Laserfiche WebLink
would allow Mr. Simmons to come in to complete the work as,far as the code violations are <br />concerned. It was again clarified that the city could not be involved in the other issues. Mr. Fox <br />agreed to that, but he believed that there were more code violation than were listed, and he would <br />like someone from the city to check these out. Law Director Gareau noted that he had sued the <br />city, and now he wants the city to find more violations which could be added to the list. Mr. Fox <br />responded that it was not his fault that the house was not inspected properly. Mr. Gareau <br />recommended that the board give Mr. Simmons thirty days within which to cure the code <br />violations, and if he is prohibited from doing so by either Mr. Fox or his counsel, then the matter <br />should be dismissed. Mr. Burk suggested that Mr. Simmons make a proposal to Mr. Fox as to <br />how he will remedy the code violations and also copy the city on it. Building Commissioner <br />Conway suggested that he should receive a proposal within a week as to how the repairs are to be <br />made. After some discussion it was decided that Mr. Simmons should be given a response in <br />writing that Mr. Conway approves the proposal, and after which he should have 30 days to <br />complete the work. Mr. Gareau asked what would happen if the proposal is acceptable to Mr. <br />Conway, but not to Mr. Fox's attorney. Mr. Conway stated if Mr. Simmons presents a proposal <br />that complies with code, then he would have to approve it. There could be more ways than one <br />way to address an issue, but as long as the way chosen complies to code, he has to approve it. Mr. <br />Gareau was concerned about what would happen if Mr. Simmons was denied access to the <br />house,. Mr. Conway stated in that case the aCtion against Mr. Simmons would be dismissed as <br />Mr. Gareau had suggested. Mr. Conway pointed out that there is a pending application by Mr. <br />Simmons for another house, and if tlus action is dismissed, he would like the board to put him on <br />a probationary period, whereby if auy notice is given by the Building Department and he fails to <br />comply within 10 working days while the job is going on, he would have the right to revoke his <br />license as an action of this board. An oath was then admiuistered to Mrs. Mancuso, a resident. of <br />the area, who asked what purpose this would serve, if Mr. Simmons is not allowed to enter the <br />house to rectify the violation, why should his license be revoked. Mr. Conway responded that <br />there was just cause on the conditions on the job that there were violations of the code, and he did <br />not install things in a workmau like inanner, and he wanted the ability to police the aext job that <br />he is involved in and get any possible violation corrected quickly. Mr. Simmons responded that <br />any violations brought to his attention during construction were taken care of quickly. These <br />code violations were not taken care of because he was denied access to the house. He came to <br />the Building Department the day after he received the letter. Mr. Conway realized that, but he <br />noted that there were conditions on the job that were not proper, and Mr. Simmons has a <br />responsibility to do his work in a workmanlike manner. He stated that he saw no problem with <br />those conditions since if he complies with the code, no action will be taken. Mr. Engoglia <br />reiterated that the city could only enforce the code. Mr. J. Lindeman, who has a contract with Mr. <br />Simmons for another house, asked what woulcl happen if Mr. Simmons' registration was <br />suspended while he was working on his house noting that he has a closing date on his loan. Mr. <br />Conway asked tlie Law Director if this permit should be issued. Mr. Gareau stated that that <br />should depend on what happened this evening. It was clarified that if Mr. Simmons' license was <br />suspended while he was building Mr. Lindeman's house, the work would have to be suspended. <br />Mr. Duffy stated that Mr. Simmons had stated that if Mr. Simmons is given the,, opporttuuty to <br />coiTect the code violations, he will do so. But he. can see no reason to deny a pern?it uhtil::the-time., <br />period is over, since he is still a licensed contractor in the community. Mr. Gareau stated that if <br />Mr. Simmon's does not comply just because he does not want to, then the license can be <br />7