Agenda 10/09/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[~AVID B WORTHY CITY ATTORNEY City of Martinsville VII~GINIA Enclosure #7 MEMORANDUM FROM: TO: DATE: RE: CITY ATTORNEY HON. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER OCTOBER 3, 2001 GRANDFATHER CLAUSE IN USBC At the last meeting it was requested that I look into the question of whether there was a way around the so-called grandfather clause in order to effectuate changes in the Uniform Statewide Building Code pertaining to emergency exits from certain apartment buildings. The answer to this question is very simple: in the building industry and in the regulations governing same found in the Uniform Statewide Building Code, there is no grandfather clause. In other words, nothing is "grandfathered in" in the Building Code. For example, lead based paint is not grandfathered in even though it may have been perfectly legal When the structure in question was built many years ago. Now however, if the paint has begun to peel or crack, the owner may be either criminally or civilly liable for something that might have been perfectly legal when the dwelling was constructed. This does not mean, however, that it will be easy to effectuate regulatory changes retroactively requiring rear emergency exits which are not presently required. The reason for this is that the regulatory body, the Board of Housiffg and Community Development, "makes as few amendments as possible" to said Code. Moreover, before a change is made the proponent for same must explain the need for the requested change and offer the rationale or justification for any such change from the standpoint of the public' s health, safety and welfare. The proponent should also identify the primary advantages and disadvantages for the public and to the Commonwealth for implementing such changes and should as well provide a brief economic impact analysis for any such change to include the estimated number of businesses to which the amendments would apply, the identity of any localities and types of business that would be affected by an identified disproportionate material impact which would not be experienced by other localities; the estimated number of persons and employment positions to be affected, the projected costs to affected businesses or entities that would be required to comply with the change, and the impact on the use and value of private property. I also note that the Board of Housing and Community Development has monthly meetings at which members of the public are invited to make public comment about any proposed changes that they would like the Board to consider. It would be my thinking that in order for any proposed change to be seriously considered by the Board, that someone with either engineering or architectural expertise should appear before the Board at its next public meeting to explain why the proposed changes should be adopted and why it is that the existing regulations for whatever reason are not working.