How do You Spell OSHA Violation?

Title 29, Part 1926 of the Code of Federal Regualtsion sets forth requirements for employers to provide fall protection systems. 

Specifically:
"Unprotected sides and edges." Each employee on a walking/working surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems. 

Here's a view of the construction site at 2082 and 2080 Eric Shaefer Way today:

The highest point in the back right-hand corner of this view (above the lift platform) is about 35 feet above the ground.  On the opposite side, not pictured here, the highest point is about 50 feet above ground, due to the fact that there is a "walk-out basement" on that side, and the roof slopes up and away from the lower side pictured above.

They have been working diligently to lower these roof trusses by crane today, and to secure them to the framing.

Then they pulled plywood sheets up through the trusses and secured them as well.

In February, I happened to read an article in the the New Yorker which provided an OSHA statistic that only about 50% of people survive a fall of 30 feet or more.  So seeing this today made me a little squeamish. 

I called the Baltimore office of OSHA this morning and relayed my concerns to them, but apparently they are busy on other things as I've seen no sign that anything has been done to address the issue.

I felt a little better a couple of hours ago when I saw the builder's real estate agent here on site photographing the workers lowering the final roof trusses into place.  I can only assume she was planning to text the photo to the builder (who lives across the street from the job site, but most likely wasn't home to witness these safety violations) and ask him to do something ASAP lest someone gets injured.

Alas, the work has continued uninterrupted throughout the afternoon.  

Though I think I saw the builder drive up the street about a half-hour ago.  No doubt he will soon look out his wall-o-glass window, with a view directly to the job site, and quickly act to make sure the workers promptly institute all necessary safety precautions.

The Planning Commission Strikes Again (or, Overlooked on Pratt Street Too!)

http://bit.ly/131QltH

At home, and at work now too!

At the tiniest wisp of a thought that a developer might be scared off, the Planning Commission disregards all other concerns and gives the green light to a renovation project of the 400 E. Pratt St. building, despite the objections of the architecture review panel (UDARP).

In my neighborhood, 30 homes had already been built under one plan, and when the "developer" appeared to become concerned that he might not able to sell the remaining seven houses under that plan, he came up with the brilliant idea to build them bigger, taller, and more closely packed together.

Then he started to build without permits.

Then there was a Planning Commission review required once he was caught.  (Well, not so much caught, as the City was pestered into actually looking at what he was building compared with plans that were filed with the permits. And with the PUD site plan approved over five years ago for the development.)

The builder need not have worried. Even though 25 residents strenuously objected to the changes, all but one commission member voted to rubber-stamp the "minor amendment" to the original plan. They deliberated for several minutes before doing so.  

[They were in a hurry because the meeting was running long due to earlier efforts to make sure no future developers' rights would be trampled by approving city landmark designation of the Florence Crittenton home.  Even though the current developer had no objections to the designation. But, just in case...

And members of the media were filtering into the meeting to witness the historic passing of the "Transform Baltimore" new Zoning Code.  Which is going to make it an easier, smoother process for new development in the City!]
  
God forbid that the developer might not put up those final seven homes if he were forced to comply with the thoughtfully designed, original plans, which were the subject of rigorous scrutiny and oversight throughout the initial Planned Unit Development process, including plan approval by the City Council, the Maryland Historical Trust and the National Parks Service.

And so the Planning Commission says to the current homeowners, who have already invested well over $15million in the neighborhood, that their objections don't matter and they can go hang. Great work, Baltimore. Way to recruit new residents to your fair city. "Please move here to our revitalized city, then give us your tax money... and then shut up."

The Architectural Review Committee Attempts to Get Some Answers

Following the builder’s confusing email to the neighbors in which he claimed he would be building essentially the same houses that had already been built in the Overlook development, he nonetheless continued to market the “3300+ square feet” homes on four levels (which would be nearly twice as large as what was indicated on the original site plan for those lots).

The new Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for the neighborhood decided they had better obtain something clearer than the hand-drawn “plans” that had been nominally approved for Phase II by the outgoing ARC in the fall, on the day the builder purchased the lots.  The section on architectural review in the HOA documents required substantially more than those hand-drawn plans in order to review and approve new construction in the neighborhood.  Among other things, it required a “schematic and detailed drawing…showing the nature, kind, shape, dimensions, material, floor plans, color scheme, and location of the proposed Structure,”  an estimated cost to complete the work, a proposed construction schedule, and a designation of parties to perform the work.

They Say There Are Two Sides to Every Story

But it seems a singular occurrence when the two sides are being told by the same person, which was apparently the case with the builder’s plans for Phase II.  Subsequent to his purchase of the lots, he would describe his plans differently depending on who was asking the question.  For advertising and marketing purposes, he was selling significantly larger houses, built on four levels.  When anyone in the neighborhood would ask, he was building the exact same houses as the existing 2-car garage houses.

Don’t You Let that Deal Go Down

If you live in a community with a homeowners or property owners association (HOA/POA), you may have had an opportunity to read (poor you!) your “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions”.  This document runs with the deed to your home and is a legally binding contract between you and your neighbors which mandates a sort of self-government, which places some restrictions on your real property rights.

Huh?

Right, what it means is there are things you can and can’t do that your normal local government usually doesn’t have much to say about. 

Things like:

• how big and what color your mailbox is  
• whether you can have a birdbath in your yard  
• how long your holiday decorations can be displayed after the holiday (quick hint:  if it’s opening day of baseball season, the wreaths and blow-up Santa need to be taken down)

 You get the picture. 

In exchange for you suppressing your need to display your hand-made, 9-foot, carved black bear totem from Pennsylvania Amish country in your yard (though it IS quite charming), you have the  comfort of knowing that your neighbor must suppress her equally sincere desire to festoon her yard with her eclectic collection of Lord of the Ring garden figures™.

Suggested Questions for the Builder

Here are some suggested questions for you to ask the builder before you sign a contract for a new home to be built on Eric Shaefer Way....

• Q: Tell me the number of outstanding punch list items for Phase I purchasers at the time that the builder turned over responsibility for remediation to BB&T (the seller of those lots). 
• Follow-up Q:  How long did the builder know about those items before the turn-over to BB&T?  How many have been outstanding for more than one year since the owner's closing?
• Q: Please tell me the number of Phase I homes that have experienced in-home water incursions, whether from upper floor bathrooms to living areas below, from a burst pipe through drywall, from decks into sunrooms and/or exterior walls; whether due to sump pump malfunction, faulty gutters, faulty plumbing fixtures, improperly installed windows and/or doors, ground water inundation, or Acts of God?
• Follow-Up Q:  How many of these water incursion issues remain unresolved?
• Follow-Up Q2: How many of these issues required the replacement of substantially all of an owner's wood flooring on the floor where there was water incursion?
• Follow-Up Q3: Did any homes require this replacement more than once?
• Q: How many Phase I owners currently have damaged wood flooring in their homes, whether from improper installation or poor product quality?
•  Q: How many Phase I owners have currently or have had in the past issues with standing water in their yards?  
• F-U Q: How many have had or are in the process of seeking private contractors to install landscaping and functioning drainage due to the length of time that their yards are/were unusable due to unresolved standing water issues?
• Q: Can the builder show me current architectural drawings, to scale, for the new homes?  
• F-U Q: Can he provide me with a timeline for the process by which plans were submitted to and approved by the city?  
• F-U Q2: Were those permits sought/obtained before or after the current construction began in January 2013?
• F-U Q3: Can the builder provide me with some level of comfort regarding the engineering soundness of the excavation and foundations on Eric Shaefer Way, which are adjacent to a small tributary of the Jones Falls and include an additional walk-out basement level that has not previously been built in any Overlook home?
• F-U Q4: Has the architect completed plans for the new 4-level model, which were not complete at the time that the Baltimore City Planning Commission approved the 4-level model in a "minor PUD amendment" on March, 21, 2013?
• Q: Has the builder ever answered a question about the 1-foot difference between the planned length and width of a foundation, and the actual size of a built room, with an explanation that the plans reflected the exterior dimensions of the room?
• F-U Q: Do any of the Overlook homes actually have 1-foot thick walls?
• F-U Q2: If so, is this for defensive purposes?  Can I get a moat? [refer to earlier question regarding standing water]
• Q: What number of trees/plantings that are part of the currently approved PUD landscaping plans did Phase I purchasers actually have planted in their yards?
• F-U Q: If not all as planned, why not? 
• F-U Q2:  How many of the plantings/trees included in the current landscaping plan can  I expect to have planted in my yard? 
• Q: Did the builder attend a neighborhood meeting in order to address the substantial objections of his neighbors regarding the height and scale of the new homes planned for Eric Shaefer Way?
• F-U Q: Was a compromise reached on those issues?
• F-U Q2:  Did the builder bring his lawyer to that meeting?
• F-U Q3:  Did any of the other neighbors bring their lawyer(s) to that meeting?
• F-U Q4:  Will I need a lawyer to come to neighborhood meetings with me if I buy a house in this neighborhood?
• F-U Q5:  How about social events?  Is my lawyer expected/welcome at those as well?