BORA Minutes 1-10-13



-260985-17272000BROWARD COUNTY Board of Rules & Appealstc \l1 "BOaRD OF RULES & APPEALS One North University Drive, Suite 3500B, Plantation, Florida 33324 Phone (954) 765-4500 Fax: (954) 765-4504 OF RULES AND APPEALSJanuary 10, 2013Meeting MinutesCall to order:Chair Abbas Zackria called a published meeting of the Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals to order at 7:02 p.m.Roll CallRon BurrGregg D’AttileGary ElzweigJohn FamularoBill FlettJeff LucasAllan KozichShalanda Giles NelsonJohn SimsDave TringoKenneth WynnHank ZibmanAbbas Zackria – ChairThe presence of a quorum was established.Approval of MinutesMr. Kozich made a motion to approve the November 8, 2012 meeting minutes. Mr. Lucas seconded motion and the minutes were approved unanimously.CONSENT AGENDACertifications – Staff RecommendedMR. KOZICH MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND MR. TRINGO SECONDED THE MOTION.THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 13 – 0.REGULAR AGENDAAppeal #12-04 – 4922 Rothschild Drive, Coral Springs, FloridaRusty Carroll, Structural Chief Code Compliance Officer addressed the Board and proceeded to give his staff report.The appeal deals with an entire house. The application August 31, 1994, what is important about date is that it predates the 1994 Building Code, which many people call the “Hurricane Andrew” code, when shutters became mandatory. Null and void of October of 1997, approximately nineteen (19) years. Contacted the city to reenact the old permit. Had a new set of plans and received a new permit application. That permit is still currently active, technically pulled in June of this year. However, based on the fact that an appeal has been filed. Mr. Schubert has held that permit in abeyance. Basically the same as the 2010 Building Code. Nullify the current set of plans and re-instate the permit that was pulled in 1994. I really don’t know how to instruct the building official going back to 20 years ago. If they had filed an appeal prior to pulling a new permit. In Staff’s opinion the appeal should be denied .The policy is not up for debate. There are thousands of permits laying around in every city in every County. This Board did not give the Building Official any latitude with that policy. It was final only. The policy was not on the board agenda tonight. This Board adopted it and it stands as written.Building Official and representatives are here.At that time, all those wishing to speak on behalf of the appeal were sworn in. GE – discussion with Rusty regarding missing a top out, a partial top out. They did not have all their inspections.Gregg D’Attile – I understand they did not have a plumbing top out, but they did have a plumbing final. Rusty said no, they did not have a plumbing final.Dave Tringo – Property Appraiser put this on a tax roll. They have been paying taxes. Rusty – They do not go by CO’s anymore.Mr. Flett inquired as to whether the new owners were going to remodel the house. Generally, someone has been taking care of the house. Attorney Vestry acknowledged that a homeowner’s association maintains the area, and the owner maintains the house in this case.Mr. Elzweig asked for confirmation that for the last 2 decades this house has been unoccupied.Tringo and the most recent owned paid $250,000 – there has been one previous owner.Attorney for appellant – Lynn Ventry, address the Board on behalf of PAP Investments. This house was owned by the gentlemen who built it initially and he owned it until he lost it in the foreclosure sale. In was in that sale that my clients took title through the foreclosure process, paid $250,000 for it out of the foreclosure sale. They got stuck because the prior owner lost it and it took another year – he then was able to apply to reopen the 1994 permit. The city of Coral Springs never changes the numbers of the permits. They were opening the permit in order to get a final inspection. What the Building Official points to as far as what the open permit. It was approved with an exception, and it had to do with the fact that the master bathtub had not been placed yet, to avoid damaging the fixture they would hold it out until the drywall was done. That’s why the plumbing inspection was not completed. It is in beautiful condition, and it was built and inspected in all phases. All that is left is the plumbing top-out. There is a slab that was never done, and there is irrigation that was never done. My people in good faith went ahead and obtained a permit only to find that it was going to cost them well over $150,000 to do what is required to comply with those plans. On top of the $250,000 approximately spent, the money my client spent to clear up all the code enforcement issues from the prior owner, he is now supposed to lay out another $150,000, essentially tearing the house down. The new contractor is with me today, as well as the old contractor, and the new architect to tell you what the condition of the house is and to answer any questions you may have.Attorney Ventry added that the house has been through Hurricane Wilma, and sustained no damage. No roof leak or so much as a broken window. The Association supports letting PATH investments and be done and not have to go through.My client pulled what he thought was the 1994 permit. G. Elzweig – he received the permits for those plans? And they did not price those new set of plans? Do they put a value of the work on the permit application? Attorney – in the packet value is $182,640. Mr. Elzweig asked if they used the number from the original construction to apply for the permit under the new code. In October of 2011 under the old application number using the number from what the prior construction value was.Mr. Kozich inquired why the permit wasn’t pulled until the “twelfth hour”, and Attorney Ventry asserted that it was a technical problem.Bob Hannon – Chief Structural Inspector for the City of Springs.Tom Schubert, Building Official for the City of Coral Springs addressed the Board. Mr. Schubert said that no one came to him for this permit to get reissued. Coral Spring’s Plans Examiners are trained as to what fits in the Board’s process and what does not. They went through the process.MR. ELZWEIG MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL AND MRS. GILES NELSON SECONDED THE MOTION.THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 12 – 0.Board member, John Famularo informed the Director that he had a professional relationship with one of the parties to the Appeal. Mr. Famularo recused himself, and left the room which is standard policy. 2010 Formal Interpretation of Section 102.2(h) of the FBC Relating to Chickee HutsAttorney St. Laurent, representative for Aztec RV Resort, Inc. addressed the Board. Mr. St. Laurent stated that this is a great project, a five star resort. We’ve now been classified, according to the staff along with trailer parks, mobile homes, and migrant parks. Chickee huts without permits, built by the Indians, with nothing in it, 150 square foot. Where is that in the Florida Statute, that a Chickee Hut built by the Indians without a permit is limited to 150 feet? You’ve got some serious legal concerns, and I would strongly suggest that this be re-evaluated and looked at, and the contents of my letter be taken a little more seriously. All I can tell you is that these people have been good to this community during this recession. And all of them together they are some very top business men that invested substantial amounts, hotel, and bankrupt condos on the beach. And they have felt after a dispute with the former Building Official in Margate that this was a time to pay back. And that’s the way they feel, so I cannot be more stressful, I mean, about what the developer will pay, what action he will take to protect his interest here. They set up a beautiful resort, did I mention in the letter that PBS was here for 8 hours on this resort. It had the native feeling, and none of the electrical mentioned that came in the cell violations. Your Director told me that the electrical showed that those violations had been corrected. Nothing is attached. Nothing is attached or incorporated. And that’s where your legal language is, incorporated, in these Chickee huts. The plumbing is separate; it will not fly away with the wind. Now under your Fire Code, one built with the same leaves is legal to have a fire underneath it, same material, but one built by the Indians is not legal to have a portable barbeque underneath it. It will be very interesting to see how those issues will be determined. These are good people; they’ve done a great job. I don’t know if any of you have ever been to Aztec RV Resort. The national press and the international press telling me it’s the most beautiful RV resort in the eastern United States.ChaiR – OK, thank you very much. MR. ZIBMAN MADE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM FOR A TIME CERTAIN AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING. HAVING NO SECOND, THE MOTION FAILED.MR. ELZWEIG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FORMAL INTERPRETATION AS DRAFTED. MR. TRINGO SECONDED THE MOTION.THE MOTION TO APPROVE WAS DENIED WITH A VOTE OF 9 – 4.Dissenting votes: * Bill Flett just don’t put electric and water in them. If you build one according to the code, and the diff in the price will not be that much. Proposed Amendment for the Monthly Implementation Schedule for the 40 Year Building Safety Inspection Program. Request to Schedule a Public HearingRecommendations from Administrative Director, James DiPietro – Mr. DiPietro introduced the item. The concept is to move forward by a few months the date of the annual inspection program and minimize conflict with the hurricane season, and also provide more time for people to raise money in condominium associations to pay for structural improvements, when necessary. Mr. DiPietro referred to page two of the report is the current schedule which starts in October, the schedule used to start in January. We would get the data and start distributing, and then the cities, the Building Departments could choose any month (voluntary from June until January)to start notifying the cities. This year we’ve gone to October, we would go to June in 2013. In 2014 June would become mandatory.All we are asking tonight is to schedule the public hearing for next month; we are not asking for the final decision. Mr. DiPietro acknowledged Citizen Activist, Bob Terner, who was in the audience and would speak next month at the public hearing. Mr. DiPietro added that BORA has also worked with Building Code Services on this item, and there is interest by the County Commission Chair, as well.Now we go to the cover page of the report. I’ve indicated under reasons, that we have done a survey of Building Officials, it was an anonymous survey. Sixteen (16) out of twenty-four (24) who responded said they planned to send out notifications earlier than in past years, because of what we have already done in 2012 releasing the list early.In closing, Mr. DiPietro suggested bringing this item back next month, have a public hearing, and see if we can pass the item in final form. MR. KOZCIH MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, AND MR. TRINGO SECONDED THE MOTION.THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 13 – 0.Pay Plan for Board of Rules and Appeals Employees Effective October 1, 2012 (Fiscal Year 2013). Pay Adjustment of 3% for Seven Employees, Effective October 14, 2012, and for Specified amounts for Three (3) Employees as detailed in the Report.The Administrative Director introduced the time the green is the update. Started with the change of the lowest paid employee was recommended for a 3% and changed to 5%Another three years have gone by because of wage freezes The last time we changed pay grades it will be the first change in the pay range in four years. Neither the Board of Rules and Appeals or Broward County, the County chose to move forward and they have changed for unrepresented Broward County employees by 3% associated with the minimum/maximum pay plan – 2 year agreement with the AFL-CIO We do not always follow what the County does, but it is very significantWe have an independent report from the Budget Office, and we can afford what is basically a 3% pay adjustment. One is higher and two are lower.That’s the essence of the report – we have a BORA policy that says if you are going to have a take-home vehicle, that charge is $30 per week in the hiring agreement. Paul Cissell, of the Payroll Section of the Accounting Division, they now have a concern with “IRS Commuting Rule.” Benefits are taxable. Two new employees, not expecting a raise. For that reason, I took it out of the raise, the 3% raise, less what we are taking out for gasoline. That is the basis of the recommendation.We are being sensitive to the County CommissionBoard discussion – Mr. Elzweig – can we assume that we are now operating in the black on a consistent basis, without relying on surplus.After lengthy discussionWithin the budget of employee salaries, the money in reserves is to deal with legal issues.Revenue trend is upWe would no longer let anyone outside of Broward County have take-home cars.MR. FLETT MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, AND MR. ELZWEIG SECONDED THE MOTION.THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 13 – 0. 11.Board Nominations and Election of 2013 Chair and Vice-Chair, Effective January 10, 2013.As there was no further business to go before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. FILENAME \p \* MERGEFORMAT G:\SHARED\2013 BR&A\board minutes\January 10, 2013.docx ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download