MINUTES NOT VERBATIM
SANTA ROSA COUNTY BUILDING CODE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES
AUGUST 11, 2004
The regular meeting of the Santa Rosa County Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals was held August 11, 2004, at 3:00 p.m. in the conference room of the Santa Rosa County Building Inspection Department located at 6051 Old Bagdad Highway, Milton, FL 32583. Board members present were Mr. Larry Hall, Chairman, Mr. Frank Harold, Vice Chairman, Mr. Danny Holt and Mr. William J. Blackman.
Building Inspection Department staff in attendance were Mr. Tim Tolbert, Building Official; Mr. Skip Tompkins, Compliance Division Superintendent; Mrs. Rhonda Royals, Deputy Building Official; Ms. Amy Allen, Permit Analyst and Ms. Robyn Leverton, Permit Analyst.
Mr. Tom Dannheisser, County Attorney was also present for the meeting.
Mr. Hall called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Approval of Agenda:
There were no amendments to the agenda. Mr. Harold made a motion to accept the agenda. Mr. Holt seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.
Approval of Minutes:
Mr. Harold made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 13, 2004 meeting. Mr. Holt seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.
Next Meeting:
The next regularly scheduled meeting is Wednesday, September 8, 2004, at 3:00 p.m. in the Building Inspection Department Conference Room.
The “Formal Hearing” portion of these minutes can be obtained verbatim due to a Court Reporter being present.
Mr. & Mrs. John & Cindy Hardy VS Mr. Thomas Anthony Stuller d/b/a A and L Pools & Spas
Mrs. Royals gave a brief synopsis of the case to the Board. Allegations are based on a complaint filed by Mr. and Mrs. John Hardy for contracting to repair and repairing a swimming pool without a license. Charges are based on violation of ordinance 2002-06, section 16(d) & 18(6) of the Florida Building Code. Mr. Stuller was before the Board in 2002, at that time his license was suspended for 2 years. He was still working under the suspended license when contracting with the Hardy’s.
Mr. Randy Jones, Compliance Investigator, was present at the meeting and was sworn in to explain his investigation. No permit was required to replace the pool liner. In the process of replacing the liner several voids were discovered; the structural repairs would have required a permit and a licensed contractor. Mr. Stuller repaired those structural items. The problem started when he ordered the liner; it was measured incorrectly and was too small. Stuller left the project and did not return. The pool blew in and the damages cost the Hardy’s an extra $7,500 for repairs.
Mr. Thomas Anthony Stuller was sworn in. Mr. Stuller explained that he had been helping the Hardy’s work on their pool for 5 years prior to this event. He agreed to help them with the liner and had told them he had no license. He also stated that he wanted no money for the project other than for the required material. Mr. Stuller was involved in the liner order and stated that the manufacturer was at fault for the incorrect size. Manufacturer went out of business and Mr. Stuller said he paid $400 additional dollars, out of his own pocket, for a new liner and supplied them with all materials that were promised and didn’t charge the Hardy’s any labor costs. The total cost of materials was $2,350 (check from the Hardy’s) + the $400 additional for the 2nd liner; the materials included the liner, the pump and an automatic pool cleaner. Someone else installed these materials.
Upon being questioned by the Board, Mr. Stuller stated that the pool liner situation took approximately 1 ½ years. He explained that he wrote up a materials list and figured the project would take approximately one week. After receiving the check from the Hardy’s, Mr. Stuller ordered the pool liner the following day. It took five days for liner to arrive and it was another week and a half before he realized the liner was too small. The structural repairs were made during the time between the receipt of the liner and the time when it was determined that it was too small.
The pool was filled back up using the liner that was the incorrect size. Mr. Stuller left the project and ordered the next liner 10 months later. Mr. Stuller did not install the 2nd liner.
Mrs. Royals updated the board as to why Mr. Stuller first lost his pool license. The violation was for failure to call for inspections. The Board voted, in 2002, to suspend for two years. The past violations that caused Mr. Stuller to loose his license have not been cleared up. Mr. Stuller has no new pool violation cases pending.
Mr. & Mrs. John & Cindy Hardy were not present to state their case.
Mr. Blackman made a motion to find Mr. Stuller guilty of the charges brought before him and to suspend his license for five (5) years, Mr. Holt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
New Business (Probable Cause)
Mr. Norris Milstead VS Mr. Raymond Noel d/b/a Reve Development Corp
Mrs. Royals gave brief history of case to the Board. Norris Milstead contracted with Reve Development to build a house. The home was permitted and completed in 1997. Shortly after the house was finaled, in December of 1997, Mr. Milstead filed a complaint based on possible settlement of rear of house and distress cracks. BOAA did hear the case and carried it from probable cause to a formal hearing. Evidence and testimony was presented including soil borings and the builder acknowledged that when the footing inspection was completed there had been a downpour that caused a washout and the footing repair was performed without coming back to the building inspection department for review, approval and inspection. The house plans originally had a rear wood deck. The owner wanted a slab porch supporting a roof. When the home was framed, the porch footing and slab was poured and blocks were laid without plan approval or inspection from this department. There are also some issues regarding the brick mortar not reaching the footing causing the brick to settle.
The Board voted in 1998 to table the case since it was in civil litigation. The motion was that the case would come back before this Board after resolution of civil litigation. Civil action was finalized.
The Board questioned Mrs. Royals regarding previous findings and information discovered regarding the case. Mrs. Royals stated that during boring there were debris fields discovered approximately 12’ underground. The question came up, stated Mrs. Royals, as to who covered up those debris fields. Builder contended that his construction was based on the natural grade that was there when he went to the site. The issues that our department has before us today is failure to obtain the required inspection on the remedial work that was performed after we inspected the footing and failure to obtain proper plan approval and inspections on the rear porch. There are also questions on whether proper compaction was obtained on the footing and/or slab areas. Discussion ensued among the Board members.
Mr. Norris Milstead was present to state his case. Mr. Milstead stated that he believes the main points of the case are…a good portion of the house was placed on fill with no compaction tests, and the plans did not show the 6-block high masonry porch, but only showed the house sitting flat on the lot. Mr. Milstead said that Mr. Noel had the porch information before the lot was cleared and before construction commenced. After the fact it was discovered that a truss had been cut and, while a field tech was doing some soil boring investigations, it was discovered that brick was not sitting on the foundation of the house.
Prior to construction, the Health Dept. came out to site and did three borings and found debris on back of lot, no debris was discovered on front of lot. The Health Dept. told Mr. Noel to go down at least 72” and remove buried debris. Nothing was tested where the house was to sit so Mr. Milstead said he didn’t know if there was debris under the house.
Three and a half months after Mr. Milstead moved into the house it started sinking to the point that the brick separated from the back of the house, sheetrock was cracking on the inside, windows were exploding and the porch was tilting and breaking away from the house.
The Board questioned Mr. Milstead. He stated the he owned the lot two years prior to construction and said that he chose the approximate location for his house site. He also said that the Health Dept reported that the discovered debris was organic, he was unaware as to what organic referred, but was charged extra for the septic tanks due to organic debris in what they referred to as unsuitable soil. Mr. Milstead saw a hole in the ground before it was filled; he didn’t see debris. He stated one of the septic tanks is within 10’-15’ of the house. He also stated that he has never seen the area flood; the creek near his house has always appeared to be low.
Mr. Milstead stated that many items discussed with Reve were never included in the contract so he created a Contract Attachment to ensure extra items discussed and paid for were in writing. Mr. Noel’s agent signed the attachment in November and ground was broke in January. The back porch was discussed in detail and Reve Development knew the porch details up front.
Mr. Raymond Noel was present to state his case. Mr. Noel confirmed that soil boring test results reflect debris as consisting of asphalt, charred debris and concrete.
The Board questioned Mr. Noel. Mr. Noel believes the developer buried this debris on the lot. This development was done 12-15 yrs. before Mr. Milstead started his house. When area was dug, no debris was discovered. He believes settlement is due to buried debris of organics that has been on the lot for 12 years.
Mr. Noel stated that porch was initially to be constructed out of wood and this information was stated as such in the drawings; the modification to slab was made in the field. The permit was left as it stood and he did not make a change to the plans in order to reflect the modification. The soil under the porch slab was not treated and no footing inspection was completed on the porch. A portion of the house foundation was in fill dirt and the soil under the foundation was compacted, but a compaction test was not completed on the footing, only on the inside of the slab.
Mr. Harold made a motion to carry this case on to a Formal Hearing, Mr. Blackman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Blackman requested the county send someone out to check the porch and measure from footer to the height of the porch.
Mr. Hall called for a break at 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Hall called the meeting back to order at 4:35 p.m.
New Business (Probable Cause)
Santa Rosa County VS Mr. James Ronnie Cawthon d/b/a Southland Pools
Mrs. Royals gave a brief history. Mr. James Ronnie Cawthon’s case was previously brought before the Board for failure to call in the required inspections. It was determined that he hadn’t received proper notice to appear before the Board due to the Building Inspection Department being unable to make contact with him. Therefore Mr. Cawthon wasn’t in attendance. Mr. Jones was later able to reach Mr. Cawthon and notice to appear before the Board was sent. According to Amy’s latest recap, Mr. Cawthon has six (6) permits that have expired (require final inspections), one (1) of which will require a reinstatement fee.
Mr. James Ronnie Cawthon was present to state his case. He discussed the issue of homeowners wanting to install the hardwire security systems but are not calling him when their alarms are installed. Therefore the final inspections are slipping through the cracks.
Mr. Hall stated that Southland Pools must rectify the expired permits to the satisfaction of the statute.
Mr. Blackman made the motion to table the case until the next meeting. That will allow Mr. Cawthon time to final the permits. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harold. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.
New Business (License Reinstatement)
Mr. Jim Moulton
Mr. Moulton was present to state his case. He wanted the Board to reinstate his license allowing him to complete small renovation projects or to repair roofing the he has already built. He is not interested in taking on new roofing projects.
Mrs. Royals gave a brief history of Mr. Moulton’s licensing; Mr. Moulton’s original roofing contractor’s license was suspended due to failure to make payment. Mr. Moulton is currently a registered general contractor.
Mr. Holt made the motion to reinstate the license upon Mr. Moulton’s payment of a reinstatement fee. Mr. Harold seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.
New Business (License Reinstatement)
Mr. Ed Rankin
Mrs. Royals gave a brief history of Mr. Rankin’s licensing. His license was suspended due to failure to make payment.
Mr. Rankin was present to state his case. He discussed that his Escambia County license is currently active and he is currently pulling permits in that county. His workers comp and liability insurance is current.
Mr. Harold made the motion to reinstate the license upon Mr. Rankin’s payment of fees. Mr. Holt seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.
Mr. Harold made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Blackman seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.
Mr. Hall adjourned the meeting at 4:54 p.m.
Approved this ______ day of __________________ 2004.
_______________________________________________
James Larry Hall
Chairman
Prepared by Robyn Leverton, Permit Analyst I
Santa Rosa County Building Inspection Department