Create PDF
Approved Aug 8, 2007 - Building Code Board of Adjustments Minutes

August 8, 2007

The regular meeting of the Santa Rosa County Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals was held August 8,2007, at 3:00 p.m. in the conference roomof the Santa Rosa
CountyBuilding Inspection Department located at 6051 Old Bagdad Highway, Milton, FL 32583.  Board members present were Mr. James “Larry” Hall, Vice Chairman;Mr.
William J. Blackmanand Mr. Danny Holt.

Building InspectionDepartment staff in attendance was Mrs. Rhonda Royals, Deputy Building Official; Mr. Skip Tompkins, Compliance Division Superintendent;Mr. Randy Jones, Compliance Investigator;Mr. Bobby Burkett, Compliance Investigatorand Mrs. Robyn Leverton, Administrative Assistant I.

Mr. Tom Dannheisser, County Attorney, was not present forthe meeting.

Mr. Larry Hall, Vice-Chairman, called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Approval of Agenda:
There were no amendments to the agenda.  Mr.Holt made a motion to accept the agenda. Mr. Blackmanseconded the motion.  The motion carried witha unanimous vote.

Approval of Minutes:
Mr. Blackman made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 13, 2007 meeting.  Mr. Holt seconded the motion.  The motion carried witha unanimous vote.

Next Meeting:
The next regularly scheduled meeting is Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 3:00p.m. in the Building Inspection Department Conference Room.

New Business - Probable Cause
James Hart vs. Jeffery Jackson d/b/a Jett, LLC.
Rhonda Royals informed the Board that Mr. & Mrs. Hart were present but Mr. Jeffery Jackson was not.

Mr. Blackman made a motion to forward the case to a formal hearing. Mr. Holt seconded the motion.

There was discussion amongst the Board members and the Building Department staff.  Mr. Hart wanted to speak.

Mr. Hart told his story in brief. Just prior to Ivan, they contacted their insurance co. regarding a ruptured pipe they had in the wall.  USAA recommended and would guarantee Jett LLC’s work. Jett made the required repairs; he was satisfied with their work.  Since he had done business with Jett previously, he contracted with Mr. Jackson for storm damage
repair.  Mr. Jackson agreed to begin work the Monday following the week he signed the contract and he agreed to do all structural repairs.  Jackson Roofing agreed to complete all the metal. Nearly two years later his business is still closed and the work isn’t complete.

Mr. Holt reaffirmed that he seconded the motion. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Randy Jones spoke to the Board regarding the case.  He stated that Mr. Jackson’s permits have expired due to lack of activity on the office building.  There is an accessory building that had a metal roof permit pulled by a roofing contractor (Jackson Roofing); that permit has been finaled;however, Mr. Hart has some cosmetic issues with that contractor.  He said he doesn’t believe there are any code issues that have been violated on the roof of the accessory building.

Since Mr. Jackson’s permits have expired, they essentially don’t exist.  More permits need to be issued to either another contractor or to Mr.Hart as the owner.  We (Building Dept.)
have the drawings and engineering that is required.  We need a permit and to conduct some inspections.  There are some minor code violations such as connectors and bolts missing. The roof has not been looked at.

Mr. Hart interjected that repairs were not built like the drawings.  Randy said that would be a basis for a failed inspection.  Once inspections commence, these issues can be pointed out.

New Business - Probable Cause
Donnarae Morris vs. John D Roche’ d/b/a Roche’ Enterprises of Pensacola, Inc.

Rhonda Royals introduced the case and stated that it is a roofing complaint.

The contractor was not present.

Mr. Blackman made a motion to forward the case to a formal hearing. Mr. Holt seconded the motion.

Mr. Holt said that he would like to listen to the complainant.

Ms. Morris addressed the Board. She said a rep with Roche’ came to the house and provided her with an estimate.  She agreed with the estimate and signed her approval to
proceed. Roche’ did the roof but everything that was listed on the contract was not completed.  They didn’t pull the roofing permit.

Someone [from Roche’] came to her and asked her to sign a piece of paper saying he was done and he requested his money.  It was double what he previously wanted and she
showed proof that she already paid himhalfso he wrote another bill. She said she wasn’t signing anything because her roof wasn’t done.  She told him there was no permit, he was supposed to install an insert for uplift and there were some leaks.  He came back and caulked the leaks, but she still didn’t see a permit.

He later sent another man out (a partner).  She showed him the problems with the roof, he agreed there were problems and he said they would fix them and “eat” the additional cost. Later she found out that this other man was not a partner.  She didn’t have her roof fixed and there still was no permit according to the information she received when she called the County. Finally he came up with the permit and he again requested money.  She again said she wasn’t paying until the roofwas fixed.  He placed a lien on her house for the balance of the money. The mortgage co satisfied the lien.  She says that the main problems are…no final inspection, no warranty and a rusty roof.  She said the roof now looks worse than the original that was there.

The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Mr. Blackman made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Holt seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:30p.m.