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	CE16080071	complainant
Case Date	08-12-2016	address
Origination	WALKN - WALK IN	Status	C - CLOSED
Operator	cshackel	Officer	OFFICE
Fines Balance	$0.00
Lien Balance	$0.00
Total Balance	$0.00
Property On Case
STRAP NBR	C-31-33-29-021-0000-0040	Owner	WESSEL WILLIAM A
Unit		Owner Address	2140 SR 17 S
Property Address	2140 SR 17	City/State/Zip	AVON PARK FL 33825
City/State/Zip	AVON PARK FL 33825	Phone

Case Description

RECEIVED COMPLAINT FROM OWNER OF PROPERTY ABOUT

WORK BEING DONE ON HIS PROPERTY BY STACEY DUTCHER.

Inspections/Events Detail

DATE	TIME	INSPECTION / EVENT TYPE	INSTRUCTIONS / COMMENTS
05-06-2022	04:07 PM	OFFICIAL FORM	HOWARDMULTI PRINTED BY HMOSTLUN
01-06-2017	08:26 AM	UPDATE/NOTES	THIS CASE WENT BEFORE THE CLEAB IN NOVEMBER. BOARD MOVED TO FINE MRS. DUTCHER AND PLACE HER ON ONE YEAR PROBATION. I LATER RECEIVED CALL FROM MR. WESSEL THAT AGREEMENT TO COMPLETE WORK HAD BEEN REACHED WITH PARTIES TO FULFILL CONTRACTS TO HIS SATISFACTION. CLOSE CASE.
01-05-2017	08:30 AM	CLOSE COMPLAINT	CASE CLOSED BY ELONGSHO
08-31-2016	04:29 PM	UPDATE/NOTES	MET WITH STACEY DUTCHER, TIM KIKER AND DAVID MEREDITH. INFORMED MR. KIKER AND MR. MEREDITH THAT THEY HAD BEEN REPORTED TO STATE ATTORNEY FOR UNLICENSED ACTIVITY. ALSO TOLD THEM THAT STATE ATTORNEY INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT PERSUE INDIVIDUAL CASES OF UNLICENSED ACTIVITY THEREFORE THEY WOULD MOST LIKELY NOT BE INVESTIGATED AT THIS POINT. INFORMED THEM THAT STATE ATTORNEY ENCOURAGED ME TO KEEP RECORD OF THIS CASE AND THEY WOULD DO THE SAME FOR USE IN FUTURE IF ACTIVITY CONTINUED THEREFORE ANY FUTURE COMPLAINTS OR FINDINGS OF UNLICENSED ACTIVITY ON THEIR PART WOULD BE PROSECUTED WITH THREAT OF JAIL TIME. THEN INFORMED STACEY THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LICENSE REVIEW BOARD FOR WORK OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HER LICENSE. ALSO TOLD HER THAT I WOULD BE RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD A $1,000.00 FINE AND A ONE YEAR PROBATION FOR HER ACTION IN THIS CASE. SHE WAS ACCEPTING OF THIS AND SAID SHE WOULD COMPLY.
08-29-2016	04:22 PM	UPDATE/NOTES	MET WITH MR. WESSEL. INFORMED HIM THAT BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER UNLICENSED ACTIVITY BY MR. KIKER AND MR. MEREDITH AND THAT HIS COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY. ALSO INFORMED HIM THAT HE HAD RIGHT TO PERSUE MATTER IN CIVIL COURT AS A SMALL CLAIMS CASE. FURTHER INFORMED HIM THAT STACEY DUTCHER WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THE BOARD AS WORKING OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF HER PAINTING LICENSE ALTHOUGH SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY MONEYS FROM MR. WESSEL. ENCOURAGED HIM TO CONSIDER WORKING OUT ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE INDIVIDUALS TO AVOID COURT CASE. HE INDICATED THAT THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE IN BEST INTEREST OF ALL INVOLVED.
08-24-2016	04:22 PM	UPDATE/NOTES	CONFIRMED WITH ROSS MACBETH, LICENSE BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ACT ON UNLICENSED CONTRACTING. UNLICENSED ACTIVITY MUST BE TURNED OVER TO STATES ATTORNEY FOR INVESTIGATION AND THEIR PROCECUTION. HAD ALREADY SENT EMAIL TO STEVE MENGE AT STATE ATTORNEY WITH INFORMATION.
08-19-2016	07:49 AM	UPDATE/NOTES	MET WITH COUNTY ATTORNEY ROSS MAC BETH TO CLARIFY/CONFIRM SCOPE OF LICENSE REVIEW BOARD ACTION IN THIS CASE AS LICENSE HOLDER HAS NOT RECEIVED PAYMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT. FURTHER INVESTIGATION HAS REVEALED THAT DAVID MEREDITH AND TIMOTHY KIKER HAVE BEEN PERFORMING WORK AND RECEIVING PAYMENTS WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE CONTRACTING WITHOUT A LICENSE. WE DO HAVE THE PROPOSAL FROM STACEY'S PAINTING DEPICTING WORK OUTSIDE OF SCOPE OF HER LICENSE. ROSS EXPRESSED THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT STANDUP IN A COURT OF LAW AS IT IS NOT ON HER LETTERHEAD ONLY ON A GENERIC PROPOSAL FORM WITH HER COMPANY NAME WRITTEN IN. ROSS ALSO CONFIRMED INITIALLY MY BELIEF THAT BOARD ACTION CAN NOT BE TAKEN FOR UNLICENSED CONTRACTING BY MR. MEREDITH AND MR. KIKER AND THAT THIS PORTION OF THIS CASE WILL MOST LIKELY HAVE TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. ROSS WILL INVESTIGATE FURTHER AND GET BACK WITH ME. ROSS LATER IN THE DAY LEFT A VOICE MAIL FOR ME TO CALL HIM. I DID NOT CHECK MY VOICE MAIL UNTIL LATE AND WILL CALL ROSS MONDAY AM.
08-18-2016	09:11 AM	UPDATE/NOTES	RECEIVED EMAIL FROM MR. WESSEL OF CHECK IMAGES SHOWING A CHECK FOR $4,900.00 ON 6/17/2016 TO TIMOTHY KIKER MEMOED FOR REMODEL GARAGE MATERIALS AND A CHECK FOR $5,000.00 TO DAVID MEREDITH ON 6/30/2016 MEMOED FOR WIRING.
08-15-2016	04:00 PM	REINSPECTION	MET AGAIN WITH MR. WESSEL TO TRY TO CLEAR UP SOME QUESTIONS. ASKED, WHO WAS FIRST CHECK WRITTEN TO? THIS CHECK IS ILLEGIBLE. HE IS GOING TO TRY TO GET COPY OF CHECK FROM BANK AND DETERMINE WHO CASHED THIS CHECK AS MR. WESSEL LEFT THE CHECK BLANK AT ISSUANCE. WHEN ASKED WHO HE GAVE THE CHECK TO HE THOUGHT HE HAD GIVEN IT TO STACEY. AT THIS POINT HE MADE REFERENCE TO ANOTHER CHECK THAT HE HAD GIVEN TO STACEY'S FATHER BEFORE THIS CHECK. MR. WESSEL HAD APPARENTLY GIVEN DAVID MEREDITH A CHECK FOR $5,000.00 BEFORE WORK HAD BEEN COMMENCED OR EVEN DISCUSSED. WHEN TALKING WITH STACEY AND HER FATHER I HAD ASSUMED THAT THE CHECK THEY WERE REFERING TO WAS THE $4,900.00 CHECK NOTED IN MR. WESSEL'S PACKAGE. I ALSO ASKED MR. WESSEL; WHEN DID TIM KIKER BECOME INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT, AND HE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING. I THEN ASKED WHO ORDERED THE WINDOWS AND HE SAID TIM KIKER, THEN ALSO STATED THAT HE WAS WITH HIM WHEN HE ORDERED THEM AND WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE MISORDER OF WINDOWS WAS AS MUCH HIS FAULT AS TIMS AND REPEATED THAT HE HAD AUTHORIZED THE INSTALLATION OF THE WINDOWS AS THEY ARE BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO WAIT FOR NEW WINDOWS. I THEN ASKED WHO HAD BOUGHT THE SHEDS AND HE SAID THAT HE HAD BOUGHT THEM AND TIM OR DAVID HAD ASSEMBLED AND INSTALLED THEM FOR HIM. MR. WESSEL IS GOING TO GET BACK WITH ME ABOUT THE SECOND CHECK FOR $4,900.00 AS TO WHO CASHED OR DEPOSITED IT.
08-12-2016	12:05 PM	REINSPECTION	RECEIVED CALL FROM STACEY DUTCHER WANTING TO COME IN TO DISCUSS THIS COMPLAINT. SHE AND HER FATHER CAME IN FOR MEETING. SHE EXPLAINED THAT SHE WAS FRIENDS WITH MR. WESSEL AND HAD GOTTEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT AS A FRIEND HELPING A FRIEND. SHE STATED THAT MR. WESSEL KNEW OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OF HER FATHER AND GAVE HIM THE $4,900.00 CHECK SAYING THAT HE HAD SOME WORK AROUND THE HOUSE TO BE DONE AND HE COULD WORK IT OFF. STACEY SAID SHE WROTE THE PROPOSAL TO PROTECT MR. WESSEL SO HE WOULD HAVE DOCUMENTATION OF CHECK ISSUED. STACEY'S FATHER WAS PRESENT TO ACCEPT BLAME FOR WORK BEING COMPLETED. I EXPRESSED TO STACEY THAT A PROPOSAL FOR WORK OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF HER LICENSE WAS A SERIOUS ISSUE THAT THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON. I ALSO EXPRESSED TO HER FATHER THAT HIS INVOLVEMENT CONSTITUTED CONTRACTING WITHOUT A LICENSE WHICH THE BOARD WOULD ALSO HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON. STACEY BECAME UPSET IN FEAR OF LOSING HER LICENSE EXPRESSING SHE COULD HAVE SEVERAL CUSTOMERS VOUCH FOR HER QUALITY OF WORK AND THEIR SATISFACTION. I RECOMMENDED THAT SHE DO SO WHEN BOARD ADDRESSED THIS SITUATION. HER FATHER EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY BOARD STATING THAT MONEY PROVIDED BY MR. WESSEL WAS A "GOD SEND" AND HE WAS TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING BY WORKING OFF HIS DEBT. AT THIS POINT, I DO NOT KNOW THE EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT OF STACEY'S BOY FRIEND TIM KIKER WHOM SECOND CHECK WAS WRITTEN TO. FURTHER INVESTIGATION WILL NEED TO BE DONE.
08-12-2016	10:42 AM	CREATE COMPLAINT	COMPLAINT RECORDED BY CSHACKEL
08-11-2016	11:32 AM	INITIAL INSPECTION	RECEIVED CALL FROM HOME OWNER COMPLAINING ABOUT WORK BEING PERFORMED WITHOUT PERMITTING ON HIS HOME. CALLED MR. WESSEL AND MET HIM ONSITE. OBSERVED WINDOWS ON REAR PORCH THAT HAD RECENTLY BEEN REPLACED. WE THEN WENT TO THE DETATCHED GARAGE WHERE THESE WINDOWS HAD ALSO BEEN RECENTLY REPLACED. THE WINDOWS IN THE GARAGE HAD BEEN SPECIAL ORDERED AND CUSTOM SIZED TO FIT OPENINGS. THE MEASUREMENTS HAD BEEN REVERSED AT ORDER AND THE WINDOWS HAD THE WIDTH AND HEIGHT REVERSED CAUSING THE SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS TO BE INSTALLED AS SIDE SLIDE WINDOWS. MR. WESSEL STATED THAT GENTLEMAN WHO WAS DOING THE WORK HAD ORDERED THE WINDOWS WRONG AND THAT HE(MR. WESSEL)HAD AUTHORIZED HIM TO INSTALL THE WINDOWS THIS WAY. THESE WINDOW REPLACEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTD AND INSPECTED. ALSO OBSERVED DRYWALL BEING INSTALLED IN CEILING OF GARAGE, A BATHROOM AREA CONSTRUCTED AND ELECTRICAL WIRING INSTALLED. I SUSPECT THAT THE PLUMBING SYSTEM HAD PREVIOUSLY EXISTED AND NEW FIXTURES HAD BEEN INSTALLED AS I COULD NOT SEE WHERE PLUMBING HAD RECENTLY BEEN ADDED TO TIE INTO THE SEPTIC SYSTEM. THERE WAS A NEW SHOWER UNIT INSTALLED AND PLUMBING WASTE LINE HAD MOST LIKELY BEEN MODIFIED. IF THIS MODIFICATION HAD BEEN PERFORMED THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED AND INSPECTED. MR. WESSEL STATED THAT INSULATION HAD ALSO BEEN ADDED ABOVE THE NEW CEILING. HE ALSO SHOWED ME A NEW BACKUP GENERATOR THAT HE HAD PURCHASED FOR TEMPORARY POWER FOR THE HOUSE. THIS GENERATOR WAS INSTALLED IN A FIBERGLASS STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE GARAGE. THIS FIBERGLASS STRUCTURE WAS A KIT SHED TYPE STRUCTURE THAT HE HAD BOUGHT THAT WOULD NOT MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR IT. A SECOND PORTABLE GENERATOR WAS SITTING BENEATH ANOTHER FIBERGLASS ENCLOSURE SAME AS THE OTHER REPORTEDLY FOR TEMP POWER FOR THE GARAGE. THERE WAS ALSO AN "ARROW" SHED INSTALLED AT THE REAR OF THE GARAGE. THESE SHEDS ARE A KIT SHED THAT DO MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS BUT MUST BE ANCHORED TO A CONCRETE SLAB WITH A SPECIAL ORDER ANCHORING KIT. THIS SHED IS INSTALLED ON A WOOD FLOOR SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED THEREFORE WILL NOT MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTING. MY SUSPICION IS THAT MR. WESSEL HAS PURCHASED THESE ITEMS AND PAID SOMEONE TO ASSEBLE THEM FOR HIM. MR. WESSEL SAYS THAT HE HIRED STACEY DUTCHER TO DO THIS WORK. STACEY DUTCHER IS A PAINTING CONTRACTOR. MR. WESSEL SAYS THAT STACEY'S BOYFRIEND AND FATHER HAVE BEEN DOING THE WORK. I ASKED HIM WHO HE HAD BEEN PAYING AND HE WAS NOT SURE AS CHECKS WERE LEFT BLANK AND CHECKS WERE GIVEN TO MULTIPLE PERSONS. I TOLD HIM THAT A COMPLAINT FORM WOULD NEED TO BE FILLED OUT WITH AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE SO WE COULD INVESTIGATE. MR. WESSEL THEN BEGAN TO WAFFLE, ASKING WHAT MAY HAPPEN TO PARTIES INVOLVED. HE DID NOT WANT TO PERSUE IF CRIMINAL CHARGES WOULD BE INVOLVED. I EXPLAINED THAT WE AS A BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD BE LIMITED TO ISSUING FINES AND THAT CRIMINAL ACTION WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I ENCOURAGED HIM TO FILE THE COMPLAINT SO THAT WE COULD POLICE OUR INDUSTRY. NOT SURE IF HE WILL DO SO AS HE WENT ON TO SPEAK OF PERSONAL ISSUES FACED BY STACEY, HER BOYFRIEND TIM KIKER AND HER FATHER. I HAD TAKEN A COMPLAINT FORM WITH ME AND LEFT IT WITH HIM.
08-11-2016	11:32 AM	REINSPECTION	GOT BACK TO OFFICE IN LATE AFTERNOON AND HAD COMPLAINT FORM FROM MR. WESSEL. HE HAS PROVIDED A PROPOSAL FROM STACEY'S PAINTING TO "BUILD OR BUY SMALL BUILDING FOR GENERATOR, INSTALL FRAME FOR BATHROOM AND SHOWER, INSTALL SHOWER AND DRAIN, INSTALL WINDOWS AND FRAMES, INSTALL INSULATION AND SHEETROCK AND PAINT." THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR $11,200.00 WITH A NOTE THAT SAYS, "CHECK FOR $4,900.00 PAY NEGOTIABLE UPON FINISHED WORK." DATE OF PROPOSAL IS 6/17/2016. THERE IS A C/C OF CHECK #1013 DATED 6/17/2016 FOR "REMODEL GARAGE MATERIALS." THIS CHECK IS ILLEGIBLE AS TO WHOM IT WAS WRITTEN TO. THERE IS ALSO A COPY OF A CHECK TO TIMOTHY KIKER FOR $5,100.00 DATED 7/01/2016 FOR "GARAGE CONTRACTING." I WILL CALL STACEY DUTCHER AND SET MEETING TO DISCUSS WITH HER AND INVESTIGATE FURTHER.

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