Opinion ID: 2078729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Stucco, Tuck-Pointing, and Window Paint

Text: Finally, we address the three cosmetic issues found by the Board to be in violation of the workmanlike manner of § 48-15. Because Denker and Johnson admitted to the Board that these aspects of the duplex were really appearance issues and that they had never inspected them closely enough to know if there were any protective treatment violations, there is clearly insufficient evidence that these items were in any other way unsafe, unfit, or unlawful under the Code. Section 48-15 states: Repairs, maintenance work, alterations or installations which are caused directly or indirectly by the enforcement of this code shall be executed and installed in a workmanlike manner and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions. Workmanlike is defined elsewhere in the commentary of the IPMC as: Executed in a skilled manner; e.g., generally plumb, level, square, in line, undamaged and without marring adjacent work. . . . To be workmanlike, maintenance or repair work must be performed in a manner consistent with work done by a skilled craftsman. In general, floors should be level, walls plumb and square, and windows installed so that they operate easily and fit within the rough opening to exclude the elements. The use of proper tools, methods, and materials is usually necessary for workmanlike repairs. Whether or not the unattractiveness of the repairs could fall under this definition of workmanlike, the McNallys argue that § 48-15 is inapplicable. The McNallys point out that none of the items were caused directly or indirectly by the enforcement of this code. [19] Instead, the window trim painting, the stucco, and the tuck-pointing were repairs which the McNallys conducted on their own accord. We agree that § 48-15 is inapplicable in this case because the ordinance clearly limits the workmanlike mandate to situations where the work is conducted pursuant to enforcement of the Code. The McNallys also argue that if § 48-15 were interpreted to mean that the city could pass out violations notices for unwork-manlike repairs done on the owner's own accord when there is no danger presented by the repairs, then the ordinance would be unconstitutional. Having already determined that § 48-15 does not in fact grant such authority and that no violation was shown as to these items, we do not reach this issue.