Before the project started the biggest issues were with the NYC Department of Buildings. We thought we had pretty much everything worked out, but once again they’re holding up progress on the project for the simple reason that they can’t manage to get their work done in a timely manner.

The problem is the sprinklers. When the mechanical engineer reviewed what the architect had proposed (and gotten preliminarily approved) he found that there wasn’t sufficient coverage and we needed a lot more sprinkler heads. We finally got everyone on the same page and the new sprinkler job was submitted to DOB on June 28th. It took them until July 1 to get it entered into the system and assigned to a plan examiner. The DOB says that they’ll get the initial plan review done on new jobs within two weeks. Well, today is 3 weeks since the job was submitted and the initial plan exam still isn’t done. I check the job status once or twice a day but it still just says “Assigned to P/E”.

The problem is we can’t do the new water main connection until the sprinklers are approved and we can’t get electrical and gas into the building until the water main connection is done. So we still have no running water and no electricity in the building. It’s amazing how much has been accomplished without water and electricity, but things would move a lot faster if we had them.

The issue is that there’s a decent chance they’ll come back with objections and then it will be at least another two weeks before we can get those resolved… It just never seems to end with DOB. Yes, we could self-certify, but that’s a dangerous thing to do in this case since if we’re wrong we might have to do the water main connection all over again (big $$$).

NYC’s Department of Buildings just seems like more of a hindrance than anything else. It’s one thing to enforce rules, it’s another to just arbitrarily slow down projects…

UPDATE:

We finally got the list of objections. Here they are…

68 heads? We don’t have 68 heads, we have 38 heads. All our documentation says 38 heads. The plans show 38 heads, but apparently we got rejected because the plan examiner couldn’t be bothered to get it right. He says the cost estimate is missing. It’s not. He says the certificate of no harassment is missing when it’s clearly available in the parent job for the sprinkler application. And now his objection is that we have 68 sprinkler heads.

Honestly, he just didn’t seem to care enough to get it right. Welcome to the NYC DOB. Meanwhile our project is delayed.

UPDATE #2:

The mechanical engineer chimed in and told us “<name of plan examiner> has never reviewed a set plans correct[ly]”. He then went on to detail for our expediter exactly why everything was fine and should have been approved. In other words this entire problem is because of an incompetent plan examiner. We have a meeting with him on Tuesday morning. Hopefully he’s not obstinate as well as incompetent.

This morning I was browsing Brownstoner and came across a post that mentioned that landmarked buildings are exempt from the NYS Energy Conservation Guidelines. I sent off a note to our architect and his expediter (who’s also an architect), and it seems the exemption is somewhat new. It’s somewhat ironic though, considering all the hassle DOB put our expediter though last year to show compliance with the 2007 energy code when it now appears we’re exempt.

Here’s the explanation of the exemptions:

Buildings & Spaces

• National- and State-designated historic buildings, buildings certified as contributing buildings within National or State historic districts, and buildings certified as eligible for such designation are exempt from the NYCECC (ECC 101.4.2).

Systems

• The building thermal envelope of low-energy buildings is exempt from the NYCECC (ECC 101.5.2).

Work Types

• Life-safety work types: FA, FP, SD, SP (ECC 101.6).
• Other work types not regulated by the ECC: FB, FS, EQ, CC, OT/BPP, OT/FPP, (ECC 101.3).

(Source)

Those codes will probably mean more to your architect than it does to you or me, but the big one is exemption from rules about the thermal envelope.

Of course, for practical reasons you want to be as energy efficient as possible, but this is the first case I’ve seen where landmarked buildings had less regulation than regular buildings – so it’s notable.

C of O issues @ DOB

Another post on Brownstoner is worth mentioning as well. DOB is requiring some poor homeowner to prove that their place is really 2 family when the DOB lists the building as 2 family and the DOF also lists it as 2 family. In other words, the DOB is not honoring their own building classification. The problem is larger buildings have I-Cards (the precursors to C of Os) which can prove prior approved usage, but with smaller buildings it’s extremely difficult to show when buildings were reclassified. In the case in question the building was converted from 1 family to 2 family in the 1930s.

Homeowner’s Night @ DOB

And lastly, I’ve been saying DOB really needs to help homeowners with their difficulties getting projects through the DOB bureaucracy. Well, it turns out DOB already does exactly that (who knew?) Tuesday night is Homeowner’s Night at DOB – from 4pm to 5:30. Just show up at your borough office and there will be someone to answer your questions. Though I did see someone recommend that you call first to confirm the meeting hasn’t been canceled.