Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
10-27-1982 Regular Meeting• CITY OF CLERMONT •
BU_ILDSNG CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
OCTOBER 27, 1982
This meeting of the Building Code Board of Appeals was called
to order by the Chairman at 2:04 p.m. in the City Council Chambers
on Wednesday, October 27, 1982.
ROLL CALL. Present: Don Beal, Nick Jones, Chairman Lawson
Wolfe, Jean Winston, City Attorney Leonard Baird, City Manager
George Forbes, Building Official Harvey Nagel, and Planning and
Zoning Technician Marilyn George. Board member Robert Allison did
not attend.
MINUTES. The minutes of the meeting of October 6, 1982 were
approved with the following correction. On page 3, paragraph 3
should read; "There is absolutely nothing unreasonable for the City
to require two things in this project: a registered, licensed con-
tractor and certified plans, period. That's my motion."
OLD BUSINESS. The meeting opened with the reading of the
motion stated above. Mr. Formato reported that he had applied for
a permit, hired a State Certified Contractor, and had an engineer
inspect the corrections made in the changes to the structure of
the building. The engineer certified these portions of the plan.
Mr. Nagel verified these statements.
The Chairman repeated the motion made at the previous meeting
(see above) and asked Mr. Nagel if compliance with the motion had
been achieved.
Mr. Nagel stated that all of the items have been corrected by
the owner. He then read the memo which-each Board member had re-
ceived, and which is attached as part of these minutes. He also
mentioned that he hasn't been able to inspect the building since
the certification by the engineer was made.
Mr. Jones asked who will certify that the project meets the
Life Safety Code Requirements, whereupon the Building Official
said that the plans he has are not certified as to those require-
ments.
Mr. Jones asked if the Energy Code requirements for power
consumption had been turned in, and was told that they had not.
At this point the City Manager stated that the only issue not
resolved was whether an architect's signature and seal are required
on the plans. He said that the local codes will have to be met.
Mr. Jones made a motion as follows: That the Building Official
insist on having what the law requires and what the Attorney Gen-
eral's assistant states in his letter (attached) is necessary,
including a complete set of certified plans.
Mr. Baird stated that he had spoken at length with Mr. Rimes
of the Attorney General's office, explaining the building's present
status and the proposed construction. He has studied the statutes
and researched the court cases. Because the cost of the project
was to be under $25,000.00 Mr. Rimes supported Mr. Baird's state-
ments that the seal and signature of an architect are not required.
Upon being asked by i~Ir. Jones if this means that a drafting
service can perform the services of an architect in drawing plans
for an addition to a building, Mr. Baird said he will write a memo
to Mr. Nagel concerning the steps to be taken in the future.
Mr. Wolfe called for the question. The motion died for lack
of a second.
BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
October 27, 1982
Page two
Mr. Nagel stated that the City is on firm ground in its
request. He reported that he had attended a meeting of the Board
of Architects and Engineers in Melbourne where three cases almost
identical to this one were presented. The determination was that
certain parts of plans can be drawn by engineers, but that the plans
must have the seal and signature of the architect. Building Offi-
cials in both Tampa and Melbourne were supported in their refusal
to issue permits on the same grounds. He also asserted that the
addition to Mr. Formato's building cannot be built for $25,000.00.
After a brief discussion about the requirement for an archi'-
tect's seal, the City Attorney declared that he represents the City
and the Building Code Board of Appeals. Considerable research has
produced his legal opinion that the Board has done what it is re-
quired to do. His opinion is that the Board has the authority to
take the action it has taken and should proceed to grant or deny
the issuance of a permit.
Mr. Beal said that the concern at the last meeting was the old
building. If the new building had been discussed, certification
would have been required, in his opinion.
Mr. Formato interjected that he had complied with the Board's
orders, and had been told that he would be issued a permit if he
fulfilled these requirements.
Mr. Jones made a motion that the applicant submit to the
Building Official plans certified by either an architect or engi-
neer for the new part of the building.
There was no second to the motion.
Mr. Beal made a motion that the Board fulfill its obligation
and issue the permit based on what the applicant has done.
In response to a question, Ntr. Baird stated that the Board
has the authority to direct the issuance of a permit.
After further discussion, Mr. Wolfe seconded the motion. A
roll call vote was as follows: Jones, nay; Beal, aye; Winston,
aye; Wolfe, aye. The motion was carried by a three to one affirm-
ative vote.
Mr. Wolfe stated that a structural engineer had certified the
changes as recommended at the October 6 meeting of the Board. He
also said that the new structure must meet the locally adopted
Codes.
The meeting adjourned at 2:45.