Roofing policy data in, now what

[Lee Chowaniec]

At a June 5th town board work session, Council member Donna Stempniak claimed that the Town of Lancaster was one of only two towns that require permits for re-roofing. “I’ll bet a lot of roofers don’t even realize that a re-roofing permit is required. Fences and sheds are another thing. That hinders us in doing our jobs for public safety. Re-roofing is not, or should not be a safety issue for the town. It falls on the shoulders of the homeowner. Why should we interfere?”

Councilman Ron Ruffino interjected that the requirement for a re-roofing permit was an irritant to him. He declared that the permit fee is not a revenue stream for us, especially when you think about the numbers. And the homeowners are already being taxed on the materials and installation. Ruffino voiced that he didn’t care what people think about the other (positive) components that go along with the permit process.

Councilman Mark Aquino declared the board should consider removing roofing permits from the permitting policy based on the information provided.

Supervisor Dino Fudoli: “Maybe we can segregate that out and say one thing, but not the other. Do you want to eliminate the roofing permit requirement?”

Ruffino: “I would be for that.”

At the June 19th town board meeting the writer addressed the town board:

While some board members declared they saw no value in the process in that public safety is not compromised, I disagree in that it not only afforded protection to a homeowner in that he or she knew they would become informed that the roofer had liability coverage, but that the application would indicate what the project entailed and that state roofing codes would be met – ice shield, water and no more than two layers of roofing.

If there will no longer be such permitting mechanism in place, how will the town assure compliance with state code requirements regarding number of roofing layers allowed, installation of ice shield, quality of materials and/or workmanship? Or is the town going to take the position now that all fall into the hands of the homeowners and/or roofer; and then if so, who makes sure that this municipality follows State and/or International Building codes?

And this begs the question as to how do other municipalities get away with this, especially after hearing Mr. Simme tells me at a prior meeting that the re-roof permit policy was instated in 2008 in Lancaster as required by the State code change?

Fudoli: That is the question we are going to ask the other municipalities; how they are meeting this required state standard.

Well, the data is in.

11 Municipalities with a permitting policy in place:

Towns

Amherst – Inspections (ice/water/final – making sure only two roofing layers)
Hamburg – Inspections (ice/water)
West Seneca – No inspections
Wheatfield – No inspections
Tonawanda – Inspections (ice/water)
Wales – Inspections (Final)
Aurora – Inspections (no for tear offs or maintenance)
Lancaster – Inspections (ice/water/layers)

Villages through towns

East Aurora -
Blasdell
Depew
Lancaster
Kenmore
Springville

Towns and Villages that don’t regulate

Cheektowaga, Clarence, Orchard Park, Eden, Boston

No call back information

Colden, Holland, Marilla

What now?

What position will Lancaster take now when it has been clearly shown that Lancaster is not but one municipality other than Hamburg that has a roofing permit program in place?
How do municipalities that don’t regulate roofing installations comply with state law building codes?

Other

At a May 21, 2014 town board meeting it was established that there are 20,000 roofs in town but that only 12,700 are residential roofs; the remainder business, public etc; and where such roofs are of a type or nature that more likely than not are of materials or type that have a 40-50 year shelf life.

Examining 2013’s re-roof permit data, it appears only 69% of residential homes are re-roofed with a permit in place. That percentage is based on the following data and assuming that the average shelf-life of a roof = 25 years (a generous and realistic number).

If we just use the number of residential roofs involved, 12,700, it is expected that 508 re-roofs should annually take place; using 25 years as roof shelf life.

It is expected that the average number of roofs scheduled for replacement in a month should be 42. It is expected that the average number of roofs scheduled for replacement bi-monthly is 21.

Using 2013 re-roofing permits as a baseline, there were a total of 352 re-roof permits issued. On a monthly basis average that amounts to 29 re-roof permits issued; bi-monthly 14.5.
Council member Stempniak told Symer that the 23permits issued for this bi-monthly period exceeded expectations. This is the busy season for reroofing permits. In all of 2013, of the 24 bi-monthly re-roofing permits issued, there were:

8 such occasions where 20 or more permits were issued in that timeframe
7 occasions where 10-19 permits were issued
4 occasions where 5-9 permits were issued
5 bi-monthly meetings where 0-4 permits were issued

Conclusion

• 508 annual re-roof permits should be expected – based on 12,700 residential roofs and a 25 year roof life expectancy
• 352 re-roof permits were issued in 2013
• 69% of re-roof projects in Lancaster are done with permit issuance; 31% are done without permit application

[Frank Broughton]

sad.... giving more power to government, sad some advocate that still in WNY - really sad.

[Lee Chowaniec]

sad.... giving more power to government, sad some advocate that still in WNY - really sad.

What is truly sad is that someone does not see the value in spending $50 for a re-roofing permit every 20-25 years that assures a Lancaster resident that the roofer doing the work on his or her house is registered with the town and has liability/Workmans Comp insurance, will assure that ice shield and no more than two roof layers are on the house, and that the materials and workmanship agreed to will be applied.

While they do everything possible to avoid paying that $50 fee they feel is an infringement on their property rights, the federal government is shredding their constitutional rights and spending billions in foreign aid to countries that want to kill us, billions on illegal aliens, and billions on Obamacare. The state is screwing us over with the highest taxes in the nation, tax free zones, etc, and a the county and other municipalities with ridiculous give-away IDA’S, and we have municipal governments and school districts paying outrageous wages, benefits and perks. Then throw in Triborough and Condominium Law 339-y. But let’s go after that $50 fee.

So we have a state law that has merit in giving some protection to the homeowner and yet some municipalities have no mechanism in place to regulate that law – and that’s okay with you and your town?

[Frank Broughton]

It all has to start someplace Lee, these little things add up to the mess you described. Give government an inch and they take 100 miles. You see what I am getting at?

[NY The Vampire State]

Maybe some people don't want to be FORCED to pay the 50 bucks to have the town do the vetting process. If I were to hire a contractor I would automatically request those requirements on my own. Why should I pay the municipality for something I could easily do for free? Is the town going to be responsible for problems or damages that may arise since they endorse certain contractors?

While they do everything possible to avoid paying that $50 fee they feel is an infringement on their property rights, the federal government is shredding their constitutional rights and spending billions in foreign aid to countries that want to kill us, billions on illegal aliens, and billions on Obamacare. The state is screwing us over with the highest taxes in the nation, tax free zones, etc, and a the county and other municipalities with ridiculous give-away IDA’S, and we have municipal governments and school districts paying outrageous wages, benefits and perks. Then throw in Triborough and Condominium Law 339-y. But let’s go after that $50 fee.

Frank is right.... it all adds up. I could throw all those points back at Lee and say you're right, look at all the "real" problems going on, why is Lancaster so worried about shoddy shingles. Is it Lee's last resort to say "we got bigger problems, just roll over for this new fee... it's only $50"? In other words, because there are bigger issues, we should be stiffed by this one?

[Lee Chowaniec]

It all has to start someplace Lee, these little things add up to the mess you described. Give government an inch and they take 100 miles. You see what I am getting at?

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?

[gorja]

I see where you're coming from Lee but also see where Vamp is coming from. Homeowners can ask for a "Certificate of insurance" themselves. Guarantees of insurance aren't always guarantees of a perfect job.

Ever since this subject has been brought to light, I wondered if that Brian Lorenc and his BML construction was on Lancaster's good list. There were so many complaints aired about his roofing jobs. Also had many go to the BBB. http://www.bbb.org/upstate-new-york/...e-ny-77000625/

If the permit process keeps businesses like this from working in our town, the permit process is well worth it.

[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.

[Dan Roman]

What is truly sad is that someone does not see the value in spending $50 for a re-roofing permit every 20-25 years that assures a Lancaster resident that the roofer doing the work on his or her house is registered with the town and has liability/Workmans Comp insurance, will assure that ice shield and no more than two roof layers are on the house, and that the materials and workmanship agreed to will be applied.

While they do everything possible to avoid paying that $50 fee they feel is an infringement on their property rights, the federal government is shredding their constitutional rights and spending billions in foreign aid to countries that want to kill us, billions on illegal aliens, and billions on Obamacare. The state is screwing us over with the highest taxes in the nation, tax free zones, etc, and a the county and other municipalities with ridiculous give-away IDA’S, and we have municipal governments and school districts paying outrageous wages, benefits and perks. Then throw in Triborough and Condominium Law 339-y. But let’s go after that $50 fee.

So we have a state law that has merit in giving some protection to the homeowner and yet some municipalities have no mechanism in place to regulate that law – and that’s okay with you and your town?

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.

[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?

[4248]

Choice - its a home owners choice - or should be if he/she wants to demand proof of insurance or not. Proof of insurance does not - does not mean a installer is a "certified product installer" - it does not mean his work has any more of a guarantee then the guy without insurance - Fact !

If you've ever read the manufactures warrantee information - you will find - installation of their product is only guaranteed by the "manufacture" if the installer is certified by the manufacture.

This is one fact that others and I brought up and has been completely ignored.

The second major flaw in this fee grab is - the building inspector does not inspect the work being done. They don't inspect as the reroof is in progress - nor will they inspect the finished reroof. They have no interest in being involved other than to collect the fee and issue a permit. So what/where is the benefit to the home owner?

If there is a complaint or issue between the home owner and installer - it would go to court - if the owner and contractor cant come to terms. So what/where is the benefit to the home owner?

The building inspecters office rountinely stands by and watchs hundreds of new homes being built yearly here in Lancaster. Does anyone for one second believe each and every new build is completely done to state or local standards ? Does anyone for one second believe each and every aspect of every new build is inspected and verified by the building inspecter ? Please !

Once in a while the inspecter shows up - once in a while they see just what they need to. Lets get real here folks - if someone tracked just the "reroofs of newer homes" homes with less than "manufactures warranted product life" being replaced - youd see how many were done wrong.

Theres residents who end up in court because newer homes have leaking roofs. Roof vents installed wrong - sky lights leaking due to improper installation - foundation cracks - and allot more.

Do you believe for one second in any of those cases/issues the fact that a building permit was issued - because the building was signed off on - do you think for one second the building inspector was called into court and his word forced the builder/installer/repairman to redo the job and not charge the owner. Show me a few and I'll believe you !

Permits and fees do nothing to the over all "guarantee of any product" the permit actually pertains to. Show me a few and I'll believe you !

For years new builds were charged a fee for the replanting of trees in new subdivisions - each new home was intitled to two new trees. For years these funds have been packed away and not fully used. Many homes received no new trees - some received one - because the new owner didn't even know they were charged the fee in the first place.

Recreation fees are collected for every new house - how does the recreation Department stack up over $600000.00(six hundred thousand dollars) in excess funds associated with these fees? If the fees were used as stated - how does the recreation Department end up wit such a surplus ?

Every fee might have seemed justified when first dreamt up by local officials. The Parks and Recreation Department is "Home owner Tax Funded" - why are they in possession of all these "Fee Dollars: levied against new home buyers - yet they are tax funded ?

There's plenty of back door fees and taxes that served a purpose when first created !

They now just inflate home owners burdens - its time to re-examine and start cutting/ending these unnecessary taxes/fees.

Or lets just build a nice gym/work out area for our Town Employees to hang out in when they have a spare moment at work !

Its funny how they come up with all these new regulations to say what they can and cant spend these funds on !

Guess why the state and Feds came up with these guidelines - because for many years these funds weren't used as reportedly intended.

[4248]

The protocol is as follows:

[gorja]

The protocol is as follows:

Does that also include a "nod"?

[4248]

I think your being a bit hard on our boys - making out that free coffee is more important than doing their tax funded job.

Some guys have families you know - their just doing the best they can to support them !

Maybe even take on a "second Job" commonly known inside as a "Second front" ! Maybe even they get real ambitious and have a business on the side - contracting, building repairs, painting, cement work - landscaping and even sporting goods store for second hand equipment resale's.

You cant always assume just because a person is tax payer funded or appointed to a position as patronage he's lazy !

Maybe their just busy some way else !