PCCA Bulletin Board

[Frank T]

Have a few to many"Recreational Cabins" in our small county and have been to some pretty bad job sites already. One had 4" deep footer formed with rock croppings sticking up the middle of it. Another was sitting on single pier 8" block 4 courses high front-side and 2 courses high on backside, no footings either, just on the ground. Bet that one doesn't make it two years. There has to be some way so classify these as un-safe structures!! Any thoughts out there?

[homebild]

Here's a thought:

Under section 104 (b)Exclusions (6) regarding recreational cabin exclusions, a recreational cabin is excluded from the UCC if

"(ii)the owner of the cabin files with the municipality either:
(a) an avidavit on a form prescribed by the Department attesting to the fact that the cabin meets the defintion of a "recreational cabin: in section 103; or
(b) a valid proof of insurance for the recreational cabin, written and issued by an insurer authorized to do business in theis Commonwealth, stating that the structure meets the definition of a "recreational cabin" as defined in Section 103. (Added by Act 92 of 2004)."

I think a key tactic for dealing with these problems may be found in (b) above regarding "insurers".

While legally the code official has no control over the structure if it is a legitimately designated 'recreational cabin', the insurer still does for insurance purposes and therefore has more clout than the code office.

Insurers will cancel policies for many type of infractions that they see as typical code or safety violations regardless as to whether or not the jurisdiction exercises such authority or the code regulates them.

It may be enough to simply notify the owner's casulaty insurer that a violation of acceptable building practices or safety proceedures exists and then let the insurer 'make' the recreational cabin owner comply with sound practice or face cancellation of all coverage.

While this may not help much with older "real" cabins that don't carry liability insurance and the owner's could care less if they did, it can be a way to dissuade those who build second homes and call them 'recreational cabins' from avoiding compliance with any type of standards especially if these structures are being built using a mortgage.

No casualty insurance, no mortgage.

Insurance gets cancelled...
The mortgage holder can legally call the mortgage due and reclaim the property...

The key is to get the insurance information and lender information from the owner/builder upon application for a recreational cabin affidavit, then use that info to 'control' the project by reporting deficiencies to the lender or insurer as the project progresses.

This is just my personal opinion and should be approved by the municipal solicitor, but it seems like an approach that can work in some instances.

[dbuskirk]

The only problem with requiring the insurance when filing an affidavit is that it's an either or requirement, not both.

If they file the affidavit, they dont need proof of insurance and vice versa, proof of insurance as a recreational cabin.......no need for affidavit.

Another catch 22.

[Bart]

When you get a recreatonal cabin notification have you tried sending a certified letter to the owner mentioning his reights and responisbilities such as not being able to use this as a residence EVER and you MUST palce a deed restriction on the property once it is sold? This works very well for us in making sure the owner makes informed decisions when he is building. Then of course it is up to the municipality to follow through with monitoring the use. Thank you State Legislature!

[slinskyj]

This was a good exception for the state of PA. Kudos for the politicians listening to their constituents. However they could have been more specific as to what does constitute a recreational cabin. Obviously a 4,000 sq.foot structure built in town isn't a normal camp. But on the other hand a cabin built in the backwoods of PA does not need to be built like a 4,000 sq foot residence in downtown.
And with 80% of PA's forests being privatly owned, many people want their own private recreational cabin and don't want a second mortgage for something that gets used only a small part of the year.

For those who feel the need to try and circumvent the system; there is a law to prohibit this and it's the parameter set forth in the exclusion shown above.