Loading...
BBOAA Minutes 02/28/2025 (Draft)    MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Naples, Florida February 28th, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:02 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Community Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Jonathan D. Walsh Vice Chairman: John A. Melton Michael A. Mick Eloy Ricardo William Swanson ALSO PRESENT: Ronald Tomasko, Assistant County Attorney Fred Clum, Chief Building Official Tatiana K. Gust, CEO, Building Code Administrator Any persons needing the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Division Department of Planning and Zoning. I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. for a formal discussion. II. Roll Call A quorum was established in the boardroom A. Election of Chairman and Vice- Chairman Motion to elect Jonathan D. Walsh as chairman passed unanimously Motion to elect John A. Melton as vice- chairman passed unanimously     III. Additions and Revisions to Agenda (no changes) IV. Adoption of Agenda- Meeting of February 28, 2025 Motion made to approve the agenda passed unanimously V. New Business A. Private Providers deferred submittals as it relates to Florida statutes 553.791 section 17(a)  Tatiana Gust: I want to begin by clarifying that my intent today, is not to question the conduct of the building official nor challenge their authority in enforcing the Florida building code. Rather I am here to request that a clear and consistent standard procedure be established when the first submittals and face permit may be used, one that applies equally to all projects, whether a private provider is involved or not.  Tatiana Gust: I also want to address a misinterpretation on the way the issue has been frame. The questions inferred by the building official response, whether they are required to allow the first submittals or face permit for private provider projects, are not the ones being asked, the subject and hint is not about requiring approvals, but rather ensuring that a consisting objective process exists for all projects, and that projects involving private providers are not automatically denied because an applicant chose to use an alternative service.  Tatiana Gust: Florida Statues 553.791 section 17(a) prohibits local enforcement agencies from adopting or enforcing policies that are more stringent, and what the statue prescribes. My request is simple, that the county defines an objective, standardized criteria for the submittal and face permits that apply equally to all applicants, regardless of whether they choose a private provider service. I look forward to working together to ensure a fair and transparent permitting process for all. Board discussion:      The petitioner brought this very same question before the Florida building commission and their lawyer staff recommendation at that time was that this was out of the purview of the board per statute and that this is a dispute about what the building official’s doing as opposed to an interpretation of statute or code.  My concern is, this same exact issue came before the state. The state indicated they did not have the authority to make the decision . The way I’m interpreting it is what the petitioner was asking for was to define the discretionary aspects of the chief building official’s job, and they didn’t believe that was within their purview.  The statute or the corde is very explicit, as all the contractors know it. It says that all documents required to issue a permit must be submitted to the building official, and then the building official is authorized to waive some documents, but when the building official has waived a specific requirement of the code, he’s putting his license on the line.  By allowing a private provider to be out there on the job, he is essentially being asked to defer that enforcement portion of it, ensuring that the deferred submittals are not installed prior to approval to a third party. When a private provider is involved, h’s in fact being forced to defer that responsibility to a third party who may or may not report back to him, and whether that third party reports back to him properly does not alleviate him of that responsibility to ensure those deferred submittals are not installed. That is really the primary impetus and motivation for not allowing private providers.  The question is, are we looking at policy and procedure?  I would say this is a meeting that is supposed to be with a building official, or is this appeals board issue? Would we classify the packet that is presented to us as a specific to a code section that is currently in dispute of how it is interpreted.  I think at this stage for this board to consider the topic at hand, the application as currently presented needs to be either amended or declined at this point, because what has been submitted is more of a judicial or a procedural aspect, not a code section.      If we move forward and this board agrees, we are only going to discuss the interpretation and enforcement of 107341, there is no amendment.  If you want to change the process by which the chief building official does his discretionary job functions, I think that would be up to the board of County Commissioners in conjunction with the growth management division agreeing to change a policy. Motion made to decline the application due to it being out of the purview of the board passed unanimously VI. Old Business (None) VII. Other Business (None) VIII. Adjourn Motion to Adjourn There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 9:43 a.m. BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Jonathan D. Walsh, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , as presented (choose one) , or as amended