County Building Code Appeals Board reduces Atwood violations to five

Buracker Construction attorney T. Joel Francis makes his clients’ case as they and others listen. Royal Examiner Photos/Roger Bianchini. Video by Mark Williams, Royal Examiner.

A second Warren County Building Code violations appeal go-round between local builder Buracker Construction and disgruntled home construction client Kristie Atwood on Tuesday, September 10, resulted in a similar result to a first appeal go round in 2018.

That result was a reduction from six to five determined code violations on the Atwood home construction project; as well as a promised appeal to the state review level by Buracker attorney T. Joel Francis on those five Warren County Building Code Appeals Board violations rulings. Atwood had claimed 60 violations based on an independent contractor inspection 12 to 14 months after she moved in to the new home.

The dispute revolves around Buracker Construction’s 2016 building of Atwood’s replacement home on Pilgrim’s Way in Bentonville. Atwood lost her previous home to fire.

In 2016 the County Building Code Department inspected the home upon completion, found no violations and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued on July 19, 2016. Fourteen months later after having moved in Atwood contracted a home inspection company not licensed in Warren County which reported 60 alleged code violations. Upon its first review the County Building Code Appeals Board initially cited 12 potential code violations, a number eventually reduced to six and Tuesday down to five.

A first appeal to the state level of that ruling resulted in the case being returned due to a conflict of interest determination. David Buracker, principal of Buracker Construction is on the county appeals board but recused himself from the case. The conflict was alleged by Atwood with Appeals Board member George Cline Jr. Buracker had sub-contracted Cline to fix those initial code violation determinations when Atwood refused to let Buracker to do the work. She claimed the Buracker Construction company wasn’t licensed in the county.

That led to a somewhat convoluted back and forth during a July hearing in which County Building Code Official David Beahm noted that Buracker himself and a related contracting LLC run by Martha Buracker were licensed. Beahm claimed the state typically allowed such licensing arrangements leading to his approval of Buracker to build in Warren County. Atwood disagreed and would not allow Buracker to engage in repair work or subcontract the repair work out to Cline.

When Cline participated in the 2018 county appeals board review, the conflict of interest claim was lodged by Atwood, leading to Tuesday’s board review of its initial ruling when Cline participated. Only appeals board members Arthur Saffelle, Dan Hotek and Wendell Hatcher participated in Tuesday’s hearing.

Buracker attorney Francis questioned Atwood’s motivation. He noted that the appeals board’s authority came down to ruling on violations and authorizing fixes of those violations.

“What’s the remedy – a violation is determined and has to be fixed or the responsible party has to pay to have it fixed,” Francis told the board, adding that he believed Atwood “is not looking for a fix, she is looking for a windfall – and that’s not coming from this board … That’s why we have judges … and I don’t think any of you want to be judges,” Francis told the board, drawing some smiles.

“I am not looking for a windfall,” Atwood responded during her rebuttal to the Buracker case. She pointed to the licensing issue which she said left her with no remedy from the state level, adding, “I’m screwed all the way around.”

Kristie Atwood denies she is out for a ‘windfall’ from complaints issued about her home construction about a year after she moved in to it.

She then attacked County Building Official Beahm – “I’m calling him out, he’s not doing his job … the board of supervisors should have fired him; it’s not just me. What if someone’s house burns down and kills them all? There are lives on the line and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.”

The three-person board quorum then launched into discussion of its authority and perception of the building issues under review. Hotek and Hatcher agreed to uphold the board’s earlier ruling on five of the six violations found with Cline participating. So it would seem Atwood did better with the allegedly conflicted board member than without.

Board Chairman Saffelle dissented on the violations, stating he felt the determinations fell beyond the board’s authority.

A 10-minute recess was called to allow appeals board attorney Jason Ham to craft a Resolution reflecting the board decision. That decision by the 2-1 majority was that items referred to as numbers 3, 4, 7, 10 and 12 remained code violations as they stood by the 2009 Uniform State Building Code. Two related to work around a fireplace, the other four outside deck support.

Dan Hotek and Wendell Hatcher, seated left to right, review Resolution on the County Building Code Appeals Board 2-1 decision drafted by attorney Jason Ham, standing.

The Royal Examiner’s camera was there: