MINUTES NOT VERBATIM
SANTA ROSA COUNTY BUILDING CODE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 9, 2003
The regular meeting of the Santa Rosa County Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals was held April 9, 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. Larry Hall, Vice-Chairman; Mr. Frank Harold, Mr. Jeff Ates, and Mr. Danny Holt.
Building Inspection Department staff in attendance was Mr. Martin Riley, Building Official; Mrs. Rhonda Royals, Building Department Coordinator; and Ms. Amy Allen, Permit Analyst.
Mr. Tom Dannheisser, County Attorney was absent from the meeting.
Mr. Southerland, Chairman; called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
Approval of Agenda:
There were no additions or subtractions to the agenda. Mr. Hall made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Harold seconded the motion. The motion carried with an unanimous vote.
Approval of Minutes:
Mr. Harold made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 19, 2003 meeting. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. The motion carried with an unanimous vote.
Next Meeting:
The next regularly scheduled meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 3:00 p.m.
Jay First Assembly of God VS Roger Williams d/b/a Williams Engineering
Ms. Allen briefly explained the case to the Board. A permit was issued to install a roof in January of 2001. The roof began leaking which lead the church to file a complaint with the Building Department in November of 2002.
Randy Jones, Building Inspector III investigated the complaint. Mr. Jones explained that the permits issued were to change the pitch of the roof to prevent leakage. On April 24, 2001 a miscellaneous inspection for the roof was requested. This request did pass the inspection. A final inspection was requested on August 23, 2001. This inspection failed for multiple discrepancies.
The building began to experience leaks. In August of 2002, the church requested a courtesy inspection of the roof. Bill Tucker, Inspector, did this inspection. The same problems from the previous inspection were found.
Mr. Williams had been contacted by the church to repair the leaks. Mr. Williams would work on the roof but could not get the leaks to stop. Wendell Weeks, Inspector, and Bill Tucker, Inspector went back to the jobsite to inspect the work. Nothing had been done to correct the problems.
In December 2002, Mr. Jones went to the jobsite with Mr. Riley to discuss the problems with Mr. Williams. Mr. Jones presented a slide show to the Board of photographs taken of the jobsite at that time. The code violations were pointed out on the pictures.
In late February of 2002, Mr. Williams went back to jobsite to make some of the repairs. The leaks did stop but the repairs were not correct. Mr. Jones explained to the Board that must of the problems had been corrected. Mr. Jones further explained the problems with the slide show presentation. Mr. Jones and the Board discussed the different pitches of the roof. Mr. Jones explained to the Board that 80% of the code violations had been corrected; however, a final inspection had not been requested.
Mr. Hall asked Mr. Jones if the pitch of the roof had followed the engineered drawings. Mr. Jones explained that the roof had followed what was outlined in the drawings.
Mrs. Royals explained to the Board that Mr. Williams was given a notice informing him of the meeting; however, he was not in attendance.
Rev. Louie Pettis from Jay First Assembly of God was in attendance to discuss the case. Rev. Pettis explained that the Board from the church had worked with Mr. Williams trying to final the roof. Rev. Pettis said that Mr. Williams had come to work on the church on the Monday prior to the meeting. However, Mr. Williams did not complete any work on that day.
Mr. Harold asked Rev. Pettis if any leaks had been experienced the week of the meeting. Rev. Pettis explained that there were not any leaks found.
Rev. Pettis said that at one time Mr. Williams had needed to borrow money from the church to complete the work. The church did loan him the money and he has paid it back to the church.
Rev. Pettis explained to the Board that the church’s desire is to have the roof pass final inspection.
Mr. Riley discussed the interaction with Mr. Williams. Mr. Riley explained the difficulty of the roof and the code violations that were experienced.
Mrs. Royals explained that Mr. Williams had expressed to her that a final inspection would be requested during the week prior to the meeting; however, Mr. Williams has not requested that inspection. Mrs. Royals also discussed the fact that Mr. Williams had been notified of the meeting both verbally and through mail.
Mr. Holt and Rev. Pettis discussed the shape of the roof and the cost to repair the roof. Mr. Ates asked if a contract between Mr. Williams and the church had been used. A signed, written contract was not involved.
Mrs. Royals clarified to the Board that Mr. Williams had pulled the roof permit under his registered license, not his certified license. Mr. Jones explained that two permits had been issued to Mr. Williams for the church. One permit was for a remodeling of the church which was issued to Mr. Williams certified license. The second permit was for the roof which was issued to Mr. Williams registered license. The registered license is the one the work was done under.
Mr. Harold made a motion to continue the case until next month. If at that time if the roof had not passed final inspection the case would go to a formal hearing. Mr. Hall seconded the motion.
Mr. Holt asked Rev. Pettis about the funds available to Mr. Williams. Rev. Pettis stated that the church would do anything to assistance Mr. Williams with the funds for a finished roof.
Rev. Pettis explained that a local, licensed roofer volunteered his assistance to Mr. Williams on the roof because of the complexity of the roof. Mr. Williams has not used this assistance at this time.
The motion carried with an unanimous vote.
New Business
Barbara Fagerskog VS John Novak VS Novak Construction
Mrs. Royals briefly explained the case to the Board. Ms. Fagerskog filed a complaint with the department regarding a lien that was filed against her property. John Novak constructed a single family residence for Ms. Fagerskog. The lien is dealing with an unpaid bill at Taylor Brick Company for approximately $6,000.00. Mr. Novak did pay the brick company and they applied the money to the wrong account.
The department received a release of lien on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 showing that Taylor Brick Company had released the lien. Ms. Fagerskog was not in attendance at the meeting; however, Mr. Novak was.
Mr. Harold made a motion to dismiss the case. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. The motion carried with an unanimous vote.
Mr. Southerland received a letter of appreciation from the Vice-president of Overhead Door Corporation, Mark Marcelli, who was in attendance at the February 2003 meeting.
Mr. Harold made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ates seconded the motion. The motion passed with an unanimous vote.
Mr. Southerland adjourned the meeting at 4:21 p.m.
Approved this ______ day of __________________ 2003.
_______________________________________________
Charles “Pete” Southerland
Chairman
Prepared by Amy Allen, Permit Analyst I
Santa Rosa County Building Inspection Department