Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 02/27/2003Minutes approved by the Board at the March 27, 2003 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — February 27, 2003 1:00 .m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat IStaff Liaison: Felix Lee 221-6760 hai erson: Charles Fielder hone: 484-0117(W), 207-0505(H A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday February 27, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder Leslie Jones Bradley Massey John McCoy Jim Packard Michael Smilie BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Gene Little STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building and Zoning Director Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Stacie Soriano, Staff Support AGENDA: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Jones made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 30, 2003, meeting. Boardmember Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Massey, Fielder, Packard, Jones and Smilie. Nays: None. BRB 02/27/03 Page 2 3. Contractor Appeal — Nathan Moore, d/b/a Moore Roofing, #02-03 Fielder explained the procedures for contractor appeals. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated the Appellant was seeking a roofing license and he has applied for the roofing license. Lee noted that staff denied the roofing license based on the reasons stated in board packets. The Appellant performed roofing work at 2242 Wakefield Drive in Fort Collins prior to obtaining a roofing license as evidenced by the stop work order that was issued in July. The Appellant received another stop work order in July for work being done prior to obtaining a building permit. Permits were subsequently issued. Lee said that three of the project verification forms were not accepted because no roofing inspection was done, and in one case there was no permit for the address cited. Lee stated that the ordinance requires three years of experience and at least five project verification forms. Lee said that the Appellant is also subject to $200.00 in penalty fees for working without a license. Nathan Moore addressed the Board. Moore stated that on one of the jobs he did without a building permit he was not well educated regarding the City's jurisdiction. Moore also stated that he was having financial problems and he needed the work. Moore stated that it was a mistake. Moore stated that he was unaware that the forms he submitted for project verification forms were not inspected. Moore said that he would do the inspections with the manufacturing inspector, but did not remember doing any inspections with a City inspector. Moore stated that he had trouble obtaining individuals to fill -out his project verification forms, and he has been working on them for a long time. Moore noted that he has been in the roofing business for approximately ten years. Lee wanted to know more about the circumstances regarding the two properties that stop work orders were issued. Moore stated that he was told that the homeowner could obtain the building permit, and so the homeowner pulled the building permit for the second job. At the time of the inspection he was asked if he was the homeowner by the inspector and Moore told the inspector no, and at that time the job was stopped. Lee had questions for the Appellant regarding his project verification forms. Lee asked when the Appellant determined that a final inspection was needed. Moore replied that at the time he was involved in the final inspection. Moore explained his various job responsibilities while being employed at B&M. Moore stated that he was no involved in the permitting or final inspection processes. Lee and Moore discussed the Oakridge Plaza project. Moore stated that he was a laborer. Lee and Moore discussed the Aspenleaf project. Moore stated that he was a service foreman. Moore stated again he was not involved in the permitting process. Lee and Moore discussed the University Mall project. Moore stated that he was an installer among various other duties. Smilie asked how in ten years of experience the Appellant was unable to come up with more reliable sources for his project verification forms. Moore responded that he asked a lot of people and many of them told him no because of competition reasons. Massey asked if the request was just for experience or was it also an exam waiver. Lee replied that the Appellant passed the roofing exam with a very high grade. BRB 02/27/03 Page 3 Packard asked staff what the status of the permits that expired, but were never inspected. Lee explained the process of how the City deals with expired building permits. Packard asked the Appellant if he was aware that final inspections never took place prior to him trying to obtain project verifications forms. Moore replied no. Massey asked staff if an applicant for a contractor's license had to be foreman or a superintendent. Lee stated yes that an applicant would have to have supervisory experience. Smilie asked the Appellant what he has been doing for the last eight months. Appellant Moore said he worked for another company for a short period, and he has worked other jobs as an exempt employee. Moore stated that he might have two other project forms to submit. Jones asked Appellant Moore to review his duties on the jobs that he submitted as project verification forms. Moore explained his duties to the Board. Jones stated that the company's failure to get inspections should not effect.Moore's qualifications. Smilie asked staff what the process would be if Appellant Moore substituted current projects for those that have been submitted. Lee replied that it would require documentation. Lee noted that work being done without a building permit jeopardizes the Applicant's ability to obtain a contractor's license. Lee stated this is more complicated in Appellant Moore's case because he was an employee. Smilie stated that the Appellant was lacking the supervisory experience to obtain a contractor's license. Packard asked staff if the jobs on Wakefield Drive and Romeldale Drive were completed satisfactorily. Lee responded that both of the jobs have been completed and signed -off by the Building Department. Lee stated that the homeowner took out the building permits for each property. There was a discussion held regarding roofing inspections. There was a discussion held regarding whether or not the roofing work performed at University Mall would have had a separate roofing permit. It was decided that the job probably did not have a separate roofing permit because the job had a general contractor. Massey asked if the jobs on Wakefield Drive and Romeldale Drive were complete re -roofs. Appellant Moore replied yes. Massey explained to the Appellant that a job cannot be started at all without first obtaining a building permit. Massey was willing to consider a license, with the understanding that if the Appellant were to come before the Board again, this hearing will be taken into consideration. Appellant Moore had no closing statements. Lee made his closing statements and remarked that the Appellant had some confusion about the process (particularly when he was an employee from another company). Lee noted that the Appellant appears to have experience with a wide variety of roof systems. McCoy made a motion to approve Appellant Moore's request for a roofing license. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed. Massey reiterated his previous comments. BRB 02/27/03 Page 4 Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Massey, Fielder, Packard, Jones, and Smilie. Nays: None. 4. Contractor Appeal — Donald Reidy, d/b/a Reidy Construction, #03-03 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated the Appellant had a framing license that was issued in March of 1999 and expired a year later. Reidy obtained his license when projects were accepted in lieu of an exam. Lee stated that Appellant Reidy is requesting reinstatement of his license or obtaining a new license without requiring the exam. Lee noted Appellant Reidy's credentials. Donald Reidy addressed the Board. Reidy stated that he obtained his license in 1999 while he was working for someone else. Reidy had an agreement with his previous employer that the employer would pay for his renewal fees (if Reidy continued working for him) as a bonus. Reidy stated he left seven months ago to start his own business, and he has not been doing any work in Fort Collins. Reidy was unaware that his license had expired. Reidy currently has jobs that he is able to bid on in Fort Collins. Reidy noted that he was twelve years of experience in framing, and in high school he did two years of carpentry work building modular homes. Reidy also werit to an agricultural school to learn how to become a contractor as well as learn technique and building codes. Reidy would like his license to be reactivated because he has a current project in Fort Collins. Reidy stated that he would be willing to take the exam, but the appeal was an issue of urgency so he would be able to perform the work. Lee reviewed Appellant Reidy's file and asked Reidy if he was the supervisor for framing on the jobs noted in his file. Reidy replied yes. Lee asked Appellant Reidy if he has asked about a temporary license, and noted that it was a possibility. A temporary license is a thirty day license issued under the discretion of the Building Official. Reidy stated he was unaware of obtaining a temporary license. Jones asked if the Appellant held framing licenses anywhere else. Appellant Reidy replied no. There was a discussion held regarding the role of Appellant Reidy's previous employer regarding renewal of Appellant Reidy's license. Massey asked the Appellant if he would be willing to take the test. Appellant Reidy replied yes, but stated he would like some time to be able to study. McCoy asked staff when the IRC test would be available. Lee replied that the IRC would not be in effect until July 2, 2003, and the current test will be modified. Jones asked staff if the Board was able to allow a 90 day license. Lee replied yes. Jones asked Appellant Reidy if a 90 day license would be a sufficient amount of time. Jones replied that it was possible, and stated that he would like to bypass taking the exam if possible. There was a discussion held regarding the requirements for a license under the previous licensing ordinance. BRB 02/27/03 Page 5 Reidy made his closing statements. Reidy noted that due to his level of education and experience he felt he was more than qualified to obtain his license without having to take an exam. Lee made his closing statements, and noted that the Applicant should not have difficulty passing the exam due to his education and experience. McCoy made a motion to issue a 90 day temporary license, and that the Appellant will be required to take the exam within 90 days. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Massey, Fielder, Packard, Jones, and Smilie. Nays: None. 5. Radon Resistant New Construction Presentation — Natural Resources Lee introduced Brian Woodruff and Zoe Shark from the Natural Resources Department. Lee noted that the issue will be addressed by City Council as part of the building code update as to whether or not to adopt a mandatory radon resistance ordinance. Lee noted that the current radon reduction system is voluntary. Woodruff and Shark gave a presentation regarding radon in new construction. Woodruff addressed the Board. Woodruff explained that radon is a gas that naturally arises from the soil, and is part of the decay process of uranium. Woodruff reviewed the series of decay processes. Woodruff noted how radon would be able to cause cancer. Radon exposure accumulates over a lifetime. Woodruff reviewed how radon is drawn into a building. Woodruff stated that radon is drawn into the foundation, and it is pulled in by the stack effect of the building. Woodruff explained the different types of radon systems. Woodruff explained that there were two options: (1) to do nothing; and (2) to adopt a mandatory radon reduction system for new residential construction. Woodruff stated that radon systems for new construction made sense because it is fairly low cost, uses common building material and common trades, it is also effective. Woodruff noted the public outreach efforts. There was a discussion held regarding testing methods for radon and current statistics of radon systems. 6. Other Business The Board reviewed the bylaws. Fielder made a motion to approve the bylaws. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed. BRB 02/27/03 Page 6 Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Massey, Fielder, Packard, Jones, and Smilie. Nays: None. Election of Officers McCoy nominated Fielder to serve as chairperson. Packard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Massey, Fielder, Packard, Jones, and Smilie. Nays: None. Fielder nominated Massey to serve as vice -chairperson. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Massey, Fielder, Packard, Jones, and Smilie. Nays: None. Meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director Charles Fie r, Ch rpers