| Date |
Text |
| 2015-03-06 08:24:59 | ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND INSPECTION NOTES. |
| | |
| | 2/11/15, BUILDING INSPECTOR ART LANGE ISSUED A STOP |
| | WORK ORDER ON THIS JOB FOR WORK COMMENCING PRIOR TO |
| | ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT, A COMPLAINT WAS CALLED IN |
| | INDICATING THAT RAUL VARAS WAS IN THE UNIT AND WORK WAS |
| | ONGOING. |
| | |
| | 2/12/15, VARAS IS ISSUED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER BY |
| | FIELD INVESTIGATOR JEFF HOLLAND OF THE DBPR FOR |
| | CONTRACTING WITHOUT A LICENSE FOR PREVIOUS WORK. |
| | |
| | 2/13/15 DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH STUART AND THE ORIGINAL |
| | CONTRACTOR OF RECORD, MARK JENKINS, CGC1543481 REVEALED |
| | THEY WERE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH ONE ANOTHER PRIOR TO |
| | 2/12/15 AND THAT VARAS HAD ORCHESTRATED THE SUBMITTAL |
| | OF THE ORIGINAL PERMIT APPLICATION AND THEREAFTER THE |
| | ORIGINAL REQUESTED CONTRACT, IT WAS APPARENT THAT |
| | STUART AND VARAS HAD CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK AS THE |
| | ORIGINAL CONTRACT WAS SIGNED BY VARAS AS CONTRACTOR AND |
| | STUART. JENKINS CONFIRMED ON 2/13/15, THAT VARAS WAS |
| | NOT HIS EMPLOYEE AND NOT AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CONTRACTS |
| | FOR HIM. |
| | |
| | 2/17/15 A NEW APPLICATION AND CONTRACT WAS DELIVERED BY |
| | THE OWNER CAROL STUART AND RAUL VARAS . DOUG HARVEY AND |
| | I MET WITH THEM. THE APPLICATION AND CONTRACT WERE |
| | SIGNED BY CAROL STUART AND STEPHEN C. THOMAS, |
| | CGC1505934.THE APPLICATION WAS IN THE SAME FORM AS THE |
| | ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND VARAS EXPLAINED HE GOT THEM |
| | OFF THE INTERNET. HARVEY EXPLAINED TO STUART THAT VARAS |
| | IS AN UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR, THE CONTRACT SUBMITTED WAS |
| | DEFICIENT, AND THAT THE NEXT STEP IS A DISCUSSION WITH |
| | THOMAS. VARAS AND STUART LEFT. |
| | |
| | 2/17/15 HARVEY AND I HAD A TELEPHONE DISCUSSION WITH |
| | THOMAS. THERE WAS SOME QUESTION AS TO HIS DESIRE FOR |
| | CONTINUED INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT GIVEN THE C&D TO |
| | VARAS AND THE DEFICIENT CONTRACT VARAS SUBMITTED . HE |
| | INDICATED THAT VARAS HAD APPROACHED HIM IN THE MATTER. |
| | |
| | 2/27/15 CHIEF PLUMBING INSPECTOR TIM LARGE ISSUED A |
| | STOP WORK ORDER FOR PLUMBING WORK IN PROGRESS WITHOUT A |
| | PLUMBING PERMIT. A COMPLAINT WAS CALLED IN INDICATING |
| | THRE WAS A PLUMBING EMERGENCY AT THE BUILDING. LARGE |
| | DETERMINED THE UNLICENSED AND UNPERMITTED PLUMBING WORK |
| | IN PROGRESS LED TO A LEAK WHICH EARLIER THAT DAY CAUSED |
| | DAMAGE TO THE UNIT AND SEVERAL OTHER ADJACENT UNITS. |
| | |
| | 3/2/15, THOMAS INFORMED ME HE WILL WITHDRAW HIS |
| | APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 3/3/15 THOMAS AND STUART INFORMED ME THAT THOMAS WOULD |
| | REMAIN THE CONTRACTOR OF RECORD. I SCHEDULED A SITE |
| | MEETING WITH STUART, THOMAS, LARGE, AND HOLLAND FOR |
| | 3/6/15 AT 9:30AM. THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WILL TO |
| | DETERMINE THE ALTERATION LEVEL OF THE WORK, THE EXTENT |
| | OF COMPLETED WORK, THE EXISTENCE OF CODE VIOLATIONS, |
| | AND THE CONTRACTORS WHO PERFORMED THE WORK. |
| | |
| | 3/6/15 FBC 110.2 PRELIMINARY INSPECTION. SUBJECT TO THE |
| | LIMITATIONS OF F.S. CHAPTER 553, BEFORE ISSUING A |
| | PERMIT, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO EXAMINE |
| | OR CAUSE TO BE EXAMINED BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND SITES |
| | FOR WHICH AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED. |
| | *****TO BE SUPPLEMENTED AFTER INSPECTION***** |
| | |
| | 3/6/15 PRESENT AT 9:30 AM WITH ME WAS STUART, THOMAS, |
| | LARGE, AND HOLLAND. UPON INSPECTION, THE DETERMINATION |
| | WAS MADE THAT THE UNPERMITTED WORK IN PROGRESS |
| | CONSTITUTES A LEVEL II ALTERATION. THE WORK IN PROGRESS |
| | CONSISTS OF REPLACEMENT OF VARIOUS CABINETS, TOPS, |
| | PLUMBING & ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, AND FLOORING. WORK ALSO |
| | INCLUDES SOME RE-CONFIGURATION BY REMOVAL OF A DOOR AND |
| | SMALL PARTITION AT THE ENTRY TO THE EAST BED/BATH AREA, |
| | AND THE ALREADY COMPLETED RECONFIGURATION OF THE WEST |
| | BATHROOM TUB/SHOWER TO A SHOWER ELIMINATING THE TUB. |
| | THOMAS INDICATED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THE |
| | PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED WORK BUT THAT HE WILL BE |
| | RESPONSIBLE TO REPAIR ANY VIOLATIONS AND TO PERMIT AND |
| | COMPLETE THE WORK. ADDITIONALLY HE WILL AMEND THE |
| | APPLICATION TO INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF THE PREVIOUSLY |
| | COMPLETED SHOWER RECONFIGURATION. STUART REPORTED THE |
| | SHOWER RECONFIGURATION WAS COMPLETED BY GEORGE |
| | HERNANDEZ WHOM SHE HIRED THROUGH VARAS IN LATE JANUARY |
| | OR EARLY FEBRUARY. SHE STATED THAT WORK WAS DONE AT |
| | THAT TIME. STUART COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THAT ANY OF |
| | THE WORK WAS DONE BY PROPERLY LICENSED ENTITIES. SHE |
| | INDICATED SHE HAD NO CONTRACT FOR THE SHOWER WORK. IT |
| | WAS NOTED UPON CLOSE INSPECTION BY LARGE THAT A JOINT |
| | IN AN EXISTING PLUMBING SUPPLY LINE IN THE WALL CAVITY, |
| | ADJACENT TO THE RECONFIGURED SHOWER AND ABOVE THE |
| | REMOVED WATER CLOSET, HAD COME LOOSE. STUART INDICATED |
| | THIS WAS THE SOURCE OF WATER DAMAGE TO HER UNIT AND |
| | SEVERAL OTHER UNITS. STUART FURTHER INDICATED THAT SHE |
| | REPORTED THE LOOSE JOINT TO THE POLICE AS AN ACT OF |
| | VANDALISM AND ALLEGED THAT AN UNKNOWN VANDAL CUT A |
| | SMALL HORIZONTAL HOLE IN THE WALL, FIT THEIR HANDS IN |
| | THE WALL AND PULLED A GLUED PVC JOINT APART BY APPLYING |
| | PRESSURE IN OPPOSITE VERTICAL DIRECTIONS. JENKINS |
| | DISCUSSED ISSUES RELATED TO CONTRACTING IN VIOLATION OF |
| | FS 489 WITH STUART. THE INSPECTION CONCLUDED AT |
| | APPROXIMATELY 10:00AM. |
| | |
| | STEVEN KENNEDY, CBO |
| | CHIEF PLANS EXAMINER |
| | (561) 805-6710 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
