MINUTES NOT VERBATIM
SANTA ROSA COUNTY BUILDING CODE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 19, 2003
The regular meeting of the Santa Rosa County Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals was held February 19, 2003, at 3:00 p.m. in the Conference room of the Santa Rosa County Building Inspection Department located at 6051 Old Bagdad Highway, Room 202, Milton, FL 32583. Board members present were Mr. Charles “Pete” Southerland, Chairman; Mr. Frank Harold, and Mr. Jeff Ates.
Mr. Larry Hall, Vice-Chairman was absent.
Building Inspection Department staff in attendance was Mr. Martin Riley, Building Official; Mrs. Rhonda Royals, Building Department Coordinator; Mr. Skip Tompkins, Field Superintendent; and Amy Allen, Permit Analyst.
Mr. Tom Dannheisser, County Attorney was also in attendance.
Mr. Southerland, Chairman; called the meeting to order at 3:25 p.m.
Approval of Agenda:
Mrs. Royals asked the Board to allow one addition to the agenda. Mr. Mark Marcelli with Overhead Door Company along with Mr. Leroy Kurpke, Engineer were in attendance to appeal a decision made by the Building Official regarding a particular garage door. Mr. Harold made a motion to accept the agenda. The motion carried with an unanimous vote.
Approval of Minutes:
Mr. Harold made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 8, 2003 meeting. The motion carried with an unanimous vote.
Next Meeting:
The next regularly scheduled meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 3:00 p.m.
Mr. David Hannah VS Raymond Noel d/b/a Reve Development Corporation
Mrs. Royals gave a brief summary of the case to the Board. Mr. and Mrs. Hannah contracted with Reve Development to build a home. Mr. Hannah’s complaint dealt with a metal roof constructed on the home. The building permit and roofing permit were issued to Reve Development on January 2002. The inspector for the job was conducting an inspection and realized there was metal roofing, which had been delivered to the job. Mr. Noel’s license does not allow for metal roof installation. At that time, James Spangler pulled the roof permit.
Randy Jones, Building Inspector III; presented to the Board the items he had witnessed while at the jobsite. Mr. Jones used a slide show of various pictures of the roof in question to further explain the complaint. Mr. Jones stated that the fasteners on the roof were not installed as directed by the manufacturer’s specifications. Mr. Jones pointed out on the slides the oil-canning, wrinkling, and buckling of the metal roof. Mr. Jones explained to the Board that this could be from either the improper installation of the fasteners or the quality of the metal. Mr. Harold and Mr. Jones discussed the length at which the screws had been installed.
Mr. Jones pointed out that in some sections of the roof it had been installed as directed by the specifications. Some of the problems that were first noticed on the roof have been corrected. Mr. Jones stated that with the problems at hand, the roof could prematurely fail.
Mr. Jones also explained to the Board that the Building Department does not know who exactly put the roof on. Reve Corporation pulled the initial permit for the roof; however, it was cancelled when Mr. Noel realized his license would not allow him to install a metal roof. James Spangler Roofing then pulled the permit. Mr. Shannon Duhon was working on the roof when Mr. Jones conducted one of the investigations. Mr. Duhon is not a licensed roofer. Mr. Southerland pointed out that if Mr. Spangler purchased the permit, he is responsible for the work.
Mr. Jack Locklin, a local attorney, was in attendance to represent Mr. and Mrs. Hannah. Mr. Locklin explained to the Board that they believe there are other reasons in addition to the ones Mr. Jones pointed out that could cause the roof to prematurely fail. They believe the fasteners installed improperly will cause problems. Mr. Locklin pointed this out on the slides and the manufacturer’s specifications. Mr. Locklin pointed out that this is a code violation. Mr. Locklin also pointed out that Mr. Hannah’s contract stated a Semco metal roof would be installed; however a Millennium metal roof had actually been installed. Both specifications on each of the roofs called for the fasteners to be installed on the right side of the rib on the metal. The actual roof was not installed in accordance to either of these specifications.
Mr. Jesse N. Rheam, a state licensed roofing contractor with Jesse N. Rheam Contractor was in attendance to state his view on the metal roof in question. Mr. Rheam stated that he installs approximately two to three metal roofs in a month. Mr. Harold asked Mr. Rheam if he fastened his roofs in the second rib; Mr. Rheam stated that yes he does. A discussion ensued on the size of the roof.
Mr. Locklin and Mr. Rheam discussed the specifications of the metal roof with Mr. Southerland. Mr. Rheam used the slide show to explain how the improperly installed fasteners would cause the roof to leak.
A discussion ensued about the metal being installed to the roof without any felt being applied. Mr. Harold asked if the roof had been installed on bare decking. Mr. Rheam stated that in one particular area, no felt had been applied that he was aware of. Mr. Rheam did state that there was felt on other parts of the roof and felt was at the jobsite. Mr. Rheam explained that in the particular area the felt had blown off and the construction workers were screwing the metal into bare decking. Mr. Rheam explained that a leak would be the outcome of the improperly installed fasteners.
Mr. Greg Smith, representing Mr. Raymond Noel with Reve Development further discussed the roof with Mr. Rheam. Mr. Smith discussed with Mr. Rheam the fasteners on the roof and whether or not they could cause oil-canning of the metal.
Mr. Locklin asked Mr. Rheam if the leakage effect caused by the fasteners on the outside rib could be repaired without replacing the roof. Mr. Rheam explained that the roof would have to be replaced because of penetration being made into the metal itself.
Mr. David Hannah explained the construction process to the Board. Mr. Hannah explained that problems have occurred since the beginning of the construction process. Mr. Hannah explained that the roof is the major concern because of leakage. Mr. Hannah explained that the construction process has taken over a year and the house is still not complete. Mr. Hannah explained to the Board that there are no visible leaks one the floor at this time but that he has not been in the attic in several months to check there.
Mr. Harold and Mrs. Royals discussed why Mr. Hannah has not been able to move into the house. Mrs. Royals explained that a Certificate of Occupancy had not been issued on the house. The roof had not passed a final inspection to date. Mr. Hannah also explained that there were still some items in the house that had not been completed by Mr. Noel.
Mr. Hannah explained to the Board that a closing date had not been given to Mr. and Mrs. Hannah by Mr. Noel. Mr. Southerland asked Mrs. Royals the date at which the permit had been issued. The permit was issued on January 4, 2002.
Mr. Southerland asked Mr. Hannah if Mr. Noel had received all of the money for the construction of the house. Mr. Hannah stated that Mr. Noel had been paid everything but the final draw. Mr. Hannah explained that Mr. Noel still had a punch list left to complete. Mr. Hannah explained that Mr. Noel has not been to the house since December 13, 2002.
Mr. Greg Smith referenced 101.3.2 of the Florida Building Code. Mr. Smith stated that no building code violations had been found at this time. Mr. Smith stated that there are not any leaks in the roof at this time.
Mr. Southerland and Mr. Smith discussed the contract given to Mr. Hannah stating that a Semco metal roof was supposed to be installed. The Board and Mr. Smith discussed whether or not Reve Corporation had abandoned the job. Mr. Smith discussed the amount of money still owed to Reve Corporation.
Mr. Raymond Noel with Reve Development Corporation explained the permitting of the house and the changes Mr. Hannah wanted. Mr. Noel and Mr. Smith explained the reason a Millennium roof was installed rather than a Semco. Mr. Noel explained that the roof Mr. Hannah wanted was ordered and installed.
Mr. Harold and Mr. Noel discussed who exactly put the roof on the house. Mr. Noel stated that Armando Gonzalez put the roof on. Mr. Spangler purchased the roof permit, however, came into labor problems and could not install the roof. Mr. Spangler and Mr. Noel decided that Mr. Gonzalez would install the roof under the permit pulled by Mr. Spangler.
Mr. Noel stated that no metal was installed on bare decking. Thirty pound felt was used under the metal. Mr. Noel said his framer installed the felt.
Mr. Southerland and Mr. Noel discussed the reason why the house has not been finished. Mr. Noel explained that Mr. Hannah had made many changes to the house. Mr. Noel agreed that things still need to be completed, however, money is still owed to Mr. Noel by Mr. Hannah.
Mr. Harold and Mr. Noel discuss rather or not the problem with the roof was a manufacturer’s flaw or installation trouble. Mr. Noel stated that it may be a combination of both.
Mr. Southerland and the Board discussed with both Mr. Noel and Mr. Hannah the possibility of Mr. Noel repairing the roof and Mr. Hannah being satisfied with the project.
Mr. Harold made a motion to hold Mr. Noel for a formal hearing in 60 days, or the April meeting. Mr. Ates seconded the motion. The motion carried with an unanimous vote.
Mr. Southerland asked Mr. James Spangler to address the Board regarding the roof permit. The Board and Mr. Spangler discussed the reason Mr. Spangler pulled the permit but did not complete the work on the house. Mr. Spangler explained that when he purchased the permit he had all intentions of completing the work; however, he experienced some problems with his construction crew and it would have been several weeks before he could complete Mr. Hannah’s roof. He stated to the Board that when he explained the situation to Mr. Noel, Mr. Noel asked him if he would oversee the job. Mr. Spangler agreed to this situation. Mr. Spangler stated that he did do some repairs on the roof after it was installed.
Mr. Southerland and Mr. Harold explained to Mr. Spangler that pulling a permit for someone else is against the code. Mr. Spangler stated that he did oversee the work. Mr. Spangler has been roofing in Santa Rosa County for approximately seven years. The Board explained the consequences of selling one’s license.
Mr. Riley stated that the Building Department has not filed any charges as of this date; however, the Department would like to see the outcome of the situation between Mr. Noel and Mr. Hannah before any charges are filed.
New Business
Pool Contractors
Mrs. Royals explained to the Board that the Building Department had mailed out letters to the pool contractors inviting them to come before the Board regarding outstanding permits. The Board had determined which pool contractors would need to attend in a prior meeting. Fourteen pool contractors where requested to attend the meeting.
Mrs. Royals stated that several of the pool contractors have talked with her regarding the outstanding permits. Mrs. Royals explained that most of the reasons contractors cannot get the pools finalized are because homeowners are refusing to comply with the code by installing alarms.
Stephen Bowles with Professional Pools discussed with the Board the process of permitting and inspection sequence. The Board explained to the contractors that all finals on a job must be requested before an inspector goes out to a jobsite. On the final inspection, one inspector will do all of the inspections; however, they all must be requested.
Michael Seamon with Cox Pools discussed with the Board the difficulty contractors have with the homeowners complying with the code by installing alarms.
Mr. Riley explained to the Board that the State has decided that hard-wire alarms are not required. An approved battery alarm can be used; however, it must be approved.
John Gay with Panama Pools discussed with Mr. Dannheisser, County Attorney; the responsibility of the pool contractors and homeowners. Mr. Jones explained to the Board the inspection process for a pool on a new construction home.
Mr. Dannheisser explained to the Board and the contractors that the County Attorney’s office can send a letter or follow-up with the homeowners who will not comply with the code or the contractors.
Mr. Riley explained to the Board that the contractors who are having problems with the homeowners should get in contact with Mrs. Royals, after they have made all attempts to get the homeowners to comply with the code. At that time, the Building Department will take the appropriate actions.
New Business
Appeal of Building Official’s Decision
Mr. Riley briefly explained the case to the Board. Overhead Door Company has a garage door that will not meet the wind load requirements when the door is shut. The door will meet 75 mph wind load when the door is closed. There are posts, which are attached to the side of the door that can be installed by the homeowner when needed to increase the wind protection.
Mr. Riley feels that the door should meet the wind load requirements when it is shut without having to install the posts. Mr. Riley stated that the opening of the garage door should meet the design pressure of the code similar to windows.
Mr. Mark Marcelli with Overhead Door Company of the Florida Panhandle was present to state his case. Mr. Marcelli is the distributor who handles the installation and service of the product. Leroy Krupke, Engineer; was also in attendance.
Mr. Marcelli explained to the Board that he felt the garage door was in compliance with the code. Mr. Marcelli stated that there are several other door companies who are using the same type of doors. He explained that he uses his doors in several other counties.
Mr. Harold and Mr. Marcelli discussed the usage of the posts located on the garage door. Mr. Marcelli explained that the posts are attached to the side of the door by wing nuts. When the posts are needed they can simply be installed onto the garage door itself. This allows the door to be constructed with a lighter form of steal.
Mr. Leroy Krupke, Professional Engineer for the Overhead Door Corporation, further explained the usage of the posts and how, he believes, they meet the code requirements. The Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) has approved this particular door.
Mr. Krupke explained to the Board the positive effect of using a lighter door with the posts attached opposed to a heavier door that would comply with the wind load requirements. Mr. Krupke discussed the design process of the door.
Mr. Riley and Mr. Krupke discussed the Florida Building Code. Mr. Riley discussed section 103.7 of the Florida Building Code. Mrs. Royals read this section from the Florida Building Code.
Mr. Harold and Mr. Krupke discussed the wind load requirements and the method required for installing the posts. A discussion ensued comparing the Overhead Door to other well known doors being used in this area. It was determined that there were other door companies using the same type of door as Overhead Door Corporation.
The Board asked Mr. Krupke if he could submit testing data from his company regarding the doors and if the Building Department could gather testing data from other companies. The Board would then compare the data and a make a decision at that time.
Mr. Riley agreed to accept the Overhead Door Corporation doors until the Board made a decision.
The Board decided to table the case until testing data was submitted to the Building Department.
Mrs. Royals read a letter from the Department of Business Professional Regulations regarding a case, Brocato VS Weldon, which had been previously heard by the Board.
Mr. Harold made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ates seconded the motion. The motion carried with an unanimous vote.
Mr. Southerland adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Approved this ______ day of __________________ 2003.
_______________________________________________
Charles “Pete” Southerland
Chairman
Prepared by Amy Allen, Permit Analyst I
Santa Rosa County Building Inspection Department