Theoretically at best "If an owner occupies without the COO, he/ she is subject to arrest by armed marshals." Reality is you get a ticket for an ordinance violation. About the same as a ticket for your long grass. Getting a ticket is a GOOD thing if you are right. You get to a judge to put the executive branch in their place. If you wait for the obstinate official to issue a COO you may never get use of your building or in front of a judge.
Chris -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The COO is more than just a formality. If an owner occupies without the COO, he/ she is subject to arrest by armed marshals. It doesnt matter if its a mall owner or a small homeowner out in the middle of nowhere. If she/he resists arrest or removal they may be killed, and at the very minimum imprisoned. Why would any sensible owner risk that over a piece of paper? A friend of mine is a roofing contractor. They had a regional contract with a fast food chain; one of the projects was in the greater Chicago area. They needed a sign off but the AHJ would not schedule the inspection. Finally he went down to her office and she told him: WE dont like you here (he was non union) and dont want you here. He agreed to never do business in her jurisdiction again; in return she went out and signed off on the roof inspection. Since you are the out of town contractor, have you considered that perhaps the AHJ is sending you a similar message of staying out of town and not biting into the locals work? On 7/19/2014 6:54 PM, John Drucker - Home wrote: > 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] >> r >> 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] >> r >> esprinkler.org> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l >> er.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] >> r >> esprinkler.org> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l er.org _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] >> r >> esprinkler.org> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l er.org _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] >> r >> esprinkler.org> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l er.org _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l er.org _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l >> 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-firesprinkl > er.org -- Forest Wilson Project Manager 193 California St Xenia OH 45385 Ph: 937-736-0425 ///WHO IS JOHN GALT?/// ******This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.*** _______________________________________________ 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
