# Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes



## jar546 (Nov 11, 2009)

There is pending legislation from one PA polititian that would skip the 09 codes in an effort to circumvent the sprinkler requirement in the IRC.  At publicly televised hearings online the home buildiners association was claiming insane numbers for costs.  I believe that there is actual, real data showing a cost of less than $2. square foot.  Correct?


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Does your state always upgrade to the next code?  My state has not adopted any ICC codes.

I doubt the village I work in will jump from 2006 to 2009.  Probably wait for about 2015.  The last jump here was from the 1996 BOCA and 1995 CABO to the 2006 codes.


----------



## mjesse (Nov 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Like RKTect, Illinois has no state code, other than our own state plumbing code.

Our municipality adopts every other code cycle. 2000 ICC, 2006 ICC, and presumably 2012 ICC.

We are a small municipality, and just buying the required sets of books can be a budget killer.

mj


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Jeff:

You are correct regarding costs and the NAHB mis-information.  It worked well in our state so far (legal rammification study being done now on how amending it our will work). There are studies and figures out there that are far more accurate and based on (rural, municipal & fixed and multi-purpose) which are independent studies not just the sprinkler interest versions.  I have some if needed.


----------



## georgia plans exam (Nov 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Georgia also will not be adopting the 2009 codes in 2010.

GPE


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

I think the $2 figure can work if you have a simple house (not a lot of ceilng breaks requiring extra heads) and a good water supply.

If you're on a well, you have to add in the cost of a tank & pump (many places here in central Va. only get 3 GPM or so from a well).  If your water company has low pressure, you have to add for a larger water service & meter, which can get very expensive in some areas.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Good for Pennsylvania.

The ICC mistakes adding requirements and increasing restrictions for improving the code.

The real need is for better clarity and more simplification.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes



			
				Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> I think the $2 figure can work if you have a simple house (not a lot of ceilng breaks requiring extra heads) and a good water supply.  If you're on a well, you have to add in the cost of a tank & pump (many places here in central Va. only get 3 GPM or so from a well).  If your water company has low pressure, you have to add for a larger water service & meter, which can get very expensive in some areas.


Or a second meter and tap fee plus a monthly minimum charge in some jurisdictions.

Add in the potential for increased insurance rates.

First cost is only part of the story.


----------



## jpranch (Nov 12, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

The state of Wyoming decided last fall to skip the 2009 codes wholesale. There has been discussion about resigning completly from the icc (international cash cow) That is: no icc chapter in this state at all. The "codes" are a run away train.

The city I work for has been considering adoption of the 09 codes but after being in Baltimore last week we are reconsidering. The icc and the code process is out of control. Even icc staff rolls their eyes about the direction of the icc. Perhaps the merger of the 3 model codes was a very bad mistake.

As for the president and the board of directors.......... Well, they would be excellent used car salesmen!


----------



## conarb (Nov 12, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Jar:

Here in expensive California:

1) Tract home = $4 a foot

2) Custom home = $6 a foot

3) Large custom home $9 a foot

4) Large custom home, angles, high ceilings = $12 a foot

In addition to this every water service has their own meter rates, in mine the meter is $30,000.

We have a bill in the legislature now requiring that all personnel installing residential sprinklers serve 5 year apprenticeships, making all fire sprinkler installers union.


----------



## gvictor (Nov 12, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

I tried to attach a file that is the NFPA Research Foundation's nationwide study on sprinkler costs and it was not allowed.  It is the final report dated June 2009. You can pm me and I will email it to you.

Obviously this is probably the most debated portion of the entire difference of opinion for this topic.

Greg


----------



## conarb (Nov 12, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

I certainly wouldn't believe any information published by an industry trade association, the only way to really tell is to call a licensed sprinkler contractor in the area within which you work, they will be happy to give you a range of prices since they are doing it for a living on a daily basis. 

As far as the NFPA goes, read their history, it sounds like a Bulwer-Lytton bad prose entry.





			
				Edward George Bulwer-Lytton said:
			
		

> "It was a dark and stormy night;  the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness." --Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, Paul Clifford (1830)






			
				NFPA said:
			
		

> *Water of the Sprinklered Type*The forefathers of the NFPA were a visionary breed.  In their own unique way, all who were involved played an important role and each deserves their own dedicated story.  If only time and resources would allow such an endeavor!
> 
> Returning in time to the small farming community of West Bridgton, Maine, a young baby boy was given the name of John Ripley Freeman when he entered the world on July 27, 1855.  It was amidst these country surroundings that he spent his early years.  Eventually, he would venture to Massachusetts Institute of Technology were he graduated from the Department of Civil Engineering in 1876.¹


¹ http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?cate ... ew/History


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

A set of code books is a budget issue for the smaller muni. They tend to wait a bit before spending the funds for new code books. I like to see the big muni's jump in and work the bugs out first and then catch up later. The sprinkler issue, could'nt you just omit it from the code when you adopt the 2009. I've seen city's remove the "stairs out of the basement requirement" when adopting codes!


----------



## conarb (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

California did just that when they adopted the IBC and not the IRC, they just deleted the IBC sprinkler requirement for one and two family dwellings.  I actually want to see some guinea pig jurisdictions adopt it, then we'll get some real world numbers to put this insanity to bed once and for all.


----------



## incognito (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Estimated sprinkler installation costs by NFPA and its advocates is the biggest lie out there. Actual bids for residential fire sprinklers in this area are coming in at over $5.00 a sq.ft. NAHB numbers may not be accurate but its a lot closer than the bogus $1.61 per sq.ft. being spewed by the sprinkler supporters.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 14, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

When you ask a builder to do something that they haven't been doing for twenty years, you should expect the costs to go up substantially.


----------



## inspecterbake (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

:roll:

   I work for a muni that has had a sprinkler ordinance since 2005 and the average cost is $3 sq ft and that is on a private well not city water.The problem I see is there are only limited number of contractors who do the residental systems so this could increase the price when demand is increased.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Scottsdale, AZ and Prince George's County, MD have had sprinkler ordinances for single family homes for quite some time.  There are your guinea pigs.  Call and check out the costs.

http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/images ... Report.pdf

Also:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build ... b07025.pdf

Although it was in 2005  The costs were:

$0.55/SF for a colonial style home;

$0.75/SF for a townhouse; and

$0.68/SF for a ranch home

Adjusted for inflation (2005 - 2009), those numbers are:

$0.61/SF for a colonial style home;

$0.83/SF for a townhouse; and

$0.75/SF for a ranch home


----------



## Gene Boecker (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

I think the NAHB numbers are a bit deceiving.  They're adding in variable "what-if" costs since they haven't had to do this in the past.  It's not that expensive.  For a 13D system it is definitely under a dollar a square foot.


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Let us not forget the multi-purpose system also approved and typically can be done on the pre-planned 1" domestic service and no need for RPZ or BF.  The material and heads are very affordable in the scheme of the plumbing contractor's Parts Materials and Labor bidded quotes


----------



## conarb (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Taken down at Marshal Burns request.


----------



## beach (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Conarb,

Make sure you build the home per Chapter 7A of the CBC (WUI area), also..vents with fire dampers won't keep flying embers out. You can use a State Fire Marshal approved vent such as "O'Haugin's" or "Vulcan Technology". All of the windows on the house are required to be dual glazed and tempered on one of the two panes of every window, even the garage door has to be non-combustible or exterior fire-retardant wood, to name just a few of the requirements.

What was the loophole in the ordinance that you found?



> the state does not allow potable water in CPVC, CPVC cannot be used in this geological zone becasue of earthquakes


California, including Saratoga.... DOES allow the use of CPVC for potable water in residential. See 2007 CPC Section 604.1.1 "The local responsible building official of any city, county, or city and county shall authorize by permit the use of CPVC for hot and cold water distribution systems within the interior of residential buildings provided all of the  following conditions are satisfied:...." and it goes on to list the specific conditions. There is no mention of earthquake or geological zones.

See also IAPMO IS 20-2005 "Installation Standard for CPVC Solvent Cemented Hot and Cold Water Distribution Systems" on page 419 of the 2007 CPC


----------



## conarb (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Taken down at Marshal Burns request.


----------



## jpranch (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Have we all lost our minds????????????????


----------



## conarb (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Taken down at Marshal Burns request.


----------



## beach (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

As I stated, the code allows CPVC under specific conditions......

Regarding the windows, I believe the code specifically requires TEMPERED glazing, I don't have my code in front of me, but I believe, due to the heat tempering of tempered glass resulting in excellent performance (cracking/shattering) under intense heat, that laminated glass would not be acceptable. I do not know how laminated glass performs under intense heat as compared to tempered. Interesting to find out....



> 4. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface fire areas when modifications are made that increases the gross floor area.Exception: One-time additions to existing buildings made after 01/01/2008 that do not exceed 500 square feet in gross floor


If the home is in a WUI and you increased the gross floor area (unless you met the exception), you should have been required to sprinkler the home per your municipal code, which does not appear to be ambiguous to me. The WUI sprinkler requirement is separate from the general sprinkler ordinance you highlighted which could possibly be construed as ambiguous.

Edit:



> 2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings when modifications are made that increases the gross floor area to more than 3,600 square feet or increases the number of stories to three (3) or more.


Actually, reading it again, it's very clear and not ambiguous at all. Need to ask the Fire Marshal what he was thinking.....

A


----------



## conarb (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Taken down at Marshal Burns request.


----------



## beach (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes



> CPC Section 604.1.1 "The local responsible building official of any city, county, or city and county shall authorize by permit the use of CPVC for hot and cold water distribution systems within the interior of residential buildings provided all of the following conditions are satisfied:...." and


You quoted the use of "PVC" not "CPVC"

I believe the wording "Shall" requires the BO to authorize the use of CPVC, if the wording was "May" then the BO would have a choice, correct? (BTW, I'm not a fan of CPVC, I'm just reading and interpreting what's in the code.)

You used the wrong code section for the glazing requirement......

I'm trying to save you a lot of money and possibly lawsuits......the requirement for tempered glazing in a WUI area is in chapter 7A of the 2007 CBC (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure) the requirement isn't based on personal safety, it's based on fire protection. While it's very possible that your laminated safety glazing may be tested and approved per NFPA 257 or 2007 CBC section 715 or conform to the performance requirements of SFM 12-7A-2 as required by CBC section 704A.3.2.2, I would hate to see you install your triple glazed, laminated glass windows and get shot down by a very thorough inspector......Again, I strongly urge you to read section 7A BEFORE you build, it covers exterior door requirements, vent placement, glazing, decking, eaves, roofing, etc. It's not an option to harden your home in a WUI, it's a requirement in California.

FYI, every builder around here uses tempered glazing, I don't know if it's because laminated does not meet the standards or not.

Edit:

Here is a laminated glass product that meets the requirements, the manufacturer is local to you. I'd be curious as to the cost versus standard tempered glazing. http://products.construction.com/Manufa ... NST37062-P


----------



## Gene Boecker (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

I have a solution. . . .

. . . move out of California!

 :lol:


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> I have a solution. . . . . . . move out of California!
> 
> :lol:


Did it already.  Probably go back after I retire.


----------



## BigTex (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

I'm trying to save you a lot of money and possibly lawsuits......

Beach,

Why would you want to save this guy a dime? I'm tired of reading his conspiracy theorys and the wacked-out rules of the land of fruits and nuts.

Truth, in 2008 there were:

2,755 civilian fire deaths in homes

120 civilian fire deaths in non-residential structures

We've been protecting (sprinklers) non-residential structures for over a 100 years and look at the deaths. It's high time residential structures got the same treatment.

Also an interesting fact I read.

Since 1917 there have been more residential fire deaths in the US than the total US deaths in the 7 major wars fought, combined. (WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan)


----------



## JBI (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Now if they could just find a way to stay out of bankruptcy court...  :roll:  :lol:


----------



## beach (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Yeah, we're broke....everybody needs to move to another state so I can have the beach to myself!!!

BigTex: Conarbs bark is worse than his bite. Ultimately, the home he is (supposedly) building for those people should be built to WUI code. He talked the homeowner and supposedly the Fire Marshal out of fire sprinklers that are clearly required by code, if the home gets devastated by wildfire, I'm sure the homeowner and insurance company will sue him if he's still around. The homeowner deserves a home hardened from fire by code, not by "Dampered vents", regular laminated glass, no sprinklers, and other untested construction methods.


----------



## conarb (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Taken down at Marshal Burns request.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes



			
				BigTex said:
			
		

> I'm trying to save you a lot of money and possibly lawsuits......Beach,
> 
> Why would you want to save this guy a dime? I'm tired of reading his conspiracy theorys and the wacked-out rules of the land of fruits and nuts.
> 
> ...


Correlation is not causality.

And you don't even show correlation between reduced fire deaths and residential sprinklers.

A link would be nice.


----------



## BigTex (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

War is hell, someone once said.

I just found it interesting that more US civilians have died in residential fire than all of the wars during the same time period.

People are always complaining about war, but more have died (for no reason) here at home.

If you want facts about residential sprinklers saving lives, I suggest you look up Scottsdale, AZ and Prince George's County, MD.


----------



## conarb (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Taken down at Marshal Burns request.


----------



## BigTex (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Keep drinking the purple kool-aid. :shock:

Ever hear of a backflow perventor?

Anti-Freeze systems have been around for a long time. My 1961 NBFU No.13 (now know as NFPA 13) has the requirements for Anti-Freeze systems.

How about an anti-freeze system piped with CPVC...........

Oh the horror..............


----------



## JBI (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

I thought this thread was about Pennsylvania and the 2009 I Codes...  :roll:


----------



## conarb (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Taken down at Marshal Burns request.


----------



## beach (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Freezing temps and sprinkler piping would have the same issue as the potable water pipes. Nobody puts antifreeze in their potable water...so how do they keep it from freezing? I remember the supposed horror stories from the anti sprinkler advocates "If I'm away from home and my heater is off and we have a freeze, my fire sprinkler lines will burst and flood the house!!!!!" So will your potable water lines! Anybody that has ever had a weekend cabin in the mountains knows what to do........hint:13D systems are for saving lives.....


----------



## BigTex (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

John,

It was.

Conarb,

Common sense?

You wouldn't/couldn't use anti-freeze in a multi-purpose 13D system, different animal. It would be a regular 13D system with it's own water supply, charged with anti-freeze. It's done all the time and works fine.


----------



## Mule (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes



			
				conarb said:
			
		

> Are you going to run two plumbing systems in the home, one for sprinklers and toilets, the other for potable water?


Just finished a continuing education class for my Texas state plumbing inspectors license and the State is looking ar requiring two separate systems on residential structures that are installing fire sprinklers.


----------



## conarb (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Taken down at Marshal Burns request.


----------



## BigTex (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Conarb,

It's obvious this FM doesn't know squat about residential fire systems. 8,000 gallons of water? A standpipe?

Most only require about 300 to 400 gallons. Remember, you only need 10 minutes of water supply.

But, once again, ya'll do funny things on the left coast that common sense would dictate otherwise.


----------



## conarb (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Taken down at Marshal Burns request.


----------



## Mule (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Have no idea! This is just what the instructor said and he is or should I say he thinks he is the main conduit between the plumbing world and the State. According to him..if he says it going to rain...you better get an umbrella!


----------



## BigTex (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

In NFPA 13D there is no requirement to keep the system flushed. Water purveyor smoke-and-mirrors?

Conarb,

WOW is all I got to say about those requirements. I wonder who dreamed all those up?

It's no wonder to me now, why things in California cost so damn much. And it still burns up every couple of years.

Those requirements should be called a 13CC system. (Crazy California)

I the real world, 400 gallon tank in the basement, a pump and your done, plain and simple and per the Code.


----------



## beach (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Please do not use Conarb or his "beliefs" as an example for the rest of California. I'm somewhat skeptical of his "Fire marshal" stories.   :shock:


----------



## beach (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Conarb,

How big is the house that you are building?

I got this from your link from the San Jose Fire marshal:

1. Domestic water and fire sprinkler supply water must be in same storage tank.

2. Storage tank: 1,000 gallons domestic water plus amount required for fire sprinklers but 3,000 gallon minimum. Sprinklers based on 30 minute duration calculation.

3. Landscape water supply (tank) shall be separate from domestic/fire supply water (tank).

3. Residense over 6,200 sq. ft. an FDC is required.

4. "All piping shall be approved by the California Plumbing Code for domestic use (i.e; Copper, *plastic*, galvanized, etc.)"

5. *CPVC* may be used in the attic as long as it is insulated from freezing.

I see they allow CPVC...they also allow it in the attic if it's insulated from freezing...


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

*Thanks JD your right!*

*Gents, if you want to continue debating RFS (Stand Alone or Multi-Purpose) or approved piping, please start a new thread in this forum "Residential Fire Sprinkler Debate - Types & Materials"*


----------



## RJJ (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Jeff: I tried to hold back and not post. You are correct. Pa might just skip the 09 code or some real slimmed down version. I can't believe we have another six pages on sprinklers.

In PA I have current numbers in the 1.50 range. 4500 sf single family.


----------



## conarb (Nov 19, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Taken down at Marshal Burns request.


----------



## BigTex (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Pennsylvania has just pass the '09 IRC


----------



## BigTex (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Here is the link:

http://nfpa.typepad.com/firesprinklerin ... ement.html


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Congratulations to PA for taking the initiative!


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Here we go!   :arrow:

It will be interesting to see what happens here in this state where anarchy is just slightly removed from the normal.


----------



## RJJ (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Hey the link is not working!


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Worked the other day, maybe there is a hitch in their getty-up and they took it down.  I couldn't find it anywere on their site:

http://firesprinklerinitiative.org/index.asp

You are from PA, whats the word


----------



## RJJ (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

First the word was Yes and Last I heard was NO! The Senate was trying to pass a budget! I will have to check. Jeff is most often on this stuff. I asumed it was on hold or just stalled in Harrisburg.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes



> To PABCO Members (you may share this with everyone):On Thursday, the Indepedent Regulatory Review Commission approved the Department of Labor and Industry regulation adopting the 2009 I-codes, with an effective date of December 31, 2009.  The vote was 5-0.
> 
> This action was expected, as reported to all of you previously.
> 
> ...


----------



## RJJ (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Jeff! thanks for the up date!


----------



## fatboy (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

So, sorry, being lazy,and on dial-up, without reading the other six pages, does that mean PA will not be amending out the IRC sprinkler provisions?


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Thanks for asking that Fatboy     I wanted to ask that but didn't want to get beat up being a fire guy


----------



## Mule (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes

Well?? :?: How's it going now since the new codes are in affect?


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: Pennsylvania wants to skip the 2009 codes



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> > To PABCO Members (you may share this with everyone):Also remember that anyone who produces a valid, lawfully executed contract for design or construction of any structure or building, where that contract is clearly executed prior to December 31, 2009...may request that the building or structure be permitted, built and inspected under the 2006 codes, at such time that the permit is actually applied for.


Does this mean I can use the 2006 codes in 2020 when I finally get the money just because I have a "contract?"   :shock:


----------

