Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-21-2010 MINUTES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY Board of Examiners of Licensing Contractors Meeting Held in Commission Chambers County Administration Building 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL April 21, 2010 PRESENT Chairman................................................................................................................. Douglas Davis ................................................................................................................................Craig Dunkelberger ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Haydn Curtis ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Roger Hudspeth .................................................................................................................... ……….. Charles James ............................................................................................................................. John Langel * ............................................................................................................................. Capt. Derek Foxx ABSENT: Excused Vice Chairman..........................................................................................................Fred Rohrbough ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Michael DiFrancisco ………………………………………………………………………………………………..Sean Mitchell STAFF PRESENT AssistantCounty Attorney .....................................................................................Heather Lueke Code Compliance Manager ..................................................................................Robin Meyer Building Official .....................................................................................................Ken Arnold Contractor Licensing Investigator ..........................................................................Monica Barrios Zoning Compliance Officer ...................................................................................Danielle Williams Staff Secretary......................................................................................................Debbie Isenhour Board Recorder ....................................................................................................Mary Holleran * Indicates a motion ** Indicates a vote A. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:32 a.m. B. ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS (Absent) Fred Rohrbough, Michale DiFrancisco and Sean Mitchell were excused. The roll was called and everyone was present. * John Langel arrived after roll call at 8:45 a.m. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 20, 2010 Contractor Examining Licensing Board: ? Motion was made by Mr. James to approve the Minutes of the January 20, 2010 Contractor Licensing Examining Board Meeting. ** Mr. Curtis seconded and the motion carried unanimously. D. SWEARING IN OF STAFF The following staff members were sworn in by Ms. Williams, Ken Arnold, Robin Meyer, Monica Barrios, Mr. Davis said the Board is now meeting quarterly, and he saw that new staff members were present. Ms. Barrios introduced Ken Arnold, Building Official, Robin Meyer, Code Compliance Manager, and Debbie Isenhour, Board Secretary. Mr. Meyer explained the Building and Code Division has been moved into the Growth Management Division, and the Planning and Development Services Department is now the Planning and Development Services Division. Mr. Meyer was the Assistant Manager of Growth Management prior to accepting this position. Seven people were lost in the reorganization, which is the reason for the new faces. The County is facing a 48% reduction in property tax revenue and very severe budget issues. Staff is readjusting to the personnel reductions, and working hard to provide the best service they can. BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CONTRACTORS MEETING April 21, 2010 As a businessman Mr. Davis said the Board understood the belt tightening because they have similar situations in their own organizations. E. APPLICATIONS TO BE APPROVED: No applicants were pulled for discussion or consideration. BY CONSENT VOTE: ? Motion was made by Mr. Dunkelberger to approve the applicants recommended by Consent vote. ** Mr. Curtis seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The names were read into the record, prior to the motion: Qualifier Business Name- D/B/A Type of Contractor Kevin J. June Kevin J. June Master Electrical (Non-Contractor) David Garcia David Garcia Master Electrical (Non-Contractor) Stephen J. Leeach Quality Electrical Services of So. Fla. Inc. Electrical Contractor Michelle S. Richards MER Enterprises LLC Insulation Contractor Thomas W. McDevitt Thomas W. McDevitt Electric, Inc. Electrical Contractor APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY RECIPROCITY: ? Mr. James made a motion to approve the applicants recommended for approval by reciprocity. ** Mr. Hudspeth seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The names were read into the record: Qualifier Business Name – D/ Type of Contractor B/A Adam Trentor Atlantic Seawall & Dock Company Marine Emil Tudose Emil Tudose Journeyman Electrical Terrence E. Megia Terrence E. Megia Journeyman Electrical Eric S. Masse ALE & Co., Inc. D/B/A US Lawns of Irrigation Sprinkler St. Lucie Edward A. Majka Edward A. Majka Journeyman Electrical Kenneth Watson Kenneth Watson Journeyman Electrical Thomas W. Wheeler NT Signs Inc Sign Electrical Jerald E. Smith, SR Jerry Smith Tile Inc Tile & Marble APPLICATIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY BASED ON RECIPROCITY FROM THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE OR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE: The applicant’s names were read into the record. Qualifier Business Name – D/B/A Type of Contractor Michael R. Ewen MICO Electric Inc Electrical John B. Hartman John B. Hartman Electric LLC Electrical Kevin W. Greene Northeastern Plumbing and Drain Plumbing Cleaning LLC Randy J. Dorey Dorey Tile & Marble Specialist Inc Tile & Marble Scott T. Lentz Lentz Air Conditioning & Heating Inc A/C Class B Contractor David B. Rudd Rudd Grade Inc Land Clearing Page 2 of 5 BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CONTRACTORS MEETING April 21, 2010 THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY REVIEW; NONE. G. NEW BUSINESS: ORDINANCE NO. 10-008 Ms. Lueke reviewed Ordinance No. 10-008, which is being considered, (not required) for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for automatic landscape irrigation systems. Mr. Davis noted that he, along with other Board members had not seen the Ordinance prior to this morning. Ms. Lueke explained that last year the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 494, which had two parts, the first was a mandated fertilizer ordinance and this is the second part. Ms. Lueke brought this before the Board for their input, seeking their contractor knowledge, and landscape and irrigation system experience. Their comments will be brought back to the BCC for consideration. The State Law mandates when you have an automatic sprinkler system it has to have some kind of rain shut-off design, or moisture sensor, so the automatic sprinklers don’t come on when it’s raining or the ground is wet. They are working on a way to enforce the State Law—if you are an irrigation contractor and work on an irrigation system – no matter how old the house is – if it has an automatic irrigation system and there isn’t some kind of shut-off device, or a rain sensor, the contractor has to inform the homeowner they have to fix that, and install a rain sensor device. If the homeowner refuses, the contractor has to turn them in to Code Enforcement and they may have to eventually come before the Code Enforcement Board. If a contractor fails to report a homeowner, the contractor would be subject to discipline. The State is delegating the responsibility for enforcing this State Law to local Code Enforcement. Ms. Lueke asked as contractor’s for their perspective and how they feel about having to enforce this, if they were irrigation contractors. Board Comments: Mr. Davis: (confirmed) That’s a requirement of new construction that all irrigation contractors are familiar with and are aware of. Ms. Lueke: Yes. This is a way of going back and capturing the older houses that installed sprinkler systems before it became a State Law that required automatic sprinkler systems to have a rain gauge, as the older developments are not subject to the Land Development Code. Mr. Davis: Is this like an honor system process if an irrigation sub goes to a site to repair or service work, and recognizes there is no rain system device, that it’s incumbent upon them to insist to the owner that it has to be done and if he doesn’t, he can be fined or penalized. Ms. Lueke: Yes. Mr. Curtis: Do you need the Board’s opinions now? Ms. Lueke: No, but this Board doesn’t meet again until July, and it can’t wait until then. If the Board wishes to review it, they can call, or e-mail Ms. Lueke, with their opinions and comments, to pass on to the BCC who asked for their input. Mr. James: Much of this is addressed to homeowners but also to subdivisions and developments. Large developments definitely need some kind of a rain sensor, but I think the individual homeowner should be excluded because he can go out and turn his on and off. Mr. Davis: How would that be applied to developments? Now it’s being suggested through the subcontractor servicing that particular system. Mr. James: My opinion would be the irrigation contractor or whoever is repairing the system. Mr. Langel: It’s a good Ordinance but I have problem with telling the Contractor he has to inform the homeowner, and if it isn’t done he’ll turn him in to Code Enforcement. I don’t like to put this back on to the contractor to enforce the law, if that’s what we’re trying to do here, and have that contractor make that decision. Mr. Davis: Are you saying that burden should be placed on the property owner or homeowner? Mr. Langel: I would say the property owner. There will always be a percentage who will not comply and it falling back to the contractor is a problem. Mr. James: I’m familiar with rain sensors, gauges and automatic systems and not familiar with a soil moisture sensor that measures moisture in the soil and wonder how many there are out there. Mr. Davis: Read from #1-6-8-33 (pg. 2) Definitions: #2. “Soil Moisture Sensor” means a soil-based device that assesses the available plant soil moisture in order to minimize the unnecessary use of water and optimize the effectiveness of an irrigation system. Ms. Lueke: his was one of three options available to comply with the Ordinance. Mr. Davis: Is the State mandating a certain time to change over to a full accomplishment of all irrigation systems? Page 3 of 5 BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CONTRACTORS MEETING April 21, 2010 Ms. Lueke: The State Statute is old requiring moisture sensors for automatic irrigation systems but they don’t have any way to enforce it. This Ordinance doesn’t have to be passed, but the BCC have to consider by October if they would pass it. She explained there are no permits required for irrigation systems. Mr. Davis said there was no checkpoint to verify these systems are actually being installed with sensors in new construction. Ms. Lueke: It might be part of the landscape plans that environmental resources reviews but wasn’t sure if it was a requirement. Mr. Meyer: They look at the landscaping and sprinkler system but whether or not there is a sensor we’d have to check on that. Mr. Davis: Mentioned he was doing a large project for a church in Palm City, and the landscaping is well designed to the minute of the species, soils, fertilizer, etc., and there isn’t anything about irrigation but a basic statement about instruction for adequate coverage, it isn’t a specific irrigation design. It would seem that you must address new construction first, since that’s a real concern as a checkpoint to verify the irrigation has a moisture sensor. As for going back and mandating that sub contractors be involved in requiring the owner to upgrade the old existing system, he agreed with Mr. Langel, he would hate to put that burden on the subcontractor. He understood the need for water conservation, but disagreed with putting the burden and liability on the subcontractor. He thought you should look at how and at what level requires designs to be reviewed and approved for new construction. Mr. Meyer: The new Land Development Code is being reviewed right now, and new regulations for landscaping are coming up and will come before the Board. Mr. Davis: I have four bidders on the project and the irrigation project for some were sensitive to water control issues that designed a lot of drip irrigation which is more sensitive in managing water. The competition in the design allowing for irrigation coverage, had no specific details required to satisfy. Mr. Davis suggested the Board take time to read the Ordinance. Mr. Hudspeth: Agreed it was not the subcontractors job to enforce the Ordinance, that contractors could use the opportunity to get information out and it was not possible to have staff used to follow up on irrigation. Mr. Dunkelberger: We have irrigation and descriptions in place from SFWMD, he favored conserving water and was in favor of not having the burden placed on the contractor for irrigation violations. Mr. James: Agreed with not having the burden for the code enforcement process placed on the contractor, and that old houses should not have to deal with new irrigation systems. Mr. Davis: In summary our comments will go to the BCC, and this Board agreed that the responsibility of enforcement should not rest with the subcontractors or contractors and we should try to encourage and pursue water conservation. H. OLD BUSINESS: Ms. Lueke addressed Historical Ordinance 4.11.13 Certificate to Dig, concerning archeological sites with an exemption for swimming pools. The Historical Ordinance passed and they took out the part of the language requiring a survey and left in the exemption for pool contractors. Mr. James addressed an agenda item that was tabled concerning a wall being built and a contractor not having a permit. Ms. Lueke reviewed the violation, that a wall was built in the setback to a height of 6 ft., which exceeded the 4 ft .maximum height requirement. They had gone to the Board of Adjustment for a variance and it was denied. They are still trying to solve the problem and work it out, and are asking for more time. If it isn’t worked out, it will come back to this Board in July. In the meantime they are appealing it to the Circuit Court and the contractor is trying to help them resolve it. Mr. Davis addressed the issue of the contractor working without a permit. Ms. Lueke said if the issue is resolved with the homeowner, it would be premature to bring it to the Board before it can be worked out. Mr. Davis said as a Licensed Contractor who carries all of the responsibilities including the process of designing, permitting, and going through the right channels to get inspections, and to do the right thing, he frowned on working outside of the rules. He wanted to make sure that this comes before the Board, it needs to be heard, whether the walls stays or is altered, or goes away, the contractor should come before the Board. He was surprised it hadn’t made it here. Ms. Lueke said sometimes that’s the leverage they have to make the homeowner happy. Mr. Hudspeth agreed with Mr. Davis, that the contractor should be brought before the Board and it is the purpose of the Board to see that they follow the law. Page 4 of 5 BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CONTRACTORS MEETING April 21, 2010 I. PUBLIC COMMENT: None K. ADJOURNMENT: There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m. WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010 AT 8:30 A.M. The next Contractor Examining Board Hearing will be held on Respectfully submitted, -------------------------------------------------- Craig Dunkelberger, Board Secretary Page 5 of 5