Loading...
BoardBuildingCodeAppealsMinutes2022May10 A meeting of the Frederick County Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 10, 2022,at 2:00 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA. PRESENT Chairman Whit Wagner; Richard Ruckman; Kevin Kenney; Kay Dawson; and Lloyd Winters CALL TO ORDER Chairman Whit Wagner called the meeting to order. APPEAL REQUEST 01-2022—Douglas W. Harold,Jr. Mr. Wagner: My name is Whit Wagner, chairman of the board. These are my fellow members of the board as introduced. We want this to be as informal as possible. So that both sides can get their case out as best they can. This is not a court of law in any way, shape, or for we are the building codes appeals board. There are no lawyers sitting in front of you on this side of the bench. We are of to be as informal and I think we discussed that we are going to have the county go first to present their case, please. Mr. Cano: Good afternoon, as I said I am Austin Cano, assistant county attorney. I am here representing the county. By way of introduction, I wanted to start off by saying this appeal stems from the construction of the storage building on 262 Clayhill Drive, constructed by the appellant, Shenandoah Sheds. Included in the packet I believe, are pictures of the property and the rest of information that you should need. The pictures were taken by Mark Fleet,the Building Official, that I have here. The reason we are here is Shenandoah Sheds is appealing the notice of violation that was issued on March 21, 2022. There are 2 main problems that were found in that notice of violation. First that the storage building on the property was constructed without the required permits and second is the correction order listing some problems with the building that were never corrected. So, if you would let me, I of like to ask, Mark Fleet some questions pertaining to the specifications of the violation notice. Mr. Wagner: ok Mr. Cano: Mr. Fleet, how did this matter come to the attention of the county? Mr. Fleet: we were called by the homeowner. Mr. Cano: that was a call to complain. Mr. Fleet: yes, we received a complaint by the owner. It was a complaint out the building that was constructed on his property. Mr. Austin Cano: So, did you go to inspect the building? Mr. Fleet: I did. Mr. Cano: What issues if any did you determine there were with storage building. Mr. Fleet: the building was constructed without a permit, and it was sited with 10 items, but the main issue is the fact that it was constructed without a permit. The building is over 256 square feet and any building over 256 square feet requires a permit under the C. is is enforced by building code of Virginia. Mr. Cano: was the corrections order ever met, was the or there ever one. Mr. Fleet: the corrections have not been one and a permit has not been obtained by the appellant. Mr. Cano: ok, what steps do you and the county take, once you area are of an issue with the storage building Mr. Fleet: we send out a notice of violation and corrections Mr. Cano: by did Shenandoah Sheds ciicll receive a notice of violation Mr. Fleet: they are the responsible party that it the building Mr. Cano: because they are responsible party, they are responsible for fixing the work that is in correct Mr. Fleet: as per building code, all responsible parties are subject to the violation, therefore, I sighted the as I felt they needed to get a permit Mr. Cano: at this it is there a permit to do the work? Mr. Fleet: yes, the owner has a permit, the owner has applied for a permit, the homeowner has obtained a permit. Yes Mr. Cano: but in this case, because Shenandoah Sheds is the responsible party, they are still responsible for fixing it, thus the notice of violation Mr. Fleet: yes, as per the code, they are a responsible party as well,they are responsible. In my eyes. Mr. Cano: at this point is there anything else you of like the board to know about this case or your position Mr. Fleet: I can answer any questions. Mr. Wagner: Does any board member have any questions for the county Mr. Ruckman: if the homeowner already has a permit, are you going to require another permit for Shenandoah Sheds Mr. Fleet: well, there is nothing that says the owner has to allow the appellant to use their permit, however since the owner has a permit, they are responsible, as well Mr. Ruckman: that is where it was going with it. If he holds the permit, it makes him responsible for it. If the contractor pulls the permit,then they are responsible Mr. Fleet: the contractor did the work without a permit r. Ruckman: correct r. Fleet: the way the code is written, I shall issue all responsible parties a notice of violation, and that is why I issued one to ShenandoahSheds r. Ruckman: o , thank you. r. Wagner: any other questions, if not we will here from the appellant, and we will cross after the appellant is completed. r. Harold: Good afternoon, my name is Douglas Harold. I am the attorney here with Gary Arghyris, the managing member of the Shenandoah Sheds and his business partner Barbara Pierce. First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to present this appeal. But I would like o make a note though, the notice that I received was postmarked ay 5, which was last Thursday sent out by certified ail. I was in my office on Saturdayafternoon, after the mail carrier had arrived, the notice required a signature from the intended recipient. I was occupied the entire day, yesterday and was not able to go to the post office to pick up the notification. I went down there this morning about 10 or 10:30 and got the notice saying were having the hearing this afternoon for the appeal. I do believe that is not sufficient notice for anybody to prepare for this. None the less, I am here to moveforward, I just want that noted for the record. That I believe that 5 days' notice with 2 days in between beingthe weekend is adequate notification for something this great significance to my clients. Thatbeingsaid, our position is that on March 21, a violation notice was directed to the wrong person. We believe it should go to Mr. and Mrs. Anderson who are the property owners. At the time this as order was placed for a shed and lean to. A representative from Shenandoah Sheds informed r. Anderson, as they inform everybody, that because the shed and lean to combined as more than 256 s . ft. that a building permits required, Shenandoah Sheds is not a contractor, not a buildingcontractor, we do not have a license as a buildingcontractor. They always as routine, tell everybody that they have to check with the building inspections department to determine if a permit is required. Mr. Anderson informed us at this time that he did have to check with building inspections to get the proper permits for this. Mr. Anderson, however, informed Barbara Pierce, and later on Mr. Arghyris that he had farm use and he was going to have the she and lean to constructed under farm use exemption, waiver. There is a waiver permitted for construction under farm use. They had no notification, no notice of any sort,that this was not intended for farm use. The real estate is 2.98 acres and is located in Clay Hill Farm subdivision, Mr. Anderson was very insistent that the lean to had to have a clearance of 7.2' in order for his tractor to go in there. So, this was all consistent with the representation made by Mr. Anderson that he was going to put this under his farm. That required a different structure to be built, he had asked for an A-frame she with an attached lean to because of the additional clearance for the tractor, 7.2" clearance for his tractor it had to be a different type of structure. Not an A-frame, but one long roof with a shorter roof for the lean to attached to it. In good faith, the people at Shenandoah Sheds, I out like to present this exhibit. Mr. Wagner: yes, we will Mr. Harold: this is from the tax records of Frederick County, saying that you have a farm subdivision. If I may approach. Mr. Wagner: yes,you may, this is not a court, this is informal. Mr. Harold: I understand, again this is in Clayhill subdivision and zoned Rural area of 2.98 acres. Problems arose after the order was placed by Shenandoah Sheds and we have a picture of the package of the she that Mr. Anderson said he would like to have something like that on his property. As it appeared to be like the she he had set up at his previous location. Shenandoah Sheds asked for quotes from the manufacturer, they do not manufacture these buildings. They order them from PA, an is company up there. But Shenandoah sheds is not a building contractor. They don't have a class C, B, or A license and they are not allowed to under the requirements to even apply for a permit. That another reason they always tell the homeowner that they have to get a permit if necessary. I think that is very significant. I have a package here of the actual request that was sent to the manufacturer. Some of you'll should already have this, and this is the package that has the lean to on it. That the roof had to be at least 7.2" and I think this is pretty evident that the tractor was significant. Some of this may already be in the appeals package I provided to the building inspections department. I probably started out, that Shenandoah Sheds has an independent contractor that actually installs the sheds and the permit. The independent contractor put down the site pad and leveled with laser from front to back and side to side for both the she and for the lower portion of where the lean to was going to go. After the site had been put in, Mr. Anderson advised Shenandoah sheds that he was going to have asphalt topping put over the site pad. He was advised by Shenandoah sheds that this was not really a good idea. Because the she itself is heavy and there was concern that is asphalt was put down and the shed placed on top of it then there out be sinkage when the asphalt heated up in the summer and the shed out sink in. Nonetheless, Mr. Anderson went ahead and had the asphalt topping placed. Here are pictures that were provided by building inspections, which I believe you already have copies of in your packets. this is a set of 9 pictures that were taken by the building inspections department of the shed. the asphalt was installed, and it was out of level by at least 5" from the back corner to the front corner which of leave a lot of shimming and other adjustments to be one in order to make the she itself and then the lean too was supposed to be assembled and attached to the shed. This was extensive level of shimming and once again this was one by the independent contractor, Alex. Apparently, things went sour between the Shenandoah sheds and Mr. Anderson in particular. Shenandoah Sheds was excluded from the job site at the end of October and there were efforts made by Shenandoah sheds to resolve the issues that existed. I have a brief text message that Gary attempted to set up a meeting with Mr. Anderson to resolve the issues and it finally ended with Gary discussing our options an attorney at that time. Shenandoah sheds was excluded from the job site. Mr. Argyris: I would like to interject Mr. Harold: sure Mr. Argyris: we had a meeting set up Mr. Wagner: who is we? Mr. Argyris: I am the owner of Shenandoah sheds. We had a meeting set up once things went south. When we found out that the asphalt was out of level that amount. It messed up everything up. The site was prepared by us, lasered level and it was perfect. When the asphalt was put down, we advised against doing. It was 5 to 6" out of level. so, we didn't know this until we brought the building. Then when we brought the building and saw that it was this far out of level. Mr. Anderson wanted me to shim it up, it was his direction. You don't go through the expense of doing pad prep to have to shim something up. If you shim something it X "or 1/8", it's not 4—6", which that is what this is. I have nothing to do with the asphalt, and I advised Mr. Anderson not to put the asphalt down and he did it anyhow. So, once we determined that asphalt was as bad out as it was, he asked us to shim it and he got upset and I went out to the property. Alex was out there at the proper, the first thing he told me was he has $30,000 dollars into this thing. Its my opinion that he had some buyer's remorse over this thing. I didn't want the asphalt, it was done incorrectly, and so that day that we had this discussion, we were setting a meeting up for next week to figure out how we were of to proceed to correct this problem and he nevered answered my phone calls,text messages, nothing. out 10- 15 days later, he replied I am seeing my attorney. He kicked us off the property and he had our equipment on his property for 3 or 4 weeks. We tried to get our equipment and we couldn't get it. He finally did give us our equipment and some other materials, but at the end of the day, I have been in business for 8 years, I have never not completed a job, satisfactory. Had we been allowed, if we had, had the meeting what I was going to tell him is that the building needed to come off the asphalt and the asphalt had to be torn out and we needed to go with the original game plan. Asphalt was never in the game plan, never. In order to make this thing right, it needed to be removed, the pad needed to be done correctly. it needed to be fixed where it was messed up and everything that we do is too portable, the building is portable and the lean to is portable. That's all I got. Mr. Harold: I would like to show the various text messages, asking fora meeting to get things resolved between Mr. Anderson and Shenandoah Sheds Mr. Wagner: let me interrupt just a second. I sense that this is going maybe in the wrong direction. I sense that maybe this is going to civil court direction. This is the building codes appeals board. The relief sout by your appeal is for the building code official's violation notice dated March 21, 2022. That is what we are here to debate. whether a permit was required and whether the violation was one properly. The rest of it is a civil issue. We are not lawyers, and we don't really need to get into that. So, if you could, direct your comments to the appeal, I would appreciate it. Mr. Harold: I will certainly try to. As indicated by the county, Mr. Anderson did get the building permit. I was not are of this until I received a copy of a very detailed and an extensive complaint that was filed with DPOR by the Andersons. I have a copy of the building permit. I believe you have seen this. Attached to this is a correction order and another correction order. What you have here is a building permit taken out by Mr. Anderson and Mrs. Anderson on December 1, 2021, for the purpose of an accessory building with a lean to. Three weeks after that, a correction order stating a final type of inspection was provided. I had no knowledge of this, as Shenandoah Sheds has been excluded from the property at the end of October, so they don't know what has been one. Says footings have never been inspected, need proper beam, need in line bearing under beam and bearing where lean to was added,tie downs, and roof not dried in. those are all relatively for issues that could have been corrected on the spot by Shenandoah sheds. they are not of any great significance, I found out that the roof not dried in, as that the shingles were not attached to the lean to up to the shorter end of the shed itself. those were all things that would have been one by Shenandoah Sheds had they not been excluded from the property. Now of great significance, we believe is that Mr. Anderson of the permit, he of a correction order, and then for some reason on March 2, 2022, another correction order was issued and that is what generated the violation notice that came from the inspections department. Mr. Kenney: can I ask a question, really quick? Mr. Harold: yes sir Mr. Kenney: is there 2 different correction orders? Mr. Harold: yes sir, absolutely Mr. Kenney: I don't seem to have the I't one Mr. Harold: the 151 one is in the package that I provided, it's the 2"1 attachment to the building permit that Mr. Anderson obtained. Mr. Kenney: I am not disagreeing with you, I just don't have it Mr. Harold: this was done by the building inspections department. But this did not generate violation notices. Mr. Kenney: this correction order is dated 12/22/22 Mr. Harold: that is dated 3 weeks after Mr. Anderson obtained the building permit Mr. Kenney: ok, we didn't have in our package Mr. Fleet: I didn't send it out, as it was not part of the violation notice, that was the original inspection notice by one of my inspectors, and he got with Kirby and myself, as Mr. Anderson had complained to him, and he was not comfortable with what he had done with the inspection. So, he got with us, and Mr. Anderson had called us saying that he felt there was a code violation. I told him that if there was a code violation, I would go out there and look at it and this is what we came up with. The correction order that Mr. Place did is basically the same but with additional corrections. Mr. Kenney: who wrote the 15t correction order on 12/22/21 Mr. fleet: that was Jerry Elliott Mr. Kenney: ok, the one with 2 pages here, in capsulates the 1st one Mr. fleet: yes Mr. Kenney: ok Mr. Harold: what we have here, it appears to us when Mr. Anderson got the building permit on December 1, 2021, he pretty much started acting as his own contractor. He was the one that certainly took over any responsibility that Shenandoah Sheds had. We have no idea, I do to a certain extent take issue with what Mr. Fleet just said, that the 2-page correction order, encompasses the December 22, 2021, final inspection correction order. Because March 2, 2022, says needs footings for building. I know what footings are, presumably everybody here does know what footings are. It implies that there has to be footings under the building itself, the building is a shed. There is nothing whatsoever concerning any footings on the December 22, 2021, correction order. It just says footings never inspected. There were concrete piers that were positioned under the posts, the support posts for the lean too. The concrete piers were approximately 2' below grade level, with concrete, and then there were sonotubes placed above there around 8" or so to provide support structure and that is shown on one of the photos, I believe on the 5t picture of the shed, that you have available for view. These were over poured to allow for the shrinkage of concrete forafter they had been set up, they also poured small collars of concrete around the posts, to support the lean to, and they look like lateral stability while the concrete set up. Then the intention, had Shenandoah sheds had been allowed finish up the job, was to come in and shave off that small, short concrete collar around the base of the individual support posts and secure the posts to the concrete with tighten anchor bolts, the horizontal portion of L brackets down into the concrete, and lag bolts into the bottom end of the lean-to posts. They were not allowed to do that. In fact, my point, the correction order dated December 22, 2021, needs proper beam, needs inline bearing under beam, tie downs, and roof not dried i . none of those items to my knowledge are listed on this -point correction order, that was issued on December 2 , 2021, I'm sorry that was issued on March 22, 2022. Let's look at what Mr. Fleet did say, the board can review compare the 2 correction orders. Our position is that once Mr. Anderson got the building permit, he took over responsibility as his own contractor for this. Shenandoah Sheds is not a contractor and they have always told everybody to get their own permits, they area are of the 256 sq ft limitation for which a permit is not required. They were also advised multipletimes, Mr. Argyris and Barbara Pierce, by Mr. Anderson, that this was a farm use, and they had no knowledge it was anything other than farm use. Had it been farm use, no permit would have been required and we probably would not be here today. I tried to zero in on your request sir to focus on the issue, the permit itself, and our position is that a permitis not required for one has already been obtained so there is no need for the correction order, I'm sorry for the violation notice that was directed to Shenandoah sheds as he is not a contractor. He is a retail merchant. He sells preassembled structures. He puts them on a prepared pad, and he has been doing this for years. Any number of sheds that you see all over the county that are put up like that. Retail merchant not a contractor. Hedoesn't l i self out to be a contractor r. Wagner: let me try to get my arms around this. r. Harold: yes sir r. Wagner: there are a couple of key issues in my opinion, 1 if a permit as required and you mentioned that the homeowner said it was farm use. r. Harold: yes sir r. Wagner: is the homeowner present r. Fleet: he is r. Wagner: would you like to speak on your behalf of that or not, it's up to you, you are not part of the appeals, but it's up to you r. Anderson: what was the question Mr. Wagner: the first question I have in my mind, is a permit required at all and if it's truly under farm use then its not required and all of this kind of goes away. Fortunately, or unfortunately it all goes away. So that is really where the question is. Is this under farm use and my opinion is, it is not. Can you come forward and state your name, please? Mr. Anderson: My name is Michael Anderson, this is my wife, Audrey; I will be glad to answer anything. But I would just first like to say that this is straight up false. I never mentioned farm use and I have no clue what you are talking about, I live on a 3-acre lot on Cedar Creek Grade within a Y2mile of the Winchester city limits. I never said that. Mrs. Anderson: we have an HOA Mr. Anderson: we have an HOA, and our neighbors of complain. There are no horses, farm animals, absolutely nothing in that neighborhood that would make anybody think that it is farm use. There is no reason for me to say it, and again I have been told Shenandoah Sheds representative that he had been in business for 12 years and he had one woman get him for$12,000 dollars and that aint on happen to him again. That's all I know. The farm use, I am not the one that has been constructing farm buildings and doing this for 12 or 13 years. Mr. Wagner: you don't have any farm animals or things of that nature Mr. Anderson: no, we have dogs Mr. Wagner: no farming, no corn, nothing of that nature Mr. Anderson: the thing with the tractor, I did ask for a 7.2' opening for my tractor because I do own property 30 miles away. So, if I bring my tractor home, in the winter to plow my driveway because I have a very long driveway, so I can keep it under it in the winter. That is what the tractor is for, snow removal at my house and that is the only thing I said. That is the only thing I asked for was 7.2' opening and if you go measure it, from the pad his contractor put in, the opening is 8.5', Mr. Wagner: I am not worried about the size. Mrs. Anderson: on our property we have a home, and grass, there is no wildlife Mr. Anderson: we showed the a picture and said we wanted it replicated just like this, and they agreed they could do it. They saw it had the run in on the side,they knew it was over 256 sq ft. so, to me they know they needed a license,they agreed to everything. I have never built a building; I am not the one that has been in business for 12-13 years. Mrs. Anderson: we didn't even know farm exempt was a thing Mr. Anderson: right Mr. Wagner: any board members have any questions that a permit was required? Mr. Anderson: I out like to say, also, that we had 2 contractors come and look, they were licensed contractors and they both said you need a permit for this. That is how I found out about it. We want to make things right. We wanted to do it right and that is by we pulled a permit, and it is hanging in the window to this day. Also, out like to address the text messages and I also have a voice mail, that says we out like to meet Wednesday, I am not trying to get into it, but I am just trying to prove we are not in told the truth. Mywifecalled him back this was on a Tuesday and told him that it out not work as my husband obligations at work, but could make it for the next day, and that is where the 2-text come into play, if you look at the that they couldn't come on the property. I have never told this company they couldn't come on my property. All I simply said is I am speaking to my attorney Mrs. Anderson: once we learned that a permit was needed. We got the permit, and we of the survey one and then once we learned that the work that was one, should have been done by a contractor, after we have contractors come to our home. We understood he was not a contractor so at that point we weren't comfortable with a non-contractor doing contractor work Mr. Anderson: DPOR has ruled that he needed a license to do the work that he did Mr. Wagner: I can verify that, because in our packet, it is fairly clear. Under section 54.1-1100 it says the code of VA defines contractor, any person that for a fixed price, commission, fee of percentage undertakes to bid upon, or accepts, or offers to accept, orders or contracts for performing, managing, or superintending in whole or in part, the construction, removal, repair, or improvement of any building. I don't think there is any question that a contractor license was needed, in my opinion. That is only 1 person's opinion on this board. Unless it was done by the homeowner, then you can be your own contractor. Mrs. Anderson: we hired Shenandoah Sheds to do this work for us. Mr. Anderson: I out like to address the asphalt Mr. Wagner: I am trying to get my arms round this. There is no question that a permit was needed. Would you all agree with that Mr. Kenney, Mr. Ruckman, Mr. Lloyd, and Ms. Dawson all agreed Mr. Argyris: My name is Gary Argyris, I am the owner of Shenandoah Sheds, every customer that comes to our property,they are told the rules and regulations of the county. it is the customers responsibility to pull any permits, therefore acting as their own contractor. He was told this, he was told by me, and he was told by Barbara Pierce, and he came back later and said I am going to do this under farm use. So, I did a job right down the road from him, Brooklyn farm, its like a mile away from there, the exact same situation, all the homes are beautiful, its an HOA and she wanted to buy horse for her daughter. So, she came down and of an ag permit and she got a horse for her daughter. His property is very similar to hers. You can't tell by looking at it if a person has a farm permit or not, he said he is doing it under a farm permit, I did not verify that, but that is what the man said. I don't pull any permits, we are working on the homeowner's property, it's their responsibility to pull the permits and its that simple, sir. Any questions. Mr. Kenney: we keep hearing load and clear that you don't pull permits, somewhere in all of this, someone leveled the site, I heard someone say you had an independent individual. Who is that? Mr. Argyris: Alex Garseus Mr. Kenny: does he have a contractor's license? Mr. Argyris: no sir. Mr. Kenny: what's his roll in this Mr. Argyris: all his roll is, he comes in with a skid steer he leveled the area and put stone on top of it, in preparation for building setting on the ground. Mr. Kenny: so, his cost to do this work, is included in the price of this building Mr. Argyris: that's correct Mr. Kenney: so, you paid him directly, you paid him a lump sum fee. Mr. Argyris: correct, yes sir Mr. Kenney: alright, so then you come out to the site, you made a couple different visits to this site. Mr. Argyris: I made 2 visits to the site Mr. Kenney: ok, at some point, you are getting ready to deliver this building, did the conversation ever come up, did you get your permit? Mr. Argyris: no sir Mr. Kenney: you just didn't feel like you inserted yourself Mr. Argyris: no sir, in 8 years I have never. Mr. Kenney: you warned them so many times, but you don't make sure they have a permit Mr. Argyris: I told him 1 time Mr. Kenney: you keep saying you tell all your people that it's their responsibility Mr. Argyris: we do Mr. Kenney: you don't verify it Mr. Argyris: I never verify it Mr. Kenney: ignorance of needing one doesn't exsolve anyone from getting a permit Mr. Argyris: Absolutely Mr. Kenney: ok,just making sure Mr. Argyris: sure, he told me he was doing under ag exempt, I am responsible for not verifying it Mr. Harold: I would like to point out if I may, that Shenandoah Sheds does not have a contractor's license, they cannot pull a permit Mr. Kenney: that is probably one of their problems right now, but that is another point. Mr. Fleet, does this building that I am seeing that I see being wrote up, no header for window, no collar ties on rafters, I have to assume that this is inside the building Mr. fleet: yes, it is Mr. Kenney: ok, so does this building meet our local building code. Mr. Fleet: no, it does not Mr. Kenney: ok Mr. Argyris: it does not, because we were not allowed to complete the project. We were run off the property. If we were able to complete project, everything would have been done per code. Mr. Kenney: how do you put headers in? are you going to go back and tear the all apart to put the header in and to put the collar ties in? is this a pre manufactured building. Mr. Argyris: it is Mr. Kenney: if you set it on site, it should meet all the building codes, if you just walked away from. If there were none of these issues, that building should meet our local building code, so it doesn't collapse during a snowstorm. of that be a right statement Mark Mr. Fleet: yes sir,the code says, that a building under the 256 sq ft, does not require a permit, it doesn't say that it not required to meet the building code. It is only exempt from permitting requirements Mr. Argyris: all of our snow loads, the buildings are it for up north, we are over the local snow to rating. Everything that we do is over built, and again had we been able to complete the project, everything out have been to code and above. Mr. Harold: I out like to address, you pointed out there was a DPOR report,that was in response to the complaint filed by Mr. & Mrs. Anderson. That initial report that came out was based on the complaint as submitted. I obtained a copy of the complaint. I also sent down to Bonnie Plougher at DPOR,the person that prepared that initial report, I sent down to her the ist picture of the shed, the one with the front view of the shed, she came back to me by telephone and said that's not the picture that was provided to us by the Andersons in his complaint. So, I asked her to send a copy of the she and it was already in the complaint also, this is the she here. This is an additional picture. This was reported to me by Bonnie Plougher. My response is this is not the she provided by Shenandoah Sheds. I have 9 pictures and I sent the down to her. This is the picture that DPOR based their conclusion on, that Shenandoah Sheds needed a class B contractor license. The complaint sent to DPOR, never provided a copy of the she that was installed by Shenandoah Sheds, that is what they are relying on. I have been dealing now on a regular basis with DPOR, and our position is that this structure is not permanently annexed to the real property. Sir, you down here on the end. I'm sorry I don't know your name, but you read off about the contractor, and the key issue is whether or not it annexed to the real property Mr. Kenney: I think that is 2 different things, I think you need a permit Mr. Harold: yes sir Mr. Kenney: it was brought up about the class B contractor license Mr. Harold: the contractor undertakes,to put up something that is permanently annexed tothe real estate. That is the issue, according to Ms. Plougher that DPOR that initial finding was based on. So, a class B license is required. Our position is that the she and lean to were not permanently annexed to the real estate, therefore no contractor license is required. I mirrorly pointed that out as it was brought up by one of the board members. You do have a copy of DPOR's findings. I think that is pretty much it. Ms. Pierce, can you come up here and tell us what your recall of this is. First off identify yourself Ms. Pierce: My name is Barbara Pierce. Mr. Harold: what is your position at Shenandoah Sheds Ms. Pierces: I am the sales lady for Shenandoah Sheds Mr. Harold: what is your normal routine. Are you aware of the requirements for permitting in Frederick County? Ms. Pierce: absolutely, I tell all of my customers, how are they zoned and if its over 256 sq ft they have to pull the permits Mr. Harold: did you tell that to Mr. Anderson Ms. Pierce: absolutely Mr. Harold: what was his response s. Pierce: he knew that, and he said he could just this put under my farm. He strictly knew i r. Harold: is there anything about the tractor that gave you any indication s. Pierce: oh yeah, absolutely he wantedmake sure there was enough clearance for his tractor to go underneath r. Harold: did that give you any indication or conformation about the fact that is probably s for farm use s. Pierce: yes sir r. Harold: any members of the board have any questions for Ms. Pierce? r. r ris: she also has a message where she was communicating with our builder, telling i that it had to be a certain height for his tractor. You know, at the end of the day, he lied to us about his permit. You guys might blame me, but at the end of the day, if I am at fault, I will take 1 % responsibility for i . But the gentleman told us it was going to be under a , and he was putting his tractor under i , and I had no reason to question him. Mr. Harold: consistent with your request,that I focus on the issue. I don't believe I have anything further. Is something else you want me to address Gary or Barbara Ms. Pierce: no sir Mr. Argyris: no sir Mr. Wagner: Mr. Anderson do you have something, again keep it focused to the issue of the appeal, please. Mr. Anderson: I of just like to simply add, that I am not denying I said out a tractor, that is for snow removal, but that has nothing to do with agriculture. I specifically went there to order a building that I wanted, and I wanted a lean to on the other side and they agreed to do that. They knew the square footage, they told me they could do the job. I never, never once mentioned that it was ag. I didn't even know what that was until this gentleman here said what we zoned for. I didn't even know what zone we were in, so I of just like to say that whether it matters or not,that is nothing but false. I did not say that, and I believe they know that, in fact they sold me a solar system and asked me did I want electric, and I could avoid getting electrical permits if I of a solar panel. is I went ahead and bought that and again I don't know if I need a permit or not for it, but I went ahead and pulled the permit when I came down there to cover everything, but I was told by both of these folks here that I did not need a permit and it of save me from getting one. Mr. Wagner: Mr. Anderson I of like to ask you 1 or 2 questions. Did you personally install the concrete footings for the lean to or was that one by Shenandoah Sheds? Mr. Anderson: so, on that, Alex came out and did the pad or . Mr. Wagner: who is that? Mr. Anderson: That is their contractor. Shenandoah Sheds, Gary,they show up to my residence and he did in fact make a 3 rd trip, he said twice, but he was there at least 3 times, and actually went to his vehicle and got a pink flag out of the back of his Toyota 4-runner and placed it where he wanted the hump. Before he did that. Mr. Wagner: I'm sorry, it was the concrete sonotubes. Who installed those? Mr. Anderson: Alex for Shenandoah Sheds Mr. Wagner: you are not the sole contractor? The point I am trying to make is you are not the sole contractor Mr. Anderson: I hired Shenandoah Sheds to do the project, and I just wanted to get the permit to make it right once I was told by 2 licenses contractors that this a debacle, and you should have had a permit. Yes sir. Mr. Harold: what sort of work do you do Mr. Anderson Mr. Anderson: I am a retired career firefighter and I work for Washington Gas, I work on natural gas piping Mr. Harold: what do you do for them Mr. Anderson: I am a compliant DOT pipeline safety compliance auditor, which is telling the truth. Mr. Harold: so, you do have experience with permitting requirements Mr. Anderson: no sir, its nothing to do with construction, it has to do with steel piping in the ground Mr. Kenney: Mr. Harold can I ask you a question. r. Harold: yes sir. r. Kenney: You indicated earlier, or someone indicated earlier that the building was not annexed to the property. r. Harold: that is correct r. Kenney: once you put in that permanent foundation and you fasten the building to that foundation doesn't that it makes it annexed to the property. r. Harold: our position is that because,the only thing that would be bolted,the only thing that can be fixed to the ground would be the support post for the lean to, not the building. I believe you have photographs there showing the building and the 's under it to level it out and shims to bringit back to level. That is not under the annexed, when it's just sitting there. The only thing that would be arguably annexed to the real estate would be the support post for the lean to itself. The support post are shown in the photograph. However, had Shenandoah Sheds been allowed to finish the job, the tops of those concrete would have been shaved off. The support posts are not sunk into the ground, they are not sunk deeply at all in the concrete. The top portion would have been shaved off. This was provided,this information was provided, explanation of detail to DPOR, which you don't have i . The post would have been held down by angle brackets, by L bracket, with a screw through the horizontal portion and a lag bolt, lag screw into the bottom portion. That is, I do not believe that I am not an expert on that, I am just a simple country lawyer. My understanding is, I think common sense tells me that you can put a rachet and socket on the end of those screws or bolts and undo the and pick the whole thing up. That does not constitute being permanently annexed to the real estate. That's the position we are taking Mr. Kenney: that is your understanding Mr. Harold: whether that is right or wrong Mr. Wagner: let me ask you something. Any more cross examination or any more testimony to come before this board. Mr. Cano: if I may, Mr. Chairman, I have one thing I of like to say, Mr. Wagner: Certainly Mr. Cano: I believe that you is to narrow, I don't think we narrowed it enough. Obliviously the county position is that the only thing that matters here is that is found in the construction code, section 115.2 is talks about the responsible parties for buildings that either have permits or don't have permits and it very clearly says that the in the case without a permit the responsible parties shall get a notice of violation and in the terms of work that needs permitting or has permitting that any one else can also, besides the home owner, can also be issued a notice of violation. So here today, Shenandoah Sheds has admitted that they knew they needed a permit, they didn't check if there was a permit, and no permit was done. That is the bases of this violation. That a building that needed a permit was put up without the permit. They have said they went out there and its there shed that they put up. That is the entire bases and issues, of whether or not they were a contractor or needed a contractor's license. The license issue is being handled by DPOR and outside the scope here. So that is the county's position that we have gotten kind of far field for this particular appeal that everything that we need to know has already been addressed. Mr. Wagner: let me clarify, that was 115.2, correct? Notice of violation Mr. Cano: notice of violation Mr. Wagner: it clearly states that the building official may also issue a notice of violation to other persons found to be responsible. In addition to the permit holder. So,there is no question. Mr. Cano: whether or not the owner currently has a permit. Mr. Wagner: any other comments to come before the board Mr. Harold: one last comment. It seems to us that it is significant that Mr. Anderson obtained the building permit December 1, 2021. Three weeks later, the final inspection was done, and a correction notice was issued. Mr. Wagner: there was no final inspection, done Mr. Harold: it says it was a final. The correction order said final, for the purpose of the inspection. Mr. Wagner: the correction order Mr. Harold: yes, sir the correction order says final, then sometime after that, when Shenandoah Sheds had no access to the structure, had nothing to do with it, they were excluded from the property. Pretty much after that, in March, this additional inspection was done. Seems to us that the it on of additional things on top of what was originally identified on December 22, 2021, for that inspection since it was built. Pursuant to Mr. Anderson's building permit. Shenandoah Sheds was more than willing and capable of correcting those issues, that were identified on December 22 and if necessary, they will certainly obtain a licensed contractor to do that, some one with at least a class C or B license Mr. Wagner: it would have to be at least class B Mr. Harold: yes sir, well it would be class B because of the dollar amount. They are willing to correct those items. They are also willing to go in and just take down the shed and lean to and haul it all away and refund all their money that has been paid to my client, by Mr. Anderson,that is where we are right now. Mr. Kenney: are we ready to vote on it Mr. Argyris: I have something I would like to say Mr. Wagner: briefly Mr. Argyris: sure, very briefly, there is a little bit of he said, she said, been of on. Mr. Anderson submitted paperwork to DPOR which if falsified and the picture that was provided to you guys, that he based his complainant on. That photo is not what we did and its our belief these buildings are not permanently annexed and if it is determined that is the case, we will acquire a contractor's license. No questions asked. But he lied, its in writing, the photo is there and DPOR is are of it, so I say whatever he has said verbally here today, it aint no good. Mr. Wagner: with that we will close the public session and we will debate amongst the board. You can stay if you want to, you are encouraged to stay. Quite frankly, but we will debate amongst the board. No further testimony from the anyone with the exception of the board. With that said. I think it is crystal clear to me that they needed a permit. Would everyone agree with that. Mr. Kenney, Mr. Ruckman, Mr. Winters, and Ms. Dawson: they all agreed by replying with yes. Mr. Wagner: Once they need a permit Mr. Kenney: Mr. Chair, can I ask one question? We keep hearing about agricultural buildings here today. I have it some in the as . That does not absolve you from having to meet code, there are still codes fora buildings. You just don't build a building, you just don't have to pay fora permit itself, there is. Mr. Fleet: exactly an ag exemption does exempt from building to code. Mr. Kenney: Aww does it, going thru my head I thought they still had to Mr. Fleet: an ag exemption exempts you from the building code. 102.2 you are exempt from the code. But at no time was I asked for an ag exemption on this property. Mr. Kenney: ok Mr. Fleet: no exemption for farm exempt for was filled out or submitted, it of have been turned down. It is very clear what it says in the definition of a farm. The property not used for residential structures where a farming operation taking place. There is no farm operation taking place out there Mr. Ruckman: I do think you are correct there. I think there is minimum standards for ag buildings because even in the IBC there is a lower risk category for low hazard uses and you are allowed to use reduced snow loads and reduced wind loads and all that. Mr. Wagner: if the board doesn't mind, I need to stand up. Mr. Kenney: one other thing, we are keeping talking about permanently annexed, and whether the installation of a clip Mr. Harold interpretation of per al annexed that is a bolted connection, well if that is the case,then out 90%of all industrial and commercial buildings could be unbolted and lifted and then of never be taxed. They wouldn't be an annexed building, because that is how all major buildings big & small are connected to the foundation. Mr. Wagner: I can certainly agree with that. Mr. Kenney: ok Mr. Wagner: does anyone disagree with that Mr. Kenney, Mr. Ruckman, Mr. Winters, and Ms. Dawson: all replied, no Mr. Wagner: so, this is an annexed building Mr. Kenney: so, this is an annexed building in my opinion Mr. Wagner: yes, so the only issue we have before us, does everyone have section 115.2 The board replied yes sir Mr. Wagner: when you read that paragraph, there is no question that Shenandoah Sheds should have been issued a violation notice. is that a correct statement? Mr. Kenney, Mr. Ruckman, Mr. Winters, and Ms. Dawson: all replied, yes Mr. Wagner: then that voids the appeal. Mr. Kenney, Mr. Ruckman, Mr. Winters, and Ms. Dawson: all replied, yes Mr. Wagner: would anyone like to make a motion Mr. Ruckman: I would like to make a motion to deny the appeal Mr. Wagner: is there a second Mr. Winters: I second it Mr. Wagner: we will have a roll call, please Ms. Dawson: yes Mr. Winters: yes Mr. Wagner: yes Mr. Ruckman: yes Mr. Kenney: yes Mr. Wagner: ok that concludes the appeal ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Whit Wagner adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m. Whit Wagner, Chairmai , Board of Building Appeals Minutes Prepared By Cora M. DeHaven Secretary, Board of Building Appeals B01ARD OF BUILDING APPEALS 1\4 1 N UTES 2022 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The Frederick County Local Board of Appeals is duly appointed to resolve disputes arising out of enforcement of the USBC; WHEREAS, an appeal has been filed and brought to the attention of the board of appeals; WHEREAS, a hearing has been held to consider the aforementioned appeal; and WHEREAS,the board has fully deliberated this matter; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That in the matter of Appeal Number 01-2022 RE: Douglas W. Harold,Jr. for Shenandoah Sheds v. Frederick County The appeal is hereby denied, for the reasons set out below: The Frederick County Board of Building Appeals voted unanimously to uphold the decision of the Building Official to require a building permit for the shed and lean-to. Date: May 10 2022 ,; . Signature: Chairman of Loc I Board of Appeals Note: "Any person who was a party to the appeals to the State Review Board by submitting an application to such Board with 21 calendar days upon receipt by certified mail of this resolution. Application forms are available from the office of the State Review Board,501 North.Second street,Richmond,VA 23219,804-371-7150."