I agree, it's much easier to just conform but that's just not right. This particular inspector is just out of control. What makes it worse is he, his boss (FM), and his bosses boss (FC) don't know jack about fire sprinklers. They fit the Dunning - Kruger effect to a tee when it comes to fire sprinklers. This same inspector gave final on a commercial system hanging from a concrete deck with zero seismic bracing. The only bracing is at TOR. You bring it to their attention and they blow you off because fixing it would admit they were wrong. I am so tired of this guy getting away with whatever he wants. Now it's heads in 13D over-hangs. Frustrate me. Owen Evans
Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 29, 2015, at 4:17 PM, "Steve Leyton" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This is an NFPA standards-driven list serve and you're asking a legal > question that's really more in line with what code is adopted, how it's > adopted and what laws in your city/county/state may either empower or > prohibit so called "rump rules". In some states a local AHJ is > supposed to submit a white paper to either their SFM or Building > Standards Commission, in other states it may be handled differently. In > a many more states than most of us realize, they don't have an adopted > Fire Code, so the Chief gets to be Yosemite Sam. And that's not > necessarily a bad thing if your state legislature is so backward that > they think it's okay not to have a Fire Code. > > You're fishing for someone to tell you that you don't have to put the > sprinklers in and the most prudent among us won't do that. Ask me a > more subjective question: Do I think there's value in putting > sprinklers under a cantilevered overhang over a driveway in a SFD > sprinkler system? Do I think that's consistent with the intent of 13D > or Section P2904 of the IRC? No and no. But I'm not going to tell > you whether or not your local AHJ is empowered to do that or how do deal > with them other than to appeal to whoever's next up the ladder. > > As Ken said, even though we might organically and strenuously disagree > with a ruling like this, most often it's easier to conform and move on. > > SL > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: 13D exterior overhangs. > > So the AHJ can simply write a policy and "BAM" it's legal to be more > restrictive and costly? I always thought they had to submit to the > building standards commission, no? > > Sent from my iPhone > >>> On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Parsley Consulting >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Adding to what Steve mentioned, it's also worth being very careful on > which >> issues you care to fight over. We've both run across AHJ's who > didn't "follow >> the rules" on mandating local requirements, and the fight was more >> demanding than simply doing what was asked. >> >> I emphasize that for me - not any reference to Steve - it cost me a >> client, and any chance of ever getting a submittal through that AHJ in > >> the future. People are human. >> >> *Ken Wagoner, SET >> *Parsley Consulting*** >> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >> *Escondido, California 92025 >> *****Phone 760-745-6181* >> Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> >> >> >> *** >>> On 1/29/2015 3:37 PM, Steve Leyton wrote: >>> Depends on whether it's ordained, or a local code amendment or policy >>> bulletin or just an off-handed comment. Local fire and building >>> officials have several different statutory methods that they can use >>> to make requirements that are more restrictive (or less) or beyond >>> the minimum prescriptives of a code or standard. But in theory, it's > >>> supposed to be substantiated, documented and published in the public >>> domain. So as far as whether the AHJ you're referring to can make > such >>> a requirement "...without an amendment ..." as you say, all depends >>> on what the local municipal code and/or city manager and/or city >>> attorney would say if you threw off the gloves. >>> >>> My opinion only, >>> Steve Leyton >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> [email protected] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:29 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: 13D exterior overhangs. >>> >>> 13D does not require heads in exterior over-hangs, such as a second >>> story over-hanging a driveway. Can an AHJ apply 13 rules to 13D >>> systems without an amendment and require heads in over-hangs 4' & > greater? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >>> ler >>> .org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >>> ler.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
