Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 01/27/20000 0 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, January 27, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Al Hauck, Gene Little, and Bradley Massey BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Rudy Hansch and Thomas Hartmann STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairperson Fielder made a motion to approve the Minutes. Board Member Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the November 18, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. CONTRACTOR HEARING -- PAUL BONOW, D/B/A CHAMPION WINDOWS OF FT. COLLINS: Chairperson Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for this hearing. Applicant, Paul Bonow, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he currently holds a Class D2 license with the City and, primarily, constructs patio enclosures and sunrooms. Bonow stated that he had the opportunity to sell a patio enclosure to a restaurant which was his first attempt at a commercial application. Bonow stated that he was not aware of all of the details that were required to accomplish this job prior to entering into a contract with the company. At the time Bonow submitted all of the necessary paperwork to the building department, he found out that a commercial contractor's license was required to do the job. Bonow stated that he did not have the required commercial license and was requesting an exemption to his Class D2 license to allow him to complete the project. _AB January 27, 2000 Page 2 According to Bonow, the sunroom application for this project was no different than the numerous residential projects they have done. The project entailed attaching an 1 I' x 25' patio enclosure to an existing restaurant building. The only modifications necessary to the existing building included replacement of an existing window with a passage door to allow access from the restaurant into the sunroom enclosure using the existing header, and attachment of a ledger board to the exterior wall of the building which would carry the roof of the addition. No structural modifications were necessary. Felix Lee reviewed the authority granted to Board Members under city code related to variance requests. Massey asked for clarification on whether the project had already gone through the building permit process and was approved as far as exiting, occupancy loads, etc., with the only outstanding issue being the licensing issue. Lee confirmed this. Board Member Hauck asked Bonow if he was asking for a one-time exeption. Bonow confirmed this and mentioned that his company would take appropriate steps to upgrade their license if they decided to continue with commercial applications. Hauck asked about the construction of the existing structure. Bonow answered that the existing structure was a steel frame building with masonry stucco. Hauck asked for clarification on whether any openings would be widened, etc. Bonow stated that the existing window and knee - wall would be removed and the rough opening would be widened to accommodate a door. Massey made a motion to approve a one-time exception to applicant's Class D2 license that would allow him to construct the proposed sunroom addition provided that no structural modifications were made to the existing building. Fielder seconded the motion. Lee asked for further clarification on the proposed modifications that would be necessary to the existing building. Bonow provided clarification. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. 4. LICENSE HEARING —NORMAN BROWN, D/B/A NORM BROWN ROOFING Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used in this hearing. Lee presented information relative to this hearing. He stated that Mr. Brown appeared before the Building Review Board on May 27, 1999, at which time the Board determined that there was evidence that Mr. Brown had willfully and/or deliberately disregarded the building code and a 60 day suspension was imposed to his license. Lee mentioned that Mr. Brown was required to appear before the Board again on June 24, 1999, for additional violations. At that time, the Board reiterated the terms of the license suspension and noted that further violations would result in an additional suspension of his license pending the next Board hearing, at which time additional disciplinary action would be considered. • BRB January 27, 2000 Page 3 Lee next reviewed the incident that occurred on January 14, 2000, which required Mr. Brown's attendance before the Board at this hearing. A City inspector, while en route to a roof inspection on Garfield Street, noticed that Norm Brown was on the roof of the house next door located at 1105 Remington Street. The inspector called the office to check on whether or not a permit had been obtained and was told that none had been. The inspector went to the front of the house to post a Stop Work Order and noticed that a permit was taped to the face of the house. The posted permit was issued for an address on Whitcomb Street which was finaled in September, 1999. The inspector attempted to locate Mr. Brown on the property, but could not find him. Mr. Brown had gone to the building department to obtain the appropriate permit. Double permit fees were assigned since the work had started without a permit. The inspector, once notified that a permit had been obtained, went on the roof at the Remington address and found that the roofing work was nearly completed. Employees from the job -site next door confirmed to the inspector that they had seen Mr. Brown working. Based on this information, staff maintained that the following violations of the City's licensing regulations may have occurred, including: 11 1. Willful and deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the City related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder set forth in this Article; 2. Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; 3. Failure to comply with any lawful order of the Building Official; 6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed; and Commitment of any act of negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the performance of the contractor's specific trade which results in posing a substantial threat to public health and safety." Respondent, Norman Brown, addressed the Board. He stated that he had not purchased a permit, and had placed the other permit on the Remington job site, due to lack of funds. He expected to have the job completed in the next couple of days, or to have received a deposit from another job, which would have allowed him to obtain the permit. Brown mentioned that he had been by the job that morning but did not see the inspector. He stated that he left the job site because his son had expressed an interest in working that day and he went to see if that could be arranged. While he was out, he decided to go ahead and buy the permit. When he got to the building department, he was notified that the permit fees had been doubled since the inspector had found that roofing work had been started without the necessary permit being obtained. Brown reviewed some of the allegations that were included in the letter from the city inspector that was included in Board packets. He stated that although the dumpster was delivered around the time that was stated in the letter, he did not actually start the roofing work until early January. Brown admitted that he had nearly completed the job at the time he obtained the permit; however, stated that he did not finish the clean up work until just a few days ago. _rtB January 27, 2000 Page 4 In response to the allegation in the inspector's letter that Brown did not install tar paper prior to adding new shingles, Brown clarified the procedure he was using and stated that it was his understanding that this procedure was allowable under the roofing standards book. As far as mid -roof inspections, Brown stated that it had been his understanding for years that the city wanted contractors to call for inspections on the last day of their job so that ladders would be available to provide them access to the roof. He mentioned that if changes had been made to require a mid -roof inspection, he was not aware of the change. Brown stated that he had received very little income for the month of January. According to Brown, although his customer provided him with a deposit for the Remington job back in November, as of January I' he did not have the funds necessary to obtain the required permit. Brown mentioned that the alleged violations in his case are not deliberate and reiterated that he was unaware of some of the things, i.e., the mid -roof inspections. Brown asked Lee for clarification on this issue. Lee answered that the mid -roof inspection requirement had been in effect for approximately three years, and that all licensed roofing contractors had been informed of the changes by mail. Lee asked Brown if he started the roofing work on this project without a permit. Brown confirmed this. Lee asked Brown if he posted an expired permit from another project at the Remington job site. Brown confirmed that he did post a permit from an old job at the Remington job site in an effort to "keep people off my back." He stated, however, that he did plan to eventually obtain the necessary permit. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, asked for clarification on what Brown meant when he said "to keep people off my back." Brown answered that he posted an old permit in an effort to give him some additional time to function until he had enough money to obtain a permit. Eckman asked if he posted the permit so as to deceive the inspectors into thinking there was a permit for the job. Brown stated that it could be viewed that way, but that he was not trying to intentionally deceive anyone. He thought that if an inspector drove by and noticed a permit, it would give him the ability to continue working until he was able to afford obtaining the appropriate permit. Brown mentioned that if he wrote a check to the city for a permit and the check bounced, this would not be acceptable, either. Massey asked for clarification on the advance that had been paid by the customer and whether the advance was enough to cover the cost of materials and the permit. Brown was not sure if the advance was enough to cover those items. Massey asked for clarification on what Brown used the funds for. Brown stated that some of the funds were used to obtain roofing materials and to pay for dumpster fees and that some were probably used to take care of living expenses. Massey asked for clarification on whether or not Brown assures customers that part of their costs include obtaining a permit. Brown mentioned that he generally covers permit fees, but doesn't always include language on obtaining permits on his bids. Sam Hancock, the city building inspector involved in this case, addressed the Board. He mentioned that the Board had a copy of his recap in their packets, and that the only thing he would add is that he did talk to the two roofers that were performing work at the address next door to Brown's job and that both of these roofers stated that while Hancock was out in front of the house on Remington, Brown was peering over the back side of the roof. According to these two roofers, Brown then left abruptly through the alley behind the house. January 27, 2000 Page 5 Little asked for clarification on the whether or not the work that had been done was appropriate. Hancock answered that there was some question on this and stated that further research needed to be done on roofing standards before he would know for sure. Hancock mentioned that according to the research he had done in the 1997 UBC and the City's amendments, a layer of felt is required beneath both asphalt and wood shingles. Hancock provided clarification on the type of roof that was at the Remington job site and stated that the front, both sides and half of the rear portion of the roof were done, with the exception of the ridge caps prior to the time a permit was obtained. Little asked for clarification on whether or not felt had been placed on the roof prior to the shingles being laid. Hancock answered that there was no felt between the old wood shingles and the new asphalt shingles on any portions of the roof. Little asked for additional clarification on the roofing requirements related to felt sheeting under asphalt. Lee answered that, generally speaking, the building code requires felt sheeting to be installed under roofing material, particularly when a new roof is being added over an existing wood roof. Brown stated that the roofing standards state very clearly that the procedure he used is acceptable. He added that based on his experience, whenever 15 or 30 pound felt is placed over wood shingles, and it is walked on, anywhere there is a ridgeline there ends up being breaks and/or cracks in the felt. It was Brown's opinion that it was a waste of time and money to do this. Brown stated that this procedure was something that the City has allowed in the past, but is not done on a regular basis. Fielder asked for clarification on whether the Board needed to deal with the actual roofing process that was used by Brown and the quality of that work, or whether that was something that would be taken care of through the permit and inspection process. Lee answered that the building code requires felt underlayment over an existing wood roof. Any exceptions to this would require review and approval from staff so this was not something that the Board needed to consider. Massey asked for clarification on the allegation that Brown failed to comply with an order from the Building Official. Eckman provided clarification on this. Hauck asked Brown about the frequency ofjobs for which he does not obtain permits prior to starting work because of lack of funds. Brown answered that this happens more frequently during this time of the year and in the spring when he receives very little income. He stated that he attempts to obtain permits for the majority of his projects. Hauck stated that the reason Brown was required to come before the Board in May, 1999, was for doing roofing work prior to obtaining a permit. He asked Brown if it was made clear to him, at that meeting, that permits were necessary prior to the time roofing work began. Brown confirmed that he understood that, and stated that, from a practical standpoint, there have been a few instances where he could not obtain a permit due to lack of funds. Hauck stated that he assumed that the requirement of obtaining a permit prior to starting work was again reiterated at the June, 1999 meeting and he asked Brown why he would run the risk of starting another project without a permit. Brown stated that it was the only job that he had purchased materials for and he needed to get it completed so that he could receive some money. Brown confirmed that he understood there would be consequences if he did not adhere to the city's requirements; however, he needed the income. AB January 27, 2000 Page 6 Board Member Kreul-Froseth mentioned that although Board Members were sympathetic to Brown's financial situation, the purpose for obtaining a permit, which is to protect the health and safety of the customer, cannot be ignored. Brown asked for clarification on the types of safety issues that might exist. Kreul-Froseth provided clarification. She mentioned that she could not in good conscious consider lack of finances as an acceptable hardship for not obtaining a permit. Fielder asked for clarification on the amount of a typical roofing permit. Lee answered that the permit fees vary, but probably fall within the $100 range. Brown closed by stating that he was trying to follow the city's guidelines. He mentioned that there would probably continue to be times in the future where funds would be tight, but he would try to continue to comply with the city. He also stated that he would be willing to comply with changes that the city made to procedures, i.e., mid -roof inspections, as long as he was informed of those changes. Little asked Lee for an estimate of the number of permits that had been obtained by Brown in 1999. Lee stated that the number could be obtained, but was not readily available. Lee closed by stating that the record in this case is clear. As a result of the two previous hearings Mr. Brown has had before the Board, Mr. Brown was sent two letters of reprimand informing him of the need to obtain permits prior to starting work and informing him of the suspensions that had been imposed to his license. The violations were all related to starting work without permits. The letters clearly stated that all roofing work within the city limits, over 1 square of materials, must have a permit prior to starting. Lee stated that based on Brown's own admissions, he maintained that the actions of the respondent were willful and deliberate, that the respondent failed to comply with provisions of the code and that the respondent clearly failed to obtain a permit prior to starting work. Hauck made a motion on findings of fact as follows: That Norman Brown, d/b/a Norm Brown Roofing was in violation of the following City licensing regulations: 11 1. Willful and deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the City related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder set forth in this Article; 2. Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; 3. Failure to comply with any lawful order of the Building Official; 6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;" Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None 0 January 27, 2000 Page 7 Massey stated that he understood and sympathized with Mr. Brown about his financial situation but thought that it was the Board's duty to protect the customer and could not use this as a hardship for not obtaining permits. He mentioned that the Board had given Brown numerous chances to comply with the city's requirements and had been more than fair with Brown thusfar. Massey pointed out that each time Brown came before the Board, there were numerous violations. It was his opinion that the suspension that was imposed in May should have sent a very clear message and that, at this point, the only option was to revoke this license. Kreul-Froseth agreed that adding another suspension would probably not help in this case due to the number of times Brown had already been before the Board. Hauck agreed that another suspension would not make any difference in this case. Suspensions had been issued in the past, there had been numerous warnings in the past, and the same violations continued to occur. He was not convinced that a suspension would have any more affect this time than it had in the past. Little stated that he had a lot of empathy for Mr. Brown in this situation. It was his opinion that Brown, with his level of experience and roofing talent, might be better off by working as a supervisor for another company who could be organized enough to abide by the city codes and could provide Brown with a source of consistent income. Little mentioned that running a business can be more difficult from a management standpoint than simply performing the work. He was in favor of revocation of the license in this case. Hauck made a motion that the license of Norman Brown, d/b/a Norm Brown Roofing be revoked. Massey seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: The motion carried. Fielder reminded Brown that the Board's decision could be appealed to City Council if an appeal was field with the City Clerk within 14 days. 5. RANDY RICHARDSON, d/b/a RICHARDSON CONSTRUCTION: This item was withdrawn by applicant. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Approval of Revised Hearing Procedures: Lee mentioned that at the request of the Board, the hearing procedures were condensed into more understandable and practical steps. Fielder asked for clarification on Board participation during the meeting. Lee provided clarification. Fielder made a motion that the new hearing procedures be adopted. Little seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: W January 27, 2000 Page 8 B. 1999 Building Review Board Annual Report: Fielder mentioned that he thought the report was very helpful. There were no recommended changes. Staff will forward the report to the City Clerk's office by February, 2000. C. Board Member Attendance: Fielder stated that he would attempt to contact Board Member Hansch regarding whether or not is interested in continuing his participation on the Board. Lee stated that at this point it seems clear that, for whatever reason, Board Member Hansch is no longer able to attend meetings and suggested that it might be appropriate to ask for a resignation. Fielder will follow up on this issue. D. Revised Water Heater/Furnace Replacement Procedures: Lee mentioned that several board hearings in 1999 dealt with furnace and water heater replacements and, specifically, with the issues surrounding when a permit was required to be obtained. Lee stated that in a conciliatory effort, staff spoke with a number of contractors and worked out a more reasonable approach to this issue. Lee qualified that the new procedures related only to replacement furnaces and water heaters and did not apply to A/C systems, commercial boilers, new installations, etc. Lee stated that the new procedures allow a contractor up to 10 days within which to obtain a permit for replacement water heaters and furnaces. This change requires that the city's inspection staff take on some additional responsibility in tracking jobs that they observe are in progress, but have not permit, to assure that necessary permits are obtained within the 10 day timeframe. If the required permits are not obtained, staff will proceed with other action against the contractor. Kreul-Froseth asked if contractors had been notified of this change. Lee confirmed this Hauck asked if there are other exceptions that will allow work to be started without obtaining a permit. Lee stated that he was unaware of any additional exceptions that would be covered under the new procedures, except for possible emergency situations, i.e., a flood or other natural disasters. E. OTHER: Little asked if the city had any type of credit policy that would allow contractors to obtain permits when they were short of cash. Lee answered that there were currently no provisions for this. There was brief discussion on this issue. Felix Lee, Dire o o uilding & Zoning