Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2020 10 15

Home Browse Search

Building Code Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes (DATE) Page 6 of 27 did not have time. Gollin asked, throughout the fall/winter of 2018 and spring of 2019 no work was done on your roof? Ruppert replied, Correct. Gollin asked Mr. Ruppert to look at the timeline (Exhibit 2)--it appears on June 61", 2019, eight months after the permit was issued, shingles started be removed —this was the beginning of the work. Gollin asked, what happened after the shingles were removed? Ruppert states, it took several days to get the old shingles off. After shingles were off a paper was put on then nothing, until June 19t" when midroof inspection was ordered. Gollin asked, were there any problems between June -August 2019? Ruppert stated, there was another hailstorm, less severe than 2018. Rupert called Severy multiple times to try and get his roof shingled. Ruppert stated he did not know if there was damage. Ruppert stated he learned that the reason for the order of installation is the paper is only good for one-14 days. Gollin asked, your roof, for 62 days, had no shingles? Ruppert replied, no shingles. Gollin directed Ruppert to Exhibit 7, independent roof inspection. Ruppert told the board he got a third opinion from an expert, Boulder Home Inspector. Ruppert stated he paid for a whole evaluation of his roof. Gollin stated, Exhibit 7 is the entire report. Gollin referred to page ten of the report, which states--- "observation included damages and safety hazard." Ruppert stated the safety hazard was roofing decking was damaged and could not support the shingles due to the shingles being loaded on to the roof in one area instead of being spread around. Gollin stated the report was done four months after the roof was completed. Ruppert agreed. Gollin asked, are there other concerns? Gollin pointed out that page 11 states exposed nails and contains several pictures. Gollin points to page 13. Ruppert explained there were unknown bumps in the surface. Gollin stated from the report there is an exposed area in the corner of the drip edge. Gollin requested that Mr. Ruppert look at Exhibit 8A. Gollin stated, this hired inspector showed perceived problems with photos. Gollin referred Mr. Ruppert to Exhibit 9A and asked what the Exhibit shows. Ruppert states it is one side of his house that was attempted to be repaired. Ruppert asked another contractor to look at the work, who pointed out there was no window flashing, and that the boards were cut because the Severy sub -contractor could not fit the boards in his car. The sub- contractor did not use scaffolding. Ruppert stated he was young and did not know what he was doing; he worked in the dark and brought his wife and dog to the project. Ruppert continued that the young man stated the Louden had sent him to the house with measurements. Gollin asked Ruppert, you gave Severy another insurance check for $5,006.55 in November of 2019? Ruppert stated Louden talked him in to giving him the check to cover the siding and deck. Ruppert stated, he should not have done that, but is was an insurance check. Gollin asked, what happened to the work on the siding and deck? Ruppert reports Severy committed to starting the siding on November 16th, 2019. Gollin interrupted that the timeline stated the deck removal started on Nov. 14, 2020. Gollin---inaudible. Ruppert stated the subcontractor started the deck 6