Unsafe building due to structure fire- what is your procedure?

[JimmyTreeX]

I’m trying to find out how other code departments handle an unsafe building due to fire damage. So in my city, the Fire Department calls us to the scene of all structure fires so we can take over the enforcement aspect of getting the property repaired or demolished, as well as the maintenance of the property until it’s repaired or demolished. One thing we used to do as part of the procedure is issue the owner a ticket for an unsafe building immediately after the fire. We only did this to try and prevent the owner from “running.”

I am posting this to find out how other agencies handle this scenario. I am also looking for feedback on issuing the owner a ticket because I understand why we did that, but I also find that process to be pretty harsh.

Appreciate any feedback. Thank you.

 

[e hilton]

What do you mean by running? Abandon the property? How is a ticket going to stop that?

When you arrive at the scene of the fire, who has the knowledge of determining if a house can be repaired, or needs to be torn down? Do you set a time limit for the work to begin?

 

[my250r11]

Fire calls us, we respond. The BO or Building inspector does an assessment of the structure. If unsafe to occupy, then it is deemed condemned and will be posted. Then Code enforcement follows it thru council and the legal process. If still occupiable then a disrepair will be issued. Both give the property owner 10 days to respond with there intentions. At this point they will decide if they are going to begin the process of clean up & repair or demo. This will let us decide what's next. If no response then we will follow thru with the condemnation. If we have to end up demolishing for safety of the public then we will and put lean on the property. They can get permits to repair or demo. We know sometime it takes some time to get thru the insurance as does our process. If in emanate danger of collapse we will call a contractor to demo right away.

 

[Genduct]

This is the situation that separates the Departments with experienced and perhaps licensed Engineers so they don't have to show "an over-abundance of caution" I can understand the reluctance to comment on Type IV construction with I Joist. But sawn lumber where the fire barely got beyond the drywall and little char on the 2 x lumber should allow a Trades Person like myself fell confident to render a sensible decision.

But at the end of the day, it will be determined on how "risk adverse" your department is , Me Thinks!

 

[Plumb-bob]

Generally for us, the fire department will take control of a site, and once the fire investigation is complete the property will be turned over the the insurance company, and I will deal with the adjuster. I like this because I do not have to make demands of an owner that is already in a tough spot. But it can be hard because the insurance companies are famous for taking months and months to get anything done. But when a property in not insured, things can get difficult, because I will be making demands that the owner must comply with.
We had a fire 2 nights ago, the roof is gone and the walls are at risk of collapse. The insurance company had the property fenced off within 24hrs, which I thought was quite good. Now I will be putting pressure on the insurance company to demo ASAP.

 

[Mark K]

The building department can take action against the Owner of the property not the insurance company. I do not understand what gives you power to put pressure on the insurance company? Given that the property is fenced it does not appear to have a safety problem demanding immediate action.

The decision to repair or demo should be one made between the Owner of the property and their insurance carrier.

 

[ICE]

I do not understand what gives you power to put pressure on the insurance company?

It's called filling a vacuum. Pressure is applied where it will do some good. Your lament that you don't understand is ridiculous. You understand perfectly well ... you know that your words fall on deaf ears.

The OP wants to find out how other jurisdictions deal with fire jobs. Not what you think their limits are. We are only limited by what we are willing to accept.

Yesterday there was a news story about a team of bus drivers rescuing a kidnapped child. I can guarantee that the drivers broke the school district's rules. Well they didn't much care about the rules and saved a toddler. Now I don't draw many parallels between what the bus drivers did and what we do....well there has been a time or two....but any way that you look at "the rules" you're going to see a few that need to be broken now and then. You Mark, have no capacity for that.

Some years back there was talk of promoting Mr. L. to office manager. Mr L. is a nice man, a structural engineer. I like him a lot....he taught me a lot. I came to understand that the best engineers follow the rules to a T. Never waiver, toe the line. The line might lead you off a cliff but rules are rules don't ya know. Had Mr. L. been the office manager inspectors would wear long sleeve white shirts and black ties.

 

[ICE]

Given that the property is fenced it does not appear to have a safety problem demanding immediate action.

How can you make a blanket statement? A fence and a sentence from you makes it safe? Oh excuse me...you said "appears to not have a safety problem." So you know better ... then why did you say it?

 

[Mark K]

I realize it is a crime to ask a question of a building official

 

[ICE]

I realize it is a crime to ask a question of a building official

I was going to say "Just the dumb ones" but there's a high likelihood that you would take that the wrong way.

The crime rate is on the rise ever since your campaign to de-fund the building departments.

We should get back to the OP’s question. To that goal I will relate my experience with fire jobs. They usually come up after hours and involve overtime pay. The fire dept will call us out for the simplest occurrences and sometimes not at all. A car in a house or a house gone, it seems odd that the fire dept needs us to condemn a building.

I showed up to a fire job. There was half a dozen fire chasers hanging out waiting to get a board up contract. I went to the front door and the lady that answered proceeded to scream at me to leave them alone. A man inside caught my eye and recognized that I was the inspector so he stepped up and invited me in. I did my assessment and left through the front door. As I passed the fire chasers I said, “You can go home now, I got the job”. They moaned and commenced to disperse. As I walked to my truck I found myself walking next to a lady fire chaser. I told her to sit tight and wait for the owners to settle down.

 

[Keystone]

Fire calls us, we respond. The BO or Building inspector does an assessment of the structure. If unsafe to occupy, then it is deemed condemned and will be posted. Then Code enforcement follows it thru council and the legal process. If still occupiable then a disrepair will be issued. Both give the property owner 10 days to respond with there intentions. At this point they will decide if they are going to begin the process of clean up & repair or demo. This will let us decide what's next. If no response then we will follow thru with the condemnation. If we have to end up demolishing for safety of the public then we will and put lean on the property. They can get permits to repair or demo. We know sometime it takes some time to get thru the insurance as does our process. If in emanate danger of collapse we will call a contractor to demo right away.

Same procedure but we politely ask for basic insurance info, a call from us tends to speed things along and if not us then the solicitor

 

[Plumb-bob]

The responsibility is ultimately with the property owner. In the specific situation I am outlining above, the owner is elderly and easily confused, I could bark at her all day but it would achieve nothing.
There was another situation where a building was largely destroyed by fire, and there was a disagreement between the owner and the insurance company about whether the building should be repaired or replaced. The disagreement dragged on for months, and the building stood as a hazard while they were arguing. We eventually pursued a Remedial Action Order against the owner and had the building demolished, the owner then took legal action against the insurance company for costs incurred.
It gets messy sometimes, but I always try to work in the public interest of safety, by what route is available. The outcome is ultimately more important than the process.

 

[ICE]

Here is an example of what we are sent to inspect. The back wall was braced with tilt-up wall braces and it sat for several years. When the owner finally attempted to rebuild there was a request that a structural engineer evaluate and approve the reuse of the wall. That's when it was removed.

 

[tmurray]

I'm sure if we stopped involving insurance companies in decisions related to the future of their insured buildings, we would have a law on the books real fast requiring us to involve them.

 

[SCBO1]

If you have adopted the IFC and made no addendums section 104.11 gives the Fire Chief or someone under him/her the power durning the fire incident. I once arrived at a fire scene here durning business hours and was yelled at by the FC to move my vehicle, it might have been in the way for a future fire hydrant hose connection?? maybe another pumper was comming? Maybe his Jimmy Johns order needed to get through? who knows for sure. But since I not a firefighter and I wasn't called I left the scene, and went to the next inspection.

I usually find out about a fire from reading the weekly paper. A lot of times the house is already boarded up and I'll need the property owner to let me in if they are cordiaI. After talking with the owner I will get insurance information and ask the contractor for a copy of the insurance report when they apply for a permit. Here if over 50% damage the insurance company has to provide the Muni with funds that we deposit in the Muni's bank. If theres any interest on that money they are entitled to it and funds are given back after final inspection approval.

FIRE BROKE OUT PYROMANIA LANE

News lady: What caused the fire, Chief?

Fire Chief: We'll Fuzzy the cat was messing with Goldy the goldfish and water from the fish bowl splashed on the HIFI plug, which shorted out the receptacle which caught the drapes on fire. The fire went up the wall and there was no horizontal blocking which the building inspector musta missed when he did his inspection is my guess. Witnesses said they saw the inspector down at Joe's bar playing pool with some engineer buddies for a quarter a game and may or may not had been drinking that day, we couldn't verify that.

News Lady: Could the fire have started by some poorly installed ROMEX by the sparky?

Fire Chief: We're looking into that, we'll circle back to that and let you know, I gotta go my sandwich is here!

News lady: We'll let you know when more details come in, back to to you Jeff in the studio!

The names in this story have been changed to protect the innocent.

 

[Genduct]

Fire calls us, we respond. The BO or Building inspector does an assessment of the structure. If unsafe to occupy, then it is deemed condemned and will be posted. Then Code enforcement follows it thru council and the legal process. If still occupiable then a disrepair will be issued. Both give the property owner 10 days to respond with there intentions. At this point they will decide if they are going to begin the process of clean up & repair or demo. This will let us decide what's next. If no response then we will follow thru with the condemnation. If we have to end up demolishing for safety of the public then we will and put lean on the property. They can get permits to repair or demo. We know sometime it takes some time to get thru the insurance as does our process. If in emanate danger of collapse we will call a contractor to demo right away.

So your Dept does an ENGINEEERING REVIEW and determines the structural Fitness of the Structure.
HMMM Do you have a Professional Engineer on Staff that is offering a PROFESSIONAL OPINION ?
Seems our job is REVIEWING and not Design or Structural Analysis
Shouldn't you require the Review and Report of a Professional; Engineer ?

 

[Genduct]

So your Dept does an ENGINEEERING REVIEW and determines the structural Fitness of the Structure.
HMMM Do you have a Professional Engineer on Staff that is offering a PROFESSIONAL OPINION ?
Seems our job is REVIEWING and not Design or Structural Analysis
Shouldn't you require the Review and Report of a Professional; Engineer ?

seems it would be prudent to put the building off limits or limited access until the Engineer review and report determine the structural integrity of the structure

 

[tmurray]

So your Dept does an ENGINEEERING REVIEW and determines the structural Fitness of the Structure.
HMMM Do you have a Professional Engineer on Staff that is offering a PROFESSIONAL OPINION ?
Seems our job is REVIEWING and not Design or Structural Analysis
Shouldn't you require the Review and Report of a Professional; Engineer ?

Likely will depend on local laws. This is ours:

The Minister shall not proceed to act under para‐
graph 7(1)(c) unless the Minister has a report from an ar‐
chitect, an engineer, a building inspector or the fire mar‐
shal that the building or structure is dilapidated or
structurally unsound and that report is proof in the ab‐
sence of evidence to the contrary that the building or
structure is dilapidated or structurally unsound.

Architects, engineers, building officials, and the fire marshal are all seen as qualified to determine if a building is dilapidated here.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Likely will depend on local laws. This is ours:

The Minister shall not proceed to act under para‐
graph 7(1)(c) unless the Minister has a report from an ar‐
chitect, an engineer, a building inspector or the fire mar‐
shal that the building or structure is dilapidated or
structurally unsound and that report is proof in the ab‐
sence of evidence to the contrary that the building or
structure is dilapidated or structurally unsound.

Architects, engineers, building officials, and the fire marshal are all seen as qualified to determine if a building is dilapidated here.

Further to what tmurrray states, in our neck of the backwoods, a by-law officer has to demonstrate that a building is dangerous to the public by means of its structural condition, state of dilapidation or - interestingly - by means of being vacant and unoccupied.

 

[Genduct]

Likely will depend on local laws. This is ours:

The Minister shall not proceed to act under para‐
graph 7(1)(c) unless the Minister has a report from an ar‐
chitect, an engineer, a building inspector or the fire mar‐
shal that the building or structure is dilapidated or
structurally unsound and that report is proof in the ab‐
sence of evidence to the contrary that the building or
structure is dilapidated or structurally unsound.

Architects, engineers, building officials, and the fire marshal are all seen as qualified to determine if a building is dilapidated here.

WOW, All those subjective terms like DILAPIDATED !!!!!!!!!
But I notice we are part of that August Group of Know It ALLS
I don't think they are in our definitions.
WHAT ARE WE TO DO WITH THESE UNDEFINED TERMS?

What is Structurally UNSOUND? SO, how much FIre Char are we allowed to have before it is considered UNSAFE.
But Unsafe to inspect? Certainly not safe enough to re-occupy.

It is OUR Responsibility to exercise JUDGEMENT. AND You can't have Responsibility WITHOUT Authority

This is not to suggest that an initial overabundance of Caution is always a Good Idea.

SOund like I am hedging my bets? Not really, Just being as careful as the situation requires. For Instance, I would not insist on a DEMO without giving the owner an opportunity to get some design Professionals in there to help figure out the economic alternatives

This is what they hire us to do!

 

[Inspector Gadget]

WOW, All those subjective terms like DILAPIDATED !!!!!!!!!
But I notice we are part of that August Group of Know It ALLS
I don't think they are in our definitions.
WHAT ARE WE TO DO WITH THESE UNDEFINED TERMS?

When terms are not defined, the best approach is to look at common-law decisions that help define these terms.

1) In McLaren v. Castlegar (City), 2010 BCSC, three standards of “dilapidated” are introduced:

a) that the renovation/repair of a building would exceed one half of its assessed value, and/or​

b) that the cost of remediation exceeds the reasonable estimated cost of demolition and rebuilding of a similar structure.​

c) that the structure is uninhabitable in its present condition​

The report for the Castlegar officials reads, in part:
“... the building is now at the point that more than fifty per cent (50%) of its assessed value has been affected. Due to the aforementioned conditions, in my opinion the buildings are uninhabitable in their current condition and pose a risk to any person entering into these buildings and should be demolished or repaired immediately. In my opinion, based on the current condition of the buildings the cost to repair the buildings to the standards in the B.C. Building Code 2006 and all other applicable enactments has the potential to exceed the costs of demolishing the buildings and rebuilding.”

2) Watters and Town of Glace Bay, 1987 NSSC repeats the general principle of considering a building dilapidated if the cost of repair exceeds the value of the building.

3) White v Amherst (Town), 2019 NSSC also relied on the test of occupancy or habitability. The building in question was not deemed structurally unsound, but was of such a state if disrepair that it was deemed unfit for occupancy.. An order to demolish was ultimately issued, and deemed reasonable by the Court.

4) In Kamsack (Town) v Kaushik, 2014 SKCA, officials with the Town of Kamsack used the test that demolition was appropriate where the cost of required work exceeded the value of the property. Language used by engineers speaks to this approach:
“Due to the extensive upgrades required to the unit to meet acceptable Engineering Standards for residential housing, it is considered uneconomical to do so. We therefore recommend the unit be demolished and the site property be levelled.”

These four cases (among others) introduce an objective framework for what some may consider a subjective approach.

 

[Genduct]

When terms are not defined, the best approach is to look at common-law decisions that help define these terms.

1) In McLaren v. Castlegar (City), 2010 BCSC, three standards of “dilapidated” are introduced:

a) that the renovation/repair of a building would exceed one half of its assessed value, and/or​

b) that the cost of remediation exceeds the reasonable estimated cost of demolition and rebuilding of a similar structure.​

c) that the structure is uninhabitable in its present condition​

The report for the Castlegar officials reads, in part:
“... the building is now at the point that more than fifty per cent (50%) of its assessed value has been affected. Due to the aforementioned conditions, in my opinion the buildings are uninhabitable in their current condition and pose a risk to any person entering into these buildings and should be demolished or repaired immediately. In my opinion, based on the current condition of the buildings the cost to repair the buildings to the standards in the B.C. Building Code 2006 and all other applicable enactments has the potential to exceed the costs of demolishing the buildings and rebuilding.”

2) Watters and Town of Glace Bay, 1987 NSSC repeats the general principle of considering a building dilapidated if the cost of repair exceeds the value of the building.

3) White v Amherst (Town), 2019 NSSC also relied on the test of occupancy or habitability. The building in question was not deemed structurally unsound, but was of such a state if disrepair that it was deemed unfit for occupancy.. An order to demolish was ultimately issued, and deemed reasonable by the Court.

4) In Kamsack (Town) v Kaushik, 2014 SKCA, officials with the Town of Kamsack used the test that demolition was appropriate where the cost of required work exceeded the value of the property. Language used by engineers speaks to this approach:
“Due to the extensive upgrades required to the unit to meet acceptable Engineering Standards for residential housing, it is considered uneconomical to do so. We therefore recommend the unit be demolished and the site property be levelled.”

These four cases (among others) introduce an objective framework for what some may consider a subjective approach.

This is why I like this Forum, great Info, THANK YOU

In my area I can think of an aspect that your legal opinions did not address.
That is, the existing building falls under the Ext'g Bldg Code and NOT the New Bldg Code or perhaps local Zoning aspects with Use or the Continuing, Legal, Non-Conforming aspects of the ext'g structure
THIS ALSO HAS AN ECONOMIC/ VALUE NOT REFLECTED IN THE TAX ASSESSMENT BEING USED AS THE "STANDARD'

As a Bldg Code Person, that is a double Yellow Line, that I would Not Like To Cross.
The Economic value or implications of the OWNER'S RIGHTS ARE ALSO AN ISSUE

What a Swamp! That is what makes this job so Interesting

What do you think? I like your thoughtful and thorough Responses

Best, Mike

 

[tmurray]

c) that the structure is uninhabitable in its present condition

This is the one we encounter on a regular basis. When the owner is either unwilling or unable to make the building habitable, this is where we typically kick in.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

This is why I like this Forum, great Info, THANK YOU

In my area I can think of an aspect that your legal opinions did not address.
That is, the existing building falls under the Ext'g Bldg Code and NOT the New Bldg Code or perhaps local Zoning aspects with Use or the Continuing, Legal, Non-Conforming aspects of the ext'g structure
THIS ALSO HAS AN ECONOMIC/ VALUE NOT REFLECTED IN THE TAX ASSESSMENT BEING USED AS THE "STANDARD'

We can't retroactively apply code; however, we do have the avenue to evaluate whether the scope of required repairs is of such a scale as Codes would apply.

The key test is reasonableness. If the roof is leaking, and there's evidence of extensive moisture damage in the sheathing and attic insulation, it's appropriate to obtain an estimate for replacing the sheathing and basic shingles because that's what a reasonable, prudent "average" homeowner would do.

If the attic isn't insulated to Code, but the insulation is being removed, it's appropriate to estimate replacement to Code, because that's what would be required for renovating a similar structure that wasn't under the lens of enforcement scrutiny.

You do raise a valid point about estimating costs. One of our inspectors has previous experience with loss/damage assessment, and we're bringing him into the equation just to help