A group of property owners addressed Christiansburg Town Council during a Public Hearing on Nov. 3, seeking relief for problems related to construction sites within their subdivision. They had submitted a petition to the Town Manager asking for help, who had passed it on to the town's attorney. One council member even called it an eyesore.
The Town Manager and Mayor indicated they already had conversations with the developer. The property owners indicated these concerns had existed over a year and a half.
The Town Manager referenced the "US Building Code" stating as long as any activity occurred within a six month period -- even one board moved or one nail hammered -- it was considered an active construction site. This type of complaint is not original or unique in Christiansburg.
The "US Building Code" is actually the Commonwealth of Virginia's Uniform Statewide Building Code, or USBC, and therefore a component of the Virginia Administrative Code (VAC). "Uniform" and "statewide" clearly sum up the intent of this document relative to establishing minimum standards for state building codes and construction practices.
Aligned to the subordinate International Code, the USBC has three parts: Part I is known as the Virginia Construction Code. Part II is known as the Virginia Rehabilitation Code. Part III is the Virginia Maintenance Code. Edits were last made in 2006 and became effective May 2008. This gave localities ample time to update local codes if necessary, and provide relevant staff training and public education. The USBC supersedes building codes and regulations of political subdivisions within Virginia.
Building officials are appointed by the local governing body and are required to meet defined employment qualifications, with continuing education standards.
USBC Section 110 addresses Permits. Section 110.6 - Abandonment of Work states, in part, "It shall be the responsibility of the permit applicant to prove to the building official that authorized work includes "substantive progress" characterized by approved inspections as specified in Section 113.3 of at least one inspection within a period of six months or other evidence that would indicate substantial work has been performed. Upon written request, the building official may grant one or more extensions of time, not to exceed one year per extension." Section 113.3 addresses minimums relative to structural, systems and final inspections.
In Christiansburg, it appears "substantive progress" is being interpreted as something as minimal as driving a stake in the ground, allowing debris to accumulate or allowing inactive equipment or materials to, in essence, be stored on-site for extended periods. Webster's New World Dictionary defines substantive as "of or dealing with essentials" and substantial as "real, true, ample, large, important, with regard to essential."
The USBC is written to provide consideration for economic shifts, resource issues or market demands. It should not be interpreted so adjacent property owners are indefinitely at the mercy of developers or contractors who may have temporarily abandoned work at one job site.
The question now for Town Council, which is ultimately responsible for this important process, is whether they agree with how interpretation of substantial progress is being applied in Christiansburg.