Log in is not required to search. In the red banner above select: I Want To > Search > Permits

Code Enforcement Detail

Code Enforcement Detail
Case Number	CE15110105	complainant
Case Date	11-19-2015	address
Origination	PHONE - TELEPHONE CALL RECEIVED	Status	O - OPEN (UNVERIFIED)
Operator	elongsho	Officer	OFFICE
Fines Balance	$0.00
Lien Balance	$0.00
Total Balance	$0.00
Property On Case
STRAP NBR	C-10-36-29-010-00G0-0050	Owner	BREZINA JERRY D
Unit		Owner Address	250 HILLSIDE DR
Property Address	250 HILLSIDE DR	City/State/Zip	LAKE PLACID FL 33852
City/State/Zip	LAKE PLACID FL 33852	Phone

Case Description

BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMPLAINT

Inspections/Events Detail

DATE	TIME	INSPECTION / EVENT TYPE	INSTRUCTIONS / COMMENTS
12-07-2015	08:26 PM	REINSPECTION
11-30-2015	11:36 AM	UPDATE/NOTES	SPOKE BY PHONE WITH DON COCHRAN. HE WANTED TO SPEAK WITH COUNTY ATTORNEY ROSS MACBETH CONCERNING THIS JOB. I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD ALREADY SPOKEN WITH ROSS SO HE SAID HE WOULD CALL ROSS AND GET BACK WITH ME. DON AND RON COCHRAN CALLED ME BACK AND SPOKE ON SPEAKER PHONE. THEY INDICATED THAT THEY HAD DETERMINED, AFTER SPEAKING WITH ROSS, THAT THE ROOF WAS OUT OF WARRANTY AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO REPAIR WORK. THEY RECOUNTED THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE HAD WITH THIS OWNER IN THE PAST AND DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH HIM AGAIN. I THEN WENT TO SEE MR. BREZINA AND TOLD HIM OF COCHRAN ROOFINGS DECISION. HE QUESTIONED THE 5 YEAR WORKMANSHIP WARRANTY. I TOLD HIM THAT I DID NOT HAVE THE CONTRACT AND THAT ALL I HAD TO GO ON WAS COCHRANS CLAIM THAT THIS IS WHAT THEIR CONTRACT STIPULATED. HE INDICATED THAT HE BELIEVED THAT WE HAD THE CONTRACT ON FILE AND WANTED ME TO PULL THE FILE AND INVESTIGATE THE CONTRACT. I TOLD HIM THAT WE DO NOT NORMALLY KEEP CONTRACTS ON FILE AS THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS. HE THEN SAID HE WOULD FIND HIS ORIGINAL CONTRACT TO CHECK IT HIMSELF. HE THEN QUESTIONED ME AS TO WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO TO ASSIST HIM WITH THIS PROBLEM. I TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE A CIVIL MATTER FOR THE COURT SYSTEM TO RESOLVE. HE INDICATED THAT HE WANTED ME TO REVOKE PERMITTING PRIVILEDGES FOR COCHRAN UNTIL THEY REPAIRED HIS ROOF. I REPLIED THAT I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO IF HIS ROOF WAS OUT OF WARRANTY. HE WAS GOING TO CHECK HIS CONTRACT AND GET BACK WITH ME. I ADVISED HIM TO GET HIS ROOF REPAIRED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE TO HIS HOME.
11-25-2015	02:24 PM	UPDATE/NOTES	SPOKE BY PHONE WITH DON COCHRAN AND HE INDICATED THAT THEY MAY BE WILLING TO DO REPAIRS TO ROOF EVEN THOUGH IT IS OUT OF WARRANTY. THEY WANTED ME TO CHECK WITH COUNTY ATTORNEY ROSS MACBETH TO BE SURE THAT IF REPAIRS WERE DONE THAT IT WOULD NOT ACTIVATE ANOTHER WARRANTY PERIOD. SHORTLY AFTER THAT PHONE CALL I RECEIVED A CALL FROM MR. BREZINA ASKING WHEN HIS ROOF MIGHT BE REPAIRED. I TOLD HIM I HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH COCHRAN ROOFING AND THAT I BELIEVED THAT REPAIRS WOULD BE MADE WITH STIPULATIONS UPON COMPLETION. HE SAID THAT THE ROOF IS STILL LEAKING AND THAT THE TEMPORARY MEASURES HE HAD TAKEN WERE NOT KEEPING THE WATER OUT OF HIS HOME. I TOLD HIM THAT HE NEEDED TO TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES NECESSARY TO KEEP THE WATER OUT OF HIS HOUSE AND THAT FURTHER DAMAGE WAS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOR THE ROOFER. I TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD BE IN TOUCH WITH HIM THE FIRST OF THE WEEK REGARDING THE SITUATION. I THEN SPOKE BY PHONE WITH ROSS MACBETH AND HE INDICATED THAT REPAIRS DONE OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY WOULD NOT TRIGGER A NEW WARRANTY PERIOD. I WILL CONTACT COCHRAN ROOFING ABOUT THIS CONCERN THAT THEY HAD AND TRY TO WORK OUT A AMICABLE SOLUTION.
11-19-2015	07:19 PM	INITIAL INSPECTION	OFFICE RECEIVED PHONE CALL FROM HOWARD SEIBERT CONCERNING ROOF PROBLEMS. I WAS INFORMED BY OFFICE STAFF THAT ROOF HAD BEEN INSTALLED IN 2009 AND HAD BEEN BEFORE THE CLEAB BOARD AT THAT TIME BECAUSE OF LEAK ISSUES. I RESEARCHED THE PERMIT AND CLEAB MINUTES AND FOUND THAT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED TO COCHRAN ROOFING IN MARCH OF 2009 LISTING HOWARD SEIBERT AS OWNER. A ROOF NAIL OFF AFFIDAVIT WAS SIGNED BY COCHRAN ROOFING FOR THIS JOB. A DRY IN INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED AND PASSED ON 3/29/2009, A FINAL INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED ON 3/30/2009 AND WAS CANCELED WITH A NOTE THAT ROOF WAS LEAKING. ANOTHER FINAL INSPECTION WAS SCHEDULED FOR 4/08/2009 BUT NO ENTRY WAS POSTED AND I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED. THE MINUTES FROM THE 6/2/2009 CLEAB MEETING NOTE THAT A COMPLAINT WAS HEARD FROM HOME OWNER JERRY BREZINA AGAINST COCHRAN ROOFING CONCERNING LEAKS AROUND THE CHIMNEY OF NEW ROOF. MR. BREZINA WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE BECAUSE HE HAD TO RETURN TO MICHIGAN. MOTION WAS MADE TO SUSPEND PERMITTING PRIVILEDGES UNTIL COCHRAN REPAIRED ROOF PROBLEMS. COCHRAN AGREED TO PERFORM REPAIRS AND MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED WITH MOTION FOR COCHRAN TO APPEAR AT JULY MEETING WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A LETTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FROM SY MOSELEY STATES THAT ON 6/3/2009 COUNTY ATTORNEY ROSS MACBETH INFORMED HIM THAT THE BOARDS ACTION WAS UNENFORCABLE BECAUSE MR. BREZINA WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE. THE 7/7/2009 CLEAB MINUTES SHOW A DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS ACTIONS AND THE BOARDS REQUEST FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO COME AND PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR FUTURE. THE 8/4/2009 CLEAB MINUTES SHOW THE COUNTY ATTORNEY BEING PRESENT PROVIDING EXPLANATION AND OFFERING PROCEDURES FOR FUTURE. NO OTHER ACTION FROM THE BOARD IS SHOWN IN THIS CASE THROUGH 2010 CLEAB MINUTES. I MET WITH MR. SEIBERT ON SITE ON 11/18/2015 AND HE RECOUNTED THE ENTIRE SCENARIO FROM 2009. APPARENTLY COCHRAN PAID TO HAVE THE CHIMNEY STUCCOED AND THAT REPAIRED THE LEAK PROBLEM AND NOTHING FURTHER CAME OF THE COMPLAINT. I OBSERVED THE NEW STUCCO ON THE CHIMNEY THAT HAD BEEN DONE IN 2009 AND INFORMED OWNER THAT IT NEEDED TO BE PAINTED AS IT WAS STILL RAW STUCCO AND HE SAID HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT BUT HAD BEEN TOLD TO LET THE STUCCO CURE COMPLETELY BEFORE AND HAD NOT GOT IT DONE. THE ISSUE AT THIS TIME IS THE FLAT DECK PORTION ON THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. COCHRAN HAD INSTALLED 3/4" RIGID INSULATION OVER THE DECK AND INSTALLED RUBBER MEMBRANE OVER THE INSULATION. ALONG THE EDGES THEY INSTALLED 1X2 FIRRING TO ATTACH THE DRIP EDGE TO. THE RUBBER MEMBRANE WAS WRAPPED OVER THE EDGE AND PROPERLY ATTACHED THROUGH THE DRIP EDGE TO THE 1X2. OVER TIME THE 1X2 SEPERATED FROM THE ORIGINAL DECKING AND THE WIND GOT UNDER THE MEMBRANE AND ABOUT 1/3 RD OF THE MEMBRANE FOLDED BACK ACROSS THE ROOF FROM ONE CORNER. THIS HAPPENED WHILE MR. SEIBERT WAS OUT OF TOWN AND HE CAME HOME TO A FLOODED HOME AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE HOUSE. THE HOME SITS ON A LAKE AND WINDS ARE MULTIPLIED ACROSS THE WATER BUT ROOF STILL SHOULD HAVE SUSTAINED THESE FORCES. I ASKED MR. SEIBERT WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DONE AT THIS POINT, AND HE SAID HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HIS ROOF REPAIRED. HE SAID HE WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE REPAIRS INSIDE BUT WOULD JUST LIKE THE ROOF REPAIRED. I ASKED HIM IF, CONSIDERING THE FORMER CIRCUMSTANCES, HE WANTED COCHRAN TO DO THE REPAIRS. HE STATED THAT HE WAS GIVEN A LIFETIME WARRANTY AND THAT HE WANTED THE WARRANTY HONORED. I TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD CONTACT COCHRAN AND GET BACK WITH HIM AS HE DID NOT WANT TO CONTACT THEM HIMSELF. I WENT BY COCHRAN ROOFINGS OFFICE BUT NO ONE WAS THER SO I CALLED AND LEFT A MESSAGE WHICH THEY RETURNED. I SPOKE WITH RON COCHRAN BY PHONE AND REQUESTED A FACE TO FACE MEETING BECAUSE THIS WAS GOING TO STIR UP OLD WOUNDS. HE PRESSED ME AND I TOLD HIM WHO IT INVOLVED AND HE WAS FAIRLY ADAMANT THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO ANY MORE WORK FOR THAT CUSTOMER AND RECOUNTED THE PAST HISTORY. I REITERATED THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM AND HE SAID HIS BROTHER WAS OUT OF TOWN BUT WOULD BE BACK THIS WEEKEND AND THAT THEY WOULD CALL ME THE FIRST PART OF THE WEEK TO MEET. I WILL ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE A WORKABLE SOLUTION BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR.
11-19-2015	07:19 PM	CREATE COMPLAINT	COMPLAINT RECORDED BY ELONGSHO

Copyright © 2008 – THE PLUS SERIES ® – All Rights Reserved