JCOW OK’s Some Propertiers, As ‘No-Burn’ Gets Tested 5.10.2006

“We call it the A-Plus group,” said Glenn Callanan, attorney for the Joint Construction Office of the Wildwoods (JCOW), who has been marshalling the entity through its recent crisis.
He was referring to a small number of structures that JCOW now plans to remove from the property list on which the state’s Department of Community Affairs (DCA) identified condominiums which, in the DCA’s view, have “use classification issues.”
Properties on the DCA’s list allegedly were incorrectly classified as “R-3” rather than “R-2” structures during the building process and hence, according to the DCA, lack requisite internal fire protection measures.
The level of fire protection required for a structure is determined by its classification, and devices such as sprinkler systems – which can be very expensive – may be required in R-2 structures but are not ordinarily required in those classified R-3.
Some 79 structures – including roughly 470 units – appeared on the DCA’s initial list, sent to JCOW in mid-August 2005 but not publicized until this spring when warning letters were sent to affected unit owners informing them of the DCA’s charges.
JCOW’s own review, according to Callahan, has pinpointed a number of properties on the list that are “fully compliant with the requisite fire protection for their type of building.”
Five structures, containing a total of approximately 40 condominium units, now are properly classified, and, at least according to JCOW, already have whatever fire prevention items are required for their particular classification.
In at least two cases, it appears that the DCA’s concerns arose because builders did not submit “as-built” surveys or other documentation to JCOW at the time the structures were completed, showing that sprinkler systems were actually installed rather than the lesser protective measures identified in the early construction plans in JCOW’s files.
The DCA list includes properties in both North Wildwood and Wildwood, but all of the removed properties are on the Wildwood portion of the list.
Properties removed from the list include 301-13 E. Bennett Ave. (pictured);  244-48 E. Burke Ave.;  216 E. Roberts Ave.;  223-27 E. Spencer Ave.;  and 4207 Susquehanna Ave. (pictured).
Multiple “for sale” signs were visible last week at three of those structures.
Most of the properties on the DCA list were recently constructed.  Last month, some real estate agents reported that they were telling potential sellers of properties on the DCA list that they might have to indemnify buyers and escrow sale proceeds until fire protection issues are resolved.
Wildwood Mayor Ernie Troiano, critical of the manner in which the DCA presented its position to JCOW and homeowners, has said in recent weeks that “some properties should not even be on the list.”
Even with the recent removals, however, some 74 structures remain.
JCOW attorney Callahan is attempting to facilitate meetings among each affected structure’s homeowner association, builder, architect and a JCOW representative, to determine appropriate remediation measures.  Callahan told the Herald that he “remains optimistic” that “settlements” will be reached in relatively short order.
“I’m still convinced they’ll settle by the summer,” he said.  Asked what he meant by “settle,” he clarified that he expects a solution will be reached to make the properties code-compliant.
“After that,” he said, “they’ll do whatever they’re going to do.”  Callahan affirmed that a number of tort claims notices have been served upon JCOW, and also noted that there will be issues relating to municipal immunity at such time as lawsuits might hit the courts.
Meanwhile, according to Callahan, DCA and JCOW appear to have agreed that one appropriate remediation effort might be use of the fire retardant “No-Burn” in structures where all interested parties – JCOW, builders, architects and homeowners – agree that it’s an appropriate fix.
While there was some concern earlier about the life expectancy of the No-Burn product, Callahan said that his client has “confirmed with an engineer it’s an inert material which, left undisturbed, has an indefinite life.”
The product has been sent for fire testing to ensure that, if one side of a multi-unit building were to collapse, the interior joints along the party walls (say, at a floor or ceiling) would not be so compromised that the No-Burn’s retardant faculties would lose effect.