Bob, Unfortunately they can indirectly by withholding a certificate of approval, compliance or occupancy. Most property owners need this document for closing, insurance or tenancy and or their attorney advises them that they will or have now broken an adopted law or regulation. So despite the illegitimacy of the code officials claim the property owner or tenant has now legitimately broken the rules by occupying without a certificate of occupancy and or certificate of approval. In other words the enforcing agency holds the cards.
Code Enforcement is a legal process and like all or most legal processes in the United States the aggrieved must petition for relief, in code enforcement parlance by filing an appeal. The appeal allows the appellant to present his/her position to an independent body who will render a decision in favor of the appellant or the government. I cant speak for other states but in New Jersey decisions of boards of appeals are binding on the enforcing agency, but this is important they don't set precedent and or amend the code. In other words one could win an appeal in one jurisdiction only to have to go through the process in another. As for the state level unless theirs maleficence the state cannot overrule a local enforcing agency since the local enforcing agencies appointment bestows approval authority to the local enforcing agency. There is good reason for this, to avoid undue political influence, approve this project but not this one. So what's a contractor to do, file an appeal, that's the proper route, but keep in mind that boards of appeal typically set aside cost of compliance issues much like requests for variations cannot be based on financial hardship. So be sure the code official is imposing above and beyond the adopted code including any interpretive authority bestowed to the code official. Those in the electrical field know all too well about NEC; NEC 90.4 Enforcement. This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules. By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety. This Code may require new products, constructions, or materials that may not yet be available at the time the Code is adopted. In such event, the authority having jurisdiction may permit the use of the products, constructions, or materials that comply with the most recent previous edition of this Code adopted by the jurisdiction. So there you have it in a nutshell, I'm not siding with either party just presenting information. Best wishes. Sincerely, John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Borough of Red Bank Red Bank, New Jersey Email: [email protected] Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 2:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground What does unwritten policy have to do with anything? If it's not an adopted code amendment can they enforce it legally? Thank You, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.Firebyknight.com -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The stance of the AHJ is that their unwritten policy is pumps can only be used at 100%. They also believe that 1500 gpm pumps will only produce 1500 gpm, and we have to use 2 2000 gpm pumps to get 4000 gpm. They don't think pressure is even a factor. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:00 AM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are so many things wrong here. But, you may be able to make this work regardless. Did you take your 75% reduction in fire flow based on the fully sprinklered exception in B105.2? If you are starting at 4000 gpm, the required flow can be reduced to 1500 gpm if fully sprinklered. Doesn't that work with your pumps? > > Duane > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:51 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: '[email protected]' > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > Has Annex B been adopted? See 101.2.1? > > Duane > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:35 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > Hi John, > What Ron didn't say is that the AHJ is trying to connect chapter 5 of > the IFC and table B105.2 fire flow requirements to our sprinkler > system pumps. We conceded early on to furnish a redundant pump because > it was specified that way, but the FM is expecting the fire pumps to > provide the 4000 GPM from B105.2 at the sprinkler (ESFR) demand > pressure (165 PSI) and do so at the 100% design point of the fire > pump. We submitted our design with two 1500 GPM pumps piped in > parallel along with calcs for the storage sprinklers flowing at around > 165 PSI at the pump discharge. The city water system which supplies > the project flow tested at 5700 GPM at 74 PSI from two 4" hydrant > butts. No one at the AHJ's office understands how to read a fire code, > or any other code for that matter. They are "Code Alchemist", taking a > paragraph from chapter 5, table from the annex, and numbers from our > calcs, mix 'em all together in an AHJ beaker and BOOM!! "Minimum code > requirement". See? This stuff ain 't > all that hard. > > Mark at Aero > 602 820-7894 > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:24 AM, "John Drucker" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Like how you wrote; " everything is per code except we have". > "Except" ?, Are you/they saying that having two pumps rather than one is a violation; I.e. " 4000 GPM at 160 vs 4000 at 165" and you're short 5 psi ? So two code violations, two pumps and short 5 psi. Now before you chop my head off, consider two things wheres the one pump and 165 psi coming from ? Somehow apparently this has been planted in the ahjs head, I'm certain he/she didn't come up with it on there own. Now you're stuck. Frankly and using common sense are you hitting demand, does everything fit and work together, is the principal designer and owner ok with it ? Move forward. > > John Drucker - Mobile Email > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:jdrucker@ > redbanknj.org> > Cell/Text 732-904-6823 > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to go from here.. > > Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, "John Drucker - Home" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Ron, et.al. > > I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; > there's your side, their side and the truth. Perhaps there's an issue > with the code itself, a local amendment or interpretation. There's > got to be something driving this. > > Case in point about a reference standard, NFPA-72 speaks of wall > mounted smoke detectors/alarms and calls out a distance yet the > illustration in the annex is worded differently than the code. > > 29.8.3.3 Wall Mounting. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors mounted on > walls shall be located NOT FARTHER than 12 in. (300 mm) from the > adjoining ceiling surface. > > Yet the annex A.29.8.3 notes; "Measurements shown are to the closest > edge of the detector". > > According to the annex this would place part or most of the alarm or > detector FARTHER than 12 in. from the adjoining ceiling surface. > > It's important to note that Annex A opens with the following > statement; > > "Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but > is included for informational purposes only. This annex contains > explanatory material, numbered to correspond with the applicable text paragraphs" > > Yet when brought to NFPA's attention the answer from the NFPA > representative was interpreted from the Annex material. This is > clearly incorrect, the annex and the illustration are not part of the code. In either case fix the > code language or the annex. The same happens in I Code Commentaries and > various subject matter books that often interpret, amend or supplement > the actual code language. In a nutshell our codes and standards have > become a maze of requirements, exceptions and interpretations. This > should be a warning flag to the code community. Perhaps the code > official has just reached his limit and is instead relying on > empirical experience in the face of confusion. > > I have situation at this very moment on two different projects that > impose an operational issue for the fire department, one that the code > is not considering. However my approach is to get everyone around the > table do some brainstorming and come up with an equitable technical solution. > Perhaps by finding the root cause of your situation the stakeholders will > put down their swords and solve the problem. Food for thought. > > Best wishes, always available should the need arise. > > Sincerely, > > John > > John Drucker, CET > Assistant Construction Official > Fire Protection Subcode Official > Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector > Borough of Red Bank > Red Bank, New Jersey > Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 > > Safe Buildings Save Lives ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:04 PM > To: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > esprinkler.org> > Subject: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > It's Friday so I figured I'd whine on the forum. To set the stage, > prior to the letter I am referring to we had approved permitted > drawings from the AHJ. The following is a quote from a letter we > received from that same AHJ. > > "At this time , Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is denying > said plans and is requesting a re-submittal of new plans that exceed > IFC, UFC, and NFPA standards." Nowhere in the body of the letter does > he say exactly how we are to "EXCEED" IFC, UFC and NFPA. In the letter > they basically outline that what was submitted meets the all of the > codes. I was told by the author of the letter at a meeting the day > before that he didn't care what the code said because he is the AHJ > and per Section 104 of the IFC he can make us do whatever he wants. > Then he said "do it my way or there will be no Certificate of > Occupancy." We are 4-5 weeks away from a CofO and the change involves > increasing the size of two new diesel pumps that are being installed. > The fire chief told us to go to the State Fire Marshal if we wanted to appeal. I'm a bit frustrated with AHJ's right now. > > Ron F > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > esprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > esprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > esprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > esprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
