Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2020 10 15

Home Browse Search

Building Code Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes (DATE) Page 15 of 27 There is one active permit. Severy Creek has created a dangerous environment, has misrepresented himself, which results in empty promises. Root requested a minimum of ten year revocation of Severy Creek's and Steve Louden's contractor license. Root continued, the residents deserve better than this, they do not deserve liens on their homes. Gollin referred to Exhibit 11. Root commented, these were the minutes of the 5-2- 2019 BCBOA Show Cause Hearing; these were the same issues back then that we are taking about tonight. Gollin moved to add Exhibits 1, 6, 11, 15, 15a, and 17 into evidence. Berry questioned Exhibit 11, the minutes from previous hearing, 5-2-2019. Cotton - Baez commented, the board needs to decide whether the evidence presented tonight proves the alleged charges; you may hear what both parties have to say, but the Board could be issue precluded from considering testimony from the last hearing. Gollin asked the board to refer to Bylaws Section 3, article 9, Rules of Evidence, the board can consider any matter which the chair considers reasonable an reliable to aid the board in determining an accurate decision. Gollin (inaudible). Gollin stated those minutes show Severy Creek business practices in terms of misrepresentation and fraud. Berry concluded that the documents were reasonably reliable, would aid the board, and were a matter of public record. Berry admitted Exhibits 1, 6, 11, 15, 15a, and 17. There were no objections. Berry asked Mr. Louden if he had questions for Root. Louden asked, how would you know the value of Mr. Ruppert's roof without seeing the statement of loss from the insurance company? Root answered, as a CBO he sees several permits come through that are of Mr. Ruppert's caliber of roof; valuations come in a lot higher, especially if it is an Impact Resistance shingle. A smaller home in Louisville would be about $12,000 in valuation. Root continued, when you spoke of $21,000 of Ruppert's roof, this made sense because other permits that were pulled by you for like homes were at a higher valuation. Louden asked, did you see the first and second statement of loss for Mr. Ruppert so you could see the difference in what the insurance company did? Root replied, I looked at the valuation, you had $12,582 for the entire reroof. Louden asked again, did you see the statements of loss--- that is how I got the valuation. Root, I did not. Louden had no further questions. The board had no questions for Root. The Board granted the City's request for redirect. Gollin referred to Exhibit 23. Root stated he was looking at a detailed claim from Acorn claims that has 60 line items for 641 St. Andrews Lane on it. Gollin asked, not all those repairs and amount of money are for the roof? Root stated they are not. Gollin moved to introduce Exhibit 23. Berry asked Louden, do you have a copy of Mr. Ruppert's statement of Loss from American National? Louden replied, there were only 11 items on the statement that were just for the roof. Berry asked, did you receive the 10-15-2019 statement? Berry 15