Codes dictate how city staff must respond

The following is a response to Harvey Vengroff’s email on page 8A, submitted by Tim Litchet, director of the city of Sarasota’s Neighborhood and Development Services:

This former hotel was converted to a multifamily dwelling initially without any notification or discussion with the city staff, and approximately half of the units in the former hotel are currently occupied on a monthly rental basis by tenants, and there is no certificate of occupancy for this change of use.

Both the zoning code and the building code require that all code standards be met for any change of use, prior to the change of use, and that a certificate of occupancy be issued.

I did not require that the units that had been occupied be vacated, but I did insist that no further occupancy occur until the project received all required approvals for the certificate of occupancy to be issued.

When code staff received the first calls related to the unpermitted change of use, we found units already occupied and that unpermitted construction work had and was occurring, including electrical and plumbing work.

According to Mr. Vengroff, the new wiring being installed was related to adding larger refrigerators for the units and for the addition of stove-top cooking surfaces in each room as they convert them to dwellings. This type of work clearly requires a building permit be secured by a licensed contractor prior to the work getting underway, and no contractor attempted to secure any building permit prior to beginning their work.
When we first met with Mr. Vengroff and his attorney, we explained that the zoning code clearly requires site and development plan approval in the North Trail zone district (section VI-504(a)(1) and IV-501).
The zoning-code requirement is that a development petition be filed, reviewed by the DRC and have a public hearing before the Planning Board, which is scheduled for Feb. 11. The staff has no administrative ability to waive this requirement, and while other jurisdictions may not require a public hearing for this type of conversion, our zoning code does require it. This is a provision that has been in the code for many years; it is not new.

As to the issue of being required to meet zoning-code standards such as parking, again staff has no administrative ability to waive these requirements.

Under the normal provisions of the zoning code, hotels require one space per guest room plus one additional space for every 10 hotel rooms, while multifamily uses require two parking spaces per dwelling unit.

Staff was proactive, however, after reviewing Mr. Vengroff’s initial submittal and suggested that instead of requesting a parking variance from the Board of Adjustment, that he and his consultants might want to review and consider utilizing the North Trail Overlay District, which has more flexible parking standards for re-purposing of existing buildings.

Both Mr. Vengroff and his consultants expressed appreciation at that time as they apparently were not even aware of the North Trail Overlay District’s provisions.

The final issue I want to address is life safety. Again, these units have been occupied without any inspections after electrical work was done without permit. I feel that all tenants are entitled to occupy structures that have had life-safety type of work done by licensed contractors pursuant to properly issued permits.

In fact, the city has been participating this past year in the unlicensed contractor regional task force that has representatives from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s office, the city Police Department and representatives from the building departments of Sarasota County, Venice and North Port. The goal of this task force is to ensure that work is properly permitted in advance.

This conversion of the hotel to multifamily requires that this older structure be sprinkled. In fact, our building official, Larry Murphy, in an abundance of caution, reached out to FFMIA, the State Fire Marshal and Inspector Association in October, as soon as we had our initial discussion with Mr. Vengroff and his attorney to verify that the conversion to dwelling units and adding cook stoves in each unit required the sprinkler system, and they so confirmed.

This safety system should have been installed prior to any occupancy of these dwelling units.

Again, this matter is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Board on Feb.11, and if it approves, the staff will work as hard as it can to process the required building permits immediately so the proper electrical, plumbing and sprinkler systems may be installed and a certificate of occupancy issued.