Why The Smallest Apartment Renovation Might Need A Proper Work Permit

When apartment owners in a  NYC co-op or condo want to renovate their units, most will sign an alteration agreement and then their plans are sent to the building's architect for review. Difficulties ensue when the reviewing architect says the work needs a permit from the city, and the apartment owner insists it doesn't.  Kevin Bone, co-founder of Bone/Levine Architects, explains the ramifications of this push-back and why boards should be strict about allowing certain types of work to proceed without a permit.  Habitat Magazine's Emily Myers conducts the interview. This episode is sponsored by NYSERDA.

Thanks for listening. Subscribe to this podcast for more stories on how New York co-ops and condos have solved a myriad of problems. Brought to you by Habitat Magazine, the "bible" that hundreds of board directors turn to every day!

Transcript

Emily Myers: Welcome to Problem Solved, a conversation about challenges facing New York co-op and condo board directors. I'm Emily Myers with Habitat Magazine and I'm joined by Kevin Bone, co-founder of Bone Levine Architects. 

When unit owners and shareholders decide to renovate, they can sometimes resist the interference of the board.

But whether it's a major project or a minor alteration, the board has a duty to safeguard the building. Kevin, you've played a crucial role as the reviewing architect in a project at an Upper West co-op, where the shareholder pushed back against the board's professional advice regarding the alteration. Can you share what happened?

Kevin Bone: Yes. Many co-ops and condominiums have an alteration review process in place. They have protocols and rules that need to be followed. In general, a shareholder is requested to submit a package to the board who seeks to have the work who will then seek to have the work reviewed by the co-op's reviewing architect.

So in this particular case that I'm referring to, the package was primarily a contractor's proposal. And this is not uncommon. Owners go out, they meet a contractor. A contractor says, we can do this, that, and this for you. And they generate a scope of work. They perhaps pick out the appliances, the fixtures.

There's oftentimes a lot of boilerplate language in these contractors' proposals. But the package generally describes the work. What is not clear in these contractors' proposals is who is ultimately responsible for many aspects of the work, because even a modest renovation will likely bump up against things that may require building department review or may require the intervention of a professional to make a decision about it.

Emily Myers: Can you just explain then what are the risks for the building of moving forward on a project that is outlined only by a contractor's proposal? 

Kevin Bone: Alright, so let's continue with this case. We as the reviewing architect sought clarification about who was going to be responsible for decisions on the project.

And the shareholder came back with the responsibility, the plumber was going to be taking responsibility. That the plumber would file what's called a limited application or a limited alteration application, and that would be the building department document that was used to protect the board. The reviewing architect in this case took the position that the work would likely be required to have an actual work permit, that the scope of work was such that it was not covered by the limited application permit that the plumber proposed to get. There are fairly strict rules about this, about what you can and can't do under a limited alteration application.

So we, in the plan review process, suggested that this project possibly crossed the threshold of requiring a work permit. The shareholder pushed back saying, we have someone that is saying we can do this as a limited alteration application, and we're just changing out plumbing fixtures, although the work was actually more substantial than that.

Doing work without permit coverage is, the risk is to the building and not to the individual shareholder. 

So the building is — the shareholder's proceeding with the work under a permit that is not actually correct permit coverage. The penalties and the fines are rendered towards the building and not towards the individual shareholder.

So this could become a big complication for the building as it goes forward. The fact that there are violations that have been imposed might affect other shareholders' abilities to make alterations. And in general there is a risk of entanglement in the DOB process for having worked without proper permit coverage.

Emily Myers: So can I just ask then, if the permit doesn't fully cover the work, then the board needs to get someone to take responsibility in writing for the work, and who is that? 

Kevin Bone: Correct, Emily. So one thing that can be done is that when a shareholder pushes back that the board can suggest that the shareholder produces a letter from an architect or an engineer that states that this project has proper coverage with a limited alteration application or no permit at all. In some cases, they argue they need no permit at all. So at least the board has that document that says a professional has stated this project can go forward as indicated by the contractor. 

Emily Myers: And is this what happened at the co-op?

Kevin Bone: This is what was advised to the co-op. The nature of this is not, it's not so easy to get a professional to sign off and take responsibility for something that they might not really have responsibility for. In the course of the plumber opening up the walls to do the renovation, they might find fire stopping deficiencies.

They might find other code compliance issues. And the plumber's not really in a position to make determinations about how that's best corrected. So a professional is going to be reluctant to put her or his name on a document when they're not really responsible. Ultimately in this case the shareholder was unable to produce that letter and the board stood its ground and the shareholder engaged an architect and agreed to file the project and get proper work permit coverage. 

Emily Myers: So are you saying that sort of asking for a letter or a statement from an architect or someone saying they take responsibility for the job, is actually a strategy for the board, because once the shareholder sees that it is very difficult to get this letter, then they presumably are forced to seek the correct permits?

Kevin Bone: Correct, Emily. That's, that's correctly stated because that strategy allows them to say, all right. We accept that you have an opinion that this work doesn't require a building permit. We would like to have you get an architect or an engineer to state that in a letter for us. So it's a way for the board to be cooperative and try to advance the shareholders' work.

But it's also a way for the board to say, all right, we want coverage. And if someone's not willing to do that, then you're gonna have to go down the road and engage a professional. 

Emily Myers: And what was the cost to the shareholder in getting the full work permit rather than the limited application you mentioned?

Kevin Bone: The exact cost, Emily, would be hard for me to know, but I would assume some basic architectural coverage and filing at the building department is certainly going to cost $5,000. It may, if the work is more complicated, cost a little bit more, by the time you prepare the various paperwork for DOB filing and whatnot it's going to be at least in that neighborhood.

Emily Myers: And how was the board, was — my question perhaps is, was there some reluctance from the board to push this shareholder back a bit? What was your relationship as the reviewing architect with the board? It was a three way situation going on.

Kevin Bone: We all know that in these small democracies of co-ops, that the relationships can be complicated and layered. And perhaps the shareholder who sought to simply renovate their kitchen and bathroom might have been a friend of a board member’s. As a reviewing architect, we really can't take sides.

We simply advise the board, and it's a very important relationship to know that a reviewing architect is not approving what a shareholder intends to do. That approval process is ultimately the boards, but the board is seeking guidance on whether they should approve the work as it's being proposed, or whether they should seek additional information and additional professional procedures.

Emily Myers: So you got the outcome you wanted, the shareholder made changes to their application. What then is the advice to other boards looking to safeguard the building in these situations? 

Kevin Bone: My advice to other boards is to review their protocols. They should be very strict about what kind of work they will allow to proceed without a building permit in advance.

Because what happens is the shareholder goes down the road, engages with the contractor, has multiple meetings, spends their time, develops expectations, and then they get shut down at the board and they develop frustrations. It's much better at the very beginning of the process to say, unless you're doing, say, only cabinet and millwork replacement or changing a plumbing fixture in the exact same position where it is, we're not opening the walls up and changing the pipes back to the risers.

That they be very clear and that they encourage shareholders to have professional guidance. 

Emily Myers: And I imagine consistency is obviously very important. You need to have consistency across your alteration agreements. 

Kevin Bone: That is absolutely true. If you allow one shareholder to do it one way and another shareholder to do it another way, I think you could be getting in trouble. That's perhaps an interview for Habitat and the lawyers, but that would be, I think, an important situation for the board to develop clear protocols that are consistent across the process. 

Emily Myers: And at this co-op, has the work now been done satisfactorily?

Kevin Bone: Yes, and this co-op has gone through many alterations since then, and for the most part, shareholders know the process and stick to it. I think that there are just those situations where they feel like there's significant cost savings to be made. Perhaps they have a friend who's a contractor who says, oh, we can just do this all very quickly, and we don't really need the burden of permitting.

'Cause it is, admittedly, the burden of permitting is expensive and difficult, but it is the process we live in New York City. 

Emily Myers: And you talked about a cost of about $5,000. In a sense, that's often pocket change in terms of a renovation in New York 

Kevin Bone: City. 

Absolutely. And I don't think any of your readers have false expectations that might be all at cost for professional work on a complex renovation. It certainly could be more than that, but I would say in a minimum filing application where there is not so much architectural work, that might be an order of magnitude that makes sense. 

Emily Myers: Kevin, thank you very much. Lots of useful information for boards and shareholders on alterations.

Kevin Bone from Bone Levine Architects.