City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Building Construction Codes Commission

Council Chambers

Monday, March 27, 2023

4:30 PM

I. CALL TO ORDER

MR. CONNELL: March 27th, 2023, Building

Construction Codes Commission meeting will come to

order. I'm going to call the roll. Starting with

Mr. Weber.

MR. WEBER: Here, yes.

MR. CONNELL: Here and yes. Fred Malicoat?

MR. MALICOAT: Here and yes.

MR. CONNELL: Brian Connell is here and yes.

Jonathan Trunk?

MR. TRUNK: Here. And I guess I'm voting.

MR. CONNELL: Yes.

MR. TRUNK: Yes.

MR. CONNELL: We'll need you to vote. Richard

Shanker?

MR. SHANKER: Here, voting.

MR. CONNELL: Kas Carlson?

MR. CARLSON: Here, voting.

MR. CONNELL: Doug Muzzy?

MR. MUZZY: Here, voting.

MR. CONNELL: Okay. So it's also important to

announce that we have seven Commissioners present

this evening, so the rules of order state that if

we have eight -- is it eight or less?

MR. SIMON: If we don't have at least eight --

MR. CONNELL: If we don't have at least eight

Commissioners present, and you don't find favor

with the verdict from this -- this afternoon's

proceedings, you have the opportunity to return, so

it takes six -- six members -- we have an 11 member

Commission, it takes six to pass the -- pass the

appeal. Remember that because we're short the

eight, you have the opportunity to return. Very

good.

City Staff Present:

John Simon

David Brockhouse

7 -

Present:

Kas Carlson, Brian Connell, Fred Malicoat, Douglas Muzzy, Richard Shanker, David

Weber and Jonathan Trunk

15 -

Excused:

Jay Creasy, Robert Jackson, Matthew Young, Austin Tipton, Andrew Wallace, John

Neyens, Christopher Howe, John Page, Ray Kaisher, Amy Barrett, Trevor Kilgore,

Scott Wallace, William DeYoung, Kyle Saunders and Jim Dove

II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MR. CONNELL: I called the roll. I would like to

ask for a motion and second to approve the agenda.

Mr. Weber?

MR. WEBER: This is Dave Weber. I'll refer to

myself as D.W. moving forward. I would make a

motion to accept the Agenda.

MR. CONNELL: Do we have second? Anybody?

MR. MUZZY: Sure. Doug Muzzy, second.

MR. CONNELL: Thank you, Doug. All in favor of

approving the Agenda, say aye. All opposed?

(Unanimous voice vote for approval.)

MR. CONNELL: Hearing none, the Agenda is

approved.

Motion to accept the Agenda.

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

IV.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MR. CONNELL: Let’s take a look at the -- the

last time we generated meeting minutes was August

22,2023. I need a motion and a second to approve

the minutes as published. Mr. Weber?

MR. WEBER: D.W. I make a motion to approve the

Minutes.

MR. CONNELL: Second?

MR. CONNELL: Mr. Carlson.

MR. CARLSON: I second the motion to approve the

Minutes.

MR. CONNELL: All in favor of approving the

minutes as published, say aye. Any opposed?

(Unanimous voice vote for approval.)

MR. CONNELL: Hearing none, the minutes are

approved as published.

Motion to approve the Minutes.

IV. NEW BUSINESS

A) 304-306 Loch Ln-Lack of drywall on garage ceiling

Attachments: 304-306 LOCH LN-GARAGE CEILING

MR. CONNELL: With that, I believe we move

right on into the Appeal. Everybody can read it

on the screen, but I'm going to go ahead and

recite it. This is an appeal application to the

Building Construction Code Commission, legally

described -- let's see. Notice of appeal from

the decision of Code official in regard to the

following described property in the City of

Columbia, County of Boone, State of Missouri.

Legally described as Horton, Margaret J. Trust,

and known as 304-306 Loch Lane. Applicant

requests a variance of ruling with respect to

the above described property. On the 27th day

of March, said Code official disapproved garage,

lack of drywall on ceiling. Reason for such

action was that fumes from running car could

enter residence, which does not comply with

Section 703.2 of the building code as adopted by

the City of Columbia, Missouri, which provides

or requires that, and that was left blank. A

copy of the notice of said official is hereto

attached. The basis for this appeal as

permitted by the International Building Code,

as adopted by the City of Columbia, is -- and

the two boxes that are checked here are the

provisions of the code do not fully apply, an

undue hardship is created by strict compliance

with the letter of the code that has no

significant effect on the health, safety, and

welfare of the public or any individual. In

parentheses, it says attach a cost estimate for

hardship encountered. Applicant is requesting a

variance, a ruling, or both in the way of carrying

out the strict letter of the code because the

house was built in 1959 and has never had drywall

on garage ceiling. It has always passed

inspections in the past including from the same

inspector. It is extremely expensive.

Contractor says it was not built to have this done.

Applicant is proposing waive, which I assume means

to waive the requirements for the garage ceiling.

The name printed is Mike Thompson. The name of

business requesting the variance is -- is that

MJH Enterprise, 311 Windham Court, Jefferson

City, Missouri 65109, et cetera. Would the

applicant (Mike Thomson)like to come forward and

speak? I think we'll need you to swear in,

anybody else that wants to speak.

MS. EDWARDS: Yes. David Brockhouse and

Mike Thomson Please raise your right hand.

(Witness sworn.)

MR. CONNELL: You may proceed.

MR. THOMPSON: My name is Mike Thompson. As

you have heard, that my mother actually bought

this house about 25 years ago. It's -- it's

never had drywall in the ceiling. And I don't

know if it was inspected at the time of sale or

not. I don't know if that's required, but it's

always been this way. And so, like was said, it

has always passed inspection until this time

around. And as you can see, it is prohibitively

expensive. That's about three times my budget a

month, and it looks like from the estimate that

the -- it starts at $8,000 and then more has to

be moved, including the electrical and plumbing

has to be moved around to accommodate that because

you have to have access to it. And so it's quite

labor intensive. In fact, he said he didn't even

know how exactly he was going to do it all. And

if you saw the -- I don't know if you all saw

pictures or not, but it's a very low ceiling. In

fact, the garage door is -- is just inches from

the top. And so that's why things would have to

be moved to get drywall up there. Like I said,

it's very labor intensive. This is the only

gentleman I could get to come out to look at my

place. The other places I've called said they

wouldn't do it. They weren't interested. It

would be a while before this gentleman could

even come out and do it. And -- but like I said,

it's -- it's beyond my budget to begin with.

And if you have any questions for me or not.

It's just a very big expense. It's never been

this way since the house was built, and it's

required now. And so that's what I really don't

understand. How could it have passed all these

times if it is an actual danger to someone, you

know. And I -- I can't tell you that I know one

way or the other about gas going through the floor

and penetrating into a living environment. I don't

know about that. But I have been in construction

for 30 years. I do have garages without drywall

on the ceiling, also at another house that I own,

but that's obviously not this one. But I

understand -- I have not seen the code, but I have

to trust you individuals that that is the code,

obviously. I understand that. I'm not disputing

that. It's just that it's never had drywall in

there before, and all these years, it's passed.

There's been no problem. That's why I would like

to appeal to you.

MR. MUZZY: Is this a rental, or is it a

duplex, it sounds like?

MR. THOMPSON: It is a duplex rental, yes,

sir.

MR. MUZZY: And is the attic above the

garage common to the house? Open the garage

and go above the house, it's --

MR. THOMPSON: The garage on one side,

you can only access through the back, through

the garage door. There is no other entrance to

the house.

MR. MUZZY: Is it attic space above the

garage?

MR. THOMPSON: Okay.

MR. MUZZY: Attic space all tied together

MR. SHANKER: I think Mr. Muzzy is wanting to

know what's above the garage.

MR. THOMPSON: There is living space above

the garage.

MR. THOMPSON: Yes.

MR. SHANKER: Is it a bedroom above the

garage?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes.

MR. SHANKER: Are your -- do you have smoke

detectors and CO detectors throughout the

house?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes.

MR. SHANKER: Are they wired? Are they

isolated? I mean, are they hard wired or not?

MR. THOMPSON: Battery. All of them are

battery.

MR. SHANKER: Okay. And are you going to

distribute those pictures so we could take a look

at them, please? Yeah. Give them to me and I'll

pass them, please. Thank you.

MR. CONNELL: Any other questions while we're

- I have one. Brian Connell. Approximate size--

are there two garages, one garage?

MR. THOMPSON: Two garages.

MR. CONNELL: Do both of them lack a

ceiling?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes.

MR. CONNELL: Approximate size of these; one

car, two cars?

MR. THOMPSON: One car.

MR. CONNELL: Okay.

MR. THOMPSON: One garage -- if you would

let me add. One garage on the one side has a

door that goes into the basement. The other

side doesn't have a basement, it's just a garage.

MR. SHANKER: Being a -- Rick Shanker. Being

a landlord, a lot of times we find that things

pass one time and don't pass another time, and a

lot of us are subject to that. Having said that,

are you familiar with the fact that there are

smoke, CO detectors that are electrically operated,

but have a remote that can be used that doesn't

require wiring to it, and is that something that

the code official would accept in lieu of sheet

rocking?

MR. THOMPSON: I was not aware of them, but

I can --

MR. SHANKER: They're UL approved, and again.

John, would -- is that something that's acceptable

or not?

MR. SIMON: I'm going to defer to David on

that.

MR. SHANKER: Okay.

MR. SIMON: This is rental property, and he's

representing neighborhood services.

MR. SHANKER: I understand.

MR. BROCKHOUSE: Right now, with the precedent

that it would set here and in the future, and the

safety, I can't allow that myself right now. I'm

just basing it on the code, and was just going to

leave it as clear as that right now. If there's

any compromise, then it will need to be decided

on amongst you.

MR. SHANKER: This is a UL approved appliance,

and this is not something we're coming up with.

This is used all the time or -- and I assume

somebody would know this. Is it CO comes out of

the car, or is that some other kind of gas that

comes out of a car? Carbon dioxide that comes

out of the car, or is that CO?

MR. WEBER: CO.

MR. SIMON: So -- so I think what David is

stating is the code requires the sheetrock.

We -- here's the 55 code that the dwelling was

built under. It's up on the board. So any

variance from that would have to be something

approved by the BCCC, not by staff.

MR. SHANKER: Thank you.

MR. WEBER: So one of the things that

confuses me about this, I was thinking this

-- you know, the same thing Doug was, is can we

separate this and is it a horizontal issue, but

I did not know -- I'm not familiar with the

layout, right? So when I heard that there's a

bedroom above -- of course, CO is an odorless,

tasteless whatever -- gas that's deadly. And

when I see this fire resistance requirement

that's retrospective, right -- since we're in

the property maintenance code now, I do love the

1950-whatever BOCA. It's awesome to see because

I know -- did you get that from the library or

was that the City or the County.

MR. SIMON: Actually, -- that's in our

archives.

MR. WEBER. Yeah. That's -- that's cool. but I

think even with the code that requires it, since

we're in property maintenance code, it requires

it, and I see that as a fire requirement because

that wouldn't stop CO any more than plywood would,

because it's not like it says it has to be

an air barrier. And so, to me, this seems like a

fire requirement. And so I'm just trying to get

off center and distill the issue. It looks like

this is a fire separation issue. So if we start

talking about CO, I think we're talking about the

wrong thing. So to be -- if we're talking about

accepting alternate solution -- alternate solution

for a fire barrier. That's my only comment.

MR. SHANKER: Aren't there, John, houses being

built on walkouts that are unfinished in their

basement; they're totally exposed with wood? And

aren't there garage door - double garage doors

where people park their lawn mowers, et cetera,

right now?

MR. SIMON: So garages are required to be

separated from the dwellings.

MR. SHANKER: Garages --

MR. SIMON: So -- so if they have a garage in

the basement, it would be required to be separated

from the dwelling with sheetrock on the -- on the

framing members.

MR. SHANKER: But the fire hazard still exists

whether there is a garage down there or not because

it's all exposed wood to Mr. Weber's point?

MR. SIMON: I guess I don't see the

correlation. The requirement is that garages

be separated from the dwelling, not that the

basement be separated from the rest of the

dwelling. So that's what the notice of

violation was for, for not having the attic

with separation.

MR. MALICOAT: D.W. is correct. It's a fire

separation rather than a CO. One little story,

I had an employee and his wife die. Their garage

was sheetrocked, but the engine was running and

they were overcome by carbon monoxide. Another

issue I saw in the pictures was a water heating

sitting -- it looks probably on the garage floor.

And there's an 18-inch requirement that any fuel

burning appliance be up off the floor for 18

inches because it's a hazardous area. If there

was a gasoline fume leak, that could explode in

that area. And there was a furnace, too, so if

the combustion takes place lower -- 18 inches or

lower, it's a hazard.

MR. WEBER: And so, you know, I was just

using common sense. I don't know, like you do,

Fred, but -- so, to me, it's, like, as all this

history, and you can't deny that in what he's

saying. I totally get what he's saying is that,

why now, and it happens all the time for our body,

right? So, to me, I'm having a hard time wrapping

my mind around what would be an alternative

solution to the fire separation besides a fire

separation, because an alarm doesn't make a fire

separation. And so -- so I'm just -- and I'm not

-- that's not my expertise, but I'm just trying

to figure out the elements of this case so I can

make a logical decision. But how does an alarm

or an argument about some other room -- fire

separation requirements that's existed since 1959.

It's hard for me to wrap my mind around that.

That's just a comment, but if this discussion..

MR. CONNELL: The one thing that might be an

option. There are products out there intumescent

coatings that can be sprayed or brush or roller

applied to the underside that lends a certain

amount of fire resistance, if that's what we're

looking for. It wouldn't necessarily require the

membrane, the board ceiling and would give the

applicant perhaps an opportunity to look to see

if there was another option than taking down all

of the electrical and all the mechanical,

installing a sheetrock ceiling. I'm just

speculating; I'm not sitting here suggesting that

the intumescent coatings are the way to go.

Anybody else?

MR. WEBER: But, you know, maybe even you

could get a thin gunite coating, you know the

concept, just some sort of gun applied or liquid

applied -- the problem is usually those are

usually with a UL rating, and you have to have

the backing that's a certain thing, and that

creates complexity for him because he's got to

hire somebody that has the expertise. That's --

I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind

around besides a three-quarter hour rating, it's

a fire issue, not a --

MR. CONNELL: I know there are -- and I'll

get to you here in a second. A lot of these

products come in five-gallon buckets. There would

need to be some substrate applied, but I guess

it's a matter of discussion with City staff

whether they would consider allowing this.

MR. SIMON: Simply required.

The code simply required a three-quarter hour

separation. How that separation is achieved by

what means and method we're going to be okay with

as long as it meets the three-quarter hour

requirement. Is the garage being used as a garage?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes.

MR. SHANKER: Once again, according to the fire

officials that aren't here, I think if a house is

not occupied and there's a fire and the house burns

down, I think this is life safety, as well as fire.

And so I would like to make a motion to approve

this based on installation of a complete CO-fire

alarm system, just to get this thing off dead

center. So my motion is, grant the motion or the

appeal based on installation of a CO-fire alarm

system for not only the garage, but throughout

the house or duplex.

MR. CONNELL: He can second it.

MR. WEBER: I second that motion to bring it

to --.

MR. CONNELL: We have a second. Now is there

discussion?

MR. SHANKER: And according to what you said,

whether this passes or doesn't pass, the applicant

could still come back based on the fact there's

not enough people here; is that correct?

MR. CONNELL: That is correct.

MR. SHANKER: Just so you know what's going

on.

MR. CONNELL: Any other --

MR. MUZZY: So one more question. I take it,

I think you said, that they use it as a garage.

I mean, it wouldn't have value if you wall it off,

I guess, and not have a garage, and be fine.

It might be cheaper than --

MR. THOMPSON: Oh, yeah. No doubt it would

be. Mike Thompson. I'm sorry.

MR. MUZZY: Right. But you lose the parking,

so --

MR. THOMPSON: No doubt it would be cheaper to

wall it off. In fact, that's quite easy to do.

But one side is a really nice garage and they use

it all the time. The other, it's kind of

intermittent. In fact, most of the time, he

doesn't use it, but there is some times that he

does. When he goes out of town, he puts his car

in the garage.

MR. MUZZY: I did note that, so --

MR. SHANKER: So there's two garages, not

one? Okay. I'd like to call the question. And,

I think I need to withdraw my motion. I thought

it was one garage. The problem is if the power

goes out on one side, and it's not occupied, and

that's what's powering the system, then there's a

fault. Does it work? So I'm going to withdraw

my proposal.

MR. D.W.: No. I'm perfectly good with Rick

withdrawing.

MR. SHANKER: I'll withdraw my motion.

MR. CONNELL: Okay. So I think -- I think

we have a motion to withdraw.

MR. WEBER: I would second that. Yeah.

MR. CARLSON: Are these garages interconnected?

MR. THOMPSON: They are.

MR. CARLSON: Is the reason this passed

because of one garage or because of both garages?

I don't know if that was brought clear or not,

because both garages --

MR. THOMPSON: Both garages, in fact.

MR. CARLSON: From a different level

separated, not connected, but both garages have

to have the same or they are connected side by

side?

MR. THOMPSON: They're connected side by side,

separated by a wall. Mike Thompson. And, in fact,

the one garage does not have living space above it.

It doesn't have a bedroom above it. It's --

MR. CARLSON: But they are connected?

MR. THOMPSON: They are connected. Only one

side has --

MR. CARLSON: By a wall of sheetrock or nothing?

MR. THOMPSON: Correct. A wall with sheetrock.

MR. CARLSON: I don't know if that was clear or

not. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on

if the garages are connected or separated by a wall

with sheetrock and that's it.

MR. WEBER: Could you pop that street view up

again? So -- so one of the garages has a bedroom

over it, and the other garage has what over it?

MR. CONNELL: I’m not sure which dwelling it

is. Somebody point out which -- I punched in

306 Loch Lane, but it didn't look like.

MR. THOMPSON: Go left.

MR. CONNELL: Okay. What?

MR. THOMPSON: That's it right there.

MR. CONNELL: This one?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes.

MR. SHANKER: So one garage has --

MR. CARLSON: So it's around back?

MR. SHANKER: -- a bedroom. So you go

around, and the one garage has a bedroom. What

does the other garage have over it?

MR. THOMPSON: The unit you see on the left

has a garage directly underneath it, and the only

access to that garage is through the garage door.

The unit on the right has a garage, and it also

has a full basement underneath that with a garage

door that separates the garage from the basement.

MR. D.W.: So they both have living areas

above the garages?

MR. THOMPSON: Living area, yes.

MR. D.W.: Okay. Got it.

MR. CONNELL: So as I understand it, we're

back to square one. Doug Muzzy?

MR. MUZZY: Yeah. One more question. So as

a rental unit, this gets inspected every three

years?

MR. MUZZY: Do you know how many times it's

been inspected before -- I don't know when that

process started.

MR. BROCKHOUSE: I inspected it at least the

last two inspections.

MR. SHANKER: One more thing. The reason why

my idea won't work is because if one side goes out

and somebody parks a car in there, you could still

have fumes from one side leak into the other with

no protection. If you had a house meter, I'd say

my suggestion is viable. That's a problem. You

would have to have two separate systems, and I

don't know if the board would go for that.

MR. CARLSON: Single meter or double meter?

This house has one electric meter or two?

MR. BROCKHOUSE: I'm going to kind of repeat.

I thought by common sense this is not gas problem,

this is a fire separation problem. Why we keep

talking about COs (and gas barrier, trying to

parse out what the real problem is.

MR. CARLSON: One other thing, in the code

on fire separation, does this fall under a problem

with fire separation because we've been talking

about CO. You've inspected it and in the rental

code, does fire separation dictate that this needs

to be sheetrocked? We need to know that, right?

MR. SIMON: So the property maintenance code

requires that the fire resistance ratings under

which the dwelling was built be maintained. And

so we dug up the '54 BOCA which was in force during

that time, and it, in fact, does require that fire

barrier. It reads, "Private garages located

beneath a one- and two-family dwelling or attached

thereto shall have walls, partitions, floors and

ceilings separating the garage space from the

dwelling constructed of not less than three-quarter

fire -- hour fire resistance."

MR. CARLSON:So it should have been done in

the beginning.

MR. SIMON: Should have.

MR. CARLSON: It wasn’t done.

MR. SIMON: Correct.

MR. CARLSON: It's been inspected every six

years since the City began inspecting rental

properties. It's come up again, and this time

it's been caught because of this fire separation,

and that's where we're at right now. I just want

to make sure we're clear on that.

MR. SIMON: It sounds accurate. I can't

speak to how long it's been in the rental system.

MR. CARLSON: Fine. We didn't ask how many

times that it had been inspected or how many times

it had been missed, but here we are.

MR. SIMON: Okay.

MR. CARLSON: Okay. So I wanted to make sure

it's all laid out and we had the stats in front

of us.

MR. WEBER: That's one thing I hadn't thought

about. When did -- do we know how long this has

been a rental?

MR. THOMPSON: At least the 25 years or so my

mother has owned it.

MR. MUZZY: Are the other houses in this

neighborhood the same? I mean, is this a -- like,

a huge problem, or is it for some reason one snuck

through? Do we have a -- do we have an idea of

what -- you know, I've been in a lot of old houses

where you drive down into the garages that have no

drywall, you know, in Columbia. But, I mean, it's

not unusual, right? You probably see it. Yeah.

You probably see a lot of older homes.

MR. MUZZY.: Well, I'm trying to come up

with some solution that makes sense for this

situation -- what did we say -- '59? I assume

from when it was built. I'm just trying to come

up with some reasonable solution. It provides

enough life safety, you know.

MR. SHANKER: To chime on Doug's point of view

is, this is done in '55. Who knows if Kenneth,

Victor or anyone was around then to inspect. It

may have not even gotten inspected. Maybe it did.

But I agree with you. There are other houses on

Loch that are that floor -- that footprint. If

you put those on the screen again, you can see

some of them, that may have the same problem

throughout Columbia. So I suggest that the

applicant may look at -- withdraws his case for

today, and looks at alternative means. I don't

want to set a precedent by -- one way or the other.

And it's life safety, it's not fire safety. Fire

is, we're worried about people getting burned.

We're worried about life safety more than

protecting property.

MR. BROCKHOUSE: It does matter if it's a

rental in a lot of ways because you get people in

and out of there, and they're not as maybe

potentially familiar with the property, you have

to get out of there quickly, and that's kind of

why these get inspected with that more -- you know,

motels are the same way, -- we're just not making

this up. There is a difference if someone has

lived there a long time versus you have a renter

come in for a year. They're not as familiar with

the property and so that's kind of why the system

is that way, so it's not like it's out to get you,

but it's for safety reasons.

MR. SHANKER: By the nature of a duplex, it's

property management. You can't have two owners in

a duplex. That would be a condo; isn't that

correct? So if I own a duplex, and I live on one

half, and I rent it out to someone else on the

other half, doesn't that fall under property

management?

MR. SIMON: I don't understand the question.

MR. SHANKER: The question is, I own a duplex.

I live on one half. I rent it to you on the other

half.

MR. SIMON: Okay?

MR. SHANKER: Am I subjected to rental rules

in the City of Columbia?

MR. SIMON: Yes. You're subjected to rental

compliance, yes.

MR. SHANKER: So by nature of the fact that a

lot of these houses that John has just put on the

screen, these are duplexes. These all could be

subject to this if they're not sheetrocked. So

what I'm trying to get at is, do we want to open

this box of worms up without a solution that Doug

might -- was trying to offer?

MR. CONNELL: Any other comments, questions?

MR. CARLSON: I'm not sure we're opening up a

precedence on this. I think each property rests

on its own merit here. We can pass or deny him

because of this property, and somebody comes in a

month later with another one, we're going to have

the same issue up. And we're going to be handing

a get out of jail free to every single person who

doesn't have sheetrock in their basement in a

garage. I don't think we are.

MR. MALICOAT: I'm going to make a motion to

deny the appeal.

MR. WEBER: Second.

MR. CONNELL: Discussion?

MR. MUZZY: Is there an alternative that would

provide an additional fire notice, fire, you know,

that would protect the occupants without having to

install the drywall?

MR. WEBER: And I think that's the alternative

compliance we need to be talking about. What is

the

fire thing we can do that is acceptable life safety

wise for him to get around the three-quarter hour

separation, and I just don't know what that is.

MR. MALICOAT: I just remind you, it's not our

job to solve the problem, but to point out that

there's a danger, and it needs to be fixed.

MR. WEBER: And we always find ourselves in

these do-gooder situations trying to -- we know

things, and we're trying to help, and that's not

our job, so --

MR. CONNELL: This -- so we have a motion and

a second. Brian Connell. I would like to say, I

want to remind the applicant that you have a couple

of options here. You could ask for us to table

this while you look for alternatives to a sheetrock

ceiling. I'm not sure withdrawing it is an option,

is it?

MR. CONNELL: But, of course, you -- again, I

cited this before. There are not eight members

present, so if we vote unfavorably for you, you

have the opportunity to come back.

MR. WEBER: I think that we could withdraw the

motion if he wants to withdraw his appeal request.

MR. SHANKER: That's correct. We've done that

in the past, if the applicant wants to withdraw.

MR. SIMON: So when eight qualified

commissioners are not present to consider a

specific appeal, either the appellant, the

building official, or their representative may

request a postponement of the hearing.

Determining vote, failure to secure six concurring

votes shall be deemed a confirmation of the

decision of the building official except that the

appellant shall be entitled to further hearing

before a full commission if there were not 11

qualified members present when the vote was taken.

I think that answers your questions.

MR. MUZZY: And, again, I'll reiterate my

other question. Is it even an option for the

applicant to withdraw his -- not to ask for

postponement, but to withdraw the appeal?

MR. SIMON: Certainly.

MR. SHANKER: So when you're saying withdraw

the appeal, are you saying that he is going to just

comply, or is he withdrawing it for now, just so he

knows -- so Mike knows what he's up against.

MR. CONNELL: I'm being very specific. There's

a difference between asking to table it or postpone

it, and withdraw it. If the applicant chooses to

withdraw his appeal, in my mind, that means that

he's going to back and he's going to work with

Mr. Brockhouse to resolve the issue in some way

that's compliant with the code.

MR. SHANKER: Do you understand this, because

if you don't, now is the time to ask questions?

MR. THOMPSON: I do, but I want to make sure

that there is an alternative before I leave you

all, if there's an alternative, so a spray or a

coating or something that delays this fire deal.

MR. CARLSON: We cannot come up with that for

you. We can either approve or deny in our vote.

We cannot come up with an alternative for you.

We don't solve your problem.

MR. WEBER: I'm confident there is. The

problem is, is how you find that and show them the

right info. There is something out there, trust

me.

It’s just -- that's paint or gunite applied system.

There has to be something acceptable that you can

prove.

MR. CONNELL: Hearing no further discussion,

we have a motion and a second to deny the appeal.

MR. THOMPSON: No. I mean, if there's -- if

there's no alternative to putting something in

there, I really don't understand. I mean, if there

is an alternative, I would like to pursue it, and

if it would be okay, but, you know, if I go pursue

an alternative and I spray the stuff in there that

delays it, and it still doesn't pass because it has

to be drywall, I'm back to square one.

MR. CARLSON: You would decide what your

alternative is. You would present it to the

inspectors, who would either tell you that will be

okay or not. You would not have to come back in

front of us if you did that. So whatever you

decide to do as an alternative, you would bring

forth to them to make sure they approved it before

you did it.

MR. SHANKER: Yeah. Before you do it.

MR. CARLSON: Before you do it. You go, here's

what I want to do, will this pass. Yes or no.

You're not in front of us anymore.

MR. THOMPSON: I ask that question now of them?

MR. CARLSON: You can ask that question now.

MR. SIMON: I don't know what kind of product.

And John Simon.

MR. CARLSON: Yeah.

MR. SIMON: You would have to come up with a

plan for how you intend to get the three-quarter

rating, and once you come up with a plan, yeah,

we're happy to take a look at it and say yes or no,

and if it meets our requirements, certainly. I'm

not positive what that product is, but along with

D.W., I agree it is available. I just don't know

if the expense is any less or more or that sort

of thing.

MR. CARLSON: That's not for us to judge.

MR. SIMON: No, it's not. So there's

probably a product out there you can use that

would meet your needs.

MR. THOMPSON: I would like to pursue that.

MR. SIMON: You know, and it could be a mix

match. It could a portion of it with sheetrock,

the easier parts to get to, and the rest of it,

I mean, you can line the joists with sheetrock.

You -- that gets time-consuming, but you can line

both sides, put it on floor, all sorts of

different things you can do, so --

MR. CARLSON: So it's coming down to you are

going to let us say yea or nay, or you're going

to withdraw, come up with an alternative way for

you to present to the City to approve. It's your

choice. You can ask us to vote, or you can

withdraw. Is that where we're at?

MR. CONNELL: That is where we're at.

MR. CARLSON: That's where we're at. So we're

just waiting for you to decide -- if we deny or

approve you tonight when we vote, your choice is to

come back to another meeting, or between you

coming back to another meeting, have an

alternative with the City to approve, and then you

don't have another meeting. So make the call how

you want us to do it.

MR. SIMON: So I just want to make sure, Mike,

you understand. We'll meet with you any time or

your contractor with whatever you propose. I mean,

we want to be as helpful as we can. We just can't

design it for you.

MR. THOMPSON: I don't have an answer either.

MR. SIMON: Yeah. No. I understand.

MR. CARLSON: John, does approval or denial put

him on a different track, a different time element?

If he called the vote, does he have any more time

or any less time based on us, the way we vote?

MR. SIMON: I would let Mr. Brockhouse speak

to that.

MR. BROCKHOUSE: So we can -- what you're

saying, because I'm a little confused. We can

discuss options and see if we can get something

worked out, and then if we do, we're good. If we

don't, we come back; is that correct?

MR. CONNELL: Correct.

MR. BROCKHOUSE: So I would like to see if we

can find some methods that will meet this

requirement and see if we can get something worked

out. I'm -- you know, I'd like to work with you

and see what we can do.

MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. I would, too.

MR. WEBER: One thing you might consider, and

I know this is self-serving to some extent. You

might consider getting somebody who does this for

a living to help you comply because it sounds like

you're not sure and you may not want to just wing

it but talk to people that do this every day. You

might hire somebody to help you and just navigate

that problem, solve it, but it would cost you

money to hire that person, but that is a solution.

MR. CONNELL: Well, we're in a unique

circumstance here because we do not have eight

commissioners present this evening. You have

the opportunity, as John recited, from the

ordinance to postpone, to ask us to postpone

this hearing, or we can go ahead and vote, and

if we vote no, because there aren't eight

commissioners here, you have the opportunity to

come back anyway.

MR. THOMPSON: Is there one that gets me

more time than the other?

MR. CONNELL: Probably postponing.

MR. THOMPSON: That’s what I would like to

do then.

MR. CONNELL: He's not withdrawing, he's asking

us to postpone that.

MR. CONNELL: Let's make a motion and act on

it just because I'm not sure if we need one.

MR. CARLSON: I'm going to make a motion that

we accept the applicant's proposal to postpone.

MR. SHANKER: I second postponement.

MR. CONNELL: Any discussion? I'm going to

call the vote. So we have a motion and a second

to grant the applicant the opportunity to postpone

this hearing. I'm going to go down the roll here.

Mr. Weber?

MR. WEBER: Yes.

MR. CONNELL: Fred Malicoat?

MR. MALICOAT: Yes.

MR. CONNELL:

Connell, yes. Jonathan Trunk?

MR. TRUNK: Yes.

MR. CONNELL: Richard Shanker?

MR. SHANKER: Yes.

Mr. CONNELL: Kas Carlson?

MR. CARLSON: Yes.

MR. CONNELL: Doug Muzzy?

MR. MUZZY: Yes.

MR. CONNELL: Unanimous. You have the

opportunity to work it out with Mr. Brockhouse

or Building and Site.

MR. THOMPSON: I appreciate you all listening,

and it is quite nice to talk to people who know

what they're doing, so obviously you --

MR. CONNELL: You're welcome. Thank you.

Motion that we accept the applicant's proposal to postpone.

7 - Carlson, Connell, Malicoat, Muzzy, Shanker, Weber and Trunk

Yes:

15 -

Excused:

Creasy, Jackson, Young, Tipton, Wallace, Neyens, Howe, Page, Kaisher, Barrett,

Kilgore, Wallace, DeYoung, Saunders and Dove

B) BRIEF REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE

V. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, MEMBERS AND STAFF

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE APRIL 24, 2023

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 6:00pm

Members of the public may attend any open meeting. For requests for accommodations related to

disability, please call 573-874-CITY (573-874-2489) or email CITY@CoMo.gov. In order to assist staff in

making the appropriate arrangements for your accommodation, please make your request as far in

advance of the posted meeting date as possible.

USB DRIVES PROHIBITED: Due to cybersecurity concerns, flash drives and other media devices

are no longer permitted for delivering files or presentation materials. A speaker who desires to

display a presentation must upload the presentation, in advance, to the city network using an

upload portal. To upload your files and learn more, visit CoMo.gov/upload. (Effective Jan. 1,

2023)