Roofing policy data in, now what

[Lee Chowaniec]

I would disagree on the lifespan of a roof, more like in the 15 year range. And as far as the ice shield and construction goes, would that be the inept town inspectors who check the job to see that its done properly. Your taking the roofers word one way or another.

A lot of variables go into determining the average lifespan of a roof. The two most important are type of shingles/materials and a properly installed ice shield. I live in a townhouse complex and our roofs were shot after 18 years – architectural shingles were not uses and there was no ice shield.

One can of worms at a time Dan. We have to wait and see what the town determines on whether they will retain the permitting process or not. The town was fine the way everything was going until a few of us residents spoke up about the 2/3rds of people who were playing by the rules and the 1/3 gaming the system – and those 1/3 only getting a slap on the wrist and no fine.

As to the policy that will be put in place to ensure code compliance is met, that will be another can of worms. There is a two-edged sword here. Town boards are reluctant to get involved in setting such policies and when the department determines policy itself, influence is put on the department to act in favor of a complainant.

No government system works perfectly. In its present form this one sucks.

[NY The Vampire State]

Why not just make the permit optional and let the buyer beware. If people receive any benefit from it then they will go through the process. If not then the property owner is on his or her own. Is the town going to be responsible for shoddy or incorrect work? They are offering a service but it seems like they offer no guarantee. What's the point?

[shortstuff]

We all have our opinions and mine is based on the following.

Let’s first back this up to square one.

Resident Don Symer claims that applications for re-roofing permits are much lower than what should be expected. Council member Donna Stempniak declares they are averaging what Symer claimed for the month of April. April is one of the highest months for applications.

The writer (Chowaniec) does research and finds that for the year 2013, permits applied for the year only reach 66% of expected number.

Chowaniec asks Building Inspector Jeff Simme why re-roof building permits were not required until spring of 2009. Simme answers state changed its re-roofing building code where ice shield/no more than two layers of roofing could be on the roof, etc. “Town must ensure state code is being followed,” says Simme.

Simme explains that permit process also gives homeowner protection in knowing that the town has compiled a record of which roofers have liability and workman’s comp insurance and they understand they will be inspected to ensure ice shield is used and that tear downs of roofs having two layers of shingles on already will be required before a new layer will be added. (Requirements are stated in the application as is the work to be done by the roofer) If an individual wants to accept the liability the other requirements will be met and they sign off; but still need a permit.

At a town board work session the writer hears the following:

• Council member Stempniak claims only Lancaster and Hamburg has a re-roof permit process. Public safety is not an issue here. Should remove the permit process from the permitting policy program.

• Councilman Ron Ruffino agrees and says the re-roof permit policy has always been an ‘irritant’ to him. Claims as nobody else is doing it why should Lancaster.

• Councilman Mark Aquino agrees and suggests a language change to the town’s permitting policy and the removal the re-roof permit requirement.

At the regular portion of the meeting, I declare that there are more than just two towns that have a re-roof permit policy. I also ask if the town joins the other towns that have no re-roof permit program in place, what mechanism is used by the municipalities to ensure state code requirements are being met; what regulations are in place?

Supervisor Dino Fudoli commissioned Building Inspector Simme to contact the other municipalities on whether they have a permit process in place and if they don’t what process (mechanism) do they have in place to ensure state code is being met.

(See post #1 and the simple response of ‘do not regulate for some municipalities)


Conclusion

If indeed municipalities are charged to have a mechanism in place to ensure state building codes for re-roofing are enforced, then every household has to get a permit.

If indeed the Building Department keeps a record of all roofers that do work in town and have their own insurance and have done work in town without repeated complaints, and will not issue a permit unless all those conditions are met, that a good thing for the person getting the permit.

If an individual does the work themselves or contracts someone without insurance, but fills out an application stating what’s to be done and how codes will be met, that is a mechanism used by the town to ensure state building codes are being met.

The average cost of a re-roof permit in Lancaster is approximately $50 – a cost experienced once in 20-25 years. If there were an average of 550 permits issued a year, at $50 average per permit, that comes to a whopping $27,500 in revenue for the town. The roofers generally get the permit. Some have been guilty of keeping the fee and not getting a permit. The town does not look favorably on those kinds – usually the fly-by-night, weekend warrior types.

If the town is really serious about using the permit process as a mechanism to ensure state codes are being met, and where some homeowners feel secure in knowing their roofer is insured and has a reputation in town for doing good work (and he is getting the application as well), what’s the beef?

What is really disturbing is the incorrect/misleading information given out by town board council members and town employees that scam the system – yes, town employees, and they get away with it because there is no rigid penalty system in place.

While some of you may look at it as an infringement of your rights, I look at it as doing the right thing and stopping those (individuals and roofers) gaming the system.

Now Frank, do you see where I am coming from?

What caught my eye in Lee's post according to what Donna Stempniak stated, "{Stempniak} only Lancaster and Hamburg has a re-roof permit process." This seems to be a misstatement on Stempniak's part.

[Frank Broughton]

Just more government period! Just one more inch.... on which they can justify the mile... or 100 miles if federal.

[gorja]

What is Lancaster's inspection protocol? Do they inspect after tear-off? Do they inspect prior to placing a 2nd layer on a nontear-off? Do they inspect mid-way through? Do they inspect the final result? Do they do more than one inspection?

[4248]

The protocol is as follows:

[gorja]

The protocol is as follows:

Does that also include a "nod"?

[gorja]

Village of Depew
Permit - yes
Caught without a permit; fee is doubled
Inspections- ice, vents, sheeting and final

[Lee Chowaniec]

In a letter that was submitted by Lancaster Building Inspector Jeff Simme to Supervisor Dino Fudoli on May 28th, he wrote that he supported a fine levied against any homeowner or their contractor if a re-roofing permit is not obtained.

As in other 11 municipalities (not just one Council member Stempniak) the roofing permitting process is required and has a penalty attached to it if not applied for. The ball is in Lancaster's court.

[Frank Broughton]

Thanks... you empowered more big government.

[NY The Vampire State]

Thanks... you empowered more big government.

But Frank, it's all about "safety" ... and throw in "its for the children" too.

If the town isn't going to offer a guarantee of quality from the contractors they endorse, then what he hell do you pay $50 bucks for? This is really no business for government to be in.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Thanks... you empowered more big government.

How do you come to that conclusion? I state facts and comments other people make and you claim I am empowering more big government?

It's about time you came up with some facts of your own to support your position.

[Lee Chowaniec]

But Frank, it's all about "safety" ... and throw in "its for the children" too.

If the town isn't going to offer a guarantee of quality from the contractors they endorse, then what he hell do you pay $50 bucks for? This is really no business for government to be in.

Why don't you tell us what the $50 pays for instead of making assumptions and asinine statements like 'it's for the children'.

[4248]

Why don't you tell us what the $50 pays for instead of making assumptions and asinine statements like 'it's for the children'.

No offense meant - but you support this - explain where the fine or fee would help taxpayers.

Just because a guy has a permit or insurance it doesn't qualify them as a "Authorized Installer" - it does not guarantee a better or even correct job !

With no inspection who will judge the work - how ?

In the past, Judges in Lancaster have a clear history of favoring the contractor - prove other wise !

In one case(on file in Lancaster court) - the judge made a home owner pay a contractor because he did a estimate for a job. The contractor Never started the job - another contractor was hired - did the work and was paid more than the complaining contractor had estimated.

As a matter of fact - the first contractor never even came back or called the owner after he gave the estimate - he sent the home owner a notice of claim after the second guy finished the job.

This was all explained to the judge - he ruled the home owner should pay the first contractor the full estimate price. Even though the contractor never went back - no start date was even discussed - the contractor was told another estimate was being sought - and in fact the complaining contractor never incurred any costs.

When you have a Town where the entire Politically Controlled system is "Developer Supported" why would tax payers believe they will be protected or even judged on a level playing field.

Once again the tail is wagging the dog !

[gorja]

Originally posted by 4248:
With no inspection who will judge the work - how ?

From Lee's first post of this thread-
Lancaster – Inspections (ice/water/layers)