Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCA 1988-01-12 Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CALLED MEETING OF THE BUILDING CODE OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TX. JANUARY 12, 1988 - 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Robert Skinner called the meeting to order January 12, 1988, at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ROBERT SKINNER ORVILLE BAKER JOE CRANE ERIC HILL JOHN LARRIVIERE MARY NORWOOD CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMAN MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER STAFF: DANNY TAYLOR BOB WILLIAMS STEVE PENCE JUDY BRYANT DIVISION CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE INSPECTOR SECRETARY MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1987 APPROVED Mr. Skinner moved, Mr.Crane seconded, to approve the minutes of the December 8, 1987 meeting with the corrections noted. Motion carried 5-0. BBA 88-1 APPEAL USING CPVC IN A RESIDENCE 7612 LOLA DRIVE Mr. Robert Broom spoke on behalf of this appeal. Mr. Broom stated he had been told when he started the house that CPVC pipe could be used and he completed the whole plumbing job and had an inspection which was turned down. The inspector stated that CPVC pipe was not allowed. Mr. Skinner asked if Mr. Broom was now the owner of the home. Mr. Broom stated he was the owner. Mr. Skinner asked if anyone lived in the home. Mr. Broom stated no one lived there at the present time. Mr. Williams stated that he had red tagged the house because of the CPVC. Mr. Broom stated the CPVC was complete in the entire house. To replace it at this time would mean spending an additional $3000.00 to $4000.00. Mr. Crane asked Mr. Broom if he was a contractor. Mr. Broom stated he did remodeling work. He has been in the construction business for twenty-seven years. Mr. Baker stated it was his belief that only a homeowner who lived in the house could do remodeling work to a residence. Mr. Broom stated he planned to move into the house when the work was completed. Mr. Williams stated that he had not discussed the plumbing materials with anyone at the job site. Mr. Williams stated that on one inspection trip he was accompanied by Mr. Riney and that Mr. Riney had written a report during that inspection. Mr. Skinner stated he would read from the UPC (Plumbing Code) the requirements: "That nothing in this code shall prevent any homeowner from installing and maintaining plumbing within his own property boundaries provided that the work is done by himself or his family. Such privilage does not convey the right to violate any of the provisions of this code nor exempting any such property owner from obtaining and paying the required fee." Section 19-13 says "Alternate methods shall be approved in accordance with the materials and methods of the plumbing code." In Section 19-19," Approved materials: Copper tube or water piping shall be half the weight of not less that type "L" copper. PVC schedule 40 pipe may be used for the water service line to within two feet of the structure." These are the three things outlined by Mr. Williams for our interpretation. Mr. Larriviere stated he thought the problem was an interpretation problem. That Mr. Broom believed he could use CPVC and the Board was told that CPVC in not allowed. Mr. Crane made a motion to uphold the Code and deny the appeal. Mr. Baker seconded. Motion Carried 5-0. BBA 87-9 APPEAL DEMOLITION ORDER 4000 RUFE SNOW DRIVE Mr. Davis spoke on behalf of Mrs. Gaston. Mr. Davis stated a demoliton permit had been taken out and all the buildings would be removed. Mr. Davis requested a thirty day extension to get all the work done. He stated that he does have a contact, however the contractor does have some previous commitments. Mr. Skinner made a motion to uphold the demolition order at this time and the Board would review this order at the next meeting February 9, 1988. Mr. Crane seconded. Motion carried 5-0. BBA 87-11 APPEAL DEMOLITION ORDER 6708 LITTLE RANCH ROAD Mr. Taylor stated Mr. Hamilton of First Texas Savings was not able to attend, however told Mr. Taylor that First Texas was now the property owner and that permits would be taken out to bring the house back up to code within the next two weeks. Mr. Skinner made a motion to review this case again on February 9, 1988 to make sure Mr. Hamilton and the bank have taken out the proper permits. Mr. Larriviere seconded. Motion carried 5-0. BBA 87-10 APPEAL SECTION 19 - ORDINANCE 1377 6644 GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY Mr. Croce spoke on behalf of this appeal. Mr. Croce stated he wished to appeal because of the NFPA Code, UBC and the City Ordinance that he is in compliance with the code. Furthermore I had a review by an engineering firm in Dallas and they tell me that I am in compliance. Mr. Croce stated he had received a letter back in October stating he was in violation of city ordinance because a Certificate of Occupany had not been issued for his tenant Blackmon Insurance and Bonding Company. Mr. Croce stated he wanted to comply with all ordinances however, he did not want to be penalized unjustly. Mr. Skinner stated the Board was contesting the fact of there being fire protection between the occupancies of this building. He asked Mr. Croce who the current occupants were in the building. Mr. Croce stated there are two tenants, Blackmon Insurance and the Yellow Pages of Texas, the rest of the building is empty. Mr. Skinner asked how old the building was. Mr. Croce stated he believed 20 to 30 years old and that he had owned it for the last eight years. Mr. Skinner asked Mr. Croce what the occupancy classification was for the building. Mr. Taylor stated that the Fire Code and the Building Code are different. The building would be a "B-1" or a "B"-2" classification, under the Building Code he is a business classification. Each occupancy is different, we are talking about a City ordinance that requires that classification. Mr. Croce stated according to the ordinance which states "Any occupancy used for business, residential, health, penal, education shall have a fire rating of not less than one hour. It says occupancy." The definition of occupancy is the classification of an occupancy. That means that if I am a business occupancy and go to a manufacturing occupancy that would mean I had violated the code. Both occupants of the building are office occupancies. There is nothing else in the building. I contend that I am not in violation. Mr. Larriviere stated he believed the question at this stage was "what is classification of occupancy." He stated that the Board feels that occupancy meant each individual business or the same type businesses, ie insurance companies, owned by 10 separate people would be considered 10 separate occupancies. Mr. Croce stated he had been in five different buildings and all five had the same situation. He stated he should not be singled out, everyone should be doing the same thing. Mr. Baker stated he understood Mr. Croce's problem. The City has a problem in trying to upgrade any ordinance or any requirement they make because we have people here that have been here forever. We must pick sometime to upgrade them and the time that has been picked is the time that a new occupant moves into the building. Mr. Croce stated that the fire walls we are requiring would cost him somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000.00. He feels that the City is singling him out and making an unreasonable request. Mr. Larriviere asked Mr. Croce exactly what the City was asking him to do. Mr. Croce stated the City wants him to put up firewalls right thru the ceiling going right to the structure above. Mr. Skinner stated he believed what the City is requesting is that Mr. Croce enhance the fire wall in the corridor, from the ceiling to the very top of the building and to the roof deck and that would be determined as a fire wall. Mr. Skinner asked if this was correct. Mr. Taylor stated that a fire resistant structure shall extend from floor to roof deck. Mr. Skinner stated that if Yellow Pages of Texas extended the wall it would effectively separate the two occupancies. By doing just the corridors it would be separating. Mr. Croce stated he did not feel that he needed to put fire walls in the building. He stated this would be a very costly project plus the guy for the Yellow Pages has told him that he could not have repair or construction work going on in his office and operate his business. Mr. Larrivier stated it goes back to the definition of occupancy and that the City definition was any different individual business constitutes separate occupanies. Mr. Skinner stated that if the Yellow Pages moves out or if Mr. Blackmon moves out Mr. Croce would have no problem it is two or more occupants. Mr. Croce stated he had stated his case and the decision was up to the Board. Mr. Skinner made a motion to uphold Ordinance Section 19, Ordinance 1377 defining occupancy as two separte businesses. Mr. Skinner asked to pause to ask Mr. Pence when the last on sight inspection of the building had been done. Mr. Pence stated he had gone out in November. He did not have the exact date and went over each item with Mr. Blackmon. Mr. Skinner read from the plan review that was signed for by Mr. Blackmon, stating that fire walls were required. Mr. Taylor stated that the plan reviews are done in the office and the inspection clerks do try to contact the people to let them know that they need to come down and sign for them and pick them up. Mr. Skinner made the motion to uphold Section 19, Ordinance 1377 that the occupancy of this building at 6644 Grapevine Highway should be supported with and have according to the ordinance, one hour fire walls in the building. Mr. Crane seconded Mr. Croce stated he wants to know just where the fire walls are required. Mr. Taylor stated Mr. Croce would need to talk to the plan review inspector, Mr. Gannon in regard to meeting the requirements. Mr. Skinner stated if we passed this motion, Mr. Gannon will be out there to show you the shortest, easiest and quickest way to uphold what in the fire department view is a fire wall. To add to the motion the fact that someone will be in contact with Mr. Croce within the next two weeks or before. Mr. Croce asked if he had a single tenant in the building then none of the requirement would have to be met. In other words I would only need to isolate one of the occupants. Motion carried 5-0 Mr. Skinner stated another thing he want to express to Mr. Croce was that this will be reviewed constantly with Mr. Taylor. The Board of Appeals do follow up on all their cases. We are here to interpretate the Code solely as the Board of Appeals. We are not experts. Mr. Skinner stated that the first thing that will happen is Mr. Gannon will contact Mr. Croce, from that point he will explain where the firewalls are needed, the shortest quickest way to get it done and what needs to be done in the procedure thereof. Mr. Gannon will tell you the procedure for obtaining a permit, etc. etc. Mr. Croce asked if anyone could get a permit or if you have to be a contractor here in the City. Mrs. Bryant stated that the person doing the work must be a bonded contractor, bonded with the City of North Richland Hills. Anyone can become bonded, you can bond yourself, as long as an insurance company will post the bond. Mr. Croce thanked the board for listening, but stated he was not convinced. BBA 87-7 APPEAL DEMOLITION ORDER 6237 ONYX DRIVE SOUTH Mr. Taylor stated Mr. Cain is still trying to get his financing. Mr. Skinner made a motion to review this case again on February 9, 1988. A letter is requested to be sent to Mr. Sparks or Mr. Cain stating that this needs to be resolved prior to the next meeting. Mr. Larriviere seconded. Motion Carried 5-0 ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN Mr. Hill nonimated Mr. Orville Baker Mr. Larriviere seconded. Motion carried 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. '1~' J d )1)1iL iI/oMij/eM ' Sec etary