Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-09 BAA MINUTES• MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO NOVEMBER 9, 1988 i)te14FT 9 A • The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Seymour, George, Lighthall, Dunn, Shaffer, Waldman and Welker. Members absent: None. Also present: Richard S. Wanush, Director of Community Development Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Daniel L. Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 1988 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. All seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled that the Minutes were approved as written. • APPROVAL OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. • BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASES #19-88 AND #23- 88 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member George seconded the motion. All seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled that the Findings of Fact for Cases #19-88 and #23-88 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING. The Chairman stated that the Board is authorized to grant or deny an appeal by Article 8, Part 3, Section 60, of the Englewood City Charter. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #24-88, an appeal of a denial of a Contractor's License. Ms. George said that she would abstain from par- ticipation and would not vote in the case . The Chairman stated that with six members participating, five affirmative votes would be required to grant an appeal. He said that in appeals, the City staff presents its case first, fol- lowed by testimony from the applicant. He asked that the staff identify the request. Dorothy Andrews Romans, Planning Di rector, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the appeal had been filed by William Haidon, doing business as Englewood Roofing from 4685 South Logan Street. This is an appeal from the Chief Building Inspector's decision to deny renewal of Mr. Haidon's Roofing -1 - • • • Contractor's License #2581. The procedure for the appeal is provided in Sec- tion 5-7-6 B of the 1985 Englewood Municipal Code, "License, Certificate of Registration Denied; Appeal. In the event that an application for a license or certificate of registration is denied, the applicant may request a · review of the application by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. A fee of twenty ($20.00) shall accompany the appea 1 request, which amount sha 11 be returned to the app 1 i cant in the event the Board orders issuance of the license." Mrs. Romans noted that the fee had been submitted by the applicant. Mr. Hai- don brought several documents to the office for the Board's information after the packets had been distributed. They were entered into the Record and given to the Board. Ms. Lighthall suggested a recess to read the documents; Mr. Welker suggested that the case be presented and then an attempt be made to address the Exhibits. The Board agreed. Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector was sworn in for testimony. He referred to the Staff Report to the page listing the justification for denial of the license. The first section addressed failure to obtain a city permit prior to commencing work. A Stop Work Order was issued on 7-21-88 at 3369 South Grant to Englewood Roofing because work was in progress with no permit. At the time the applicant applied for the permit for this project, it was discovered that Mr. Haidon's license had expired, so he was also working without a valid contractor's license. On the permit application, work was identified with certain areas of the roof (north and east side only), but the applicant also worked on portions of the south side of the roof. The Contractor also failed to request and obtain required inspections. At the time of the denial of Mr. Haidon's license, the computer showed a permit at 625 East Grand Avenue which had been inspected and rejected. Several meetings had been held regarding this roof and the City require- ments. That project has never received a final inspection approval from the City . After the Division of Building and Safety mailed Mr. Haidon the notice that his license was revoked, a routine search of the Division files for outstanding non-approved permits, found that several other per- mits which had been issued to Mr. Haidon had no inspection request re- corded. These were issued prior to the installation of the computer sys- tem. They have not been finaled or inspected. There were seven of these permits. Mr. Yoder said that the Building Division had believed that Mr. Haidon had not paid for one of the permits, but it was found that he had made the payment, and this violation was withdrawn from consideration. Final- ly, Mr. Haidon failed to obey a verbal order from the Chief Building In- spector which resulted from a meeting Mr . Yoder had with Mr. Haidon and a property management person concerning a job at 3369 South Grant Street . The property management person wanted to make sure the work was done cor- rectly before he paid Mr. Haidon for the reroofing. Mr. Yoder went over several things with the representative, some of the discussion involving noncomplying roof sections in areas that had been done by a previous con- tractor some years before. After the representative of the owner of the property · left, Mr. Yoder asked Mr. Haidon to give him the permit card because it is a record of the inspections which is kept in the file of - 2 - • • • the Building and Safety Division. Mr. Haidon refused to give the permit card to Mr. Yoder and left . There have been no other "field" meetings between Mr. Hai don and Mr. Yoder. Mr. Haidon had been notified of corrections required at the 625 East Grand Avenue project; however he maintained that the City is enforc- ing "unknown" sections of the Code. Mr. Yoder said he and his field per- sonnel have been hired by the City to enforce the adopted Codes and re- lated reference materials; when they attempted to do so, there were al- legations of abuse in withholding the contractor's license. Mr. Yoder said that they told Mr. Haidon several times that if he fails to obtain final inspections that he would not have his license renewed. The Code Administrator, the Director of Community Development, the Acting City Manager, and various members of City Council have been approached by Mr. Haidon about what Mr. Yoder considers a simple matter--inspections are required and the permit card must be returned to the City to give the City a record of inspections and to insure that the cards are not used to avoid obtaining permits on other properties. Ms. Lighthall asked if it was true that when Mr. Haidon refused to give Mr. Yoder the permit card, Mr. Yoder threatened to call the police and drag Mr. Haidon to City Hall. Mr. Yoder said he asked Mr. Haidon if it would be necessary to call the police because Mr. Haidon was getting very upset. He did not expect the police to force Mr. Haidon to go to City Hall. Ms. Lighthall asked if it was true that Mr. Yoder used profanity to an employee of Mr. Haidon's and threatened, intimidated and harassed him. Mr. Yoder said there were three people at the site, Duane Davidson, Mr. Yoder and a representative from Englewood Roofing (not Mr. Haidon) . Mr. Davidson and Mr. Yoder did not make any statements to Mr. Haidon's employee about his character or his work, and left the job site. When they left, the man was still there. Mr. Welker asked about the permit card. Mr. Yoder said the card has spaces in which to record any inspection activity. It is kept on the site while work is being done, is supposed to be visible from the street, and the inspectors use it to see what inspections have been made. The card is taken for the file when the work is completed to show that all required inspections have been made. Mr. Yoder said that, in his opinion, the appeal is not really based on code standards, or the quality of Mr. Haidon's work. The Building and Safety Division wants Mr. Haidon to obtain permits, and call for inspections, make corrections as request- ed and return the cards when the job is completed; these problems are the reasons the license was denied. If Mr. Haidon's license is granted, ac- cess must be provided to the job sites where work has been done in the past without f i na 1 inspections. If the license is not granted, there will still have to be inspections, and if there are problems, Mr. Yoder does not know what will be required . There were no further questions for Mr . Yoder. Duane Davidson, Building Inspector for the City of Englewood was sworn in for testimony. He said there was no profanity or accusations directed toward the contractor or his em- ployee .. He said that he and Mr . Yoder stopped by the construction site because the contractor's license was up for renewal. Mr. Yoder inspects the work of contractors as often as possible before renewal. There had - 3 - • • • been three jobs for Mr. Haidon--one had been finaled with no problems on work that had been done on Lincoln street in 1986. This was an old job for which no inspection had been called. The second job was on Grant, where the work was rejected. On the third job, he discussed the require- ments with the person working on the site. There was no further information submitted by the staff. William Haidon 4685 South Logan was sworn in for testimony. He said that Mr. Yoder and Mr. Davidson had just presented lies or wrong information. He said he had been working for days to obtain documentation. Mr. Welker asked that Mr. Haidon go over the material presented, and explain his side of the case. Mr. Hai- don referred to a memo from Mr. Yoder to Walt Groditski on August 18, 1988 in which Mr. Yoder said: "I told both parties that I would at this ti me approve the reroof. Mr. Hohnhorst left the site at approximately 10:30 a.m. I then told Mr . Haidon that he would need to proceed to the Division of Building and Safety to get his contractor license renewed. Mr . Haidon became very angry and told me he didn't give a damn about his license. I requested the orange building permit card so I could sign it and return it to our file and Mr. Haidon refused to give me the card. I attempted to explain to Mr. Haidon that we cannot allow permit cards to remain in circulation after a job is complete due to the pos- sibility that persons could post them at any site and persons driving by such as inspectors would assume that a valid permit was issued for whatever work was in progress at that site. At this time Mr. Haidon pointed his finger at me and stated 'I am going to take care of you, you are going to end up somewhere that you wouldn't want to be. Just stay away from me because you are going to be sorry.' At that point Mr. Haidon was ex- tremely angry and threatening and I asked him if it would be necessary to involve the police department due to his actions. He then replied, 'I'll get you' and drove off." Mr. Haidon said he had received a packet two months before, when he filed his appeal. He got another packet the Friday before the meeting, which was different from the first packet. He said that a court would require at least 10 days before the hearing , and he protested the short notice. He referred again to the above paragraph saying it was 95% lies. Mr. Haidon said they had also discussed paying for the permit, but Mr. Yoder thinks everyone else is a liar, and he didn't believe that Mr. Haidon had paid for the permit . Proof was submitted that Mr. Hai don had, indeed, paid for the permit, and it had been validated on the back of the permit, which was unusual and which lead to the misunderstanding. Mr. Haidon said that when the job is completed he takes the permit card down and it goes in his file. He said that Mr. Yoder had said that he applied improperly for a permit, and that he did not have a permit. Mr. Haidon said he had a permit card, that's what started the whole problem because Mr. Davidson wrote on it listing many things which he required, which, in Mr. Haidon's opinion, were untrue, not required by Denver's code and not needed . The card was in Mr. Haidon's car, he showed it to -4 - • • • Mr. Yoder and gave it to him. Mr. Yoder wanted to take it, but Mr. Hai- don kept it. They argued and fought, Mr. Haidon said, and he took the card back. Mr. Yoder said to give back the card or he would call the police. Mr. Haidon said he replied that he wasn't going to give back the card. Mr. Yoder said that he had to go over to City Hall, which he re- fused to do. Mr. Haidon said he had a meeting with Mr. Wanush and Mr. Groditski on the 27th. He told them at that time that the job was ready for inspection. They did not make the inspection. Mr. Haidon questioned the process of going back three years for inspections, on jobs for which he said he had requested inspections. Mr. Haidon left when Mr. Yoder threatened him with the police. Mr. Haidon said that Mr. Yoder accused him of threatening him . Mr. Hai- don denied this, but admitted he kept the red card (permit card). He also denied pointing his finger at Mr. Yoder and saying that he did not say the things he was accused of saying in Mr. Yoder's memo. He said that he would sue if these statements were not withdrawn. Mr. Welker asked that the specifics of the denial be addressed. He asked about not having a permit when work was begun at 3369 South Grant. Mr. Haidon said he forgot to get the permit and that his license had not been renewed. He said he had not put up a fake permit card, he had considered the customer the contractor. Mr. Davidson put up a Stop Work Order, and work was stopped. He went to get the permit the next morning. The per- mit was issued on the next day on the work that was to be done; there was no attempt to conceal. Work had been done years before by another con- tractor and it was not done properly, but this was not what Mr. Haidon was responsible for. The red card was issued and posted. The card is posted on every job he does, he said, if it doesn't get lost. He said that he is a bona fide roofer, but has been ill, and he "goofed" on ob- taining the contractor's license. He said the Department of Building and Safety had never had a complaint about him, and questioned why he was being harassed. Mr. Seymour asked how long the license had been expired. He said he was confused about it, and it expired in May of 1988. He said he had simply forgotten the matter. He said he had asked the Department many times "to get off his back". Ms. Lighthall asked if he had complied with the De- partment's requirements. Mr. Haidon said that Mr. Davidson was requiring some things that were not in the codes, but are in the manufacturer's manual. He said that he was required to put asphalt cement in a valley on the roof. Mr. Haidon said that this is not needed and not required in the code of Englewood or Denver. It is in a manufacturer's manual that is not generally available. He said that they put the stipulation on an inspection card, rejecting the job. Mr. Davidson also required a metal edge on the Grant Street job . Again, in Mr. Haidon's opinion, this is not in the code and not required . He told Mr. Groditski to put it in writing exactly what was wanted, and he would do it. Mr. Groditski re- fused to put it in writing, and told him to do what Mr. Davidson required or he (Mr. Groditski) would call the police. Mr. Haidon said he then left. Mr. Welker asked about the other jobs which had not been called for in- spection. Mr. Haidon said he nearly always called for inspections, but in many cases the inspectors do not respond. He has the permit cards for the past three years. He said most of the cards get lost or thrown away - 5 - • • • or they stay on the house. A roofing job, in his opinion, does not need the card because there is only one inspection. There is also a problem of providing the ladders for inspectors. Ms. Lighthall asked why inspec- tions weren't requested and requested a second time if there is no response. Mr. Haidon said he does call for inspections, but for years the City did not inspect roofs. On the job at 4247 South Lincoln, he called for an inspection. He said he got a registered letter saying that the City wanted to inspect the premises. He ca 11 ed for the inspection, took a ladder and waited about an hour and a half, nobody came. He went back, left the ladder and left again. The inspector never came and he didn't come to the 7-11 and Vickers jobs. He said he had called in for inspec- tions, but the contractor can't meet the inspectors because the inspec- tors can come any time they want to. He said that on Grant, his man messed the job up; he (Mr. Haidon) completed the job himself and called for an inspection. There was a big rain and the customer called and said the roof leaked . Although an inspector had already been called, Mr. Hai- don went out to fix this roof and no inspector came . He said he couldn't wait for days and days and keep calling for inspections. Mr. Haidon said that Mr. Yoder had not offered to renew the license with certain conditions before the meeting, but repeatedly provoked Mr. Hai- don. Ms. Shaffer referred to the job at 625 East Grand wherein certain requirements were made. She asked if that work had been done. Mr . Hai- don said he received two or three letters on that job. He said he had not done the work because the requirements were unnecessary. He said he was required to raise the va 11 eys up and sea 1 under the va 11 eys. The valleys , in his opinion, meet standards more stringent than the Engle- wood codes. The shingles are self-sealing. He said he hadn't gone back to the job because he was sick of it, and the roof isn't leaking. He said that he had presented his bill late because he was waiting to see if the roof would leak, and it has not. He said that the permit isn't finaled because the requirements are not correct and he has been working on the other case. He noted that on the other side of the roof Mr. Davidson has requested some unnecessary chang- es, the correction notice is wrong. He said he has been busy with other work. Mr. Welker asked about the job on Grant Street. Mr. Haidon said that Mr. Yoder had refused to give him a report. He said he had not called for an inspection because he didn't want to rock the boat and not get paid. He said he had talked to Mr. Vargas, Mr. Wanush and Mr. Yoder. Mr. Vargas said the roof needed to be inspected. Mr. Yoder said that he couldn 't inspect it because Mr . Haidon had covered the work. He said that Mr. Yoder went to the site and argued with Mr. Haidon. Mr. Haidon said he had put a meta 1 edge on the front, but he to 1 d Mr. Grod its k i and Mr. Wanush that the job was finished and all the alleged requirements were not required, but only trumped up . Mr. Haidon said that at that meeting he had asked if he was going to get his license and received no response . Mr . Haidon said that then the City made up the written corrections and backdated them. Mr. Wanush directed Duane Davidson to put it in writing. A month later on the 18th of August Mr. Yoder talked about the metal edge . Mr. Haidon walked away and said -6 - • • • he would not be involved. He said it is very unfortunate that all this happened because he forgot to renew his license . Ms. Shaffer asked whether if the license were renewed Mr. Haidon could cooperate with the Building Department and meet the requirements of the codes. He said he had been doing so for 14 years. Ms. Shaffer asked whether he would be able to do the work the way the Building Department interpreted as the correct way. She asked if he could cooperate with the inspectors who are employed by the City. Mr. Haidon stressed the dif- ference between violations and alleged violations. He said he believed they could get along s i nee they had had this experience. He said the Building Department is not going by the Code. Mr. Welker asked if part of the differences with the inspectors is that they are requiring work to be done differently from the requirements of the UBC. Mr. Haidon agreed, saying that if changes are made they should be published. He said these were not changes, but demands. Mr. Seymour said that it is up to the contractor to keep abreast of changes. Mr. Welker said the problems seem to be with Mr. Haidon's following the rules for obtaining permits and returning the permit cards. Mr. Haidon said he never returns cards and it's never been required by the Building Depart- ment. Ms : Lighthall said that Mr. Yoder had directly asked for the card and Mr. Haidon refused. Mr. Haidon said that it isn't in the Code. Ms. Lighthall said they were talking about the operating procedures of the Building Department. Mr. Haidon said that it was never the operating procedure of the Building Department in his 14 years, and they can't change that today. Mr. Welker asked if Mr. Haidon would meet the re- quirements if he understands them. Mr. Hai don said he would if he is notified that the laws have been passed, and asked if he could get a re- port that the job has passed the final inspection. Mr. Haidon said the card was needed for his customers, and the Building Department refused to notify him when the job passed. Mr. Welker asked if Mr. Haidon had any further comments. Mr. Haidon said he wanted a ruling on the quoted paragraph and to have Mr. Yoder prove the paragraph and document it or to withdraw it. Ms. Lighthall said that the "door swings both ways", and that documentation could be required of him. Mr. Haidon agreed. He said that nobody seems to understand the power Mr. Yoder has in a complete staff and the code, and he can do a lot of wrong accidentally or on purpose. The meeting recessed at 9: 10 and reconvened at 9: 20 with the same persons present. Mr. Welker noted that only six members would be voting on the matter because one member would be abstaining. Five votes would be required to grant an appeal. Mr. Welker asked that Mr. Yoder return to the stand. Mr. Yoder returned. Ms. Lighthall asked Mr. Yoder to address the accusa- tion that certain things are being required that are not in the building code. Mr. Yoder said he has gone over the matter with Mr. Haidon. There is a Companion Code Standard to the Building Code. It is also adopted by the City of Englewood. It deals with material testing and application . It is part of the Englewood Building Code, and it addresses Shingles and Rolled Sheet Roofing. It says, "Directions for application shall be be included for each square of shingle and each roll of roofing when packed -7 - • • • with trimmings. The direction sheet shall contain complete information giving full details which shall include reference to the proper type of nails, head fasteners, and if necessary, to the method of nailing an at- tachment with tab fasteners." Mr. Yoder said that the manufacturer's directions are contained on each bundle of shingles, and they must be followed. The directions also relate to a manual put out by the Asphalt Shingle Roofing Manufacturer's group. It can be obtained by calling the listed 800 number. Ms. Lighthall asked if that meant that these direc- tions are part of the Englewood Building Code. Mr. Yoder agreed. Mr. Seymour asked if those "alleged violations" are caused by the manual which is the Companion Manual. Mr. Yoder said they are referenced to the manufacturer's instructions. Mr. Waldman asked who decides what kind of roofing is used. Mr. Yoder said there are limitations in the Code as to what kind of roofing can be used. Ms. Shaffer asked to have the process is explained. Mr. Yoder said the City requires that the roof be inspected prior to the application of a new product. That permits the Department to make sure that the wood is sound, there are not too many layers, and that problems can be taken care of prior to the roof's installation. The permit card is to be posted on the street side of the structure where it can be reached by the inspector for signature. If there are requirements to be met there may be three inspections. When the work is completed satisfac- torily, the card is signed and taken back to the office. A slip is is- sued to the Permit Technicians that the job has been finaled and can be cleared from the computer. Then it all goes into a hard, permanent file . Sometimes a record is given to an owner or contractor---when a Certifi- cate of Occupancy is required (doesn't include roofing), or the contrac- tor or owner may ask for a copy of the inspection reports. It is a 1 so available in public files. When an inspection is called in before 4:00 p.m., inspections are made the next day. Records are kept of all the inspections requested and made. If it were the Department's common prac- tice, Mr. Yoder said, not to keep the appointments, they would not be employed. Even timed appointments are rarely missed. Building Code re- quires that the contractor request his inspections and provide access for the inspection. Mr. Seymour asked about the legal disposition of the red card. Mr. Yoder said it is to be on the job at all times and it is a notice and part of the City records. It is not the permit, but it is how the City keeps track of the work in progress. The contractor receives paper work show- ing that a permit was issued . People even bring the cards to the City, although they are supposed to be left on the job until they are removed by the building inspector. It says in the Building Code that the card will be posted on the job until the inspector finals the job. Mr. Haidon had the card with him, not posted on the property. Ms. Dunn asked if Mr . Yoder had told Mr. Haidon that the card must be posted on the job. Mr . Yoder said he was there for a final inspection. His concern at that ti me was to have the card. He said that he had talked to the owner's representative about work that needed to be done that Mr. Haidon had not been asked to do. He told the owner's represen- tative that he would final the permit on Mr. Hai don' s work, but other - 8 - • • • work should be done. The purpose of that meeting was to get a final in- spection so that Mr. Haidon could be paid. That was done, but Mr. Haidon would not surrender the card. Mr. Seymour asked what Mr. Haidon would have to do to get his license. Mr. Yoder said that if Mr. Haidon is granted permission to obtain a license, all permit cards should be returned to the office, inspections made for the outstanding cards, and access must be provided. Any correc- tions must be fixed, especially those at 625 East Grand. Mr. Welker asked how the issues would be resolved if the license were denied. Mr. Yoder said if there were problems of major concern they might have to be resolved in court. Mr. Waldman asked if a contractor is licensed, but does poor work, must the Department wait until the license renewal date, or can permits be denied based on the contractor's record. Mr. Yoder says there is nothing in the Code allowing denial of permits without going to a hearing of a City Licensing board. That is the City's only alternative if there is a violation of the Building or Municipal Code before a renewal is required. Mr. Welker referred to Section 5-7-11 of the Englewood Municipal Code, concerning Suspension or Revocation. Two items are reasons for pulling the license--willfully disregarding a requirement of the Englewood Municipal Code, and failure or refusal to obtain a permit for any work or job. Mr. Yoder said those were reasons to deny the license. Mr. Yoder said they were part of the justification. Mr. Seymour asked about failing to obey a verbal order. Mr. Yoder said that occurred at the meeting on Grant Street. Mr. Yoder said that if the license is renewed, there are specific projects that must be complet- ed, and the cards must be returned . If some of the cards have been lost, the Department can generate new ones to record inspections. When the job is finaled the card can be filed. Mr. Yoder said that it is pos- sible for the problems to be solved, but the work would have to be done and Mr. Haidon would have to comply with the Department's interpretation of the requirements of the Building Code. Mr . Welker asked if the procedures had been changed in the last three years, and if such changes may have lead to the current misunderstanding. Mr. Yoder said he had been with the City for two years and nine months, and prior to his arrival roofing inspections were sometimes not carefully made. Since his arrival , the Codes have been more carefully enforced, but the Codes have not been changed. Inspections are made, and there are now pre-roof inspections , and the permits are carefully screened. Ms. Lighthall asked about notification of changes. Mr. Yoder said that every three years the Codes are modified and updated. The Council holds public hearings and the Council adopts the ordinance. This is public information. Funds are not available to notify by mail. Mr. Welker asked how contractors are screened . Mr. Yoder said that for roofing con- tractors, proof of licensing in other municipalities that do test is ac- cepted for licensing. He requires some specific information on back- ground and references. Mr. Yoder said the City of Englewood is not dif- ferent from other municipalities in this matter. Mr. Haidon knows to call for inspection. - 9 - • • • Mr. Haidon left the room and the Chairman declared a five minute recess at 10:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:05 with the same persons present . Mr. Yoder continued to speak, addressing the disputed paragraph in his memo. He said he had been requested to report in writing what transpired and he did so as soon as he got back to the office. He dee 1 i ned to change his statement. There were no further questions. Mr. Haidon returned to the stand. Mr. Welker said that Mr. Haidon could address questions to Mr. Yoder and asked that the five remaining points be addressed. Mr. Haidon said that Mr. Yoder had stated a number of half truths and he wanted to respond to each item. What was required on Grand Avenue was an open valley. He said the books are not available. He said that he knows the manufacturer's book, and he is not in violation. The order from the Building Department is not according to the Code for an open valley, and the roof on Grant is a closed valley. He said the in- spectors do not understand roofing and they don't want to admit it. Mr. Haidon said he has not laid an open valley for years. He stressed that, while the book may be part of the Code, he is not in violation. In addi- tion, the Code clearly states, Mr. Haidon said, that the Building Inspec- tor is required to give a report, and Mr. Yoder refused to issue a report after the inspection and before the inspection. Mr. Davidson returned to the stand with a copy of the manufacturer's book. He said that he met with Mr. Haidon and Mr. Yoder at the Grand address after he had inspected the Lincoln property. He gave Mr. Haidon a verbal explana- tion of the problems at the property. There were two different problems . They went to the roof, Mr. Davidson pointed out things that would have been a problem if Mr. Haidon had been the contractor who had done the work, such as exposed nails. The purpose of doing this was to let Mr. Haidon know what kinds of things were expected. He showed Mr. Haidon pictures of the closed cut valley, and Mr. Davidson described the process of installing it, requiring that asphalt roofing cement be put at the cut to seal it. Mr. Haidon interrupted to say the shingles are self-sealing. Mr. Davidson said that Mr. Haidon was installing a closed-cut valley and he did not supply the roofing cement at the cut. Mr. Haidon said that the shingles are self-sealing. Mr. Davidson said the cement is, never- theless, required on at least some of the instructions. He submitted a wrapper from a commonly used shingle. On the other roof, rolled roofing had been unsecured. It had been laid over the shingles. There is a pos- sibility of wind lift, and the roof should be secured, and Mr. Davidson so noted. Mr. Welker asked how Mr. Davidson came to be at the site if the work was incomplete. Mr. Davidson said he had a call for an inspec- tion. This was after the initial Stop Work Order on the Grant property. Mr. Davidson said there was no written correction notice issued, and none was requested. Mr. Hai don returned to the stand and said that on the fo 11 owing day he met with Mr. Wanush and Mr. Groditski, and he requested the report at that time. It was established that he received this report on September 3 . -10 - • • • Mr. Haidon said that he would have too many layers of roofing if he met the requirement. Mr. Welker asked about the sealing. Mr. Haidon said that 98% of the roofers do not do it. Mr. Welker said that the point was that Mr. Davidson had instructed him to do it. Mr. Haidon said the instructions were not on his package of materials. Mr. Haidon said that when Mr. Davidson in- structed him to seal the roof, he replied that it was unnecessary to seal. He said the roof is tight and has been for over a year. Mr. Welker said that the roof wasn't tight if Mr. Davidson could lift it. Mr. Davidson said that Mr. Haidon said he hadn't finished the job because he hadn't been paid, and Mr. Davidson said further that he was able to pick up part of the roof, and the other valley was not complete. Mr. Haidon said that the part that was picked up was just a piece of material lying on the roof, and that the roofing under it was the actual work done. He said he told Mr. Davidson that he didn't want to nail near the valley. He objected to having to "nitpick" over this work in order to get a license. He said nobody else had to meet these requirements. Mr. Haidon said that when a Stop Work Order is issued, there is required to be a Stop Work Order inves- tigation. He said he had been accused of not putting information on the per- mit application, and repeated that these were trumped up charges. He said that he obtained the permit on the 22nd, and posted the card on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th. Monday "false claims " were written on the permit card, the job was completed the next day, and he removed the card. He did not call for an inspection, but he told Mr. Wanush, Mr. Groditski, etc. that the job was com- pleted. The directions were bogus because there were no infractions. There were not many nails exposed, but only one. The Board asked to see the card, and Mr. Haidon showed it to them. Mr. Welker read from the back of the card. "7-22-88, Friday, Reroof. Permit A-10628. 3369 South Grant, General Contrac- tor, Englewood Roofing." On the back, "7-25-88. DD (initials). Reject roof. Failed to remove old top cap shingles. Didn't set nails after removal of old roof. Didn't provide felt (new) with reroof when less that 4-12. Need cor- rect 1st row and no starter strip south where correcting others mistakes and no metal flashing . The flash at front dormer roof . Top Cap Exposure is ex- cessive. D. Davidson 7/25/88." Mr. Welker said those are specific items. Mr. Haidon said they were all false except that one shingle was off five inches and one nail hadn't been set. He said that they are not required. Mr . Davidson said they are required based on the manuals and codes. Any other job would have the same procedure and re- quirements. There were no further questions of Mr. Davidson. There was a request from the audience to speak . Mr. Welker asked that this be postponed. He said that he was not ready to go back to the audience for com- ments. He asked consideratio n of whether new evidence was needed to resolve the matter to ensure that Mr . Ha i don received a fair hearing. He asked for a statement from Mr. Haidon. Mr. Haidon said that the rules s ay th e Building Official may recommend the denial of his license. Mr . Welker sa i d t he Board would make the final deci- sion. Ms. Lighthall quoting the Staff Report, read, "The purpose of licensing contractors who construct or repair buildings in Englewood is to insure that the materials that are used are safe and durable, that the work is performed in a safe and correct way and that the co ntractor understands and follows the City's adopted Building Codes." She said t ha t does not leave any room for Mr. Haidon to say that the requirements are not necessary or that it isn't common practice . Mr. Haidon said he does meet the requirements, but is questioning -11 - • • • the "nitpicking". He said there have been many complaints about the Depart- ment of Building and Safety. Mr. Seymour said there have not been more than three cases in the years he has been on the Board. Mr. Haidon said he only came to the Board instead of going to Court because he respects the place he lives in. Mr. Seymour said that going to the Board is part of the due process. Mr. Haidon said that one man had taken away his civil rights, and there are no statutes that say that can be done. He said he had not had due process. Ms. Lighthall objected saying there had already been a three hour hearing. Mr. Seymour said that Mr. Haidon had spoken for three hours; and Ms. Lighthall said that equal opportunity to speak had been given to Mr. Haidon, and that if he wanted a license he will have to comply. Mr. Haidon denied that he had equal opportunity. Mr. Yoder had been asked about the Codes, and had only submitted half-truths. Ms. Shaffer asked if the things requested would be done if the Board granted the license. He said he would do it, but had not done it in the past because Mr. Yoder tried to harass him. He said he was at the appeal because the Building Department wanted to fight with him, but he would comply. Mr. Welker asked if anyone else wished to speak. Roger Koltay 4701 South Logan was sworn in for testimony. He said he was attending the meeting for two reasons. He is a Councilman, and Mr . Haidon is his neighbor. He is the neighbor who had a roof installed by Mr. Haidon about two years before. He said he does not know if the roof was inspected, but two years have passed. It would be a burden to him to have to work with the Building Department . If the work was not done properly, it becomes his problem. He asked that regardless of the 1 i cense hearing, that the Board advise the Bu i1 ding Department to c 1 ose those past permits and on 1 y dea 1 with the present issues. He noted that he paid for the work, and the roof hasn't 1 eaked in two years. He is happy with the work, and hopes the Building Department does not go back to him and say the work is not up to Code. There were no statements from Mr. Davidson or Mr. Yoder. Walter Groditski Code Administrator was sworn in for testimony. He said he wanted to address a document sub- mitted by Mr. Haidon dated November 9, "It is my constitutional right to obey or refuse any order from anyone I so choose." This describes the problems the Department has had with Mr. Haidon. In addition Mr. Grodit- ski said that the present system flags permits that are over 180 days old. He said they have a legal obligation to follow the procedure in trying to close out those permits . If a code violation is found that is serious enough to cause structura 1 damage, appropriate action must be taken. They cannot overlook t heir responsibility . -- Mr. Haidon asked to respond to Mr. Groditski's comments. He said that if he is given an illegal or incorrect order, he doesn't have to obey. He said the requirements of the Building Division had been foolish, wrong and nitpicking, and this costs the contractor a lot of time. Mr. Welker said that Mr. Haidon -12 - • • • could appeal to the Board case-by-case. Mr. Haidon said the Board had ac- cepted statements that were not bona fide code . Mr. Waldman asked Mr. Yoder if there is a method of appeal concerning a par- ticular code. Mr. Yoder said they had discussed the sections with Mr. Haidon over and over. The sections on closed cut valley sealing have been discussed with the Manufacturer's Association and the manufacturer, and they both agreed with the Building Division. He so informed Mr. Haidon, offering to supply phone numbers, but Mr. Haidon was not interested. Mr. Yoder said there are cases where an individual comes with documented proof that a material will meet the design or installation of the code. Barring that, the next step is the Board of Appeals. The applicant tore up the permit card and left the hearing. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED, AND BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL SECONDED, THAT WILLIAM HAIDON OF ENGLEWOOD ROOFING, 4685 SOUTH LOGAN STREET, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY THE RENEWAL OF MR. HAI- DON'S CLASS D-2 ROOFING CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE #2581. THIS PROCEDURE HAD BEEN PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 5-7-6 B OF THE 1985 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. The Chairman stated that careful consideration should be given to the case, particularly with regard to the Findings of Fact for an Appeal. He asked that the members be specific. Mr. Welker read the standards for appeal: 1. The Board has only the same discretion as the employee making the original decision. 2. The Board must follow the same guidelines as the employees, but may make an independent decision. 3. The Board must determine that the decision was reasonable in view of the rules, guidelines and facts. 4. Appellant must show clear and convincing evidence that: a . There is no injury. b. The decision is in harmony with the purpose of the Code. c. Overruling the decision would promote hea 1th of Englewood the same as the literal enforcement provisions. Discussion followed. The members locked in their votes and gave their find- ings as follows . Mr. Seymour said that there is justification of the denial. He said that there are multiple cases of violation, not just one in justifying the denial. There is not clear and convincing evidence that there would be no injury to the property, the decision would be in harmony with the purpose of the code and that the health of the community would be promoted as would the literal enforcement provisions. Mr. Seymour said he did not find evidence to reverse the decision, and he voted "no". Ms. George abstained . -13 - • • • Ms. Lighthall agreed with Mr. Seymour, adding that it is clear that even if the license were restored, he would be unable to work with the staff. She said she had, therefore, voted "no". Mrs. Dunn said she voted "no" because there was no clear evidence that there would be no injury. It is unlikely that Mr. Haidon would be able to work with the Building Department. Ms. Shaffer said she voted in opposition to the appeal because Mr. Haidon does not seem to be willing to correct his errors, and it seems unlikely that he would in the future work to meet safety standards of the Building Code. Mr. Waldman said that Mr. Haidon seemed to hold himself above the law and it did not seem that he would uphold the guidelines of the code; he therefore voted against the appeal. Mr. Welker said he had hoped that Mr. Haidon would be able and willing to meet requirements in the future, but in hearing the case, Mr. Welker discovered that Mr. Haidon had the experience and opportunity to know and understand the requirements of the Department, and he did not wish to follow those require- ments. Mr. Haidon accused the Department of Building and Safety of improper behavior, but he did not apply properly for permits, did not call for inspec- t ions, and did not acknowledge the right of Englewood to establish the way things are done. Granting a license would condone that behavior and encourage it. Mr. Welker voted against the appeal When the votes were displayed, a 11 six voting members voted in opposition, with one member abstaining. The Chairman ruled that the appeal was denied, and asked that staff notify the appellant. There were no comments from the Director or the Attorney. Board's Choice. Mr. Welker thanked people in the audience for attending. Mr. Welker said that the Council has asked for a volunteer for a committee to review Codes. Mr. Welker said he would represent the Board and would welcome recommendations. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Sh~ sses, Recording Secretary -14 -