The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) is one of the 11 new building codes of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Construction Code (UCC), developed by the International Code Council and adopted statewide. The IEBC or “rehab code” applies to existing buildings of any age and establishes a more appropriate way of evaluating the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition, and relocation of existing buildings. By simplifying and improving the regulatory structure for work on existing buildings, the IEBC makes reuse more predictable and affordable and has the potential to provide an economic boost to main streets and older neighborhoods around the state.
In New Jersey, the implementation of a rehab code helped stimulate a significant increase in rehabilitation activity and economic development. In the first year after the rehab code took effect, activity in New Jersey’s five largest cities increased 60% over the previous year, with Jersey City showing and 84% increase, Newark a 59% increase, and Trenton a 40% increase. [1] After two years, rehab work increased a total of 92%. [2]
Pennsylvania’s rehab code has the same potential to spark reinvestment in declining older communities as a tool for economic growth, the preservation of historic resources, and responsible land use and development.
However, there are issues related to the code’s implementation, such as a fee schedule that favors new construction and an advisory regarding current certificates of occupancy, which present obstacles to revitalization efforts by municipalities and developers.
The state established a fee schedule setting fees that are significantly and prohibitively more expensive for the renovation of existing buildings. For example, a new 40,000 square foot office building would require about an $8,000 fee, while a $1M renovation of an existing 40,000 square foot office building would require about a $20,000 fee. 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, AIA Pennsylvania, Preservation PA, and developers and builders committed to urban renewal, view the fee schedule as contrary and detrimental to the both the Administration’s and General Assembly’s efforts to boost revitalization and redevelop and build on assets already in place. In addition:
§ All municipalities and third-party code officials could view DLI’s fees as a standard or baseline rate and source of revenue, driving development costs up and decreasing investments in reuse and renovation, making housing projects unaffordable, and encouraging more lucrative greenfield development.
§ In its September 10, 2004 News Flash, the Pennsylvania Economic Development Association (PEDA) reported concerns over exorbitant inspection fees and building permits being charged by municipalities, increasing the cost of one project by more than $500,000.
§ As of December 29, 2004, 282 municipalities opted out of enforcing the code themselves. That means DLI will be responsible for all commercial code enforcement in 150 boroughs, 2 cities, and 130 townships. (Certified third party agencies hired by property owners or their contractors will enforce the residential requirements of the UCC in all opt-out municipalities.) Recent studies on population, development, and economic growth trends indicate that in order for Pennsylvania to be competitive with other states, policies and programs should maximize investments already made in established older communities. Pennsylvania cannot afford to discourage reinvestment in over 15% of the state’s boroughs.
The fee structure should be modified to encourage and ideally, favor, private sector redevelopment and reuse of existing structures.
The DLI issued an advisory that an “illegally existing” building is one that lacks any of the occupancy permits required under pre-UCC laws, regulations, and building code ordinances, and that these buildings will be treated like new construction. The advisory states, “Since the existing building is illegal, compliance with the IEBC is not an option. It must comply with the UCC requirements for a new building or structure, although variances may be sought from the municipal appeals board, the Pennsylvania Industrial Board or the Accessibility Advisory Board (depending on which board has jurisdiction).”
We believe this advisory is counter to the goals of supporting redevelopment in cities and towns and undermines the ability of local officials to control their destinies and revitalize their communities:
§ In order to attract economic development and preserve unique historic resources that define a community’s character and identity, municipalities must be able to promote the adaptive reuse of existing buildings under the new rehab code. Older buildings cannot meet the stringent requirements for doorway widths, window placement, etc.
§ Vacant, abandoned, and underutilized buildings are the kinds of structures local officials are striving to preserve and protect and many, if not most of these buildings do not have current certificates of occupancy.
The DLI advisory should be withdrawn and revised to support private sector investment in existing structures.
Given the enormous revitalization potential in Pennsylvania’s cities and towns, the building codes and other Administration policies should be used to encourage private sector development wherever possible, to level the development playing field for older communities.
