|
Home > Ask
the Engineer > Playing it "Safe" with Facade Inspections
Playing it "Safe" with Facade Inspections
Most property owners and managers know that Local Laws 10/80 and 11/98 involve an inspection of a building's exterior. The myriad details and nuances that make up the laws, however, are often a frequent source of confusion, especially those pertaining to required follow-up repairs. Because so many New York City cooperative and condominium buildings must conduct these facade inspections, this article tackles some of the most frequently asked questions.
What is the difference between Local Laws 10/80 and 11/98?
In 1980 the New York City Council passed Local Law 10 (LL 10/80), which
required owners of buildings with street-facing facades taller than six
stories to file a report with New York City's Department of Buildings
(DOB) once every five years describing the existing conditions of their
exterior walls. Local Law 10/80 was actually an amendment to Section C26-105.3
of the Administrative Code, governing repair and maintenance of exterior
facades.
Local Law 11 of 1998 (LL 11/98) further amended the code to mandate the
inspection of buildings with any facade (as opposed to just street-facing
facades) taller than six stories. Local Law 11/98 also put in place other
new requirements, namely that at least one scaffold drop be conducted
as part of each inspection, that the specific cause(s) of deterioration
be identified, and that a definitive repair timetable be established.
"Local Law 10/80" is still the term commonly used to refer to
the repeating cycle of inspections, with the understanding that the changes
put in place by Local Law 11/98 are now part of the inspection process.
Who files the Local Law 10/80 report and what are the different
classifications used?
Local Law 10/80 inspection reports must be filed by a Professional Engineer
(P.E.) or Registered Architect (R.A.), who, based on the inspection findings,
classifies the
building as safe, safe with repair and maintenance items, or unsafe. A
safe building needs no further action; a building that is safe with repair
and maintenance items must be repaired in the time frame listed by the
Engineer or Architect in the report; and an unsafe building must be repaired
within 30 days (or longer if the DOB grants
an extension).
What are examples of unsafe exterior conditions?
Any item that threatens the safety of a pedestrian below is an unsafe
condition. Examples include loose brick, mortar, or concrete; shifted
parapet walls or stonework segments; improperly secured window-mounted
air conditioners; and debris or personal items (such as flower pots) on
fire escapes or windowsills. If a building's exterior walls are seriously
deteriorated, the Engineer or Architect conducting the inspection will
classify the building as "unsafe" with the DOB. If the conditions
are relatively minor, the Engineer or Architect may file the building
as "safe" but recommend that certain "repair and maintenance"
items be addressed by a specified date to help prevent them from deteriorating
into unsafe conditions.
When are the deadlines for conducting the facade inspections?
The inspections must be conducted during a two-year cycle, which repeats
every five years. The deadline for the last cycle (the fifth since LL
10/80 was instituted) was February 21, 2002. The next (sixth) cycle of
LL 10/80 inspections begins in February 2005 and runs until February 2007.
Owners of buildings that require an inspection must have an Engineer or
Architect file the report at some point within this two-year window, regardless
of when the Fifth Cycle Report was filed.
If a building missed the February 2002 deadline, is it still
required to file or can it wait until the next cycle?
Owners of buildings covered by Local Laws 10/80 and 11/98 cannot skip
a cycle, no matter how long past the deadline they have waited. If an
inspection report has not been filed for the past (fifth) cycle, the DOB
will issue a "No Report Filed" violation. Once the report has
been filed, the DOB may then retroactively issue a penalty of up to a
$1,000 for filing late, plus up to $250 a month for every month between
the February 2002 deadline and the filing date.
My cooperative building had its last Local Law 10/80 inspection
conducted in October 2001. The Engineer who filed the report listed our
building as safe, but he cited some items for repair within the next 24
months. Since the items are minor (a few cracked bricks), can we fix them
after the next inspection?
For reasons of safety and compliance with the law, putting off necessary
repairs is never a good idea. If a building owner has not addressed repair
and maintenance items cited in a Local Law 10/80 report by the specified
deadline (in your building's case, by October 2003), the DOB can at its
sole discretion, downgrade the status of the property to unsafe and issue
a violation. The necessary repairs would then have to be made and a follow-up
facade inspection conducted to file an Amended Report on the repaired
condition. In addition, if any repair and maintenance items, even minor
ones, are not addressed by the time the next cycle of inspections rolls
around, according to the law the building must automatically be listed
as unsafe.
Building owners are advised to check their last Local Law 10/80 report
to see if any repair and maintenance items are cited, and if so, to make
sure they have been addressed by the date given by the inspecting Engineer
or Architect.
Our building is only six stories tall, and we never had to file
a Local Law 10/80 report until last year. The building didn't get taller,
so what changed?
Your building is one of many that didn't require a facade inspection under
Local Law 10/80 but now does under Local Law 11/98. Most likely, one of
the "off-street" facades of your building is more than six stories
high. (A story, according to the DOB, is any floor level with at least
half of its floor-to-ceiling height above the lowest grade-level adjacent
to one of its exterior walls.) The building was exempt under Local Law
10/80 because only street-facing facades counted. Local Law 11/98, on
the other hand, considers all facades. In short, if the number of stories
from the top of the building to the lowest point on the ground along any
portion of the perimeter is more than six stories, then that portion of
the building is subject to an inspection. The only exception is when the
"seventh" story is created by a very narrow areaway or window
well.
The Certificate of Occupancy for our building says it is six
stories plus cellar, and the DOB has never contacted us about a Local
Law 10/80 inspection. That means our building doesn't need to file, right?
Not necessarily. The DOB does not notify building owners about whether
they are required to file a Local Law 10/80 inspection report for their
property; it is the responsibility of the owner to know whether a report
must be filed. Secondly, the height description on your building's Certificate
of Occupancy is not what is used to determine whether an inspection is
needed; the actual physical building height is what counts. Many buildings,
particularly in Queens and Brooklyn, have a Certificate of Occupancy that
incorrectly lists the building's height as six stories plus a cellar even
though the building is actually six stories plus a basement or even six
stories plus a full above-ground lobby level. The distinction between
cellar and basement is particularly important. A cellar does not count
as a story because more than half its wall height is below ground level,
while a basement does count as a story because more than half its wall
height is above ground. So, if your building is six stories plus a basement,
an inspection report needs to be filed, regardless of what the Certificate
of Occupancy says.
The DOB rejected our building's Local Law 10/80 inspection report
even though we made all the recommended repairs listed by the Engineer
who performed the inspection. In its letter, the DOB said that some of
the window-mounted air conditioners were not properly installed. Are there
any guidelines on what constitutes a properly secured unit?
The proper mounting of window air conditioners is one item for which the
DOB has not yet provided any specific regulations or design criteria.
It is at the discretion of the Engineer or Architect performing the inspection
to decide whether such an air conditioner constitutes a potential hazard.
Certainly, an air conditioner with blocks or bricks wedged in between
the unit and the windowsill will be classified as an unsafe condition
by the DOB, as will an air conditioner that appears unstable.
Other than that, however, it is difficult for an Architect or Engineer
to determine the safety of window-mounted air conditioners, short of checking
every single unit from inside the apartments, which isn't practical in
large buildings because of the number of units and also because the location
of installed units can change on a daily basis. Until the DOB issues more
specific regulations, boards should require all residents to have window-mounted
air conditioners installed with secure support brackets by a qualified
contractor, and to provide written verification from the contractor to
insure the safety of the unit.
More Ask the Engineer articles
|
