# Attic Sprinkler System Debacle



## RyanBuilder (Jul 20, 2018)

Hello All,  Looking for advice on a situation I haven't run into before.  I was hired to finish an attic for a play room in a small New Hampshire town.  I applied for the building permit and it was issued by the building inspector.  I called him before I ordered the windows to specifically ask him if we needed 5.7 sq/ft egress windows and he said no. I didn't think this was the case because there are no bedrooms up there.  

The project progressed and he inspected the rough ins and then the insulation and allowed us to close up the walls.  Come time for the final inspection I called and he said I needed the fire chief to sign off.  I called the Chief and he would not sign off because he said we needed a sprinkler system in the attic.  He said it was a local requirement when that land was subdivided that if that home ever had a finished attic that there would need to be a sprinkler system installed.  The homeowner is the 2nd owner and they had no way to know and I had no way to know.  

The question arises, who is accountable for this?  I hold the building inspector accountable because he issued a permit and I specifically asked him about a fire/life safety issue before starting the project.  This is an easily avoidable problem if the building department required a sign off on the plans from the fire department before issuing the permit, which is done in most of the other 20 cities and towns I work in around here.  How can the building inspector issue a permit, inspect twice, and allow us to close up the walls with a major system missing?  If not having the fire department sign off on the permit, the least the building inspector could do would be to have a fire department inspection  required before the rough building inspection.  

I'm interested to hear any thoughts on this?


----------



## cda (Jul 20, 2018)

Well I would say first you

Than the building dept should have said something, at the least you need a fd inspection.

With that I have seen where dept does not talk to dept, I do not understand why.


Do you have a link to the wording requireing the sprinkler??

Or copy and paste the wording???

Do they just want the attic sprinkler or whole house?


----------



## jeffc (Jul 20, 2018)

I would ask the Fire Marshal to provide a copy of the document that allows them to require a sprinkler system in a newly finishing attic. When they produce the justification, see if there are any exceptions or exceptions to the exceptions. Just out of curiosity, is the remainder of the house sprinklered?


----------



## Sleepy (Jul 20, 2018)

Agree with jeffc, get the document or a reference to the document from the Fire Marshal.  If it is something that is recorded with the title to the land then it is something the owner should have had.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 20, 2018)

I agree, The document should have recorded with the title. If it is recorded, it is no one but the owners fault. If it isn't, it is the Fire Marshals fault.
Building Dept/inspector has no fault what-so-ever.


----------



## Msradell (Jul 20, 2018)

mark handler said:


> Building Dept/inspector has no fault what-so-ever.


In most cases building inspector should be aware of all applicable codes in his area whether he's actually responsible for inspecting them or not.  Especially in cases like this with our special exceptions.

That being said it almost sounds like this is a special case just because the lot was subdivided, and cases like that it's quite likely that nobody would have records of it.  I'm actually quite surprised that the fire department inspector knew about it unless he was there when it was first implemented.  If the requirement isn't recorded on the deed or published in the local codes I don't see any real way they can enforce it.


----------



## RyanBuilder (Jul 22, 2018)

The fire chief said this was a requirement for this specific home and a couple of other homes that were approved several years back.  There is also a local town ordinance that says all finished attics of homes over 35' tall need to have a sprinkler system for the attic.  None of these homes have sprinkler systems.  You would think it would incumbent on the building inspector to inform you of this local ordinance when approving the permit if there was no sprinkler system on the plan.  Does anyone think the inspector has any liability for opening up the walls and then closing them back up?  I'm going to ask for the document there are referencing in regard to the requirement.


----------



## cda (Jul 22, 2018)

No inspector is not liable

But it sounds like there is some information missing 

Please post what you find

In away it does not make sense just to sprinkle the attic

I would also do a “open records request” for a list of all homes in that area that have fire sprinklers in the attic

And a request for homes that have taken out a buildung permit to finish out the attic


----------



## conarb (Jul 22, 2018)

RyanBuilder said:


> The fire chief said this was a requirement for this specific home and a couple of other homes that were approved several years back.  There is also a local town ordinance that says all finished attics of homes over 35' tall need to have a sprinkler system for the attic.  None of these homes have sprinkler systems.  You would think it would incumbent on the building inspector to inform you of this local ordinance when approving the permit if there was no sprinkler system on the plan.  Does anyone think the inspector has any liability for opening up the walls and then closing them back up?  I'm going to ask for the document there are referencing in regard to the requirement.



I've tried to think back and during my 60+ years of building I can't remember ever pulling a permit that I didn't have to personally take the plans to the fire marshal and get his sign off, if the building department issued you the permit without the fire marshal's approval it's the building department's fault, if the fire marshal missed it it's the fire district's fault. 

What is done is to file a legal action against all potential miscreants and let the attorneys sort out the legal liability.  The problem is the time, but I'd just go ahead and use the space without a final, there is no way they can stop you at this point short of filing a legal action, if they do file I'd get three bids to take everything apart and install the sprinklers, then I'd answer the complaint with a counterclaim against all potential defendents.  On new buildings they have control over utilities but on remodels they have no power, they wouldn't dare cut off the utilities, your damages could be huge.


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2018)

RyanBuilder said:


> The fire chief said this was a requirement for this specific home and a couple of other homes that were approved several years back.  *There is also a local town ordinance that says all finished attics of homes over 35' tall need to have a sprinkler system for the attic.*  None of these homes have sprinkler systems.  You would think it would incumbent on the building inspector to inform you of this local ordinance when approving the permit if there was no sprinkler system on the plan.  Does anyone think the inspector has any liability for opening up the walls and then closing them back up?  I'm going to ask for the document there are referencing in regard to the requirement.



Well there you go.  It is official and everybody missed it.  The building inspector made a mistake.  He's allowed to make a mistake.

Not long ago there was a new house built in my area that lacked sprinklers.  Several inspectors, a plan checker and permit tech. missed the sprinklers until the final inspection.  Now this was no trifling mistake nor was it an esoteric ordinance that few people knew about.  After all, new houses almost always require sprinklers.  The owner was on the hook for the installation of sprinklers and the AHJ was never on the hook.


----------



## conarb (Jul 22, 2018)

ICE said:


> Well there you go.  It is official and everybody missed it.  The building inspector made a mistake.  He's allowed to make a mistake.
> 
> Not long ago there was a new house built in my area that lacked sprinklers.  Several inspectors, a plan checker and permit tech. missed the sprinklers until the final inspection.  Now this was no trifling mistake nor was it an esoteric ordinance that few people knew about.  After all, new houses almost always require sprinklers.  The owner was on the hook for the installation of sprinklers and the AHJ was never on the hook.


Tiger:

Why was the owner on the hook?  Did anybody bother to file a legal action and let the courts decide?

Your case was a new home where the AHJ had the club of not turning on the utilities, they don't have that club in Ryan's case.


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2018)

conarb said:


> Tiger:
> 
> Why was the owner on the hook?  Did anybody bother to file a legal action and let the courts decide?
> 
> Your case was a new home where the AHJ had the club of not turning on the utilities, they don't have that club in Ryan's case.



The owner is always on the hook.  He built it....he owns it.  What could a court do for him?  Would a court decide to forgo sprinklers and risk the lives of the occupants?  Would a court establish a precedent that the government is liable for innocent mistakes?  

The case of the new home in my area already had the utilities hooked up.  That was another mistake made by the inspector.  I was there for the final inspection.  That was the only time that I had been to that site.  The moment that I mentioned sprinklers I was escorted off the property.  They were one correction too late with that.

The clubs you bring up are effective when there is an immediate danger.  Beyond that they are like cotton candy....big and hard to miss but you really don't want to touch it....such a mess they are.


----------



## cda (Jul 22, 2018)

Some places 

You have to carry plans to the Building dept 

And

Carry a seperate set to the fire dept/ Fire Marshal or state fire marshal 


They are not always interconnected 

And sometimes not close to each other


----------



## conarb (Jul 22, 2018)

ICE said:


> The owner is always on the hook.  He built it....he owns it.  What could a court do for him?  Would a court decide to forgo sprinklers and risk the lives of the occupants?  Would a court establish a precedent that the government is liable for innocent mistakes?



In the process of building it he bought a permit, the government screwed up at one or more levels and has to take responsibility, sovereign immunity went out with kings.  The government has damaged him, the government should pay for the damage they caused.  



> The case of the new home in my area already had the utilities hooked up.  That was another mistake made by the inspector.  I was there for the final inspection.  That was the only time that I had been to that site.  The moment that I mentioned sprinklers I was escorted off the property.  They were one correction too late with that.



If the utilities were hooked up why didn't the owner just move in?   
[/QUOTE]


----------



## RyanBuilder (Jul 22, 2018)

Every permit I've pulled in other towns require the fire department (along with other depts) to sign off on permit checklist BEFORE you can even leave the building permit application with the building department.  The 2nd line of defense against this mistake is have a fire dept inspection on the inspection card before the rough building inspection.  Either of these procedures would have avoided the need to tear open walls and put them back together.  

I've heard from the fire chief, who heard from the state fire marshall's office, and they will grant a waiver with 1 condition... that the windows are 5.7 sq/ft egress sized windows.  We installed 2x double hung windows that are 4.6 sq/ft so the windows will need to be changed.  The new windows (2 - 2x double hung) with material and labor will cost around $2,500-$3,000 for my cost.  Better than a sprinkler system, but completely avoidable in the first place.  

I'm wondering if the owner should just leave it as is and see if anyone in the town follows up.  He could then threaten legal action against the building inspector for issuing a permit without this requirement and then signing off on the rough inspection without the sprinklers in place or a fire dept signoff.  It seems common sense would say the building inspector is incompetent at a minimum if the town has an ordinance that all finished attics in homes over 35' need an attic sprinkler system.  I'm not an attorney so I have no idea how that argument would hold up in court.


----------



## conarb (Jul 22, 2018)

cda said:


> Some places
> 
> You have to carry plans to the Building dept
> 
> ...


CDA:

That's all very true, I've spent my life running plans around to various agencies, recently even to Roads and Airports and Environmental Health, in the end I bring them all back to the Building Department, it's the Building Department that is ultimately responsible.


----------



## conarb (Jul 22, 2018)

RyanBuilder said:


> Every permit I've pulled in other towns require the fire department (along with other depts) to sign off on permit checklist BEFORE you can even leave the building permit application with the building department.  The 2nd line of defense against this mistake is have a fire dept inspection on the inspection card before the rough building inspection.  Either of these procedures would have avoided the need to tear open walls and put them back together.



In which state are you located? Same here in Californioa but no fire department inspection on the card.



> I've heard from the fire chief, who heard from the state fire marshall's office, and they will grant a waiver with 1 condition... that the windows are 5.7 sq/ft egress sized windows.  We installed 2x double hung windows that are 4.6 sq/ft so the windows will need to be changed.  The new windows (2 - 2x double hung) with material and labor will cost around $2,500-$3,000 for my cost.  Better than a sprinkler system, but completely avoidable in the first place.



Replacing DHs with Casements is usually the cheapest option, no need to alter the rough opening. 



> I'm wondering if the owner should just leave it as is and see if anyone in the town follows up.  He could then threaten legal action against the building inspector for issuing a permit without this requirement and then signing off on the rough inspection without the sprinklers in place or a fire dept signoff.  It seems common sense would say the building inspector is incompetent at a minimum if the town has an ordinance that all finished attics in homes over 35' need an attic sprinkler system.  I'm not an attorney so I have no idea how that argument would hold up in court.



I am a lawyer (non-practicing) and that's what I'm suggesting, just occupy and ignore them, if they sue counterclaim against them, you and the owner might end up splitting a few hundred thousand dollars for your damages.


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2018)

conarb said:


> In the process of building it he bought a permit, the government screwed up at one or more levels and has to take responsibility, sovereign immunity went out with kings.  The government has damaged him, the government should pay for the damage they caused.
> 
> 
> 
> *If the utilities were hooked up why didn't the owner just move in? *



You'd have to ask him.  Perhaps it was deal breaker for the lender.


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2018)

RyanBuilder said:


> *Every permit I've pulled in other towns require the fire department (along with other depts) to sign off on permit checklist BEFORE you can even leave the building permit application with the building department.*  The 2nd line of defense against this mistake is have a fire dept inspection on the inspection card before the rough building inspection.  Either of these procedures would have avoided the need to tear open walls and put them back together.
> 
> I've heard from the fire chief, who heard from the state fire marshall's office, and they will grant a waiver with 1 condition... that the windows are 5.7 sq/ft egress sized windows.  We installed 2x double hung windows that are 4.6 sq/ft so the windows will need to be changed.  The new windows (2 - 2x double hung) with material and labor will cost around $2,500-$3,000 for my cost.  Better than a sprinkler system, but completely avoidable in the first place.
> 
> I'm wondering if the owner should just leave it as is and see if anyone in the town follows up.  He could then threaten legal action against the building inspector for issuing a permit without this requirement and then signing off on the rough inspection without the sprinklers in place or a fire dept signoff.  It seems common sense would say the building inspector is incompetent at a minimum if the town has an ordinance that all finished attics in homes over 35' need an attic sprinkler system.  I'm not an attorney so I have no idea how that argument would hold up in court.



I don't think that you should rely on that for anything.....it makes it sound like you screwed up too.


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2018)

conarb said:


> I am a lawyer (non-practicing) and that's what I'm suggesting, *just occupy and ignore them*, if they sue counterclaim against them, you and the owner might end up splitting a few hundred thousand dollars for your damages.



That just delays the outcome.  It complicates the owners dealings with the building dept. for future permits and what about banks.  Is there a loan on a property that is supposed to remain in good standing with the law?  The fire dept. has already backed down.  Bigger windows on the third floor seems odd as a solution.


----------



## RyanBuilder (Jul 22, 2018)

It will come down to what the owner wants to do.  I'm pissed that I asked the building inspector about egress windows at the start and there was no mention of a sprinkler system.  How could he not know?  and if he didn't know, shouldn't he?  The lack of accountability is infuriating.  

We can replace the double double hungs in the same RO but one will need to be wider to accommodate the egress size.  I need to rent a lift, repair the siding on the exterior, remove and replace / paint interior trim.  

Thank you all for the different points of view and advice.


----------



## conarb (Jul 22, 2018)

ICE said:


> You'd have to ask him.  Perhaps it was deal breaker for the lender.


You have a point that I had forgotten about, lenders do require a final inspection, I've only built for cash customers for several years, in fact many have specifically asked me not to get finals so the clock doesn't start for assessment, nobody wants to pay taxes.  I do tell them that the county always catches up with escaped assessments, but many want to try to avoid them as long as they can.


----------



## conarb (Jul 22, 2018)

RyanBuilder said:


> We can replace the double double hungs in the same RO but one will need to be wider to accommodate the egress size.  I need to rent a lift, repair the siding on the exterior, remove and replace / paint interior trim.



You can have casements built to fit right into the existing DH frames with no lift, siding, or trim changes; although I do hope your owner decides to tell the bastards to go to Hell, as a matter of fact when they present it to their city attorney he may tell them to back off, most cities hate the expense of litigation and bad publicity a case like this will bring.


----------



## cda (Jul 22, 2018)

conarb said:


> CDA:
> 
> That's all very true, I've spent my life running plans around to various agencies, recently even to Roads and Airports and Environmental Health, in the end I bring them all back to the Building Department, it's the Building Department that is ultimately responsible.




Not always

Like a hospital you have to please the world to build one, so many agencies will look at the plans

And all have thier own approval


----------



## cda (Jul 22, 2018)

RyanBuilder said:


> Every permit I've pulled in other towns require the fire department (along with other depts) to sign off on permit checklist BEFORE you can even leave the building permit application with the building department.  The 2nd line of defense against this mistake is have a fire dept inspection on the inspection card before the rough building inspection.  Either of these procedures would have avoided the need to tear open walls and put them back together.
> 
> I've heard from the fire chief, who heard from the state fire marshall's office, and they will grant a waiver with 1 condition... that the windows are 5.7 sq/ft egress sized windows.  We installed 2x double hung windows that are 4.6 sq/ft so the windows will need to be changed.  The new windows (2 - 2x double hung) with material and labor will cost around $2,500-$3,000 for my cost.  Better than a sprinkler system, but completely avoidable in the first place.
> 
> I'm wondering if the owner should just leave it as is and see if anyone in the town follows up.  He could then threaten legal action against the building inspector for issuing a permit without this requirement and then signing off on the rough inspection without the sprinklers in place or a fire dept signoff.  It seems common sense would say the building inspector is incompetent at a minimum if the town has an ordinance that all finished attics in homes over 35' need an attic sprinkler system.  I'm not an attorney so I have no idea how that argument would hold up in court.





I think when you get the actual wording

It will have a lot more details on the requirements, then have been stated here.


----------



## conarb (Jul 22, 2018)

cda said:


> I think when you get the actual wording
> 
> It will have a lot more details on the requirements, then have been stated here.


That's why he needs attorneys to sort this mess out.


----------



## cda (Jul 22, 2018)

conarb said:


> That's why he needs attorneys to sort this mess out.




Well it went from a fire sprinkler system to changing out a window


----------



## cda (Jul 22, 2018)

Since attic high

How about a one pane window, where the entire window opens


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2018)

conarb said:


> That's why he needs attorneys to sort this mess out.


Showing up with an attorney is spoiling for a fight.  When you are seen as a threat it’s a fight that you’ll get.

An eero is on the table because, like sprinklers, it’s a life safety feature.  You stated that the current window isn’t even 20” wide.  That’s a third floor with one way out. A bigger window and sprinklers on the first two floors makes sense.  You are doing your best to keep a death trap that you built.


----------



## conarb (Jul 22, 2018)

ICE said:


> Showing up with an attorney is spoiling for a fight.  When you are seen as a threat it’s a fight that you’ll get.
> 
> An eero is on the table because, like sprinklers, it’s a life safety feature.  You stated that the current window isn’t even 20” wide.  That’s a third floor with one way out. A bigger window and sprinklers on the first two floors makes sense.  You are doing your best to keep a death trap that you built.



He specifically says there are no sprinklers on the first two floors, nowhere does he say the double hungs are not 20" wide, many double hungs don't meet egress not because of width but because of lower half height.

If the missfeasance is as documented he stands a good chance of prevailing with a jury trial. Stop the inflammatory language about life safety and death traps, from the sprinkler debates we all know that statistically they are a waste of money, only in the codes due to the bribery on the part of the sprinkler industry.  At this point it seems that everything you guys are doing is designed to jack the cost of housing up as high as possible.

*“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”¹*


¹ http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_best_way_to_get_a_bad_law_repealed_is_to/222015.html


----------



## ICE (Jul 23, 2018)

conarb said:


> He specifically says there are no sprinklers on the first two floors, nowhere does he say the double hungs are not 20" wide, many double hungs don't meet egress not because of width but because of lower half height.
> 
> If the missfeasance is as documented he stands a good chance of prevailing with a jury trial. Stop the inflammatory language about life safety and death traps, from the sprinkler debates we all know that statistically they are a waste of money, only in the codes due to the bribery on the part of the sprinkler industry.  At this point it seems that everything you guys are doing is designed to jack the cost of housing up as high as possible.
> 
> ...



_"He specifically says there are no sprinklers on the first two floors"_
I didn't say that he did.  I said it would make better sense than sprinklers only on the third floor.

_"nowhere does he say the double hungs are not 20" wide"_
Ok you got me there.  Not less than 20" wide.....just 159 square inches too small.

_"Stop the inflammatory language"_
You of all people....that's a hoot conarb.  And you follow up with: _"they are a waste of money, only in the codes due to the bribery on the part of the sprinkler industry."
_
My code has this:
_R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue opening required.
Basements, *habitable attics* and every sleeping room shall have not less than one operable emergency escape and rescue
opening. Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, an emergency escape and rescue opening shall be required in each sleeping room. Emergency escape and res- cue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.
_
But I don't know the code in New Hampshire.....perhaps that makes me a candidate to be an inspector there.

Well then conarb, what do you call a child's playroom in an attic without an EERO.  I suppose "death trap" is too strong.....how about "code violation".....yaaa no, I like death trap.  A death trap that every builder should be aware of.....


----------



## tmurray (Jul 23, 2018)

In Canada, the municipality and the building official would be found negligent. This is a violation of what is called procedural fairness.

1. Where a government agency made a promise
2. that promise is to follow a proceedure
3. in reference to an interested person
4. they relied and acted on that promise

By reviewing plans, issuing a permit and completing inspections the municipality has agreed to what you have been constructing. Now the owner has suffered damages due to the inspector's negligence. Case law in general here has established that it is unreasonable to expect contractors and owners to be familiar with all aspects of the law and to always follow them, it is for this reason inspectors exist. It is the responsibility of the inspectors to detect obvious errors.

If we as inspectors cannot detect obvious errors like this one, what is our role in the construction industry?


----------



## mark handler (Jul 23, 2018)

As a Building Inspector, Plan Checker, or Building Official, how many of you pull the original building conditions of approval before issuing a permit.

We issue 6 to 10 permits per day... if I need to review each of the original building conditions of approval before issuing a permit, that will go to 4 to 5. 
That's not going to work. Some complain about waiting 20 minutes.


----------



## cda (Jul 23, 2018)

tmurray said:


> In Canada, the municipality and the building official would be found negligent. This is a violation of what is called procedural fairness.
> 
> 1. Where a government agency made a promise
> 2. that promise is to follow a proceedure
> ...




But sometimes a project can have multiple AHJ’s

So I do not think you could hold one ahj liable for not enforcing another ahj’s requirements ???


----------



## tmurray (Jul 23, 2018)

cda said:


> But sometimes a project can have multiple AHJ’s
> 
> So I do not think you could hold one ahj liable for not enforcing another ahj’s requirements ???



You are absolutely correct.

This requirement is driven by a by-law/ordinance from the municipality (same government agency the official works for). Depending on the process the municipality uses to approve permits, the building official should be aware of all requirements put into place by the municipality to regulate construction. That is their job. 

I would certainly agree that requirements established at a state or federal level, the official is likely not responsible unless expressly authorized to enforce the legislation.

There is merit that the owner and contractor should have known, provided the laws are easily obtainable. But the official's job is to catch the situations where the owner and contractor don't know.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 23, 2018)

In the distant past we have had building conditions that where put on the final subdivision plat. Our City Attorney said unless it is an easement it is un-enforceable if on the plat only. Now a CUP (conditional use permit) is enforceable. So find the original document, zoning code, fire code or building code and see if it was done correctly when adopted.
You can not use a zoning instrument to modify or change a building or fire code.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 23, 2018)

mark handler said:


> As a Building Inspector, Plan Checker, or Building Official, how many of you pull the original building conditions of approval before issuing a permit.
> 
> We issue 6 to 10 permits per day... if I need to review each of the original building conditions of approval before issuing a permit, that will go to 4 to 5.
> That's not going to work. Some complain about waiting 20 minutes.



For renovations? I do. How can I perform a review and place adequate requirements on a permit if I don't know what I'm dealing with? To be fair, we are a relatively young community. Our oldest buildings are only about 100 years old. Most of the development we do not have records for until about 1970. Most of that is digitized. Takes me about 5 minutes to run through an old permit.


----------



## conarb (Jul 23, 2018)

tmurray said:


> In Canada, the municipality and the building official would be found negligent. This is a violation of what is called procedural fairness.
> 
> 1. Where a government agency made a promise
> 2. that promise is to follow a proceedure
> ...



T Murray:

Once again you demonstrate that Canada has a much better system than the International Codes.

A few years ago, after an inspection, the inspector showed back up the next day telling me: "Dick, I've got a problem, after I got back to the office I remembered something about a special ordinance on propane pans, he handed me a copy of the ordinance showing the lips of the pans turned up 6" instead of the usual 2", he asked: "How can you help me out?" The pans are copper which is expensive, I said: " the two pans under the house are no problem, but that huge one over the ceiling in the laundry room is going to be a real problem.  Because the price of scrap copper is so high the sheet metal guy found it cheaper to build new ones and recycle the old  ones, the one over the laundry room had to come down in pieces through the attic scuttle and go back up in pieces to be rebuilt.  I guess I did it at my own expense  because he was such a good guy and gave me breaks whenever he could.

I didn't see how he saw it as his problem for letting it go, I saw it as the plan checkers' problem, they should have caught it.


----------

