2026-10-14 - Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals

00:50You ready? Ready, Scott?

01:00>> Um, well, I was going to welcome

01:01everybody to u the building and fire

01:05code board of appeals. This is

01:07Wednesday, October 14th, 2026. And

01:11before we get started, I thought I'd

01:12introduce our newest member, and welcome

01:15him aboard, Robert Crisp, fire

01:17specialist.

01:19Welcome aboard.

01:24So, can we have a roll call, please?

01:28>> Here.

01:31here.

01:32>> Bur

01:34>> present.

01:34>> Austin Burton, he was absent. Patrice

01:38Zimmerman

01:39>> here.

01:40>> And Weber

01:41>> here.

01:42>> And Robert Christ.

01:43>> All right, we do have a quorum.

01:45>> That's great. Um,

01:49so it seems like every time we have this

01:51meeting, we have the election of the

01:53board chair.

01:57>> Do we have any nominations from the

01:59floor?

02:01I'd like to make a motion to nominate

02:04Kyle for

02:08>> chair.

02:09>> Chair.

02:11>> Do I have a second?

02:14>> All in favor?

02:16>> I

02:18>> um do we have

02:20>> Jim second?

02:21>> Yeah, Jim. Jim.

02:24And then, uh vice chair. Uh do I have

02:27any nominations from the floor for vice

02:29chair? I think I can nominate in this

02:32case.

02:32>> I'll nominate Tommy.

02:35Tommy Willis. I have a second.

02:38>> Second.

02:41>> And all in favor?

02:43>> I

02:46>> welcome aboard.

02:49[laughter]

02:50[clears throat]

02:52>> So, uh I believe everybody's received

02:54the minutes from the last meeting. Do we

02:56have any u notations or corrections? If

03:00not, do I hear a motion to approve the

03:04minutes?

03:06>> Motion to approve.

03:08>> Second.

03:10>> Second.

03:15>> Patrice and Ann.

03:19>> All in favor? Hi.

03:21>> Hi.

03:26>> So, we only have one new case today.

03:29Uh, it's case number B OB 2026 00001.

03:36the appeal of Jacob Jacob Dearman

03:39property owner from a decision of the

03:42code official for compliance with

03:44chapter 3 supplemental section 302.7

03:48of the international existing building

03:50code 2018 as adopted by the uh city of

03:55Oklahoma City pertaining to the

03:57requirement for upgrade and compliance

04:00with all fire protection and suppression

04:02requirements

04:03of the IBC as it relates to the property

04:06located at 7:32 Northwest 18th Street.

04:12Scott, do you want to give us the staff

04:15analysis, please?

04:17>> I'll summarize here. I take it

04:19everybody's had a chance to read it. Is

04:22that correct? Um, in in summary, and of

04:26course the applicant here will be able

04:27to correct anything that's mis

04:29misstated, but um, we have an existing

04:32building uh, used as an apartment

04:34complex for however many years. Uh,

04:37there was a fire that occurred at one

04:39point uh, damage to the interior of the

04:42roof, the attic area uh, over at least a

04:45few units. And, uh, the work to our

04:48knowledge was completed, repaired by a

04:50prior tenant, a prior owner. Um the new

04:53owner came in uh

04:56I don't know unknowingly knowingly

04:58whichever um saw the work. Of course we

05:01still have to release the electrical

05:03meter which required a fire status check

05:07uh which required a fire status check

05:09inspection. Our inspectors went out to

05:10the job site, noticed the work that had

05:13been done, the fire damage that had

05:15occurred and uh had concluded that a

05:18building permit would be required to uh

05:21you know make the repairs even after the

05:23fact of course. Um you know regardless

05:26that was sold previously. Um, now since

05:29then, of course, we have our, you know,

05:31billing code, billing permits been

05:33submitted. Our staff has taken a look

05:35through this and done the review. And

05:37under the 2018 existing billing code,

05:39section 302.7, which should be up on

05:43your screen, um, anytime a building

05:46permit is pulled, that area of work, uh,

05:50what we define as a fire area, as

05:51mentioned in the code, has to be brought

05:53up to full compliance with chapter 9 of

05:55the IEB, excuse me, of the IBC, uh, the

05:59international building code 2018 as it

06:00for new construction. So that requires

06:02compliance with chapter 9 which kicks in

06:04fire suppression systems, alarms, um you

06:07know, anything else there included. Fire

06:10suppression being the number one I think

06:11issue in this case. Um

06:16let's see. Is there anything else on

06:18there? I know you'll have plenty of

06:19arguments on your side, but u um

06:23staff are going to take more of a

06:24neutral stance in this. We did not

06:26provide a recommendation for approval or

06:28denial being that our existing building

06:30code itself under the exceptions allows

06:32the board of appeals to determine

06:34whether or not this uh you know may

06:38identified as work of a minor nature as

06:40under one of our exceptions there. So,

06:43um, take a look at that. Uh, it'll kind

06:46of be on the board to decide, of course.

06:49I'll be willing to answer any more

06:51questions I can. Uh, but we don't have

06:54any recommendation at this time. One way

06:55or the other.

06:57>> Can I ask you um, how was it determined

07:01that a permit was needed? Was it just

07:03the opinion of an observer on the site

07:05at the time or

07:07>> Yeah, it would have been the uh

07:10interpretation of our building

07:12inspector. I forget the gentleman's name

07:14which one went out, but there was a fire

07:16status check that was required. The

07:18gentleman went on the job site, took a

07:20look at the attic area, the damage to

07:23whatever extent there was and determined

07:25in his notes that a building permit

07:27would be required. And that's what

07:29kicked this off. So, [clears throat] has

07:32the city

07:34um ever had an occasion where

07:38um someone thought a permit was required

07:41and then it was determined through

07:43internally or in another fashion that

07:47the permit was not required. Has that

07:49ever happened?

07:50>> That has happened. Uh being full upfront

07:52and honest, we see thousands of permits

07:54a year. Um there are various occasions

07:57they are fairly rare but there are

07:59occasions in which uh you know whether

08:02the the facts of the matter have changed

08:03once we get into the review or otherwise

08:06it's it's eventually determined you know

08:09that a bill permit would not be

08:10required. So that that has happened. Uh

08:12we're not going to deny that. It is very

08:14rare.

08:18>> So does anybody have any questions for

08:20the city before we call the applicant

08:22up?

08:25Is the applicant present?

08:28Would you uh approach approach the uh

08:31podium and state your name and address

08:33for the record and then tell us um how

08:37you're involved in this?

08:39>> Sure. My name is Jacob Dear. Um my

08:42address is the address of this property

08:44or where I live. Which one?

08:46>> Where you live?

08:47>> 436 Northwest 16th, Oklahoma City,

08:50Oklahoma 73103.

08:53And and are you the owner?

08:55>> I am uh the managing u sort of partner

09:01of a small LLC that owns the

09:04>> You want to tell us a little bit about

09:05your project or your application here?

09:08>> Yes. Um

09:11good afternoon, chair, members of the

09:13board. My name is Jacob Dearman. Um I am

09:18obviously like I just said, one of the

09:20owners of 732 Northwest 18th. I'm also a

09:23professor at Oklahoma City University

09:25Miner School of Business. Um, I'm a

09:28little bit nervous. I teach class all

09:29the time, but I'm a little bit nervous

09:30being here. This is an unusual sort of

09:32setting for me, so I apologize if I

09:34stutter or something. Um, so the current

09:37property under that sort of that we're

09:40looking at right now is an existing

09:42three-story five unit residential

09:44building built in 1915. It's Chartell

09:48Arms. It's in Messa Park. It's right

09:50across the street from the park. Many of

09:51you may may be familiar with that. It's

09:53got it's a white structure with black

09:55awnings and some gray paint. Um the fire

09:59and restoration work uh occurred before

10:02I acquired the property. The fire

10:04occurred on October 31st, 2025. We had

10:08put it under contract in September and

10:10we're to close in November, but the

10:14um the fire occurred and that pushed

10:16back closing until December 29th, 2025.

10:22So after the city advised me that the

10:24proper building permit had not been

10:26obtained, I sought to rectify the

10:28situation. I submitted the commercial

10:30permit application, sealed record

10:32drawings, and requested engineering

10:34documentation.

10:36Uh,

10:38I respectfully request um that the board

10:41approve the completed document work as

10:45work of a minor nature under the city

10:47adopted 2018 IEBC section 302.7

10:51exception one. I also ask that this

10:54approval resolve comments two and three.

10:58I will present evidence for work of a

11:00minor nature in four distinct

11:03categories.

11:05One is area,

11:07two is structural,

11:09three is roof, and four is restoration.

11:14So area, structural, roof, and

11:16restoration.

11:19And it

11:21while I'm no expert in this, it may be

11:24that this didn't even qualify for a

11:27permit. So I would ask that you would

11:29consider that as being experts

11:32uh there to to provide evidence for this

11:36work of a minor nature. Um I will refer

11:39to several different reports. One is the

11:41engineering reports, the fire incident

11:44report which was just handed out to you.

11:46Um

11:48the record drawings, the roofing letter,

11:52and the restoration email. The email's

11:54also in that attachment.

11:57Okay, so beginning with area on evidence

12:00for work of a minor nature. The fire

12:03incident report states the fire was

12:06contained to the ceiling and the attic

12:08space of the bathroom in apartment 4.

12:12This apartment was vacant. Notice that

12:14the incident report says the ceiling of

12:17the bathroom space, just the bathroom.

12:21The report, the fire incident report on

12:23page two lists the estimated property

12:25losses at 20,000 against an estimated

12:29property value of 1.1 mil 1.13 million.

12:34The estimated loss therefore according

12:37to this document is about 1.8%

12:40of the total value.

12:44If you look at the architectural

12:45drawings, they're going to include the

12:47bedroom.

12:49that bedroom that gets included there.

12:51The based on my understanding was when

12:55the firefighters needed to access the

12:59attic space, they cut a hole in the

13:01ceiling to access that. So, that part

13:04was another part where a ceiling joist

13:06had to be repaired. And so, that is a uh

13:10that is also included in the rendering.

13:12But even if we include for that unit

13:15both the bathroom part of the hallway

13:18and the bedroom that amounts to about

13:20four to 5% of the total building area if

13:23we include uh the basement

13:28on the structural side as we turn from

13:30the area to the structural side. The

13:33fire incident report states that

13:35occupants of the unaffected apartments

13:38were allowed to return to their

13:40apartments,

13:42implying that there was not a

13:44significant enough structural concern

13:46about the integrity of the building to

13:48keep individuals out that they were

13:50allowed uh to go back in and to reside

13:53in their in their doiciles.

13:56The structural engineers report

14:00also confirms this. And I should note

14:03that in that structural engineers

14:04report, he refers to it as unit five,

14:06but it is apartment 4. Okay, so I'm

14:09going to quote him. It's going to say

14:11five, but it's really four.

14:14He states, "Unit 5 was on the third

14:16floor and was the only unit affected by

14:19structural fire damage. The charred

14:21damage appear to be isolated to the roof

14:24structure above unit 5 only.

14:28Also, the structural damages observed

14:31were determined to be limited to the

14:32southeast corner of the structure. He

14:34also states, furthermore, charring does

14:37not completely reduce the structural

14:39capability of the structural member

14:40unless it is fully consumed. As such,

14:43some structural integrity would remain

14:45with charred members.

14:47And then finally,

14:49based on my interpretation of 2018 IEBC

14:53section 202

14:55and the damage observed to the

14:57structure, it is my opinion that the

14:59building damage did not meet the

15:01definition of substantial structural

15:04damage. Okay.

15:09So turning from structure to roof,

15:12trademark exteriors did the roof work.

15:16That roof work was contracted prior to

15:19the fire and was part of the closing

15:21process that that roof was going to be

15:23replaced prior to us taking ownership.

15:26So, it was already under uh already sort

15:29of under contract. Okay. And the

15:33trademark exteriors restoration letter

15:35states this. Prior to the fire, the roof

15:37had already been contracted for

15:39replacement as part of a real estate

15:42transaction and the installation had

15:45been scheduled.

15:46Once the fire related claim was

15:48scheduled, we were able to proceed with

15:51the roof replacement. The original scope

15:54of work remained substantially

15:56unchanged. In another part, and yet

15:59another part of the letter, the roof

16:01decking was thoroughly inspected from

16:03both the attic and the rooftop after the

16:07existing shingles were removed. Based on

16:09the these inspections, it was determined

16:11that only approximately 25 square ft of

16:14roof decking required replacement as the

16:17result of the fire. The remainder of the

16:20roof decking did not require replacement

16:22due to fire related damage.

16:26The roofer stated, not in his letter,

16:28but he did state if you look at the

16:30invoice, he bought 2500 square feet of

16:34shingles. 25 squares. And he said that

16:38there was 2,200 that roof size was 2200

16:41square f feet. So, we're looking at 25

16:44square feet relative to 2200, which is

16:47approximately 1.1% of the total area.

16:52So, that's that's the roof. And then on

16:54the restoration piece,

16:58Justin Brower in the email that you have

17:00at the back of that handout stated that

17:03the purpose was to restore the unit to

17:06its previous condition.

17:09He also states no walls removed or

17:11reframed and no changes were made to the

17:14existing floor plan or layout of the

17:17unit.

17:22He did note that we installed the

17:24bracing uh recommended by the structural

17:26engineer.

17:29And he his description of the work was

17:31that the repairs were relatively minor

17:33and consisted primarily of localized

17:35restoration cosmetic work.

17:41And the record drawings that were

17:42provided by the architect shows that or

17:45documents that the existing layout

17:47really did not change.

17:51And so across these four categories, the

17:53work was limited and restorative in

17:55scope. I respectfully ask uh the board

17:59to approve the completed documented work

18:02as work of a minor nature. The fire

18:05related decking replacement once again

18:07was 1.1% of the total roof area.

18:11The estimate of the affected area

18:13according to the drawings is between

18:15four to 5% of the total floor area

18:18including the basement. The report's

18:20estimated loss was approximately 1.8% of

18:24the estimated property value. The

18:26structural damage was localized. The

18:29engineer found that it did not meet the

18:32definition of substantial structural

18:33damage according to code and the work

18:37restored the existing layout

18:40and kept the occupancy the same.

18:44So I ask that the board resol would um

18:49define this as work of a minor nature

18:52and if that is not viable to consider

18:55whether a permit should have even been

18:57pulled and if not that then finally I

19:01would request relief under the Oklahoma

19:04City Municipal Code section 12-1331.

19:09We have seven tenants that occupy four

19:11of the five units. the installation of

19:14such systems would be um

19:18difficult um for them uh in their daily

19:22lives. Thank you so much for considering

19:25this case. I really appreciate your

19:27valuable time and consideration and I in

19:31advance apologize if I have not followed

19:33typical protocol because this is not

19:35what I do for my daily uh daily job.

19:37Sorry.

19:38>> So what what do you teach?

19:40>> I teach economics. Um, but right now

19:43this semester I'm teaching econometrics

19:45and business calculus.

19:46>> You did a very good job today,

19:48>> huh? Okay.

19:49>> You did a great job.

19:50>> Thank you.

19:50>> Um,

19:53so

19:54the fire was on the 31st of uh on

19:57Halloween I guess of uh 2025.

20:02You had or and that you did not own the

20:05property at that time.

20:07>> That is correct. We placed it under

20:08contract in September though.

20:10>> Oh, you did. It was under contract.

20:12>> Now, we were going to close in November

20:14because it was expected that rates would

20:16go down and then we could lock in the

20:17lower rate. That's why.

20:19>> And and who initiated the repairs, the

20:21original owner is that?

20:22>> Okay. So, the the person that's owned

20:24this property prior to me was uh an

20:27individual who had owned it for decades.

20:30>> He is currently sick. And the person

20:34that was taking care in of his external

20:37affairs including like his real estate

20:40properties was a um healthc care uh

20:44professional um that was managing sort

20:47of his estate. So this was well outside

20:50of his scope of normal work and

20:52expertise and he had I don't as far as I

20:55know he had no real estate holdings of

20:57his own and the other individual um was

21:01not in a capacity to deal deal with it.

21:04>> So so you hired the work to be done?

21:07>> No I I did not know he did. Okay. Um but

21:10I would say that the process in this

21:14case was difficult even for a real

21:16estate professional of which the

21:19previous owner the person that was

21:21managing the previous owner's estate uh

21:23was not right and the work that was done

21:27was done

21:29u prior to or subsequent to the initial

21:33study that was done by the structural

21:35engineer.

21:37Do you know do you know the chronology

21:39of all that or not?

21:42>> I believe the structural engineer the

21:44structural engineer came out did his

21:46assessment and then Justin came in and

21:49did his work

21:50>> and then the structural engineer has

21:52stated that he believes that the his

21:54recommendations were followed in the

21:56repair.

21:57>> That is correct. Yes. I had him as part

22:00of p pulling the permit um that was

22:03requested by the city. I had him come

22:05back out and give his assessment on the

22:08work that was done and that he believed

22:10it was followed. Um, and then I also had

22:13him write up whether he believed that

22:15the structural damage reached the level

22:17of that was called substantial in the

22:19building code and he said he did not.

22:24>> I have a question

22:25>> u in bringing this case forward.

22:29Was it due to you requesting a permit?

22:33because uh I see a a decision of the

22:36code official for non-compliance.

22:38Did they come out to do an inspection of

22:40of a permit or how did that come about?

22:43>> Yeah. So, how did this get on my radar

22:44to begin with? Yes.

22:46>> Um the gas meter on unit 2 had been

22:49turned off for over a year. And when the

22:51gas meter has been turned off for over a

22:52year, then you have to have the plumbers

22:54come out and pressurize it. And then

22:58once they pressurize, they call the

22:59city. the city issues a permit and then

23:01you can install a gas meter. So that was

23:04my request is for unit 2 to have a gas

23:07meter and then somebody

23:10I don't know if there's

23:11miscommunication. I'm not exactly sure

23:13what happened. An individual from the

23:15city showed up and then they went up to

23:17unit four and then took a look and then

23:20turned it turned around and said that

23:22you'll need to pull a pull a building

23:25permit or remodel permit or something.

23:27And so that's how that got started. So I

23:29called for another permit. It was

23:31brought to my attention that there was

23:33an outstanding permit that should have

23:34been pulled under the previous owner

23:36that was not. And so I went through the

23:40process of um doing everything they

23:43asked me to do, you know, filing for

23:45that remodel permit, getting the

23:47drawings and uh getting the structural

23:50engineers report.

23:51>> So this is for a building permit,

23:53approval of a building permit, correct?

23:56>> Today?

23:57>> Yes.

24:02So if you look at exception 302.7

24:06there is an there is a let me

24:12I have it somewhere

24:14>> and while he's pulling that up I'll I'll

24:16say as well um

24:20>> it is common practice and it's most

24:22likely I I don't have any proof one way

24:24or the other of course on this but it is

24:26common practice when our inspectors go

24:28out in the field. Uh you mentioned

24:30Justin was out there for the gas meter

24:31reset.

24:32>> Yeah.

24:33>> If he saw any damage or what looked like

24:36to him was repaired work, he they it's

24:40our common practice to notify staff,

24:43have a building inspector come out, take

24:44a look to determine whether the building

24:46improvement was required as well. We we

24:48work together across trades in that in

24:50that manner.

24:51>> Okay.

24:52>> So that's most likely. I can't prove

24:53that one way or the other because I

24:54don't have any evidence regardless, but

24:57uh that's likely what happened in this

24:59case. So,

25:00>> okay.

25:00>> Okay.

25:01>> I was I was sort of surprised. I'm not

25:03sure what the normal process flow is

25:04there, but as you can see on the screen,

25:07it says that there the exception

25:10exceptions. The first sentence under one

25:13for work of a minor nature were approved

25:15by the board of appeals. That's an

25:17exception to 302.7.

25:21So, I'm I'm asking for the

25:25um this exception to be recognized as a

25:27work of a minor nature in this case as a

25:30as my first request

25:33>> and then that would that would permit an

25:36approval of the permit.

25:38>> Okay.

25:41>> Yeah. No, I would I was just yeah

25:43summarize what each what you're saying

25:45is the ask here is is

25:48>> our job is determine whether it's work

25:50of a minor nature. Right. Right. So

25:51that's what we got to decide and Scott

25:55in in the staff recommendation because

25:56because that exception has to be

25:58approved by us. It says therefore staff

26:01makes no recommendation of approval or

26:02denial of this appeal. So our job is to

26:05weather approve or deny if this is work

26:07of a minor nature.

26:08>> Okay.

26:08>> Exactly right.

26:09>> Yeah.

26:10>> Right.

26:10>> That's correct. So Scott,

26:13if um if it is work of a minor, we do

26:17approve this as work of you know minor

26:20nature.

26:24>> Does the permit go away?

26:26>> Uh well the build excuse me the building

26:28permit would still uh you know work

26:31itself through the process by

26:33determining this work of a minor nature.

26:36You would negate the application of

26:37302.7. So, the building permit would

26:40move forward. It's just that we would

26:42not uh we would not be able to require

26:45fire suppression upgrades, fire alarms,

26:48those kind of fire safety standards.

26:50>> That was going to be my next question.

26:51>> Yeah.

26:52>> Okay.

26:52>> So, we would have a building permit.

26:54It's just they would they would get

26:56relief from those requirements.

26:57>> Okay.

27:02>> Anybody else have questions for either

27:04the applicant or the city?

27:07>> I have a question. Another one.

27:09>> Do you require your uh occupants to have

27:12uh smoke detectors in in their

27:14apartments?

27:15>> Yes, that is correct.

27:16>> And that you go in yearly and make sure

27:19the batteries are good and all that

27:21stuff.

27:21>> Yes. And in fact, um one of the things

27:24that I've been working on is for them to

27:26be able to take pictures of their smoke

27:27alarms. I'll ask them a few questions if

27:29they tested it and then it will take

27:31that and put it in Terso database. and

27:33that I can give you the phone number if

27:35you guys wanted to to mess around with

27:37it. Um, but you can text it and then

27:40there's going to be a and then there's a

27:41geocoded portion of it where you can

27:43display it on a map. So that way I can

27:45ask them every 3 months to take pictures

27:48of it. Does it work? Answer all these

27:50questions. If they're not answering

27:51those questions, if they're not doing

27:52it, then I can follow up.

27:54>> Got. So, I'm building systems to make

27:56this more robust in terms of uh having a

28:00pipeline of data for the fire marshall's

28:03office and make it easily accessible for

28:06them to look across all the units on my

28:08on my property.

28:09>> Excellent,

28:11>> Mr. Chris.

28:13>> Yes.

28:18>> Hello. Oh, here we go. Okay. All right.

28:20I haven't seen any language with the

28:23supplement from the building code or the

28:26uh fire code because the language that I

28:29think that's in there and what the

28:31inspector that went out on site looked

28:33at is that cosmetic

28:35um remodel is kind of like carpet

28:39replacing sheetrock paint. But whenever

28:41you get into the structural members

28:43whenever there's damage in that that's

28:45what he's looking at as far as requiring

28:47a a building permit. So looking at some

28:50of the pictures in here and it stated

28:53that it was the language that the

28:57engineer said was

29:00basically

29:02to what he can access. That was the

29:05pictures. So we didn't get a thorough

29:07picture of the damage. But even with the

29:10pictures that's shown, you can see that

29:12it was structural damage to more than

29:15just the shingles and roof covering.

29:17They got into the decking, support

29:19members, trusses.

29:22>> I do not believe that the trusses were

29:24actually affected by this. It was the

29:26gable embracing that was the uh

29:29structural member that was probably the

29:30largest structural member that was

29:32affected. There were some ceiling joists

29:34as well.

29:35>> Correct. And all of that will be

29:36considered structural members. And that

29:38will make that inspector that came out

29:40there to look at it and say that a

29:42building permit should have been pulled

29:44and this is not cosmetic.

29:47Right. That is my understanding as well.

29:48>> Correct. So that's why a building permit

29:50was recommended for that

29:53>> instance. Yes.

29:54>> So so the work that's been done does not

29:57look like it's cosmetic because cosmetic

30:00is all the small stuff we just talked

30:02about with the shingles and roof

30:04covering r carpet paint. But whenever

30:08you're talking about removing and

30:10cutting, replacing and repairing

30:12structural members, that's going to

30:14require building permit.

30:16That's correct. And that's why my

30:18question is to the work that was done to

30:22classify as work of a minor nature.

30:24That's my primary one. The the other

30:26question of whether a permit should been

30:28pulled in the first place. Um that was

30:30the explanation as to why the permit had

30:33to be pulled is because there was a

30:34structural engineers report that

30:36indicated gable in bracing as well as um

30:41the ceiling joist. So that's that's why

30:43the permit had to be pulled. If the

30:45permit's pulled, I um the question

30:48before you is the work that was done

30:50according to these documents, does it

30:52fall

30:55under work of a minor nature to allow

30:57for the exception or to allow for relief

30:59from um section 302.7?

31:02>> Okay. And that's why I was wanting to

31:04look at the language of either the

31:05supplement or the FAR code or what the

31:09inspectors, code inspectors go by on

31:11judging what a permit requires because

31:16um in our language I would think that as

31:19far as

31:21whenever that permit is required to be

31:23pulled then you will have to bring it up

31:25to code.

31:27So, Robert, um, what we were handed here

31:30today when we got to the dis was this

31:34was just supplementary information that

31:38was given to us that was on top of the

31:41original packet of information Scott

31:43sent us. And that's the original packet

31:46of information there. And I think if you

31:47look through that, you'll find three

31:49reports from a structural engineer who

31:51is u they're signed and sealed. and he

31:55did an analysis of the um the work that

32:00was the initial damage, then the work

32:02that was done, and then a final report.

32:06And in each of those cases, he

32:07references uh and I forgot what section

32:10it was though that lists the list area,

32:14list snow load. It's at the very front

32:18of the document. If you go up, what

32:21we're looking at here on our screen, if

32:23you'll go Oh, there they are. He lists

32:25the things in blue on your screen right

32:27there.

32:28>> Um,

32:31he he addresses each one of these

32:33issues, which are the exceptions.

32:35U, this is what what determines whether

32:39something is a sub substantial

32:42structural damage. So he's he's as a

32:46professional engineer, he's gone ahead

32:47and made the assessment uh and

32:50documented in three separate reports.

32:52Uh, and that's why when I started, I

32:55asked Scott if they've ever had uh a

33:01determination that a permit was required

33:03and then have subsequently find that it

33:06isn't required because I think what this

33:08documentmentation is showing us is that

33:11the structural engineers believes that

33:13there was no uh basis for claiming that

33:16there was sub substantial structural

33:18damage uh and that it should have always

33:21been considered minor and should have

33:22never required a permit to begin with.

33:25>> Right.

33:25>> And I think that's what what the full

33:27report what that full packet of

33:29information tells us.

33:31>> Would you agree with that, Scott?

33:33>> Yeah, I would agree with that. Um,

33:35>> yeah, and I've read all of that,

33:37>> but I didn't look at the supplement

33:38because I know with the city, we look at

33:41the building code and then we come up

33:43with our own supplement. Either be

33:44stringent than what's in here or what.

33:47And what he's not talking about is what

33:50did the city of Oklahoma City come up to

33:52as far as a supplement to this language?

33:55>> So, so I guess that would be a question

33:58for Scott. Scott, is there anything in

34:00the supplemental uh the amendments to

34:02the code that the city has adopted that

34:06would uh essentially change anything

34:10that was listed in this engineers

34:12report? I have a copy of the city's

34:15codes and it is basically the exceptions

34:18are the same and let me give you copy of

34:22this and let you read it.

34:25>> And which which section are you looking

34:26at?

34:27>> Chapter 3.

34:28>> Chapter 3

34:29>> 55.

34:31>> Are you looking at 302.7?

34:35>> No, I think they're looking at the

34:37>> uh 302 section 302 fire protection. Yes.

34:41302.7 fire protection. Yes. So it's on

34:43record. Okay.

34:45>> Okay. So 105 is where I would be

34:48concerned.

34:49>> Section 105. What is that talking about?

34:53>> So um to that point, uh Robert,

34:57hopefully you're bringing that up. um

35:00are amendments to the existing building

35:02code under chapter 4 repairs says says

35:07for 40 section 401.1

35:10is amended to add the following

35:11sentence. It says this classification

35:12shall only apply to work exempt from a

35:15building permit per section 105.2.

35:18So for us to define the work as a repair

35:21if that's where you're going

35:23>> um it has to be exempt uh from section

35:26105.2 2 and 105.2 of the six building

35:31code uh was amended. There are no

35:35exceptions for electrical, gas,

35:37mechanical, or plumbing, which we're not

35:39really arguing today. It's just the

35:40structural. Uh for the structural the

35:44work exempt from a building permit on on

35:45the building side is of course sidewalks

35:47and driveways, painting, papering,

35:49tiling, carpeting and cabinets,

35:50countertops, similar finish work, uh

35:52motion pictures, shade cloth structures,

35:55um awnings and movable cases. So none of

35:58that applies. None, you know, you're not

36:00exempt from any of those, of course. Um

36:02but then 105.2.2 Two, repairs states,

36:07"An application or notice to the code

36:08official is not required for repairs to

36:10structures and items listed in section

36:12105, those that I just mentioned.

36:14Provide that any such repairs do not

36:16include any of the following." So, it

36:17says, you know, the cutting away of any

36:19wall partition or portion thereof. So,

36:22if you're doing any work that requires

36:24the cutting away of a wall, partition or

36:25portion thereof, it is not exempt from

36:27getting a permit, which I think

36:29everybody understands. Um it goes on to

36:32say the removal or cutting of any

36:33structural beam or load bearing support.

36:36Um could be maybe up for argument there

36:38based on the engineering engineers

36:40report. Um the removal of change

36:43requirement of any means of egress or

36:45rearrangement of the structure additions

36:48alterations uh etc. I mean the rest are

36:50really non-applicated situation. So it's

36:52it's mainly the cutting away of any wall

36:54partition portion thereof or the removal

36:56or cutting away of any structural beam

36:57or loadbearing support that u you know

37:01would kind of kick in the build the

37:02requirement for a building permit in

37:03this case. U but that's

37:07also partly up for discussion here based

37:09on this engineer and cut supports. was

37:12cutting sports throughout the whole

37:18>> Hey Jim,

37:19>> we can't have conversations like that

37:21that are not part of the public

37:25>> you have to

37:26>> speak. I was pointing Jim

37:30with the pictures in here that if you

37:33look at the pictures that's in the

37:34document, there's a lot of cutting and

37:38replacing structural loadbearing members

37:48and that's to me not cosmetic.

37:57So, um, Scott, when it comes to substant

38:01substantial structural damage, then

38:05how does that weigh into, uh, what the

38:09is that wasn't a city amendment? That

38:11was um you

38:14Robert, you were quoting

38:17um were was that from the city

38:19amendments that you were

38:22>> Well, I was wondering what the city

38:23amendments was because that wasn't pro

38:25provided in here and I know that

38:27inspectors with the city. They go by the

38:30city amendments and supplements that

38:33pretty much states something to the

38:35effect of if there's damage to

38:36structural members, a building permit

38:38must be pulled.

38:39>> Yeah. And to that point, I'll state for

38:44the understanding of the board here, um,

38:46our inspectors, regardless of trade,

38:48they are not, you know, licensed

38:50engineers, structural or otherwise. U,

38:53you know, none of our staff that I'm

38:54aware of are. Um, what we are looking

38:58for, uh, what they're trying to look for

39:00on a fire restoration is to determine

39:02whether or not, you know, is there the

39:05what do you call it? the the

39:06alligatoring [snorts]

39:08that you'll see the charring of a of a

39:10member of wood and is the

39:13does that exceed the depth of of an

39:15eighth of an inch and uh for the life of

39:18me I cannot recall where where that come

39:19from. There was an old historical um

39:22reference for that. I just can't think

39:24of it off the top of my head at the

39:25moment. But so that's the extent of what

39:27they're looking at. We are not

39:29engineers. Um, you know, obviously a

39:32structural member can look perfect and

39:35still have, you know, structural faults

39:38and failures that you can't see. So,

39:42just

39:44take that with a grain of sand. We we

39:45only we can only go so far as

39:47inspectors.

39:53>> Do you have

39:55you have the full packet?

39:59>> Yeah.

40:02There it is.

40:02>> There isn't another full packet around

40:04here anymore.

40:08>> A printed one.

40:09>> Yeah, that's a full packet,

40:10>> right?

40:16>> Yeah. Um, so I'm looking at the um the

40:18staff analysis and it just Scott if you

40:22want to add anything to this. It says,

40:23"The applicant structural engineer

40:24reports that the observed fire damage

40:26were localized above one unit, that

40:28repairs adequately addresses the

40:29engineer's earlier recommendations that

40:31the damage did not meet the IEC

40:34definition of substantial structural

40:35damage. The applicant estimates the

40:38ceiling and framement repair area at

40:39approximately 210 ft or 4.7% of the

40:42building reported area. That estimate

40:44does not include the full roof

40:46replacement or interior finish work. So,

40:49I mean, me not being a structural

40:50engineer, I based my analysis over the

40:52staff analysis. Can is there anything

40:54that you'd like to add to that staff

40:56analysis?

41:00>> Not at this time. I mean, I think I've

41:02stated everything.

41:08>> Well, I'm I'm ready to make a motion.

41:11I'm going to make a motion

41:15that we approve his request.

41:20Let's see how I want to word this.

41:24Hold one second, please.

41:30>> Yeah. Uh so make a motion for approval

41:33of the appeal

41:36to deter to uh

41:39constitute this work of a minor nature.

41:42Does that work for everybody?

41:44>> Okay.

41:46>> So I have a motion.

41:49We have a motion on the floor. Do we

41:51have a second?

41:52>> Second.

41:53>> Patrice.

41:56>> Uh apologize for the late notice here.

41:58Um, with that motion, please include the

42:02uh reasons for for granting or denying

42:04it. So, have some part of the

42:08>> My reasoning is just looking I mean,

42:12>> is this going to go in it?

42:13>> Do I do I need to summarize it?

42:16>> Okay.

42:16>> Yeah, we

42:17>> This will be part of our

42:18>> restate the motion with the explanation

42:20for for it. Yeah.

42:27>> Yeah. This will teach me. [laughter]

42:31Okay.

42:33So, I want

42:36to

42:45>> Yeah. I want to make a motion to approve

42:48the request for appeal and to consider

42:51this

42:53work of a minor nature because it does

42:56not meet the the the criteria the three

42:58criteria to be considered

43:04>> major major.

43:12>> Yeah. Well, it's not

43:25Read me what you got.

43:29>> Um, I'll read what I've taken down here.

43:32Greater

43:33>> Tommy had a motion to approve the

43:34request of appeal

43:35>> to determine this as a work of a work of

43:38minor nature

43:39>> uh under the uh

43:43interpretation that this does not meet

43:45the three conditions to be considered as

43:47I'm assume you're going for what do we

43:49say structural significantly

43:52substantial what was that what was that

43:54again

43:54>> substantial damage

43:57>> I was looking for the correct technical

43:58term but I couldn't come up with it

44:00>> structural damage

44:01>> substantial structural damage

44:03But it encompasses more. I think it

44:05encompasses more than structural damage.

44:07It encompasses the whole the whole

44:08process. That's why I didn't want to say

44:10structural, but it'll work.

44:16>> So, you want to read that back before we

44:18ask for a second?

44:20>> Okay. Uh so Tommy Willis to approve

44:22requested appeal uh to consider this a

44:25work of a minor nature uh as it does not

44:28uh as they the board believes it does

44:30not meet the three criteria to be

44:32considered substantial structural

44:34damage.

44:37>> Patrice seconds that.

44:42Okay.

44:42>> So you want to have a roll call vote

44:44please? Yeah.

44:49Kylin Barter,

44:51>> yes.

44:52>> Tommy Willis,

44:53>> yes.

44:54>> Jim McGrder,

44:55>> yes.

44:56>> Austin Burton, absent. Patrice Simmer,

45:00>> yes.

45:01>> Annne Whipper,

45:02>> yes.

45:03>> And Robert Crisp,

45:04>> yes.

45:05>> All right, vote is unanimous. Motion

45:07passes.

45:08>> Congratulations. Um, your appeal is

45:11granted.

45:12>> Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

45:16>> Thank you. Appreciate it. So, uh, our

45:20next order of business, uh, we have no

45:23continued cases.

45:25Um,

45:27other business, Scott, I don't think

45:30there we don't take new business unless

45:32it's u on the agenda, correct?

45:35>> Yes. Well, I mean, you guys can bring up

45:38any other business you may have, but we

45:39have none to offer from our side.

45:44>> Hearing nothing, uh, we'll move on to

45:46adjournment. Do I have a motion for

45:47adjournment?

45:50>> Motion to adjurnn.

45:53>> Second.

45:54>> Second.

45:55>> Second.

45:55>> Ann and Tommy.

45:59>> And with that, we're adjourned.

46:00>> Uh do

46:01>> Oh, we need to vote. All in favor?

46:03>> I.

46:05>> Okay.

46:06>> With that, we're adjourned. Thank you

46:07for your time today, everybody.

46:10>> Thank you.