Lancaster to amend re-roofing policy

[Lee Chowaniec]

At Monday evening’s Lancaster Town Board meeting the writer addressed the board on the town’s permit requirement for roof replacements, reasons for and advantages.

Chowaniec: In 2007, New York State amended its roofing code change. Mr. Simme, did Lancaster go along with that code change?

Building Department Inspector Jeff Simme: We have to. If the state changes the code we have no place to go but to adhere to it.

Chowaniec: Before that time, there was no requirement to apply for a roofing permit issuance, correct?

Simme: Before 2008, a roofing permit was not required in Lancaster.

Chowaniec: I will be asking some questions and making some comments attempting to get clarification as there are homeowners unaware of their being a requirement to get a permit to replace a roof; where there is a lot of opposition to getting a permit for myriad reasons, and where there is no policy in place to penalize those violating the ordinance. In other words there is a lot of confusion and questions that need answering; postings on Internet websites and discussions among homeowners.

Chowaniec: Currently we are told that when a homeowner applies for a permit, that permit protects the homeowner in that the roofer applying for the permit has to have to have insurance otherwise the Building Department will not issue a permit, correct?

Simme: Yes.

Chowaniec: If the homeowner is willing to accept liability there is another permit that can be applied for, correct?

Simme: The homeowner would have to sign off, that they are taking their own insurance. They have their own insurance policy.

Chowaniec: Does the town provide any protection regarding inspection and quality of workmanship? In other words, you know when a permit is applied for is there a personal inspection of every roofing job. As an example, if you didn’t drive by a house knowing they have a permit, and did not inspect the job, how would you know there was a violation going on – like putting a third roof on, not using ice shield, etc?

Simme: When they first get the permit we will ask them that if it’s a tear-off, will it be a roof installation over another roof, a roof with only one layer on … we can tell by the age of the homes what to expect. If the house is only 20 years old there’s a good chance they don’t have a second roof; even though today there are roofs that are 35-40 year roofs. A homeowner getting his or her permit vs. a contractor getting a permit does not mean the same type of construction will take place. We make sure that an ice shield will be used and we make sure that they have only one or two roofs on. If they have more than two roofs, they have to tear one off.
Most of the time a contractor won’t even guarantee a roof if a third one is put on over two already there.

Chowaniec: But again this goes back to Building Department inspection question because you trust the roofer in what he is claiming on the application form and thereafter when doing the work. As happened last weekend, a roof replacement project took place without permit issuance. It was the same old story where the homeowner declares they thought the roofing company was getting the permit and where the roofer thought the homeowner was getting the permit. Then there’s the excuse where the homeowner declares they didn’t get a permit because they just moved from a town where such permit was not required. Not all municipalities have such requirement, correct?

Simme: Actually, just us and Hamburg are the only big towns around here that has a roof replacement permit required.

Chowaniec: There is a lot of confusion out there on the permit process, reason for, and whether this is nothing more than a money grab. We are told about the protection had by having a reliable contractor do the work with insurance coverage. But at the same there are contractors that come in on a weekend and may not care if there are more than two roofs on, don’t do a tear down, whatever, and you are saying that you are trusting them to do what they put down on an application. There is no inspection and they can do whatever they want as there is no formal Building Department inspection.

All I am saying is that there are a lot of scenarios here that the board has to consider before making a determination as to what direction it is going to take in coming up with a permit policy that has consequences when violations occur.

Supervisor Fudoli: I was talking to code enforcement officer Scott Pease and Jeff Simme last week in coming up with some kind of a penalty. We did have a situation that occurred last Sunday where a roof replacement was taking place without a permit. I contacted Mr. Pease and sent him over to the house, and eventually we did get them to get a permit. A resident called me about a possible violation (as no permit was visibly displayed).

So we talked about amending the code and putting some kind of fine in place. We talked about licensing roofers and other ways to penalize roofers who violate the code. Coming up with a realistic number that would deter further violations; whether it is $100 the first offense and $250 the second offense. Whatever, we will try to come up with some deterrence system so that they don’t attempt to do these jobs on weekends without proper permits in place. We hope to have this in place within the next few weeks.

Chowaniec: I am not here to tell you what the penalty should be but that people who follow the rules believe a penalty system should be in place for deterrence; where now there is none. In this past week’s episode where there was no permit issuance, was the work being done by a reliable roofing company?

Fudoli: It was a legitimate company.

Chowaniec: Did the roofer tell the homeowner that he was going to get the permit?

Fudoli: I don’t know the whole situation. I did talk to the roofer and to Mr. Pease and found out that a permit was applied for and received until sometime Wednesday or Thursday. Their insurance information had to come in before the permit was granted. So yes, it was a legitimate roofer, they did provide proof of insurance and we now have that on file. It was Thursday before he got the permit.

Simme: He came in on Wednesday and I wouldn’t give it to him because he didn’t have the liability portion of the insurance available. (Roofer needs liability, disability and workman’s comp.) It is not unusual for insurance information to come in piecemeal.

Fudoli: The liability insurance was missing as I understand. He eventually provided that insurance and I got a text from Scott Pease that the permit was applied for and granted. His information is now on file.

Chowaniec: There are occasions when people come to the board and put heat on the Building Department for not enforcing codes. Here there is no deterrent policy in place for the building department to penalize the violator but to stop the project until such time a permit is applied for and granted. Last Sunday, the roofing project was completed despite the roofer being told not to complete the project until a permit was obtained; and that didn’t happen until Thursday.

The board has to put a code in place where the people have public access to information to say whether a permit is required, reasons for the permit, requirement to have the permit on display (in window or by sign) and what the consequences are for not obtaining a permit. Displaying the permit takes away from the pointing-finger excuse of “I thought they were going to get the permit.”

Fudoli: Ultimately, the responsibility of ensuring a permit has been applied for and received does fall on the homeowner; even though it is a so-to-speak ‘buyer beware’ situation. If you are a homeowner, do you want to get sued? A homeowner should be asking any contractor doing work for them for proof of insurance. To a certain degree, this falls on homeowner shoulders.

[gorja]

Do I have this right? Simme stated that the state code changed in 2007 regarding roofing permits. He said that the town had to follow that code change. Later on, he stated that Lancaster and Hamburg are the only big towns that require such permits. Are all the other towns out of state code?

[4248]

So - it appears that the building inspectors office will verify the contractor and or resident has insurance and then issue a roofing permit. So is there a inspection done by one of our inspectors to ensure proper work is/was done.

So what the permit does is -

What if a home owner wants to do his own roof ? - that may have been answered - so I apologize for asking again - but what then ?

Now if a roofing contractor needs a license - as was brought up for consideration - are we also going to license home repair contractors?

So basically we are limiting the choices we will have - smaller guys that cant absorb the extra time and expense wont want to come here. Our costs will rise.

I can see a need for a permit - but if it doesn't come with a inspection of the actual work - what are we paying for?

Just asking

[Frank Broughton]

Do I have this right? Simme stated that the state code changed in 2007 regarding roofing permits. He said that the town had to follow that code change. Later on, he stated that Lancaster and Hamburg are the only big towns that require such permits. Are all the other towns out of state code?

Really for those in the know, this permit needed for reroofing is what we would call government over reach. There is no need for it. Others may think so, but that is my opinion. We all want government out of the way right? This is one case. Nothing the permit does that the home owner hiring a contractor cannot do on their own -- thus it is not a needed service of government.

I am kind of passionate about this issue being in this field for many years.