Attic Sprinkler System Debacle

[cda]

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 think when you get the actual wording

It will have a lot more details on the requirements, then have been stated here.

 

[conarb]

I think when you get the actual wording

It will have a lot more details on the requirements, then have been stated here.

That's why he needs attorneys to sort this mess out.

 

[cda]

That's why he needs attorneys to sort this mess out.

Well it went from a fire sprinkler system to changing out a window

 

[cda]

Since attic high

How about a one pane window, where the entire window opens

 

[ICE]

That's why he needs attorneys to sort this mess out.

Showing up with an attorney is spoiling for a fight. When you are seen as a threat it’s a fight that you’ll get.

An eero is on the table because, like sprinklers, it’s a life safety feature. You stated that the current window isn’t even 20” wide. That’s a third floor with one way out. A bigger window and sprinklers on the first two floors makes sense. You are doing your best to keep a death trap that you built.

 

[conarb]

Showing up with an attorney is spoiling for a fight. When you are seen as a threat it’s a fight that you’ll get.

An eero is on the table because, like sprinklers, it’s a life safety feature. You stated that the current window isn’t even 20” wide. That’s a third floor with one way out. A bigger window and sprinklers on the first two floors makes sense. You are doing your best to keep a death trap that you built.

He specifically says there are no sprinklers on the first two floors, nowhere does he say the double hungs are not 20" wide, many double hungs don't meet egress not because of width but because of lower half height.

If the missfeasance is as documented he stands a good chance of prevailing with a jury trial. Stop the inflammatory language about life safety and death traps, from the sprinkler debates we all know that statistically they are a waste of money, only in the codes due to the bribery on the part of the sprinkler industry. At this point it seems that everything you guys are doing is designed to jack the cost of housing up as high as possible.

“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”¹


¹ http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_best_way_to_get_a_bad_law_repealed_is_to/222015.html

 

[ICE]

He specifically says there are no sprinklers on the first two floors, nowhere does he say the double hungs are not 20" wide, many double hungs don't meet egress not because of width but because of lower half height.

If the missfeasance is as documented he stands a good chance of prevailing with a jury trial. Stop the inflammatory language about life safety and death traps, from the sprinkler debates we all know that statistically they are a waste of money, only in the codes due to the bribery on the part of the sprinkler industry. At this point it seems that everything you guys are doing is designed to jack the cost of housing up as high as possible.

“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”¹


¹ http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_best_way_to_get_a_bad_law_repealed_is_to/222015.html

"He specifically says there are no sprinklers on the first two floors"
I didn't say that he did. I said it would make better sense than sprinklers only on the third floor.

"nowhere does he say the double hungs are not 20" wide"
Ok you got me there. Not less than 20" wide.....just 159 square inches too small.

"Stop the inflammatory language"
You of all people....that's a hoot conarb. And you follow up with: "they are a waste of money, only in the codes due to the bribery on the part of the sprinkler industry."

My code has this:
R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue opening required.
Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have not less than one operable emergency escape and rescue
opening. Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, an emergency escape and rescue opening shall be required in each sleeping room. Emergency escape and res- cue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.

But I don't know the code in New Hampshire.....perhaps that makes me a candidate to be an inspector there.

Well then conarb, what do you call a child's playroom in an attic without an EERO. I suppose "death trap" is too strong.....how about "code violation".....yaaa no, I like death trap. A death trap that every builder should be aware of.....

 

[tmurray]

In Canada, the municipality and the building official would be found negligent. This is a violation of what is called procedural fairness.

1. Where a government agency made a promise
2. that promise is to follow a proceedure
3. in reference to an interested person
4. they relied and acted on that promise

By reviewing plans, issuing a permit and completing inspections the municipality has agreed to what you have been constructing. Now the owner has suffered damages due to the inspector's negligence. Case law in general here has established that it is unreasonable to expect contractors and owners to be familiar with all aspects of the law and to always follow them, it is for this reason inspectors exist. It is the responsibility of the inspectors to detect obvious errors.

If we as inspectors cannot detect obvious errors like this one, what is our role in the construction industry?

 

[mark handler]

As a Building Inspector, Plan Checker, or Building Official, how many of you pull the original building conditions of approval before issuing a permit.

We issue 6 to 10 permits per day... if I need to review each of the original building conditions of approval before issuing a permit, that will go to 4 to 5.
That's not going to work. Some complain about waiting 20 minutes.

 

[cda]

In Canada, the municipality and the building official would be found negligent. This is a violation of what is called procedural fairness.

1. Where a government agency made a promise
2. that promise is to follow a proceedure
3. in reference to an interested person
4. they relied and acted on that promise

By reviewing plans, issuing a permit and completing inspections the municipality has agreed to what you have been constructing. Now the owner has suffered damages due to the inspector's negligence. Case law in general here has established that it is unreasonable to expect contractors and owners to be familiar with all aspects of the law and to always follow them, it is for this reason inspectors exist. It is the responsibility of the inspectors to detect obvious errors.

If we as inspectors cannot detect obvious errors like this one, what is our role in the construction industry?

But sometimes a project can have multiple AHJ’s

So I do not think you could hold one ahj liable for not enforcing another ahj’s requirements ???

 

[tmurray]

But sometimes a project can have multiple AHJ’s

So I do not think you could hold one ahj liable for not enforcing another ahj’s requirements ???

You are absolutely correct.

This requirement is driven by a by-law/ordinance from the municipality (same government agency the official works for). Depending on the process the municipality uses to approve permits, the building official should be aware of all requirements put into place by the municipality to regulate construction. That is their job.

I would certainly agree that requirements established at a state or federal level, the official is likely not responsible unless expressly authorized to enforce the legislation.

There is merit that the owner and contractor should have known, provided the laws are easily obtainable. But the official's job is to catch the situations where the owner and contractor don't know.

 

[mtlogcabin]

In the distant past we have had building conditions that where put on the final subdivision plat. Our City Attorney said unless it is an easement it is un-enforceable if on the plat only. Now a CUP (conditional use permit) is enforceable. So find the original document, zoning code, fire code or building code and see if it was done correctly when adopted.
You can not use a zoning instrument to modify or change a building or fire code.

 

[tmurray]

As a Building Inspector, Plan Checker, or Building Official, how many of you pull the original building conditions of approval before issuing a permit.

We issue 6 to 10 permits per day... if I need to review each of the original building conditions of approval before issuing a permit, that will go to 4 to 5.
That's not going to work. Some complain about waiting 20 minutes.

For renovations? I do. How can I perform a review and place adequate requirements on a permit if I don't know what I'm dealing with? To be fair, we are a relatively young community. Our oldest buildings are only about 100 years old. Most of the development we do not have records for until about 1970. Most of that is digitized. Takes me about 5 minutes to run through an old permit.

 

[conarb]

In Canada, the municipality and the building official would be found negligent. This is a violation of what is called procedural fairness.

1. Where a government agency made a promise
2. that promise is to follow a proceedure
3. in reference to an interested person
4. they relied and acted on that promise

By reviewing plans, issuing a permit and completing inspections the municipality has agreed to what you have been constructing. Now the owner has suffered damages due to the inspector's negligence. Case law in general here has established that it is unreasonable to expect contractors and owners to be familiar with all aspects of the law and to always follow them, it is for this reason inspectors exist. It is the responsibility of the inspectors to detect obvious errors.

If we as inspectors cannot detect obvious errors like this one, what is our role in the construction industry?

T Murray:

Once again you demonstrate that Canada has a much better system than the International Codes.

A few years ago, after an inspection, the inspector showed back up the next day telling me: "Dick, I've got a problem, after I got back to the office I remembered something about a special ordinance on propane pans, he handed me a copy of the ordinance showing the lips of the pans turned up 6" instead of the usual 2", he asked: "How can you help me out?" The pans are copper which is expensive, I said: " the two pans under the house are no problem, but that huge one over the ceiling in the laundry room is going to be a real problem. Because the price of scrap copper is so high the sheet metal guy found it cheaper to build new ones and recycle the old ones, the one over the laundry room had to come down in pieces through the attic scuttle and go back up in pieces to be rebuilt. I guess I did it at my own expense because he was such a good guy and gave me breaks whenever he could.

I didn't see how he saw it as his problem for letting it go, I saw it as the plan checkers' problem, they should have caught it.