Posts by Bruce Verstandig:
This UNSIGNED and UNSEALED letter from the engineer raises many questions.
One always hopes the reasons for seemingly ‘not correct’ information is incompetence rather than nefarious reasons.
I will list my questions (the same questions our owners rep was unable to answer when asked at the September Board Meeting):
Subject: Formal Complaint Pertaining to Non-Compliance with FS 718.112 by Mizner Court Condominium Association, Inc. and Lang Management, Inc.
October 5, 2023
Dear Board of Directors of Mizner Court Condominium Association, Inc., and Representatives of Lang Management, Inc.,
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint concerning multiple apparent violations of Florida Sunshine Laws and Florida Statute 718 by the Mizner Court Condominium Association, Inc., specifically regarding the provisions outlined in FS 718.112. According to FS 718.112, a 48-hour notice is obligatory for all committee meetings, particularly those that tender recommendations to the Board of Directors.
It has come to attention that during the Board Meetings held in August 2023 and September 2023, the Chairperson of the ‘Construction Advisory Committee,’ Ms. Margo Green, presented recommendations for the engagement of an Owners representative for the Upper Deck project (estimated between $3 to $5 million) and a Roofing Consultant (estimated between $2 to $3 million).
Ms. Green, a professional attorney and a former board member, is well-versed with the statutory requirements, thus rendering any claim of ignorance untenable. The gravity of the recommendations underscores a possible intentional oversight. During her presentations at the aforementioned board meetings, Ms. Green candidly discussed the Committee’s private telephonic discussions which were convened to arrive at these recommendations. These concealed deliberations and subsequent recommendations were conducted in stark violation of Florida Statute 718, thereby flouting the transparency and notification standards stipulated therein.
These clandestine meetings and the resulting recommendations pose a potential financial liability amounting to millions of dollars to the owners of Mizner Court, thus necessitating an immediate rectification of these non-compliance issues.
I implore the Board and Lang Management, Inc., to take immediate actions to rectify these violations and ensure strict adherence to Florida Statute 718 henceforth to uphold the integrity, transparency, and fiduciary responsibility required in the management of Mizner Court Condominium Association.
Thank you for your prompt attention to these serious matters.
Bruce Diller Verstandig
Note Bold Connotation added.
is the water flowing from between layers or from middle of slap?
is the water flowing from between layers or from middle of slap?
In all the reports provided to members NO WHERE IS THERE MENTION OF A NEED TO REMOVE ( at a cost estimate of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ) THE UPPER DECK PLANTER BOXES.
IT IS A WISH BY THE BOARD NOT A STRUCTUAL NEED!
Bromley Cooke 40 Year Report
Page 6 “Planters: Planter boxes are leaking through waterproofing. Repair of the planter boxes should be included in long-term maintenance plan.
Deck Waterproofing and Expansion Joints: The deck waterproofing and expansion joints are leaking through the waterproofing. Replacement plan should be included in a long-term maintenance plan. ”
Page 13 ” Elevated planer boxes are leaking. These should be replaced in a long-term plan.”
Note Photo shown is that of a planter box on top of pool equipment room NOT on the upper deck, also note the word used is EVELATED . This is not a reference to the planter boxes on the upper deck nor are any photos of upper deck shown.
Waterproofing of Planters Assessment waterproofingofplantersassessment
NO WHERE in the estimate is removal of concrete planter boxes on upper deck WHY ?
Note the removal of the planter boxes is not mentioned at all.
Page 3 – photo 14 showing “Planters: Planter curb is cracked.”
NOTE THIS PHOTO IS NOT OF A UPPER DECK PLANTER BOX rather it is a photo from a pool planter box (deception by intent?)
a) removal of concrete upper deck square planter boxes is not mentioned is in the estimate?
b) if it is in the estimate why is it not specified? and hidden?
c) to remove those planter boxes I believe will require a few extra months of work, jackhammer, excess dirt, and my cost estimate of one million dollars (cost to each unit owner $5,000) . WHY
FIRST time REMOVAL OF UPPER DECK PLANTER BOXES (very slick) August 19 2022
Donaldson Group Architects PA
- Removal of existing landscaping, selective planters, soil and turf …etc.
Know Your Planter Boxes:
- Square Planter Boxes – located upper deck (NOT NEEDED TO BE REMOVED – IT IS A WISH NOT A NEED)
- Square Planter Boxes – located around pool (not part of project YET photo used by professional was it meant to deceive?)
- Planter Boxes on top of Pool Equipment Room
- Planter Boxes attached to building.
“Planter Boxes” a generic term used by the upper deck professional’s is VERY MISLEADING. NEVER DO THE SPECIFY WHICH PLANTER BOXES.
One Professional even used a photo of a planter box that IS NOT ON THE UPPER DECK. designed to deceive?
The question is , is this designed by intent?
As-Built Drawings – Garage/2nd Landing Expansion Joints Schematics
Photo Explanation Understanding the 2nd Level
Notice the drainage pipes have been closed off.
When water has no place to find drainage, Water finds other ways to drain out.
It Drains out into the garage below
Shrubs and trees planted on too of expansion joints.
why does it matter?
Trees and shrubs have roots that grow . Those roots grow down and as they grow the push their way into the expansion joints
I personally find it interesting that looking at the 45 stack there are 2 drainage pipes closed off. Meaning water had no place to go. It just sat there looking for a way out.
Five years ago an engineer and an owners representative where hired to evaluate and write engineering specification for re surface the pool deck.
One would imagine an engineer would have taken notice of the original design while evaluating that just below this area in the garage which to no surprise are among the worst water intrusion into the garage.
$500,000 or $2,500 per unit owner was flushed down the toilet on the pool deck, spa level and 2nd level resurfacing.
Basically they spent $2,500 of every one’s money putting lipstick on a pig and it didn’t last 5 years.
Full disclosure in my opinion not only did the board waste money it also used an engineering firm and owners rep that caused an additional million dollars of damage ($5,000 cost per unit owner).
How ? They failed to identify rusting rebars, concrete expansion seemingly caused by water intrusion.
The Above are the opinions of Bruce Diller Verstandig
Please Click on Photo to See All