11/27/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.? was so much more to take the one wall down. At this stage there is three walls down now. Ms. Boger indicated that it is all the block, all the cost, and she can't reuse that block. She questioned if it was necessary to take good block and throw it out. The guy wanted $4,000 to take it all out. She asked the board to be fair with her. Mr. Engolia indicated that he doesn't think they have to worry about that wall, and didn't think the board was going to force her to do that, but they do want the back footer corrected. Ms. Boger replied O.K.; she has no problem with that. Mr. Dubelko spoke up and indicated that the boards options are either to revoke the license or suspend it and under a suspension they can only do the work necessary to take care of what problem violates that building code. If the job is corrected then you can re-instate their license. What you may want to do is suspend their license, until they repair to the meet the building departments satisfaction, then you can re-instate them. Mr. Engolia indicated that the board still has to know who the contractor fixing this will be. He thanked Mr. Dubelko for his input and recommended that is what they do. Suspend the license temporarily and if they get a hold of the contractor that is going to do it, and he does the work properly then the board will re- instate the license. Mrs. Busony indicated that her lawyer told her not to use Mr. Riolo. She isn't sure what he knows about him to make him say that. Mr. Dubelko recommended that the contractor be satisfactory to the City, rather Mrs. Busony having to guess whether Ms. Boger has somebody good or not. P. Engolia questioned if this would be a good motion. To suspend the license, of Hanne Boger of Rasmussen Homes, temporarily until she has it repaired and then the license may be reinstated. In the process, the contractor has to be licensed in the City of North Olmsted and approved by the City Building Department and submit to them what he is going to do. Mr. Dubelko indicated that there were two issues. One is getting the right contractor to do the job. Secondly is that he does the job in accordance with the engineers recommendations, so you're sure that you have a safe structure. The City shouldn't have to bare the expense of getting a structural engineer. So, Ms. Boger's structural engineer should inspect it after it is re-done and then submit a report. Mr. Engolia questioned if the Building Department understands the motion. Mr. Rymarczyk replied that there are other issues involved too besides the footer and foundation. Mr. Engolia suggested that the board hear the other issues. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the entire axea would have to be reviewed for water proofing to see if it still in compliance or if it has to be re-done. Ms. Boger questioned if the water proofing was O.K. before this happened. Mr. Cifranic indicated that it was O.K. before, but it has to be re-done to where the water proofing company will back up their original guarantee. All the drain tile is going to have to get dug out because it is all a mess now. The former drain is all busted up and half the issues were not covered in the engineer's report. Mr. Klesta indicated no, because that back footer has definitely been stressed. He would see that whole thing coming out as opposed to just trying to pin to it. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the footer is not square. The southwest corner also is running on them, the footer is not square at that point either. That wall had been removed and there was no way visually for him to see if it was on or off the footer itself. Ms. Boger questioned how she gets this information to the engineer. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that they could have the inspector meet the engineer out there and he can come up with a new recommendation. Mr. Engolia indicated that the board is willing ?