Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-2025 Construction Board MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 2025 I. Call to Order -- Chairman Fortier called the II. Pledqe of Alleqiance -- was recited by all III. Roll Call: Present Ms. Carbano Mr. Fortier Mr. Rust Mr. Scheskowsky Mr. Wilcher kng to order at 6:00, p.m. CHAIRMAN Approved .Date Approved Subject To Also Present Brian Benton, City Manager Jennifer Cockcroft, City Attorney Pete Sweeney, Esq., Special Counsel of the Building Official Wayne Eseltine, Building Official/Fire Marshal . Dorri Bosworth, Community Development Manager Jeanette Williams, City Clerk Bridget Eakins, Recording Secretary IV. Approval of Minutes -- Mav 24. 2022 There were no objections to the minutes as presented. V. Unfinished Business -- None VI. New Business: Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing: A. Quasi -Judicial Disciplinary Hearing 1. In the Matter of Mr. Mark Walker D/B/A MKW Builders, LLC 1 b aaY sa......r.1...:+_•-r�'.'.�i:C7"L'.s�ti:._._��MJM'.Ilew.�..�..r�.....n. s.�sv.e+_.�..yr - _-• _ ' biz oS ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE SEBASTIAN CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT OCCURRED AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATION IN SEBASTIAN: • 113 Redgrave Drive 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: (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. The City Attorney opened the meeting, referencing the two agenda items and noting that both applicants were participating via Zoom. Witnesses and Kelli Walker, representing Mark Walker and MKW Builders, were present and sworn in by the City Clerk, affirming the oath. The City Attorney provided instructions regarding the procedural aspects of the quasi-judicial hearing, explaining that applicants and respondents were subject to a 30- minute time limit for presentations, with public input limited to five minutes. The board was informed that time limits could be adjusted by motion and that the City Attorney would advise on procedural questions throughout the meeting. Ex parte communications and disclosures were addressed, with the board noting receipt of relevant emails but no additional communications. 2 The first case called was the disciplinary hearing against MKW Builders/Mark Walker. Attorney Sweeney presented on behalf of the City of Sebastian, introducing the Building Official to present his PowerPoint documenting the project scope, inspections, and alleged code violations. Attorney Sweeney requested that this be submitted as evidence once complete. The Building Official then went over the following •PowerPoint Slides: • Page 2: Overview of project scope. • Page 3: Building permit showing required inspections. • Page 4: First failed inspection (4/28/2025) — bullet points identifying specific deficiencies. • Page 5: Emails and photos submitted by MKW Builders following the first inspection; windows were impact -rated. • Page 6: Four -page letter from MKW Builders uploaded on 6/4/2025 after consultation with Deputy Building Official. • Page 7: Mullion clip attachments uploaded to permit (6/4/2025); clips confirmed required and installed. • Page 8: Photos of windows laid out prior to installation; Wayne explained structural components. • Page 9: Notice of Acceptance (NOA) for product approval; installation documentation reviewed and verified. • Page 10: Reinspection scheduled for 6/5/2025. • Page 11: Second failed inspection report; included statement from Dan Hainey. • Page 12: Photos showing missing screws and mullion clips. • Page 13: Emails exchanged between MKW Builders and the building official (6/5- 6/6/2025). • Page 14: Homeowners received notice of additional costs due to failed inspections and missing wall framing. • Page 15: MKW Builders requested a meeting with the City Manager to discuss concerns (6/9/2025). • Page 16: $5,000 change order issued to remove and reinstall windows due to failed inspections (6/10/2025). • Page 17: Complaint filed by - Steve Marini (6/13/2025), initiating formal investigation. • Page 18: New contractor applies for separate permit to correct code violations (7/15/2025). • Page 19-21: Photos documenting code violations from MKW Builders and corrective work by the subsequent contractor. • Page 22: Applicable code violations cited verbatim from Sebastian City Code. 3 • Page 23: Photos of reinstallation by new contractor as witnessed by building official. • Page 24: MKW Builders filed a construction lien on 7/15/2025. • Page 25-27: Summary of causes for disciplinary action under Sebastian City Code 26-172 (incompetency, mismanagement causing financial harm, and deliberate code violations). The Building Official stated the first inspection, conducted on April 28, 2025, revealed missing screws on the front door and windows, incomplete skylight.installation, and other deficiencies. He then informed that emails and submittals from MKW Builders claimed compliance with installation specifications, including Notice of Acceptance (NOA) requirements. The Building Official countered on a subsequent on -site inspection on June 5, 2025, which revealed that mullion clips were not installed, screws were incorrect or missing, and framing deficiencies were present. He said MKW Builders initially refused to expose the work for inspection, and the homeowner allowed the inspection. The Building Official detailed those later inspections by a new contractor confirmed continued deficiencies, including missing flashing, bare wood, and improper sealing. The Building Official informed the City Building Department identified violations of Florida Building Code Sections 110.1, 110.5, R609, R703.2, and R703.4, as well as City of Sebastian Code of Ordinances Section 26-172, including incompetency or misconduct in contracting (26-172(3)), mismanagement causing financial harm to the customer (26- 172(6)), and knowingly or deliberately disregarding building codes (26-172(8)). Following the PowerPoint, Attorney Sweeney questioned the Building Official regarding concealed work during inspections. The Building Official confirmed that contractors sometimes cover work that needs inspection, and the standard protocol is to request exposure of the work. He noted compliance with such requests is typically 90-95%, and contractors often provide photographs to document hidden elements. Chair Fortier asked whether contractors could sign affidavits for work, to which the Building Official replied that this is only allowed if the building official permits it. Attorney Sweeney emphasized that exposing work is essential for proper inspection, noting that in this case, the homeowner's authorization was critical for visibility. The Building Official confirmed that without homeowner cooperation, the concealed work could not have been properly inspected, and he described the installation deficiencies as severe, especially concerning wind -impact windows. Attorney Sweeney further highlighted the importance of life, health, and safety in the building official's role, noting that improperly installed impact windows could fail during hurricanes, posing real risks to homeowners. Attorney Sweeney then called the homeowner, Steve Marini, who confirmed he had lived at 113 Redgrave Drive for approximately 25 years and was familiar with the property. Mr. G! Marini affirmed that the documented costs associated with the project were accurate, though additional costs for stucco and interior drywall were incurred. He confirmed that a subsequent contractor completed the work properly, passing all inspections and providing the intended hurricane protection. Mr. Marini stated he hired MKW Builders based on their licensed contractor status and professional representation. Ms. Walker questioned Mr. Marini regarding his interactions with MKW Builders during the initial window removal. Mr. Marini described that when the first windows were removed, the contractor indicated they could not remove them from the inside and would have to proceed from the outside. He added no discussion of additional costs occurred at that time. Mr. Marini confirmed a later text regarding splitting the cost of stucco was the only mention of extra charges. Chair Fortier emphasized that licensed contractors are responsible for ensuring proper installation and protecting homeowners, regardless of procedural disputes over communications. Mr. Walker joined via Zoom at 6:49 pm and was sworn in by the City Clerk. Ms. Walker presented the MKW Builders perspective, asserting procedural and inspection irregularities. asserted that. MKW Builders is a state -certified building contractor and argued that the City of Sebastian does not have local disciplinary authority over certified contractors, citing Florida statutes and attorney general opinions. They maintained that the permit application and associated documentation complied with Florida Building Code requirements, including product approvals and installation instructions for impact -resistant windows and doors. They argued that the framing inspection was not necessary since all windows and doors replaced were the same size as the existing openings. MKW Builders noted that logistical delays, such as incorrect window orders and delivery issues, extended the project timeline but did not constitute abandonment. Ms. Walker outlined that photos of concealed mullion clips would have sufficed for verification and that some discrepancies in inspections were due to miscommunication from the building official. They highlighted that missing screws or incorrect fasteners were corrected, and no water intrusion was observed. MKW Builders stated that they were prepared to complete additional framing work if required, but these adjustments carried an extra cost. They noted that confusion arose due to differing instructions provided to the homeowner and the contractor by the building department. MKW Builders emphasized that all product approvals, installation instructions, and permit requirements were ultimately met, and they acted responsibly to resolve the project while adhering to safety and code standards. 5 Ms. Walker stated that the Building Official not only added documents to the permit but also issued a third permit, an owner -builder permit, to the homeowners despite multiple admissions via email that the work had already been completed. She said when the homeowner inquired about entering a contractor on the permit, the Building Official instructed them to leave it blank. Ms. Walker stated the Building Official then issued the permit using MKW Builders' documents for the skylights, garage door, and front door, which passed inspection, despite the homeowners neither supervising nor paying for the work. Ms. Walker emphasized that owner -builder permits require acknowledgment of full responsibility for the work, which the homeowners did not perform, and that the Building Official was aware of this. Mr. Walker highlighted that the original permit remained open_ while others proceeded, causing delays and complications in completing their own project properly. She elaborated that their work involved additional necessary steps, such as removing windows and addressing attachments properly, which were completed according to standards. Mr. Walker expressed frustration over the inability to maintain a working relationship with Mr. Marini and recounted a phone call in which his permit was effectively nullified by subsequent permits issued for the same property. He noted that their permit was later reinstated for 90 days after county intervention. Chair Fortier stated that the 30-minute speaking requirement had been met and proceeded with staff cross-examination. Attorney Sweeney explained the procedural distinction between city and state contractor boards, emphasizing that disciplinary action at the city level does not preclude state -level action. He provided clarification regarding permit closures, inspections, and compliance with building codes. Framing inspections were discussed as a measure to ensure proper attachment of windows, and it was noted that alternate methods for permit closure comply with the Florida building code. Ms. Marini provided testimony affirming that the homeowners had not interfered with the project and detailed issues with the original installation, including missing or incorrect screws (at least 52) on windows, and the safety risks posed by the improper installation. Chair Fortier emphasized that contractor responsibility rests with the contractor, not the homeowner. Attorney Sweeney summarized the requested disciplinary actions, citing three violations of city code: incompetency, mismanagement causing financial harm, and violation of applicable building codes. He requested a fine of $500 per violation, totaling $1,500, to 0 be paid before any subsequent building permit could be pulled in their name, along with a six-month suspension of the contractor's permit privileges. Chair Fortier restated the recommendation to impose a $1,500 fine, representing $500 for each of the three violations, along with a six-month suspension of the contractor's ability to pull building permits within the city. He emphasized that the penalty was intended both as a corrective measure and a learning opportunity, noting that the contractor, being relatively new, should take this incident as a lesson in proper construction practices. Chair Fortier discussed the maximum allowable penalties under city code, indicating that the board could have imposed_a fine up to $3,000 ' and suspended thecontractor for a full_ year. Mr. Scheskowsky suggested that the suspension should be extended to a year, while Mr. Rust expressed support for following the recommendations as presented. Mr. Wilcher asked whether a one-year suspension is typical, and Chair Fortier responded that the current decision balanced enforcement with fairness, acknowledging the realities of the construction industry, where oversight may sometimes lapse due to the volume of work. Chair Fortier made the motion to approve the $1,500 fine and six-month suspension, which Mr. Wilcher seconded, and the board approved it unanimously. It was also noted that, under Florida law, the City automatically reports such disciplinary actions to the state DBPR quarterly. B. Quasi -Judicial Construction Board Appeal 1. IN THE MATTER OF MR. MARK WALKER D/B/A MKW BUILDERS, LLC THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD (HEREINAFTER 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: 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 the administrative authority 6. 105.5, Expiration 7. 105.5.2, Closed permit 8. 105.5.3, Open permit 7 The board then addressed the second matter concerning MKW. Ms. Walker noted that progress was unlikely to be made regarding additional concerns she had with the City of Sebastian Building Department, including actions by inspectors, plan examiners, and the building official. She raised questions about a letter sent by the Building Official and delivered to her home by Detective Pizzuti and Code Enforcement Officer Bloomfield, rather than by standard certified mail, which caused confusion; the letter was later received via certified mail. The City Attorney clarified that the construction board's procedural authority is limited to appeals of decisions made by the building official and must remain focused on those grounds. Mr. Sweeney objected to testimony from the police chief or other unrelated city personnel, citing the eight specific grounds for appeal outlined in the appeal packet and emphasizing that matters such as service of process were outside the board's jurisdiction. Chair Fortier agreed that such testimony would not be considered. Ms. Walker noted that she had submitted a packet 'containing documentation related to her complaints, including concerns about code violations and expired permits, but Chair Fortier indicated that he did not see the value of hearing testimony from the police chief. Mr. Sweeney referenced Section 26-40(C) of the city code, explaining that appeals must be based on claims that the building official incorrectly interpreted or applied the building codes, or that an equally good or better method of construction was proposed. Chair Fortier clarified that the board could determine whether the alternative methods proposed were right or wrong but was not addressing unrelated procedural or personnel issues. Mr. Sweeney confirmed that he was open to arguments strictly related to the eight grounds identified. Ms. Walker asked whether the board's role extended to code violations, infractions, or actions by the building department employees, and the City Attorney reiterated that the board's jurisdiction is limited under Section 26-197; it is not a disciplinary board for city employees and may only hear appeals of building official decisions. Ms. Walker acknowledged the board's limited jurisdiction and deferred to her attorney for guidance. When asked whether she wished to continue her appeal or withdraw it, Ms. Walker indicated that the board could proceed as it deemed appropriate. Based on the lack of supporting evidence for her appeal, Mr. Sweeney requested that the board dismiss it. A motion was made by Mr. Scheskowsky and seconded by Mr. Rust. It was approved unanimously. VII. BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS None 40 VIII. ADJOURN . With no further matters to address, Chairman Fortier adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m. 9