Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
8-26-2025 Entire Packet
CITY Tis I HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION OFFICE 1225 MAIN STREET • SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32956 TELEPHONE: (772) 589-5537 FAX (772) 589-2566 SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD REGULAR MEETING Auimst 26, 2025 (i 6:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting from May 24, 2022 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: QUASI JUDICIAL/PUBLIC HEARINGS A. OUASI-JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY HEARING: Procedures ,fuasi-iudicial nublic hearin, • Chair onens hearint • Attorney reads the Title • Construction Board Members disclose ex-parte communication or conflict o1 interest or site visits • City Clerk swears in all who intend to oRer testimony • Staff presents findin,s and analysis 30 min. time limit • Respondent cross examination • Respondent or respondent's aeent makes nresentation — 30 min. time limit • Staft cross examination • Board Members asks questions of the respondent and staff • Chair opens the 17oor to the Public for an tone in favor of the disciplinary action — 5 min/person time limit • Chair opens the floor to the nublic for anyone opposing the disciplinary action — 5 mini wrso, time limit • Appellant nrovided opportunity to resnond to am issues • Staffrebuttal. ifanv • Construction Board deliberation • Chair calls for a motion • Construction Board Action 1. IN THE MATTER OF MR. MARK WALKER, DB/A MKW BUILDERS, LLC ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE SEBASTIAN CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT OCCURRED AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS IN SEBASTIAN.- • 113 REDGRAVE DR. APPLICABLE CODE SECTION FROM THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES: SECTION 26-172. — CAUSES FOR DISIPLINARY ACTION THE FOLLOWING ACTS CONSTITUTE CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION UNDER THIS ARTICLE: (3) Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; (6) Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when: c. The contractor's job has been completed, and it is shown that the customer has had to pay more for the contracted job than the original contract price, as adjusted for subsequent change orders, unless such increase in cost was the result of circumstances caused by the customer, or was otherwise permitted by the terms of the contract between the contractor and the customer. (8) Knowingly or deliberately disregarding or violating any applicable building codes or laws of the state, county or city. B. OUASI-JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION BOARD APPEAL: Procedures for appeals br quasi -Judicial public hearink • Chair opens hearint • A£tornei reads the Title • Construction Board Members disclose ex-parte communication or conflict of interest or site visits • Cite Clerk swears in all who intend to otter testimon+ • Appellant or appellant's agent makes presentation - 30 min. time limit • Stall cross examination • Stall'presents lindins and analisis— 30 min. time limit • Board Members asks uuestions of the Appellant and stall • Chair opens the floor to the public for an+'one in favor of the anneal - 5 min. per person time limit • Chair opens the floor to the public for an one orposim, the appeal — 5 min. per person time limit • Staf]-provided opportunity to respond to am issues • Appellant rebuttal. if an i • Construction Board deliberation • Chair calls for a motion • Construction Board Action 1. IN THE MATTER OF MR. MARK WALKER D/B/A MKW BUILDERS, LLC THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD (HERINAFTER THE BOARD) SERVES AS THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, PURSUANT TO LAW AND THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES. APPEAL OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FOLLOWING CODE SECTIONS FROM THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE: 2 1. 105.4.1, Pen -nit intent 2. 105.4.1.1, Expired pen -nit due to lack of progress requires anew pen -nit 3. 105.4.1.2, If a new pen -nit is not obtained within 180 days 4. 105.4.1.3, Work considered to be in active progress 5. 105.4.1.4, Fee for renewal set forth by administrative authority 6. 105.5, Expiration 7. 105.5.2, Closed pen -nit 8. 105.5.3, Open pen -nit 9. BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS: 10. ADJOURN NOTE: • IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES, HE/SHE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE ALL APPEALS ARE BASED. • PER CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, §26-40: DECISIONS BY CONSTRUCTION BOARD ACTING AS THE BOARD OF APPEALS MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD ORDER SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK WITIN TEN DAYS OF THE DECISION OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD. • PER CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, §26-175: DECISIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD ACTING AS A DISCIPLINARY BOARD ARE BY CERTIORARI. 3 CITY OF SEBASTIAN SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 24, 2022 Call to Order -- Acting Chairperson Carbano called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. Pledqe of Alleqiance -- was recited by all III. Roll Call: Present Mr. Wilcher Mr. Roberts Mr. Fortier (Zoom) Mr. Scheskowsky Ms. Carbano Also Present Manny Anon, City Attorney Wayne Eseltine, Building Director/Fire Marshal Joseph Perez, AV Technical Assistant Janet Graham, Technical Writer (Zoom) IV. Announcements and/or Modifications Mr. Eseltine announced that Ms. Carbano will act as Chairperson at this meeting, as Mr. Fortier is unable to attend in person, but he is attending via Zoom. He added that at the next meeting there will be an item on the agenda to make sure we have a Vice Chair, as our previous Vice Chair is no longer on the board. Thus, the Chair for tonight's meeting will be Ms. Carbano as the most senior member of the Board. V. Approval of Minutes -- December 6, 2021 Ms. Carbano called for approval of the Minutes from December 6, 2021. Mr. Fortier referred to Page 2 of the Minutes. The second line of the last paragraph reads ".He stated he satisfied the continuing education ..." Mr. Fortier suggested it should read "He stated he has satisfied the continuing education..." There being no other corrections to the December 6, 2021 Minutes, Ms. Carbano called for a motion. A motion approving the Minutes of December 6, 2021 with the correction as noted above was made by Mr. Scheskowsky and seconded by Ms. Carbano. SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022 Roll Call Ms. Carbano -- Yes Mr. Scheskowsky -- Yes Mr. Fortier -- Yes Vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carries. VI Public Input -- None VI 1. Unfinished Business -- None Vill. New Business: Quasi-Judicial/Public Hearing: A. Quasi -Judicial Disciplinary Hearing Mr. Roberts -- Yes Mr. Wilcher -- Yes PAGE 2 1. In the Matter of Mr. Dillon Slater d/b/a Slater Construction, LLC ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE SEBASTIAN CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT OCCURRED AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATION IN SEBASTIAN: • 116 ORMOND CT. APPLICABLE CODE SECTION FROM THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES: SECTION 26-172 -- CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION THE FOLLOWING ACTS CONSTITUTE CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION UNDER THIS ARTICLE: (1) DIVERSION OF FUNDS OR PROPERTY RECEIVED FOR THE COMPLETION OF A SPECIFIED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OR OPERATION OR AS A RESULT OF THE DIVERSION CONTRACTOR IS OR WILL BE UNABLE TO FULFILL THE TERMS OF HIS OBLIGATION OR CONTRACT, Mr. Anon read the item into the record. SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD PAGE 3 M I N UTES O F MAY 24, 2022 Ms. Carbano called on the Board members to disclose any ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest in this matter. All indicated they had none. All who would present testimony this evening were sworn in. Ms. Carbano called on the applicant or their representative to make their presentation. There was no one present to testify on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Carbano then called on staff to make their presentation. Mr. Eseltine identified himself and reviewed the history of this case. Notice to appear was sent Certified Mail to the address on the applicant's DBPR license and with SUNBIZ. Staff also attempted to deliver the notice in person at 4853 — 61St Circle in Vero Beach. This is the address that is on record for Mr. Slater's business. Mr. Eseltine reviewed other attempts which were made to reach Mr. Slater. Mr. Eseltine offered the following exhibits into the record: 1. Applicable code sections of the City Code of Ordinances 2. Sebastian Construction Board Notice of Violation Quasi -Judicial Hearing 3. Staff Report on 116 Ormond Court. Mr. Eseltine noted that Exhibits 1 and 2 are germane to all three quasi-judicial hearings on this issue this evening. He provided copies of the applicable sections of the City Code of Ordinances to members of the Board in Chambers. Regarding the property at 116 Ormond Court, Mr. Eseltine read into the record the narrative description of the alleged violation (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT MARKED AS EXHIBIT 3). Ms. Carbano called on the Board members for questions/comments. Mr. Roberts -- Asked if Mr. Slater provided an explanation as to why the project was not completed on time. Mr. Eseltine stated he has not been a witness to any of that activity. He stated that the owner of the property, who is present, can attest to what has transpired in greater detail. Mr. Roberts also asked if law enforcement has been involved in this process. Mr. Eseltine stated yes, they have. Mr. Fortier -- Asked if the contracts were for $250,000.00 for each of the three properties in question tonight. Mr. Eseltine stated all the contracts were for $250,000.00. Mr. Fortier stated this sort of conduct does nothing positive for the City of Sebastian or for contractors in general. He asked the Board to look into that. Mr. Fortier asked Mr. Eseltine why this case does not mention grand larceny. He opined that there is enough to make a prima facie case in criminal court and asks why this matter is before this Board. Mr. Anon explained that this case is before this Board because this matter is under the purview of SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD PAGE 4 MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022 the City's Code. Whether the local law -enforcement agencies followed up with something, that is not before this Board. Mr. Scheskowsky -- Asked if there will be penalties for each one of these three cases or all three together. Mr. Anon said these are three different properties and three different incidents, so the Board will be able to assess for each one of them. That is the reason the cases were brought in front of the Board as three different cases. Mr. Anon inquired of Mr. Scheskowsky if he supports the Board's recommendation of a fine and suspension. Mr. Scheskowsky answered yes. Ms. Carbano called on anyone from the public who is in favor of the appeal to give testimony. James Chorma, 8000 — 91 st Avenue, Vero Beach, FL. -- Mr. Chorma identified himself and reviewed the history of the project in question and his encounters with Mr. Slater. He had to pay an additional $80,000.00 out of pocket to get the project completed. There was extended discussion among the Board members, Mr. Eseltine, and Mr. Chorma regarding the history of this project. Robin DeVitis -- Ms. DeVitis reviewed that she entered into a contract with Mr. Slater and reviewed the history and activities regarding this contract. She said she lost $5,000.00 in total because Mr. Slater did refund part of her money. She does not understand how Mr. Slater could have a general contracting license and get a pool license, which are two different numbers. His general contractor's license is CGC 1526339, and the pool license is CGC 1531897. The construction is now finished. She had to get another contractor, and it cost her $60,000.00 more. Mr. Anon stated that some of Ms. DeVitis' testimony is not germane to the subject before the Board. Mr. Fortier opined that this testimony is germane to the item in question. He asked if there have been repeated incidents of this behavior, and he wonders how these "slipped through the cracks." Mr. Eseltine stated that the powers of the Building Department and this Board are limited to whatever is in the City Code of Ordinances and the Florida Building Code. The Building Department cannot get involved in contractual issues that are civil matters. His department had received several complaints. They looked into the complaints. These cases that are before this Board cover areas where the City can apply its Code by way of diversion of funds. The City has no arrest powers or criminal investigation powers. He emphasized that the matter before the Board this evening is the behavior of a license holder and their ability to pull building permits. If the license holder is not doing what they are supposed to be doing, that is why these hearings are being held tonight as disciplinary hearings, which may result in a decision by the Board to suspend permitting privileges in order to stop this occurrence from being repeated. His department has been gathering SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD PAGE 5 MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022 evidence for quite some time looking into all of these complaints. But we are here tonight for three cases, and he opined that it is the Board's duty to hear the cases and make a decision as to what they want to do with Mr. Slater's licensing privileges. He added that the results of this hearing will be forwarded to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation because Mr. Slater is a state license holder. Indian River County has recently taken action for similar complaints, but staff is dealing with what involves the City of Sebastian. Mr. Fortier stated that he agrees with the other Board member who said the Board should go to the max to hold Mr. Slater accountable. Kristin Lees -- Stated that she signed a contract with Mr. Slater in August 2020. Her construction is not halfway completed to this date. She has filed a complaint with Indian River County, and she will be filing criminal charges as of this coming Friday with the Indian River Sheriff's Department. She reviewed the history between herself and Mr. Slater. She stated she had to pay for several items out of her own pocket that Mr. Slater never completed in order to prevent liens being filed against her. She estimated that she is out over $80,000.00 in order to get the house completed. She added that the work that Mr. Slater did complete on her house was substandard and had to be redone. Ms. Carbano stated that all of this information will be sent to the Department of Professional Regulations once the determination is made. Mr. Eseltine stated that any disciplinary action the Board takes on a state license holder has to be forwarded to that Department. Ms. Carbano called on staff to summarize. Regarding the property at 116 Ormond Court, Mr. Eseltine read into the record the narrative description of the alleged violation (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT MARKED AS EXHIBIT 1). Mr. Eseltine suggested that the motion of the Board should contain the following wording: 1. Motion to find Dillon Slater with License No. CGC 1526339 in violation of City Code of Ordinance 26-172 (5) where the contractor was unwilling to fulfill his obligations under the terms of the contract because of his diversion of funds. 2. A fine in the amount of $500.00 plus an additional $100.00 administrative fee in accordance with Section 26-175 (d) and shall be paid within 30 days. 3. All permitting privileges will be suspended for a period of two years, at which time the contractor must reappear before the Construction Board to demonstrate competency to the satisfaction of the Board before reinstating privileges. 4. Any uncompleted work that has a permit issued or applied for by this date may continue to completion in accordance with 26-175 (e). SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022 PAGE 6 Ms. Carbano mentioned that on the first page of this Staff Report it has the Ormond Court address, yet under the narrative it states an alleged violation for Admiral Circle. Mr. Eseltine stated he will make the correction. There was concern voiced among the Board members and staff regarding No. 4 of the motion, and extended discussion ensued regarding No. 4 of the suggested motion. After extended discussion, Ms. Carbano called for a motion. A motion containing items 1, 2„ and 3 as stated above and removing item 4 was made by Mr. Scheskowsky and seconded by Mr. Fortier. Roll Call Mr. Wilcher -- No Mr. Scheskowsky -- Yes Mr. Roberts -- Yes Ms. Carbano -- No Mr. Fortier -- Yes The vote was 3-2 in favor. Motion carries. B. Quasi -Judicial Disciplinary Hearing 1. IN THE MATTER OF MR. DILLON SLATER D/B/A SLATER CONSTRUCTION, LLC ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE SEBASTIAN CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT OCCURRED AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATION IN SEBASTIAN: • 104 MARSH ST. APPLICABLE CODE SECTION FROM THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES: SECTION 26-172 -- CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION THE FOLLOWING ACTS CONSTITUTE CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION UNDER THIS ARTICLE: (1) DIVERSION OF FUNDS OR PROPERTY RECEIVED FOR THE COMPLETION OF A SPECIFIED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OR OPERATION OR AS A RESULT OF THE DIVERSION CONTRACTOR IS SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022 PAGE 7 OR WILL BE UNABLE TO FULFILL THE TERMS OF HIS OBLIGATION OR CONTRACT, Mr. Anon read the item into the record. Ms. Carbano called on the Board members to disclose any ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest in this matter. All indicated they had none. Those who would testify in this matter having previously been sworn in, Ms. Carbano called for the staff presentation. Regarding the property at 104 Marsh Street, Mr. Eseltine read into the record the narrative description of the alleged violation (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT MARKED AS EXHIBIT 1). Mr. Anon stated that all three exhibits, 1, 2, and 3, were offered in the first case relative to 116 Ormond Court. Exhibits 1 and 2 will also apply to the case regarding 104 Marsh Street. Ms. Carbano called on questions/comments from the Board. Mr. Roberts asked if this project has been completed. Mr. Eseltine stated that the owners are very close to getting their Certificate of Occupancy. The owners of this property have taken the project over in place of Slater Construction and are having direct contact with all the sub -contractors in order to get the project done. Mr. Roberts asked if there has been any response from Mr. Slater regarding this project. Mr. Eseltine stated he has not spoken to him. The owners have been in contact with him. Unfortunately, the owners are not here tonight. Mr. Fortier stated that, in his opinion, this case also shows the propensity of this individual to put a stain on construction contractors. He opined that everything should stay as status quo as far as what the Board does. Ms. Carbano called on anyone from the public who would like to speak in favor of the appeal. Yolanda Allen -Bell -- Ms. Bell, not having been previously sworn, was sworn in. She testified that she met Dillon Slater in May of 2020. He was supposed to build a house for her mother. She gave him the first payment in April 2020. She reviewed the history of her actions regarding the contract for this house. She gave Mr. Slater $38,000.00, and he never built the house. Bruce McCullers -- He testified that he contracted with Slater Construction in August SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD PAGE 8 MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022 2020. He was promised a house in six to seven months. His experience has been the same as the others who have testified in this matter. He also testified to the shoddy workmanship that was done. He switched contractors, and he is going to charge Mr. Slater in a civil action. He estimated that he paid over $100.000.00 just to prevent liens from being entered on the property. Ms. Carbano called on anyone who wishes to speak against the appeal. There being no one, Ms. Carbano called for staff summary. Mr. Eseltine read the Staff Report into the record and offered it as Exhibit 1. Mr. Eseltine suggested that the motion of the Board should contain the following wording: 1. Motion to find Dillon Slater with License No. CGC 1526339 in violation of City Code of Ordinance 26-172 (5) where the contractor was unwilling to fulfill his obligations under the terms of the contract because of his diversion of funds. 2. A fine in the amount of $500.00 plus an additional $100.00 administrative fee in accordance with Section 26-175 (d) and shall be paid within 30 days. 3. All permitting privileges suspended for a period of two years, at which time the contractor must reappear before the Construction Board to demonstrate competency to the satisfaction of the Board before reinstating privileges. 4. Any uncompleted work that has a permit issued or applied for on this date may continue to completion in accordance with 26-175 (e) He added that it is the same motion that was already set forth at the last hearing. Mr. Roberts opined that this case is more serious than the last case. Mr. Eseltine said there are no further disciplinary actions that are available for the Board to take. Mr. Fortier asked if the Board is only allowed to suspend Mr. Slater's contracting privileges in Sebastian. He asked Mr. Eseltine, since this hearing will appear on You Tube as public information, if other contractors can weigh in and send information to the State. Mr. Eseltine stated that all the findings that this Board makes will be forwarded to the State. The State will consider the case for further disciplinary action. Mr. Fortier asked if, when this case becomes public information where it is published on You Tube, contractors can contact the State to file a complaint, or is that illegal. Mr. Eseltine said anyone can file a complaint. There being no further discussion, Ms. Carbano called for a motion. A motion with the wording of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the motion in the previous case be used was made by Mr. Roberts and seconded by Ms. Carbano. SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022 PAGE 9 1. Motion to find Dillon Slater with License No. CGC 1526339 in violation of City Code of Ordinance 26-172 (5) where the contractor was unwilling to fulfill his obligations under the terms of the contract because of his diversion of funds. 2. A fine in the amount of $500.00 plus an additional $100.00 administrative fee in accordance with Section 26-175 (d) and shall be paid within 30 days. 3. All permitting privileges suspended for a period of two years, at which time the contractor must reappear before the Construction Board to demonstrate competency to the satisfaction of the Board before reinstating privileges. Roll Call Mr. Wilcher -- Yes Mr. Roberts -- Yes Mr. Fortier -- Yes Vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion passes. C. Quasi -Judicial Disciplinary Hearing Mr. Scheskowsky -- Yes Ms. Carbano -- Yes 1. IN THE MATTER OF MR. DILLON SLATER D/B/A SLATER CONSTRUCTION, LLC ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE SEBASTIAN CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT OCCURRED AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATION IN SEBASTIAN: • 133 ADMIRAL CIRCLE APPLICABLE CODE SECTION FROM THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES: SECTION 26-172 -- CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION THE FOLLOWING ACTS CONSTITUTE CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION UNDER THIS ARTICLE: (1) DIVERSION OF FUNDS OR PROPERTY RECEIVED FOR THE COMPLETION OF A SPECIFIED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OR OPERATION OR AS A RESULT OF THE DIVERSION THE CONTRACTOR IS OR WILL BE UNABLE TO FULFILL THE TERMS OF HIS OBLIGATION OR CONTRACT. SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022 Mr. Anon read the item into the record. PAGE 10 Ms. Carbano called on the Board members to disclose any ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest in this matter. All indicated they had none. Those who would testify in this matter having previously been sworn in, Ms. Carbano called for the staff presentation. Mr. Eseltine reviewed the history and Staff Report on this case (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1). Ms. Carbano asked Mr. Eseltine if the permit remains on hold. Mr. Eseltine stated it does to the best of his knowledge. Ms. Carbano called for testimony from the public. Paula Hegi -- testified that her contract price was $296,640.00. She signed a contract with Mr. Slater in February 2021. At that time she gave him $74,160.00, and she thought he was going to honor his contract. She gave Mr. Slater another $41,500.00. Regarding the issue with the tortoises, Ms. Hegi had a conversation on November 23, 2021 with an advocate for the tortoises. That advocate told Ms. Hegi that Mr. Slater had told her to hold off on the tortoises. So Mr. Slater at that point had $115,600.00 of Ms. Hegi's money. To this day, she has a partially cleared lot with some silt fencing, and the turtles are gone. She opined that Mr. Slater is going to leave the state, and she is not going to get her money back. She is asking for something in writing to present to the proper department so she can file a criminal complaint. She has already filed a complaint with the State. She has heard that Mr. Slater plans to leave Florida. Ms. Carbano called on members of the Board for their questions/comments. Mr. Fortier agrees that Mr. Slater needs to be in jail. He explained that there is a recovery fund through the State that will give the property owner some remuneration. Ms. Hegi stated she is aware of this fund, but she does not know if she can go through that process, as it is a long and arduous process. Mr. Roberts asked Ms. Hegi when she last heard from or communicated with Mr. Slater. Ms. Hegi said the last text message was April 4, 2022. April 13, 2022 was the last time she reached out to Mr. Slater. Mr. Roberts asked if this Board can revoke Mr. Slater's license. Mr. Eseltine stated Mr. Slater is a state -licensed contractor, and the only thing this Board can do is revoke his permitting privileges. He added that the recommendation SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD PAGE 11 MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022 that staff made was to suspend his permitting privileges, similar to what the County did, for two years. Staff put in the caveat that Mr. Slater must reappear before this Board and convince the Board that his license should be reinstated. As a state -licensed contractor, all this Board can do is to stop the bleeding by revoking his permitting privileges. Mr. Fortier agreed. Mr. Eseltine added that, whenever these hearings are completed and the paperwork has been entered with the State, he will make sure that the property owners of all three of these addresses get something in writing. Mr. Eseltine presented his findings as set forth in the Staff Report (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1) and recommended the same wording for the motion as was contained in the two previous cases heard tonight as follows: 1. Motion to find Dillon Slater with License No. CGC 1526339 in violation of City Code of Ordinance 26-172 (5) where the contractor was unwilling to fulfill his obligations under the terms of the contract because of his diversion of funds. 2. A fine in the amount of $500.00 plus an additional $100.00 administrative fee in accordance with Section 26-175 (d) and shall be paid within 30 days. 3. All permitting privileges suspended for a period of two years, at which time the contractor must reappear before the Construction Board to demonstrate competency to the satisfaction of the Board before reinstating privileges. 4. Any uncompleted work that has a permit issued There being no further discussion, Ms. Carbano called for a motion. A motion with the wording of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the motion in the previous case be used was made by Mr. Scheskowsky and seconded by Mr. Fortier. 1. Motion to find Dillon Slater with License No. CGC 1526339 in violation of City Code of Ordinance 26-172 (5) where the contractor was unwilling to fulfill his obligations under the terms of the contract because of his diversion of funds. 2. A fine in the amount of $500.00 plus an additional $100.00 administrative fee in accordance with Section 26-175 (d) and shall be paid within 30 days. 3. All permitting privileges suspended for a period of two years, at which time the contractor must reappear before the Construction Board to demonstrate competency to the satisfaction of the Board before reinstating permitting privileges. Roll Call SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD M I N UTES O F MAY 24, 2022 Mr. Wilcher -- No Mr. Roberts -- Yes Mr. Fortier -- Yes Vote was 3-2 in favor. Motion passes. IX. Board Matters Mr. Scheskowsky -- Yes Ms. Carbano -- No Mr. Fortier stated that several people have come before this Board having lost a lot of money, and he is in favor of the Board assessing the highest penalty that is within their purview. X. Buildinq Official Matters -- None XI. CITY Attornev Matters For the record, Mr. Anon alerted the Board that one of the cases that was held before this Board involving Matt Hall is being appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court, and the City is currently in litigation over that matter. Mr. Fortier reiterated that at that hearing, he did disclose at that meeting that he had had ex parte communication with Mr. Hall. XII. Adiourn There being nothing further, Ms. Carbano adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. LM OF 5EBASTL'-4k,N 3"! I PV 709 i - 140ME OF PELICAN ISLAND CONTRACTOR LICENSING 1225 MAIN STREET - SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE.- (772) 388-8245 - FAX (772) 589-2566 CONTRACTOR COMPLAINT AMDAVIT PLEASE Pi VNT CLE"IN CASE NO: DATE 0FSTATE1Vf1-,N'T'- - DATE OFOFFENSF- LOCATION OF 0 U FFENSE 3 -P-Cdravc STATE FL Zjp SIR, CONVA!IS'AY47 (S) COMPLAINTANT'S AnDRL-ss: 113 Oed5raur-0,-- crt-y_5e-,Qq--tiG,-, COMPL4,NTANT'S HOME PI ONF- 1i k WORK T)Q -,3CO CONTRACTOR'S NAME: Co NAME OF COMPANY: �o'10der5 sTA-rEzip CMIL q-Va - V3 3 - FL-4 3. CON=�T CM, (�M%Y .ITY. ADD UCXC�C Ve-r6 fX-QCNTAT,6�ZIP L do hereby voluntarily make the following statement without threat, offer of benefit or favor by any persons whomsoever. Did you find this persqA4.-4 and/or company through the newspaper, yellow pages and/or fliers? YES NO OTHER If NO or Other, hoe. Tnnx)ShAt\.P- �" What was your initial reason for calling this person and/or company? au 61c- j�; r -i rn�-� w 't ndow5 cnd my nae APlcX cols- ho►-„-e, What was the name of the person(s) who came to your home for the original repair and/or estimate? K)C C K Did this person (give name) _ tell you that he/she was licensed and insured? �-!S NO If YES, did he/she w you something that led you to believe that he/she was licensed and insured? S NO If YES, what type of document were you shown? __&VSkry S5 C', odd Were permits required to do the work? (YES) NO Did he/she tell you that he/she would pull the permit? YES NO Were you charged for the permit? YES NO Were you given a start and completion date? YES NO If YES, was the job started as promised? YES NO If NO, what was the reason? Was the completion date as promised? YES & If NO, what was the reason? YY1ul�i�J IQ ; P r of 5 (7'olo r-► M Once completed were you satisfied with the job? YES NO If NO, why? (2) Did you make a complaint to the contractor/company? YES NO What was the complaint? W1 Cld OWS vot((l� / 1 rcyc' 10 ror,4)A r -Y& .edt-' ne\ In c on n - n(-)i- 1ns�CG I C'Ud-e, What was their response to your complaint? � rN ► ski Q l r j vA} Keeps -SCLI A �v W ► \ fmte tA- YD-� d(4) ,r-kslrt^q ,�lcx-� Did the contractor/company ever place a lien on your property? YES NO If YES, what date was the lien filed? In your own words, what is the complaint? Please print clearly. We- ins-edl ccx,�r��Mar�� �p�tker,0\ur�er pf MKI�! (��ik�l�r5 �n Ivvvern�e� 21 `i ►n � �� m�ec� W��-io� , tl �r (� r n�'�ih5 ryYA 4 �Ar� v �F erns, bd hIm I (rclerkri, t "M -S, aot ' (Y\,a °Ilen UrLy � cPsr ni (4)10 51 J 1 �f'I�imcr,SY� � {� , 11e ►.�I+�,�,-,� le 1� �: �\:ecx tom. tn���\I t�:in� � -�-o {�-c�e,�- ��� 4 n1� �n,hally A1r), cncck ihen G,,') (-'Va r'ct Q r ► Ce_ 1 �f'f Y� Q 'S122c k 61 to nu .-,rJ A &ztp,-Tr)ea-- @ bur.) I- M er Cam ' ill leQt(\j tom; S \ rYlu�,1 K5 (' 4c' 0-5 +b �Ytr-) 1..,i�r)dCo3 L- SAL C \e-�b POb A cnOdn rcrA-, C{,— - cWJ IF YOU NEED MORE WRrrWG ROOM, PLEASE USE A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER (3) If you have any of the following, please make copies and attach to this affidavit. (Be sure you keep the originals.) Contracts and/or invoices YES) NO Copies of advertisements/fliers YES NO Business card(�i NO Cancelled checks (front and back) (!�9 NO Receipts for cash payments YES NO Copies of any correspondence YES NO Notice of any liens YES NO I SWEAR OR AFFIRM TIDE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO BE CORRECT AND TRU&i// SIGNATURE: A-MV/` !( -' STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF a I a h Sworn to and subscribed before me the 3 N day o, 20 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ! (2 Pt, I 4., j Notblic Form of I.D. used to identif y tlfy RTNEY ELIZABEr j acr GA Afflant r _ N �- Y Public •State of Floridammission p HH 583286 mm.ExpiresSec t9, 2028 t gh Natiora; vot_ry Assn. (4) WWI* I "havio PL tome WOrsti 6640 W6bF. "tb ti Attilifibi ib Oft-Onit QOk dotalls PAO Ifibbid " hww timmi to k tit *nd 46MO tit LAW; hiffidw WON WO lim withtl Abw §10&. wi *" Nimiw A&M Adoww" *Wottwai kd#M bf, tmib�* arm" • 4 man h6iift di C76 ow hout sad'o ji j 0 MIM Miat Lit, v, Owk MiAt lhVMVW%t"WbU'9ift" Aim wi i" thiil�_ I kwwb Atb Awm§.AhiAb*bAW"bfhV ""eLJ ePNC Online Banking Date Dkescdpfion Amount Account 1110712024 $8.443.00 This is an image of a check, substitute check, or deposit ticket Rater to your posted transactions to verify the status of the item. For more information about image delivery click here or to speak with a representative call: 1-888-PNC-BANK (14M8-762-2265) Monday - Friday; 8 a.m. - 9 p.m. ET Saturday & Sunday: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET. z to CoVflW MO. The PNC FlnancW Serhm G". Inc. M RtOft Reserved. QPNC Online Banking Date Description Amount Account $2.243.00 This Is an image of a check, substitute check, or deposit ticket Refer to your posted transactions to verify the status of the Item. For more Information about image delivery dick here or to speak with a representative call: 1-888-PNC-BANK (1-888--762-2265) Monday - Friday: 8 a.m. - 9 p.m. ET, Saturday & Sunday. 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET. INIL I 4UA4 #C 00149 YYIY-LLN QIKPNCI� w '661 0 COWUN "10. MW PW %wKiW SM4089 &", M&M fttft ftufflwd. t4w Lkerm- 0 pta ement 0 ftfth dObtS in UVIHS Aft4k With papt -6 a loting Matwllilsi 4au eh do -9 with bill- d' 01'. fn --a In. Doubleswin", mp'lleftrat with Winds' M. 00 MO: AI &00 Tow, h tf 09 M6vq ON dig 064t �rmwc Instatinew lbor itch MOM or Wideta Aman! MrIM00ou $0 r WeAmr ItOplace OxIMM9 whidowo vWth Im Impact rated vvind6wt, with screens and grids, $9j266 Mist matooets, 6crWws,'ahJMS. polyur-6thatiowififtwbuckVhg&-waterotooling(itc. $7SO tabor IROM&O and (118 obb of Oftfing Windowt. Prep b hd re - ..p, pare.o.poningot-oriiOWVdndoWi"sta install.. lhft9klfiOwWihd6ws tclreW Wd 'dodo. Q4#4-. _40 shim per 6 6 wnp hung windows 2MOtihours pofw . InObW at $76 per hibur Mol a 2 MAN arch VViNOWS; 2 MO hours per windows at S751 per hour * 2 doubita vvind OW$ (with amh) 3- per window dawat$76perhou'440 r- * i triple MindoW with a-ath4manhoureporAvind w9t$_1SOqrhOuf$2D0 Other casur. Pormit F-666 $400 bisp- o-m-- t ke-S $2 Ifte to boftlete $0606 of work is Sda- f-MM it issue.. wbtk 9-tart date WU be sOedated vwmhmav A deowt Ift th.a 6miouftt Of is f"011w to 46wr thO 063t Of MAtetWS Ot&Md. lb# reMainsng balance lad'isak upwo CbM rd M- builtd! dopumd. final locke. .. _. p To 400#0 0- -06--gat pwage sign and mate batow, Date Data thank you fot Your butinvas! Please Make checks POyabld to MKW Builders LLC Mallffig AdOfesw 4113 Abington WbbC[g Of. V06069.liFAl . KW Budder ADDENDUM TO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT (Change Order) (Use for Every Change in Plans, Specifications or Scope of Work or in Owner's Optional Selections) Date: 6/10/25 Contractor: MKW Builders LLC Owner(s): Steven & Diane Marini Job Description/Address: 113 Redgrave Dr. Sebastian, FL 32958 The Contractor and Owner hereby agree to amend the Scope of Work as follows: Unforeseen conditions not accounted for in the original proposal are as follows: Three windows that require mullions (Locations: Dining room with 4 clip connection points, front facing bedroom with 2 clip connection points, and master east facing window with 2 clip connection points) require the following work due to existing wood framing not as required per NOA specifications: Interior drywall jamb and wall removal to expose framing clip attachment all 3 windows Dining room window requires interior sill removal to the round Remove mulls, screws and screws for window frame. r. Add specified structural wood members where needed, both vertical and horizontal locations where clip/mull attachment is required. Reattach mulls, clips and window frames to new structural wood members per NOA specifications. Remove and replace any and all screws to meet NOA specifications. Arrange for Framing inspection and FINAL with all work exposed on the interior (Mull to clip attachments, structural framing, and screws.) Upon approval of FINAL inspection (Completed at the same time as framing), arrange for drywall replacement, hang and finish. Labor to complete above scope of work (Demo, removal, framing, reattachment, inspection: $2,500.00 Materials to complete above scope of work: $750.00 Drywall hang and finish: $1,750.00 ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL TIME REQUIRED BY THIS ADDENDUM: 5 working days. ADJUSTMENTS to Contract Price for above X Increase CONTRACT PRICE BY $5,000.00, payable: PRIOR TO WORK COMMENCING This amount does not include the remaining balance for the original scope of work which is $9,200.00 $6,200 original proposal balance, plus additional costs which include: $500.00 for new window sills, $1,000 for drywall hang and finish and $1,500 in additional labor and materials for installation which could not be done as planned due to existing window 1" flange being covered by 1 inch of wall stucco AND 1" of band stucco. A "No Flange" application is not allowed in a wood frame application. This required the removal of all stucco bands on the exterior of the windows, disposal fees, additional labor time and material costs. ****NO CHARGE FOR STUCCO PER VERBAL AGREEMENT WHICH WAS $1,900.00**** — kl�-- - - Acknowledgment Contracto s Owner(s) or Agent's Acknowledgment Mark V Presic License #: CI Email: MarkOMKWHuitders.com Mobile: (772) 360-8980 ' Web: MKWBuilders.com From: Mark r-nark@tT)kwbL]ilder-s.com Subject: Re: Marini Windows Date: Jun 6, 2025 at 12:37:30 AM To: Diana Marini di-narin-00 maii.corn Steven and Diane Marini, Our answer to your first 3 requests: 1. Your project was complete and was ready for inspection. Unfortunately, you chose to interfere at the building department with our permit. Your project did not require a framing inspection, which is completed when the openings are exposed. Your project is a window and door replacement permit. However, instead of allowing us to do our job, you overstepped and decided to play politics with the building department. To further explain, if a framing inspection was required, we would have had to leave your skylight exposed with a hole in your roof until all of the windows were installed and the windows could not be sealed up until the framing inspection was passed. With the incorrect window deliveries pushing your window install out for months, that was not a possibility, nor was it a requirement. Your project was completed in phases, with the garage door, front door and skylight completed in December, the single hung windows completed in January, the arched windows in March/ April, and the final window installed at the end of April. Instead of allowing us to work with the building department to get this situation resolved, you inserted yourselves and made the situation extremely complicated. To address your concern about the mullion clips, yes, that was an oversight by the crew that we have no problem fixing. The clips are required per the NOA specifications and we did not know that the crew did not attach them. If we were required to have a framing inspection it would have been fixed before sealing up your windows. The City of Sebastian Building Department does not state the requirements for a window/door replacement permit framing inspection and there are no requirements for a framing inspection on this type of permit anywhere to be found. Their failure to provide these requirements to the contractor is a major issue and we are going to make sure this is corrected by them going forward and will hold them accountable. The Indian River County Building Department has a Final inspection only on a retrofit window and door permit. This is typical of most building departments, so due to the City of Sebastian Building Department not disclosing their unique requirement of a framing inspection on a retrofit window and door permit, we had no way of knowing about it. Upon going over the NOAs with our crew, and explaining the importance of following the instructions therein, they mentioned that the existing wood framing around the 3 windows with the arches that the mullion clips have to attach to might not match the required southern yellow pine framing required per NOA specifications. Mark will have to remove the drywall to expose the framing to confirm this is the case. If that is the case, that means, in order for us to pass the framing inspection and install the clips per NOA specifications, the wood framing around these 3 windows must be removed and reframed using the specified Southern yellow Pine (SYP) 2x4s that are called for in the detail. To summarize, the drywall must be removed 2 feet on each side of each window, and below the window. The insufficient framing must be replaced with SYP #2 Structural 2x4s on each side of the windows and at the sills. Then the clips and window frames will be attached to the new wood framing and left exposed until the framing inspection is passed. Once that inspection is passed, the window can be resealed, jambs and wood framing will then be drywalled and finished. This is the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is we would have to completely remove the window, including the stucco bands, reframe the entire window, attach the clips and window frame to the new SYP #2 Structural framing members, leave exposed for inspection and then proceed with sealing, drywall and redoing the stucco bands. Best case scenario it will cost you $5,500, worst case scenario it will be $7,500. This is another one of those unforeseen issues that can arise during construction, and although it will cost more, you can rest assured that your windows will be 100% installed per Florida Building Code and NOA requirements. Unfortunately, there is no other way to proceed with the framing inspection and to close out the permit at this point. If you would like to proceed with the additional work that needs to be completed, we will provide you with a change order to sign and we will require payment before starting the work. This cost is in addition to the remaining balance owed to us. Once payment is received for the work included in the change order, we will schedule the start date. We estimate it will take approximately 2 working days to complete the framing, the framing inspection will be done on the 3rd day and then it will take 2 days for drywall hang and finish. That's the timeline. 2. The leaking window - You can not use the hose on your windows for more than a quick light spray. If you look at your windows on the exterior you will notice small holes in the bottom of the window frames. Those are called weep holes. The weep holes are designed to allow any water that intrudes the window frame to leak out so the water does not build up inside the frame and then leak inside your window jamb. When you use the hose directly on the windows for longer periods of time, the water builds up inside the frame and cannot drain through the weep hole fast enough to prevent leaking on the inside. Mark thought he explained this to you before, however, we are stating it again to make sure you understand that. Mark would also like you to know that the windows that are not arches at the bottom of the sill have a flap on the weep holes that allows water inside the frame to drain, but prevents bugs/ water from getting in. It is recommended that once a year, you open the lower windows and use AIR (not water) to blow out the bottom sill to ensure the weep holes are working correctly and to prevent build up from blocking the weep holes from draining. Mark noticed and pointed out to Steve today, that you did not seal the outside of the stucco bands to the exterior wall on ANY of the windows. Those stucco bands around ALL windows need to be sealed with polyurethane ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BANDS ESPECIALLY AT THE TOP OF THE BAND. The top of the band is a common place where water can sit and seep through where the band meets the wall. Mark observed a hairline crack on the band at 10:00 on the radius of the window you have a leak issue with, and pointed it out to Steve. He recommends filling the hairline crack with polyurethane sealant and after it cures, reapply hot stucco primer before final epoxy paint. If you do this, the crack will be invisible. As long as all you follow these recommended steps around all of your stucco bands, you should have no issues. The bedroom with the arch window has unprimed areas on the high point of the stucco band where the band meets the soffit. Excess stucco at top of radius band needs to be dug out and filled with polyurethane sealant. I also recommend a second coat of the white hot primer on all bands protruding at least 6 inches of face wall. Applying a high grade exterior epoxy stucco trim paint will provide you with an additional level of protection against cracks and water intrusion. You decided to be the painter, and the priming and polyurethane sealant around the outside of the stucco bands is part of the painting work and is critical to the waterproofing and sealing process of exterior stucco. It is my responsibility to apply the polyurethane sealant to where the window frame meets the stucco bands. I have done that to the point where I cannot apply any more sealant to the window. Water is not penetrating through the sealant that I have applied. Its impossible. Once you have finished the sealing, priming and painting on your stucco bands, if you are still having a problem with the window leaking, then it is his professional opinion it would be a manufacturer issue, that could be a problem with the glass to frame attachment. In this case, the manufacturer's authorized warranty representative is the only authorized party allowed to correct a manufacturing defect. 3. The expired permit issue was an error on the building department. You misunderstood what qualifies a permit to be considered expired. A permit expires after 180 days if work has not commenced within the 180 days or if the contractor has abandoned the project. neither of those scenarios apply to our permit. Our permit has been returned to the proper active status. We have a meeting with the City Manager and Wayne Eseitine next week and this error by the building department will be discussed at the meeting. So in response to your request for our plan regarding the expired permit, it has already been fixed. Once we have completed the work required and passed inspection, you will be provided with a final invoice. Upon receiving payment in full, we will provide you with a receipt along with the other documents you need for the MSFH grant and your records. As for the false statements you have made regarding a lack of communication from us, you know that is completely false. We have promptly returned your texts, emails and phone calls and have been in constant communication with you since the start of this project. We understand that living in your home during construction is frustrating and inconvenient. We hear it all the time. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to change that. Things happen, and you just have to roll with it. We don't hold it against you for letting your frustration get the best of you. We get it. We get frustrated too. We would like to bring down the high charged emotions, and please know that while we are not perfect and we do make mistakes, we are fully committed to seeing your project through to completion. Your new windows are beautiful and your home is not only better protected from hurricanes, it also looks prettier too. Thank you, Mark & Kelli Walker Cell: (772) 360-8980 www.MKWBuilders.com ---- On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 16:17:03 -0400 Diana Marini <dmarinil0@gmaiLcom> wrote --- MKW Builders On May 28, 2025, we sent an email requesting a timeline for the completion of this project, which has now been ongoing for over six months. Despite additional follow-ups via text and phone, we have yet to receive a clear project timeline or a definitive response regarding when Mark will address the leaking window —an issue that has been known for over a month. On Friday, we contacted My Safe Florida Home to inquire about our options, as we have paid for this project in full. We were advised to explore the possibility of splitting the permit. Upon calling the building department, we were informed that the current permit is set to expire this Sunday. This means that no inspection can be scheduled unless a new permit is issued. At this point, we are requesting the following: 1. A written timeline for project completion. 2. A scheduled date when Mark will inspect and address the leaking window. 3. Your immediate plan for resolving the issue of the expired permit, including whether a new one will be obtained and how that will affect the project timeline. We expect a response by Thursday, June 5th, so we can determine the next steps. In response to your statement that you would not be removing or replacing anything an inspector needs to see —and that this would fall on us at our own expense —we began conducting our own research. We spoke with several reputable contractors, all of whom expressed disbelief that such a statement would be made. They were unanimous in their position: it is the contractor's responsibility to see the job through to a final, approved inspection. No contractor would agree to step in under an active contract, and certainly not to assume responsibility for ensuring inspection requirements are met for work they did not perform. Additionally, as the contractor of record, you have a legal and professional obligation to your customer to ensure the project meets code and passes inspection. We also consulted the building department to clarify the requirements for final inspection. We were informed that clear photos of the brackets attached to the mullbars are necessary. The photos you uploaded do not show the required brackets. Every contractor we spoke with confirmed that not only are the brackets required, but verifiable photographic documentation is needed to obtain approval. If the brackets were indeed installed, you are welcome to return to the site, cut the drywall as necessary to expose them, and take the appropriate photographs to provide to the inspector. This is your responsibility, and we expect it to be handled promptly. If you did not install the required brackets, this is a serious issue. Without them, the windows will not pass inspection and are not up to code. The only remedy would be to remove and reinstall the windows correctly, in compliance with all applicable building codes and inspection requirements. This responsiblity falls squarely on your company. You are the contractor on this project and we ar your customers. You had a clear obligation to ensure that our impact windows were installed properly and to code. Since this would be a contractor error, there is no additional cost to us. At this point, we are dealing with two distinct issues —one for each project — and both require your immediate attention. 1. MSFH Project: The My Safe Florida Home (MSFH) portion of the project is complete, but the permit has now expired. As the contractor, and given that you have been paid in full, it is your responsibility to fulfill your contractual obligations and secure a new permit so the final inspection can be scheduled and passed. There is no barrier to re -permitting this work, and this should be handled without further delay. 2. Window Project: We need to determine whether the required brackets were installed in the three windows in question. Until that is confirmed with proper documentation (including the required photos), we cannot proceed with inspection or sign off. If the brackets were installed, you —or someone on your team —must come on site, expose the areas in question, and provide the necessary photo evidence. Additionally, we have been repeatedly asking for Mark to come and inspect the leaking window for several weeks now. Despite this, no visit has occurred, and Mark has not been on -site in nearly a month. Before the inspection, we informed you that three windows were leaking, and instead of inspecting the issue firsthand, we were wrongly accused of applying high pressure to unbanded windows. This accusation was not only incorrect but also avoidable had a proper site visit taken place. Proof from Fredy, who completed the stucco work, clearly shows the windows were banded and even primed weeks prior. The photo you referenced was of the high replacement window that had just been installed and was not fully taped —no one ever stated that window was leaking. It has since come to light that these windows were never caulked, which appears to be the actual cause of the leaks. We expect the contractor to take responsibility for the workmanship and to care enough to investigate issues directly, rather than deflect or make assumptions without proper site inspection. Please respond with your plan to address both the expired permit and the unresolved issues with the window installation, including a date when someone will be on site to inspect and document the windows. We have a serious concern regarding the continued lack of communication and resolution surrounding both the MSFH project and the window installation. Over the past six months, we have had to consistently initiate contact just to receive basic updates on work being done to our home. This ongoing lack of proactive communication has not only delayed the project but has led to significant frustration and, at one point, an unfounded accusation of harassment on our part by you. That accusation was deeply inappropriate and unprofessional. Now, we are left with an unresolved homeowners insurance issue right at the start of hurricane season. We are now obligated to install our hurricane shutters, at a significant cost, to maintain compliance with our policy. We do not want to hear how busy you are. You accepted this job six months ago, have been paid in full for the MSFH portion, and we have extended every courtesy and patience throughout. It is time for action and accountability. If we do not receive a satisfactory response and plan within that timeframe, we will have no choice but to escalate this matter to the appropriate authorities and oversight bodies. That said, we sincerely hope we can still come to a resolution and complete this process professionally and respectfully. Thank you, Steve and Diana Marini On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:24 PM Mark <mark(a-)mkwbuilders.com> wrote: I'm only asking for pictures of the window so that I can assess the situation. Tomorrow if you can please send me pictures of the inside and the outside so I can determine what needs to be done, then I can be prepared to fix it. Mark Walker President Cell: (772) 360-8980 www.MKWBuilders.com ---- On Thu, 29 May 2025 22:12:27 -0400 Diana Marini<dmarinil0(a7gmail.com> wrote ---- Also, we did not get hard rain here today. Yesterday it was blowing in sideways Sent from my Phone On May 29, 2025, at 9:58 PM, Mark <mark(d),mkwbuilders.com> wrote: I didn't think the window sill was in question because we came to fix it right away. Can you please send a couple of pictures of where the window leaked? Did it leak again today with the rain? I didn't see a leak or where the water came in from the picture Steve sent me. Mark Walker President Cell: (772) 360-8980 <MKWB_ BLACK.ang? www.MKWBuilders .com ---- On Thu, 29 May 2025 20:49:21 -0400 Diana Marini<dmarini10(a7gmail.com> wrote ---- I wanted to send you a picture of the window sil in question. Luckily, I took a picture!mage0.jpeg it was being balanced on those black sticks. As I stated, we would not have put pressure on it. It did fall on its own. Sent from my Phone On May 28, 2025, at 8:43 PM, Mark <markna mkwbuilders.com> wrote: See below: Mark Walker President Cell: (772) 360-8980 <MKWB_ BLACK.png? www MKWBuilders .corn ---- On Wed, 28 May 2025 20:01:22 -0400 Diana Marini<dmarinil0@gmail.com> wrote ---- Thank you very much for responding. Please see below responses from us, I commented after you with ***** first so you can see what I stated. markOmkwbuilders. com Thank you for your email. The proposal amount of the scope of work for MSFH and the windows is based on our assessment of the existing conditions and the application we plan to do. Unfortunately, as with every remodel, there can be unforeseen conditions that are exposed when we begin removal. that's what happened with your windows. We based our proposal amount on removing the windows from the inside. However, due to the way the existing windows and stucco were installed, that was not possible. The windows had to be removed from the outside and the stucco bands had to come off. That means an increase in cost for stucco removal and repair, and additional labor to install. Mark notified you of this and you still wanted to proceed with the window replacement. Mark offered to pay for half of the stucco, but he should not have done that. These are your windows and if you wanted them replaced that's what it took to accomplish it. *****Understood and in my email, I was only recapping. However, even when you were both here that was never verbialized and is not in the contract. We completely understand that things happen, but when we financed exactly what was told, it was an unforseen expense. * we can't guarantee everything will be as expected. That's just the way things go sometimes. The labor and materials covered under the MSFH grant was completed and paid for by us. We can't hold our subcontractors for months without payment. This is common practice in construction. *******I am sure it is common practice and I am sure no one intended for this to go 6 months uncompleted. However, the contract states final payment to be made upon final inspection passing. We had no reason back then to think anything other, but I am pointing out good faith on our part. You requested we hold off on installation of the windows until the holidays due to Steve being home on vacation. Unfortunately, we could not get our crew to work during the holidays and we scheduled to install after new Years. Upon arriving, it was discovered that we could not install the windows as originally planned, and that HOME DEPOT had made a mistake on the size of 4 of the windows. Home Depot does not take returns on custom orders, unless it was their fault, which it was. You wanted to proceed with the replacement even though there would be an increase in cost and labor. *********According to texts between Steve and Mark, Steve texted Mark on 12116 stating stating he was taking vacation on 12/23 if he could start then. That was only a one week delay, and as of 12/16 we did not have a start date anyway. * just stating that the windows weren't installed at the same time as the other items because Steve wanted to be home for installation. Unfortunately it was over the holidays which is a difficult time to get anything scheduled. When the second windows came in, they came in with no lattice. There was confusion on how this happened, but after Mark met Steve there, they proceeded with reordering the windows with the lattice. Again, not in our control. The drywall installer repaired the drywall around the windows. They use drywall mud to finish the drywall. This is how drywall is done and I'm not aware of any other process. ***************i would love you to come over and look at this drywall. I can upload pictures if you want. When the drywall guy came back to fix it, he said he was told to only use mud. He proceeded to show us pictures of other houses he has done "the correct" way. He said he was not sure why he was told to do it this way. We cannot leave it this way and will have to hire someone else to fix it. * the drywall guy feathered in the drywall around the frame that needed to be repaired from installation of the windows. The cost to tear out and replace all the window jambs and corner bead etc. would have been much more expensive and was not in our scope of work. If that's what you want, we will provide you with the drywall guys contact and you can hire him to do that. We are not. responsible for your the chip. *****we never said you were, again, just pointing this out. Upon installing the window in the master bath, it was broken. We ordered a new one at our cost. What is the problem here? *****No problem here, again, I was pointing out fact that led to another delay. The window was broken by the kid putting it in. My neighbors saw it happen. *yes, I said it was broken, by us, and we paid for a new window. It was a delay, and we apologize but we took care of it. The bands have to stay off until they are inspected. Once the inspection is passed, we will install the bands and if they are not correct, you can address that with the manufacturer. *************Again, I would love you to come see this. They actually put the bands on all 3 windows. The inspector peeled them off. However, when they put them on to start with, someone cut them and put them on the wrong window. When Mark came, he saw the bands were too short on the windows leaving a big gap. When your son and the other worker came, I heard the worker tell your son that someone cut them. He picked up and said see, you can see where it was cut. So you actually can't put these bands back on the windows, because they were ruined by whoever put them in to start. * to clarify, is it all the bands or just 3 of them? Either way, that material comes from the manufacturer so it can be ordered. You texted Mark about a window sill that "fell off', and when our crew came to look at it was clear someone put pressure on the sill and popped it off before it was dry. We reinstalled the sill. ********my husband and I live here alone, I can assure you neither of us put pressure on it. * the sill doesn't just pop off. But again, we fixed it right away. Multiple times you claimed the windows were leaking, however they were leaking after you were pressure washing and spraying them with the hose. To boot, you were doing this before the stucco bands were installed on the outside. You can't do that. The crew came to recaulk the windows and then you proceeded to do this again 1 day before inspection and sent Mark a text saying the windows were leaking. You cannot blast your windows with a hose and pressure washer, new or old ever. The windows are not leaking when it rains, and they are all caulked. If you still have a window that is leaking, it's a manufacturer issue that needs to be addressed under your warranty. ********Only ONE time, on 4/27 did we text Mark to tell him the windows were leaking. All 3. We absolutley did NOT put pressure on the window. We lightly used a hose to clean them because the stucco bands left a mess. Yes, the stucco bands were already on and done, and I had already primed them. Freddy did them on 3/31 and l have the receipt. The next day, after inspection, your son and the same worker came back and he told me there was no caulk done and that this was most definitley their error. He proceeded to caulk all 3 windows. We waited days and lightly put a hose on the windows and now only the front one is leaking. It is most definitlely not a manuafacturer defect. I have texted Mark and asked him to come and put his eyes/ expertise on it see if he can see where it is leaking from. He has not even looked at the leaking windows himself. Also, we had rain today and the front window DID leak. * it was twice, and Steve sent a picture of the window from the outside that did not have the stucco done yet. The second time, Steve is in the background of the picture with the hose. You can't take the hose to the frame of the window. Please send a picture of the window that leaked in the rain today so that we can assess where the issue is. They caulked all the windows with marine grade silicone. If it's is leaking at the gasket on the glass to frame or frame to frame, then that's a manufacturer issue. Upon arrival of the inspector, you told him you had leaking windows, (failing to mention you were blasting them with the hose) the window locks weren't working, etc. The garage door was approved, the skylight was approved and the front door needed a couple of longer screws which was immediately corrected. No big deal. We uploaded the pictures to the building dept portal along with a letter explaining the situation. *****Again, no one blasted the windows with anything, so I legitimately don't even know where you would come up with that. *picture sent by Steve. We are swamped with other projects right now but we need to reschedule the final inspection. Please note: If the inspector wants to see something that has already been completed, you will need to hire someone else to do that. We will not remove or replace anything that has been completed at this time. Once the inspection is completed, you will receive the final invoice and upon payment will receive the documents you need to the MSFH grant. ********** If the inspector needs to see something, I don't think he will pass the inspection.... then what? We don't know what else the inspector would need to see, just making you aware we aren't going to be removing or replacing anything. Unfortunately, there were multiple issues that occurred on your project that were not the fault of you or us. We have tried to accommodate you and have been willing to do whatever we could to make you happy. We would appreciate your cooperation in seeing this through to the finish line so we can both move on from this. ******** I will agree that not one single issue has been our fault. *ok Let me know when you are available to provide access to the inspector. ******I have told Mark multiple times that whatever he needs/whenever he needs it, we will make it happen. We are eager to get this done. Hurricane season starts next week and we do not have completed windows. this will be a problem with our homeowners insurance. I am sure you can understand my anxiousness about that. If the two of you would like to come over so you can put eyes on this yourself, we would be happy to have you come anytime. Thank you, Steve and Diana *As stated before, we are swamped right now and from my understanding the only issues are 1. With the drywall finishing and 2. The 1 window that leaked today in the rain. If you send me the pictures of the window where it leaked I can assess what needs to be done and go from there. Thanks, Mark Walker President Cell: (772) 360-8980 <I .p�g> www.MKWBuilders ---- On Wed, 28 May 2025 15:40:25 -0400 Diana Marini <drnarinil0CE;'gmaif.com> wrote --- MKW Builders, We are formally asking for a timeline and a completion date for our windows and what your intent is moving forward with this project. We have asked many times via text message and have gotten no definitive answer or follow up. This project was started in December of 2024. We have been patient and gracious with all of the mistakes made that has hampered getting our windows completed. A quick recap. We were quoted a price and we asked multiple times if that was the final price, as we were obtaining financing for the exact amount. We were told the windows would be removed from the inside, therefore we would not need stucco. Contract signed on 11/5/24 and check for half of total job was given for $8443.00. Front door, sky light and garage door for My Safe Florida Home and impact windows we would be paying for. One permit was pulled on 12/3/24, even though we were under the assumption that it would be two permits, for the two separate jobs. 12/16, the My Safe Florida Home job was complete. We were asked to give a check for the remaining balance of that job. Check was given on 12/19/24 for $2243.00. It should be noted that per contract, we should not have paid this until final inspection was complete and approved. We were told vendors needed to be paid and would we please pay. We complied as asked. After cutting out my dining room window from the inside, it was determined that the windows did actually need to be done from the outside, therefore now there was a fee for stucco, which was not in the contract. We agreed to pay for half. At this time it was also discovered that the wrong size windows were ordered for all 3 windows that have an arch on top. We were given the copies of the home depot order and the wrong sizes were ordered. We had to wait 4 weeks for new windows. Meanwhile all other rectangle windows were done. The drywall was done sloppily as the person doing it said he was told to only use mud. We complained numerous times about the uneven and cracking drywall. Drywall installer also chipped our tile in our den, which was immediately conveyed via text with a picture. In February, the new windows came in for the arch windows and they were again wrong. The size was correct, but the style wrong. They wouldn't have matched the top piece. Again we had to wait for new windows. On 3/26 they finally installed all the arch windows and broke the small arch window in our master bathroom upon installing. I would also like to note that there are bands that came with each window, measured for each arch. Upon installing the bands were cut to put on incorrect windows, now rendering them useless. You can clearly see where they were cut. You cannot get these bands from home depot, you have to get them from the window company. On 4/27, we found that all 3 arch windows were leaking. We also found that the arch window in the master bedroom has defective glass and should never have been installed. There was a final inspection set for Monday the 28th, so out of courtesy we notified you of leaking windows immediately. On 4/28, the inspection, by City of Sebastian, failed. Not only due to the leaking windows, but a litany of other issues, including that the windows were not even properly screwed in. That afternoon on 4/28 two workers showed up, one was your son, to take a look at the leaks. They found that no one caulked any of the windows. They agreed it was an error on their part. Now, one window is still leaking. We have made numerous attempts to get this resolved. We have clearly made ourselves available for whatever needs to be done. I have a major concern of us getting mold due to the window now leaking for a month with no one coming out to address this. As of today, 5/28/25, the windows are still not complete, we have no timeline. I cannot get reimbursed from my safe florida home, hurricane season is upon us and this leaves us open to issues with our homeowners policy if a storm hits. We are going to have to pay someone to come out and put back up our hurricane shutters. We are also eventually going to have to pay someone to come out and fix all the drywall properly. I am going to be reaching out to My safe Florida Home this week to see what we can do. We have truly been accommodating and forgiving even after all of the mishaps. Again, not one single delay or mistake has been our fault. 6 months later, our home is incomplete and left for risk of storm damage and mold. We would like to move forward with completing this project professionally and respectfully. Please respond to this email with plan and a timeline for these windows to be fixed so that we can all move on. Thank you, Steve and Diana Marini 12:044 *df V- IM +1 (772) 360-8980 Not a problem, Steve already reached out Ito him him - which dog was it? Had to be the older guy. Anyway. Best of luck with him Yes, Tucker, the brown one. He literally just had surgery 4 weeks ago. 12:04 * *111 19% 42 +1 (772) 360-8980 'Thank you' I 6 -1 Hi Mark, just wanted to check in to see where we are at. Also; your guy and son carve last week to caulk those windows that vvere leaking. They told us they missed it when they installed. The bedroorn and front dining room are novi fine, no leaks, but the front bedroom still has a small leak on one sine and likely jest reeds more caulk. Let me more caulk. Let me know if he can come back out so I can keep my docg. down. Thanks so much Diana I'm hor-ne all day tomorrow. We are 12:06 4 .al = a 01 +1 (772) 360-8980 Wow. I will have them by tomorrow sometime in the AM 4k thinks. 12:05 4 T +1 (772) 360-8980 Good evening. Mabey someone home Friday morning for us to pop in? Let me know "hanks Sounds good. Should be early. I'll let u know .811 '7',% cc Hey Mark, just wanted to check in with you and see what your plan is for this week. Getting a little nervous with hurricane season starting and I need to get with my homeowners insuranceA,".. I'd also really like your eyes/expertise to come and see where/how the front window is leaking from prior to any inspection. we can mspe von. we can make anything work for you this week. Thanks so much and God willing, we are almost to the finish line:) Thanks so much I know you vviant to get this done as well. Is there sLII)Posed to be another Is there supposed to be another inspection this week? Oh that's fantastic news!! anytime you can run by to check out the leak, we k%611 make it work for you. My clog is still recovering Morning Mark. Just wanted to do a quick check in with you to see if you're going be able to come by this week to check out the leaking window. I'm actually off on Friday if that works for you? if not, I'll make anything else work for you,, l believe the inspector that carve the first works for you? If not, I'll make anything else work for you. I believe the inspector that came the first time said if any windows are -leaking, it won't pass inspection. So, we should probably make sure this is fixed prior to final. Thanks a bunch and whatever, you need, we will make happen. Hey mark, here are some pictures. Let me know if there is a different view you want. I'm working from horne today if 12:06 A +1 (772) 360-8980 I will have to see in person. The photos are just to dark and I contrasted. Anyway. I have inspections all day in vero and will look at the schedule with Kelli to get you in ASAP H sell 1-1P Q If you need to cone after hours/ Sent from my Phone 12:06 4 +1(772) 360-8980 VC1 ova 1. 1 r it; Ps wty'a are just to dark and i contrasted. Anyway. I have inspections all day in vero and will look at the schedule with Kell! to get you in ASAP That's great. Good Info. Thank you I will be in touch soon .*$1 = Q; �0 6:27 . ^ • (=r Mark (windaws) Hi mark I been in meetings. I will Get back to you in about hour. Thanks - Dever mind for tommororw. I have an independent consultant coming in to help. 11 be in touch I talked to the inspector and am putting the things together for him that he has requested for reinspect. No problem �k 5:27 9 Im.• Mark (uwigdowsj 5:27 . V, a -,- Marc twigdowsy Just checking in on if anything is scheduled this week? 4 My first priority is getting inspection. The only thing they need is pictures and I sent there. That way I can get paid. I sign off and You can get paid. It's a win win. Then punch out the 'listw and anything that lingers after that we can call in the manufacturer and show there any defects with product and at least if they give us new they pay for it not us I'm down Chris this week so Thursday or Friday inspection I looked at your punch list and we will fix them all. The only thing I'm having a hard turtle with is that a window is still leaking. We've been back and apply silicone, caulk, finish strips etc. at least 3 tunes in all windows so 5:27 . V e Mark (windows) that tells me it's us it's the window. No big deal but it's clearly a manufacture issue and I promise they will fix it or replace it. Talk to you soon Sounds good. See you then. I trust your "feeling" so please , . show me that spot or spots and we I apply marine grade silicone to the whole wall we have to. Thinking that when it rains water is coming in is killing me Steve. I want you guys dry Hev steve. Not sure if i can oet <• 5:28 . 0-1* • Mark (windows) Good day just checking in to see if anything is on schedule for tomorrow Hey steve. Not sure if I can get an inspection tornmorow. So aright be next week. I'm waiting on their review of my latest submittal. I'll keep you posted Of course. Please dent let it make u miss a day of work We can work around that Yes sir 5:28 5 - • Yes sir r� CD1 Mark (windows) T14U, M2i. 22 ail 7-3, I Pry' Things got to crazy this week. No final inspection yet. But I will come out and look at the pending issues Long weekend coming up and I'm working so I will fit you in LOk thank you just me know I will. Thank you a-28 , To <O 01 Mark (Wri in) You got ft. Let nre put this together and have it to you by tomorrow. LeVs get it clone Just following up on any plans for this �me�ic? Yes sir. I will confirm the day shortly 1O0 5:29 i ^° • �. A 01 Mark (windows) Good morning just following up on the text from last night. Tb AL Good morning. let me get through the weeds and set up a time to come over Good info. I will make that work I will confirm 5:29 , 1P • Mark (windows) Hi Mark, I'm just following up to see if you're able to make it today. I should be home around four.-.- Hey Steve can you send me the pictures of the vAndow that was leaking from the rain yesterday? Can't rnalho coo nrn4hinn from 5=29 41 1P a r` lot.k L Mark (windows) The permit does not expire Sunday. The work has to commence within 180 clays of the permit being issued. So we are all good. Just got this sorry. Yes sir. Clearing up a few minor details and sending it over to you Steve Marini Down to Earth Landscape & Irrigation Regional Operations Leader SE Florida 772-300-1642 (cell) Sent from my Phone PROPERTY LISTED HEREIN. (ML ESS 1 [ IF. OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY TAKES ACTION TO SHORTEN i H:E Tll IE PERIOD. IHIF LIFN MA1• REMAIN VAI 11) F01`1 ONE ff-AR FROM !`HE DATE OF RECORDING HAVE BEEN EXPIRE- AND THIS �L - MI- t I I e LIitder�.i,.ned +.., public. per;onall} appeared -Pllark, N"110 ,I Mangy in il4errrbQr - of �.t �.t..� >�� ��llt and tia� s lira,r sltc or he is the _-__-- - 4 113 Abington Woods Circle .'tloKI BUILDERS LLC I-ienor. %khose address is g and that in accordance with a contract ,kith — --- I.ienor furnished tabor, services or materials Steven and Diana Marini 4,11;i;t;, of Remove existing front entry door, skylight, garage door and windows, replace same With HVHZ / Irrrpact rated- roducts. Permit 24-4148 JurisdictiOn:.Ci4 Of Sebastian n the fctllu�� iii described real properly in INDIAN RIVER County, Florida to wit: I.c_31 D:: cription SEBASTIAN_ HIGHLANDS UNIT 17 BLK 458 LOT 23 P818-48 ned by Steven and Diana Marini liar a. total value of $ 19.887.75 hick consi-sts of the contract amount of $16.887.15 and $3.000.00 in change orders, of which there remains .si i s 9,200.00 _ (plus interest accruing at 1.5% per month, l 8% per annum.) and furnished the first �: 2 02 5. 1=inal I'tlte items on DecerMber 16 _024 and the last of the items on — June 5 June 19 202; I::MKW if! d C -/' Mark Walker - Managing Member -I 11 Ibin-ton Vero 13;-ach, 1.1oricl:t 3120250035056 RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF RYAN L. BUTLER, CLERK OF COURT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FL BK: 3790 PG: 1472 Page 1 of 1 7/152025 11.51 AM TO AND 51;11SC'lZ1EiED l;F ORF ME, by means of [�hysical presence or[ ] online na.nzatiun, b) _�!1�C'}� (tJG� l � f , Who is [ ] personally known to nt*+or _Le-0, A4, as identification, and who did take an oath this / S - day of State of F loridai ?votary Seal: ;ut.,r% Signature: t tuntnislum Expires: JAIME GARCIA ra Notary Public. Slate of Florida Commission# HH 382596 My mmm. expires April 3. 2027 MMH Law I t Rc�?gr:t� L 1>ri, e Attn: Jennifer Clark 3550littschwood Park Drive Tampa, Fl_ 33618 i i MKW Builders ADDENDUM TO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT (Change Order) (Ilse for lwcry Change in Plans, Specifications or Scope of Work or in Owner's Optional Selections) Date: 6110125 Contractor: MKW Builders I.LC Owner(s): Steven & Diane Marini Job Description/Address: 113 Redgrave Dr. Sebastian, FI.32958 The Contractor and Owner hereby agree to amend the Scope of Work as follows: Unforeseen conditions not accounted for in the original proposal are as follows: 11 rce windows that require mullions (Locations: Dining room with 4 clip connection points, front facing bedroom with 2 clip connection points, and master east facing window with 2 clip connection points) require the following work duc to existing wood framing not as required per NOA s 6fw.Akn'*.S: Interior drywall jamb and wall removal to expose framing clip attachment all 3 windows Dining room window requires interior sill removal to the ground Remove mulls, screws and screws for window frame. Add specified structural wood members where needed, both vertical and horizontal locations where clip/mull attachment is required. Reattach mulls, clips and window frames to new structural wood members per NOA specifications. Remove and replace any and all screws to meet NOA specifications. Arrange for framing inspection and FINAL with all work exposed on the interior (Mull to clip attachments, structural framing, and screws.) Upon approval of FINAL inspection (Completed at the same time as framing), arrange for drywall replacement, hang and finish. Labor to complete above scope of work (Demo, removal, framing, reattachment, inspection : $2,500.00 Materials to complete above scope of work: $750.00 Drywall hang and finish: $1,750.00 ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL TIME REQUIRED BY `i"HIS ADDENDUM: 5 working days. ADJUSTMENTS to Contract Price for above X Increase CONTRACT PRICE BY $5,000.00, payable: PRIORTO WORK COMMENCING 'Ibis amount does not include the remaining balance for the original scope of work which is $9,200.00 $6,200 original proposal balance, plus additional costs which include: $500,00 for new window sills, g1,000 for drywall hang and finish and $1,500 in additional labor and materials for installation which could not be done as planned due to existing window 1" flange being covered by 1 inch of wall stucco AND 1" of band stucco. A "No Flange" application is not allowed in a wood frame application. This required the removal of all stucco bands on the exterior of the windows, disposal fees, additional labor time and material costs. ****No CHARGE, FOR STUCCO PI R VERBAL AGRUNENT W141CIi WAS $1,900,00**** Contractor's Acknowledgment Owner(s) or Agent's Acknowledgment SUMMARY OF ACTIONS REGARDING MKW BUILDERS Address: 113 REDGRAVE DR. Permit no. 24-4148 11/22/2024 MKW Builders applied for a permit. Window/door replacement permit issued on 12/3/2024 Permit Expired on 6/3/2025 — Permit extension provided on 6/10/2025 by the Building Official to provide the contractor time to bring the installation into code compliance. New expiration is 9/3/2025. Proiect scope: Garage Door, Front Entry Door, Skylight and all 9 Window openings replaced with impact windows First Inspection occurred on 4/28/2025. Inspection failed by John Parker; states the garage door was okay but the front door was missing the correct screws, all windows were missing screws, trim caps were concealing other fasteners. Inspector asked if there were photos of the installation of the skylight and mullion bar clips that are now concealed. Inspector also noted that the homeowner stated some windows are leaking. Second inspection was scheduled for 5/9/2025 but was cancelled by Andy Yackso. Andy said he went to the job; homeowner called the contractor who was not site. Andy spoke to the contractor and asked if he had the pictures that John requested. Contractor said he did not have the pictures and stated he was not ready for inspection. Andy canceled the inspection. An Expired Permit Notice was sent by staff on 6/2/2025. Permits expire if they are not in active progress. Active progress is defined as having an Approved inspection every 180 days according to FBC section 105.4.1.1 and 105.4.1.3 MKW Builders had multiple phone conversations and a -mails with Deputy Building Official Dan Hainey and submitted a 4-page letter to the permit file on 6/3/25. Contractor's letter contained description of events leading up to the first inspection and the expressed dismay about the inspection process, city staff, the expired permit notification, etc. etc. The letter stated everything was corrected and ready for inspection. On 6/4/25 another submittal from MKW Builders was uploaded to the permit containing mullion attachment details and pictures of windows laid out on the grass with all the parts prior to installation. The owner also contacted the building department to inquire about the failed inspections and the Expired Permit Notice. Dan Hainey explained that a re -inspection needed to be performed which would involve having to remove some calk and/or drywall in order to expose hidden fasteners for the mullion clips. The owner agreed to the request. A re -inspection was set up to meet the contractor on the job with the Deputy Building Official Dan Hainey, accompanied by the Building Official, Wayne Eseltine. Re -Inspection was performed on 6/5/25 with the Dan Hainey and Wayne Eseltine. The contractor, Mark Walker was present and refused to remove any caulk or drywall to allow the inspection to take place. The owner agreed to allow the Deputy Building Official to remove caulking in one window and drywall in another in order to expose mullion clips and fasteners. What was found in both instances is the contractor did not install the mullion clips or fasteners in accordance with the product approval. This is a critical structural component of the installation. It was also observed that there were missing screws in the window installation and undersized screws used throughout and evidence of leaking windows. The contractor, Mark Walker witnessed the inspection and stated he would have to come back and make corrections and reschedule with the Building Department, stating he would replace the windows from the inside. On 6/5 and 6/6/2025 A series of a -mails were passed back and forth with the Building Official and Mark Walker from MKW Builders. Mark objected to the inspection record by Dan Hainey and that it was not specific enough and wanted to see an itemized list of inspection requirements on the city's website for a window and door replacement permit and where it says pictures are required. MKW Builders indicated their lack of knowledge to the framing inspection ahead of time was detrimental to them performing their work as the contractor. In. the a -mails MKW Builders state there is missing framing around 3 of the windows and that this was going to be an added expense to the owner in order to bring the installation into code compliance. The Building Official explained that all the required inspections are listed on the front of the permit, it is the contractor's responsibility to schedule inspections timely, supervise their work, know the code requirements and make any necessary corrections. Any questions about the inspection process could have been answered by contacting the building department ahead of time. Requested meeting with City Manager and Building Official on 6/9/25: • MKW Builders insist that the permit should not have expired since they had a partial approval of the garage door installation during the first inspection, where the rest of the installation failed inspection. The Building Official explained that the permit expires after 180 days if it does not receive an approved inspection. In the spirit of cooperation, the Building Official extended the permit for 90 days to allow time to make corrections. • MKW Builders reiterated their dismay that the City's website does not show what is included in a framing inspection on a window/door replacement permit and complained that they were not notified ahead of time that the pictures were needed. Building Official explained that means and methods is the contractor's responsibility and the installation cannot be concealed. The Building Department chooses to include a framing and final inspection with window/door replacements. The framing inspection needs to be scheduled before the attachments are concealed or take pictures to show code compliance. The required inspections for each permit type appear on the front of the issued building permit. • Mark Walker stated they will go back to make corrections as long as the owner paid for them to reinstall the windows. Mark also stated the wood framing at the perimeter of the windows would have to be replaced otherwise there would be screws going into air. • The Building Official asked why the missing framing was not addressed when the window was first removed, Mark Walker stated the owner was unwilling to pay for this extra work. The Building Official stated that regardless of the payment a licensed contractor cannot perform work that is not code compliant and any damaged or missing wood bucks should have been replaced at time of installation. MKW Builders continued to complain about the fact that the stucco had to be replaced that this was not figured in the bid. The Building Official asked Mark Walker if the stucco was existing when he bid the job, the answer was yes, but he planned to remove and reinstall the windows from the inside and preserve the stucco but found out the windows have a 1" flange and could not be removed from the inside. The Walkers became more combative, the City Manager ended the meeting and they were asked to leave the building. On 6/10/25 MKW Builders provided the owners with a change order to remove the windows that failed inspection and specific details about removing drywall on the inside, installing missing framing around the 3 windows, reattaching windows and window mullions and getting inspections. Total cost to the owners is $5000 plus an additional $3000 for additional costs associated with the initial installation for reasons which they describe, once they discovered they could not install windows from the inside as planned. On 6/13/2025 the owners, Steve and Diana Marini, submitted a Contractor Complaint Affidavit to the Building Department outlining their complaint with MKW Builders. They included a narrative, original contracts, proof of payments made, copies of past a -mails and latest change order as mentioned above. • Based on the complaint an investigation was opened by the Building Official to determine if there was Cause for Disciplinary Action in accordance with City Code of Ordinance 26-172. In conversations with the owner, the Building Official was asked if they could hire a different contractor to fix the window installation. The response was yes, the owner is obligated to complete the work, but the new contractor would have to submit their own permit application for the work and have it inspected accordingly. On 7/15/2025 An application was received from a Building Contractor who was hired by the Marini's to remove and replace windows as needed to bring the completed window installation incorrectly installed by MKW Builders into code compliance. On 7/31/2025 the Building Official was asked by the new contractor to witness the removal of the existing work as the first window was being removed and reinstalled. What was discovered is there were undersized screws used throughout, no sealant was installed behind or around the window beneath the stucco, no window flashing tape was used over the bare wood, evidence of leaking windows, no mullion clips installed and the original construction of the home from 1988 had no wood framing around the top of the arched window. On 7/15/2025 MKW Builders filed a construction lien on the owner's property for a total of $9200; $6200 remaining on the original contract plus $3000 in change orders. On 7/22/2025 MKW Builders filed a City of Sebastian Construction Board Appeal to the office of the City Clerk. Appealing the interpretation by the Building Official for certain sections of the Florida Building Code. APPLICABLE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTIONS TO THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING FOR MKW BUILDERS, LLC SECTION 110 INSPECTIONS 110.1 General. Construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official and such construction or work shall remain exposed and provided with access for inspection purposes until approved. Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. It shall be the duty of the owner or the owner's authorized agent to cause the work to remain exposed and provided with access for inspection Durooses.thebug4it44dotd,%UbeMwft, adto.mqukeabotutdaTyKnesurveyprepamdbya i d Woissionjid �r het-e bower *es snot In rely d in fthe 'flel Neither the building official nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection. 110.3 Required inspections. The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections, or any other such inspection as deemed necessary, and shall either release that portion of the construction or shall notify the permit holder or his or her agent of any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes. The building official shall determine the timing and sequencing of when inspections occur and what elements are inspected at each inspection. 110.5 Inspection requests. It shall be the duty of the holder of the building permit or their duly authorized agent to notify the building official when work is ready for inspection. It shall be the duty of the permit holder to provide access to and means for inspections of such work that are required by this code. 110.6 Approval required. Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official, upon notification, shall make the requested inspections and shall either indicate the portion of the construction that is satisfactory as completed, or notify the permit holder or his or her agent wherein the same fails to comply with this code. Any portions that do not comply shall be corrected and such portion shall not be covered or concealed until authorized by the building official. 114.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish or occupy any building, structure or equipment regulated by this code, or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code. 114.4 Violation penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this code or fails to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the building official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by law. FLORIDA BUILDING CODE RESIDENTIAL 11609.1 General. This section prescribes performance and construction requirements for exterior windows and doors installed in walls. Windows and doors shall be installed and flashed in accordance with the fenestration manufacturer's written instructions. Window and door openings shall be flashed in accordance with R703.4. Written installation instructions shall be provided by the fenestration manufacturer for each window and door. R703.4 Flashing. ...The flashing shall extend to the surface of the exterior wall finish. Approved flashings shall be installed at the following locations: 1. Exterior window and door ooenincs. Flashing at exterior window and door openings shall extend to the surface of the exterior wall finish or to the water -resistive barrier compk,inc with Section 703.2 for subsequent drainage. R703.2 Water -resistive barrier Not fewer than one layer of water -resistive barrier shall be applied over studs or sheathing of all exterior walls with flashing as indicated in Section R703.4, in such a manner as to provide a continuous water -resistive barrier behind the exterior wall veneer. 105.5 Additional options for closing a permit. Pursuant to Section 553.79(15), Florida Statutes, a property owner, regardless of whether the property owner is the one listed on the application for the building permit, may close a building permit by complying with the following requirements: 1. The property owner may retain the original contractor listed on the ;=ermit or hire a different contractor agpropriatel; licensed in this state to Derform the work necessary to satisfy the conditions of the permit and to obtain any necessary inspection in order to close the Kermit. If a contractor other than the original contractor listed on the permit is hired by the property owner to dose the permit, such contractor is not liable for any defects in the work performed by the original contractor and is only liable for the work that he or she performs. 2. The property owner may assume the role of an ownerbuilder. in accordance with Sections 489.103(7) and 489.503(6), Florida Statutes. 3. If a building permit is expired and its requirements have been substantially completed, as determined by the local enforcement agency, the permit may be closed without having to obtain a new building permit, and the work required to close the permit may be done pursuant to the building code in effect at the time the local enforcement agency received the application for the permit, unless the contractor has sought and received approval from the local enforcement agency for an alternative material, design or method of construction. 4. A local enforcement agency may close a building permit 6 years afterthe issuance of the permit, even in the absence of a final inspection, if the local enforcement agency determines that no apparent safety hazard exists. For purposes of this section, the term "close" means that the requirements of the permit have been satisfied. CIIYcF CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FI.32958 � o P_- PH: (772) 589-5537 FAX: (772) 589-2566 0 BUILDING PERMIT HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND PERMIT INFORMATION PERMIT NO: 24-4148 ISSUE DATE: 12/03/2024 ADDRESS: 113 REDGRAVE DR WORK TYPE: WINDOW /DOOR REPLACEMENT PERMIT TYPE: RESIDENTIAL ALTERATION LOT / BILK: SUBDIVISION: SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 17 TOTAL FEES PAID: 79.00 DATE PAID: 11/22/2024 PARCEL NUMBER: 31392900001458000023.0 CONTRACTOR INFORMATION OWNER INFORMATION NAME: MKW BUILDERS LLC - MARK WALKER NAME: DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI ADDRESS: 4113 ABINGTON WOODS CIR ADDRESS: 113 REDGRAVE DR LICENSE NO: CBC1267842 PHONE: No Number Provided PHONE: 1772) 360-8980 DESCRIPTION OF WORK: REMOVE AND REPLACE WINDOWS WITH NEW IMPACT RATED WINDOWS, REMOVE AND REPLACE FRONT ENTRY DOOR WITH IMPACT RATED DOOR, REMOVE AND REPLACE GARAGE DOOR WITH IMPACT RATED GARAGE DOOR AND REMOVE AND REPLACE A SKYLIGHT WITH AN IMPACT RATED SKYLIGHT. YI3�Q1UIRED INSPECTIONS 7FINLUILDING FRAMING ) THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE, OR IF CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED, OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME. THE CONTRACTOR HAS CERTIFIED BY SIGNATURE OF APPLICATION, THIS DOCUMENT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED OR NOT. NOTICE ** IN ADDTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES SUCH AS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. ** WARNING TO OWNER ** YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. THIS PERMIT SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT EXPIRATION TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FEES. REQUEST INSPECTIONS: By phone at 772-589-5537 OR online at www.mygovernmentonline.org CITYCIF HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND Permit Number 24-4148 Jurisdiction Sebastian Customer Mark Walker Scheduled 4/28/2025 12:50:00 AM Details Inspection Report Inspection Date: 4/28/2025 8:14:14 AM r1^r'�,- FAILED Mark Walker should contact Sebastian at (772) 589-5537 for further information. Work Order Number Inspection Number 40618792 33434376 Inspection Type Inspector Framing John Parker Address Phone 113 REDG RAVE DR, SEBASTIAN 32958 (772) 360-8980 Completed 4/28/2025 8:14:14 AM Uploaded 4/28/2025 8:58:14 AM Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments. Provide photos of new window bucks for framing inspection. Garage door OK. Front door missing correct screws at hinges and strikes. Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. All windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking. Remove all trim strips at concealed fasteners. Inspection stopped. You can download this report or request additional inspections at www.MyGovernmentOnline.org. For software assistance please call 866.957.3764. For questions about this inspection please contact your iurisdiction CIIYOF a W4 Inspection Report �- HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND FAILED Permit Number Work Order Number 24-4148 40881099 Jurisdiction Inspection Type Sebastian Framing Customer Address Inspection Date: 6/5/2025 12:18:57 PM Mark Walker should contact Sebastian at (772) 589-5537 for further information. Inspection Number 33657500 Inspector Daniel Hainey Phone Mark Walker 113 REDGRAVE DR, SEBASTIAN 32958 (772) 360-8980 Scheduled Completed Uploaded 6/5/2025 12:00:00 AM 6/5/2025 12:18:57 PM 6/5/2025 12:36:47 PM 1 Comments to address the first inspection results : 1. Missing screws at all windows installed, contractor added incorrect size screws per window product approval installation instructions. 2. Mull bars installed with out mounting clips at 3 window locations per mull bar product approval installation instructions. 3. Front door sill not sealed, tapcons added to sill are not holding. F.B.0 R609 fenestrations shall be flashed per AAMA and installed per the manufacturer's installation instructions You can download this report or request additional inspections at www.MyGovernmentOnline.org. For software assistance please call 866.957.3764. For questions about this inspection please contact your jurisdiction C" OF 5EBAST" HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1225 MAIN STREET - SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE: (772) 589-5537 - FAX (772) 589-2566 EXPIRED PERMIT- 30 DAY NOTICE. Date: 05/02/2025 Contractor: MKW BUILDERS LLC Owner: DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI 4113 ABINGTON WOODS CIR 113 REDGRAVE DR VERO BEACH, FL 32958 SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 Permit No: 244148 Work Description: WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT Permit Address: 113 REDGRAVE DR Expiration Date: 06/01/2025 SEBASTIAN FL 32958 Dear Permit Holder, The above referenced permit(s) has not had an approved inspection for 150 days or more and will expire on the expiration date shown above unless an approved inspection has been granted. In accordance with Florida Building Code Section 105.4 and City of Sebastian Land Development Code 54-1-2.3(2) permits that have expired due to lack of progress or abandonment become null and void. Please schedule inspections through the customer portal at MyGovernmentOnline or by calling 772-589-5537 If an inspection cannot he scheduled and nerformed -prior to the expiration date. a written request to the Building Official showing just cause for the delay may be submitted for review. Reinstatements and period of time allotted to obtain an approved inspection will be at the discretion of the Building Official. NOTE: Expired permits that are not re -instated within 180 days from the original expiration date require a new permit in accordance with FBC 105.4.1.2. A new permit application will be required along with appropriate plan submittals. All existing work and new work is required to be brought up to the current code. New permit(s) will require the pavment of all permit fees including applicable sub -permits and plan review fees. LICENSED CONTRACTORS who fail to comply with the above directive may have an immediate administrative hold placed on their license. The department may seek disciplinary action through the City of Sebastian Construction Board. If you have questions, please contact the Building Department at 772-589-5537 Sincerely, Wayne Eseltine Building Official o7ti C* SEBAST" HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1225 MAIN STREET - SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE: (772) 589-5537 - FAX (772) 589-2566 EXPIRED PERMIT NOTICE OF VIOLATION Date: 6/2/2025 Contractor: MKW BUILDERS LLC 4113 ABINGTON WOODS CIR VERO BEACH, FL 32958 Permit No: 24-4148 Owner: DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI 113 REDGRAVE DR SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 Expiration Date: 6/1/2025 Work Description: WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT Permit Address: 113 REDGRAVE DR, SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 Dear Permit Holder, The above referenced permit(s) has not had an approved inspection for 180 days and is now expired. In accordance with Florida Building Code Section 105.4 and City of Sebastian Land Development Code 54-1-2.3(2) permits that have expired due to lack of progress or abandonment become null and void. By way of this letter a STOP WORK ORDER IS NOW IN EFFECT for the above permit(s) and no further inspections are authorized. A violation has been placed on this property, which may jeopardize the issuance of any future permits and/or sale of said property. The oriYinal Permit mar be re -instated within 30 days from the date this notice of violation is received with a written request to the Building Official showing just cause for the delay and paying the expired permit fee. Re- instatements and period of time allotted to obtain an approved inspection will be at the discretion of the Building Official. NOTE: Expired permits that are not re -instated within 180 days from the original expiration date require a new permit in accordance with FBC 105.4.1.2. A new permit application will be required along with appropriate plan submittals. All existing work and new work is required to be brought up to the current code. New permit(s) will require the pavinent of all nermit fees including applicable sub -permits and plan review fees. LICENSED CONTRACTORS who fail to comply with the above directive may have an immediate administrative hold placed on their license. The department may seek disciplinary action through the City of Sebastian Construction Board. If you have questions, please contact the Building Department at 772-589-5537 Sincerely, Wayne Eseltine Building Official On QF SEBASTIAN HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1225 MAIN STREET • SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE: (772) 589-5537 • FAX (772) 589-2566 Date: 6/10/2025 Permit No: 24-4148 Work Description: WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT Permit Address: 113 REDGRAVE DR BUILDING PERMIT PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Building Status: General Cautionary by Wayne Eseltine This permit expiration date has been extended 90 days to allow the contractor time to make the necessary repairs to bring the installation into code compliance. Original expiration was 6/3/25. New expiration is 9/3/25 8112125, 11:17AM DBPR - WALKER, MARK; Doing Business As: MKW BUILDERS LLC, Cerfified Building Contractor w HOME CONTACT US MYACCOUNT .� bpr. , ONLINE SERVICES LICENSEE DETAILS 6 11:16:45 AM 811212025 Apply for a License Licensee Information *4 Verify a Licensee Name: WALKER, MARK (Primary Name) K, MKW BUILDERS LLC (DBA Name) View Food & Lodging Inspections Main Address: 4113 ABINGTON WOODS CIR File a Complaint VERO BEACH Florida 32967 County: INDIAN RIVER Continuing Education Course Search License Information View Application Status License Type: Certified Building Contractor Find Exam Information Rank: Cert Building Unlicensed Activity Search License Number: CBC1267842 Status: Current,Active AB&T Delinquent Invoice & Activity Licensure Date: 06/03/2024 List Search Expires: 08J3112026 Special Qualification Effective Qualifications Construction 06/0312024 Business Alternate Names View Related License Information View License Complaint 2601 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee FL 32399 :: Email: Customer Contact Center :: Customer Contact Center: 850.487.1395 The State of Florida is an AA/EEO employer. Copyright ©2023 Department of Business and Professional Regulation - State of Florida. (privacy Statement Under Florida law, email addresses are public records, If you do not want your email address released in response to a public -records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact the office by phone or by traditional mail. If you have any questions, please contact 850.487.1395. *Pursuant to Section 455.275(1), Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2012, licensees licensed under Chapter 455, F.S. must provide the Department with an email address if they have one. The emails provided may be used for official communication with the licensee. However email addresses are public record. If you do not wish to supply a personal address, please provide the Department with an email address which can be made available to the public. Please see our Chapter 455 page to determine if you are affected by this change. https://www.myforidalicense.com/LicenseDetail.asp?SID=&id=5039D26607438l A68ABAAD581 C8BO2DO 1 /2 LETTER AND PICTURES UPLOADED TO PERMIT FILE BY MKW BLDRS. ON 5/13/2025 mov -- Builders May 13, 2025 Pictures and Information Related to Permit # 24-4148 Job Address: 113 Redgrave Drive To Whom it May Concern, I am attaching the photos I have of the work performed on this project as requested by I have verified ail window fasteners are secured and the correct screws for the front entry door are in place. The homeowner claimed his windows were leaking, however, he did not tell you they were leaking due to him blasting the windows with his hose. The weep holes are not designed to take on that kind of water. There is nothing wrong with the installation or the product itself. me Know it you in order to complete this project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (772) 360-8980. Warm Regards, Mark Walker President MKW Builders LLC Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967 Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact G MKWbuilders.com License # CBC 1267842 LETTER UPLOADED TO PERMIT FILE BY MKW BUILDERS ON 6/4/2025 June 2, 2025 Sebastian Building Department 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 RE: Expired Permit Notice of Violation Permit 24-4148 113 Redgrave Dr. We obtained this permit December 3, 2024 to include the scope of work for the following: Replace garage door, front entry door and 1 skylight under the My Safe Florida Home Grant and replace existing windows with new impact windows. The windows were not part of the grant, however all work was performed under one permit. We coordinated with the owner to begin the work on December 16, 2024. We installed the new skylight, garage door and the front door. There were no issues. The owner requested we wait until he was home on vacation over the holidays to install the windows. Unfortunately, we aren't available during the holidays. The first week of January, we coordinated to begin the window work. Upon trying to remove the first window, it was clear that the originally proposed process to remove the windows was not going to be possible. It would now involve removing the stucco bands from the exterior which is a time consuming and involved process. Prior to continuing the removal, Mark spoke to the owner to notify him of the situation and asked if he still wanted to proceed with the job. The owner said he wanted the windows replaced and understood there was going to be an extra cost associated with this. They continued to remove and replace the windows and finished the majority. We discovered 3 of the windows were the incorrect size. Home Depot had made a mistake. We had to order the 3 new windows and hold on finishing the replacement until those windows came in. During the wait, the stucco bands, window sills and drywall was finished on the majority of the windows. Upon arrival of the replacement windows, Home Depot did not order them with lattice another mistake. The owner had a meltdown at the store. We told him we could install the lattice on the exterior, or he would have to wait for new windows with the lattice. He chose to wait for new windows. This decision caused another delay that was out of our control. The owners complained nonstop, demanding I leave my other jobs to come there to be harassed. I sent my crew to the job numerous times to satisfy the owners complaints and to correct some minor deficiencies that I saw when I was there to inspect the work. In total, we have been to this project at least 10 different times. After taking the harassment and abuse from these owners for months, I had enough and told them to stop harassing me or I would not continue the project. On or about March 26th, we returned to the project to install the 3rd set of the 3 windows that had arrived. Unfortunately, a window was broken during the install process, so we had to order a replacement AT OUR COST. When that window came in, we scheduled the install on our about the 23rd of April. While waiting for the final window to come in, the stucco and drywall was completed on the other windows. After we installed the final window, we called in for inspection on April 25th. Mailing Address; 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967 Phone: (772) 360-8980 Emall: Contact @MKWbuilders.com License # CBC 1267842 The day before the inspection, on April 27th, the owner sent us pictures of the windows and what looked to be water on the floor inside the house. He told us his windows were leaking. It had not rained so we didn't understand where the water was coming from. When we zoomed in on the picture he sent, you can see him standing in front of the window with the hose. He said he was using the hose to clean the windows. We told him NOT TO DO THIS because the caulking and unprimed stucco needs time to cure. He continued to do it, and according to the wife, they "lightly used the hose to clean the windows". THEY CAN'T PUT THE HOSE ON THE WINDOWS FOR A WEEK TO ALLOW THE POLYURETHANE SEALANT/STUCCO TO CURE!!!!! Can't be more clear about the instructions. The inspector came at 7:30am, never notified us that he would be out that early, and did the walk through with the owner. The inspector was correct about the screws in the door, the garage was approved. He wanted pictures of window bucks, mull bar clips, and skylight framing and fasteners. The inspector, John Parker, was rude, did not cite any building code on his report and when questioned he was combative. Mark returned the attitude. We returned within a few days to recaulk and remove the trim strips off the windows, switch out the couple of screws for the longer screws in the front door, and make sure all screws in the windows were attached and secured according to the NOAs. We called in for reinspection on May 8th, about a week from the first inspection. Mark kept checking the schedule for the assigned inspector, (Andrew Yacko) however, his job was not showing on the schedule. At around 2pm, John Parker called Mark to tell him he didn't have anything to inspect because he had not sent the pictures. If this inspector felt "threatened", why did he take this inspection over from Mr. Yacko? It became obvious at that point that the owner was interfering with the permit and was calling the building department to complain about our company. The owners have threatened us that they have a lot of "pull" in Sebastian and the owners brother is the Fire Chief. We don't care who they know, they hired us to do a job and we have done it. Them creating drama and causing problems for us is over. These people are nasty, rude, obnoxious and cheap. We have not abandoned their job, or stopped answering their texts, emails and phone calls which we receive from them DAILY. On May 13th we sent pictures along with a letter explaining the situation with the owner blasting his newly installed windows with the hose constantly. We received an email stating the document uploaded had been accepted by the building dept. Unfortunately, the owner has told us we can't call in for inspection because they have issues they want addressed before they will allow access to the home for inspection. On May 28th, the owners sent us an email manifesto with demands and complaints which is typical for them. We responded the same day and explained that complaints about drywall, stucco, time delays due to multiple window orders, etc. were not related to getting the inspection done. They claim 1 window is leaking, we asked for pictures but they didn't have them of the actual leak, so they sent us pictures a couple of days later. We don't see anything that would cause the windows to leak. We explained to them numerous times that it could be a manufacturer issue which they would have to take up with them. Apparently, that's not what they want to hear. The owner texted mark this weekend to tell him they weren't ready for inspection because Mark had not been to their home to look at their window and listen to their complaining. He also told Mark the permit was going to expire so how was he going to deal with that. First of all, in over 25 years of experience in construction, we have NEVER had an owner behave in this manner. This owner called the building department to instruct them to send us a letter that their permit expired. The Florida Building Code requires work to commence within 180 days on a permit, (We started work within 2 weeks of the permit being issued on December 3, 2024). We had an inspection on April 28th, and received an inspection result of "failed" although in his notes he states "Garage OK". So is that an approval as required by code? In our opinion it is. In addition, on the permit application, it states "THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE, OR IF CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED, OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME." The work did commence two weeks after issue, and we had an inspection, corrected the deficiencies and then due to the inspector refusing to return until we sent pictures instead of inspecting the work and the owner refusing to allow access for inspection, our hands were tied. We have never had a situation in which a permit is considered expired during the inspection phase and it seems this was done based on interference from the owner. The job has never been abandoned and we have been there working from two weeks after the permit issue date until present. We are fully prepared to explain this to the Sebastian Construction Board if necessary. The issue date on the permit was 12/3/24. The letter we received today, 6/2/25 states the permit expired on 6/1/25 The work is completed and ready to be inspected but the owner has told us we can't request inspection because they will not allow access to the home until their demands are satisfied and due to their influence at the building department, there's nothing we can do. Upon receipt of this letter stating our permit was expired, we called and spoke with an employee Courtney. I asked to speak with Wayne Eseltine as that is the person who signed the letter. Apparently he is out of the office until Thursday. I then asked since he wasn't there who sent the letter. Courtney said it was her or Darren. Then after asking her to pull up the documents on this job she put me on hold for 5 minutes and then came back and said the department was "aware" of the permit and that she sent the letter and I would have to speak with Dan Hainey. We were given Dan's cell phone number and we called, left a message and then texted him requesting a call back. Upon Dan returning the call, he was defensive and over speaking me. I allowed him to continue speaking even though he was making false accusations and incorrect statements. He told me that the owner had been calling the building department constantly, making false claims and creating drama that was unnecessary. As a Certified Building Contractor, I take my license and career very seriously and I will not allow an unstable erratic homeowner to tarnish my career and company, and I don't care who their brother is or what "pull" they think they have. This crossed a major ethical line. After speaking with Dan at length regarding this project, he agreed to contact the owner to schedule the inspection and the inspection would be performed by him personally. He asked if we had additional pictures that we could send and I told him I would include whatever additional pictures we have with this response. I followed up by text with him, sending him a picture of the finished and installed windows and asked him to notify us of the day/time he would be doing the inspection so that Mark could attend. I asked Dan for clarification on the picture he wanted with regards to the mullion clips, and if he could provide the code so that I could understand what he wanted. Mark was in the field and I was trying to get all the information together to discuss when he got back to the office. Just before 5pm, I texted Dan to ask if he had spoken with the owner, and he told me he had not but that he would reach out to them tomorrow. I called him as Mark was walking in the door and Mark spoke with Dan. Mark explained to Dan that the windows are a retrofit and the mullion clips were installed per NOA specifications, but he didn't take pictures of the clips. He then asked if that was a a requirement and where that was stated. Dan said that 9 out of 10 installations come with pictures but that a framing inspection was not required on a retrofit and only required on a new build. Dan then told Mark that next time, even though a framing inspection is NOT REQUIRED, the inspector could come out the same day to inspect because you are a small department. Mark told him he appreciated the availability, and that next time, even though it is NOT REQUIRED he would be sure to take pictures of the clips. This evening we received a second email manifesto from the owner. Here is an excerpt of that email: We also consulted the building department to clarifv the requirements for final inspection. We were informed that clear Dhotos of the brackets attached to the mullbars are necessary. The Photos you uploaded do not show the required brackets. Every contractor we spoke with confirmed that not only are the brackets required, but verifiable photographic documentation is needed to obtain approval. If the brackets were indeed installed, you are welcome to return to the site, cut the drywall as necessary to expose them, and take the appropriate photographs to provide to the inspector. This is your responsibility, and we expect it to be handled promptly. We are requesting that you contact the owner to advise them that whoever they spoke to was incorrect about the pictures being REQUIRED. This is NOT REQUIRED on a retrofit. The clips were indeed installed, and installed per NOA spec. The owner is also demanding we cut the drywall to expose the clips. This is just one example of the lunacy we have dealt with over the past 6 months. In addition, the owner states: We need to determine whether the required brackets were installed in the three windows in question. Until that is confirmed with proper documentation (including the required photos), we cannot proceed with inspection or sign off. If the brackets were installed, you —or someone on your team —must come on site, expose the areas in question, and provide the necessary photo evidence. As we stated earlier in our letter, the owner is refusing to allow the inspection of the work. They do not determine whether or not the work is ready for inspection or what it required for inspection, that's between the contractor and the building official. Furthermore, the owner does not sign off on the permit inspection or approval. If someone from your department gave them that impression, we re uest that you clarify this for them when ou speak to them about the ictures. I am attaching the details from the NOAs for the mullions that were installed on the 3 windows in the Master Bedroom, the Guest Bedroom and the Dining Room. At this time, all the windows are installed, jambs are drywalled and the stucco bands are finished. The front entry door has the correct screws in place, the trim is off the windows and ready for inspection, and the skylight is installed per NOA specifications. The garage door was "OK" which is an approval but that is also ready for inspection if you would like to look at it again. The "Expired Permit Letter" includes a STOP WORK ORDER, which was improperly applied. This permit is active and needs to be reinstated immediately. Your department had no basis for expiring this permit to begin with. We have asked Dan to coordinate access for inspection due to the owner refusing to provide us with access to the home and we would appreciate this being scheduled as soon as possible. Mark will be present for the inspection. The situation with this owner has become extremely toxic and we are not going to be bullied or harassed by them going forward. We stand by the work performed by our company and we are highly offended by the comments and false accusations made by this owner. Pictures of their original window and the new window are provided to show the quality of our work. If this issue is not resolved promptly, we will escalate it to the Sebastian Construction Board. Regards, Mark & Kelli Walker MKW Builders LLC These a -mails are not productive and therefore I am not responding to any future correspondence. The contractor is responsible for the permit, this includes obtaining inspections accordingly before the permit expires. This is our only concern. -� Ok SCB,Qs� DIRECTOR/ WaD NG@ItFIREMARSHAL A% i V 2 772-388-8235 weseltine Cit, OfSebastian.or. _ -- - 02�� v 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 Q. Follow us on social media � From: Mark <mark(&mkwbuilders.corn > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2025 7:33 PM To: Wayne Eseltine <weseltine(c CitvOfSebastian.ora> Subject: RE: Inspection Report Items I would think it was standard operating procedure for the inspector to make a list of the deficiencies he was citing in his report, and I agree it is common sense that it is the building official's responsibility to state the area of concern specifically. We provide a window layout with each window labeled so that it can easily be referenced with our application. Its common sense to assume the building inspector would use that plan when citing deficiencies in his report. With everything Mark and I have going on, he can't possibly remember which window needed to be addressed, which is why it should be noted and provided to him in the inspectors report. That allows him to bring the report to the job and direct his crew to each area of concern. With a general statement, its easy for him to miss something like that which would lead to another failed inspection, more time wasted and money spent. I don't believe asking for this information is over the top and many inspectors do exactly this. Based on your responses, it appears you do not state your requirements on your permit or have the information available on your website. Its never a problem until its a problem Wayne, and now it is a problem. If your department is requiring a contractor to do something, i.e. pictures or in person inspection that is specific to your jurisdiction, it is the responsibility of your jurisdiction to provide that information to the 4 contractor beforehand so that the contractor is aware of it. In this situation, had we been made aware of your inspection requirements, we would have approached this job in a completely different way, and would have caught the mullion clip mistake before proceeding with the finishing. Again, it is the responsibility of your department to provide the contractor with your inspection requirements prior to the contractor commencing the work. This project was completed in phases due to materials being delivered at different times. The skylight, garage door and front door were installed in VCL.C111 VC1, 111G >II Iy1C 1 1 U I Iy VV 11 IJvv-;) vv�.1 �. .I.JLld II .V — .i— ..,..... „ .....- ...... - - -. . -I the suppliers behalf, the arch windows were the incorrect size, then they came without lattice and finally when they arrived at the end of March those were installed. One window that was broken on install and was installed at the end of April. Thats when we called for the inspection. During these numerous delays, the owner would never have allowed the "framing" inspection to wait until everything was installed before being finished. We would have waited to begin the install until all materials were on site and ready to go. We couldn't leave a skylight open for a framing inspection for 5 months, and same goes for the windows. It seems like common sense that your department would be clear on the inspection requirements to avoid these types of situations from occurring in the first place. Its not that we were UNSURE of the inspection process, its that we were UNAWARE of your requirements because they are not stated or disclosed. To expect that a contractor just guess what you require is not appropriate or acceptable. Dan Hainey specifically told Mark that it was NOT REQUIRED, but 9 times out of 10, contractors send pictures. Perhaps the 9 are contractors that are familiar with your undisclosed requirements, but the other 10% are left to deal with a mess after a job is completed. Thats not acceptable either. The same way contractors make mistakes, your department makes mistakes too and in this case, your department made many. First, the inspector not specifying the location of the windows he saw deficiencies in, and second, not providing the contractor with your inspection requirements that are specific and different from other jurisdictions. Other mistakes include the inspector, John Parker, never cited code, cited a deficiency with window bucking that doesn't apply to our permit, and referenced that the owner said the windows were leaking which is also not part of a framing inspection. Staff in your department sent a letter about an expired permit with your signature and you weren't even there, and the permit was placed in an expired status improperly. Your department allowed the homeowners to use their "pull" to interfere with our permit and also cause a lot of unnecessary drama with their false accusations about us and our company. Our permit is an ACTIVE project, with 2 inspections thus far. Its not our fault the materials were delayed, and the final window was installed a little over a MONTH AGO. The expiration of a permit is for permits that are pulled but no work has commenced 5 From: Mark <markQa mkwbuilders.com> Date: June 6, 2025 at 12:37:30 AM EDT Steven and Diane Marini, To: Diana Marini <dmarini10@gmai1.com> Subject: Re: Marini Windows Our answer to your first 3 requests: 1. Your project was complete and was ready for inspection. department with our permit. Your project did not require `a framing inspection, which is completed when the openings are exposed. Your project is a window and door replacement permit. However, instead of allowing us to do our job, you department. To further explain, if a framing inspection was required, we would have had to leave your skylight exposed with a hole in your roof until all of the windows were installed and the windows could not be sealed up until the framing inspection was passed. With the incorrect window deliveries pushing your window install out for months, that was not a possibility, nor was it a requirement. Your project was completed in phases, with the garage door, front door and skylight completed in December, the single hung windows completed in January, the arched windows in March/April, and the final window installed at the end of April. Instead of allowing us to work with the building department to get this situation resolved, you inserted yourselves and made the situation extremely complicated. To address your concern about the mullion clips, yes, that was an oversight by the crew that we have no problem fixing. The clips are required per the NOA specifications and we did not know that the crew did not attach them. If we were required to have a framing inspection it would have been fixed before sealing up your windows. The City of Sebastian Building Department does not state the requirements for a window/door replacement permit framing inspection and there are no requirements for a framing inspection on this type of permit anywhere to be found. Their failure to provide these re u i e n o h o ll tr corisam j is arid r going to make sure this is corrected by them going forward and will hold them accountable. The Indian River County Building Department has a Final inspection only on a retrofit window and door permit. This is typical of most building departments, so due to the City of Sebastian Building Department not I disclosing their unique requirement of a framing inspection on a retrofit window and door permit, we had no way of knowing about it. Upon going over the NOAs with our crew, and explaining the importance of following the instructions therein, they mentioned that the existing wood framing around the 3 windows with the arches that the mullion clips have to attach to might not match the required southern yellow pine framing required per NOA specifications. Mark will have to remove the drywall to expose the framing to confirm this is the case. If that is the case, that means, in order for us to pass the framing inspection and install the clips per NOA specifications, the wood framing around these 3 windows must be removed and reframed using the specified Southern yellow Pine (SYP) 2x4s that are called for in the detail. side of each window, and below the window. The insufficient framing must be replaced with SYP #2 Structural 2x4s on each side of the windows and at the sills. Then the clips and window frames will be attached to the new wood framing and left exposed until the framing inspection is passed. Once that inspection is passed, the window can be resealed, jambs and wood framing will then be drywalled and finished. This is the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is we would have to completely remove the window, including the stucco bands, reframe the entire window, attach the clips and window frame to the new SYP #2 Structural framing members, leave exposed redoing the stucco bands. Best case scenario it will cost you $5,500, worst case scenario it will be $7,500. during construction, and although it will cost more, you can rest assured that your windows will be 100% installed per Florida Building Code and NOA requirements. Unfortunately, there is no other way to proceed with the framing inspection and to close out the permit at this point. If you would like to proceed with the additional work that needs to be completed, we will provide you with a change 3 order to sign and we will require payment before starting the work. This cost is in addition to the remaining balance owed to US. Once payment is received for the work included in the change order, we will schedule the start date. We estimate it will take approximately 2 working days to complete the framing, the framing inspection will be done on the 3rd day and then it will take 2 days for drywall hang and finish. That's the timeline. 2. The leaking window - You can not use the hose on your windows for more than a quick light spray. If you look at your bottom of the window frames. Those are called weep holes. The weep holes are designed to allow any water that intrudes the window frame to leak out so the water does not build up inside the frame and then leak inside your window jamb. When you use the hose directly on the windows for longer periods of time, the water builds up inside the frame and cannot drain through the weep hole fast enough to prevent leaking on the inside. Mark thought he explained this to you before, however, we are stating it again to make sure you understand that. Mark would also like you to know that the windows that are not arches at the bottom of the sill have a flap on the weep holes that allows water inside the frame to drain, but prevents bugs/water from getting in. It is recommended that once a year, you open the lower windows and use AIR (not water) to blow out the bottom sill to ensure the weep holes are working correctly and to prevent build up from blocking the weep holes from draining. Mark noticed and pointed out to Steve today, that you did not seal the outside of the stucco bands to the exterior wall on ANY of the windows. Those stucco bands around ALL windows need to be sealed with polyurethane ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BANDS ESPECIALLY AT THE TOP OF THE BAND. The top of the band is a common place where water can sit and seep through where the band meets the wall. Mark observed a hairline crack on the band at 10:00 on the radius of the window you have a leak issue with, and pointed it out to Steve. He recommends filling the hairline crack with polyurethane sealant and after it 4 cures, reapply hot stucco primer before final epoxy paint. If you do this, the crack will be invisible. As long as all you follow these recommended steps around all of your stucco bands, you should have no issues. The bedroom with the arch window has unprimed areas on the high point of the stucco band where the band meets the soffit. Excess stucco at top of radius band needs to be dug out and filled with polyurethane sealant. I also recommend a second coat of the white hot primer on all bands protruding at least 6 inches of face wall. Applying a high grade exterior epoxy stucco trim paint will provide you with an additional level of protection against cracks and water intrusion. You decided to be the painter, and the priming and polyurethane sealant around the outside of the stucco bands is part of the painting work and is critical to the waterproofing and sealing process of exterior stucco. It is my responsibility to apply the polyurethane sealant to where the window frame meets the stucco bands. I have done that to the point where I cannot apply any more sealant to the window. Water is not penetrating through the sealant that I have applied. Its impossible. Once you have finished the sealing, priming and painting on your stucco bands, if you are still having a problem with the window leaking, then it is his professional opinion it would be a manufacturer issue, that could be a problem with the glass to frame attachment. In this case, the manufacturer's authorized warranty representative is the only authorized party allowed to correct a manufacturing defect. 3. The expired permit issue was an error on the building department. You misunderstood what qualifies a permit to be considered expired. A permit expires after 180 days if work has not commenced within the 180 days or if the contractor has abandoned the project. neither of those scenarios apply to our permit. Our permit has been returned to the proper active status. We have a meeting with the City Manager and Wayne Eseltine next week and this error by the building department will be discussed at the meeting. So in response to your request for our plan regarding the expired permit, it has already been fixed. 5 Once we have completed the work required and passed inspection, you will be provided with a final invoice. Upon receiving payment in full, we will provide you with a receipt along with the other documents you need for the MSFH grant and your records. As for the false statements you have made regarding a lack of communication from us, you know that is completely false. We have promptly returned your texts, emails and phone calls and have been in constant communication with you since the start of this project. We understand that living in your home during construction is frustrating and inconvenient. We hear it all the time. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to change that. Things happen, and you just have to roll with it. We don't hold it against you for letting your frustration get the best of you. We get it. We get frustrated too. We would like to bring down the high charged emotions, and please know that while we are not perfect and we do make mistakes, we are fully committed to seeing your project through to completion. Your new windows are beautiful and your home is not only better protected from hurricanes, it also looks prettier too. Thank you, Mark & Kelli Walker Cell: (772) 360-8980 <MKWB BLACK.vna> www.MKWBuilders.com ---- On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 16:17:03 -0400 Diana Marini <dmarinil0@gmail.com> wrote --- MKW Builders On May 28, 2025, we sent an email requesting a timeline for the completion of this project, which has now been ongoing for over six months. Despite additional follow-ups via text and phone, we 6 5F13A�T AN N REVIEWED D. Hamey 12/0312024 2:59:54 PM Marini Residence 113 Redgrave Dr. Sebastian, FL 32958 2a 2b EGRESS EGRESS 13 THIS MULLION INSTALLATION DETAIL AND PHOTOS WERE UPLOADED TO THE PERMIT FILE BY MKW BLDRS ON 6/4/2025 ANCHOR SCHEDULE FOR MULLIONS L INSTALLATION SCREW EM IEDME EDGE SUBSTRATE QTY PER ANCHOR TYPE N7 DISTANCE TYPE LOCATION (IN,{ fINJ I ANCHOR BRACKET WOOD 50.2722 (PART 6 #12 WOOD ANCHOR 1.S 0.7� W2 a; lt;2971 CONCRETE/ ANCHOR BRACKET i' D SIMPSON ` MASONRY 50-2722 (PART 4 STRONG -TIE THEN 1.0 1 2,00 #230297) ANCHOR B I } ALUM. ANCHOR BRACKET (4 MULLION/ALUM. 50-2722 (PART 6 #12 SELF -DRILLING SMS 3 THREADS 2.00 W 1 /STEEL #230297) NOTE NOT€ • 4EAD,SILL AND IAMB HAVE LLSSHOWMARETYPVAL FOR ALL SIMILAR DETAILS -- _. OR AOWLUON & CUPASSEM41ES. SEE WE- E15'S-10 F08 AL1GYlAILLE MUI.U0N =FIGURATIONS, SIZES" AND OEUGN HcilluaN �,Nrt t �ESSURES- VAX 1111• uw 4r �i c•`. u[N sc[ OF0t IJIII u T.wro ntt "Icra tmbn rKcnaaAr Ta Av000 J� �L IxNwuan4 I M r LDGI EaLANtt _ IN' Clip detail for Master'"' FIAIH l. - , 1116L pILrANCt 1yE1iMlL FY aTNt.. Bedroom and Guest %MUM IN, � W1C41T SO1iii Bedroom Windows Mal RI4HH I rw [w _�_...��.. Il••uul ANCHOR DETAIL FMaOMArLHWHItAWTssr7nlraii oTanH 1 r e W2 Clip detail for Dining Room Window B 4 \_4/W1 I M1N. (6),112 SELF EDGE DRILLING SMS SCREW DISTANCE A - HORIZONTAL F — 4 TRANSOM MULLION L 114" MAR ) , TYPICAL ELE� I ' _ IMIN. EMBED MAX. 11/3- I r 1 r { VERTICAL MIN 112" I 1 i f' MULLION MIN 1.3/8' _ r -- MAX.. 2.1/4' MULUON AHOHOR�'' L ANCHOR, NO-31V SELF EDGE DISTANCE BRACKET 50-2722 ii ONLLING SCREW FROM (PARTY2302971 11 __ _ EACHSVEOFTHE VERTICAL MULLION ANCHOR _ MUUIONINTOTHE VERTICAL i i I I BRACKET 50.2722 BRACKET, STAGGERED AS MULLIOr (PART V2301971 NECESSARY TO AVOID li I� MIN 1-3/8` INTERFERENCE MAR. L 11E' MAIL 2-114.' •� MIN. 112" EDGE DISTANCE 1 ANCHOR. R8.31A' SELF h, 1 114" MAX EXTERIOR INTERIOR ORIUING SCREW FROM EACH SIDE OF THE - MOLLIONINTOTHE BRACKET, STAGGERED AS ) !�'�1• C VERTICAL SECTION NECES INTERFERENCE AVOID M04 EMB. 4 INTERFERENCE ALIDMINUM IN ' ♦ -' - I 31SUMVIEW-VERTICAERTICAL j/ SUBSTRATE BY OTHERS _ M;N D(TEN0R LOGE DISIMKIL INTERIOR A ANCHOR DETAIL 4 MUWONANWORBRAOdTSd2722(MRTA2302471 New window 'IVA Posm. memo Original window I AMERICAN CRAFTSMAN WINDOWS ZREhVIE0VMD WS AND DOORS SILVER LINE WINDO � V 1 SERIES150 SERIES PICTURE & FIXED D. Hainey 12/03/2024 3:13:59 PM INSTALLATION NOTES _. _sP WINDOW (2130) (IMPACT) (HVHZ) FL # 17767 ONE Ill INSTALLATION ANCHOR IS REQUIRED AT EACH ANCHOR LOCATION SHOWN. 2. THE NUMBER OF INSTALLATION ANCHORS OEPICTEO IS THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANCHORS TO BE USED FOR PRODUCT INSTALLATION OF THE MAXIMUM SIZE LISTED. 3. INSTALL INDIVIDUAL INSTALLATION ANCHORS WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF il/2 INCH THE DEPICTED LOCATION & SPACING IN THE ANCHOR LAYOUT DETAILS (I.E., WITHOUT GENERAL NOTES: CONSIDERATION OF TOLERANCES). TOLERANCES ARE NOT CUMULATIVE FROM ONE TABLE OF CONTENTS INSTALLATION ANCHOR TO THE NEXT. 1. THE PRODUCT SHOWN HEREIN IS DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT EDITION SECTION REVISION $MEET DESCRIPTION 4. SHIM AS REQUIRED AT EACHIILSTALLATION ANCHOR WITH LOAD BEARING SHIM(5}. FLORIDA BUILDING CODE (FBC), INCLUDING HVHZ AND HAS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SHIM STACK TO BE 3/8 INCH. SHIM WHERE SPACE OF 1/16 BEEN EVALUATED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING: I - INSTALLATION B GENERAL NOTES INCH OR GREATER OCCURS. SHIM(S) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF HIGH DENSITY • TAS 20 PLASTIC OR BETTER. • TAS 202-94-94 2 - ELEVATION & ANCHOR LAYOUTS 5. FIN INSTALLATION: FOR INSTALLA,}}TI��ONf,IQ9NTO WOOD FRAMING USE Bar? TAS 203.94 101/1.5.2/A440-11 3 - VERTICAL SECTIONS NAILS OF OR 11 GAI,1fyF,if M 9CSA 4CN MUM EMBCDMENT INTO WOOD SUBSTN RATE. ACHIEVE ff �1))NC{{M A _ HORIZONTAL SECTIONS &GLAZING DETAILS • ASTM E1996-20 6. FIN INSTALLATION: FOR INSTALLATION INTO METAL STUD USE #8 SELF -TAPPING 5 - BILL OF MATERIALS & COMPONENTS SCREWS, OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 3 THREADS 2. ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL PEN RATION BEYOND METAL WALL CONCRETE/MASONRY, 2X FRAMING, AND METAL FRAMING AS A MAIN WIND FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DESIGN PRESSURE TABLE 7. THROUGH FRAME INSTALLATION: FOR INSTALLATION THROUGH 1X BUCK TO WITHSTANDING AND TRANSFERRING APPLIED PRODUCT CONCRETE(MASONRY, OR DIRECTLY INTO CONCRETE/MASONRY, USE 3116 INCH LOADS TO THE FOUNDATION IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OVERALL SIZE DESIGN MISSILE IMPACT DIq�Q RJ'?TAPCOI�S OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH TO ACHIEVE 1-1/4 INCH MINIMUM - ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT OF RECORD FOR THE PROJECT OF PRESSURE RATING EMBE1jAlIjNT--�— - - -- ------ INSTALLATION. WIDTH HEIGHT 9 THROUGH FRAME INSTALLATION: FOR INSTALLATION INTO WOOD FRAMING USE #10 3. BE AND XBUCKSOPERL 53' 71' 955l-55 'SF LARGE & SMALL WOOD SCREWS OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH TO ACHIEVE 1-1/2 INCH MINIMUM $TOTHND ANCHOR1X ANCHORED TRANSFER ALLLOAL MISSILE IMPACT _ EMBEDMENT INTO WOOD SUBSTRATE. INSTALLATION IS TTHE STRUCTURE. BUCK DESIGN AND INSTALLATION IS THE STRUCr DESIGNA AND 9. THI,R�OI/rijp;Hp,F�JR�Mj�4Fp-LAN/ytteLlAlipN;..EDP.�N}Int�gilUN-1N1L1.uc1At�1vI>TE#10 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT OF LENGTH TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 3 RECORD FOR THE PROTECT OF INSTALLATION. TI(NUIUS VEMETHNffbNBEYONDMET 4. THE INSTALLATION DETAILS DESCRIBED HEREIN ARE GENERIC 10. MINI MUM EMBEDMENT AND EDGE DISTANCE EXCLUDE WALL FINISHES, INCLUDING AND MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL CONDITIONS FOR A SPECIFIC BUT NOT LIMITED TO STUCCO, FOAM, BRICK VENEER, AND SIDING. SITE. IF SITE CONDITIONS CAUSE INSTALLATION TO DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS DETAILED HEREIN, A LICENSED 11. INSTALLATION ANCHORS AND ASSOCIATED HARDWARE MUST BE MADE OF ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT SHALL PREPARE SITE SPECIFIC CORROSION RESISTANT MATERIAL OR HAVE A CORROSION RESISTANT COATING. DOCUMENTS FOR USE WITH THIS DOCUMENT IN NON-HVHZ AREAS. HVHZONE TIME PRODUCT APPROVAL TO 12. FOR HOLLOW BLOCK AND GROUT FILLED BLOCK, DO NOT INSTALL INSTALLATION NED FROOMMARE BE OBTAINED MIAMI-DADE RER OR AMJ. ANCHORS INTO MORTAR JOINTS. EDGE DISTANCE IS MEASURED FROM FREE EDGE OF BLOCK OR EDGE OF MORTAR JOINT INTO FACE SHELL OF BLOCK. S. APPROVED IMPACT PROTECTIVE SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED 13. INSTALLATION ANCHORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANCHOR ON THIS PRODUCT IN AREAS REQUIRING IMPACT MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS, AND ANCHORS SHALL NOT BE USED RESISTANCE. IN SUBSTRATES WITH STRENGTHS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM STRENGTH SPECIFIED BY THE ANCHOR MANUFACTURER. 6. WINDOW FRAME MATERIAL: PVC 14. INSTALLATION ANCHOR CAPACITIES FOR PRODUCTS HEREIN ARE BASED ON 7. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION FBC, WOOD SUBSTRATE MATERIALS WITH THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: COMPONENTS SHALL HAVE BEEN PRESERVATIVE TREATED A. WOOD -MINIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF 055. OR SHALL BE OF A DURABLE SPECIES AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER B. CONCRETE -MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI. 23. C. GROUT -TILLED CMU- UNIT STRENGTH CONFORMS TO ASTM C-90 WITH MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 2000 PSI AND GROUT CONFORMS TO ASTM C 476, B. GLASS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM E 1300 MINIMUM GROUT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 2000 PSI. GLASS CHARTS. SEE SHEET 4 FOR GLAZING DETAILS. 0. HOLLOW BLOCK CMU - UNIT STRENGTH CONFORMSTO ASTM C-90 WITH MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 2000 PSI. 9. DESIGNATIONS "X" AND "O" STAND FOR THE FOLLOWING: E.STEEL - MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 33 KSL MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS OF X: OPERABLE PANEL 35.9 MIL (0.0478" or IS GAUGE). MIN. 1/2" EDGE DISTANCE. O: FIXED PANEL F. ALUMINUM -MINIMUM ALLOY 6063-TS. MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS OF I/16". MIN.1/2' EDGE DISTANCE. IF AMERICAN CRAFTSMAN WINDOWS SILVER LINE WINDOWS AND DOORS ONE SILVERUNE DRIVE NORTH BRUNSWICK, NJ 08902 PH: (888) 741-0354 H O N C4 a E� m a�� Z J J �z a� dm O oop a LL wy p LL O M W? Z 0 N N n _O CA r 5 W o 0 w z u H F W �LL GW W n > 4~O r a0 0 2 S DO u W~ Y 00 J a-° + Z LL =x F 6z 0 CD p u N Llully signed by Hermes F. Norero, P. R san:1 Bm approving this document 0-1: 2023.12.211p,41+715D0' •/IrF1"•" HERYEsF.NOPERO FLORIDAP.E.W.137rs 391 E. DANIA BEACH BLVD., BTe. 318 DAM BEACH, FL 314ss FBPE CERT.OF ABSHORVATMA BD-BIS14 DA By LD�NG PROPS, IN[. E. DANIABEACHBLVD., P338 DANIA BEAM, FL 33004 PH-(•54)399-8479 FX:(954)74"7JB FL#: 17767 DWG #: SWD042 SHEET: 1 OF C MAX.FRAME _ WIDTH 53.00' D.L.D. MAX _ WIDTH 48.50' B C 3 3 II + F r 4 MAX. FRAME HEIGHT 73.00' D.L.O. MAX. HEIGHT 67.50' y - I I A D ELEVATION 8' MAX. 2' MAX. FROM 14' Mom' FROM - CORNERS� 0'C' CORNERS 1 I I 1 14' MAX. 10' MAX. O.C. O.C. 8' MAX. 1 I 1 I FROM CORNERS ANCHOR LAYOUT FINLESS r 2- MAX. FROM CORNERS Kol r(w) f--(w)-� f•-(w)--I f--(W) -� } j I I 1 ( i ( \ i (H) (IHI) (H) \ 1 L__ (W) �--- (W)—►� t- (W) f--(w)--I T�1 (HII) r---- `---� �----- I(H) Lam_ IUNITS OF THE SHOWN SHAPES ANCHORAGE ARE PER DETAILS SHOWN H IN, ALL SHAPED UPROVIDED NITS SGLAZING. HALL FIT WITHIN THE RECTANGULAR AREAS AS SHOWN. • MAXIMUM W = 53' • MAXIMUM H = 73' • MAXIMUM DP = r!- 55 PSF 10' MAX. O.C. (W) ---• i ANCHOR LAYOUT FIN NOTE: WINDOW WIDTH (W) AND HEIGHT (H) ARE INTERCHANGEABLE FOR ALL SIZES SHOWN HEREIN NOT TO EXCEED MAXIMUM TESTED SQUARE FOOT AREA. ANCHOR SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED THOSE SHOWN FOR LONG OR SHORT LEG OF UNIT. AMERICAN CRAFTSMAN WINDOWS SILVER LINE WINDOWS AND DOORS ONE SILVERLINE DRIVE NORTH BRUNSWICK, NJ 09902 PH: (888) 741-0354 > F- 6 a at 1- F- C6 14 Q O _ E - m OC S 2 c� Q n S v N y a " e a� v� z o a oa _ H LL LL W N N a z z CD N Z GO Oeq u N ~ z z W W C u H F- W W m O W > a~D p 0 z ¢ m u o c to a IV = IN z 4� NENNe9 F. XORERO FtDBIDw v. E xo. »ns 398 E. DANIA BEADX NLVD., SrE 348 DANIA DEADII. n-1 FBPE Derr, W AVTHOHWTION NO. an• �y BUILDING D81+15, INC. 398 E. DANIA BEACH BLVD, 0338 u DANIA BEACH, FL MOW PH i3541399-9478 FX:(954)7444738 FL1t: 17767 OWG *: SW D042 SHEET: 2 OF 5 L #10 WOOD SCREW! INSTALLATION ANCHOR CONCRETE/ MASONR BY OTHERS CAULK BETWEEN 4• CONCRETE/MASONRY. �I BY OTHERS 2X WOOD BUCK/STU BY OTHERS EXTERIOR FINISH',',',',',',' BY OTHERS PERIMETER SEALANT BY OTHERS 2 \ / SEE GLAZING f ' DETAIL, SHEET 4 EXTERIOR 3/4' MIN, EDGE DISTANCE 6 n• „ EMBEDMENT 1 1/4' MAX. SHIM SPACE J INTERIOR � `I VERTICAL SECTION �/ HEAD - 2X WOOD BUCK FINLESS INSTALLATION EXTERIOR SEE GLAZING DETAIL, SHEET 4 INTERIOR AMERICAN CRAFTSMAN WINDOWS MIN.3 THREADS SILVER LINE WINDOWS AND DOORS METAL STUD BY OTHERS, PENETRATION BEYOND METAL ONE SILVERUNE DRIVE SEE SHEET I INSTALLATION NOTE 14 STRUCTURE NORTH BRUNSWICK, N108902 PH: (888) 741-0354 #8 SELF -TAPPING SCREW ' " INSTALLATION ANCHOR EXTERIOR FINISH & SHEATING BY OTHERS 3/8' MIN. EDGE !' DISTANCE = w .^•I ry ry ¢ N g p BACKER ROD & SEALANT BY OTHERS E x x 1/4' MAX. / \ SHIM SPACE r 1 aZ 2 1 ca a SEE GLAZING f LL 3 co LL DETAIL, SHEET 4 N N EXTERIOR INTERIOR w Z o z z w O O Fx W m () in LL VERTICAL SECTION W W ID h 00 3 HEAD -METAL STUD FIN INSTALLATION Z ¢ m u EXTERIOR INTERIOR H ko Q o- V LL Ill z ¢ Y F Z oVI NOTE: IX WOOD BUCK I BY OTHERS IS OPTIONAL FOR MASONRY APPLICATIONS, SEE DETAIL E/4. 1/4' MAX. SHIM SPACE PERIMETER SEALANT OTHERS-�' EXTERIOR FINISH IN. BY OTHERS 'a ' 41 EMBEDMENT CONCRETE/MASONRY SILL—/l r + BY OTHERS 3/16' ITW TAPCON- 1 y' MIN. INSTALLATION ANCHOR EDGE DISTANCE A VERTICAL SECTION 3 SILL - CONCRETE/MASONRY FINLESS INSTALLATION SEE GLAZING _ DETAIL, SHEET 4 1 BACKER ROD SEALANT BY OTHERS " " " ...... EXTERIOR FINISH BY OTHERS 2X WOOD BUCK/STUD BY OTHERS SHEATHING BY OTHERS A8 WOOD SCREW, OR II GAUGE ROOFING OR IOD COMMON NAIL D INSTALLATION ANCHOR �3 1 1/4' MAX. SHIM SPACE � f 3/4' MIN. / )`• EDGE DISTANCE f J y 1 1/2- MIN. EMBEDMENT VERTICAL SECTION SILL - 2X WOOD FRAME FIN INSTALLATION E NERNEBF.NONEN. FLORBM P. E x .M.5 341DANIA BEACH BLVD.,lT0.391 D.0FIlIxORPAT0N BFACX, FL3 FREE CERT.OF AON NO. M4]! BVIIDING 131014, INL 398 E. DANIA BEACH BLVD., #338 DANIA BEACH, FL 33004 PH:1954)399-8478 FA:(954)744-4738 FL#: 17767 DWG #: SWD042 SHEET: 3 OF 5 r IMERICAN N AMERICAN CRAFTSMAN WINDOWS sE A TAN CRAFTSMANWINDOWS LVER LINE WINDOWS AND DOORF: SILVER LINE WINDOWS AND DOORS RFUREVIEWEDCE ONE SILVER LINE DRIVE NORTH BRUNSWICK, N108902 D. Hainey PH: (888) 741-0354 70 SERIES / VI SERIES / (2 9 27) 12/D3FL # 14913:18:1 PM IFL1 SINGLE- HUNG WINDOWS _ O s 3 a W (HVHZ) (IMPACT) � z GM GENERAL NOTES: w = 1. THE PRODUCT SHOWN HEREIN IS DESIGNED AND MAX OVERALL SIZE I I TABLE OF CONTENTS MANUFACTURED TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT EDITION CONING. MISSILE In _a a FLORIDA BUILDING CODE (FBC), INCLUDING HVHZ AND HAS WIDTH HEIGHT PRESSUS RE IMPACT RATING I SHEET REVISION SHEET DESCRIPTION z W BEEN EVALUATED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING: J o_ •TAS 202-94 � • TAS 202 94 52" 73" CIACIA+55 /-60 PSF LMI/SMI I 1 - GENERAL NOTES &GLAZING DETAIL 5 F a • TAS 203-94 I 2 - ELEVATION & ANCHOR LAYOUTS ~ • ASTM E3313-24 ` 3 VERTICAL SECTIONS REMARKS BY DATE • ASTM EI886-19 ` 7TH FBC EDITION NU D/L4Iz. • ASTM E1996-20 I`I 4 HORIZONTAL SECTIONS • AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440.17 I HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL SECTIONS, INSTALLATION NOTES & 8th FBC EDITION LH 09/23 2. ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL 5 REINFORCEMENT DETAILS CONCRETE/MASONRY, ZX FRAMING, AND METAL FRAMING AS A MAIN WIND FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM CAPABLE OF Mu %A Wtb REINA GMERIC wr qr viln_"[ DM0Ns RRSVLaFIC WITHSTANDING THE F AND TRANSFERRING APPLIED PRODUCT wTF u wN wRRRRRNs�ALni •6TALM I I TD D-1 IAOFM•YpMEIEI', RETRR.m HEREINADCENS LOADS TO THE FOUNDATION IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE rwwuoAA•c.nF+wN� ,.—EarESEEn11C ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT OF RECORD FOR THE PROJECT OF mnww•n+n•NN+m,TNn ooc"mrNr. INSTALLATION. 43/64" O.A. I.G. LAMINATED GLASS IgXally signed by Hermes F_._Norero. P.E. 3, 1X AND 2X BUCKS )WHEN USED) SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSISTING OF: eason:22I am ��i - - ment ANCHORED TO PROPERLY TRANSFER ALL LOADS TO THE 1/8"ANNEALED GLASS �N� e'`�tS'' STRUCTURE. BUCK DESIGN AND INSTALLATION IS THE \\ to ,. • / RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT OF 7/32" STEEL SPACER�- RECORD FOR THE PROJECT OF INSTALLATION. 3/32" ANNEALED GLASS 0.090" SAFLE% PVB INTERLAYER BY NO B •' 4. THE INSTALLATION DETAILS DESCRIBED HEREIN ARE EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY GENERIC AND MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL CONDITIONS FOR 3/32" ANNEALED GLASS 1 A SPECIFIC SITE. IF SITE CONDITIONS CAUSE INSTALLATION \ yY TO DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS DETAILED HEREIN, AT OF -C�8 A LICENSED ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT SHALL PREPARE SITESPECIFIC NON'HVH AREAS DOCUMENTS INS VO ZAREAS, NETIME PRODUCT R USE WITH THIS DOCUMENT N EXTERIOR INTERIOR AAPROVAL TO BE OBTAINED FROM MIAMI-DADE RER OR I I 39e E: ou.A o[Ra GLW33e DANIA BEA . FL STEEL SPACER , FEW C RE CIF AU7HORIZATION N' aes7e S. APPROVED IMPACT PROTECTIVE SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED � THIS PRODUCT IN AREAS REQUIRING IMPACT / MIN. GLASS 1/8" OR 3/32" F` ill: F L 14911 RESISTANCE. BITE 7/16" SETTING BLOCK 6. WINDOW FRAME MATERIAL: PVC DOW 995 SEALANT DATE: 01.23.18 IN CURRENT EDITION TREMCO S700 SEALANT DWG. BY: CHK. BY: 7. COMPONENTS ASSHALL AVEBEENPRESERVATIVEC,WOOD GLAZING DETAIL I HR I HFN COMPONENTS SHALL HAVE BEEN PRESERVATIVE TREATED OR SHALL BE OF A DURABLE SPECIES AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 23. GLAZING NOTFS: SCALE: NTS 1. GLASS TYPE & THICKNESS SHALL COMPLY WITH ASTME1300REQUIREMENTS ASWELL AS DwG.a: SWD050 8. GLASS MEETS THE REQU I REMENTS OF ASTM E 1300 APPLICABLE SAFETY GLAZING REQUIREMENTS PER THE FBC. TEMPER AND SAFETY GLAZING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE REVIEWED ON A SITE SPECIFIC BASIS. GLASS CHARTS. SEE SHEET I FOR GLAZING DETAILS. 2. SETTING BLOCK WROMETER HARDNESS OF 70-90ISHORE A) AS REFERENCED IN FBC CHAPTER a, SHEEI: 3. SETTING BLOCKS TO BE LOCATED AT 114 SPAN LENGTH FOR GLASS WIDER THAN 36'AS PER FBC CHAPTER 24. 4. D.L.O. AND DESIGN PRESSURES MAY NOT EXCEED MAX VALUES IN GUMS CHARTS. OF5f r ` MIN. SUBSTRATE I EDGE DISTANCE BY OTHERS j Il MIN. EMBEDMENT PERIMETER SEALANT 1/4" MAX. BY OTHERS ; SHIM SPACE II EXTERIOR M INTERIOR VERTICAL SECTION 5 THROUGH FRAME (HEAD) SUBSTRATE \\\ �SH M SPACE BY OTHERS\ INTERIOR TERIOR MIN. EDGE DISTANCE EXTERIOR 1/4" MAX. SHIM SPACE P INTERIOR ��__ PERIMETER SEALANT_ BY OTHERS EXTERIOR y SUBSTRATE BY OTHERS SCREW IN THE INTERIOR CHANNEL MIN. EDGE DISTANCE SCREW IN THE EXTERIOR CHANNEL MIN. EMBEDMENT O5HORIZONTAL SECTION THROUGH FRAME (JAMB) O U W Q _Z N_ � C EXTERIOR 5 MIN. EMBEDMENT .r SUBSTRATE BY OTHERS 1/4" MAX. SHIM SPACE Prcj-� ERIOR HORIZONTAL SECTION NAIL FIN (HEAD) 0 AMERICAN CRAFT5MAN WINDOWS >ILVER LINE WINDOWS AND DOORS ONE SILVER LINE DRIVE NORTH BRUNSWICK, NJ 08902 PH: (888) 741-0354 N O 3 Z m e ;o GMa ao^tee wz�i Sri+ Om -a, `G �3P �l7 D~c z,zF, VY W Jx FaO W L7— zt;t 7m m H Z O? u m REINFORCEMENT DETAILS o F W o c x 0.83"�I I —�{ 0.87" 0.13" REMARKS BY DATE 0.77" I 7 7TH FBC EDITION NUS 0/14/2, INTERIOR 0'9 6 0 81 0.46" 8th FBC EDITION LH D9/23 0.45" O LOCK RAIL TOP O LOCK MEETING RAIL O BOTTOM LIFT RAIL & SASH HEIb AUAIMN O M1I D SORBkDN N GENEMC' ALUMINUM ALUMINUM ALUMINUM AND MAYNDFRETEECTACNAL W-TIDNGFORAI-1 SRE.IESIEF COXDIlpN5GD5EIN5TN1AilON TO DEVIATE EpDM TXF REDDIRFMENT7 DETALLED HFANN, AIECFNSED .r.IJEEEFRORMCMIrtCTSEWLCPEPMESDESPFCIFlC .b[uMEN15 fOA uREIvnXTIIS DODUAFM. p HORIZONTAL SECTION E VERTICAL SECTION 5 NAIL FIN (JAMB) 5 MEETING STILE INSTALLATION NOTES: / 1. ONE (1) INSTALLATION ANCHOR IS REQUIRED AT EACH ANCHOR LOCATION SHOWN. 2. THE NUMBER OF INSTALLATION ANCHORS DEPICTED IS THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANCHORS TO BE USED FOR PRODUCT INSTALLATION OF THE MAXIMUM SIZE LISTED. 3. INSTALL INDIVIDUAL INSTALLATION ANCHORS WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF t1/2 INCH THE DEPICTED LOCATION & SPACING IN THE ANCHOR LAYOUT DETAILS (I.E., WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF TOLERANCES). TOLERANCES ARE NOT CUMULATIVE FROM ONE INSTALLATION ANCHOR TO THE NEXT. 4. SHIM AS REQUIRED AT EACH INSTALLATION ANCHOR WITH LOAD BEARING SHIM(S). MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SHIM STACK TO BE 3/8 INCH. SHIM WHERE SPACE OF 1/16 INCH OR GREATER OCCURS. SHIMS) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF HIGH DENSITY PLASTIC OR BETTER. S. FOR MASONRY OR CONCRETE OPENINGS, 1X WOOD BUCK MAY BE USED (OPTIONAL AS LONG AS THE MINIMUM EMBEDMENT AND EDGE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE STILL MET WITHIN THE CORRESPONDING HOST SUBSTRATE. SEE GENERAL NOTE #3 ON SHEET 1 FOR MORE INFORMATION. 6. MINIMUM EMBEDMENT AND EDGE DISTANCE EXCLUDE WALL FINISHES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STUCCO, FOAM, BRICK VENEER, AND SIDING. 7. INSTALLATION ANCHORS AND ASSOCIATED HARDWARE MUST BE MADE OF CORROSION RESISTANT MATERIAL OR HAVE A CORROSION RESISTANT COATING. S. FOR HOLLOW BLOCK AND GROUT FILLED BLOCK, DO NOT INSTALL INSTALLATION ANCHORS INTO MORTAR JOINTS. EDGE DISTANCE IS MEASURED FROM FREE EDGE OF BLOCK OR EDGE OF MORTAR JOINT INTO FACE SHELL OF BLOCK. 9. INSTALLATION ANCHORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANCHOR MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS, AND ANCHORS SHALL NOT BE USED IN SUBSTRATES WITH STRENGTHS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM STRENGTH SPECIFIED BY THE ANCHOR MANUFACTURER. 10. FOR INSTALLATION ANCHORS ABOVE THE MEETING RAIL IN THE INTERIOR JAMB TRACK, USE FLAT HEAD ANCHORS. METHOD SUBSTRATE ANCHOR SCHEDULE ANCHOR SCHEDULE MIN EMBEDMENT MIN. EDGE DISTANCE WOOD: MIN. SG =0.55 Na WDOD SCREW I 7,S • _ ! _ PAN HEAD 0.75'F 7'• AT OF NAILING FIN j �(/ METAL: 18 GAUGE Sleet, MIN. Fy=33KSI #8 TEK SCREW 3 THREADS MIN PENETRMTEIOAN BEYOND 0.50' ��(d" IO p.'\\\\ •• TE PAN HEAD IN EXTEall RIOR CHANNEL 1.S' ��`� 0.75' ) 3" E &(I am , 33a WOOD: MIN. SG=0.55 #fO FLAT HEAD IN THE R9PE CD II aBAUIK�OR FL IW 90578 INTERIOR CHANNELFL I.S. 0.75' #: 3 THREADS MIN F L 14911 #10 PAR HEAD IN EXTERIOR HEAD I PENETRMETAL E%ND I &SW - METAL: 18 GAUGE Steel, THROUGHFRAME METAL DATE: 01.23.18 MIN, Fy=33K91 #10 FLAT HEAD INTHEI 3THREADS MIN PENETRATION BEYOND I B.SD pWG. BY: CHK. BY: INTERIOR CHANNEL METAL HR I HFN CONCRETE:P�OOPSI 3l1SITTAPI 115' SCALE: NTS FLATWHEADCON I 1.75' I DWG.#: SWD050 MASONRY' CMU P., ASIJ 3116'ITW TAPGON C90 MIN. 2000 PSI I FLAT HEAD I ,25. 1.75' $HL ET: OF 5 J c r I 'i 0 y, t t K r t tONO ' ti i� ! 4 r t 1 1 I* 0 a] .a . _.. __..._. a w.++ a a �, i v �•• -bat 1 r�r X* C�; FA- ow P-1 1) l• 1�^< _ tit-�."�Cl: Y`'►�'�'''..4 t: t:.. �'-+i' CONSTRUCTION BOARD ACTIONS, Sec, 26-175. - Penalties and appeals. (a) In addition to the penalties that may be imposed and other remedies that may be available to the city which are provided for elsewhere in this section, any person who violates any provisions of section 26-171 or commits any of the acts constituting cause for disciplinary action as set forth in section 26-172 shall be guilty of a violation of the provisions of this article, and upon a finding by the construction board thereof, shall be subject to the penalties of section 1-10. (b) In addition to the penalties and other remedies that may be imposed elsewhere in this section, the board may issue a cease and desist order to prohibit any person from engaging in the business of contracting who does not hold the required state certification or local certificate of competency for any work being performed by that person or his employees or agents under this article. (c) if a state certified contractor or a contractor possessing a certificate of competency issued by the board pursuant to this article is found by the board, after a quasi-judicial hearing, to be guilty of fraud or a willful building code violation in the city, or if the board possesses proof that such contractor, through a due process hearing, has been found guilty in another city or county within the 12-month period of fraud or a willful building code violation, and the board finds, after providing notice to the contractor, that such fraud or violation would have been fraud or a violation of a building code of the city if committed in the city, then the board may, in addition to the penalties that may be imposed, and other remedies that may be available to the city which are provided for elsewhere in this section, deny the issuance of a building permit to such contractor or issue a building permit with specific conditions which the board determines to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The board shall provide notification of, and information concerning, any denial of a building permit pursuant to this provision to the department within 15 days after the board decides to deny such building permit. (d) In addition to the penalties that may be imposed and other remedies that may be available to the city which are provided for elsewhere in this section, the board may impose an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed $1,000.00 per violations. Additional fines may include fees for investigative and legal costs incurred in the context of certain disciplinary cases heard by the board, which shall be recoverable by the board only in an action at law not to exceed $250.00. (e) In addition to the penalties that may be imposed and other remedies that may be available to the city which are provided for elsewhere in this section, the board is authorized to take the following disciplinary actions against the holder of a certificate of competency issued by the board pursuant to this article, where such holder has failed to timely comply with a construction board's order, been found to violate section 26-171 or has engaged in any of the acts or omissions which constitute cause for disciplinary action pursuant to section 172. (1) Suspend the certificate of competency issued by the board pursuant to this article during the period fixed by the board, but the board may permit the certificate holder to complete any contracts then uncompleted; (2) Revoke the certificate of competency previously issued by the board pursuant to this article; or (3) Place the certificate holder on probation for a period fixed by the board, but not in excess of three years. (f) In addition to the penalties that may be imposed and other remedies that may be available to the city which are provided for elsewhere in this section, the board shall be empowered to refuse to issue building permits or to issue building permits containing specific conditions to protect the public health, safety and general welfare to a contractor who is state certified or who holds a certificate of competency issued by the board pursuant to this article who has committed multiple violations of this article when such contractor has been disciplined for each of such violations by the board and when each disciplinary action has involved revocation or suspension of the state certification by the department or has involved revocation or suspension of the certificate of competency issued by the board pursuant to this article, the imposition of an administrative fine of at least $1,000.00 or probation. Furthermore, the board shall be empowered to issue permits with specific conditions designed to protect the public health, safety and general welfare to a state certified contractor or a contractor who holds a certificate of competency issued by the board pursuant to this article who, within the previous 12 months, has had final action taken against him by the department, or by the board when the board has reported such disciplinary action against the contractor to the department where the contractor has engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor without a license. (g) In addition to the penalties that may be imposed and other remedies that may be available to the city which are provided for elsewhere in this section, the board shall be empowered to restrain any violation of this article by filing the appropriate action in a court of competent jurisdiction for injunctive relief. (h) Appeal shall be by certiorari. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CONSTRUCTIONBOARD • Sec. 26-197. - Powers and duties. The construction board shall have the following powers and duties: (1) Advice to the city council. On its own initiative or whenever requested to do so by the city council, to give advice to the city council and to other public officials or employees with reference to any matter affecting contractors or the construction industry within the corporate limits of the city. (2) Reviewing city building and housing codes. To advise the city council concerning the city building and housing codes, their adoption, their amendment, and the revision of the minimum state building codes or any standard published code or technical regulation which constitutes all or part of such codes or of this chapter. (3) Examination of contractor's license holders and applicants therefore. To examine or cause to be examined holders of contractor's licenses within the city or applicants for such license, in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. (4) Review of violations of this article. On the motion of the board, on a notice of hearing issued by an investigator, building official or on the verified written complaint of any person, the board may review the actions of any person, including a contractor that has been issued a certificate of competency by the board pursuant to this article or a state certified contractor, who has violated any provision of this article. The board may hold quasi-judicial hearings and thereafter take appropriate disciplinary action as authorized pursuant to this article if the person, including a state certified contractor or a contractor holding a certificate of competency from the board pursuant to this article and including an entity qualified by a contractor who is state certified or holds a certificate of competency from the board pursuant to this article, is found to be in violation of one or more of the acts or omissions constituting a prohibited activity pursuant to section 26-171 or constituting cause for disciplinary action pursuant to section 26-172 to the extent not reserved to the department to the exclusion of the board. (5) Coordinate investigations with other governmental agencies. To cooperate with other governmental agencies, local, state and federal, with reference to any matter affecting contractors or the construction industry within the corporate limits of the city. (6) Subpoena powers. The board shall have the authority to subpoena alleged violators and witnesses to its hearings. The city, the board or the alleged violator may request that witnesses and records be subpoenaed to any emergency or formal hearing. Subpoenas shall be served in the same manner as civil subpoenas are served under Florida Statutes and the Florida Civil Rules of Procedure. The chairman of the board shall provide the clerk with sufficient signed and blank witness subpoenas to be provided to alleged violators and the city attorney for the purpose of subpoenaing witnesses and records. (7) Other. The board shall perform such other duties as may be determined by the city council. (Ord. No. 0-12-08, § 1, 8-22-12; Ord. No. 0-22-12, § 2, 7-13-22) • Sec. 26-198. - Administration. In order to carry out the intent of this article, the city council hereby appoints the following officials to assist the construction board in performing its duties: (1) Building official. The building official, or his authorized representative, shall have the primary duty of enforcing the various codes and initiating disciplinary proceedings before the board, and shall make such recommendations or reports to the board as needed on each matter considered by it. (2) Clerk. The building official shall appoint a city employee to be the board clerk. The clerk shall record all meetings of the board and shall prepare minutes of each meeting, which shall state all motions, the vote of each member upon each question or motion, and a statement as to any member who is absent or failing to vote. The minutes of the board may be in a summary or outline form, but shall accurately reflect the deliberations of the board. The clerk shall perform such other functions assigned to the clerk by the board. (3) Legal course% The city attorney shall advise and be counsel to the board. The legal counsel shall be compensated as provided by the city council. (Ord. No. 0-12-08, § 1, 8-22-12) 6/18/25, 2:42 PM Sebastian, FL Code of Ordinances Sec. 26-40. - Construction board to serve as board of appeals. (a) The construction board established pursuant to section 26-191 of the City Code of Ordinances shall serve as the board of appeals to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code and the standard codes adopted by the city. (b) Decisions of the construction board, pursuant to this section, may be appealed to the city council by filing a written appeal with the city clerk within ten days of the decision of the construction board. It shall require three affirmative votes of the city council to override the construction board. (c) All references in the standard codes to the construction board of adjustments and appeals shall be deemed to refer to the construction board. Except as provided herein, the construction board shall have all the powers and duties of the construction board of adjustments and appeals. An application of an appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of the standard codes or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of the standard codes do not fully apply, or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of the standard codes as amended herein. The board shall modify or reverse the decision of the building official only by a concurring vote of a majority of the total number of appointed board members. (d) Where an aggrieved party decides to appeal a decision, including a final order, of the building official, community development director or administrative official, the application of appeal shall be filed with the city clerk within ten days following the staff decision. (Ord. No. 0-12-08, § 1, 8-22-12) about:blank 1/1 Cry of SEBT[AN HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION BOARD IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA Case No. Hearing Date: Petitioner, Parcel ID#: V. Property Address MR. MARK WALKER Legal Description: DBA MKW BUILDERS, LLC 4113 ABINGTON WOODS CIR. State License No. VERO BEACH, FL. 32967 Respondent(s). A. NOTICE OF VIOLATION: CITY OF SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD NOTICE OF VIOLATIONIHEARING 25-1 AUGUST 26, 2025 31391900001458000023.0 113 REDGRAVE DR. SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 17 BLK 458 LOT 23 PBI 8-46 TO 46P CBC 1267842 NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND HEARING The City of Sebastian Construction Board (hereinafter BOARD) hereby notifies you of an alleged violation of the following sections of the Sebastian City Code of Ordinances: 1. 26-172 (3), Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; 26-172 (6), Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; and 3. 26-172 (8) Knowingly or deliberately disregarding or violating any applicable building codes or laws of the state, county or the city. The address(es) of the real properties upon which these violations occurred are: 113 REDGRAVE DR., SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. B. NOTICE OF HEARING: Please be advised that the City of Sebastian Construction Board is set to convene and hear this matter at a Quasi - Judicial Hearing on: TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2025 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA. YOU ARE REQUESTED to appear before the BOARD at that time to answer and defend the allegations that you have violated the above cited provisions of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sebastian. If you fail to attend, the BOARD may base its findings and act solely on the presentation made at the BOARD Hearing. CITY OF SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD NOTICE OF VIOLATIONMEARING Page 2 of 2 YOU MAY APPEAR WITH OR WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRESENT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE OTHER PARTY'S WITNESSES. If the BOARD finds that you have committed a violation, it may order immediate compliance with the Code and provide in the order, an administrative fine NOT TO EXCEED $1,000.00 per violation, AND/OR suspend certificate holder, revoke a certificate, place certificate holder on probation as well as file a complaint with Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). If any decision of the BOARD affects you and you decide to appeal any decision made at this meeting with respect to any matter considered, you will need a record of the proceedings and for such purposes, you may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. THE ABOVE NOTICE IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. ANYONE DESIRING A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT SHALL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY AT HIS OWN COST TO ARRANGE TO PROVIDE THE TRANSCRIPT. Please be advised that the procedures of the BOARD are governed by the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sebastian. Copies of these Ordinances may be obtained at the office of the City Clerk, City of Sebastian. CROF 00Ef�MM NN HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1225 MAIN STREET • SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE: (772) 589-5537 • FAX (772) 589-2566 CONSTRUCTION BOARD NOTICE OF HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I personally hand delivered Notice of Hearing (Code Enforcement Officer) before the Construction Board to the following address: 4 113 A& A96ZOtj w oaS C'IVL VC`f2-0 k�L\, , on the following date: 4 D f2O75 s� Respondent or Respondent's representative received notice MWLK (Name of recipient) No one was available to receive notice. Notice left at: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this Notice of Hearing before the Construction Board was delivered to the above named violator at the address stated above this `; ON44.1 day of ' U i.�, , 2025. By c�- Code Enforcement 01 er , 0 ti US CERTIFIEDMAIL No a US POSTAGE-PITNEY BOWES �; AD ad m ZIP 32958 $ 008.86° 8 �a 9489 0090 0027 6180 7898 78 U.02 7H 0001348317 JUL 30 2025 Mr. Mark Walker dba MKW Builders, LLC 4113 Abington Woods Cir Vero Beach, FL 32967 8/15/25, 5:18 PM usps tracking - Google Search usps tracking X p Sign in L Al Mode All Images Short videos Shopping orurns /ideos 10 n lools Track your package Data provided by USPS Tracking number 94890090002761807/89878 0 Tracking number created In transit August 05, ! 2:1-'OAM Out for delivery Delivered View details on USPS Call 1-800-275-8777 Track another package --ft USPS t4 hItps://tooIs,usps.com USPS Tracking USPS.com@ - USPS Tracking > Your tracking number can be found in the following places ... https://www.google.com/search?q=usps+tracking&rlz=lClGCEA—en&oq=USPS&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDQgCEAAYgwEYsQMYgAQyEwgAEAAYg... 1/3 CM Ut HOME OF PELICAN ISLANQ BUILDING DEPARTMENT & FIRE PREVENTION OFFICE 1225 MAIN STREET SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE Q72) 589-5537 FA1(p72I 589-2566 1YYYYi,.41.SILREit 15S11M Q19 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD APPEAL APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS: 1. You must fill each blank and completely answer each question. 2. Incomplete applications will not be processed and may result in a delay in your hearing. 3. If the applicant is not the owner of record of the property and an agent is acting as their agent, the owner must sign the application or submit a notarized letter authorizing the applicant to sign it. 4. Upon receipt, the application will be reviewed and investigated. 5. The owner and/or authorized agent will be notified of the Board hearing date and time at least fifteen (15) days before the next Board meeting. 6. Additional information may be required depending on the nature or type of request. 7. The applicant may be contacted if further information is necessary. 8. Photos, plans, receipts, letters or other evidence submitted at the hearing will become part of the Board's hearing record and cannot be returned to the applicant. 9. Any plans, supporting documents and/or specifications must be submitted electronically with the application to permits la�'cityofsebastian.org 10. All Appellants should apprise themselves of relevant arocedures and provision of the City of Sebastian Code of Ordinances as well as the Florida Building Code, including but not limited to Section 26-40. Page 1 of 7 SECTI������� ��������U�������������U�������_ ON `� �` ```���``` �'~~^����~^ ��^^��^^�^�^������ CONSTRUCTION BOARD TO SERVE AS BOARD OF APPEALS (a)The construction board established pursuant ho odthe City Code ofOrdinances shall serve as the board of appeals to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this coda and the standard codes adopted by the city. (b) Decisions of the construction board, pursuant to this section, may be appealed to the city council by filing awritten appeal with the city clerk within ten days of the decision ufthe construction board. It shall require three affirmative votes uf the city council tooverride the construction board. (c)AU references in the standard codes tothe construction board of adjustments and appeals shall be deemed to refer to the construction board. Except as provided herein, the construction board shall have all the powers and duties of the construction board of adjustments and appeals. An application of an appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of the standard codes or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of the standard codes do not fully apply, or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The bound shall have no authority to waive requirements of the standard codes as amended herein. The board shall modify or reverse the decision of the building official only by u concurring vote of a majority of the total number of appointed board members, (d) VVhmny an aggrieved party decides to appeal a decision, including a final order, of the building o#ioia|, community development director or administrative o#i:ia/, the application of appeal shall be filed with the city clerk within ten days following the staff decision. REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK' PLEASE COMPLETE INFORMATION BEGINNING ON NEXT PAGE Page 2 of 7 1. APPELLANT Name and/or Company Name: MKW Builders, Mark Walker Certified Building Contractor Address of Property(ies): 113 Redgrave Dr. Sebastian, FL 32958 Mailing address (if different): 4113 Abington Woods Cir Vero Beach, FL 32967 Telephone number: (772) 360-8980 2. PROPERTY OWNER (IF DIFFERENT) Name and/or Company Name: Steven and Diana Marini Address of Property(ies) Mailing address (if different): Telephone number: 113 Redgrave Dr. Sebastian, FL 32958 3. DATE FINAL DECISION WAS RENDERED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL/FIRE OFFICIAL: Multiple decisions/actions made by building official. Most recent, 7/15/2025 4. DATE APPELLANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION: 7/15/2025 5. RELATIONSHIP OF THE APPELLANT TO THE BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR SERVICE SYSTEM THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL (CHECK WHERE APPLICABLE): OWNER X AGENT OTHER 6. IF THE APPELLANT CHECKED "AGENT" OR "OTHER", PLEASE DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP AND ATTACH TO THIS DOCUMENT A COPY OF THE AGENT'S AUTHORIZATION TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER. Licensed contractor, with permit to perform work at the address above. LOCATION OF THE BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR SERVICE SYSTEM THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL: _Permit was for replacement of windows and doors at the home, including a garage door, front entry door, skylight and windows. 7. NEW BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING UNDER RENOVATION X Page 3 of 7 8. CODE/SECTION/TITLE BEING APPEALED 105.4.1 Permit intent. A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans, construction or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 6 months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 6 months after the time the work is commenced. 105.4.1.1 If work has commenced and the permit is revoked, becomes null and void, or expires because of lack of progress or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall be obtained before proceeding with the work. 105.4.1.2 If a new permit is not obtained within 180 days from the date the initial permit became null and void, the building official is authorized to require that any work which has been commenced or completed be removed from the building site. Alternately, a new permit may be issued on application, providing the work in place and required to complete the structure meets all applicable regulations in effect at the time the initial permit became null and void and any regulations which may have become effective between the date of expiration and the date of issuance of the new permit. 105.4.1.3 Work shall be considered to be in active progress when the permit has received an approved inspection within 180 days. This provision shall not be applicable in case of civil commotion or strike or when the building work is halted due directly to judicial injunction, order or similar process. 105.4.1.4 The fee for renewal reissuance and extension of a permit shall be set forth by the administrative authority. 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by such permit holder and property owner shall be responsible to either complete all work in accordance with the permitted plans and inspection or remove any partially completed work in a safe and code compliant manner. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing. one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated as determined by the building official. 105.5.2 For the purposes of this subsection, a closed permit shall mean a permit for which all requirerneats for completion have been satisfied or a permit that has been administratively closed by the building official. 105.5.3 For the purposes of this subsection, an open permit shall mean a ermit that has not satisfied all requirements for completion as defined in 105.5.1.1. Page 4 of 7 In addition, Mr. Eseltine had made a requirement that we complete a "framing" inspection on this project which did not pertain to window/door replacement, and inspector John Parker had noted deficiencies is his inspection report that are not part of a window/door final inspection. This inspector has a connection with the homeowner, which led to confusion on the part of the homeowner about how inspections and the work was completed. Staff members (referred to as "City Building Officials" by owners) told the owners that their new windows had to be removed and reinstalled, along with many other false claims that they have no idea what they are talking about. MKW Builders sent Wayne Eseltine a letter through the portJn requesting staff cease and desist this behavior as it was completely incorrect information and caused a legal situation between the owners and MKW Builders. No corrective action was taken. MKW Builders also notified Mr. Eseltine in this letter that the owners were performing work through another contractor on the work already completed by MKW Builders (We had minor corrections to make noted on inspection report from 6/5/2025). This is against Florida Building Code as the Contractor that pulls the permit is required to supervise all work being done under the permit. Eseltine disregarded our letter and email, with 3 weeks going by before we finally spoke to him again. On 7/15/25, Eseltine notified Mark Walker that at the OWNERS REQUEST, he was issuing a second permit for the same work already completed and materials installed by MKW Builders, and after that permit was closed out he would "void" our permit. This is extraordinary and can not be allowed as the contractor he issued the second permit to did not purchase the materials or perform the installation of those materials which as noted above, the contractor who pulls the permit MUST SUPERVISE ALL WORK ON THE PROJECT. We also are appealing Mr. Eseltine's decision to "expire" our permit. He did reinstate the permit for 90 days after a meeting with him and Brian Benton. We reached out to the City of Sebastian Construction Board via email on July 15, 2025, and were contacted by only 1 member, Richard Wilcher. We were informed that the Construction Board has been inactive since 2022, and this is confirmed as there are no meeting minutes from the board since 2022. We then contacted Mr. Dodd, City Council Member, to find out how to handle the situation, and he spoke with Mr. Eseltine about the situation. Mr. Dodd sent us an email that confirmed Esetine's actions on the second permit issued and told us to file a complaint with the construction board. Again, with the board being inactive for 3 years, we felt we were being given the run around. City attorney Jennifer Cockcroft denies the board is inactive, and notified us we needed to submit our complaint to the City Clerks office. Email 7/22/25 Mr. Dodd sent us an email 7/22/25 as well letting us know the city council has an agenda item to appoint a new member at this week's meeting and to send our apparel form to the clerk and if a construction board meeting can't be scheduled, she will bring it to the Council. We have numerous documents and will organize them and send to the clerk once we know who we will be meeting with. 10. THE NATURE OF THIS APPEAL IS AS FOLLOWS (CIRCLE/HIGHIGHT AS APPLICABLE): a. The true intent of the standard codes or the rules lea_ally_ adooted_thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted. b. The provisions of the standard codes do not fullv_W,[y to this specific case. c. An equally good or better form of construction is proposed in this specific case. e. The Building Official/Fire Official has denied or revoked a permit. Page 5 of 7 f. Other (explain below) or with attached documents: As stated above, we are appealing the decisions of Wayne Fseltine, and we also have complainte about his actions and the actions of staff, specifically John Parker, building inspector. ACKNOWLE00MENT 1, the Appellant whose name appears above, and whose signature appears below, understands that, prior to a hearing before the Sebastian Construction Board, the Board Members or City Staff may undertake an Investigaton of this Appeal, including an inspection of the building, structure or service system that Is the subject of this Appeal and may request additional information: i agree that I will cooperate with the investigation and provide any additional information requested. Furthermore, I understand that I will be notified at least five (1 6) days prior to the hearing date. I understandthat, I must electronically submit any plans, supporting documents and/or specifications to _ - _ . and that a hearing may not be held until this appeal form is completed and, If applicable, electronic copies of plans or specifications are submitted. I further understand it is the Appellant's responsibility to provide audioNtsual equipment that the City cannot provide If needed. A1�� LAN Signature_ _ — �lUlarit Walker {der MKW Builders As: Car 1fied Building Contractir__ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Indian River SWORN to and subscribed freely and voluntarily for the purpose therein expressed before me In person or via electronic means by Mark. Vll[41kor.........,_._ ,-,known to rate to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing. HelShe is personally known to be or has produced -- _-- ......_ _ (type of Identification) as Identification. VItiTNSSIS my Fund and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this -1-2 day of A_, 2-b r° .••'••. SHELLyr kiAl.STM * * Commission / WN SG�95t M' ,; �tc�`EVhs June 20, i0X CITY OF SEBASTIAN USB ONLY: DATE OF SUBMITTAL: Notary Pubii , Mate of FI da Print Name. My Commission ExpTrAs: a, � Zo - 2_2 Page a of 7 OTHER NOTES: Page 7 of 7 APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS TO THE APPEAL FOR MKW BUILDERS, LLC FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTION 113 BOARD OF APPEALS The City of Sebastian Construction Board shall serve as the Board of Appeals. 113.1 General. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall be appointed by the applicable governing authority and shall hold office at its pleasure. The board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business. 113.2 Limitations on authority. An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code. FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTIONS REQUESTED TO BE APPEALED 105.4.1 Permit intent. A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans, construction or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 6 months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 6 months after the time the work is commenced. 105.4.1.1 If work has commenced and the permit is revoked, becomes null and void, or expires because of lack of progress or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall be obtained before proceeding with the work. 105.4.1.2 If a new permit is not obtained within 180 days from the date the initial permit became null and void, the building official is authorized to require that any work which has been commenced or completed be removed from the building site. Alternately, a new permit may be issued on application, providing the work in place and required to complete the structure meets all applicable regulations in effect at the time the initial permit became null and void and any regulations which may have become effective between the date of expiration and the date of issuance of the new permit. 105.4.1.3 Work shall be considered to be in active progress when the permit has received an approved inspection within 180 days. This provision shall not be applicable in case of civil commotion or strike or when the building work is halted due directly to judicial injunction, order or similar process. 105.4.1.4 The fee for renewal reissuance and extension of a permit shall be set forth by the administrative authority. 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by such permit holder and property owner shall be responsible to either complete all work in accordance with the permitted plans and inspection or remove any partially completed work in a safe and code compliant manner. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated as determined by the building official. 105.5.2 For the purposes of this subsection, a closed permit shall mean a permit for which all requirements for completion have been satisfied or a permit that has been administratively closed by the building official. 105.5.3 For the purposes of this subsection, an open permit shall mean a permit that has not satisfied all requirements for completion as defined in 105.5.1.1. CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES Sec. 26-40. - Construction board to serve as board of appeals. (a) The construction board established pursuant to section 26-191 of the City Code of Ordinances shall serve as the board of appeals to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code and the standard codes adopted by the city. (b) Decisions of the construction board, pursuant to this section, may be appealed to the city council by filing a written appeal with the city clerk within ten days of the decision of the construction board. It shall require three affirmative votes of the city council to override the construction board. (c) All references in the standard codes to the construction board of adjustments and appeals shall be deemed to refer to the construction board. Except as provided herein, the construction board shall have all the powers and duties of the construction board of adjustments and appeals. An application of an appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of the standard codes or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of the standard codes do not fully apply, or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of the standard codes as amended herein. The board shall modify or reverse the decision of the building official only by a concurring vote of a majority of the total number of appointed board members. (d) Where an aggrieved party decides to appeal a decision, including a final order, of the building official, community development director or administrative official, the application of appeal shall be filed with the city clerk within ten days following the staff decision. Sec. 26-198. - Administration. In order to carry out the intent of this article, the city council hereby appoints the following officials to assist the construction board in performing its duties: (1) Building gfficial. The building official, or his authorized representative, shall have the primary duty of enforcing the various codes and initiating disciplinary proceedings before the hoard, and shall make such recommendations or reports to the board as needed on each matter considered by it. MR. MARK WALKER DBA MKW BUILDERS, LLC 4113 ABINGTON WOODS CIR. VERO BEACH, FL. 32967 APPELLANT CITY OF SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD NOTICE OF HEARING Case No. 25-2 Hearing Date: AUGUST 26.2025 Parcel I D#: 31391900001458000023.0 Property Address: 113 REDGRAVE DR. SEBASTIAN. FL 32958 Legal Description: SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 17 BLK 458 LOT 23 PBI 8-46 TO 46P NOTICE OF HEARING FOR APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS A. APPEAL BY APPELLANT: The City of Sebastian Construction Board (hereinafter BOARD) serves as the board of appeals of the City of Sebastian Building Official of the Florida Building Code, pursuant to Florida law and the City Code of Ordinances. In accordance with the receipt of your appeal of the following: 1. 105.4.1, Permit intent; 2. 105.4.1.1, Expired permit due to lack of progress requires a new permit; 3. 105.4.1.2, If a new permit is not obtained within 180 days; 4. 105.4.1.3, Work considered to be in active progress; 5. 105.4.1.4, Fee for renewal set forth by administrative authority; 6. 105.5, Expiration; 7. 105.5.2, Closed permit; and 8. 105.5.3, Open Permit. The address(es) of the real properties upon which these codes are being appealed occurred are: 113 REDGRAVE DR., SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. B. NOTICE OF HEARING: Please be advised that the City of Sebastian Construction Board is set to convene and hear this matter at a Quasi - Judicial Hearing on: TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2025 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA. CITY OF SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 of 2 YOU ARE REQUESTED to appear before the BOARD at that time to APPEAL the administrative determinations as made by the Building Official of the City of Sebastian under the Florida Building Code and the City's Code of Ordinances as outlined in your appeal application. This hearing is being held to provide you an opportunity to contest the determination made by the Building Official regarding the matters as outlined in your appeal application. If you fail to attend, the BOARD may base its findings and act solely on the presentation made at the BOARD Hearing. YOU MAY APPEAR WITH OR WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRESENT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE OTHER PARTY'S WITNESSES. Per the City Code of Ordinances, the BOARD may only modify or reverse the decision of the Building Official by concurring vote of a majority of the total number of appointed board members; the Board may not waive requirements of the standard codes of the Florida Building Code or the City's Code. Decisions of the BOARD, pursuant to Section 26-91 of the City Code of Ordinances, may be appealed to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within ten days of the decision of the BOARD. It shall require three affirmative votes of City Council to override the BOARD. Please be advised that the procedures of the BOARD are governed by the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sebastian. Copies of these Ordinances may be obtained at the office of the City Clerk, City of Sebastian. cm 0 SEBASTIAN . N f US POSTAGE-1PITNEY BOWES 0 V ., ZIP 32958 ,V ���.V6� HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND 1.9 00 1348317 AUG 01 2025 9489 0090 0027 6180 7898 61 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 Mr. Mark Walker DBA MKW Builders, LLC 4113 Abington Woods Cir Vero Beach, FL 32967 8/15/25, 5:25 PM usps tracking usps tracking - Google Search X I R Al mode All Images Snort videos Shopping Forums Videos More - Track your package Data provided by USPS Tracking number 948 009000275180789861 0 Tracking number created In transit Magus?07, 12:OOAM Out for delivery Delivered Pyo View details on USPS Call1-800-275-8777 Track another package USPS https://tools, usps. cot-n USPS Tracking USPS.com® - USPS Tracking Your tracking number can be found in the following places .. �m. ii Tools -- https://www.google.com/search?q=usps+tracking&riz=1 C 1 GCEA_en&oq=USPS&gs_lcrp=EgZja HJvbW UgDQgCEAAYgwEYsQMYgAQyEwqAEAAYq... 113 Documentation pertaining to MKW Builders request for a hearing in front of the City of Sebastian Construction Board in regards to the actions and decisions of building inspector John Parker. John Parker - building inspector Mr. Parker engaged in misconduct during inspections by failing to conduct an inspection, failing to conduct the inspections properly, citing incorrect violations, requiring contractor to show pictures of work and to complete work that was not part of the required inspections for the permit, allowing interference with the contractors permit and in inspections by the homeowner who is an acquaintance of the inspector, making false claims on the inspection report, failing to cite Florida Building Code in his inspection report, deny the contractor the opportunity to be present during two different inspections, and engaging in unprofessional conduct. This inspector has made false statements to the homeowner with regards to corrections needed to the work and continued to do so even after the contractor sent a cease and desist letter to the building official. Violations of Florida Building Code By John Parker: 1.Failure to complete inspection per Florida Building Code. (I)FBC 110.6 Approval Required - Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official, upon notification, SHALL MAKE THE REQUESTED INSPECTIONS AND SHALL EITHER INDICATE THE PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT IS SATISFACTORY AS COMPLETED, OR NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OF HIS OR HER AGENT WHEREIN THE SAME FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS CODE. ANY PORTIONS THAT DO NOT COMPLY SHALL BE CORRECTED AND SUCH PORTION SHALL NOT BE COVERED OR CONCEALED UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. (II)FBC 110.3 required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES. (III)FBC 110.3.13 Impact-resistant coverings or systems - Where impact-resistant coverings or systems are installed to meet requirements of this code, the building official shall schedule adequate inspections of impact-resistant coverings or systems to determine the following: 1. The system indicated on the plans was installed. 2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval Violations of Florida Statutes by John Parker: (I)F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and inspectors. - 1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection of construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental jurisdiction, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These responsibilities include: (b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code. (II) F.S. 468.604 2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from any unlicensed person. Inspection by John Parker on April 28, 2025 On April 28, 2025 Mr. Parker was assigned to perform the inspection MKW Builders requested on a window and door replacement permit. The City of Sebastian Building Department improperly assigned this permit with a FRAMING inspection. Per FBC 110.3.13, the required inspections for Impact-Resistant coverings or systems is to determine: 1. The system indicated on the plans was installed. 2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval Mr. Parker completed this inspection prior to it being assigned and viewable on the MGO Portal after speaking to the homeowner who is his acquaintance. Mr. Parker arranged to complete the inspection at approximately 7:30am with the homeowner and denied Mr. Walker the opportunity to meet the inspector on site. The homeowner did not want MKW Builders to schedule this inspection and tried to prevent it from happening. Mr. Parker was assisting the homeowner in interfering with MKW Builders permit/inspections and did so on multiple occasions. In Mr. Parkers inspection report, he notes: Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments (a). Provide photos of new window bucks for framing inspection. (b) Garage door OK.(c) Front door missing screws at hinges and strikes. (d) Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. (e) All windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking. (f) Remove all trim strips at concealed fasteners. (g) Inspection stopped. (h) (a) Mr. Parker failed to inspect the 3 windows with mull bar clips to ensure proper installation. These fasteners are observable after window installation. Mr. Parker apparently did not know that and failed to cite that they were missing on his report. This failure led to MKW Builders not finding out about the missing mull clips until the reinspection on June 5, 2025. (b) Per FBC 110.3.13, new window bucks for framing inspection IS NOT REQUIRED for a Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. All original window/door openings remained in same location and replaced with the same size products. (c) Mr. Parker says “Garage door OK”. This is not proper language to indicate this work was approved. Mr. Parker’s failure to properly acknowledge this work as “Approved” led to the City of Sebastian Building Official claiming that MKW Builders permit on this project “Expired” due to not having an “approved” inspection in 180 days. Mr. Parker’s failure to perform his duties according to Florida statute and Building code have caused MKW Builders to spend time, money and resources to correct the record in addition to a legal dispute with the homeowner, and a hearing with the City of Sebastian Construction board to dispute the actions of this inspector and the building official and voice our concerns regarding their actions and behavior that are direct violations of FBC and F.S. (d) Mr. Parker falsely noted that the front door was “missing screws at hinges and strikes”. The installation instructions called for 1 3” screw at the top of each hinge. The screws were all there, and the 3 screws that were the incorrect length were installed as per manufacturer instructions. Mr. Parker again failed to properly cite the deficiency in his report and made a false claim that the front door was “missing” screws. The screws were not missing, there were 3 screws that were the incorrect length. No deficiency in the screws at the strikes was found. Another false claim by Mr. Parker. (e) Per FBC 110.3.13, skylight framing is not part of an Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. Mr. Parker is required to inspect the skylight to ensure the product installed matched the product approval provided in the plan documents and that the skylight was installed per manufacturer installation instructions. It is not the responsibility of MKW Builders to perform the inspection, nor is it required that pictures be provided to the inspector. Mr. Parker failed to complete this inspection per FBC 110.6. (f) Mr. Parker claimed ALL windows are missing fasteners. This was another false claim. All windows were not missing fasteners. A couple of windows had screws that were for a concrete block application, instead of the wood frame application. Mr. Parker failed to note the specific windows from the plan provided that he observed “missing fasteners” resulting in MKW Builders having to check hundreds of screws to find the handful that were the incorrect size. There were NO MISSING FASTENERS. Only incorrect size fasteners. Mr. Parker stated “home owner claims some windows are leaking”. This was a false claim made by the homeowner, and any leaking was due to the homeowner not completing the waterproofing and painting on the stucco bands they had installed. MKW Builders did not contract with the homeowner for painting and stucco work. Per FBC 110.3.13, window leaks are not part of the inspection for impact-resistant systems, and there is no FBC that applies to this statement. Mr. Parker failed to perform this inspection per FBC, and failed to cite a corresponding code to his noted deficiencies. Mr. Parker is in violation of Florida Statute 468.604 1. …..The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON, and F.S. 468.604.2 ……..The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from any unlicensed person. Mr. Parker’s report made it clear that he was allowing the homeowner (his acquaintance) to interfere with him executing his duties as required per Florida Building Code and Florida Statute. Mr. Parker is also in violation of F.S. 468.604.1.b. …..shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code. Mr. Parker cited numerous items in his report that were not violations of Florida Building Code, and repeated false claims made by the homeowner. (h) Mr. Parker states “inspection stopped”. Mr. Parker stopped his inspection against FBC 110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES Reinspection requested May 8, 2025 At the time, MKW Builders was unaware of Mr. Parker’s relationship with the homeowner and found the inspectors behavior to be highly unprofessional and unusual. MKW Builders returned to the project site to correct the minor issues on Mr. Parker’s inspection report and planned to meet the assigned inspector for the reinspect to discuss the items that were cited by Mr. Parker unrelated to building code violations. On 5/8/25 MKW Builders had scheduled the reinspect and it was assigned to inspector Andrew Yacko. The contractor checked the inspectors schedule throughout the day to prepare to be on site to meet him. Around 2pm, the contractor received a call from inspector John Parker, (the owner’s friend). Mr. Parker claimed he was on site but no one was home to let him in and the owner left a note on the door saying to call a phone number. The contractor asked why he was calling him and not the assigned inspector Mr. Yacko as he had been watching the schedule all day. Mr. Parker became rude and defensive. The contractor told him he wanted to be there for the inspection and that he had notified the owner he would need access to the home for the inspection however, since Mr. Parker took over the inspection from the assigned inspector, he had no idea he was coming. The homeowner had contacted his friend, Mr. Parker, to interfere with the inspection, which is why it was switched from Inspector Yacko to Parker. Mr. Parker told Mr. Walker he had to upload pictures from his last inspection and stated he would not complete the inspection that day and he was cancelling it. The contractor was stunned by this situation as this has never happened in his 25 years of experience in construction. It is unprecedented for a building inspector to bypass the contractor as the permit holder for inspections and solely communicate with the homeowner. The contractor told Mr. Parker there were concerns regarding the improper citing of “deficiencies” that are not code violations, and not part of the inspections for a window and door replacement permit, no building code references, and he was not following protocol with the inspections, denying the contractor on two separate occasions the opportunity to be present on site with the inspector. Mr. Parker was disrespectful to the contractor, and engaged in threatening behavior insinuating he was in full control of the inspections for this permit and he could act any way he pleased. This is a violation of the FBC and F.S. stated above. The homeowner has stated numerous times that they have received “advice and information” from “city building officials” about the corrections needed to the work, the construction methods used to complete the work, and the work required to make the corrections. This homeowner is currently in a legal action with MKW Builders, and MKW Builders has filed a construction lien against this homeowner for nonpayment. This situation could have been avoided if Mr. Parker had performed his job according to Florida Statute and Florida Building Code. See Exhibits for evidence to substantiate these claims. Documentation pertaining to MKW Builders request for a hearing in front of the City of Sebastian Construction Board in regards to the actions and decisions of building official Wayne Eseltine. Wayne Eseltine - Building Official Complaint Summary: Mr. Eseltine is the Building Official for the City of Sebastian Building Department. He has engaged in misconduct as follows: failed to correct improper inspection reporting by an inspector under his supervision, failing to provide permit and inspection requirements on the building department website and permit applications, allowing staff to issue an expired permit notice with his signature while he was out of the office for a week with no grounds for expiring the permit, requiring the contractor to perform work outside of the scope of work on the building permit issued, violating numerous Florida Building Codes, allowing a homeowner to influence his decision making and failing to act as required by FBC and Florida Statute, making false claims to the contractor and the homeowner, failing to issue stop work order to homeowner engaging in work that was covered under the contractors active and open permit, failing to release portions of the work under the contractors permit and close out the permit prior to issuing a second permit for the same work to another contractor, taking a plan and product approval documents from MKW Builders permit package and attaching those documents to a second permit for our work without the knowledge of the other contractor Permit 25-2566, threatening, harassing and intimidating the contractor, exhibiting disrespectful and unprofessional conduct, and failing to follow multiple City of Sebastian municipal codes. Mr. Eseltine has made false statements to the homeowner with regards to corrections needed to the work and continued to do so even after the contractor sent a cease and desist letter. Violations of Florida Building Code & Florida Statute By Wayne Eseltine: Section 1: (I)FBC 110.3.13 Impact-resistant coverings or systems - Where impact-resistant coverings or systems are installed to meet requirements of this code, the building official shall schedule adequate inspections of impact-resistant coverings or systems to determine the following: 1. The system indicated on the plans was installed. 2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval (III) F.S. 553.79 (b) A local enforcement agency shall post each type of building permit application, including a list of all required attachments, drawings, or other requirements for each type of application, on its website. A local enforcement agency must post and update the status of every received application on its website until the issuance of the building permit. Completed applications, including payments, attachments, drawings, or other requirements or parts of the completed permit application, must be able to be submitted electronically to the appropriate building department. (IV) F.S. 553.79 (e) A local enforcement agency must post its procedures for processing, reviewing, and approving submitted building permit applications on its website. On 11/22/2024 MKW Builders applied for a Window / Door Replacement permit. The scope of work for the project falls under FBC Existing Building, Level 1, and the required inspections per FBC 110.3.13 for impact-resistant coverings or systems consists of 1. Determining the system indicated on the plans was installed, and 2. the system was installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval. The permit application posted on the city of Sebastian Building Department website is a general permit application, and the corresponding documentation requirements for the application are basic and incomplete. No where on the permit application form or the documentation list does it require a “framing inspection” including window bucking and skylight framing, or a list of pictures required of the work in progress. There is no notice that the building official requires an exposed framing inspection for this permit which would be a major deviation from Florida Building Code and every other jurisdiction. Since there is no separate permit application for window / door replacement available, a “Standard Permit Application” is used. The documentation requirements sheet available on the website is under “Residential Additions & Alterations”. This documentation sheet only references the following that pertains to window/door replacement: Two (2) complete sets of product approval for all new doors, garage doors, windows, soffits, siding, hurricane protection, and roofing. MKW Builders has pulled numerous window/door replacement permits in many jurisdictions and although not specified or required by this building official, we submitted a window/door schedule that included the existing opening size, the new opening size (which remained the same), egress requirements and a plan that indicated the location of each window/door that was being replaced. The permit was issued on 12/03/24, and due to material delivery delays, the work was completed in phases. Phase 1 began 12/16/24 and consisted of front entry door, garage door and skylight replacement. Phase 2 was the window replacement and that began the first week of January 2025. 3 windows were delivered in the incorrect size, so new windows had to be ordered. Those windows were installed in March 2025. A window was cracked during install, so the final window was installed on 4/25/25. The inspection was called for on 4/28/25. The inspectors report listed numerous “deficiencies” that were not part of the required inspections per FBC 110.3.13. The inspector cancelled the reinspect called for on 5/8/25 as he refused to perform the inspection without documentation of the window bucking, skylight framing and mull clips. There is no requirement for any of these items per the permit application, permit documentation or FBC. Mr. Eseltine, and the inspector he oversees, failed to adhere to the required inspections per FBC 110.3.13 and also violated Florida Statute F.S. 468.604. Mr. Eseltine has also violated F.S. 553.79 (b) and F.S. 553.79 (e) which requires the local enforcement agency (under direction of the Building Official) shall post each type of building permit application, including a list of all required attachments, drawings, or other requirements for each type of application, on its website, and must post its procedures for processing, reviewing, and approving submitted building permit applications on its website Section 2 Violations of F.S. and FBC by Wayne Eseltine: (I)FBC 110.6 Approval Required - Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official, upon notification, SHALL MAKE THE REQUESTED INSPECTIONS AND SHALL EITHER INDICATE THE PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT IS SATISFACTORY AS COMPLETED, OR NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OF HIS OR HER AGENT WHEREIN THE SAME FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS CODE. ANY PORTIONS THAT DO NOT COMPLY SHALL BE CORRECTED AND SUCH PORTION SHALL NOT BE COVERED OR CONCEALED UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. (II)FBC 110.3 required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES. (III)F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and inspectors. - 1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection of construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental jurisdiction, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These responsibilities include: (b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code. 2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from any unlicensed person. On April 28, 2025 Mr. Parker (inspector) was assigned to perform the inspection MKW Builders requested on a window and door replacement permit. The City of Sebastian Building Department improperly assigned this permit with a FRAMING inspection. Per FBC 110.3.13, the required inspections for Impact-Resistant coverings or systems is to determine: 1. The system indicated on the plans was installed. 2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval The inspector completed this inspection prior to it being assigned and viewable on the MGO Portal after speaking to the homeowner who is his acquaintance. The inspector arranged to complete the inspection at approximately 7:30am with the homeowner and denied the contractor the opportunity to meet the inspector on site. The homeowner did not want MKW Builders to schedule this inspection and tried to prevent it from happening. The inspector was assisting the homeowner in interfering with MKW Builders permit/inspections and did so on multiple occasions. In the inspection report, he notes: Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments (a). Provide photos of new window bucks for framing inspection. (b) Garage door OK.(c) Front door missing screws at hinges and strikes. (d) Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. (e) All windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking. (f) Remove all trim strips at concealed fasteners. (g) Inspection stopped. (h) (a) The inspector failed to inspect the 3 windows with mull bar clips to ensure proper installation. These fasteners are observable after window installation. The inspector apparently did not know that and failed to cite that they were missing on his report. This failure led to MKW Builders not finding out about the missing mull clips until the reinspection on June 5, 2025. (b) Per FBC 110.3.13, new window bucks for framing inspection IS NOT REQUIRED for a Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. All original window/door openings remained in same location and replaced with the same size products. (c) The inspector says “Garage door OK”. This is not proper language to indicate this work was approved. Mr. Parker’s failure to properly acknowledge this work as “Approved” led to the City of Sebastian Building Official Wayne Eseltine claiming that MKW Builders permit on this project “Expired” due to not having an “approved” inspection in 180 days. Mr. Parker’s failure to perform his duties according to Florida statute and Building code have caused MKW Builders to spend time, money and resources to correct the record in addition to a legal dispute with the homeowner, and a hearing with the City of Sebastian Construction board to dispute the actions of this inspector and Wayne Eseltine and voice our concerns regarding their actions and behavior that are direct violations of FBC and F.S. (d) The inspector falsely noted that the front door was “missing screws at hinges and strikes”. The installation instructions called for 1 3” screw at the top of each hinge. The screws were all there, and the 3 screws that were the incorrect length were installed as per manufacturer instructions after the inspection. The inspector again failed to properly cite the deficiency in his report and made a false claim that the front door was “missing” screws. The screws were not missing, there were 3 screws that were the incorrect length. No deficiency in the screws at the strikes was found. Another false claim by the inspector. (e) Per FBC 110.3.13, skylight framing is not part of an Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. The inspector is required to inspect the skylight to ensure the product installed matched the product approval provided in the plan documents and that the skylight was installed per manufacturer installation instructions. It is not the responsibility of MKW Builders to perform the inspection, nor is it required that pictures be provided to the inspector. The inspector failed to complete this inspection per FBC 110.6. In addition, a third permit application for the skylight, front entry door and garage door is under review by Wayne Eseltine’s department and I have attached that document as an exhibit that shows only a Final inspection is required and a framing inspection is not listed. Another example of Mr. Eseltine’s failure to follow state statute and Florida building code for required inspections and documentation for permit applications. (f) The inspector claimed ALL windows are missing fasteners. This was another false claim. All windows were not missing fasteners. A couple of windows had screws that were for a concrete block application, instead of the wood frame application. The inspector failed to note the specific windows from the plan provided that he observed “missing fasteners” resulting in MKW Builders having to check hundreds of screws to find the handful that were the incorrect size. There were NO MISSING FASTENERS. Only incorrect size fasteners. The inspector stated “home owner claims some windows are leaking”. This was a false claim made by the homeowner, and any leaking was due to the homeowner not completing the waterproofing and painting on the stucco bands they had installed. MKW Builders did not contract with the homeowner for painting and stucco work. Per FBC 110.3.13, window leaks are not part of the inspection for impact-resistant systems, and there is no FBC that applies to this statement. The windows were all sealed per manufacturer installation instructions, and the inspector did not note the sealing as a deficiency is his report because there wasn’t one. The inspector failed to perform this inspection per FBC, and failed to cite a corresponding code to his noted deficiencies. Mr. Eseltine is required by Florida Statute and FBC to ensure the inspectors working under him execute their job duties as required. He has failed to do so. Mr. Eseltine is in violation of Florida Statute 468.604 1. …..The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON, and F.S. 468.604.2 ……..The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from any unlicensed person. This inspection report clearly shows that Mr. Eseltine was allowing the homeowner to interfere with executing his duties and the oversight of his inspector as required per Florida Building Code and Florida Statute. Mr. Eseltine is also in violation of F.S. 468.604.1.b. …..shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code. The inspector cited numerous items in his report that were not violations of Florida Building Code, and repeated false claims made by the homeowner. Mr. Eseltine failed to correct the report of his inspector. (h) The inspector states “inspection stopped”. The inspector stopped his inspection against FBC 110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES. Neither Mr. Eseltine nor his inspector acknowledged the portions of the work that were approved or should have been approved per FBC. They also did not cite the code violations that pertained to the noted deficiencies in the report. Section 3: Violation of FBC by Wayne Eseltine Required Inspections FBC 110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES. Misconduct by inspector and Eseltine engaging in harassment, threats and intimidation during inspections. Reinspection requested May 8, 2025 MKW Builders returned to the project site to correct the minor issues on the inspectors report and planned to meet the assigned inspector for the reinspect to discuss the items that were cited by the inspector that were unrelated to building code violations and items that were not part of the FBC required inspections. On 5/8/25 MKW Builders had scheduled the reinspect and it was assigned to inspector Andrew Yacko. The contractor checked the inspectors schedule throughout the day to prepare to be on site to meet him. Around 2pm, the contractor received a call from the inspector John Parker, (who performed the first inspection on 4/28/25). The inspector claimed he was on site but no one was home to let him in and the owner left a note on the door saying to call a phone number. The contractor asked why he was calling him and not the assigned inspector Mr. Yacko, as he had been watching the schedule all day. The inspector became rude and defensive. The contractor told him he wanted to be there for the inspection and that he had notified the owner he would need access to the home for the inspection however, since the inspector was never assigned this inspection, he had no idea he was coming. The homeowner had contacted the inspector to interfere with the inspection and it switched from Inspector Yacko to Parker. The inspector told Mr. Walker he had to upload pictures from his last inspection and stated he would not complete the inspection MKW builders requested and he was cancelling it. The contractor was stunned by this situation as this has never happened in his 25 years of experience in construction. It is unprecedented for a building inspector to bypass the contractor as the permit holder for inspections and solely communicate with the homeowner. The contractor told the inspector there were concerns regarding the improper citing of “deficiencies” that are not code violations, and not part of the inspections for a window and door replacement permit, no building code references, and he was not following protocol with the inspections, denying the contractor on two separate occasions the opportunity to be present on site with the inspector. The inspector was disrespectful to the contractor, and engaged in threatening behavior insinuating he was in full control of the inspections for this permit and he could act any way he pleased. This is a violation of the FBC and F.S. stated above. The homeowner has stated numerous times that they have received “advice and information” from “city building officials” about the corrections needed to the work, the construction methods used to complete the work, and the work required to make the corrections. This homeowner is currently in a legal action with MKW Builders, and MKW Builders has filed a construction lien against this homeowner for nonpayment. This situation could have been avoided if the inspector and Mr. Eseltine had performed their jobs according to Florida Statute and Florida Building Code. Section 4: Violations of FBC and F.S. by Wayne Eseltine Regarding “expired permit” (I)FBC 105.4.1 Permit Intent A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans, construction or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 6 months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 6 months after the time the work is commenced (II)FBC 105.4.1.1 If work has commenced and the permit is revoked, becomes null and void, or expires because of lack of progress or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall be obtained before proceeding with the work. (III)FBC 105.4.1.3 Work shall be considered to be in active progress when the permit has received an approved inspection within 180 days. This provision shall not be applicable in case of civil commotion or strike or when the building work is halted due directly to judicial injunction, order or similar process. The permit for the work completed on this project was issued 12/3/25 under permit # 24-4148. The work commenced on 12/16/2024. The skylight, garage door, and front entry door were replaced at that time. Homeowner requested to hold on replacing windows until he was on vacation from work over the holidays. We did not work over the holidays so the window replacement began in the first week of January. The contractor observed unforeseen conditions that prevented him from removing the windows as planned in the proposal while removing the first window, which would require additional labor and costs to complete the work. The contractor stopped the work and he had a conversation with the homeowner showing him the situation and explaining what he would need to do in order to complete the window replacement. He made the homeowner aware that there would be additional costs associated with the additional work. The contractor understood these clients were low income, due to the MSFH grant and they obtained financing through our website for the cost of the work. The contractor told the homeowner he would cover half the cost of the stucco repairs to help him out, (Total cost for stucco was around $4,000.00, and MKW Builders covered $1,900.00) but that the owner would need to pay the additional labor and material costs, along with the other half of the stucco work. The homeowner wanted to proceed with the window replacement and agreed to the additional costs. The contractor then proceeded with the removal and replacement of the windows. (The additional cost to the owner in total was $3,000.00) MKW Builders did not charge a builder fee and was not making a profit on this work. This job was was not about profit, it was an opportunity for MKW Builders to give back to someone they felt needed a little help. This project was never abandoned and MKW Builders was on site from the date work commenced until June 5, 2025 when we had to arrange through a second City of Sebastian Building Official to complete the reinspection the original inspector refused to do and the homeowner refused to provide MKW Builders with access to the home. The homeowner texted the contractor on 5/30/25 that he saw his permit was going to expire on 6/1/25. The contractor responded to let him know that was not the case and his permit was active and in the inspection phase. He explained that a permit would expire after 180 days if the project had been abandoned or had not commenced within that time period. On Monday, 6/2/25, MKW Builders received an email from the City of Sebastian building official Wayne Eseltine notifying him that his permit had expired. MKW Builders contacted the building department to find out what was going on. The building official Wayne Eseltine was out of the office, however, a staff member was the person who sent the email with Mr. Eseltines signature. The staff member notified MKW Builders that the homeowner had been contacting the building department about “this situation”. MKW Builders asked her what situation she was referring to and she was told she would have to speak with Dan Hainey, the second in charge of the department. MKW contacted him immediately. Mr. Hainey advised that the homeowners had been calling constantly, telling them we had abandoned their job and we refused to fix the problems they had etc. MKW explained the situation in great detail and notified him that the homeowners were obstructing the contractor from scheduling the reinspection. Further, MKW stated that expiring this permit was NOT appropriate and requested the permit status be correct immediately. MKW sent a letter via email and through the MGO contractor portal in response to the expired permit letter. MKW then contacted Mr. Hainey and told him he would need to intervene with the owner to provide us access for the inspection. Mr. Hainey agreed to perform the inspection personally after MKW explained the history with the other inspector. Mr. Eseltine was present at the reinspection on 6/5/25, and the permit had been extended for 15 days. After a meeting with City of Sebastian Manager Brian Benton and Mr. Eseltine, the permit was extended 90 days. Mr. Eseltine was disrespectful, unprofessional and out of line during this meeting. The permit should never have been expired to begin with. The permit was active, work had commenced within 2 weeks of permit issue and the inspection was requested on 4/25/25. The failure of the inspector to notate the approved work, failure to adhere to the required inspections for the permit, false statements about the work on the report and failure to cite building code violations were disregarded by Eseltine and he claimed he could expire the permit because the inspection was not passed. Mr. Eseltine has purposely misinterpreted the FBC with regard to expired permits to justify the actions of his department placing our permit in an expired status based on false claims by the homeowner. This is a violation of F.S. 468.604.1 Section 5: Violations by Wayne Eseltine Responsibilities of Building Official & Permits: F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and inspectors. 1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection of construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental jurisdiction, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These responsibilities include: (b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code. 2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from any unlicensed person. F.S. 553.79 (4) (b) After the local enforcing agency issues a permit, the local enforcing agency may not make or require any substantive changes to the plans or specifications except changes required for compliance with the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire Prevention Code, or the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto. If a local enforcing agency makes or requires substantive changes to the plans or specifications after a permit is issued, the local enforcing agency must identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide the information to the permit holder in writing. F.S. 553.79 (4)(2) A building code administrator who fails to provide a permit applicant or permitholder with the reasons for making or requiring substantive changes to the plans or specifications is subject to disciplinary action against his or her certificate under s. 468.621(1)(i) Wayne Eseltine told the contractor he would have to complete a full window framing inspection, with the framing exposed on the windows in order to pass inspection. The contractor argued with him at length as this was NOT part of a window/door replacement permit per FBC 110.3.13 and it was not work he had accounted for in his contract with the owners. Mr. Eseltine failed to provide the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, failed to identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which his finding was based and failed to provide this information in writing to MKW Builders. This is a violation of F.S. 553.79 (4) (b), After the local enforcing agency issues a permit, the local enforcing agency may not make or require any substantive changes to the plans or specifications except changes required for compliance with the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire Prevention Code, or the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto. If a local enforcing agency makes or requires substantive changes to the plans or specifications after a permit is issued, the local enforcing agency must identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide the information to the permit holder in writing. Due to Mr. Eseltine’s new “requirements”, we had to inform the homeowner that while we would correct the minor issues in the inspectors report at no charge to them, we sent a change order for the “framing work” Mr. Eseltine was requiring MKW Builders to complete in order to close out this permit. The homeowner’s lawyer stated numerous times that the owners had been informed by “city building officials” that they had to completely remove their windows and redo them and we would have to pay for that. These comments were very unsettling as the lawyer was now claiming that staff at the City of Sebastian Building Department officials were providing misinformation and making false claims about the work MKW Builders completed. A copy of the inspection report from 6/5/25 states the deficiencies the inspector observed but again failed to report on the portions of the work that were approved. A building inspector or Building Official is authorized to inspect the contractors work to ensure it meets building code, they are not authorized to inform a contractor or homeowner on the process for how corrections to the work are made, nor was the framing work Mr. Eseltine was requiring noted on the inspection report and the report did not include any statement that the windows had to be removed and replaced. 3 windows needed to have the mull clips installed that were mistakenly left off of the window mull bars. This work was easy to correct, and MKW Builders had every intention of making the corrections and having the windows reinspected once that was completed. Due to Mr. Eseltine’s numerous violations of F.S. and FBC, he created confusion and chaos between the contractor and the owner. A third permit (Permit 25-2799) was issued to the owner acting as the contractor for a portion of the work completed by MKW Builders. This permit does not show a framing inspection required for the skylight which is contradictory to Wayne Eseltines requirements that MKW builders undergo a full framing inspection. Section 6: Violations by Wayne Eseltine Permits Mr. Eseltine ignored a letter sent by MKW Builders informing him that the owners were actively engaging in work that was under the permit issued to MKW Builders and requested Mr. Eseltine issue a stop work order to the owners until the permit was closed and the situation resolved. Mr. Eseltine ignored the multiple requests of MKW Builders. MKW Builders discovered that a second permit application WITH THE EXACT SAME SCOPE OF WORK was approved on this project (Permit 25-2566) while OUR PERMIT IS STILL ACTIVE. The contractor finally spoke with Eseltine on July 15, 2025 and he informed the contractor that he couldn’t “hold the owners hostage”. He approved and issued the second permit and stated that once the work was inspected and completed under this second permit, he would VOID MKW Builders PERMIT. The contractor demanded that his permit be closed as his permit documents, product approvals, the installation of the products etc were paid for and completed by MKW Builders, and issuing another permit on this work was not appropriate. This action by Wayne Eseltine is illegal and equates to the building official assisting the homeowner with committing fraud and theft. According to Code Section 26-172 Causes for Disciplinary Action: (11) Failing to actively supervise construction projects for which the contractor has applied for and obtained a building permit; or for projects for which the contractor is, by contract, responsible; MKW builders is well aware of this Municipal Code and F.S. that requires the Contractor to ACTIVELY SUPERVISE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR WHICH THE CONTRACTOR HAS APPLIED AND OBTAINED A BUILDING PERMIT. MKW Builders sent the cease and desist letter to Wayne Eseltine to prevent the homeowner or another contractor from working on this project that MKW Builders is responsible for supervising. Wayne ignored the serious concerns and this code by allowing the owner and another contractor to engage in work under MKW Builders permit, and issuing two additional permits for the work to the owner and another contractor. This is a grave violation that jeopardizes the permit and liability of all parties, and it is the reason why multiple permits are not issued for the same project. As explained to Wayne, MKW Builders permit needed to be closed PRIOR to the issuance of another permit. This was another example of Wayne Eseltine violating Code and F.S. A records request was made 7/28/25 for the documents related to this second permit. It was discovered that the plan and product approvals submitted by MKW Builders with their permit application were transferred over to the second permit under a new contractor. After speaking with the contractor listed on the second permit, MKW Builders was informed she did not submit those documents with her application, it was the building department that added MKW Builders documents to her permit. This is an unfathomable action by Wayne Eseltine and illegal. The plan examiner who reviewed and issued this permit was identified by Wayne Eseltine as “Sam Smith”. There is no precedent for this action. A Plans Examiner or Building Official does not have the authority to take documents from one permit and ADD them to another, nor do they have the authority to edit a contractors documents in a permit application. Their authority is strictly limited to review the documents PROVIDED TO THEM IN THE APPLICATION to determine if those documents are sufficient and that they meet FBC requirements. A complaint will be sent to the DBPR against the Plan Examiner’s license once their identity is confirmed for this gross violation. It should be noted, Wayne Eseltine oversees the plan examiners and he allowed this violation to occur. Section 7: Notice of Hearing written and sent by Wayne Eseltine on behalf of the Board Mr. Eseltine sent a letter to MKW Builders accusing them of 1. Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting, 2. Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer, and 3. Knowingly or deliberately disregarding or violating any applicable building codes or laws of the state, county or the city. Mr. Eseltine has no evidence that MKW Builders did any of those things, and these allegations are nothing but retaliation for filing complaints against him and his inspector and bringing those complaints to the City of Sebastian Construction Board. Coincidentally, this letter coincides with a complaint made to the DBPR against MKW Builders by the homeowner and the accusations are very similar in nature. The hearing notice sent to us by Wayne Eseltine on behalf of the City of Sebastian Construction Board was sent to MKW Builders (no date on notice) included claims of alleged violations by MKW Builders. There was no “citation” issued, no opportunity to provide documentation negating the alleged violations, and no basis for the alleged violations was provided. According to the procedures outlined in the City of Sebastian Municipal Code, this “Notice of Hearing” was sent prematurely and did not follow the procedures outlined in the code: Sec. 2-195. - Procedure for enforcement of contractor licensing statutes. (a) These procedures are enacted pursuant to F.S. § 489.127. (b) A code enforcement officer so designated by the city may issue a citation for any violation of F.S. § 489.127 or § 489.132(1) (relating to unlicensed, uncertified or unregistered contractors), or for any violation of chapter 26 of this Code, whenever, based upon personal investigation, the code enforcement officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe that such a violation has occurred. (c) A contracting citation issued by a code enforcement officer shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall contain the information outlined in subsection 2-194(c)(2), items a. through j. A citation issued by a code enforcement officer shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall contain: a. The date and time of issuance. b. The name and address of the person to whom the citation is issued. c. The date and time the civil infraction was committed. d. A brief description of the violation and the facts constituting reasonable cause. e. The number of the section of the code or ordinance violated. f. The name and authority of the code enforcement officer. g. The procedure for the person to follow in order to pay the civil penalty or to contest the citation. h. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects to contest the citation. i. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects not to contest the citation. j. A conspicuous statement that if the person fails to pay the civil penalty within the time allowed, or fails to appear in court to contest the citation, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to contest the citation and that, in such case, judgment may be entered against the person for an amount up to the maximum civil penalty. There was no investigation, and no probable cause for an investigation. MKW Builders was never contacted by a Code Enforcement Officer or Building Official regarding an investigation nor did MKW Builders receive any requests for information that pertained to the alleged violations claimed by Wayne Eseltine. No citation issued, so no facts supporting the accusations and no procedure for contesting the violation was provided. MKW Builders could not contest a violation because no citation was received and therefore no procedure for contesting the violation was provided. The letter sent to MKW Builders skipped these required procedures and went straight to determining what disciplinary action he wants the Construction Board to take against MKW Builders. This is extremely concerning, and to date, no one has corrected this egregious action. According to the Code 2-195 (e) Cessation of violations; hearing procedures. (1) The act for which the citation is issued shall be ceased upon receipt of the citation. The person charged with the violation shall elect either to correct the violation and pay the civil penalty in the manner indicated on the citation or, within ten days of receipt of the citation, exclusive of weekends and legal holidays, request an administrative hearing to contest the issuance of the citation by the code enforcement officer. Said administrative hearing shall be held before the city code enforcement special magistrate. Any person who willfully refuses to sign and accept a citation issued by a code enforcement officer commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided for in F.S. § 775.082 or 775.083. (2) Failure of a violator to contest the decision of the code enforcement officer within the time period set forth in the preceding paragraph shall constitute a waiver of the violator's right to an administrative hearing. A waiver of the right to an administrative hearing shall be deemed an admission of the violation and penalties may be imposed accordingly. (3) If the person receiving the citation, or his designated representative, shows that the citation is invalid, the special magistrate shall dismiss the citation Article VI - Contractors Sec. 26-171. - Unlicensed contractors: Prohibitions; penalties and enforcement. (b) The building official, assistant building official, building inspectors and licensing investigators of the city building department are hereby designated, authorized and charged with enforcement responsibilities to enforce the provisions of F.S. §§ 489.127(1) and 489.132(1) and chapter 26 of this Code against persons who engage in activities for which a city certificate of competency is required. (1) The enforcement authorities designated herein may issue a citation, as provided herein, for any violation of F.S. §§ 489.127(1) and 489.132(1) and chapter 26 of this Code, whenever, based upon personal investigation, the enforcement officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that such a violation has occurred. (2) The citation issued by an enforcement officer pursuant to this section shall be in the form prescribed by the city which form shall state: a. The time and date of issuance. b. The name and address of the person to whom the citation is issued. c. The time and date of the violation. d. A brief description of the violation and the facts constituting reasonable cause. e. The name of the enforcement officer. f. The procedure for the person to follow in order to pay a civil penalty or to contest the citation. g. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects not to contest the citation. A citation must include A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATION AND THE FACTS CONSTITUTING REASONABLE CAUSE, AND THE PROCEDURE FOR THE PERSON TO FOLLOW IN ORDER TO CONTEST THE CITATION. F.S. 489.127(1) regulates UNLICENSED CONTRACTORS and F.S. 489.132(1) regulates Prohibited Acts by UNLICENSED PRINCIPALS; INVESTIGATIONS; HEARINGS; PENALTIES. No violations or citations under these two Florida Statutes can be issued to MKW Builders as MKW Builders is a State Certified Building Contractor License # CBC1267842. Sebastian Code Chapter 26 - 172 Causes for disciplinary action corresponds to F.S. 489.129 Disciplinary Proceedings. F.S. 489.129 (1) The board may take any of the following actions against any certificateholder or registrant: place on probation or reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate or registration, require financial restitution to a consumer for financial harm directly related to a violation of a provision of this part, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 per violation, require continuing education, or assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, if the contractor, financially responsible officer, or business organization for which the contractor is a primary qualifying agent, a financially responsible officer, or a secondary qualifying agent responsible under s. 489.1195 is found guilty of any of the following acts: Please note the State Construction Board can take action against a license holder IF THE CONTRACTOR IS FOUND GUILTY OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS. Before a Contractor is found guilty of any acts, there must first be an INVESTIGATION which is outlined in F.S. 489.129(12): When an investigation of a contractor is undertaken, the department shall promptly furnish to the contractor or the contractor’s attorney a copy of the complaint or document that resulted in the initiation of the investigation. The department shall make the complaint and supporting documents available to the contractor. The complaint or supporting documents shall contain information regarding the specific facts that serve as the basis for the complaint. The contractor may submit a written response to the information contained in such complaint or document within 20 days after service to the contractor of the complaint or document. The contractor’s written response shall be considered by the probable cause panel. The right to respond does not prohibit the issuance of a summary emergency order if necessary to protect the public. However, if the secretary, or the secretary’s designee, and the chair of the board or the chair of the probable cause panel agree in writing that such notification would be detrimental to the investigation, the department may withhold notification. The department may conduct an investigation without notification to a contractor if the act under investigation is a criminal offense. The “Notice of Hearing” received by MKW Builders makes allegations that are stated in Sebastian Code Sec. 26-172. - Causes for disciplinary action: (3). Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; and (6). Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when: A. Valid liens have been recorded against the property of a contractor's customer for supplies or services ordered by the contractor for the customer's job; the contractor has received funds from the customer to pay for the supplies or services: and the contractor has not had the liens removed from the property, by payment or by bond, within 75 days after the date of such liens; B. The contractor has abandoned a customer's job and the percentage of completion is less than the percentage of the total contract price paid to the contractor as of the time of abandonment, unless the contractor is entitled to retain such funds under the terms of the contract or refunds the excess funds within 30 days after the date the job is abandoned; or C. The contractor's job has been completed, and it is shown that the customer has had to pay more for the contracted job than the original contract price, as adjusted for subsequent change orders, unless such increase in cost was the result of circumstances caused by the customer, or was otherwise permitted by the terms of the contract between the contractor and the customer. (8) Knowingly or deliberately disregarding or violating any applicable building codes or laws of the state, county or the city; Sec. 26-172. - Causes for disciplinary action corresponds to F.S. 489.129: (g) Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when: 1. Valid liens have been recorded against the property of a contractor’s customer for supplies or services ordered by the contractor for the customer’s job; the contractor has received funds from the customer to pay for the supplies or services; and the contractor has not had the liens removed from the property, by payment or by bond, within 75 days after the date of such liens; 2. The contractor has abandoned a customer’s job and the percentage of completion is less than the percentage of the total contract price paid to the contractor as of the time of \ abandonment, unless the contractor is entitled to retain such funds under the terms of the contract or refunds the excess funds within 30 days after the date the job is abandoned; or 3. The contractor’s job has been completed, and it is shown that the customer has had to pay more for the contracted job than the original contract price, as adjusted for subsequent change orders, unless such increase in cost was the result of circumstances beyond the control of the contractor, was the result of circumstances caused by the customer, or was otherwise permitted by the terms of the contract between the contractor and the customer. (i) Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this part or violating a rule or lawful order of the board. (m) Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. Prior to holding a disciplinary hearing, MKW Builders needs to be found GUILTY of a violation. Wayne Eseltine made serious allegations against MKW Builders, yet he did not believe he needed to issue a citation or conduct a proper investigation to substantiate his claims. He simply made a decision to act on his own, violating the Municipal Code. One would think that if MKW Builders had committed the serious violations alleged by Wayne, that he would have a mountain of documentation and follow the proper procedure to ensure his case was solid. The logical explanation for why Wayne ignored required process was that he was consumed with his anger and decided to take this action to threaten and intimidate MKW Builders as retaliation for MKW Builders filing complaints with the DBPR against him and one of the inspectors he oversees. Code Section 26-172 Cause for disciplinary action does NOT contain any reference to the INVESTIGATION that needs to happen PRIOR to any Disciplinary Hearings, however, a CITATION issued by a CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER must be based on findings of an INVESTIGATION, and the citation issued by the officer MUST INCLUDE: A brief description of the violation and the facts constituting reasonable cause. The Code Section 2-195 (c) (d), Section 26-171 (2)(d) and Florida Statute 489.129 (12) also require the basis, facts and documents pertaining to the alleged violations be PROVIDED TO THE CONTRACTOR. Both the Code Sections 2-195 (e) (3) and F.S. 489.129(12) allow the Contractor to RESPOND to the allegations as well: Code: (3) If the person receiving the citation, or his designated representative, shows that the citation is invalid, the special magistrate shall dismiss the citation F.S. 489.129(12): The contractor may submit a written response to the information contained in such complaint or document within 20 days after service to the contractor of the complaint or document. The contractor’s written response shall be considered by the probable cause panel. Wayne Eseltine failed to follow City Code and Florida Statute by never issuing a “CITATION” to MKW Builders, failed to provide any basis or facts supporting his claims violations occurred, and failed to provide MKW BUILDERS the required procedure for and opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide documentation negating the claims. Wayne Eseltine should be reprimanded for his failure to properly execute his job duties and further must receive proper training on the City Codes and Florida Statutes he is charged with upholding. Frankly, Wayne still having a job with the City of Sebastian after his outrageous illegal conduct reflects poorly on the City Officials responsible for overseeing him. City Code Section 26-173 - Miscellaneous General Provisions: (a)The provisions of this article shall be deemed supplemental to, and not in conflict with or in preemption of, the provisions of article VI, division 2 of chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances concerning the code enforcement special magistrate. To the extent provided in such article, the special magistrate shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the enforcement of any of the provisions of this article. The improper actions of Wayne Eseltine have circumvented the special magistrate in this case. Code Section 2-195(e)(3) states: If the person receiving the citation, or his designated representative, shows that the citation is invalid, the special magistrate shall dismiss the citation. If Wayne had actually issued a proper citation, MKW Builders would have provided the mountain of documentation to the SPECIAL MAGISTRATE that destroys the frivolous allegations made by Wayne Eseltine. His claims could have easily been dismissed and there would be no further waste of time by MKW Builders, the Construction Board, City Council, or other City Officials. MKW Builders will not allow Wayne Eseltine to continue to violate Florida Statutes and City of Sebastian Municipal Codes. MKW Builders has filed a complaint against Wayne Eseltine’s State Licenses and we will be attending the meeting of the State Board that oversees Building officials, inspectors and plan examiners on August 28, 2025 to speak about his actions and the actions of inspector John Parker. As of August 14, 2025, MKW Builders has no knowledge of any facts or basis for the allegations made by Wayne Eseltine. Specifically, Wayne alleged a violation of Section 26-172(6) which has three different items listed under this section. MKW Builders is unable to provide a proper defense to this allegation without knowing what the allegation is based on. MKW Builders filed a lien against the property located at 113 Redgrave Drive due to NONPAYMENT for labor, materials and services provided to the owners of the property. MKW Builders has the right to file this lien per F.S. 713.001-713.37: ACCORDING TO FLORIDA’S CONSTRUCTION LIEN LAW, THOSE WHO WORK ON YOUR PROPERTY OR PROVIDE MATERIALS AND SERVICES AND ARE NOT PAID IN FULL HAVE A RIGHT TO ENFORCE THEIR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY. THIS CLAIM IS KNOWN AS A CONSTRUCTION LIEN. The owners of this property owe MKW Builders $9,200. Had Wayne followed the procedures in the Municipal Codes with performing an actual investigation and done his due diligence, MKW Builders would have provided him with the documentation showing that the lien filed against this property was in fact executed properly and well within the right of MKW Builders to file. Additionally, the other two allegations made by Wayne Eseltine are so vague that MKW Builders has no indication on what these allegations are based on. Wayne Eseltine is REQUIRED to produce this information, in a proper CITATION, which he failed to issue. He also did not include any basis or facts in the “Notice of Hearing” he sent to MKW Builders. MKW Builders will not respond to allegations without facts. MKW Builders has also been denied the required due process outline in Section 26-197(6) Subpoena powers. The board shall have the authority to subpoena alleged violators and witnesses to its hearings. The city, the board or the alleged violator may request that witnesses and records be subpoenaed to any emergency or formal hearing. Subpoenas shall be served in the same manner as civil subpoenas are served under Florida Statutes and the Florida Civil Rules of Procedure. The chairman of the board shall provide the clerk with sufficient signed and blank witness subpoenas to be provided to alleged violators and the city attorney for the purpose of subpoenaing witnesses and records. Section 8: Letter sent to City Officials and Construction Board on August 1, 2025 In a letter sent to the Construction board, city council members, city clerk, city attorney, code enforcement, building officials, and city manager, MKW Builders stated: Wayne Eseltine has acted outside of this authority and failed to follow the Municipal Codes. Eseltine also instructed the Chief of Police Dan Acosta to send an officer with the Code Enforcement Officer Curtis Bloomfield to hand deliver this letter to our personal residence. Mr. Acosta stated that Mr. Bloomfield was uncomfortable delivering this letter, for reasons yet to be determined. Mr. Acosta also confirmed that city attorney Jennifer Cockcroft approved Wayne Eseltine’s request that an officer and Curtis Bloomfield hand deliver this letter even though this was not a citation and should have been sent via certified mail. We contacted the City of Sebastian Police Department and requested the name and badge number of the officer sent to our home and multiple staff refused to provide that information. One of your employees stated this officer went to our home “outside his official capacity as an officer” so they could not provide me his information and said I could leave him a voicemail. I left messages and no one returned my call. The following day, I called the police department numerous times and the staff sent me to every voicemail except for the person I asked for which was the Chief of Police. Finally after about 6 attempts I received a call back from Mr. Acosta. I spoke at length with him about the situation and explained that sending a uniformed officer with badge and firearm to my home outside his jurisdiction at the request of Wayne Eseltine as a favor, and then when I call to confirm this was a legitimate officer they refused to confirm that and stated the officer was not there on official business, there are serious safety concerns for our family. Wayne Eseltine has demonstrated erratic behavior and anger management issues, and we became concerned that this person was impersonating an officer and could have been sent to cause us harm. If I had been home alone and the staff in your police department refused to confirm this was in fact one of your officers, I would have perceived this person on my property as a threat. Mr. Acosta agreed that this situation was dangerous for both the officer and us, and he was going to follow up with his staff on why the officers information was not provided to me when I called the first time. We have the video showing Curtis Bloomfield and officer Terrance Pizzuti, Badge #321 on our property, in full uniform and the officer ran Mr. Walker’s tag while standing on our walkway. I have provided pictures from this video and will be presenting this video at the upcoming construction board hearing. There is no excuse for the behavior of Wayne Eseltine, and we will not tolerate harassment, threats or intimidation from this individual. In light of his recent behavior, we believe he is unstable. He is not to contact us going forward. Any communications must be sent to MKW Builders in writing via email or mail. We have followed the Florida Statutes, Florida Building Code and Municipal Code with all of our filings, and Wayne needs to do the same. If the Code Enforcement Officer believes he has reasonable and probable cause to issue MKW Builders a citation for violating municipal code or Florida Statute, then he must follow the code requirements for doing so. If that citation is found to be valid, at that time, Wayne can initiate his disciplinary proceedings through the construction board and MKW Builders will present our case to the Construction Board at a proper hearing. As of August 14, 2025, no response to this letter has been received. Section 9: Construction Board MKW Builders requests an explanation for the lack of oversight and activity of the Construction Board for the past three years. The Florida Building Code 2023 was adopted and in effect on December 31, 2023. This revision included many changes and updates to the 2020 FBC, and some of those changes impacted building officials and permit processes. The Construction Board did not see a need to meet in order to discuss the changes to the FBC with Wayne Eseltine to ensure these changes were implemented by the Building Department and to be informed on Eseltine’s plans for implementation. This seems to indicate the Construction Board was not actively meeting and allowed Wayne Eseltine to act on his own accord with no oversight or accountability. The new FBC have been in effect for over a year and a half and it seems unlikely that there have been no questions or issues arising. Under Wayne Eseltine’s management, in 2024/2023 the building department was not in compliance with Florida Statue 533.80(7)(a), which requires the building fund’s fund balance not to exceed the City’s average operating budget for enforcing the Florida Building Code for the previous four fiscal years, and the City does not have a complete fee schedule that ties to the fees within MyGovernmentOnline (MGO) and there is not a documented review of the building department fees entered into MGO. The Construction Board has abdicated their oversight role of this department and according to records available, has not held a meeting to ask Wayne about this violation of Florida Statute and have Wayne Eseltine develop a plan of action to bring the building department into compliance. (III)F.S. 553.79 (b) A local enforcement agency shall post each type of building permit application, including a list of all required attachments, drawings, or other requirements for each type of application, on its website. A local enforcement agency must post and update the status of every received application on its website until the issuance of the building permit. Completed applications, including payments, attachments, drawings, or other requirements or parts of the completed permit application, must be able to be submitted electronically to the appropriate building department. Wayne Eseltine has failed to adhere to this statute by not posting each type of permit application including a list of all required attachments, drawings or other requirements for each type of application on its website. This is a very basic requirement for a building official, yet Wayne has failed to accomplish this task in his years of employment. The Construction Board was unaware of this failure as well apparently. When MKW Builders asked for information on who to contact for a meeting with the Construction Board, we were informed that Wayne Eseltine was the person who determined when a Construction Board meeting was held. According to the code, the Construction Board has subpoena power and the CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, (Not Wayne Eseltine) shall provide the Clerk with sufficient signed and blank witness subpoenas to be provided to alleged violators and the city attorney for the purpose of subpoenaing witnesses and records. As of August 14, 2025, MKW Builders has received no such documents or information on subpoenas. On August 6, 2025, Jeanette Williams, City Clerk, requested MKW Builders provide 8 copies of our documents by August 15. It seems odd that this request would be made considering absolutely no documents whatsoever have been provided to MKW Builders. We will not be printing 8 copies of the documents and hand delivering them to Sebastian tomorrow. There is nothing in the Quasi Judicial Hearing Procedures received from Jeanette Williams that requires 8 paper copies be delivered by a certain date. You will receive our documents in electronic format tomorrow as requested, however, we requested all documents, witness lists, subpoenas, records etc. be delivered to MKW Builders no later than August 18, 2025. This documentation should have been provided to us weeks ago. Section 26-197 powers and duties 1. Advice to the city council. On its own initiative or whenever requested to do so by the city council, to give advice to the city council and to other public officials or employees with reference to any matter affecting contractors or the construction industry within the corporate limits of the city. 2. Reviewing city building and housing codes. To advise the city council concerning the city building and housing codes, their adoption, their amendment, and the revision of the minimum state building codes or any standard published code or technical regulation which constitutes all or part of such codes or of this chapter. 6. Subpoena powers. The board shall have the authority to subpoena alleged violators and witnesses to its hearings. The city, the board or the alleged violator may request that witnesses and records be subpoenaed to any emergency or formal hearing. Subpoenas shall be served in the same manner as civil subpoenas are served under Florida Statutes and the Florida Civil Rules of Procedure. The chairman of the board shall provide the clerk with sufficient signed and blank witness subpoenas to be provided to alleged violators and the city attorney for the purpose of subpoenaing witnesses and records. According to Section 26-198. - Administration. In order to carry out the intent of this article, the city council hereby appoints the following officials to assist the construction board in performing its duties: (1) Building official. The building official, or his authorized representative, shall have the primary duty of enforcing the various codes and initiating disciplinary proceedings before the board, and shall make such recommendations or reports to the board as needed on each matter considered by it. It appears Wayne Eseltine has brazenly overstepped his authority and assumed the duties and powers reserved to the Construction Board Members. Mr. Eseltine’s blatant disregard for the statutes, municipal codes and building codes he is required to follow along with his explosive anger management issues makes him a liability to the City of Sebastian Building Department. As a state certified building contractor, we are required to follow all Florida Statutes and Florida Building Codes, and so is Mr. Eseltine as a state licensed Building Official. Mr. Eseltine is not above the law and he must be held accountable for violating the statutes and codes as outlined in this document. Exhibit List Exhibit 1 - City Of Sebastian Building Department Permit Application Exhibit 2 - Required Documentation List For Permit Applications. Exhibit 3 - Copy of MKW Builders permit and application docs window/door schedule & location plan Exhibit 4 - Copy of second permit documents issued to another contractor showing MKW Builders documents were added to this other permit. Exhibit 5 - Third permit application with the owner acting as the contractor that shows no framing inspection required for the skylight, front door and garage door that was already purchased and installed by MKW Builders. Eseltine demanded MKW Builders complete the framing work and undergo a full framing inspection including the skylight, however a framing inspection is not a requirement on the owner builder permit. Exhibit 6 - Copy of the inspectors report from 4/28/25 Exhibit 7 - Screenshot of cancelled inspection Exhibit 8 - Letter to building department with pictures in response to Mr. Parker’s demand Exhibit 9 - Lien filed against homeowner Exhibit 10 - Documents from homeowner stating they have spoken with “city building officials” and received false information. Also included are MKW Builders responses to these claims. Exhibit 11 - Expired permit letter sent to MKW Builders, Response by MKW Builders to Expired permit letter, & Letter extending permit for 90 days Exhibit 12 - Reinspection report from 6/5/25 Exhibit 13 - Letter to building official requesting staff cease and desist providing false information to the homeowner. Exhibit 14 - Email from City Council Member stating Mr. Eseltine confirmed to him he planned to issue a second permit to another contractor for work completed by MKW Builders and void our permit when the second permit was closed. Exhibit 15 - Copy of Notice of hearing letter that does not include the required information per City Codes. Exhibit 16 - Copy of MKW Builders response to the DBPR complaint. Exhibit 17 - Complaint filed against Wayne Eseltine with the DBPR Exhibit 18 - Complaint filed with the DBPR against John Parker Exhibit 19 - Examples of permit applications that list the required inspections per FBC that Wayne Eseltine has failed to implement in City of Sebastian. Other Exhibits - Pictures and video of Sebastian Code Enforcement officer and City Police Detective at our home address. 1 PERMIT APPLICATION ALL OF THE FOLLOWING MUST BE FILLED IN BY APPLICANT, ACCORDING TO FS 713.135 DATE: ________________________ RECEIVED BY:___________ LOT: _______ BLOCK:__________ SUBDIVISION:_________________________________FLOOD ZONE: ________________ TYPE OF WORK: __NEW STRUCTURE __ADDITION __ALTERATION __ REPAIR __DEMOLITION __ OTHER WORK INCLUDES: __STRUCTURAL __ELECTRICAL __PLUMBING __MECHANICAL __ROOFING - SLOPE:____ __ FIRE SYSTEM __ POOL __ ALUMINUM STRUCTURE __ SHED __ FENCE __ SLAB OR DECK __ OTHER WORK DESCRIPTION: _____________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ESTIMATED JOB VALUE: $_____________________TOTAL S/F ________________ UNDER AIR____________________ JOB NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ JOB ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________________SUITE/UNIT NO. _________ PROPERTY OWNER’S NAME: ________________________________________________ PHONE: ______________________ ADDRESS:_________________________________________________________________________________________________ CITY/STATE: ________________________________________________________________ ZIP CODE ____________________ CONTACT E-MAIL ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________________________________ CONTRACTOR BUSINESS NAME:_____________________________________________ LICENSE #: __________________ ADDRESS:_____________________________________________________________CONTACT PHONE:__________________ CITY/STATE: ________________________________________________________________ ZIP CODE____________________ CONTACT E-MAIL ADDRESS:______________________________________________________________________________ ARCHITECT/ENGINEER:_____________________________________________________ PHONE:______________________ ADDRESS:_________________________________________________________________________________________________ CITY/STATE: _________________________________________________________________ ZIP CODE: ___________________ CONTACT E-MAIL ADDRESS:_______________________________________________________________________________ PRESENT USE:_______________________ PROPOSED USE: _________________________ OCCUPANT LOAD:___________ NUMBER OF: __ STORIES ___BAYS ___UNITS ___BEDROOMS ___HEIGHT ______________ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: ______________________________ GROUP OCCUPANCY: __________ AREA_______________ IS THE BUILDING PRESENTLY EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM? ___YES ___NO IS THE BUILDING PRESENTLY EQUIPPED WITH A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM? ___YES ___NO EXHIBIT 1 - PERMIT APPLICATION 2 SUB-CONTRACTOR SUMMARY PERMIT # ____________________________ _________________________________ will be using the following sub-contractors (Company/Business Name) for the project located _________________________________________________ (Street Address) It is understood that ALL sub-contractors are required to be licensed regardless if a Separate permit is required. If there are any changes in status regarding the participation of the sub-contractors listed below, I will immediately advise the City of Sebastian Building Department. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR: ____________________________________________________________ QUALIFIER: ______________________________________________________________________________ PHONE # _________________________________ LICENSE #_____________________________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS: _______________________________________________________________________ PLUMBING CONTRACTOR: ________________________________________________________ QUALIFIER: ______________________________________________________________________ PHONE # _____________________________ LICENSE #__________________________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS: ________________________________________________________________ MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR: _____________________________________________________ QUALIFIER:_______________________________________________________________________ PHONE # ______________________________ LICENSE #_________________________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS:________________________________________________________________ ROOFING CONTRACTOR: __________________________________________________________ QUALIFIER: _______________________________________________________________________ PHONE# _______________________________LICENSE #__________________________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS: _________________________________________________________________ OTHER CONTRACTOR: ____________________________________________________________ QUALIFIER:_______________________________________________________________________ PHONE# _______________________________LICENSE #__________________________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS: _________________________________________________________________ NOTE: THE ABOVE CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED TO PULL BUILDING PERMITS AND SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A “SUB-CONTRACTOR PERMIT APPLICATION” PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE MASTER PERMIT. EXHIBIT 1 - PERMIT APPLICATION 3 APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO DO THE WORK AND INSTALLATIONS AS INDICATED. I CERTIFY THAT NO WORK OR INSTALLATION HAS COMMENCED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE PERFORMED TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF ALL LAWS REGULATING CONS TRUCTION IN THIS JURISDICTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT A SEPARATE PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK, PLUMBING, SIGNS, WELLS, POOLS, FURNACES, BOILERS, HEATERS, TANKS AND AIR CONDITIONERS , ETC. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RECORDED NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT SIGNED BY THE OWNER, SHALL BE FILED WITH THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY IF THE VALUE IS $2,500 OR MORE, EXCEPT HEATING OR AIR CONDITIONING CHANGE OUTS LESS THAT $7,500. NOTICE: IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THE COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH AS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. ANY CHANGE IN BUILDING PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE RECORDED WITH THIS OFFICE. ANY WORK NOT COVERED ABOVE MUST HAVE A VALID PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING. IN CONSIDERATION O F GRANTS, THIS PERMIT, THE OWNER, AND THE BUILDING CONTRACTOR AGREE TO ERECT THIS STRUCTURE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING AND ZONING CODES OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. NOTE: THIS PERMIT APPLICATION IS VOID AFTER 180 DAYS UNLESS THE WORK, WHICH IT CO VERS, HAS COMMENCED. ALL CONTRACTORS MUST HAVE A VALID STATE CERTIFICATION, STATE REGISTRATION, OR CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY ISSUED BY THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN PRIOR TO OBTAINING PERMIT. ❖ (ALL ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIRS MUST HAVE OWNER’S SIGNATURE ON APPLICATION OR PROVIDE COPY OF EXECUTED CONTRACT) ________________________________________ ____________________________________ ❖ SIGNATURE OF OWNER/AGENT QUALIFIER’S SIGNATURE _________________________________________ ____________________________________ PRINTED NAME OF OWNER/AGENT PRINTED NAME OF QUALIFIER DATE: ________________________ DATE: _________________________ ❖ Individuals who sign as the owner’s agent must first obtain owner’s written authorization to sign on their behalf STATE OF FLORIDA **NOTARY IS FOR QUALIFIER’S SIGNATURE** COUNTY OF I hereby certify that on this _________ day of ________________________, 20_____ personally appeared ___________________________________ who is _____ personally known to me or has _____ produced identification. Type of identification produced:_______________________________________. _______________________________ Official Signature of Notary Public Notary Seal EXHIBIT 1 - PERMIT APPLICATION RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS • TWO (2) SURVEYS SHOWING LOCATION OF ADDITION – PROPERTIES ON SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS THAT ARE INCREASING LIVING AREA WILL REQUIRE SURVEY TO BE STAMPED APPROVED BY IRC HEALTH DEPARTMENT • TWO (2) COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING: AT LEAST ONE SET MUST BE SEALED BY A LICENSED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. DESIGN SHALL MEET WIND SPEEED OF 160 MPH Vult; EXPOSURE B, C OR D AS APPLICABLE. • TWO (2) COMPLETE SETS OF PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR ALL NEW DOORS, GARAGE DOORS, WINDOWS, SOFFITS, SIDING, HURRICANE PROTECTION, AND ROOFING • TWO (2) COMPLETE SETS OF TRUSS ENGINEERING AND TRUSS LAYOUT PLANS WHEN UTILIZING PRE-FABRICATED TRUSS SYSTEM • ENERGY CALCULATIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE FORMS • CONTRACTOR’S APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY HOMEOWNER IN ADDITION TO CONTRACTOR’S SIGNATURE. PERMIT APPLICATION • OWNER / BUILDER PERMIT APPLICATION AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT MUST BE SIGNED BY PROPERTY OWNER WHO MUST PERSONALLY APPEAR. OWNER BUILDER PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBIT 2 - PERMIT REQUIRED DOCUMENTS CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Fl. 32958 PH: (772) 589-5537 FAX: (772) 589-2566 BUILDING PERMIT DESCRIPTION OF WORK: REMOVE AND REPLACE WINDOWS WITH NEW IMPACT RATED WINDOWS, REMOVE AND REPLACE FRONT ENTRY DOOR WITH IMPACT RATED DOOR, REMOVE AND REPLACE GARAGE DOOR WITH IMPACT RATED GARAGE DOOR AND REMOVE AND REPLACE A SKYLIGHT WITH AN IMPACT RATED SKYLIGHT. PERMIT INFORMATION PERMIT NO: WORK TYPE: PERMIT TYPE: TOTAL FEES PAID: 24-4148 WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT RESIDENTIAL ALTERATION 79.00 ISSUE DATE: DATE PAID: 12/03/2024 11/22/2024 LOCATION INFORMATION ADDRESS: LOT / BLK: SUBDIVISION: PARCEL NUMBER: SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 17 31391900001458000023.0 113 REDGRAVE DR CONTRACTOR INFORMATION NAME: ADDRESS: LICENSE NO: PHONE: MKW BUILDERS LLC - MARK WALKER 4113 ABINGTON WOODS CIR CBC1267842 (772) 360-8980 OWNER INFORMATION NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI 113 REDGRAVE DR No Number Provided REQUIRED INSPECTIONS THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE, OR IF CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED, OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME. THE CONTRACTOR HAS CERTIFIED BY SIGNATURE OF APPLICATION, THIS DOCUMENT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED OR NOT. ** NOTICE ** IN ADDTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES SUCH AS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. ** WARNING TO OWNER ** YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. THIS PERMIT SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT EXPIRATION TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FEES. REQUEST INSPECTIONS: By phone at 772-589-5537 OR online at www.mygovernmentonline.org FINAL BUILDING ______FRAMING ______ EXHIBIT 3 - PERMIT ISSUED TO MKW BUILDERS Ma r i n i R e s i d e n c e 11 3 R e d g r a v e D r . Se b a s t i a n , F L 3 2 9 5 8 8a 8 b 7 6 5 4 3 2a 2 b 1 12 1110 9a 9 b 9 c 13 EG R E S S EG R E S S RE V I E W E D FO R C O D E C O M P L I A N C E D. H a i n e y 12 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 4 2 : 5 9 : 5 4 P M EX H I B I T 3 - P E R M I T I S S U E D T O M K W B U I L D E R S MK W B U I L D E R S P L A N W I T H N U M B E R E D WI N D O W / D O O R L O C A T I O N S R E F E R E N C I N G TH E W I N D O W A N D D O O R S C H E D U L E O N T H E NE X T P A G E . T H I S P L A N W A S T A K E N F R O M OU R P E R M I T A N D A D D E D T O T H E S E C O N D PE R M I T I S S U E D . IN D I A N R I V E R C O U N T Y / C I T Y O F V E R O B E A C H B U I L D I N G D I V I S I O N WI N D O W A N D D O O R S C H E D U L E 1 S t o r y S t r u c t u r e 2 S t o r y S t r u c t u r e NA M E : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J O B A D D R E S S : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ W i n d S p e e d : _ _ _ _ _ E x p o s u r e Ca t e g o r y : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ID # Ex i s t i n g W i n d o w Ne w W i n d o w Lo c a t i o n o f Wi n d o w - Pr o v i d e Ro o m De s i g n a t i o n Zo n e Lo c a t i o n In d i c a t e Zo n e 4 Or 5 * * Ap p l i c a b l e Op e n i n g Pr e s s u r e s pe r C h a r t Pr o d u c t Ap p r o v a l Nu m b e r Im p a c t In d i c a t e Ye s o r No Pr o d u c t Ap p r o v a l Pr e s s u r e Ra t i n g Ex i s t i n g Eg r e s s Wi n d o w N e t Cl e a r Op e n i n g ** * (S q . F e e t ) Ne w E g r e s s Wi n d o w N e t Cl e a r Op e n i n g ** * (S q . F e e t ) (+ ) PS F (-) PS F Si z e Ty p e * Si z e Ty p e * (+ ) PS F (-) PS F 1 Mu l l i o n P r o d u c t A p p r o v a l # : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ *In d i c a t e T y p e o f W i n d o w ( S H ) S i n g l e H u n g , ( D H ) D o u b l e H u n g , C A S ( C a s e m e n t ) H R ( H o r i z o n t a l R o l l e r ) , SL D R ( S l i d e r ) o r a p p l i c a b l e w i n d o w or d o o r ty p e . ** Z o n e 5 L o c a t i o n i s n e v e r l e s s t h a n 4 f e e t f r o m e n d w a l l o f s t r u c t u r e . Z o n e 4 i s f o r a n y i n t e r m e d i a t e l o ca t i o n t h a t i s g r e a t e r t h a n 4 f e e t f r o m e n d w a l l s . ** * N e t c l e a r o p e n i n g is t h e a c t u a l f r e e /cl e a r s p a c e t h a t e x i s t s w h e n t h e w i n d o w i s o p e n . Not t h e r o u g h o p e n i n g s i z e , b u t t h e a c t u a l o p e n i n g a p e r s o n c a n c r a w l t h r o u g h . MA R I N I R E S I D E N C E 11 3 R E D G R A V E D R I V E S E B A S T I A N , F L 3 2 9 5 8 15 0 B 35 X 1 8 AR C H / F I X E D 35 X 1 8 AR C H / F I X E D MA S T E R B A T H 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 7 7 6 7 YE S 55 55 35 X 3 5 SH 35 X 3 5 SH MA S T E R B E D R O O M 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 4 9 1 1 YE S 55 60 4. 2 6 4. 2 6 35 X 1 8 AR C H / F I X E D 35 X 1 8 AR C H / F I X E D MA S T E R B E D R O O M 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 7 7 6 7 YE S 55 55 35 X 5 9 SH 35 X 5 9 SH LI V I N G R O O M 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 4 9 1 1 YE S 55 60 37 X 6 3 SH 37 X 6 3 SH DE N 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 4 9 1 1 YE S 55 60 35 X 5 9 SH 35 X 5 9 SH FA M I L Y R O O M 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 4 9 1 1 YE S 55 60 35 X 5 9 SH 35 X 5 9 SH FA M I L Y R O O M 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 4 9 1 1 YE S 55 60 35 X 5 9 SH 35 X 5 9 SH BE D R O O M 1 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 4 9 1 1 YE S 55 60 6. 9 3 5 6. 9 3 5 47 X 5 1 SH 47 X 5 1 SH BE D R O O M 1 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 4 9 1 1 YE S 55 60 47 X 2 4 AR C H / F I X E D 47 X 2 4 AR C H / F I X E D BE D R O O M 1 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 7 7 6 7 YE S 55 55 35 X 3 5 SH 35 X 3 5 SH DI N I N G 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 4 9 1 1 YE S 55 60 35 X 3 5 SH 35 X 3 5 SH DI N I N G 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 4 9 1 1 YE S 55 60 70 X 3 5 AR C H / F I X E D 70 X 3 5 AR C H / F I X E D DI N I N G 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 7 7 6 7 YE S 55 55 35 X 1 8 AR C H / F I X E D 35 X 1 8 AR C H / F I X E D EN T R Y 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 7 7 6 7 YE S 55 55 36 X 8 0 IN S W I N G 36 X 8 0 IN S W I N G EN T R Y 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 6 7 0 8 . 1 YE S 65 65 24 X 2 4 SK Y L I G H T 24 X 2 4 SK Y L I G H T RO O F / K I T C H E N 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 3 3 0 3 . 5 YE S 15 0 12 0 16 ’ X 7 ’ GA R A G E D R 16 ’ X 7 ’ GA R A G E D O O R GA R A G E 4 24 . 3 26 . 3 FL 1 5 3 7 1 YE S 36 44 ✔ 5 2A 2B 3 4 5 6 7 8A 8B 9A 9B 9C 10 11 12 13 FL 6 0 6 7 EX H I B I T 3 - P E R M I T I S S U E D T O M K W B U I L D E R S CONTRACTOR’S ON-LINE PERMIT AFFIDAVIT I ______________________________________, AM HEREBY APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT IN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN (PRINTED NAME OF QUALIFIER) AS DESCRIBED IN THE ON-LINE APPLICATION, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________ SUITE/UNIT NO. _______ WORK DESCRIPTION: ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO DO THE WORK AND INSTALLATIONS AS INDICATED. I CERTIFY THAT NO WORK OR INSTALLATION HAS COMMENCED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE PERFORMED TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF ALL LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION IN THIS JURISDICTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT A SEPARATE PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, SIGNS, WELLS, POOLS, FURNACES, BOILERS, HEATERS, TANKS AND AIR CONDITIONINGS, ETC. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RECORDED NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT SIGNED BY THE OWNER, SHALL BE FILED WITH THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY IF THE VALUE IS GREATER THAN $5000 OR FOR HEATING OR AIR CONDITIONING WORK, THE VALUE IS GREATER THAN $15,000. ANY CHANGE IN BUILDING PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE RECORDED WITH THIS OFFICE. ANY WORK NOT COVERED ABOVE MUST HAVE A VALID PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING. IN CONSIDERATION OF GRANTS, THIS PERMIT, THE OWNER, AND THE BUILDING CONTRACTOR AGREE TO ERECT THIS STRUCTURE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING AND ZONING CODES OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. ___________________________________ _________________________________________ PRINTED NAME OF QUALIFIER QUALIFIER’S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE DATE: ________________________ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF : I hereby certify that on this _________ day of ________________________, 20_____ personally appeared ___________________________________ who is _____ personally known to me or has _____ produced identification. Type of identification produced:_______________________________________. _______________________________ Official Signature of Notary Public Notary Seal WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. NOTE: THIS PERMIT APPLICATION IS VOID AFTER 180 DAYS UNLESS THE WORK, WHICH IT COVERS, HAS COMMENCED. ALL CONTRACTORS MUST HAVE A VALID STATE CERTIFICATION, STATE REGISTRATION, OR CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY ISSUED BY THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN PRIOR TO OBTAINING PERMIT. MARK WALKER 113 REDGRAVE DRIVE SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 REMOVE AND REPLACE WINDOWS, GARAGE AND FRONT ENTRY DOOR, AND SKYLIGHT WITH IMPACTED RATED PRODUCTS. MARK WALKER 11/21/2024 X 21ST NOVEMBER 24 EXHIBIT 3 - PERMIT ISSUED TO MKW BUILDERS CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Fl. 32958 PH: (772) 589-5537 FAX: (772) 589-2566 BUILDING PERMIT DESCRIPTION OF WORK: BRING WINDOWS INTO CODE COMPLIANCE PERMIT INFORMATION PERMIT NO: WORK TYPE: PERMIT TYPE: TOTAL FEES PAID: 25-2655 WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT RESIDENTIAL ALTERATION 79.00 ISSUE DATE: DATE PAID: 07/15/2025 7/15/2025 LOCATION INFORMATION ADDRESS: LOT / BLK: SUBDIVISION: PARCEL NUMBER: SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 17 31391900001458000023.0 113 REDGRAVE DR CONTRACTOR INFORMATION NAME: ADDRESS: LICENSE NO: PHONE: 321 HOMES, INC. - CHRISTINA SOUTH 402 S BABCOCK ST CBC1262517 (321) 600-4607 OWNER INFORMATION NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI 113 REDGRAVE DR (772) 633-8643 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE, OR IF CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED, OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME. THE CONTRACTOR HAS CERTIFIED BY SIGNATURE OF APPLICATION, THIS DOCUMENT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED OR NOT. ** NOTICE ** IN ADDTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES SUCH AS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. ** WARNING TO OWNER ** YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. THIS PERMIT SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT EXPIRATION TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FEES. REQUEST INSPECTIONS: By phone at 772-589-5537 OR online at www.mygovernmentonline.org FINAL BUILDING ______FRAMING ______ EXHIBIT 4 - SECOND PERMIT ISSUED TOANOTHER CONTRACTOR WITH MKW BUILDERS DOCUMENTS ATTACHED. Ma r i n i R e s i d e n c e 11 3 R e d g r a v e D r . Se b a s t i a n , F L 3 2 9 5 8 8a 8 b 7 6 5 4 3 2a 2 b 1 12 1110 9a 9 b 9 c 13 EG R E S S EG R E S S 07 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 5 1 : 2 2 AM S. S m i t h TH I S D O C U M E N T W A S DR A W N B Y M K W B U I L D E R S AN D S H O W S I T W A S RE V I E W E D A N D S T A M P E D O N 7/ 1 5 / 2 5 F O R T H I S O T H E R CO N T R A C T O R . EX H I B I T 4 - S E C O N D PE R M I T I S S U E D TO A N O T H E R CO N T R A C T O R W I T H MK W B U I L D E R S DO C U M E N T S AT T A C H E D . EXHIBIT 4 - SECOND PERMIT ISSUED TOANOTHER CONTRACTOR WITH MKW BUILDERS DOCUMENTS ATTACHED. CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Fl. 32958 PH: (772) 589-5537 FAX: (772) 589-2566 BUILDING PERMIT DESCRIPTION OF WORK: install skylight, front door and garage door PERMIT INFORMATION PERMIT NO: WORK TYPE: PERMIT TYPE: TOTAL FEES PAID: 25-2799 WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT RESIDENTIAL ALTERATION 0.00 ISSUE DATE: DATE PAID: LOCATION INFORMATION ADDRESS: LOT / BLK: SUBDIVISION: PARCEL NUMBER: SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 17 31391900001458000023.0 113 REDGRAVE DR CONTRACTOR INFORMATION NAME: ADDRESS: LICENSE NO: PHONE: DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI 113 REDGRAVE DR (772) 300-1642 OWNER INFORMATION NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI 113 REDGRAVE DR (772) 300-1642 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE, OR IF CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED, OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME. THE CONTRACTOR HAS CERTIFIED BY SIGNATURE OF APPLICATION, THIS DOCUMENT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED OR NOT. ** NOTICE ** IN ADDTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES SUCH AS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. ** WARNING TO OWNER ** YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. THIS PERMIT SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT EXPIRATION TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FEES. REQUEST INSPECTIONS: By phone at 772-589-5537 OR online at www.mygovernmentonline.org FINAL BUILDING ______ EXHIBIT 5 - THRID PERMIT ISSUED TO HOMEOWNER FOR MKW BUILDERS WORK Jurisdiction Inspection Type Inspector Sebastian Framing John Parker Details Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments. Provide photos of new window bucks for framing inspection. Garage door OK. Front door missing correct screws at hinges and strikes. Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. All windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking. Remove all trim strips at concealed fasteners. Inspection stopped. Permit Number Work Order Number Inspection Number 24-4148 40618792 33434376 Customer Address Phone Mark Walker 113 REDGRAVE DR, SEBASTIAN 32958 (772) 360-8980 Scheduled Completed Uploaded 4/28/2025 12:50:00 AM 4/28/2025 8:14:14 AM 4/28/2025 8:58:14 AM You can download this report or request additional inspections at www.MyGovernmentOnline.org. For software assistance please call 866.957.3764. For questions about this inspection please contact your jurisdiction Inspection Report Inspection Date: 4/28/2025 8:14:14 AM FAILED Mark Walker should contact Sebastian at (772) 589-5537 for further information. EXHIBIT 6- INSPECTION REPORT BY JOHN PARKER EX H I B I T 7 - C A N C E L L E D I N S P E C T I O N B Y J O H N P A R K E R Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967 Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact @MKWbuilders.com License # CBC 1267842 May 13, 2025 Pictures and Information Related to Permit # 24-4148 Job Address: 113 Redgrave Drive To Whom it May Concern, I am attaching the photos I have of the work performed on this project as requested by inspector. I have verified all window fasteners are secured and the correct screws for the front entry door are in place. The homeowner claimed his windows were leaking, however, he did not tell you they were leaking due to him blasting the windows with his hose. The weep holes are not designed to take on that kind of water. There is nothing wrong with the installation or the product itself. Let me know if you need additional information in order to complete this project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (772) 360-8980. Warm Regards, ____________________________________ Mark Walker President MKW Builders LLC EXHIBIT 8 -LETTER IN REPONSE TO JOHN PARKERS DEMAND FOR PICTURES OF WORK NOT REQUIRED BY OUR PERMIT EXHIBIT 9 - LIEN FILED AGAINST HOMEOWNER FOR NONPAYMENT jclark@mmhlaw.com TAMPA • MIAMI June 12, 2025 VIA EMAIL- mark@mkwbuilders.com MKW Builders, LLC 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, Florida 32967 Re: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential construction project Our clients: Steven and Diana Marini Contract Date: November 5, 2024 MMH Ref: 02-839 Dear MKW Builders, LLC: This firm has the pleasure of representing Steven and Diana Marini with respect to the above- referenced matter. Please direct all future correspondence to my attention and do not contact the Marinis directly. I have reviewed available documentation and pertinent correspondence related to your failure to complete two projects for this residence. As you know, Steven and Diana Marini contracted with MKW Builders, LLC on November 5, 2024, by accepting two separate Proposals: 1. Scope of Work: My Safe FL Home, included replacement of the garage door, a skylight, and a front entry door, for a total cost of $4,487.15, with the following contract provisions: “Time to complete scope of work is 3 days from permit issue. Work start date will be scheduled with homeowner.” A deposit in the amount of $2,243 is required to cover the cost of materials ordered. The remaining balance is due upon Completion certificate from building dept and final Invoice.” 2. Scope of Work: Replace existing windows with impact rated windows, for a total cost of $12,400.00, with the following contract provisions: “Time to complete scope of work is 3 days from permit issue. Work start date will be scheduled with homeowner.” EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER MKW Builders, LLC June 12, 2025 Page 2 MURRAY, MORIN & HERMAN, P.A. TAMPA • MIAMI A deposit in the amount of $6,200 is required to cover the cost of materials ordered. The remaining balance is due upon Completion certificate from building dept and final Invoice.” You have completed the My Safe FL Home contract, but due to your decision to apply for a single permit for both projects and your failure to properly complete the window replacement project, a final inspection failed as a whole, so the work has not been approved by the City of Sebastian, although my clients have paid in full for that project. My clients hereby demand that within seven (7) days you do whatever is necessary, with no further expense to them for your errors, to complete the My Safe FL Home project and obtain the final inspection and approval from the City of Sebastian. With regard to the window replacement, you have failed to comply with the City of Sebastian’s requirements to properly install the windows and it appears the windows will need to be removed and completely redone. My clients have lost all confidence in your ability to complete this project in a timely, workmanlike manner and they are appalled at your demand for pre-payment of additional funds that were not accounted for in the original contract. Your failure to adequately prepare for this project, to understand your obligations under the City of Sebastian building requirements, and refusal to correct your mistakes without additional compensation, and your poor workmanship have made the contractual relationship with my clients irreparable. In addition, my clients have felt threatened by your demeanor and tone while they have attempted to work with you to resolve this matter. Therefore, they demand that you provide any and all warranty documentation for the windows. The remaining $6,200 on the original contract price will not be paid because the project was not completed. They will be retaining a separate contractor to repair your defective work and complete this project. To the extent additional damage was caused by you that increases the cost of the window replacement, they will look to you for reimbursement. My clients further demand that you turn over all project documents in your possession and any and all photographs you have related to the project. Additionally, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 627.4137, or alternatively 626.9372, you are required to promptly disclose the name and coverage of each known insurer. Pursuant to the cited statutes, you are also required to forward this request for information to all affected insurers. Each insurer shall provide, within thirty (30) days of this written request, all information required by the cited statutes, including a statement under oath of a corporate officer or the insurer’s claims manager or superintendent setting forth the following information with regard to each known policy of insurance, including excess or umbrella insurance: a. The name of the insurer; b. The name of each insured; c. The limits of liability coverage; d. A statement of policy or coverage defense(s) which such insurer reasonably believes is/are available to such insurer at the time of filing such statement; and e. A copy of the policy(ies). EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER MKW Builders, LLC June 12, 2025 Page 3 MURRAY, MORIN & HERMAN, P.A. TAMPA • MIAMI Please be advised that we require a complete and certified copy of the policy, to include the declarations page, the full-text policy itself, and any and all endorsements. A certified affidavit of insurance does not satisfy the statutory requirements. Copies of all insurance policies are requested from the point when you first began work on the projects set forth above to the present. Failure to comply with any of the demands set forth herein will result in a lawsuit being filed against you. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, JENNIFER M. CLARK JMC EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967 Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact @MKWbuilders.com License # CBC 1267842 June 12, 2025 Murray, Morin & Herman, P.A. 3550 Buschwood Park Drive Suite 130 Tampa, FL 33618 RE: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential Construction Project Clients: Steven & Diana Marini Ms. Clark, We are in receipt of your demand letter sent via email on June 12, 2025 on behalf of your clients Steven and Diane Marini. Each item in your letter is addressed below. Your opening paragraph includes the statement: your failure to complete two projects for this residence. This statement is false. The work for the two projects included under one permit has been completed, there are a couple of minor issues that need to be corrected in order to obtain final approval from the City of Sebastian Building Department. This work is covered under our agreement and there are no additional charges for completing this work. The permit application was submitted under one permit because all of the work completed pertained to window and door replacement. There was never an agreement to complete the work separately, and your clients wanted everything done at the same time. The original proposal for the scope of work, as it pertains to the window replacement, was changed when the first window was removed. Mark Walker and Steven Marini had an on site conversation in which he explained to Mr. Marini that due to the unforeseen existing conditions with the stucco bands and wall stucco (which could not be seen until removal of the existing window) the work could not be completed as planned and included in the original proposal. Mr. Walker advised Mr. Marini that in order to replace the windows to ensure proper installation and weather seal, he would need to remove all of the existing stucco bands around the windows on the exterior, remove the drywall jambs and sills from the interior around the windows, and then replace all of the above with new which would be an additional cost. Mr. Walker explained this in detail to Mr. Marini and asked if he still wanted to proceed with the window replacement and Mr. Marini confirmed he wanted to proceed with having the new windows installed. Mr. Walker understood that your clients were awarded a grant through the My Safe Florida Home Program, and your clients obtained financing for the work through our provider, Acorn Finance. In an effort to lower the costs for your clients so that they could still have their new windows, Mr. Walker agreed to cover half of the cost to replace the stucco bands around the newly installed windows. Mr. Marini expressed his appreciation for Mr. Walker’s offer. The window replacement then proceeded. Home Depot had made a mistake and sent 3 windows that were the incorrect size. Once that was discovered, Mr. Walker informed your clients of the issue and closed up those window openings until new windows, the correct size, were delivered. These windows were delivered to Home Depot in mid to late February, and Mr. Walker went to Home Depot to ensure they were the correct size. The new windows were the correct size, however, they came with no lattice. Mr. Walker spoke with Mr. Marini and told him about the issue. Mr. Walker explained to Mr. Marini that we could send these windows back and wait for new windows with the lattice, or a lattice trim could be installed on the exterior part of the glass. Mr. Marini met Mr. Walker at Home Depot to look at the windows himself. Mr. Walker expressed his frustration regarding the mistakes and told Mr. Marini he would sign over the job to another contractor of his choosing. Mr. Marini refused and demanded Mr. Walker finish the job. Mr. Walker reluctantly agreed to do so and ordered new windows. EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER Upon delivery of the new windows in the correct size and with the lattice, Mr. Walker scheduled with your clients to install them in mid March. During the installation of the 3 windows, one of the windows was broken by our crew member. Mr. Walker informed your clients about the issue and told them he would order a new window at his expense. The replacement window was delivered at the end of April and installed. Mr. Walker scheduled an inspection to take place on April 28, 2025. On April 27th, 2025, the day before the inspection was to occur, your client texted Mr. Walker stating the windows were leaking and that he needed to cancel the inspection. Your clients were using the hose to “clean the windows”. Mr. Walker advised your client not to use the hose on the windows and explained why. He also told your clients he needed to proceed with the inspection, but when he came to the home for the inspection, he would look at the windows and assess the leaks. On the morning of April 28th, 2025, Mr. Walker checked the contractor portal for the inspector schedule so that he could be present to meet the inspector. Your clients had contacted the City of Sebastian Building Department and requested the inspector meet them personally. This is direct interference and they have used their political connections to essentially prevent Mr. Walker from performing his role as the licensed contractor and the rightful permit holder. Apparently, the inspector came to meet your clients at 7:30am, before the inspectors schedule for the day was posted to the contractor portal. Once the inspection report was available, Mr. Walker contacted the inspector to find out what had happened and why his inspection was completed prior to the inspector’s schedule being posted. The inspector was combative and refused to provide the information to Mr. Walker. It was after this occurred that Mr. Walker became aware of your clients interference with and collusion with the City of Sebastian Building Department. There were numerous times throughout this project that your clients advised Mr. Walker that they had friends and family in local government and they know a lot of people. Mr. Walker did not think anything of this at the time, but now began to understand what those statements meant. As per protocol on every inspection that lists corrections to the work, Mr. Walker coordinated with your clients to come back and make the corrections necessary per the inspector report. After the corrections were made, a reinspect was scheduled for May 8th. Again, Mr. Walker went on to the contractor portal to check that his inspection was assigned to an inspector and see his schedule. The inspection was assigned to a different inspector and he waited all day to time when he would need to be there on site to meet the inspector. Around 2:00pm, Mr. Walker received a call from the same inspector that came on April 28th, 2025. The inspector told Mr. Walker he was not able to access the home as no one answered the door. Mr. Walker asked why the other inspector was not completing the inspection as he had been watching the assigned inspector’s route to be able to be there. He was not provided an answer, and the inspector told him he was canceling the inspection until Mr. Walker uploaded pictures to the contractor portal. On May 13th, 2025, the pictures and a letter were uploaded to the contractor portal. Mr. Walker tried on numerous occasions to coordinate with your clients for the reinspect, however, they refused to allow the inspection until their demands were met. Mr. Walker explained to your clients that the issues from the first inspection had been addressed and that he needed to be present for the inspection so that he could show the inspector what could not be addressed with pictures. Your clients were not agreeable. Mr. Walker explained that the leak in the one window was possibly a manufacturer defect or from the stucco bands that needed to be sealed, primed and painted. Your clients chose to save money by doing this work themselves. At this time, your clients have still failed to complete this work which is most likely where the leak is coming from. On May 28th 2025, your clients sent Mr. Walker a lengthy email with their demands and complaints, to which Mr. Walker replied the same evening. Their email boiled down to your clients being unhappy with the drywall finishing on the jambs, which Mr. Walker saw no issue with, and they claimed the one window was still leaking. Mr. Walker asked your clients to send him pictures of the window they had an issue with so that he could assess where the leak was coming from and come prepared to fix it. They sent a couple of pictures of the exterior of the window and an old picture of the inside two days later. Mr. Marini texted Mr. Walker on May 30th, 2025 to tell him that the permit was set to expire on EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER Sunday June 1st, 2025. Mr. Walker informed Mr. Marini that was not the case as the permit was active and had an approved inspection as required by Florida Building Code. On Monday June 2nd, 2025, Mr. Walker received a letter from the City of Sebastian building Department stating that his permit had expired. Upon receipt of this letter, Mrs. Walker contacted the building department to find out what was going on. She was informed by a building official Dan Hainey that your clients had been constantly contacting the building department making false claims and statements and he was under the impression the job had been “abandoned”. After lengthy discussion and communications over the next two days, Mr. Hainey agreed to contact your clients to schedule the reinspect. Your clients had again interfered with Mr. Walker completing his job and fulfilling his requirements with the building department. Mr. Walker attributes your clients inappropriate interference to the fact that they do not want to pay for the work Mr. Walker has completed on their home. On June 2nd 2025, your clients sent Mr. Walker another hostile email with additional demands and requested a response by June 5th, 2025. On June 4th, 2025, the building department reactivated Mr. Walker’s permit and he submitted a written response to the building department regarding the expired permit letter and summarized the ongoing issues with your clients via email on June 3rd, 2025 and uploaded to the contractor portal on June 4th, 2025. On June 5th, 2025, Mr. Walker met the building inspector at your client’s home. Mr. Marini was hostile, and made false accusations against Mr. Walker, including saying he had not heard from him for over a month. This is demonstrably false. Mr. Walker was on site May 8th, 2025, and had numerous text message and email communications with your clients over the course of May most recently on June 2nd. Your clients advised Mr. Walker in their email on June 2nd that they had spoken to people at the building department and with “other reputable contractors” that advised them (wrongly) of what Mr. Walker was required to do to meet their demands. Mr. Marini told the inspector that his one window was leaking and the inspector told Mr. Marini that window leaks are not part of his inspection. During the inspection, it was found that the clips to the mullions installed on three windows were not in place. Mr. Walker discussed his plan for attaching the clips without having to remove the window with the inspectors and they agreed that his plan would be acceptable. Mr. Walker asked the inspectors to make the notes in their report on any deficiencies and told them and your clients that he would correct the issues and request a reinspection when that was done. To be clear, there was no additional cost to your clients for the correction of this issue. After the inspection, Mr. Walker and Mr. Marini went together to look at the window your clients claim was still leaking. Mr. Walker showed Mr. Marini that the sealant around the window frame where it meets the stucco bands was completely sealed, and that no more sealant could be applied to that area and it was impossible for the leak to be coming from that location. Mr. Walker then pointed out to Mr. Marini that there were gaps where the stucco bands meet the exterior wall and those gaps needed to be sealed immediately along with unprimed stucco which his porous and requires primer to be applied to seal it. Mr. Marini told Mr. Walker he thought that was his job, and Mr. Walker again explained that it was not, it was part of the job of the painter, which is your clients. Upon Mr. Walker’s inspection of the rest of the windows with the inspector, Mr. Walker observed that all the windows were properly sealed and completed, but observed that the stucco to wall caulking, priming and painting had not been completed. Eight of those eleven windows were install in January, which means your clients failed to complete this work for almost six months and the other three windows had been installed for over a month with this work still not being completed. At some point after the inspection, your clients contacted someone at the building department and interfered again, and this time it led to an argument between Mr. Walker and the building official, Wayne Eseltine. Mr. Eseltine told Mr. Walker that he would have to expose the framing of the three windows with the mullion clips. This is not typically required for a window and door replacement. Mr. Walker and Mr. Eseltine had numerous email exchanges and Mr. Eseltine refused to concede the requirement. Mr. Walker was put in a difficult position now in which he is obligated to comply with the building official in order to close out this permit, but it would require additional work and cost to your EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER clients. This was the work that required the change order, and was completely unrelated to the minor issues discussed during the inspection. Mr. Walker responded to your clients June 2nd email on June 5th, 2025 and explained in detail what would need to be done in order to satisfy the building official and a rough estimate of the cost, along with an in depth explanation and list of what needed to be done by your clients (the painters) to seal up the windows around the stucco bands. He advised your clients that the permit was active and he would be meeting with the building official and City Manager to discuss this whole situation on Tuesday, June 10, 2025. Your clients responded to Mr. Walker’s email on June 6th, 2025 requesting a detailed proposal for the additional work required by the building official. On June 9, 2025, Mr. Walker sent your clients a change order with a detailed description of the additional work that needed to be completed per the building officials requirement. On June 10, 2025, Mr. And Mrs. Walker met with the building official and the city manager to try to come to a resolution and address other concerns with how this permit was being handled. Mr. Walker tried to come to an agreement with the building official that would eliminate the need for the additional work to be completed on your client’s project. The building official told Mr. Walker he was not going to compromise and he didn’t think Mr. Walker should charge your clients for the additional work. Mr. Walker again explained that if the building official would simply let him correct the issues on the inspection report in the manner they agreed to at the inspection, then that would be the case. Unfortunately, the interference from your clients made that impossible. The City Manager assisted Mr. Walker with an agreement to extend the permit for 90 days so that we could discuss the issue with your clients and give them time to decide how they wanted to proceed. Due to your clients interfering with Mr. Walker’s permit and inspection process with the building department, they have caused Mr. Walker to be in a no win position. He must comply with the building official requirements, and he cannot absorb the costs associated with performing additional work without being paid to do so. In addition, your clients did not respond to the change order sent to them by Mr. Walker and did not contact him to discuss why this was needed. Your clients are required to pay Mr. Walker for the work completed on their project. Your letter states that your clients are essentially firing Mr. Walker and will not allow him to make the necessary corrections per the building inspector report and they do not want Mr. Walker to perform the work required for him to satisfy the building official requirements in order to close out the permit. Your clients are fully within their right to terminate their contract with Mr. Walker, however, Mr. Walker is fully within his right to pursue payment for the work he completed. Mr. Walker’s permit for this project is open and active with minor corrections needed and additional work now required to receive final approval. Mr. Walker does not have the ability to separate parts of the project. Your demand that Mr. Walker do whatever is necessary with no further expense to your clients to complete the My Safe Florida Home project and obtain the final inspection and approval from the City of Sebastian within seven days is not possible. Your clients will not allow Mr. Walker to perform any additional work, nor will they allow him to make the corrections necessary to receive final approval from the building department. Your clients need to be informed that failing an inspection only means that the contractor has to correct deficiencies in order to receive a pass. Your clients windows do not need to be removed and redone, as stated multiple times in this letter. There are minor corrections that need to be made (at no additional cost to your clients) and additional work the building official is requiring to be completed in order to receive final inspection approval. Your clients are out of line accusing Mr. Walker of poor workmanship, and your clients lack the knowledge and understanding of construction and permitting which is why they should have allowed Mr. Walker to do his job instead of interfering in his field of expertise. Mr. Walker provided your clients with a proposal for work based on the visible conditions he observed. When those conditions are different from what was planned for, it results in a change order and additional cost. EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER It is not Mr. Walker’s fault that your clients interfered with his permit, and it is very common with all construction projects that there are unforeseen conditions and additional costs that arise. Your clients experienced this when the windows could not be installed as planned and resulted in added cost. They decided to proceed with the window replacement and additional costs associated with it. They are not appalled that there is an additional cost associated with additional work required to complete their project. They simply do not want to pay for that work and they wanted Mr. Walker to do that work for free. Mr. Walker has no confidence that your clients will pay for the additional work required, which is why payment for that work was requested up front. Mr. Walker believes this is a reasonable request considering your clients behavior and actions. Your clients are not entitled to any of the permit documents as those belong to Mr. Walker. Upon payment of Mr. Walker’s final invoice, any and all documents that they are entitled to will be provided to your clients. If your clients choose not to pay their final invoice for the work completed on their home, Mr. Walker will exercise his right to file a lien against your clients property. In your letter, it states that your clients are retaining a new contractor to “repair defective work” (a completely false assumption and statement that the work performed by Mr. Walker was defective) however, you have demanded Mr. Walker do everything necessary to complete the work on the My Safe Florida Home project, which is not separate and all work is under one permit. Are you firing Mr. Walker and obtaining a new contractor? If so, that new contractor will have to get their own permit for the work Mr. Walker has already completed. You have confidence in Mr. Walker’s ability to obtain final approval on some items included in the permit but not others? That is a direct contradiction of your demands. In order to resolve the dispute between your clients and Mr. Walker, Mr. Walker has made the following offers: 1.Mr. Walker will perform the minor corrections needed per the building inspectors report from the June 5, 2025 inspection with the requirement that your clients contact the building department and obtain in writing assurance from the building official that if Mr. Walker makes these minor corrections stated in the report, the inspector will not require Mr. Walker to complete any additional work in order to obtain the final approval. Your clients must also agree in writing to provide Mr. Walker with access to their home and to provide access to the inspector so that they can perform their required inspections. 2. If your clients pay Mr. Walker’s final invoice in full, Mr. Walker will agree to sign a change of contractor document which allows your client’s new contractor to take over the permit without applying for a new permit and will provide all the documents associated with the permit and the Materials installed. Thank you in advance for your prompt response. Regards, _____________________________________________ Mark Walker EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER jclark@mmhlaw.com TAMPA • MIAMI June 19, 2025 VIA EMAIL- mark@mkwbuilders.com MKW Builders, LLC 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, Florida 32967 Re: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential construction project Our clients: Steven and Diana Marini Contract Date: November 5, 2024 MMH Ref: 02-839 Dear MKW Builders, LLC: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 12, 2025, as well as a copy of the text message you sent to my client despite my request that you direct all future correspondence to my attention and not contact the Marinis directly. I assume you will cease any further direct contact with them as you stated you would in the text message. As an initial matter, you may rest assured that my clients have no interest in prolonging this matter with you. That being said, your letter was not well-received. It is clear that your intention is to place the blame for your mistakes and poor workmanship on every company (Home Depot), public entity (City of Sebastian), and every *former* customer (the Marinis) in an effort to avoid taking responsibility yourself. This is no way to run a business and does not bode well for your future prospects of remaining in business. This is unfortunate because my clients were hopeful and had every intention of supporting your small business from the outset, but you have made them regret that decision. The Marinis want to specifically address a few of your false statements – it would be too time-consuming and not worth the effort to address all of the false statements in your letter. The Marinis have no special connections within the City of Sebastian building department. They have no control or influence over the building code or how the code is enforced by the City of Sebastian. They are simply highly competent individuals capable of tracking down the right person to contact for information. Their first contact with the building department was when Mrs. Marini needed to EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER MKW Builders, LLC June 19, 2025 Page 2 MURRAY, MORIN & HERMAN, P.A. TAMPA • MIAMI know when the inspector was going to arrive because she had to be away from the home in the morning dealing with issues with the family’s dog’s torn ACL. She was not able to obtain information from you and you had just screamed at Mr. Marini the day before, so she contacted the building department. The first time either of the Marinis met the first inspector was on the morning of the inspection (April 28, 2025). At that time, the inspector noted that there was a large number of screws missing from all windows and there were no photos of the clips required for 3 arch windows, so your work failed inspection. When you attempted to have the missing screws installed, your crew used the wrong size screws that did not meet the code, and they tried to fix leaking windows with caulk, advising they had never caulked any of the windows prior to that time. The second inspection that was supposed to take place on May 8, 2025, was canceled by the inspector because he saw there were no photos in the packet. My clients could not get a solid answer from you despite multiple texts asking you what the next step would be. Your responses to those texts were non-committal and appeared to be attempts to simply brush them off. Finally, they understood why you were trying to brush them off when you responded to their email of May 28, 2025, requesting your anticipated completion timeline. Your response was to tell the Marinis they would need to hire someone else because you weren’t going to do anything further to satisfy the inspectors regarding anything that was already done. Based on your response, the Marinis met with other contractors and spoke with Dan at the building department (for the first time ever), to ask whether the permit could be split – he noted the permit was set to expire soon. On June 4, 2025, there was another inspection (although you had not done anything the building inspector told you needed to be done). The inspector noted every window had the wrong size screws and you told the inspector and the Marinis that you would “make it right.” To the contrary, you proposed increased pricing, all paid up front to complete the work that was only not complete because you did it incorrectly. In short, this needs to end. Every false statement you have made is refuted by documents and witnesses that the Marinis have been gathering. The Marinis will not pay you anything further. The Marinis have been advised you can close out the My Safe FL Home portion of the permit by canceling the window portion of the permit in an amended permit application. That will allow you to close out that aspect. The Marinis further demand that you provide them a Paid in Full receipt on the My Safe FL Home contract – they have, in fact, paid that contract in full. The building department has advised the Marinis that your work on the windows requires removal and reinstallation – that is not something the Marinis have any influence over and your claims in this regard are absurd. The Marinis have no confidence in your ability to fix the window project so that it conforms with code and they refuse to be yelled at by you because you messed up and don’t know how to fix it. Turning to your threat to file a lien against the property, you would be wise to avoid taking any such action. You are not owed any further money. The contract you drafted clearly does not require payment of anything further until you obtain a certificate of completion from the City, which you refused to accomplish without demanding pre-payment of additional sums. This is unethical and EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER MKW Builders, LLC June 19, 2025 Page 3 MURRAY, MORIN & HERMAN, P.A. TAMPA • MIAMI in no way required by the Marinis under the contract. You have no basis for any claim of lien. If you file a fraudulent lien against the property and force the Marinis to defend it, they will be entitled to recover from you all attorneys’ fees and costs they incur. Understand that the Marinis are not negotiating with you except to give you an additional seven (7) days from today to do get your permit modified so you can close out the My Safe FL Home project and provide them with the certificate of completion and Paid In Full receipt. Failure to comply with any of the demands set forth in my previous letter or the above demand will result in a lawsuit being filed against you. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, JENNIFER M. CLARK JMC EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER June 19, 2025 Murray, Morin & Herman, P.A. 3550 Buschwood Park Drive Suite 130 Tampa, FL 33618 RE: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential Construction Project Clients: Steven & Diana Marini Ms. Clark, We are in receipt of your second letter sent via email on June 19, 2025 on behalf of your clients Steven and Diane Marini. We are not going to address the lies and false statements you have made in your letter except for one. Your clients claim that the “building department” told them the windows had to be removed and reinstalled is an outrageous claim. Mr. Walker was with Wayne Eseltine (Head building official) and Dan Hainey (Second in charge building official) during the inspection, presented his plan for adding the clips and both the top two building officials AGREED that would satisfy their requirements. Once Mr. Walker executed his plan and changed out a couple of screws in the windows, he would have went for re-inspection and PASSED. That’s how permits and inspections work. Its unprecedented for homeowners to be interfering with a contractor and his permit with the building department, and even more bizarre is that your clients have tried to prevent Mr. Walker from finalizing his permit. The only explanation for this Mr. Walker can think of is that your clients were trying to justify not paying for the work MKW Builders completed on their home. Your clients have failed to fulfill their obligations of our contract. Specifically, your clients are in breach of contract by failing to cooperate with the contractor in order to complete the work necessary to satisfy the permit requirements of the City of Sebastian Building Department. Your clients have obstructed Mr. Walker’s performance of the contract and interfered with Mr. Walker’s work and with his permit for the work issued by the City of Sebastian Building Department. Your clients have refused to accept and make payment for the additional work required by the City of Sebastian Building Department as outlined in the Change Order provided to your clients on June 9, 2025. Your clients have terminated the contract with MKW Builders, as you made clear in your letter by notifying us that the Marinis are our “Former Customers”. The project was substantially completed and required minor corrections to satisfy the building department, which the contractor has every right to do. It is extremely uncommon for an owner to obstruct the contractor from completing his job. You also noted that “the Marinis are not negotiating with you”, which backs up Mr. Walker’s claim that your clients are refusing to cooperate with Mr. Walker and obstructing him from performing his job. As Mr. Walker has told you in his previous letter and told your clients on numerous occasions, ALL OF THE WORK CONTRACTED BY MKW BUILDERS AND YOUR CLIENTS IS UNDER ONE PERMIT. Mr. Walker does not have multiple permits on your client’s home, the final inspection and approval is on ALL of the work included under the ONE permit, and payment for ALL of the work must be satisfied before Mr. Walker will provide your clients with a receipt. Mr. Walker will exercise his right to file a lien against your client’ property if they fail to pay their final balance of $9,200.00 within 14 days of June 19, 2025. The Final Invoice for the work completed on your clients home is attached to this letter as you have requested all communication be directed to you and not with our “former” clients. Regards, _____________________________________________ Mark Walker EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER jclark@mmhlaw.com TAMPA • MIAMI June 26, 2025 VIA EMAIL- mark@mkwbuilders.com MKW Builders, LLC 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, Florida 32967 Re: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential construction project Our clients: Steven and Diana Marini Contract Date: November 5, 2024 MMH Ref: 02-839 Dear MKW Builders, LLC: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 19, 2025. It is astonishing that you are continuing to take the position you are taking. First, the Marinis obviously would have no incentive to interfere with getting final approval of the work even if they had such power, which they don’t. They have wanted nothing more than to be done with this process and not have to deal with you anymore. The simple fact is, you failed to comply with the building code and the manufacturer’s installation instructions when you installed the windows. The Marinis were, in fact, prepared to allow you to fix your mistake, but you insisted on being paid more than the contract amount up front and with no reason to believe you would not try to add additional costs while fixing your mistake, which you acknowledged in your June 6, 2025 letter. The Marinis never agreed to pay you any additional amount beyond what was originally proposed in the contract. Second, the Marinis were present during the inspection in which you claim you advised the City officials of your plan and they approved it. No such discussion took place. All you said was that you would take care of it. The Marinis were astonished by your subsequent “plan” to install the brackets without removing the windows. Therefore, they have asked other contractors and the City officials whether it would be possible to install the brackets without removing the windows and, of course, nobody believes there is any way to do that but you. EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER MKW Builders, LLC June 26, 2025 Page 2 MURRAY,MORIN &HERMAN,P.A. TAMPA •MIAMI Third, it was your choice, not the Marinis’, to obtain a single permit for both projects, although they are separate contracts. This is another error you should fix and provide the Marinis with a paid in full receipt for the My Safe Florida Home project – they have paid that in full, although you failed to obtain the City approval as required before their obligation to pay you under the contract. The Marinis are working to remedy your mistakes to hopefully ensure their home is safe for the hurricane season, which has already begun now. As stated in my previous letter, there is nothing further that the Marinis owe you under any legal theory whatsoever. There is no aspect of your written contract that has been breached by the Marinis; the only breach has been by you. Therefore, any attempt on your part to file a lien against their property would be fraudulent and ill-advised. If you do go forward with such a foolish decision, the Marinis are prepared to defeat your lien and recover all their attorneys’ fees and costs against you. Govern yourself accordingly. Sincerely, JENNIFER M. CLARK JMC EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER June 26, 2025 Murray, Morin & Herman, P.A. 3550 Buschwood Park Drive Suite 130 Tampa, FL 33618 RE: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential Construction Project Clients: Steven & Diana Marini Ms. Clark, We are in receipt of your third letter sent via email on June 26, 2025 on behalf of your clients Steven and Diane Marini. As stated in our previous response letter, Mr. Walker has an active and open permit with the City of Sebastian for the project on your client’s home. It seems you do not understand how permits and inspections work. Mr. Walker has already explained this multiple times to both you and your clients, however you have failed to understand it. You are making statements that the installation failed to meet building code and manufacturer instructions as if the corrections could not be made in order to pass inspection. That is FALSE. Inspections are simply part of the construction process to make sure the work is completed according to plan. When an inspection is failed, the contractor contacts the inspector, goes over the deficiencies in the inspectors report and makes the corrections. The work is then reinspected and receives a pass which closes out the project. Mr. Walker did not request your clients pay an additional amount for the corrections needed. Your clients did agree to pay the additional costs of the window installation when Mr. Marini and Mr. Walker had a discussion, in person, that the proposed plan for the window replacement would not be possible and in order for Mr. Walker to complete the project there would be additional labor and material costs. Your clients AGREED to proceed with the work and to pay for the additional costs to complete the work. Those costs are reflected in the final invoice sent to you on June 19, 2025. The balance due is $9,200.00. Your clients have continued to interfere with Mr. Walker’s building permit and have obstructed Mr. Walker from finishing their project. What your clients have failed to comprehend is that their interference along with the misguided advice of third parties and lack of knowledge regarding building inspections has put Mr. Walker in no win situation. The building official is requiring Mr. Walker to complete a Framing Inspection, which entails the actual wood framing on the exterior walls around the windows. That is not part of a window replacement permit, however, in this case due to your client’s interference, that is what the Building Official wants him to do. Since this work was not included in the proposal, Mr. Walker sent your clients a Change Order, which was for $5,000.00 in order to complete the additional work required by the Building Official. To be clear, this work has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CORRECTIONS ON THE INSPECTORS REPORT. Mr. Walker has no choice but to satisfy the Building Official’s requirements per Building Code. It is the additional FRAMING work and materials that make up the $5,000.00 amount detailed in the Change Order. Your clients chose not to agree to the change order, which obstructs Mr. Walker from satisfying the Building Official’s requirements. Perhaps your clients did not hear or understand what Mr. Walker, Mr. Hainey and Mr. Esseltine discussed and agreed to during the inspection, however, Mr. Walker is certainly prepared to have Mr. Hainey and Mr. Esseltine testify to their discussion. Your clients are receiving misinformation from whoever they are contacting at the building department and other “contractors” they have spoken to. Mr. Walker’s plan for the process of correcting the deficiencies on the windows is not the concern of your clients, nor was it going to cost your clients additional money. Mr. Walker’s plan for correcting the deficiencies was between him and the building inspector. As long as Mr. Walker made the corrections to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, the work would have been approved. Mr. Walker does not need to explain to your clients his plan, nor would he, as they have no knowledge of construction and process, which is obvious from the false statements and accusations they have made. EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER The proposals for the project were only separated into two sheets due to your clients needing to submit to the My Safe Florida Home Grant Program a proposal that only included the portions of the work covered under their grant approval. Your clients wrote ONE deposit check, and Mr. Walker pulled One permit for the work. Your clients have made two payments towards the total amount due. There is no separation of the work, nor do your clients determine how the payments made are applied. The initial deposit did not cover the total cost of materials for the project, let alone the labor. This project is beyond substantially completed. Your clients are required to pay Mr. Walker for the work completed on their project. If your clients fail to pay the remaining balance owed to Mr. Walker, he will file a lien against your clients for failure to pay. Mr. Walker is confident that he will be successful against your clients, and that he will be awarded attorney fees, interest, damages and other costs related to this matter. Mr. Walker has been in constant communication with your clients and immediately responded to your emails. The undo stress and hardship your clients have caused him and his company are unwarranted and unacceptable. Mr. Walker requests that your clients stop any work they are doing related to the project he has an open permit for. In addition, Mr. Walker is going to alert the City of Sebastian Building Department that your clients are engaging in construction work without authorization or supervision by Mr. Walker while his permit is active, which is another breach of contract and violation of building code. In order to protect himself from the liability of your clients performing unlicensed/unauthorized work under his permit, he will request the City of Sebastian Building Department immediately issue a stop work order to your clients until this issue is resolved. As a side note, you are not Mr. Walker’s legal representative, and stating his lien claim is “fraudulent and ill-advised” is highly inappropriate and unprofessional, especially considering your assessment is wildly inaccurate and based on false statements made by your clients. The foul tone of your letters is not well received and it is counterproductive to resolving this simple dispute. Mr. Walker has been more than willing to work with you and your clients to come to a resolution on this matter and he has responded to your letters respectfully. Your clients are in breach of contract for obstructing Mr. Walker from fulfilling his job performance, failed to accept a change order for additional work required by the Building official, and failing to pay for the work that Mr. Walker has completed on your client’s home. Mr. Walker does not believe that further communication with you and your clients will result in a resolution to this matter. If the balance owed to Mr. Walker for the work completed on your clients home has not been paid by July 7, 2025, Mr. Walker will proceed with filing a lien against your clients for non-payment. Govern yourself accordingly. Regards, _____________________________________________ Mark Walker EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER EXPIRED PERMIT NOTICE OF VIOLATION Date: Contractor: Permit No: 6/2/2025 MKW BUILDERS LLC 4113 ABINGTON WOODS CIR VERO BEACH, FL 32958 24-4148 Owner:DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI 113 REDGRAVE DR SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 Work Description: Permit Address: WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT 113 REDGRAVE DR, SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 Dear Permit Holder, The above referenced permit(s) has not had an approved inspection for 180 days and is now expired. In accordance with Florida Building Code Section 105.4 and City of Sebastian Land Development Code 54-1-2.3(2) permits that have expired due to lack of progress or abandonment become null and void. By way of this letter a STOP WORK ORDER IS NOW IN EFFECT for the above permit(s) and no further inspections are authorized. A violation has been placed on this property, which may jeopardize the issuance of any future permits and/or sale of said property. The original permit may be re-instated within 30 days from the date this notice of violation is received with a written request to the Building Official showing just cause for the delay and paying the expired permit fee. Re- instatements and period of time allotted to obtain an approved inspection will be at the discretion of the Building Official. NOTE: Expired permits that are not re-instated within 180 days from the original expiration date require a new permit in accordance with FBC 105.4.1.2. A new permit application will be required along with appropriate plan submittals. All existing work and new work is required to be brought up to the current code. New permit(s) will require the payment of all permit fees including applicable sub-permits and plan review fees. LICENSED CONTRACTORS who fail to comply with the above directive may have an immediate administrative hold placed on their license. The department may seek disciplinary action through the City of Sebastian Construction Board. If you have questions, please contact the Building Department at 772-589-5537 Sincerely, Wayne Eseltine Building Official Expiration Date:6/1/2025 EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967 Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact @MKWbuilders.com License # CBC 1267842 June 2, 2025 Sebastian Building Department 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 RE: Expired Permit Notice of Violation Permit 24-4148 113 Redgrave Dr. We obtained this permit December 3, 2024 to include the scope of work for the following: Replace garage door, front entry door and 1 skylight under the My Safe Florida Home Grant and replace existing windows with new impact windows. The windows were not part of the grant, however all work was performed under one permit. We coordinated with the owner to begin the work on December 16, 2024. We installed the new skylight, garage door and the front door. There were no issues. The owner requested we wait until he was home on vacation over the holidays to install the windows. Unfortunately, we aren’t available during the holidays. The first week of January, we coordinated to begin the window work. Upon trying to remove the first window, it was clear that the originally proposed process to remove the windows was not going to be possible. It would now involve removing the stucco bands from the exterior which is a time consuming and involved process. Prior to continuing the removal, Mark spoke to the owner to notify him of the situation and asked if he still wanted to proceed with the job. The owner said he wanted the windows replaced and understood there was going to be an extra cost associated with this. They continued to remove and replace the windows and finished the majority. We discovered 3 of the windows were the incorrect size. Home Depot had made a mistake. We had to order the 3 new windows and hold on finishing the replacement until those windows came in. During the wait, the stucco bands, window sills and drywall was finished on the majority of the windows. Upon arrival of the replacement windows, Home Depot did not order them with lattice another mistake. The owner had a meltdown at the store. We told him we could install the lattice on the exterior, or he would have to wait for new windows with the lattice. He chose to wait for new windows. This decision caused another delay that was out of our control. The owners complained nonstop, demanding I leave my other jobs to come there to be harassed. I sent my crew to the job numerous times to satisfy the owners complaints and to correct some minor deficiencies that I saw when I was there to inspect the work. In total, we have been to this project at least 10 different times. After taking the harassment and abuse from these owners for months, I had enough and told them to stop harassing me or I would not continue the project. On or about March 26th, we returned to the project to install the 3rd set of the 3 windows that had arrived. Unfortunately, a window was broken during the install process, so we had to order a replacement AT OUR COST. When that window came in, we scheduled the install on our about the 23rd of April. While waiting for the final window to come in, the stucco and drywall was completed on the other windows. After we installed the final window, we called in for inspection on April 25th. EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION The day before the inspection, on April 27th, the owner sent us pictures of the windows and what looked to be water on the floor inside the house. He told us his windows were leaking. It had not rained so we didn’t understand where the water was coming from. When we zoomed in on the picture he sent, you can see him standing in front of the window with the hose. He said he was using the hose to clean the windows. We told him NOT TO DO THIS because the caulking and unprimed stucco needs time to cure. He continued to do it, and according to the wife, they “lightly used the hose to clean the windows”. THEY CAN’T PUT THE HOSE ON THE WINDOWS FOR A WEEK TO ALLOW THE POLYURETHANE SEALANT/STUCCO TO CURE!!!!! Can’t be more clear about the instructions. The inspector came at 7:30am, never notified us that he would be out that early, and did the walk through with the owner. The inspector was correct about the screws in the door, the garage was approved. He wanted pictures of window bucks, mull bar clips, and skylight framing and fasteners. The inspector, John Parker, was rude, did not cite any building code on his report and when questioned he was combative. Mark returned the attitude. We returned within a few days to recaulk and remove the trim strips off the windows, switch out the couple of screws for the longer screws in the front door, and make sure all screws in the windows were attached and secured according to the NOAs. We called in for reinspection on May 8th, about a week from the first inspection. Mark kept checking the schedule for the assigned inspector, (Andrew Yacko) however, his job was not showing on the schedule. At around 2pm, John Parker called Mark to tell him he didn’t have anything to inspect because he had not sent the pictures. If this inspector felt “threatened”, why did he take this inspection over from Mr. Yacko? It became obvious at that point that the owner was interfering with the permit and was calling the building department to complain about our company. The owners have threatened us that they have a lot of “pull” in Sebastian and the owners brother is the Fire Chief. We don’t care who they know, they hired us to do a job and we have done it. Them creating drama and causing problems for us is over. These people are nasty, rude, obnoxious and cheap. We have not abandoned their job, or stopped answering their texts, emails and phone calls which we receive from them DAILY. On May 13th we sent pictures along with a letter explaining the situation with the owner blasting his newly installed windows with the hose constantly. We received an email stating the document uploaded had been accepted by the building dept. Unfortunately, the owner has told us we can’t call in for inspection because they have issues they want addressed before they will allow access to the home for inspection. On May 28th, the owners sent us an email manifesto with demands and complaints which is typical for them. We responded the same day and explained that complaints about drywall, stucco, time delays due to multiple window orders, etc. were not related to getting the inspection done. They claim 1 window is leaking, we asked for pictures but they didn’t have them of the actual leak, so they sent us pictures a couple of days later. We don’t see anything that would cause the windows to leak. We explained to them numerous times that it could be a manufacturer issue which they would have to take up with them. Apparently, that’s not what they want to hear. The owner texted mark this weekend to tell him they weren’t ready for inspection because Mark had not been to their home to look at their window and listen to their complaining. He also told Mark the permit was going to expire so how was he going to deal with that. First of all, in over 25 years of experience in construction, we have NEVER had an owner behave in this manner. This owner called the building department to instruct them to send us a letter that their permit expired. The Florida Building Code requires work to commence within 180 days on a permit, (We started work within 2 weeks of the permit being issued on December 3, 2024). We had an inspection on April 28th, and received an EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION inspection result of “failed” although in his notes he states “Garage OK”. So is that an approval as required by code? In our opinion it is. In addition, on the permit application, it states “THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE, OR IF CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED, OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME.” The work did commence two weeks after issue, and we had an inspection, corrected the deficiencies and then due to the inspector refusing to return until we sent pictures instead of inspecting the work and the owner refusing to allow access for inspection, our hands were tied. We have never had a situation in which a permit is considered expired during the inspection phase and it seems this was done based on interference from the owner. The job has never been abandoned and we have been there working from two weeks after the permit issue date until present. We are fully prepared to explain this to the Sebastian Construction Board if necessary. The issue date on the permit was 12/3/24. The letter we received today, 6/2/25 states the permit expired on 6/1/25 The work is completed and ready to be inspected but the owner has told us we can’t request inspection because they will not allow access to the home until their demands are satisfied and due to their influence at the building department, there’s nothing we can do. Upon receipt of this letter stating our permit was expired, we called and spoke with an employee Courtney. I asked to speak with Wayne Eseltine as that is the person who signed the letter. Apparently he is out of the office until Thursday. I then asked since he wasn’t there who sent the letter. Courtney said it was her or Darren. Then after asking her to pull up the documents on this job she put me on hold for 5 minutes and then came back and said the department was “aware” of the permit and that she sent the letter and I would have to speak with Dan Hainey. We were given Dan’s cell phone number and we called, left a message and then texted him requesting a call back. Upon Dan returning the call, he was defensive and over speaking me. I allowed him to continue speaking even though he was making false accusations and incorrect statements. He told me that the owner had been calling the building department constantly, making false claims and creating drama that was unnecessary. As a Certified Building Contractor, I take my license and career very seriously and I will not allow an unstable erratic homeowner to tarnish my career and company, and I don’t care who their brother is or what “pull” they think they have. This crossed a major ethical line. After speaking with Dan at length regarding this project, he agreed to contact the owner to schedule the inspection and the inspection would be performed by him personally. He asked if we had additional pictures that we could send and I told him I would include whatever additional pictures we have with this response. I followed up by text with him, sending him a picture of the finished and installed windows and asked him to notify us of the day/time he would be doing the inspection so that Mark could attend. I asked Dan for clarification on the picture he wanted with regards to the mullion clips, and if he could provide the code so that I could understand what he wanted. Mark was in the field and I was trying to get all the information together to discuss when he got back to the office. Just before 5pm, I texted Dan to ask if he had spoken with the owner, and he told me he had not but that he would reach out to them tomorrow. I called him as Mark was walking in the door and Mark spoke with Dan. Mark explained to Dan that the windows are a retrofit and the mullion clips were installed per NOA specifications, but he didn’t take pictures of the clips. He then asked if that was a a requirement and where that was stated. Dan said that 9 out of 10 installations come with pictures but that a framing inspection was not required on a retrofit and only required on a new build. Dan then told Mark that next time, even though a framing inspection is NOT REQUIRED, the inspector could come out the same day to inspect because you are a small department. Mark told him he appreciated the availability, and that next time, even though it is NOT REQUIRED he would be sure to take pictures of the clips. EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION This evening we received a second email manifesto from the owner. Here is an excerpt of that email: We also consulted the building department to clarify the requirements for final inspection. We were informed that clear photos of the brackets attached to the mullbars are necessary. The photos you uploaded do not show the required brackets. Every contractor we spoke with confirmed that not only are the brackets required, but verifiable photographic documentation is needed to obtain approval. If the brackets were indeed installed, you are welcome to return to the site, cut the drywall as necessary to expose them, and take the appropriate photographs to provide to the inspector. This is your responsibility, and we expect it to be handled promptly. We are requesting that you contact the owner to advise them that whoever they spoke to was incorrect about the pictures being REQUIRED. This is NOT REQUIRED on a retrofit. The clips were indeed installed, and installed per NOA spec. The owner is also demanding we cut the drywall to expose the clips. This is just one example of the lunacy we have dealt with over the past 6 months. In addition, the owner states: We need to determine whether the required brackets were installed in the three windows in question. Until that is confirmed with proper documentation (including the required photos), we cannot proceed with inspection or sign off. If the brackets were installed, you—or someone on your team—must come on site, expose the areas in question, and provide the necessary photo evidence. As we stated earlier in our letter, the owner is refusing to allow the inspection of the work. They do not determine whether or not the work is ready for inspection or what it required for inspection, that’s between the contractor and the building official. Furthermore, the owner does not sign off on the permit inspection or approval. If someone from your department gave them that impression, we request that you clarify this for them when you speak to them about the pictures. I am attaching the details from the NOAs for the mullions that were installed on the 3 windows in the Master Bedroom, the Guest Bedroom and the Dining Room. At this time, all the windows are installed, jambs are drywalled and the stucco bands are finished. The front entry door has the correct screws in place, the trim is off the windows and ready for inspection, and the skylight is installed per NOA specifications. The garage door was “OK” which is an approval but that is also ready for inspection if you would like to look at it again. The “Expired Permit Letter” includes a STOP WORK ORDER, which was improperly applied. This permit is active and needs to be reinstated immediately. Your department had no basis for expiring this permit to begin with. We have asked Dan to coordinate access for inspection due to the owner refusing to provide us with access to the home and we would appreciate this being scheduled as soon as possible. Mark will be present for the inspection. The situation with this owner has become extremely toxic and we are not going to be bullied or harassed by them going forward. We stand by the work performed by our company and we are highly offended by the comments and false accusations made by this owner. Pictures of their original window and the new window are provided to show the quality of our work. If this issue is not resolved promptly, we will escalate it to the Sebastian Construction Board. Regards, Mark & Kelli Walker MKW Builders LLC EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION Date: Permit No: Work Description: Permit Address: 6/10/2025 24-4148 WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT 113 REDGRAVE DR BUILDING PERMIT PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Building Status: General Cautionary by Wayne Eseltine This permit expiration date has been extended 90 days to allow the contractor time to make the necessary repairs to bring the installation into code compliance. EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION Jurisdiction Inspection Type Inspector Sebastian Framing Daniel Hainey Details Comments to address the first inspection results : 1. Missing screws at all windows installed, contractor added incorrect size screws per window product approval installation instructions. 2. Mull bars installed with out mounting clips at 3 window locations per mull bar product approval installation instructions. 3. Front door sill not sealed, tapcons added to sill are not holding. F.B.C R609 fenestrations shall be flashed per AAMA and installed per the manufacturer ’s installation instructions Permit Number Work Order Number Inspection Number 24-4148 40881099 33657500 Customer Address Phone Mark Walker 113 REDGRAVE DR, SEBASTIAN 32958 (772) 360-8980 Scheduled Completed Uploaded 6/5/2025 12:00:00 AM 6/5/2025 12:18:57 PM 6/5/2025 12:36:47 PM You can download this report or request additional inspections at www.MyGovernmentOnline.org. For software assistance please call 866.957.3764. For questions about this inspection please contact your jurisdiction Inspection Report Inspection Date: 6/5/2025 12:18:57 PM FAILED Mark Walker should contact Sebastian at (772) 589-5537 for further information. EXHIBIT 12 -REINSPECTION 6/5/25 RE: Inspection Report Items Wayne Eseltine < weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org > Thu, 05 Jun 2025 4:44:02 PM -0400 To "'Mark'"<mark@mkwbuilders.com> 1. Check them all. 2. Ok 3. We need to verify code compliance to ensure the product installation is in accordance to the installation instructions. We choose to use a framing inspection for that purpose. I can’t speak for how Indian River County does their inspections. 4. That is a civil matter. The permit was re-opened for 15 days so that we could perform the inspection and any corrections can be made. If the permit expires than it will be a violation on the property and an open permit on the contractor’s record. Permit extensions have to be for just cause. Contractor’s refusal to fix their own mistakes is not just cause. Wayne Eseltine, CBO FSI CFM BUILDING DIRECTOR / FIRE MARSHAL 772-388-8235 weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 Follow us on social media From: Mark <mark@mkwbuilders.com> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2025 4:30 PM To: Wayne Eseltine <weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org> Subject: RE: Inspection Report Items Wayne, 1. I need a list of the windows that the inspector observed the incorrect size and length of the screws and the window locations he observed that were missing screws. He stated "Missing screws at all windows and contractor added incorrect Wayne, 1. I need a list of the windows that the inspector observed the incorrect size and length of the screws and the window locations he observed that were missing screws. He stated "Missing screws at all windows and contractor added incorrect size screws per window product approval instructions". It is the building official's responsibility to notate deficiencies observed during the inspection so that the contractor can correct the deficiencies for reinspection. We provided a window layout with the EXHIBIT 12 -REINSPECTION 6/5/25 windows numbered as part of our permit application, and we need the specific windows he is referencing so that we don't miss anything that needs to be corrected. 2. Got it. 3. The requirements for inspections on a window replacement permit should be specified on the permit or a document provided to ensure the contractor is aware of the requirements of your department. Indian River County does not have a framing inspection on window replacement as it is all included in a final inspection. So where can I locate this information for your building department? Just to be clear, there was no mention of your department requiring an inspection on the framing of windows or the skylight, so thats why everything was closed up. If your department requires photos in lieu of an in person inspection, that requirement must be stated so the contractor can comply, so I am asking where that information was provided to us, the contractor. 4. We are fully prepared to perform the necessary work to correct all deficiencies, and in order to do so, we need the specific items to correct that your inspector found to be deficient. There will be an additional cost to the owner, and once they pay for the work, we will schedule it to be completed. If the owner chooses not to pay for the work, how do we handle that situation? Thanks, Mark Walker President Cell: (772) 360-8980 www.MKWBuilders.com ---- On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 15:54:20 -0400 Wayne Eseltine <weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org> wrote --- EXHIBIT 12 -REINSPECTION 6/5/25 Kelli, 1. Contractor was on site to witness a screw being removed from a window that was not of the right size or length. Contractor agreed to check all windows to make sure all screws are of the proper size and length. There are smaller screws throughout that need to be removed and replaced. 2. Yes, the threshold. 3. Your permit had the following inspections listed on the permit. Framing and Final. Florida Building Code 110.1 states that construction work subject to inspection shall remain open and provided with access for inspection purposes until approved. Framing inspection includes all attachments per the approved product approval installation instructions. Final inspection is after installation is complete and all joints are sealed. As a licensed contractor you should know what is required to install these products. If you are ever unclear after receiving the permit you can contact the building department to get further clarification. Wayne Eseltine, CBO FSI CFM BUILDING DIRECTOR / FIRE MARSHAL 772-388-8235 weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 Follow us on social media From: Mark <mark@mkwbuilders.com> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2025 2:57 PM To: Wayne Eseltine <weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org>; Daniel Hainey <dhainey@CityOfSebastian.org> Subject: Inspection Report Items Please address the following: 1. Your report states that all windows missing screws. Very vague. ALL the windows had NO screws? Which windows were missing screws? Please reference the window locations as labeled on the window replacement plan Please address the following: EXHIBIT 12 -REINSPECTION 6/5/25 1. Your report states that all windows missing screws. Very vague. ALL the windows had NO screws? Which windows were missing screws? Please reference the window locations as labeled on the window replacement plan in our permit package that are missing the screws. You also said the incorrect screws were installed, so were ALL the screws incorrect or some of the screws incorrect? Please clarify which windows had the incorrect screws. 2. Front door sill not sealed. Are you referring to the threshold on the front door? I will check the NOAs for the specifications for the sealer, but need to confirm that’s what you are referring to. 3. Please provide the documents showing the inspection requirements for window and door replacement permits. I couldn’t find anything on your website. specifically I’m looking for the number and type of inspections required for the permit and the itemized list of what is required for each inspection. I’m sure you have this, however I never saw it and since this inspection has been outside the typical protocol I want to make sure we have the detailed information. I need this information as soon as possible. Mark Walker President Cell: (772) 360-8980 www.MKWBuilders.com EXHIBIT 12 -REINSPECTION 6/5/25 Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967 Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact @MKWbuilders.com License # CBC 1267842 June 26, 2025 City of Sebastian Building Department Attention: Wayne Esseltine RE: Homeowners engaging in unauthorized/unsupervised work relating to permit 24-4148 Project Address: 113 Redgrave Drive, Sebastian, FL 32958 We currently have a dispute with the homeowner on the project referenced above. The owners have refused to allow MKW Builders LLC to complete the project, will not allow access to their property and are in breach of our construction contract. We have made numerous attempts to work with the homeowners to resolve this matter, however, we have been unsuccessful in coming to a resolution. We met on site with Dan Hainey and Wayne Esseltine, and also had a special meeting with the City Manager and Mr. Esseltine with regards to issues with this permit and the homeowners. The Owners have stated multiple times that they have spoken to “City officials” in your department that have provided them with incorrect information and bad advice relating to the work completed on their project. The officials in your department are not licensed contractors, and their role is to inspect the work completed by the licensed contractor. Mr. Walker is a state certified CBC, and he has been in communication with your inspectors and officials throughout this project. Clearly, the discussions between Mr. Walker and your department, and the discussions with your department and the owner have been completely different. We demand that the “city officials” in your department cease and desist engaging in this conduct immediately. The officials in your department providing misinformation to the owners has been a major contributing factor to the dispute we now have with this owner. It has been brought to our attention today by the owners legal representative that owners are currently engaging in work that we have an open permit on. This work is being done without our authorization or supervision and poses a serious liability to our company. It was not specified if the work is being done by the owners themselves or another contractor. We request your department immediately issue a Stop Work Order to the Owners, Steven and Diane Marini, until the permit is either transferred or closed and no longer under our license. We have not consented to a Change of Contractor on this project, and will not do so as the owners have failed to pay for the work completed. Please respond to this letter with the City of Sebastian Building Department process for withdrawing/closing this permit. This information needs to be provided quickly so that we can provide it to our attorney to protect our rights and our company. Regards, ________________________________ Mark Walker EXHIBIT 13 - CEASE AND DESIST LETTER TO BUILDING OFFICIAL AND REQUEST OWNER BE ISSUED STOP WORK ORDEREXHIBIT 13 - CEASE AND DESIST LETTER TO BUILDING OFFICIAL EXHIBIT 14 - EMAIL WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ED DODD VERIFYING WAYNE’S MISCONDUCT EXHIBIT 14 - EMAIL WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ED DODD VERIFYING WAYNE’S MISCONDUCT EXHIBIT 15 - NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND HEARING FROM WAYNE ESELTINE FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES AND PROCESS IN CITY CODE EXHIBIT 15 - NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND HEARING FROM WAYNE ESELTINE FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES AND PROCESS IN CITY CODE We are in receipt of the complaint filed against Mark Walker, CBC 1267842. This complaint is completely fraudulent. Our short answer to the alleged violation of: F.S. 489.129(1)(O) Failing to obtain permits / inspections: MKW Builders has an active permit with the City of Sebastian Building Department, Permit #: 24-4148. MKW Builders had TWO inspections (This job only requires a final inspection) that failed and required minor corrections to the work to satisfy the building official. The claimant REFUSED TO ALLOW MKW BUILDERS ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY TO MAKE THE MINOR CORRECTIONS NOTED ON THE INSPECTION REPORT. This is a BREACH OF CONTRACT by Mr. Marini. Mr. Marini also REFUSED to PAY MKW Builders for the work including labor and materials completed on his home. The Marini’s failure to pay for his project resulted in MKW Builders filing a Lien against their property. See attached Exhibit 2 - Copy of the permit, Exhibit 3 - 4/28/25 inspection report, Exhibit 7 - Reinspection report 6/5/25, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 18 - Copy of the Construction Lien filed against them. Mr. Marini selected the complaint category: “financial dishonesty or misconduct by contractor” This amounts to DEFAMATION and LIBEL. MKW Builder will add this complaint to its file to be used in legal action against him. The DBPR website clearly states: False Official Statements Section 837.06, Florida Statutes, states that whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. There must be consequences for people who file false complaints. After your investigation, if you determine Mr. Marini has made a false complaint against Mr. Walker and MKW BUILDERS, he needs to be held accountable for doing so. As it is a deterrent from engaging in this type of behavior in the future. This complaint was made in retaliation for us warning them that a breach of contract does not absolve them from PAYING FOR THE WORK COMPLETED. The only financially dishonest person in this situation is STEVEN & DIANA MARINI, the complainers. Below is a summarized history of the project and how things reached this point along with Exhibits that correspond with each paragraph. July 17, 2025 Case #: 2025047575 Department of Business and Professional Regulation Attention: Mario Acosta 111 S. Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 104 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 650-6773 RE: Case # 2025047575 Response to claims made against Mark Walker, CBC 1267842 Mr. Acosta, EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE. In early October 2024, prior to the hurricane and tornadoes that came through our community, Mr. Steven Marini contacted us for a quote on a scope of work that was partly under the My Safe Florida Home Grant Program, and new impact windows that were not part of the work he was approved for under the grant. We provided him with a breakdown in two separate proposals PER MR. MARINI’S REQUEST as he had to submit a proposal to the MSFH program that only included the work he was approved for. This work was included under one permit, and they paid the deposit in one check. The Marini’s obtained financing for their project through our financing partner posted on our website. Even though MKW Builders isn a small company, we wanted to provide our customers with an option that makes their project more affordable over time, especially for low income clients like the Marini’s. We absolutely pulled a permit with the City of Sebastian Building Department, Permit # 24-4148 issued on 12/03/2024. Exhibit 1 - Copy of the proposals/contract for this project Exhibit 2 - Copy of the permit On December 16, 2024, the work on their project commenced. The skylight was replaced, the front door was replaced and the garage door was replaced. Mr. Marini asked Mr. Walker to wait on starting the window replacement as he wanted to be home while that work was being done. The first week of January, Mr. Walker came back to begin the window replacement. Upon removing the first window, Mr. Walker observed some unforeseen conditions that prevented him from removing the windows as planned in the proposal, which would require additional labor and costs to complete the work. Mr. Walker stopped the work and he had a conversation with Mr. Marini showing him the situation and explaining what he would need to do in order to complete the window replacement. He made Mr. Marini aware that there would be additional costs associated with the additional work. Mr. Walker understood they were low income, due to the MSFH grant and they obtained financing through our website for the cost of the work. Mr. Walker told Mr. Marini he would cover half the cost of the stucco repairs to help him out, (Total cost for stucco was around $4,000.00, and MKW Builders covered $1,900.00) but that Mr. Marini would need to pay the additional labor and material costs along with the other half of the stucco work. Mr. Marini wanted to proceed with the window replacement and agreed to the additional costs. Mr. Walker then proceeded with the removal and replacement of the windows. (The additional cost to the owner was $3,000.00) Mr. Walker did not charge them a builder fee and was not making a profit on this work. This job was was not about profit for Mr. Walker, it was an opportunity for him to give back to someone he felt needed a little help. It was discovered that three of the windows in this order were delivered in the wrong size, a mistake made by the supplier, Home Depot. Mr. Walker notified Mr. Marini of this issue immediately and told him he would order the new windows and follow up on the delivery. The new windows were delivered about 6 weeks later, however, they did not come with the lattice like the other windows. This was another error by Home Depot. Mr. Marini had a meltdown and Mr. Walker invited him to come to Home Depot to see for himself. He did, and Mr. Marini freaked out, blaming Mr. Walker for the mistake. It was Home Depot’s mistake, and Mr. Walker told him he would call for inspection on the garage door, front door, skylight and the other windows and close out his permit and he could hire someone else do complete the final three windows. Mr. Marini refused, and demanded Mr. Walker complete the project. Mr. Walker ordered the windows again and told him he would let him know when they came in. Once delivered for the third time, they were correct and Mr. Walker scheduled the install of the windows. During installation, one of our crew members cracked one of the windows. Mr. Walker informed Mr. Marini of the situation and let him know he would be ordering a new window at NO COST TO THE OWNER. Two weeks later the final window was installed. Mr. Walker called in for inspection on 4/25/25, and the inspection was scheduled for 4/28/25. On 4/27/25 Mr. Walker received a text from Mr. Marini telling him he needed to cancel his inspection because a window was leaking. In the picture sent by Mr. Marini you can see a reflection of him in the window standing in front of it with the hose. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Marini why he was using the hose on the window and he said he was “cleaning them”. Mr. Walker told Mr. Marini not to do that as the sealant needed time to fully cure, and he told him he needed to proceed with inspection but that he would look at the windows while he was there for the inspection to see if he could resolve the leaking issue if any. EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE. This is where the situation starting getting bizarre. On 4/28/25, Mr. Walker was on the portal waiting for his inspection to be assigned and listed on the inspectors schedule so that he could plan to be on site to meet the inspector per normal protocol for him. His inspection was not listed on the schedule, but around 10am Mr. Walker saw there was an inspection report completed at 7:30am. The inspection had failed and many of the items listed in the report were not part of his window replacement permit (such as window bucking, and the owner claimed his windows were leaking) Mr. Walker called the inspector to discuss what had happened and why the inspection was completed without the schedule even being posted that early. The inspector, John Parker, is friends with the Marini’s and he coordinated the inspection with the owner prior to him leaving for work. Mr. Walker, the contractor was never notified of this. The inspector became rude and defensive with Mr. Walker and they exchanged words. Exhibit 3 - Inspection report from 4/28/25 Mr. Walker was unaware of Mr. Marini’s relationship with the building inspector and found the inspectors behavior to be highly unprofessional and out of line. Mr. Walker went back to the job to correct the minor issues on the inspectors report and planned to meet the inspector for the reinspect to discuss the items that were not part of his inspection or related to building code violations. On 5/8/25 Mr. Walker had scheduled the reinspect and it was assigned to inspector Andrew Yacko. Mr. Walker was checking his schedule throughout the day to prepare to be on site to meet him. Around 2pm, Mr. Walker received a call from inspector John Parker, the owner’s friend, that he was there but no one was home and the owner left a note on the door saying to call a phone number. Mr. Walker asked why he was calling him and not the assigned inspector Mr. Yacko and again Mr. Parker became rude and defensive. Mr. Walker told him he wanted to be there for the inspection and that he had notified the owner he would need access to the home for inspection. Again, Mr. Marini had contacted his friend Mr. Parker to interfere with Mr. Walker’s inspection. Mr. Parker told Mr. Walker he had to upload pictures from his last inspection and that he wouldn’t be doing the inspection that day and he was cancelling it. Mr. Walker was stunned by this situation as this has never happened in his 25 years of experience in construction. It is unprecedented for a building inspector to bypass the contractor as the permit holder for inspections and be in communication solely with the homeowner. Exhibit 4 - Letter to building official with pictures attached Mr. Marini then texted Mr. Walker demanding he come to his house to “fix” the “leak” in one of the windows. Mr. Walker told Mr. Marini he would not be coming there and that it was impossible for his window to be leaking from the installation. He explained to Mr. Marini that it was possibly a defective window and if that was the case he would need to have that fixed through the warranty department of the window company. Mr. Marini continued to make excuses on why Mr. Walker could not have access to the home for his inspection. On May 28th the Marini’s sent MKW Builders a lengthy email with numerous complaints and false claims. Mr. Walker responded right away. They sent a copy of the emails with their complaint and you will see from our responses, we were firm but fair. Their lengthy complaints boiled down to them not being satisfied with the drywall finish on 1 or 2 of the window jambs, and that 1 window was “leaking”. We asked for pictures of the window to assess what the issue could be and they demanded Mr. Walker see the window in person. Mr. Walker has installed hundreds of windows over 25 years. He can see if there is a sealant issue or improper installation that would cause the leak. The truth was, there was NO LEAK or they were “creating a leak” by applying water pressure to uncured/unsealed stucco and weep holes which are an exit only system designed to relive the window frame from excess water. These homeowners simply did not want to pay for the work MKW Builders had completed, and they believed that by stonewalling the final inspection, they would not have to pay their final invoice. Mr. Marini texted Mr. Walker on 5/30/25 that he saw his permit was going to expire on Sunday. Mr. Walker responded to let him know that was not the case and his permit was active and in the inspection phase. He explained that a permit would expire after 180 days if the project had been abandoned or had not commenced within that time period. On Monday, 6/2/25, Mr. Walker received an email from the City of Sebastian building official Wayne Eseltine notifying him that his permit had expired. Mrs. Walker (Co-Owner of MKW Builders) contacted the building department to find out what was going on. The building official Wayne Eseltine was out of the office until Thursday, however, a staff member was the person who sent the email. She notified Mrs. Walker that the homeowner had been EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE. contacting the building department about “this situation”. Mrs. Walker asked her what situation she was referring to and she was told she would have to speak with Dan Hainey, the second in charge of the department. Mrs. Walker contacted him immediately. Mr. Hainey was curt with her on the phone and told her that the homeowners had been calling them constantly, telling them we had abandoned their job and we refused to fix the problems they had etc. Mrs. Walker spent hours on the phone straightening him out and told him that this job was very much active and the issue we had was the homeowners were obstructing us from getting our reinspection. Further, she made it abundantly clear that expiring this permit was NOT appropriate and requested he correct the permit status immediately. Mr. Hainey did not do so, and Mrs. Walker sent a letter via email and the MGO contractor portal demanding this be corrected. Again, the Marini’s called the building department making false claims that their project had been abandoned and used the contacts there to have our permit placed in an expired status. Mrs. Walker then contacted Mr. Hainey and told him he would need to intervene with the owner to provide us access for the inspection. Mr. Hainey offered to send the owners inspector friend, John Parker, out for the inspection and she refused as it was now clear this inspector was compromised due to his conflict of interest with the Marini’s. Mr. Hainey agreed to perform the inspection personally after Mrs. Walker explained the history with this inspector. Exhibit 5 - Expired permit letter Exhibit 6 - MKW Builders response to expired permit The Marini’s again tried to stall the inspection, however, Mr. Hainey was successful in scheduling the reinspection. On 6/5/25, the inspection took place. Mr. And Mrs. Walker, two crew members, Dan Hainey (Inspector), Wayne Eseltine (Building Official) and the Marini’s were present. Mr. Marini was belligerent, telling the inspector his window was leaking, etc. and Mr. Hainey professionally told him he was not there to discuss that, he was there to inspect the windows for code compliance and that was it. The results of the inspection were that the mull clips on 3 of the windows were not observed and needed to be attached, some of the screws in a window were concrete application screws instead of wood frame application and needed to be switched, and the inspector wanted Mr. Walker to put additional silicone on the door threshold (which the crew took care of during the inspection). Exhibit 7 - Reinspection report from 6/5/25 inspection Mr. Walker took the time to show Mr. Marini why his window could not possibly be leaking due to the install. He also explained to Mr. Marini that since he chose to save money and take care of the painting himself, he needed to waterproof, seal, and paint the new stucco bands around the windows. He explained this again in great detail in an email sent to him as well and let him know that if he was having a leak issue then it was extremely likely it was due to that work not being completed. Exhibit 8 - Copy of email sent to Mr. Marini Mr. Walker contacted Mr. Marini the next day via email and notified him that Mr. Walker had scheduled a meeting with the City of Sebastian City Manager, Brian Benton, and Mr. Wayne Eseltine to discuss the issues and interference he has dealt with on this project. The building official, Wayne Eseltine told Mr. Walker he would have to complete a full window framing inspection, with the framing exposed on the windows in order to pass inspection. Mr. Walker argued with him at length as this was NOT part of a window/door replacement permit and it was not work he had accounted for in his contract with the owners. Mr. Eseltine was completely in the wrong, however, he did not like being challenged and was defensive regarding the many mistakes made by his staff in our situation so he was intentionally making things difficult. (We are preparing to file our own complaint against Mr. Eseltine and Mr. Parker with the DBPR.) Exhibit 9 - Letter from building department extending the permit for 90 days Due to Mr. Eseltine’s new “requirements”, we had to inform the Marini’s that while we would correct the minor issues in the inspectors report at no additional charge, we attached a change order which covered the “framing work” we were being made to do per Mr. Eseltine. We also let them know that this work would need to be paid for upfront (which is standard operating procedure with Change orders). The Marini’s had a fit, and instead of contacting us to discuss why this was needed and see if we could resolve this issue, they hired a legal representative and sent us a demand letter. (Copies of those letters and our responses are included). We tried to negotiate with them, we tried to explain they EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE. were making a big mistake as our permit was “extended” for 90 days and we have every intention of finishing their job. Failing an inspection is not the end of the world. We told them that’s how the process works. When an inspection is failed, there are corrections to the work that need to be made and once that is done, the work is reinspected and most likely will pass. The Marini’s were acting as if the failed inspection meant the work was uncorrectable. A complete misunderstanding on their part, which we knew and tried to tell them. Unfortunately they could not be reasoned with and they stated that they would be hiring another contractor for the windows and they would not be paying us for the materials and labor we provided on their project. They also demanded we complete the inspection on the work that was covered under their MSFH grant. The demands were laughable honestly. We offered two resolutions in our first response. Their lawyer said they were not negotiating with us and they wanted their demands met. We explained why their demands were not possible, and again we provided detailed explanations for all of their claims. Their lawyer stated numerous times that the Marini’s had been informed by “city building officials” that they had to completely remove their windows and redo them and we would have to pay for that. These comments were very unsettling as the lawyer was now claiming that staff at the City of Sebastian Building Department was providing misinformation and and bad advice to these owners. We have provided a copy of the inspection report from 6/5/25 which clearly states the corrections the inspector needed us to make. Furthermore, a building inspector is authorized to inspect the contractors work to ensure it meets building code, they are not authorized to inform a contractor or homeowner on the process for how that work is accomplished! This behavior from the inspectors/building department staff was outrageous and it has directly led to the dispute we have with this owner. Exhibit 10 - Change order sent to the Marini’s Exhibit 11 - Demand letter from Marini’s attorney Exhibit 12 - MKW Builders response to demand letter Exhibit 13 - Second letter from Marini’s attorney Exhibit 14 - MKW Builders response to second letter In the final letter we received from the Marini’s lawyer, she stated that they “were working to remedy our mistakes” which indicated that they were doing work under our permit or were allowing another contractor to work under our permit. This letter also let us know the Marini’s were firing us. We responded to this letter with a warning that they are not allowed to do any work under our permit and that we would be contacting the building department to alert them to this issue. We also provided them with a copy of our final invoice and a warning that if they failed to pay for the labor and materials for their project we would be filing a construction lien against their property. (Which we did and a copy is attached) Exhibit 15 - Third letter from Marini’s attorney Exhibit 16 - MKW Builders response to third letter Exhibit 17 - MKW Builders Final Invoice Exhibit 18 - Copy of Construction Lien Filed On 6/26/25, we sent a letter to the City of Sebastian Building Department through the MGO portal and via email to Wayne Eseltine and Dan Hainey alerting them to the improper actions of the owner with regards to doing work under our permit without supervision or oversight by Mr. Walker, the licensed contractor on the permit. We also demanded that their staff Cease and Desist providing false information and bad advice to the homeowners. (A copy of the letter is attached). We received no response to our emails or letters from the building department. On 7/14/25, we called to follow up on our letter. Mr. Walker was hung up on twice then sent to voicemail by the disrespectful staff answering the phone. Mr. Walker then looked on the MGO portal and discovered that a second permit application WITH THE EXACT SAME SCOPE OF WORK was pending approval on the Marini’s home while OUR PERMIT IS STILL ACTIVE. The next day, Mr. Walker spoke with Wayne Eseltine who informed him that Mr. Walker couldn’t “hold the owners hostage” and that he would be approving the second permit and once the work was inspected and completed he would VOID MR. WALKER’S PERMIT. This was an incredible and unfathomable statement by this building official. Mr Walker demanded that his permit be closed as his permit documents, product approvals, the installation of the products etc were paid for and completed by MKW Builders, and to allow another permit to be opened was not appropriate. This is beyond improper, its illegal and equates to the building official EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE. assisting the homeowner with committing fraud and theft. (Attaching an email from a City of Sebastian council member stating Mr. Eseltine told him the same thing.) This action by Wayne Eseltine will be part of MKW Builders complaint against his license with the DBPR. Exhibit 19 - Letter sent to building official 6/26/25 Exhibit 20 - Email from Ed Dodd, City of Sebastian Council Member In addition to all of this drama, we are actively pursuing actions against the City of Sebastian Building Department and will be filling our own complaints with the DBPR against Mr. Parker and Mr. Eseltine. These false claims from this homeowner are beyond fraudulent and they know that. We are currently working with a City Council Member to get to the bottom of this. The Sebastian Construction Board has not been active in years according to one of the members we contacted to request a hearing regarding this situation. He had issues with Mr. Eseltine himself, and said Mr. Eseltine’s behavior was unacceptable and in his professional opinion it was going to lead to a legal situation like the one we have now. Apparently there was some sort of kerfuffle between the construction board and Mr. Eseltine that led to the board becoming inactive in 2022. We had no idea as the city manager and city clerk provided us with the Construction Board member information as if everything was business as usual. When I questioned why there were no meeting minutes beyond the year 2022, I was told the board only meets when Mr. Eseltine deems it necessary, although the duties and powers of the construction board state otherwise. Just another mess we are left to sort out. We apologize for the lengthy letter, however, we feel it necessary to be very thorough in our response to this complaint due to the many false accusations we have been the receiver of from Mr. & Mrs. Marini (and the City of Sebastian Building Department staff) Mr. & Mrs. Walker take their business reputation extremely seriously. It was a lengthy, difficult and expensive process to become a Certified Building Contractor and a Registered Roofing Contractor in Florida. MKW Builders is a new company that holds themselves to a high standard and plays by the rules. The despicable people involved in this situation, from the Marini’s to the Building official and their staff will not succeed in defaming and slandering our company or our hard earned license. The Marini’s are an example of the type of people that are the reason why contractors won’t take on work for low income individuals with the SHIP and MSFH programs. Many of the MSFH grant recipients could not find a contractor who was willing to take on their project, and now we understand why. We felt sorry for the Marini’s, and we did everything we could to help out a family we thought was in need and all we got in the end was a nightmare. When it comes to our business, we will fight tooth and nail to protect it. While we understand this complaint process comes with the territory, we also want to express our frustration with the amount of time we have spent responding to this unfounded nonsense from them. This complaint, our response and exhibits are being shared with our legal counsel. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, or if you need additional documentation from us. Regards, _____________________________________________ Mark Walker ______________________________________________ Kelli Walker Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967 Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact @MKWbuilders.com License # CBC 1267842 EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE. Florida Department of Professional Business Regulation RE: Complaint against Building Official Wayne Eseltine Wayne Eseltine Building Code Administrator License #: BU1390 Standard Inspector License #: BN778 Plans Examiner License #: PX586 Date: July 31, 2025 Complaint Summary: Mr. Eseltine is the Building Official for the City of Sebastian Building Department. He has engaged in misconduct as follows: failed to correct improper inspection reporting by an inspector under his supervision, failing to provide permit and inspection requirements on the building department website and permit applications, allowing staff to issue an expired permit notice with his signature while he was out of the office for a week with no grounds for expiring the permit, requiring the contractor to perform work outside of the scope of work on the building permit issued, violating numerous Florida Building Codes, allowing a homeowner to influence his decision making and failing to act as required by FBC and Florida Statute, making false claims to the contractor and the homeowner, failing to issue stop work order to homeowner engaging in work that was covered under the contractors active and open permit, failing to release portions of the work under the contractors permit and close out the permit prior to issuing a second permit for the same work to another contractor, taking a plan and product approval documents from MKW Builders permit package and attaching those documents to a second permit for our work without the knowledge of the other contractor, threatening, harassing and intimidating the contractor, exhibiting disrespectful and unprofessional conduct. Mr. Eseltine has made false statements to the homeowner with regards to corrections needed to the work and continued to do so even after the contractor sent a cease and desist letter. The Construction Board for the City of Sebastian has been inactive for 3 years, however we have a hearing date scheduled for August 26, 2025 to appeal Mr. Eseltine’s decision to issue a second permit for the work completed by MKW Builders and discuss the issues above. We also plan to appeal to the Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board and the state Construction Board. Violations of Florida Building Code & Florida Statute By Wayne Eseltine: Section 1: (I)FBC 110.3.13 Impact-resistant coverings or systems - Where impact-resistant coverings or systems are installed to meet requirements of this code, the building official shall schedule adequate inspections of impact-resistant coverings or systems to determine the following: 1. The system indicated on the plans was installed. 2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval (III) F.S. 553.79 (b) EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR A local enforcement agency shall post each type of building permit application, including a list of all required attachments, drawings, or other requirements for each type of application, on its website. A local enforcement agency must post and update the status of every received application on its website until the issuance of the building permit. Completed applications, including payments, attachments, drawings, or other requirements or parts of the completed permit application, must be able to be submitted electronically to the appropriate building department. (IV) F.S. 553.79 (e) A local enforcement agency must post its procedures for processing, reviewing, and approving submitted building permit applications on its website. On 11/22/2024 MKW Builders applied for a Window / Door Replacement permit. The scope of work for the project falls under FBC Existing Building, Level 1, and the required inspections per FBC 110.3.13 for impact-resistant coverings or systems consists of 1. Determining the system indicated on the plans was installed, and 2. the system was installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval. The permit application posted on the city of Sebastian Building Department website is a general permit application, and the corresponding documentation requirements for the application are basic and incomplete. No where on the permit application form or the documentation list does it require a “framing inspection” including window bucking and skylight framing, or a list of pictures required of the work in progress. There is no notice that the building official requires an exposed framing inspection for this permit which would be a major deviation from Florida Building Code and every other jurisdiction. Since there is no separate permit application for window / door replacement available, a “Standard Permit Application” is used. The documentation requirements sheet available on the website is under “Residential Additions & Alterations”. This documentation sheet only references the following that pertains to window/door replacement: Two (2) complete sets of product approval for all new doors, garage doors, windows, soffits, siding, hurricane protection, and roofing. MKW Builders has pulled numerous window/door replacement permits in many jurisdictions and although not specified or required by this building official, we submitted a window/door schedule that included the existing opening size, the new opening size (which remained the same), egress requirements and a plan that indicated the location of each window/door that was being replaced. The permit was issued on 12/03/24, and due to material delivery delays, the work was completed in phases. Phase 1 began 12/16/24 and consisted of front entry door, garage door and skylight replacement. Phase 2 was the window replacement and that began the first week of January 2025. 3 windows were delivered in the incorrect size, so new windows had to be ordered. Those windows were installed in March 2025. A window was cracked during install, so the final window was installed on 4/25/25. The inspection was called for on 4/28/25. The inspectors report listed numerous “deficiencies” that were not part of the required inspections per FBC 110.3.13. The inspector cancelled the reinspect called for on 5/8/25 as he refused to perform the inspection without documentation of the window bucking, skylight framing and mull clips. There is no requirement for any of these items per the permit application, permit documentation or FBC. EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR Mr. Eseltine, and the inspector he oversees, failed to adhere to the required inspections per FBC 110.3.13 and also violated Florida Statute F.S. 468.604. Mr. Eseltine has also violated F.S. 553.79 (b) and F.S. 553.79 (e) which requires the local enforcement agency (under direction of the Building Official) shall post each type of building permit application, including a list of all required attachments, drawings, or other requirements for each type of application, on its website, and must post its procedures for processing, reviewing, and approving submitted building permit applications on its website Exhibit 1 - Permit Application Exhibit 2 - Required Documentation list Exhibit 3 - Copy of permit application docs window/door schedule & location plan Exhibit 4 - Signed Permit Application Exhibit 5 - Copy of the permit issued to MKW Builders Exhibit 6 - Copy of the inspectors report from 4/28/25 Section 2 Violations of F.S. and FBC by Wayne Eseltine: (I)FBC 110.6 Approval Required - Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official, upon notification, SHALL MAKE THE REQUESTED INSPECTIONS AND SHALL EITHER INDICATE THE PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT IS SATISFACTORY AS COMPLETED, OR NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OF HIS OR HER AGENT WHEREIN THE SAME FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS CODE. ANY PORTIONS THAT DO NOT COMPLY SHALL BE CORRECTED AND SUCH PORTION SHALL NOT BE COVERED OR CONCEALED UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. (II)FBC 110.3 required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES. (III)F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and inspectors. - 1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection of construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental jurisdiction, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These responsibilities include: (b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code. EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR 2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from any unlicensed person. Inspection by Building Inspector John Parker on April 28, 2025 (Wayne Eseltine oversees this inspector as an employee of his department. On April 28, 2025 Mr. Parker (inspector) was assigned to perform the inspection MKW Builders requested on a window and door replacement permit. The City of Sebastian Building Department improperly assigned this permit with a FRAMING inspection. Per FBC 110.3.13, the required inspections for Impact-Resistant coverings or systems is to determine: 1. The system indicated on the plans was installed. 2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval The inspector completed this inspection prior to it being assigned and viewable on the MGO Portal after speaking to the homeowner who is his acquaintance. The inspector arranged to complete the inspection at approximately 7:30am with the homeowner and denied the contractor the opportunity to meet the inspector on site. The homeowner did not want MKW Builders to schedule this inspection and tried to prevent it from happening. The inspector was assisting the homeowner in interfering with MKW Builders permit/inspections and did so on multiple occasions. In the inspection report, he notes: Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments (a). Provide photos of new window bucks for framing inspection. (b) Garage door OK.(c) Front door missing screws at hinges and strikes. (d) Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. (e) All windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking. (f) Remove all trim strips at concealed fasteners. (g) Inspection stopped. (h) (a) The inspector failed to inspect the 3 windows with mull bar clips to ensure proper installation. These fasteners are observable after window installation. The inspector apparently did not know that and failed to cite that they were missing on his report. This failure led to MKW Builders not finding out about the missing mull clips until the reinspection on June 5, 2025. (b) Per FBC 110.3.13, new window bucks for framing inspection IS NOT REQUIRED for a Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. All original window/door openings remained in same location and replaced with the same size products. (c) The inspector says “Garage door OK”. This is not proper language to indicate this work was approved. Mr. Parker’s failure to properly acknowledge this work as “Approved” led to the City of Sebastian Building Official Wayne Eseltine claiming that MKW Builders permit on this project “Expired” due to not having an “approved” inspection in 180 days. Mr. Parker’s failure to perform his duties according to Florida statute and Building code have caused MKW Builders EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR to spend time, money and resources to correct the record in addition to a legal dispute with the homeowner, and a hearing with the City of Sebastian Construction board to dispute the actions of this inspector and Wayne Eseltine and voice our concerns regarding their actions and behavior that are direct violations of FBC and F.S. (d) The inspector falsely noted that the front door was “missing screws at hinges and strikes”. The installation instructions called for 1 3” screw at the top of each hinge. The screws were all there, and the 3 screws that were the incorrect length were installed as per manufacturer instructions after the inspection. The inspector again failed to properly cite the deficiency in his report and made a false claim that the front door was “missing” screws. The screws were not missing, there were 3 screws that were the incorrect length. No deficiency in the screws at the strikes was found. Another false claim by the inspector. (e) Per FBC 110.3.13, skylight framing is not part of an Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. The inspector is required to inspect the skylight to ensure the product installed matched the product approval provided in the plan documents and that the skylight was installed per manufacturer installation instructions. It is not the responsibility of MKW Builders to perform the inspection, nor is it required that pictures be provided to the inspector. The inspector failed to complete this inspection per FBC 110.6. In addition, a third permit application for the skylight, front entry door and garage door is under review by Wayne Eseltine’s department and I have attached that document as an exhibit that shows only a Final inspection is required and a framing inspection is not listed. Another example of Mr. Eseltine’s failure to follow state statute and Florida building code for required inspections and documentation for permit applications. (f) The inspector claimed ALL windows are missing fasteners. This was another false claim. All windows were not missing fasteners. A couple of windows had screws that were for a concrete block application, instead of the wood frame application. The inspector failed to note the specific windows from the plan provided that he observed “missing fasteners” resulting in MKW Builders having to check hundreds of screws to find the handful that were the incorrect size. There were NO MISSING FASTENERS. Only incorrect size fasteners. The inspector stated “home owner claims some windows are leaking”. This was a false claim made by the homeowner, and any leaking was due to the homeowner not completing the waterproofing and painting on the stucco bands they had installed. MKW Builders did not contract with the homeowner for painting and stucco work. Per FBC 110.3.13, window leaks are not part of the inspection for impact-resistant systems, and there is no FBC that applies to this statement. The windows were all sealed per manufacturer installation instructions, and the inspector did not note the sealing as a deficiency is his report because there wasn’t one. The inspector failed to perform this inspection per FBC, and failed to cite a corresponding code to his noted deficiencies. Mr. Eseltine is required by Florida Statute and FBC to ensure the inspectors working under him execute their job duties as required. He has failed to do so. Mr. Eseltine is in violation of Florida Statute 468.604 1. …..The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON, and F.S. 468.604.2 ……..The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from any unlicensed person. This inspection report clearly shows that Mr. Eseltine was allowing the homeowner to interfere with executing his duties and the oversight of his inspector as required per Florida Building Code and Florida Statute. EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR Mr. Eseltine is also in violation of F.S. 468.604.1.b. …..shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code. The inspector cited numerous items in his report that were not violations of Florida Building Code, and repeated false claims made by the homeowner. Mr. Eseltine failed to correct the report of his inspector. (h) The inspector states “inspection stopped”. The inspector stopped his inspection against FBC 110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES. Neither Mr. Eseltine nor his inspector acknowledged the portions of the work that were approved or should have been approved per FBC. They also did not cite the code violations that pertained to the noted deficiencies in the report. See exhibit 6 - Inspection report from 4-28-25 Section 3 Violation of FBC by Wayne Eseltine: FBC 110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES. Misconduct by inspector and Eseltine engaging in harassment, threats and intimidation during inspections. Reinspection requested May 8, 2025 MKW Builders returned to the project site to correct the minor issues on the inspectors report and planned to meet the assigned inspector for the reinspect to discuss the items that were cited by the inspector that were unrelated to building code violations and items that were not part of the FBC required inspections. On 5/8/25 MKW Builders had scheduled the reinspect and it was assigned to inspector Andrew Yacko. The contractor checked the inspectors schedule throughout the day to prepare to be on site to meet him. Around 2pm, the contractor received a call from the inspector John Parker, (who performed the first inspection on 4/28/25). The inspector claimed he was on site but no one was home to let him in and the owner left a note on the door saying to call a phone number. The contractor asked why he was calling him and not the assigned inspector Mr. Yacko, as he had been watching the schedule all day. The inspector became rude and defensive. The contractor told him he wanted to be there for the inspection and that he had notified the owner he would need access to the home for the inspection however, since the inspector was never assigned this inspection, he had no idea he was coming. The homeowner had contacted the inspector to interfere with the inspection and it switched from Inspector Yacko to Parker. The inspector told Mr. Walker he had to upload pictures from EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR his last inspection and stated he would not complete the inspection MKW builders requested and he was cancelling it. The contractor was stunned by this situation as this has never happened in his 25 years of experience in construction. It is unprecedented for a building inspector to bypass the contractor as the permit holder for inspections and solely communicate with the homeowner. The contractor told the inspector there were concerns regarding the improper citing of “deficiencies” that are not code violations, and not part of the inspections for a window and door replacement permit, no building code references, and he was not following protocol with the inspections, denying the contractor on two separate occasions the opportunity to be present on site with the inspector. The inspector was disrespectful to the contractor, and engaged in threatening behavior insinuating he was in full control of the inspections for this permit and he could act any way he pleased. This is a violation of the FBC and F.S. stated above. The homeowner has stated numerous times that they have received “advice and information” from “city building officials” about the corrections needed to the work, the construction methods used to complete the work, and the work required to make the corrections. This homeowner is currently in a legal action with MKW Builders, and MKW Builders has filed a construction lien against this homeowner for nonpayment. This situation could have been avoided if the inspector and Mr. Eseltine had performed their jobs according to Florida Statute and Florida Building Code. Exhibit 7 - Screenshot of cancelled inspection Exhibit 8 - Lien filed against homeowner Section 4: Violations of FBC and F.S. by Wayne Eseltine with regards to an “expired permit” (I)FBC 105.4.1 Permit Intent A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans, construction or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 6 months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 6 months after the time the work is commenced (II)FBC 105.4.1.1 If work has commenced and the permit is revoked, becomes null and void, or expires because of lack of progress or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall be obtained before proceeding with the work. (III)FBC 105.4.1.3 Work shall be considered to be in active progress when the permit has received an approved inspection within 180 days. This provision shall not be applicable in case of civil commotion or strike or when the building work is halted due directly to judicial injunction, order or similar process. EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR The permit for the work completed on this project was issued 12/3/25 under permit # 24-4148. The work commenced on 12/16/2024. The skylight, garage door, and front entry door were replaced at that time. Homeowner requested to hold on replacing windows until he was on vacation from work over the holidays. We did not work over the holidays so the window replacement began in the first week of January. The contractor observed unforeseen conditions that prevented him from removing the windows as planned in the proposal while removing the first window, which would require additional labor and costs to complete the work. The contractor stopped the work and he had a conversation with the homeowner showing him the situation and explaining what he would need to do in order to complete the window replacement. He made the homeowner aware that there would be additional costs associated with the additional work. The contractor understood these clients were low income, due to the MSFH grant and they obtained financing through our website for the cost of the work. The contractor told the homeowner he would cover half the cost of the stucco repairs to help him out, (Total cost for stucco was around $4,000.00, and MKW Builders covered $1,900.00) but that the owner would need to pay the additional labor and material costs, along with the other half of the stucco work. The homeowner wanted to proceed with the window replacement and agreed to the additional costs. The contractor then proceeded with the removal and replacement of the windows. (The additional cost to the owner in total was $3,000.00) MKW Builders did not charge a builder fee and was not making a profit on this work. This job was was not about profit, it was an opportunity for MKW Builders to give back to someone they felt needed a little help. This project was never abandoned and MKW Builders was on site from the date work commenced until June 5, 2025 when we had to arrange through a second City of Sebastian Building Official to complete the reinspection the original inspector refused to do and the homeowner refused to provide MKW Builders with access to the home. The homeowner texted the contractor on 5/30/25 that he saw his permit was going to expire on 6/1/25. The contractor responded to let him know that was not the case and his permit was active and in the inspection phase. He explained that a permit would expire after 180 days if the project had been abandoned or had not commenced within that time period. On Monday, 6/2/25, MKW Builders received an email from the City of Sebastian building official Wayne Eseltine notifying him that his permit had expired. MKW Builders contacted the building department to find out what was going on. The building official Wayne Eseltine was out of the office, however, a staff member was the person who sent the email with Mr. Eseltines signature. The staff member notified MKW Builders that the homeowner had been contacting the building department about “this situation”. MKW Builders asked her what situation she was referring to and she was told she would have to speak with Dan Hainey, the second in charge of the department. MKW contacted him immediately. Mr. Hainey advised that the homeowners had been calling constantly, telling them we had abandoned their job and we refused to fix the problems they had etc. MKW explained the situation in great detail and notified him that the homeowners were obstructing the contractor from scheduling the reinspection. Further, MKW stated that expiring this permit was NOT appropriate and requested the permit status be correct immediately. MKW sent a letter via email and through the MGO contractor portal in response to the expired permit letter. MKW then contacted Mr. Hainey and told him he would need to intervene with the owner to provide us access for the inspection. Mr. Hainey agreed to perform the inspection personally after MKW explained the history with the other inspector. Mr. Eseltine was present at the reinspection on 6/5/25, and the permit had been extended for 15 days. After a meeting with City of Sebastian Manager Brian Benton and Mr. Eseltine, the permit was extended 90 days. Mr. Eseltine was disrespectful, unprofessional and out of line during this meeting. EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR The permit should never have been expired to begin with. The permit was active, work had commenced within 2 weeks of permit issue and the inspection was requested on 4/25/25. The failure of the inspector to notate the approved work, failure to adhere to the required inspections for the permit, false statements about the work on the report and failure to cite building code violations were disregarded by Eseltine and he claimed he could expire the permit because the inspection was not passed. Mr. Eseltine has purposely misinterpreted the FBC with regard to expired permits to justify the actions of his department placing our permit in an expired status based on false claims by the homeowner. This is a violation of F.S. 468.604.1 Exhibit 9 - Expired permit letter sent to MKW Builders, Reponse by MKW Builders to Expired permit letter, & Letter extending permit for 90 days Exhibit 10 - Reinspection report from 6/5/25 Section 5 violations by Wayne Eseltine: F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and inspectors. 1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection of construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental jurisdiction, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These responsibilities include: (b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code. 2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from any unlicensed person. F.S. 553.79 (4) (b) After the local enforcing agency issues a permit, the local enforcing agency may not make or require any substantive changes to the plans or specifications except changes required for compliance with the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire Prevention Code, or the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto. If a local enforcing agency makes or requires substantive changes to the plans or specifications after a permit is issued, the local enforcing agency must identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide the information to the permit holder in writing. F.S. 553.79 (4)(2) A building code administrator who fails to provide a permit applicant or permitholder with the reasons for making or requiring substantive changes to the plans or specifications is subject to disciplinary action against his or her certificate under s. 468.621(1)(i) Wayne Eseltine told the contractor he would have to complete a full window framing inspection, with the framing exposed on the windows in order to pass inspection. The contractor argued with him at length as this was NOT part of a window/door replacement permit per FBC 110.3.13 and it was not work he had accounted for in his contract with the owners. Mr. Eseltine failed to provide the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, failed to identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which his finding was based and failed to provide this information in writing to MKW Builders. This is a violation of F.S. 553.79 (4) (b), After the local enforcing agency issues a permit, the local enforcing agency may not make or require any substantive changes to the plans or specifications except changes required for compliance with the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire Prevention Code, or the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto. If a local enforcing agency makes or requires substantive changes to the plans or specifications after a permit is issued, the local enforcing agency must identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide the information to the permit holder in writing. Due to Mr. Eseltine’s new “requirements”, we had to inform the homeowner that while we would correct the minor issues in the inspectors report at no charge to them, we sent a change order for the “framing work” Mr. Eseltine was requiring MKW Builders to complete in order to close out this permit. The homeowner’s lawyer stated numerous times that the owners had been informed by “city building officials” that they had to completely remove their windows and redo them and we would have to pay for that. These comments were very unsettling as the lawyer was now claiming that staff at the City of Sebastian Building Department officials were providing misinformation and making false claims about the work MKW Builders completed. A copy of the inspection report from 6/5/25 states the deficiencies the inspector observed but again failed to report on the portions of the work that were approved. A building inspector or Building Official is authorized to inspect the contractors work to ensure it meets building code, they are not authorized to inform a contractor or homeowner on the process for how corrections to the work are made, nor was the framing work Mr. Eseltine was requiring noted on the inspection report and the report did not include any statement that the windows had to be removed and replaced. 3 windows needed to have the mull clips installed that were mistakenly left off of the window mull bars. This work was easy to correct, and MKW Builders had every intention of making the corrections and having the windows reinspected once that was completed. Due to Mr. Eseltine’s numerous violations of F.S. and FBC, he created confusion and chaos between the contractor and the owner. EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR A third permit was issued to the owner acting as the contractor for a portion of the work completed by MKW Builders. This permit does not show a framing inspection required for the skylight which is contradictory to Wayne Eseltines requirements that MKW builders undergo a full framing inspection. Exhibit 10 - Inspection report 6/5/25 Exhibit 11 - Communications between owner attorney and MKW Builders stating “City Building Officials” told them their windows had to be removed and replaced to make the corrections in the inspection report. Exhibit 12 - A third permit application issued to the owner acting as the contractor that shows no framing inspection required for the skylight, front door and garage door that was already purchased and installed by MKW Builders. Eseltine demanded MKW Builders complete the framing work and undergo a full framing inspection including the skylight, however a framing inspection is not a requirement on the owner builder permit. Section 6: Violations by Wayne Eseltine Mr. Eseltine ignored a letter sent by MKW Builders informing him that the owners were actively engaging in work that was under the permit issued to MKW Builders and requested Mr. Eseltine issue a stop work order to the owners until the permit was closed and the situation resolved. Mr. Eseltine ignored the multiple requests of MKW Builders. The Contractor discovered that a second permit application WITH THE EXACT SAME SCOPE OF WORK was approved on this project while OUR PERMIT IS STILL ACTIVE. The contractor finally spoke with Eseltine on July 15, 2025 and he informed the contractor that he couldn’t “hold the owners hostage”. He approved and issued the second permit and stated that once the work was inspected and completed under this second permit, he would VOID MKW Builders PERMIT. The contractor demanded that his permit be closed as his permit documents, product approvals, the installation of the products etc were paid for and completed by MKW Builders, and issuing another permit on this work was not appropriate. This action by Wayne Eseltine is illegal and equates to the building official assisting the homeowner with committing fraud and theft. A records request was made 7/28/25 for the documents related to this second permit. It was discovered that the plan and product approvals submitted by MKW Builders with their permit application were transferred over to the second permit under a new contractor. After speaking with the contractor listed on the second permit, MKW builders was informed she did not submit those documents with her application, it was the building department that added MKW Builders documents to her permit. This is an unfathomable action by Wayne Eseltine and highly illegal. Exhibit 13 - Letter sent to Wayne Eseltine requesting stop work order be issued to owner. Exhibit 14 - Email from City Council Member stating Mr. Eseltine confirmed to him he planned to issue a second permit to another contractor for work completed by MKW Builders and void our permit when the second permit was closed. Exhibit 15 - Permit documents related to second permit issued to another contractor which included a Plan drawn by MKW builders and the product approvals for the materials purchased and installed by MKW Builders included in the documents. EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR Section 7: Mr. Eseltine has recently sent a letter to MKW Builders accusing them of 1. Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting, 2. Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer, and 3. Knowingly or deliberately disregarding or violating any applicable building codes or laws of the state, county or the city. Mr. Eseltine has no evidence that MKW Builders did any of those things, and these allegations are nothing but retaliation for filing complaints against him, his inspector and the City of Sebastian Construction Board. Coincidentally, this letter coincides with a complaint made to the DBPR against MKW Builders by the homeowner and the accusations are very similar in nature. A copy of the response to that complaint has been attached to this complaint as well. Exhibit 16 - Copy of retaliation letter to MKW Builders from Wayne Eseltine on behalf of the City of Sebastian Construction Board which has not been active since May of 2022. Exhibit 17 - Copy of MKW Builders response to the DBPR complaint. Mr. Eseltine’s blatant disregard for the statutes and building codes he is required to follow along with his explosive anger management issues makes him a liability to the City of Sebastian Building Department and the Florida DBPR. As a state certified building contractor, we are required to follow all Florida Statutes and Florida Building Codes, and so is Mr. Eseltine as a state licensed Building Official. Mr. Eseltine is not above the law and he must be held accountable for violating the statutes and codes outlined in this complaint. Please contact MKW Builders if you require additional information or documentation during your investigation. Thank you in advanced for taking the time to review this case. Warm regards, _______________________________________ _______________________________ Mark Walker Kelli Walker CBC 1267842 (772) 360-9144 MKW Builders LLC Kelli@mkwbuilders.com (772) 360-8980 mark@MKWbuilders.com EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR Building Inspector John Parker License Type: Standard Inspector License # BN6511 Florida Department of Professional Business Regulation RE: Complaint against Building Inspector John Parker Date: July 26, 2025 Complaint Summary: Mr. Parker engaged in misconduct during inspections by failing to conduct an inspection, failing to conduct the inspections properly, citing incorrect violations, requiring contractor to show pictures of work and to complete work that was not part of the required inspections for the permit, allowing interference with the contractors permit and in inspections by the homeowner who is an acquaintance of the inspector, making false claims on the inspection report, failing to cite Florida Building Code in his inspection report, deny the contractor the opportunity to be present during two different inspections, and engaging in unprofessional conduct. This inspector has made false statements to the homeowner with regards to corrections needed to the work and continued to do so even after the contractor sent a cease and desist letter to the building official. Violations of Florida Building Code By John Parker: 1.Failure to complete inspection per Florida Building Code. (I)FBC 110.6 Approval Required - Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official, upon notification, SHALL MAKE THE REQUESTED INSPECTIONS AND SHALL EITHER INDICATE THE PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT IS SATISFACTORY AS COMPLETED, OR NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OF HIS OR HER AGENT WHEREIN THE SAME FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS CODE. ANY PORTIONS THAT DO NOT COMPLY SHALL BE CORRECTED AND SUCH PORTION SHALL NOT BE COVERED OR CONCEALED UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. (II)FBC 110.3 required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES. (III)FBC 110.3.13 Impact-resistant coverings or systems - Where impact-resistant coverings or systems are installed to meet requirements of this code, the building official shall schedule adequate inspections of impact-resistant coverings or systems to determine the following: 1. The system indicated on the plans was installed. 2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR Violations of Florida Statutes by John Parker: (I)F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and inspectors. - 1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection of construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental jurisdiction, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These responsibilities include: (b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code. (II) F.S. 468.604 2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from any unlicensed person. Complaint: Inspection by John Parker on April 28, 2025 On April 28, 2025 Mr. Parker was assigned to perform the inspection MKW Builders requested on a window and door replacement permit. The City of Sebastian Building Department improperly assigned this permit with a FRAMING inspection. Per FBC 110.3.13, the required inspections for Impact-Resistant coverings or systems is to determine: 1. The system indicated on the plans was installed. 2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval Mr. Parker completed this inspection prior to it being assigned and viewable on the MGO Portal after speaking to the homeowner who is his acquaintance. Mr. Parker arranged to complete the inspection at approximately 7:30am with the homeowner and denied Mr. Walker the opportunity to meet the inspector on site. The homeowner did not want MKW Builders to schedule this inspection and tried to prevent it from happening. Mr. Parker was assisting the homeowner in interfering with MKW Builders permit/inspections and did so on multiple occasions. In Mr. Parkers inspection report, he notes: EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments (a). Provide photos of new window bucks for framing inspection. (b) Garage door OK.(c) Front door missing screws at hinges and strikes. (d) Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. (e) All windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking. (f) Remove all trim strips at concealed fasteners. (g) Inspection stopped. (h) (a) Mr. Parker failed to inspect the 3 windows with mull bar clips to ensure proper installation. These fasteners are observable after window installation. Mr. Parker apparently did not know that and failed to cite that they were missing on his report. This failure led to MKW Builders not finding out about the missing mull clips until the reinspection on June 5, 2025. (b) Per FBC 110.3.13, new window bucks for framing inspection IS NOT REQUIRED for a Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. All original window/door openings remained in same location and replaced with the same size products. (c) Mr. Parker says “Garage door OK”. This is not proper language to indicate this work was approved. Mr. Parker’s failure to properly acknowledge this work as “Approved” led to the City of Sebastian Building Official claiming that MKW Builders permit on this project “Expired” due to not having an “approved” inspection in 180 days. Mr. Parker’s failure to perform his duties according to Florida statute and Building code have caused MKW Builders to spend time, money and resources to correct the record in addition to a legal dispute with the homeowner, and a hearing with the City of Sebastian Construction board to dispute the actions of this inspector and the building official and voice our concerns regarding their actions and behavior that are direct violations of FBC and F.S. (d) Mr. Parker falsely noted that the front door was “missing screws at hinges and strikes”. The installation instructions called for 1 3” screw at the top of each hinge. The screws were all there, and the 3 screws that were the incorrect length were installed as per manufacturer instructions. Mr. Parker again failed to properly cite the deficiency in his report and made a false claim that the front door was “missing” screws. The screws were not missing, there were 3 screws that were the incorrect length. No deficiency in the screws at the strikes was found. Another false claim by Mr. Parker. (e) Per FBC 110.3.13, skylight framing is not part of an Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. Mr. Parker is required to inspect the skylight to ensure the product installed matched the product approval provided in the plan documents and that the skylight was installed per manufacturer installation instructions. It is not the responsibility of MKW Builders to perform the inspection, nor is it required that pictures be provided to the inspector. Mr. Parker failed to complete this inspection per FBC 110.6. EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR (f) Mr. Parker claimed ALL windows are missing fasteners. This was another false claim. All windows were not missing fasteners. A couple of windows had screws that were for a concrete block application, instead of the wood frame application. Mr. Parker failed to note the specific windows from the plan provided that he observed “missing fasteners” resulting in MKW Builders having to check hundreds of screws to find the handful that were the incorrect size. There were NO MISSING FASTENERS. Only incorrect size fasteners. Mr. Parker stated “home owner claims some windows are leaking”. This was a false claim made by the homeowner, and any leaking was due to the homeowner not completing the waterproofing and painting on the stucco bands they had installed. MKW Builders did not contract with the homeowner for painting and stucco work. Per FBC 110.3.13, window leaks are not part of the inspection for impact-resistant systems, and there is no FBC that applies to this statement. Mr. Parker failed to perform this inspection per FBC, and failed to cite a corresponding code to his noted deficiencies. Mr. Parker is in violation of Florida Statute 468.604 1. …..The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON, and F.S. 468.604.2 ……..The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from any unlicensed person. Mr. Parker’s report made it clear that he was allowing the homeowner (his acquaintance) to interfere with him executing his duties as required per Florida Building Code and Florida Statute. Mr. Parker is also in violation of F.S. 468.604.1.b. …..shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code. Mr. Parker cited numerous items in his report that were not violations of Florida Building Code, and repeated false claims made by the homeowner. (h) Mr. Parker states “inspection stopped”. Mr. Parker stopped his inspection against FBC 110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES Reinspection requested May 8, 2025 At the time, MKW Builders was unaware of Mr. Parker’s relationship with the homeowner and found the inspectors behavior to be highly unprofessional and unusual. MKW Builders returned to the project site to correct the minor issues on Mr. Parker’s inspection report and planned to meet the assigned inspector for the reinspect to discuss the items that were cited by Mr. Parker unrelated to building code violations. On 5/8/25 MKW Builders had scheduled the reinspect and it was assigned to inspector Andrew Yacko. The contractor checked the EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR inspectors schedule throughout the day to prepare to be on site to meet him. Around 2pm, the contractor received a call from inspector John Parker, (the owner’s friend). Mr. Parker claimed he was on site but no one was home to let him in and the owner left a note on the door saying to call a phone number. The contractor asked why he was calling him and not the assigned inspector Mr. Yacko as he had been watching the schedule all day. Mr. Parker became rude and defensive. The contractor told him he wanted to be there for the inspection and that he had notified the owner he would need access to the home for the inspection however, since Mr. Parker took over the inspection from the assigned inspector, he had no idea he was coming. The homeowner had contacted his friend, Mr. Parker, to interfere with the inspection, which is why it was switched from Inspector Yacko to Parker. Mr. Parker told Mr. Walker he had to upload pictures from his last inspection and stated he would not complete the inspection that day and he was cancelling it. The contractor was stunned by this situation as this has never happened in his 25 years of experience in construction. It is unprecedented for a building inspector to bypass the contractor as the permit holder for inspections and solely communicate with the homeowner. The contractor told Mr. Parker there were concerns regarding the improper citing of “deficiencies” that are not code violations, and not part of the inspections for a window and door replacement permit, no building code references, and he was not following protocol with the inspections, denying the contractor on two separate occasions the opportunity to be present on site with the inspector. Mr. Parker was disrespectful to the contractor, and engaged in threatening behavior insinuating he was in full control of the inspections for this permit and he could act any way he pleased. This is a violation of the FBC and F.S. stated above. The homeowner has stated numerous times that they have received “advice and information” from “city building officials” about the corrections needed to the work, the construction methods used to complete the work, and the work required to make the corrections. This homeowner is currently in a legal action with MKW Builders, and MKW Builders has filed a construction lien against this homeowner for nonpayment. This situation could have been avoided if Mr. Parker had performed his job according to Florida Statute and Florida Building Code. Evidence included with this complaint to substantiate the claims are as follows: Exhibit 1 - Copy of the building permit showing a framing inspection improperly added on the permit. Exhibit 2 - Mr. Parker’s inspection report from 4/28/25 Exhibit 3 - Screenshot of MGO Portal showing inspection cancelled by Mr. Parker Exhibit 4 - Letter to building department with pictures in response to Mr. Parker’s demand Exhibit 5 - Documents from homeowner stating they have spoken with “city building officials” and received false information. Also included are MKW Builders responses to these claims. Exhibit 6 - Expired permit letter and response letter EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR Exhibit 7 - Letter to building official requesting staff cease and desist providing false information to the homeowner. Exhibit 8 - Screenshot showing a SECOND PERMIT for the work already completed by MKW Builders has been issued. Will make a public records request to find out who applied for this permit and if the permit documents from MKW Builders permit were illegally provided to the homeowner for the second permit to be issued. Please contact MKW Builders if you require additional information or documentation during your investigation. Thank you in advanced for taking the time to review this case. Warm regards, _______________________________________ Kelli Walker MKW Builders LLC Mark Walker MKW Builders LLC (772) 360-9144 (772) 360-8980 Kelli@MKWbuilders.com Mark@MKWbuilders.com EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR EXHIBIT 19 - EXAMPLES OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS THAT LIST THE INSPECTIONS PER FBC REQUIREMENTS ALSO SHOWS A FRAMING INSPECTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT. EXHIBIT 19 - EXAMPLES OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS THAT LIST THE INSPECTIONS PER FBC REQUIREMENTS ALSO SHOWS A FRAMING INSPECTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT.