• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Dropped the ball

rktect 1

rktect 1

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,112
Location
Illinois
Well, I took this job as building official about 7 months ago and have inherited a few issues. Today I have to meet with a few other people to discuss what we can do about a required fire sprinkler. 2.5 years ago an addition and home remodel triggered the fire sprinkler requirement. This village has a form that gets filled out for "determination". The FIre Chief reviewed this determination form then sent the architect the letter that states the fire sprinkler is required and he needs to apply for the permit.. No owner was informed of this. The fire chief retired. The next fire chief also retired like a month ago. Nobody in Community development knew and this department has gone through people during that time like a child through a bag of skittles. So 2.5 years later, due to covid, the owner calls for final inspections and my inspector realizes that this home would have triggered the fire sprinkler requirement. No sprinklers installed No permit ever applied for. No emails contacting the homeowner. So he writes it on the report and fails the finals.

Thoughts?
 
If you have documentation that the architect was notified, he‘s on the hook. Unfortunate for the home owner & builder … hold your ground and tell the architect to come up wit( a solution. E&O insurance. The base cost of the sprinklers will be on the HO, but the additional cost to retrofit will be on the architect.

For plan B … talk with city council, see about issuing a long term temporary C of O with the note that it doesn’t set a precedent for other construction, and that house has to retrofit sprinklers with the next permit the file.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The easiest solution is to punish the people that did the work incorrectly...

R105.8 Responsibility. It shall be the duty of every person
who performs work for the installation or repair of building,
structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems,
for which this code is applicable, to comply with this code.
 
steveray said:
That does not solve the problem....
Click to expand...
I was being facetious - however my guess is that someone the OP has spoken to in the city thinks that is a legitimate option...

Now, for a helpful answer - pass it and move on. You are a new B.O., and you cannot be held responsible for the work of your predecessors. Save your willingness to stand firm for a situation that happened during your employment. The homeowner did not know anything about that requirement, and it wasn't called out by anybody ahead of time.

The time to act was before, now is too late. Clearly document who dropped the ball, clearly inform everyone involved that a violation exists and that you will not pursue it from an enforcement standpoint because it was caused by the failures of a previous administration, and call it a day.

Edit: I re-read the OP, and if the architect was notified in writing, I think you should stand strong. Please disregard the previous answer, I had assumed no one had been informed at all.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that the architect failed to do their job and produce a code compliant project. If 2.5 years had not passed and the finial inspection was 2 or more years ago the sprinkler issue would have been a failure point at that time with the appropriate remediation required.

Write the violation, require the installation of the sprinkler system, system is installed sign off on the project.
Write the violation, require the installation of the sprinkler system, advise the owner to appeal the order, go to the appeals authority let them make a decision.
 
So the architect gets a letter from the Fire Dept stating that sprinklers are required and the architect not only ignored the letter, but he/she didn’t bother to inform the owner.

It has been my experience that a Fire Dep. approved set of plans is required just to get into Building Dept. plan check.

“The cheapest and simplest option is to punish the inspector.”————The inspector is the last line of defense. The reason behind the requirement might shed light on the inspector’s role as well as shade a decision on the final outcome.

The part about the owner being completely unaware needs to be taken with a block of salt.

Any bets on whether the local sprinkler contractor has a record of a bid proposal?
 
Last edited:
rktect 1 said:
about a required fire sprinkler. 2.5 years ago an addition and home remodel triggered the fire sprinkler requirement.
Click to expand...
I would actually want to read the ordinance that requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system as there may be exceptions or specific requirements that the project did not meet and therefore sprinklers would not be applicable.
rktect 1 said:
This village has a form that gets filled out for "determination". The FIre Chief reviewed this determination form then sent the architect the letter that states the fire sprinkler is required and he needs to apply for the permit..
Click to expand...
That there is a "determination" form that the fire chief reviews in order to "require" the installation of a fire sprinkler system in and of itself sounds as if the process is arbitrary.

You and the current fire chief should re-review the original "determination" form and what was the reason for the determination that a system was required to be installed. If there is no written reason from the previous Fire Chief's requirement for the installation of a fire sprinkler system then you should be starting from square one. A current review may yield a different determination.

Option B. The permit is over 2 years old. Expire it and move on.
 
So, the village adopted the 2018 Life Safety code which includes several sections for when to require to sprinkler system. Amended Section 43.8.1.1 "Whenever a residential dwelling undergoes construction resulting in an addition that is 50% or greater than the size of the original structure, the entire structure shall be subject to the fire protection requirements in accordance with the adopted codes applicable to new construction for the occupancy."

For perspective, this village has been without a Building Official or plan reviewer for about 5 or more years. Plan reviews were sent out of house. This left the Fire department in charge. Looking through the amendments, you can tell the fire departments hand has been all over the various codes. I have been re-writing them and fixing all the mistakes and missed areas and correcting things that should never have been amended such as when they removed columns in table 504.3 and 504.4 for type IV and type V buildings. Or when they removed F-2 in section 306.3 and corrected it to be F-1. Its been a lot of fun.
 
Nobody is going to blame the inspector. Well, ok one staff kind of did. I corrected that with the higher ups. The fact that the inspector happened to know what the trigger was for fire sprinklers does not make it his fault. He inspects what is on the approved plans. The approved plans do not indicate sprinklers.
 
rktect 1 said:
Well, I took this job as building official about 7 months ago and have inherited a few issues. Today I have to meet with a few other people to discuss what we can do about a required fire sprinkler. 2.5 years ago an addition and home remodel triggered the fire sprinkler requirement. This village has a form that gets filled out for "determination". The FIre Chief reviewed this determination form then sent the architect the letter that states the fire sprinkler is required and he needs to apply for the permit.. No owner was informed of this. The fire chief retired. The next fire chief also retired like a month ago. Nobody in Community development knew and this department has gone through people during that time like a child through a bag of skittles. So 2.5 years later, due to covid, the owner calls for final inspections and my inspector realizes that this home would have triggered the fire sprinkler requirement. No sprinklers installed No permit ever applied for. No emails contacting the homeowner. So he writes it on the report and fails the finals.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Sorry you get to complete this task. Safety is our biggest part of our job. If the sprinkler has been and still is required, I would contact the architect and be clear that this needs to be included in the job. Of course there are several methods and I would certainly try to work with all the parties to have this accomplished. Alternate Means and Methods come to mind. Best of continued success.
 
Our State removed the sprinkler requirements for SFD here. As AHJ we can adopt more restrictive but that does always mean it not against some other law. The attorneys' should be involved with all of this. JMHO.
 
Sawhorse member shoud have the edit button, shows up after you post the in the lower left next to Report
 
Rktect1, if you are fixing the amendments why are you in the 2006 family of ICC codes? I thought Massachusetts was bad being on the 2015, working to get to the 2021.

Another thought, if the permit has expired which it seems to have, what happens if they have to reapply under the current rules?
 
The building departments responsibility is not to punish people although under civil service you may be able to punish your employees. It is to enforce the properly adopted code. Notify the building owner of the noncompliance.

It is likely that the local modification is not valid. Check if it was filed with the Building Standard Commission and they recognize it was filed. It is also likely that the local modifications do not satisfy the limited conditions where California allows local modifications. Remember in California you are enforcing the state codes with limited local modifications. Read the state statutes. Local modifications must be re-adopted and filed for each code cycle.
 
Mark K said:
The building departments responsibility is not to punish people although under civil service you may be able to punish your employees. It is to enforce the properly adopted code. Notify the building owner of the noncompliance.

It is likely that the local modification is not valid. Check if it was filed with the Building Standard Commission and they recognize it was filed. It is also likely that the local modifications do not satisfy the limited conditions where California allows local modifications. Remember in California you are enforcing the state codes with limited local modifications. Read the state statutes. Local modifications must be re-adopted and filed for each code cycle.
Click to expand...
I don't see where the OP indicates this is in California.
 
TheCommish said:
Rktect1, if you are fixing the amendments why are you in the 2006 family of ICC codes? I thought Massachusetts was bad being on the 2015, working to get to the 2021.

Another thought, if the permit has expired which it seems to have, what happens if they have to reapply under the current rules?
Click to expand...
I have to pay more money to be a sawhorse to fix that. So........., I left my old position as plans examiner at one village and have been the BO for a new village who adopted the 2015 ICC codes plus the 2018 Life Safety Code
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top