Tyrone Borough has scheduled a special meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 7 to hear any concerns from the public about the state’s Uniform Construction Code.
The decision was made to hold the meeting after council had heard about revisions which had been made to the Code as part of Senate Bill 1139. The bill was passed by the legislature in July and signed into law by Governor Ed Rendell as Act 92.
Code officer Tom Lang has kept council informed on the UCC throughout what has been a long process which eventually saw the borough decide to “opt in” and enact a new ordinance to enforce the code. The borough’s new ordinance took effect on July 1 in order to beat a state deadline when municipalities needed to have an ordinance in place if they had decided to “opt in.”
The revisions to the UCC weren’t enacted into law until mid-July, after the effective date of Tyrone’s ordinance. Code officer Lang informed council through a written and verbal report about the ramifications of the revisions which mainly dealt with residential repair issues.
At the Aug. 2 council meeting, Lang presented members with three options as to how the borough could handle the issues created by the Act 92 revisions.
First, he told council it could enforce the UCC with all the exemptions as permitted under the new law (Act 92). Second, he said the borough could enforce the UCC and also require permits for any repairs and alterations to residential structures as previously required under the borough’s pre-July 1, 2004 building code which was governed by ordinance number 1046.
The borough’s third option would require the adoption of a new ordinance. Under that option, residents would need to secure permits for all repairs and alterations to residential structures as called for under the pre-Act 92 version of the UCC. Lang explained this would require permits and inspections for repairs such as to roofs, windows, sidewalks, porches and other interior and exterior remodeling. It would also require permits and inspections for electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems which the borough did not require permits for pre-July 1, but would have under the stricter version of the UCC, the one prior to the Act 92 exemptions.
At the Aug. 9 meeting, a discussion ensued about which direction the borough should go regarding its permit and inspection process. Lang was not at that meeting, but had previously told council he was enforcing the UCC using the second option he outlined, since in his words, “it is the direction the borough had used in the past.”
Lang had also advised council to consider the option which would require a new or amended ordinance-essentially the more stricter original version of the UCC.
At the Aug. 9 meeting, councilman Bill Fink expressed concern the borough could not use the second option, without first redrafting the ordinance. A process which would require the state’s Department of Labor and Industry to review it and approve it. According to discussions Fink said he had with state officials, a public hearing would also be required, after the state’s review and approval, before the council could adopt the new ordinance.
Lang told council he had come up with the three options for members to consider, after he spoke with Mitch Hoffman of the Governor’s Center for Local Government Services.
Attempts have been made to reach Hoffman for this and other articles by The Daily Herald and he has not returned the calls.
John Bolson of the state Department of Labor & Industry was also contacted. He referred inquires to the department’s press office.
Lang spoke with The Daily Herald on Thursday regarding the upcoming meeting and concerns involving the enforcement of the code. Lang was asked if he was working with the Department of Labor & Industry on the issue.
“I’ve not received any feedback from L & I regarding our code office (about) what we have adopted or what we are enforcing,” said Lang. “I don’t think it’s the department of L & I’s job to help the borough on what direction to take on this issue. I think it is strictly a borough issue. I think the department can only enforce what are the laws of the state of Pennsylvania and how they are written.
“We have a number of options-L & I doesn’t really care what direction you take, as long as you take one of the directions required by the state,” said Lang. “I don’t think it would be their job to give advice on which way you (go) as a borough (as long as it is within the scope of the law.)”
Lang said he would be available to the public at the special meeting to answer any questions on the UCC issues.
“My thoughts have already been known to the public as far as what I think about the code and what is coming up,” said Lang. “Now I think it is time for people to give their opinion on the code. I think it is very important they are heard. I’m sure council will consider all the options and do the best job they can in choosing the correct option for the Borough of Tyrone. I have total faith in the council, they will do what is right for the residents of the Borough of Tyrone.”
Lang also said he had been in touch with the borough’s solicitor regarding the construction code issues. He was asked if there was any question if the borough was operating within the current structure of the law.
His response was, “none whatsoever.”
“I feel as far as the options-definitely (the borough is operating within the law)-until someone tells me something different, I don’t see anything we are doing out(side) of the law,” said Lang.
Troy Thompson, a department of Labor & Industry spokesperson was asked about how Tyrone is handling the enforcement of its building regulations, in terms of the information presented by Lang to council, which The Daily Herald supplied to Thompson, in the form of Lang’s written report. He also independently concurred with Lang’s comments about the role of his department.
He said the department does not act to give advice to municipalities.
“Our role is enforce the act as instructed by the legislature,” said Thompson. “When they make changes to it we go out and we enforce it the way changes were made. We don’t offer advice or don’t discourage or encourage anyone from any type of action.
“What we are mainly out to do is educate the individual on what the law-the scope of the Uniform Construction Code is,” said Thompson.
Regarding Lang’s information to council from his July 2004 report, Thompson offered his thoughts after reviewing it with Bolson, the state Department of Labor & Industry’s UCC administrator.
“They are not going back to their former building code, (by using option two), there are going back to the stipulation in the (Uniform Construction) Code,” said Thompson. “If you had a building code which existed before 1999 which required permits for work which is excluded under Act 92, then you can go back to that. It is not necessarily going back to the entire (Tyrone building) code, only (following) that stipulation (under the UCC) which requires permits for the existing renovations and repairs that are outlined in Act 92.”
Thompson said in terms of the law, he said the borough was within it.
“After seeing what the borough is doing in writing, they are able to do that,” said Thompson.
He said it is not the same as going back to the borough’s old pre-July 1, 2004 ordinance. Thompson indicated based on the information as presented to him from Lang’s July 2004 code report to council, the borough was operating within the UCC and the ordinance which took effect on July 1.
If the borough required permits in the past for certain types of repairs (under its old code) they can continue to do so, according to Thompson.
Specifically, the original UCC brought into law under Act 45, states under Section 303 (b) (1), “…ordinances in effect on July 1, 1999…which contain provisions which equal or exceed the specific requirements of regulations…under the act shall remain in effect until such time as any such provisions fail to equal or exceed the minimum requirements of the regulations…under this act.”
The meeting on the UCC issues will begin at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, prior to the borough’s regular meeting at 7 p.m.
