Not really good news at all. It was established the law says 13 in that community, doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, it's the law. The AHJ can't just waive the law. If anything ever happens Dewayne will be on the hook for not following the law. Well and the GC too, but he's not the sprinkler expert. It's win-lose for Dewayne. He will have no defense.
You do this on the forum often enough: Prosecution: 'Mr. Martinez, may I call you Screwed, the correspondence in front of you shows you knew the local law specified NFPA 13. Why did you argue for and ultimately install 13R contrary to the law?' Mr. Martinez: 'No you may not, I'm not Screwed (yet). Because the law was dumb, the GC went to the politicians and the City Administrator made a decision to keep business in town and the Fire Marshal approved.' Prosecution: 'And do any of those people you mention including yourself have the power over the will of the People of this fine community that wanted full 13? Isn't that a form of Communism or a Dictatorship? You are aware what a Republic is, right? You know the representatives of the People upheld the law on appeal before any of this happened?' Mr. Martinez: 'I wouldn't know I'm a sprinkler contractor.' Prosecution: 'So once again business, corrupt politicians and ignoring law won over these dead people?' Mr. Martinez: 'Well, maybe I am Screwed.' Of course that's hyperbole. Not saying I wouldn't do the 13R either, but I'd sure try to pass liability. The win-win comes if you get an ordinance change before the City council ASAP to go back to the base 13R where allowed by the model codes. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell P: 952.656.3652 F: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com *Lic. in MN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 4:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: IBC - building separations Hallelujah!!! Win-win indeed. Keep that variance handy, you could get a lot of mileage out of it. It was ok for them, so its ok for us in this next one, right? Topped off a good week with a winner- time to go decorate the Flamingo Lounge for Christmas. Thanks for the great news. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 4:18 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: IBC - building separations The state does allow local municipalities to adopt a more stringent fire code. This gets confusing for both contractors and builders. On a better note, politics have played a positive role in my situation. After the builder met with the city administrator voicing their concerns about having to pull out of building the complex if they were forced to go full 13, the fire department has decide it is now ok to go with 13R. I think they realized it was better to bend and go with 13R rather than lose all the tax revenue, site and utility improvements that the builder was going to provide. Win-win for all parties involved! -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: IBC - building separations Does your state allow an ordinance to require more than the state code? Is it possible to appeal to your state building department. I would place the call to the state level. I have had a local ordinance overturned in Ohio by an over zealous local city. Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 2:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: IBC - building separations Yes, it is written in their local ordinance that all sprinkler systems shall comply with NFPA 13. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: IBC - building separations Is there a legal written ordinance prohibiting 13R? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell P: 952.656.3652 F: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com *Lic. in MN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: IBC - building separations The owner is having a hard time trying to understand why 5 miles down the road he can sprinkle his complex with 13R but in this town he needs full 13. He is pro-sprinkler and has even sprinkled the townhomes in the other complexes we have done with him. Unfortunately, putting in dry systems will price these units out of the market for the area and he, of course, doesn't want to lose money so the whole project may be canceled. I have tried for a variance before with this AHJ. At the town meeting, when the board asked him why he does not recognize 13R, his response was that "he feared for the safety of his men". What, the other fire departments In the area don't care? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: IBC - building separations I certainly know not all AHJs put roadblocks in the way, I was referring solely to this one that doesn't allow 13R or 13D where appropriate. We do a lot of small 13R's and I disagree with the recent change to full -blown water supplies for 13R. Imagine a 10-room motel, 20 sprinklers at @250 = $5,000 Then your difference is: Water supply is 30 minutes x 20 GPM or 600 gallons and a 20 GPM unlisted pump $3,000 complete OR under 13 Water supply is 30 minutes x 40 GPM or 1200 gallons, and an NFPA 20 fire pump for 50 GPM, NFPA 20 wiring, controller....$25,000 or more. Can't think a pressure tank per 22 would be much cheaper than $25,000 installed; 1800 GPM capacity, air compressor, monitoring. If an AHJ wants to require 13 only, I think they should be forced to sprinkle their own domiciles. Might change their minds. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 12:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: IBC - building separations Not all AHJs and some were in the same field you were before deciding another path for a multitude of reasons. ----- Original Message ----- From: George Church [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 09:27 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: IBC - building separations Why do AHJs put roadblocks in the way of life safety residential systems? 13 only isn't going to get many voluntary systems installed. So if you're off the water mains in this jurisdiction and want to sprinkler your house cause you know the value, can you really afford it if you've got the water supply options of an NFPA 22 compliant pressure tank or an NFPA 22 compliant tank and NFPA 20 fire pump with 30 minutes stored water???? Maybe that's where the NAHB gets their pricing...clean agent might be a reasonable alternative given the water supply cost. If you wanted to sprinkler your house in that jurisdiction, you install the cpvc above ceilings after rough-in inspection, cover it with drywall without drops but mark on YOUR plan where the exact location is, get final inspection and bring the feed main out from hiding, drill thru and gle the drops in, and smuggle a 13D tank and pump into the building. No permit, no approvals, no inpsection, and boy I'd sleep far better at night knowing I had one mortgage for the house and a 13D system protecting my family. They pretty much economically prohibit the installation in daylight and force you to do it illegally. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 12:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: IBC - building separations It's a multi-family (4unit) building that the owner is trying to make into 2-2 unit townhomes where they could omit sprinklers. This particular AHJ only recognizes NFPA 13 and with all the cathedral ceilings and pitched roofs the owner does not want all the drains for the trapped attic pipe or the cost of a dry system. We do complexes with this owner all over the area so we are just trying to help him out of a jamb. If the AHJ will not budge the owner is probably going to build the attic and roof with fire retardant treated wood and the sprinklers will be omitted from the attic. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: IBC - building separations First you need to find what the building is classified as? Is it a multi-family dwelling or a one or two family dwelling? Once the classification is determined then you need to see if the fire separation between the dwelling units met the requirements of the IBC. In the area where we practice the 2006 IBC is still in effect and requires a two hour fire rated wall. In IBC 2006 Edition, Chapter 7, Section 704, paragraph 704.11 "Parapets" Item No. 5 states that "In Groups R-2 and R-3 where the entire building is provided with a Class C roof covering, the exterior wall shall be permitted to terminate at the underside of the roof sheathing or deck in Type III, IV and V construction, provided: 5.1. The roof sheathing or deck is constructed of approved noncombustible materials or of fire-retardant-treated wood for a distance of 4 feet (1220 mm);" Paragraph 705.6 "Vertical Continuity" Item no. 4 states: " In buildings of Type III, IV and V construction, walls shall be permitted to terminate at the underside of combustible roof sheathing or decks provided: 4.1. There are no openings in the roof within 4 feet (1220 mm) of the fire wall, 4.2. The roof is covered with a minimum Class B roof covering, and 4.3. The roof sheathing or deck is constructed of fire-retardant-treated wood for a distance of 4 feet (1220 mm) on both sides of the wall or the roof is protected with 5/8 inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum board directly beneath the underside of the roof sheathing or deck, supported by a minimum of 2-inch (51 mm) nominal ledgers attached to the sides of the roof framing members for a minimum distance of 4 feet (1220 mm) on both sides of the fire wall." The 2009 IBC has similar wording but in a different section of Chapter 7 because of renumbering. Regards Jim Davidson Davidson Associates Fire Protection * Medical Gas * Code Consulting 302-994-9500 Fax:302-234-1781 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 8:31 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: IBC - building separations Where is the spot in the IBC that defines what rating a wall must be to divide a larger building into two smaller, separate ones? I remember talk about row housing in San Francisco where one large building was subdivided into separate townhomes by use of firewalls. Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20111216/9efeba2c/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
