# Building Permits... for scenery



## JVV (Feb 19, 2010)

I just received this message from a school a few miles north of me in NJ. Has anyone else run into this?

>In preparing for our spring musical, we have found ourselves in the
>position of being required by our township to get building certificates
>and inspections of our sets for the past two years. For over a decade,
>this was never an issue, but all of a sudden last year our town building
>department decided they needed to have approval or it was implied that we
>would be "shut down." It has gotten so out of control that we have had to
>have the school district's architect sign off on our set drawings, then
>come inspect before the building inspector. Last year our set was quite
>complicated, so we understood to a degree. This year, it is quite simple
>(mostly flats, no one hangs or crawls on set pieces). 
>
> 
>
>I was wondering if any of you had any experience with this, or if this
>was required by any other towns or school districts? Is there any state
>or town law, or any precedent out there regarding theatrical scenery? In
>all the community and school theater work I have done for over 15 years,
>I have NEVER heard of anyone getting a building permit for scenery. 
>
> 
>
>If you do not know, could you pass this email on to someone you think
>might know? I would really appreciate the insight or experience of anyone
>else as we bring this issue to a forefront with our Board of Education.

Id love to hear peoples thoughts/concerns or praise for such an idea.
JVV


----------



## GreyWyvern (Feb 19, 2010)

I wonder if it has anything to do with this...

http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/...y-theater-thankfully-but-i-saw-had-share.html

Not sure when it happened though.


----------



## derekleffew (Feb 19, 2010)

The topic has arisen before, but has not been discussed at length. 


derekleffew said:


> ... However, theatre set designs need not _necessarily_ comply with local building code ordinances. This came up a while ago on another forum, and some expressed the opinion that "as an artistic installation, sets are exempt from building codes." Not exactly true, but as access is limited and the users are trained (rehearsed), the point has some validity. Common sense and risk assessment often comes in to play. Are the performers professional actors, or grade school children? If the show uses AEA actors, they may have helpful guidelines. ...



Interested in hearing others' opinions.


----------



## jwl868 (Feb 19, 2010)

I would be surprised if the town building department “just decided” that their approval was needed. I suspect that they always had the authority, but, for whatever reason, never exercised it before. Local governments have a wide latitude in developing building codes, so there may be a provision (broad or specific) that allows them to inspect/review sets. (Look up the town online; many municipalities post their municipal Codes.) (The cynic in me says that someone pissed-off the wrong person.)

I’m also surprised that the school district architect would sign-off on drawings like that, but maybe there are details missing in the story. (I wouldn’t expect a registered architect to sign-off on drawings that he/she had no input on.)

Joe


----------



## Van (Feb 19, 2010)

Something is amiss with this situation. While a municipality has the right, one might even say the onus, to shut down or refuse to permit a public exposistion that they belive poses a threat to the Public Health/Welfare in most cases thier jurisdiction doesnt kick in until an incident has occurred or a blatant Public safety violation has been observed. My guess kinda mirrors the others Somebody pissed-off the wrong person. 
I can almost 100% guarranttee that there is no 'Public Code' requiring inspection of Scenery used in a Stage Production on the books in the town concerned, but rather an over-zealous or over-wrought public official attempting to right what they see as a wrong. The only recourse I could see would to be to appeal to the State's Office of Building / construction codes citing harassment, prejudice, or uneven application of the public code.


----------



## Footer (Feb 19, 2010)

Beyond a fire inspector, I have never had anyone else "official" walk onto my stage. 

Here is how this probably happened...
School builds gigantic set that has students climbing 20' in the air all over the scenery. Either kid gets hurt or parents come and see the show and see that there is a possibility of their student getting hurt. Father then goes and talks to his buddy on the city council about how big this set was and how there was no way that it was built safely, even if he never saw how the thing was built. Guy at city council talks to the citys building inspector that people in his district are concerned and if he wants to keep his job as city inspector he should look into it. Next thing you know, you are in the situation they are currently in. 

I would not be concerned about it as long as you are under a different township. There are no codes about how scenery should be built, however that does not mean that standard building practices should be followed. If I am building a 2 story set, you better believe I have load calculations for how much that thing can support. If something came up, I would at least have my math to show the inspector or concerned person.


----------



## FatherMurphy (Feb 19, 2010)

My thought is that since theater scenery is generally short-lived, it is usually considered non-permanent construction, thus not under the supervision of the local building departments. I've heard of temporary structures that are accessible by the public (camera platforms in large city sports arenas are the example I'm thinking of) needing to meet code in case something happens and the crowd ends up on the temp structure, but not scenery on stage. It's a bit of a gray area, I know that OSHA considers theaters loading in scenery as 'general industry', not new construction, in considering what's needed for fall arrest safety, etc.

However, all this could be a little bit moot when you think in terms of 'Authority Having Jurisdiction'. If the code empowers the inspector sufficiently, the AHJ can essentially interpret any part of the as broadly or as strictly as they choose. It could all boil down to how the code is written for that locality, and how much the inspector likes you, or how strongly he feels scenery should be inspected, or that inspecting it wastes his time.


----------



## porkchop (Feb 19, 2010)

FatherMurphy hit it right on the head I think. It all boils down to the Authority Having Jurisdiction. You can sight all the rules/laws from wherever you want, but you still have to answer to the AHJ. Yes you could appeal to a higher up authority, but that is both time consuming and in some cases unnecessarily risks making the situation even more difficult. 

As far as I understand relative nation wide rules for performer safety from when I was head of a pyro department, you are not compelled by law to ensure the complete safety of the performers provided that the general public is not put in any kind of danger. The reason that we work so hard to keep our performers safe is instead because of the very nasty fallout that can come from being found negligent in fixing a known danger or properly alerting performers to it (and because we like them so much right?). Basically what that meant when I was doing pyro was if a performer was right below an air burst when it went off and got burnt (non-serious burns are unfortunately common in my experience) the Fire Marshal couldn't come in and shut us down for it. If they think that the incident shows negligent practices that's a whole other can of worms, but that isn't what we're getting at here.

Another perhaps better example is traipse acts at the circus. It would be pretty hard for them to wear OSHA spec fall arrest equipment and still do what they do. One might argue the safety net below them would count, but there's no guarantee that they'll land in the net should something go awry so it can't be considered PPE, it's just a good safety system that is in place to minimize a danger that the performers are well aware of.

So yes, you should consider the relative principles of building construction when designing and constructing sets because you want them to be safe, but as far as I understand the law there is no requirements for safety. This is so that we have a leeway to create the scenes and effects we want. So in the situation that the OP brought up, first of all, I would continue building very safe sets because you have obviously sparked someone's interest and if something where to go wrong it might get really blown out of proportion really fast. As far as dealing with the inspections, I would ask the authority requesting the inspections to cite the specific requirement (i.e. municipal code, state law, whatever) that requires your sets to be inspected. They'll probably figure out real fast what you're trying to do, but if they can't find a law on the books requiring inspections you have a good launching ground to question why they are being asked for and hopefully get the AHJ to stop asking for them. If they do find something that requires the inspection, you can get a better idea of who and what needs to be included in your design process, and if you want to go really crazy you know where you need to go and try to get the requirement taken away.


----------



## SHARYNF (Feb 19, 2010)

Remember this is New Jersey we are talking about, the land of corruption

New Jersey corruption sweep reveals 'pervasive' web of money laundering, bribes | New Jersey Real-Time News - - NJ.com

Looks like someone is either trying to expand and justify their job, make more money, hassle a group they don't like, or get a pay off.


Maybe you need to contact the local "GodFather" ;-)))

Sharyn


----------



## Footer (Feb 19, 2010)

porkchop said:


> you are not compelled by law to ensure the complete safety of the performers provided that the general public is not put in any kind of danger......
> but as far as I understand the law there is no requirements for safety....



That is all thrown out the window though when you are dealing with a public high school as the OP is. You can get away with it when you are hiring people to perform or working with adults who knowingly assume the risks. With students, you can not put them in the same amount of risk as a professional. You get one student hurt, your program can be shut down. People are used to students being hurt on the football field, they are not OK with students being hurt doing _Romeo and Juliet. _The person who you are shooting pyro around knows that if they do get hurt, your company has workman's comp to get them fixed, even if no one is at fault. Students don't have that. Too many students don't have health insurance at all. If they get injured, they have two choices, either deal with it with their own insurance or sue the school. Odds are that the student that does not have the health insurance does not have the money to sue. Its simply not the same thing. You can sign hold harmless forms all day long, but in the end you can not put students in the same category as a profession in terms of risk.


----------



## Lotos (Feb 19, 2010)

I've run into this situation once... With a Health & Safety writeup, bear in mind this is in Ontario, Canada.

We had a set, several years back, that had a second level.
The railing the wrapped around 90% of the element was welded metal with an |X| design inside each of the 3' spaced openings.

However, there was a 3' gap on both sides at the rear, where the scenic elements on either side of the second level had been 'moved' downstage to accomodate a set of escape stairs stage left.

The stage right side had had a railing installed at waist height, however there was no kickplate nor mid-rail.

The H&S officer decided (likely looking up at it from the deck) that it was a hazard, and needed a kickplate and midrail.

The fact that there was a Korg keyboard, and other gack blocking all but the most determined individual from getting anywhere near it, much less falling through it, didn't enter the equation.

We just shrugged, and installed the rails... Often it is easier to deal with something minor than it is to fight the situation.


ALL THAT BEING SAID


If you feel you are being unjustly made to repeaqtedly jump through hoops, stand up and speak out... If you just jump through them, you're justifying the hoops existance.


----------



## museav (Feb 20, 2010)

Lotos said:


> If you feel you are being unjustly made to repeaqtedly jump through hoops, stand up and speak out... If you just jump through them, you're justifying the hoops existance.


Not quite that simple with AHJ as in deference to what porkchop said, it is their interpretation that matters. Part of their job is to make judgment calls and they do not need to justify their interpretations. It's a lot like arguing with a referee, they already made a decision and chances of getting them to change that are small while there is always the chance of getting a technical or penalty for arguing it.

If you are going to argue it cannot be simply that you disagree or don't think it is fair, that will make no difference other than to potentially get on their bad side. And while they may respond well to polite requests to cite the relevant code, to get an interpretation changed the onus is on you to establish a pretty strong case of how their interpretation directly conflicts with applicable code or past interpretations.

I have always wondered if some AHJ see anything nailed or otherwise tied to the stage or building itself as no longer being temporary structures. It would be hard to argue that hey are not a part of the building at that point.


----------



## porkchop (Feb 20, 2010)

Footer said:


> That is all thrown out the window though when you are dealing with a public high school as the OP is. You can get away with it when you are hiring people to perform or working with adults who knowingly assume the risks. With students, you can not put them in the same amount of risk as a professional. You get one student hurt, your program can be shut down. People are used to students being hurt on the football field, they are not OK with students being hurt doing _Romeo and Juliet. _The person who you are shooting pyro around knows that if they do get hurt, your company has workman's comp to get them fixed, even if no one is at fault. Students don't have that. Too many students don't have health insurance at all. If they get injured, they have two choices, either deal with it with their own insurance or sue the school. Odds are that the student that does not have the health insurance does not have the money to sue. Its simply not the same thing. You can sign hold harmless forms all day long, but in the end you can not put students in the same category as a profession in terms of risk.



While educational theatre certainly adds additional concerns to the situation, and the performers ability to ensure there own safety is not as developed. All the situations you mentioned are after results of negligence. They don't show any strict safety codes up front (like that of building inspections). My personal interpretation of the situation is that if there were strict rules on paper about necessary safety then we would be overly restricted and wouldn't be unable to create all the art that we currently do. So instead of being excessively proactive and limiting our abilities to create, law makers have decided that because of the huge possible penalties and lawsuits attached to negligence we will police ourselves thus allowing artistic expansion and growth within our comfort zone rather than that of lawmakers. So although the retroactive nastiness may be worse for negligence in educational theatre, as far as I know there are no rules on the books limiting what you can try. You really can't tell a performers that they can never be in a situation that doesn't seem safe, because frankly in many situations that's exactly what you want.


----------



## Bogo1229 (Feb 22, 2010)

I've never had this problem. Ive even had electrical inspectors and plumbing instectors ask to see my rough ins and when i explained that it was only a temporary structure, they just said "oh ok, have a nice day." and kept on walking.

As for the general safety of the audience, if someone felt that they themselves were in danger, i could see someone raising an issue about that. But if the set in question was on stage and only actors and crew had access to it, there should be no problems.


----------

