# Authority of Local Town Official to overrule IRC



## atkins (Oct 2, 2013)

Hello,

The builder of my house claims that the local town official has the final say and can overrule the IRC.  Is this written down anywhere?  Can 1 person really overrule any IRC code to his/her whim/fancy without any technical merits?


----------



## mark handler (Oct 2, 2013)

Depends on what the state law allows

Chapter 1 - Scope and Administration


----------



## ICE (Oct 2, 2013)

atkins said:
			
		

> Can 1 person really overrule any IRC code to his/her whim/fancy without any technical merits?


It happens.


----------



## cda (Oct 2, 2013)

Are they trying or is this just conversation


----------



## Mark K (Oct 2, 2013)

The answer has to do with the law and not the technical merits.

If the IRC was adopted by the town and we are talking about a rule of general application I believe the general answer is that the town would have to adopt an ordinance to make the change.

If homeowner wanted an exception for an unusual situation and the building official reports to the town official it would not surprise me if the town official could take the place of the building official and authorize an exception using the alternate means of construction provisions.

If the town official wanted to require something not required by the IRC then my belief is the only way would be to formally modify the ordinance.

Even if the building official wishes is abusing his authority the cost of lawyers can make it difficult to get justice.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 2, 2013)

The IRC makes accomodations for appeal of rulings by the Building Official; Section R112 Board of Appeals.  Neither the board of appeals nor the Building official have the authority to waive requirements of the code.  Unfortunately most Building Officials have never read nor have knowledge of the adopted codes; and chose to make decisions based on personal opinions.  If no board of appeals (not to be confused with "zoning board of adjustments") has been appointed; or the board of appeals rules in favor of the Building Official; you have the option of taking the decision to a court of law (only after taking the above steps).  If the building official refuses to enforce a code requirement and the result would be weakening of the structure, dangerous electrical, or unsanitary plumbing; I personally, would make copies of the code requirement and present them to the city council at the next meeting.  Public disclosure of incompetence or prejudice on the part of code official is one way of correcting bad decisions by municipal officials.  But, be absolutley positive your are 100% correct.  Uncle Bob


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Oct 2, 2013)

It depends on what code issue is questioned; a search shows that New Hamshire is apparently a Dillon Rule state where the state does not allow the building official to enforce codes that are more stringent then the state adopted codes.  Should this be a building code issue that you think is more restrictive than the state adopted codes then you may request a hearing before a board of appeals that consist of qualified experts that are not employees of the jurisdiction.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 2, 2013)

> The builder of my house claims that the local town official has the final say and can overrule the IRC


Take what the builder says with a grain of salt. Go talk to the building department in person about the specific question/situation you are concerned with. If the building department gives you the run around or says "yes we can require things not in the code" or refuse to enforce specific code sections then follow the advise given above.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 2, 2013)

Also, choose your battles wisely. Whatever the issue, resentment can be a bit*h


----------



## tmurray (Oct 2, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Also, choose your battles wisely. Whatever the issue, resentment can be a bit*h


I recently had a contractor call while doing work in another jurisdiction. The building inspector was requiring the use of a fitting that is not required by code. When they asked if it was required I said no and asked how much the fitting cost. They said it cost $3.50. I advised them that they would likely end up paying more than that if they chose to fight the inspector. It's not right or fair, but it's the way some people are in this industry.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 2, 2013)

While I understand that it is often cheaper to accommodate if our default reaction is to accommodate without comment then it embolds the individual.  In this context one option would be to comply but to let them know you were doing this under protest.


----------



## jwelectric (Oct 2, 2013)

Care needs to be taken when blindly following the whims of a code enforcement official. The laws that govern the licensed person might be at stake. Here in NC anyone holding a contracting license is required by that licensing board to make a compliant installation no matter what the code enforcement official is requiring.

In other words a code official says to do this and the licensed contractor blindly follows the officials request and a complaint is filed against the contractor then the contractor is the one held liable and the code official goes free. Of course if the contractor has proof that he was complying with the enforcement official then the contractor has a legal pathway to follow but the contractor will still be liable for any non-compliant installation.

The only request by a code enforcement official that I will follow is one put into writhing and backed by adopted code. As a code enforcement official the only request I will make will be in writing and backed by code section.


----------



## atkins (Oct 2, 2013)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> It depends on what code issue is questioned; a search shows that New Hamshire is apparently a Dillon Rule state where the state does not allow the building official to enforce codes that are more stringent then the state adopted codes.  Should this be a building code issue that you think is more restrictive than the state adopted codes then you may request a hearing before a board of appeals that consist of qualified experts that are not employees of the jurisdiction.


Thank you Francis.  In my case, it is about compliance and not something beyond what the IRC says.  For example, IRC 2009 P3007.3.5 specifies that the ejector connection to the horizontal drain pipe must be made at the top.  The builder connected it to the side and says that it all depends on the how one interprets the code and also claims that the local official has seen it as well as a "master" plumber and they don't see the need to correct it because in their experience, having a backwater and stop valve would suffice. As far as I can tell, having a wye connection to the top is not optional.


----------



## atkins (Oct 2, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> I recently had a contractor call while doing work in another jurisdiction. The building inspector was requiring the use of a fitting that is not required by code. When they asked if it was required I said no and asked how much the fitting cost. They said it cost $3.50. I advised them that they would likely end up paying more than that if they chose to fight the inspector. It's not right or fair, but it's the way some people are in this industry.


Thanks tmurray.  That's exactly how I feel also.  We relocated to this new construction, hoping that I won't have to deal with these issues if I have to relocate again.  We were bitten by non-compliance issues called out by the buyer's home inspector when we had to sell out previous home, and of course, had to pay for corrections which weren't our making in the first place.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Oct 2, 2013)

atkins said:
			
		

> Thank you Francis.  In my case, it is about compliance and not something beyond what the IRC says.  For example, IRC 2009 P3007.3.5 specifies that the ejector connection to the horizontal drain pipe must be made at the top.  The builder connected it to the side and says that it all depends on the how one interprets the code and also claims that the local official has seen it as well as a "master" plumber and they don't see the need to correct it because in their experience, having a backwater and stop valve would suffice. As far as I can tell, having a wye connection to the top is not optional.


Another example showing that just because you are a builder, a building official or an individual holding a masters license that you are completely competent at what you do.

How could you interpret "side" for top.

P3007.3.5 Ejector connection to the drainage system. Pumps connected to the drainage system shall connect to the building sewer or shall connect to a wye fitting in the building drain a minimum of 10 feet (3048 mm) from the base of any soil stack, waste stack or fixture drain. Where the discharge line connects into horizontal drainage piping, the connection shall be made through a wye fitting into the top of the drainage piping.


----------



## tmmaloney1 (Oct 3, 2013)

This looks like the forum I was looking for.  I've seen about 30 sewage ejectors connecting to the side of a pipe, not the top.  Haven't heard of any problems, and when there's a problem with those everyone hears about it.  10 feet above any fixture drain?  I guess that makes basement laundry rooms harder with a sewage ejector present.  I can't say I've ever seen that code followed.

Yeah, inspectors can do whatever they want until their BS gets too ridiculous.  Generally, power hungry inspectors are dealt with by someone with enough money, and time to do so.  Meanwhile, just keep doing the ridiculous things they ask for.  Or hire a P.E. to call them on their B.S. if it's cheaper.


----------



## Kearney.200 (Oct 3, 2013)

the only changers I would allow would have to meet the intent of the code. I am on an older code and some times there are new and better ways of doing things. ES reports


----------



## Frank (Oct 3, 2013)

Properly documented code modifications have their place especially in areas where the code is evolving and is not yet fitting the real world--ie certain assisted living I occupancies I-1 vs I-2 capable of self preservation vs ambulatory vs limited assistance in the 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015 codes (2015 ICC approved but not yet printed or adopted)  That which is a future ICC code but not yet adopted here are the strongest modification arguments--I could do it if I waited a year or 3 why not now?


----------



## Paul Sweet (Oct 3, 2013)

Do you really have a sewage ejector, or is it just a pump?  I vaguely remember that there is a difference, and ejectors discharge more forcefully, which is why they are required to be connected on the top of the pipe.

I don't know why the title of P3007.3.5 says "ejector", but the first sentence says "pump".


----------

