Building Permits

Keep in mind that the 50% is probably related to the market value of the building, relative to the Department of Finance’s assessed value. There’s an overly complicated formula that takes the DOF Estimated Market Value, and multiplies that by a value determined by the relative values of the house and the land, and then multiplying the resulting value by 1.25, to finally arrive at what the DOB calls the Market Value, which typically ends up being higher than the DOF value.

You then compare the cost of the alterations against the calculated market value. If it’s less than 30% you may be able to waive a builder’s paving plan. If less than 50%, you’re not required to make it accessible (if a multifamily). If less than 60%, you may be able to waive sprinklers.

And I believe up until the 2014 code, it could have meant the difference between filing a permit for a new building or an alteration. If 50% or more, you might have had to file a new building application instead of a renovation, which obviously means a lot more red tape.

This all has nothing at all to do with wh ether or not the application if professionally certified (self-cert).

What makes this whole thing somewhat arbitrary is whether or not the property has undergone previous renovations. The DOF is only allowed to raise your property taxes by a fixed amount (6% I think) each year, unless there’s a renovation. During the renovation, the DOF can reassess at a much higher rate, based upon the declared cost of the alteration filed with the DOB (thus the lying about construction costs).

So in some of our projects in buildings that have been renovated, the DOF value is high, which raises the DOB value, which makes it easier to avoid some of these requirements. In others, where the buildings had never been renovated, their tax assessments never went up more than the legal maximum, so their value was depressed. Because of that, the threshold for waiving those requirements was unreasonably low, making it impossible to avoid those requirements.

Hope this sheds some light.

Jim Hill, RA, LEED AP, CPHD

This is somewhat new to me. The whole self certified RA/gc and how a space is either built within what they are permitted and approved for vs, what really happens on the site is a interesting learning concept for me….Seems like it’s big $$ for the relationships that happen between ra, gc, etc and what really happens on the build vs. what is permitted and done – and just hoping it’s not inspected once it’s all said and done….

My former neighborhood, I’ve observed at least 2 places where it was gutted, built, inspected and then 2 months later….2 family CO’s were magically converted to illegal 6 units (I presume with plumbing, etc) all hidden in walls but laid out – waiting to ~converted~.

looks like the 50% can also trigger a construction site superintendent requirement. As for who’s in hot water if the work isn’t done according to the filed plans there are a few answers.
1) it’s very common and not necessarily due to shadiness of architect or contractor – shit happens in construction, new conditions discovered, etc. so a Post Approval Amendment gets filed to show the changes.
2) if DOB inspects during construction and finds work being done contrary to the approved drawings they can issue a violation (i believe this violation would be in the name of the GC), which is then resolved through the filing of a PAA and attending a hearing/paying a fee.
3) if work is done contrary to the permit, no inspection occurs, and everyone moves on with their lives, it is the building owner who will be in trouble the next time they go to do work or try to sell the building.

looks like the 50% can also trigger a construction site superintendent requirement. As for who’s in hot water if the work isn’t done according to the filed plans there are a few answers.
1) it’s very common and not necessarily due to shadiness of architect or contractor – shit happens in construction, new conditions discovered, etc. so a Post Approval Amendment gets filed to show the changes.
2) if DOB inspects during construction and finds work being done contrary to the approved drawings they can issue a violation (i believe this violation would be in the name of the GC), which is then resolved through the filing of a PAA and attending a hearing/paying a fee.
3) if work is done contrary to the permit, no inspection occurs, and everyone moves on with their lives, it is the building owner who will be in trouble the next time they go to do work or try to sell the building.

Ah. You’re right. Once it’s self signed, and approved, then generally the GC files and pretty much just works starts immediate..

When one starts to ~build~ to a different set of plans….than the approved plans, or does more than >50%, and it ends up on a full gut down to the shell (literally), who’s in hot water then if DOB comes to visit. The GC or the architect on record.

I literally see this all around I go, or even where it’s <50% on the permit, but it's a full gut include putting steel in to raise the 1st floor and 2nd floor 15 inches, etc -- to make the basement a extra livable oonversion....

Fyi its not the GC that decides how to file and what to tell the DOB regarding percentage of work. That is up to the architect of record. The GC just pulls a permit for whatever plans the architect has filed and gotten approved by the DOB.

It used to be that renovations affecting 50% or less didn’t require upgrading to the most recent energy code, but it looks like Local Law 85 changed that so I’m not sure why folks would still be doing it. My guess is there’s another code stipulation that would force additional upgrades for a renovation of more than 50% of a building.

It used to be that renovations affecting 50% or less didn’t require upgrading to the most recent energy code, but it looks like Local Law 85 changed that so I’m not sure why folks would still be doing it. My guess is there’s another code stipulation that would force additional upgrades for a renovation of more than 50% of a building.