Sunday, September 25, 2016

PZB APPLICANT JOHN VALDES DEMOLISHED HISTORIC BUILDING ILLEGALLY

St. Augustine City Commissioners would be well advised to vote against lawbreaking building contractor JOHN VALDES when they consider his application to be a member of the PZB September 26th.

St. Augustine City Commissioners are being asked Monday, September 26, 2016 to give PZB seat to builder John Valdez, a former City Commission candidate, defeated by Todd Neville in 2014.   As Steven Cottrell writes in his Monday column, and as reported on this blog,  FORMER PZB CHAIR AND FORMER HARB MEMBER JOHN VALDEZ tore down 125 Washington Street illegally, without a permit.  The City's building official stated under oath that VALDEZ new the building was not in imminent danger of falling down but tore it down anyway:  “(Valdes) stated to me that he could make it that way,” Schauland said, adding, “I told him he could not tear it down and he needed to come to HARB.”  Instead, Valdes demolished the cottage then applied for an after-the-fact permit."

Ed's note: I testified against VALDES' after-the-fact demolition permit -- twice.  I'd do it again.

Here is Cottrell's column:



Steve Cottrell: Ask permission... or seek forgiveness
Posted: September 26, 2016 - 12:00am
By Steve Cottrell
ST. AUGUSTINE RECORD COLUMN

Sometimes it’s easier to seek forgiveness rather than ask for permission, but not always.

Consider, for example, the Sept,. 15 meeting of the St. Augustine Historic Architectural Review Board, when longtime local contractor John Valdes appeared — admittedly, hat in hand — to justify why he razed a Washington Street cottage without a demolition permit.

John offered an earnest apology, explained the rationale for his transgression, and asked HARB to approve an after-the-fact demolition permit. If granted the permit, there would be a fine to pay — but likely less than potential code enforcement costs arising from an HARB denial.

The building in question was being renovated by John’s company when he discovered extensive termite damage and other issues he felt put the 1922 cottage in serious structural jeopardy.

But it is (or was, rather) a contributing building to the Lincolnville Historic District, an area added to the National Register of Historical Places 25 years ago. Such historic buildings require extensive review before being demolished.

Valdes told HARB members that in 30 years of restoration work in St. Augustine, this was the first time he had ever torn down a building without a permit. He said because it was hurricane season. It would take a month to get on an HARB agenda to request a demolition permit.

He felt he had no choice but to tear down the structure before it was blown over by heavy winds.

Valdes is a respected contractor and his testimony at HARB was under oath, so there’s no reason for someone like me to question his opinion regarding the building’s lack of structural integrity. But as a former member of both HARB and the city’s Planning and Zoning Board — as well as a former candidate for city commissioner — he knew the protocol, and knew better than to unilaterally demolish a building without a demolition permit.

Early this summer, fearing the building might collapse and possibly endanger people using the sidewalk, as well as structures on either side of the weakened cottage, John called City Hall, explained his predicament and asked city staff to take a look, with the aim of obtaining an emergency demolition permit.

Jenny Wolfe, the city’s Historic Preservation Officer, and city building official Richard Schauland met at the site with Valdes.

“I think staff will agree that the damage was extensive,” John told HARB, “but they did not feel compelled to give me a (emergency) demolition permit.”

John said he soon found himself in a dilemma: either wait a month for the next HARB meeting, “or do something I’ve never done before, which is take down a building without permission.”

He chose the latter option.

“And I apologize for that,” he said.

John made a compelling case on behalf of his clients and I thought he would walk out of the meeting with his after-the-fact permit. But HARB chair Randal Roark had no intention of supporting an after-the-fact permit, nor did three other HARB members.

“I can’t see any reason why we should send a message that it’s OK to do this,” Chairman Roark told his colleagues.

Then, just before the vote, Schauland went to the microphone to answer a HARB member’s question. He was asked what happened the day he and Ms. Wolfe met on-site with Valdes.

Schauland explained that after being inside the cottage for 20-30 minutes, he advised Valdes that in his professional opinion the building was not in danger of falling down. “(Valdes) stated to me that he could make it that way,” Schauland said, adding, “I told him he could not tear it down and he needed to come to HARB.”


Instead, Valdes demolished the cottage then applied for an after-the-fact permit.

On Sept.that application was denied — and now it is a code enforcement issue with possible costly fines and other expenses down the road.

So who says it’s easier to seek forgiveness than ask for permission?

Not the St. Augustine Historic Architectural Review Board — and good for them.

Cottrell can be contacted at cottrell.sf@gmail.com

HERE IS WHAT I WROTE ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2016, THE DAY OF THE 4-1 VOTE:



A 4-1 VOTE by the City of St. Augustine Historic Architectural Review Board DENIED local historic home reconstruction builder JOHN VALDES a "retroactive permit" to destroy 125 Washington Street.

VALDES is former Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board, former HARB member, and unsuccessful candidate for the City Commission seat now encumbered by Todd Neville.
VALDES did not apply for a demolition permit: instead, he destroyed an historic building, "unilaterally, without permission."
VALDES was in a hurry.  Like other people in a hurry, he's unrepentant.
I opposed VALDES' retroactive permit as a bad precedent.  HARB members agreed, 4-1.  VALDES may now face Code Enforcement action for working illegally.
Also testifying was City Building Official Richard Schauland [corrected], who said the building was not in imminent danger of falling down, and that he and City Historic Planner Jennifer Wolfe were in the building under the eaves for 20-30 minutes, and that it was in "no imminent danger" of falling down.  VALDES replied, "I could make it that way."
VALDES plans to appeal the denial of the retroactive permit to CIty Commission and talk about changing procedures.

4 comments:

Warren Celli said...

I smell a big waft of baloneyspeak here...

Excerpt: "“I can’t see any reason why we should send a message that it’s OK to do this,” Chairman Roark told his colleagues."

I can see a reason — the slap on the wrist lightweight treatment of Len Weeks already sent a message that this kind of behavior was OK. It would be acceptable and tolerated.

Had there been a hurricane and someone killed with termite weakened flying debris who would be to blame? John Valdez or the PZB members? Are the PZB members properly insurance indemnified as individuals for the probable harmful results of this kind of decision and if so would not the prior selective enforcement stain that indemnification?

I side with John Valdez on this one and it makes me wonder why the apparent selective enforcement which many times indicates and involves suppressing and eliminating competition — like when the street artists were arrested and eliminated under the phony rationale of blocking the streets and replaced with history tour guides that block the streets.

Ed Slavin said...

I testified against Valdes' request for a retroactive permit, at two public hearings.

You can watch on cosatv.com.

I thought he was incredibly arrogant, dismissive and condescending. He got no legal advice, ignored the City's reasoned and documented conclusion, did not apply for a permit and was admittedly in a hurry.

In a hurry to save money -- this was about his profits, and not following procedures set in law.

In a hurry -- just like LEN WEEKS at 62A Spanish Street on September 25, 2014, a date that will live in infamy.

In a hurry -- like so many white collar criminals, as criminology scholar Edward Alvin Ross wrote in 1907 -- white collar criminals are so often in a hurry when they make excuses for breaking the law.

Valdes now should be fined by Code Enforcement.

Valdes does not need your defense, Warren -- watch the video.

Warren Celli said...

Errr.... you need to reread my comment Ed.

It was not so much a defense of John Valdez as it was an attack on the scam hijacked baloneyspeak 'rule of law' and its unequal treatment of citizens.

Edward Alvin Ross was commenting on conditions in the old Vanilla Greed for Profit Evilism days, days long gone by.

We exist now in a different world of Pernicious Greed for Destruction Xtrevilism Ed, where the 'rule of law' you defend, legitimize, and validate with your attention, is a co-opted self serving and criminal murderous 'rule of law' that degrades, destroys and oppresses the social fabric of this city.

http://saintaugdog.com/sadissues/issue1/1visualindex.html

Jim said...

There needs to be in place and in all likely hood there already is in place a procedure for emergency demolition. There are times where it may be a matter of public safety, however with the city building official on the job and his statement to wait and get a harb permit that is in fact enough to put an end to this.
The city government needs to step up and do the right thing here. The light treatment of a former mayor who did a similar act, and now this one are prime examples that too light of a penalty has unintended repercussions. There should be hefty fines, as well as an order to "reconstruct" the original structure appearing just as it was prior to the demolition.
There are plenty of buildings in our city that are reconstructed examples, and I'd bet that making a few contractors do that at their own expense under court order will eliminate a lot of this type of shenanigans and thievery of our historical status.
Failure to complete could be sufficient to lodge a complaint with the State Contractors licensing board removing the persons ability to contract anything. The city could also effectively suspend their ability to work in the city limits for a period of time as punishment.