001their meetings building board of fields for a city of Ann Arbor Thursday November 15th 2018 yes and we'll start with staff Lynn Dempsey Ryan Miller here Kathleen summers go yeah Krystal Markham yeah Deborah Williams yeah and Zach was Smith I am here board members Paul darling Robert Hart here Ken winters Gordon Barry you're David iron store here and Hugh flack absolutely we have if we can have motion have did everybody receive the agenda any questions on that no have a motion for approval I move to approve approval was David yep Paul second emotion and approval all those a favor I approved approval of minutes for what was the last meeting in May of 2018 everybody received that in the email and staff yes any questions or comments on that if not we could have a
002motion for approval move to proof minutes it's a second motion by Bob Hart and approval motion and approval motion and second is there vote for approval all those in favor opposed the minutes for me have been approved and next we go on to appeals actions and show-cause here first on the agenda is BBA 1800 six and one six two five welcome in Ann Arbor if staff so about ten years ago I had a minor system installed and my how a personal residence by Rueter MD but I don't have any financial interest in this particular appeal or knowledge about this appeal besides that and weren't I suppose that okay just disclosure alright thank you Paul and if staff can give us a summary of this appeal yes Glen Dempsey the peel was submitted to the building
003department from the applicant Oscar Rodriguez to asking for desired relief in regards to the address of 1625 walton drive and the relief they're asking that a finding that the SOP 501 applies to this permit that they're a finding that there is no violation of the MRC p300 5.3 and they have various attachments involved this was to find an appeal basis that the violation from Ryan Miller on an inspection based on a video that was provided that it was not sufficient and adequate for the intention of the code the basis of appeal is the proper SOP has no evidence that there is in fact non-compliance with p300 5.3 which is the Michigan plum or the residential plumbing code and there's various attachments and discussion that takes place in the submit all that's been provided in fact
004the I guess as the building officials final response in conclusion is that we would we would ask that the board deny this approval based on the intent of the code not being met and that again was three zero zero five point three this is a CI PP liner it is a liner that is put in place to help the drainage of a sewer line from the house to the main sewer thank you is there someone here in the audience to address this let us know about the appeal yes Rodriguez and I represent mr. wood and his company what quick thing have you signed in no I have not but I will sign in now thank you before we get started you know I don't do these types of Appeals very often and so if I
005if you need to correct me on the procedure or the timing please just let me know my intention here is to present our appeal and the issues as we see them and have ourselves or I'm not sure if there's a time limit and I'm not suggesting that I'm going to be here for hours or anything like that but it would be good to know if there if there is a one ahead of time there is no time limit but I will ask that you limit your discussion to the three items that are being asked for the appeal certainly with respect to the three items however we we frame the issues a little bit differently in our appeal and I trust that everyone has read had an opportunity to look at the appeal package that we
006submitted and I want to repeat for Batum but I think that it's important there are some videos that I alluded to in the in the appeal that we obviously can't just show on the printed appeal so let me let me just get started the issue for us is simply my client who's been doing these CI PP liners for many years almost since 2002 at least with this kind of product bit a master plumber for many years and been in the plumbing business for forty five years comes in to Ann Arbor and installs I think by our count is about 50 of these liners and as mr. Dempsey pointed out essentially you line an old sewer line that's in disrepair Orangeburg is very popular in this area and so it's a very common thing to see
007this type of liner the reason is different from we normally think of open trench replacement of a line is because the idea is that it's trenchless so you go in without digging up a yard and you line that's what the product is that's what the technology it's not that complicated it's a liner kind of cures like this and this is not exactly what was at issue at waffle but the idea is that it just cures molds inside the line that is broken that's what he does he's been doing this for a long time this particular case was 2014 and this was that watham in your report you saw and I think it's important anecdotally you saw a affidavit from Miss Brooks the owner of the home that explained to us in this affidavit is recent
008that she's since the completion of the work and 2014 know for their work has been required and there have been no problems she also writes I am 100% satisfied with the work completed by Rueter MD I'm just trying to set up that this is it practically speaking this is what we're dealing with a satisfied homeowner that is still covered by the ten year now 12-year warranty that was offered by Rueter MD so this is one of eight cases it used to be one of 32 cases because prior to October of 2017 the issue before what the city was whether or not this product was even acceptable okay and this was the MLK product the MLK product and I think you heard from mr. wood last year on an appeal on that product as it turns
009out the Board found that the products not specifically named there was no certificate acceptability at the time so tonight we're not here on anything like that the certificate of acceptability was approved October 11th of 20 17 October 30th of 2017 mr. Ryan Miller went to eight homes that mr. wood had installed these liners on and inspected videos related to including watham and said that there's a violation of this p3000 v 3p 3005 3 is a slope is a slope requirement and it says that four lines of diameters of three or more inches there needs to be a slope of one percent that is what the March letter that is attached to the packet provides the basis for this violation violation of P three thousand five three so that's what we're here about we have filed
010this appeal on three bases okay the appeal is is based on that the city in the past has approved other trenchless processes with this and I'm going to use an air quotes similar water issue without issue okay they've approved them so to us now we're not applying the true intent of the code the true intent of the code from the city's perspective was that this was okay and now it's not okay that's one one basis okay the second basis for it is that three thousand five three does not apply and where we get support for that is that there's an SOP from 2016 that we'll get into that clearly provides what the rules are going to be for CI PP installations okay and the rules are that certain humps Bellies intrusions are acceptable that SOP
011has been used by the city not provided to us we found it by happenstance over the summer on each racket that was not produced three thousand five doesn't apply according to the city's own policy okay because it was not applied in that particular case and presumably it applied to other cases as well and then the last component of why there's no violation of p3000 5/3 is that there is no evidence there's actually violation of the 1% in order to get a conclusion that 1 percent slope wasn't met there needs to be by definition a calculation what happened here I don't think there's any dispute is that mr. Miller eyes the video and says slope not met 1% I met a problem with that is that that's not how it was done with other videos and
012I think that from a due process standpoint it's it's strictly it's purely unfair to mr. wood I mentioned some videos in the appeal with respect to the first component of our argument and that is what the city has done before I have those videos today and again I don't did these videos aren't very long but I would like to show what the city has done in other trenchless meaning well you know what the concept is here what the city has done in other particular cases the first video we're looking at here which hopefully pulls up is by one of mr. brooder mr. woods competitors Rover and it's a excuse me I don't think it's relevant what is been done before on a different project by a different contractor can I explain to you why may
013be an analogy if law enforcement takes a certain position over and over and over again with respect to something the people start relying on then law enforcement says for this particular case we're gonna look at it differently that's why can you show us the video that was done by mr. Miller on this case yeah I'm not playing that's the now you are four videos this video does not so you I will not I'm not here to argue with anyone if you would if you're telling me that I should not show these videos I will not show the videos there's there's a procedure I'm just saying that the whole point of the code is to apply the intent of the code is to make sure that we don't have danger to human life okay and the
014building official is charged with that responsibility I'm I'm looking at what the building officials have done in this very city for years to show what they think the true intent of the code is if you're telling me not to show it I don't have to just a moment anyone on the board want to see the video that is not relevant to this case it seems to me that the only real question here is is the one percent is clearer in the code that you want us there are other percentages in the code I think it varies depending on the pipe size yeah but I mean you basically want a little bit of slope and not too much slope this the basic rule in sewer pipes so the only question here is is there clear evidence
015that there is some slope in this one if so why what is it and how how good is that evidence I don't know what else to say about so that says I don't the only video that we need to see would be this yeah I don't see how this I mean we can't really rule on due process law anyway so we have no I agree I mean I take it a step further then hmm I mean I just happened to see the video of the house in question so I don't want a short-circuit your presentation but to me this is strictly a chronology issue the permit was pulled in 2014 it was a particular code in effect which was 305 for whatever reason so the city then issued this SOP which may or may not
016be relevant but in the inspection didn't occur until three years later but it it should still be based on the 300 five point three because that was the code that was in effect at the time of the permit was pulled has nothing to do with precedent or anything sure the trainee Lutheran Church that had the code a CI PP case that case the SOP came after that work was done so they created an SOP for purposes of approving this church product there's a church installation so on your kind of chronology issue that that's that's my problem with it is you're saying it happened before so the code applied the the p3000 five applied an SOP 501 doesn't well then that should have been the case with the church but I get what you're saying but
017but we're not here to judge on the inconsistencies of application that the city may or may not have I mean I have plenty of questions about about the SOP and and and chronologies on other projects this has just to do with this particular project and the the inspection that was made and the challenge or the that was made as to whether proper slope was applied certainly and it's based and I think correctly so on the fact that the 305 was in effect at the time that the permit was pulled the SOP 501 notwithstanding is actually irrelevant to this again in my opinion but and is there basis for that or just your opinion it's my opinion that the 305 is the one that's in effect was it was the code provision that was in effect
018at the time the permit was pulled I mean I'll tell you I'm an architect we pull we have had plenty of projects that have transpired over a change in code if we get our project permitted and approved under you know an older code that's the code that's in effect it's not what happens two years later when the project is finished and inspected you don't you don't apply the inspections of the criteria the code to the times you it's retroactive to when the permit was pulled and that's what you just from another part of the world and the way things work to explain that's exactly what I'm trying to do with this but it isn't it's not it's it's not no no I'm then maybe I didn't make myself clear so let me just go back
019to what it's my my take on this from a chronological point of view the permit was pulled in 2004 p300 5.3 was the code that was in effect at the time so that when the inspection was done three years later the code that was still in effect at the time should be the 300 5.3 that applied to Trinity it's him that's what what the city did on another project is not material to this that's not the issue you can't go back and rewrite or look at all the wrongs or rights that might have been done over the last you know dozen years because that's not what the case is about about what this is about again in my opinion but I don't want to hang up these points I mean you know that the SOP
020is permitted by the code itself it says that the building official shall have the authority to enter interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions this is our 104.1 that's exactly what mr. strong did and I asked mr. strong to participate in this process he initially did and now for whatever reason he's not participating in this process and I think it's fully relevant and I will move on I understand that you disagree with me that the city can decide how to apply the true intent of the code by their interpretation and that's what they did they were doing it both officially through SOP 501 and unofficially by the way in which they approve videos that I'm not going to show but that are certainly
021within the record so going I guess to your and with respect to the three-year delay on on the inspection the videos of the process of the approved for were given to the city right away by DVD they were given to the care of mr. rap okay miss Ratliff is not here today and we're not allowed to subpoena folks and ask them questions etc I understand for whatever reason and partially at my clients fault he doesn't follow up on those videos but mr. Ratliff has them and that's I just explained to you that the city was not that interested in getting these this done but I understand that mr. wood in retrospect should have said hey mr. Ratliff what about my videos but that's why we had a three-year delay meanwhile of course we have a
022happy customer but if you want me to narrow it to the issue of whether strict application of p3000 five-point-three means that there's a violation here I think that it's very clear that and I'm going to give you the example of a riser the riser stair riser rule I'm just pulling this out right now I know that there's a rule that says that stairs the risers may be not a minimum of four inches or something not a maximum of nine inches there are specific numbers that are put in that regulation and I've seen it I think in the city's website it's certainly in the code we have specific numbers in this case and I think we should pull up the actual code section right there let's see if there's a way oh so that's and then
023I think I can do this a little bit so in this particular case so that's p3000 five three what applies to us is the 1% because we have a diameter of more than three inches and it says that the drainage piping shall be installed in uniform alignment at uniform slopes of not less than 1/8 unit vertical in 12 unit towards I don't 1% slow for diameters of 3 inches 76 the video and I I don't want to play the video again if everyone's seen the video in this case yes ok so anybody has everybody seen it ok ok so in the e-track it notes on the actual inspection mentioned nothing about any calculations we've asked the city we void this there's none of that and the truth is they fit into the eyeball it ok
024what is really perplexing to me is how on what on the city's position is we can take this and we can say this is what we think the true and 10 of the code is and we're gonna eyeball it and we think you're in violation but I can't come here to you and say there's other parts that show the intent because they're not relevant I've been told and there's no evidence that 1 percent was me that's like a cop proving that you were going 5 miles over without an actual radar gun and saying my eyes said you were going 5 miles over and frankly the officer might be right but that's but if you're gonna hold us to the strict application of this the city hasn't provided any kind of evidence that there's a slope
025violation that that's you know I'm not gonna argue I will answer questions but that's what's really troubling to me and I'm not the expert in the plumbing field whatsoever or any of these technical fields but we're being told the rules are X but but not really they're actually a little different there's a changing ball or a changing court for mr. wood and I don't think this isn't going to stop and the only resolution is for mr. wood to not do work in a city of a harbor I don't think that's what our city stands for but I you know this I'm not giving my entire presentation but I get where this is going I think that you know I the record should reflect that we think sop 501 is pretty clearly applicable here mr. Hart
026provided a chronological argument well the problem with that is that the one where they applied SOP 501 to Trinity or that we know of they might have applied it somewhere else that predated or the SOP predated sorry the SOP post-dated the actual installation of the work but it doesn't matter in that case for some reason it matters in this case is there are there any questions okay that I can address then we'll have the board come up with any questions okay yeah I'm sorry I'm unfamiliar with the particular scope somebody want to start have any questions we have do you have evidence of how or when you looked at the video at the one spot you could see water sitting at like we have evidence of how deep that water is no evidence but if
027there's water sitting between a and B and there's a regulation of the slope require I understand yeah no I understand there's obviously not it's flat I'm just sort of curious if there's a sense of how how much that is I agree with you but is it you know just a thin film is it just a slightly flattened area is it a big big dip there do we have any way we can't tell that castle a video at some different portions you can see from the camera that the pipes have full of water so copy an indication yeah that winches there's water sitting in the pipe obviously of course and I wouldn't say moving happens when we have to meet so we don't have a uniform slope from end to end from point A to point
028B because water collects at some point we don't have you so you're not meeting the code requirement of a uniform so so and but it doesn't the other cases don't matter right that's that's that's right the other cases don't matter the other part of it is remember that we're installing in line that it already exists that already has a certain slope that has been approved before so are what we're saying right now is that the city can go and violate all these lines who haven't been updated that are in disrepair under this this analysis here that's this is a line that is in disrepair that's why why it's being why a liner is being put in place right correct so the liner follows the district pared area if there's a disrepair that is not collecting
029water from point A to point B it can be still lined but you can't have a liner put in and the liner liner follows a non-uniform slope but that's what's been done in every single one of these cases they don't go in and change the slope they fill it in that's unless you do a completely new line open trench that's what's done by definition its rehabilitation when I spoke to mr. Craig strong about this he said that's you're not making it worse you're improving it so my point is under this analysis this city can take the position that every house who hasn't decided yet to get a liner replacement or their line is in violation of the code right under your analysis and that's I I'm just having so much trouble with this because this
030is the this is we're trying to have uniform application of the law is to me and it does not seem it's not on my time it's on his diet but he's trying to do business is he's trying to follow the rules and the rules aren't the same and you're you're telling me that it's okay in one not telling well you in this case it is not okay because you have a non-uniform slope from point A to point B but is where that is also very clear and the city took the position that it's okay for X reasons is there evidence that the city saw water in that or was the disrepair different a different type of disrepair well that they still have the uniform slope I have the evidence you don't want to see it
031I've been happy to show you one of the videos if you let me show you one video of trenchless approval from 2015 you will see exactly what I'm talking about and that's my problem with this and I won't show it to you if you know I'm gonna show it to you but it's it's there and these are just a videos that we selected from manual review of each racket because sometimes the videos are attached most of the time they are to the to the approval but it's you know let me show you the video let's just confirm that because you're talking about uniform slope and these other ones are exactly what mr. winters is saying is unacceptable in this case is exactly what these video show I appreciate your frustration because believe me we go
032through this all the time plenty of projects we work on the the variance at hand is about this particular building in this particular inspection it's not looking to revisit things that have happened in the past and I don't think you want to do that the the question one of the questions I have is this this standard of procedure why why was it developed or issued in the first place if if if it's irrelevant and if the city can't can't change the code because it's it's a state it's the state mandate why was it developed in the first place I probably can't fully answer that I know that since I've taken on the position here we have a standard of using the code not the SOP the SOP is in conflict with the code mm-hmm while
033the intent is to have a certain slope in there and because this is a trenchless type of installation there's no way unless we come up with some type of device that will go through and measure it but the intent is that it should be draining and not not bonding or cooling okay so again no again I wouldn't want to see you guys come back for every installation that you've done previously under let's say the Esso he and I don't think they want you to come back oh they want to come back and revisit that it's water on so called water under the bridge as it were or under the sewer but again to my mind this is about a particular standard that was in effect when this particular project permit was pulled and that's the
034standard to gauge by the other thing is if the inspector saw pipe and felt that the slope wasn't adequate enough the burden proof is not on him it's on the contractor for the same reason that when these sorts of things happen on an architectural level the burden of proof to challenge the code or explain a position on a code false to the architect it doesn't fall you know the inspector can explain his reasoning or what his interpretation of the code but if it's going to be challenged it's going to be challenged by us that's what I'm doing here today well what I'm saying is if if there is a if there's proper fall from point A to point B to me it seems that the contractor should be able to demonstrate that he's got that
035elevation change and meets the percentage slope that's that's required now as far as why that you know there's a belly in the in the pipe and it's accumulating some water there may be there may be some element of reasonableness that's involved there as far as if I'm meeting if I'm eating the proper slope but there happens to be an existing condition where there's an irregularity but the pipe is still draining properly that seems to me that that's something that could be worked out between you guys in the city but from the point of view of the variance again that to me the code that's in it's in effect is the 305 point three can i clarify that we're not asking I know that what you're asking for an interpretation yeah my city's denial right Co
036or the construction statute that's not what we're asking for another section are 104 11 alternative materials design and methods of construction equipment I'm not even going to read it object another example of why the city has discretion and they use the discretion against use the discretion in the favor of the other contractors and not mr. wood and it's so absolutely clear to me that that is what's going on and I've been told that we don't know what the SOP origination the basis was for it why don't we hear from mr. strong mr. strong was in charge the code says that the city can create policies and interpretations and that's what they did and I think that I want to remind everyone why we're here we're not here on principle okay mr. wood and I are
037not here because we just want to win he has spent so far $30,000 on legal fees because we've been fined in nine cases now eight that case is pending stayed by judge Valvo while we deal with the matter here we chose one of the eight cases to appeal because it costs $250 per case just a grainy fear and it doesn't make any sense we wanted to show you one of the samples and we chose the one we thought was in the worst condition and frankly I I don't know what to say other than the rules just seem to be they're hard to follow you know for anyone to be able to do any kind of business with the same process it seems like there's a little bit of personal animosity I'm not saying from the
038board but certainly that we can't get this issue resolved trust me we want to get resolved but we don't want to go and dig up eight different houses customers who are happy and say wait a minute the city of Ann Arbor says there's a problem so I need to dig up your yard I know we chose trench list but we need to dig up your yard and go fix this quote on unquote problem so if you have more questions I'm happy to draw more comment and one more question for you present to the board is that there is another sections of the code that addresses the existing buildings in the appendix J yes so why can't we apply appendix J you're probably plumbing code doing with repair to existing buildings exactly like this is can
039i I know that's question for them that for me I mean but mr. strong this is what mr. strong suggested to me he said you need to propose appendix J now at that point this was just about a month that three months ago August um we've kind of moved the wheel we intend to appeal whatever if we get adverse ruling here to the state more money we don't want to do that but that is an issue that I didn't I didn't have time to really develop but appendix J and it would be good to see what the city's position on that is we use a pigpen dictatorship ensuring stairs existing condition so it's the same ball park roaming with existing additions were repairing it is clearly a repair it's there other areas that are there
040other means of repairing this sewer line that from A to B has a dip in I'm pretty sure if you can find out well the camera shows the distance right there's a number so you take the camera from the house and it says that 55 feet this particular case we're talking about 56 feet 70 feet or 80 feet 81 so the repair would be to go and open up three honor yeah I suspect and we're not there yet there's going to be a few angry homeowners because the people like Dorothy Brooks are gonna say what there's nothing wrong so that's a different issue but that's why repair is expensive for us or else we would have done this and these are out in the street because it goes from a man home back in so
041the last piece of the pipe is the part that's underneath the street that's the part that's that will require additional the cost is astronomical from our perspective and that's why we're or even here there's no I want to get into a tit-for-tat with the city is just the money one hundred plus thousand or try to take these Appeals the the actual repair when a bid is given to the homeowner by the contractor does he know what the condition is of that fight yeah the video oh there's a pre video yeah so that video shown before that oh yes hey why doesn't he say the city shouldn't he say that my repair is going to be digging up this section repairing the pipe putting the liner in for the whole length of the going forward you're
042saying no not going forward now in his bid he should not give a bid well what he could say is if you go to root for Rooter roto-rooter there's going to be no issue he could say that because all the other cases that you won't let me show you our roto-rooter and they're the same exact issues but I want to understand this you're saying to the existing problem homes to go to them and say I need the city has told me we're in violation of this slope issue not for previous going forward is waiting for this how was the video to end of time you saw the belly and it's not huddling and we still chose the line it was a candidate oh because that's an easy answer she's done it so many years without
043issue including in this city and mr. dan Ratliff was okay with it and the videos again that I really want to show you one of them at least makes it clear that the policy changed after mr. mr. Shawn left so it's really expensive for us ladies and gentlemen and that's why you know and this is from now six five years ago in this particular case now I'm doing bad math four years ago from the installation so hypothetically to the city mmm somebody comes in today to them and says my sewers failed and you know I needed realigned okay and he's got a state approval it's just a certificate of acceptability he he goes ahead and puts it in what's the standard that applies to the installation Brian can you share the first process well that
044would be it would still be under the three zero zero five so the code doesn't recognize that ASTM F whatever it is twelve sixteen standard for cured in place price correct that's and there's not it's not in the codebook so because I looked in the 2009 and I didn't see it referenced in the reference standard so that hasn't been applied and hasn't been accepted either that's why the states involved with the product and how they go through a review process and the state of their proves or denies so so if the state if the state issues a certificate of acceptability that the product is okay to use in the state why why wouldn't it follow that they would also have adopted or accepted a standard for testing or instant acceptability of installation that's all can
045be covered under the existing codes in past if you look to some of the other adoptions by the state our allowances for particular materials that haven't been improved in here if you go to perm aligner the acceptability it states various conditions and one of them is the rules and code requirements when LMK was adopted they didn't put anything in there so neither did they they did not accept the standard as opposed to the code but we always refer to the code it's gonna usually take the precedent of whichever is stricter and that's even in the statement in the coats code book itself so I can understand f12 16:09 has been approved by the city that's the thermal liner that Rooter roto-rooter uses and was mentioned in that SOP is l12 1600 none and that and
046then it has manufacturer's specifications we are alum k that has been approved by the state is based on the same 12 1609 I don't understand why it's acceptable for a roto roto-rooter's perma liner but not for ours it's it's mind-boggling III don't understand like it works here but it doesn't work here I don't think it's I think it's it's not the material it's how its installed in this particular line yeah that's FF 1216 that's the insulation back to the cold streets three zero zero five point three you're the code the code doesn't specifically replace that the code does you're right it does not say asterisk but for CIP P or trenchless processes C's 1216 nine applies it doesn't say that but the code also says that not every single reference standard not every potential code
047a TSM whatever are going to be listed and their code sections in the code where the city can use them to apply and specifically this alternative materials one I mean it's absolutely clear that they can make a determination and say if we think it needs to the general idea of protecting the human health that it's okay they're allowed to do that and they've done it they've done it at some point they're choosing not to do it in this case which is similar to the argument that mr. darling brought up on this appendix J there's many ways folks for this to be done and it's I don't know what to do with the other seven cases because it's not just about paying a one thousand dollar fine that we're dealing with that 15th district it's about
048going to the homeowner and saying they could continue finding us over and over again if we don't go and dig up but how are we supposed to tell the homeowners we dig up here but they don't have to dig up over there and in the face of the code that clearly gives them the the leeway the discretion to approve I want a last thing this is welcome this is the case I hope that everyone I think everyone had an opportunity to look at this but we were talking about practicality the kind of the slope the general slope what I'd liked it so this is this is coming out and it'll show at 80 feet you'll see the water there okay oh it goes back to the 81 and there for some reason there it sits
049here this is the video and they don't 7080 see that it was halfway okay and then you go you go up to it you don't see any water here okay and what you can tell here there's water okay you you do not want to see the other videos but it's I don't know how to explain this to my client that it's not acceptable here but then after we get past 56 feet okay we're at 62 it stops you got a quarter maybe there what is that that's a quarter of a camcorder there okay we get to 56 and it sort of turns to me I'm not the expert this is going now uphill we're backing up uphill so when we're looking at the whole trajectory of the whole 80 feet this to me and there's
050clearly no water here well there's go teeny dribble there okay to me this is going uphill okay and again it's what the line that was exist existing there before the groove or the contours that it had so it seems to me that the best solution my client is to not do these because you can't go in there and change the configuration without an open trench and that's City obviously not the city's policy that you can't do CIP B or trenchless job this here to me this seems like it's going downhill and I don't know why I keep stopping but they pull it back up we're at 23 feet from the house or from the Queen out I should say this is a 4-inch liner no issues here that seems to be there's a slope down
051so could they the expedition he could do a partial replacement the first 30 feet they dig down three feet one whole place the other people tease with 30 feet um 30 feet it'll be at the sidewalk or roller roller you know 30 feet at 8 different homes 3 feet and then it's pulling out to the clean-out here one business me purely a health concern here because you're not doing any I think I've been in place for four years it doesn't seem to be a health issue that's my safety thing but it could be there for four years I've did anybody gotten sick anybody who could be unemployed so what could happen here is a sewer back up in our basement right and I had a lock man there's no need for an anecdote but that's
052what good that's the issue we have a 10 year warranty we're willing to extend it however long mr. wood lives or his company's in business because that's how confident we are about these sewer backups there's one case where he did go into the client at the beginning Oh Chester which has now been resolved because it has been redone where mr. wood said to the homeowner this one's pushing it this was pushing it I can tell you it's it's too much too bad but the homeowner said I have this beautiful garden please let's try they tried it he got by it it was violated meaning it was not acceptable because there were backups that has been replaced the homeowner knew from the very beginning that this was a very distinct possibility mr. woods not in the
053business of going in and putting these liners and then disappearing and having people sewers back up so I wish there was a resolution I'm open to it please if there's some way to do it but I don't think there's really the same all right board have any other questions or comments so there are seven other installations out there yes are you guys going to go back and visit those they've been violated I've waiting and so they are in violation understood under the same 3:05 yes same problem each one's its they're all different I mean it's all just different variations yeah no two lines are gonna be the same but it's the same if it was consistent water problems where you've got filling because that would seem to be the most obvious thing okay any other
054comments or questions or if you know if a sewer line fails and a replacement has to be made it has to be done with acceptable materials in following the installation has to follow standards correct you can't if if this was dug up and there was a belly in the existing pipe you couldn't lay pipe along that that new pipe would have to be of uniform alignment and the proper pitch correct correct so it occurs to me that while this system seems to have some benefits it can't be used in every situation may not be appropriate and that's I think that's the contractors responsibility to know where it can and can't work and uniform well here's what I know about drain piping it should be smooth and straight and pitched not so much that the water
055runs so fast it won't take solids away or not so a little bit they don't move in ad time you know belying and stuff like that eventually solids are going to collect there and solidify and you're gonna have problems maybe not in this for years but eventually you're gonna have problems depending upon the usage so I don't see a remedy for us here it's not something I would accept I mean I guess I just have to ask one more time as a practical matter it's okay to use this system but the the ASTM standard just doesn't apply to its use or to its to the inspection process here well what it does is that it allows for humps and bellies as long as the slope the required slope of what it let's just say 1%
056from point A to point B is met right yeah I mean that's it that's assistance since we can make that part of the variance that we go to soon as we go to the standard could be since a hasn't been adopted we are not men we're not asked to provide a variance to this correct we're not asked to provide a variance and say that's exactly what their papers say that we even though we're asking for a variance but I'll be honest when you are are yes over age of four or a jwi attack at the bottom the city writes one of the requirements and conditions of public 25:50 the specific condition just to find the variance she'll neither so general nor recurrent in nature as to make an amendment of the code with respect to
057the condition reasonably practical or desirable and then they cited earlier so if I might come in on that as you go to page five there's a standards for approval he actually comes out of the Public Act and there's reasons as hell was written there's reasons that allow you to give others yeah there is reasons for that however in the variance you can it you can't approve it once it meets those guidelines we can't approve any type of exception that's going to be allowed has to meet the standards for approval by Public Act 230 section one twenty five point one five one five on page five are we looking at page 9 of the package what he's saying is after a public hearing a board of appeals may grant a specific variance to a substantive requirement
058of the code if the literal application of the substantive requirement would result in exceptional practical difficulty to the applicant and if both of the following requirements are satisfied the performance of the item or part of the building structure with respect to the which the variance is granted shall be adequate for its intended use and shall not be substantially deviate from performance required by the code we have four year track record in this particular case of there being the the the sewer doing its job and with respect to be the specific condition justifying the variance shall neither be so general nor recurrent in nature has to make an amendment of the code with respect to the condition I think you're not I don't think you're allowed to tell him don't worry about this forever work we're
059asking about the eight in particular so variance is appropriate with respect to the eight only so we can put this behind us and going forward each simply needs to get approval before it even goes and puts some line that's what he needs to do but we're worried we're not worried about the future we're not gonna come in here and do a bunch of more installations and and not pay attention to exactly what mr. Ryan Miller and mr. Dennison wants but I think the variance could be appropriate in this case because it does provide an exceptional impractical difficulty to us to happen if we're looking at it at three thousand five three to comply with that one percent at this point so there's several ways to skin this cat I guess to get a resolution it's
060a matter of we we do need you to have a little discretion in our interface one more question on this is that in 2004 the Pearl was they turn the video in and the permit was closed 20 2014 you're saying huh no they just never nothing no they didn't do anything with it stay open and I will be the first one to say you can't do that mr. wood you need to go and follow up immediately but there was they had going oh and that's what you're doing back four years later to inspect it yeah the city went back at some point after mr. Miller came to the CEO of mr. Dempsey took over and I don't know what the origins of it we don't need to point fingers etc but that's what it was
061kind of wait you have a product that doesn't comply or a product that doesn't is not approved and we got it approved and 20 days later wait you have another problem you got eight violations and violations of PD 3000 so I feel like I'm wasting your time at this point it's the budget we are not concerned about the other seven or eight we're concerned is mr. MC so I might add to what we were just talking about a moment ago is I don't believe he's asking for a variance he's asking for an interpretation have we interpreted interpreted the code incorrectly I think the intent of the code is in staffs opinion is that it doesn't meet code because there's not drainage in various parts the Act refers to it as such and it can't be
062so reoccurring in nature that you're gonna other issues are going to come up and have to be approved because of this type of exception even though they may be a little different it's still holding water in the intent of the code is there and I believe that it should be denied his request in the in the appeal was to just get to that to find that the SOP applies to this permit that there is no violation in the code MPC three zero zero five point three and they're looking for they're basing it all on the SOP and that the code section that we've used is incorrect there's no doubt that I I agree with you that we didn't ask for the city is saying or if you're going to approve this it has to meet
063the variance well why else would they bring that up the only ones that brought it up the only problem the only problem with that is that with those other eight that are or seven or eight that are that are currently still hanging out there we have no idea what what condition those those installations are in whether you know - granted you a blanket variance correct so I have one let me ask just a purely practical question however this turns out do you guys have is there any kind of a practical way to deal with this so that it it doesn't drag on and become a burden for both the city and then I mean is there any way - is there any way to work this out if if this is denied on a purely
064practical point of view I believe that the codes currently not being met I know that other installations with CI pp that have been put in place and maybe I'll defer that to Ryan there have been times when the situations were very similar in those spots in the liner after those spots in the existing sewer line have been corrected and then lined however corrected do you mean dug up and reburied leveled broken pipe collapse pipe pipe that wasn't correct so I think that that is a possibility if they had any other solutions we would always entertain looking at those if they want to pacify us but I think right now under this particular case I think that we have water that's pooling or bonding it's looks quite excessive to me and I think that's where that's
065what our plumbing inspector has found I would say also a Code section if you might if if you go to the actual code book itself and it was stated in the introduction if you want to look to that it talks about the intent of the mirc rules governing construction is one way for an appeal it talks about the provisions of the Mrs MRC that do not apply or an equal or better form of construction is proposed so I don't believe it's meeting the moment yeah so because there are two motions one that as with the requests in it one for a variance under Section appendix J I don't know if appendix J applies is an additional building as prepare it is a new we can what I'd wanted to avoid was there are seven other
066shots at their bites at the Apple I don't want to come here over and over again but from a practical that's my that's my question about any practical point there's a way I'm not asking for a variance at all seven if the board wants to look for all eight today because we agree we're here on one case we did that because we can't we don't want to pay two thousand dollars in filing fees if the board needs to see every single one of the cases that's fine with me and and also we would be willing to be open to mister would no longer doing work in the CD of Ann Arbor if that's something that they need as much as that is to me it's unfair that's something we'd be willing to see I have
067to tell you I don't agree with that and I think I think the way forward on this is is is that if somebody if somebody has a sewer issue and you know the oh and one option is for realigning the pipe that it's a function of due diligence on his part and understanding and establishing in a written way the rules of engagement with the city at the at the very beginning that's what was done at certain points but it well it doesn't apply in this case for some reason acted not to beat the dead horse but that was mister strong and his policy clearly says here's gonna be our policy and if that's no longer the policy well no no no no but but it's one thing to have a policy internal but it's another
068thing to have the policy shared with is going to be pulling the permit and doing the work but I'm saying is going forward if you can establish what what the the game rule the rule of the play are as far as doing the work in that particular system that doesn't preclude him from doing work here in the city it just means an extra couple of steps in order to make sure that everybody is on the same page and there are no surprises at the end of the game at the end of it you know the end of the project now nobody's really reference hi my that would be certainly what the rules are but we're willing to waive that to avoid a hundred thousand dollars of coming back to customers and that's our practical problem
069is what do we do about these other ones that we think are similar to other cases have been approved we already covered that I would love I'm happy to talk to them about a practical solution but our conversations have not been really there at this point it's been from one case to another and now you know it sounds like they're saying you only appealed you didn't ask for a variance well they brought it up I could play the game and say fine we lose this one we're gonna do a variance it doesn't on another case and then to take I don't want to do that it's really expensive and time-consuming we've been here and we've wasted an hour and a half of your time or more you haven't wasted our time this is what we
070do okay I feel strongly about this but I also don't want to you know overdo it but I'm hoping whatever the solution variants appendix J I also think 104 to can do it there's many ways to do it so I'm gonna go sit down once you have questions not for a variance of this I moved it in case VBA 1800 six the appeal of the building Board building officials decision that the work performed by Rooter MD at 16:25 Walton did not pass final inspection is denied and the building Board of Appeals affirms the building officials decision for the reasons that one the true intent of the 2009 Michigan residential code and p300 5.3 govern the construction at 1625 Waltham have been correctly interpreted by the building official and to the provision of 2009 Michigan residential
071code p300 5.3 applied to the construction at six 25 Walter thank you is there any just further discussion on the motion their second promotion got a motion we've got the second all those in favor aye opposed motion as such as passed so we the ruling is that the city has interpreted let's do probably the other section privately you and me we wait a second interest so can we offer a variance in based on appendix J I would have to look at that I I really don't know but I don't from what I've seen it's not a repair but I'm not the expert on that and what I would say is that the board has made a decision on the appeal which was not a request for a variance we couldn't go back with the request
072those we offer other other options and that would resolve this particular case potentially if any how what the outcome is you're asking a legal question that I have not researched I mean I have not researched it so legally I cannot provide an opinion nor would I do so in public because it is attorney if you do have an attorney-client privilege I I don't know if mr. Dempsey has anything to say about it that would have to review it further to be honest with you okay I'd have to review anything further because it was it's never been proposed to us we would come up with this interpretation that that code was required and compare it with underground piping one consideration that is considered similar to a new pipe as opposed to a structure or an existing
073building I mean appendix J does reference performing right there in the appendix J just representing and this would be considered a repair it's a minor another structure by itself we've had a difference in interpretation I think I'm a definition of this liner however it's something I can investigate further I just procedurally can ask yes so the city's attorney who's opposing our client is your attorney and you have to ask the City Attorney's permission for a certain procedure is that what's going on right now yes but you are an independent is the board's attorney and the city does not the city attorney does not take a position for or against the city attorney advises and then it is for the client to decide just as it is with you advising your client I understand that part
074but I thought there was an independent nature of the board there is but I decided me no but this ridiculous here I'm sure so no that's okay if this was yet the question it was a it was a procedural question and you know we we're not allowed to run amok so we have to ask every now and then if it's okay to do something apparently it's it's not clear it's unclear at this point but I thought that the question was about the merits just appendix J apply you're not asking the city for that okay now if we were to review we could offer an additional motion okay so maybe this solution well what is the solution solution might be for them to come back yeah appendix J and they and they themselves say we're seeking
075a variance that's what their papers say their own papers are saying we seek a variance I know I didn't put that in my appeal I understand that but for some reason their papers say the standard you need to apply today is that there's a variance ah if I may speak yes ma'am I want your permission first I generally leave it to the experts to talk about the plumbing and the pipes and all of that but in this case the citation just putting in that a variance that that the code already excuse me that the state law has a provision for variances doesn't mean that that's what the city understands or the building official understands is what is being asked for and representing my client which is also mr. Dempsey he is has informed you that
076this is not an appropriate case now that is for you to decide but the only reason that I'm jumping in here is because mr. wood does have the benefit maybe maybe you have a representation and when there's a discussion of the law I think it's appropriate for the city attorney to weigh in but it's the board's decision you are the judge just like when we argue in court one thing I want to read with respect to the variance in their conclusion it says while there are situations that may allow a permissible variance this is not one public act 125 1515 section 15 has two conditions and it goes to talk about this is their conclusion about one of the variance is appropriate so as I interpret miss Larkin it's your call whether or not a
077variance is appropriate under whatever code section that you want if you're not comfortable that I'm happy to come back next month so that we don't another appeal if that if that's what the board wants to do and we can give you additional information on whether a variance appropriate or not let's let's not go ahead with this at this time but advise their pellets and the city that there's the possibility this possibly of passing the board under appendix J and it's up to them to to request that it be applied that way there's only one way I see it there's only one danger with that he said this was all focused on one situation there are seven others out there that I wouldn't feel comfortable applying appendage appendix J to without without knowing more about it
078so that's that's a potential pitfall which is why I'd really like to see you guys settle this in a very practical way you know he wants can we Greek I mean we can provide all those cases that my issue was I'm sure we'll just eat the two thousand dollars to formally but I asked the city if they take the position that we can bring all of them under one filing fee because they're all the same sewer line with a little whatever their you know their claim is it is the board willing to entertain those that the I'm not sure if I'm available at this next hearing I think I am but what you you can see all the videos for yourself and we'll we'll make a formal request for a variance under appendix J or
079something think we could rule without seeing the conditions seeing and talking about the actual yeah I will provide will provide the videos before the next hearing and we'll do it there and if you want us to pay the filing fee we'll just deal with it and we'll pay the filing fee and all the other seven and we basically have all of them at the same time though I don't think there's a need to pay eighteen hundred dollars to bring all seven additional videos but just for clarification because there is there are legal procedures the board has ruled in this appeal there is that ruling so if I'm hearing correctly we're now talking about the applicant coming back with a new request and but then we're getting a little farther I mean I don't think there's
080anything to stop the applicant from making another request but like he's talking about but we're going farther than that and I the practice has always been that each case is treated individually and the reason for the fee the city doesn't make money on these I can guarantee you the amount of time that it takes to prepare is quite a bit and I understand a it's not not great for the applicant either it's unfortunately the system for better or worse okay so I have one other question here procedurally speaking so we've made a ruling on this particular case in cities given an indication of how the plans of how its interpreted past seven situations so isn't the next step going to the State Board of Appeals for the yes I mean for one this is for
081this one state approved system it's a state bill it's the state code so he will have up to ten business days to file with the state of Michigan there is a form that acted that you've seen if we get the sign-off so we can provide that to mr. wood we are getting fat off the practicality thing with all due respect so the city wants us to do is to take each one of these through you get it denied and go to the state that's that's impractical for us but we also can't pay one hundred fifty thousand dollars or whatever the cost will be I have no idea to go and fix these so can I just have a directive a very clear directive of the board seem to be inclined to consider a variance under
082appendix J and so it suggests that maybe that's worth bringing before in the board no actually I well I don't want to speak for the board but mm-hmm I don't I wouldn't say that we're inclined it was a question that came up but it seems to be a bigger question on procedurally on the city side whether that's so the at the applicant came in he's appealing her decision our decision has been that the code that has been mentioned in their p3 or a 5.3 is applicable and he yes and he's considering it using the wrong code whether it's rehabilitation code SOP or other situation we've stated that this is the code that's applicable rulings been made he has the right now to go to the State Board to come back later he can again we
083can revisit those I have no problem with that on these other issues and we can see if our ruling was incorrect I don't believe it was he can appeal those again if he so chooses if we don't change the outcome but I will tell you that he has a tenday right now to go to the state the state can then rule on it from there if he appeals to the state in the state decides that [Music] rules in his favor does that mean the other seven are immediately ruled into that no because these can't be reoccurring situations that are enough to change the code it's something that I would have to look at further that's what that's where I myself and most likely mr. Miller will join me at the state of Michigan's construction code
084Commission he cites the appeal it there Stairway gets turned down there's too much variation during those meetings because the inspector Khanna didn't comply same thing here the spirit comes in and says it doesn't apply and you know with other types of parson building variation width of the stair the heights of the stair 15 existing buildings with the different the way I see the difference there is that in those cases you know with the numerical issues are here is subject this is all very subjective I mean even even if the bell ring or the bellying was acceptable you still don't know whether the point A to point B slow conforms you have nothing to gauge it again you could serve a gift you win mr. Hartman's what mr. Hart they don't do that on any of
085that's there so why is it okay in some and not in others like if that's the part that's impossible for me to go through contractors before he comes in and does some whining but that's not what the rules that they don't require the contractors to do that they don't Union want but we've already we party talked about this so thank you thank you very much all right the fuel section any reports and communications is there any public commentary on this item or any general items with the city and the board without that we will be ready for a motion for adjournment I move to adjourn support all those in favor aye opposed everybody's in agreement we are you