So....., OK. I asked for some clarification from the Village Attorney.
The Village has adopted and amended the Life Safety Code to require fire sprinklers if you have an area of rehabilitation exceeding 50%. They have also emended the IRC and IBC to delete sections 112 and 113 Board of Appeals. So no board. No appeals. The owner of a project was told they will need a fire sprinkler system based on the amended life safety code. Now, the attorney is saying that because this was done through an ordinance, the appeal can go directly to the board of trustees who can then waive the code requirement that was previously adopted. It was my understanding that the adopted code then becomes LAW and no waiving or variance could actually be given. Had the Village simply added this to their own Village requirements in say chapter X Extra Building Requirements. Section A Fire Sprinklers Required. instead of amending the building codes (through an ordinance) they could just up and waive them.
So, is the attorney correct now? Can the Village now ask for a reason why the owner needs the relief from the code provisions, debate it around, and determine not to require this?
The Village has adopted and amended the Life Safety Code to require fire sprinklers if you have an area of rehabilitation exceeding 50%. They have also emended the IRC and IBC to delete sections 112 and 113 Board of Appeals. So no board. No appeals. The owner of a project was told they will need a fire sprinkler system based on the amended life safety code. Now, the attorney is saying that because this was done through an ordinance, the appeal can go directly to the board of trustees who can then waive the code requirement that was previously adopted. It was my understanding that the adopted code then becomes LAW and no waiving or variance could actually be given. Had the Village simply added this to their own Village requirements in say chapter X Extra Building Requirements. Section A Fire Sprinklers Required. instead of amending the building codes (through an ordinance) they could just up and waive them.
So, is the attorney correct now? Can the Village now ask for a reason why the owner needs the relief from the code provisions, debate it around, and determine not to require this?