Home | 

SANTA ROSA COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Approved Aug 12, 2015 - Building Code Board of Adjustments Minutes

 

MINUTES NOT VERBATIM
SAAITA ROSA COI.JNTY BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING MINUTES August [2r20ts
The regulat meeting of the Santa Rosa County Building Code Board of Adiustments and Appeals was held Wednesday, August 72,2075 at 2:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Santa Rosa County Building Inspection Deparunent located at 6051 Old Bagdad Highway, Milton, FL32583. Board membets presentwete Chatles'?ete" Southedand (Chainnan), William'Billy'Mayne,Jr., Gary Mooneyham,Jeremy Reeder and Stephen Reyes.
Santa Rosa County Development Services staff in attendance was Rhonda Royals, Building Official, RandyJones, Code Compliance Superwisor and Bobby Burketg Compliance Investigator.
Meeting attendees included Roy Andrews, Santa Rosa County Attomey.
A coutt teportet was presef,.t for the meeting Melissa A Odom vrith Associated Court Reporters. This meeting was also recorded via cassette.
Pete Southerland, Chainnan, called the mee' ng to order *2:30 p.m.
Approval ofAgenda Jeremy Reedet made a modon to accept the agenda as presented; Gary Mooneyham seconded the motion. The motion catried urithout obiection.
Next Meetine The next tegularly scheduled meedng is \UTednesday, Septemb er 9,2015, at 2:30 p.m. ifl the Santa Rosa County Development Service Centet Media Room.
Aooroval of Minutes Gary Mooneyham made a mod.on to approve the minutes ftom the April8,2015 meeting as ptesented; Billy Mayne seconded the motion. The motion carded without obiection.
Old Business
Fotmal Headng
rf Mindy B Flores vs. David Mayo d/b/a Mayo Construction & Design, fnc.,license RR0067692, Registeted Residenial contractor.
Mr. & Ms. Flores and Mr. Mayo wete in attendance. Attomey PaulWilson, representing David Mayo, was also in attendance.
RandyJones read the charges that were up for Boatd considesdon:
1, 2006-38: Section 5, Item 1 (d) - Willful ot deliberate distegard and violation of the applicable building codes or laws of the sate or any municipalities or counties thereof for failue to include statement notifing customer of construction recovery fund as rcquired by Chapter 489.1425, Florida Statues. @old ptint is the specific section that pertains to this case)
2. 2006-38: Section 5, Item 1 ft) - Upon proof that the licensee ir g"ilty of ftaud or deceit or of gtoss negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the ptactice of contacting as outlined in baclrground information below. (Bold print is the specific section ttrat pertains to this case)
Jones then stated that the proposal was entered into on Feb 4, 2074. Based on this proposal, there was to be a renovation of the existing home in the amount of $73,800 plus an additiond $22,750 fot a new garage, bringing the total proposal to $97,550.00. Flores states that, to date, they have paid out a total of $112,960 with the contractot asking for an additional amount of $1.2,497.00. Mr. Mayo has filed at lien on the property for $19,784.00. The pennit was applied for on February 4,2014 and was issued on February 72,2074. The final inspection was conducted onJuly 3,2074 and the final inspection was approved. Ms Flores first contacted Randy midJuly 2014 zs she has discovered some disctepancies in that some elements weren't constructed according to the plans. They met a few days latet and they confirmed those discrepancies. Mr. Mayo began those correcdons within a few days of them coming to his attention. Items consisted of a floor system that wasn't built to plans and a ridge beam that was changed; many items that Ms Flores had showed him were cosmedc, which allows us no iudsdiction. Randy suggested that she file a complaint; she filed with DBPR fust; we teceived the complaint ftom DBPR on December22,2074 zr;id, began working the case. Ms. Flores alleges that Mr. Mayo is billing them, or double billing them, for items that they had already paid for.
Mindy Flotes spoke next. She provided, what she believed to be, proof of why the contractor should be found g"itty of the fitst charge. The Boatd asked questions of Ms Flores with a discussion ensuing. Dennis Flores also spoke bdefly about how they believed that the signed esdmate was considered a contfact.
Paul Wilson, representing Mayo Construction spoke regarding the estimate as well.
David Mayo spoke stating why he didn't believe he needed a contact. The Boatd asked questions of Mr. Mayo and a discussion ensued.
The Board determined rhat, based on everFthing said, it seems all paties believed that the esdmate v/as a contract. Mr. Mayo admitted that the "Recovery Fund" statement was flot provided to Mr. & Mts. Flotes.
Based on only the firct chatge, Stephen Reyes made a motion that a violation existed, Gary Mooneyham seconded the motion. The motion cariedwithout obiection.
Stephen Reyes made a motion to reprimand David Mayo. Gary Mooneyham seconded the motion. The motion caried without obiection.
The Board then began listening to Mindy Flores speak in tegatds to the second charge- She once again ptovided reasons why she believed that David Mayo should be found g"ltty. Ms Flotes was asked questions by the Boatd, pictures wete ptovided and a discussion ensued.
A recess was called at 4 p.m.; the meeting was back in session at 4:10 p.m.
Mindy Flores continued to speak and go through the packet that she provided. The Board asked questions and the discussion continued.
Paul Wilson spoke to the Board. He sated the amount charged by Mayo Construction was $90,034.06 (amount of the contract). The amount of the actual contract exceeds that amount. He charged her less than she agreed to pay to do more wotk than is included in the estimate. She changed the scope of work, wanting more work done. Cost to complete the wotk was $81,534.06. It was a "cost plus fee" contract, which was origtnally goitg to be $10,000, but he lowered that amount to $8500. He summadzed items included and additional items that were added. The Board asked questions with a discussion ensuing.
Mr. David Mayo and Ginger Mayo addtessed the Board. They alked about paytng the subs and suppliers and about talking to Mt & Mts Flores tegatding the amounts still owed. The Boatd asked questions. Once again, a discussion ensued.
Randy reread the charges that David Mayo was facing as listed at the beginning of the meetsng. Randy, at this time, specified that "misconduct' was the wording that was specifically picked from Item2. "Misconduct" specifically teferring to the alleged monies that Ms Flores paid fot matedal andf ot labot that Mr. Mayo was billing her for agan.
The Boatd discussed making a motion. Mr. Mooneyham said that the contactor, David Mayo, said he was willing to do whatevet it takes to make it right. He felt he should be allowed an amount of time to coffect the problems. If not completed within that period of time, it may need to be readdressed or another, licensed contractor may have to be brought in. The Board enteted into discussion ryan.
Gary Mooneyham filed a motion to table the allegation of violation of Item 212006-38: Section 5, Item 1 (k) until the conttactor has been given 45 days to make corections; the motionwas seconded. The motion caniedwithout obiection.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Prepared by Robyo I-everton Santa Rosa County Development Sewices Compliance Division, Board Secretary