Ron, The only way its going to get on the record legally and be adjudicated.
Best Wishes John ________________________________________ From: Sprinklerforum [[email protected]] on behalf of [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 8:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground I am filing an appeal, for all the good it will do. Have to get CofO then I can fight the the good but futile fight. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 20, 2014, at 5:10 PM, "John Drucker - Home" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Actually you get a notice of violation, order to pay penalty, order to > vacate and the building posted at each entrance. Disregarding the order may > be chargeable as defiant trespass of a lawful order (which it is because the > fact is you don't have a CO to occupy) which becomes a criminal matter, the > hole is getting deeper. Keep in mind the CO notice of violation, penalty > and vacate orders are a slam dunk for the code official since the first > question at the hearing is; "do you have a Certificate of Occupancy ?", > which is the matter at hand. Of course the only answer other than lying is > No. The next question will be "did you appeal the code officials > determination on the fire pump ?" again the answer, other than lying is No > to which the judge or board says; "why not ?" The appeal on the fire pump > can't even be heard because there is no appeal since the aggrieved party > never filed one. Typically judges or boards cant order a CO issued in > violation of the regulations which require all inspections to be completed > and signed off, especially for fire. Of course cooler heads will prevail > and the directive will be to get everyone to solve the problem which is > where we started. > > Besides all that we get requests from financial institutions, insurance > companies and other vested interests every day for proof of certificate of > occupancy prior to occupancy. > > Guys either get everyone together and solve it or FILE THE APPEAL it's not > going to go away. Let me off this ride I'm getting dizzy. > > PS as for the public, the angst will turn against the person(s) who occupied > without a CO not the code official simply by virtue that the public's > response will be " I had to get permits, inspections and a CO before > occupancy why don't they, who do they think they are , special ?" > > PSS, we agree to disagree but were still friends. > > John > > John Drucker, CET > Assistant Construction Official > Fire Protection Subcode Official > Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector > Borough of Red Bank > Red Bank, New Jersey > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 7:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
