• 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

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
 
Plenty of BLAME to go around BUT At the end of the day, DOES THIS ADDITION REALLY MAKE THIS HOME UNSAFE?

Most likely the original Structure was Sawn Lumber and not I Joist with a 3/8 OSB Web
Was the Addition Sawn Lumber? Personally, I feel the "NEW" Lumber options and how quickly the structure could be compromised is the main reason for the sprinklers

I understand where recent thinking is that anything that gives the occupants more time to Get Out is a Good Thing
But perhaps some extra smoke alarms would be just as effective as an Early Warning Method

I believe that Fire Alarms SAVE LIVES and Sprinklers Save Property

The idea of creating a financial Hardship for this oversight seems unreasonable IMHO
 
Genduct said:
Plenty of BLAME to go around BUT At the end of the day, DOES THIS ADDITION REALLY MAKE THIS HOME UNSAFE?

Most likely the original Structure was Sawn Lumber and not I Joist with a 3/8 OSB Web
Was the Addition Sawn Lumber? Personally, I feel the "NEW" Lumber options and how quickly the structure could be compromised is the main reason for the sprinklers

I understand where recent thinking is that anything that gives the occupants more time to Get Out is a Good Thing
But perhaps some extra smoke alarms would be just as effective as an Early Warning Method

I believe that Fire Alarms SAVE LIVES and Sprinklers Save Property

The idea of creating a financial Hardship for this oversight seems unreasonable IMHO
Click to expand...
The Fire Department has set criteria that everybody has to abide by. It is generally not difficult to arrive at a conclusion regarding sprinkler requirements. The decision in this case is clearly the purview of the Fire Department.

As to creating a hardship….an architect designed it, a contractor built it, an owner sat on it….so who created what?
 
ICE said:
The Fire Department has set criteria that everybody has to abide by. It is generally not difficult to arrive at a conclusion regarding sprinkler requirements. The decision in this case is clearly the purview of the Fire Department.

As to creating a hardship….an architect designed it, a contractor built it, an owner sat on it….so who created what?
Click to expand...
Ice, Point Taken! The Legality of the situation and the RIGHT of the AHJ to Insist that they can ignore their part in this situation is clear.

The financial hardship I was referring to is the idea of insisting on the sprinklers AFTER all the work has been done!

This is a good example of having more than one entity in charge. Things can get missed, We are all busy

If we are to have the respect of the Communities we SERVE, then we need to APPLY the Code and Not INFLICT the Rules

So I think, given the unfortunate sequence of events, we really need to do our job, look at the Intent of the Code and ask ourselves, Does this Addition make the home UNSAFE, Not just, it would have been SAFER

To do otherwise would stretch the boundaries of Governmental Immunity and Not Acknowledge the part the AHJ played in this Situation

The Horse is Out of the Barn, NOW, WHAT DO WE DO?
 
Was there a rough-in inspection approved? at what point does the sprinkler system get inspected? Are water connections to a sprinkler system done by a plumber or the sprinkler installer? Where's the GC on this project?
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Was there a rough-in inspection approved? at what point does the sprinkler system get inspected? Are water connections to a sprinkler system done by a plumber or the sprinkler installer? Where's the GC on this project?
Click to expand...
These are separate permit types. Sprinklers are never a part of the building permit. So that sure is helpful.
 
I have walked into a similar situation: took over as (only) building inspector of a small town, and as I learned my job I realized many things have been systematically overlooked or ignored over the last many years. I have taken on some large changes within the community, and taken my lumps along the way.

When it comes to these situations where there is plenty of blame to pass around, and certainly potential for conflict, I tend to try to distill the problem to safety, and focus less on administrative requirements. So...I tend to agree with Genduct... how can the home be made safe? As the AHJ you will often need to balance cost vs safety and make many tough decisions.

As an aside, I have enjoyed reading through this forum just to get an idea on how other inspectors think.

Mo
 
Beniah Naylor said:
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.
Click to expand...
Scenario: Sprinks are required. This forum has documented in writing you know this. You "pass it and move on". An unfortunate fire occurs and people are seriously injured or die. Everyone is sued. The judge asks you if you passed something you knew was a code violation. You say yes but "it was caused by the failures of a previous administration".
IMO that is not anywhere near enough to create plausible deniability. You would have responsibility due to misfeasance, malfeasance, or non-feasance.
 
ICE said:
The Fire Department has set criteria that everybody has to abide by. It is generally not difficult to arrive at a conclusion regarding sprinkler requirements. The decision in this case is clearly the purview of the Fire Department.

As to creating a hardship….an architect designed it, a contractor built it, an owner sat on it….so who created what?
Click to expand...
ICE, Point Taken, there was a Mistake, Like someone once pointed out to me:

ANYBODY CAN DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, IT IS WHEN YOU SCREW UP AND FIX IT THAT REALLY DETERMINES WHO THE "MECHANICS" ARE

The word Mechanic ( not Journeymen) was used in our area when I began as an Apprentice in '67
There were Mechanics and Laborers. I believe the Laborers I worked with were 75% Mechanic because they too, took Pride in What They Did

So what is the Answer? What will happen to your reputation if you admit "There was a mistake made on this project" God Help Us , in the Political Climate we live in today, How could anyone bring themselves to tell the TRUTH
 
@ ~ @ ~ @

** my250r11 ** & others, ...if you are a "paid subscription member"
[ i.e. - a Sawhorse ] and you are having problems with your account,
or are not seeing various features that should be available to you,
then please send ** jar546 ** a Private Message ( a PM ) to request
assistance.......He is always willing to help !

@ ~ @ ~ @
 
rktect 1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of "would have triggered"....it was triggered at inception. The current situation has not changed that. The responsibility rests with the owner. What the owner does about it is not the problem of the building department. The building department can't cause the owner to install a sprinkler system and the owner can't cause the building department to issue a C/O.

Some make the argument that the building department missed several opportunities to get the sprinklers installed during construction. While that is true, the other players had the same shot at it and missed. I have heard it said, "You miss 100% of the shots that you don't take."

Passing on this problem because of misplaced guilt opens the door to all manner of violations. At a final inspection I have found missing AFCI protection that has resulted in a service upgrade, missing egress windows, missing tempered glazing, missing counter/island receptacles, missing smoke and CO alarms, missing attic ventilation, missing handrail, and yes....missing sprinkler systems. That is not all of it either.

Each present a hardship. The degree of hardship is relative to the pocketbook of the owner. What seems like a smallish mistake can be a real dilemma for some. Letting things go because it was missed by another inspector opens a door to a dark place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top