Attic Sprinkler System Debacle

[RyanBuilder]

Hello All, Looking for advice on a situation I haven't run into before. I was hired to finish an attic for a play room in a small New Hampshire town. I applied for the building permit and it was issued by the building inspector. I called him before I ordered the windows to specifically ask him if we needed 5.7 sq/ft egress windows and he said no. I didn't think this was the case because there are no bedrooms up there.

The project progressed and he inspected the rough ins and then the insulation and allowed us to close up the walls. Come time for the final inspection I called and he said I needed the fire chief to sign off. I called the Chief and he would not sign off because he said we needed a sprinkler system in the attic. He said it was a local requirement when that land was subdivided that if that home ever had a finished attic that there would need to be a sprinkler system installed. The homeowner is the 2nd owner and they had no way to know and I had no way to know.

The question arises, who is accountable for this? I hold the building inspector accountable because he issued a permit and I specifically asked him about a fire/life safety issue before starting the project. This is an easily avoidable problem if the building department required a sign off on the plans from the fire department before issuing the permit, which is done in most of the other 20 cities and towns I work in around here. How can the building inspector issue a permit, inspect twice, and allow us to close up the walls with a major system missing? If not having the fire department sign off on the permit, the least the building inspector could do would be to have a fire department inspection required before the rough building inspection.

I'm interested to hear any thoughts on this?

 

[cda]

Well I would say first you

Than the building dept should have said something, at the least you need a fd inspection.

With that I have seen where dept does not talk to dept, I do not understand why.


Do you have a link to the wording requireing the sprinkler??

Or copy and paste the wording???

Do they just want the attic sprinkler or whole house?

 

[jeffc]

I would ask the Fire Marshal to provide a copy of the document that allows them to require a sprinkler system in a newly finishing attic. When they produce the justification, see if there are any exceptions or exceptions to the exceptions. Just out of curiosity, is the remainder of the house sprinklered?

 

[Sleepy]

Agree with jeffc, get the document or a reference to the document from the Fire Marshal. If it is something that is recorded with the title to the land then it is something the owner should have had.

 

[mark handler]

I agree, The document should have recorded with the title. If it is recorded, it is no one but the owners fault. If it isn't, it is the Fire Marshals fault.
Building Dept/inspector has no fault what-so-ever.

 

[Msradell]

Building Dept/inspector has no fault what-so-ever.

In most cases building inspector should be aware of all applicable codes in his area whether he's actually responsible for inspecting them or not. Especially in cases like this with our special exceptions.

That being said it almost sounds like this is a special case just because the lot was subdivided, and cases like that it's quite likely that nobody would have records of it. I'm actually quite surprised that the fire department inspector knew about it unless he was there when it was first implemented. If the requirement isn't recorded on the deed or published in the local codes I don't see any real way they can enforce it.

 

[RyanBuilder]

The fire chief said this was a requirement for this specific home and a couple of other homes that were approved several years back. There is also a local town ordinance that says all finished attics of homes over 35' tall need to have a sprinkler system for the attic. None of these homes have sprinkler systems. You would think it would incumbent on the building inspector to inform you of this local ordinance when approving the permit if there was no sprinkler system on the plan. Does anyone think the inspector has any liability for opening up the walls and then closing them back up? I'm going to ask for the document there are referencing in regard to the requirement.

 

[cda]

No inspector is not liable

But it sounds like there is some information missing

Please post what you find

In away it does not make sense just to sprinkle the attic

I would also do a “open records request” for a list of all homes in that area that have fire sprinklers in the attic

And a request for homes that have taken out a buildung permit to finish out the attic

 

[conarb]

The fire chief said this was a requirement for this specific home and a couple of other homes that were approved several years back. There is also a local town ordinance that says all finished attics of homes over 35' tall need to have a sprinkler system for the attic. None of these homes have sprinkler systems. You would think it would incumbent on the building inspector to inform you of this local ordinance when approving the permit if there was no sprinkler system on the plan. Does anyone think the inspector has any liability for opening up the walls and then closing them back up? I'm going to ask for the document there are referencing in regard to the requirement.

I've tried to think back and during my 60+ years of building I can't remember ever pulling a permit that I didn't have to personally take the plans to the fire marshal and get his sign off, if the building department issued you the permit without the fire marshal's approval it's the building department's fault, if the fire marshal missed it it's the fire district's fault.

What is done is to file a legal action against all potential miscreants and let the attorneys sort out the legal liability. The problem is the time, but I'd just go ahead and use the space without a final, there is no way they can stop you at this point short of filing a legal action, if they do file I'd get three bids to take everything apart and install the sprinklers, then I'd answer the complaint with a counterclaim against all potential defendents. On new buildings they have control over utilities but on remodels they have no power, they wouldn't dare cut off the utilities, your damages could be huge.

 

[ICE]

The fire chief said this was a requirement for this specific home and a couple of other homes that were approved several years back. There is also a local town ordinance that says all finished attics of homes over 35' tall need to have a sprinkler system for the attic. None of these homes have sprinkler systems. You would think it would incumbent on the building inspector to inform you of this local ordinance when approving the permit if there was no sprinkler system on the plan. Does anyone think the inspector has any liability for opening up the walls and then closing them back up? I'm going to ask for the document there are referencing in regard to the requirement.

Well there you go. It is official and everybody missed it. The building inspector made a mistake. He's allowed to make a mistake.

Not long ago there was a new house built in my area that lacked sprinklers. Several inspectors, a plan checker and permit tech. missed the sprinklers until the final inspection. Now this was no trifling mistake nor was it an esoteric ordinance that few people knew about. After all, new houses almost always require sprinklers. The owner was on the hook for the installation of sprinklers and the AHJ was never on the hook.

 

[conarb]

Well there you go. It is official and everybody missed it. The building inspector made a mistake. He's allowed to make a mistake.

Not long ago there was a new house built in my area that lacked sprinklers. Several inspectors, a plan checker and permit tech. missed the sprinklers until the final inspection. Now this was no trifling mistake nor was it an esoteric ordinance that few people knew about. After all, new houses almost always require sprinklers. The owner was on the hook for the installation of sprinklers and the AHJ was never on the hook.

Tiger:

Why was the owner on the hook? Did anybody bother to file a legal action and let the courts decide?

Your case was a new home where the AHJ had the club of not turning on the utilities, they don't have that club in Ryan's case.

 

[ICE]

Tiger:

Why was the owner on the hook? Did anybody bother to file a legal action and let the courts decide?

Your case was a new home where the AHJ had the club of not turning on the utilities, they don't have that club in Ryan's case.

The owner is always on the hook. He built it....he owns it. What could a court do for him? Would a court decide to forgo sprinklers and risk the lives of the occupants? Would a court establish a precedent that the government is liable for innocent mistakes?

The case of the new home in my area already had the utilities hooked up. That was another mistake made by the inspector. I was there for the final inspection. That was the only time that I had been to that site. The moment that I mentioned sprinklers I was escorted off the property. They were one correction too late with that.

The clubs you bring up are effective when there is an immediate danger. Beyond that they are like cotton candy....big and hard to miss but you really don't want to touch it....such a mess they are.

 

[cda]

Some places

You have to carry plans to the Building dept

And

Carry a seperate set to the fire dept/ Fire Marshal or state fire marshal


They are not always interconnected

And sometimes not close to each other

 

[conarb]

The owner is always on the hook. He built it....he owns it. What could a court do for him? Would a court decide to forgo sprinklers and risk the lives of the occupants? Would a court establish a precedent that the government is liable for innocent mistakes?

In the process of building it he bought a permit, the government screwed up at one or more levels and has to take responsibility, sovereign immunity went out with kings. The government has damaged him, the government should pay for the damage they caused.

The case of the new home in my area already had the utilities hooked up. That was another mistake made by the inspector. I was there for the final inspection. That was the only time that I had been to that site. The moment that I mentioned sprinklers I was escorted off the property. They were one correction too late with that.

If the utilities were hooked up why didn't the owner just move in?
[/QUOTE]

 

[RyanBuilder]

Every permit I've pulled in other towns require the fire department (along with other depts) to sign off on permit checklist BEFORE you can even leave the building permit application with the building department. The 2nd line of defense against this mistake is have a fire dept inspection on the inspection card before the rough building inspection. Either of these procedures would have avoided the need to tear open walls and put them back together.

I've heard from the fire chief, who heard from the state fire marshall's office, and they will grant a waiver with 1 condition... that the windows are 5.7 sq/ft egress sized windows. We installed 2x double hung windows that are 4.6 sq/ft so the windows will need to be changed. The new windows (2 - 2x double hung) with material and labor will cost around $2,500-$3,000 for my cost. Better than a sprinkler system, but completely avoidable in the first place.

I'm wondering if the owner should just leave it as is and see if anyone in the town follows up. He could then threaten legal action against the building inspector for issuing a permit without this requirement and then signing off on the rough inspection without the sprinklers in place or a fire dept signoff. It seems common sense would say the building inspector is incompetent at a minimum if the town has an ordinance that all finished attics in homes over 35' need an attic sprinkler system. I'm not an attorney so I have no idea how that argument would hold up in court.

 

[conarb]

Some places

You have to carry plans to the Building dept

And

Carry a seperate set to the fire dept/ Fire Marshal or state fire marshal


They are not always interconnected

And sometimes not close to each other

CDA:

That's all very true, I've spent my life running plans around to various agencies, recently even to Roads and Airports and Environmental Health, in the end I bring them all back to the Building Department, it's the Building Department that is ultimately responsible.

 

[conarb]

Every permit I've pulled in other towns require the fire department (along with other depts) to sign off on permit checklist BEFORE you can even leave the building permit application with the building department. The 2nd line of defense against this mistake is have a fire dept inspection on the inspection card before the rough building inspection. Either of these procedures would have avoided the need to tear open walls and put them back together.

In which state are you located? Same here in Californioa but no fire department inspection on the card.

I've heard from the fire chief, who heard from the state fire marshall's office, and they will grant a waiver with 1 condition... that the windows are 5.7 sq/ft egress sized windows. We installed 2x double hung windows that are 4.6 sq/ft so the windows will need to be changed. The new windows (2 - 2x double hung) with material and labor will cost around $2,500-$3,000 for my cost. Better than a sprinkler system, but completely avoidable in the first place.

Replacing DHs with Casements is usually the cheapest option, no need to alter the rough opening.

I'm wondering if the owner should just leave it as is and see if anyone in the town follows up. He could then threaten legal action against the building inspector for issuing a permit without this requirement and then signing off on the rough inspection without the sprinklers in place or a fire dept signoff. It seems common sense would say the building inspector is incompetent at a minimum if the town has an ordinance that all finished attics in homes over 35' need an attic sprinkler system. I'm not an attorney so I have no idea how that argument would hold up in court.

I am a lawyer (non-practicing) and that's what I'm suggesting, just occupy and ignore them, if they sue counterclaim against them, you and the owner might end up splitting a few hundred thousand dollars for your damages.

 

[ICE]

In the process of building it he bought a permit, the government screwed up at one or more levels and has to take responsibility, sovereign immunity went out with kings. The government has damaged him, the government should pay for the damage they caused.



If the utilities were hooked up why didn't the owner just move in?

You'd have to ask him. Perhaps it was deal breaker for the lender.

 

[ICE]

Every permit I've pulled in other towns require the fire department (along with other depts) to sign off on permit checklist BEFORE you can even leave the building permit application with the building department. The 2nd line of defense against this mistake is have a fire dept inspection on the inspection card before the rough building inspection. Either of these procedures would have avoided the need to tear open walls and put them back together.

I've heard from the fire chief, who heard from the state fire marshall's office, and they will grant a waiver with 1 condition... that the windows are 5.7 sq/ft egress sized windows. We installed 2x double hung windows that are 4.6 sq/ft so the windows will need to be changed. The new windows (2 - 2x double hung) with material and labor will cost around $2,500-$3,000 for my cost. Better than a sprinkler system, but completely avoidable in the first place.

I'm wondering if the owner should just leave it as is and see if anyone in the town follows up. He could then threaten legal action against the building inspector for issuing a permit without this requirement and then signing off on the rough inspection without the sprinklers in place or a fire dept signoff. It seems common sense would say the building inspector is incompetent at a minimum if the town has an ordinance that all finished attics in homes over 35' need an attic sprinkler system. I'm not an attorney so I have no idea how that argument would hold up in court.

I don't think that you should rely on that for anything.....it makes it sound like you screwed up too.

 

[ICE]

I am a lawyer (non-practicing) and that's what I'm suggesting, just occupy and ignore them, if they sue counterclaim against them, you and the owner might end up splitting a few hundred thousand dollars for your damages.

That just delays the outcome. It complicates the owners dealings with the building dept. for future permits and what about banks. Is there a loan on a property that is supposed to remain in good standing with the law? The fire dept. has already backed down. Bigger windows on the third floor seems odd as a solution.

 

[RyanBuilder]

It will come down to what the owner wants to do. I'm pissed that I asked the building inspector about egress windows at the start and there was no mention of a sprinkler system. How could he not know? and if he didn't know, shouldn't he? The lack of accountability is infuriating.

We can replace the double double hungs in the same RO but one will need to be wider to accommodate the egress size. I need to rent a lift, repair the siding on the exterior, remove and replace / paint interior trim.

Thank you all for the different points of view and advice.

 

[conarb]

You'd have to ask him. Perhaps it was deal breaker for the lender.

You have a point that I had forgotten about, lenders do require a final inspection, I've only built for cash customers for several years, in fact many have specifically asked me not to get finals so the clock doesn't start for assessment, nobody wants to pay taxes. I do tell them that the county always catches up with escaped assessments, but many want to try to avoid them as long as they can.

 

[conarb]

We can replace the double double hungs in the same RO but one will need to be wider to accommodate the egress size. I need to rent a lift, repair the siding on the exterior, remove and replace / paint interior trim.

You can have casements built to fit right into the existing DH frames with no lift, siding, or trim changes; although I do hope your owner decides to tell the bastards to go to Hell, as a matter of fact when they present it to their city attorney he may tell them to back off, most cities hate the expense of litigation and bad publicity a case like this will bring.

 

[cda]

CDA:

That's all very true, I've spent my life running plans around to various agencies, recently even to Roads and Airports and Environmental Health, in the end I bring them all back to the Building Department, it's the Building Department that is ultimately responsible.

Not always

Like a hospital you have to please the world to build one, so many agencies will look at the plans

And all have thier own approval