Code Attorney

It’s that time of year again when I get questions about notice to offenders who don’t cut their grass.  Some of the inspectors complain that owners of property rely on the notice the local jurisdiction sends them as a signal that it’s time to mow their lawn or property lot.  The most frequent question I get is whether one notice is sufficient or whether a notice needs to be sent every time the property needs to be mowed again.  It all depends on what your code says.  If the code requires a notice before you can write a ticket, then that’s what you have to do.  Owners take advantage of this because they cut the grass after they get the notice and before you can write a ticket.  Then they wait until the next notice, cut the grass and wait until the next one.  This really wastes the inspectors’ time.  My suggestion is to amend the code’s notice provision  (if you can do that depending on state and local law) so that one notice per season is sufficient.  There’s no good reason any inspector should play babysitter to a landowner.  The owner needs to supervise the property or pay the consequences.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Code Enforcement, Ordinances Tag(s):

I recently did an all day training for the Illinois Fire Inspectors Association and I found myself talking about using multiple codes for violations.  Fire inspectors often work with both the IFC and the Life Safety Code and have to decide which one to use.  I find that the IFC has superior administrative provisions and gravitate towards it for enforcement.  The Life Safety Code is a great code to follow when something is being constructed.  Beyond that, I sometimes find that using the IPMC is helpful when dealing with a problem property because it has very specific sections on the condemnation of unsafe buildings, structures and equipment.  In some jurisdictions, the building department writes the violations for the fire department or fire district.  In those cases, I’ve often seen the inspectors use Chapter 7 of the IPMC for fire code violations since it’s fairly comprehensive for common fire safety violations.  Ultimately it doesn’t matter which code you use as long as it’s appropriate to the situation and it meets the local requirements of your jurisdiction and state.  Being flexible is important because you may find that you hit a dead end using one code but the solution lies in another.  When I wrote the guide books for the IBC, IFC and IRC, I included a chapter on using the IPMC when unsafe structures were involved.  The IBC and IFC have some guidance for unsafe buildings but not to the point of condemnation. The IRC has nothing about unsafe structures.  Now that there are many half-built single family structures standing around, this becomes a problem since the IBC doesn’t apply to them.  I usually recommend using the IPMC (if you have adopted it) if the permit has expired.  If you don’t hve the IPMC, you better have a decent public nuisance ordinance.  Otherwise, the only alternative is a demolition lawsuit which in most jurisdictions can be a costly procedure.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Building Codes, Code Enforcement, Fire Prevention, Ordinances, property maintenance Tag(s):

I can’t stress enough how important it is to have definitions in ordinances that are clear and understandable. Recently I tried to help out a friend who was letting a sibling live in a residence she owned while he got back on his feet financially. There was no rent being paid but the relative was picking up the cost of the utilities. The town where this residence was located had a rental inspection ordinance so my friend received a notice from the local jurisdiction demanding she get a rental inspection. The town exempted residences that an “immediate family member” lived in from the ordinance. However, it did not define what the term “immediate family member” meant. It took the position that only children and parents of the owner were entitled to an exemption. Yet, if you look at general definitions as to what constitutes an “immediate family member”, some include siblings and some do not. When a definition is vague in the law, the party who has written the definition does not get the benefit of the ambiguity. Court decisions on this issue rely on the definition contained in the law. If there is none, the court should choose the most liberal interpretation of the term. I pointed this out to the inspector but she knew that it was cheaper for my friend to pay the inspection fee than try to litigate the issue. All of this could have been avoided by drafting a proper definition so anyone could tell exactly who was responsible for following the ordinance. I’m a big supporter of rental ordinances but I want ordinances where I’m not going to have to litigate over the terminology.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Ordinances Tag(s):