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] |
| |
| |