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.
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
