Rhode Island’s building inspection code may get a facelift.
Last year a 16-person committee was formed by the General Assembly to draft a new code that would consolidate Rhode Island’s building and fire codes into a single user-friendly rehabilitation code for existing industrial and commercial buildings. The target for completion of the new code is July 1, 2001.
Beyond Cash Donations: How New Forms of Giving Are Transforming Not-for-Profit Accounting
Evolving Funding Landscape for Not-for-Profits Not-for-profit organizations are being asked to do more with less,…
Learn More
After the committee approves the code, it will be reviewed further by participating committee groups such as the State Building Codes Standards Committee, and be subject to a public hearing.
In support of the speedy rehabilitation of the codes, Pawtucket Mayor James Doyle recently wrote a letter to all Northern Rhode Island mayors, urging them to contact the Providence-based “Committee on Drafting the Rehabilitation Building and Fire Code for Existing Buildings and Structures,” to show support.
What supporters are hoping for is that while ensuring older buildings are safe, the rehabilitated code would save property owners money, and thus the property owners may be more likely to rehabilitate buildings.
Doyle said in a letter to George Farrell, chairman of the committee, that the rehabilitation would help attract artists to Pawtucket.
“Many property owners view Rhode Island’s current codes to be too cumbersome, the process too long and too costly to rehabilitate old mill properties, especially for residential use,” he said. “A growing number of artists have contacted the city’s department of planning and redevelopment seeking live/work space in unused and underutilized mill space in the district, which is in the heart of our downtown. At this time, there is no economically feasible way to rehabilitate these properties for this use.”
The inspiration for the new code was the success New Jersey has been having with similar rehabilitation.
Scott Wolf, executive director of Grow Smart Rhode Island said the impetus for the rehabilitation also lies in the fact that a lot of old buildings cannot easily meet standards for new construction.
Simply because the buildings do not meet today’s standards of safety, said Wolf, doesn’t mean they can’t still be “safe and viable structures generating economic activity.”
Morris Nathanson, director of Morris Nathanson Design, owns two mill buildings located next to one another in Pawtucket. Called Blackstone Studios, one is in good condition and is home to 14 artists. If it were economically feasible to rehabilitate the other building, it would open eight additional loft spaces. Nathanson said there is a reason why a mill building should not have to meet the same requirements as a newly constructed building.
“The mill properties are very different from your average construction because mill properties were originally over-designed to consider fire,” he said. “The size of the wood and the materials used were more than necessary for the structure to be safe. It was done so the mill owners would get a favorable insurance rate.”
Herbert Weiss, program manager for development projects in Pawtucket, explained why Pawtucket might be behind the rehabilitation more than any other areas in Rhode Island.
“The city is really trying to see this process through because there is a need to be able to give property owners a way to reduce the regulatory obstacles to rehabilitating old mill properties while ensuring the safety of the occupants,” he said.
Daniel Baudouin, executive director of the Providence Foundation, said Pawtucket is pushing so hard because of the amount of vacant mill space there, but they aren’t the only ones in the state pushing.
“Pawtucket is certainly pushing hard for it, along with other areas,” said Baudouin. “It’s just one of those laws that we really need to take a fresh look at.”
The desired characteristics of the code, as set forth by the Providence Foundation:
- One code that includes building and fire requirements, and that is easily readable and understandable
- No inconsistencies between building and fire requirements
- No duplication; clear responsibilities for building and fire regulations
- Code that will result in a minimum need for variances
- Code that will result in a minimum need for interpretation by code officials, architects and engineers; a code that allows a development and owners to predict, easily, code requirements
- Elimination of the 50 percent – value/cost trigger for new construction code compliance; requirements should be “existing building” requirements
- Develop a new “change of use” provision; it should allow for partial change of use without triggering a new construction code or work in entire building; change of use requirements should be based on the hazard prevention needs of the new use; buildings should be no less safe than prior to ‘rehab’
- The code and its requirements should be based on the scale of the project (repair, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, change in use or addition) and the type of planned use; the code requirements are in proportion to the work planned.
