No preview available
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.