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