# Work not completed



## NH09 (Sep 20, 2010)

I was wondering what other BO's are doing when a permit expires but the work has not been completed. Right now we do not do anything, but I was thinking of putting a letter in the file documenting the inspections that have not been performed and condition of the project (if visible from street).


----------



## Yankee (Sep 20, 2010)

Good idea.


----------



## D a v e W (Sep 20, 2010)

Interesting, we send a 45 & 7 day expiration notice to the contractor and property owner. Generally this gets a response. If no response we forward it to code enforcement.


----------



## cda (Sep 20, 2010)

So how do you force someone to complete a project????

Yes there maybe other non building code issues that can be enforced or depending on the project not let them occupy use whatever the permit is for


----------



## vegas paul (Sep 20, 2010)

If no response is gotten from our notifications (basically, the project is abandoned), then we put a notice on the property title which stays until the work is completed, and notifies any potential buyer that the completion is their responsibility.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 20, 2010)

vegas paul said:
			
		

> If no response is gotten from our notifications (basically, the project is abandoned), then we put a notice on the property title which stays until the work is completed, and notifies any potential buyer that the completion is their responsibility.


I wish I could do that here. Would you link to the legislation/ordinance that allows you to do that?


----------



## fatboy (Sep 20, 2010)

We also send notices out 30-60 days out, usually gets a response. Will do progress inspections showing work is actually progressing. If in fact it has stalled, we expire the permit and that status stays in the system. Future buyers should be doing their due diligence, and find that there is "unfinished" work.


----------



## Mac (Sep 20, 2010)

Here's what I use - the purpose is to get somebody to call and give us an update. If they need another permit, heck I'll get them one no prob!

RE: Building Permit #

The Building Permit referenced above for your project is now over one year old, and has expired. Our records do not indicate that a final inspection was requested, nor has a Certificate of Occupancy been approved for the project. If the work has been completed, you may contact the Village Code Enforcement office to schedule the final inspection.

Please be advised that the Village of Hamilton Code Section 73-7A requires a final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy be approved prior to any use of the rooms and spaces referenced in the work areas. In the event the Village receives any inquiry regarding the property, we must comply with the New York State laws and disclose the uncompleted status of the building permit.


----------



## NH09 (Sep 20, 2010)

Maybe a certified letter to the homeowner stating the work is not completed and they cannot occupy that part of the structure until the project is approved (with a copy placed in the file). We do send out a letter at 30 day prior to expiration as well as a phone call. Most people just ignore it.


----------



## NH09 (Sep 20, 2010)

I just realized thats what Mac reccommended - great idea. We don't have any local ordinance that covers that, but I can always quote the applicable section of the code.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 20, 2010)

Even with the letters, which I do send, if they are ignored then the project just sits there. I think I will add to my letters that expired/no progress projects are required to apply for and receive a new building permit before work commences based on the code year in place at that time.

At least this way there is some record that new code changes will have to be addressed.

Unless the property is judged to be a hazard to the community, there isn't much that can be done.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Sep 21, 2010)

Aside from the lack of a final inspection / C of O / closing out of permit aspect, we have a defined nuisance in our ordinances which declares as a nuisance any project "under construction or has been under construction and remains uncompleted for an unreasonable period of time or the construction thereof is not diligently and promptly pursued to completion".  This gives us - 1.)a basis for denial of a renewal of a permit (if their only purpose for renewing is to keep us off their backs for another year), because the building is not in compliance with "pertinent laws" (§R105.3.1), and 2.)  a mechanism to cite them into court where timelines and penalties can be imposed.


----------



## D a v e W (Sep 24, 2010)

I must say that our ordinance does allows a one time permit extension of 1 year within 60 days of expiration date. Nothing past that.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 24, 2010)

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> Aside from the lack of a final inspection / C of O / closing out of permit aspect, we have a defined nuisance in our ordinances which declares as a nuisance any project "under construction or has been under construction and remains uncompleted for an unreasonable period of time or the construction thereof is not diligently and promptly pursued to completion".  This gives us - 1.)a basis for denial of a renewal of a permit (if their only purpose for renewing is to keep us off their backs for another year), because the building is not in compliance with "pertinent laws" (§R105.3.1), and 2.)  a mechanism to cite them into court where timelines and penalties can be imposed.


That sounds great on the surface, but the end result may not be so desirable. Most times when the job falters it is due to lack of money, and with your process the town would end up owning the parcel which is fine if it is really a danger/nuisance. But if it is simply an unfinished shell, for instance, I don't see that as a good fit.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Sep 25, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> That sounds great on the surface, but the end result may not be so desirable. Most times when the job falters it is due to lack of money, and with your process the town would end up owning the parcel which is fine if it is really a danger/nuisance. But if it is simply an unfinished shell, for instance, I don't see that as a good fit.


We wouldn't typically prosecute an "unfinished shell"-type project under this ordinance.  The only times (in my experience) we employ it is when a homeowner constructs an addition or installs siding, and fails to get the exterior 'buttoned up' in a reasonable amount of time (a year after start, osb or housewrap is still exposed).  Citing that owner into court compels him or her to at least get the exterior finished; otherwise under the code administrative provisions, the issuance of a permit is a ministerial act, and so long as an applicant renews the permit when required, a project can be left in the same condition for all of infinity.


----------



## peach (Sep 25, 2010)

When a department has sufficient resources (including some kind of tickler file - electronic tickler file), it's easier to track.  When a jurisdiction is sufficiently busy, it's harder to keep up with permits that expire.  Generally, it's complaint generated.


----------

