Loading...
Minutes 02-14-04MZNUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF AD.1USTMENT AND APPEALS HEETZNG HELD IN COMMZSSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORI'DA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2004 AT 6:30 P.M. Present Richard Kurtz, Chair Michael Bessell Agnes Hollingshead Robert Mulroy Brita Peterson Melvyn Sternbach Patti Hammer, Alternate Russell Milton, Alternate (not voting) Absent Don Johnson, Building Official David Tolces, Assistant Attorney City Robert Zimmerman A. Call to Order Chair Kurtz called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. B. Acknowledgment of Members and Visitors Chair Kurtz introduced each Board member, the Assistant City Attorney, the Building Official, and the Recording Secretary. He acknowledged and welcomed Mr. Tim Large, an old Board member and member of the Building Division, and Mr. Russell Milton, Alternate, who participated but did not vote. Ms. Hammer, Alternate, sat on the dais replacing Mr. Zimmerman. C. Approval of Agenda Motion Mr. Mulroy moved to approve the agenda as presented. Ms. Hollingshead seconded the motion that carried 7-0. D. Old Business None. The Board decided to dispense with the approval of the minutes from its April 6, 2000 meeting, since several Board members were not present at that meeting. Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida February 12, 2004 E. New Business Applicant: Reference: Explanation: Bill Russell, Agent Quantum Park P:[D (The Watershed Act :[:[, :[nc.) Appealing Building Official's interpretation of Section 309.1 - Group ! Unrestrained Occupancy of the 2001 Florida Building Code. Applicant feels his facility should be considered R4 Residential Occupancy. Don .~ohnson, Building Official with the City of Boynton Beach, stated that the City was before the Board to ask that it hear the facts and render a decision in the matter of an appeal of a decision of the Building Official of the City of Boynton Beach. The applicant is appealing the interpretation of the City of Boynton Beach Building Official of Section 309.1 "Group ! Unrestrained Occupancy" of the Florida Building Code, 2001 Edition, and the City's resulting decision to apply that code section to the applicant's proposed facility, The Watershed Act 1!, !nc. The applicant contends that the proposed facility should be classified as R4, Residential Occupancy, as denoted in Section 311.2. While researching this matter, Mr..lohnson contacted the Department of Children and Families (DCF) in regard to The Watershed's current license with DCF for its Boca Raton facility. That license states that it is for: "adu/t cl/ents, res/dent/a/and meal~ca~ detox,/n a 40 bed-fac///ty." When The Watershed presented its plans to the Planning & Zoning Board, the Technical Review Committee, and the City Commission and received project approval and a Development Order, it was determined that its request was for use approval of a substance abuse rehabi/itative hospita/in the Quantum Park P!D. Mr. Johnson stated that when the applicant first approached the City with the plans, the civil drawings stated that this facility was a public, institutional, 332-bed hospital. As a result of a meeting in January between all parties, Mr. Russell supplied Mri Johnson with an E-mail that was also provided to the Board members. In the E-mail, Mr. Russell indicated that The Watershed would have some detoxification patients (sub- acute), but would not accept those requiring the highest degrees of detoxification (acute), referring them to hospitals instead. $/nce Code Sect/on $09.1 does not different/ate between the leve/s of detoxification, Mr. Johnson did not have any ability to cons/der d/fferent /eve/s of detox/ficat/on /n mak/ng a determ/nat/on /n the matter. Mr..~ohnson received direction and support from Mr. Greene at the !nternational Code Council, regarding Mr. Johnson's interpretation of Code Section 309.1 as it relates to this appeal. Mr. Greene suggested that the design professional for The Watershed design the building with a four-hour firewall separating the areas to be used for detoxification. The installation of a four-hour firewall would allow the detoxification 2 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida February 12, 2004 portion of the facility to be considered a separate building. The rest of the building could be constructed in a manner consistent with the requirements for R4 occupancy. If this were to be done, only that portion of the building would have to be in compliance with the Institutional Occupancy Group I (subsection to 309.1) requirements. Code Section 309 Institutional Occupancy - Group I, Subsection 309.1 Group I Unrestrained Occupancy, lists applicability to "detoxification facilities." The only exception to this is shown in Subsection 309.1 as: "Facilities such as the above (including detoxiflcat/on facilities) with 3 or fewer persons not ancillary to other uses shall be c/ass/fled as a res/dent/a/occupancy." Mr. Johnson stated that he had requested that the applicant provide him with notice of which rooms would be used for detoxification and he had not yet received this. The City needed this information so it could determine how many patient rooms were to be used for detoxification. In the E-mail previously referenced from Mr. Russell, reference was made that The Watershed would never have 4 or more patients who were not capable of self-preservation, a requirement of 309.1. IVlr..lohnson stated that 4 patients were more than the 3 allowed in the exception in 309.1. With more than three detox patients, Mr..lohnson could not classify The Watershed as R-4 occupancy, according to the Code. Mr. Johnson wanted to see support for the R-4 designation on a set of plans. He wanted to see that the individual patient rooms to be used for detoxification were clearly specified. Failing that, he would have to stand by his determination of applying Code Section 309.1 Group I Unrestrained Occupancy, to The Watershed project. The recommendation and support Mr. Johnson received from the International code Council was that until this was done and it could be shown that there would be three or fewer units used for detoxification, it had to classified as Code Section 309.1 Group I Unrestrained Occupancy. Chair Kurtz thanked Mr. Johnson for his very clear presentation, and called upon the applicant to present the case from the viewpoint of The Watershed. Paula Colson of Sachs Sax and Klein and Bill Russell, Vice President of The Watershed, presented the Watershed's case, along with the assistance of the project architect, Steve I~lyott of Quincy .lohnson Architects and I~like Rosen of Cod/ha Development. Ms. Colson agreed that detoxification was not defined in the Florida Building Code. However, she displayed a chart defining acute and sub-acute detoxification. According to its license from DCF, The Watershed is able to provide sub-acute care for detoxification on an outpatient and residential service basis. The Agency for Healthcare 3 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida February l2, 2004 Administration (ACA) provides a license for facilities that handle acute detoxification cases. Ms. Colson read from Mr. Peter Sachs (of Sachs Sax and Klein) dated February 12, 2004, as follows: "... The /icense from DCF does not a//ow the type of care that is contemp/ated by the Bui/ding Officia/, Don Johnson. Mr. Sachs also commented that The Watershed did not undertake the "detoxification" of persons not capable of self- preservation, as presented in Code Section 309.:[, Group ! Unrestrained Occupancy. Steve Myott, Quincy 3ohnson Architects, 3012 Fernwood Drive, Boynton Beach, architect for The Watershed, stated that from the beginning, The Watershed had been presented as a residential treatment center and was designed as such with the concomitant fire ratings and construction. Ms. Colson commented that Mr. Johnson's use of the term "rehab hospital" had been taken out of context and was misleading. Because the Quantum Park P!D did not have a category of use that was exactly what The Watershed offered, they had to choose the next best category, which was "rehab hospital." This term only has meaning in the context of the requirements of Quantum Park P!D and is not an assertion by the applicants that the facility is a hospital. Ms. Colson also wanted to clarify that while the !nternational Code Council did offer support and interpretation over the telephone, this could not be considered formal and would not represent the official interpretation of the ]CC. Ms. Colson referred to Mr. Greene's assertion that it would be easy for The Watershed to simply add a firewall, saying that the applicant was concerned that the plans were not in front of Mr. Greene at the time he made this statement. !t would not be as simple as adding a firewall. IVls. Colson stated that the detoxification facilities called out in 309.1 did not mention sub-acute detoxification, which is the level of care given at The Watershed. !n Section 309.:[ Group ! Unrestrained Occupancy, it states that it includes buildings or portions thereof used for medical, surgical, psychiatric, nursing or custodial care on a 24-hour basis of 4 or more persons ~vho are not capab/e of se~f-preservation. Mr. Russell stated that The Watershed's screening protocol specifically screened out persons who would not be capable of self-preservation. Further, the DCF license under which it operates did not allow for the care of persons incapable of self-preservation. The Watershed never have even 1 or more persons who are not capab/e of se~f-preservation. Code Section 31:[ Residential Occupancy - Group R, Subsection 3:[1.2 (R4) includes alcohol and drug abuse centers, assisted living facilities, congregate care facilities, convalescent facilities, halfway houses, group homes, residential board and care facilities, and social rehabilitation facilities. The Watershed is more closely related to these facilities and would carry on the same types of services as those offered by these 4 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida February l2, 2004 facilities. The Watershed believes that Subsection 311.2 would be the correct classification for its proposed facility. Bill Russell, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of The Watershed treatment programs, 200 Congress Park Drive, Suite 100, Delray Beach, came to the podium. He stated that their current facility in Boca Raton had been in place since February of 1999. The building they are in has been a drug alcohol treatment center licensed by DCF since the 1970s. When they talked to the City of Boca Raton Building Official, he stated that his interpretation was that their building was a residential R-4 building and if it were rebuilt, it would still be an R-4 building. Mr. Russell went into great detail in describing the difference between sub-acute detoxification and acute detoxification and the licensing requirements for each. If The Watershed were to apply to the ACA for a license for acute detoxificat/on, they would be told that the entire building would have to be redesigned as a hospital. The Watershed does not want to be a hospital. They want to open the same kind of facility in Boynton Beach as they now have in Boca Raton and they want it to continue as a residential type of treatment facility. Assistant City Attorney Tolces administered an oath of truthfulness to ali individuals who either had or would be testifying in the matter before the Board. IVlr. Russell referred to IVlr. Johnson's request that The Watershed identify the number of rooms that would be used for detoxification. The license they had now and intended to apply for would be for 120 beds, with 40 beds used for sub-acute detoxification. However, the individuals in and not in detox would be indistinguishable from one another because they would all be medically stable, have the ability for self- preservation, and travel freely throughout the facility to meals, meetings, and so forth. !f a person became medically ill while at their facility, they would be referred to a hospital. Board (~uestions Chair Kurtz asked for specifics about the financial implications on the project if The Watershed had to comply with the design requirements of Section 309.1. Mr. Myott stated that there would be a financial impact because Type ! construction (309.1) requires a minimum of Type 2 construction. Chair Kurtz asked whether this would apply to the entire facility or only to the area where the detoxification was involved. Mr. Myott replied that it would most likely apply to the whole building. Chair Kurtz asked Mr. Johnson if he agreed with this and Mr. Johnson stated that he did not, because the portion of the building devoted to detoxification could have the firewall and the rest of the building could be built according to R-4 occupancy requirements. 5 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida February 12, 2004 Ms. Hollingshead confirmed that The Watershed's current license for alcohol and drug treatment facilities was obtained from the DCF and would be the license it would hold at its Boynton Beach facility. Ms. Hollingshead mentioned the applicant's assertion that it would be structurally and physically impossible to convert their design to a hospital setting based on the structure and failure to meet the plan standards of the State for such a facility. Mr. Russell agreed, saying that if they built the facility to be an alcohol and drug abuse center under DCF and under 311.2, it would not meet the requirements of a hospital under 309.1. So, they could never go to that level of acuity of detoxification. Ms. Hollingshead asked for and received confirmation from Mr. Russell that what the applicant was defining as sub-acute detoxification was, in effect, what the Code might describe as alcohol and drug abuse and that the detoxification referred to in 309.1 was actually acute detoxification. Mr. Mulroy stated that the issue was a semantic one. Mr. Mulroy confirmed that if the applicant were to be classified under 309.1, the building would have to be constructed as a hospital facility. Mr. Russell believed that having a 309.1 classification would require a major redesign of the building and that they would have to meet not just the four-hour firewall requirement, but all the requirements under 30911. Ms. Peterson was concerned about why the applicant could not satisfy Mr. Johnson's request to identify the number of rooms that would be used for detox. Mr. Johnson expressed the belief that the design professional could identify some units in one end of the building that would be used for detoxification, put a four-hour firewall around them, and build the rest of the building as residential R-4 use. He did not feel that the applicant would have to build the entire building as a hospital. Mr. Sternbach inquired about the cost of the required firewalls. Mr. Russell responded that firewalls were to protect persons who were incapable of self-preservation. Since their patients travel freely throughout the facility and were capable of self-preservation, he did not know what area would be appropriate to enclose with firewalls. Mr. Johnson stated that he would defer to the design professional to decide the appropriate location for the firewalls, mechanical, and electrical equipment. He inquired about how many rooms would be used for detoxification and Mr. Russell commented that there would be 20 rooms or up to 40 patients, since its rooms were semi-private. Mr. Myott said that there were different rules governing electrical systems, air conditioning systems, and so forth in the hospital setting vs. the residential. If they had to, they would eliminate wood, making it more non-combustible per Type 2 construction. It would still be rather significant and expensive and to their way of thinking, was unnecessary. It would, however, afford the same level of protection to everyone, regardless of where they were in the building. 6 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida February 12, 2004 Mr. Bessell urged the applicant to compromise, asking if it would be possible for them to identify a portion of the building where a four-hour firewall could be erected to make it a separate building. Mr. Rosen stated that the cost to change the fire ratings on an entire floor, which they would have to do, would be the same as changing the construction type for the whole, entire building and would be costly. Ms. Hammer expressed the view that all of the people who would use the facility would be in need of detoxification, but the applicant disagreed. Ms. Colson stated that detoxification was not the purpose of the building. The purpose of the building was to provide a drug and alcohol abuse treatment center. Where the problem arises with detoxification is from the DCF license, which states on it, "40-bed medical detox.' The Watershed's DCF license does not allow it to put people in rooms, or to restrain people. Their license capabilities do not match up with Section 309.1 but match up with 31:[.2. Ms. Hollingshead asked for and received confirmation from the applicant that the free flow of the clients through the building is what would prohibit the proposed solution of segregating a small population in order to meet a requirement and perhaps building a firewall ringing all four rooms. Also, she confirmed the fact any of The Watershed's patients would be allowed anywhere in the facility, within its program terms, and that this would prevent the applicant from simply being able to accommodate a portion of that building. The Watershed would have to accommodate the entire building. Mr. Russell stated that this mirrored his understanding. Mr. Russell did not understand how their project could be classified under 309.1 and yet ignore all the requirements inherent in that Code Section and simply put a firewall around something. His quandary was that the "something" was the whole building because their patients were free to go anywhere in the building. Mr. Johnson said he did not want people to get "hung up" about the four-hour firewall because it could have protective openings in it and the patients could flow freely from one section to the other through it. :It could be built as a mixed-use occupancy and the design professional could handle it. The design professional could design the building with only a portion of it meeting those requirements - where the detoxification was going to occur. Ms. Hollingshead thought that one of the clear differences between 309.1 and 311.2 was that in 309.! it said, "4 or more persons who were not capable of self- preservation." She asked the applicant to be more specific about this. Mr. Russell said that The Watershed's understanding of self-preservation, and the reason they only take patients who can self-preserve, is that the patients are self-sufficient and able to respond to a command like, "Everybody get up and leave the building." Nr. Russell felt the four-hour tirewa// was required so that patients who were NOT capable of the above could be protected in the event of a fire. Since their patients were all capable of self- preservation, the firewa//s should not be required. 7 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida February 12, 2004 Ms. Hollingshead expressed her understanding that definitions notwithstanding, it would not be possible under The Watershed's DCF license to have 4 or more persons who were not capable of self-preservation. Mr. Russell said that this was correct and that such individuals would not be allowed into the facility. Chair Kurtz closed the public discussion. Motion Ms. Hollingshead moved to grant the appeal and allow the building to be categorized pursuant to Section 311.2, understanding that sub-acute detoxification, as the Watershed is going to be licensed and as it currently proposes, will largely constitute an alcohol and drug abuse center. She moved for the reason that no physical compromise under the Building Code can be accommodated and, therefore, this portion of the Code must be applied. Mr. Mulroy seconded the motion. Mr. Bessell thought that a compromise could be made, so he could not support the motion. Chair Kurtz called for a roll call vote. The Recording Secretary polled the vote and the motion in favor of the applicant failed 2-5, Chair Kurtz, Messrs. Bessell, Sternbach, Ms. Peterson, and Ms. Hammer dissenting. This action, in effect, represented a decision in favor of the Building Official's interpretation of the Code. 2. Organizational :Item - Election of New Officers Motion Mr. Sternbach moved to nominate Mr. Bessell as Chairman of the Board. seconded the motion. Ms. Hammer Motion Mr. Bessell nominated Chair Kurtz as Chairman of the Board, seconded by Mr. Mulroy. Vote The Chair called for a Voice Vote. The Recording Secretary recorded the names of the persons voting aye and nay. Chair Kurtz announced that the ayes had it and Mr. Bessell was elected Chairman. Motion Mr. Bessell moved to nominate Mr. Kurtz as Vice Chairman. the motion. Mr. Sternbach seconded 8 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida February :1.2, 2004 Vote Chair Kurtz called for a Voice Vote and the Recording Secretary recorded the names of those who voted. Chair Kurtz announced that the ayes had it and that he was elected Vice Chairman. F. Announcements A. Sunshine Law Presentation - David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney As an appointed Board of the City of Boynton Beach, the individual Board members must comply with the Sunshine Law, which is Section 286.011 of the Florida Statutes. Under this Law, when two or more Board members come together outside of a regularly scheduled meeting to discuss any item that has or will come before the Board, that meeting must be noticed, the public must be able to attend, and minutes must be taken. It is considered a public meeting. The City Attorney's office encourages Board members to refrain from discussing Board business outside of any duly noticed meeting. The City Attorney's office would be happy to answer any questions that arise in this regard. Also, any documents that the Board members may receive would be considered public records under Florida law. A copy of any such communications regarding any item that may come before the Board must be forwarded to the City Clerk or to Mr..lohnson, who will make sure that the communications are distributed to the other Board members as well as to any applicant who might be coming before the Board. This is done so that everyone is making a decision based upon the same evidence. The members thanked Mr. Tolces for the presentation. G. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (021304)