Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2019 09 19

Home Browse Search

Building Code Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 05/02/2019 Page 7 of 8 Berry asks for any further matters: none Berry closes the hearing. Deliberations: Novik states he has asks his questions and would like to make a statement. Knapp states he would like more discussion and asks for board options. Berry clarifies suspension and revocation and the city recommends nine months suspension. Knapp asks —he does not have to stop what work he has but cannot apply for new permits. Berry replies, yes. Gstalder points to Sec 4 pg.11 in the Bylaws. Berry states the recommendation of the city staff may conflict with the Bylaws. Gstalder reiterates page 11,12, 7(a and b)-- if license is suspended or revoked all works stops. Berry asks for a response from Root. Root states the city's thought is Louden can finish the work that has been started if the homeowners want him. Knapp states Louden deserves something but suspension is too far because this is his home and where he works. Berry interjects does the licensee meet the requirements for suspension or revocation. Knapp states he feels there has been a positive change in Louden. Knapp states he should not be told to stop work he started, but do something so he carries on in a positive direction. Novik restates evidence presented. Novik states he does not see distinction in suspension or revocation and this would be an item addressed in the Bylaws at a different time. Novik states Louden has had difficulty managing his work in a storm of this magnitude. Novik states in light of these facts Louden does not meet the criteria for suspension/revocation. Berry states Louden meets item C1--a licensee conducts their business in a manner contrary to the condition of the license. Berry states if calling inspections, taking a gamble hoping it's ready or going to pass inspection is not OK (item C). Berry concludes that the BCBOA is not a Consumer Reporting Bureau —the board needs to focus on the task at hand, which is the Bylaws and criteria for suspension or revocation. Knapp states these items could have been fixed if an inspector was available and there should be (inaudible). Novik states perhaps there should be a probationary period rather than suspension. Novik states the Bylaws do not take into account extenuating circumstances. Berry asks Root, is it normal to have inspections next day? Root replies, yes, if you call in the day before, before 4pm. Berry asks Louden, did the city show up next day for midroofs. Louden replies most mid roof inspections were next day. Berry asks were any mid roofs inspections covered on those inspections. Louden replies, the only one he knows of is 516 Grant. Berry revisits evidence with Louden. Berry asks the board for a motion. Action: Novik moves and Knapp seconds that insufficient evidence has been presented to revoke or suspend Severy Creek's contractor's license. Berry polls Novik, Knapp and Berry. The motion passes, voice 3-0.