Loading...
Correspondence ge ui - cv3z Z C6TY OF TIG D Wednesday, July 13, 2005 OR EGON Ms. Cheryl Keicher 22320 Beavercreek Rd. Oregon City, OR 97045 Steven Craig Simmons 16308 SW Cromwell Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 RE Stop Work Order posted at 14270 SW Fanno Creek Loop, Tigard. Our records show you to be the property owner and the contractor, respectively, responsible for the structural repair work that was being done to the rear deck at the above location at the time of my visit on Friday, July 8, 2005. If our records are in error in this regard please let me know as soon as possible. Upon arriving at the property I found that structural repairs were being made to the deck including the replacement of cement pier blocks, supporting posts, and joists, and attempts to stabilize the newel post at the top of the stairs. These repairs are structural in nature and do not fall under the "ordinary repairs" permit exemption provisions of the 2005 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) Section R105.2.2. A permit from this office was required to do that work and at the time of my visit our records showed no application for or issuance of such a permit. I posted a formal Stop Work Order on site and work may not resume on this project unless and until an appropriate permit is issued by this office. The Stop Work Order required correction, e.g., securing a building permit, within seven days, which would be Friday, July 15, 2005. I have now learned that a permit application addressing these structural repairs was submitted to our office on the day of my visit. While we recognize the intention to secure a permit the fact is that plans for this work had not been reviewed or approved and no permit had been issued at the time that work was begun. Having begun this work without a peimit you are in violation of ORSC R105.1 and this letter serves as a formal Notice of Violation. Under the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) this violation constitutes a Class I Civil Infraction subject to penalties of up to $250.00 per day, per violation. In order to encourage prompt compliance and cooperation, the City of Tigard is willing to refrain from imposing such penalties if full compliance and cooperation is promptly forthcoming. In 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772 this case that means the submission of a complete permit application, including any required plan revisions, within seven days of the posting of the Stop Work Order and no later than close of business this coming Friday, July 15, 2005. The City reserves the right to take further enforcement actions and impose penalties if it deems that compliance and cooperation are not forthcoming or are not sufficiently prompt. If you have any questions regarding the plans and other documentation required, please contact our Residential Plans Examiner, Mark VanDomelen, at 503- 718 -2425. In addition to the structural repairs already begun, there are other aspects of the condition of the deck that pose potential hazards to any occupant of or visitor to the property and that constitute violations of provisions of the Residential Property Maintenance Regulations embodied in the TMC. Specifically, TMC 14.16.150 provides that "Every stair, porch, and attachment to stairs or porches shall be so constructed as to be safe to use and capable of supporting the loads to which it is subjected and shall be kept in sound condition and good repair, including replacement as necessary of flooring, treads, risers, and stringers that evidence excessive wear and are broken, warped, or loose." On my arrival at the property, in addition to the structural repairs noted above, I observed the following: 1. On each of the steps leading to the deck from exterior grade, the nose and leading sections of tread were loose, sufficiently so as to fail to provide a secure footing and to constitute a trip hazard to anyone climbing the stairs. 2. The newel post at the top of the stairs was extremely loose, even though two lag screws had just been installed through the base of the post and into the underlying structure in an attempt to stabilize the post. The condition of the post prior to the installation of the screws can only have been significantly worse. Even in its current condition, the post and the handrail that it supports — and that is intended to provide support to someone climbing the stairs - can only be described as extremely wobbly. They fail to provide a secure and stabilizing surface that a user could grip ... if they stepped on the loose treads, for instance, or otherwise needed support to avoid a fall and possible injury. 3. The spacing between the uprights on the guardrail surrounding the deck and stairs varies between 8 to 10 inches or more and is, therefore, obsolete. Current code (ORSC R312.2) requires that such guards or guardrails be no less than 36 inches in height (34 inches from the nosing of stair treads) and that required guards "have intermediate rails or ornamental closures that do not allow passage of a sphere 4 inches or more in diameter." Openings of more than 4 inches pose a hazard to small children whose heads can pass through such an opening, creating a situation where children can get stuck while trying to extricate themselves. There have been serious injuries and deaths associated with wider openings and the codes have regularly been revised to prevent this. Whereas 9 inch spacing was once permissible, subsequent code revisions have reduced that, first to 6 inch spacing, and now to 4 inches. The condition of the stair treads, newel post, and handrail at the stairs create a hazardous condition and constitute violations of TMC 14.16.150 as noted above. This orders and directs • that, simultaneous with the resumption of work on the structural repairs after you secure an appropriate permit, you repair the stair treads, newel post, and handrail to a secure state capable ■ of providing a safe and secure gripping surface. As above, if the response to this order is prompt compliance and cooperation the City of Tigard will refrain from issuing Summonses and Complaints and from imposing penalties, but the City reserves the right to take such actions if it deems that compliance and cooperation are not forthcoming or are not sufficiently prompt. Because of the hazards posed by the condition of the stairs, newel post, and handrail and the sections of deck surface left open in the course of the current construction, this further orders and directs that access to the deck be roped or boarded so as to prevent use of the deck until the above repairs are completed and receive final inspection approval from this office. Neither the ORSC nor the TMC require that current code standards for guardrails be applied retroactively to decks such as yours, with guardrail spacing wider than would be permitted under current codes, unless the guardrails or sections of them are removed or altered in the course of other construction or repair. Therefore, the existing spacing of your guardrail components does not itself constitute a violation and we are not requiring that it be changed. We do, however, strongly recommend that, since other work on the deck is required and workers will be on hand, you take this opportunity to repair or rebuild the guardrails to meet current code requirements in the interest of increasing safety for occupants and visitors to your structure and of minimizing any liability on your part in the event that any unfortunate incident were to occur. We discussed one possible approach with your lead worker on -site: installing additional 2x2 uprights approximately midway between the existing 2x2s so as to reduce the openings to 4 inches or less, but other modifications may be required to meet current spacing and height requirements. The plans and permit application that have already been submitted do not address or include any repair or replacement work on the guardrails. Please note that adding nails, screws, bolts, ties, or other fasteners to the existing guardrails does not require a permit and may be done without adding that work to the current permit application, but making any other modifications to the guardrails, including adding intermediate uprights as discussed above, would constitute a modification, would require that the entire guardrail be upgraded to meet current requirements, and would require inclusion in this or another permit. If you have any questions or if there will be any significant difficulty in submitting any necessary revisions to your permit application and plans before close of business on Friday, July 15, 2005, please let me know. I look forward o orkin:. : ou to correct the violations and resolve the issues discussed above. 9 hp" Alb; S field BuildingC des Enforcement Officer, Housing Inspector cc: Property File, Hap Watkins, Mark VanDomelen, Tenant.