the Board for a hearing. Fielder and other board members were not in favor of attaching a penalty for something that may occur in the future. Little supported Massey's motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, and Massey Nays: None. 4. Contractor License Hearing — John Duesing, d/b/a Yeti Mechanical, Case #08-03 Lee provided an introduction to the hearing. Duesing has appeared before the Board previously in September 2001 and the Appellant had violated the contractor licensing ordinance. The Board suspended Mr. Duesing's license for 90 days with the condition that an exam be taken and successfully passed and the suspension would automatically be lifted. Lee stated Duesing took the exam in October of last year and passed the exam, although he has not pursued his license. The Building Department discovered that Duesing had installed equipment at 1512 Lake Street and as a result committed the following violations: (1) Knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the city related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the supervisor or license holder set forth in this Article; (2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the supervisor certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; (6) Failure to obtain any required permits for the work to be performed or to be performed; (8) Performance of work for which a license or supervisor certificate is required without a valid, current license or supervisor certificate. Lee noted that Duesing has submitted an application requesting that his license be reinstated. Lee stated that the ordinance required that the Board first resolve the alleged violations and determine if the respondent is fit to receive his license. Duesing addressed the Board. Duesing stated that he was guilty. Duesing explained the situation. Duesing's client was in a pinch. Duesing said that against his better judgment due to his client being a good customer he performed the work. Duesing stated that he was unaware of this issue until he recently reapplied for his license. Duesing was working for another contractor in Greeley and he has since gone back into business for himself. Duesing apologized for his poor judgment. Lee asked Duesing to clarify the situation. Lee asked if the property was rental property. Duesing replied yes and the client was turning the property into a duplex. There was a discussion held regarding the particulars of the situation. Duesing made his closing statements. Duesing stated that since his suspension he ceased performing work in Fort Collins so he did not pursue his license. BRB 05/22/03 Page 5 Lee made his closing statements. Lee stated that the critical issue was that Duesing was before the Board previously for not obtaining a building permit, and proceeded to do work without a license. Lee was concerned with the repeat violation and being summoned before the Board. Lee was doubtful of Duesing's credibility and ethical practices. McCoy asked if Duesing was listed on the building permit as the mechanical contractor. Coldiron replied that Duesing was listed on the permit. The permit was obtained after the fact and the Building Department wanted to have a record of who performed the work. Duesing was attached for record purposes. Little asked Duesing why he did not apply for his license after he passed the exam. Duesing stated he was contemplating leaving his employment and he knew he needed to take the exam. Duesing did not terminate his job until last month so therefore the license was not pursued immediately. McCoy made a motion for the finding of fact that relating to Section 15-162 that Duesing has violated items 1, 2, 6 and 8. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, and Massey Nays: None. Little asked if Duesing had any pending jobs within the City of Fort Collins. Duesing stated he may have one possibility. Massey stated that he was able to appreciate Lee's position and was against reinstating the license. Massey felt that Duesing should go work for someone else who is licensed for a while. Little stated his concerns. Little was also in favor of Duesing working for a local contractor. Duesing stated he was employed by a local contractor for the last three years and he terminated his employment. There was a discussion held regarding the time period of when Duesing would be able to return to the Board to reinstate his license. Fielder suggested 180 days. Little was in support of Fielder suggestion. Massey made a motion to deny the Appellants request for reinstatement of his license and the Board would reconsider the issue 180 days from today. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: None. 5. Contractor License Appeal — Roger Killion, d/b/a Killion Enterprises, Case #09-03 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Killion has applied for a demolition license. Documentation was required for a demolition license, specifically five project verification forms that entail a complete demolition and a project dating at least back one year. The Appellant currently has three projects that meet the requirements. The Appellant was seeking a waiver of the experience criteria and approval of a demolition license. The Appellant had a job pending (Cluck-U-Chicken). BRB 05/22/03 Page 6 Killion addressed the Board. Killion stated he was having difficulty obtaining project verification forms. Letters from two past employers were given to Lee. Killion has been in the construction industry since he was 20 years old. Killion reviewed his experience in the construction industry. Killion has been demolishing buildings for the last 23 years. Lee asked Killion if he was ever in charge of a commercial demolition project. Killion responded no. Lee asked Killion if he has ever filed with the State of Colorado required asbestos assessment forms. Killion responded that he is not state certified to remove asbestos. Killion made his closing statement and stated that he would like to have the opportunity to do work in Fort Collins. Lee made his closing statements. Lee stated that the documentation given by Killion was not complete. Lee stated that a demolition license allows a contractor to demolish anything. Lee asked what type of demolition Killion did for the large contracting firm. Killion demolished sub -stations in the State of Nevada. Killion has also demolished large concrete structures for the Department of Water Resources in California. Massey asked staff if the demolition license required that Killion be asbestos certified. Lee replied no. Massey asked Killion the square footage of Cluck-U-Chicken. Killion responded approximately 20' x 40', A -frame, one-story structure. Killion stated that he knew is limitations, and would be hard pressed to tackle a two-story building. Massey asked Killion if he has ever held a general contractor's license. Killion stated he has always worked for a company. Massey was willing approve the appeal. as a one-time exemption. Massey wanted Killion to put his documentation on the proper forms. Little agreed with Massey. Massey made a motion to approve Mr. Killion's request for a demolition license. The demolition license would be temporary, one-time exemption specific to the Cluck-U-Chicken building. Killion would need to complete at least two of the project verification forms where partial information was given. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: None. 6. Contractor License Appeal — Jeff Anderson, d/b/a Vista Peaks Construction, Case #10-03 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated that Anderson was applying for a framing license. The Appellant and his crew were found framing on multiple addresses in Rigden Farm without the appropriate license and stop work orders were issued on April 30, 2003. The general contractor had listed a different framer on the building permit, but switched to Vista Peaks Construction. The general contractor was told by Anderson that he had a temporary license. Lee stated the Appellant was confused regarding which type of license was needed for this type of work. Anderson thought he needed a Class B license. Lee offered him a temporary 30 day license to the Appellant with final approval pending the outcome of the hearing. The Appellant has submitted the appropriate documentation and submitted all of the fees. The Appellant has also successfully passed the framing test. The reason the Appellant was before the Board was because Lee was not empowered to grant an unconditional license. BRB 05/22/03 Page 7 Anderson addressed the Board. Anderson was told that he could pick-up a contractor's license packet at the Building Department. He asked customer service which contractor's license he would need, and was told he would need a general's contractor license. Anderson proceeded to look into the packet and was confused by the square footage requirements. Anderson did not pass the B license test. Anderson admitted that he did not have his project verification forms into the Building Department in a timely manner. Anderson admitted that he started the job without having a license and claimed he never told the general contractor if he had a license or not. Lee asked Anderson if he was dealing with Matt Jeakins. Anderson said yes. Lee stated that he spoke with Jeakins on the phone and Jeakins indicated Anderson told him he had a license. Lee asked Anderson if he read the licensing packet. Anderson replied yes and stated he saw the wood framing license. Anderson stated he had a Class D license in Denver and what the Denver license required. Anderson claimed the reason he went for the B license was because he went on the advice of customer service. Anderson made his closing statements and stated he would like to obtain a temporary license to complete the four buildings, although he would not be finishing the job. Fielder asked if Anderson was intending on doing more framing in the City of Fort Collins. Anderson said yes, but his priority was to complete the four units for Jeakins Construction. Anderson stated that he did pay a fine. Lee made his closing statements. Lee stated that there are conflicting statements about what occurred at the jobsite and at the Building Department's front counter. Lee noted the temporary license was issued on May 5, 2003. Little asked if Anderson has completed all the requirements to be issued a wood framing license. Lee replied yes. Little made a motion that Anderson be issued his full license because he has met the criteria, and a letter of reprimand placed in his file concerning the violation of the licensing ordinance. Fielder seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: None. 7. Contractor License Appeal — Mark Cortese, d/b/a The Filter Guy, Case #11-03 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant was discovered working at two addresses without an appropriate license. The permit had been obtained by a licensed HVAC contractor. The Appellant was using someone else's license, which was illegal. Cortese was not an employee of the company noted or an exempt worker as documented by the HVAC contractor. The Appellant currently seeks an HVAC license based on his experience. Staff alleged that Cortese knowingly or deliberately disregarded the building code, failed to comply with the provision on a specific project under the responsibility of the license holder, failed to obtain the required building permit, failed to obtain the proper license. The Appellant's license request required the Board's approval. BRB 05/22/03 Page 8 Cortese addressed the Board. Cortese stated that he opened the Filter Guy as a preventative maintenance business. He was not going to perform installs just filter changes and service work. A couple of customers asked Cortese to perform furnace replacements. Cortese admitted that he used another company's license. Cortese stated that the first time he did not realize that it was illegal. Cortese was aware of the legal issues the second time he did it. Both jobs passed inspection. Cortese noted that he has worked for Gibson Heating and Air Conditioning for approximately 8 years and he has been involved in the industry most of his life (family business). Cortese made no closing statement. Lee made his closing statements and stated that the case was self-evident. Massey asked about the failed appearance for the court summons. Cortese replied that he did appear at the hearing. Little stated that the test was required and he will have to take the test. Cortese stated he has taken the test and failed it twice. Cortese stated that second test was not relevant to his work because he does heating and air conditioning, not kitchen hoods or ventilation systems. Cortese wanted approval of his license based on experience. The Board held a discussion if in the past they have approved a license based on experience only. Massey asked Cortese if he had any education experience, i.e. seminars, classes, etc. Cortese reiterated his experience and has not had any educational training. Cortese stated he would retake the test. Little made a motion to issue Cortese a temporary HVAC license with the provision that within 90 days he takes the HVAC licensing exam and successfully passes the exam. Little wanted a letter of reprimand to be placed in Cortese's file. McCoy seconded the motion. There was a discussion held regarding Little's motion. Massey stated that he would rather have Cortese pass the test prior to obtaining a license. Fielder agreed. The motion failed. Vote: Yeas: Little. Nays: McCoy, Fielder, and Massey. Massey made a motion that the Board deny Cortese's request for a waiver of the exam, but the Board will waive the six month waiting period and allow him to take the HVAC exam one more time. If Cortese does pass and the project verification forms are complete then Cortese may received his license with a letter of reprimand placed in his file noting his performing work without a building permit. Fielder seconded the motion. Little stated that it was not for work without a building permit, but for Cortese not having the appropriate license. Massey amended his motion to include Little's comments. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: None. 8. Other Business Lee gave an update on the IRC. BRB 05/22/03 Page 9 Meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Felix Lee, . & Zoning Director Charley? fit% �.