Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA015 - Memo dated December 14, 2010 from City Attorney addressing concerns from Ames Rental Association 4 r 1 • Memo Legal Department Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service TO: The Honorable Ann Campbell,Mayor, and Members of the City Council FROM: Douglas R. Marek, City Attorney AA DATE: December 14, 2010 SUBJECT: Response to ARA Request Concerning Plumbing Issues The ARA requested five changes concerning plumbing issues related to rental housing in Ames. I am providing for the Council's consideration the following comments regarding each request: 1. The ARA requested that the Council take action"to bring unvented S traps into compliance with the code and to have it considered a technical violation to the plumbing code and allowed to continue as long as they are noted and the technology is maintained in a not unsafe manner." The action requested by ARA to address unvented S traps does not comply with the Iowa Code. Since 1907, the City of Ames has required that all plumbing fixtures be separately trapped and vented. Unvented S traps have never be permitted by ordinance in the City of Ames,and since 1956 all S traps have been specifically prohibited. See Ames Municipal Code §52.18.7(b) (1956)("S Traps are prohibited.") The Uniform Plumbing Code,which is adopted as the State Plumbing Code and is applicable to all buildings in Iowa,allows for plumbing in existing buildings to remain in place but only if such work "was installed and is maintained in accordance with law in effect prior to the effective date of this code." Since unvented S traps in existing buildings in Ames were not installed in accordance with Ames ordinances in effect at the time of their installation,the UPC does not allow for them to remain in place. Even if unvented S traps had been installed in compliance ordinances in effect at the time,the UPC allows them to remain in place only if they are not"dangerous,unsafe,insanitary,or a nuisance and a menace to life,health, or property." The potential danger from unvented S traps is that the water seal may fail allowing sewer gas to enter the structure. As stated in the information provided by the Des Moines City Attorney,"trapping and open vents and similar instances where plumbing gasses may enter the property are a health risk, and are ordered corrected [in the City of Des Moines]." f 2. The ARA requested that Municipal Code§13.600(3)be amended to replace the words"repaired or replaced"with the word"new." Apparently the ARA is proposing that the rental housing code section titled"Plumbing Facilities and Fixture Requirements"read as follows: "New Work Must Comply. New Plumbing items shall comply with current City of Ames Plumbing Code and all other relevant standards." The proposed change would allow property owners with non-compliant plumbing in existing buildings to continue the use of non-compliant parts for repair or replacement. To the extent that this proposed change would allow plumbing that did not comply with the code in effect at the time of its installation,it raises the same concerns as the proposal for unvented S traps described above. That is, if the work was non-compliant when installed, the UPC does not allow for the repair or replacement with non-compliant parts. To the extent that the proposed change addresses repair or replacement of plumbing work that was compliant with code when installed, the change would satisfy the requirements of the UPC unless the conditions were dangerous, unsafe, etc. However, the proposed change would be at odds with identical language regarding repair and replacement of mechanical and electrical items. The proposed change would also be at odds with the goal set out in the State Code, that city housing procedures shall be designed to improve housing conditions. 3. The ARA's third request is to amend Municipal Code §13.400(4) as follows: "Minimum Property Maintenance Standards. New Work to Comply. All building,electrical,and mechanical,mid that are repaired or replaced shall meet the building, electrical, and mechanical, codes in effect at the time the work is performed, unless otherwise specified in this Code." This third request would have the same effect and raises the same considerations addressed in#2 above. 4. The ARA's fourth proposal is to grant the Property Maintenance Appeal Board the power to grant code modifications in section 13.108(8)when strict compliance with the code is impractical. It appears that the PMAB already has the authority requested by the ARA. Currently the Rental Housing Code at section 13.103(1)provides the Building Official with the authority to grant code modifications upon a finding that in special circumstances strict compliance with the letter of the law is impractical,that a proposed modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of the Code, and that such modification does not lessen health, life, and fire safety requirements. The details of any code modification granted by the Building Official are then recorded and maintained in the records of the Inspection Division. A decision of the Building Official,granting or denying a code modification,can be appealed to the Property Maintenance Appeal Board. The Board can affirm,modify,or reverse the decision. Any appeal from a decision of the Board can then be appealed to the District Court as a judicial review of an administrative agency action. 5. The ARA's fifth proposal is to grant the Building Code Board of Appeals the power to grant code modifications in section 5.609 when strict compliance with the code is impractical. This request is similar to#4, above,but it applies to issues of building, electrical,mechanical, and plumbing codes that are within the review authority of the Building Code Board of Appeals. It appears that the Building Code Board of Appeals already has the authority requested by ARA. Currently the Building, Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Code at section 5.102(13)provides the Building Official with the authority to grant code modifications upon a finding that in special circumstances strict compliance with the letter ofthe law is impractical,that a proposed modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of the Code,and that such modification does not lessen health, life, and fire safety requirements. The details of any code modification granted by the Building Official are then recorded and maintained in the records of the Inspection Division. A decision of the Building Official,granting or denying a code modification,can be appealed to the Property Maintenance Appeal Board. The Board can affirm,modify,or reverse the decision. Any appeal from a decision of the Board can then be appealed to the District Court as a judicial review of an administrative agency action.