Pitkin County appeals board treats 360 South Hayden snow-melt work as repair; fees required
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Pitkin County Board of Appeals reversed the chief building officials disapproval and found the work at 360 South Hayden to be a repair of an existing snow-melt system, not a replacement that would automatically trigger the countys new exterior-energy BTU limit. The board required payment of mitigation/repair fees covering the repaired square footage.
The Pitkin County Board of Appeals voted to overturn a staff finding and treat the contested work at 360 South Hayden as repair rather than new construction, allowing the property owner to proceed while paying repair/mitigation fees for the area being replaced.
At the hearing the appellants attorney, Jody Edwards, argued the countys recently adopted International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) amendment could not be used to force removal or abandonment of a legally existing system. Reading from the IECC, Edwards told the board: "Except as specified in this chapter, this code shall not be used to require the removal, alteration, or abandonment of nor prevent the continued use and maintenance of any existing building or building system lawfully in existence at the time of the adoption of this code." He urged the board to treat the work as repair necessary to correct substructure and drainage failures uncovered during permitted patio replacement.
Jeff Erickson and Doug Harrison, representing the building department, countered that the project includes full replacement of snow-melt tubing in the east and south patios, which the department views as an "alteration" rather than an ordinary repair. Staff said replacement work that removes and replaces piping or tubing is treated as new work under the residential and mechanical codes and must be held to the current exterior-energy budget. The department noted the parcels existing snow-melt inventory was referenced in files as roughly 4,100 square feet and argued the replacement would put the parcel over the countys 200,000,000 BTU-per-year exterior-energy limit unless other areas were decommissioned.
Architect Ryan Lee testified the scope the applicant proposed to replace totals roughly 2,186 square feet, about 46% of the previously referenced snow-melt area, and said the work was prompted by failing substructure and drainage discovered when stone pavers were removed under an existing permit.
After questions and cross-examination, the board concluded on this set of facts that the snow-melt on the affected patios should be treated as repair for this parcel and approved the applicants request, with the condition that the owner pay mitigation/repair fees for the square footage being repaired. Board member Sarah Broughton moved the action; Greg Woods seconded it and the motion carried with the board voting in the affirmative.
The decision applies to the parcel in question and does not change county-wide code; the boards determinations are case-specific. The boards order requires staff to record the fee requirement and allow the applicant to proceed consistent with the boards finding.
The Board of Appeals recessed briefly after the vote and then continued with a second, separate appeal.