# SFR?



## jar546 (Jan 21, 2010)

I have a pole building that was submitted as a SFR.  The bottom was a large garage for the owner's toys and the 2nd floor was to be a SFR.  The initial permit was for the frame and skin only as the owner was going to contract out finishing the interior.  Zoning was approved as a SFR and a permit was issued for the frame and skin only with the knowledge that another permit would have to be pulled for the interior construction of the 2nd floor and fire separation between the garage below and the SFR.  Still with me?

Anyway, I just did a framing and skin inspection and was just told by the contractor that he is being asked to bid the project to finish the 2nd floor SFR.  He asked me if he needed 5/8" rock for the ceiling to separate the attic and I said no.  He said, "Oh, I thought apartments had to be separated".  I said what apartments.  I was then told that the owner plans on dividing the 2nd floor in half and will be renting out one side and will have exercise equipment and whatever else he wants on the other side for him. Now the owner will not live there at all but will(wants to) occupy half of the 2nd floor and all of the garage for his vehicles AND rent out the other apartment.

I am bumping this to the zoning officer first but need to figure out where he stands with the I-codes.  The building was built per IBC due to construction type but the original SFR was to comply with the IRC.  Nothing has been submitted yet for completing the project so I want to nip this in the butt before they plan too far ahead.

Thoughts?


----------



## Mac (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Does the zoning to allow the SFR to be non owner occupied?

Either way, do they remember that another building permit is needed? I would mention "You will be seeing me again soon"!

And maybe add "Don't continue the work until the build-out permit is approved"


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

jar546, verrry interresting!

1st permit: Has it expired?

Has to pass the zoning smell test 1st, do you have R-1 and R-2 zoning. Second paragraph. "contractor said apartments" again zoning?

What is the min. square feet allowed for SFR and for duplex(2-Family) if a duplex is allowed by your zoning in the SF R-1 zone?

Bathrooms required for both sides?

How many electric and water services?

Can you post the plan? or your own sketch?


----------



## Alias (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Jeff -

Planning Dept. is my first stop on a matter such as this.  As others have stated, the jurisdiction where you are located might not allow/approve this type of use in that zone.

Then, I would request a full set of stamped plans as this has now turned into a change of the original proposed mixed use occupancy.  The reason behind this is that unlike CA where we tweaked the heck out of the IBC and turned it into the CBC so you can build a SFR, this was built using the IBC and you are requiring a separate set of plans that meet the IRC.

Sue, hoping the logic makes sense


----------



## texas transplant (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Jeff,

This is easy if your owner is an honest and forecoming man.   If he is not it will turn into a MESS!

I have ran into that before.  The times I was lucky, zoning prohibited it so it died there, but that was when they were honest about what they were doing.

If he is honest and up front, you have a mixed use building and it has to be protected, separated etc.   If he is not honest you have a SFR that really isn't.  Because if he applies to finish it as a SFR, the layout etc. may seem funny (strange) but its his home and all we can do is enforce minimum code.  We also can't call him a liar, based on what the contractor has told you, we have to go by the plans submitted and constructed to.

It is clear to me that if it is a SFR (whole structure is his home or a rental home) and the garage is accessory to the SFR he gets to use IRC and construct.   If he builds apartment, fitness area and garage/storage it stays in IBC as a mixed use multi-tenant building.

The problem will be enforcement after the construction is done and good luck.   Talk to the City Attorney now, make sure he understands what the problems could be, sometimes they don't understand this can be dangerous not just a nusiance.  These get ugly in a hurry when the real separate uses come out, and usually you hear about it from the neighbor next door who doesn't like it.

From all your posts etc. you seem to have great code skills, just document, document, document everything on this, including your conversation with the contractor, these end up in court a great many times.  But if you document and even better work into a letter or into plan review comment about the whole thing needing to be a SFR (put in there the the definition of a dwelling unit, SFR etc. so he can't say he didn't know), based on the plans submitted and the plan review you performed, you will probably win that one in court down the road.

Sorry to ramble, but there ain't an easy answer if the owner isn't honest and up front and makes this something other than a SFR.   Best advice I can give is start your file now and keep it complete throughout the whole process and don't lose it when the C of O is issued.


----------



## vegas paul (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Is this an owner/builder permit?  In my jurisdiction, state laws would prohibit the "new" concept (apartment/ non-owner occupied) from being allowed to be issued to an owner/builder, whereas the SFR could be issued to an owner/builder.  How about in your state?


----------



## FredK (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Love it.

And why won't it work as a duplex over a garage besides zoning?

Since I haven't work on one of these in 10 years here's some questions:

1. Used to be under the old UBC there was a reduction taken for barns for wind loads.  Don't know (since we don't have any pole barns) and am too lazy to determine if that still used in today's codes.

2. I used to got complete engineering for all the complete structure including foors, ceilings.  Included all brackets needed to carry beams and attachments to posts.

3. Energy code if you require it?

4. Rest is basic homebulding 101.

Currently there was one to be built here before the permits went to heck early last year.  Took them months to get the engineering right and that was for a one story building to be part home and part horse stable.  To be honest I don't think ever got more than footings in the ground.


----------



## Iowa49 (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

I call it a mixed use building.  Storage facility and residential occupancies.  Sprinkler and seperate!


----------



## JBI (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Jeff - Hope you've got your waders handy, I think you're going to need them! *IF* (and that's a big 'if') the final product falls within the scope of the Res Code it might not be too bad. If it doesn't, then are they able to provide the _required_ sprinklers for an R occupancy under the Building Code? (sorry to muddy the waters even more, but an important thing to consider)

Don't get too crazy about the contractors' reference to 'apartments'. A lot of them use a word without really understanding its' meaning... His use of the word 'apartments' may have been a misuse of the word. As evidenced by his subsequent description of the spacial divisions - one space for a DU and one for exercise equipment or whatever - it sounds like only one DU is intended. Whether or not it could still be classified as a SFR is unclear at this time.

SFRs _generally_ provide more living space than storage/garage space, but I'm not so sure they are _required_ to...

It sounds like you will get the opportunity to really test your mettle in regard to the often complex world of cross-referencing the Building Codes with Zoning. Hard enough to do when they are both within your authority and jurisdiction. When one is someone elses' responsibility it gets... _interesting_?

Without an actual plan for the build-out it is impossible to predict what you will eventually see in there. But it is an excellent reason to avoid 'shell only' permits, at least for SFRs.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

My first take on this was it was a mixed use under the IBC. Further thinking had me where Fred is, really could be nothing more than a duplex over a garage, under the scope of the IRC. Then upon further reflection, I got to where John is thinking, does the separated exercise space even qualify as a DU? If not, then it is, from a code perspective, a SFD, with a strange configuration. The DU, a separated exercise room, and a garage. I would be kicking it to zoning, but lacking help there, I'm thinking that it still could happen under the IRC for the finish.

Very interesting.....it never stops for you Jeff, does it?


----------



## cboboggs (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

I have to intially go with IRC structure. Hopefully the zoning guy can help you out.


----------



## High Desert (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Jeff, how big is the lower garage. The 2006 IRC changed the definition of accessory structure, which I believe this would be, to not more than 3,000 sq. ft. If it exceeds that, you would have to have it comply with the IBC as a mixed use building.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

If it only has one dwelling then the building is a one family dwelling.

I don't see anything which is in violation of the IRC.

Owner's retain partial use of rental one family dwellings all the time.

It will probably even be difficult to find anything in violation of a typical zoning code.

In other words if you believed that the Owner would live there with this arrangement, what would you cite under zoning?

Personally, I don't see what the issue is.

The owner has a permit and is building one dwelling.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Jar546 wrote:



> I have a pole building that was submitted as a SFR. The bottom was a large garage for the owner's toys and the 2nd floor was to be a SFR. The initial permit was for the frame and skin only as the owner was going to contract out finishing the interior. Zoning was approved as a SFR and a permit was issued for the frame and skin only with the knowledge that another permit would have to be pulled for the interior construction of the 2nd floor and fire separation between the garage below and the SFR. Still with me?Anyway, I just did a framing and skin inspection and was just told by the contractor that he is being asked to bid the project to finish the 2nd floor SFR. He asked me if he needed 5/8" rock for the ceiling to separate the attic and I said no. He said, "Oh, I thought apartments had to be separated". I said what apartments. I was then told that the owner plans on dividing the 2nd floor in half and will be renting out one side and will have exercise equipment and whatever else he wants on the other side for him. Now the owner will not live there at all but will(wants to) occupy half of the 2nd floor and all of the garage for his vehicles AND rent out the other apartment.
> 
> I am bumping this to the zoning officer first but need to figure out where he stands with the I-codes. The building was built per IBC due to construction type but the original SFR was to comply with the IRC. Nothing has been submitted yet for completing the project so I want to nip this in the butt before they plan too far ahead.


 Sounds like a duplex, whats the issue. IRC. see a lot of these at CRB's place.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

I gave the zoning officer heads up on this one and he will be doing research and calling the borough attorney for guidance.  Until this is approved by zoning (again) I will not be issuing a permit.

The original permit was for the structure only with skin and windows.  It was submitted to both zoning and building as a SFR.  The work under the permit is almost done as the frame is up and the skin is 99% complete.

The owner knows he was going to pull a 2nd permit to finish it into a SFR.  There were no details as to how the 2nd floor apartment was to be laid out.  There were no signed contracts to finish the 2nd floor apartment at all.  The permit was strictly for the frame and skin of the pole building.  During construction, the owner was to start working on getting the bids and specs for the interior portion of the building which would include fire separation between garage and dwelling, electrical, energy, mechanical, plumbing , building, etc.

This is not complete.  Of an interesting fact, the frame and skin were issued under the IRC & IBC 2006 due to its construction type.  Now the interior and egress portions will be under the 2009 IRC (unless that changes) because he did not have a signed contract to build or design prior to the change of the year and the original contract and permit was for the frame/skin only.  I will cannot legally allow this to fall under the 2006 IRC if the IRC at all.  We will see.

I am hoping that this dies in zoning.

If not this is how I am looking at it.

The 2nd floor apartment is a dwelling unit and he already has a tenant lined up.  The other half that he plans on occupying does not meet the definition of dwelling unit as it only has a bathroom and is not intended for eating, sleeping, cooking, etc.

My initial concern at first was of fire separation between garage and the SFR (dwelling above).  Now my concern is fire separation between the separate occupancies.

This is not an accessory building because it is not accessory to a SFR on the same lot.  It is it's own builiding and has a gross square footage of 4,800 for this 40 x 60 building.

If it does not meet the definition of "dwelling unit" then I believe I may not have any choice but to place this as a commercial structure.

I am weighing the options and reading the book intently.

This is a good one.  All opinions are welcome.

The 1st floor is the private garage of the owner.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Sounds like a duplex, whats the issue. IRC. see a lot of these at CRB's place.


It can't be a duplex if there is only 1 dwelling unit.  The other side will have a bathroom and no bedroom or kitchen and does not met the definition.

I know I will have at least 2 electric meters to comply with the energy code.


----------



## JBI (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Not to cast aspursions on the good people of PA, but I would lay odds it's a duplex-in-waiting.

Waiting for the CofO before the kitchen goes into the other side... Wouldn't be the first, wouldn't be the last.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Not to cast aspursions on the good people of PA, but I would lay odds it's a duplex-in-waiting. Waiting for the CofO before the kitchen goes into the other side... Wouldn't be the first, wouldn't be the last.


I discussed this exact situation with the zoning officer.

I will put stipulations in the C of O to include annual inspections.  We can do that in PA ya know!


----------



## High Desert (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Jeff, not meaning to get off topic, but what is a garage if it's not an accessory to an SFR? It can be attached and be accessory. It's certainly not a dwelling. Dwellings are not required by code to have a garage.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 21, 2010)

Re: SFR?



			
				High Desert said:
			
		

> Jeff, not meaning to get off topic, but what is a garage if it's not an accessory to an SFR? It can be attached and be accessory. It's certainly not a dwelling. Dwellings are not required by code to have a garage.


There is no definition of "Garage" or "Accessory area", only "Accessory structure" which it is not since it is built as part of, actually under the dwelling unit.

The other half of the 2nd floor is not by definition a dwelling unit so what is it?

Can this still be a SFR?


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

It is an Occupancy Group R-3 in IBC. It is IBC because it exceeds the IRC prescriptive path overall. It may comply with IRC in portions but it would be a two dwelling unit with one garage with required separation between the two dwelling units. If the garage is to be used by only one dwelling unit then the stairs to the garage shall be accessed by that dwelling unit.

It would be a duplex where the owner occupies one of the units.

Although the code may be complied, zoning is a separate issue from the code and shall also be complied with. Additional off-street parking may be required based on zoning requirements if off-street is required and duplexes are permitted. So, zoning would have to be re-evaluated and new permits would need to be issued and construction shall stop at completion of what is approved to be completed with the permits already issued and according to already approved portions of plans. Such changes will need to be made at owner/contractor expense wherever applies and any required fire-rated separation shall be made.

Now, zoning compliance shall be made as well as code. Stamped plans may be required.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?



> It would be a duplex where the owner occupies one of the units.


I don't think that is a code requirement in the I-codes


----------



## kilitact (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Jar546 wrote:



> It can't be a duplex if there is only 1 dwelling unit. The other side will have a bathroom and no bedroom or kitchen and does not met the definition.I know I will have at least 2 electric meters to comply with the energy code.


Jeff, if the "second" unit doesn't meet the definition for living space, have the applicant note the use of each space on the plans. I see a SFR, using the IRC. Whats up with the requirment for two meters out of the energy code?? :?


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Since the garage is not for the use of the dwelling unit it can't be accessory to it.  IBC unless it turns into a duplex.


----------



## texas transplant (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Been following the thread.   Have to agree with TJacobs.   If the garage is not accessory to a dwelling unit in the structure, you end up with R-3 and S-2 (at a minimum, because who knows this may garage may become, I have seen garages like this become the fabrication shop for the owners stock car and everything in between) mixed use building and all seperations required etc. in the IBC need to be built in.

It is a duplex only when the garage goes with one or both dwelling units, and the required seperations are installed.  Owner does not need to live there to make it a duplex or a SFR for that matter, but the garage has to be accessory to the dwelling units.

As soon as the garage is an independent use from the dwelling unit(s) it goes to the IBC.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

I would disagree with Texas Transplant and Tjacobs; A single family resident with garage is designed out of the IRC. I can rent my house out and keep the garage for my toys and it would still be SFR. Point to a code section that takes the position that your taking.


----------



## TimNY (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

I don't understand the "built per IBC but comply with IRC" thing.

Could we state this as "built per IRC" with alternate method of construction?

In my opinion, if you say you are going to build per IBC, you stick with IBC.

I think if we go with the decision this is an IRC building with an alternate method of construction, much of the debate is gone.

The largest issue will be zoning.


----------



## north star (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

*Jeff,*

*Have you issued a "Stop Work Order",  a Suspension ( R105.6 )  because he has exceeded the limits of*

*the originally submitted plans?        Until you have something on paper,  seems like a lot of conjecture*

*to me.      Once he submits some type of acceptable plans [ other than a ' napkin-esque ' drawing ],*

*then you would have a place to start your research.    Giving the Zoning Dept. a ' heads up '  is a*

*good idea!     You did not mention, but are there any applicable municipal ordinances in place that*

*would shed some light or strengthen your position,  ...one way or the other?*


----------



## brudgers (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

This has all the trappings of "gotcha!"

If the owner was going to live in the building, there wouldn't be an issue.

If the owner let his son store his cars in the garage and allowed his son to padlock the garage and keep the key there wouldn't be an issue.

And if he allowed his daughter to fill up the other half of the second floor with the grand kids toys and use it for a playroom at her convenience, there wouldn't be an issue.

From a building code standpoint, I don't see anything under the IRC that applies.

So what if the guy is getting away with something?

Code Officials aren't responsible for that, just the building code.


----------



## High Desert (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

so..if I don't own a car, and my neighbor doesn't have a garage, and I let him use my garage to park his car in.....it's a mixed use occupancy R-3/S-2?


----------



## rktect 1 (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

So ok.  I got this house submitted to me.  One of the rooms in the basement is labelled bedroom #4.  It is even drawn with the queen size bed neatly in the center of the room and a full height wardrobe.  There is no window, well or ladder shown.  I write my review and ask for compliance with the egress window, well and ladder.  When it comes back the room is now labelled storage.  The bed that was previously drawn neatly centered in the room is now shown drawn on its side (vertical) laying up against the wardrobe.

What changed?


----------



## TimNY (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?



			
				rktect 1 said:
			
		

> So ok.  I got this house submitted to me.  One of the rooms in the basement is labelled bedroom #4.  It is even drawn with the queen size bed neatly in the center of the room and a full height wardrobe.  There is no window, well or ladder shown.  I write my review and ask for compliance with the egress window, well and ladder.  When it comes back the room is now labelled storage.  The bed that was previously drawn neatly centered in the room is now shown drawn on its side (vertical) laying up against the wardrobe.What changed?


The only thing that changed is now the C.O. says "No sleeping is permitted in the basement"


----------



## cboboggs (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

rktect 1: Is there EERO else where in the basement?


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?



			
				rktect 1 said:
			
		

> So ok.  I got this house submitted to me.  One of the rooms in the basement is labelled bedroom #4.  It is even drawn with the queen size bed neatly in the center of the room and a full height wardrobe.  There is no window, well or ladder shown.  I write my review and ask for compliance with the egress window, well and ladder.  When it comes back the room is now labelled storage.  The bed that was previously drawn neatly centered in the room is now shown drawn on its side (vertical) laying up against the wardrobe.What changed?


Or office, or den, or playroom, or bonus room, or study, or home theater room ("we like to lie in bed when we watch our movies"), etc.  "If it quacks like a duck, it might not be a duck after all, it might be a cardinal acting like a duck.  That code requirement does not apply to cardinals."  "It's not what I meant to deceive you with."  "You guys are too picky."

Columbo acted dumb but he was a pretty smart cookie.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Now that we have an apartment and storage for the building owner, he told me he plans on installing 2 electrical meters.  The owner wants to place a door between sides and allow the tenant full access to the other side which will be delcared a weight room.

Other than the work done under the original permit, no other work has been started as he did not officially apply for a permit.  Therefore there is no reason for a stop work order.

Now we will have:

1) A pole building with 2,400 sq ft of 1st floor storage & 1,200 sq ft of a personal use weight room for the building owner who resides elsewhere.

2) 1,200 square foot dwelling unit that will be rented out as an apartment.

3) The 1,200 sq ft weight room will be accessible to the tenant via a door.

There are not 2 dwelling units so it cannot be a two or more family dwelling.

It is appearing to me to be a SFR at this point.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

I agree.........play through.


----------



## 88twin (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

IMHO it was always an SFR

would anyone have a problem if i had a 1st. floor residence and a basement garage?

how about a 1st. floor garage and a basement residence?

as long as i can maintain separation between garage and residence it doesn't matter how i configure.

i have even seen a small residence inside a garage for the motor home (snow birds)

what if i had a basement garage, open finished 1st. floor , and the rest on the 2nd. floor (kitchen, bathrooms, bedrooms)?

to me use is single family residence... IRC


----------



## Glennman CBO (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?

SFR gets my vote. All the ramblings are interesting though.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 22, 2010)

Re: SFR?



> I don't understand the "built per IBC but comply with IRC" thing.


R301.1.2 Construction systems.

The requirements of this code are based on platform and balloon-frame construction for light-frame buildings. The requirements for concrete and masonry buildings are based on a balloon framing system. Other framing systems must have equivalent detailing to ensure force transfer, continuity and compatible deformations.

R301.1.3 Engineered design.

When a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for all buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code.



> 1) A pole building with 2,400 sq ft


A pole building is not light frame construction so an engineer would design the structure in accordance with the IBC. remainder of the building is IRC, Rise and run on stairs, no sprinklers required, etc.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: SFR?



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> > It would be a duplex where the owner occupies one of the units.


I don't think that is a code requirement in the I-codes

It is just a duplex which the owner happens to occupy a unit. Sorry. My fault. It's R-3 two family dwelling.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: SFR?

It can't be a duplex because there is only 1 dwelling unit per the definition of dwelling unit.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: SFR?



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> I would disagree with Texas Transplant and Tjacobs; A single family resident with garage is designed out of the IRC. I can rent my house out and keep the garage for my toys and it would still be SFR. Point to a code section that takes the position that your taking.


Kil, the duplex exceeds prescriptive path and therefore needs to comply with IBC requirements. IRC dwelling units are R-3. IRC private garages are ordinarily Group S or U. Whatever it is.

R301.1.3. This means that occupancy/use classification needs to be identified and given the nature of this being a pole-building construction. All conventional framing should only need to comply with IRC as IBC permits use of IRC for such anyway.

Also the garage is used by one one of the two dwelling units not both. So it is accessory to one of the units but not the other. The unit with the stairs down to the garage would be the unit the garage is accessory to.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: SFR?



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> It can't be a duplex because there is only 1 dwelling unit per the definition of dwelling unit.


Ok, is this an apartment or a studio apartment?

They are supposingly making a change-order on the design to make it two dwelling units? Is it just renting out a bedroom or is the unit not occupied by the owner is going to have its own kitchen and bathroom. If it has its own kitchen (cooking area) and bathroom (sanitation) then it is a dwelling. Having a garage is NOT a requirement.

Edit: Explain - is the garage the only area to be used by the owner and as a storage space? If that is the case, it would just be a Group S - storage since the building has exceeded prescriptive path. It would be basically an accessory storage area. There would be no additional requirements between Group S storage to a R-3 multi-use (that I can think of) and an attached accessory storage area. If it is ever intend to be in the future to store a vehicle then it should be treated as a garage which will have same drywall requirements and it would need to meet requirements for a garage floor to handle weight of a vehicle.

It might just be a classification deal. Still is going to have a 1/2" drywall and maybe a 1-hour fire-rated drywall.

It could be designed in such a way that the garage can be accessible from the upper floor without going outside but somewhat segregated from the dwelling space. It would just be locked by the building owner.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: SFR?

Rick, the other side of the 2nd floor will have a bathroom only and completely open as an excersise room.  There will be no cooking facilities, no kitchenette, no bedroom.

I will address these issues in the stipulations of the C of O.


----------

