Home | 

SANTA ROSA COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Approved Jan 13, 2016 - Building Code Board of Adjustments Minutes

 
The rcgular meeting of the Sana Rosa County Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals was held Wednesday,Jantary 73,2016 at2:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Santa Rosa County Building Inspection Departrnent located at 6051 Old Bagdad Highway, Milton, FL 32583. Boatd memben present were Mark Cotton ffice Chainnan), Jetemy Reedet, Stephen Reyes and Sam Vickers. Sana Rosa County Development Services saff in attendance was Rhonda Royals, Building Official, RandyJones, Code Compliance Supenrisor and Robyn Levetton, Board Secretary. Meeting attendees included Roy Andtews, Santa Rosa County Attomey. A court reporter was ptesent for the meeting Melissa A Odom with Associated Cout Reporters. This meeting was also recorded via cassette. Mark Cotton, Vice Chafunan, called the meeting to otdet *2:30 p.m,. Apptoval of Agenda Stephen Reyes made a motion to accept the agenda as presented; Sam Vickers seconded the motion. The motion caried urithout obiection. Next Meeting The next regularly scheduled meeting was set for Wednesday, February 17 ,2016, at 2:30 p.m. in the Sana Rosa County Development Serwice Centet Media Room. Annroval of Minutes Sam Vickers made a modon to approve the minutes ftom the August 72,2075 meering as presented; Jeremy Reeder seconded the motion. The motion canied without objection. Old Business Formal Hearing * Mindy B Flores vs. David Mayo d/b/aMayo Construction & Design, Inc.,license RR0067692, Registeted Residential contractor. Mr. & Ms. Flores and Mr. David Mayo & Mr. Brandon Mayo were in attendance. Attomey Paul Wilson, tepresenting David Mayo, was also in attendance. RandyJones stated that this is a continuation of the August'15 formal headng. At that time two chatges were brought befote the Board. The Board voted in favor of Dennis & Mindy Flores on the 1" charge: 7. 2006-38: Section 5, Item 1 (d) - r07illful or deliberate disregard and violation of the applicable building codes or laws of the state or any municipalities or coundes thereof for failure to include statement notifying customer of construction tecovery fund as tequited by Chaptet 489.1425, Flodda Statues. @otd pdnt is the specific section that pertains to this case) The 2"d charge hasn't yet been determined and is the teason the headng was condnued: 2. 2006-38: Section 5, Item 1 0.) - Upon proof that the licensee is guilty of ftaud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contacting as estlined in baclqgtound infonnation below. (Bold print is the specific section that perains to this case) At the last meeting, Mr Mayo conrmented that he would do "'lVhatever it takes to make it dght." Gary Mooneyham filed a motion to table the allegation of violation of Item 2,2006-38: Section 5, Item 1 G) "ntil the contractor has been given 45 days to make cortections, all wete in favot. Some items have been corected, but not all items. The code issues fithat dme were the French and entrance doors not sealing propedy, range hood vent not sealing propetly (corrected), ftansition at the shower, not propet mateia\ windows not propedy caulked (corrected) atd an issue with Hatdi panel finish nails at comer. Mindy Flores spoke next. She provided a list of charges to their account which she believed were improper. The Board asked questions of Ms Flores urith a discussion ensuing. Dennis Flotes spoke stating that he didn't touch the vinyl showet linet when he insalled the floodng. Paul ITilson, Attorney representing Mayo Construction spoke tegarding the double biling. He said thzt aftet the Formal Hearing in August '15, they were told thete were five (5) items to clear. Double billing wasn't an issue; thete was no mention of cleadng up any double billing items. Thete were only the five (5) code violations. The five items were completed and a call was made fot the inspections of those items and nothing was heard back until iust before 2 p.^.today. It was then emailed that there we issues remaining. They were not told prior to today, that the items completed were not completed cortecdy. Thete is a civil suit that has been filed where double billing can be ad&essed. Brandon Mayo spoke before the Board stating that he believed code violations were tesolved because they hadn't heard anything otherwise ftom the Building Inspection office. Rhonda Royals spoke to the Board stating that after the formal hearing, additional items were discovered by the Flotes'. Rhonda sent an email to David Mayo oudining those items. Mr. Wilson received a copy of that email thru Mr. Mayo. Then Randy received an email from Mr. Wilson and Randy copied Rhonda on that email. The Board asked if the items outlined in the first formal headng were completed. Randy rcsponded that dl items wete not completed. At the end of the last meeting there were 5 items and Mt Mayo didn't know about all those items at the time. Mr. Wilson wrote down the 5 items. The following three (3) of the original five (5) Items, ftom August '15 formal hearing, are not yet complete: Air and water intrusion through the entry/ftench doors Finish nails at a comer of Hardi Board Shower ftansition, improper matedal Ms Royals spoke again and stated that the code violations rcdly should be pushed more toward the probable cause because we are looking, right now, at the portion of the satute that deals with "misconduct in the practice of contractingD. This would be based on the financial mismanagement allegations and other items that were 616'rght up during the Formal Hearing. The code violations are going to be discussed in the Probable Cause potion of the meeting. Attorney, Roy Andrews clarified the resolution that was reached. Upon the August hearing, the ptoof and suPPort of the chatge wasn't supported by the information presented. The Board suggested a compromise that the parties work out the issues arndif a resoludon wasn't reached, it would come back before the Board today. The determinadon made by the Board is iust that; is the board convinced that the contactor is guilty of Misconduct in the Practice of Contracting? That is what the Board is supposed to look at based upon the evidence that was introduced at the prior heating and what is presented today. Mt Reyes made a motion to table the case until the next scheduled meeting to complete the initial five (5) items and tesolution of doubfl6 Silling issues by showing accounting records, proving pmctices. The Five (5) items consist of: French & Entrance doors not sealed propedy Range hood vent not sealed Ttansition piece at the shower STindows not propedy caulked Hatdi panel, finish nails at comer Mr. Vickerc seconded the motion. Therc was discussion amongst the Board. The motion cartied without obiection. Randy suggested that in regards to resolutiol 6f filling issues, Mr. & Mrc Flores can make their lisq get *lat list ditecdy to us, Mt. \il7ilson ot Mr. Mayo,let them respond to those specific items thereby narrowing it down for our Board. The Board agreed to that and asked Ms Flotes if the list she ptovided at this meedng would suffice as the best list to present to the Mayo's so they can respond to a set of "double billing" items. She said that list is fine to use. Mayo's are to wotk off this list and ptove the items were not double ot inaccurate billing. The next meering will be changed to Wednesday, February 17 to allow attendance for all. New Business Prcbable Cause aL tUinay B Flores vs. David Mayo d/b/*Mayo Construction & Design, Inc.,license RR0067692, Registered Residential contractor. Randy opened with specific code violations beginning with the shower pan linet installation which incorporates the other Probable Cause case of Audie Courtney d/b/aThe Boyd Plumbing Company Residential, LLC. Mt. Coutney was before the Board today for violation of 2010 FBC secdon P2709.2,Improper Shower liner. It has been determined that the shower pan linet had been cut allowing for water intrusion; Mr. Courtney did leave the recessed pan liner as if a curb was going to be installed and as required by code, left 2" of water in the liner for the inspection; the inspection passed. No one disputed that there is no evidence that the shower pan liner was cut by Mr. Courtney. Mr. Reyes made a motion to dismiss the charge againstAudie Courtney, Mt. Reedet seconded the motion and the motion passed without obiection. Randy continued with the code violation items, the showet liner being cut after the inspection is one of those items, the dwelling / gange separation which has been cotrected, tlete was a elevation at an extedor door that had a lack of a step which has been corrected. The final item is the lack of installation of t'uiro (2) catbon monoxide detectors. To sum up, the only items that remain outstanding per Randy are the cut shower liner, catbon monoxide alarns, the doors not sealing and the Hardi Panel nailing issues. There was much discussion amongst the Board, Randy, and Mt. Courtney regatding the bathtoom vinyl flooring, the shower tile, the shower transition and the shower pan liner. David Mayo approached the Board and stated that he doesn't have any idea who cut the liner and he said that he would have someone install the Co2 detectors. Mr. Reyes filed a motion to table this case until Februar! 17,2016to allow time fiot rcpair of the code issues and pass inspections. Mr. Reeder seconded the motion and the motion passed without obiection. Probable Cause * Santa Rosa County vs. Paul "Mitch" Ashford d/b/r Maiestic Custom Homes, Inc., Iicense #RR28281 1 30 1 S.egisteted Residential Contactor) Randy provided a brief oudine of the case. Thete is a violation of Ordinance 2006-38, section 5(c) which is a violation of FS 455.227 (1)(t). The violation occurred in Escambia where Mr Ashford contracted to build a home. Mr. Ashford wasn't licensed in Escambia. He had a working relationship with a certified cofltractor in the past and when this job came up Mr. Ashfotd had this state certified contractor pull the permit fot the home. The homeowners discovered that Mr. Ashford was the contractor and he wasn't licensed in Escambia to cootract. He was chatged with unlicensed conuacting and plead nolo contendere and failed to teport to our board. Mr. Ashfotd addressed the Boatd. He stated that his old partner (certified conttactot) drew the plans, supervised the consftuction and pulled the permit. He (Mitch) signed the contrect and at that point didn't believe they had done anythingwtoflg. There was no willfulintent He agreed he was S"tlty; he didn't wish to have a formal heaflng and stated that he would accept adiudication today. Stephen Reyes made a motion of Probable Cause,Jeremy Reeder seconded the motion. The motionpassedwithout obiection Stephen R.ye" made a motion of ReprimandrJeremy Reeder seconded the motion. The motion passed without obiection. The meetingwas adiourned at 4:45 p.m.