10-06-1982 Regular MeetingCITY OF CLERMONT •
BUILDING CODE BOARD. OF APPEALS
MINUTES
October 6, 1982
This meeting of the Building Code Board of Appeals began with
the selection of Lawson Wolfe as Chairman.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 2:07 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers on Tuesday, October 6, 1982.
ROLL CALL. Present: Robert Allison, Don Beal, Nick Jones,
Lawson Wolfe, City Attorney Leonard Baird, City Engineer Bud
Sampson, Building Official Harvey Nagel and Planning and Zoning
Technician Marilyn George. Board member Jean Winston did not
attend.
Mr. Lou Formato stated that he had requested this hearing
because he had submitted plans to the City for remodeling and
adding to his building at 801 West Montrose Street and had not
been able to obtain a permit. He does not know why a permit has
not been forthcoming.
Mr. Nagel explained the function of the Building Department
and cited the various Codes and Statutes under which it operates.
He stated that work was begun on Mr. Formato's building before
an application was received by the Building Department, and be-
fore a plan was presented. Three sets of plans are required on
commercial projects, and finally one pocrly detailed plan was
submitted. Mr. Nagel inspected the work in progress, accompanied
by Mr. Sampson, the City Engineer. The inspection tour was con-
ducted by Leonard Fogelson, Mr. Formato's partner. Mr. Nagel
issued a Stop Work Order, permitted when a structural defect or
other violation is found. The inspection had revealed a crack
in one wall, a break in the foundation, and timbers which had
been severed at the time plumbing was installed for the upstairs
apartments. Mr. Nagel stated that three sets of plans, certified
by a registered architect, and certification of the safety of the
building by an engineer should be required before construction
could continue.
Mr. Formato said that he hadn't applied for a permit because
he had been verbally turned down. He stated that he had re-
ceived a Certificate of Occupancy for the upstairs apartments,
and that an architect's certification was not required for old
buildings or for remodeling projects.
Mr. Allison asked if it was necessary that the entire build-
ing be brought up -to Code .
Mr. Nagel said that the usual routine was to present a site
plan and have a discussion of the project. In the case of a two
story building's conversion to three stories the Codes must be
considered because of the obligation to protect the safety of the
residents of the upper floor. The various Codes which must be
met were enumerated. Mr. Nagel cited the fact that he feels a
tremendous responsibility to administer these Codes, particularly
in light of all the recent construction accidents in the press.
The Code spells out that a building of 9000 square feet needs
proper certification for fire safety.
Mr. Allison questioned whether it was necessary to bring
the entire building up to Code when the use is not changing,
but only the interior being remodeled. A third floor is not
being added, in his opinion, because the basement has always been
there. He stated that new work must meet Code requirements, but
that the existing building need not do so.
Mr. Nagel pointed out that floors are rotted and stairways
have been added - one of which is below standard.
Mr. 6Volfe expressed the opinion that for the building to
meet Code requirements it would have to be torn down.
• ~ • •
Building Code Board of Appeals
October 5, 1982
Page two
Mr. Sampson explained that the discussion involved two
areas in relation to Codes. If the book were followed the build-
ing should be torn down. That is not the issue. The building is
three stories, over 5000 square feet, and for public occupancy.
These facts determine the requirement for plans prepared and
signed by a registered architect or engineer. The condition of
the building makes it necessary to meet certain parts of the Code.
He indicated that the methods for treating the Code violations
must be presented to the Building Department, and itemized these
violations. He stated that the Building Inspector must know
how the remodeling will be accomplished and how the structural
integrity of the building will be preserved.
Mr. Beal stated that the new bearing walls help support
the upper stories, and that a 6" I-beam over the proposed sliding
glass doors may take care of the problems. He agreed that the
cracked walls are a violation. He also expressed concern that
a three story building not constructed to meet the Fire Code
would present real problems in getting people out in case of a
fire.
A discussion produced the information that the owner of
this building is acting as his own contractor, and that for jobs
over $25,000.00 valuation a licensed contractor is required.
Mr. Jones offered the fact that the City has the right to
challenge any structure, whether it be a private residence or
a public building. It is the responsibility of government to
protect the safety of the citizens. If, in the opinion of the
Building Official, the safety of a building can be challenged,
he can condemn the building or require that minimum Code Re-
quirements be met. He further stated that this Board has been
placed in the poor position of having to determine the struc-
tural integrity of the building, and that the City is correct in
requiring that a commercial contractor be required. He feels
that any City would require the same.
Mr. Baird stated that the Building Code has exemptions on
size and cost for requirements for architects and general con-
tractors. The Board may make the determination if an archtiect's
seal or a general contractor are necessary. The Building Offi-
cial has the right to require either when he doesn't feel com-
Portable with the plans. The Board must also consider its re-
sponsibility to the community as a whole, and Mr. Sampson's
statements regarding safety are valid. He went on to say that
the Board must determine if the proposed construction is similar
enough to what is required that to allow such construction
would not place an undue burden on the City. It must further
determine if the Code has been misinterpreted and whether the
builder's proposals meet the intent of the Code. The Code Ordin-
ance is written in black and white, but the Board has the authority
to bend the Code. The plans may be found to be as good as black
and white, even though they don't fit black and white. They may
meet substantially what the City requires. If the plans fail to
do this, suggestions should be made by the Board to the builder.
If the Board feels it needs professional advice, an engineer's
opinion should be sought.
Mr Formato stated that all cooking and electrical equipment,
other than usual outlets and such, would be located in the new
building, which will be built to Code. In response to a ques-
tion, he said that the, stamp of the Hotel and Restaurant Com-
mission means that the kitchen set-up has been approved and that
requirements of the Board of Health are being met.
Mr. Nagel, in answer to a question, stated that there are
two issued being addressed here. One is that State Statutes,
rather than his personal opinion, offer guidelines to go by. The
other is that an architectural seal is necessary for approval
r • • •
Building Code Board of Appeals
October 5, 1982
Page three
from .the Hotel and Restaurant Commission to occupy the building.
Mr. Jones stated that there are guidelines to be followed
in a case such as this, and that this is not a grey area. The
City Engineer's statements should be very carefully considered.
There are defects in the building.
Mr. Formato responded to a question by saying he would be
willing to hire a contractor.
Following a lengthy discussion concerning the certification
of the plans and whether a structural engineer`s opinion would
be necessary, Mr. Jones made a motion that it is not unreasonable
for the City to require a set of plans and a licensed contractor.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Beal then moved that the Board require an engineer to
give his opinion on the structural changes that are being made
in the west wall, the center bearing wall, the stairs and with
the addition of a lightweight concrete pour, and be asked to
make calculations with a certified liability on his part.
Mr. Allison seconded the motion. A brief discussion ensued.
The question was called and the motion was approved by a vote of
three to one, with Mr. Jones voting Nay.
Statements were made that Mr. Formato must apply for a permit,
and that Mr. Formato will hire a contractor.
Mr. Baird suggested continuing the meeting until a permit
is applied for because he can forsee problems since the City
hasn't been able to review the final plans. He asked if the
Board is giving Mr. Nagel direction as far as the existing build-
ing is concerned.
Mr. Wolfe stated that the structural changes are what con-
cern the Board.
Mr. Nagel asked if the Board was concerned with the energy
certification of the plans, and upom being told that it was not,
stated that he would not sign the permit.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:1~ until reconvened by the
City.
LAWSON WOLFE, Chairman
ATTEST:
HARVEY NAGEL, Building Official