Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 09/30/1999E A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, September 30, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Gene Little, and Bradley Massey Rudy Hansch, Al Hauck, and Thomas Hartmann STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney 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: A motion was made by Board Member Kreul-Froseth to approve the Minutes from the August 26, 1999 meeting. Board Member Little seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the August 26, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. LICENSE HEARING — MIKE NICELY, D/B/A GENTLE EARTH: Chairperson Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the license hearings. Felix Lee summarized the issues in this case. On or about August 11, 1999, a City building inspector issued a Stop Work Order at 327-331 East Magnolia for the roofing work that was in progress at this address. The work was being done by an unlicensed contractor, and no permit had been obtained. Subsequently, the Respondent submitted the necessary application and information to obtain a roofing license. Staff issued a probationary license to allow the Respondent to complete the job that was in progress. Respondent obtained the necessary permit and completed the job. The license was then suspended pending this Board hearing. BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 2 Lee noted that four violations of the City's licensing regulations may have occurred, including: "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 8. Performance of work for which a license or supervisor certificate is required without a valid, current license or supervisor certificate." Respondent, Mike Nicely, addressed the Board. He mentioned that the owner of this property planned on replacing the roof with the help of her sons. She asked Nicely how she should go about doing this. Nicely informed her that she should obtain a homeowner's permit and then have her sons repair the roof. Nicely was not aware that on multi -family units, an owner is not allowed to obtain a permit for an entire re -roof. This work must be done by a licensed contractor. The owner's sons started working on the project on late Friday afternoon and completed the roof tear - off over the weekend. When the building owner attempted to obtain a permit the following Monday, she was notified that she could not obtain a permit for the work and that a licensed contractor would have to be used. The owner contacted Nicely. Nicely instructed her not to do anymore work on the roof until he could get down to the Building & Zoning office and get the necessary information for a roofing license, etc. Before Nicely was able to do this, a Stop Work Order was issued by a City building inspector. Nicely mentioned that he created the problem since he told the owner that she would be able to obtain an owner's permit for the work. He obtained a roofing license to complete the job in an effort to fix the problem he had created. Lee asked Nicely if the owner was an occupant of the premises. Nicely mentioned that she was not. Lee mentioned that the City's regulations allow work to be performed by a homeowner, but they must occupy the premises. The City's regulations also allow a building owner to perform some minor, non-structural work; however, this project was considered major work since the entire roof was being replaced. In these instances, a licensed contractor is required. Fielder asked Nicely if he was aware that the owner of the building was not a resident of the premises. Nicely mentioned that he was aware of this. Board Member Little asked Nicely about the total cost of the job. Nicely answered that the cost of the shingles was a little over $7,000. Little asked if Nicely entered into a contract with the building owner to complete the roof. Nicely answered that he did not enter into a contract. He did complete the job, but did not charge the building owner for any labor. He does a lot of work for this individual and did not want to jeopardize this relationship. Since Nicely thought he had created the problem, he agreed to finish the work without compensation. Little asked if the building owner purchased the materials. Nicely confirmed this. Little asked Nicely if he received any payment over and above the cost of materials. Nicely answered that he did not. • • BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 3 Lee asked Nicely if he was a volunteer. Nicely confirmed this. Lee advised the Board that this was information he did not have and changes things somewhat. There still was no permit issued for the work, so this item does not change. However, in terms of the contractor, the issues change because by definition, a person is not considered a contractor if there is no compensation involved. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that the allegations in this case should probably be rescinded due to this new information. Lee stated that the issue remained that work was done without a permit; however, in light of the new evidence that Nicely was not a contractor (by definition), it appeared that the owner of the property was the responsible party and it would be up to the owner to hire a licensed contractor to obtain the required permit and do the work. Nicely answered that this is the reason he moved forward with obtaining a roofing license. Massey asked Nicely for further clarification on the events that took place in this case. Nicely provided clarification. Little asked Nicely if he intended on keeping the roofing license that he obtained. Nicely answered that he intended on keeping it. Little asked if Nicely had any other contractor licenses with the City. Nicely answered that he had a landscape license. Little asked if any other building license was required to obtain a roofing permit. Lee answered that a roofing license was sufficient to do this. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she thought it was appropriate for the Board to consider un-suspending Nicely's roofing license, and asked if it was appropriate to send a letter to the homeowner specifying the permit and contractor requirements in this case. Lee answered that the Board could recommend this if they thought it was important. Kreul-Froseth made a motion that Nicely's roofing license be removed from suspension and that Building & Zoning staff notify the homeowner involved of the City's permit and contractor requirements specific to this case. Massey seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. 4. LICENSE HEARING — RANDY RICHARDSON, DB/A RICHARDSON CONSTRUCTION This item was postponed to the October meeting at Richardson's request. 5. LICENSE HEARING — LES CORUM, DB/A CORUM CONSTRUCTION: Lee provided a summary of the specifics relative to this hearing. The Complainants, Betty and Norman Davidson, stated in their letter that they learned in the Spring of 1999, that Wayne Lathrop, d/b/a Maverick Construction, had obtained a permit to do construction on their property at 504 Grant Street. The permit was obtained under the name of Les Corum Construction. The Davidsons allege that they had no contact or dealings directly with Mr. Corum, only with Wayne Lathrop of Maverick Construction. The Complainants further allege that Mr. Corum never participated in any construction work that was done on the home. BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 4 The Complainants believed that Wayne Lathrop, d/b/a Maverick Construction falsely represented himself as a licensed contractor, and that when the Davidsons insisted that they would use only a licensed contractor, Mr. Lathrop fraudulently induced a business relationship with a valid licensed contractor so he would be able to obtain the necessary permit to allow him to construct the residential addition and do other remodeling work on the premises. The Complainants also believed that they had received improper billing from Mr. Lathrop, who was now apparently demanding full payment for the work that was done and had attached a lien to the property. The Davidsons believed that Les Corum had used his license fraudulently by allowing Wayne Lathrop to obtain a building permit under the name of Corum Construction, without Les Corum being involved in the project in any way. Based on the Complainants' allegations, staff believed that one or more of the following violations 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; 5. Fraudulent use of a license or certificate; 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; and 8. Performance of work for which a license is required without a valid, current license." Respondents, Les Corum and Wayne Lathrop, addressed the Board. Corum mentioned that he did not quite understand what all of the allegations of the Complainants were, other than the fact that he had done something wrong. Corum stated that he obtained the permit for the work done at 504 S. Grant. He submitted the application and plans and signed for the permit. There was a small problem with the design and Dick Valdez, the City's Residential Plans Analyst, called Corum regarding the problem. Corum took care of the problem, etc. Corum stated that he acted in a supervisory capacity on this project. He mentioned that he did not do any of the physical work on the project, other than to act as the supervisor. Corum checked with Lathrop periodically to make sure that things were going smoothly, inspections had been completed, etc. Towards the end of the project, when a problem did come up, Corum was contacted by a City building inspector. It was at this time, according to Corum, that Betty Davidson became distraught over the work. The problems were resolved and the work inspected so Corum did not quite understand why this action had been filed against him. Lathrop mentioned that he owned and operated a business called Maverick Construction Industries. Lee asked Lathrop if he was an employee of Les Corum's or Corum Construction. Lathrop mentioned that he was not. He stated that he was a licensed contractor in Loveland and has done most of his work in Larimer County. Lathrop stated that he and Les Corum have a standing • • BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 5 agreement where they share the resources of their companies. When a job is done in Fort Collins, Corum obtains the permit under the name of Corum Construction. When a job is done in Loveland, Lathrop obtains the permit under the name of Maverick Construction Industries. Lathrop mentioned that this project is not the first project in Ft. Collins that he and Corum have done this on. Lathrop stated that the Complainants' allegation that he entered into a fraudulent arrangement with Corum to get this permit is false since they have done this on other occasions. Lee asked Lathrop if he entered into a contract for the work listed on the permit and expected to be paid for that work. Lathrop answered that he entered into a contract with Betty Davidson and her son to construct an addition to the front of their house at 504 S. Grant. Lathrop clarified that the contract was entered into by both himself and Corum since their companies share resources, etc. Lee asked if, when he entered into the contract with the Davidsons, Lathrop indicated that Corum Construction was involved in the project. Lathrop answered that he did not. Lathrop mentioned that Betty Davidson, in her allegations, stated that he fraudulently presented himself as a licensed contractor. In the conversations Lathrop had with the Complainants, he did not recall a time that they ever asked him directly whether or not he was a licensed contractor. Lathrop stated that when he is asked this question, his standard answer is that he is a licensed contractor since he holds a Level 2 license in Loveland. He reiterated that most of his work is done in the County, where a contractor's license is not required. Lathrop stated that if he were asked if he could obtain a permit in Fort Collins, his answer would be no, that Corum and he (we) could obtain a permit. Lathrop was not asked directly if he personally could obtain the permit in this case. Lee asked Lathrop if he was aware of the contractor licensing requirements in the City of Fort Collins. Lathrop stated that he understood that there were requirements, but felt that with the arrangements he had with Conan, the requirements were not a concern. Lathrop stated that he and Corum co -mingle their resources and do everything above -board. He believed that the steps they took in obtaining a building permit for this project complied with the Building department when it was done. Licensed subcontractors were used, all appropriate inspections done, problems corrected, etc. Lee asked Lathrop if he disclosed that Corum Construction was the licensed contractor of record. Lathrop mentioned that he was never directly asked about this. Kreul-Froseth asked Corum if he was in a supervisory role on this project. Corum confirmed this. Kreul-Froseth asked Corum if he went out to the job site and inspected the work that was done. Corum confirmed this. He mentioned that he was out on the site twice within the first month and from there things seemed to be progressing fine so he did not go out to the site again until the project was completed. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the duration of the job. Lathrop mentioned that due to delays with the weather, material delivery, and belated decisions from the owner on windows, it took approximately three months. The permit was applied for on October 22, 1998. The job was completed in early to mid February. Kreul-Froseth asked Corum about the things he looked at during the two initial visits he made to the site. Corum answered that he looked at the excavation, the foundation, the underground plumbing, and the framing that had been completed up to that point. BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 6 Little asked Lathrop for clarification on the expected completion date. Lathrop answered that at the time the contract was entered into, the expected completion date was mid September. The permit was not applied for until late October, so the completion date was extended. Little asked for clarification on the typical completion time for this type of job. Lathrop answered that if it wasn't for the delays caused by weather and material delivery schedules, the job could have been completed in 8 weeks. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on compensation. She mentioned that Conan was the actual supervisor on the job, but Lathrop was being paid by the homeowner. She asked Lathrop if Corum received any compensation for his role as project supervisor. Lathrop mentioned that it is in their (Lathrop's and Corum's) agreement that they do not pay each other when they help each other out. Lathrop helps Corum in Loveland and Corum helps Lathrop in Fort Collins. Lathrop reiterated that Corum was involved in the job through conversations with the Building department, on -site visits, etc. Lathrop stated that Corum was needed in the supervisory role for dealings with the Building department. Kreul-Froseth asked if the homeowner was aware that Corum was out on the job site. Lathrop answered that Betty Davidson lives in California. Her son lives in the house. To his knowledge, no one had met Corum out on the job site. Massey asked for clarification on the contract and, specifically, if the contract was entered into between Betty Davison and Maverick Construction, with no reference to Corum Construction. Lathrop confirmed this and mentioned that in his standing agreement with Corum, in Ft. Collins, Lathrop's responsibilities are that of construction manager where he handles the day by day items, contractual arrangements, etc. Corum is responsible for the supervisory items, dealing with the City, etc. These roles are reversed for projects in Loveland. Massey mentioned that it appears that these two contractors are simply sharing the other's license. Neither is an employee of the other. In this case, Lathrop was paid directly by Betty Davidson. Corum was not involved, except to obtain the permit. Massey asked Lathrop how, without any kind of employer/employee relationship, and without there being any contractual arrangement between the homeowner and Corum, this situation could be anything but two contractors sharing each other's licenses illegally. Lathrop stated that because of Corum's participation in the project, this would not be the case. Little asked Corum about his conversation with Ms. Davidson in the Spring where he told her that he (Corum) was assuming responsibility for the project but was not able to explain Lathrop's bills. Corum confirmed that he had this conversation with Ms. Davidson and mentioned that he could not explain the bills at that time because he had not seen them. Little asked Corum about the role he played in completion of the project. Corum answered that when he spoke with Ms. Davidson, her relationship with Lathrop had deteriorated. Ms. Davidson upgraded nearly everything that was done in the house from what was originally agreed upon in the contract. When the final billing was submitted to Ms. Davidson, there was an additional $3,000 that she had over spent from the original estimate. It was Corum's opinion that Ms. Davidson became upset over this, decided she was not going to pay, and instituted this action against them as a way of avoiding having to pay the extra charges. There was one small problem on the roof that Corum assisted with near the end of the project. It was Corum's opinion that the overall workmanship on the project was fine and that the only issue was the additional charges that had been billed. • • BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 7 Corum mentioned that the original contract entered into between Ms. Davidson and Lathrop included only an estimated price. He stated that Ms. Davidson agreed with this. Corum also mentioned that he found Lathrop's bills to be perfectly legible and understandable. Little asked Lathrop if it was his understanding that this project was a "cost plus" type of relationship. Lathrop mentioned that he informed both Betty Davidson and Norman Davidson at various times that this was a "cost plus" agreement. Little asked if a change order had been signed on any of the original estimates. Lathrop mentioned that none were signed; the agreements were verbal. Little asked for clarification on a contractor's license being used for the benefit of an unlicensed contractor and whether or not there were any ongoing issues with respect to building inspections that had not been remedied. Lee answered that the last inspection on record, which was a rough -in plumbing inspection, was done in late 1998. It was Lathrop's understanding that the final inspections had been done in January or February, 1999. Lee answered that there was no record of a final inspection. With regard to using a contractor's license for the benefit of an unlicensed contractor, Lee read the definition of a contractor as shown in the City's ordinance: "A contractor shall mean any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, other organization or any combination thereof as named in this Article for a specific trade or class that undertakes with or for another on any property within the city to engage in any construction for which a license is required and for which said construction or demolition a fixed fee, trade -in -kind or other compensation is normally made." Lee also quoted from Section 15-154 of the City's ordinance: "No person shall perform construction work as a contractor within the city without first obtaining a license as specified herein." Lee stated that a person is considered a contractor and must have a license, if that person is getting payment for work that requires a contractor's license. Employees of a licensed contractor are exempt from this. Fielder made a motion on findings of fact for Mr. Corum as follows: That Mr. Corum was in violation of the following in regards to this specific construction project: 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; Fielder made a motion on findings of fact for Mr. Lathrop as follows: That Mr. Lathrop was in violation of the following in regards to this specific construction project: 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; 8. Performance of work for which a license is required without a valid, current license. Massey suggested a friendly amendment to the motion on the floor to include under Corum's findings of fact the following: 5. Fraudulent use of a license or certificate. Massey indicated that someone else, who was not an employee of Corum Construction, was allowed to use the license illegally. BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 8 Fielder answered that he was not convinced that there was a willful act in this case, as much as there was ignorance on the part of both of the individuals involved with respect to their business relationship versus what was actually required. It was Fielder's opinion that fraud typically implies a willful act. There was further discussion on this issue. Fielder amended his motion to include an additional violation to the Corum findings of fact. The motion on findings of fact for Mr. Corum was amended as follows: That Mr. Corum was in violation of the following in regards to this specific construction project: 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; 5. Misuse of a license or certificate. Little mentioned that #2 also pertains to Corum. Fielder asked for clarification on this item. Lee provided clarification. Fielder agreed to amend his motion on Corum to include #2. The motion on findings of fact for Mr. Corum was amended as follows: That Mr. Corum was in violation of the following in regards to this specific construction project: 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; 5. Misuse of a license or certificate. Fielder also amended his motion regarding Lathrop. The motion on findings of fact for Mr. Lathrop was amended as follows: That Mr. Lathrop was in violation of the following in regards to this specific construction project: 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; 8. Performance of work for which a license is required without a valid, current license. Massey seconded the motion as amended. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None • BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 9 The motion carried. Corum mentioned that he was not aware that the hearing process had been completed and asked if he could provide additional information. There was some discussion on this. Corum mentioned that the reason he used his license in this way was because in the late 1980s he received a phone call from a contractor out of New York who wanted to do some work at the mall. This contractor asked Corum to pull the permit for him. Corum asked the contractor how he found his name and was told that the City had recommended him. Corum checked with the City to see if he could obtain a permit for this New York contractor for the work to be done in the mall. According to Corum, he was told by City staff that the New York contractor did not need a license, that Corum could obtain the permit, and that licensed subcontractors would have to be used. The contractor from New York asked Corum to obtain the permit, which he did, for $500. Corum mentioned that the City condoned this action by giving this contractor his name for the purpose of obtaining a permit for him. Corum believed that this was the same scenario that happened in this case. Fielder responded that he could not answer for something that City staff may have told him and that the Board must adhere to the licensing regulations that are in place. Lee added that it is perfectly legal for a contractor to use licensed subcontractors. However, Mr. Lathrop is not a licensed subcontractor. Had Corum subbed this work out to a licensed contractor, it would have been perfectly legal. In addition, Corum and Lathrop have freely admitted that they have been violating the City's regulations for a number of years. Kreul-Froseth asked Corum if he was building anything in the City at the present time or had anything scheduled. Corum answered that he did not have anything pending or scheduled. She asked for clarification on decisions that have been made by the Board in the past for cases that are similar to this one. Lee could not recall a similar case. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she could not recall a similar case either. It was her feeling that these were serious violations and that if a person is a licensed professional in the City of Fort Collins they have a responsibility not to sell or give away their license to someone else. It was her opinion that suspension was certainly appropriate and, possibly, revocation. Little mentioned that he was troubled by the fact that the contract was not entered into between Corum and the Davidsons. The entity who had responsibility for the permit, had no responsibility with the homeowners who hired the work done. The homeowners assumed they were dealing with Lathrop without any knowledge that the responsibility was with Corum. Corum had accepted the responsibility of the project and, yet, had not followed the project through to conclusion. Little was concerned about the way this project had been handled, the issues surrounding accountability, and that fact that there were injured parties as a result of these things. It was his opinion that a suspension would be appropriate in this case. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that in the past, the Board had determined the time limit for a suspension based on the level of violation that had occurred. The board discussed the appropriate time limit for a suspension in this case. There was further discussion on final buildings inspections. After further review, Lee found that records showed that -final building, electrical, mechanical and insulation inspections had been done in May, 1999. However, the final building inspection was not passed at that time. There was some discussion on time limits for permits. Lee mentioned that if there is no activity on a permit, i.e., an inspection, within 180 days, the permit technically expires. BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 10 Massey mentioned that he felt a suspension was warranted in this case. He did not want to pursue revocation at this point. Massey asked Corum if he had any plans to finish the project, get the necessary final inspections, obtain a CO, etc. Corum answered that he intended to complete the project. He was under the impression that all of the final inspections had been done and passed in May. Corum stated that he is a responsible contractor and has never had a situation like this one in the 15 years he has had his Ft. Collins license. He stated that he may have violated the City's code by obtaining the permit and then not personally performing the work, or by not having a contract with Ms. Davidson. However, he did not feel he had done anything wrong since, according to Corum, the City had already set a precedent that this type of arrangement was okay. Corum stated that a six month suspension to his license was serious and could put him out of business. He thought this type of suspension might be more appropriate if he had other violations. Massey made a motion to suspend Les Corum's license for 60 days with the contingency that he finish the project that is subject to this case, and that a letter of reprimand be placed in his permanent contractor record. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. 6. APPEAL HEARING —MARC LYMAN, DB/A CRESTONE CONSTRUCTION: Fielder outlined the procedures for appeal hearings. Appellant, Marc Lyman, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he recently applied for a Class C2 license with the City. The City's contractor licensing packet outlines the requirements needed for each specific license class. It was Lyman's understanding that for the C2 license, an applicant was required to pass the C2 exam and to submit documentation for two C2 projects and one DI project. Lyman stated that he did all of these things and felt that he met the requirements as outlined in the contractor licensing packet. Lee confirmed that Lyman did pass the C2 exam and submitted project documentation in support of his C2 license request. Lee noted that the C2 license authorizes the construction or demolition of any building classified as a single family dwelling, utility building, or any building classified as a multi- family dwelling of no more than 2 stories. The City's requirements state that the applicant must have been the supervisor or contractor responsible for the construction of at least two entire buildings that would require no less than a Ft. Collins Class C2 license and one entire project that would require no less than a Ft. Collins Class Dl license. Lee stated that the two project forms that were submitted as Class C2 projects were for triplexes. It was Lee's opinion that the ordinance sets a minimal limit and implies that the limit could be higher. Lee did not feel that two triplexes were sufficient to qualify an applicant to build a two-story, 200 unit apartment complex, which would be allowable under the Class C2 license. The City requirements set a minimal threshold. • BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 11 Lyman mentioned that he was surprised when he was notified that he was not approved for his license since he had met all of the listed requirements. The information in the contractor license packet does not state that there are size requirements for projects, etc. He would have liked to have been informed of this at the beginning of the process. He understood that he met only the minimum requirements for this license. However, he felt that he did meet the requirements as set out in the City's information. Lyman mentioned that he applied for the license so that he would be allowed to construct an addition to a multi -family building. He had no desire to build a huge multi -family building. He was agreeable to the Board granting him a C2 license with a limitation on the size of the buildings he could construct. Massey asked for clarification on the Appellant's current license. Lyman answered that he currently held a Class Dl license. Massey asked for further clarification on the multi -family addition that Lyman had referenced. Lyman mentioned that the project included a 400 sq. ft. utility room addition to a multi -family building. Massey asked for clarification on why the Appellant took a Class C2 test at the time he originally applied for his Class Dl license. Lee answered that staff does not limit the type of test that an individual can take. Lyman mentioned that he knew that the C2 test would qualify him for the C2 license, as well as any license under the C2, so he chose to take this one. Kreul-Froseth asked Lyman if he had any additional training or educational background that would help the Board with their decision. Lyman mentioned that he graduated cum laude from the construction management program at Colorado State University. He also mentioned that he has been working in the construction field for eleven years. Fielder asked Lyman for clarification on the largest project he had completed in terms of square footage. Lyman mentioned that he also holds a Class E license for the City of Ft. Collins which allows for commercial tenant finish work. The current space he was working on involved approximately 1,500 sq. ft. Kreul-Froseth asked Lyman if he was self-employed. Lyman confirmed this. She asked if he would have an opportunity to work for someone else in order to gain additional C2 experience. Lyman answered that this would be difficult for him. Lyman stated that he did understand that another option for him would be to build outside of the City. Kreul-Froseth asked about the pending C2 project. Lyman mentioned that the owner had moved forward on this project with a different contractor. Massey asked why the City's minimum threshold was so low. Lee mentioned that this was due to the distinction between an RI and an R3 occupancy. Anything that is more than two units is considered as multi -family in terms of the code. Massey stated that the Board ran into a similar problem with a previous appellant who was asking for a Class E license and had projects that were barely above the $20,000 requirement. Lee answered that this is the reason he uses some discretion in reviewing projects. Fielder asked if there was a way staff could track restrictions that were attached to licenses. Lee answered that staff could do this through the use of electronic records. Massey mentioned that the Board has, in the past, granted one-time exemptions to licenses to allow a contractor to do a specific project. Massey thought this situation was somewhat different since the Appellant was asking for an ongoing license restriction. BRB Sept. 30, 1999 Page 12 Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she would feel comfortable granting an exemption for a specific project. She was somewhat uncomfortable with granting a C2 license with an ongoing restriction. She encouraged Lyman to try to obtain the additional experience by building in the County. Lyman asked if granting a C2 license with an ongoing restriction was a possibility. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that if a contractor came to the Board with a specific job request and had a track record such as Lyman has, she would have no problems with granting an exception for that specific job. Lyman asked if this would need to be done for each job. Massey confirmed this. Massey mentioned that it was possible to add a restriction to a license. However, this could cause administrative problems as staff tried to keep track of this. Massey was in favor of having Lyman come back to the Board to ask for a one-time exemption for a specific project. Fielder made a motion to deny Appellant's appeal. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. Little mentioned that he wanted to applaud Lyman for the amount of education he had obtained and for the relationship he had developed with his customers. Based on the information that was submitted in support of the license request, the customers were obviously very pleased with him, and it was apparent that he had developed a level of professionalism in his trade. Little agreed with the other Board members that he would like to entertain seeing Lyman again with a specific project that would require a one-time exemption as a way to help build Lyman's level of expertise. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. 8. OTHER BUSINESS: A. November & December Meetings: Fielder noted that the meetings for November and December had been moved up due to the holidays. The November meeting is scheduled for November 18. The December meeting is scheduled for December 16. B. Building Accessibility Luncheon: Fielder reminded Board Members that this luncheon is scheduled for October 28 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.. RSVPs are necessary. He encouraged Board Members to RSVP whether or not they were planning to attend. The contact person is Bob Palmer, 221-6805. This luncheon is scheduled right before the October BRB meeting. C. Absenteeism: Staff provided an attendance record for 1999 BRB meetings. Board Members discussed this information. A memorandum will follow. Meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Felix Lee, Di or of Building & Zoning