|
City attempts to clarify permit requirements
By Shelia Watson
Contributing Writer
The e-mail Tom Scholtens sent out was meant to settle the matter of which repair jobs will require permits in the city of Charleston. But amid the nods of agreement, there are still shrugs of frustration from contractors working in the city.
With his department director’s OK, Scholtens—the city’s chief building and fire code official—decreed that permits will not be required on the listed items in repair or maintenance applications, as long as the work is not being done in the commercial or historic districts on the exteriors of the buildings.
Scholtens warned that the list could shrink or expand and that “this attempt at simplifying our system does not give anyone the right to do a wholesale remodel on a property without a permit or to violate the licensing laws or the building codes of South Carolina.”
A partial list of what doesn’t require permits for mechanical work includes various portable items such as heating appliances, ventilation equipment and cooling units, self-contained refrigeration systems of certain sizes and replacement of any part that does not make it unsafe.
A separate list of repair work not requiring permits is more extensive and includes items such as painting, wallpaper installation, ceiling fan or light fixture installation, driveway or fence repair, cabinet or countertop replacement, and various other work, provided there is no alteration in fire resistance or safety features.
In addition, the document is clear on the conditions that always require construction permits:
“1. All exterior work within any Charleston historic district or in the commercial corridor district requires construction permits.
“2. No new rooms or areas are allowed to be created, enlarged, reduced or finished without first obtaining a construction permit. No work in a special flood hazard area (floodplain) is allowed without a construction permit.
“3. Fire damage repair of any kind will require a construction permit.”
Among those not satisfied with the city’s administrative decision is Van Herridge, vice president of Rapid Repairs Inc.
Herridge, who had remarked a few weeks ago that “the city of Charleston’s current policy for permits is all wrong,” said he still feels that there are “a lot of gaps in (the city’s) proposal.”
In particular, Herridge objects to the section that reads, “Application or notice to the building official is not required for ordinary repairs to structures, replacement of lamps or connection of approved portable electrical equipment to approved permanently installed receptacles.”
“There isn’t a dollar limit on what is an ‘ordinary’ repair,” said Herridge. “So the city is probably going to end up losing out on income from contractors who would have had to get a permit for a high-dollar repair. Plus it doesn’t address the root of the problem, and that’s public safety and how it’ll be enforced.”
Herridge explained that with no permit at all for many of the repairs, the homeowner could hire unlicensed workers who may end up performing unsafe work.
“The license is a control by the state,” he said. “If you don’t do the work right, you lose your license. But if someone doesn’t have a license, how is the city or the state going to know when and where they’re doing the work? How is the city permit office going to enforce this?”
Herridge admitted that much of what he objects to is “nit-picking over the details,” but that each item is another gap in understanding.
“For instance, it says you can install the ceiling fan as long as there’s a ‘previously permitted, installed, inspected electrical switch.’ But how are we supposed to know whether it was inspected before? I don’t have access to the records to find that out,” he said.
He pointed to another example.
“And it doesn’t require a permit to replace a radiator or resistance room heater, but I think it should require one because those are a fire hazard,” he said.
“The bigger picture in all this is that (Scholtens) wants to put this out and we have to live with it,” he said. “But why couldn’t he distribute this for comments before he publishes it for enforcement?”
Scholtens said that providing the list of clarifications to the existing code did not require public hearings or a review by contractors.
“This is an administrative decision that is part of my duties,” he said. “The purpose of this was to provide clarification, and I believe we accomplished that in an appropriate way. This is not a democratic administration. I’ve been appointed to do a job, and part of my job is clarifying the code.”
For the most part, Herridge is in the minority with his concerns. Most contractors are pleased with the attempt to clarify the permitting process.
“Tom did a great job of working on this to clarify the things that are small enough to not require a permit,” said Philip Ford, executive director of the Homebuilders Association.
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version