Loading...
Minutes 09-25-19 MINUTES WEDNESDAY,MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER : s INTRACOASTAL PARK CLUBHOUSE, 2240 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Sanford Guritzky Chair Shane Kittendorf, Chief Building Official Andrew Podray John Kuntzman, Deputy Building Official Daniel Berger James Cherof, City Attorney Damian Brink Timothy Dornblaser (arrived at 99:09 a.m.) A. CALL TO ORDER Chair Guritzky called meeting to order at 10:58 a.m. VISITORSB. ELECT NEW CHAIRPERSON C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MEMBERS AND D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & MINUTES (MINUTES 11 1MEETING) Motion Mr. Brink moved to approve the minutes. Mr Podray seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. E. OLD BUSINESS Fr NEW BUSINESS Applicant: Mr. Wing Kei Ho and Mrs. Karen Yeh Ho Reference: 1101-1103 N. Federal Highway,. Boynton Beach, FL Explanation: A continuation hearing has been requested by the Board on August 14th, 2019, requesting that a Florida Licensed Structural Engineer perform an inspection and provide an evaluation report within the 30 days to determine the building integrity and structural soundness. Meeting Minutes Building oar of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida September 25, 2019 An updated engineering report was provided. Mr. Podray was aware Mr. Kittendorf sent a letter about the engineering report and asked what the findings were. Mr. Kittendorf confirmed he had questions about the report and he requested some administrative corrections to the report; however, Dr. Cheng was out of town. The new report had updated information regarding the conclusion of the structural soundness of the building. Dr. Cheng is a certified structural engineer who meets the City's requirements. The engineer provided a minimal understanding of the compliance to the structure's soundness. He is not qualifying the building would meet Code or human occupancy at this time. He only stated the work performed by the owner has bought the structure into a stable condition. (Mr. Domblaser arrived at 11:09 a.m.) Mr. Berger understood the report indicated the building was safe for the time being and inquired if the repairs made took a band-aid approach. Mr. Kittendorf confirmed it did, but the report did not make the building safe. The building is still considered unsafe especially with repairs made, across the Board, without permits. Mr. and Mrs. Ho made immediate attempts to retain an engineer, and although they made some repairs to secure the structure from further deterioration, such as securing the trusses, a lot of questions were raised due to the photographs. Mr. Kittendorf sent correspondence to Dr. Cheng earlier in the day, he questioned exposed soffits and the diaphragm of the truss system; the distance separation of openings and sanitary sacks; and the reroofing and existing exposure to the weather. There is water intrusion and decay of existing materials. The ceiling drywall was collapsing and there are exposed wires, creating a fire hazard. One photo showed wood-borne organisms in the structure, which would require an exterminator to conduct a wood-borne organism survey. There is a plywood repair on the southwest corner of the building that was made without a permit. There were concerns based on a photo, the length of the nails does not meet minimum requirements. Staff would want to ensure the nail length is properly secured, which could be done at the time of permitting and confirmed at the time of inspection. There were many other concerns, which Mr. Kittendorf expounded on, as contained in his communication to the engineer based on the report. He advised the department has set precedence on two other structures that were about the same or worse condition and thought an eleven-month window to bring all into compliance would be adequate. Mr. and Mrs. Ho are looking at other options as it is expensive to renovate or rehabilitate a structure. It may be too costly to bring the building into compliance, and Mr. and Mrs. Ho may want to reassess this matter. Chair Guritzky noted Mr. Kittendorf's comments were based on photos and asked if a physical inspection had been conducted. Mr. Kittendorf responded the City has not been granted access to the structure. Meeting Minutes Building oar of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida September 25, 2019 Attorney Cherof asked if inspection report distributed at the meeting was to supplement or replace the report in the Board backup and learned it was to replace. Mr. Kittendorf needed an original of the report. Since Dr. Cheng was out of town, Mr. Kittendorf could not attest to the authenticity of the report, except for his emails with Dr. Cheng. Attorney Cherof advised the report distributed by Mr. Kittendorf will be made part of the Board record. Attorney Cherof asked Mr. Kittendorf, based on the information provided to him, if he changed his opinion whether the building is an unsafe structure. Mr. Kittendorf responded it was still unsafe. Attorney Cherof noted the report from Dr. Cheng makes multiple references to repairs or replacements, and asked if any of them were preceded by a building permit and learned there were none, nor was there an application for a building permit pending. Attorney Cherof queried if a timeline for making an application for building permits was given to Mr. Kittendorf by the property owners and learned they had not. Attorney Cherof asked if an application was made in conjunction with issuing building permits for work previously done that would require a physical inspection on the property by the City. Mr. Kittendorf responded it would. Attorney Cherof asked if the property owner indicated if they would consent and allow City staff on their property to make inspections and was advised they would not. Mr. Podray asked if the City could force a business or homeowner to make their building habitable. Attorney Cherof responded they could not force the property owner or applicant to do so. The remedy is this process to declare the building an unsafe structure and if not repaired, order its demolition. Mr. Podray commented he did not support giving the City the power to step onto property to say there is mold or an electrical outlet that could be more secure. He commented when someone is repairing their home, they do not necessarily have to bring everything up to the current Code and the structures are grandfathered in. He thought if the Board does not completely roll over, the City will press their case, the applicant will sue and end up in court. He thought the only reasonable method to get past the issue was to say as long as the report has been substantiated as clear, accurate, and done by a certified professional, it is a safe structure. Mr. Kittendorf reiterated the building is not a safe structure. The structural soundness of a structure is contained in a portion of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building under Structural Repairs, and based on such, there is an entire chapter about all life safety features. He emphasized at this time, nowhere and in no case is the structure anywhere near being a safe structure to occupy and habitat. Mr. Podray commented the lawsuit will go to court and he thought there was a better way out of it. He believed the Board Members have lived through cases like this. Board Members know when the City can temporarily cross the bounds in certain circumstances and two applicants have made it clear they do not want to be tread on. He questioned how the information was obtained, and asked if they had a right to "trespass" on their property. He also thought if someone 3 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida September 25, 2019 saw something wrong with the fascia, if anyone has the right to interpret the entire building as unsafe, and then the report says the building is safe. Mr. Kittendorf contended under the Florida Building Code (FBC) Existing Buildings, the structure has to meet the Code on the design, based on how the design professional provides it. Based on the information provided, that is how the City got to the point of structural repairs. With structural repairs, the City wants to ensure if the building is considered substantially damaged or not. Based on the information provided by the engineer, he is not determining, at this point, that the vertical load combination of the structure is effective in a manner that would exceed the percentage shown in the Code definition. The engineer still has to sign and attest to the report and provide the City with part of the plans and documented information. It is one piece of the Life Safety features involved with the building. Any changes or deviation of the Code that are not like-for-like changes have to meet current code. Mr. Kittendorf advised with this report, he is reviewing the opportunity to make repairs versus demolition. It is at the Board's discretion how long a time period to give to repair. The history shows from aerial views taken by the Property Appraiser's Office the deterioration started in 2005 and continued to present day. In 2005, there was a new roof system installed from a permit issued in 2004. In 2008, repairs to the roof system were visible. In 2009, there was a greater roof area being patched and in 2012 further deterioration occurred. By 2016 to 2017, one storm tore off the entire second layer of roofing exposing the existing first layer and the outline of the roof tarring on the edges. There were visible deficiencies between 2016 to 2018, which can be seen on the Property Appraiser's website. Mr. Kittendorf provided his findings and information along with the engineer's report. He was not looking for demolition unless Mr. and Mrs. Ho would consider doing so. He pointed out the repair costs may exceed what Mr. and Mrs. Ho want to spend. At present, the building is unsafe with all the life safety features that have to be addressed. Mrs. Karen Yeh Ho, 9174 Chianti Court, Boynton Beach, was present and explained they are working with a professional engineer who recommended an architect. The current building may be changed in a month or so, but they cannot demolish the building. They want to work with the City to see what they can modify to maintain the usage, which was fora storage, warehouse, civil rights facility or something else. Mr. Berger noted Mr. and Mrs. Ho have to address the mold and termite damage and asked if they would work with the City to address the building in the next year. Ms. Ho explained the goal is to work with the City. Mr. Berger asked if the improvements included obtaining permits. Mrs. Ho responded it did. Ms. Ho commented the structural engineer said the building was safe at this point, but they had to work with an architect. Mr. Berger noted the report indicated the building is safe, but for not fit for human occupancy. Mrs. Ho requested 18 months to complete the building. Mr. Kittendorf clarified the engineer did not give a clear determination that the building was safe, he only noted the repairs made to the building were more to help secure the Meeting Minutes Building oar of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida September 25, 2019 structure, but no determination the building was safe was made by the engineer. When there is deterioration, it is hard to make a statement to say it is sound. The engineer was cautious how he responded to how repairs were made, but no determination it was safe was made. Chair Guritzky asked how the City would proceed in the matter. Mr. Kittendorf replied staff can sit with the owners and provide their findings. It would be better to have a visual inspection to clearly have an understanding of the actual areas that are affected and provide a clear list of what they have to do to bring the property into compliance. The first item Mr. and Mrs. Ho need is to hire a licensed architect to review the information and then design plans and provide information on how the repairs would be made. The structural engineer will also provide details on how all will be designed and installed. The engineer provided a report on minimum items and recommendations what they can do based on the report of repairs, but in all cases, they must submit everything to the City to ensure they are Code complaint. The City will use the FBC Existing Building sections and staff will determine at what extent it triggers staff to go back to prior codes or how they can stay within the existing Code only. In most cases, the FBC Existing Building section refers applicants back to the Building Code for certain features and parameters that have to be brought into compliance. They will go through the entire section of Chapter 6 regarding repairs to a structure. It will provide a process how to assist them to get to the next level and that is what they communicate to the design professional. Staff can assist them along with what has to be provided and the information and findings he has to include to help direct licensed contractors to comply with plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and others requirements. Staff needs access to the structure, but has not received it. Chair Guritzky asked how long would it take to have an architect and engineer get back to staff for them to review. Mr. Kittendorf thought a 90-day window for plans to be submitted, and then give the City 30 days to review if there any deficiencies to go back and forth would be adequate. The Department reviews plans on a 10-day turnaround. This project would be handled through the expedited process and receive an express review with a focus on bringing the buildings into compliance as quick as possible. Mr. Ho did not think 90 days was sufficient time. Mr. Wing Ho, 9174 chianti Court, understood some things were not communicated, but thought they needed to agree on the issues they need to address. Mr. Ho noted the agenda and the paperwork the Board received, had a picture of an inspection that was not approved, was not part of the report. (Mr. Brink left the meeting at 11:33 p.m.) Mr. Ho had previously heard 11 months, but requested 18 months. They want to have an idea how large the repair list would be. Ninety days is not enough time to get the information into the City. He requested 180 days. Meeting Minutes Building oar of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida September, 25, 2019 Chair Guritzky commented the case has been dragging on. Mr. Ho responded now that they have the report, they made some repairs. (Mr. Brink returned at 91:35 a.m.) Ms. Ho noted they interviewed several professional engineers. They want the building and lot to look good and be up to the current Code. They are not looking for a Certificate of Occupancy at this time. The building is empty and housing only her sewing items. Mr. Brink had no problem with 90 business days, but thought 180 days would be excessive. He suggested 90 days with a 30 or 60day extension at the discretion of the Building Official. They have to provide proof to the City there is progress. Mr. Dornblaser agreed. Attorney Cherof suggested picking a date certain. Mr. Brink liked January 31st without an extension. Ms. Ho thought January 31St may do be doable to hire an architect, obtain drawings and then have a structural engineer design. They will provide a timeline and every step of the way, they will have to have a building permit and an inspection. Mr. Dornblaser encouraged Mr. and Mrs. Ho to communicate the timeline to the architect. The time given is more than enough time to create the drawings, get them permitted and forward them to a structural engineer and then a mechanical, electrical and plumbing, engineer and get all approved by the City and then into permit. He thought it was easily attainable in 90 days. Ms. Ho advised they would do what they could do on their side. By January 31St, Ms. Ho should have the architect and professional engineers ready. She has to wait for the engineer to return from Tallahassee. When he returns, he will introduce them to the architect and they can sit down. Mr. Berger clarified the Board wants 100% design documents from the architect and structural engineers. The drawings must be ready to be submitted for permitting by January 31 st. Chair Guritzky wanted a stipulation that prior to that time, the City will have permission to enter the property. Mrs. Ho responded she would not allow access. She said she would work with the City, provided she speaks to her architect and structural engineer and there is money involved. She has many questions and needs to speak with the architect. Mr. Berger advised if Mr. and Mrs. Ho are genuinely intent to file for a building permit, they will have to let the City have access, because it will save them time and money in designs. Revisions would be made and a third party would point out what could be done now. Chair Guritzky felt unless the City has access to that building, it should be demolished. Ms. Ho advised she would file a lawsuit. 6 Meeting Minutes Building o r of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, Floridar 25, 2019 Mr. Ho explained Mrs. Ho would not give blanket permission. They will go through the permitting process and inspection process. When appropriate, they will have officials come in for inspections. Mr. Brink felt an architect, at some point would likely want to meet onsite with the Building inspector. He asked Mr. and Mrs. Ho if they would allow a meeting with the building inspector on their property. Ms. Ho said yes. Mr. Brink felt there was Board consensus to grant Mr. and Mrs. Ho until January 31, 2020, and the City will expedite the process. Mrs. Ho agreed they had until January 31 st to find an architect and submit drawings to the department. Mr. Berger noted when they get the permit at the end of January, State timelines come into effect, which he explained. Mr. Kittendorf requested the design professional{s} associated with the project will have plans and applications submitted and all permits secured at that time for work to start work by the 31St Attorney Cherof explained the prior order on August 14t' gave 18 months to rehab the property, which takes completion to February 14 of 2021. The 90 days under discussion was already built into the process. The January deadline was just proof they are moving forward by obtaining the needed documents to get the permits. If they do not perform at that point, the Board will reconvene. Chair Guritzky did not think they should have to reconvene. Attorney Cherof explained the Board can cross that bridge in February 2021 and thought the Board was moving forward in the proper direction with the 90-day Order that will be entered today. The inspection portion will fall into place in conjunction with the permits and the inspections needed to prove that the work is done. Mr. Podray suggested giving a full six months because the only proof the City will have that Mr. and Mrs. Ho met with the architect is when they procure a contractor and they show up to pull permits. It typically takes a month or two for an architect to draft everything. Mr. and Mrs. Ho will want to put the job out to bid and they will exceed the January deadline. He favored giving the full six months to apply for permits. It will take the City another four to six months to approve all and then the Board will be right back to meeting in February of 2021 as he doubted the applicants could meet the deadline. Chair Guritzky felt it was their problem as the matter has been dragging on. Mr. Dornblaser commented the process should have started already and it is not the Board's problem the applicants did not start. Chair Guritzky suggested giving up to January 31 to get all permits and have all ready for permitting and they have up to February 2021 to complete the project. Attorney Cherof confirmed the prior order and the supplemental order being enacted at this meeting would accomplish that goal. Meeting Minutes Building r Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Florida 1 Motion Mr. Berger moved by January 31, 2020, Mr. and Mrs. Ho will have all their permit documents in for approval with the City by licensed engineer and licensed architect. Mr. Dornblaser seconded the motion. Ms. Ho commented she could always ask for an extension. Mr. Podray voted in the negative because he thought Mr. and Mrs. Ho would not be able to meet the requirement. Vote The motion passed -1, (Mr. Podray dissenting.) Ms. Ho thanked the Board and advised if she could not meet the requirements she could always file for a time extension with good reason. G. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. H. Adjournment Motion Mr. Dornblaser moved to adjourn. Mr. Podray seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 11:57 a.m. J Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 8