# Unbelievable drawing note from aliscensed proffessional



## mtlogcabin (Oct 26, 2011)

SPECIAL NOTES

1.     DINING AREA AND SUN ROOM ARE DESIGNED PER OWNER VERBAL SPECIFICATIONS. HEAD SPACING IN DINING AREA AND SUN ROOM DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS PER NFPA 13, 2007 ED.

2.     aaaaa FIRE SYSTEM SERVICES, INC. AND bbbbbbbb DESIGN SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR INADEQUATE OPERATION OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM, THEREFORE, aaaaaaa FIRE SYSTEM SERVICES, INC. AND bbbbbbb DESIGN SHALL BE HELD HARMLESS FROM SYSTEM DESIGN AND INADEQUATE OPERATION OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

I could not believe the special note on this revised sprinkler plan. Of course they where not stamped or sealed by the NICET Level IV designer either. :banghd :banghd :banghd


----------



## jpranch (Oct 26, 2011)

You got to be kidding me??? Never seen anything like that on proposed plans!


----------



## tmurray (Oct 26, 2011)

yeah, because that'll stand up in court

/sarcasm


----------



## north star (Oct 26, 2011)

*& & & &*

Reject the plans for non-compliance with your adopted codes and have them

re-submit with approved ones!.......Since you are The Gate Keeper,  ...simply

close the gate until they submit approved type drawings.

*& & & &*


----------



## cda (Oct 26, 2011)

sounds like owner says I want it this way

sprinkler company says it is wrong

at least the sprinkler company is alerting you that there is a problem, instead of trying to get it by you.


----------



## Alias (Oct 26, 2011)

Maybe the licensed professional is tired of arguing with the happy homeowner and wants you to be the bad guy?  I dunno.  I have that happen here and I am more than happy to oblige.

I find the whole scenario unbelievable.  What I will say is what a crock of c**p.

Sue


----------



## Frank (Oct 26, 2011)

Is the system required by code?

IF not arequired system and no credit istaken for it, at least in Virginia, that would be an appropriate note and the system could be installed and approved that way--with due disclamers from the jurisdiction that it is an owners option system that does not fully comply with the standard.

Relevent code section--

2009 VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION CODE (Part I of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code) – Effective March 1, 2011

- 5 -

103.8 Nonrequired equipment. The following criteria for nonrequired equipment is in accordance with Section 36-103 of

the Code of Virginia. Building owners may elect to install partial or full fire alarms or other safety equipment that was not

required by the edition of the USBC in effect at the time a building was constructed without meeting current requirements

of the code, provided the installation does not create a hazardous condition. Permits for installation shall be obtained in

accordance with this code. In addition, as a requirement of this code, when such nonrequired equipment is to be installed,

the building official shall notify the appropriate fire official or fire chief.


----------



## gbhammer (Oct 26, 2011)

I had something very similar a couple of days ago at a remodel / change of use. Plans were approved; I go out to the site to do a pressure test and find that the designer listened to the contractor and property owner and did not put 7 areas on the plans that needed heads. I failed them on the spot and said redesign. They were hot. The owner called screaming. I calmly explained that the plans were approved based off of an inaccurate representation of the building. I am sorry if it will now cost you $7,000 more dollars.

They did have a set of revised plans on site (they changed to blaze master piping) when I got there, and on the plans the designer had a small note (we are not responsible for areas that we were requested to not put heads in)

It was hidden in a lot of boiler plated stuff.


----------



## codeworks (Oct 26, 2011)

i've seen non complying systems throw insurance rates through the roof of the property owner. imho, even if it's not required, if it's going to be installed, install it right and have it do what it is installed to do.


----------



## Frank (Oct 26, 2011)

The theory is that when full protection is not required, some or partial protection is better than none at all.

I have a small wooden office building and I put a 13R 2 head design sprinkler system in it--is it safer than the same building without any sprinklers?

See also 2009 IFC

901.4.2 Nonrequired fire protection systems. Any fire protection system or portion thereof not required by this code or the International Building Code shall be allowed to be furnished for partial or complete protection provided such installed system meets the requirements of this code and the International Building Code.

Overspaced heads would be providing partial protection.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 26, 2011)

This is a V-B 3 story building non-seperated uses between the A-2 and the M on the main floor with an A-3 in the basement and R-2 on the 2nd and 3rd floors

All these uses where in the original building. We allowed them to expand the A-2 use without sprinklering in the 1st phase because the second phase consisted of demolishing the rest of the building including basement and foundation. The new basement included the riser room for the sprinkler system for the entire project.


----------



## cda (Oct 26, 2011)

So required system through out???


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 26, 2011)

Lets see....unseparated uses, residential, assembly, quick response, protected egress and improper design.  Not to mention or throw in red flag, exposure, negligence or liability or even Colorado.

Refuse, stamp and have them start again


----------

