Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 09/30/2004u • Minutes approved by the Board at the October 28, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — September 30, 2004 1:00 D.M. (Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat �IStaff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) Chairperson: Charles Fielder hone: 484-0117(W), 207-0505(H) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday September 30, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder Leslie Jones Gene Little John McCoy Bradley Massey Michael Smilie BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: David Carr STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building and Zoning Director Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Marcha Hill, Staff Support AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL 2 3 The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Massey made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 26, 2004, meeting. Smilie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Contractor Appeal, Byron McGough, d/b/a Wattle & Daub Contractors, License #E-162, Case #: 19-04 BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 2 Fielder explained the procedure for a contractor appeal. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. He stated that the Appellant currently holds a Class E license with the City of Fort Collins. Lee explained that the Class E license allows for modifications to any building as long as the work does not involve the structural frame. According to the Appellant's information, he has been retained to perform the renovation to the Historic Romero House, which Lee noted was owned by the City. Lee mentioned that the project involved the shoring/jacking of rafters into plumb, removing deflection, and adding reinforcement. According to Lee, the work will be supervised by City staff. The Appellant was seeking a one-time exemption to perform all elements of the construction including the structural items. Byron McGough, representative for Wattle and Daub Contractors, addressed the Board. McGough stated that Wattle and Daub was a historic restoration contractor as well as a roofing contractor. The company has done business in Fort Collins for the past 25 years. McGough stated that he typically did not build new structures. McGough requested an exemption that would enable him to perform the minor structural modifications that were called for on the project. McGough noted that there were a number of items incorporated into the project that are within the scope of his license. McGough prepared and submitted an experience summary that he gave to the Board and staff. The summary included photographs of similar structural work that the company performed on restoration projects in Colorado and Wyoming. McGough believed that he was capable to perform the proposed minor structural modifications. McGough stated that he would not be removing any of the existing structural elements only adding reinforcement. Lee asked McGough if he was removing rafters. McGough replied that the existing rafters will stay in place. Lee asked whether the modifications were just a matter of deflection and reinforcing the existing structure. McGough said yes and noted that the original structure was an adobe structure with a top wood plate that the rafter system was attached to. The adobe structure, according to McGough, was in sound condition. Lee clarified that under the strict terms of the Class E license the roof system was part of the structural frame and technically the proposed work was altering the system. Lee noted that the proposed work was outside of the scope of the E license. McGough said that it was beneficial for the Board to know that he also holds a Class B, general contractor's license, in the City of Cheyenne. Massey asked if the work he submitted to the Board was performed by Wattle and Daub as the general contractor. McGough confirmed this and stated that he also listed the architect and the municipality that was the inspecting agency. Massey felt that the Appellant had the ability and experience to perform the proposed work. Smilie wanted to know why the Appellant did not upgrade his license to a D license. Lee remarked that this was the Appellant's prerogative. Lee noted that the E license was more inclusive than a D license due to the fact that the work allowed can be performed on any building. Lee felt the E license was the best fit in this scenario. BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 3 • McGough made his closing statements and commented that he considered applying for a higher license, although he understood the higher licenses required documentation of full complete structures from the ground up. McGough noted that he had several complete projects that were in the Torrington, Wyoming but was unsure whether he had sufficient experience to submit for a higher license. McGough reiterated that his company performed mainly restoration work. Lee had no closing statements. Massey made a motion to approve Appellant McGough's request for a one-time exemption, as described by the Appellant, to his Class E license. Massey based the request on the Appellant's work experience. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Jones, Fielder, Massey, and Smilie. Nays: None. 3. Contractor Hearing, Carl Glaser, d/b/a Advocate, Inc., License #C1-88, Case #: 20-04 Fielder explained the procedures for contractor hearings. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee noted that the case involved two separate violations. One violation was related to 2550 East Custer and the other was at 2821 Rigden Parkway, #5. Lee explained that in the first instance the Respondent had forged a temporary certificate of occupancy. Lee stated that staff • became aware of the issue following a call from a lender who was questioning the validity of the temporary certificate of occupancy. Lee noted that staff received a copy of the fraudulent temporary certificate of occupancy and determined that it had been altered using earlier documents that had been issued. Lee stated that as a result, staff turned the case over to the police for a forgery investigation. Lee determined that the Respondent committed the violation of knowing and deliberate disregard of the Building Code or any other Code adopted by the City specific to a construction project and the responsibilities of the certificate holder. Lee commented that further it potentially could have posed a threat to public health and safety. Lee noted that the second issue related to 2550 Custer. Lee stated that the framer being used on site was not licensed. The framers, according to Lee, had a contractor license application on file. Lee noted that the use of unlicensed contractors was a specific violation of the ordinance. Lee referenced violation number nine: "the act of employing compensated workers who are performing construction or who are working in a trade for which a license or certificate is otherwise required under this article, when such workers are neither employees nor exempt specialized trade subcontractors as defined in this article." Lee stated that as a result of the alleged violations the Respondent received the hearing and suspension notice. The license was under suspension as of the day of the meeting. Lee reiterated to the Board that there were two violations and explained that the Board could consider each violation separately and ultimately make a decision about the status of the license holder. Carl Glaser, Advocate, Inc., addressed the Board. Glaser stated that he was the President of Advocate, Inc. Glaser wanted to address each violation separately. Glaser stated that he • recognized the severity of the fraudulent certificate of occupancy. Glaser commented that he has personally apologized to staff. Glaser stated that it was not his intention to defraud the City and BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 4 noted that the unit was part of a six -unit building. Glaser noted that two of the units already had a certificate of occupancy. He stated that it was difficult to obtain the first certificate of occupancy due to the amount of reviews required for various departments. Glaser commented that he had called for an inspection on the unit in question and the inspector notified him that there were electrical issues that needed to be corrected. Afterwards, Glaser mentioned that he contacted the electrician and was informed that the unit was wired correctly. Glaser called for a re -inspection the following day and noted that the day of the re -inspection was the day of the closing. He stated that a temporary certificate of occupancy could not be obtained until the following business day which in this case would not have been until Monday. Glaser commented that the loan was tied in with lending limits and the company had to deliver that day otherwise the buyer would have lost their loan. Glaser noted that he realized that the situation did not justify the fraudulent temporary certificate of occupancy. Glaser stated that he was remorseful about the situation and noted that he defrauded the lender not the City. Glaser assumed that he was clear with the City even thought he had not received the actual temporary certificate of occupancy yet. Glaser again apologized and stated that he was under a lot of pressure. He admitted he was wrong. Glaser addressed the second issue of hiring an unlicensed subcontractor. He noted that when he applied for the building permit he listed the subcontractors that he used in the past. Glaser stated that he was in the market for another framer and interviewed several. He commented that he actually did not hire a couple of framers because they were not licensed in the City. Glaser met with J.A.0 and hired them. He did ask if they were licensed with the City and J.A.C. said yes. According to Glaser, he failed to verify J.A.C.'s license with the City. Glaser changed the mechanical and electrical subcontractors on the project and commented that he submitted written notification to staff. Glaser reiterated that the oversight on his part was not to verify that J.A.C. was licensed. Glaser remarked that contrary to the two issues before the Board he was an honorable person and stated that he had recently been honored in the newspaper for his homebuilding. Lee commented that Glaser was responding to an article where the reporter cited Glaser's work for going beyond the requirements for accessibility by providing more units. Glaser said that it was called Practical Housing for All. Glaser called Joel Hayes of J.A.C. to act as a witness. Hayes was the vice-president of J.A.C. and noted that he was the framing contractor that Glaser had previously referred to. Hayes reinforced what Glaser told the Board. Hayes thought that he was licensed with the City and believed that he had adequately taken care of his license with the City. Hayes stated that Glaser was upfront with him regarding being licensed. Hayes stated that J.A.C. should be the ones held responsible for this component of the violation. Hayes said he was at fault because he was unaware that the individual who took the exam for the license was not fully certified. Hayes stated that he was currently working on getting three other individuals licensed with the City. Hayes commented that he had not been personally involved in the licensing process and had delegated this task to the administration staff in his office. He claimed that there was a lot of confusion and that he thought he had a thirty day grace period to obtain the license. Hayes stated that he called for an inspection during the grace period and said it raised some concern with City staff. Hayes received a stop work order and it was then that he understood his failures. Hayes said after receiving the stop work order he had officially obtained a temporary license from Lee. BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 5 • Hayes claimed that his ignorance was the cause for him to be at the meeting. Lee added that he was not sure where the misunderstanding occurred in Hayes getting the license. Lee said that staff was very diligent about advising individuals of the licensing process, particularly when it comes to a temporary license. Lee commented that there was not an automatic temporary license because the application had to be reviewed and approved by him. Lee was confident that staff was very familiar with the process of obtaining a temporary license. Hayes concurred with Lee. Hayes stated that staff was well informed when he personally took the responsibility of obtaining the contractor's license. Hayes said the licensing process lasted approximately three weeks and felt he was too far removed from the process. Lee did not have any further questions but referenced the licensing regulations. Lee noted that the Building Official was authorized to grant a temporary supervisor certificate for a cause provided that the applicant provided documentation that would indicate that they were otherwise qualified. Lee said that typically a temporary license is granted to give an applicant time to study and take the exam but that the experience piece had to be in place. Plus, according to Lee, the fees had to be paid. Lee said to avoid the possibility of confusion in the future a form has been created formalizing the temporary license request. Hayes stated that the website was very clear regarding the licensing requirements, although he gathered most of his information from phone calls. Hayes felt J.A.C. was a reputable contractor as they have performed work throughout the Metro area. Hayes noted that he was licensed in • almost every municipality throughout the area. According to Hayes, he did not intend to do anything illegal or wrongful. Massey asked Hayes if he told Glaser that he was a licensed framer in the City of Fort Collins. Hayes said yes because he thought the individual for the company who took the test had actually obtained a license. Little asked if the Glaser job was the first job he bid on in the City of Fort Collins. Hayes said yes. Lee stated that he did not have any further questions for Glaser. Massey asked staff if Glaser had been to the Board previously. Massey remembered that Glaser closed on a house and the mortgage company did not have the certificate of occupancy. Coldiron said that Massey's recollection was correct. Glaser made his closing statements. Glaser addressed Massey and stated that he was not clear on what he was referring to. Massey said that it was the second time Mr. Glaser had been before the Board regarding a similar issue. Lee clarified the issues regarding Glaser's previous case. Lee had a copy of a letter of reprimand that was prepared as a result of earlier Board action. The letter was dated February 25, 1999, and cited various violations including deliberate disregard of the Building Code and failure to comply with codes related to a specific construction project. The Board found that Glaser committed willful and deliberate disregard of the Building Code and failure to comply with obtaining a certificate of occupancy. According to Lee, the letter was • in regards to a complaint filed by a customer of Glaser's. The address of the property was 1006 Fuerto Lane. A certificate of occupancy was not issued prior to occupancy. Glaser believed that BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 6 he had a temporary certificate of occupancy. Lee said he did not. Massey remembered that he was amazed that a lending company would close on a unit without a certificate of occupancy. Massey reiterated his comments that the current situation was similar to the last one. Massey asked Glaser why he was back in a similar situation. Glaser did not remember much about the last situation. Jones asked staff a procedural question. Jones stated that if in Glaser's prior incident he came before the Board, and he was able to produce a valid certificate of occupancy, would the Board have reached any conclusions because it was not a violation. Lee agreed with this. Jones asked if there was a procedure to reverse the decision of the Board. Lee said the violation occurred because the building was occupied without the certificate of occupancy. Jones wanted to know if a certificate of occupancy had been found two weeks later would Glaser's record by cleared. Lee said yes. Lee made his closing statements and stated that he did not have any more information to add to the hearing. Lee felt the record spoke for itself. Lee said Glaser admitted to the violation. Finding of Fact McCoy asked if the Board wanted to lump the violations together or address them separately. Lee wanted the Board to consider the two cases separately, although the disposition could be made collectively. Fielder wanted to address the violation regarding Glaser using an unlicensed subcontractor. Smilie stated that Glaser admitted to the violation and that it should not be complicated to create the finding of fact. Massey made a motion for the finding of fact and noted that Glaser utilized a non -licensed framing crew. Massey said that Glaser was guilty of violation (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; and (9) The act of employing compensated workers who are performing construction or who are working in a trade for which a license or certificate is otherwise required under this Article when such workers are neither employees not exempt specialized trade subcontractors as defined under this Article. Massey did not find Glaser to be guilty of violation number 1 and 7. McCoy seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Jones, Fielder, Massey, and Smilie. Nays: None Disposition Little made a motion to decide the disposition after the Board made the finding of fact for the second violation. Smilie seconded the motion. McCoy asked staff if there were any other issues in Glaser's file. Lee replied none other than had been discussed. Smilie wanted to know the date of Glaser's last violation. Lee responded February of 1999. There was some discussion by Board members on whether the dispositions should be decided on separately for each violation that occurred. The motion failed. BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 7 • Vote: Yeas: Little. Nays: McCoy, Jones, Fielder, Massey, and Smilie. McCoy recommended that Glaser receive a letter of reprimand that acknowledged that he worked with a contractor that was not licensed to perform the work in Fort Collins. Fielder amended the motion to mention that J.A.C. went before the Board and indicated that they told Glaser that they were licensed. Fielder felt this would support Glaser's claim that he had no willful intent to violate licensing regulations. McCoy made a motion to place a letter of reprimand in the file that acknowledged that Glaser hired unlicensed framing contractor, J.A.C., and that J.A.C. acknowledged that they told Glaser they were licensed with the City of Fort Collins. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Jones, Fielder, Massey, and Smilie. Nays: None. Finding of Fact • Fielder stated that the second item was dealing with a fraudulent certificate of occupancy to a lender. McCoy made a motion that Glaser was guilty of the following violations : (1) Knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code 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; (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; and (9) The act of employing compensated workers who are performing construction or who are working in a trade for which a license or certificate is otherwise required under this Article when such workers are neither employees not exempt specialized trade subcontractors as defined under this Article. Smilie did not agree with Glaser being guilty of violation numbers 7 or 9. Smilie felt that Glaser did not put the public health and safety at risk, although he agreed with items 1 and 2. McCoy stated that he concurred with Smilie about item 9, but not item 7. McCoy decided to withdraw item 9 from the motion. Jones seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Jones, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: Smilie. Disposition • Smilie stated that the willful fraud should have more serious consequences than employing an unlicensed subcontractor. Massey concurred with Smilie and stated that this was the second time BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 8 Glaser had been before the Board with a similar issue. Smilie commented that Glaser's action demonstrated willful disregard of the Building Code by producing a fraudulent document. McCoy questioned other Board Members on whether there had been similar cases in the past with other contractors. Fielder replied not of fraudulently filling out a temporary certificate of occupancy. Fielder explained the procedure that the Board has used in the past when a second violation occurred in that it was some form of a suspension. McCoy asked how the violation of a contractor building without a building permit coalesced with the present violation. Massey wanted to know if staff could verify that an inspector inspected the unit on a Friday. Lee responded that an inspection was done on Friday but there was an item that was in question and the inspector did not approve the permit. Lee asked Mary Jane Child, Customer Service Representative, to address Massey's question. Mary Jane Child addressed the Board and stated that when staff found out that the temporary certificate of occupancy was not the original some research was performed. According to Child, the temporary certificate of occupancy was dated the 13"', but the final inspection was not done or approved until the 161h. Massey claimed that the Board had to decide the severity of the case and reiterated his comments that Glaser's action was deliberate and significant. Little informed McCoy that there have been previous cases where contractors have posted an invalid building permit in order to perform the work. Little commented that the first violation usually consisted of a letter of reprimand and a second violation usually included a suspension. Little asked Glaser if the mortgage company accepted the altered temporary certificate of occupancy. Glaser said yes. Fielder asked Glaser if there was a private conversation with the lender about the consequences of not meeting the closing deadline. Glaser stated that he did not approach the lender, although he did try to contact Mike Gebo, Building Inspection Administrator, who at the time was out of the office. McCoy wanted to know if there was an expiration date on a temporary certificate of occupancy. Lee said yes and offered some clarification. According to Lee, the project was part of a condominium building, and the temporary certificate of occupancy was issued for the unit only because a certificate of occupancy would not be issued until the project was completed and occupied. The Board discussed how many units were in the entire project and how many units were not occupied. Glaser provided clarification. Smilie asked what the effect would be on the other units needing a certificate of occupancy should the Respondent's license be suspended. Lee stated that all work would have to cease for the duration of the suspension unless the Board approved otherwise. Fielder stated that in the past suspensions have covered new work and did not interfere with current work. Massey asked Glaser about current construction projects. Glaser noted that he had a four -unit, one-story, building, which was the handicap accessible building. Glaser also had two four-plexes in progress. Massey asked if any of the projects were under contract. Glaser responded that three of the units out of the four-plex were under contract. Smilie asked if the units were in the building where the violation occurred. Glaser commented that the building BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 9 • where the violation occurred was a six -unit building, three -units were occupied, and three -units were unfinished. Massey explained that part of Board's struggle was to penalize Glaser without affecting another party, such as a potential home buyer. Smilie asked Glaser who the framer was going to be on the joined four-plex. Glaser replied that J.A.C. put in a bid as well as various other framing companies. Little was in favor of a suspending future permit applications and permits that have already been applied for but not of suspending any buildings currently under construction by Glaser. Little remarked that stopping current work could effect foundation and framing schedules. Smilie concurred with Little and he favored a longer suspension on new activity. Massey was in favor of an immediate suspension of all of his work for a month. Massey understood that Glaser was remorseful and noted that Glaser understood the severity of his actions. Massey made a motion to suspend Glaser's license immediately for thirty days which included his current work being suspended. McCoy seconded the motion. Little stated that the consequence effected more individuals than just Glaser, for example Glaser's subcontractors. Little remarked that he would vote against Massey's motion. Smilie agreed with Little and noted that he would favor a 180 day suspension following the items Glaser was currently working on. Smilie said a current 30 day suspension would punish the subcontractors worse than Glaser and felt a long term suspension would punish Glaser directly. . He was also concerned with slabs facing the elements for an extended period of time. Massey stated that he understood letting Glaser finish work that was currently under construction, although he felt the issue would be dragged out by not punishing Glaser until next spring. Smilie thought the suspension could be put in place starting January 1, 2005 for 120-180 days and a requirements could be imposed that open items would have to be closed by that date. Fielder wanted to vote on Massey's motion but the Board was still in the discussion phase. Glaser did not think all of his available units could be sold by January 1, 2005. His preference was that the suspension occur immediately. Massey stated that he appreciated the Board's concern with punishing subcontractors but felt it would happen either way. Little proposed that a suspension run concurrently with Glaser's existing permits so he would be unable to obtain any new permits on new construction. Little explained the consequences of the Board's decision and felt a concurrent suspension was appropriate. Smilie noted that some of the subcontractors may have to wait 60-90 days in order to get paid by Glaser which may put some into bankruptcy. Jones shared with the Board a similar situation that happened to him regarding a 12 month planning process. Massey asked Jones what his recommendation was regarding Glaser. Jones said that he really did not have a recommendation. Massey said he was unable to say what a • reasonable long term suspension would be but felt that it had to be significant. Jones agreed with Massey. BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 10 McCoy noted that he was in favor of Massey's motion and felt that a thirty day suspension was significant. Little asked staff for clarification on how long Glaser's license had been suspended to date. Lee remarked that the suspension started the day of the meeting. Smilie questioned whether thirty days was enough to punish Glaser. Fielder asked for clarification on the motion that was on the table and wanted to vote. Coldiron clarified that the motion was a thirty day suspension of all work. The Board voted on the motion and the motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Jones, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: Little and Smilie. Glaser asked what he was allowed to do to close-up the properties. Lee stated he could close the properties as long as he was not doing construction. Glaser stated that he had a roofer who needed to install some flashing and asked if the roofer was able to install the flashing. Lee said yes as long as the roofer was licensed. Massey told Glaser that he did not want to put people out of business and did not want materials to deteriorate. Massey asked Glaser what he needed to do in order to protect the construction and Glaser gave him a list of items. Smilie felt it was problematic trying to figure out what was protection and what was construction. Lee said that ultimately the project was under the control of the general contractor and felt that the intent was not to allow the subcontractors to continue working. Lee felt that Glaser's request was reasonable in order for him to protect and secure the property. Fielder made a motion that Glaser submit a list to staff of what he intended to do in order protect and secure the property. The items on the list would be the only items Glaser would have permission to do. Lee agreed. Smilie amended Fielder's motion to state that if Glaser was caught performing items not on the list he would have to come before the Board again. Smilie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, and Smilie. Nays: Jones. Glaser had one more issue and noted that his project included a one and a half acre green belt. Glaser stated that he did not own the property and that it was owned by Rigden Farm, LLC. Glaser was responsible for landscaping the green belt. Lee stated that the landscaping would not be relevant. Glaser asked if he was allowed to backfill a foundation. Lee asked Glaser to cover this in his letter to staff. 4. Contractor Hearing, Steve Steele, d/b/a Chateau Custom Builders, License #C1-106, Case #21-04 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal and noted that it was similar to the previous case with J.A.C.'s involvement as the framing subcontractor. Lee stated that the Respondent employed BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 11 • compensated workers who were not licensed, employees or exempt specialized trade contractors. Lee included a stop work order in Board packets as well as a summary of the allegations. The Respondent received the stop work order at 1515 Northern Lights Drive on June 24, 2004. Staff was notified that Chateau Custom Builders would change their framing company to J.A.C. once J.A.C. had their license. According to Lee, Brian with Chateau Builders was in contact with staff regarding the status of J.A.C.'s license since J.A.C. had requested a temporary license. Lee remarked that partial information was submitted; however, the information needed for staff to authorize a temporary license was not submitted until the 10`h of September. Staff visited the site on September 13`h and noticed that the structure was completely framed. Lee noted that a call made by staff to the framing company listed on the permit revealed that they did not perform the work. A later call made by staff to the general contractor revealed that J.A.C. had performed the work. Lee indicated that the Respondent was issued a summons for Municipal Court and as of yet no disposition had taken place. Steve Steele, Vice -President and Director of Chateau Builders, addressed the Board. Steele noted that the company was doing construction at Morningside Village. Steele noted that it was true that originally NCB was listed as the framer on the building permit. According to Steele, NCB pulled out of Fort Collins because they had no desire to work in this part of the state. Steele stated that the company had to find another framer which delayed their projects by a couple of months. Steele commented that from there, he secured a contract with J.A.C. and informed J.A.C. in July about the requirements for a contractor's license with the City of Fort . Collins. Steele stated that he spoke with City staff to secure information on J.A.C.'s licensing status, but admitted that he relied on what J.A.C. had told him. Steele claimed that his builder was trying to stay on top of the situation by communicating with the City. Lee asked Steele if he was told directly by J.A.C. that they had a license with the City of Fort Collins. Steele replied that he was not told directly. Steele understood that J.A.C. submitted adequate information to the City and that J.A.C. held a temporary license. Coldiron commented that Brian called her directly several times to inquire about J.A.C.'s licensing status. Coldiron informed Brian of Chateau Custom Builders that she had received the paperwork, but the paperwork was not complete, and that J.A.C. did not have a license in place. Coldiron noted that Brian called her daily regarding J.A.C.'s status of licensing. She stated that the issue was that Brian knew J.A.C. did not have a license and he let J.A.C. frame anyway. Steele stated that Brian acknowledged speaking to someone from the City. Lee informed the Board that Chateau's license was suspended the day of the meeting and the Board would have to make a determination regarding the suspension status. Massey wanted Steele to clarify who Brian the Builder was. According to Steele, Brian was the superintendent and an employee of Chateau Custom Builders. Massey asked staff when the calls started and how much framing was completed during this time. Coldiron stated that she would have to refer to her phone log. She personally drove by the job and noticed that the project was completely framed. Smilie commented that based on the project being 1200 square feet it had to be several weeks worth of work. • BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 12 Joel Hayes, Vice -President of J.A.C., addressed the Board. Hayes commented that the framing of the building was done in two weeks. Hayes felt Brian was confused about the licensing process. According to Hayes, Brian recorded a phone conversation with someone from the City; the phone call included an explanation of the licensing process. Again Hayes claimed ignorance. Massey asked Hayes if he stopped work when he knew that he was not officially licensed with the City. Hayes responded that he had conversations with Lee for a day and a half and tried to get clarification on what he needed to do. Lee confirmed that this was essentially what happened. Massey wanted to know if the work was stopped by the City. Lee confirmed that J.A.0 was stopped by the City on both Chateau's and Advocate's jobs. Jeremy Hayes, President of J.A.C., addressed the Board. He informed the Board that he called for an inspection on the gables for the draft -stopping in the trusses. Hayes wanted to make it clear that the job included a pre -fabricated wall design that was shipped out on a truck and it was erected on the site. Hayes thought J.A.0 had their license and that was why he called for an inspection. Smilie wanted to know when J.A.C. started construction. Hayes said he would have to refer to the documentation and schedules which were not available. Hayes remarked that it would have been within the two week time period. Steele made his closing statements. Steele noted that his builders kept daily logs that showed when the panels were delivered. The panels were delivered on the 30`h of August. Steele told the Board that he relied on the information from J.A.C. He referred to some faxes that stated if the City did not shut down J.A.C. that Chateau would. Steele stated that the company was on the verge of dealing with the license issue themselves. Lee made his closing statements and offered to the Board additional factors. According to Lee, Coldiron verified that J.A.0 did not submit any licensing forms until September 8, 2004. Lee assumed that the project was already under construction during the two week period. Lee reiterated the comment that Coldiron was in daily contact with Brian regarding the licensing process. Further, Lee added that about a year and a half ago Chateau was stopped for a similar violation at a Northern Lights address with an unlicensed framer being on the job. Chateau also received a stop work order from the City in this instance. Lee felt it was evident that the Chateau deliberately violated the licensing ordinance because the builder decided to continue the job even though no verification had been received from the City that J.A.C. was licensed. Steele remarked that he did not receive a notice of the violation in May of 2003 and asked staff if they had any information on it. Lee stated that the stop work order was posted on the job and typically there was no follow-up. Steele asked if it was resolved. Lee said presumably and noted that the subcontractor was Tech Framing. Steele said that Tech Framing was on the job at the time and asked staff what was the nature of the violation. Steele commented that if the previous violation was going to be part of the discussion he needed to have knowledge of it. Lee addressed the Board and asked how they BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 13 • wanted to continue the discussion. Lee said that Board packets went to Chateau Builders and included a copy of the previous stop work order. Lee said that the information was not concealed from the builder. Lee's first point was that the stop work order was issued on site. Fielder asked if Tech Framing was licensed at the time. Lee stated that he did not have the information with him, although the inspector, Jon Estabrook, was thorough and cited framers on site without licenses, no employees cards or supervision on site. Lee stated he would need to research the records. Little asked staff what the disposition was in the May, 2003 case. Fielder remarked that there was not any because a stop work was issued in the field, and the case did not come before the Board. Little asked what happened to the building. Lee said he did not know and was unsure if Tech Framing eventually got a licensed or left town. Lee was informed that Tech Framing received a license. Massey asked if the stop work order was lifted by staff and then Tech Framing was able to start work again. Lee said yes and stated that it was standard procedure. Finding of Fact Massey wanted to know Steele's opinion regarding the stop work orders. Fielder thought he heard Steele say that he was not aware of the stop work orders. Massey asked Steele if he received the stop work order in the packet from the City. Steele said that the item was in his packet, although he was having trouble remembering the occurrence. Massey was concerned • that Steele was unaware of a stop work order that noted no supervision. Steele needed to refer to the job logs and was unprepared to talk about the stop work order. Massey explained that it was an important factor due to repeat offenders. Fielder reminded Massey that the stop work order never came before the Board. Smilie felt it was Tech Framing that failed to provide adequate supervision. Fielder asked staff if it was possible for a stop work order to be issued at 10:40 a.m. and by the end of the day for Tech Framing to have their City license. Lee said it was possible if Tech Framing had an application in progress. Fielder was puzzled as to why Steele was unaware of the stop work order. Smilie stated the issue of the previous stop work order only effected the next stage and wanted to work on the finding of fact. Steele noted that the City of Fort Collins required him to change the verbiage in his contracts and required more vigilance of his onsite supervisors. Steele explained his company's process of signing a contract. According to Steele, his builders practiced checking the licenses of subcontractors. Hayes spoke in support of Steele and noted that he started the application process for his license the 20°i of August. Hayes stated there was a lot of back and forth as he tried to obtain the proper documentation. Hayes stated that Brian of Chateau was diligent and felt Brian was ready to tell J.A.C. to leave the job. Jones asked Hayes if he started the application process on August 20th. Hayes said yes. Jones • noted that Hayes did not submit the requested information until September 8"i. Hayes replied BRB 09/30/2004 P9. 14 that he submitted incomplete documents by mail and it was complete submitted by the 8`h. Lee clarified that J.A.C. submitted experience documentation by fax on August 26`h, although the actual application was not submitted until September 8`h. Jones commented that J.A.0 was already framing the job and should have known that they were not licensed. Jones responded that he thought there was a 30-day grace period. Little asked Coldiron when she first spoke to Brian. Coldiron did not remember and stated that she would need her phone log book to answer that appropriately. Little felt it was important to know when Chateau realized that there was an unlicensed contractor on site. Coldiron replied that Brian called her daily until the day the stop work order was received to check on the status of the license. Little was trying to make a connection that the job should have been shut down from the first moment Chateau knew that J.A.C. was not licensed. There was a discussion held regarding the timeline of events. Coldiron reiterated that she was very clear that there was not a permanent or temporary license in place. There was additional discussion on the earlier stop work order that had been issued to Chateau. Fielder asked for staff s recommendation regarding the stop work order and if it should be taken into account. Lee stated that it spoke to the supervision of the job because the contractor was not onsite as required. McCoy made a motion that Chateau Builders 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; and (9) The act of employing compensated workers who are performing construction or who are working in a trade for which a license or certificate is otherwise required under this Article when such workers are neither employees not exempt specialized trade subcontractors as defined under this Article. Smilie seconded the motion. Little commented that he did not understand how the Board could make a finding of fact without specific information. Smilie noted that the Board was not finding fact for the incident in 2003 only the current violation. Little was unsure if the company knowingly disregarded the building code. Little could not make that determination without the date. Fielder referred Little to Coldiron's comments. McCoy said it was clear that Chateau knew that J.A.C. was not licensed and felt that date was irrelevant. The Board held further discussion regarding which violations they felt Chateau committed. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Fielder, Massey and Smilie. Nays: Little and Jones. Massey felt that Little could track the dates with the information that was included in Board packets. Little said that the framing started around the second. Little assumed that Chateau believed that there was a license place. Jones concurred with Little because he could not BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 15 • conceive of J.A.C. calling for an inspection when they knew that they did not have a license. Little noted that it was important for the Board to not make assumptions. Disposition McCoy made a motion to place a letter of reprimand in Chateau Custom Builder's file. Little seconded the motion. Smilie felt the Board had to ignore the previous stop work order because there was nothing to prove, and felt a letter of reprimand was significant and appropriate. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Jones, Fielder, Massey, and Smilie. Nays: None. Little made a motion to lift Chateau's Custom Builder's suspension that was effective the 30"' day of September. Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Jones, Fielder, Massey, and Smilie. Nays: None. �. Contractor Hearing, Jeremy Hayes, d/b/a J.A.C. & Company, Inc., Temp License #: F-205, Case # 22-04 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal and noted that the Respondent had a suspended temporary license. The Respondent worked for Chateau Custom Builders at Northern Lights Drive and for Glaser's project at 2550 East Custer. Lee noted that a Municipal Court summons was issued. Joel Hayes, representative for J.A.C., addressed the Board. He did not know what else to say about the case since it had been discussed in great detail by the two previous cases. Jones asked if he held licenses in any other communities. Hayes said yes and noted that he owned two other companies out of Denver. Jones asked Hayes whether he was able to obtain other City licenses simply by a phone call. Hayes responded that in some cities they would accept the same testing from different municipalities. Jones asked if they would issue the license immediately. Hayes replied yes in some cases. Jones wanted Hayes to define immediately. Jones asked if he expected the same process in Fort Collins. Hayes stated that it was his fault because he delegated the licensing process to others and explained that his administration staff was not familiar with the process. Hayes said that he started the application process on August 20`" Jones questioned if anyone told him that he was licensed or had a temporary license. Hayes responded that there was an impression that J.A.C. could have a 30-day grace period. Hayes commented that his administration staff assumed that J.A.C. had a 30-day temporary license. • His staff mailed in the application and the check. Hayes noted that the information he submitted was incorrect and he was trying to correct the information. Hayes was unaware that he was BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 16 doing anything wrong until he received a stop work order. When Hayes realized that he did not have a license he started to speak with Lee. Jones questioned Hayes to find out when he received a document showing that he was able to start framing in Fort Collins. Hayes replied that he did not receive any documentation regarding his license. Jones asked Hayes if he was supposed to have a license available when he was on the job site. Hayes said yes but noted that he has been in many municipalities where a physical license was not available. Jones disagreed and said that somebody in his company submitted documents and was told that the application was incomplete. Hayes said he failed in not submitting the license application himself. He thought that he only had to inform the inspector that he submitted his license application. Jones commented that the dates that Hayes applied for the application and started framing did not match up and thought he was missing something. Jones asked if Hayes told Steve Steele he had a license. Hayes said the dates were similar, the 8th was not a benchmark and commented that he was trying to get the proper documents to the City for what he felt was the requirement. The dates, according to Hayes, were insignificant. Fielder clarified that Hayes thought, since he submitted his application, that he had a temporary license. Hayes stated that he was confused by what Jones was saying. Jones replied that there was a process set up in many municipalities to obtain a contractor's license. Jones stated that very few communities have licensing over the telephone, although the process can be started over the telephone. According to Jones, documents are required for a license, in order for the Building Department to identify the applicant. Jones stated that the Building Department did ntb ot know who J.A.C. was until September the 8t", although he was framing six days before the 8 . Hayes said he thought he had a temporary license because he applied for a contractor's license before that time and felt he met the requirements. Little asked staff what Hayes meant by the beginning and when they first knew of J.A.C. Coldiron replied that she had telephone conversations with J.A.C. but noted that she did not write down every call she received. She stated that she received project verification forms on August 26th although the project forms were insufficient because she did not receive all five forms. Coldiron noted that she did not have the application or the fees. According to Coldiron, a letter was received from Jolynn (an employee of J.A.C.) and the letter was dated September 8th. Coldiron read the letter, "Here's our packet for applying for a contractor's license and supervisor's certificate. Two of our people will be up next week on September 16th to take the exam at 9:00 a.m. We have included our fees as well. Sony about the two checks, but initially we thought it was a total of $275.00. I'm the office manager and should be the contact person should you have any further questions. I thank you in advance for reviewing our packet." Coldiron stated that City staff date stamped the letter on September loth. This meant that the application, fees, and possibly insurance were received on September 10th. According to Coldiron's phone log which was reviewed by Building Department staff, Coldiron spoke to Jolynn on September 8th and wrote comments that stated Jolynn was inquiring about the possibility of getting a temporary license. Coldiron stated that on September 8th she did not tell anyone from J.A.C. that they had a temporary license in place. Coldiron felt that Jolynn did not think there was a temporary license based on their conversation. According to Coldiron, the last BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 17 • project verification form was faxed on September 9`h. Little asked if anyone from J.A.C. had passed the licensing exam. Coldiron remarked that no one from the company had passed the licensing exam. Massey said that J.A.C. was trying to follow the process, but were awarded the jobs and signed contracts, and the only way J.A.C. could have signed the contract was if they were available immediately. Hayes said there was no malicious intent and reiterated his comments of believing he had a temporary license. Massey felt that J.A.C. was hoping to have their license by the time they called for an inspection. Hayes stated that was not his intent because when he became aware of it he immediately spoke to Lee. Hayes said that he felt like J.A.C. was an outstanding contracting company and mentioned that they have performed several jobs. Hayes excused his administration staff. Massey appreciated Hayes stating that the situation was his fault. Lee made his closing statements and did not think that Hayes was disingenuous. Lee said the bottom line was that J.A.C. did not have the license before they started work. Lee commented that he did what he could to keep the project going. Lee noted that the Board had all the facts. Massey summarized the case and said that J.A.0 called for an inspection, received a stop work order, and then received a temporary license. Lee remarked that the project was stopped as of the day of the meeting and said the suspension of J.A.C.'s temporary license went into effect as of the day of the meeting. • Finding of Fact Smilie made a motion that J.A.C. 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; and (8) Performance of work for which a license or supervisor certificate is required without a valid, current license or supervisor certificate. McCoy seconded the motion. Little said that he cannot assume that was the case. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Jones, Fielder, Massey, and Smilie. Nays: Little. Disposition Jones commented that two individuals from J.A.C. did not pass their tests and it appeared that whatever the Board decided J.A.C. would not get their license. McCoy made a motion to suspend their license for the rest of the day and that a letter of reprimand be placed in J.A.C's file. McCoy stated that he did not mean to make light of the violation but stated he felt like • J.A.C. was working through the process. McCoy wanted to reinstate J.A.C.'s temporary license as applied for and under the same conditions that previously existed. Little seconded the motion. BRB 09/30/2004 Pg. 18 Smilie stated that this was the minimum that the Board could dish out and personally would have suggested a one week suspension. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Jones, Fielder, Massey, and Smilie. Nays: None. 6. Other Business Lee informed the Board that Smilie and Jones were on the Contractor's License Review Task Group. Lee was happy that they were on the team. Lee noted that the next meeting will be October 13, 2004. Lee mentioned that the City was hosting training on the IRC through the Colorado Chapter on the 31d and 4ch of November. The training is a one day session and attendance will be limited to about 75 individuals per day. The training will be held at the Lincoln Center. Lee noted that for contractor's who needed recertification on their license, the class would replace the refresher exam. The cost of the training will be $35.00. Meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Felix Lee, u�ditig & Zoning Director