Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 06/24/1999A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, June 24, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Hartman, Charles Fielder, Jim Brown, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Bradley Massey BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Rudy Hansch, Allan Hauck STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board OTHERS PRESENT: Sandy Lindell, Building and Zoning staff support AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Brown and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairperson Brown made a motion to approve the Minutes from the May 27, 1999 meeting. Susan Kreul- Froseth questioned the usage of the word "applicant' several times in reference to the License Hearing for Jim Weisser. Kmel-Forseth wondered if there was more appropriate terminology we could use in place of applicant. Delynn Coldiron responded that we could change it to appellant or respondant. Brown amended his motion to approve the Minutes from the May 27, 1999 meeting with the changes made in the wording of "applicant' in those minutes. Board Member Fielder seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the May 27, 1999 meeting were approved with the noted changes. 3. UPDATED HEARING PROCEDURES FOR ALLEGED CONTRACTOR LICENSE VIOLATIONS: Brown requested that the Board deviates from the agenda order and hold a discussion regarding a document that was included in the Board Packets: Hearing Procedures for Alleged Contractor License Violations. Brown voiced the desire to implement these procedures at the meeting convening today. Felix Lee offered a brief content summary of this document to those in attendance. Lee noted that it is similar to the appellant procedures other than it allows for an introductory presentation by staff to explain the alleged violations. Susan Kreul-Froseth made a motion to adopt the "Hearing Procedures for Alleged Contractor License Violations" Charles Fielder seconded the motion. BRB June 24, 1999 Page 2 VOTE: Yeas: Hartman, Fielder, Brown, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. 4. LICENSE HEARING —NORM BROWN, d/b/a/ Norm Brown Roofing: Chairperson Brown explained the procedures that would be used for the hearing including the appeals procedure. Felix Lee provided an opening statement. Lee referred to the Summary of Allegations in this case. Lee touched on the major points of these allegations. Topics brought to the Board's attention were: The stop work order issued for working without a permit at 825 Sitka Street; Work being performed by Norm Brown Roofing while license under suspension. A list of regulation infractions derived from Section 15-158(f) of the Fort Collins Contractor License Regulations against Norm Brown Roofing was read by Lee. Lee noted that a permit was eventually obtained for the re -roofing by Ms. Carol Dillon, owner of 825 Sitka Street. Lee made note of a memo from Mike Gebo, Fort Collins Codes and Inspections Administrator, reiterating more detailed information regarding the events mentioned above. Respondent, Norm Brown, addressed the Board. The Respondent recalled that he only received the letter informing him of this hearing two days ago. He stated that the information contained in the letter did not reflect what had really taken place. He told the Board that because he could not buy a permit, he asked the homeowner to buy the permit after he explaining the situation. The Respondent mentioned that the homeowner did finally obtain a permit and that it was approved as far as he knew. He went on to declare that he has been bidding in the city of Fort Collins for 20 years and he gets people that call him on bids he's given them from five weeks to two or three months ago. The Respondent said he has been trying to turn them down (clients) or tell them they have to buy the permit. The Respondent stated that the homeowner did get the permit for 825 Sitka Street after the neighbor called and turned them in. The Respondent said that sometimes the contractors he works with buys the permit, or that Brown buys the roofing permit, but that right now he is trying not to do anything in the city. He mentioned that when he came to the last Board meeting, he had only been in town about five days after being overseas and had forgotten that he had this job at 825 Sitka Street. The Respondent declared that he has other jobs in the county and has been trying to "shut down" in the city for a while. The Respondent concluded by saying that about all he could do is ask the Board for mercy. Lee asked Norm if he understood that at the previous meeting that his license had been suspended for sixty days. The Respondent stated that is why he told the homeowners that they would have to get the permit. The responded referred to the memo that Mike Gebo had sent to Lee saying that he had no way of verifying what was said. He stated a previous owner of the home next door to 825 Sitka Street works for Choice Roofing and someone that lives there now is the one that called in the violation. Lee asked the Respondent if he understood that he was not to do any work. The Respondent replied that he knew he was not to do any work and couldn't buy any permits. Lee asked if indeed he was doing the work. The Respondent said he himself did not work on it, but that it was his crew working on it. Chairman Brown stated that he was at the last meeting in which Norm's license was suspended. In his opinion, it doesn't really matter who turned the Respondent in, and that the Respondent knew he shouldn't take on any new work. In addition, it didn't matter if the owner was the one that obtained the permit because the Respondent still couldn't do the work without a valid license. Kreul-Froseth asked if Norm Brown was sent a letter telling him that his license was suspended. The Respondent countered back that he did receive a letter, but it was postmarked June 21, 1999 and that he had just received it yesterday. Lee confirmed the letter Norm received was the correct one. BRB June 24, 1999 Page 3 Kreul-Froseth inquired as to the actual day that the suspension would be in effect. Lee responded that the suspension was in effect the day of the last hearing. Kreul-Froseth asked the Respondent if he understood that as of the date of the last hearing, his license would be under suspension. The Respondent stated that he was not denying that the sixty days had started and that coming into the previous meeting, he didn't think he had any other work in the City. Referring to the copy of his proposal for the job at 825 Sitka Street, the Respondent brought to the Board's attention that it was dated approximately mid -May and the owner's had given him a deposit. Kmel-Froseth asked the Respondent how he would respond if someone called him and asked him to re -roof their residence. The Respondent said that he would tell them he couldn't do anything until the end of July. He mentioned that he had a large job in the county that would tie him up for about three to four weeks along with other jobs in the county. Kurel-Froseth asked the Respondent if a homeowner were to obtain the permit for a job in the city right now, did he believe it would be a violation to start that re -roofing job. The Respondent said that with the way that Felix Lee just defined it, yes it would be. He added that from Lee's description , he wasn't sure if that meant he couldn't do repairs or anything else on a roof. Massey said that the way he understands it, if a homeowner obtains a permit, the homeowner does the work themselves, or they have to have it done by a licensed contractor. Massey believes that the Respondent understood when he left the last board meeting his license was under a 60 day suspension as of that day. Massey questioned how the Respondent could think that he could go out and do more work until that suspension was over. The Respondent replied "I just said what I said there." The Respondent wanted to know if he had the right to ask his brother to work with him on his own house, saying that it was his understanding that he has and that he also had the right to ask anyone he wanted to help him on his own home. The Respondent said some of the debate that took place at the previous meeting was over the question of having to get a permit at the start of tear -off, or if it was needed at the start of the actual roofing work. Lee stated that at the last meeting a motion was passed that suspended Norm Brown Roofing's license for a period of sixty days due to the violation of doing work without a permit and that a letter to that effect was sent to the Respondent. Lee further noted that Respondent was in attendance at that meeting when that was decided. Brown asked if Lee could respond to the Respondent's questions regarding what the Respondent was allowed to be doing, if anything, in reference to homeowners obtaining the permits. Lee replied that as a homeowner, the Respondent could certainly do his own roof without a license and may use volunteers, family or other agents that are not paid. Lee elaborated that anytime someone is paid to do construction work, with that revision, by defmition, he becomes a contractor and because roofing is a licensed trade, any roofing that someone pays to have done requires a license. Lee said this ruling has been in effect for the last 20 years. Brown wanted to mention that he did find somewhat of an irregularity in that the roofing contract was signed on 5/21/99 and the last board meeting was on 5/27/99. The Respondent stated that the contract was signed shortly before he left the country and he did not remember that contract when he was before the Board at the last meeting. Brown expressed that he would like to let this issue slide given the fact that the contract was signed first, but that he has the feeling the Respondent would be out in the city doing work under someone else's permit regardless of what the Board does. The Respondent replied that he was trying to do what was right by telling everyone that he couldn't do anything in the city until the end of July; reiterating that he assumed the 60 day suspension started the day of the meeting. Kmel-Froseth asked the Respondent if he would do more work in the city from now until the end of July. The Respondent replied that he had to ignore Fort Collins, but that he would still work and has jobs in the county. Kmel-Froseth asked again of the Respondent, whether he would do work in that time frame in the City of Fort Collins. The Respondent said he had no intent of doing any roofing in the City of Fort Collins and he is trying to inform people of that. Kruel-Froseth queried if the Respondent was in control of that situation himself, other than this one contract. The Respondent said that he could control it. The Respondent went on to say he is getting calls everyday requesting his work on everything from repairs to certifications in the City and he is trying to avoid anything in the City of Fort Collins. Kruel-Froseth stated that it was clear the Respondent would be in violation if he did work under his suspended license until the end of July. She noted that in the previous • • BRB June 24, 1999 Page 4 meeting minutes, it refers to Board Member Allan Hauck's mention that another violation by Norm Brown Roofing should result in revocation of his license. Given this information, she believed it was clear what the Respondent could or could not do. She agreed with Chariman Brown's affirmation that since this proposal at 825 Sitka had been signed prior to the last meeting, he was probably obligated to complete that particular job. Kreel-Froseth made a motion that the Board state again that another violation by Norm Brown Roofing while his license is suspended should result in revocation, or at least a serious discussion by the Board. Fielder seconded the motion Fielder asked of Lee what the time frame was for revocation of a license. Lee replied that it was a maximum of one year. VOTE: Yeas: Hartman, Fielder, Brown, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Chairman Brown reiterated to Norm Brown that his license is still under suspension for the time period set forth at the last meeting and to refrain from any more violations. 5. LICENSE HEARING — JEFF GEORGE, d/b/a Summit Companies: Lee reviewed the Summary of Allegations for the Board. He also referred to a letter included in the Board's information packets from complainants Steven J. Meyer and Maureen McCarrick Meyer. Lee summarized the scenario that brought forth the complaint against Summit Companies. He mentioned the contract between the parties signed on September 17, 1998 for work to be done at their residence at 1531 Mountain Ave. and that they had both agreed Summit Company would obtain a building permit. After repeated inquiries as to the wherabouts of a pemrit, the Meyer's were told by Summit Company that one had been obtained. On December 10, 1998, Ms. Meyer contacted the Building & Zoning department and discovered that a permit was never obtained for the work mentioned above. Lee provided additional background information on this case. He made remarks alluding to a meeting between himself, Jeff George and Delynn Coldiron on November 9, 1998 where licensing requirements were discussed. Lee noted that the Respondent had submitted a license application for a Class E license, but had been denied due to non -complying references. At that meeting, Lee said that the Respondent remarked that he would not knowingly perform work without permits because such acts would jeopardize his obtaining a license. At the same meeting, Lee approved George for a Class Dl license with an exam waiver, as references for that classification were in compliance. Lee noted that at the time of granting the D 1 license, unbeknownst to the Building Department, work had allegedly already begun on the Meyer's project. Lee recounted that on December 17, 1998 a permit was issued listing Summit Companies as the contractor for work on the Meyers' home described as "convert garage into a family room, add a walk-in closet, add a sink in the '/z bath." On January 8, 1999, City staff performed one inspection on the Meyers' project and determined that the work had been completed without prior inspections. Lee outlined the procedures for inspections that are done on completed work and how the inspector did verified electrical continuity and the gas vent serving a direct vent fireplace appeared to be in compliance. Following this inspection, a Letter of Completion was issued for the Meyers' project. One May 11, 1999, Maureen Meyer contacted Felix Lee about her concerns summarized above and detailed this in a letter included in the Board's information packet. On June 2, 1999, Lee met with Jeff George and Mike Adams of Summit Companies. At this time, George and Adams recounted that work was started and completed without a permit and the required inspections as alleged by the Meyer's. Lee added that the Respondent noted that he did intend to obtain a permit for the job, but he • • BRB June 24, 1999 Page 5 had to leave the area during the project construction. Both George and Adams acknowledged additional work was done but not specified on the permit. These included; installation of a new gas fireplace and relocation of laundry fixtures and supply piping. Lee told George and Adams that other than a homeowner doing those jobs themeseves, that type of work requires a licensed mechanical contractor for gas piping or gas appliance installation. Based on the events summarized above, Lee invalidated and revoked the previously issued permit of December 17, 1998, for not disclosing the full amount of work and for not obtaining the required inspections. A notice was sent to George and Summit Companies notifying him of these occurrences. Included in that notice was the requirement that Summit Companies obtain a new permit covering all the work related to the original contract by June 23, 1999. Lee reported that Summit Companies had submitted an application for that required permit. Given the information profiled above, Lee concluded that violations of the Code of the City of Fort Collins had occurred and proceeded to outline those violations for the Board. Respondent, Jeff George, addressed the Board. After listening to the alleged violations recounted by Lee, George agreed that a large part of that was true to a certain extent. He told the Board that some of the problems stemmed from his naivet6 of the workings of the City's permitting process. George commented that he has held a Home Improvement License with the City for seven or eight years. He stated that he had moved from Wyoming some years ago and that his superintendent also had moved from Wyoming recently. George stated that it was his belief that the work he was performing at the Meyer's home could have been accomplished under his Home Improvement License. George reiterated on how he was trying to secure other licenses at that time and was in the process of getting the experience waiver information together. Due to some of his documents not meeting the requirements, this process was taking longer than he anticipated. George stated that work on the Meyer's project started in late September and he believed that they could begin some demolition until arriving at a point where inspections were needed. He noted that he left to go on vacation and upon arriving back in almost four weeks, he found that the work had progressed past the point of required inspections. George said he knew they would need a permit, but wasn't sure on the procedure now that they had gone beyond the time for inspections, but he assumed things like this had happened before and the building department would have ways of working through the situation. George went on to address the issue of not having all the work that was being done listed on the permit. He said the work in question, namely installing a fireplace in the garage and moving the laundry room from the main floor to the upstairs, were change orders to the original contract and he felt they were not significant enough to put on the permit. In hindsight, he later realized this was an error in judgement and these omissions were not an attempt by them to try to get away with anything. George said part of the reason he did not apply for the Meyer's permit under his Home Improvement License because he was hoping for that project to be his first under the new license that he was trying to obtain. George noted that some of ensuing problems arose due to his predisposition to procrastinate and not obtain the information that was lacking for him to obtain the other licenses. George reported that the new permit application they have submitted includes the correct wording to encompass the installation of the fireplace and the moving of the laundry room. He also said it was a misconception on his part as far as the work they did that was not covered under his license at the time. He had believed that work such as the gas piping could be done under his license if supervised by a mechanical contractor on site and subsequently inspected and this would be acceptable. Again, George mentioned he made some assumptions that he should not have. He went on to note that he is doing everything he can to make things right with their client and the City. Chairman Brown inquired if George or Lee had any witnesses they would like to present. George replied that he did not. Lee said he did not have witnesses, but mentioned that the homeowner was in attendance and he had offered to let her speak at this hearing if she so chose. Homeowner, Maureen Meyer, addressed the Board. Meyer proceeded to relate how she and her husband were told by Summit Company that they had obtained the required permit and the only reason it was not on site was because the front of the house was tom off and they did not want to loose it. At the time, Ms. Meyer thought this was a valid reason. She said they had also been told by Summit Company that the fireplace and the laundry BRB June 24, 1999 Page 6 room were both in the original plans and had to move the laundry room in order to do the other renovations that were planned. She continued that the reason they wanted the permit information was because after moving into the home on November 13, their insurance agent requested a copy of it to cover the new square footage so they would have the proper insurance coverage. Ms. Meyer said after repeatedly being told that Summit Companies had obtained a permit, but that the Historical Preservation Office was holding it up, she decided to contact the City and get a copy of the permit herself. She said it was then that she found out that a permit had never been applied for. After having been told repeatedly that Summit Companies had acquired a permit, Meyer believes that in not doing so made it a "willful and deliberate act". She was also lead to believe that they had a license to do the contracted work because she had viewed a home built by them, but later found out it was Jeff George's own home. Chairman Brown asked the Respondent, if he had any questions for Ms. Meyer. George asked Meyer what her concerns were that had not been addressed through the efforts of the building department and his company. Meyer replied that her concerns were if the work that had been done was really o.k., and if the work was alright, why didn't they have the fireplace and the laundry room relocation listed on the permit. She was also upset that it may be required to get into the floors and walls again to make sure things were done to code. Meyer stated that George says his intention was to do the work to code, but how does she know if he really was, because the Respondent had said he didn't know if everything was to code here the same as in Wyoming. Meyer stated that this issue has affected her ability to insure her home. Meyer disclosed that she did not have another $25,000 or $30,000 to get back into the walls to check that all out and renovate again. George responded to Meyer to say that he knows this meeting was not a forum for deciding whether the performed work should be paid for and he would prefer to deal with the building permit issue, afterwards, he and Ms. Meyer can work through the payment of the balance of the contract. George again stated that the wording on the original building permit was perhaps inadequate and that regarding the fireplace and the laundry room, he honestly didn't think that they needed to be mentioned and these had not been part of the original contract. Hartman asked Ms. Meyer if she had a set of plans. She acknowledged that she did have a set in her car. Hartman asked if they had been submitted to the Building Department as part of the permitting process. Meyer responded that it was her understanding that all plans had been submitted. Hartman asked her if those plans reflect the moving of the laundry room and the addition of the fireplace. Meyer said she didn't think they showed the upstairs at all. She continued to say the plans did show the downstairs removal of the laundry room and it was indicated where the fireplace was supposed to be, but as it turned out, the fireplace was located in another area because of a window that was put in the wrong place. Hartman asked Lee if those plans would be part of a set of records that the City maintains. Lee responded that he had looked for the plans but that they had already been purged. Lee explained that plans are purged by the City after a specified time period and final inspections have been completed. The Code does not require residential plans to be kept after 90 days from final inspection. Lee stated that he had not seen the new plans and did not know if they were different than the first ones. George responded that there was nothing on the plans that he submitted showing anything on the second floor. Hartman asked if either one of them had a set of plans with the Building Department's review remarks on them. George said he did not have a set in his possession and had assumed that the City would still have the original set of plans submitted. George mentioned that there were some structural items that Mike Gebo, City Codes and Inspections Administrator, wanted shown on the plans and he would resubmit another set. Hartman mentioned that if either Meyer or George had an original set of plans, that they might submit them to the Building Department for the record, as he believed this may not be an issue that is finished yet. Massey asked Meyer if it was written in the original contract between themselves and Summit Companies that they would obtain a permit. Meyer replied that it was not written right into the contract, but was written on her copy along with the time and date the Meyers' signed it. Meyer further noted that if it were not supposed to have been done, then why would Summit Company apply for it and tell her after the fact. Massey restated the allegation as follows; Ms. Meyer had specifically asked Summit Companies if they had obtained the permit. they had told they had, but in reality that was not the case. Meyer answered that was a correct statement. She elaborated that she and her husband had remodeled at another home they owned so she knew a permit card had to be out and visible in case the City came by. Meyer's also noted that she kept a journal documenting the remodel with pictures and dates, so she had all the information in writing. Massey then asked George if he did n U BRB June 24, 1999 Page 7 or did not tell the Meyer's that Summit Companies had obtianed the permit, when in fact it had not even been applied for. George responded that although he had no direct contact with Mrs. Meyer until after the project had gotten past this stage, he believed his superintendent told or implied that they were either in the process of applying for, that they had received one, or would be getting one. George stated he was not present during this time and he couldn't say for sure what the superintendent had told her, but he assumed that was the case. George said his company did not do the correct thing in that matter. Massey questioned Lee if George currently held an "E" license, or what exactly was a "Remodelef s" license. Lee clarified that George did apply for a class E license, a commercial remodeling license, but projects the Respondent submitted as references were not sufficient. George has had a Home Improvement license that encompasses minor, non-structural, residential work up to $10,000. Referring to the work that was done on the Meyer home, Lee said it did include some structural work and exceeded $10,000, so did not meet the criteria of work to be performed by a Home Improvement license. Massey asked Lee if the only way George could have obtained a permit was to get a license that covered that work first. Lee answered that was correct. Massey wanted to clarify that George did achieve the proper license for the work that he re -submitted for the Meyer project. Lee responded that George did receive the Dl license on October 21, 1998, after submitting adequate project verifications to meet those criteria. Brown asked Lee what date it was that George applied for the permit for the Meyers' project. Lee responded that was done on the 11`s of December. Brown questioned George on the time and duration of his vacation at the time of the Meyer's project. George replied that he left toward the end of September and arrived about the end of October. Brown inquired why George waited so long to submit for a permit when he had received his license at the end of October. George said that when he came back and found the project almost complete and had not gotten any inspections, he took some time trying to find out what the procedure might be to remedy a situation like this. George admitted he did not have an excuse for waiting that long. Kreul-Froseth asked George if he had any other projects currently under construction in the City at this time. He responded that they had just completed another project on Mountain Ave. George noted that a permit was obtained and procedures were followed correctly for this project and that the clients were satisfied. He stated that he also has applications in the process at this time. George recounted that the Meyer's project was their first after obtaining the Dl license and regretted that things had not gone as smoothly as they should have. He also reiterated his belief that his Home Improvement license was adequate to do the Meyer's project and mistakes made in this regards were not willful. George stated that the work done at the Meyer's home, to the best of his knowledge, was done correctly and to Code. Massey asked George that if it were required by the Building Department to open up some of the construction done by them, what would his position be to take that work on at no additional cost to the homeowner. George said he did not have a problem with that and if in fact anything is found to be incorrect, he would stand by his work and take measures to make it right. Massey asked if they had to open some things up and then found them to be acceptable, would he take care of the repair work to fix it back to the way it was. George responded that he didn't believe it would be a problem and after working with the Building Department, he felt completely comfortable with any requirements they might have. He went on to say that he would be willing to go to a reasonable means to satisfy his client, but if it meant tearing everything apart and starting over again, that would be a financial decision he would have to look at. George didn't believe that would be a problem, but he would be willing to open something up to prove that it was indeed done correctly. Brown referred to the Summary of Allegations list provided to the Board by Lee. In that summary of Code violations, he believed items number 6: Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed and number 8: Performance of work for which a license is required without a valid, current license, were violations that were willful. George responded that his only defense was to plead ignorance of the constraints of the Home Improvement license. He realized he should have been more aware of what the limitations of that license were. Brown asked that if that was the case, why didn't George try to get a pemrit using his Home Improvement license. George said he was wanting the Meyer project to be the first one to be done under the new license he acquired and that the time involved in getting that license went on for a longer time than expected. He also noted that the project began very close to the time that he started submitting information for the new license and he had thought he could proceed with some demolition up to the time BRB June 24, 1999 Page 8 inspections would be needed. George again reiterated that they were not trying to get away with anything in this issue. Kreul-Froseth made a query to Lee about the procedure when a contractor's license is suspended and how that affects projects that are in progress at the time of the suspension. Lee responded that if the license is suspended, then it is no longer in effect and would prevent the licensee from doing any work under that license, unless there are special provisions made otherwise. Hartman recounted that after attending a recent meeting of the State Board of Engineers, he noted that they said the specific charge of that board was to protect the general public from the engineers, implying that their duty was to the public rather than for the purpose of keeping state engineer's licenses in tact. Hartman felt that the charge of the Building Review Board were of a similar nature, to protect the health and safety of the general public by enforcing Code requirements for structures that might affect health and safety. Hartman said that was an issue he had in this case, since this work was done outside of the permitting process guidelines. He believed because of that issue, it not only affected the Meyers' personally, but the future of their home in that the work done may be suspect due to the fact of not complying within those guidelines. Hartman reiterated that the Board should do the best decision making possible in this case, taking in to account the health and safety of the public. Brown agreed with Hartman's statement, although he questioned the limitations of the Board's powers to actually require George to do all the work that was needed to satisfy the inspection process. Brown asked Lee if the Board's powers were limited to dealing with licensing and did not include making requirements that would entail a financial commitment of a contractor. Lee agreed that the Board's authority was limited in that way. Massey responded that it was not his intent to have George make a financial commitment, but in order to help him in his decision making process on this issue, he wanted to hear what George felt was his responsibility to his client. Kreul-Froseth commented that she agreed with George in that his procedures reflected a sloppiness, but whether or not that was willful, she was not convinced. She didn't feel that any disciplinary action should be taken at this time other than a letter be placed in his file stating that he did work without a permit, since this was his first job in the city. She also mentioned that it seems George is open to privately rectifying the situation with the Meyers. Brown asked Lee if the permit was officially closed now and has it been signed off with a Letter of Completion. Lee responded that the original permit issued in December of 1998, had been revoked and a new permit had been applied for, which is still open. Brown wondered what the Building Department's process would be now, and would they try to do the inspections after the fact. Lee replied that the main concern of the Building Department after visiting the site a few days ago, was the structural issue. Lee continued that they did find some abnormalities with some of the electrical wiring, but he did not know if they had been existing or not. These are some of the things that when the walls are open the inspectors would know. Lee said there are some things they definitely need to look at structurally, particularly the exterior header installed at the new door opening and the stair header that was a supporting structure through the middle of the home. Lee commented they would have to find some method of determining if those are correct and he did not know how they will accomplish that without some destructive investigation. Brown asked if it would be required that the wall be opened up to see the headers. Lee responded that at this point it would probably be likely so they can see if it was installed correctly and determine whether it will support the loads. Brown referenced the comment made earlier that it was thought the Meyer's project was the first one George had done in the City, he was wondering if Lee had information on any other jobs that were performed by Summit Companies under their Home Improvement license prior to this. Lee said a search had not been done on the history of their other work, so he could not say at this time. Brown commented that he believed George knew he had to obtain a permit, but neglected to do so and he felt that was a fairly serious offense. Given the fact that no inspections were performed, this put the Meyer's in a bad situation. Brown said he would like to see George's license suspended with the stipulation that any work that is currently under progress and is permitted, be allowed to continue. BRB June 24, 1999 Page 9 Fielder mentioned that he believes there was misrepresentation that a permit had been obtained and even though Mr. George didn't misrepresent that, employees are the responsibility of the employer. Lee commented that before the Board made a motion in this case, he would suggest using the newly adopted Hearing Procedures for Alleged Contractor License Violations. Specifically, the twelfth item on this document he believes would be important for the record. This item refers to the Board making a fording of fact as to the violations of the Ordinance. Brown noted that probably the only fording of fact he would say had definitely been infracted upon would be item number six, which refers to the failure to obtain a permit. He mentioned that there were other obvious infractions, but whether they were willful or not, he could not be certain. Lee said in closing, from a staff perspective, Mr. George is the designated supervisor and certificate holder on his license and he believed that he failed to provide adequate supervision. Massey made the motion and fording of fact that Mr. George doing business as Summit Companies, failed to provide adequate personal supervision on the worksite; failed to obtain the required permit for the work performed or to be performed and there was also a misrepresentation of a material fact by a license holder or his representative based on the fact that they said a permit had been obtained when if fact it had not. Massey amended the motion to include the infraction of performance of work without a valid license. Fielder seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Hartman, Fielder, Brown, Kreul-Froseth, Massey The motion carried. Brown stated that the Board needs to make a determination as to what, if any action is appropriate. This might include, but not be limited to, suspension or revocation of the license or certificate in question. This determination would be based on the prior motion and fording of fact. Massey made the motion to suspend the license of Jeff George for thirty days and that a letter of reprimand be placed in his file. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Fielder, Massey Nays: Hartman, Brown, Kreul-Froseth The motion did not carry. Brown asked if Massey wanted to stipulate in his motion, that any work currently in progress either be ongoing, or put on hold. Massey replied that he believed the point of suspension was to put any work on hold and allow the thirty days for him to think about what he has done and what needs to be rectified. Brown questioned how this would affect his client. A motion was made by Brown to amend the previously motioned statement to include; any work that is presently under permit could be continued. Massey seconded the motion. Hartman asked for a discussion on the amended motion before the board. He felt that a 30 day suspension did not really do anything if George continued working on current projects, as there would be enough work to carry him through that period and would not really cause any consequences for Summit Companies. Hartman thought a letter of reprimand is appropriate in this case. In addition, he would request this letter state that further violations in the permitting process would cause an immediate suspension in the future for a specified amount of time. Brown pondered if the Board could actually make the stipulation of immediate suspension without the case coming before the board again. The Board agreed Brown was a correct in his assumption. Brown asked if he changed his motion to make the time of suspension sixty days instead of thirty, would that be acceptable. Hartman noted that George had mentioned he had a speculative home to complete that would take five to six months. Hartman thought his license should be suspended for that time period, to the point where his BRB June 24, 1999 Page 10 permits would generally be closed. Brown interjected that this was a stiff penalty for the first offense. Massey felt that a suspension needs to accompany a letter of reprimand, that a suspension is a stronger statement than just a letter of reprimand. Fielder wanted to clarify that a suspension would mean George could not obtain any permits during that time and if he would contract for any work, clients would have to be told he could not start the work for 30 to 60 days from now. Fielder asked Lee if a permit was applied for by a contractor under suspension, would the Building Department have immediate knowledge of this. Lee responded that the Building Department would be monitoring that. Lee wondered if the Board might want to include in their motion that the Respondent be able to perform corrections and complete the work on the Meyer home. Brown reiterated the motion before the Board. The motion was for the Board to suspend Mr. George's license for a period of thirty days and that a letter of reprimand be placed in his file. This suspension was with the understanding that he may continue with the work he currently under issued permits and to include continuing work that may be necessary on the Meyer home. The motion had been seconded. Hartman wanted to clarify what would happen to permits that may already be applied for, but not yet issued. Brown stated that those applications would be held until after the suspension period was over. Vote: Yeas: Hartman, Fielder, Brown, Kruel-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Jeff George, d/b/a Summit Companies, license will be under suspension for thirty days from this date and a letter of reprimand placed in his file. No work may be done in the City during that time except for those that have already obtained a valid permit currently under construction with the exception of allowing work to continue at the Meyer home on 1531 Mountain Avenue. 6. LICENSE HEARING — DENNIS JONES, d/b/a/ Majestic Roofing: Lee reviewed the Summary of Allegations in this case. On June 10, 1999, a stop work order was issued by a City Building Inspector for 1237 Southridge Drive. This work was being done by an unlicensed contractor and no permit had been obtained. A roofing license was granted the same day for Majestic Roofing in order to allow work already begun at 1237 Southridge Drive the could be completed. A permit was also issued for that job. This license was granted with the stipulation that it be suspended after that job was finished until the time of this hearing on June 24, 1999. At the time of Majestic Roofing's license issuance, they were notified that proof of Workers's Compensation insurance was required before roofing cards could be issued to the employees that were listed on the Roofing Employee Affidavit. Staff was notified that only one of the persons on that list was an actual employee of Majestic Roofing. Majestic Roofing was notified that that only the license holder and valid employee's covered by that companies Workman's Compensation policy could complete the roofing job at 1237 Southridge Drive once the appropriate registration cards were obtained. They were also advised that if additional help was needed, any subcontractors utilized would have to obtain individual licenses, or must already possess a valid City roofing license. As of this date, no Worker's Compensation insurance certificate has been submitted to Building & Zoning, nor have any employee roofing cards been issued. On June 11, 1999, the same City Inspector issued a stop work order for 2930 Wagonwheel. Again, there was roofmg work in progress by Majestic Roofing, and the work was being done without a permit and was using roofers who were not registered and/or licensed with the City. As of June 16, 1999, no permit had been obtained for the Wagonwheel address. U 11 BRB June 24, 1999 Page 11 Based on the above acts, Staff believes these actions were willful and deliberate. Lee listed infractions of Majestic Roofing of the Fort Collins Contractor License Regulations as described in Section 15-158(f) of those regulations. Respondent, Dennis Jones, addressed the Board. Jones stated that he could not deny everything that Lee had read, was absolutely fact. Jones said he did actually have two roofs in progress at the time. Jones stated he had documentation that he had faxed over from the City to find out licensing requirements, received that information at his office in Northeastern Colorado, but was out in the field and when he returned and then was called to the Denver office due to damages in that area. Jones reported he spent several days in the Denver area and simply did not get licensed here. Jones stated that he holds licenses in several different areas of the state. He noted that each area has different requirements. Jones said something he would have liked to have done was call the Building Department and tell them that he actually had two roofs going, but he knew he only had authority to finish one. Jones mentioned that the other municipalities in which he holds licenses, would confirm that they are there to work with them, not against them. Jones believes that all need to work together to come up with something that works for everyone and would be in the best interest of the homeowner. Jones pleaded guilty as charged. Jones presented to the Board some information about Majestic Roofing. He wanted to point out that Majestic Roofing is a patron member with the City of Denver Better Business Bureau, which he believes is one of the most difficult areas to work in. He also mentioned his company was selected by the BBB to shoot a Channel 7 situation on roofing. Jones reiterated that it was difficult to know all the procedures in all the different areas. Jones said Majestic had just recently been trying to establish a market in this area and they did not come here to do things wrong, they came here to do them right. He reiterated that they did have information on licensing faxed to them by the City. He wondered about the requirement for three letters of reference and how those letters could be obtained by someone trying to get a license but was unable to do any work until they had a license. He said that was not a problem for him, but it was a source of confusion. Lee asked Jones that being mindful of all the varying regulations across the state, would that not prompt him to call the different jurisdictions and ask about their licensing and roofing regulations etc. Jones replied that they actually did do that and the City faxed to them what the requirements were for licensing and an example of a permit so they also could see what those looked like. He admitted that he simply did not obtain a license. Jones stated that the largest time his company spends internally is getting building permits and inspections. Making things more difficult for him was the fact that it is not uncommon for them to complete a roof in less that four to five hours. Jones said he does not foresee his company being successful on the procedure of the City's roofing inspections and this concerns him. Lee questioned Jones about having the licensing material in advance and the knowledge of the requirements and he proceeding with the work anyway. Jones responded that he did so. He suggested that perhaps the City might want to consider what is in the best interest of the homeowner and themselves after a violation has occurred. Kreul-Froseth asked if Jones had any procedures in place that is standard with his company to obtain permits regardless of what community he is working in, if there was some sort of system in place that he oversees. Jones answered that it is usually up to him to do that job. Massey wanted clarification from Jones that if fact he did receive information from the City and had read it, understood it, but then went ahead and started a job, was issued a stop work order on one, but then started another job anyway. Jones said that the second job had already been started when he received the stop work order on the first. He also said at the same time he received the information on licensing from the City of Fort Collins, he was receiving information from many other municipalities. He said he would like to have all the licensing in place, but it is difficult. Regarding the work that was in progress and stopped, he wanted the Board to know that he asked the homeowners if they wanted him to continue and they replied that they did, then when he asked the City if they wanted him to complete the job, they also replied that they did. Jones wanted to make the statement that he believes stopping certain construction jobs in progress that do no have permits is acceptable and understandable, but he did not think that doing that with a roofing job was advisable. Jones said • • BRB June 24, 1999 Page 12 that action of that nature on a roofing job should only be taken after the job is completed and inspected, due to the liability aspect of it in regards to water damage etc. Massey said he would turn that around and put that liability issue back onto Jones for starting a job without a license, knowing that he could be stopped at any time and the possibility of water damage and liability would revert to him rather than the City. Jones replied that he didn't think anyone present wanted to take the time to determine who would be liable, but he wanted to state that it was a concern of his. Fielder asked Jones when he first became aware of the stop work order on the June 10, 1999 job. Jones answered that he became aware of it on that day. Fielder noted that Jones having that knowledge, let the other one continue. Jones replied that the other job was already in progress and it was made clear that he was allowed only to complete the roof for which the stop work order had been issued and that he did not believe it was appropriate to ask the City to allow them to install another roof. Brown questioned Jones on his policy on Worker's Compensation and why his employee's did not have it, or if they indeed did. Jones replied that the City of Fort Collins is the first one he has run into that requires what they call a Roofer's Card and most all of his roofing is done under a sub -contract basis. He went on to explain that his company is audited every year by different insurance companies that he has policies with and his company pays different amounts for general liability depending on what type of insurance the sub -contractor has. Jones asked Lee if he was correct in his understanding that the City required their sub -contractors to be licensed. Lee responded that the City does require that licenses be obtained by sub -contractors unless they are an actual employee of the contractor. Hartman asked Lee that if in fact Majestic Roofing had been issued a license and whether that license was to be suspended at the completion of the project in question. Lee responded that was correct. Jones interjected that the suspension was up until today's proceedings and he had not done any other roofs here since then. Hartman asked about the second house that the Respondent was stopped on. Jones said with that exception, they had not done any other roofs. Fielder asked Lee if it was a hearing procedural process how the Building Department issued a license and then suspended it. Lee responded that was correct and that the Building Department was sensitive to the homeowner's plight in those cases. Hartman asked Lee if there was any reason why a contractor in this position would not want to disclose that they had other work in progress, other than the possibility of receiving double permit fees. Lee said that was a possibility and he could only surmise what would be the motivation for not disclosing that. Massey said he also wondered what the motive could be in that case, reiterating that on June 10, 1999, the City stopped the Respondent's work and who then in turn, worked with the City to obtain his license knowing that they would allow him to complete the first job. Massey believed the City was obviously showing some compassion by allowing him to finish that job. Massey thought it shouldn't have been a problem to tell the City about the second job. Jones agreed that he should have, but he was the one personally involved and he did not feel comfortable doing that. In closing, Jones stated that he would like to work with the City to find an effective way to deal with the timing of inspections, the alterations of schedules due to weather and the requirements of having a ladder on site. The Respondent believes these things make it hard to comply. Jones also wanted to say that he is here to do things right. He went on to say that he is guilty of the alleged infractions, which are not alleged. The Respondent concluded that he does want to be licensed and do business in Fort Collins the proper way. Lee commented that he understands the plight of the trades in the industry here. Regardless of that fact and how businesses decide to operate, the City has rules to follow. Lee said the City tries to be as flexible within those rules as possible. Given the testimony of the Respondent and the facts from the incidents before the Board, it appeared to Lee that the Respondent committed deliberate acts, although he did not presume what the motivation might be. Hartman questioned Lee that he had not seen any reference anywhere that a permit was finally obtained for the address on Wagonwheel. Hartman asked if that is the case, would the City have allowed a permit to be obtained for that address. Lee stated that a permit had still not been obtained for the Wagonwheel address, but assuming • • BRB June 24, 1999 Page 13 that the job was in progress, the City would have allowed a permit so it could be completed. Jones responded that at the first job a permit was pulled and it was inspected, but he did not know the status of the one on Wagonwheel, but if his licensing allowed, a permit would be pulled and the job inspected. Jones further noted that the job on Wagonwheel was complete. Brown stated that the Board needed to make a finding of fact by a majority vote. He went on to say that through his own admission, Mr. Jones admitted to failure to comply with getting a license and permit before starting work in the City. Brown further noted that it seemed to him, particularly in the roofing industry, not just Mr. Jones, but others that have been before the Board recently, have the attitude that they are going to get the work, get it done and permitting is secondary. He thinks the Board should send a message to the roofing community. Hartman made a motion that the Board have a fording of facts against Dennis Jones d/b/a Majestic Roofing, that there was willful and deliberate disregard of the Building Code, failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder. There was failure to obtain the required permit for the work performed or to be performed and performance of work for which a license or supervisor certificate is required without a valid, current license or supervisor certificate. Fielder seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Hartman, Fielder, Brown, Kruel-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Brown asked for a Board discussion or motion on what, if any, penalties might be assessed by the majority vote on these violations. Massey made a motion to suspend the license of Dennis Jones for 30 days, with the exception of obtaining a permit for 2930 Wagonwheel and its subsequent inspection and that a letter of reprimand be placed in his file. In This suspension would be in effect from this date. Fielder seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Hartman, Fielder, Brown, Kmel-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Brown addressed the next item on the agenda, License Hearing for Larry Wall, d/b/a/ Darby Enterprises. Lee interjected that Mr. Wall was not present at this time and in the interest of a patient appellant, Mr. Randy Richardson, could the Board adjust the agenda to accommodate Mr. Richardson at this time. Brown agreed to accept Mr. Richardson at this time. EXAM WAIVERILICENSE UPGRADE REQUEST — Randy Richardson, d/b/a Richardson Construction Company: Appellant, Randy Richardson, addressed the Board. Richardson proceeded to tell the Board that he has been in the building trades since 1969 and in the Fort Collins area since 1973. He began construction here with a D license and then obtained a C1 license, he would like to upgrade that license to a B classification. Richardson stated that he has had several opportunities to bid work that was beyond what was allowed by his current license, but he was unable to accomplish that due to his license limitations. He now has the opportunity again to do work beyond the scope of his current license and in fact had been approached by a company that wants Richardson Construction to do their work. This entails work on a simple commercial building, but it exceeds his current license scope by approximately 1,300 square feet. Currently his license will allow him to do a two story up to 7,500 feet. The project he would like to do is a one story cinderblock structure with square footage BRB June 24, 1999 Page 14 of approximately 8,800 square feet. The next step up for him would be a B license and would allow him to do the proposed job, but he has not obtained that license yet. Brown asked Richardson that if the reason he did not have a B license yet was because he did not have enough experience with that category of job to qualify for that license. Richardson replied that he has worked as superintendents for companies with the same requirements in the state of Alaska. While in Alaska, he and a partner had their own company and Richardson did quite a few larger jobs there, but no licensing was required in that state, only bonding requirements. Richardson said what he was really asking of the Board was for them to grant an exception to his C I license stipulations and allow him to exceed the square footage criteria of his license by approximately 1,300 square feet, and that he be allowed a variance for him to use his current license to construct this 8,800 square foot building. Kruel-Froseth recounted that she believed the Board had in the past made exceptions of this nature for one-time projects. Massey agreed that it has been done before. He asked Richardson if there were some specific examples of buildings of similar situations with similar materials that he would be using in the proposed project. Richardson replied that the closest past project like that would be one in Anchorage, Alaska, this was a police photo lab that was a two story of cinderblock construction. Richardson said he also did a project for a farm implement company that was also of cinderblock construction, steel web trusses and flat roofed. Richardson recounted some commercial work that he did while living in California, more as a carpenter at that time, but that he has been in a position of responsibility and authority in his own business for about 20 years. He believes that even when working with differing materials, if you can read a set of prints and hire sub- contractors that are reputable, it all basically falls under the same principals of support. Fielder asked Lee why, in Colorado, was it that a single story building did not require an architect or engineer's stamp. Lee responded that he could not recall the exact provisions for that, but there is a threshold. He believed it was more that 4 units if multi -family. Fielder said what he was wanting to know is if there would be a situation in this instance that an engineer may not be involved with this project. Lee stated that locally, we do require an engineer's stamp on projects of this nature. Richardson mentioned that currently, the Building Department was requiring footing and foundation inspections be done by a structural engineer on new projects due to the shortage of City inspectors. Massey asked Delynn Coldiron if there had been anything negative placed in Richardson Construction's file over the years. Coldiron replied that there was nothing in the file in that regard. Brown asked Lee to clarify what the differences were in going from the C 1 to the B license classification. Lee answered that the C 1 is up to 7,500 square feet and/or a maximum of two stories of virtually any building occupancy. A "B" classification allows up to 5 stories of occupancy and no square footage limitations. Brown inquired if it was correct that Richardson could build this building if it was 7,500 square feet, but because the square footage is over that amount, is the square footage difference why he couldn't build it under his C 1 license. Lee replied that's true as long as the building also was not over two stories. Kmel-Froseth made a motion that the Board allow Randy Richardson to build the single story, 8,800 square foot building as described in his letter submitted to the Board under the CI license he currently holds. Fielder seconded the motion. Massey asked if the Board should allow some square footage leeway in this case, or would the building be exactly 8,800 square feet. Richardson responded that the plans indicate 8,800 square feet, but it could be subject to change. Massey would like to increase the square footage allowance that the Board was making to 9,000. BRB June 24, 1999 Page 15 Massey made a friendly amendment to the motion before the board to raise the square footage allowed Richardson to 9,000. Fielder seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Hartman, Fielder, Brown, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. 8. LICENSE HEARING - Larry Wall, d/b/a/ Darby Enterprises: The Respondent, Larry Wall was not in attendance at this hearing. Brown questioned the Board if they would like to postpone his case due to his absence until the following BRB meeting. Lee noted to the Board that Wall's license was currently under suspension and Lee's authority was limited to authorize a fifteen day suspension, so the Board would have to address that issue at this meeting. The Board decided to hear the case in Wall's absence. Lee presented the Summary of Allegations in this case. On June 10, 1999, a City Building Inspector issued a stop work order for 505/511 South Shields St. There was roofing in the progress at this address. It was determined that the work was being done by an unlicensed contractor and no permit had been obtained. The contractor subsequently submitted an application to obtain a roofing license that same day. A license was granted, only to enable the contractor to continue the work at the address noted above. Due to the violations that had occurred, the license was placed on suspension thereafter until this meeting today. An employee of Darby Enterprises that had submitted the paperwork for licensing, was notified of the Building and Zoning requirements for proof of Worker's Compensation insurance before the employee's listed on their Roofing Employee Affidavit could be issued valid roofing cards and continue the work at 5051511 South Shields. No Worker's Compensation insurance information was ever submitted to Building & Zoning, and therefore, no employee roofing cards were issued for Darby Enterprises. A roofing permit was obtained for the above -referenced job. Double permit fees and an $50 investigation fee were imposed. Given the information above, along with the evidence provided from the City Inspector who noted the incident, Staff believes the acts were a willful and deliberate disregard of the Building Code, or other Codes adopted by the City related to this specific project; failure to comply with the provisions of the Code related to that project; failure to obtain the required permit and performance of work for which a license is required without a valid, current license. Brown requested that the record show Mr. Wall was not present to defend himself or make an opening statement on his behalf. Kreul-Froseth asked Lee if Wall had received a copy of the Hearing Notice and agenda with information on his license hearing today. Lee responded that he had received that information. Fielder asked Lee, that if to his knowledge, was there currently any other permits issued to Wall or Darby Enterprises. Lee replied that there was not any other permits at this time that he was aware of. Brown wanted to clarify that Wall did not have a current City license and did not have one in the past. Lee confirmed this to be true. Kreul-Froseth made a motion and finding of fact that Mr. Wall's actions fall under the category of violations to include; failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder; failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed and Performance of work for which a license or supervisor certificate is required BRB June 24, 1999 Page 16 without a valid current license or supervisor certificate. She did not believe the Board could determine whether these acts were willful or not, given the absence of the Respondent at this meeting. Fielder seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Hartman, Fielder, Brown, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Brown asked for a motion for an appropriate action on this case Kreul-Froseth wanted to clarify that Darby Enterprises did obtain a license, if only to have it put on suspension immediately following the completion of the job referred to in this case. Lee responded that was correct and that the suspended license was only in place up until the date of this hearing. Lee elaborated that a license was only issued to Darby so that they could complete the job in question. A permit was issued only for this job. Fielder wanted to clarify that Darby Enterprises was not issued a contingent license, that it was actually a valid license which was under suspension. Lee confirmed this. Brown made a motion that the Board suspend Wall's license for thirty days from today and that he have a letter of reprimand placed in his file, but that he be allowed to finish the one job at 505/511 South Shields during this time frame. Fielder seconded the motion. Massey questioned the consequences if Wall did not show up at the next hearing to respond to actions taken here. It was the Board's consensus that he was not required to attend another hearing. Kruel-Froseth asked if the letter notifying Wall of the actions taken by the Board would be sent certified mail. Lee responded that it would be sent with some sort of guaranteed delivery. Vote: Yeas: Hartman, Fielder, Brown, Kmel-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. 9. LICENSE HEARING — James Postle, d/b/a James Construction Company: Lee wanted to have the Board refer to a letter that had been passed out at this meeting in regards to James Postle and the allegations against his license. In this letter, Postle was asking for a meeting deferral. Lee told the Board that he had offered to defer their hearing from this meeting until the next and as noted in the letter, their attorney is requesting that it be deferred until August. Brown asked if they gave a reason for the deferral request. Lee responded that the only reason he knew of was that their attorney would be out of town for the next meeting. Massey commented that the reason Postle may want to delay the hearing was because they had work to complete and by allowing the extra time, they might complete it before his license would be in jeopardy of suspension. Lee replied that he couldn't speculate on that. A brief discussion ensued regarding what the possible motive might be for delaying the hearing. Lee touched lightly on some of the background on this case, but didn't elaborate, as this information would be covered at the time the Board determined to hear this case. Brown made the motion to hear the case of James Postle, d/b/a James Construction Company at the next hearing to convene on July 29, 1999. Fielder seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Hartman, Fielder, Brown, Kreul-Froseth, Massey BRB June 24, 1999 Page 17 Nays: None The motion carved. 10. OTHERBUSINESS: The Board had a brief discussion on vacation schedules of the Board and if they would have enough members at the upcoming meetings to constitute a forum. Arrangements were made to ensure that there would be adequate coverage at upcoming meetings. Brown mentioned that this meeting would be his last to sit on the Building Review Board as he did not renew his application. Meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning