NEW JERSEY REHAB SUBCODE HELPS CLEAR OBSTACLES FROM PATH OF DEVELOPERS

by Linda S. Hayes

In 1995, the Center for Urban Policy Research, with funding from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (NJDCA), set out to establish a code of standards governing the renovation of buildings that would be distinct from the state’s Uniform Construction Code for new construction. The existing regulations had been widely criticized for being cumbersome and imposing unnecessary expense on property owners who wanted to upgrade their structures. The Code often required property owners to spend vast amounts of money reconfiguring their buildings to meet the strict standards for new construction. Rather than encourage renovation, many charged that the rules actually discouraged renovation from taking place.

CUPR assembled a national panel of technical consultants to tackle the problem. The thirty-member team—comprising state officials, developers, architects, historic preservationists, and advocates for affordable housing—was charged with identifying specific problems in the regulations and discovering what steps other states might have taken to remedy similar problems. Meetings were held at regular intervals, during which panel members discussed options. NJDCA would retain responsibility for rewriting the rules.

As a result of the NJDCA–CUPR study, new regulations went into effect statewide in January. Basically, explains David Listokin, the CUPR professor who oversaw the project, "the new rules try to relate the requirements to what the building will actually be used for. They introduce a more common-sense approach."

Among the most frequent causes of contention for building owners were stipulations that dealt with stairway and corridor widths, the number of building exits, floor loads, and the configuration of sprinkler and other mechanical systems. Building owners were often forced to meet standards that were unreasonable and unnecessary. For example, when the Historical Society of Princeton wanted to renovate its 200-year-old headquarters building, Bainbridge House, a few years ago, it was required to shore up the existing floors to comply with the regulations governing the floor load for new museums. Never mind that for years the building’s floor load of 80 pounds per square foot had been adequate to ensure the safety of the visitors to this small, intimate museum across from the Princeton University campus. The regulations required that the building’s floor load be increased to 100 pounds per square foot—the same floor load required for New Jersey’s larger, more heavily trafficked museums.

In a similar vein, a few years ago a move was afoot to convert an old farmhouse in South Brunswick, New Jersey, to a museum. The existing code required that the building’s handsome, original staircase be enclosed for safety reasons. Not surprisingly, the museum sponsors were upset. To enclose the staircase would significantly alter the building’s character—and charm. As it happened, the local building inspector was flexible and ultimately permitted the stairway to remain unenclosed, although he insisted on the addition of some new safety features. If the new regulations had been in place, the museum sponsors would not have faced such a struggle getting their plans approved.

Essentially, the new regulations are an attempt to match the level of upgrading required in a building with the increase in safety risks. If a building will be more heavily used, for example, significant improvements must still be made. But if no change in use is planned—as was the case at Bainbridge House—the building won’t have to meet the rigorous standards imposed on new construction. Of course, all buildings will still be required to meet minimum health and safety standards.

Changes in the regulations come at a particularly opportune time, explains Listokin: The state’s housing, like its residents, is approaching middle age. About one-half of the state’s 2.3 million residences were built before 1959, and many could use a facelift. Moreover, mainly because of the advanced age of the building stock, rehabilitation spending represents a much larger share of total construction outlays in New Jersey than it does in other states. In 1994, for example, the year before the project to overhaul the building code got underway, rehabilitation spending in New Jersey amounted to almost two-thirds the total outlay for new construction.

The new regulations are expected to give a special boost to housing construction in depressed urban areas. Much of the residential stock in these neighborhoods is in old, dilapidated buildings. Efforts to fix them up under the old regulations—and have them remain affordable to the local citizenry—proved to be a daunting, often insurmountable, challenge. To be sure, numerous challenges remain for developers in these urban areas, but since January, at least some of the obstacles in their path have been cleared.

For more information on articles in CUPReport, please contact Arlene Pashman, CUPReport Editor.