001David Arnsdorf Gordon berry Paul darling absolutely sent Hugh flack present Bob Hart yeah Ken winters at least temporarily numbers previous today's action any questions on the approval of last November's minutes okay let's have a motion for approval second all those in favor opposed motion is passed approval of the minutes November minutes is approved current appeals actions in Sao Paulo series 19 - 0 0 1 at 1 6 2 5 welcome Street someone here to speak on that place yes Oscar Rodriguez here for mr. would can't be with us yes an unexpected trip to California attend to some issues there so he won't view with us today but we are here on a variance request the last time we were here in fact I think it was the November meeting or it may have been December
002we were here on an appeal on the same exact home and on the same exact permit the Board found that there was a violation of be three thousand five three it's a slope requirement for the sewer liner that my client installs in particular here at the Waffle House we are here asking for a variance to the application of three P three thousand five three we included a letter with our filing that details why we think the variance is permitted I don't want to take up too much time sort of going over the whole case but I do want a few minutes to just point out that my understanding of this MCL 1/25 variance statute is that it provides the board pretty great discretion to look at all the facts look at the contacts and see
003if a variance is permissible I attempted in the letter to highlight what I think is the important language and that is the literal application of a substantive requirement will result in exceptional practical difficulty to the applicant and I apologize if you've done hundreds of variance requests we have not and so we could not find a definition to what is required to meet you know this practical difficulty I understand the city staff report focuses on the fact that what we're asking here is to be excused from having to pay to correct a deficiency a violation of the code I don't see anywhere in the construction act that excludes first of all such a request it talks about practical difficulty and we would not be here today if we're talking about a thousand dollar fine as we
004laid out in the in the request we're expecting fifteen thousand or more bucks to go and resolve this fifteen thousand or more dollars that Miss Brooks will be in our view based on our contract responsible for that combined with the fact that this sewer has been working without any issue we gave them a 10-year warranty we will give them a longer warranty again the whole contact suggests that we're not asking you to move mountains here we're simply saying okay there's a violation it's substantially complying with the whole purpose of the slope which is to make sure that the waste gets to the city line and out and there are no sewer backups there are no sewer backups we don't expect any sewer backups and so that's why the second prong of substantial deviation there is
005no evidence of substantial deviation I mean there's no evidence of really any deviation other than the technical violation here I do want to correct something from my letter which indicates that we'd be asking potentially for other variances since we last left and I mentioned alluded to eight other total of eight cases six of them have been resolved the city has approved permits in those six cases and so this is it we are simply looking for a variance on this one because we just think that again it's it's working the way it's supposed to work and I think that it is quite a difficulty and impractical to ask a homeowner who agrees that this is working well to pay for something that not only will destroy her yard but also she thinks is working and so
006that's the general gist of it I did point out appendix J and then this other Code section on on modifications and it's just they're sort of as an anecdote that it could be approved under those and that doesn't really necessarily have to do with the variance but I know at the last board meeting I think it was board member darling who brought up appendix J and it pointed providing this is the code allows for this kind of deviation if necessary and it could be done by the plumbing in the city inspector if they want to on the ground per pendeks J and our 104 or it could be done by the board I don't think that there's anything else that I want to add other to re-emphasize that I don't seek other variances so that
007that's clear from before and we've spoken to miss Brooks about it again since the last time we came she's 80 something years old and I don't want to drag her in here and I really don't want to drag her into this whole case and that's why I think that we do have in this particular currency a practical and exceptional difficulty I can answer questions if anybody has one or not okay first I'd like to have idea of what your position is well so is mr. Rodriguez just indicated they are at they're using the wanting to use the exceptional exceptional practical difficulty as a means to not have to correct the situation I don't believe the code really allows somebody to say it cost too much so we're not going to fix it the opinion of
008my opinion and staffs opinion is that this device the CI PP liner was installed we met the in the last sports determination we met the code requirements we interpreted it correctly while it's difficult to measure slope there is an easy way to see if the proper drainage is happening so clogs will not take place I believe in the videos a considerable amount of water that the camera was going through so it did not flow properly with that being in place like it is it could have been corrected in that area of course they have to dig it up if they wanted to use this type of product again they would dig up that area they would correct it then line it and everything would work properly that didn't take that didn't take place that was
009installed if they still have the option to go back and correct it in that area with that being said practical difficulty is not financial I believe that appendix J does not appear does not work with us otherwise I would have used that in my interpretation and if I felt it was able to be used and felt I could approve it that would have happened it does allow administrative Lea for a similar or better product to be installed that's not the case here it's it's it can be used it's been approved by the state however it has the malfunction of the dip that doesn't allow it to flow properly so staff's recommendation as this to be denied and be corrected to properly flaws okay thank you board have any questions or comments so I guess my
010first my first question is the whole business of and the first time that you came before the board it wasn't a peel but it wasn't asking for a variance and all the semantics aside or you file appeal you file an appeal for a variance and so in doing that that appeal for a variance was denied and I guess the first order of business in my mind is why are we here again for the same kidding can I dress that well yeah well I do I mean I'd be only because it was in the staff report that there was an appeal made for a variance from in the particular code it was but that was supposed to be it was in effect or excited to be in fact at the time of the inspection we could
011I believe these proceedings are recorded correct yes yeah at that one someone suggested a variance so we asked okay let's bring up the variance issue I could be mistaken but someone from the city indicated we're not here on a variance so we're not going to address the variance issue that was an appeal so I think you're talking about procedurally if that was my chance that in a variance I think we didn't have an opportunity to actually address with the board on the variance the order that I have from the board says that we violated P three thousand five there at three there is no thing there's no findings which are required on the issue of a variance I could be mistaken but that's my recollection of it or else we would have we would not
012be back here we would have addressed the variance at that hearing as well help I mean I honestly I really thought that the at the last at the last go-around on this that there was a there was an appeal being made to seek a variance from the P 300 5 standard for evaluating whether the pipe was putting that the liner was put in properly according to that code and then in in saying know that the next step for them would be to go to the state and seek a higher authority to rule so if if that's not the case I mean are we so we're back here hearing an appeal on the same thing but forward a different approach to relief although 305 I think they're different things one's an appeal and one's a request
013or a variance there are two different sections of the construction code two different things and I sort of half-heartedly attempted to address it at the last hearing but the city's position was and that's why I wrote this mr. wood is not seeking a variance only an appeal in the end the board did not formally consider a variance request at that hearing that's that that's how it went down for us or else we would not be here again I don't know if you want to hear from me I basically the way mr. Rodriguez has described how this came to be is more less accurate in the future and the way it I believe really should be is either you appeal because you don't think that it's been properly interpreted or you ask for a variance you
014say yes it's been properly interpreted but I can't do it and so in the future the way the paperwork is handled I believe will be different but in fairness to the applicant since there was that discussion about a variance which was not applied for once mr. Rodriguez filed this on behalf of the and we felt that in fairness it should be brought and that's that's well I my understanding was always that if you're filing for an appeal implicit in that is that you're seeking invariance but neither here nor there so that's that's all fine and good so my second question is you indicated that the city approved the six other cases I can I add more to that I know that I'm trying to be with all due respect to the city they approved six
015of the other eight cases and from our perspective without any additional modifications by my client okay they did see in some and they they'll chime in on this I don't they did and this happen in the last month and a half they did look at additional videos in some cases but they can speak to that all I know is that I have six of the cases approved this the seventh of one we're not here on today was denied because it was a disaster the client did do a explain to the homeowner this is the cloud Chester case that this is this is pushing it on rehabbing this line so he told the homeowner you might actually have to end up digging this up we ended up having to dig it up we knew that it
016was sort of a stretch that one then my client applied for a new permit new work was done and that one's been closed but there are six others that have been approved since we were last year that's terrific because the prospect of me I try to say that today then this is it I'm not trust me this is very expensive for this guy and again the cost of fixing miss Brooke's non-issue as we see it is still much more expensive than me coming here to you who that's so I mean to ask the obvious question how how come this particular case couldn't have because so we had and please step in Ryan if you want to correct me at any time we had eight cases one of which we're hearing today we had one that
017was in violation but they went back and they corrected it we had six other properties that had the work done but we could not get any movement on correcting the issue we didn't have paperwork we didn't have some videos in cases and so so it took going to a ticketing process and enforcing this to this level to get that information and we went back and reviewed all of them out of those six one that was rejected that we had the video one we considered it acceptable minimal acceptable and we did approve it the other five we had to force the issue because we did not have the videos and the paperwork that we have requested so then after our last BBA meeting mr. wood went back to those other addresses and made new videos and
018the new videos were acceptable so this one was also done remotely the exception thing in terms of slope and water flow very where most of the issues on the others based on slope and water flow there were violations because we had not received videos and or people we were requesting okay we got that information we evaluate it at all okay that is flatly incorrect they told us in their March 8th violations we've reviewed videos and these are the problems okay March 8th and were with judge Valvo on C violations or ordinance violations for that after the fact I know we're talking about the sixth now they have reversed all of them okay no work has been done March age they knew what the violation was and it was P three thousand five three and if
019we need to make this proceeding into about those cases I would like an opportunity to present because I completely disagree that what happened is we told you we don't have videos so we violated you for P three thousand five without having seen anything and then you gave us videos and now everything's okay I take full exception to that and I don't want to sit here and go back and forth on it but I will leave it at that we we're not gonna address those six again at this meeting yes although we are saying is that the previous appeal whatever would call it asking for a variance is is what has to be addressed and it was our denial I believe was based upon the inadequate slope which it didn't if that is still there then
020in my thoughts the contractor is responsible to fix that and responsible for the cost of that sure not the homeowner we have a contractual obligation with a homeowner that said do that yeah and that the contractor is responsible know that the homeowner is responsible okay and but the other part of it is we understand that there's we're accepting that there's a violation of p3000 5:3 we're saying that in these particular circumstances that a variance can be appropriate if I had the opportunity to show you all the videos which last time that did not go so well the whole picture here is that this is a non-issue the homeowner doesn't think it's issue the variance is exact we're saying that the variance is exactly what can be done to correct and avoid this huge cost of
021the homeowner that's that's all we're saying we understand there's a violation but the violation since 2014 since this thing's been in place it's a it's a sewer line not a single backup and we have a protection for that so I just want to be clear we understand that there's a violation P three thousand five three we think that under the plain language of this statute there's evidence to show that a variance is not inappropriate that's all I'm saying and nothing in there says that costs can't be can't create an exceptional circumstance I mean if this was five hundred dollars to fix we would not be here it's we're estimating fifteen thousand dollars folks to something that no one actually believes is a problem it's technical violation sure because that's what you found but variance is
022there so that if there's a practical difficulty we can deviate from and be excused from that particular code that's that's all we're saying can you explain to me the guarantee to which you have given we have that was included previously it's a 10-year warranty it's exhibit three to this latest filing and it very clearly says that we'll fix anything on paragraph C contractor will correct a failure by repairing or replacing the affected pipe within a reasonable time without charge to the owner and the failure we're talking about is if it ruptures that's defined earlier or if there's a backup and what we'd be willing to do is give this in lifetime warranty to give this house a lifetime warranty it's that was what I was going to ask are you contractor willing to give the
023house lifetime without question I will give I mean not sure I'm not sure that the rest of the board but this is something that could be looked at I think that under the variance rule on that the board could attach conditions okay we are open to conditions lifetime warranty for the house it can be in the city record it could be in the approval on the plumbing online docket lifetime of the house pertaining to next owner and next owner and certainly certainly and by the way this is intended this 10-year warranty for a subsequent homeowner so this could clearly be in the city records variance approved on the condition that X that's you know that's that's a we have no problem agreeing to that okay two things first of all the hearing here is for
024the contractor not meeting having a violation not the homeowner the second thing is warranties are only maybe available as long as the company is in operation which I'm sure mr. wood is going to be around for quite some time but you never know the outcome and the situation's of a company so please keep that in mind do you want us to put up a bond you know I'm actually actually to me that that's much more promising because the problem I mean I saw the warranty you know actually planned and I read through it there's a lot of um I mean I don't want to use the word the term fine print but there are a lot of exceptions as to what could you know make the veterans warranty an invalid and I this is a
025franchise operation isn't it no it is it is his own yeah it's confused with a roto-rooter I think they're much bigger this is just him it's just he's he's at this this is his baby 30-plus years Bruder md plumbing is not one of franchises no it's his own business not a franchisee of the company that makes that the contract subcontractor that provides that LMK technologies no they're they're out of Illinois and we just use their products I mean yeah all that stuff he can be amenable to I will make him be animal to that because it's that what the whole point is to make sure we have no sewer backups and if there are let's take care of but there haven't been in five years okay well I just want to say one of the
026other things so so even even though it this is this is about this hearing is about the the contractor who pulled the permit the fact that they included in their information packet that their contract with the homeowner puts the homeowner on the line I mean to me makes it an additional mm-hmm complication but so go ahead is the step with the staff be amenable if the board were to pass it based on available for life for all repairs to the line and as associated other expenses if it were to back up drywall in the basement yes something like that something this city attorney I honestly don't know anything about the legality um I think that I don't know who the bond would go to I don't know how the bond would run with the land
027which is part of the issue subsequent owners and I don't know who would be holding this bond making the determinations as to whether or not the conditions of the bond applying it the mechanism I think would be if possible would be very complicated thank you so just a clarification my understanding and reading this is that you've got a slope issue and a dip issue and the fact that the video showed standing water which would suggest that you're not getting a proper flow through the the piping and again the code is written not just for the present condition but it's basically whoever lives in that house a family more than one person continuous movement of flow and things like that so again it might perform well presently for the condition of the house but then as
028we go forward with change of ownership a family of 20 moves in or whatever that you would still expect that flow to perform efficiently and the question is it's questionable whether that would or not that's what I at least I'm hearing that's the way we inspect is so we what what's so hard for me to just accept here is that the other six had water some of them video showed they were complaining about the same issue slow we haven't corrected a single thing in those they are now approved six of them so they're shown the video did show water sitting on the original videos yes then they went in re video these job sites and the new inspections had an acceptable amount of water you know which would be very minor water at the very
029bottom right so they looked much better and then a couple of the properties in question one of them the video they gave us the original time didn't even show a liner install so that was one of them that when we did get the video it showed the liner and it was acceptable okay but again we this appeal is for this address you can't work on the previous sentence we're done with the previous six I understand I'm just telling you for context that this was a month or two ago a major horrendous problem mr. wood was creating and now six of them are okay and I know that I'm biting the hand that fed us they they went and reviewed and they now approved but my point is this that this is the position that the
030city was taking long ago and with this particular one there is going to be no I mean no fear that there's going to be a major problem and we're willing to back it up we just don't want to go fix something for twenty thousand dollars that doesn't need to be fixed right now what was that ticket I believe it was after our last BBA meeting yeah so there's a second video the first video was back in 2014 now there was a second video that we took because they asked us to that's one we have to know so the second video we found to still not be acceptable the concerns were the amount of water and still the dip yeah well the dip was essentially holding water water right but what isn't what are the sandy
031waters for low issue this slope from start to finish was an acceptable correct but somewhere in between that we yeah and then at the end of it of course so that so let's say it goes down pretty hard and then there's there's a dip but then goes back down right at the city there's no water at the actual mean there's a dip so it's clear that at some point if the flow is slow enough there will be water there but it does push it out but last thing I want to say I promise of by the logic that they saw a video in 2014 on the other cases for let's say one case for example and it was unacceptable but then in 2018-19 they see a video and is now acceptable can't we just wait
032five years to see if the video in five years in this case makes it acceptable because that's what happened the video in 2014 was unacceptable and then we took another video in 2018 December and now it's acceptable so why don't we just wait by that logic and obviously it's kind of ludicrous for me to say that but that's what happened we didn't make any new changes any anything and it was okay by the city standards why can't that happen in this case I'm being sort of facetious but you seem like you're not understanding what I'm saying yeah I mean well since you invited to me my understanding of variance is a variance is greater when a system or process is used that doesn't meet the letter of the code but meets the intent the standing
033water here clearly shows that it doesn't meet the intent of the code so I don't think variance is applicable here and warranties and all of those other things are thorny issues at best so I I mean I can't support the request for a grant Sarah matter what would you four years of it working isn't good for you well it's it's you said it's there's a single person there no it's it's miss Brooks and her daughter I'm okay but it's not a particularly heavy use that could change actually just just a quick question is this a combined sewer does it takes does it take storm storm and or basement I've never been on site to see that because it's not the house is actually old enough that it was before the companion sewers you wouldn't necessarily
034a foundation drain tied into it correct so it's a sole source yes okay lord have any other questions or comments from city staff let's see we have a question for me all right is there position for a motion on this attack above and that's yet okay give us a few minutes here [Applause] the position that is deficient well this is what I just I have a part so I just just ask whether the quick question of clarification that's so the permit was granted in 2014 and the michigan certificate of compliance for this system was granted in 2017 just to know how they were able to pull a permit at the time at the time the front staff were not asking what type of material you were using for the CI PP piping good so the
035permit was issued then the work was completed and it wasn't till later in 2016 that we figured out which product it was and that it was in fact not approved and that's why the inspection didn't take place until after the L&K product was approved and then they had to go to the state to get the approval on the I think we've had this discussion on something else that's probably can I add that the state approval is not necessary to do business and use the product but it's a way to guarantee that the state has approved it this is a product that's used thousands of thousands of miles throughout the country so and that's a completely different issue but that's I guess I'll just add that I mean the the very thing that poor remember heart
036was mentioning of it says a Board of Appeals may attach in writing any condition in connection with the granting of a variance that in his judgement is necessary to protect the health safety and welfare of the people of this state which would include subsequent homeowners I would I would think and so that the powers there it's a question of the discretion of the board I'm sorry the power is therefore for a cook if you think that there is a concern that will pose a threat to the state of the people with the state of Michigan's health welfare you can impose a condition that is part of the granting of the variance you can say we'll give you the variance but here's the condition and if you violate that condition we revoke the variance that's what
037the statute clearly 15/15 clearly provides that subsection 2 that's what I was reading from I wouldn't know what condition to put on it because if I started doing that I'd be designing the code I mean and we've had a discussion on putting a condition with regard to performance of the piping and / - ax T or whatever and the problems with having that well the last the last go round the day what I think it was an episode in ASTM standard that was quoted and I think David harnessed or looked through it he didn't see that the that any belying or anything was in there as part of the an acceptable standard or not a standard and that an acceptable exception to use it to doing that lining system it actually is in there and
038that's what SOP 501 well it's all about I think that's what that's what was pointed out was that the SOP SOP 501 included some indication that I'm a certain amount of irregularity in the pipe or the slope of the pipe was acceptable because it was an existing condition nobody found it within the ASTM and I don't standards it was included in the last pocket it's in there that manufacturers recommended installation procedures and that's it's both it's a common the SOP 501 is a combination of the ASTM whatever number it is and the manufacturers insulation the manufacturers insulation sites the and I'm trying to find it I don't think it's in this one but I'm pretty sure these are these dips and all that are permissible even per the per the standard but you bring up
039a great point the city themselves had that step well this was a stolen you were aware of that no I found it by accident so it's you would think that the city would have brought it to our attention because it's something that they applied in other CI PP installations but what you know I know I don't know what they did in the past I'm telling you that there's we went to appeal before this board I may have seventeen knows no such discussion of the 501 and so but that's that's outside of today ok so just as a matter of procedure because I noticed a need I think the initial staff report that they didn't after we denied the appeal they didn't go to the state for to get a higher level of interpretation they go
040free to the Construction Co Commission for approval against your decision okay and so if this variance is denied they have that option to do so yes well actually that's not completely correct I mean mo of so of variance the state code can take it up in their discretion it's not an automatic it's not an automatic appeal the appeal its automatic but a variance request can pull it up I just looked at this today they they can take it if circumstances warranted but in a variance they really want to defer to the local boards that's why it's not an automatic appeal so that's that is procedurally different and I just asked if there is going to be a denial of this if we could put the findings of facts or whatever you base it on on
041the record because the statute requires that but also I mean I really don't want to go to the the state construction board or whatever they're called but that's this is the only evidence they get to see is this hearing well transcription process yeah I'm saying I'm saying it's fine but what I'm saying whatever your basis or reasoning is I'd like it to be set forth on an audio here so we can we can it we can understand if I may just say something about that really what it is is is there a practical difficulty if there is then that's the finding of fact that is you say what it is if there is no practical difficulty and this is a decision for the board there's that's the absence of a fact so it is true
042that you can't be arbitrary but the board has to apply the standard and if there are facts that meet the standard there affects that meet the standard if there aren't they're earned and that's your call can I say one last thing about the 80s I found it the 80s M standard F 12 16 12 14 or 12 16 and then it goes by the year at 7.14 and this is what the SOP was based on it indicates the original pipeline should be clear of obstructions such as solid strap joints protruding service connections crush or collapse pipe and reductions in the cross sectional area of more than 40% that will prevent the insertion of the resin impregnated to then that's what it that's what it talks about it's okay but that's not the word dip no
043it's not in there no and that's and I think that's it that's the point is that is that I mean the way I understand it is that those technical criteria that you just elaborated have to do with the ability to actually do the installation of the liner and and has nothing to do with the fact that you know the the slope may not be perfect it's to make sure that the liner can can be properly installed to eight point seven provides variations from true line and grade may be inherent because of conditions of the original piping okay it's fine you're gonna fine just make sure you explain it for us so we can have it on the record okay so could I have that ASTM standard again just the number that I was reading you
044well not that not Oh F 1216 is there any preference to where we would table the issue and allow you to do an appeal to the construction board as opposed to denying you the variance now and then having you do the appeal well I don't think procedurally I can appeal your decision until you've made one okay we've made one less that's a different that's the appeal on whether or not I was in violation this is not about that we agree that we're on violation this is about whether there can be a variance from that violation just so we're clear and it doesn't seem like that's very clear mr. winters yes yeah this is a different this is me saying we are in violation yes of that slope statute but the practical difficulties are presented such
045that we're asking for a Barrett to be allowed to vary from that violation from that application of to past 20-some years have been on this board it's the first time that an applicant comes before us it's basically the same thing and now he's saying the first one was for something different we threw you the video we had this discussion in November but there's no need for me to argue about what happened in November that's that's what confused me but way that one more thing yes sir to the file that ASTM standard I don't believe is approved currently by the state of Michigan okay I wasn't going to I mean it wasn't planning to quote but I just wanted to know mmm so we using the ASTM 1216 standard at the city wrote its own standard
046of procedure is not approved by the state is that what you're saying so that standard is not shown on our code books currently has not been approved and put in the Carlos okay so what the 10 goes to they don't know what that means the median understand lifetime has a variety of definitions depending on who the vendor is well I mean there are other things I'll try this mmm I moved that in the matter of BB a 19-0 zero one that the appeal for a variance from the 2009 Michigan residential code p300 five point three for the work performed by rotor MD at 1612 1625 well phone is granted under exception J and section 104 of the residential code to allow for moderate moderate deviations from the p300 v building code i'm sorry from the
047prescribed slope in the p 305 building code and that a the performance of the CI PP installation is adequate for its intended use and does not substantially deviate from the performance required by the code for the health safety and welfare the people of the state and b the specific condition claimed by the applicant is neither is so general nor recurrent in nature as to make the variance an amendment of the code and that see that failure of the system due to the existing slope deviation will be rectified by the contractor without condition within the 12-year warranty offered by the contractor Wouter MD clearify the last part shall be rectified yes rectified by the contractor without condition so you're ruling the fine print yes without extending the length of it within the 12 years because I
048lifetime means I mean how do you define lifetime so so we're expecting them to correct the deficiencies within the next eight years in essence a they had four years in eight years to go then you hit the twelve year you expect them to rectify the dip in the scope it was twelve all right how about within the 12-year warranty offered by the contractor from the date of this hearing to you oh she's gone who is that first that first part clear enough yeah yeah okay because I had to backtrack on make sure I got that insert so I would assume also we need to find out if they would if the contract is agreeable to that because if not then it's denied it's your responsibility to say that to the attorney that's the limitation oh
049yeah I'm having trouble understanding the limitation we are supposed to fix it within 12 years of well you offered a 12 year warranty yes and I'm like the condition is that it's not going to be the cost to the homeowner and that it twelve years we'll be running from today yes but what will not be at the cost of the homeowner the cost to rectify the repair of the system of the system in case it fails I got you fails beyond like if there's any kind of backup any sort of thing like that yes yeah okay I got you you're essentially saying that you agree to extend the warranty without conditions that Mister would personally or his company would pay for and rectify if there's a failure because I'm perfectly fine and agreeing to and
050it's I like that it's on the on the record here because we're fine to agree to that and that is we understand I mean understand what what I'm trying to do we're trying to construct this emotion is something that is acceptable to to the city and to the homeowner because I don't think the homeowner should be on the hook for for agreeing to using to using a particular system to which they probably have no understanding technical understanding at all I mean if I was a homeowner and somebody came to me and said look I can make this work and instead of digging up that your entire yard and doing all of this with $20,000 I can do it for a quarter of the cost and it will be perfectly fine I mean as an as
051a homeowner probably going to say sure that sounds terrific and the assumption is going to be that the guy who's doing the work has got everything covered as far as acceptability to code and permitting and the whole the whole thing so I so really so that's so that's the reason for the last the last condition is that that warranty is but if something goes wrong mm-hmm it's not going to be a warranty that's couched in the dozens of technical minutiae it's going to be a broad-based if it fails you guys have been your client will fix enforcement of warranty Oh whether it's enforceable oh how will it get enforced that's it we going to over gen'l'men sure gets enforced well I mean that to go it just goes back to the value of the thing
052fails the walk the columnar homeowner goes back in five days and said within five days of the failure and says I have a failure and then somebody has to come out and determine whether the failure falls within the terms of the warranty and if there's a dispute then it becomes finger-pointing in the lawsuit though and meanwhile the system is shut down and it's not functioning but that's that's the case with anything that gets done I mean any work that gets done give me it can be warranted until it's not so I mean you know what this is really it's it's it's it's a leap of faith to get this thing most moved forward and resolved especially in light of the fact that it was some accommodation reached on all the others but you know going
053forward that has to be some kind of stricter application of the code or better understanding of what the expectation is going to be so that this doesn't become a repeat performance because I don't get the feeling that that there is something like that in place the other I think like Zack had done previously it sent me paper copy and I think he needs to pass it by particularly involved okay I think that with all due respect just lightening this to a council meeting that I don't know if we can replay it at this point but it's generally the the council person the person who's making emotion writes it out for themselves and I know but that is being done and it's not easy I'm not saying making a decision coming up with emotion is a
054difficult matter but I think what is best is to state it on the record as clearly as possible and it may take a little bit and then that's I think the best we can do can i I took a stab at some language I know that the motion hasn't even really been made but what we what we'd be willing to do I think provided that mr Wood is personally liable though personally responsible to correct any failure to the sewer line at the home within ten years of today's date this is rough but we're confident everything's gonna be okay and if there's a backup he's got to go and deal with it and personally not just his company that that's you know some language that I I thought and also through if we could add personally
055I would like to add something in there suggesting that should the property be sold that the buyer is well aware and at that point if a buyer asks for it to be repaired or whatever because I'm more concerned about the next person knowing that as much as I am about the present lady and her daughter but at what point at the point at the time of the date that they purchase it and they find that there's a problem or it should you obviously reveal to the potential buyer that there's a variance in place with criteria so that the buyer then can decide if that's acceptable or not make it part of their negotiation or whatever I don't care but if that and I think it's important that the next owner potential owner you know I
056think Miss Brooks is required there's a I'm sure we've all seen it and selling homes there's a disclosure I think in that disclosure she's likely if there's a dissing these conditions would make it to the each racket system and a variance would be mentioned in there she probably has a responsibility to disclose it to a purchaser I mean I don't know how we can do it but we'd be willing to say we can we can send you know information to someone in to the home in five years or something I don't know but my bling which travels with the home not just the homeowner it's for this specific home alrighty I just want to be comfortable it should they decide to sell in four years that the buyer is well aware they're potential buyers well
057aware that there's these caveats in place if that's the case or not okay okay so something to the effect of and this is this is a trial this is not good a part of the motion that the conditions of this variance at warranty will be conveyed in writing to any future owner of the property within the term the term limit of the warranty yes okay and then you wanted or you asked for any problems will be rectified personally well I was providing sample language to it looks like you're trying to extend this warranty to other homes and we're removing some parts of the warranty which I understand there's a non transferability clause that would have to be gone all that can be worked out I mean however you want to put the condition I'm not
058an attorney so I mean I can only I can only do what I can do to try to garret to try to safeguard the art or to provide for an accommodation of this mess I can't I can't construct all the ins and outs and legal parameters that might govern this I understand I mean you know ultimately look ultimately anybody has a problem well I mean everybody will be back in court to debate whether or not what was said is really intended the point of this is basically to try to put some kind of additional condition on this on this variance so that the system is protected within a reasonable amount of time of the warranty that was being offered but that it wouldn't be subject to to a myriad of conditions that it would be
059that it would be a more broad brush and open warranty and that's the intent and you know and I mean we have yet to vote on this so sure it's gonna fly but but that's the intent so there's an element of trying to be fair to everybody involved mmm that you know the system has so far been reliable but that there's some provision that it will continue to be reliable and that the homeowner isn't going to be on the hook for the repair and replacement how can this how can a potential buyer be I had one suggestion make mr. wood have to email or shoot my office email the home but that email sent a letter to the home and I don't know every year and say brick just in and they if they want
060to follow up on the issue they can I make it more work here but I'm just good faith here I realized when somebody is selling the house they have to say that there's certain things that have gone on in the house that been that are not prepared or that they had a water leak for some reason and they now fixed it that type of disclosure it's yes and there's a section for plumbing and that's where Miss Brooks would say we had this issue but we can't just rely on Miss Brooks to okay do this but that's where it would be communicated we can't put it on the city if I may address the board yes this is relying on promises their words on paper and I believe that the board is trying to do the
061right and fair thing but if it's not enforceable the city cannot amend the work on an amendment of the warranty it's the board can do what they want to do but I want to make sure that the board understands that this how this is going to be enforced it is whatever mr. Rodriguez I guess says that I guess somehow he's going to enforce it and mr. wood is going to self enforce go through the emotion again sure I can do it again you can do that so we have things so should I eat for the sake of the camera and the record strike the previous motion and start all over it cool so this is the new motions I'm I moved that in BBA 1900 won the appeal for a variance from the 2009 Michigan
062residential code p300 5.3 for the work performed by Rooter MD and 1625 watham in Ann Arbor is granted under exception J of the rehabilitation code and section 104 of the residential code to allow for a moderate deviations from the prescribed slope in the p300 v building code and that a the performance of the CI PP installation is adequate for its intended use does not substantially deviate from the performance required by the code for the health safety and welfare of the people of the state and B the specific condition claimed by the applicant is neither so general nor recurrent in nature as to make the variance an amendment of the code and then see failure of the system due to the slope deviation doot-doot to the existing slope deviation will be rectified by the contractor without
063condition within the 12-year warranty offered by the contract from the date of this hearing and Addie the conditions of this variance and warranty will be conveyed in writing to any future owner of the property within the term limit of the warranty good if I could just ask for one clarification conveyed by the contractor to subsequent owners and attorney and present owner because part of mr. Rodriguez's point is that the present owner is not liable for the Clockers is liable for the cost of the repair and we're putting in stipulations on their saying if it performs well life is good but she should be part of this of approval I meant to say that okay I I can live with that as well and I'm just asking for clarification that it's not somehow the city that
064is supposed to do that that's pretty much round coming yes right because we basically feel the contractors liable but she's been told that she's liable and I think that's a disconnect that would be of a concern to me right yeah we will explain to Miss Brooks that she should fill out whoever's if she ever sells let's see it's item number seven it says any plumbing problems put it in you're supposed to do that was that please put it in writing to her service connects explaining verbally but we will also do something about it not I understand she's required to by Michigan love we will also follow up on so how do I include him contractor and contractors attorney so I propose to modify item D of previous motion to read the conditions of this variance
065and warranty will be conveyed in writing by the current owner and/or its legal counsel and the contractor and/or its legal counsel to any future owner of this property within the term limit of the warranty twelve years okay so clear covers everything it's clear to me okay as much as we can at this point clear we have the motion is there a second second we halt second we have to second it now okay motion has been made and seconded all those in favor aye aye those opposed and we suggest taking for clarity taking a roll call on that roll call on the vote Hugh flake no Gordon berry no pop hi yes can winters yes to to to motion is not passed yeah that should close though and that means that the variances variance is not
066granted so just as a quick point of information we do have a quorum yes I believe that the Kristen you said that there was yes we have the quorum hey just so I'm clear I heard someone say absent for that there are two board members missing Oscar we won't follow up on this there are board members missing the the meetings started with the roll call vote and there is a quorum you and I could look back and make sure that that is the case oh yeah no I'm just I wanted that the names is if mr. darling and then there was its mr. irons story okay just wondering thank you all right thank you and we'll get a copy of that denial okay I just wait it's gonna be you were writing that all out
067is that what happened that is motion that was made and it did not pass I understand I wanted there's a record of the motion that was right you can you order the video okay all right okay thank you okay anyone have old business anyone was new business any reports or communications is there public commentary no comment and motion for adjournment please snow moved motion second second all those in favor aye motion is passed and we are adjourned at 3:02 you