HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 11/18/19990
Kurt Kastein
Felix Lee (221-6760)
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, November 18, 1999, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charles Fielder, Thomas Hartmann, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Al Hauck, Gene Little, and Bradley Massey
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Rudy Hansch
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning
Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board
AGENDA:
ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Board Member Kreul Froseth made a motion to approve the Minutes. Board Member Little
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the October 28,
1999 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. LICENSE HEARING — DANIEL GRAHAM, d/b/a OLD TIME SHEET METAL:
Chairperson Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the meeting.
Felix Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He mentioned that this hearing had been
rescheduled from the October 286' meeting based on the fact that Mr. Graham was out of town.
According to Lee, a subpoena was served to him ordering his appearance at the Larimer County
Courthouse on September 21, 1999, for the civil trial of Old Time Sheet Metal vs. Deines Custom
Doors. As part of the testimony provided in said trial, both the Plaintiff and Defendant affirmed
that Old Time Sheet Metal installed a dust collection system for Deines Custom Doors
woodworking shop sometime late in 1998. Lee stated that because of the potential hazards
associated with airborne wood particulates, particularly fire and explosion potential, collection
systems are regulated by the both the building and fire codes and do require permits.
AB
November 18, 1999
Page 2
No permits were issued for this job and, to date, have not been obtained. According to the
testimony given at the trial, in early 1999, following a dispute over the installation of the dust
collection system, the owners of Deines Custom Doors hired a design firm and a contractor from
Broomfield to replace the system that had been installed by Old Time Sheet Metal. Additionally,
according to that testimony, the replacement system had been in operation for several months.
Deines Custom Doors has been notified and is working with staff to resolve issues regarding
permits and design of the system.
In addition to the above violation, on July 29, 1999, a city inspector posted a Stop Work Order at
1820 Sommerville Drive for an air conditioning system that was being installed by Old Time
Sheet Metal without a permit. There was also information in the file reflecting that Old Time
Sheet Metal was brought before the Board for a furnace replacement that was done in September,
1991, without obtaining a permit. This offense resulted in a six-month probation being assessed
against the license at that time.
Based on the recent incidents, staff believed that 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;
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed; and
7. 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, Daniel Graham, addressed the Board. He mentioned that in 1991 he was not the
license holder of Old Time Sheet Metal and thought his dad was. He was only vaguely familiar
with the issues surrounding that case.
Graham stated that on the Sommerville address, his mother was on the way to obtain a permit at
the time that the inspector stopped by the job and issued the Stop Work Order. Graham's wife,
who usually obtained permits, was out of town and he asked his mother to do it. She was not able
to obtain the permit prior to the time employees from Old Time Sheet Metal arrived at the job.
Graham stated that the job was in progress at the time the inspector arrived; however, he knew
that his mom was on the way to obtain the permit. To his knowledge, Graham mentioned that a
permit was obtained and the job passed inspection without incident.
On the Deines Door job, Graham stated that his company was originally hired only to replace
some duct work. It was Graham's understanding that this work would not require a permit. As
Graham became more involved in the project, he realized that there were problems with the dust
collection system and that it mechanically was not working properly. As he continued to work on
the project, it became evident that a permit would be required.
• • BRB
November 18, 1999
Page 3
Graham acknowledged that he went much further than he should have without having obtained a
permit. He stated that part of the problem was that Deines Doors financially could not afford to
fix and/or replace the dust collection system all at once. Once Graham started working with the
actual dust collector fan, he realized that a permit was needed. However, so much work would
have been required to bring the system into compliance with the building and fire codes, that the
company could not have afforded it.
Lee asked Graham to clarify the point in time that he realized that a permit was required. Graham
stated that he realized a permit was needed at the time he pulled the existing fan off of the system.
Lee asked him what that time period was. Graham stated that this would have been around the
middle or end of October, 1998. Graham reiterated that when they started, they were only
replacing elbows and other small items. As they started their work, it became apparent that the
fan that was existing on the system was not working adequately. Graham had a fan that had been
obtained from a demolition job in Denver and he offered to use this to replace the existing fan. It
was at the time he was replacing the fan that he realized he had gone too far without obtaining a
permit.
Graham apologized for the oversight of obtaining the permit and for involving Lee in the lawsuit.
He stated that he would like to set up an appointment with Lee to further discuss this case.
Board Member Hauck stated that there were two instances where permits were not pulled prior to
the work being done. Graham confirmed this. Hauck asked for further clarification on whether
permits had been obtained on the Sommerville project. Graham answered that permits were
obtained within an hour after the inspector had arrived on the job site.
Hauck asked for further clarification on the timing of the violations that had occurred in this case.
Lee provided clarification.
Little mentioned that he had some concern over violation #7 concerning "commitment of an act
of negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the performance of a contractor's specific trade
which results in posing a substantial threat to public health and safety" and wondered if there was
information available on any building inspections that were done on the work that had been
performed by Graham on the dust collection system. Lee answered that the work done by
Graham was never inspected by city staff and that it was his understanding that the system
installed by Graham had been replaced with a new system installed by another contractor.
Little asked Graham to elaborate on the reason his system was replaced by another contractor.
Graham answered that the original system had too many problems to keep putting "band -aides"
on it. When he replaced the fan he was able to see what had originally been installed. The
original system was a bag system constructed of mostly wood. The system forced the majority of
the heavy sawdust into a dumpster. Relief air went back into the building into large bags that
were 24" in diameter and 7-8' tall. The biggest problem Graham encountered was that the system
had inadequate duct work and the relief air was being blown into the attic space, causing
particulates to settle down into the bags and becoming a fire hazard. Once Graham realized this,
he spoke with the owner of Deines Doors to inform him of the problem and mentioned that an
engineer should be obtained to draw up a new system. Deines Doors relieved Graham of any
further duties at that point and hired a contractor out of Denver to install a new system.
Little asked Graham about the result of the court action. Graham answered that he had won the
lawsuit.
:RB
November 18, 1999
Page 4
Hauck asked if there was anything in the code that allowed a contractor to patch an existing
system without having to obtain a permit. Lee answered that this would have to be reviewed on a
case by case basis. Anything other than minor service or repairs would generally require some
sort of permit, or at least a review by city staff.
Board Member Massey asked whether Graham was within allowable boundaries at the beginning
of the project for doing repair work without a permit. Lee answered that he was not sure since
city staff never inspected the work that was done. If the work entailed simply patching existing
ductwork, a permit would probably not have been required.
Graham mentioned that he knew that the system was not a "legal" system from the beginning. He
was trying to improve the system that was in place without having to install an entire new system.
Once he got into the project and realized how bad things were, he knew that a permit would have
to be obtained and that the system would have to be brought up to code. It was at that point that
the owners relieved him of his duties.
Hauck made a motion on findings of fact in this case as follows:
That Daniel Graham, d/b/a Old Time Sheet Metal, was in violation of the following City
licensing regulations:
"6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed."
Little seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
Hauck mentioned that there was clearly a failure on the part of the Respondent to obtain the
required permit on the Deines Doors job. However, he did not feel that this was willful or
deliberate. He reminded Mr. Graham that it is a serious violation to do work without a permit.
He made a motion that a letter of reprimand be placed in the contractor's file with a note that any
further violations would result in a second hearing before the Board. Little seconded the motion.
Massey clarified that more severe disciplinary action would be considered against Mr. Graham's
license for further offenses including suspension and/or revocation of his license.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
4. LICENSE HEARING — DENNIS JONES, d/b/a MAJESTIC ROOFING:
Lee summarized the specifics relative to this hearing. He mentioned that this case was reviewed
by the Board at the October 28, 1999 meeting. The Respondent was not present at that meeting.
The Board placed a suspension on the license of Dennis Jones, d/b/a Majestic Roofing, until such
time that the Respondent appeared before the Board.
November 18, 1999
Page 5
As a review, Lee mentioned that on September 29, 1999, staff received a letter from Steve Buff,
the owner of 3260 Pepperwood Lane, regarding a roofing job that was done at his home by
Majestic Roofing. He noted in his letter that a permit was not displayed at anytime while the job
was being done. When Buff contacted the Building & Zoning department on September 7, 1999
to obtain the permit number, he was informed that no permit had been issued. Mr. Buff then
contacted Majestic Roofing to obtain the permit number and was told that the permit was not
handy, but would be posted on the job site later that day. Majestic Roofing purchased a permit
later that afternoon, after the work had been completed. A second letter was received from Mr.
Buff on November 2, 1999, which included, among other things, information about damages that
occurred to their home by employees of Majestic Roofing while they were completing the job.
On June 24, 1999, the Board imposed a 30 day suspension on the license of Dennis Jones, d/b/a
Majestic Roofing, for similar violations of not obtaining permits.
Lee noted that based on this information, the following violations of the City's licensing
regulations may have occurred in this case:
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;"
Rod Harlan, General Manager of Majestic Roofing, addressed the Board. He mentioned that it is
common practice for him to obtain permits for jobs; however, he was in McCook, Nebraska
taking care of business at their Nebraska office when the job for Mr. Buff occurred, and he failed
to delegate the responsibility of obtaining the necessary permit to someone else. When he heard
that there was an issue surrounding permits in this case, Harlan personally obtained the permit.
Harlan mentioned that to his knowledge, none of the work done on Mr. Buff's home was in
violation to any codes. He confirmed that there are some outstanding issues as far as scuffs on
the house where shingles were dropped, a hole in the hot tub cover, and possibly some screen
damage on some of the windows.
Lee asked Harlan if he was aware of the 30 days suspension that the Board imposed against the
license of Majestic Roofing at their June, 1999 meeting. Harlan answered that he was not aware
of this since he had been in sales in their Nebraska office until August, 1999. Lee asked Harlan if
he was aware of the action taken by the Board against the license of Majestic Roofing at their
October, 1999 meeting. Harlan answered that the first time he knew anything about the license
being suspended was when one of the contractors they typically did work for called them to let
them know they would not be using Majestic Roofing again until the licensing issues were
resolved. At that time, Harlan spoke with Dennis Jones about the situation and he mentioned that
he had failed to attend the October meeting.
RB
November 18, 1999
Page 6
Lee asked Harlan what his relationship was with Majestic Roofing. Harlan answered that he was
the "newly placed General Manager." Lee asked about Jones' position in the firm. Harlan
answered that Jones is the owner.
Little asked if an inspection was done on the completed roof. Lee did not have this information
available. Harlan mentioned that he personally inspected the work that had been done and made
notes of the cosmetic issues that the customer had complained about. According to Harlan, no
final inspections from a city building inspector had been scheduled at this point.
Little asked Harlan about the status of the damage repairs that had been requested by Mr. Buff.
Harlan answered that in his last conversation with Mr. Buff, he was told that another contractor
would be making the repairs and that the associated costs would be deducted from the amount
due on Majestic Roofing's invoice.
Hauck asked for clarification on whether the license for Majestic Roofing was a company license
or an individual license. Lee answered that this was a company license which listed Dennis Jones
as the license holder. Hauck asked if Dennis Jones then, individually, was in violation. Lee
answered that it is the company which actually has the license and is considered in violation.
Hauck asked Harlan about the whereabouts of Dennis Jones. Harlan answered that he was in Ft.
Morgan.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that when the Board met with Jones on June 24, 1999, he expressed
some reservation or uncertainty about when a permit was to be obtained. It was her recollection
that Jones was informed that even a tear off would require having first obtained a permit. She
asked Lee if that was his recollection.
Lee answered that he believed this was the final outcome; however, he also recollected that Jones
testified that he was aware of, and may have actually called Building & Zoning to determine
licensing and permitting requirements. That was one of the reasons he was brought before the
Board in June. There did seem to be some misunderstanding about tear off procedures and the
timing for obtaining permits at the June meeting.
Massey asked Harlan if it is common for him to be out of town and for him to delegate the
responsibility of obtaining permits to someone else. Harlan answered that he usually does not
delegate these types of things, but usually is not gone out of the office for a month and a half.
Harlan had to go to McCook, Nebraska to take care of business when there was a management
failure there. The office here was being taken care of by two employees who did not have
adequate knowledge to take care of obtaining permits, etc. Obtaining the permit for Mr. Buff is
one of the things that got missed that month.
Massey asked Harlan if there were other jobs during that time period for which permits were not
obtained. Harlan answered that there were two jobs that he was aware of in Ft. Collins that
occurred during that timeframe. He obtained permits for bothjobs when he returned.
Hauck asked if there was a second job for which work was done prior to obtaining a permit.
Harlan answered that he would have to go back and look at the dates on the permits to find out
when the work was completed. It was his recollection that he got back in time to get a permit for
the second job prior to the time the work was completed.
•
November 18, 1999
Page 7
Massey asked Harlan if he agreed with the sequence of events that was set out in Buffs letter
regarding when an actual permit was obtained. Harlan mentioned that he did receive a call from
Mr. Buff informing him that there was no permit posted on the job when the work was being
done. Harlan looked in the file and realized that no permit had been obtained. Harlan did not
recollect saying that he did not have a permit in front of him. He thought he remembered telling
Mr. Buff that no permit had been obtained and that he would take care of it.
Harlan mentioned that their Ft. Collins license is very important to their business. He
acknowledged that there was a breakdown in business practices with regard to obtaining
necessary permits. He hoped that the Board would grant him a little bit of understanding based
on the circumstances that had occurred.
Lee reminded the Board that at the June meeting, Mr. Jones acknowledged that he was "guilty as
charged" and stated that although he was aware of the licensing and permitting requirements, he
stated that there were problems with the City's process did not facilitate their business operations.
Kreul-Froseth stated that she remembered the situation from the June meeting exactly as Lee had
just described it. It was her opinion that Dennis Jones, d/b/a Majestic Roofing, was in violation
of # 1, #2, #3 and #6 of the City's licensing regulations. She stated that the issues that occurred in
this case were willful and deliberate, not on the part of Mr. Harlan, but on the part of Mr. Jones
due to what he said the first time he came before the Board in June, 1999.
Kreul-Froseth made a motion on findings of fact as follows:
That Dennis Jones, d/b/a Majestic Roofing was in violation of the following City licensing
regulations:
111. 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;
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;"
Massey seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
Little stated that he was concerned with the quality of workmanship that was being performed by
Majestic Roofing based on the second letter that was sent by Mr. Buff. It appeared that there was
a lack of supervision, follow-up, structure and order on behalf of Majestic Roofing and these
items were of particular concern to Little, especially since roofs are such an expensive item to
y,RB
November 18, 1999
Page 8
repair and replace if not done right initially. It was his feeling that there.was an apparent
disregard of the requirements of a certificate holder in the performance of the work.
Hauck shared in Little's concern about the quality of work issues that were evident in this case.
What bothered him more was that this was the second time in 90 days that this contractor was
brought before the Board for having violated the City's licensing regulations. It was his feeling
that this confirms that the actions of the contractor were extremely willful and deliberate.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that in the past licenses have been suspended but she was unsure
whether one had actually been revoked. She made a motion to suspend the license of Dennis
Jones, d/b/a Majestic Roofing, for six months due to the fact that this was a second offense. Little
seconded the motion.
Massey mentioned that he had reviewed the Minutes from the June meeting and, at that time, the
were two or three jobs that had licensing and/or permitting issues associated with them. The
Board's initial suspension did not seem to make much of a difference to Mr. Jones. Massey
stated that the suspension period imposed this time needed to be long enough to get through the
winter -months that are slower in order to make an impact. He suggested that six months should
be the minimum length of time the Board should consider.
Hauck agreed that there are at least four violations that the Board knows have occurred over the
past four -five months. It was his feeling that this represents a pattern, especially after Mr. Jones
was warned in June that this should not happen again. Hauck was in favor of supporting a six
month suspension at this time; however, if this contractor ever appears before the Board again for
similar violations, he would be in favor of revoking the license.
Massey agreed with this. He mentioned that it should be made very clear to Mr. Jones that if he
is brought before the Board again, the Board would discuss revocation of his license.
Little asked Harlan if Majestic Roofing had any work in progress in Ft. Collins. Harlan stated
that there were no jobs being done in Ft. Collins at this time.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried unanimously. Fielder reminded Harlan that there was a 14 day period within
which the Board's decision could be appealed to City Council.
LICENSE HEARING — JIM WEISSER, d/b/a POUDRE VALLEY AIR:
Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He mentioned that Jim Weisser appeared before
the Board on May 27, 1999. At that time, the Board determined that there was no evidence that
Poudre Valley Air had willfully or deliberately disregarded building codes. A letter sent to Mr.
Weisser following the May 27, 1999 hearing, informed Mr. Weisser that permits needed to be
obtained for any future projects in Ft. Collins and stated that violations may result in a second
hearing before the Board.
On or about July 16, 1999, a city inspector found an air conditioner installation underway at 4221
Cedargate, with no permit posted. Staff determined that an application for the project had been
faxed to Building & Zoning, but that a permit had not been obtained. A letter was sent to Poudre
• • BRB
November 18, 1999
Page 9
Valley Air reiterating the need to obtain the appropriate permit prior to work being done and that
further violations could result in a hearing before the Board.
On or about November 2, 1999, a City inspector performing a roof inspection at 2824 Eagle
Drive was asked by the homeowner if permits and inspections were required for other types of
equipment, including water heaters. The inspector notified the homeowner that permits are
required for water heaters. Staff was not able to locate a permit for a water heater at that address
and followed up with the homeowner on November 11, 1999, to determine who had performed
her water heater replacement. The homeowner provided staff with a copy of an invoice verifying
that Poudre Valley Air had done the replacement work. The homeowner mentioned to staff that
she had contacted Poudre Valley Air to let them know that she had provided us with a copy of the
invoice. A faxed copy of an application for permit was received later that same morning on
November 11, 1999. A date of October 14, 1999 was reflected on the faxed application. A
further review of department records showed that three permit applications were received from
Poudre Valley Air between the dates of October 14, 1999 and October 19, 1999. None of these
applications related to 2824 Eagle Drive. Poudre Valley Air subsequently obtained a permit for
the Eagle Drive job on November 12, 1999.
On November 4, 1999, a gas line inspection was scheduled at 1317 Teakwood. During the
inspection, the homeowner told the inspector that Poudre Valley Air had originally installed their
gas log and gas line several years earlier. No permit was obtained for that job. The homeowner
was concerned about the installation and subsequently retained other contractors to look at the
work. Due to the concern expressed by these contractors, the homeowner contacted Poudre
Valley Air, who obtained a permit on November 2, 1999 to redo the work. Recent inspection
records indicated that the work failed inspection.
Based on these acts, Lee noted that the following violations of the City's licensing regulations
may have occurred, including:
111. 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;
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;"
Fielder noted a potential conflict of interest he had in this case since Poudre Valley Air was
currently correcting work for him and abstained from the remainder of this portion of the
meeting.
Hauck briefly reviewed the hearing procedures for the benefit of Jim Weisser. Weisser then
addressed the Board. He mentioned that work on the last project that was mentioned was
originally done on September 28, 1994. At that time, Poudre Valley Air's customers were
responsible for obtaining their own permits for convenience of scheduling inspections. Weisser
admitted that there were some problems with this project that should have been caught. The
. RB
November 18, 1999
Page 10
problems were serious enough to have warranted sooner action, but Poudre Valley Air was not
aware that there were any. Once they were notified of the problems, Poudre Valley Air obtained
a permit for the work to be done and went back and corrected the problems. Weisser stated that
there was no attempt on behalf of Poudre Valley Air to cover something up or hide something
from the City.
On the July 10h project, Weisser stated that timing is everything. Weisser spoke with Lee
regarding this issue and told him that the office had made a mistake. There was no intent not to
get a permit. The application was faxed to the Building & Zoning department and then
inadvertently was put into a completed file and got lost.
Chris Gressman addressed the Board to give them information on the November 2 project.
Weisser mentioned that Chris is one of the employees in the office who takes care of scheduling
jobs, obtaining permits, etc. Gressman mentioned that Poudre Valley Air had been contacted by
the homeowner at 2824 Eagle Drive to install a new hot water heater and humidifier. A permit
application was filled out and Gressman thought it had been faxed to the City since the
application had a "faxed" date stamped on it. The application was mistakenly filed in the wrong
file and was located once the homeowner called to find out if a permit had been obtained.
Gressman immediately re -faxed the application to Building & Zoning. The permit was obtained
the following day. Gressman mentioned that this was simply a mistake and was not in any way
intentional. The permit was subsequently mailed to the homeowner.
Gressman noted that for the project on Cedargate, the permit was obtained later than the time the
work actually started. A $50 fine was imposed and paid for. Weisser mentioned that this was
another instance where timing was an issue and they had simply made a mistake.
Weisser mentioned that they have implemented new policies, continue to improve their
procedures and are much further along than they were when they appeared before the Board in.
May, 1999.
Lee asked Gressman for clarification on whether or not the application for the 2824 Eagle Drive
project had been faxed to Building & Zoning. Gressman answered that she thought it had been
faxed. No follow-up occurred to pay for and obtain the permit because the application was
misplaced. Gressman obtained the permit as soon as possible after she was made aware of the
mistake.
Lee mentioned that staff tries to track faxes very carefully. However, there are times when faxes
don't go through, etc., which is one of the risks of faxing ahead and not following up. He stated
that it is incumbent on the contractor either by making a phone call or some other means to assure
that the permit application is on file.
Massey asked if faxing applications is done to speed up the process. Lee answered that faxing the
applications does speed up the process, but reiterated that no permit is actually issued until
payment is received. Gressman provided further information on their processes regarding permit
applications.
There was some discussion on emergency situations. Lee answered that the City does recognize
emergencies and staff endeavored to send a notice to every HVAC and plumbing contractor
regarding this issue. For bona fide emergencies, furnace and water heater replacements can be
done without a permit, as long as a permit is obtained on the next available business day.
• • BRB
November 18, 1999
Page 11
Little mentioned that he did not believe there was any willful or deliberate disregard of the codes
by this contractor. He made a motion that this case be dismissed. There was no second for the
motion.
Hauck mentioned that the Board needed to come up with a finding of fact for this case and
thought that the motion might have been a little premature. He asked if Board Members had any
further questions of the Respondent or staff.
Kreul-Froseth asked if the re -piping of the gas fireplace had been repaired. Gressman answered
that Poudre Valley Air has subcontracted repair of the fireplace to another company and that it is
scheduled to be repaired in the coming weekend. The gas piping work cannot be finished until
the fireplace is repaired. The only remaining issues are to provide more support for the gas line
and to paint it. Poudre Valley Air plans to finish the job after the fireplace repair has been done.
Hauck asked for clarification on the water heater replacement that was done without a permit and
whether that was an emergency situation or done during the day. Weisser mentioned that this
was done during the day. Hauck asked if the mechanics at Poudre Valley Air understand that no
work is to be done until they have a permit in hand. Weisser mentioned that he instructed his
employees not to do any work until a permit was in hand after the last Board meeting. He stated
that he will take responsibility for the actions of his employees, but cannot absolutely guarantee
that this will never happen again. Weisser plans to have another company -wide meeting where
this issue will again be reviewed with employees.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she did not feel that there was any willful and/or deliberate
disregard of the building codes in this case, and she made a motion on a finding of fact, as
follows:
That Jim Weisser, d/b/a Poudre Valley Air, was in violation of the following City licensing
regulation:
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed.
Hartmann seconded the motion.
Hauck asked Respondent and staff if they had any closing statements. Respondent had none. Lee
mentioned that he agreed that item #6 was applicable in this case.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
Abstain: Fielder
The motion carried.
Hauck mentioned that the Board now needed to determine what, if any, action was appropriate in
this case and asked Board Members for their feedback.
Little made a motion that a letter or reprimand be issued to Jim Weisser, d/b/a Poudre Valley Air,
stating the violation that occurred, and to have that letter placed in his contractor file.
.,RB
November 18, 1999
Page 12
Kreul-Froseth asked if the letter would be sent to the contractor, with a copy to the file. Lee
confirmed this. Kreul-Froseth asked if this would be a second letter of reprimand issued to this
contractor by the Board. Lee confirmed this.
Hauck asked if there was a second to the motion on the floor. Massey provided a second.
Massey asked for clarification on the first letter of reprimand that was forwarded to Weisser. Lee
provided clarification.
Kreul-Froseth suggested a friendly amendment to the motion that the second letter include
stronger language than the first one that was received by Weisser. Little accepted the amendment
to his motion.
Massey mentioned that he would support a second letter of reprimand versus a suspension to the
license in this case based on the fact that it appeared that the contractor attempted to follow the
correct procedures, but made some mistakes.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
Abstain: Fielder
The motion carried.
5. LICENSE HEARING — LANCE LANDRUM AND ANDREW SWAN, d/b/a CLIMATECH
HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING:
Lee provided information relative to this hearing. He mentioned that on October 28, 1999, a city
inspector issued a Stop Work Order at 1803 Tyme for the installation of an air conditioner by
Climatech Heating & Air Conditioning without a permit. On November 2, 1999, a second Stop
Work Order was issued for 807 Winchester Drive for the installation of a water heater without a
permit. At that address, a permit had been obtained for the replacement of a furnace and air
conditioner; however, the permit did not include replacement of the water heater.
On the same date, November 2, 1999, a city inspector was performing an inspection of a furnace
replacement at 427 Whedbee. The furnace was installed by Climatech and a permit had been
obtained. However, during the inspection, the inspector noticed that the water heater was
incorrectly installed (the flue was not properly connected to the water heater). The inspector
informed the owner that this was a safety hazard and, after discussion with the owner, the
inspector found that the water heater had been replaced by Climatech earlier in the year. After a
review of department records, it was determined that no permit had been obtained for this water
heater replacement. According to the owner, she contacted Climatech to have the problem
corrected, but Climatech refused to do the work. She had the repairs done by another individual.
Staff spoke with a representative of the Public Service Company for whom Climatech is a
subcontractor for furnace and water heater replacements. Of the seven water heater and/or
furnace replacementjobs that Climatech had done for Public Service in Ft. Collins, three did not
have the necessary permits.
Lee noted the violations of the City's licensing relations that may have occurred in this case,
including:
• • BRB
November 18, 1999
Page 13
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;
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed; and
7. 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;"
Andrew Swan and Lance Landrum addressed the Board. Landrum stated that he personally sold
the job for 1803 Tyme the night before the installation occurred. They have one employee in
their office who is solely responsible for obtaining permits who works from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. each day. As soon as she comes into the office in the morning, she processes the permits
that need to be obtained. In this case, a permit application was faxed to Building & Zoning in the
morning and the permit obtained later the same day of the installation.
For the installation at 807 Winchester, it was simply human error that the water heater was not
listed on the permit application. As soon as Landrum was notified by City staff that there was no
permit for the water heater, an application was immediately faxed to Building & Zoning and a
permit obtained.
For 427 Whedbee, Landrum stated that Climatech performed both a water heater and furnace
installation at this address. The water heater installation was done over a year ago, at the time
Climatech was doing subcontract work for Sears. Landrum was unclear why no permit had been
obtained for the water heater. He stated that a permit was obtained for the furnace.
Landrum mentioned that he had never been notified of any violation of code by the homeowner
or the City. Realizing the seriousness of some of the things that they work with, i.e., gas and
carbon monoxide, Landrum said that he never would have refused to address the situation had he
been contacted because of the potential danger that existed.
Landrum stated that when he received the letter from the City regarding the various allegations in
this case he was very concerned. His office started going through their files to make sure permits
had been obtained for the work that had been done, etc. During this process, Landrum also found
that three of the jobs done for Public Service did not have permits. Two of these jobs were in the
City and one in the county. Public Service has a very strict requirement that permits be obtained
and, according to Landrum, Climatech takes this requirement very seriously and attempts to
obtain all necessary permits.
Swan mentioned that their office manager had applied for the two Public Service Company jobs
in Ft. Collins by faxing the information to Building & Zoning. However, according to Swan,
procedures had changed to require a parcel number. Swan stated that they were never notified of
that requirement and the permits ended up slipping through the cracks. Permits have now been
obtained for the jobs.
.dRB
November 18, 1999
Page 14
Lee asked Landrum about the Whedbee installation that was done for Sears and the apparent
delay in getting an inspection. Landrum answered that it has been his company's policy to leave
a copy of the permit with the customer and have them call in for inspection to alleviate the
difficulties of scheduling. He was unsure why the customer in this case waited so long to call in
an inspection. Lee asked Landrum if they have a process in place to track completed jobs to
assure that all inspections have been done, etc. Landrum answered that they have not done this.
Once the installations are complete, they have relied on the customer to call in for inspections to
finish out the project. Swan added that they do not schedule inspections for the day they are
performing the installation since they are never sure how long the job is going to take them to
complete.
Landrum emphasized that it is important to them to do things right. Swan added that obtaining
permits and getting inspections are part of the "sales pitch" that the company uses to convey to
customers that they will have an assurance that the project will be done properly and will meet all
applicable building codes.
Lee mentioned that it was concerning to him that the water heater vent was not properly attached.
Landrum answered that he had not seen the job and was not aware of the issue until he received
the papers for this hearing. Landrum stated that the technicians that he has working for him are
highly trained and are all very aware of the seriousness of the problems that can occur when the
appliances are not installed properly. Landrum mentioned that many things could have occurred
between the date of installation and the date of inspection which resulted in the vent not being
attached. Without having seen the job, he could not speculate as to what might have happened.
Lee stated that based on the inspector's notes on the Whedbee job, the issue with the water heater
was fairly serious. Landrum agreed and stated that if they had been notified they would have
responded. However, a letter from the customer that was included in their meeting packet
information stated that they had already had the problem fixed by someone else. The information
they received in preparation for the meeting was the only notification they had received informing
them that there was a problem.
Lee again emphasized his concern that this customer, perhaps for a year, had been living in home
where the water heater has been venting combustion products into the house, which is a serious
issue. Landrum agreed and stated that he was equally as concerned.
Kreul-Froseth asked if it was common practice in the industry for the homeowner to contact the
inspector to schedule inspections. Landrum stated that it was his understanding that this was
common practice. Lee answered that there is some flexibility in the process. Typically, the
contractor obtains the permit; however, a homeowner, as the owner, can also obtain a permit.
Both of these instances are common. The contractor or owner can call in to schedule inspections
Massey asked who was responsible for closing a permit. Lee answered that there is no
requirement for this.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she did not see any evidence that the water heater was not
connected correctly for a year and thought it was possible that it could have been damaged
recently, etc. Therefore, she did not feel that violation #7 (listed above) applied in this case. She
did believe that violation #6 applied.
Little mentioned that he disagreed a little bit on the negligence issue. The liability that a
contractor would have in this business is so significant if there were an explosion as a result of
work not being done correctly by a technician, or if there were people killed by carbon monoxide
November 18, 1999
Page 15
asphyxiation, that it would be devastating to a company and to the owners individually. He stated
that the contractor should be able to track within a reasonable period of time whether or not an
inspection had been completed so that a job could be closed out. Little felt that violation #7 did
apply to this case.
Landrum mentioned that they have 40 different licenses. The City of Ft. Collins is the only city
they work with that does not notify them if an inspection is not scheduled. According to
Landrum, this is a valuable tool for them and allows them to follow-up with their customers and
ask about why an inspection has not been scheduled, etc.
Massey agreed with Kreul-Froseth that perhaps something occurred after the actual installation
which caused disconnection of the vent. There is no way to know if the installation was done
correctly and/or how long the vent has been disconnected. Massey would not support a finding of
fact that violation #7 applied in this case. He encouraged the contractor to come up with a
business practice to assure that final inspections had been done, etc., before a job was closed. If
that had been done in this case, inspection results would have shown if the installation was done
correctly.
Kreul-Froseth made a motion of findings of fact in this case that Lance Landrum and Andrew
Swan, d/b/a Climatech Heating and Air Conditioning violated the contractor licensing regulations
as follows:
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;
Hauck seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
Hauck stated that since no willful or deliberate disregard for the process was found in this case,
and hearing commitment on the part of Climatech to look seriously at their business procedures
and policies to make sure that this does not happen again, that a letter of reprimand in this case
would be appropriate. If a second appearance is required before the Board, then more serious
disciplinary action might be appropriate. Hauck made a motion that a letter of reprimand be
placed in Climatech's contractor file. Massey seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
LICENSE HEARING — EDWARD SCHNEIDER, d/b/a ATLAS ROOFING, INC.:
Lee provided information relative to this hearing. He mentioned that on July 20, 1999, a city
inspector issued a Stop Work Order at 313 Whitcomb for roofing work being performed by Atlas
Roofing without a permit. A warning letter was sent to Mr. Schneider on July 20, 1999 informing
him that any further violations could result in a hearing before the Board.
AB
November 18, 1999
Page 16
On July 21, 1999, a city inspector issued a Stop Work Order at 1185 Westwood Drive for roofing
work being performed by Atlas Roofing without a permit. A second warning letter was sent to
Mr. Schneider on July 21, 1999, again advising him that further violations could result in a
hearing before the Board.
On November 4, 1999, staff issued a Stop Work Order at 626 Locust for roofing work being
performed on a garage by Atlas Roofing without a permit.
Based on these facts, staff believed that the following violations of the City's licensing
regulations may have occurred:
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; and
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;"
Ed Schneider addressed the Board. He stated that he takes this matter very seriously. As the
owner of a company, he was aware that the company was only as good as the employees he had
working for him and that the more employees a company has, the more likely errors are to occur
Schneider confirmed that he did receive two red tags within two days in July. He had the actual
contracts with him to demonstrate that neither of these projects were for entire re -roofs. Both
were for repairs; only 5 squares. The third project which was done in November, also was a
small job; 9 bundles of shingles. Schneider mentioned that he was aware that anything over 1
square was required to have a permit.
Schneider stated that he had been in business for 14 years and had never received any marks
against him of any kind. He did not want to give excuses for what happened, but wanted to
provided the Board with information regarding these issues.
Schneider took one of his estimators and turned him into an expeditor. His job is to make sure
that projects run smoothly from start to finish. Schneider implemented a process where any job
that is considered a repair (under 100 square feet) is placed on a different form than whole roof
proposals, which are any jobs over 100 square feet. The form used is the signal as to whether a
permit needs to be obtained or not. The wrong form was used for the two jobs done in July and,
therefore, no permit was obtained. Schneider stated that this was not willful in any way. The
employee assumed that these jobs were repairs.
After Schneider received the two warning letters, he sat down with his employees and made
changes to their system to keep this from happening again. Schneider explained the new
procedures.
For the job in November, an employee finished a job early in the day and came back to the office
to get more work. An estimator in the office gave the employee the job for the storage
shed/garage. The employee went and personally picked up materials since he needed them right
away. Because permits are usually obtained at the time materials are ordered, a permit was not
• • BRB
November 18, 1999
Page 17
obtained in this case. Additional changes were made to company policies and, at this point,
employees have been instructed that no work is to be done until a permit is in place.
Schneider mentioned that his company obtains hundreds of permits per year and that failure to
obtain permits in these instances was not done willfully or deliberately. He felt sure that the new
policies that are in place, together with employee education and training would ensure that, to the
extent possible, all necessary permits would be obtained for future projects.
Lee asked Schneider for clarification on the November job. Schneider provided clarification.
Hauck made a motion that Edward Schneider, d/b/a Atlas Roofing, Inc., violated the contractor
licensing regulations as follows:
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;
Massey seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Fielder, $auck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
Board Member Little did not participate in the remainder of the meeting. He had to leave due to a
scheduling conflict.
Hauck stated that since no willful or deliberate disregard for the building code was found in this
case, and based on the fact that procedures had been put into place by Atlas Roofing to try to
prevent this from happening again, it seemed that a letter of reprimand in this case would be
appropriate stating the importance of obtaining a permit. He made a motion that a letter of
reprimand be placed in Atlas Roofing's contractor file. Fielder seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
8. LICENSE HEARING — LAMONT HEUSTIS, d/b/a ADVANCED ROOFING TECH.:
Lee provided information relative to this hearing. He mentioned that on March 29, 1999, a city
inspector issued a Stop Work Order at 224 Grant for roofing work that was being performed by
Advanced Roofing Tech., without a permit.
On June 9, 1999, a Stop Work Order was issued for 2100 Langshire, for roofing work being
performed without a permit. In this instance, unregistered roofers were found to be on the job site
doing work. A letter was sent to Mr. Heustis on June 15, 1999, informing him that further
violations could result in a hearing before this Board.
On October 21, 1999, a Stop Work Order was issued for 200 E. Pitkin, again for roofing work
being performed without a permit.
W
November 18, 1999
Page 18
Based on these allegations, staff believed that the following violations to the City's licensing
regulations may have occurred:
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; and
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;"
Lamont Heustis addressed the Board. He mentioned that on 2100 Langshire, Carl King, a
licensed contractor in Ft. Collins, had three new employees starting that day that did not have
cards. Those are the employees that were referred to as being unregistered.
Carl King addressed the Board. He mentioned that on the 2100 Langshire job, there was a total
of seven employees on the site. Four of the employees had registration cards; three did not. King
stated that this was an oversight on his part, and that this wai their first day on the job. Within a
one hour timeframe from the time the inspector was at the site, a permit was obtained, as well as
registration cards for the three employees.
Heustis mentioned that for the other two violations, a permit was not obtained at the appropriate
time. The permits were obtained the same day the job was being done. He stated that his
company gets into trouble when they vary from the schedule and do work that they are not totally
prepared for by assuring all permits have been obtained, etc. This is what happened on all three
of these instances.
Heustis had a copy of a standard proposal that is given to customers showing as a line item that
his company will obtain and pay for a local building permit. This shows that the intent of his
company is to obtain all necessary permits.
Heustis stated that the first letter he received from the Building department concerned him and
that he provided instructions to his employee who was responsible, at that time, for obtaining all
permits to help ensure that this would not happen again. When the situation happened again,
procedures were changed so that there are now four employees in the office who keep track of
whether or not there are permits obtained for jobs.
King stated that there is a problem in the industry as a whole just trying to keep up with the
amount of work that is available. He indicated, based on the testimony he had heard throughout
the meeting, that the difficulty to keep up with internal affairs, paperwork, etc., was prevalent
with all of the contractors that had been before the Board so far.
Lee asked King if he was doing the work at the 2100 Langshire project. King confirmed this.
Lee asked King if he was aware that a permit had not been obtained. King answered that he was
not aware that a permit had not been obtained. He was not aware of this until the inspector
physically showed up and asked for cards. King stated that they have changed procedures so that
they now call to assure that a permit has been obtained to avoid this from happening again.
• BRB
November 18, 1999
Page 19
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that the Board is familiar with what is happening in the industry. She
stated that the bottom line is that no work should be done without having a permit in hand. She
encouraged Heustis and King to set up a system that ensured that this would happen.
Massey asked for explanation on why, if procedures have been changed after the incidents earlier
in the year, another occurrence happened in October. Heustis mentioned that they are still
working on modifying procedures. He stated that it is generally when they leave their schedule
that problems occur.
Massey asked King if he was subcontracting under Advanced Roofing on the Langshire project.
King confirmed this. King answered that they try to help each other out when things get really
busy, etc.
Massey asked for clarification on who actually obtained the permit. Heustis confirmed that
Advanced Roofing obtained the permit. Massey asked for clarification on whether or not Heustis
would have had to supervise the job if King was actually doing the work. Lee answered that the
permit holder is ultimately the responsible party. However, since King has a roofing license, he
is a valid contractor and can subcontract from someone else. Massey asked if this was similar to
the case the Board heard a couple of months ago. Lee stated that this case was not similar.
Hauck mentioned that the instance he was most concerned about was the recent job on Pitkin. He
understood how mistakes could happen once or twice; however, the process is very
straightforward — "if you do not have a permit in hand, you don't start working." He encouraged
Heustis to meet with his front-line supervisors who are actually starting the work to let them
know that no work should start unless the permit is available on -site. Heustis stated that having
to come before the Board has caught his attention and in the future he planned to be more diligent
to assure that this would not happen again.
Hauck made a motion that Lamont Heustis, d/b/a Advanced Roofing Tech., violated the
contractor licensing regulations as follows:
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;
Hartmann seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
Hauck mentioned that these jobs were for full re -roofs and it was clear that permits were
necessary. He thought that some discussion might be necessary in this case as to disciplinary
action.
Massey asked Heustis to elaborate on why permits had not been obtained in these cases. Heustis
stated that these slipped through the cracks. According to Heustis, permit applications are
generally faxed to the Building department and then picked up at a later date. There have been
times when his staff has been busy and the permits did not get picked up in time. Heustis stated
that this apparently happened three times too many.
.RB
November 18, 1999
Page 20
Massey asked if there was any proof that the applications had been faxed in. Lee answered that
this information was not available for this case.
Massey stated that the Board had set a sort of precedent by issuing letters of reprimand on first
offenses. The purpose of these letters is make contractors aware of the seriousness of these
issues. If a contractor has to come before the Board a second time, it is noted in the minutes that
a letter of reprimand has already been issued and other disciplinary actions are considered,
including suspension of a license. Massey made a motion that a letter of reprimand be placed in
this contractor's file. Fielder seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Board Member Attendance:
Delynn Coldiron relayed information she had received from a phone conversation with
Board Member Hansch. Fielder will follow-up on this issue.
B. 2000 Building Review Board Work Plan:
Chairperson Fielder asked Board Members to review the Work Plan and make sure they
were in agreement with the direction things were headed. He encouraged Board
Members to call him, Lee or Coldiron if there were questions.
Massey asked for some clarification on the IBC. Lee provided clarification.
Hauck mentioned that he did not have any trouble with the direction the Board was
headed; however, he thought that the hearing procedures were somewhat cumbersome.
He asked staff to review these and possibly make revisions. Fielder added that there are
probably four steps prior to the Board making a finding of fact: 1) Staff presentation; 2)
Appellant presentation; 3) Staff questions; and 4) Board questions.
Massey mentioned that it is important to give the Appellant the chance to provide any
further testimony. In a case that is appealed to City Council, it is important that they see
that the Appellant was given the opportunity to provide additional testimony.
Lee stated that he would review this and try to make some consolidations in these
procedures.
Board members were encouraged to get feedback on the Work Plan back to staff as
quickly as possible since Work Plans were due to the City Clerk at the end of January.
C. Larimer County:
Lee informed the Board that Larimer County was appealing the Board's decision from
the October, 1999 meeting. It is on Council's January 4, 2000 agenda. Fielder asked if
the entire Board was to be in attendance. Lee answered that the Board Chair would be
• • BRB
November 18, 1999
Page 21
asked to attend, or another representative from the Board if the Chair was not available.
The appeal will also involve preparation of a verbatim transcript from the prior meeting.
D. Information regarding Jeff George, d/b/a Summit Companies:
Board members received information from the homeowner in their meeting packets.
Fielder mentioned that there was really no action the Board could take and that this was
more of a civil matter at this point. Lee mentioned that the homeowner was urging the
Board and staff to refuse to renew this license. Without action, there is really no way to
do this. The Board already took action on this license at a previous hearing. The
information from that hearing, and the information sent to us from the homeowner, will
be kept in the contractor file and will be available for public inspection.
Felix Lee, Di or of Building & Zoning