Chapter 5

Mr. Wilkinson stated, again and again, that we had to do what he said, regarding construction, if we ever wanted to use our house.  Even though only an upgrade in maintenance was required, Mr. Miller and Mr. Wilkinson developed three major, unwanted and unneeded, construction projects for our house.  Even though these projects were labeled construction and Mr. Wilkinson demanded that we hire a contractor, these projects did not require a permit or a contractor.  The only purpose of these projects appeared to be to remove historic artifacts from our building – which we did not want to do and which federal regulations regarding historic buildings forbade.  These items had to be approved by the Pensacola Architectural Review Board as they affected the outside appearance of a historic building.  

1.  Proposal and Acceptance Form dated 2/12/99 “Removing all handrails on exterior of house completely except for support columns, build & install all new handrails with new custom spindles to match original & top & bottom rails.  This includes building curved laminated handrails on (2) two separate round porches.”   Cost:  $7,347.72

Instead of caulking and painting the spindles in place, which is required by the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines and the course we wanted to take, Mr. Wilkinson demanded that the spindles be removed from the building, caulked and painted and then returned to the house.  This amounted to over 500 spindles and the rails above and beneath them.  There were spindles and railings on each of the six porches/verandas and on the outside stairs. These actions were not permitted under the restoration guidelines but Mr. Wilkinson demanded (he called it refurbishment) so we had to agree in order to use our business property. 

At the board meeting, I explained that we only wanted to update the maintenance of the property to its original, beautiful Victorian state and no major construction was really needed or wanted, only improving the maintenance.

The Board Members approved items 2 and 3 (see below) and modified Item 1 by stating that at least 85% of the spindles and all rails were to remain in place, as demanded by relevant regulations.  I was relieved as I had not wanted them removed as Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Miller demanded.  I really didn’t want to do any of the items as they were unnecessary, exposed our beautiful building to damage and were very expensive. 

Mr. Miller and Mr. Wilkinson ignored this conditional approval by the ARB and did what they wanted.  While I was instructed to go to City Hall, to the Building Inspection Department, they removed all of the spindles and railings and carried them off. 

Mr. Miller abandoned this project and, as I indicated,  never returned the railings and spindles (over 500 carved spindles – enough for 6 porches/verandas and the stairs).  Mr. Miller later confessed, in a meeting with Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. McFatter, and the Escambia County Contractor Competency Board Investigator that he had stolen the railings and spindles, plus building materials, the decorative sconces, overmantels and many other items.   

On separate occasions, Mr. Miller also bragged about this to his co-workers and others that he had stolen our property. We never saw any of these items again.

2.  Proposal and Acceptance Form dated 2/12/99 “Removing porch roof on second floor northeast corner of house.  Removing stairs on east side of house and building new stairs as per drawings & specs.                       Cost:  $3,763.06

The “porch roof on second floor northeast corner” was a very small area (just a few feet) of roof which had been added – not original to the house - over the second floor outside stair landing for shelter against rain.  It had deteriorated a little and did not match the original design of the house.  It was a simple matter to remove the porch roof without altering the main roof.  No permit or contractor was required for this small project. 

The outside stairs had been approved, with board by board replacement of the few damaged boards, by the Professional Property Inspector but the City Building Inspections Department ignored this report, again, and demanded that the stairs be removed and replaced with the replacement conforming to current codes, again in violation of the rules governing restoration of an historic property.  Mr. Miller removed the stairs, took the materials and abandoned this project.

3.  Proposal and Acceptance Form dated 4/02/99 “Totally strip & save all decking material on (2) two second floor decks (exterior).  Rework structural framing & then redeck with ¾” pressure treated exterior plywood for sublayer & 5/4” pressure treated decking on top with a membrane between layers for water leak prevention.                   

     All materials to be provided by owner and any unseen repairs will be extra labor charge over 56 working hours on this project.”   Cost:  2,800.00

While #3 stated, “Rework structural framing,” no structural rework was needed or done.  There was no rework or any “structural framing” since they were to only take up the old (read vintage) deck boards and then redeck.  Instead of using “¾” pressure treated exterior plywood” and “5/4” pressure treated decking, Mr. Miller purchased “untreated lumber” even though I had paid for “treated lumber.”  It started to rain soon after they had started to install the decking.  Since the lumber was not treated, which was specified in the contract, the boards warped.  Mr. Miller left the warped boards in place, causing a definite trip hazard and abandoned this project.

 

As I had repeatedly informed Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson, all of these projects were unneeded, unwanted by me, and violated the regulations enacted by the Secretary of the Interior’s Office to restore or repair Historic Buildings.  We were forced to accept these projects if we wanted to use our building  - ever - this appeared to extortion on the part of the City Officials, especially Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson.

An article was published in the Pensacola News Journal announcing a hearing to be held during the Pensacola City Council Meeting of January 28, 1999, to change the Land Development Code to consider “proposed amendments to the Land Development Code including the provision to allow portable signs to be placed on downtown sidewalks, allowing the required visibility triangle requirement to be reduced, the deletion of the required four-foot distance between residential air condition equipment and property lines and other minor changes.” 

This referenced the change to the LDC requested on December 10, 1998, by City Manager Bonfield, City Attorney Caton and Building Inspections Director Wilkinson. 

I paid no attention to this since it was a change to the Land Development Code, which had nothing to do with construction.  I was watching for a change to the construction regulation, the Standard Building Code. 

..........

The Pensacola Land Development Code, defined in Florida Statute 163.3213, was not one of the approved regulations for construction.  It fact, it had nothing to do with construction.  It regulated zoning, subdivision construction, sign regulation, etc. 

What I later discovered was that Mr. Bonfield, Mr. Caton, and Mr. Wilkinson had carefully developed a plan that appeared to allow them to secretly continue to scam and swindle the public. 

Florida State Statutes required that an Ordinance must contain the full description of the Ordinance in the title.  City Officials broke this Florida State Law. Mr. Bonfield, Mr. Caton, and Mr. Wilkinson hid the illegal requirement for a new Certificate of Occupancy under the umbrella of “minor changes.”  The required announcement of the City Ordinance did not reveal that this was about putting the City’s illegal policy regarding CO’s on change of tenant in writing, (it had previously been enforced based on verbal demands and threats) but they put it in an ordinance that had no authority over construction. 

It appeared that City Officials were desperate to continue the illegal policy, apparently based on greed and corruption, which had allowed them to:

(1) illegally demand unnecessary construction, which gave more work to their friends and the opportunity to overcharge, steal building materials, etc.

(2) illegally demand removal of historic artifacts which their friends then stole

City Officials had used their illegal policy for years to bully, threaten, and force actions on people when they, in actuality, had no authority or legal right to do so.  Most of these apparent illegal/criminal actions were frequently sadistic in nature.  In our case, City Officials required us to pay for having our irreplaceable artifacts, over 115 years old, removed which their friends then stole.  The illegal requirement to remove our spindles and railings caused a serious situation as the verandas were now without spindles and railings (Mr. Miller confessed to stealing them) which left the porches and verandas dangerous.  We had to pay to have the spindles and rails crafted as they were necessary to operate our business. 

These illegal requirements resulted in us paying for unneeded and unwanted “construction” which left our beautiful historic property in a poorer state than it was before City Officials made these illegal demands.  These illegal demands resulted in the loss of valuable historic artifacts, resulted in the value of our historic property illegally being reduced and resulted in lost income from our illegally closed business. 

The only way to officially and legally change the construction requirement was to amend the SBC which required public notice, hearings, and public input.  City Officials appeared to fear that at the first public notice, the people of Pensacola would realize they had been victimized for years by the illegal policy requiring new CO’s on change of tenant when no legal requirement had existed and, in fact, the construction regulation strictly forbade this policy. 

In the real world, this illegal LDC action did not legally or officially require a new Certificate of Occupancy on change of tenant since the official construction regulation for Pensacola was still the Standard Building Code, which was still located in the Pensacola Building Inspection Department, which was untouched by this change, and which still dictated that a Certificate of Occupancy on change of tenant was not appropriate.

No ordinance outside of the SBC could change the requirements for construction.  The LDC was not one of the documents specifically identified in Florida Statutes as one of the accepted Florida Building Codes. 

The public hearing was held on January 28, 1999, at the twice-monthly Pensacola City Council Meeting, to discuss these changes to the Land Development Code.  There was no mention of changes to the Certificate of Occupancy during the hearing, no discussion of the changes to the Land Development Code and, on page 2 of the minutes, the acceptance of the changes to the Land Development Code was moved, seconded and unanimously approved during the voting with no public discussion of what the changes were. 

Instead of putting the requirement for a new CO in the LDC they may as well have put this change in a Bugs Bunny comic book and referred to it as changing the SBC since the LDC and a Bugs Bunny comic book are alike in that neither could officially change the SBC.  Since many individuals were easily confused about regulations and appeared to mistake the LDC changes for SBC changes, for clarity, I will refer to the LDC as a Bugs Bunny comic book in discussing this matter.   

The Pensacola City Council Members who approved the Bugs Bunny comic book for construction purposes were:  Mike DeSorbo, Owen Eubanks, Doug Halford, Rita Jones, Jack Nobles, John Panyko, J. D. Smith, Sharon Wakeman, Mike Wiggins and Marie Young. 

 

© Copyright – All rights reserved – Pensacola Newsletter

 

Chapter 4

On December 10, 1998, unknown to us and the public at large, City Manager Bonfield, City Attorney Caton and Building Inspections Director Wilkinson requested that the Pensacola Planning Board issue an official memo requesting a new ordinance which included “… Staff also proposes minor changes to the LDC for clarity or interpretation purposes.”  This will be important later.

I filed an official complaint against Mr. Wilkinson, as the Pensacola Building Official, with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) and included extensive documentation of his actions which appeared to be in violation of the laws regarding buildings in Pensacola.

Two days before Christmas, December 23, 1998, a notice from the Pensacola Building Inspection Department was placed on our front door downtown.  It stated, “1.  Please obtain a properly licensed contractor.  2. Please have contractor obtain the required building permit for the required structural repairs.  3. Please do not hang any sheet rock or insulation in all areas where repairs are required.” 

I wrote Mr. Wilkinson about this latest demand that I hire a contractor for work and explained that the work did not require a contractor since no structural repairs were needed. 

I received a letter from Mr. Wilkinson regarding the events on December 23, 1998.  He stated, “There is no insinuation that you were doing work or going to do work without a permit, but rather a notice reminding you to have a building permit obtained prior to concealing this work.  This is the same procedure used on all construction projects within the City of Pensacola.” 

First of all, we did not start off as a construction project, major or not, as construction is not needed based on the professional property inspection we had hired done before we bought the house.  The Official Report stated that all we needed was an upgrade in maintenance which did not involve the Pensacola Building Inspection Department.  We were planning to carefully upgrade the maintenance, as suggested. 

Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson kept forcing us to go through the Certificate of Occupancy renovation process which is inappropriate as we are not changing occupancy type and, in addition, historic properties were exempt.  They were demanding extensive construction in order to strip our property of valuable, precious, historic artifacts which were built specifically for our house in 1883.  We wanted to retain these important parts of our property in keeping with its historical value and uniqueness.  

Mr. Wilkinson wrote and said we could not continue work on items not requiring a permit until I hired a contractor.  Mr. Wilkinson does not have the authority to do this since anyone can do work on their property which does not require a permit – his demand was another bullying tactic and was against construction law.  

Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson had forced our business property to sit unused for 6 months at this point. 

I contacted Mr. Wilkinson and requested that he issue me a permit as the contractor which was allowed by state law.  My husband and I had been co-contractors when building our residence.  We easily passed the Bank’s construction loan inspections and finished the project ahead of time and under budget. 

Mr. Wilkinson refused to issue to me a permit as the contractor.  Since I was forced to give in or our property would continue to sit unused, I sent Mr. Wilkinson a licensed contractor for a permit.  The contractor was a well-known building contractor from whom I had received an estimate and I had asked him to obtain a building permit to do the work.  Mr. Wilkinson refused him a permit with no reason given.  I then sent Mr. Wilkinson another licensed contractor I knew slightly for a permit.  Again, Mr. Wilkinson refused him a permit with no reason given.

Mr. Bonfield wrote us several letters, the first dated December 28, 1998, repeatedly demanding that we undergo the illegal requirement for a new CO and that we hire a contractor. 

Mr. Bonfield said that, “While you have previously been given some inaccurate information from the Inspections Department, in this case their determination is correct.” 

Instead of “inaccurate information,” as Mr. Bonfield stated, the Inspections Department demanded that we do things, in violation of pertinent regulations, which caused us great harm and expense.  They bullied, extorted, harassed, trespassed, and intimidated us with false statements, threats and hysterical antics.  Many of these illegal demands appeared to be sadistic in nature. 

On December 29, 1998, I wrote Mr. Bonfield again and reiterated the points I had previously made about their policy being illegal.  I again used the comparison with presenting a driver’s license to presenting our official current CO.

I wrote, “It has been acknowledged by the City building inspection office and by the State of Florida Building Commission that there is a current Certificate of Occupancy on file for our house at 520 N. Spring.  This is all that the City License Department requires.  I am requesting a copy of this and other documents relating to our property.”  I had previously asked for this documentation but City Officials had refused to give me a copy.

Mr. Bonfield’s answer, by letter dated December 30, 1998, stated in part: “The license department does confirm new certificate of occupancy inspections with the Building Department when issuing new or transferring occupational licenses.”  Pensacola City Manager Bonfield did not send a copy of the current certificate of occupancy on file or the other documentation I had requested.

I answered, by letter dated January 2, 1999, reiterating the points I had made in my previous letter and ended with:

     “I have contacted the researchers for the SBC, other cities in Florida, some counties in Florida and the State Codes Office where the SBC is used as the authority for building construction and inspections.  No other city or county in Florida has interpreted the SBC as Pensacola has interpreted in as a basis to illegally allow the Pensacola Building Inspection Department to far outstrip their authorized duties and responsibilities.”

I wrote more letters to Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson, asking that they obey the relevant regulations and, again, asking for a copy of the documentation for our property, specifically a copy of the current certificate of occupancy.

Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson refused my repeated requests that they operate in accordance with existing laws, instituted by our elected officials.  The State Attorney, Mr. Golden, also refused to stop the apparent illegal/criminal actions against us.  The DBPR had not answered my report of apparent illegal/criminal actions on the part of Mr. Wilkinson.  I finally wrote Florida Governor Jeb Bush on January 8, 1999, which reads in part:

“We are asking your help in straightening out a problem my husband and I are having with the Pensacola City Manager and the Pensacola Building Inspection Office.  We have exhausted all local channels in solving this problem.”  I included extensive documentation such as I have shown above.

On January 8, 1999, I also wrote the Florida Commission on Ethics and our state representative, DeeDee Ritchie, explaining the situation and sending support documentation.

On January 11, 1999, I received a letter from Mr. Wilkinson where he stated: “Enclosed you will find copies of all the records we have on file for this building.  You will note that the last certificate of occupancy was dated March 6, 1992.  There are other certificates of occupancy included, all of which are for previous business.” 

I presented the Certificate of Occupancy for March 6, 1992, to Mr. Muldoon, in compliance with the City Ordinance, and asked for an occupational license.  Mr. Muldoon of the licensing department denied me a City occupational license because my CO was dated 1992 and issued to the previous owner. 

This was not a valid reason to deny me an occupational license as the City Ordinance required that a copy of the current Certificate of Occupancy on file in the Building Inspections Department be presented to Mr. Muldoon (his Department).  Certificates of Occupancy are good for the life of the house as long as there is no change in the occupancy type.  There had been no change in the occupancy type.

Soon after, on one of the many occasions Mr. Wilkinson was “inspecting” our property, I asked why he would not accept the building contractors I had sent to get a building permit, after he had denied me a permit as the contractor.   Mr. Wilkinson stated that he refused me a permit as he only issued permits to contractors.  Mr. Wilkinson then stated that I had selected Building Contractors and that a Commercial Contractor was required to work on our building.  I knew this was a false statement since I was familiar with three types of contractors:  Residential Contractors – only allowed to build single family residences, Building Contractors – allowed to build anything under three stories, and General Contractors – allowed to build anything. 

I again brought to Mr. Wilkinson’s attention that the City Ordinance did not include instructions on commercial property, only on family residences, so County and State regulations must be followed for commercial property.  I pointed out, again, that County and State regulations allowed the property owner to be the contractor under certain criteria and that I met that criteria.

Mr. Wilkinson again said that a Commercial Contractor was required to work on commercial buildings.  Mr. Wilkinson said that the best Commercial Contractor in Escambia County was in our house right then helping the painter, Mr. McFatter, and other people on the job.   He said that this Commercial Contractor had restored many historic properties and did a fantastic job.  Mr. Wilkinson recommended that I hire this contractor if I wanted a permit issued for our building.  Mr. Wilkinson made it clear that I had to hire his contractor or I would never get the use of our property.  I asked who this Commercial Contractor was and Mr. Wilkinson said he was Mr. Douglas Eugene Miller.  He called Mr. Miller over and introduced him.    

My husband and I were desperate at this point as we wanted to use our property especially since we were paying the mortgage every month and City Officials, illegally,  would not let us use our business property for income. 

I agreed to hire Mr. Miller so we could finish our house if, when I called the Escambia County Contractor Competency Board he was a licensed contractor and that he had no complaints against him. 

After Mr. Wilkinson left, Mr. Miller brought Mr. McFatter, the painter, over and said that he would like Mr. McFatter to be my agent between us for the project to handle the invoices and checks and relay any messages.  Although Mr. Miller’s request seemed strange to me, I reluctantly accepted as this appeared to be the only way to save our beautiful vulnerable historic building, finish the maintenance updating and allow us to open our business and go to work.

I called the Escambia County Contractor Competency Board and they said that Mr. Miller was a licensed contractor, bonded and insured, and that he had no complaints against him.  At this point, I agreed. 

On January 13, 1999, Mr. Miller had no problem getting a building permit from Mr. Wilkinson.  Mr. Miller’s building permit stated “interior work only” until the Architectural Review Board approved.


© Copyright – All rights reserved – Pensacola Newsletter

---------

Chapter 3

  

Mr. Wilkinson persisted in constantly harassing me, almost on a daily basis, with false accusations and false charges apparently aimed at illegally forcing me to hire a contractor, when none was needed, by falsely stating that I or others were doing work on our property which required a contractor and/or a permit. 

Since Mr. Wilkinson was a constant visitor to our property, some of the workers suggested that we set up a guest room for his use.
-----------------------------

Examples of harassment in 1998-1999:

             Mr. Wilkinson called me at home and complained that a crew was removing piers, or floor supports, from under our house.  He said that a permit was required to do this.  I had hired a company to properly install jiffy jacks to prevent future sagging of the floor beams.  I told him that a permit was not required.  I had inspected their work and it appeared to be correctly done.  I drove into town and reinspected their work and found that Mr. Wilkinson was in error.  No piers were removed but several jiffy jacks had been properly installed.  Mr. Wilkinson finally admitted that the work had been properly done and that no permit had been required.

..........
 

             Perdido Heating and Cooling was replacing some A/C ducts already in existence (which does not require a permit) and had not yet obtained and displayed a permit for future work that would require a permit.  Mr. Wilkinson stopped all work on our house, cautioned Perdido Heating and Cooling that they would be fined and that they should immediately get a permit.  When Roger, Perdido Heating and Cooling, applied to the Pensacola Permitting Section requesting the necessary permit for our property, his request was denied by Mr. Wilkinson.  I called Mr. Wilkinson about this latest impasse.  He told me he would allow the A/C permit, with a substantial fine.  No reason was ever given for denying Roger’s initial request for a permit or for a fine. 

..........

         A laborer informed me that he had heard Mr. Wilkinson telling some other workers that he would be requiring a permit to remove exterior stucco.  After receiving approval from Ms. Mary Ann Peterson, Code Enforcement, in Mr. Wilkinson’s Department, for using the historic paints I had selected (white with blue trim), I asked Ms. Peterson if I needed a permit to replace the lattice used to repair the original ornamental railing if I replaced it with ornamental railing identical to the original.  I had these railing pieces made by a wood craftsman in Pace to replace the lattice.  She said no permit was needed.  I also asked if I needed a permit to remove exterior stucco to return to the original clapboard underneath.  She said no permit was needed.  Mr. Wilkinson then wrote me and stated, “I have discussed the removal of the stucco with your painter and I am not requiring a permit for the removal.  However, I stated that an approval from the Architectural Review Board was required.  Ms. Mary Ann Peterson (435-1862) can be contacted for the procedure and paperwork necessary for this approval.” 

As I had explained to Mr. Wilkinson in my letter dated January 7, 1999, I had already met with Ms. Peterson and obtained official approval to remove the stucco and she decided that a permit was not required.
..........

        I was ordered to report to the Assistant Director of the Pensacola Building Inspection Department, Ms. Tam Landis, serving under the Director of the Pensacola Building Inspection Department, Mr. Wilkinson. 

I did not know until later, that Ms. Tam Landis (Wilkinson) had been married to Mr. Delmus Wilkinson.  Since they both remained in their family home, most people speculated that the divorce was to get around charges of nepotism since he was the Director and she was the Assistant Director of the Pensacola Building Inspection Department.  They had been divorced for 7 months when I met her.  I don’t know how long they had been divorced when she was hired as Assistant Director – it couldn’t have been more than a few months.

Mr. Hale followed me into her office.  Mr. Hale and Ms. Landis insisted that we replace the attic timbers/beams in our 120-year-old house.  I stated that these were the same attic timbers/beams which the Pensacola Building Inspection Department judged in July/August, 1998, 4 months earlier, to be fit and capable to withstand a new roof with 40-year shingles as they issued a permit to replace the roof.  Ms. Landis showed me Polaroid photos which had been taken in our house showing a few of the beams.  It was easy to see that even with thin exterior char, these timbers still exceeded the rafter requirements by quite a bit.  After all, these were initially 4x6’s or 4x8’s and in some places, even larger.  The current requirements were that timbers must be 2x4’s.

Their demand would mean removing the new roof put on in August, 1998, with a permit issued by the Pensacola Building Inspection Department which certified that everything was okay.  Their new demand would mean that the house would then be roofless for the time it would take to replace these beams which would have to be special cut by a lumber mill.  This would risk damage to the interior walls.  The roof could then be replaced.  The waste was unbelievable.  When I reminded Mr. Hale that we had this point checked for safety before purchase (the property inspection report) and that the rafters passed the inspection and that no repair or replacement was needed, he was still insistent that they come out.  Ms. Landis and Mr. Hale did not give me this requirement in writing, they verbalized as they frequently did.  I told them that a requirement of this magnitude would require a written demand from them.  They refused to record their demand in writing so I refused to obey it. 
 

Since then, this house has withstood a hurricane (Ivan in 2004) and the replacement of the new roof which meant thousands of pounds of shingles, hot tar and rolls of tarpaper plus crews of heavy-footed roofers stomping around.  Not one timber/beam split, cracked or fell.  Hurricane Ivan caused no damage to the rafters.  As far as I could tell, there was no change whatsoever.  I believe that these beams will last another 120 years. 

-----------------------------

Pensacola City Ordinance, Section 18. Administration of city affairs, states "The city manager shall be responsible to the council for the proper administration of all affairs of the city placed in his charge".   In addition, Pensacola City Ordinances, Section 21, Duties of the City Manager stated, "It shall be the duty of the city manager to act as chief conservator of peace within the city, to supervise the administration of the affairs of the city; to see that the ordinances of the city and laws of the state are enforced…".

Since it appeared to be his responsibility, on September 1, 1998, I reported these apparent illegal/criminal actions, to Mr. Hinkle, Pensacola City Manager.  I reported that the Building Inspection Department refused to obey the Standard Building Code and refused to obey the Florida State Statutes.  Mr. Hinkle refused to stop their illegal demands and illegal harassment. 

I continued to report that their demands were illegal to the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager, the City Attorney, etc. and all refused to obey the SBC, Florida State Laws and federal regulations.  They all recommended that I do as the Building Inspection Director demanded or that I appear before the Construction Board of Appeals. 

I sent letters and documentation to each Pensacola City Council Member asking that they investigate this matter since the Director of the Building Inspections Department refused to comply with the local, state and federal regulations in this matter.  They refused.
 

I called the SBCCI, Southern Building Code Congress International, who had done the research, prepared, and published the Standard Building Code regulation book.  I spoke with several of the officers.  They said that I was right in my interpretation.  They said that they had never heard of a City interpreting the Standard Building Code as our City Building Inspection Department had.  They were concerned about the misinterpretation on the part of Pensacola City officials and wondered about the motivation but said there was nothing they could officially do.

The regulations were very clear and not difficult to understand.  I explained the regulation to my four-year-old twin grandchildren and asked them what it meant.  After I defined tenant and appropriate, they promptly said that it meant we didn’t need a new CO.  Apparently it wasn’t too difficult to understand. 

I began calling Florida State Offices to see who could help us and help others who were in this situation.  I spoke with the Head of the Code Section, Florida State level, and he said that my interpretation was correct but there was nothing he could do.  He referred me to Community Services.  Mr. Rushman, Community Services, said there was nothing he could do but I could petition the Florida State Building Commission to issue a Declarative Statement.
 

On September 16, 1998, I sent a petition to the Florida Building Commission requesting a Declarative Statement on the requirement for a Certificate of Occupancy on change of ownership or change of tenant within the same occupancy type (business in this case).

On November 23, 1998, in answer to our request, we received a Declarative Statement from the Florida State Building Commission stating that our use of the house does not constitute a change of occupancy and that a Certificate of Occupancy is not required.

The comments made by the Florida Building Commission echoed the exact statements I had made to Pensacola City Officials regarding what the construction regulations required and did not require.  According to their official decision, a new Certificate of Occupancy was not required for our property.
 

It should have been that when we bought the house, according to the SBC and the Florida Building Commission, we were allowed to continue the operation of the business.  Instead, City Officials had stalled us for almost 5 months and harassed us by making illegal demands and denying us the legal use of our historic building.
 

I sent copies of the Florida Building Commission’s Declarative Statement to the City Manager, City Attorney, the Pensacola Building Inspection Department, and all City Council Members and suggested that the Pensacola Building Inspection Department’s office policies be carefully reviewed for compliance with existing laws.  The City Manager, Mr. Hinkle, was gone and a new City Manager, Mr. Thomas Bonfield, was now in office.
 

In addition to sending the Declarative Statement, I called Mr. Bonfield and related the inappropriate actions on the part of the Pensacola Building Inspection Department, the findings of the Florida Building Commission which support our standing and requested that he undertake the task of getting the Pensacola Building Inspection Department in line with the Florida State Statutes and the Standard Building Code.

Mr. Bonfield refused to obey the SBC and the decision by the Florida Building Commission and continued the illegal policy of forcing Pensacola property owners, including us, to comply with his illegal requirements regarding the misuse of the CO by threats and illegal demands.  
 

On December 6, I wrote to the Florida Building Commission stating that the Pensacola City Officials were refusing to abide by the Florida Building Commission’s Declarative Statement.  They wrote back that they could do nothing about the Pensacola City Officials not following the Declarative Statement since the Florida Building Commission did not have an enforcement arm but only decided who was correct in the interpretation of official regulations.

 

© Copyright – All rights reserved – Pensacola Newsletter