Amendment of Rules Relating to Structurally Compromised Buildings

Online comments: 3

• M Erroll

  Public Comments Against the Proposed Rule on Structurally Compromised Buildings

  While the New York City Department of Buildings’ (DOB) intent to prioritize public safety by addressing structurally compromised buildings is commendable, the proposed rule’s punitive financial penalties, excessive administrative burdens, and lack of flexibility could undermine its effectiveness and fairness. Below are key reasons why the rule, as written, should not be passed in its current form:

  1. Excessive Financial Penalties Disproportionate to Violations
  The proposed penalties—$1,000/month for delayed initial/annual reports and $5,000/year for a missed final report—are punitive and risk disproportionately harming small property owners, landlords, and low-income communities.
  Impact on Small Businesses and Homeowners: A $1,000 monthly fine could cripple small property owners or tenants who lack the resources to immediately hire a Registered Design Professional (RDP) or address structural issues. For example, a property owner facing a $1,000/month penalty for a delayed report may prioritize paying fines over critical repairs, worsening public safety.
  No Proportional Scaling: Penalties are flat-rate and do not account for the severity of noncompliance or the violator’s ability to pay. A minor delay in filing due to administrative oversight is penalized the same as a deliberate refusal to act.
  Contradiction with “Minimizing Compliance Costs”: The Mayor’s Office of Operations claims the rule minimizes compliance costs, yet the penalties create a financial disincentive for property owners to engage with the process, potentially leading to more abandoned or neglected buildings.

  2. Overly Stringent and Unrealistic Deadlines
  The rule imposes rigid timelines that may be unworkable in practice:
  60-day Inspection Deadline: Property owners must secure an RDP to inspect a compromised building within 60 days of the condition arising. However, delays in hiring an RDP (due to high demand, cost, or availability) could result in penalties even for diligent owners.
  30-day Report Filing Window: After an inspection, reports must be filed within 30 days. Complex cases requiring extensive analysis or repairs may exceed this timeframe, triggering penalties despite good-faith efforts.
  No Grace Periods for Emergencies: The rule allows waivers only for government-owned properties or declared emergencies but omits flexibility for unforeseen hardships (e.g., personal financial crises, natural disasters affecting multiple buildings).

  3. Excessive Documentation Burden
  The detailed reporting requirements (e.g., 8½” x 11” sketches, schematics, photo logs, and technical analyses) create a bureaucratic maze that could overwhelm property owners, particularly those without technical expertise:
  Cost of Hiring Experts: Owners may need to hire additional professionals (e.g., photographers, drafters, expeditors etc.) to meet formatting and documentation standards, increasing compliance costs.
  Risk of Rejection: Reports rejected for minor formatting issues (e.g., unlabeled photos) force owners to incur repeated filing fees and delays, exacerbating financial strain.
  Redundancy with Existing Systems: The DOB already maintains records of past inspections, planned work approvals, base building plans and the like… Requiring owners to repeatedly submit duplicate information (e.g., historical drawings) adds no value but increases administrative overhead.

  4. Lack of Support for At-Risk Communities
  The rule focuses on penalties without providing resources to help owners comply:
  No Funding Assistance: Low-income owners or co-ops struggling with repair costs receive no support (e.g., grants, low-interest loans) to stabilize buildings, forcing them into a cycle of debt and penalties.
  Overlooked Systemic Issues: Aging infrastructure, climate change impacts, and economic disparities contribute to structural compromise. The rule ignores systemic solutions (e.g., subsidies for retrofits) and instead punishes individual owners.

  5. Waiver Process Too Narrow
  The waiver criteria are overly restrictive:
  Ownership Changes: New owners must prove they inherited the issue after penalties accrued but receive no relief for pre-existing conditions, even if they acted promptly.
  No Hardship Waivers: Financial hardship, medical emergencies, or other extenuating circumstances are not recognized, leaving vulnerable populations exposed to penalties.

  6. Public Safety Concerns Unaddressed
  While the rule aims to enhance safety, its punitive focus may backfire:
  Incentivizing Neglect: Owners facing crushing fines may abandon properties rather than invest in repairs, creating more hazardous structures.
  Prioritizing Paperwork Over Action: Strict formatting rules for reports (e.g., photo resolution, sketch dimensions) distract from the core goal of ensuring structural safety.

  Recommendations for Reform
  To balance public safety with fairness, the DOB could rather:
  1. Reduce Penalties: Align fines with the severity of noncompliance (e.g., $500/month for initial reports, waived for first-time offenders).
  2. Extend Deadlines: Allow 90 days for inspections and 60 days for report filings, with extensions for documented hardships.
  3. Simplify Reporting: Focus on critical safety data (e.g., hazards, repair plans) rather than prescriptive formatting.
  4. Provide Financial Assistance: Offer grants or low-interest loans for low-income owners to hire RDPs and execute repairs.
  5. Expand Waiver Eligibility: Include hardship waivers for medical, financial, or unforeseen emergencies.
  6. Note that when you provide such new rules, the department personnel should be adequately trained and accessible to take on such responsibilities with an even-flo process of a)filing b)plan comment c)guidance where needed to comply and d) speedy approval of such plans

  Conclusion
  The proposed rule prioritizes punishment over partnership, risking harm to vulnerable communities without effectively addressing structural safety. By adopting a more equitable, flexible approach, the DOB can ensure compliance while safeguarding both public safety and economic stability. Passing the rule in its current form would be a step backward for New York City.

  Comment added April 30, 2025 11:08pm

• Ntan M.

  As a tenant in a historic 9 unit townhouse apartment building in Chelsea riddled with building code violations (over 100 and counting) with multiple summons from NYFD and DOB and we have no Janitor, no Superintendent and a Managing Agent (owner) last seen in 2016 whose telephone number is disconnected. Emails from tenants to owner/Managing Agent never replied / ignored.

  Owner installed an overabundance of security cameras inside (with audio recording abilities) and out not for tenants security (we still do not have a front door lock), but to stalk tenants. When tenants submit complaints DOB and HPD inspectors soon visit, but if tenant not home inspectors leave card notices for tenants at our mailboxes. But by the time we return home the landlord seeing inspectors on camera alerts REMOVES tenants notices from inspectors – and complaints get closed. When tenants leave notices of violations at neighboring tenants doors the landlord using her 9 security cameras has someone go and remove violation notices from tenants doors. M*ther F*ckers, no?

  Owner flatly refuses DOB inspectors access and tenants complaints – closed and busted many times submitting false self certification of violations and complaints.

  This 9 unit townhouse apt building has a rotten roof with excessive layers of roofing materials; a cracked and bulging courtyard facade; windows illegally replaced with doors to access courtyard; illegal unit conversions and tenants given only “subleases” at market rates are required to pay for upgrades out of pocket including repainting of our walls. Meanwhile, the owner of this multi-million dollar townhouse apartment building lives well in a city owned co-op unit with amenities around the corner and purchased a small estate in Hyde Park, travels first class and enjoys leisure trips abroad while tenants subjected to hazardous living conditions.

  That said…I support this amendment 100%.

  Comment added May 14, 2025 10:25pm

• Bill Murray

  There are certain proposed amendments throughout the text that appear to place significant additional burden on the RDP, and in particular that appear to require the RDP to personally perform all the inspections on the site. We are not certain if this is the intent of these changes but hope that they can be clarified as we have noted below so that RDP’s may continue to direct and oversee the work of their staff as they do currently for all their projects, without having to personally be present at all times during the site inspection work.
  In addition, the definition of Critical Examination requires a review of “all parts” of the building. This is not actually feasible in our opinion, and is also overly broad language from a legal standpoint. Finishes cover the majority of structural elements in any completed building which inhibit even a visual observation. We believe that it is reasonable for the RDP to request probes of certain areas based on compromised conditions observed in other areas of the building in order to better understand the extent of said conditions. Given that exposing the structure for evaluation is not within the control of the RDP, it is not appropriate to place the obligation of completing that work on the RDP.
  There are also some very prescriptive requirements placed on the content of the initial, annual and final reports in sections (d) and (e). Though we of course understand the intent of ensuring a thorough examination, removing the discretion from the RDP to determine what are the pertinent details may lead to unnecessary rejection of reports, and / or delays in filing reports whilst more information is collected. We note that in the initial report it is required to provide sketches showing the work to stabilize the building. On initial inspection there may exist a number of potential schemes for stabilizing the building, but the final solution may take some time to agree with the owner, and for fees to be agreed and design to be carried out, and including this requirement may delay completing the report. Any significant repair or stabilization would also presumably be filed in the conventional way, in some cases as emergency work, and so the need to show a solution in the initial report seems duplicative.
  In section (e)(iii)(E)2., the requirement for name, addresses, telephone numbers and license or registration numbers of the RDP and all individuals working under the RDP’s supervision who are involved in the work is very onerous and a privacy concern. The RDP’s information can be provided and is already available to the department, however it is unclear why any other individual involved in the project must be disclosed. We would propose that employees working within the same organization may be assumed to support the RDP without having to be listed, and only external subconsultants identified if they are used on the project.
  In general, we are supportive of greater enforcement of the provisions around structurally compromised buildings, and the associated penalties imposed to carry this out. We note however that the approach being taken is very much all enforcement and no encouragement. The penalties, and requirement for ongoing reporting once a situation has been identified, will disincentivize owners from investigating or reporting questionable conditions that may or may not be a structural problem. Consideration could be given to some relief in penalties for self-reporting or early reporting of problems that are otherwise unknown to the department.
  Below are a number of specific comments that relate to the extent to which the RDP must personally be involved in the work.

  1)
  REFERENCE
  (c.2.x) Completion of a critical examination means that the RDP has personally
  conducted a physical examination to determine that the compromised building conditions, as described in the report, are consistent with the actual conditions.
  (a) Definitions: Critical examination. A physical examination conducted by a RDP to review a potentially structurally compromised building and all parts thereof to determine the building’s structural integrity.
  (c.3.iii.E.5) Dated photo documentation of the RDP performing physical examination.

  COMMENT
  Propose to adopt the FISP model which allows representatives working under the direct supervision of the RDP. Replace “RDP” with “RDP and/or a representative under the direct supervision of the RDP” similar to RCNY §103-04 (c.2.ii) for FISP.

  ISSUE
  Personal duty for field work: As written, eliminates use of trained staff under RDP’s direct supervision, making the signing PE an indispensable field presence for “all parts” of the structural observation. However, inconsistent with section (c.3.iii.E.3) which references “all individuals working directly under the RDP’s direct supervision.”

  2)
  REFERENCE
  Proposed: (c.2.ii) The RDP must amend the scope of the critical examination and add additional testing and investigation as required. The periodic inspections must continue until a final report is filed with the department by the RDP certifying that the building or structure is no longer structurally compromised and such final report is accepted by the department.
  Current: (e) Final report. After the condition that caused the building or structure to be potentially compromised has been repaired, the registered design professional must submit to the department a signed and sealed report certifying that the building or structure is no longer potentially compromised.

  COMMENT
  Keep original language of “no longer potentially structurally compromised.”

  ISSUE
  Certification of building safety:
  Reads like a guaranty; latent defects years later could trigger claims.

  3)
  REFERENCE
  (c.2.vii) The RDP must amend the scope of the critical examination and add additional testing and investigation as required.

  COMMENT
  Replace open-ended “as required” language with “during the course of the investigation” and require owner approval of extra work.

  ISSUE
  Rolling obligation to “amend scope” & add testing “as required”:
  Open-ended duty without owner consent or budget; could later be used in negligence claims.

  4)
  REFERENCE
  (c.2.viii) During the critical examination, photographs must be taken, mapping must be made to document the exact location of all distresses or deficiencies and identify all areas that require shoring, bracing, repair, maintenance, or
  monitoring.

  COMMENT
  Permit “representative photos” except when Unsafe or revise language to “all areas of distress or deficiency”

  ISSUE
  Impractical documentation and mapping mandate:
  The use of “all distresses or deficiencies” imposes an impracticably exhaustive documentation standard that exceeds ordinary professional practice and would expose the RDP to disproportionate liability if photo missing.

  Comment attachment
  ACEC-New-York-comments_proposed-rule-re-structurally-compromised-buildings_5.23.25.pdf

  Comment added May 23, 2025 11:29am