Code Neophyte
Silver Member
Is it common in your jurisdiction to withhold a Certificate of Occupancy due to landscaping not being completed, or some other such local ordinance issue? I know that the code language (forgive me, I don't have my book with me at present) says something to the effect that "the Building Official shall, after finding that the requirements of this code and any other ordinances enforced by the department....have been met, issue a Certificate of Occupancy". I am wondering if the "other ordinances" (or whatever the exact language is) clause has been tested legally. It seems to me that the provision for - and intent of - the C of O is to establish that the building is complete and safe for occupancy. I can even see a strong argument for requiring the exit discharge to be fully compliant, but when the only issues left undone are landscaping and civil in nature, is it lawful for the AHJ to not issue the C of O? Is it not a ministerial act?