Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 05/27/1999A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, May 27, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Brown, Charles Fielder, Allan Hauck and Susan Kreul-Froseth BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Rudy Hansch, Thomas Hartmann and Bradley Massey STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board OTHERS PRESENT: None. 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 April 29, 1999 meeting. Board Member Fielder seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the April 29, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. LICENSE HEARING — JIM WEISSER, DB/A POUDRE VALLEY AIR: Chairperson Brown explained the procedures that would be used for the hearing. BRB May 27, 1999 Page 2 Felix Lee provided a brief summary of this case. Staff received a call from Complainant, Susan Miller, regarding concerns she had about a central air system that was installed by Poudre Valley Air at her home location of 208 Churchill Court. Staff subsequently investigated the situation and found that the installation had occurred prior to the issuance of a building permit and, after inspection of the system, noted some discrepancies that were in need of correction. A follow-up letter was sent by Ms. Miller, which was included in Board member packets. Respondent, Jim Weisser, addressed the Board. He mentioned that Poudre Valley Air has been in business for 26 years and that he has been an owner of the company for all of those years. He stated that they are the largest heating and air conditioning contractor in northern Colorado, and one of the bigger contractors in the state. It was his feeling that Poudre Valley attained this because of the quality service they provide, the way they adhere to applicable building codes, and market factors. Weisser mentioned that he has had the opportunity to sit on a couple of code review committees, both for the City of Fort Collins, and for Larimer County, so he has substantial knowledge of the code. Poudre Valley is licensed in many municipalities and is required to deal with many different codes. To the best of Weisser's knowledge, Poudre Valley had never been cited for an infraction to code in Fort Collins or any other municipality. Weisser provided documentation to the Board, including copies of correspondence, work orders, invoices, memos, etc., which pertained to this case. For the allegation that no building permit had been obtained as set out in a letter from City staff dated March 24, 1999, Weisser stated that there was no excuse for this, except for human error. Poudre Valley's procedure for when a quick permit is needed is to fax the building permit application to the City early in the morning and then a check is brought in and the permit picked up later in the day. An employee for Poudre Valley Air mistakenly faxed the copy of the building permit application to a vendor instead of to the City. Once this mistake was realized, it was corrected as quickly as possible. For the allegation that no building permit had been obtained for another job nearly a month later from the above, Weisser mentioned that there again was no excuse except for human error. A new employee for Poudre Valley Air who was responsible for submitting the appropriate paperwork and obtaining the permit did not accomplish this. With regard to Karen Miller's situation, Weisser mentioned that they are currently involved in litigation with her. He briefly reviewed some of the information that he provided earlier. He mentioned that the work order proposal form states that it is the homeowner's responsibility to obtain any necessary permits, unless other arrangements are made with Poudre Valley Air. 50% of the jobs done by Poudre Valley Air are for new construction. They assume on these jobs that all necessary permits were obtained by the general contractor or owner. For remodels, additions, etc., Poudre Valley Air has always given the homeowner the option to pull the permit. It has been their experience that most of the homeowners who BRB May 27, 1999 Page 3 agreed to obtain their own permits, did so. However, Poudre Valley Air has never had a procedure in place to verify that a permit was actually obtained. According to Weisser, employees from Poudre Valley Air attempted to respond to the complaints Ms. Miller noted in her letter on several occasions, either by stopping by her home to speak with her personally, or by leaving messages on her answering machine. Ms. Miller did not respond to any of the messages. Some time later, Ms. Miller sent a second letter to Poudre Valley Air, stating that she was enclosing a check, etc. There was no check enclosed with the letter. Weisser attempted to contact Ms. Miller on several other occasions with no response from her. At the time Weisser was finally able to get a hold of Ms. Miller she stated to him that she was going to have the work done by another company and not let any employees from Poudre Valley Air back into her house. Weisser said he responded with a letter giving Ms. Miller the option of allowing them to correct all of the outstanding issues. When no response was received from Ms. Miller, a certified letter was sent to her again outlining the above option, as well as giving her the option to have Poudre Valley Air remove all equipment that had been installed, restore her equipment to its original condition, and refund to her all monies that had been paid. With regard to the allegation in Ms. Miller's case that the work done was not in accordance with code, Weisser mentioned that Ms. Miller would not allow Poudre Valley Air access to her home so that they could inspect or correct any problems with the equipment installation. With regard to the allegation that no building permit was obtained for the work, Weisser mentioned that Ms. Miller had made no arrangements with Poudre Valley Air to obtain the permit and, in accordance with the proposed work order, was responsible for obtaining the permit on her own. Weisser mentioned that there was no excuse for Poudre Valley Air not verifying that a permit had been obtained. Weisser informed the Board that he changed the company's policy with regard to obtaining building permits. He has instructed all employees that they are not to start any work on a project until it has been verified that a building permit has been obtained. The lead man on each project was given the responsibility of verifying that a permit was obtained. Weisser provided Board Members with a copy of a memo that was sent to Poudre Valley Air employees confirming this. The company's policies were also changed to no longer give homeowners the option of obtaining their own permit. A memo was provided that also confirmed this change. Weisser stated that they are in no way trying to avoid obtaining permits for work being done. He agreed that a couple of mistakes had been made and hoped that the change in company policies would help ensure that this would not happen in the future. Brown asked about the process of obtaining inspections when the homeowner had obtained the building permit. Weisser answered that if the homeowner obtained the permit, they would also call in their own inspections. Tom Rideout, an estimator for Poudre Valley Air, addressed the Board. He mentioned that one of the reasons that homeowners were given the BRB May 27, 1999 Page 4 option to obtain their own building permit and call in inspections was so that they could schedule a time with the inspector when they would be available so the inspector would have access to the home. Brown asked for clarification on the violations that occurred in the actual installation. Lee answered that the plastic housing of the humidifier was installed in contact with a gas vent which requires at least a 1" clearance. The condensate line was run to the exterior and was impinging on the foundation. Code requires that this be diverted to an appropriate trap in the interior. The humdistat was located in the laundry room, perhaps causing inaccurate readings (this did not constitute a violation, but was a concern that the homeowner had). Rideout mentioned that the humidistat is always located in the return air duct so wherever the equipment is at is where the humidistat is located. Board Member Hauck asked if Weisser agreed that these code violations had occurred. Weisser answered that he was aware of the drain, but not the humdifier touching the vent. He mentioned that they had tried to get Ms. Miller to allow them to make the corrections, but were not given opportunity to do this. Hauck asked Weisser if he was satisfied that the policy changes that were implemented lessen the chance that future work will be done without all necessary building permits being obtained. Weisser mentioned that the company has made good strides towards reducing the chance that necessary building permits will not be obtained, and that the company's goal is to have 100% of all future projects permitted. However, he mentioned that there is no way he could guarantee this would never happen again. Brown asked if there is a City policy that states that the contractor is responsible for obtaining the necessary building permits. Lee answered that ultimately the property owner is responsible for assuring building permits have been obtained for any work that is done on their property. However, it is incumbent upon a contractor to be aware that a permit has been obtained. If there is no permit available on the site, the contractor should be asking questions of the homeowner. Board Member Fielder asked if staff was asserting that willful and deliberate disregard of the building code had occurred in this case. Lee answered that staff listed the violations that may have occurred. The inspector, as part of his inspection, noted that the work done by the contractor had been done without obtaining a building permit, so the possibility did exist that there was willful and deliberate disregard of the building code. Paul Eckman mentioned that if a contractor knows there is no building permit on a project and they proceed with the work anyway, this would constitute willful and deliberate disregard of the code. If a contractor thinks there is a building permit and proceeds with the work, but no permit had actually been obtained, there is a code violation but it probably is not willful or deliberate. BRB May 27, 1999 Page 5 Hauck mentioned that he did not see evidence of a willful violation by Weisser and did not feel that any disciplinary action should be taken against his license at this time. He made a motion that a letter be sent to Weisser and a copy placed in his file noting the violations that occurred and noting that should this occur again, Mr. Weisser would need to appear before the Board a second time. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Fielder, Brown, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth Nays: None The motion carried. 4. LICENSE HEARING — DALE KIRKLEY, D/B/A CHOICE ROOFING: Lee reviewed the Summary of Allegations in this case. Dale Kirkely was sent a letter on March 24, 1999 in response to a stop work order that was placed on 920 Ponderosa for roofing work that was being done prior to obtaining a permit. The letter further stated that violations could result in a hearing before the Board if any such incident occurred in the future. On April 7, 1999, Choice Roofing was discovered to be doing work without a permit at 4449 Hollyhock Street. A permit was obtained and additional charges assessed to the contractor. Staff is alleging that the contractor in this case may have committed willful or deliberate disregard of the building code; failure to comply with any provisions of the code; and failure to obtain the required permit for the work performed. Respondent, Dale Kirkley, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he has had an active license in the City of Fort Collins since 1983. He stated that during this time, he has never received any violations other than subsequent work that has needed to be done on an existing permit. Kirkley stated that his company has operated with the understanding that demolition work or removing the existing roof was not considered to be part of the job. It was his understanding that the City was only concerned about the actual installation. This provided the contractor with some additional time before the permit needed to be obtained. Kirkley mentioned that obtaining parcel numbers for permit applications is not always easy to do and sometimes delays the process. In both of the instances that are subject to this case, the permit was in progress. They were waiting for a parcel number on at least one of these addresses when they received the stop work order. After Kirkley received the first stop work order, he put a phone call into Mike Gebo, the Chief Building Inspector for the City, and asked for clarification on whether or not demolition work could be done prior to the time a permit is obtained. He did not receive a return call from Mr. Gebo and then received the second stop work order. Kirkley mentioned that in both instances a building permit was obtained later in the afternoon. The stop work orders were issued for the projects in the morning. BRB May 27, 1999 Page 6 Kirkley subsequently spoke with Gebo and explained his position. According to Kirkley, Gebo waived the additional penalties and agreed that the City used to allow demolition work prior to obtaining a permit. Kirkley stated that Gebo also clarified that the City no longer allows demolition work to be completed prior to a building permit being obtained. Kirkley stated that this is an instance where the procedures changed without telling anybody. It was never Choice Roofing's intent not to pull necessary permits. Kirkley now understands that the City considers demolition work to be part of the job and he will assure that a permit is available on the site prior to the demolition work being started. Brown asked about the timeframe that exists between the time Kirkley obtains a job and the work actually starts. Kirkley answered that the job at 920 Ponderosa was obtained the night before the construction started. It was a quick real estate transaction and Kirkley was able to switch other jobs around to accommodate his customer. Brown asked if he normally allows some time in order to obtain the necessary permit. Kirkley answered that in the past demolition was not considered to be part of the job, so this allowed them to get started on a project and obtain a permit by the time they were ready to start installing the new roof. Board Member Kreul-Froseth asked if allowing demolition work without a permit was a formal decision that was made. Lee answered that there has never been any formal or informal decision from the Building Department that allowed demolition work prior to obtaining a permit. The only time that a contractor might be allowed to commence work prior to a permit being obtained would be in an emergency situation, i.e., a hail storm, flood, etc. Hauck asked for clarification on whether there had been a change of policy related to this issue. Lee answered that there has been no formal declaration or staff memo instructing contractors to that effect. Hauck asked Kirkley if it was his understanding that Mike Gebo informed him that there had been a change in policy. Kirkley confirmed this. Hauck asked Kirkley about the work that was being done at the time the stop work order was issued at 920 Ponderosa. Kirkley answered that they were tearing off the existing shingles. Hauck asked about the work that was being done at the time the stop work order was issued at the second address. Kirkley answered that they were tearing off the existing shingles. Brown asked Kirkley for clarification on the number of permits he usually obtains from the City during a year. Kirkley estimated 30 to 50. Kreul-Froseth asked if the misconception that a permit is not required for tear -off work has come up in the past. Lee mentioned that it has not come to his attention that this misconception is widespread among the roofing contractors. Kirkley mentioned that established roofing companies that have been in Fort Collins for a while operate under the same assumption that tear -off work can be started without obtaining • • BRB May 27, 1999 Page 7 a permit. He added that new roofing contractors that have started in the last 3-4 years probably do not work under that same assumption. Norm Brown from Norm Brown Roofing addressed the Board. He agreed with Kirkley that they have been told for years that it is okay to do tear -off work without obtaining a building permit. He mentioned that if this has changed, he was not aware of it until now. Hauck asked Kirkley about any policy changes he has implemented to assure that this will not happen again, now that he knows the City's stance on this issue. Kirkley mentioned that for any job they have scheduled, they call the City first thing in the morning to get the process started. It was Kirkley's understanding that as long as a permit was in process, there would be no problem. Lee clarified that the permit has to have been actually issued and available on the job site. Kreul-Froseth made a motion that Kirkley provide to the Building Department a letter stating what he plans to do in terms of policy for Choice Roofing to help ensure that no further violations occur related to obtaining building permits, and for Building & Zoning staff to provide a memorandum to the roofing contractors outlining the City's policy on this issue. Additionally, a memorandum outlining the violations that occurred should be sent to Mr. Kirkley, and a copy of the memorandum placed in Kirkley's permanent contractor record. Fielder seconded the motion. Brown stated for the record that he did not believe there was any willful or deliberate intent to disregard the building code in this case. VOTE: Yeas: Fielder, Brown, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth Nays: None The motion carried. 5. LICENSE HEARING —NORM BROWN, DB/A NORM BROWN ROOFING: Lee reviewed the Summary of Allegations in this case. He mentioned that the Complainant, Chris Savage, hired Norm Brown to do a re -roof of her house at 511 West Street. She indicated in her letter that Norm did not obtain a permit for the work. This is further evidenced in Norm's letter which indicates that he did not obtain a permit because of a particular type of roofing that he used that was non -rated and not permitted by the City. In a second letter, Complainant Mark Langel stated that he hired Brown Roofing to do some roofing work at the Cherry Hill Condominiums. He indicated that Norm had not obtained appropriate building permits even after the roofing work had been completed on two of the buildings. BRB May 27, 1999 Page 8 A letter from Mike Gebo indicates that Brown Roofing performed work at 223 Parker Street without obtaining a permit. A stop work order was issued on January 15, 1998 for work being done at 1012 Castlerock Drive without a permit. Another stop work order was issued on May 5, 1999 for work being done at 806 Rocky Mountain Way without a permit. Respondent, Norm Brown, owner of Norm Brown Roofing, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he had been working in Fort Collins for approximately 15 years. Norm stated that for the job at 1012 Castlerock, he was kicked off of the job prior to the commencement of any work. Brown's customer was having trouble with mold due to the flood. The mold was affecting her furnace, the interior of her home, etc. She had a hot tar roof with a leak in one area. All of the other problems the customer was experiencing were being blamed on the leaking roof. Brown stated that he was negotiating with his customer on the type of roof that should be installed, etc., and that the project was basically sitting, except for obtaining some materials, when the stop work order was issued. Norm stated that through the years codes and policies have changed and he has not been notified. At various times, code violations have appeared on permits and he was not aware that anything had changed. He mentioned that staff needs to make sure that roofers are notified when changes in code and policies are made. Norm stated that 511 West Street and 223 Parker were both real estate deals and no money was received up front. For real estate deals, the money is typically paid to the contractor at the time of closing. He began the work at 511 West Street and encountered some unexpected issues that would require additional work which was not included in the bid. The owner lived out of town and would not return any of the phone calls Norm was making in an effort to get authorization for the extra work that needed to be done. Norm was able to get a hold of the owner's husband and was told that the additional work would probably be okay, but that he needed to get a hold of Chris. To date Norm has not been paid for any of the work that was done on that job. At the time the work was being done at 511 West Street, the City had recently banned 904 rolled roofing. Norm mentioned that it was still a very practical thing to put on the roof, but that it did not meet the recently changed fire code. It was Norm's understanding that the City has since changed its stance on this somewhat and now allows 90# rolled roofing to be installed onto a structure that currently has that type of roofing. A permit was eventually obtained on this address and the inspection passed. On 223 Parker, Norm had an employee who walked off of the job in the middle of the tear - off. It rained later in the day, the roof leaked, and damage was done to much of the interior of the home. Again, no money was received for this job up front. Norm's procedure for these types of jobs has been to obtain the permit after he received payment upon completion of the job. He mentioned that he does not have the cash flow to obtain permits until he has • • BRB May 27, 1999 Page 9 received payment for the job. He did eventually pull a permit for the job and the inspection passed. On the Cherry Hills Condominium project, Norm received a 50% downpayment for the job. This was not enough to cover all of the materials needed, and Norm did not have the available cash to obtain permits until after he received additional payments. Norm stated that he completed eight buildings during that summer. He eventually obtained permits on all eight buildings and all eight passed inspection. On 806 Rocky Mountain Way, Norm was assessed additional fees since work began without a permit. He mentioned that this was a hardship for him due to the fact that he had a limited amount of income coming in due to inclement weather. Hauck asked for clarification on whether or not the City had okayed the use of rolled roofing. Lee answered that any roofing material has to be rated as at least Class C, unless a roofing repair is one square or less. Rolled roofing does not qualify for this. Brown asked if the installation of the rolled roofing that was done on 511 West Street was inspected and passed. Norm answered that it was. Hauck mentioned that the primary violation in this case appears to be doing work without a permit. Lee confirmed this. Hauck asked Norm why permits were not pulled prior to the commencement of work at 511 West Street. Norm answered that he did not have the money available. For the Cherry Hill Condominium project, Hauck asked Norm when he had obtained the permits. Norm answered that the permits were obtained while the work was being done on the second building. The first building had been completed. Norm mentioned that again, he did not have the money available to obtain the permits any sooner. Hauck asked about 223 Parker Street. Norm mentioned that he did not pull the permit until after the project was completed and he had been paid for the job. Hauck asked about 1012 Castlerock. Norm answered that he had done no work on this project except for cleaning some gravel off the roof. Hauck asked about 806 Rocky Mountain Way. Norm answered that he had done a small amount of roofing, due to rain, prior to obtaining a permit. Hauck asked Respondent if he understood the code as it relates to obtaining building permits. Norm answered that he understood the code; however, could not obtain permits if he had no money. Fielder mentioned that he is sensing that there is an understanding amongst some of the roofers that as long as they phone in the permit information, it is considered filed, and can be obtained at a later date. Lee clarified that a contractor can phone in information ahead of time and staff will get it ready for them. But, the contractor has to have the permit on the site prior to the commencement of any work. ut13 May 27, 1999 Page 10 Kreul-Froseth mentioned that in Mike Gebo's letter dated September 10, 1996 it specifically states that "you are required to obtain all necessary permits for any roofing work performed within the City limits of Fort Collins, prior to the commencement of any roofing work." Norm stated that he understands that he has not obtained a permit until he actually has the permit card in his hands. There are times that he does not have the money to buy the permits before the job starts. He has to wait until he has been paid, or has received money from another source. Brown mentioned that cash flow has never worked as an excuse for others that have come before the Board and that this is a business priority that has to be addressed by the Respondent. Brown stated that this case appears to be a willful and deliberate disregard of the building code. Kreul-Froseth agreed with Brown that this appears to be a willful recurrence. Respondent has offered several reasons for why permits were not obtained. However, none of the reasons appear to be something that can be applied by the Board to excuse the recurring violations. She asked Respondent how many jobs he currently had going, or scheduled for the next couple of months. Respondent answered that the planning is usually 2-3 weeks out. He currently has four projects scheduled in the County. Brown made a motion that the license of Norm Brown, d/b/a Norm Brown Roofing be suspended for a period of 1 month. Fielder seconded the motion. Hauck questioned the duration of the suspension that was proposed. He mentioned that this violation had been going on for a number of years and is a clear indication of willful disregard to the code. It was his opinion that a 1 month suspension is a very minimal consequence for doing the number of jobs that are apparent without having first obtained a permit. Brown mentioned that his intention is not to punish him for not being able to make money, but only to make him understand that he has to change his business policies to keep this from recurring. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that it sounds as though Respondent has work scheduled in the County. Respondent did not address whether or not he had pending work scheduled in the City. She agreed with Hauck that 1 month is not sufficient enough for the violations that have occurred. VOTE: Yeas: Fielder, Brown Nays: Hauck, Kreul-Froseth The motion did not carry. • BRB May 27, 1999 Page 11 Hauck reiterated that he did not feel that a 1 month suspension was adequate. Brown mentioned that roofing is somewhat different than general contracting. Roofing contractors may have the opportunity to obtain several jobs within a month for clients they have not had any contact with yet. This was the reason he suggested only a 1 month suspension. Fielder agreed with Brown. His intent was to send a message to the Respondent that his actions were in violation to the code and, if it occurs again, a more severe penalty would be imposed. Hauck mentioned that another violation should result in revocation of Respondent's license. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she thought a suspension of 60 days was a penalty that better matched what had occurred, especially due to the repetitive nature of the violations. Hauck made a motion to suspend the license of Norm Brown, d/b/a Norm Brown Roofing, for a period of 60 days due to the violation of doing work without a permit, and that a letter be sent to Mr. Brown indicating that any further violation would require him to again appear before the Board at which time revocation of his license would be considered. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth Nays: Brown The motion carried. 6. LICENSE HEARING— DENNIS WERNSMAN, DB/A LANDMARK BUILDERS: Lee mentioned that this item had been withdrawn. 7. OTHER BUSINESS: Mike Gebo addressed the Board. He mentioned that it has been the City's policy for as long as he has been around, that permits be obtained prior to the commencement of any roofing work. He was not aware of why there seems to be a misunderstanding amongst the roofers that no building permit is required during tear -off and stated that he has made it very clear that permits are required before any work is started. Hauck asked if staff has given the contractors the impression that once permit information has been phoned in, they can go ahead a start the work without having the actual permit card in hand. Gebo stated that he did not feel this was the case. Staff has been fairly adamant about enforcing the issue of obtaining a permit prior to commencement of any work. Meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. BRB May 27, 1999 Page 12 Felix Lee, Di for of Building & Zoning