# Flawed building plans could halt construction of hotel



## mark handler (Nov 28, 2014)

Flawed building plans could halt construction of hotel at I-71 interchange in Medina Township

http://www.cleveland.com/medina/index.ssf/2014/11/flawed_building_plans_could_ha.html

MEDINA TOWNSHIP, Ohio — Construction of a new hotel along the bustling stretch of Ohio 18 near Interstate 71 could soon come to a halt.

Work began this month after Medina County building officials issued a permit that allowed Sunrise Hospitality to begin construction, but also required that revisions to the architectural plan be filed within 30 days to bring it into compliance with state building codes. (See the permit at link.)

http://www.cleveland.com/medina/index.ssf/2014/11/flawed_building_plans_could_ha.html

The current building plan lacks several details related to wheelchair ramps and fire-resistance, Chief Building Official Charles Huber said.

Sunrise Hospitality has failed to make the necessary plan revisions, Huber said, adding that he will revoke the construction permit if he doesn't receive the missing construction details within a week.

"Other demands of my office have taken precedence," Huber said, or he would have already stopped the construction work.

Sunrise owner Aashish "Ash" Patel said Wednesday that he was surprised by Huber's plan to revoke the permit.

"I hadn't received a letter from him about missing a deadline, until he sent an email today," Patel said. "I will talk to the architect and work this out, but it is not right that I am hearing about this in emails also sent to the media."

Huber's records show that Patel's architect was sent a certified letter on Oct. 15 that detailed the corrections needed in the building plan, and the document was emailed to Patel.

The architect called Huber today and said he would be sending the missing information, Huber said.

The 76-room hotel would be a "Generation 4 Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott," Patel said. "The hotel will have an indoor pool, a fitness room and a meeting room. It will open in July or August."

The foundation has been started for the $4 million building at 3125 Eastpointe Dr. in Medina Township on two acres just west of the highway that Ontario Hospitality failed to build on during the recession. Sunrise bought the property from sister-company Ontario for $397,000 a year ago.

"We did a study and thought it would be a good time to build," Patel said. Though there are five other hotels at the interchange "and there are always ups and downs, there is not enough supply for the demand."

Sunrise has built seven hotels in Ohio and Michigan over the last four years.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 29, 2014)

Suggest that the formal notification, in the form of the certified letter, should have been sent to the Owner and not the Architect.  The building permit is issued to the Owner and not the Architect.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 29, 2014)

This is a really common occurrence.  How did this make the news?  That is the only part that is a surprise.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 29, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Suggest that the formal notification, in the form of the certified letter, should have been sent to the Owner and not the Architect.  The building permit is issued to the Owner and not the Architect.


PrePermit====We send notices to the applicant, typically the agent of the owner, can be the Architect..

Permit issued===== We send notices to the Contractor.


----------



## ICE (Nov 29, 2014)

You can get a lot of building for $4,000,000.00 in Ohio. The mistake was issuing the permit with flawed plans.  Perhaps a permit for foundation only would have been okay but that doesn't appear to be the case.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 30, 2014)

Mark H

If the Architect was agent of the Owner pre-permit why is he still not the Agent of the Owner after permit was issued.

If a contractor abandoned a project and the City decided it was necessary to condemn the building who would you notify before having it torn down?

Ultimately it is the responsibility of the Owner that the project comply with all laws and regulations.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 30, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Mark HIf the Architect was agent of the Owner pre-permit why is he still not the Agent of the Owner after permit was issued.
> 
> If a contractor abandoned a project and the City decided it was necessary to condemn the building who would you notify before having it torn down?
> 
> Ultimately it is the responsibility of the Owner that the project comply with all laws and regulations.


In CA the Architect or Engineer cannot pull a permit unless he/she is also a contractor.

Unless the permit is pulled as an Owner/Builder. the permit is pulled under the contractors license and belongs to the Contractor, regardless on who paid for the permit. the permit is issued to the contractor, for his/her use.

An Architect can still be an agent of the Owner, but has no control over the permit.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 30, 2014)

Please provide the statute or regulation that says that in California only a contractor or owner/builder can pull a permit and that the permit is owned by the contractor.


----------



## conarb (Nov 30, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> In CA the Architect or Engineer cannot pull a permit unless he/she is also a contractor.Unless the permit is pulled as an Owner/Builder. the permit is pulled under the contractors license and belongs to the Contractor, regardless on who paid for the permit. the permit is issued to the contractor, for his/her use.
> 
> An Architect can still be an agent of the Owner, but has no control over the permit.


Not true, in California the owner or his agent can pull the permit, under the Business and Professions Code a properly licensed contractor (B in this case) the contractor is the agent of the owner for construction purposes only and can pull the permit without an agency agreement, if the owner gave the architect an agency authorization the architect could pull the permit, but is not licensed to perform any construction, but if he does so the owner should be careful to limit the agency to construction related matters.

Whoever pulls the permit owns the permit, if a contractor pulls the permit and then, for whatever reason, decides to abandon the project he must assign the permit to the owner or someone else having an agency agreement.  A contractor could just notify the AHJ to cancel the permit because he doesn't want any more liability, in that case a new permit can be issued to the owner or another agent such as another contractor.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 30, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Please provide the statute or regulation that says that in California only a contractor or owner/builder can pull a permit and that the permit is owned by the contractor.


Section 7031.5, California Business and Professional Code, states that only properly licensed individuals or individuals specifically exempt (Section 7044) from the provisions of the Contractors State License Law shall be allowed to pull a permit for work regulated by the construction codes.

http://law.onecle.com/california/business/7031.5.html

7031.5.  Each county or city which requires the issuance of a permit as a condition precedent to the construction, alteration, improvement, demolition or repair of any building or structure shall also require that each applicant for such a permit file as a condition precedent to the issuance of a permit a statement which he has prepared and signed stating that *the applicant is licensed under the provisions of this chapter, giving the number of the license and stating that it is in full force and effect,* or, if the applicant is exempt from the provisions of this chapter, the basis for the alleged exemption.

   Any violation of this section by any applicant for a permit shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500).

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=19001-20000&file=19825-19829


----------



## Mark K (Nov 30, 2014)

I have located Health and Safety Code Section 19825 which requires the contractor be identified on the permit application.  The primary purpose is to assure that a licensed contractor does the work an that the Contractor has workman compensation insurance.  Also listed on the application is the name of the property owner and the licensed design professional.  No mention is made as to who the permit is issued to.

If the contractor owned the permit and the owner fired the contractor for doing poor work the owner would have to get a new permit.  If the applicable building code had changed since the original application for the permit the owner would now have to comply with the new building code.

I suggest that the permit needs to be issued to the Owner although the Owner is given great latitude who he defines as his agent.  If a Contractor is replaced then he will probably have to provide evidence of being licensed and having insurance.

Building officials have the authority to enforce the building code.  They do not have any authority to regulate contractors or design professionals.  The owner of the property has the responsibility for insuring his/her project complies with the building code and all other regulations.  From the building departments point of view if the contractor is not doing a good job it is the owners responsibility to deal with the problem.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 30, 2014)

B&PC Section 7031.5 is a nasty piece of work.  This was obviously the result of a power play by the contractors.  It is in direct conflict with H&SC 19825 which allows an owner builder to pull a permit.

For public school projects I do not believe that you can sign a contract with a contractor until after you have a permit.  Are there not similar requirements for public projects where local jurisdictions issue the permit.  Tell your employer the City that they do not have control over the permit for public projects.

I would suggest that while others may apply for a permit, the permit should be considered as having been issued to the Owner.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 30, 2014)

Mark

Contact the California Contractors State License Board  www.cslb.ca.gov/ and the California Architects Board www.cab.ca.gov/

They write the rules which become codified

A building Official is empowered to enforce the California Health and Safety Codes


----------



## conarb (Nov 30, 2014)

*HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE *

*SECTION 19825-19829 *

AUTHORIZATION OF AGENT

      TO ACT ON PROPERTY

        OWNER'S BEHALF

  Excluding the Notice to

  Property Owner, the

  execution of which I

  understand is my

  personal responsibility,

  I hereby authorize the

  following person(s) to

  act as my agent(s) to

  apply for, sign, and

  file the documents

  necessary to obtain an

  Owner-Builder Permit for

  my     project.

  Scope of Construction

  Project (or Description

  of Work):

  _________________________

  Project Location or

  Address: ________________

  Name of Authorized

  Agent: __________________

  Address of Authorized

  Agent: __________________

  Phone Number of

  Authorized

  Agent: __________________

  I declare under penalty

  of perjury that I am the

  property owner for the

  address listed above and

  I personally filled out

  the above information and

  certify its accuracy.

  Property Owner's

  Signature: _______ Date:

  Note: A copy of the

  owner's driver's license,

  form notarization, or

  other verification

  acceptable to the agency

  is required to be

  presented when the permit

  is issued to verify the

  property owner's

  signature.

The owner can authorize the architect to act as his agent.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 30, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> B&PC Section 7031.5 is a nasty piece of work.  This was obviously the result of a power play by the contractors.  It is in direct conflict with H&SC 19825 which allows an owner builder to pull a permit.For public school projects I do not believe that you can sign a contract with a contractor until after you have a permit.  Are there not similar requirements for public projects where local jurisdictions issue the permit.  Tell your employer the City that they do not have control over the permit for public projects.
> 
> I would suggest that while others may apply for a permit, the permit should be considered as having been issued to the Owner.


Public school projects are not typically permited by building departments, they go through DSA


----------



## Mark K (Nov 30, 2014)

The Business and Professions Code is written by the legislature and not by the Contractors State License Board.  I suggest that the contractors were very involved in the writing of the relevant statute.

Share with the City attorney the implications of this statute with regards city projects.

There is nothing in this law that limits who is notified of problems by a registered letter.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 30, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The Business and Professions Code is written by the legislature .


Keep believing that.....

While only a member of legislature can introduce a bill for consideration, anyone can write the bill itself.

Private Citizens, governmental agencies and advocacy groups often write the initial drafts of legislative proposals they wish the legislature to consider. Lobbyists write a substantial proportion of these proposals.

The writer then presents the bill to a member of legislature who is sympathetic to the goals of the proposed legislation.

Very few Buisness and Professions codes are written by our representitives.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 30, 2014)

No disagreement.  I do not doubt the contractors influenced the legislation.  But my point was that the licensing boards are not who you have to influence.

The reason I suggest raising the issue with the City Attorney is because if the Cities feel the pain it increases the likelihood of changes.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 30, 2014)

What pain? What Changes?


----------

