PCCA Bulletin Board

jar546 · Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Posts: 44 Location: NEPA & Poconos

I recently looked at a house under construction in Pike County. Although I am registered with the state of PA as a residential building inspector, I am not the AHJ and was not acting in that capacity.

Ground breaking began in June or July of 2005. It is currently framed, rough wired, plumbed & HVAC'd waiting for insulation and drywall.

My client is an attorney from NJ who hired me for a pre-drywall inspection. The home is a "spec" home and the buyer is making a decision on the purchase of the house based on my inspection results. He is not currently under contract. This home is being built with or without this buyer.

The home is not being built under the new UCC as the permit was taken out in early 2004 and I was told the permit is good for 1.5 years in that municipality. I have no idea what code would apply or was previously enforced, if any. This 18 month permit bothers me.

The home is a ranch style with 3 sides of the foundation available for walkout. Only the front foundation wall has backfill greater than 50%.

The builder only plans on placing insulation against the rim board and not in the subfloor or foundation wall. The "basement" is unheated and the heat in the house will be electric baseboard. There is a A/C unit in the attic for the house but not for heat.

The builder now wants to charge the buyer extra to put insulation in the floor. I have some thoughts on this:

1) Most of the basement is below the 50% backfill rule and is now considered exterior wall & not a basement?

2) The previous PA energy code which would have required a "Intent to Construct" form to be filled out would cover this situation and the builder would have to install insulation. Does everyone know that this form must be filled out unless you fall under any of the exceptions?

3) The pipes are not going to be insulated either and with no heat source in the "basement", no insulation on the walls or in the floor and no pipe insulation this home has a high chance of pipes freezing as most of it is above grade.

I need someone who knows about this to reply. Please help.

Thoughts?

homebild · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 101 Location: West Wyoming, Pa.

jar546:

Here are a few thoughts.

Any home that had a permit issued or a signed contract for design prior to the UCC coming into effect in September of 2004 is exempt from the UCC code. I'm sure you already know that.

It appears that this is the case in regards to this house.

This would mean that the only code that the builder would need to comply with is the code that was in force within that municipality pre-UCC if any.

If no code, the builder is under no obligation to comply with anything.

The bigger issue with which you seem to be concerned, is the builder's compliance with the old Pennsylvania Building Energy Conservation Act of December 15, 1980 (PL 1203, No 222) which did mandate some minimum insulation requirements for new homes constructed in the State prior to UCC.

The problem as I see it, however, is that by trying to find a way to get the builder to at least comply with the old regulations, you step into some really grey areas and you may not even be able to invoke the old energy law because when Act 45 came into effect in April 2004, Act 45 repealed the Building Energy Conervation Act of 1980 along with all its regulations:

See section 7210.1102 "Repeals" here:

http://www.dli.state.pa.us/landi/CWP/view.asp?a=185&Q=160464

I think what this means is that your builder finds himself 'scot free' in terms of having to comply with the old energy act, because the State legislature wiped it completely off the books in 2004 if I understand correctly.

It seems to me that unless the municipal code under which the builder had taken out the permits to construct had their own energy requirement, then there is nothing that can be done to "force" this builder to comply with any notion of what we would consider modern energy efficient construction.

I think he is simply going to fall between the cracks by default or by design.

The question becomes for your client: Does he buy a house knowing full well that it is not built to modern codes, energy or other?

I surely wouldn't and I don't know what ethical obligations you have in the matter, but if you are able to, I would encourage the client to find another house, or simply accept the house 'as is' and pay the builder for any upgrades to his 'spec' price.

That's my 2 cents.

Be interesting to see how others reply.

Regards

jar546 · Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Posts: 44 Location: NEPA & Poconos

homebild · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 101 Location: West Wyoming, Pa.

Jeff, let us know the results of your investigation. It would be helpful to all.

Mark Conte · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 19 Location: Harrisburg

As was stated in the earlier post, the Building Energy Conservation Act (act 222) was repealed by the UCC on April 9, 2004, regardless on when a municipality adopted the UCC.
So, it is possible that no code requirement was in effect at the time construction started.
If the home was covered by Act 222, the builder is required to provide a written warranty to the owner, in a document seperate from the contract.

jar546 · Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Posts: 44 Location: NEPA & Poconos

It would be ridiculous or a complete oversight to repeal an existing code when a new code takes its place if during the transition period there would be NO CODE. This makes not sense.

I would think that any old codes would apply in the absence of a new code.

This is as bad as builders pulling permits for new spec homes on April 8th, 2004 that have not even started yet and some will have April 2006 starts and still get around the UCC.

Mark Conte · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 19 Location: Harrisburg

I completely agree that with your position, however, the repeal was immediate.

Near retirement · Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 25

How could the repeal of any law be immediate? Buildings that wre subject to laws such an an older edition of BOCA, ACT 222, the Fore and Panic Act, etc. are required to be maintained and operated under those same codes. Further, Act 45 clearly states that where the design contract or construction contract a proposed building has been signed prior to the effective date (opt-in) for a muncipality, the building is only required to comply with the regulations tht were in effect prior to the opt-in date. THis being the case (and the law) there is no way on the face of God's earth that a repeal would be that far-reaching. Even OUR legislature can't argue that! The legislature's repeal language was more likley intended to remove Act 222 fas the energy standard for new contruction. Wouldn't you agree?

Mark Conte · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 19 Location: Harrisburg

Act 45, Section 1102 Repeals (a) Absolute The Following acts and parts of Acts are repealed:...Act of Decemeber 15, 1980 (Act 222).

I agree it would have made better sense to repeal Act 222 as the UCC took effect in each municipality, but the law and regulations did not provide for that.
Act 222 did apply to construction that was under permit or contract prior to April 9, 2004.

While, personally I agree with your position, legal staff made the call and that is how it was repealed.

Near retirement · Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 25

Well, if it's repealed, then it's repealed. And if it's repealed, it can't apply to anything - including construction projects that had a signed design or construction contract in place prior to 4/9/04. Why do attorneys that work for the Commonwealth have such difficulty understanding what a law means?

ericshaw · Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 12 Location: Cambria Co., PA

Jar;

You are representing a buyer. I think I would tell them the long term cost of having electric heat. Insulating the floor could cause the pipes to freeze but it is unlikely. If the price and location are right the buyer could insulate the basement, and install a boiler and hot water baseboard for heat.

Eric

jar546 · Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Posts: 44 Location: NEPA & Poconos

The buyer paid the builder extra to insulate the basement. The buyer thought this was part of the plans but was mistaken. The buyer did not know that he hired an idiot as a builder who does not know his a$$ from a hole in the ground.
He also did not know:

Joist hangars need nails in them
Where joist hangars were needed
How to grade away from a structure
Two 20amp circuits are needed for kitchen counters
How to positively anchor 6x6 deck posts top & bottom
Venting a dryer into the basement is a no-no
There is an airspace required between the metal flue and the wood frame chimney when the manufacturer of the pipe tells you in its directions
New gutters leak if you don't seal them at joints
Stair rise/run should not change at the top and bottom
Porches over 30" above grade should have railings
An access panel to the underside of the whirlpool tub is helpful
Access doors to attic space above a garage need to be fire rated

MCP182 · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 24 Location: Crawford County

Not to pick but.....where is the requirement to anchor posts top and bottom?
What fire rating is required on the garage ceiling?( I don't think an attic is habitable space)

[B] HABITABLE SPACE. A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces.