Loading...
CEB Minutes 08/13/1992 1993 Code Enforcement Board Minutes August 13, 1992 - CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MEETING DATE: August 13, 1992 TIME: 9:00 A.M. PLACE: 3rd Floor Boardroom, Building "F", Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida CEB STAFF PRESENT ANDREWS LAZARUS L'ESPERANCE PEDONE RAWSON STRAIN VARIE x X X X X X X BRUTT CLARK DVORAK MAGUIRE MANALICH PUIG SMITH YOVANOVICH X X X X X X X X Also Present: Bruce Anderson, Legal Counsel for the Code Enforcement Board MINUTES BY: Ellie Hoffman and Annette Guevin, Deputy Clerks CALLED TO ORDER AT: 9:00 A.M. RECESS: 7:45 P.M. until 9:00 A.M. on 8/27/92 PRESIDING: Michael Pedone, Chairman ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA: None Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Tape #1 (007) CASE NO.: RESPONDENTS: LOCATION OP VIOLATION: COMMENTS: MOTION: AUGUST 13, 1992 *** 92-011 Prederick L. Swetland III 4258 Kathy Street, Naples, Florida Assistant County Attorney Manalich advised that copies of Composite Exhibit "A" have been furnished to the Board members and opposing counsel and his client. He requested that Composite Exhibit "A" be admitted into the record as evidence. Attorney Fred Gillette, representing Mr. Swetland, stated that he does not believe the Code Enforcement Board (CEB) has jurisdiction over his client. He cited the case of Edward J. Siebert, AlA, Architect vs Bayport Beach and Tennis Club Association, in which the judges of the Second DCA reversed the decision of the trial court which had gone against the architect and gave instructions to enter a judgment in favor of the architect. Mr. Gillette pointed out that he feels that the judicial system and the Department of Professional Regulation have proper jurisdiction over this matter. Mr. Manalich explained that Chapter 162 F.S. states that this Board has the power to issue whatever order it deems appropriate and necessary to bring a violation into compliance. A discussion ensued with regard to invoking the rule. Attorney Anderson recommended that the Board invoke the rule. Made by Mr. Strain to abide by Attorney Anderson's recommendation to invoke the rule. Seconded by Mr. Lazarus. Carried 6/1 (Mr. L'Esperance opposed). It was agreed upon that one expert witness from each side would be allowed to remain in the cham- bers during the testimony. Page 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AMENDED MOTION: Tape #2 AUGUST 13, 1992 Mr. Strain amended the motion to reflect that each side, that is represented, will be allowed to have one expert witness remain in the room. Seconded by Mr. Lazarus. Carried 7/0. Mr. Manalich advised that Mr. Roger Jeffery, of Jenkins and Charland will serve as the County's expert witness. Mr. Gillette announced that Mr. Don Cahill, Architect, will serve as his client's expert wit- ness. At this time, the Board accepted Composite Exhibit "A" into the record as evidence. *** 10:15 A.M. - Reconvened 10:25 A.M. *** Due to prior commitments of Ms. Rawson and Mr. Lazarus, it was the consensus of the Board that a recess would be taken at 12 Noon and reconvene at 3:30 P.M. All witnesses were excluded from the Board Chambers at this time. Mr. Manalich called attention to Composite Exhibit "A", and noted that this matter involves a property at 4258 Kathy Avenue, Naples, Florida, owned by Diane Cabada. He stated that he intends to show by evidence to be presented, that Mr. Swetland is responsible for design violations, in violation of Ordinances 86-49 and 87-19 incorporating the Standard Building Code in effect in Collier County at that time regarding failure of the structure, as designed, to meet code requirements for wind, dead and live loads. He noted that these violations have to do with the design but not the construction of the home. After being sworn in by Judy Puig, Compliances Services Clerk, Compliance Services Supervisor Bill Smith provided his credentials and construction expertise to the Board. Mr. Smith advised that in March, 1991, he conducted an investigation for Collier County Compliance Page 3 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AUGUST 13, 1992 Services regarding the structure at 4258 Kathy Avenue, Naples Florida. He revealed that Ms. Cabada complained that her house was experiencing difficulties, i.e. trouble with the doors opening and closing, and cracks in the walls. Mr. Smith related that Ms. Cabada had french doors that would not open; cracks in the walls in the front room and the loft area; fascia abutting the ridge separated visibly by excess of 1/2"; floor girders underneath the structure were bowing with a deflection between the supports they were sup- ported on. In answer to Mr. Manalich, Mr. Smith revealed that he made approximately 15 visits to Ms. Cabada's residence. He stated that he has had conversations with Ms. Cabada, the previous owner, and Mr. Swetland. He indicated that during a meeting of April, 1991, there were concerns relating to how the house was drawn and who was responsible. He noted that during that meeting, Mr. Swetland indi- cated that the house was designed properly but Mr. Nystrom had built the house incorrectly. He reported that later in the meeting, Mr. Swetland stated that the house was not designed to meet wind loads. Mr. Smith explained that a Notice of Violation was issued to Mr. Swetland, with a copy of Jenkins and Charland's report. Mr. Smith reported that in the beginning, Mr. Swetland agreed to try to work things out, however, the three parties involved could not agree to the same items. In response to Mr. Manalich, Mr. Smith stated that he observed 2 x 12 girders that were bowed. He indicated that the engineer's report outlined an as-built and as-designed, noting that Mr. Swetland was cited in the Notice of Violation for the defi- ciencies as-designed. Attorney Gillette questioned whether Mr. Smith looked over Mr. Swetland's construction drawings to see if the sagging members, as observed, were constructed consistent with the design. Mr. Smith replied that he looked at the spacing in the plans and that is what was in place. Page 4 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AUGUST 13, 1992 Mr. Smith indicated that there is some confusion with regard to the bracing. He pointed out that one sheet of the plan does not reflect dimensions, but merely an aesthetic appearance and therefore, there is no way to dimensionalize out where the brace should have gone from. Mr. Smith stated that the girder fits with what is on the foot print of the floor plan. After being sworn in, Mr. Frederick Swetland stated that the plans went with the house and did not stay with the architect. Mr. Gillette related that the Building Code, incor- porated into the Ordinances that were previously articulated, does not provide for a remedy to be sought by Mr. Swetland. He suggested that the bare plans need to be critiqued and not the house. Development Compliance Supervisor Ed Maguire was sworn in at this time and detailed his qualifica- tions to the Board. Mr. Maguire advised that in October, 1991, he became aware of allegations that the home at 4258 Kathy Avenue had structural problems. He revealed that he and Building Inspector Sonny Dvorak did a cursory, outside only visual inspection of the pro- perty at which time obvious deficiencies were noticed. Mr. Maguire divulged that in February, 1992, he and Brian Liebold of Jenkins and Charland conducted an internal and external inspection of the building. Mr. Manalich presented photographs labeled Composite Exhibit "B". Mr. Maguire stated that he took the pictures, looking underneath the Cabada residence. He cited that the photos depict a girder being supported on piers, running north and south, and noted a deflection in the second girder at mid-span which caused him concern. Mr. Manalich advised that he took a laser under the building and did extensive measurements of post elevations and deflections. He announced that typically, a deflection of this nature is due to over-loading of the girder. Page 5 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY *** AUGUST 13, 1992 Mr. Manalich presented Composite Exhibit "C", signed and sealed plans for the Cabada residence. Mr. Strain noted that the plans call for 2 x 8 bracing. Mr. Maguire affirmed that the plans do call for 2 x 8 bracing, however, the builder used 2 x 6 bracing on-site. Mr. Manalich presented Composite Exhibit "D", copy of Certificate of Occupancy issued to Owner, Frederick Nystrom. Mr. Maguire indicated that the c.o. was issued by Collier County on July 27, 1988. In response to Mr. Manalich, Mr. Maguire explained that he supervises the building inspectors. He related that he is of the opinion that the inspec- tors did pass on this residence and they should not have. He reported that there were structural ele- ments that were not included in the construction, that should have been, according to the plans. He noted that there were knee braces on the plans but they were not installed. Attorney Gillette pointed out that his client's violations, if there are any, only relate to the plans and testimony is being given relating to the construction of the house not be consistent with the plans. Mr. Clark explained that the evidence shows the design caused the problems to this structure. Mr. Maguire cited that he is an engineer, but recognizing the fact that he is not a structural engineer, he felt it prudent to hire a structural engineering firm to do a complete analysis of the structure, noting that the firm of Jenkins and Charland was hired. At this time, the Board accepted Composite Exhibits "B", "c" and "D" into the record as evidence. Mr. Gillette stated that testimony has been given that the wrong size bracing has been used and the deflections are not consistent with the design. Recess 11:50 A.M. - Reconvened 3:30 P.M. *** Page 6 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AUGUST 13, 1992 *** Recessed: 11:45 A.M. Reconvened: 3:30 P.M. at which time Deputy Clerk Guevin replaced Deputy Clerk Hoffman *** COMMENTS: In response to Mr. Manalich, Mr. Gillette stated he would object to the County bringing forth more than one expert witness in this case. Upon being sworn in, Roger Jeffery, P.E., with Jenkins & Charland Incorporated, recited his cre- dentials for the Board. Mr. Manalich presented Exhibit "E", which he stated is Mr. Jeffery's resume, and asked that it be admitted into evidence. Chairman Pedone received Exhibit "E'I into evidence. (Copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board.) Mr. Jeffery advised his firm was hired by Collier County to review the structure of the Cabada home and review the plans to determine if the structure was designed to meet the Codes in place at the time the plans were submitted for permit, as well as to determine any deviations from the plans that could be noticed in the field. Tape #3 In response to Mr. Manalich, Mr. Jeffery identified and explained, through drawings, four major areas of design deficiency in the plans submitted by Mr. Swetland, namely, lateral resistance to wind loads, floor girders, roof framing and general instability of the entire building. Responding to Mr. Manalich, Mr. Jeffery stated there is no question that construction of the structure is substantially similar to the plans he reviewed. He reported it is his professional opi- nion that the design of specific portions of the structure does not meet with Code requirements for wind live and dead loads. He added that no home built exactly as designed and without any deviations, would be in compliance with the Codes. Mr. Manalich presented Ordinance 76-70, the Unsafe Structure Ordinance, and asked that it be admitted into evidence as Exhibit "F". In reply to Mr. Manalich, Mr. Jeffery stated two sections of Ordinance 76-70 define the Cabada resi- dence as an unsafe structure. Page 7 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AUGUST 13, 1992 It was the consensus to take official notice of Exhibit "FII, Collier County Ordinance 76-70. (Copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board.) Mr. Manalich indicated he had no further direct questions of Mr. Jeffery. Mr. Gillette inquired of any architects are on the staff of Jenkins & Charland, and were any archi- tects consulted in their review of the design plans, to which Mr. Jeffery responded in the nega- tive. In response to Mr. Gillette, Mr. Jeffery proceeded to explain, paragraph by paragraph, the revised March 25, 1992 report from his firm, contained on pages 22-30 of Composite Exhibit "A". He referred to drawings, explaining the possible consequences of deficiencies in the design. Mr. Gillette inquired why the March 2nd letter was revised with one dated March 25th? Mr. Jeffery explained his firm was requested by the County to add the specific Code sections that were violated into the body of the letter. Responding to Mr. Gillette, Mr. Jeffery stated he has personally designed more than fifty wood struc- tures and, as principal in charge of review for the firm, he has reviewed another 300 structures designed by other staff members. He said the reason for the review is their in-house quality control. Mr. Gillette asked what circumstances were found by Jenkins & Charland when analyses were done for Collier County relating to this engagement, but not just relating to the Cabada house? Mr. Manalich objected, stating other properties designed by the Respondent are not at issue. He requested the questions be limited to the subject design regarding this report. Chairman Pedone agreed and said discussion should be limited to the subject house. Mr. Gillette explained that he will be introducing the reports of Jenkins & Charland prepared on two Page 8 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AUGUST 13, 1992 companion houses with almost identical design. He said he will show that those houses are showing no stress whatsoever, and the owners of those houses will be called as witnesses. Mr. Gillette asked if Mr. Jeffery is familiar with the case of Cutler V. Welbro Joint Venture vs. Jenkins & Charland as well as other defendants, to which Mr. Jeffery responded in the affirmative. Mr. Manalich objected, stating Mr. Gillette is drifting even further into other cases of another nature. Mr. Gillette said Mr. Jeffery has been presented to the CEB as an expert in the design area. He indi- cated he wishes to draw the Board's attention to at least one specific instance where Mr. Jeffery and Jenkins & Charland allegedly had serious design problems, so the credibility of the company and the witness can be considered. Mr. Gillette was allowed to proceed. Mr. Gillette asked Mr. Jeffery to describe the nature of the alleged problems. Mr. Jeffery explained Jenkins & Charland designed the trusses for the Sonesta Sanibel Hotel, which is a concrete building of 14 floors. He said during the No Name Storm, some of the roof panels blew off. He stated someone was subsequently hired who indicated the entire building was inadequately designed, resulting in millions of dollars spent to fix the structure. He reported the trusses designed by Jenkins & Charland did not fail, and the experts hired by both sides could find nothing wrong with the design of those trusses. Although Jenkins & Charland did nothing wrong, he said, the insurance company did pay towards the costs incurred. Mr. Gillette stated he had no further questions of Mr. Jeffery. In response to Chairman Pedone, Mr. Jeffery stated none of the trusses were damaged or blown off in the storm. Also in answer to Chairman Pedone, Mr. Jeffery advised the lawsuit was settled in mediation. Page 9 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AUGUST 13, 1992 Mr. Lazarus asked if Mr. Jeffery would characterize the design defects relating to the Cabada house as fairly obvious to a trained person? Mr. Jeffery replied without any training in struc- tural analysis, it would be very easy to look at the drawings and not notice a deficiency. Mr. Lazarus inquired if persons reviewing plans on behalf of Collier County are trained to recognize a structural design defect, and further, what is their responsibility in issuing a Certificate of Occupancy? Mr. Clark explained until the last year and one- half, the term "substantial reliance" had a great deal of impact on Collier County government. He said when sealed plans were submitted by a design professional, there was a great deal of substantial reliance placed on the credibility of the pro- fessional, with the assumption that it would be less likely for design professionals to make an error in judgment or design than the typical owner/ builder. He stated when plans are submitted by an owner/builder that are not sealed by a design pro- fessional, the County looks at those plans as possibly more suspect to contain deficiencies than those submitted by a design professional. *** The Recording Secretary's responsibilities terminated at 5:00 P.M. Audio tapes for the reaainder of the meeting are on file in the Clerk to the Board's Office. *** *** *** Recessed: approximately 7:45 P.M. until August 27, 1992, at 9:00 A.M. *** Page 10