Loading...
Minutes 11-20-17 MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2017, AT 6:30 P.M., IN CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Sanford Guritzky Shane Kittendorf, Building Official Roberta Mann John Kuntzman, Deputy Building Official Daniel Berger Shana Bridgeman, Assistant City Attorney Paul Bortz Christian Zanartu A. CALL TO ORDER— Sanford Guritzky, Board member Mr. Guritzky called the meeting to Order at 6:30 p.m. B. ELECT NEW CHAIRPERSON —former Chairman resigned in August 2014, and a temporary Chairperson was elected for the last (11/6/14) meeting only. Mr. Guritzky announced the Board has to elect a Chair. Mr. Berger thought Mr. Guritzky should serve as Chair as he had the most experience. Mr. Bortz thought the longest member should serve. Mr. Bortz nominated Mr. Guritzky as Chair. Mr. Berger seconded the nomination. Mr. Guritzky accepted the nomination. There were no other nominations received. Upon vote the nomination unanimously passed C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MEMBERS AND VISITORS Self-introductions were made. A quorum was present. D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & MINUTES (MINUTES OF 11/6/2014 MEETING) Motion Mr. Bortz moved to approve the minutes. Ms. Mann seconded the motion that unanimously passed. E. OLD BUSINESS None. Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 20, 2017 F. NEW BUSINESS Applicant: Renan Laurore Reference: 504 NW 12th Ave. Explanation: Applicant is appealing Section 105.4 and 105.4.1.3, inclusive, of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2014 Florida Building Code, 5th edition to allow an additional extension and also submit a plan revision. The permit has been extended four times and also granted a 90-day extension by this board at the October 11, 2012, meeting. The permit expired on June 20, 2017. He is requesting that his permit application number 06-7765 be extended to allow him to complete this work. Attorney Bridgeman administered an oath to all those intending to testify. John Kuntzman, Deputy Building Official, explained the property owner was requesting an extension of a permit that had received extensions several times in the past. There were four extensions including a Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals 90-day extension in November 2014. The applicant had several inspections as contained in the meeting materials. Mr. Kuntzman provided the applicant with the meeting materials the members were contemplating. Exhibit A contained the inspection history dating back from 2007 to the last inspection. The applicant had several inspections, some of which passed and some of which failed. He applied for a permit in December and the permit was issued on August 21, 2007. He received his first extension April 21, 2009. The second extension was granted May 21, 2009; the third extension was granted January 28, 2011; and the fourth extension was July 30, 2011. After the fourth extension expired, he had to appear before the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the Board granted him a 90-day extension in November 2011. Several inspections took place and the permit expired in June of this year. The applicant was seeking another extension from the Board. Chair Guritzky requested confirmation this item was appealed to the Board in 2014 and learned it was and the Board granted a 90-day extension. Several inspections occurred and the project was moving forward, but he needed to submit a plan revision because of an inspection that failed. The applicant was working outside and the permit was for the interior. The applicant submitted a revision for the exterior renovations, which failed in plan review. After the comments were given, the inspection failed one month later. He did not fulfill the 90-day extension. Mr. Kuntzman advised technical inspections allow extensions for 180 days per the Building Code. The permit expired because the 2 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 20, 2017 contractor did not call for a technical inspection to extend the permit. The last inspection was for paving final in 2016. No inspections have taken place since then. Mr. Berger requested the dates of the photos in the meeting materials. Mr. Kittendorf explained the photos were taken in August 2017. All the extensions ran out. There is no more room for an additional extension, unless the Board extends the permit. Renan Laurore, the property owner was present with his contractor and architect. He appreciated the Board hearing the appeal and explained he purchased the property in 2003 to pay for his children's education. After he purchased the property, he began travelling on the job and he relied on the general contractor. When he got the extension, several contractors advised him the property is in an unsafe area and they leave. There have been drive-by shootings. His general contractors are from Miami, because when they find out what is occurring in the area, they leave. He has to hire new contractors all the time. He wakes up early on Monday mornings, drives to work and returns home on Fridays. He is now out of the country for two weeks each month. He appreciated the last extension and advised he wanted to finish the building. Last year, the failed inspection was for exterior work and his permit was for interior work. The inspector said to add the exterior work to the permit. Since he got the failed inspection, the only inspection he had left was the parking inspection and the final inspection. He looked for an architect to add what the inspector requested he add to the interior permit and it took him time to find one. He has the final plans with him and he addressed the last comments the City made. The last time the City asked him about the matter was May 12th. He needed one more inspection for the comments; however, the original architect was not available and he had one month to find another architect for the exterior that would accept the original drawings. The City wanted to know which architect would own the drawing. He attended a meeting with City staff on July 19th about the architect and they were willing to work with him. When he returned to the City on the 20th staff explained the permit expired. He thought it expired on the 22nd. Building staff suggested he come before the Board and request an extension. Another hardship with a family situation. The building was purchased to help pay for his children's education. He put a lot of effort into finishing the building, but he was not the one doing the work. He can provide testimony that he does not owe anyone any money although some contractors owe him money. He hires new contractors, but due to the area, they would leave. Mr. Laurore advised the contractor and architect were present as they were committed to finishing the building and he requested the Board grant him the extension. A photo of the building was viewed. Mr. Berger queried when the interior work started and learned it was 10 years ago in 2007. When they purchased the building, it was a commercial building. He was only supposed to partition the inside. During the partitioning, the architect was only supposed to provide a drawing for him. Most of the rooms preexisted, but as they were working on the trim, they were not up to Code so they had 3 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 20, 2017 to redo everything, including the plumbing and the underground system. The last time he applied for the extension, there was two preexisting kitchens on the second floor, also not up to Code. They asked for the extension and he planned to finish it, but he had to hire another contractor because the old contractor advised he would not come back. The new contractor explained he had to verify everything and they conducted all the inspections again. Mr. Bortz asked how much time was needed to complete the entire project. Luis Metellus, Vanguard Hammer Property, advised 90 days was not enough time. They could finish everything in the building's interior in three months, but not the exterior. They only received the plans from the architect a few days ago and they have not submitted them to the City. Mr. Guritzky asked how long it would take to complete the exterior work if there was an existing permit. Mr. Metellus responded six or seven months because they do not have any permits. He also wanted to complete the interior and then worry about the exterior. It was noted even with the inside finished, the building could not be inhabited until the outside was finished. Mr. Metellus commented the length of time to complete the exterior was contingent on the Building Department. If the plans were approved, he estimated it would take four months and the entire building would be complete. Mr. Bortz asked what would occur if they did not get the permit extension and learned it was up to the Board. Ms. Mann asked if Mr. Metellus had a crew to help him and learned he did. Mr. Guritzky inquired if the building would be condemned if the permit is expired and the Board did not approve the extension. Mr. Kuntzman explained it is an unsafe structure and he reviewed the definition. There are unsafe, unguarded, broken windows, the rear balconies are lacking rails, front and back guardrails were needed and the structural posts are rusted and not connected. Mr. Guritzky asked if the building had to be demolished if it was unsafe. Mr. Kuntzman explained the Building Official would move to have the building removed due to the unsafe conditions and a certificate of occupancy could not be obtained unless those items are addressed. Revisions would be required for the balcony repairs, guard and handrails; however, the City would expedite any plan review to get this property on the tax rolls. The property has been vacant the entire time. Mr. Metellus advised they were unable to do any further work because the permit expired. Pictures reflected what they were trying to fix. The guardrail was removed and the inspector advised they could not conduct the inspection as they had to add the work. The permit required the contractor to ensure those items were secure. Mr. Metellus explained he was committed to finishing the building and had the guardrails and parts ready. If he had too, he would hire an additional crew. He requested a 90-day extension, but preferred four months. 4 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 20, 2017 Mr. Zanartu requested confirmation the City would commit to expediting the process and learned the City would. Mr. Guritzky thought the stairs would not meet Code; however, the stairs were not part of the permit. Mr. Berger asked if the 90 days under discussion was just to complete the interior and learned it would be for the entire project. Mr. Guritzky asked if it would help if the project site were fenced. Mr. Kuntzman replied the building would remain in the same condition. Discussion followed if they could be given a longer period to complete the work if they fenced the property. Mr. Kuntzman responded it was a matter of having the plans submitted for the concrete restoration, the replacement of the columns, and the engineering of the hand and guardrails. It takes time. The City was willing to expedite permits or revisions, but they cannot separate the project into the inside and outside. It has to be one project. A revision is required and it would be cheaper than applying for a new permit. Mr. Zanartu asked if the Board could give a longer extension. Mr. Kuntzman explained it was at the Board's discretion. The Building Official can only extend 90 days. Mr. Berger inquired if they could provide 120 days from the date of permit issuance. Mr. Kuntzman explained all he has to do when bringing permits or plans in is to notify him and he will expedite them and deliver the plans to the reviewer immediately. It would be a one or two day process. Mr. Bortz noted there has not been much progress on the project over the years. Mr. Kuntzman announced he started with the City in 2014 and was unaware of the condition of the inside. Mr. Laurore was not far off from completing the inside. There are some issues that need to be resolved and staff would work with him. The safety issue was more with the outside. Mr. Bortz explained the department waited a long time and there has to be some sort of guarantee there is no more waiting, even if it takes completing the outside first to meet the safety issues and then finish the inside. Mr. Kuntzman advised the City was requesting 90 days and for the property owner to enter a stipulation agreement, which addresses the life safety issues. Mr. Bortz asked Mr. Metellus if there was a guarantee on how long it would take to complete the project and learned the contractor is waiting for plan approval. He wants a guarantee the plan will be approved and they would need between 90 and 120 days. Mr. Zanartu suggested asking for more time to ensure the work would be done. Sandra Puerta, Licensed Architect, explained Mr. Laurore came to her in July close to the time the permit expired. The Building Department had requested drawings of the stairs. On inspection of the property, she informed him the rear stairs must be removed and cannot be repaired. She drafted plans for him and when he submitted them, the City said they could not have two architects. One architect was for the inside and this would be a revision with a different architect for the exterior. The front stairs can be repaired. The back stairs must be completely rebuilt. Mr. Laurore returned asking her to be the architect of record and she informed him she would rather not, but she mailed the plans to the original architect, who put together a new set of plans, including the exterior, but the architect works for a contractor that works for the City and there was a conflict of interest. 5 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 20, 2017 Accordingly, the plans came back to her and she was not confident because she did not draft the plans for the interior. She did not want to take the project, especially with the older plans. She explained the plans have to be completely redone because the prior plan pages were drafted with old codes. In her opinion, he would need four months to complete the project once plans are approved. It should have been part of the original set of plans, but she did not know about the prior conditions and she thought they were in bad shape for a long time. She inspected the interior as she is also a building and general contractor. She specified she is only acting as an architect in the project and thought the inside should be finished within two months, but the exterior work needs three months longer. With the pending holidays, it will put additional pressure on them. She apprised the Board he is committed to the project. Mr. Zanartu explained it is in everyone's best interest to finish the project and there was agreement they cannot kick the project down the road as has been done for years. Mr. Berger favored four months. Mr. Laurore announced his job is now closer and he will take his vacation to ensure the work gets finished. He often had to stay on site, as the workers do not want to remain on the job by themselves. Mr. Berger wanted to tie the work to the permit as it causes delays. Mr. Kuntzman explained the time to conduct a plan review depends on the quality of the plans and if there are comments. If so, the contractor is notified and they have to resubmit and address the comments. The last plans submitted failed plan review on May 11th. The comments were sent to them six business days later on May 20th, and in June, it expired. Mr. Kuntzman will place a critical note in the system, that when this contractor applies for a revision, it will alert the permit tech to give the plans to him and he will give them to plan review to expedite. There is no control if there are comments and there is down time between receiving the comments and when they are addressed. The architect would have to make Code corrections and comply. The plans will be sent back to Mr. Kuntzman and then back to plans reviewer. Mr. Bortz suggested giving six months to complete and not hearing the case again. It would give two months for down time. The extension would expire in six months. Mr. Kuntzman explained it could be added to the stipulation that if the project is not done, it will be considered an unsafe building and it must be removed. Mr. Berger asked what would occur if they were nearly done and it just needed painting. Mr. Bortz commented there has to be an end as the work has gone on way too long. Other people have to abide by rules and the Board is making exception after exception and it is not a good precedent to set. Chair Guritzky thought six months was too long. He favored four months. Mr. Bortz would vote for four months, but was considering the down time. He pointed out 60 days passes quickly. Mr. Zanartu agreed, but noted it has been 10 years, and it is in the City's best interest to see the project completed. Mr. Berger suggested five months from the hearing date or four months after receipt of permit approval, which will be incentive to finish the project. 6 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 20, 2017 Mr. Kuntzman explained he has a permit. If the Board grants an extension he could start working on the inside. The architect can work on the outside restoration while they are working on the inside. When the architect provides the plans for review and they are reviewed a few times at worst case scenario, they will have the revisions in hand in a few weeks and can start work on the outside as soon as they finish the inside. Mr. Kuntzman clarified there would be an extension on the permit for an interior remodel. They would provide a revision to include the exterior work which would be included in the existing 2006 permit. They would not have to wait until they have the revisions for the exterior to work on the interior. Chair Guritzky thought four month was enough to work on both. They do not need 90 days to finish the interior unless they have only one worker. Mr. Metellus agreed the outside needs the time, which is the safety issue. Mr. Bortz wanted to force him to move as quickly as possible on the outside as the outside is the main concern. Motion Mr. Berger moved for four months (extension). Mr. Zanartu seconded the motion. Assistant City Attorney recommended the full request be included in the motion and to provide the reason for approving the extension. Mr. Berger repeated his motion for permit 06-7765 to be granted a 120-day extension. Ms. Mann seconded the motion. Mr. Berger articulated the reason for the motion was it was counter-productive to Boynton Beach to tear down buildings if they could be salvaged. The homes will be rentals. Mr. Metellus explained he would try very hard to move the project along. Chair Gurtizy commented the motion was made to revise the plans to include the exterior as part of the permit. He thought the four months was appropriate based on what the property owner conveyed to the Board based on what was discussed before the motion was made. Chair Guritzky called the roll. The motion unanimously passed. G. ANNOUNCEMENTS After the Board meeting, the members are required to watch the Ethics Training video in compliance of the scheduled re-training for all Board members and employees. Any Board members unable to watch the video at this time must do so on his or her own and submit the signed Code of Ethics Training Acknowledgement form to the City Clerk's office. Attorney Bridgeman explained the information for the Ethics Training was on the Palm Beach County Ethics Commission website. She advised the members must submit the 7 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 20, 2017 acknowledgement form indicating they watched the video online. The Building Department would provide the acknowledgement form. Motion There being no further business, Ms. Mann moved to adjourn. Mr. Zanartu seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. ( e� `. Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 8