I stated in my return letter that this policy was not in writing in any City Ordinance and was against the Standard Building Code which the City of Pensacola had adopted as its official regulation. His demands were illegal, unauthorized and would be harmful to our historic property.
Mr. Wilkinson had written, “Section 3401.3 of the Standard Building Code references existing building; certificates of occupancy. This section states when in the opinion of the building official an inspection may be required to determine the building is in compliance with the technical codes.”
I stated to Mr. Wilkinson that Section 3401.2 of the SBC, the paragraph before 3401.3 was scope in that provisions of this chapter governed the application of this code to existing buildings here in Pensacola. Section 3401.2 was applicability and called for a Certificate of Occupancy on a change of type – occupancy type or classification. We had no change of type or classification so this instruction did not apply to us.
Neither did we fall into the exception to the above two paragraphs stated in Section 3401.3 of the Standard Building Code, existing buildings which states, “when in the opinion of the building official an inspection may be required to determine the building is in compliance with the technical codes.” I had given Mr. Wilkinson a copy of the professional building inspection performed before we bought the house on July 1, 1998, which stated that the building was in compliance with all technical codes and only needed a few minor cosmetic repairs and improved maintenance but was otherwise sound and safe.
It appeared that Mr. Wilkinson was illegally using Section 3401.3 to require an illegal blanket inspection of every building in the City on change of tenant, owner, etc. Mr. Wilkinson does not have the authority to do this to everyone, only if the building is not in compliance with technical codes. We provided evidence that our building was in compliance with all technical codes.
If Mr. Wilkinson couldn’t get past applicability – that the requirement applied to us – then he had to put the instruction down. He didn’t have the authority to keep reading and say, even though it doesn’t apply to you, I can force you to undergo this inspection.
Mr. Wilkinson had previously stated to me that under the requirement for a new Certificate of Occupancy, he was going to require the removal of most of the historic artifacts on our building for “refurbishment.” We were against this based on the unnecessary expense and potential for harm to the irreplaceable artifacts which had been in place on the building for over 110 years. The Federal regulation also forbade removing artifacts from an historic property.
Mr. Wilkinson had written, “Section 7-2-4 of the Code of the City of Pensacola requires a certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of a business license.” On the phone, Mr. Wilkinson had stated that this section required a new CO instead of just presenting a copy of the CO on file at City Hall. He stated that City Officials would not grant us an occupational license unless we did as he demanded. It appeared that City Officials controlled who could operate a business in Pensacola by use of this illegal requirement.
Section 7-2-4 of the Code of the City of Pensacola states “A certificate of occupancy issued by the building inspection department shall be furnished to the city treasurer as a condition precedent prior to the issuance of any new or transfer occupational licenses.”
Since the certificate of occupancy was good for the life of the house to identify its use and location, a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy on file in the Pensacola Building Inspections Department was all that is required by Section 7-2-4. An individual did not have to go through a new Certificate of Occupancy process to get a business or occupational license. They only had to show the current CO.
This is like having to present your driver’s license for identification. You don’t have to retake the test and have a new driver’s license issued each time identification is required. You only have to show the current driver's license.
Our County, Escambia County did not require a new Certificate of Occupancy or a copy of any Certificate of Occupancy for issuance of an occupational license. All cities and counties in Florida I checked with did not require a copy of the certificate of occupancy at all in order to get an occupational license which is just a tax for operating in the City.
Mr. Wilkinson had written, “The building at this address is an existing structure and according to our records was last used as a commercial office.” This was not true either as the building at this address was an art gallery/antique shop holding functions. I called Mr. Wilkinson and told him our building was an art gallery/antique shop holding functions for over twenty (20) years, not an office building. Mr. Wilkinson said that official records stated that it was an office building and that it could only be used for that purpose.
Since Mr. Wilkinson was immovable, we decided to use the building as an office building to satisfy Mr. Wilkinson so we could use our property for income since we had been denied the use of our building since our purchase on July 1, 1998. We had both worked in offices for decades and had the confidence that we could use it as an upscale office building. In my return letter to Mr. Wilkinson, I stated that we had submitted to his insistence that the building had to be used as an office building. “Our house will be rented as an upscale professional office space.”
It appeared that the actions of Mr. Wilkinson in illegally requiring a new CO, illegally requiring extensive unnecessary work, illegally requiring that we use it as an office building instead of what we bought it for (art gallery/antique shop holding functions), illegally requiring a CO inspection fee, forcing us to hire someone of his choice (see later actions) or we couldn’t use our property or would be arrested, appeared to be extortion and abuse of power as defined in Florida Statutes.
I had spoken with several owners of office buildings to get information on what to expect. Our building was suitable for four (4) office spaces. The consensus was that most people rented office space while they were constructing their own building, were on a temporary assignment (insurance adjusters after a storm), or other short term needs. I found the average tenant stayed one year.
I did a comparison chart over an eight year period of how many CO’s were required under the valid construction law, the SBC, - zero (0) CO’s were required.
Under Mr. Wilkinson’s illegal policy if we had been allowed to operate as an art gallery/antique shop holding functions – one (1) CO was required.
Under Mr. Wilkinson’s illegal demand that we use it as an office building, and since we had space for four (4) tenants, over an eight year period, we would be required to submit to 32 CO procedures.
Under Mr. Wilkinson’s illegal policy if we had been allowed to operate as an art gallery/antique shop holding functions – one (1) CO was required.
Under Mr. Wilkinson’s illegal demand that we use it as an office building, and since we had space for four (4) tenants, over an eight year period, we would be required to submit to 32 CO procedures.
In addition to the fees, the illegally demanded CO procedures could be used to require unneeded and unwanted construction costs (like now), and result in stolen property and stolen building material costs (like now).
In my letter to Mr. Wilkinson, I pointed out that we had worked diligently with the Pensacola Building Inspection Department, the Pensacola Architectural Review Board and the North Hill Preservation Board and that it wasn’t that we were trying to get around a legal requirement but didn’t want to waste money and time and risk damage to our historic property because of an apparent illegal City policy. We asked him to help resolve this matter as we would lose our money and destroy our house if this kept up. I couldn’t imagine that this was the goal of the City.
Mr. Wilkinson and I continued to exchange letters where I pointed that a new Certificate of Occupancy was not required and he stated that it was required. None of the documentation I studied supported his requirement but, in official regulations, specifically forbade it. His government agency (the Pensacola Building Inspections Department) as well as the property owner (us) must follow Florida State Statutes and the Standard Building Code. Mr. Wilkinson told me that he did not follow Florida State Statutes. He said we would do what he required or the house would sit unused until it rotted.
© Copyright – All rights reserved – Pensacola
Newsletter
