HomeMy Public PortalAboutPRR 16-2290From: Chris O'Hare [mailto:chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:50 PM
To: Bill Thrasher<bthrasher@gulf-stream.org>; Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org>;
gary@brandenburgpa.com
Subject: Public Record Request - 5 recent comm. to brandenburg
Dear Custodian of Records,
I request to Inspect certain public records for the purpose of informing myself of the historic and current
workings of the Town of Gulf Stream and its associated entities, vendors, consultants, advisers, contractors
and agents. The records I wish to inspect may be material to current, anticipated or presently unforeseen legal
action. In addition, inspection of these records is essential to my ability to make informed comments in an
upcoming public hearing. The production of any and all responsive records Is therefore urgent and must be
acted upon in compliance with Florida Statutes and established case law as soon as possible.
Before making this public record request, I first searched online and in the public records portion of your
agency's website hoping I could locate the public records I seek without having to write you directly.
Unfortunately I cannot find the records I request to inspect. Therefore I am writing you now and requesting you
make every effort as required by law to produce these public records without delay. I believe the records I seek
to inspect may be in your custody AND/OR in the custody of an entity under contract with your agency.
Specifically Special Magistrate Gary Brandenburg. As a courtesy to you and the Special Magistrate and to
assist in expediting my access to records responsive to this request I am notifying Special Magistrate
Brandenburg of this request by copy of this email. Do not assume my act of copying Mr. Brandenburg with this
request relieves you of any of your duties under Florida Statute. I ask that you contact him yourself, inform him
of his obligations under Florida Statute and produce any responsive records in your and Mr. Brandenburg's
custody as soon as possible.
I make this request pursuant to Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 119 of the Florida
Statutes. I hereby reserve all rights granted to me under the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes.
I ask that you take the following action:
• Read this entire request carefully and respond accordingly.
• If you are not the custodian of the public records described herein please determine who that person is
and notify me immediately In order that I may make this request to the appropriate person without
delay.
• Reference Florida Statutes and appropriate case law when responding to this record request.
• Do NOT produce any records other than records responsive to this request.
• Identify by name the person or persons responding to this request.
• Respond to this public record request in a singular manner and do not combine this request with any
other public record requests when responding to this request.
• Once you have determined that you do or don't have any records in your custody responsive to this
request, immediately act to obtain any responsive records that may be in the custody of
your contractor(s).
• Provide only those records for Inspection that do not require extensive use of information technologies
or extensive staff time or both in excess of 15 minutes.
I request to inspect the five (5) most recent records of communication between the Town and Special
Magistrate Brandenburg which were sent to Mr. Brandenburg. Please do not include any records of
communication sent from Mr. Brandenburg at this time.
I ask you to take note of §119.07(txc) Florida Statues and your affirmative obligation to (1)
promptly acknowledge receipt of this public records request and (2) make a good faith effort which "includes
making reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within the agency whether such a
record exists and, if so, the location at which the record can be accessed." I am, therefore, requesting that you
notify every individual and entity in possession of records that may be responsive to this public records request,
Including individuals and entities under contract with your agency, to preserve and produce all responsive
records on an Immediate basis.
If you contend that any of the records I am seeking, or any portion thereof, are exempt from inspection or
disclosure please cite the specific exemption as required by §119.07(1 Xe) of the Florida Statutes and state in
writing and with particularity the basis for your conclusions as required by §119.07(1)(f) of the Florida Statutes.
Produce for my Inspection all responsive records and ONLY redact that portion of the record that you consider
exempt. To be clear, if you consider an entire record to be exempt, produce that record in its entirety with all
portions redacted that you consider exempt. I specifically ask you to do this in order that I may Inspect fully
redacted records for the purpose of challenging a particular redaction or establishing a reference for a future
request of a record that is only temporarily exempt, as in the case of a public record that was prepared by an
agency attorney exclusively for litigation and is only exempt from disclosure until the conclusion of the litigation.
If the public records being sought are maintained by your agency or contactors for your agency, in an electronic
format please produce the records in the original electronic format in which they were created or
received. See §119.01(2)(f), Florida Statutes.
Again I ask that you provide only those records for inspection that do not require extensive use of information
technologies or extensive staff time or both in excess of 15 minutes. Take note of §119.07(4)(a)&(d) Florida
Statues and if you anticipate that any records exist, the production for inspection of which will require extensive
use of information technologies or extensive staff time or both in excess of 15 minutes, then please provide
those records that can be produced within the first 15 minutes and advise me of the cost you anticipate to be
Incurred by your agency for the remaining records prior to incurring this cost. Please do not incur any costs on
my behalf without first obtaining my written authorization to proceed. If you produce only a portion of all existing
responsive records, please tell me that your response includes only a portion of all existing records responsive
to this request.
If you anticipate the need to incur any costs that I would be statutorily required to pay in order to Inspect these
public records which would exceed $1.00 please notify me in advance of your incurring that cost with a written
estimate of the total cost. Please be sure to itemize any estimates so as to indicate the total number of pages
and/or records, as well as to distinguish the cost of labor and materials. Again, please do not incur any costs on
my behalf without first obtaining my written authorization to proceed.
The phrase Town of Gulf Stream when used herein refers to the Town In its entirety including all employees,
appointees, officials, assignees, counsel and consultants Including Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Police
Chief, Town Commissioners, Town Mayor, Town Departments, Town Police Officers, Town Employees, Town
Engineer, the law firm (Jones Foster Johnston & Stubbs P.A.) that claims to be the Town Attorney including all
attorney, partner and employee members of that firm; the Town Counsel of Sweetapple, Broeker &
Varkus including all attorney, partner and employee members of that firm, the Town Counsel
of Richman Greer, P.A. including all attorney, partner and employee members of that firm and any other entity
associated with the Town and subject to public records law.
The term public records, as used herein, has the same meaning and scope as the definition of Public records
adopted by the Florida Legislature as Statutes Chapter 119.
A record that does not exist because of its disposition requires the creation of a disposition record. In all
instances where you determine a record does not exist please determine if the record once existed and in its
replacement provide the disposition record for my inspection.
All responses to this public records request should be made in writing to the following email address:
chrisoharegulfstream@gmaii.com
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Delivered via e-mail
July 29, 2016
Chris O'Hare [mail to: chrisoharegulfstream(demail.coml
Re: GS #2290 (5 recent comm. to Brandenburg)
I request to inspect the five (5) most recent records of communication between the Town and
Special Magistrate Brandenburg which were sent to Mr. Brandenburg. Please do not include
any records of communication sent from Mr. Brandenburg at this time.
Dear Chris O'Hare [mail to: chrisohareeulfstream(cgmail.coml,
The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated July 29, 2016. The
original public record request can be found at the following link htto://www2.eulf-
stream.ore/weblink/0/doe/97701/Paeel aspx.
Please be advised that the Town of Gulf Stream is currently working on a large number of
incoming public records requests. The Town will use its very best efforts to respond to you in a
reasonable amount of time with the appropriate response or an estimated cost to respond.
Sincerely,
Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Delivered via e-mail
August 9, 2016
Chris O'Hare [mail to: chrisohareeulfstream(7a email.coml
Re: GS #2290 (5 recent comm. to brandenburg)
1 request to inspect the five (5) most recent records of communication between the Town and Special
Magistrate Brandenburg which were sent to Mr. Brandenburg. Please do not include any records of
communication sent from Mr. Brandenburg at this time.
Dear Chris O'Hare [mail to: chrisohareeulfstream(a email.coml,
The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated July 29, 2016. The original
public record request can be found at the following link:
htto://www2.gulfstream.ore/weblink/O/doc/9770I/Page Lasox. In future correspondence, please refer to
this public records request by the above referenced numbers.
Please be advised that after spending well in excess of 15 minutes of time, and after reviewing e-mails
sent to garv(a brandenburgoa.com by Kelly Avery and Rebecca Tew and by the domain jonesfoster.com,
the five most recent e-mails can be found at the above link. We believe that these are all the records
responsive to your request. However, to determine whether these are, in fact, the five most recent
communications sent to Mr. Brandenburg by the Town would require an additional .50 hour of
administrative support at $28.92 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla.
Stat. § 119.07(4)(d).
If the costs of producing these documents will exceed your deposit, the Town will provide you with an
initial production of responsive records and an estimate for the production of any additional responsive
records. I£ the costs of production are less than the deposit, the Town will provide you with the responsive
records and a refund.
(.75 hours @ $28.92 = $21.69) = Deposit Due: $21.69 in cash or check.
Upon receipt of your deposit, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your public
records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this
letter, we will consider this closed.
Sincerely,
Town Clerk
Custodian of the Records
Renee Basel
From: Macfarlane, Mary <MMacfarlane@jonesfoster.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 12:05 PM
To: gary@brandenburgpa.com
Cc: CConnor, Joanne M.
Subject: Chapter 2016-20
Attachments: 201605101151.pdf
See amendment to F.S. 119.0701(3)(a). Thank you.
JONES FOSTER
—ton]SION NSIt.a11S.MA,
Mary T. Macfarlane Secretary- to 11. Adams Weaver and Joanne DI. O'Connor
Direct Dial: 561.650.0496 1 Fax: 561.650.5300 1 mmacfarlane(aijonesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Horida 33401
561-659-3000 1 www.*onesfoster.com
Incoming emails arc filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged
and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, am review, dissemination, or copying
of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.
CHAPTER 2016-20
Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 273
An act relating to public records; amending s. 119.0701, F.S.; requiring a
public agency contract for services to include a statement providing the
contact information of the public agency's custodian of public records;
prescribing the form of the statement; revising required provisions in a
public agency contract for services regarding a contractor's compliance
with public records laws; requiring a public records request relating to
records for a public agency's contract for services to be made directly to the
public agency, requiring a contractor to provide requested records to the
public agency or allow inspection or copying of requested records under
specified circumstances; providing penalties; specifying circumstances
under which a court must award the reasonable costs of enforcement
against a contractor; specifying what constitutes sufficient notice;
providing that a contractor who takes certain actions is not liable for
the reasonable costs of enforcement; providing an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. Section 119.0701, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
119.0701 Contracts; public records: request for contractor records: civil
action.—
(1)
ction.(1) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the term:
(a) "Contractor" means an individual, partnership, corporation, or
business entity that enters into a contract for services with a public agency
and is acting on behalf of the public agency as provided under s. 119.011(2).
(b) "Public agency" means a state, county, district, authority, or
municipal officer, or department, division, board, bureau, commission, or
other separate unit of government created or established by law.
(2) CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.—In addition to other contract
requirements provided by law, each public agency contract for services
entered into or amended on or after July 1. 2016, must include:
1
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Ch. 2016-20 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2016-20
M A provision that requires the contractor to comply with public records
laws, specifically to:
1.W Keep and maintain public records that ordinarily sa-ld neeessaF4
would-be required by the public agency in-erder to perform the service.
2.(bl Upon request from the public agency's custodian of public records,
provide the public agency with a copy of the requested records or allow the
access-to-publie records to be inspected or copied within a reasonable time an
the a teFms ,] eeiiffitions that 44 1..1'.7 4l
Y b ✓ weuld Y '
reeerds and at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided in this chapter or
as otherwise provided by law.
3.(e) Ensure that public records that are exempt or confidential and
exempt from public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except
as authorized by law for the duration of the contract term and following
completion of the contract if the contractor does not transfer the records to
the public agency.
4.W Upon completion of the contract. Tr eet all r-eqaireineats fer
transfer, at no cost, to the public agency all
public records in possession of the contractor or keep and maintain public
of the contract, the contractor shall
destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and
exempt from public records disclosure requirements. If the contractor keds
and maintains public records upon completion of the contract the contractor
shall meet all applicable requirements for retaining public records All
records stored electronically must be provided to the public agency. upon
request from the public agency's custodian of public records in a format that
is compatible with the information technology systems of the public agency.
(3) REQUEST FOR RECORDS: NONCOMPLIANCE —
M(3) If a contractor does not comply with the a public agency's reeer-ds
request for records, the public agency shall enforce the contract provisions in
accordance with the contract.
(4) CIVIL ACTION.
—
2
CODING: Words stiieken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Ch. 2016-20 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2016-20
contractor.
Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.
Approved by the Governor March 8, 2016.
Filed in Office Secretary of State March 8, 2016.
3
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Renee Basel
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 2:25 PM
To: gary@brandenburgpa.com
Subject: FW: Public Record Request - brandenburg - style litigation
Attachments: CE 15-1 Order on O'Hare 032216.pdf
Kelly Avery
Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Rd.
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
561-276-5116
561-737-0188 (fax)
kavery@gulf-stream.org
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business
are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public
disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in
response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in
writing.
From: Chris O'Hare (mailto:chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 6:24 PM
To: Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org>; Bill Thrasher <bthrasher@gulf-stream.org>
Subject: Public Record Request - brandenburg - style litigation
Dear Custodian of Records,
I wish to inspect certain public records for the purpose of informing myself of the historic and current
workings of the Town of Gulf Stream and its associated entities, vendors, consultants, advisers,
contractors and agents. The records I wish to inspect may also be material to current, anticipated or
presently unforeseen legal action. The production of any and all responsive records is therefore
urgent and must be acted upon in compliance with Florida Statutes and established case law as soon
as possible. If you are not the custodian of the public records described herein please determine who
that person is and notify me immediately in order that I may make this request to the appropriate
person without delay. In all cases please reference Florida Statutes and appropriate case law when
responding to this record request.
Please read this entire request carefully and respond accordingly.
This email is a singular request for public records through the agency known as of the Town of Gulf
Stream. Please respond to this public record request in a singular manner and do not combine this
public record request with any other public record requests when responding to this request. Do NOT
produce any records other than records responsive to this request. Please identify by name the
person or persons responding to this request.
Before making this public record request, I first searched online and in the public records portion of
your agency's website hoping I could locate the public records I seek without having to trouble you for
it. Unfortunately I can not find the records I wish to examine.
NOTE: This is a request for public records in the custody of Special Magistrate Gary Brandenburg
ONLY. Please do NOT produce any records in the custody of the Town of Gulf Stream. Limit your
response to ONLY records in Mr. Brandenburg's custody.
As background to this record request 1 call your attention to the attached Special Magistrate
Order CASE NO. 15-1 which was signed by Mr. Gary Brandenburg on March 22, 2016.
Specifically paragraph 2 on page 5 in which Brandenburg writes:
During the litigation, the style of house and roof covering allowed by Town Code was
litigated extensively and is not a subject to be revisited in this Code Enforcement
hearing.
Since the enforcement of Town code section 70-238 is only applicable to O'Hare's property if
indeed the style of O'Hare's house has been determined, please produce any record in the
custody of Gary Brandenburg that supports his statement, or any record Brandenburg
reviewed, referenced or relied upon in order to conclude that the style of O'Hare's home "was
litigated extensively and is not a subject to be revisited in this Code Enforcement hearing."
Another way of describing the record I wish to inspect, that may clarify but does not replace
my previous description, is: What record did Brandenburg have knowledge of that caused him
to confidently write, "the style of house... allowed by Town Code was litigated extensively and
is not a subject to be revisited in this Code Enforcement hearing."
I make this request pursuant to Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 119 of
the Florida Statutes.
If you contend that any of the records I am seeking, or any portion thereof, are exempt from
inspection or disclosure please cite the specific exemption as required by §119.07(1)(e) of the Florida
Statutes and state in writing and with particularity the basis for your conclusions as required
by §119.07(1)(f) of the Florida Statutes.
Please take note of 5119.070)(c) Florida Statues and your affirmative obligation to (1)
promptly acknowledge receipt of this public records request and (2) make a good faith effort which
"includes making reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within the agency
FA
whether such a record exists and, if so, the location at which the record can be accessed." I am,
therefore, requesting that you notify every individual in possession of records that may be responsive
to this public records request to preserve all such records on an immediate basis.
If the public records being sought are maintained by your agency in an electronic format please
produce the records in the original electronic format in which they were created or
received. See §119.01(2)(f), Florida Statutes.
Please provide only those records for inspection that do not require extensive use of information
technologies or extensive staff time or both in excess of 15 minutes. Take note of §119.07(4)(a)&(d)
Florida Statues and if you anticipate that any records exist, the production for inspection of which will
require extensive use of information technologies or extensive staff time or both in excess of 15
minutes, then please provide those records that can be produced within the first 15 minutes
and advise me of the cost you anticipate to be incurred by your agency for the remaining records prior
to incurring this cost. Please do not incur any costs on my behalf without first obtaining my written
authorization to proceed. If you produce only a portion of all existing responsive records, please tell
me that your response includes only a portion of all existing records responsive to this request.
If you anticipate the need to incur any costs that I would be statutorily required to pay in order to
inspect these public records which would exceed $1.00 please notify me in advance of your incurring
that cost with a written estimate of the total cost. Please be sure to itemize any estimates so as to
indicate the total number of pages and/or records, as well as to distinguish the cost of labor and
materials. Again, please do not incur any costs on my behalf without first obtaining my written
authorization to proceed.
The phrase Town of Gulf Stream used herein refers to the Town in its entirety including all
employees, appointees, officials, assignees, counsel and consultants including Town Manager, Town
Clerk, Town Police Chief, Town Commissioners, Town Mayor, Town Departments, Town Police
Officers, Town Employees, Town Engineer, the law firm (Jones Foster Johnston & Stubbs P.A.) that
claims to be the Town Attorney including all attorney, partner and employee members of that firm; the
Town Counsel of Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkus including all attorney, partner and employee
members of that firm, the Town Counsel of Richman Greer, P.A. including all attorney, partner and
employee members of that firm and any other entity associated with the Town and subject to public
records law.
The term public records used herein has the same meaning and scope as the definition of Public
records adopted by the Florida Legislature as Statutes Chapter 119. A record that does not exist
because of its disposition requires the creation of a disposition record. In all instances where you
determine a record does not exist please determine if the record once existed and in its stead provide
the disposition record for my inspection.
I hereby reserve all rights granted to me under the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes.
All responses to this public records request should be made in writing to the following email address:
chrisohare4ulfstream(a�gmail.com
3
ORDER
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
100 Sea Rd.
Gulf Stream, FL 33483-7427
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ORDER
CASE NO. 15-1
PROPERTY OWNER: CHRISTOPHER F. O'HARE
2520 AVENUE AU SOLEIL
GULFSTREAM,FL
PCN: 2043-46-04-22-000-0360
THIS MATTER came before the Special Magistrate for a hearing held at Town
Hall on March 7, 2016, pursuant to a Notice of Violation issued by the Town of Gulf
Stream ("Town") to Christopher F. O'Hare ("Respondent's on August 14, 2015. The
Notice of Violation (NOV) alleged the following violations:
SEC. 42-29 CONSTRUCTION ABANDONMENT
SEC, 70-238 ROOFS
SEC. 70-99 ROOF DESIGN, SLOPE & MATERIALS
The Town set the matter for hearing, which was convened on Friday, December 4,
2015, at 10:00 a.m. The Respondent and his attorney, Mr. Roeder, were present. Mr.
Randolph, the Town Attorney, and Mr. Thatcher, the Town Manager, were also present.
The Respondent requested a postponement because he was not afforded pre -
hearing discovery which typically occurs in Circuit Court trials. The postponement was
denied. There is no process allowing pre -hearing discovery, other than the issuance of
subpoenas by the Special Magistrate, and Public Records Requests, both processes which
the Respondent was aware of and utilized.
On December 4, the hearing began at 10:00 a.m. and the proceeding adjourned at
4:15 p.m.
Christopher F. O'Hare
Case No. 15-1
Page 2
Several attempts were made to re -convene the hearing, to no avail. Respondent
terminated his attorney shortly before a scheduled hearing and was not able to find
suitable counsel. On another occasion the proceedings began and were shortly thereafter
adjourned due to medical issues that required the Respondent to be transported to a
hospital. Respondent's doctors requested that the hearing not occur for a period of time.
On Monday, March 7, 2016, the hearing was continued. The Town appeared with
the same representation. The Respondent appeared pro se, with two assistants, both
attorneys, one of which was his attorney on the first day of the hearing. He was now
offered as a witness. The hearing re -convened at 10:00 a.m. and concluded with closing
arguments completed at approximately 6:00 p.m.
During the two days of hearing, the Town presented 24 exhibits, some composite
with several pages, marked T-1 through T-24. The Respondent proposed 41 exhibits,
some composite with several pages, all of which were admitted with the exception of R-
32 (composite), R-35, and R-31. The parties agreed the Special Magistrate could take
time to review the evidence and submit a written order, waiving the requirement that the
decision be announced at the conclusion of the hearing, and that a written order would
follow in ten (10) days. It was agreed the decision would be mailed to the parties. Both
parties were given the opportunity to submit proposed Findings of Fact, and did.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The Town carries the burden of showing the violation occurred by producing
evidence that must be competent and substantial.
SUMMARY OF CASE
Section 42-29 Construction Abandonment
The Respondent applied for and received a re -roofing permit on August 30, 2011.
Permit No. 11-135146 was issued to Rooftec Corporation, the Respondent's contractor.
As of the date this hearing concluded, Respondent's previous roof had been
removed, and new underlayment and waterproofing had been added. The roof remains
unfinished with no tile or finishing roofing material in place.
The Town contends the permit is inactive under Florida Building Code Section
105.4.1.3, which requires an approved inspection every 180 days. The Town, therefore,
reasons that the Respondent has not completed construction of the re -roofing project
within the timeframe of the Building Permit and is in violation of Section 42-29.
Christopher F. O'Hare
Case No. 15-1
Page 3
The Respondent asserts several defenses to the Town's argument.
The Town of Gulf Stream has an Interlocal Agreement dated 30 September, 2009,
with the City of Delray Beach ("Delray") that provides for Delray to act as the Town's
Building Department (T-5). Prior to November 15, 2009, the County served as the
Town's Building Department. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the
Town Manager, Building Official for Delray Beach, and County Building officials, the
arrangement with the County was terminated and Delray undertook the responsibility on
November 15, 2009. There was a provision to allow County officials to act on permits
after November 15, 2009, in certain circumstances (paragraph 2.b., T-15)
The Respondent points out that the Interlocal Agreement between the Town and
Delray was not recorded in the Public Records, as required by Florida Statute §
163.01(11) until February 11, 2013, (ORB 25785, Page 0534) and, therefore, was not
effective on August 30, 2011, when the Building Permit was issued and that secondly,
Section 42-29 of the Codified Codes and Ordinances of the Town still refers to "a
Building Permit issued by the County". Since the permit was not issued by the County, it
does not fall within the abandonment language of § 42-29.
Both of these arguments are rejected.
Section 42-26 of the Town Code, enacted on November 13, 2009, corresponding
approximately to the date of the Interlocal Agreement, was an Ordinance providing that
Delray's Building Codes would apply. Section 42-27 also provided that Delray would
issue all permits and conduct inspections. All parties understood and followed the
procedure of applying to Delray for the re -roofing permit. The Delray Beach Building
Official testified that the previous Building Official had determined the permit was
inactive, and he had no reason or information to contradict his decision. The Town and
Delray relied on the Florida Building Code to determine when a permit becomes inactive.
The first paragraph of § 42-29 refers to the time period when the County issued the
permits, and active County -issued permits after Delray took over as the Town's Building
Department, and is merely a relic of the past. Respondent was cited with paragraph 2,
which deals with keeping a building permit active whether issued by Delray or, as was
previously the case, the County.
It should be noted that if Respondent's first argument regarding the Interlocal
Agreement was correct, and Delray did not have the authority to act as the Town's
Building Department, Respondent would never have had a valid permit to begin the re-
roofing project. Respondent never applied for permits from the County, as that process
had been replaced. The parties' actions confirm, and a long history shows, all involved
knew and processed the permits through Delray.
Christopher F. O'Hare
Case No. 15-1
Page 4
Next, Respondent argues that the inspection to keep the re -roofing permit active
did not have to be by a Delray Beach Inspector. Testimony offered by Respondent
showed that under certain conditions such as "threshold buildings" and other complicated
structures, Building Departments will allow and accept other qualified professionals to
conduct inspections on behalf of the Department. There was no testimony or evidence to
suggest that the Town or the City of Delray Beach Building Department authorized
anyone other than Delray inspectors to conduct roofing inspections on Respondent's
house. There is no need to comment on Respondent's evidence regarding delivery of
inspections by unauthorized persons to Delray. The last inspection by a Delray employee
was April 26, 2012. The permit became inactive under the Florida Building Code on
November 26, 2012. The most the Respondent was able to show were several letters
from T.E. Lunn, PE, LLC, addressed to Respondent, indicating additional hot -mopping
of material to offset deterioration of the underlayment due to excessive exposure for long
periods, to prevent water intrusion. There is no evidence that Delray accepted these as
valid inspections. There was no evidence of the project progressing towards completion.
Next, Respondent argues that he did not receive notice that the Building Permit
was inactive. At the very least, Respondent was put on Notice of the inactive permit
when he received the Notice of Violation on August 5, 2015, four months prior to the
commencement of this hearing. In addition, the Delray Beach Building Department
testified that Notices of Inactive Permits were typically given when an owner called for
an inspection or other activity on the permit. Since there were no inspections requested
from Delray after April 26, 2012, there was no notification.
Next Respondent argues that the expiration of the permit was tolled by virtue of
legal proceedings. Attorney Roeder testified that there was active legal activity on
Respondent's roof since 2012. Florida Building Code § 105.4.1 provides the 180 day
period "shall not be applicable in case(s) ... when the building work is halted due
directly to judicial injunction, order or similar process." Respondent failed to show any
order from any of the litigation that required the work on the roof to be halted. The only
testimony with respect to this issue was that Respondent was not happy with the type of
roofing the Town would allow and voluntarily waited to finish the work in the hope of a
Court order which would allow his preferred choice.
Section 70-238 Roofs
Respondent wanted a metal roof. This request was denied by the Town Manager.
Respondent appealed to the Board of Adjustment, resulting in the denial of his request.
Respondent filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Circuit Court for the 151
Judicial Circuit ('I'-8), which was denied Per Curiam (T-9). That decision was appealed
to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, and the Court denied the petition on its merits (T-
10).
Christopher F. O'Hare
Case No. 15-1
Page 5
Respondent then applied for a revised Building Permit to install a "solar
sandwich" roof, which was denied. Respondent appealed to the Board of Adjustment and
the Board denied his appeal. Respondent filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the
151 Judicial Circuit, appealing the denial. The denial by the Board of Adjustment was
affirmed Per Curiam (T-11).
During the litigation, the style of house and roof covering allowed by Town Code
was litigated extensively and is not a subject to be revisited in this Code Enforcement
hearing.
The evidence is clear that there is no tile or any other protective material over the
underlayment which is in place on Respondent's roof. Although it has been thoroughly
argued and decided in previous litigation what type of tile must be used on Respondent's
house; it is clear that some type of finished roof material must be installed, and there is
none.
Section 70-99 Roof Desitin. Slone & Materials
Section 70-99 prohibits inconsistent roofing materials visible from the exterior of
the property.. The preamble of § 70-99 reads:
"Roofs are a major visual element and should be carefully considered as to
the proportion, texture, color and compatibility with both the house style
and neighboring buildings. Similarities in roof types create a visual
continuity in the streetscape and neighborhood. Broad low roof lines with
overhanging eaves provide a reassuring sense of shelter and create shade
for underlying windows."
The testimony presented established that Respondent's roof, consisting of hot -
mopped underlayment, was visible from the exterior and inconsistent with Town Code,
which requires a finished layer of approved tile or other approved material. It is also
inconsistent with the roofs on homes in Respondent's neighborhood. Roofing consisting
of underlayment only is not permitted and is not consistent with the Town Code.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Christopher O'Hare is the owner (Respondent) at 2520 Avenue Au Soleil, Gulf
Stream, FL 33483.
2. The Notice of Violation dated August 4, 2015, was properly served by Hand
Delivery on August 5, 2015.
Christopher F. O'Hare
Case No. 15-1
Page 6
The Notice of Hearing was properly served and Respondent was present with
counsel on December 4, 2015, and again pro se on March 7, 2016, with two
Attorney advisors.
4. The summary of the case is incorporated in these Findings of Fact.
5. The Town has shown, by substantial competent evidence, violations of Section
42-29, Section 70-238, and Section 70-99.
COMPLIANCE
The Respondent is hereby ordered to bring his property into compliance by:
A. Installing a flat, white thru and thru, smooth uncoated tile; or
B. Installing similar tile to what was removed. (The Building Permit expired,
requiring the Respondent to restore the roof with the previous covering.) This
was an S-shaped terra cotta tile, identified at the hearing as Exhibit T-20
(Barcelona 900), or other similar file approved by the Town; or
C. Apply a roofing material that is otherwise approved by the Town. I will note that
continuous applications, demands, and appeals will not suffice as a reason to
delay compliance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above Findings of Fact constitute a violation of the Sections of the Codes and
Laws of the Town of Gulf Stream set forth above.
It is the Order of this Special Magistrate that Respondent shall comply, as set
forth above, by June 1, 2016, with this Order. Failure to comply may subject the
Respondent to fines and liens upon the property that is the subject of this hearing, and all
other property owned by Respondent in Palm Beach County. Administrative costs of
$150.00 are awarded to the Town, which Respondent will pay within 10 days.
Christopher F. O'Hare
Case No. 15-1
Page 7
The Town is ordered to inspect the property on June 1, 2016, and, if it is not
found to be in compliance, to convene a hearing to determine compliance with this Order
and such other matters that are deemed appropriate.
DONE AND ORDERED this Z4-1
Z ay of March, 2016
j0M. randenburg, Special M istrate
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PUrY» 8. 4clj
,7d The foregoing was sworn to, subscribed and acknowledged before me on this the
4L day of /9ii%RC f/ 2016, by G M. Brandenburg, as Special Magistrate
for the Town of Gulf Stream, Florida. He ipersonally known to me r has produced
as
(SEAL)
sir [y SANDRA LYNN MALLOY
r MY COMMISSION P F 1193954
r " EXPIRES: March 31, 2019
•q ..•`' Sanded Tlw NotM Pubic W&rwrbn
Notary Public -Signature /
ry2n o/ra LYS) A� 0 ld y
Notary Public — Print Name
Commissioner No.: rF / 93 93_y
My Commissioner Expires: &/ 9
Renee Basel
From: Randolph, John C. <JRandolph@jonesfoster.com>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 2:03 PM
To: 'gary@brandenburgpa.com'
Cc: 'Chris O'Hare (chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com)'
Subject: FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Mr. Brandenburg,
Pursuant to Mr. O'Hare's request, I am forwarding this email to you.
JOHN C. RANDOLPH
JONESFOSTER
John C. Randolph Attorney
Direct Dial: 561.650.0458 1 Pax: 561.650.5300 1 irandoll2h@jonesCoqter.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Flagler, Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, \\ cst Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-659-3000 1 %v%�v.jones foster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of flys
email is prohibited, please immediately notify us be email and delete the original message.
From: Chris O'Hare [mailto:chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.comj
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 12:54 PM
To: Randolph, John C.; gary@brandenburgpa.com
Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Mr. Randolph,
The email copied below indicates that my email to Mr. Brandenburg failed to be delivered to him because of
Invalid message content.
I will attempt to send the email again by copy of this email but I would like to ask you to kindly copy Mr.
Brandenburg with your copy of this email in case my continued attempts at delivery prove to be unsuccessful.
Sincerely,
Chris O'Hare
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon(7a,aooelemail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:57 AM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: chrisoharegulfstreamCn�,email.com
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
garv(a brandenburLma.com
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain
brandenburgpa.com by brandenburgpa-com.mail.nrotection.outlook.com. (216.32.181.101.
The error that the other server returned was:
554 5.6.0 Invalid message content
Original message -----
DKIM-Signature: v=1; azsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gMg l.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to;
bh=+90mncSvhwDS+Jv8TQSwpoZeNeV 7g6vWnSSC64LmgdM=;
b=LNtgVoveFHbIOe7TavzihKeDPMtfUhkBVaSnzMsjgwVgj srpLeinkl DJxzxbLoHHbC
+cMggjQPx/XVNBLv84HtKIHUOI sFoX6J8JdY+2ZXsKhAjengY63Hy3HRKaEkLhw3 WdCC
glu/OoTXtk/tZXRLytG4ed2XfDe6s6282GbF2MWvalhcZp6mRm3OkDHC6xK+13 zDZ4+a
xd8o3UDkNXyhwXK7mrpWYw3iPhjjTahFsEs5xcZwycAb VOCA12TXdgZfvAFRG9OprgIf
NjpAWcAQHQ87BL56/mjyxFomM3+DcxRfkuFYKtATRgOE/V8ETR7bnnFx/FFLQ+XAI d2C
EeaA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; czelaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message -id: subj ect:from:to;
bh=+90mncSvhwDS+Jv8TQSwpoZeNeV 7g6vWnSSC64LmgdM=;
b=ULftrU3BZBiHMSko WHxEOcSv4vdIKt21 TE6PsUAJGpaOfT9ZBnnkf49GPzpOme130f
fGQUSDdjAiiVQ1C 1HjRh6R4Ao9jN7tQmgVt+CLjxY1JPiGelAFDYxGyY+gWJMDpU1BFJ
GDuOFDFIPE6ffaXRQZjg3ML+ZTykYKhBeZZ3 s+fZOPRPP9ukHgR3nvK++kl9IIOVTfu4
4g2g6uZW 7BnOioInAgmgILNprNYRbtdilrOJKb 1 yZIg57OwfOgINaXLi8cH5HflcMMMM
yC8dPPW/cSreTZMwpeeVHDfJDI OmTdVQ 1 uVBEmatghrVLOPIEYw+KSEcaxQBwlme3rwu
09Q=
X -Gm -Message -State:
AD7BkJKi4NINBK0711 SHOW1Trj1DQW Wx3DQboyT/pEbwZjKnlJzzW VZeDLtOuxwv30HuYE/UFcMOs+b
9D9/f4A=
MIME -Version: 1.0
X -Received: by 10.107.13.65 with SMTP id 62mr15185565ion.186.1458921416103;
Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.172.199 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:<995d252edl164bOca32edb9a228e4a64(aDJFJSEXCHOI.jones-foster.com>
References:<995d252edl164bOca32edb9a228e4a64aJFJSEXCHOI.iones-foster.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:56:55 -0400
Message-ID:<CAELvW38Ab1PP9OCtkkOdTrpm3W6Sfzneh8kgT6n dT4nDdcbggamail.gmai1.com>
Subject: Fwd: FW: Request for extension of compliance date - CE 15/1 Town of
Gulf Stream V. O'Hare
From: "Chris O'Hare" <chrisoharegulfstrearnagmail.com>
To: garA brandenburgoa.com, irandolph@jonesfoster.com.didthevreadit.com
Content -Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001al 13f[0ccc49507052eel9cl7
Mr. Brandenburg,
I am very disappointed and a little shocked, given his previous comments,
that Mr. Randolph objects to this short extension which is necessitated by
the long, drawn out review process the Town insists is required to approve
roof tiles that are already permitted on my neighbors homes.
The action I take in choosing a particular tile must be weighed against the
possibility it will not be installed in time to meet the deadline for
compliance.
As a compromise I would like to amend my request for an extension by
proposing you keep the June 1 st deadline but modify your order to make it
understood that if the roof permit and installation process is
substantially underway by June 1 st that a new deadline to not exceed 30
days will then apply.
This conditional extension will serve both me and the Town well.
Considering that the aesthetic and structural consequences of the chosen
roof tile will extend over 30 years, I hope you will agree with me that
this minor conditional extension is reasonable.
Sincerely,
Chris O'Hare
copy to Randolph
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Randolph, John C. <JRandoloh(a.ionesfoster.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:33 AM
Subject: FW: Request for extension of compliance date - CE 1511 Town of
Gulf Stream V. O'Hare
To: "garv( brandenburgoa.com" <garvQbrandenburgna.com>
Cc: "Chris O'Hare(chrisoharegulfstreamna,gmail.com)" <
chrisoharegulfstream(a),,gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Brandenburg,
In order that you might understand the context of my email to Mr. O'Hare,
which he elected to copy you on in regard to his request for an extension
from the June 1st date set forth in your Order, I am attaching the emails
between Mr. O'Hare and myself which led up to the email attached to Mr.
O'Hare's request for an extension.
As you will glean from that correspondence, the Town is not in agreement
with an extension from the June 1 st date.
In the event Mr. O'Hare evidences good faith efforts to comply with the
----- Message truncated
Renee Basel
From: Randolph, John C. <1Randolph@jonesfoster.com>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 10:33 AM
To: 'gary@brandenburgpa.com'
Cc: 'Chris O'Hare (chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com)'
Subject: FW: Request for extension of compliance date - CE 15/1 Town of Gulf Stream V. O'Hare
Attachments: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit; FW: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit; Fwd:
Application for O'Hare Roof Permit; Revised email - Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
Dear Mr. Brandenburg,
In order that you might understand the context of my email to Mr. O'Hare, which he elected to copy you on in
regard to his request for an extension from the June 1 s' date set forth in your Order, I am attaching the emails
between Mr. O'Hare and myself which led up to the email attached to Mr. O'Hare's request for an extension.
As you will glean from that correspondence, the Town is not in agreement with an extension from the June 1 s'
date.
In the event Mr. O'Hare evidences good faith efforts to comply with the June 1 s date and finds himself in need
of a reasonable extension for completion of the installation of the roof tile, the Town will, at that time, give
consideration to agreeing to a short extension.
Thank you.
JOHN C.RANDOLPH
JONESFOSTER
John C. Randolph Attorney
Direct Dial: 561.650.0455 1 Fax: 561.650.5300 1 irrandolph(@,jonesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flaglcr Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-659-3000 1 www.eonesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. this email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and
confidential. If you arc not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this
email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.
From: Chris O'Hare [mailto:chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 7:45 PM
To: gary@brandenburgpa.com; Randolph, John C.
Subject: Request for extension of compliance date - CE 15/1 Town of Gulf Stream V. O'Hare
Mr. Brandenburg,
I am writing you at the suggestion of Mr. Randolph, Town Attorney for the Town of Gulf Stream. His email; is
copied below for your reference.
You may recall that you issued an order in the code enforcement action labeled CE 1511. In your order you
indicated three options for compliance by June 1, 2016. Unfortunately most all of the options require what the
Town calls a Level III review. This type of review entails a 30 day period of consideration prior to deliberations
by the Town's Architectural Review and Planning Board and then review by the Town Commission at their next
meeting. By the Town's calculation if they were to wave the 5 day period for initial review and approve my
application for Level III review the earliest date final approval could be granted would be on Friday May 13,
2016. This would only give me two weeks, from Monday the 16th to June 1 st, to:
• obtain a roof permit from the Delray Beach Building Department,
• schedule the roof contractor to tear off my existing roof covering,
• dry in the new roof and replace the roof metal,
• schedule a tin tag inspection by the building department,
• hot mop a waterproof membrane over the roof,
• schedule that inspection by the building department
• load the roof tile material on the roof by the tile distributor,
• install the roof tile, and
• schedule a final inspection
• hope it does not rain during this period
If you have ever installed a roof on your home you may agree with me that your deadline appears impossible to
meet if I try to comply with most all options in your order. I therefore am respectfully requesting you reconsider
your order and issue a new order with a revised deadline for compliance 30 days later on July 1, 2016. I do not
know if Mr. Randolph will object to this extension. I think not since he suggested I request it but I am notifying
him of this request by copy of this email anyway so he can weigh in.
Thank you for your continued consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Chris O'Hare
copy to Randolph
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Randolph, John C. <JRandolphQJonesfoster.com> wrote:
Mr. O'Hare, I see no point in engaging in continued dialogue in regard to this matter. I believe I was quite clear
in my previous email in which I advised that you have time to comply with the magistrates order. In the event,
for some reason you find that you cannot comply in a timely manner the option is available to you to request
additional time from the magistrate. In the meantime, please be advised that the Town stands ready to assist
you in expediting your application once filed.
Sent from my iPhone
Renee Basel
From: Chris O'Hare <chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:31 PM
To: Bill Thrasher, Randolph, John C.
Subject: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
Attachments: O'Hare - 2520 AAS Roof Permit Application 1-19-16.pdf
Mr. Thrasher,
Thank you for meeting with me yesterday to discuss my application for a Level III zoning approval of
my proposed roof tile.
I understand from our meeting that:
1. You do not believe the grey slate colored Ludowici ceramic roof tile I wish to apply to my
home is allowed under Town code section 70-238 because you claim the recently adopted
phrase tiles of similar slate -like color somehow means the roof tile must be grey thru and thru
and uncoated. You explained if the color gets scratched off my glazed ceramic tile, the
underlying surface will be a different color underneath (by that standard, exterior walls should
be uniformly colored thru and thru less the surface paint gets scratched. Also the ARPB and
Commission did not appear to have that concern when they approved this same glazed tile on
the homes at 2423 and 3545 North Ocean Blvd.)
2. You stated that if I wanted you to reconsider your decision I could submit a Site Plan
Review Level III application complete with items you checked off on the application form.
3. You stated that if I could submit my complete application to you by Thursday morning that
you would decide by the end of the day whether or not you will allow my application to be
considered by the ARPB and the Commission.
4. You also stated that after reviewing my application, if you decide to not allow my application
to proceed, that I may then appeal your decision to the Town Commission.
5. You also stated that after reviewing my application, if you decide to allowed my application
to proceed, that I may expect a final decision by the Town Commission on May 13; two weeks
prior to the deadline set by the Magistrate for the roof to be completed (I note that Town code
section 66-143(b)(2) states the final review authority may actually take up to 60 days after the
hearing to take final action on my application.)
I further understand from our meeting and your checklist that my application for Level III zoning
approval of this roof tile will only be considered complete by you if I also provide you with the
following items:
-Building permit application with Dade County Product Approval and Notice of Acceptance
forms for the proposed roof tile
" C o m p l e t e d D e v e l o p m e n t A p p l i c a t i o n
" C h e c k f o r $ 1 5 0 0 . 0 0 + $ 1 5 . 0 0
. S i t e P l a n w i t h G e n e r a l L o c a t i o n M a p
" P r o o f o f O w n e r s h i p , W a r r a n t y D e e d
" L i s t o f A d j a c e n t P r o p e r t y O w n e r s w i t h i n 2 5 ' w i t h a d d r e s s e d e n v e l o p e s
" P r o p e r t y O w n e r ' s A f f i d a v i t
" P h o t o s o f E x i s t i n g H o m e
" C o n s t r u c t i o n T r a f f i c M a n a g e m e n t P l a n
D a m a g e B o n d o f $ 2 5 0 0
U p o n r e v i e w o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n m a t e r i a l y o u g a v e m e a n d y o u r c h e c k l i s t I f u r t h e r u n d e r s t a n d :
" T h e r e i s n o s u p p o r t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n r e g a r d t o h o w t o p r o v i d e a C o n s t r u c t i o n T r a f f i c
M a n a g e m e n t P l a n . I t h e r e f o r e s e a r c h e d t h e T o w n ' s o n l i n e r e c o r d a r c h i v e a n d d i s c o v e r e d t h a t
o n A u g u s t 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 t h e T o w n C o m m i s s i o n u n a n i m o u s l y a d o p t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g p o l i c y , ' A s p a r t
o f t h e b u i l d i n g p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n p r o c e s s , t h e c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l a g r e e t o s i g n a C o n s t r u c t i o n
T r a f f i c M a n a g e m e n t P l a n t h a t h a s b e e n p r e p a r e d b y t h e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t t h a t i s s i t e s p e c i f i c ,
t o b e u s e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n S i t e M a n a g e m e n t H a n d b o o k . "
" A c c o r d i n g t o t h e A P P L I C A T I O N F O R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V A L P A R T I I A . 1 1 . S i t e P l a n
R e v i s i o n R e v i e w - r e q u i r e d f o r p r o j e c t s p r e v i o u s l y r e c e i v i n g S i t e P l a n R e v i e w a n d w h i c h m e e t s
t h e c r i t e r i a s p e c i f i e d i n O r d i n a n c e 9 1 / 2 3 . S e e C h a p t e r 6 6 , A r t i c l e V f o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n . A
$ 5 0 0 a p p l i c a t i o n f e e i s r e q u i r e d . M y h o m e h a s a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d S i t e P l a n R e v i e w .
" A l i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t m u s t b e i n a t t e n d a n c e a n d h e m u s t p r e s e n t m y p r o p o s a l t o t h e B o a r d .
" I m u s t p r e s e n t c o l o r p h o t o g r a p h s o f m y h o m e a n d a l l h o m e s w i t h i n 2 0 0 f e e t o f m y h o m e .
" F a i l u r e t o c o m p l e t e t h e A p p l i c a t i o n f o r D e v e l o p m e n t A p p r o v a l f o r m p r o p e r l y w i l l d e l a y i t s
c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h a t f o r m r e q u i r e s I :
o I d e n t i f y m y h o m e ' s z o n i n g d i s t r i c t
o D e t e r m i n e i f t h e p r o p o s e d r o o f m a t e r i a l i s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e i n t e n t o f t h e z o n i n g
d i s t r i c t
o D e t e r m i n e i f t h e p r o p o s e d r o o f m a t e r i a l i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e F u t u r e L a n d U s e M a p
a n d g o a l s , o b j e c t i v e s a n d p o l i c i e s o f t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n
c I d e n t i f y h o w i n g r e s s a n d e g r e s s t o t h e p r o p e r t y w i l l b e p r o v i d e d
o I d e n t i f y h o w a l l u t i l i t i e s w i l l b e p r o v i d e d t o t h e p r o p e r t y
From your comments yesterday I think it is reasonable to conclude that your recommendation to the
Town will be to deny my application for this roof tile.
The extensive submission of documents you require for your review appear to have nothing to do with
the aesthetic zoning approval of this particular roof tile. These documents cannot be produced,
assembled and submitted in time to meet the deadline for the next ARPB meeting. The hurdles you
place before me will prevent me from obtaining any Level III Town approval, obtain the building permit
from Delray Beach and complete the roof before the short time frame set by the Magistrate expires. I
cannot risk being fined $7500 per month for missing the Magistrate's deadline.
I may have been able to meet your application document demands if you had not refused to consider
my application when I first submitted it on March 10th.
Additionally, you classified my application as a Site Plan Review and you demand that I pay a non-
refundable $1500 application fee when the Town code and the Level III application form clearly
requires describes my application as a Site Plan Revision Review which only requires a payment of
$500. You also demand that I pay a $2500 Damage Bond. I have found no evidence in the Town's
records that any applicant for a re -roof permit has ever paid such a bond.
All this indicates to me that you are more interested in punishing me and preventing me from applying
for approval of this proposed light weight roof tile than you are interested in helping me finish my roof.
Your excessively burdensome and unreasonable discretionary demands, your misinterpretations of
Town code and Town policy and your apparent intention of recommending denial of my application
make it clear to me that you are intent on preventing me from installing any roof tile other that the one
you want.
In any other Town, Magistrate Brandenburg's time frame for compliance would appear reasonable.
But in Gulf Stream your obstructive use of your administrative authority in conjunction with the Town's
vague and draconian regulations make it impossible for me to pursue many of the options offered to
me by the Special Magistrate in his Order in the action CE 15/1.
I therefore ask you to act on the re -roof application I submitted to you on January 19, 2016, which on
January 21 you wrote was pending your review upon the final decision by the Magistrate (see below.)
This re -roof application is attached for your reference. Although this new re -roof application was
submitted over 60 days prior to Magistrate Brandenburg's Order, it is in compliance with the
Magistrate's COMPLIANCE option B. Installing similar tile to what was removed.
Please let me know when I can pick up this permit and finally be able to complete the installation of
my roof.
Sincerely,
Chris O'Hare
Chris O'Hare<chrisoliareeulfstreamremail.com>
Re -roof Application Dated 1/19/16
Bill Thrasher <bthrasher(,Qul£-stream.ore>
To: Chris O'Hare <chrisoharegulfstreamaa email.com>
Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:02 PM
Cc: "Lou Roeder (louaa louroedeccoml" <lou@louroeder.com>, Rita Taylor <RTavloraa eulf-stream.org>
On January 19, 2016 a Delray Permit application, requesting approval to re -roof the dwelling at 2520
Avenue Au Soleil, was submitted to the Town of Gulf Stream. The review of this permit application is
pending the final decision of the Special Magistrate presiding over a Code Enforcement Hearing that
commenced on December 4, 2015 and then continued again to January 28, 2016 at 9:00 A.M.
Renee Basel
From: Chris O'Hare <chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 5:35 PM
To: Randolph, John C.
Subject: Revised email - Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
Attachments: requirements.pdf
Mr. Randolph,
I have just read your revised email which I received after sending you my response to your previous email.
Allow me to revise mine as well. Additions are underlined and deletions are struck thru.
Chris O'Hare
Revised email:
Mr. Randolph,
Thank you for responding to my email on behalf of Mr. Thrasher. Rather than repeating the same
arguments back to you, I will suffice to say we disagree on many points you make in your email.
I will again say that I do not think it is possible to apply for any level of permit review other than a
Level I and still comply with the Magistrate's deadline for the completion of the roof on my home. If
you think the Magistrate would be willing to reconsider his deadline than a Level II or Level III review
may be possible but considering his comments in his Order he apparently would judge any
"continuous applications ... will not suffice as a reason to delay compliance."
As I understand Mr. Thrasher the only roof tile he would approve in a Level I review is the flat white
thru and thru, smooth, uncoated concrete roof tile that is identified as COMPLIANCE A. in the
Magistrate's order. That is the ONLY roof tile he would approve for my home in a Level I review.
You also state that Mr. Thrasher can approve for my home an S-shaped terra cotta tile identified at
the hearing as Exhibit T-20 (Barcelona 900). Mr. Randolph — this tile does not exist. The Barcelona 900 is
concrete and not terra cotta. Did the Magistrate mean an S-shaped terra cotta or did he mean a concrete
Barcelona 900? Would Mr. Thrasher approve an S-shaped terra cotta roof tile as a Level I review? The
difference is significant to me as the S-shaped terra cotta roof tiles weigh 600 lbs per roof square while the
Barcelona 900 roof tiles weigh 1150 lbs per roof square.
According to your email, the options offered by the Magistrate as COMPLIANCE B. - installing similar
tile to what was removed ... S-shaped terra cotta tile... or other similar the approved by the Town cannot
be approved in a Level I review.
Likewise the options offered by the Magistrate as COMPLIANCE-A.C. - applying a roofing material
that is otherwise approved by the Town cannot be approved in a Level I review.
Please let me know if you agree with the conclusions I have stated in the last tree four paragraphs
and I will immediately act accordingly.
I must add that Place Au Soleil has many homes similar in appearance to mine that have S-shaped
tile in white, tan, red, brown, terra cotta, and orange color. All of them according to the Town's public
records were Level I approvals. None of these homes have been cited for violating sec. 70-238 of the
Design Manual. You may continue to insist Mr. Thrasher is not being abusive to me but the facts
speak otherwise.
Sincerely,
Chris O'Hare
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chris O'Hare <chrisohareeulfstreami7a gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:02 PM
Subject: Fwd: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
To: irandolphCdionesfoster.com.didthevreadit.com
Mr. Randolph,
Thank you for responding to my email on behalf of Mr. Thrasher. Rather than repeating the same arguments
back to you, I will suffice to say we disagree on many points you make in your email.
I will again say that I do not think it is possible to apply for any level of permit review other than a Level I and
still comply with the Magistrate's deadline for the completion of the roof on my home. If you think the
Magistrate would be willing to reconsider his deadline than a Level II or Level III review may be possible but
considering his comments in his Order he apparently would judge any "continuous applications ... will not suffice
as a reason to delay compliance."
As I understand Mr. Thrasher the only roof tile he would approve in a Level I review is the flat white thru and
thru, smooth, uncoated concrete roof tile that is identified as COMPLIANCE A. in the Magistrate's order. That
is the ONLY roof tile he would approve for my home in a Level I review.
According to your email, the options offered by the Magistrate as COMPLIANCE B. - installing similar tile to
what was removed ...S-shaped terra cotta tile... or other similar the approved by the Town cannot be approved in
a Level I review.
Likewise the options offered by the Magistrate as COMPLIANCE A. - applying a roofing material that is
otherwise approved by the Town cannot be approved in a Level I review.
Please let me know if you agree with the conclusions I have stated in the last three paragraphs and I will
immediately act accordingly.
Sincerely,
Chris O'Hare
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Randolph, John C. <JRandolph(cr)jonesfoster.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
To: Chris O'Hare<chrisoharegulfstreamna,¢mail.com>
Cc: "'Bill Thrasher' (bthrasher(@gulf-stream.orel" <bthrashernn,gulf-stream.org>
Dear Mr. O'Hare,
You have copied me with your email of today's date to Mr. Thrasher in regard to the meeting that was held with
Mr. Thrasher, Rita Taylor, you, your assistant and myself yesterday. I am responding to your email on behalf of
Mr. Thrasher.
Mr. O'Hare, I made it clear to you yesterday that the Town wanted to do everything it could to expedite your
application so you could reasonably meet the June 1, 2016 date referenced in the Magistrate's Order. It was
you that asked that we have a meeting as early as Wednesday, March 23, 2016, to consider your Level III
application. We accommodated that request at 3:00 p.m. yesterday. The only thing that was asked of you in
order to move forward was to fill out applications which every other applicant is required to fill out prior to
moving forward with an application. One of the forms was a Roof/Re-Roof Permit Application that you began to
FII out yesterday and which you indicated you would return by today's date. The other form was a Level III
application form. You indicated that you would provide these forms to the Town by today and in response, Mr.
Thrasher indicated that he would respond to you this afternoon. The reason that he indicated he would
respond so early, which is earlier than the five working days in which he has to respond, was to expedite your
application, particularly in light of the fact that the Town Hall is closed tomorrow on Good Friday.
Instead of receiving those application forms, the Town received your email complaining about how onerous the
Town is being in regard to your application. To the contrary, the Town is bending over backwards in order to
accommodate your request in a timely manner. As you know, you have the right to file a Level I application
and, in the event that application meets with the requirements of the Code, there would be absolutely no delay.
The Town Manager could approve your application and you could move forward with it immediately. Instead,
you chose to file a Level III application and, in doing so, asked for the meeting that was held yesterday. Had
the Town received your Level III application today it would be prepared to process it immediately allowing this
matter to be heard by the ARPB at its next meeting and by the Town Commission at its May 13, 2016 meeting.
You stated no concerns over the time constraints which are imposed by code in regard to such an application.
Indeed, you indicated that you could order this tile in advance in order to be prepared to make the installation
immediately upon approval or, in the event the application was not approved, you could return the tile and be
reimbursed for same.
I have a copy of the check list which Mr. Thrasher provided you yesterday at the meeting responding to your
request for a Level III review. A copy is attached. Town code calls for a $1,500.00 fee for a Level III review.
The only other things called for are a general location map, photos of your home, a list of adjacent property
owners so they could be notified, proof of ownership or warranty deed, a construction traffic management plan
which would simply show the parking of the vehicles relating to the job so as not to obstruct traffic on the
rights-of-way and a $2,500 damage bond. The $2,500.00 damage bond is not due at this time. It is only due
prior to issuance of a permit. The list of things that you needed to provide is not onerous and could have easily
been provided by today. There were many other pages to the document which Mr. Thrasher advised you at the
meeting were not applicable to your application and that he only needed the minimal requirements listed on the
page attached.
Please be advised, upon receipt of these applications the Town is prepared to move forward in an expeditious
manner in regard to your application. Even though the Town Manager indicated some concerns as to whether
or not your application for the grey slate colored Ludowici ceramic roof tile met the provisions of Section 70-
238, pursuant to your suggestion, the Manager was willing to allow this to go through as a Level III review as
you and your attorney had requested and let the appropriate bodies, the ARPB and the Town Commission,
make the final determination as to whether or not your application could be approved.
Please be advised that although you have now asked for a different tile, the Town is still willing to proceed with
your Level III application as you had requested.
It appears from your email that you are now asking to install a Terra Cotta Barrel Tile roof and you have
attached a City of Delray Beach Roof/Re-Roof Permit application which was notarized January 19, 2016. Mr.
Thrasher cannot approve that application on a Level I review, as it does not comply with code, so it too would
follow the same time schedule as the schedule proposed for your Level III application as it would require a
variance. You indicate that your application is in compliance with the Magistrate's compliance option B. The
Magistrate was very specific in his Order referring to an S-shaped terra cotta tile identified at the hearing as
Exhibit T-20 (Barcelona 900), or other similar tile approved by the Town. The tile you propose is not a similar
tile, however, you have the right to make application for such an approval but, as indicated above, the timing
would be the same as for the Level III review discussed above. Alternatively, if you choose to replace the
identical tile removed as described by the Magistrate, you may do so immediately without the need for review,
expect for the Town Manager's confirmation that the tile is identical to that described as the Barcelona 900.
Mr. O'Hare, let me repeat that the Town is attempting to expedite your application and has done absolutely
nothing to stand in the way of same. Your statements that the Town is trying to punish you and prevent you
from applying for approval are without foundation. Your description of excessively burdensome and
unreasonable discretionary demands and misinterpretations are also without foundation.
Upon receipt of the application forms and the information provided in the check list, the Town will proceed with
your application for either the grey slate colored Ludowici ceramic roof tile or the barrel tile roof you reference
in your email. Let me stress, however, that the Town needs to receive the applications in order to move
forward expeditiously.
If you need assistance in filling out the forms or providing other information, the Town will be happy to assist
Very truly yours,
JOHN C. RANDOLPH
JONES FOSTER
JOHNSIUN&SIUNS. I'. t
John C. Randolph Attornev
Direct Dial 561.650.0458 1 Fal: 561.650.5300 irandolph(n�jonesFoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
FlaAer Center lower, 505 South Fligler Drive, Suite 1100, )X'est'Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-659-3000 1 www.jonesfoster.com
Incoming email, are filtered which mac delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copcing of this
email is prohibited. Please immediately notiR us by email and delete the original message.
From: Chris O'Hare[mailto:chrisoharegulfstreamColgmail.coml
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:31 PM
To: bthrasherClagulf-stream.org; Randolph, John C.
Subject: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
Mr. Thrasher,
Thank you for meeting with me yesterday to discuss my application for a Level III zoning approval of
my proposed roof tile.
I understand from our meeting that:
1. You do not believe the grey slate colored Ludowici ceramic roof tile I wish to apply to my
home is allowed under Town code section 70-238 because you claim the recently adopted
phrase tiles of similar slate -like color somehow means the roof tile must be grey thru and thru
and uncoated. You explained if the color gets scratched off my glazed ceramic tile, the
underlying surface will be a different color underneath (by that standard, exterior walls should
be uniformly colored thru and thru less the surface paint gets scratched. Also the ARPB and
Commission did not appear to have that concern when they approved this same glazed tile on
the homes at 2423 and 3545 North Ocean Blvd.)
2. You stated that if I wanted you to reconsider your decision I could submit a Site Plan
Review Level III application complete with items you checked off on the application form
3. You stated that if I could submit my complete application to you by Thursday morning that
you would decide by the end of the day whether or not you will allow my application to be
considered by the ARPB and the Commission.
4. You also stated that after reviewing my application, if you decide to not allow my application
to proceed, that I may then appeal your decision to the Town Commission.
5. You also stated that after reviewing my application, if you decide to allowed my application
to proceed, that I may expect a final decision by the Town Commission on May 13; two weeks
prior to the deadline set by the Magistrate for the roof to be completed (I note that Town code
section 66-143(b)(2) states the final review authority may actually take up to 60 days after the
hearing to take final action on my application.)
I further understand from our meeting and your checklist that my application for Level III zoning
approval of this roof tile will only be considered complete by you if I also provide you with the
following items:
-Building permit application with Dade County Product Approval and Notice of Acceptance
forms for the proposed roof tile
-Completed Development Application
. Check for $1500.00 + $15.00
-Site Plan with General Location Map
. Proof of Ownership, Warranty Deed
" L i s t o f A d j a c e n t P r o p e r t y O w n e r s w i t h i n 2 5 ' w i t h a d d r e s s e d e n v e l o p e s
. P r o p e r t y O w n e r ' s A f f i d a v i t
. P h o t o s o f E x i s t i n g H o m e
- C o n s t r u c t i o n T r a f f i c M a n a g e m e n t P l a n
- D a m a g e B o n d o f $ 2 5 0 0
U p o n r e v i e w o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n m a t e r i a l y o u g a v e m e a n d y o u r c h e c k l i s t I f u r t h e r u n d e r s t a n d :
T h e r e i s n o s u p p o r t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n r e g a r d t o h o w t o p r o v i d e a C o n s t r u c t i o n T r a f f i c
M a n a g e m e n t P l a n . I t h e r e f o r e s e a r c h e d t h e T o w n ' s o n l i n e r e c o r d a r c h i v e a n d d i s c o v e r e d t h a t
o n A u g u s t 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 t h e T o w n C o m m i s s i o n u n a n i m o u s l y a d o p t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g p o l i c y , ' A s p a r t
o f t h e b u i l d i n g p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n p r o c e s s , t h e c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l a g r e e t o s i g n a C o n s t r u c t i o n
T r a f f i c M a n a g e m e n t P l a n t h a t h a s b e e n p r e p a r e d b y t h e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t t h a t i s s i t e s p e c i f i c ,
t o b e u s e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n S i t e M a n a g e m e n t H a n d b o o k . "
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e A P P L I C A T I O N F O R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V A L P A R T I I A . 1 1 . S i t e P l a n
R e v i s i o n R e v i e w - r e q u i r e d f o r p r o j e c t s p r e v i o u s l y r e c e i v i n g S i t e P l a n R e v i e w a n d w h i c h m e e t s
t h e c r i t e r i a s p e c i f i e d i n O r d i n a n c e 9 1 / 2 3 . S e e C h a p t e r 6 6 , A r t i c l e V f o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n . A
$ 5 0 0 a p p l i c a t i o n f e e i s r e q u i r e d . M y h o m e h a s a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d S i t e P l a n R e v i e w .
A l i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t m u s t b e i n a t t e n d a n c e a n d h e m u s t p r e s e n t m y p r o p o s a l t o t h e B o a r d .
1 m u s t p r e s e n t c o l o r p h o t o g r a p h s o f m y h o m e a n d a l l h o m e s w i t h i n 2 0 0 f e e t o f m y h o m e .
F a i l u r e t o c o m p l e t e t h e A p p l i c a t i o n f o r D e v e l o p m e n t A p p r o v a l f o r m p r o p e r l y w i l l d e l a y i t s
c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h a t f o r m r e q u i r e s I :
o I d e n t i f y m y h o m e ' s z o n i n g d i s t r i c t
o D e t e r m i n e i f t h e p r o p o s e d r o o f m a t e r i a l i s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e i n t e n t o f t h e z o n i n g
d i s t r i c t
o D e t e r m i n e i f t h e p r o p o s e d r o o f m a t e r i a l i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e F u t u r e L a n d U s e M a p
a n d g o a l s , o b j e c t i v e s a n d p o l i c i e s o f t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n
o I d e n t i f y h o w i n g r e s s a n d e g r e s s t o t h e p r o p e r t y w i l l b e p r o v i d e d
o I d e n t i f y h o w a l l u t i l i t i e s w i l l b e p r o v i d e d t o t h e p r o p e r t y
F r o m y o u r c o m m e n t s y e s t e r d a y I t h i n k i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t y o u r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o t h e
T o w n w i l l b e t o d e n y m y a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h i s r o o f t i l e .
T h e e x t e n s i v e s u b m i s s i o n o f d o c u m e n t s y o u r e q u i r e f o r y o u r r e v i e w a p p e a r t o h a v e n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h
t h e a e s t h e t i c z o n i n g a p p r o v a l o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r o o f t i l e . T h e s e d o c u m e n t s c a n n o t b e p r o d u c e d ,
a s s e m b l e d a n d s u b m i t t e d i n t i m e t o m e e t t h e d e a d l i n e f o r t h e n e x t A R P B m e e t i n g . T h e h u r d l e s y o u
p l a c e b e f o r e m e w i l l p r e v e n t m e f r o m o b t a i n i n g a n y L e v e l I I I T o w n a p p r o v a l , o b t a i n t h e b u i l d i n g p e r m i t
f r o m D e l r a y B e a c h a n d c o m p l e t e t h e r o o f b e f o r e t h e s h o r t t i m e f r a m e s e t b y t h e M a g i s t r a t e e x p i r e s . I
c a n n o t r i s k b e i n g f i n e d $ 7 5 0 0 p e r m o n t h f o r m i s s i n g t h e M a g i s t r a t e ' s d e a d l i n e .
I m a y h a v e b e e n a b l e t o m e e t y o u r a p p l i c a t i o n d o c u m e n t d e m a n d s i f y o u h a d n o t r e f u s e d t o c o n s i d e r
m y a p p l i c a t i o n w h e n I f i r s t s u b m i t t e d i t o n M a r c h 1 0 t h .
Additionally, you classified my application as a Site Plan Review and you demand that I pay a non-
refundable $1500 application fee when the Town code and the Level III application form clearly
requires describes my application as a Site Plan Revision Review which only requires a payment of
$500. You also demand that I pay a $2500 Damage Bond. I have found no evidence in the Town's
records that any applicant for a re -roof permit has ever paid such a bond.
All this indicates to me that you are more interested in punishing me and preventing me from applying
for approval of this proposed light weight roof tile than you are interested in helping me finish my roof.
Your excessively burdensome and unreasonable discretionary demands, your misinterpretations of
Town code and Town policy and your apparent intention of recommending denial of my application
make it clear to me that you are intent on preventing me from installing any roof tile other that the one
you want.
In any other Town, Magistrate Brandenburg's time frame for compliance would appear reasonable.
But in Gulf Stream your obstructive use of your administrative authority in conjunction with the Town's
vague and draconian regulations make it impossible for me to pursue many of the options offered to
me by the Special Magistrate in his Order in the action CE 15/1.
I therefore ask you to act on the re -roof application I submitted to you on January 19, 2016, which on
January 21 you wrote was pending your review upon the final decision by the Magistrate (see below.)
This re -roof application is attached for your reference. Although this new re -roof application was
submitted over 60 days prior to Magistrate Brandenburg's Order, it is in compliance with the
Magistrate's COMPLIANCE option B. Installing similar tile to what was removed.
Please let me know when I can pick up this permit and finally be able to complete the installation of
my roof.
Sincerely,
Chris O'Hare
Re -roof Application Dated 1/19/16
Bill Thrasher <bthrasher ceieulf-stream.org>
To: Chris O'Hare <chrisohareeulfstream n,email.com>
Chris O'Hare<cltrisohareeulfstreamramail.com>
Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:02 PM
Cc: "Lou Roeder (lou(alouroedeccoml" <louO louroedeccom>, Rita Taylor <RTav1or(c6eu1f-stream.ora>
On January 19, 2016 a Delray Permit application, requesting approval to re -roof the dwelling at 2520
Avenue Au Soleil, was submitted to the Town of Gulf Stream. The review of this permit application is
pending the final decision of the Special Magistrate presiding over a Code Enforcement Hearing that
commenced on December 4, 2015 and then continued again to January 28, 2016 at 9:00 A.M.
Renee Basel
From: Randolph, John C. <1Randolph@jonesfoster.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 4:41 PM
To: 'Chris O'Hare(chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com)'
Cc: Bill Thrasher
Subject: FW: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
Attachments: requirements.pdf
Mr. O'Hare,
I noted a typographical error in my previous email which I have corrected below and I am, therefore, resending
this email.
JOHN C. RANDOLPH
JONES FOSTER
John C. Randolph Attomec
Direct Dial: 561.650.0458 1 Fax: 561.650.5300 1 jrandolph(@,jonesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-659-3000 1 www.ionesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which mac delay receipt. T1 -ds email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and
confidential. If cou are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this
email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.
From: Randolph, John C.
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 3:51 PM
To: 'Chris O'Hare'
Cc: 'Bill Thrasher' (bthrasher@gulf-stream.org)
Subject: RE: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
Dear Mr. O'Hare,
You have copied me with your email of today's date to Mr. Thrasher in regard to the meeting that was held with
Mr. Thrasher, Rita Taylor, you, your assistant and myself yesterday. I am responding to your email on behalf of
Mr. Thrasher.
Mr. O'Hare, I made it clear to you yesterday that the Town wanted to do everything it could to expedite your
application so you could reasonably meet the June 1, 2016 date referenced in the Magistrate's Order. It was
you that asked that we have a meeting as early as Wednesday, March 23, 2016, to consider your Level III
application. We accommodated that request at 3:00 p.m. yesterday. The only thing that was asked of you in
order to move forward was to fill out applications which every other applicant is required to fill out prior to
moving forward with an application. One of the forms was a Roof/Re-Roof Permit Application that you began to
fill out yesterday and which you indicated you would return by today's date. The other form was a Level III
application form. You indicated that you would provide these forms to the Town by today and in response, Mr.
Thrasher indicated that he would respond to you this afternoon. The reason that he indicated he would
respond so early, which is earlier than the five working days in which he has to respond, was to expedite your
application, particularly in light of the fact that the Town Hall is closed tomorrow on Good Friday.
Instead of receiving those application forms, the Town received your email complaining about how onerous the
Town is being in regard to your application. To the contrary, the Town is bending over backwards in order to
accommodate your request in a timely manner. As you know, you have the right to file a Level I application
and, in the event that application meets with the requirements of the Code, there would be absolutely no delay.
The Town Manager could approve your application and you could move forward with it immediately. Instead,
you chose to file a Level III application and, in doing so, asked for the meeting that was held yesterday. Had
the Town received your Level III application today it would be prepared to process it immediately allowing this
matter to be heard by the ARPB at its next meeting and by the Town Commission at its May 13, 2016 meeting.
You stated no concerns over the time constraints which are imposed by code in regard to such an application.
Indeed, you indicated that you could order this tile in advance in order to be prepared to make the installation
immediately upon approval or, in the event the application was not approved, you could return the tile and be
reimbursed for same.
I have a copy of the check list which Mr. Thrasher provided you yesterday at the meeting responding to your
request for a Level III review. A copy is attached. Town code calls for a $1,500.00 fee for a Level III review.
The only other things called for are a general location map, photos of your home, a list of adjacent property
owners so they could be notified, proof of ownership or warranty deed, a construction traffic management plan
which would simply show the parking of the vehicles relating to the job so as not to obstruct traffic on the
rights-of-way and a $2,500 damage bond. The $2,500.00 damage bond is not due at this time. It is only due
prior to issuance of a permit. The list of things that you needed to provide is not onerous and could have easily
been provided by today. There were many other pages to the document which Mr. Thrasher advised you at the
meeting were not applicable to your application and that he only needed the minimal requirements listed on the
page attached.
Please be advised, upon receipt of these applications the Town is prepared to move forward in an expeditious
manner in regard to your application. Even though the Town Manager indicated some concerns as to whether
or not your application for the grey slate colored Ludowici ceramic roof tile met the provisions of Section 70-
238, pursuant to your suggestion, the Manager was willing to allow this to go through as a Level III review as
you and your attorney had requested and let the appropriate bodies, the ARPB and the Town Commission,
make the final determination as to whether or not your application could be approved.
Please be advised that although you have now asked for a different tile, the Town is still willing to proceed with
your Level III application as you had requested.
It appears from your email that you are now asking to install a Terra Cotta Barrel Tile roof and you have
attached a City of Delray Beach Roof/Re-Roof Permit application which was notarized January 19, 2016. Mr.
Thrasher cannot approve that application on a Level I review, as it does not comply with code, so it too would
follow the same time schedule as the schedule proposed for your Level III application as it would require a
variance. You indicate that your application is in compliance with the Magistrate's compliance option B. The
Magistrate was very specific in his Order referring to an S-shaped terra cotta tile identified at the hearing as
Exhibit T-20 (Barcelona 900), or other similar tile approved by the Town. The tile you propose is not a similar
tile, however, you have the right to make application for such an approval but, as indicated above, the timing
would be the same as for the Level III review discussed above. Alternatively, if you choose to replace the
identical tile removed as described by the Magistrate, you may do so immediately without the need for review,
except for the Town Manager's confirmation that the tile is identical to that described as the Barcelona 900.
Mr. O'Hare, let me repeat that the Town is attempting to expedite your application and has done absolutely
nothing to stand in the way of same. Your statements that the Town is trying to punish you and prevent you
from applying for approval are without foundation. Your description of excessively burdensome and
unreasonable discretionary demands and misinterpretations are also without foundation.
Upon receipt of the application forms and the information provided in the check list, the Town will proceed with
your application for either the grey slate colored Ludowici ceramic roof tile or the barrel tile roof you reference
in your email. Let me stress, however, that the Town needs to receive the applications in order to move
forward expeditiously.
If you need assistance in filling out the forms or providing other information, the Town will be happy to assist.
Very truly yours,
JOHN C. RANDOLPH
JONESFOSTER
JOI I �S I i)\ & S I C JIBS. P.A.
John C. Randolph Attorney
Direct Dial: 561.650.0458 1 Fax: 561.650.5300 1 jrandolphoionesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1110, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-659-3000 1 www.jonesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this
email is prohibited. Please inutudiatch nodR- us be email and delete the original message.
From: Chris O'Hare(mailto:chrisoharegulfstreamColgmail.coml
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:31 PM
To: bthrasherCd)qulf-stream.org; Randolph, John C.
Subject: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
Mr. Thrasher,
Thank you for meeting with me yesterday to discuss my application for a Level III zoning approval of
my proposed roof tile.
I understand from our meeting that:
1. You do not believe the grey slate colored Ludowici ceramic roof tile I wish to apply to my
home is allowed under Town code section 70-238 because you claim the recently adopted
phrase tiles of similar slate -like color somehow means the roof tile must be grey thru and thru
and uncoated. You explained if the color gets scratched off my glazed ceramic tile, the
underlying surface will be a different color underneath (by that standard, exterior walls should
be uniformly colored thru and thru less the surface paint gets scratched. Also the ARPB and
Commission did not appear to have that concern when they approved this same glazed tile on
the homes at 2423 and 3545 North Ocean Blvd.)
2. You stated that if I wanted you to reconsider your decision I could submit a Site Plan
Review Level III application complete with items you checked off on the application form.
3. You stated that if I could submit my complete application to you by Thursday morning that
you would decide by the end of the day whether or not you will allow my application to be
considered by the ARPB and the Commission.
4. You also stated that after reviewing my application, if you decide to not allow my application
to proceed, that I may then appeal your decision to the Town Commission.
5. You also stated that after reviewing my application, if you decide to allowed my application
to proceed, that I may expect a final decision by the Town Commission on May 13; two weeks
prior to the deadline set by the Magistrate for the roof to be completed (I note that Town code
section 66-143(b)(2) states the final review authority may actually take up to 60 days after the
hearing to take final action on my application.)
I further understand from our meeting and your checklist that my application for Level III zoning
approval of this roof tile will only be considered complete by you if I also provide you with the
following items:
. Building permit application with Dade County Product Approval and Notice of Acceptance
forms for the proposed roof tile
-Completed Development Application
-Check for $1500.00 + $15.00
-Site Plan with General Location Map
. Proof of Ownership, Warranty Deed
. List of Adjacent Property Owners within 25' with addressed envelopes
. Property Owner's Affidavit
. Photos of Existing Home
Construction Traffic Management Plan
. Damage Bond of $2500
Upon review of the application material you gave me and your checklist I further understand:
There is no supporting information in regard to how to provide a Construction Traffic
Management Plan. I therefore searched the Town's online record archive and discovered that
on August 15, 2008 the Town Commission unanimously adopted the following policy, "As part
of the building permit application process, the contractor shall agree to sign a Construction
Traffic Management Plan that has been prepared by the Police Department that is site specific,
to be used in conjunction with the Construction Site Management Handbook."
According to the APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PART 11 A. 11. Site Plan
Revision Review - required for projects previously receiving Site Plan Review and which meets
the criteria specified in Ordinance 91/23. See Chapter 66, Article V for more information. A
$500 application fee is required. My home has already received Site Plan Review.
A licensed Architect must be in attendance and he must present my proposal to the Board.
1 must present color photographs of my home and all homes within 200 feet of my home.
Failure to complete the Application for Development Approval form properly will delay its
consideration. That form requires I:
o Identify my home's zoning district
o Determine if the proposed roof material is compatible with the intent of the zoning
district
o Determine if the proposed roof material is consistent with the Future Land Use Map
and goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
o Identify how ingress and egress to the property will be provided
c Identify how all utilities will be provided to the property
From your comments yesterday I think it is reasonable to conclude that your recommendation to the
Town will be to deny my application for this roof tile.
The extensive submission of documents you require for your review appear to have nothing to do with
the aesthetic zoning approval of this particular roof tile. These documents cannot be produced,
assembled and submitted in time to meet the deadline for the next ARPB meeting. The hurdles you
place before me will prevent me from obtaining any Level III Town approval, obtain the building permit
from Delray Beach and complete the roof before the short time frame set by the Magistrate expires. I
cannot risk being fined $7500 per month for missing the Magistrate's deadline.
I may have been able to meet your application document demands if you had not refused to consider
my application when I first submitted it on March 10th.
Additionally, you classified my application as a Site Plan Review and you demand that I pay a non-
refundable $1500 application fee when the Town code and the Level III application form clearly
requires describes my application as a Site Plan Revision Review which only requires a payment of
$500. You also demand that I pay a $2500 Damage Bond. I have found no evidence in the Town's
records that any applicant for a re -roof permit has ever paid such a bond.
All this indicates to me that you are more interested in punishing me and preventing me from applying
for approval of this proposed light weight roof tile than you are interested in helping me finish my roof.
Your excessively burdensome and unreasonable discretionary demands, your misinterpretations of
Town code and Town policy and your apparent intention of recommending denial of my application
make it clear to me that you are intent on preventing me from installing any roof tile other that the one
you want.
In any other Town, Magistrate Brandenburg's time frame for compliance would appear reasonable.
But in Gulf Stream your obstructive use of your administrative authority in conjunction with the Town's
vague and draconian regulations make it impossible for me to pursue many of the options offered to
me by the Special Magistrate in his Order in the action CE 15/1.
I therefore ask you to act on the re -roof application I submitted to you on January 19, 2016, which on
January 21 you wrote was pending your review upon the final decision by the Magistrate (see below.)
This re -roof application is attached for your reference. Although this new re -roof application was
submitted over 60 days prior to Magistrate Brandenburg's Order, it is in compliance with the
Magistrate's COMPLIANCE option B. Installing similar tile to what was removed.
Please let me know when I can pick up this permit and finally be able to complete the installation of
my roof.
Sincerely,
Chris O'Hare
Re -roof Application Dated 1/19/16
Bill Thrasher <bthrasherr%eulf-stream.ore>
To: Chris O'Hare<chrisohareeulfstream(algmail.com>
Chris O'Hare<chrisohareeulfstreamrIzmail.com>
Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:02 PM
Cc: "Lou Roeder (loualouroeder.coml" <lou(Z—vlouroeder.com>, Rita Taylor <RTaylor(a—)gulf-stream.ora>
On January 19, 2016 a Delray Permit application, requesting approval to re -roof the dwelling at 2520
Avenue Au Soleil, was submitted to the Town of Gulf Stream. The review of this permit application is
pending the final decision of the Special Magistrate presiding over a Code Enforcement Hearing that
commenced on December 4, 2015 and then continued again to January 28, 2016 at 9:00 A.M.
Renee Basel
From: Chris O'Hare <chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 5:03 PM
To: Randolph, John C.
Subject: Fwd: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
Attachments: requirements.pdf
Mr. Randolph,
Thank you for responding to my email on behalf of Mr. Thrasher. Rather than repeating the same arguments
back to you, I will suffice to say we disagree on many points you make in your email.
I will again say that I do not think it is possible to apply for any level of permit review other than a Level I and
still comply with the Magistrate's deadline for the completion of the roof on my home. If you think the
Magistrate would be willing to reconsider his deadline than a Level II or Level III review may be possible but
considering his comments in his Order he apparently would judge any "continuous applications ... will not suffice
as a reason to delay compliance."
As I understand Mr. Thrasher the only roof tile he would approve in a Level I review is the fiat white thru and
thru, smooth, uncoated concrete roof file that is identified as COMPLIANCE A. in the Magistrate's order. That
is the ONLY roof tile he would approve for my home in a Level I review.
According to your email, the options offered by the Magistrate as COMPLIANCE B. - installing similar tile to
what was removed ...S-shaped terra cotta tile... or other similar the approved by the Town cannot be approved in
a Level I review.
Likewise the options offered by the Magistrate as COMPLIANCE A. - applying a roofing material that is
otherwise approved by the Town cannot be approved in a Level I review.
Please let me know if you agree with the conclusions I have stated in the last three paragraphs and I will
immediately act accordingly.
Sincerely,
Chris O'Hare
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Randolph, John C. <JRandolnh(&ionesfoster.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
To: Chris O'Hare <chrisoharegulfstream(a.email.com>
Cc: "'Bill Thrasher' (bthrasherna,gulf-stream.orgl" <bthrasher(@,gulf-stream.org>
Dear Mr. O'Hare,
You have copied me with your email of today's date to Mr. Thrasher in regard to the meeting that was held with
Mr. Thrasher, Rita Taylor, you, your assistant and myself yesterday. I am responding to your email on behalf of
Mr. Thrasher.
Mr. O'Hare, I made it clear to you yesterday that the Town wanted to do everything it could to expedite your
application so you could reasonably meet the June 1, 2016 date referenced in the Magistrate's Order. It was
you that asked that we have a meeting as early as Wednesday, March 23, 2016, to consider your Level III
application. We accommodated that request at 3:00 p.m. yesterday. The only thing that was asked of you in
order to move forward was to fill out applications which every other applicant is required to fill out prior to
moving forward with an application. One of the forms was a Roof/Re-Roof Permit Application that you began to
fill out yesterday and which you indicated you would return by today's date. The other form was a Level III
application form. You indicated that you would provide these forms to the Town by today and in response, Mr.
Thrasher indicated that he would respond to you this afternoon. The reason that he indicated he would
respond so early, which is earlier than the five working days in which he has to respond, was to expedite your
application, particularly in light of the fact that the Town Hall is closed tomorrow on Good Friday.
Instead of receiving those application forms, the Town received your email complaining about how onerous the
Town is being in regard to your application. To the contrary, the Town is bending over backwards in order to
accommodate your request in a timely manner. As you know, you have the right to file a Level I application
and, in the event that application meets with the requirements of the Code, there would be absolutely no delay.
The Town Manager could approve your application and you could move forward with it immediately. Instead,
you chose to file a Level III application and, in doing so, asked for the meeting that was held yesterday. Had
the Town received your Level III application today it would be prepared to process it immediately allowing this
matter to be heard by the ARPB at its next meeting and by the Town Commission at its May 13, 2016 meeting.
You stated no concerns over the time constraints which are imposed by code in regard to such an application.
Indeed, you indicated that you could order this tile in advance in order to be prepared to make the installation
immediately upon approval or, in the event the application was not approved, you could return the tile and be
reimbursed for same.
I have a copy of the check list which Mr. Thrasher provided you yesterday at the meeting responding to your
request for a Level III review. A copy is attached. Town code calls for a $1,500.00 fee for a Level III review.
The only other things called for are a general location map, photos of your home, a list of adjacent property
owners so they could be notified, proof of ownership or warranty deed, a construction traffic management plan
which would simply show the parking of the vehicles relating to the job so as not to obstruct traffic on the
rights-of-way and a $2,500 damage bond. The $2,500.00 damage bond is not due at this time. It is only due
prior to issuance of a permit. The list of things that you needed to provide is not onerous and could have easily
been provided by today. There were many other pages to the document which Mr. Thrasher advised you at the
meeting were not applicable to your application and that he only needed the minimal requirements listed on the
page attached.
Please be advised, upon receipt of these applications the Town is prepared to move forward in an expeditious
manner in regard to your application. Even though the Town Manager indicated some concerns as to whether
or not your application for the grey slate colored Ludowici ceramic roof tile met the provisions of Section 70-
238, pursuant to your suggestion, the Manager was willing to allow this to go through as a Level III review as
you and your attorney had requested and let the appropriate bodies, the ARPB and the Town Commission,
make the final determination as to whether or not your application could be approved.
Please be advised that although you have now asked for a different tile, the Town is still willing to proceed with
your Level III application as you had requested.
It appears from your email that you are now asking to install a Terra Cotta Barrel Tile roof and you have
attached a City of Delray Beach Roof/Re-Roof Permit application which was notarized January 19, 2016. Mr.
Thrasher cannot approve that application on a Level I review, as it does not comply with code, so it too would
follow the same time schedule as the schedule proposed for your Level III application as it would require a
variance. You indicate that your application is in compliance with the Magistrate's compliance option B. The
Magistrate was very specific in his Order referring to an S-shaped terra cotta tile identified at the hearing as
Exhibit T-20 (Barcelona 900), or other similar tile approved by the Town. The tile you propose is not a similar
tile, however, you have the right to make application for such an approval but, as indicated above, the timing
would be the same as for the Level III review discussed above. Alternatively, if you choose to replace the
identical tile removed as described by the Magistrate, you may do so immediately without the need for review,
expect for the Town Manager's confirmation that the tile is identical to that described as the Barcelona 900.
Mr. O'Hare, let me repeat that the Town is attempting to expedite your application and has done absolutely
nothing to stand in the way of same. Your statements that the Town is trying to punish you and prevent you
from applying for approval are without foundation. Your description of excessively burdensome and
unreasonable discretionary demands and misinterpretations are also without foundation.
Upon receipt of the application forms and the information provided in the check list, the Town will proceed with
your application for either the grey slate colored Ludowici ceramic roof tile or the barrel tile roof you reference
in your email. Let me stress, however, that the Town needs to receive the applications in order to move
forward expeditiously.
If you need assistance in filling out the forms or providing other information, the Town will be happy to assist.
Very truly yours,
JOHN C. RANDOLPH
JONES FOSTER
JUItNSION&SrURK P.A.
John C. Randolph Attorney
Direct Dial: 561.650.0458 1 Fax: 561.650.5300 I irandolph(@,jonesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-659-3000 J www.jonesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be priNileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this
email is prohibited. Please immediately- notify us by emailand delete the original message.
From: Chris O'Hare[mailto:chrisohareaulfstream(@amail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:31 PM
To: bthrasherftulf-stream.ora; Randolph, John C.
Subject: Application for O'Hare Roof Permit
Mr. Thrasher,
Thank you for meeting with me yesterday to discuss my application for a Level III zoning approval of
my proposed roof tile.
I understand from our meeting that:
1. You do not believe the grey slate colored Ludowici ceramic roof tile I wish to apply to my
home is allowed under Town code section 70-238 because you claim the recently adopted
phrase tiles of similar slate -like color somehow means the roof tile must be grey thru and thru
and uncoated. You explained if the color gets scratched off my glazed ceramic tile, the
underlying surface will be a different color underneath (by that standard, exterior walls should
be uniformly colored thru and thru less the surface paint gets scratched. Also the ARPB and
Commission did not appear to have that concern when they approved this same glazed tile on
the homes at 2423 and 3545 North Ocean Blvd.)
2. You stated that if I wanted you to reconsider your decision I could submit a Site Plan
Review Level III application complete with items you checked off on the application form.
3. You stated that if I could submit my complete application to you by Thursday morning that
you would decide by the end of the day whether or not you will allow my application to be
considered by the ARPB and the Commission.
4. You also stated that after reviewing my application, if you decide to not allow my application
to proceed, that I may then appeal your decision to the Town Commission.
5. You also stated that after reviewing my application, if you decide to allowed my application
to proceed, that I may expect a final decision by the Town Commission on May 13; two weeks
prior to the deadline set by the Magistrate for the roof to be completed (I note that Town code
section 66-143(b)(2) states the final review authority may actually take up to 60 days after the
hearing to take final action on my application.)
I further understand from our meeting and your checklist that my application for Level III zoning
approval of this roof tile will only be considered complete by you if I also provide you with the
following items:
. Building permit application with Dade County Product Approval and Notice of Acceptance
forms for the proposed roof tile
-Completed Development Application
-Check for $1500.00 + $15.00
.Site Plan with General Location Map
. Proof of Ownership, Warranty Deed
. List of Adjacent Property Owners within 25' with addressed envelopes
. Property Owner's Affidavit
. Photos of Existing Home
• Construction Traffic Management Plan
. Damage Bond of $2500
Upon review of the application material you gave me and your checklist I further understand:
There is no supporting information in regard to how to provide a Construction Traffic
Management Plan. I therefore searched the Town's online record archive and discovered that
on August 15, 2008 the Town Commission unanimously adopted the following policy, 'As part
of the building permit application process, the contractor shall agree to sign a Construction
Traffic Management Plan that has been prepared by the Police Department that is site specific,
to be used in conjunction with the Construction Site Management Handbook."
According to the APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PART 11 A. 11. Site Plan
Revision Review - required for projects previously receiving Site Plan Review and which meets
the criteria specified in Ordinance 91/23. See Chapter 66, Article V for more information. A
$500 application fee is required. My home has already received Site Plan Review.
A licensed Architect must be in attendance and he must present my proposal to the Board.
1 must present color photographs of my home and all homes within 200 feet of my home.
Failure to complete the Application for Development Approval form properly will delay its
consideration. That form requires I:
o Identify my home's zoning district
o Determine if the proposed roof material is compatible with the intent of the zoning
district
o Determine if the proposed roof material is consistent with the Future Land Use Map
and goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
o Identify how ingress and egress to the property will be provided
o Identify how all utilities will be provided to the property
From your comments yesterday I think it is reasonable to conclude that your recommendation to the
Town will be to deny my application for this roof tile.
The extensive submission of documents you require for your review appear to have nothing to do with
the aesthetic zoning approval of this particular roof tile. These documents cannot be produced,
assembled and submitted in time to meet the deadline for the next ARPB meeting. The hurdles you
place before me will prevent me from obtaining any Level III Town approval, obtain the building permit
from Delray Beach and complete the roof before the short time frame set by the Magistrate expires. I
cannot risk being fined $7500 per month for missing the Magistrate's deadline.
I may have been able to meet your application document demands if you had not refused to consider
my application when I first submitted it on March 10th.
Additionally, you classified my application as a Site Plan Review and you demand that I pay a non-
refundable $1500 application fee when the Town code and the Level III application form clearly
requires describes my application as a Site Plan Revision Review which only requires a payment of
$500. You also demand that I pay a $2500 Damage Bond. I have found no evidence in the Town's
records that any applicant for a re -roof permit has ever paid such a bond.
All this indicates to me that you are more interested in punishing me and preventing me from applying
for approval of this proposed light weight roof tile than you are interested in helping me finish my roof.
Your excessively burdensome and unreasonable discretionary demands, your misinterpretations of
Town code and Town policy and your apparent intention of recommending denial of my application
make it clear to me that you are intent on preventing me from installing any roof tile other that the one
you want.
In any other Town, Magistrate Brandenburg's time frame for compliance would appear reasonable.
But in Gulf Stream your obstructive use of your administrative authority in conjunction with the Town's
vague and draconian regulations make it impossible for me to pursue many of the options offered to
me by the Special Magistrate in his Order in the action CE 15/1.
I therefore ask you to act on the re -roof application I submitted to you on January 19, 2016, which on
January 21 you wrote was pending your review upon the final decision by the Magistrate (see below.)
This re -roof application is attached for your reference. Although this new re -roof application was
submitted over 60 days prior to Magistrate Brandenburg's Order, it is in compliance with the
Magistrate's COMPLIANCE option B. Installing similar tile to what was removed.
Please let me know when I can pick up this permit and finally be able to complete the installation of
my roof.
Sincerely,
Chris O'Hare
Re -roof Application Dated 1/19/16
Bill Thrasher <bthrasher a.eulf-stream.ore>
To: Chris O'Hare<chrisohareeulfstreamremail.com>
Chris O'Hare<chrisohareeulfstream(a�email.com>
Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:02 PM
Cc: "Lou Roeder (lou aJouroeder.com)" <loun,louroeder.com>, Rita Taylor <RTaylorttieulf-stream.ore>
On January 19, 2016 a Delray Permit application, requesting approval to re -roof the dwelling at 2520
Avenue Au Soleil, was submitted to the Town of Gulf Stream. The review of this permit application is
pending the final decision of the Special Magistrate presiding over a Code Enforcement Hearing that
commenced on December 4, 2015 and then continued again to January 28, 2016 at 9:00 A.M.
Renee Basel
From: Randolph, John C. <JRandolph@jonesfoster.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 4:09 PM
To: gary@brandenburgpa.com'
Cc: c o'; Bill Thrasher
Subject: Gulf Stream vs O'Hare CE 15-1
Dear Magistrate Brandenburg,
Although you did not request that the parties provide proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, I wanted
to respond briefly to Mr. O'Hare's most recent communication.
As to Mr. O'Hare's Allegation #1 that Sec. 42-29 of the Town Code is void, please be advised as follows. Mr.
O'Hare contends that 42-29 is not applicable because it states that "All authorized construction shall be
completed prior to the expiration of the building permit issued by the county." The reference to the County is
obviously a clerical error and is not fatal to the application of Section 42-29. Indeed, Article II, Construction
Standards, makes it clear in Section 42-27 that the City of Delray Beach serves as the Town's building official
and shall issue all building permits for construction in the Town. All of the language in that section makes it
clear that it is the City of Delray Beach that is involved in the issuance of building permits. Further, as a matter
of fact, Mr. O'Hare dealt directly with the City of Delray Beach in regard to the issuance of permits and he has
full knowledge that it is the City of Delray Beach which issues said permits. That practice is confirmed by way
of the Memorandum of Understanding between Delray Beach, the County and the Town, and by way of the
Interlocal Agreement. Mr. O'Hare should not be allowed to avoid the application of Section 42-29 based upon
his technical argument that this section inadvertently referred to the building permits issued by the county. In
fact, no building permits have been issued by the county since the date that the Interlocal Agreement was
entered into between the parties.
If indeed, as Mr. O'Hare proposes that Section 42-29 is not applicable, then the alternative of giving Mr. O'Hare
the capability of restoring the roof to its preconstruction condition will no longer be available and the only relief,
in that instance, because Mr. O'Hare is clearly in violation of the other sections of the code cited in his Notice
of Violation, would be to move forward with his original permit to install the white thru and thru tile, or to install a
tile otherwise approved by the Town. More than likely, based on Mr. O'Hare's past actions, in the event he files
for approval of a tile which is not, in the opinion of the Town, in compliance with the Town's code and
regulations, he will once again file an appeal of the Town's decision, thereby delaying still further the
installation of a roof. Wherefore, if Section 42-29 is deemed not applicable, the Town requests that in the event
Mr. O'Hare has not installed a roof compliant with Town code within 60 days from the date of the Order, as
requested, the per day penalty (which the Town requests be the maximum of $250.00 per day) shall run from
the date of the order of noncompliance to the date of compliance. The fine should not be tolled during the
pendency of any appeal filed by Mr. O'Hare in regard to any action taken by the Town in regard to any
subsequent filing for a roof tile.
Mr. O'Hare next contends that there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate under
the Florida Building Code that there have been no inspections conducted on the roof within 180 days. That is
clearly not the case. A review of the record will reveal that Steve Tobias, Delray's Building Official at the time,
testified that the permit has lapsed because of the fact that there had been no inspection conducted within a
180 day period. (See transcript pages 28 — 30.) Mr. Malavy, Mr. O'Hare's contractor, confirmed that in an email
he wrote to Mr. O'Hare, which email has been made part of the record.
Mr. O'Hare next argues that the permit expiration was tolled by judicial process. Mr. O'Hare relies upon Lou
Roeder's "testimony" in this regard. Lou Roeder was not an witness in this case and could not testify. He was
the attorney for Mr. O'Hare on the first day of this hearing, but was ultimately dismissed by Mr. O'Hare. There
is no evidence in the record relating to the federal lawsuit and there was no request to take judicial notice of all
legal activity. (See transcript page 184.) Indeed the Town entered into the record the cases which were
relevant to show that the matter of the metal roof was res judicata.
Having said that, even in light of Mr. Roeder's testimony relating to Defendant's Federal lawsuit in the 11 th
Circuit Court, the language of the Florida Building Code upon which Mr. O'Hare relies does not provide for a
tolling of the 180 days because of pending litigation. The language clearly states in Section 105.4.1.3, "Work
shall be considered to be in active progress when the permit has received an approved inspection within 180
days. This provision shall not be applicable in case of civil commotion or strike or when the building work is
halted due directly to judicial injunction order or similar process." Clearly, the work on this roof was not halted
due to judicial injunction, order or similar process. It was halted simply because of Mr. O'Hare's insistence an
having the kind of roof he wants on his house without consideration for the rules and regulations of the Town
which specify the type of roof allowed.
There is no reason to address the remainder of Mr. O'Hare's contentions relating to Code Section 70-238 and
Code Section 70-99. Clearly, in both instances, because Mr. O'Hare's roof has not been completed, his roof is
in violation of each of these provisions of Town code. Therefore, until a suitable roof is put in place Mr. O'Hare
is in violation of each of these provisions of Town code and should be required to pay a penalty for each day
the roof remains in this condition without installing an appropriate roof.
Finally, Mr. O'Hare contends that the Town is not processing his subsequent applications, the first for a slate
like tile roof and the second for a barrel tile roof. The first application for a slate like tile roof was denied and the
record reflects denial by Mr. Thrasher, which denial was never appealed. (Transcript pages 49 — 51.) Mr.
O'Hare, therefore, did not exhaust his administrative remedies regarding that application. During the pendency
of this case, Mr. O'Hare filed another application for a terra cotta barrel tile roof. That application was not
processed because of the pendency of this case, as the matter of replacement of the original tile was a matter
before the Magistrate and, therefore, not ripe for consideration by the Town. In regard to that issue, however,
the record is perfectly clear. Even if there was a mistake in reference to a barrel tile roof by Mr. Randolph in his
original questions to Mr. Thrasher, it became ultimately clear that the tile that existed on the house prior to it
being torn off was not a barrel tile, but was a terra cotta tile as testified to by Mr. O'Hare's own contractor and
as clearly shown on the exhibits entered in this case.
Wherefore, Mr. O'Hare's alternatives are to install the exact tile which had existed on the roof prior to removal,
move forward with his initial permit to install white thru and thru tile, or to apply a roof material which is in
accord with the materials permitted by Town code. The Town requests that an order of noncompliance be
issued in regard to all code sections cited and that sixty (60) days be afforded for compliance with a $250.00
per day fine to be applied at a subsequent hearing, in the event of noncompliance, to be applied retroactively
to the date of the order of noncompliance.
Thank you.
JOHN C. RANDOLPH
JONESFOSTER
John C. Randolph :Attorney
Direct Dial: 561.650.0458 1 Fax: 561.650.5300 1 irandolphOjonesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Hagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-659-3000 1 www.ionesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. Tbis email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, You received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this
email is prohibited. please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.