A contractor that demolished an old house across from the Barrow Crossing retail center obtained the required county permit six days after the structure was razed.
But the owner of the property, Island Ford Trusts, was not penalized by the Barrow County Department of License & Permits for failing to obtain the permit prior to the April 15 demolition.
In addition, the April 21 permit application lists the owner of the property as Walter Stewart of Roswell.
Stewart bought the tract in 1986 from a local couple, but sold it in 1994 to Island Ford Trusts, which had been established by his brother-in-law, former GDOT commissioner Thomas D. Moreland.
Stewart’s 1986 purchase of the land directly in the path of the future Hwy. 316 became the subject of a brief investigation by the Georgia Attorney General’s Office, but the inquiry ended within days and Moreland left his state post.
Despite not obtaining the correct permit to demolish the house on the property, no penalty will be enforced, according to county License and Permits official Lyn Clement, because the work was done properly. Photo by Jessica Brown
Permit issued days after structure razed
Two years ago, the director of Keep Barrow Beautiful asked Moreland to clean up the property, which had the old house with a rusted roof, as well as garbage and litter strewn in the yard.
Moreland, an owner of a successful engineering firm that has a $2 million contract with the county for work on the West Winder Bypass, responded by saying he doesn’t own the property.
However, Moreland was the original trustee not only for Island Ford Trusts when it was established in 1989, but also for a corporate entity with a similar name, Island Ford L.P., that he formed two months after the trust became the owner of the Hwy. 81/316 tract.
Two of Moreland’s adult children are the trust’s current trustees, and a third child receives the county’s annual tax bill for the property.
Meanwhile, Stewart is the listed on courthouse records as the owner of other county properties, but not that one.
BARROW COUNTY CODE NOT FOLLOWED
Barrow County Commissioner Steve Worley, who represents the voting district where the trust’s property is located, said this week that the permit application should have listed the correct owner, and the owner should have been penalized for failing to get the required permit prior to the demolition.
“I’m glad to see it get cleaned up, but they should have gotten their permit on time,” Worley said. “These folks know what the codes are.
“They got the permit after the fact, and when they do that, a fine goes along with it, and they should have been charged a fine also.”
Worley said if Stewart is not the owner of the property, then the document submitted to the county is not valid, and the permit should not have been issued even after the fact.
“If those documents are incorrect, the owner shouldn’t have been allowed to get the permit until the documents are in order,” he said.
The county’s ordinances need to be enforced uniformly, he added.
“It irks me when we’ve got rules and we make some abide by them and some we don’t.”
Section 22-91 of the Barrow County Code of Ordinances states that a county building permit is required prior to the construction, alteration, relocation or demolition of any structure.
Anyone performing those activities without a permit is subject to “a penalty of 100 percent of the usual permit fee in addition to the required permit fees,” the code states.
The regular fee for the demolition permit is $100, which is what Stewart paid.
In addition, Section 22-64 classifies as a “false application” any material misstatement of fact on the permit application, and permits based on that incorrect information might be revoked.
Nevertheless, Lyn Clement of License & Permits said he did not question the information on the permit application or see a need to add a penalty.
Those things “do not matter,” he said, because the county’s specifications for the demolition and removal of the debris were met.
“They got it cleaned up and gone and everything done, and they were out of there,” Clement said in an interview.
Along with the permit, Stewart’s contractor filed documentation showing that testing was conducting on four types of material in the debris left by the April 15 demolition.
“No asbestos was found present in the samples taken,” states the letter from Branch Environmental Inc. to Stewart.
Clement said Stewart’s wife, Sandra Moreland Stewart, told his office that she hadn’t been told a demolition permit was required. To avoid any future confusion, he said, the county is going to amend the building code.
“We’re going to try to rewrite it where the property owner gets the permit and all the information,” Clement added. “That way it won't be left up to the graders, and they won’t have a loophole where they can say they don’t know what is going on.
“That way, they’ll know everything.”
Moreland, an owner of a successful engineering firm that has a $2 million contract with the county for work on the West Winder Bypass, responded by saying he doesn’t own the property.
However, Moreland was the original trustee not only for Island Ford Trusts when it was established in 1989, but also for a corporate entity with a similar name, Island Ford L.P., that he formed two months after the trust became the owner of the Hwy. 81/316 tract.
Two of Moreland’s adult children are the trust’s current trustees, and a third child receives the county’s annual tax bill for the property.
Meanwhile, Stewart is the listed on courthouse records as the owner of other county properties, but not that one.
BARROW COUNTY CODE NOT FOLLOWED
Barrow County Commissioner Steve Worley, who represents the voting district where the trust’s property is located, said this week that the permit application should have listed the correct owner, and the owner should have been penalized for failing to get the required permit prior to the demolition.
“I’m glad to see it get cleaned up, but they should have gotten their permit on time,” Worley said. “These folks know what the codes are.
“They got the permit after the fact, and when they do that, a fine goes along with it, and they should have been charged a fine also.”
Worley said if Stewart is not the owner of the property, then the document submitted to the county is not valid, and the permit should not have been issued even after the fact.
“If those documents are incorrect, the owner shouldn’t have been allowed to get the permit until the documents are in order,” he said.
The county’s ordinances need to be enforced uniformly, he added.
“It irks me when we’ve got rules and we make some abide by them and some we don’t.”
Section 22-91 of the Barrow County Code of Ordinances states that a county building permit is required prior to the construction, alteration, relocation or demolition of any structure.
Anyone performing those activities without a permit is subject to “a penalty of 100 percent of the usual permit fee in addition to the required permit fees,” the code states.
The regular fee for the demolition permit is $100, which is what Stewart paid.
In addition, Section 22-64 classifies as a “false application” any material misstatement of fact on the permit application, and permits based on that incorrect information might be revoked.
Nevertheless, Lyn Clement of License & Permits said he did not question the information on the permit application or see a need to add a penalty.
The property off Hwy. 316 has been cleared with the former dilapidated house torn down. Photo by Jessica Brown
“They got it cleaned up and gone and everything done, and they were out of there,” Clement said in an interview.
Along with the permit, Stewart’s contractor filed documentation showing that testing was conducting on four types of material in the debris left by the April 15 demolition.
“No asbestos was found present in the samples taken,” states the letter from Branch Environmental Inc. to Stewart.
Clement said Stewart’s wife, Sandra Moreland Stewart, told his office that she hadn’t been told a demolition permit was required. To avoid any future confusion, he said, the county is going to amend the building code.
“We’re going to try to rewrite it where the property owner gets the permit and all the information,” Clement added. “That way it won't be left up to the graders, and they won’t have a loophole where they can say they don’t know what is going on.
“That way, they’ll know everything.”
The average Barrow County citizen would have had to follow the rules, and would have been fined for not getting the permit.
Then when it came out they "misrepresented" the ownership of the property, they would have had the permit revolved, fined even more and would have had to get a new permit with the correct information.
There are rules and there are rules. Which side of the rules fence do you fall on?
I don't think you could have said it any better. So true!
"The application shall be signed by the owner or his authorized agent"
Sounds like the code already requires the owner to sign or know about what is going on, otherwise how can someone act as an authorized agent.