HomeMy WebLinkAbout03042010 BSC Agenda Item 3
STAFF REPORT
Business of the Building and Standards Commission
City of West University Place, Texas
AGENDA OF: January 7, 2010 TABLED DOCKET NO.: 10-01
February 4, 2010 TABLED
March 4, 2010 DEPARTMENT OF ORGIN: Development
Services
DATE SUBMITTED: December 22, 2009
PRESENTER: Covington Builders.
PREPARED BY: John R. Brown, MCP, CFM
Chief Building Official
STAFF PRESENTER:
SUBJECT: Covington Builders occupying John R. Brown, MCP, CFM
or allowing the occupancy of houses Chief Building Official
without a Certificate of Occupancy.
Requesting and receiving a Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy while not
completing conditions under which the
Temporary was issued.
j
ATTACHMENTS: E-mail copies, City Forester Report, Meeting Synopsis
STAFF SUMMARY
Background:
On September 21, 20091 held a meeting with Robert Covington and included Craig Koehl, City
Forester, to discuss the outstanding permits listed below and to determine why he had not completed
them as required. Several of them Mr. Covington stated he thought he had completed so we ask for
proof, which has not been forthcoming. Several were tree dispositions which we discussed allowing Mr.
Covington to contact the occupants of these structures and schedule a site inspection by the City
Forester, Craig Koehl, to determine if compliance had in fact been achieved. A couple of days later Mr.
Covington called me to say he would not be contacting the occupants because if he did they would
probably bring a lawsuit against him. As of this date nothing has been completed regarding the list below
and all still remain in violation of the city ordinance.
On January 25, 2010 1, John R. Brown, e-mailed Mr. Covington with the BSC requirement of
verifying, with the city Forester, Craig Koehl, the outstanding issues on the addresses listed below and
presenting it to the Commission. Failing to provide verified outstanding issues different from the items
shown below, the Commission will accept the city documents as current and correct. Please see e-mail
documents on this subject attached.
On February 9, 2010 a meeting was held with Mr. Covington to discuss the issues raised by BSC
during the February 4, 2010 meeting. Please see attached meeting synopsis.
Later in February 2010 Mr. Covington's Representive "Ren" met with Craig Koehl and visited sites
listed on the non-compliant list in order to determine remaining unplanted tree inches and the balance
owed the City's Tree Trust. Attached is the final list showing a balance of 82.5 inches owed the city Tree
Trust.
1
On March 2, 20101 met with Ren, in my office, to discuss the resolution of the 82.5 inches which
Ren stated Covington would pay complete based on Craig Koehl's list at $100.00 per inch totaling
$8,250.00. Note the current amount is $125.00 per inch however these date back prior to the fee
change, per Craig. Please see Craig Koehl's current list with the remaining tree inches shaded. The only
other life safety issue remaining on the list of addresses below was the backflow prevention devise on
the lawn irrigation system located at 4107 Tennyson where a new or the original test results will satisfy
this issue.
3902 Browning; Permit #2004-0924, Tree Disposition Permit #2004-1007
All final inspections except the tree final have been approved. The building permit was issued on July 24, 2004 and
expired on July 24, 2005. The tree disposition permit was issued on May 10, 2004 and expired on May 10, 2005.
The tree final inspection was done on January 13, 2005 and failed because they did not replant enough inches.
The permit required 57" replacement plantings and they only planted 9.5". There were also four pine trees
missing from the front yard. The re-inspection has never been rescheduled.
3110 Cason; Permit #2003-2329
The permit was issued on February 3, 2004 and expired on February 3, 2005. The final topographical survey and
drainage letter have not been submitted - which means the drainage final has not been done. The building final
has not been done either. A temporary certificate of occupancy was issued on December 8. 2004 pending the
outstanding inspection and expired on January 31. 2005.
2703 Tangley; Permit #2005-0703, Tree Disposition Permit #2005-0652
The final energy conservation inspection was never done. Debbie allowed them to do the building final inspection
prior to the final energy conservation inspection report being submitted to the office. Covington stated they
would submit it, but never did. The building final was done and approved on May 5, 2006. The tree final
inspection also has not been done. The building permit was issued on July 7, 2005 and expired on July 7, 2006. The
tree disposition permit was issued on April 14, 2005 and expired on April 14, 2006.
2707 Tangley; Permit #2005-0569, Tree Disposition Permit #2005-0496
The building permit was issued on May 13, 2005 and expired on May 13, 2006. The tree disposition permit was
issued on March 22, 2005 and expired on March 22, 2006. The tree final is the only inspection that has not been
done. The inspection was scheduled on February 9, 2006 and failed because they did not plant enough
replacement inches. They planted (4) 4" trees at 2707 Tangley and (2) 4" trees at 2703 Tangley; they still need to
plant eight more inches. The building final was done and approved on January 24, 2006.
4107 Tennyson; Permit #2000-2943, Tree Disposition Permit #2000-2952
The building permit was issued on July 15, 2001 and expired on July 15, 2002. The tree disposition permit was
issued on December 27, 2000 and expired on December 27, 2001. The plumbing new water and shower pan
7, 2001. The
inspections were never on September done but a final inspection was done and approved plumbing
vacuum breaker inspection has not been done either. The building final was done and approved on September 12,
2001. The tree final inspection was done on September 4, 2001 but it failed because there were not trees planted.
The permit required 37.5" replacement plantings.
4125 Tennyson; Permit #2004-1978
The building permit was issued on November 15, 2004 and expired on November 15, 2005. The building final
inspection has never been scheduled.
6510 Wake Forest; Permit #2000-1452, Tree Disposition Permit #2000-1010
2
i
The building permit was issued on June 21, 2000 and expired on June 21, 2001. The tree disposition permit was
issued on May 12, 2000, renewed on October 26, 2001 and expired on October 26, 2002. The drainage letter was
never issued which means the drainage final was never done. The tree final inspection was done on November 21,
2201 and did not pass because there 82" required replacement plantings and they only plant 30"; they still need
to plant 52". The re-inspection was never rescheduled. A temporary certificate of occupancy was issued on
November 30, 2001 pending the outcome of the open inspection. It expired on December 30, 2001.
3512 Albans: Permit # 08-534 (permit issued May 23, 2008 renewed October 22, 2009 C of O issued November
17, 2009.)
FYI: On October 21, 2009 based on an inquiry from a neighbor as to whether Mr. Covington had a Certificate of
Occupancy to live in the structure I determined Mr. Covington was occupying this structure without a Certificate
of Occupancy. I requested the Code Enforcement officer, Daniel Paripovich, to issue a citation.
As of October 21, 2009, while already occupying the structure with his family the following inspections were
outstanding:
Tree final,
Final energy conservation report,
Fire alarm inspection,
Final topographical survey,
Drainage letter,
Area drain inspection,
Drainage final,
Electrical final,
Mechanical final,
Plumbing final and
Building final.
Code reference:
Sec. 18-9. Certificates of occupancy.
(a) Generally . A certificate of occupancy is a type of permit. All of the provisions of this chapter
pertaining to permits apply with respect to certificates of occupancy, including, without limitation, the
provisions relating to temporary or conditional permits and appeals to the BSC.
(b) When required . Unless a certificate of occupancy authorizing the conduct in question is in effect
(and not revoked, canceled or suspended), it shall be unlawful for any person to:
(1) Occupy any new structure;
(2) Change the occupancy of any structure, whether by changing ownership, changing tenancy or
otherwise (Exception: this paragraph does not apply to single-family detached dwellings);
(3) Change the use of any structure; or
(4) Otherwise change any place or activity in such a way that there would be a change in the number of
off-street parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance.
(c) Application; contents . To obtain a certificate of occupancy, a person must apply to the building
official. A certificate of occupancy, to be valid, must name a specific person as the holder of the
certificate. The certificate shall only authorize that person and that person's spouse, dependents, invitees
and licensees to use or occupy the property described.
(d) Conditions for issuance . The building official shall not issue a certificate of occupancy unless it
appears that there has been substantial compliance with:
(1) Permit requirements and conditions (e.g., installation of trees, sidewalks, or other equipment or
facilities
3
I
(2) Requirements for site clean-up; and
(3) All other applicable regulations.
(e) Supporting certificates The building official may require the filing of sworn supporting certificates
touching upon the matters in this section as a condition of issuing a certificate. The supporting certificates
may be quired of the proposed certificate holder as well as architects engineers contractors and others
involved in the work (any or all).
(f) Posting . A certificate of occupancy for any nonresidential building shall be continuously posted at a
place to which the public has free access (during normal business hours) and such that it is visible from
the principal entrance to such building.
(Code 2003, § 6.109)
Sec. 18-3. Registration of contractors.
(a) When required . It shall be unlawful for any person to perform any work for which a permit is
required under this chapter (or to offer to perform it) in exchange for money or other substantial
consideration, unless such person is registered as a contractor as required by this chapter. It is an
affirmative defense that one or more of the following four sets of circumstances is present:
(1) The work in question is completely authorized by one or more licenses issued by or under the
authority of the city (for example, an electrician's license).
(2) The work in question is completely authorized by a license issued by the state (for example, a
plumber's license), and the license is registered with the city.
(3) The work in question is performed by the owner of the site in question without the involvement of
any contractors.
(4) The person is a regular employee of a contractor who is registered as required by this subsection
and the person does the work (or offers to do it) strictly as a servant or agent of the registered contractor.
(b) Application . A person desiring to register as a contractor with the building official must:
(1) Fill out and file with the building official the standard contractor's registration form prescribed by the
building official (which shall include names, addresses, telephone numbers, driver's license numbers,
business structure information, proof of insurance required by this section and other relevant data);
(2) Submit a new registration form on or before the tenth day following the day that any of the
information in current form changes; and
(3) Submit, prior to expiration, proof that each insurance policy in the current registration is duly
extended or replaced upon expiration.
(c) Insurance coverage . Registrants are required to have and maintain public liability insurance with a
combined single limit per occurrence no less than $300,000.00 (or with separate limits each no less than
this amount), or higher limits if required by applicable state law.
(d) Insurance criteria . All insurance policies must meet all of the criteria regularly required for
contractors on city construction jobs (city form C-101, or other standard form, as it may be amended from
time to time), except:
(1) The city need not be named as an additional insured; and
(2) There need not be a waiver of subrogation.
The building official may require that registrants submit a properly signed city form, or other documents,
as proof of insurance.
(e) Expiration, etc . A contractor's registration becomes ineffective if:
(1) It is not renewed prior to the time that any of the insurance policies mentioned in the registration is
reduced, canceled or allowed to expire; or
(2) It is suspended.
(f) Suspension . The building official may suspend a registration for failure to maintain required
insurance coverage, subject to the same procedures applicable to the revocation of permits. If requested
by the building official and after notice to the registrant and an opportunity for a hearing, the BSC may
suspend a registration, if:
(1) The BSC determines that the registrant is responsible for three or more building violations within
any 12-month period. "Building violations" include all violations of this Code arising out of, or relating to,
4
building or development activity. Violations of the standard codes schedule and violations of chapters 6.
18. 26. 30, 42. 46, 54, 62, 70 and 82, for example, can be "buildina violations," and this list is not
exclusive.
(2) The BSC determines that the registrant is responsible for any aaaravated violation.
a. A buildina violation is aaaravated if:
1. It is committed knowingly or intentionally after a specific warning or admonishment; or
2. It is committed knowingly or intentionally and clearly causes harm to a person or property.
b. Registrants are responsible for all of the followincl
1. Buildina violations committed by the registrant's officers, agents, employees or subcontractors, and
2. Building violations occurring in connection with activities under a permit for which the registrant is a
permittee.
c. Registrants are not responsible for violations if the registrant demonstrates, as an affirmative
defense and by clear and convincing evidence, that the registrant could not reasonably prevent them.
(g) Nature of suspension; proof . Suspension is a noncriminal administrative remedy, and registrants
are responsible for the indicated violations regardless of whether criminal convictions are, or could be,
obtained. However, evidence of a criminal conviction may be used to prove that an indicated violation
occurred. The burden is on the building official to prove violations by clear and convincing evidence.
Exception: The registrant has the burden on defensive issues.
(h) Length of suspension; effect, etc .
(1) The suspension period shall be set in proportion to the severity of the violations involved, but an
initial suspension may not exceed 90 days. Any subsequent suspension of the same registrant shall be
in effect until reinstated. When a registration is suspended, neither the registrant nor any "alter ego
entity" is eligible for new permits.
(2) The term "alter ego entity" includes:
a. Any proprietorship, joint venture or partnership that includes the registrant;
b. Any person under common ownership, management or control with the registrant; and
c. Any other person acting in concert with the registrant.
Any current permits held by a suspended registrant may be revoked or suspended by separate
proceedings.
(1) Reinstatement after suspension . Upon application by a person with a suspended registration, the
BSC may reinstate the registration if either of the following sets of circumstances is present:
(1) The applicant demonstrates clearly that the violations causing the revocation or suspension did not,
in fact, occur, or that the applicant was not actually responsible for the violations.
(2) The applicant has taken effective corrective action and has made all changes necessary to prevent
similar violations from occurring in the future. Reinstatement shall be conditioned upon compliance with
the then-current application requirements and payment of required fees.
(Code 2003, § 6.103)
Sec. 18-22. Enforcement of chapter provisions; permittee responsibility.
(a) Certain actions . In addition to imposing those penalties by this Code, the city may also enforce the
provisions of this chapter in any manner as prescribed or allowed by state law or the zoning ordinance. No
enforcement action is a bar to any other, and the city may pursue some or all in any given case.
(b) Strict liability; duty of perrnittees . It is the intent of this Code to impose strict liability upon all
persons or entities violating this chapter. Each permittee has a duty to prevent violations of this Code
arising out of, or relating to, the permit or activities under that person's permit.
(Code 2003, § 6.301)
5
i
4
s
Covington Builders Open Files
Summary of Tree Disposition Requirements -1/29/2010
Follow up site inspections with Ren - 2/22/2010
3902 Browning: Tree Disposition Permit #2004-1007
Tree Disposition permitted removal of Pecan and two Sycamores totaling 57" in diameter. 57" in
replacement planting required. Tree final inspection completed on 1/13/2005 found 9.5" in replacement to be
planted. Visual inspection from street on 1/28/2010 did not find any trees planted on site beyond those
documented in the 1/13/2005 inspection. (No right of entry or access to back yard was provided.) A balance of
47.5" remains not accounted for.
February 18, 2010 site inspection with Ren-found two 3" Junipers that can be counted toward the 47.5"
balance. A balance of 41.5" remains not accounted for.
2703 Tanelev: Tree Disposition Permit #2005-0652
Tree Disposition permitted removal of two Tallow trees with no replacement planting required. No
outstanding balance of replacement inches.
2707 Tanglev: Tree Disposition Permit #2005-0496
Tree Disposition permitted removal of 31" Water Oak and 8" Raintree. 31" in replacement planting
required, which must include at least three 4" diameter Class 1 or 2 trees. Tree final inspection completed on
1/17/2006 found (2) 4" Live Oaks planted in back yard of 2703 Tangley, (2) 4" Live Oaks in back yard of 2707
Tangley, and (2) 4" Live Oaks in front yard of 2707 Tangley. Notes on inspection report indicate the (2) 4" Live
Oaks in front yard at 2707 Tangley were in poor condition at time of planting and were not expected to survive.
Visual inspection from street on 1/28/2010 found the (2) 4" Live Oaks in front yard to be missing and did not find
any trees planted on site beyond those documented in the 1/17/2006 report. 8" has not been accounted for and
8" of planted trees did not survive, leaving a balance of 16" not accounted for.
February 11, 2010 site inspection with Ren-two 4" Live Oaks counted in tree final on 1/17/2006 are no
longer there, changing outstanding balance to 24". New trees that planted in back yard and inventoried on
2/11/2010 include (3)2" Magnolia, 3" Magnolia, (2)2" Juniper, 4" Crepe Myrtle, 2" Holly, 7" River birch, and (2)2"
Magnolia - total of 30" in planted trees. Requirements of Tree Disposition Permit #2005-0496 have been met
with a surplus of 6" that can be counted toward another site within 1,000 feet of 2707 Tangley.
a~
o,o
a
4107 Tennyson: Tree Disposition Permit #2000-2952
Tree Disposition permitted removal of a Tallow tree, Crepe Myrtle, American Elm, and two Pecan trees.
37.5" in replacement planting required. Tree final inspection completed on 9/4/2001 found that no replacement
trees had been planted. Visual inspection from street on 1/28/2010 did not find any trees planted on site beyond
those documented in the 9/4/2001 inspection. (No right of entry or access to back yard was provided.) A balance=
of 37.5" remains not accounted for.
4125 Tennyson: Tree Disposition Permit #2004-1978
Tree Disposition permitted removal of Oak, Camphor, and Tallow. 26.5" in replacement planting
required. Tree final inspection completed on 5/12/2005 found (3) 4" Live Oaks planted at 4125 Tennyson, (2) 3.5"
Willow Oaks at 4123 Milton, and (1) 4" Willow Oak at 4123 Milton. All total 23" planted toward requirements as
of 5/12/2005. Visual inspection from street on 1/28/2010 did not find any trees planted on site beyond those
documented in the 5/12/2005 inspection. (No right of entry or access to back yard was provided.) A balance of
3.5" remains not accounted for.
6510 Wakeforest: Tree Disposition Permit #2000-1010
Tree Disposition permitted removal of 23 trees with total replacement requirement of 74". Tree final
inspection completed on 11/21/2001 indicated required replacement to be 82". Find no documentation where
the replacement requirement increased from 74" to 82". Tree final inspection report from 11/21/2001 indicates
that 30" in replacement had been planted. In a visual inspection from the street on 1/28/2010 there were 14
trees in the front yard that appeared to have been planted approximately 9 years ago. They were (7) 8" Live Oaks,
(4) 6" Hollies, and (3) 8" Magnolia trees. If it is assumed the 14 trees were the trees that totaled 30" at the time
of the 11/21/2001 tree final inspection, then a balance of 44" remains not accounted for. If the diameter of the
trees as they are today is used toward the 74" of replacement requirements, a total of 104" has been planted and
there is not a balance unaccounted for.
February 11, 2010 site visit with Ren - found (2) 5" Wax Myrtle, (2) 4" Holly, and 6" Holly in
backyard - additional total of 24" in replacement plantings. Leaving balance of 20" or a surplus of 54", depending
how the existing tree inches are applied in the front yard,
I will accept growth inches on this lot, February 22, 2010, JRB
N
W
cz
a
0 The City of West University Place
A Neighborhood City
MEETING SUMMARY
By
John R. Brown, MCP, CFM, Chief Building Official
February 9, 2010
Time: 11:30 AM
End: 11:50 AM
Meeting requested by Mr. Covington
Location: 3826 Amherst, Public Works Conference Room
Meeting with Covington Builders to discuss all outstanding issues resulting from the Building
and Standard Commission meeting held February 7, 2010, docket number 10-1.
Attendee's: Mr. Covington, B.J. (Mr. Covington's building superintendent), Craig Koehl City
Forester and John Brown Chief Building Official.
Topics discussed:
➢ How to verify any additional tree inches professed to be planted by Covington Builders.
Mr. Covington will discuss these issues with a previous Covington Building
Superintendent, Mike, to see if he can offer any additional proof or documentation for
trees possibly not counted and on Thursday February 11, 2010 Mr. Covington will
arrange to have another Covington Building Superintendent, Ren, accompany Craig
Koehl to the houses in issue where a rear yard inspection can be performed. Failing
access or any changes to the current amounts shown Mr. Covington will accept the city's
documented tree balance as provided by Craig Koehl.
➢ 3110 Cason, permit number 2003-2329 outstanding inspections: The Final Topo survey
and drainage letter was not submitted resulting in no drainage final or building final.
Drainage final can be waived, no neighbor complaints received.
➢ Mr. Covington and I, John Brown, discussed in general the remaining inspections and
Mr. Covington will get back to me with his proposal on the other outstanding inspections
shown on the documents provided to him in the Building and Standards meeting and
agenda packet.
3800 University Boulevard • West University Place, Texas 77005 • 713.668.4441