# Dropped the ball



## rktect 1 (Aug 31, 2022)

Well, I took this job as building official about 7 months ago and have inherited a few issues.  Today I have to meet with a few other people to discuss what we can do about a required fire sprinkler.  2.5 years ago an addition and home remodel triggered the fire sprinkler requirement.  This village has a form that gets filled out for "determination".  The FIre Chief reviewed this determination form then sent the architect the letter that states the fire sprinkler is required and he needs to apply for the permit..  No owner was informed of this.  The fire chief retired.  The next fire chief also retired like a month ago.  Nobody in Community development knew and this department has gone through people during that time like a child through a bag of skittles.  So 2.5 years later, due to covid, the owner calls for final inspections and my inspector realizes that this home would have triggered the fire sprinkler requirement.  No sprinklers installed  No permit ever applied for.  No emails contacting the homeowner.  So he writes it on the report and fails the finals.

Thoughts?


----------



## Beniah Naylor (Aug 31, 2022)

The cheapest and simplest option is to punish the inspector.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 31, 2022)

If you have documentation that the architect was notified, he‘s on the hook.  Unfortunate for the home owner & builder … hold your ground and tell the architect to come up wit( a solution.  E&O insurance.  The base cost of the sprinklers will be on the HO, but the additional cost to retrofit will be on the architect. 

For plan B … talk with city council, see about issuing a long term temporary C of O with the note that it doesn’t set a precedent for other construction, and that house has to retrofit sprinklers with the next permit the file.


----------



## steveray (Aug 31, 2022)

Beniah Naylor said:


> The cheapest and simplest option is to punish the inspector.


That does not solve the problem....


----------



## steveray (Aug 31, 2022)

The easiest solution is to punish the people that did the work incorrectly...

R105.8 Responsibility. It shall be the duty of every person
who performs work for the installation or repair of building,
structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems,
for which this code is applicable, to comply with this code.


----------



## Beniah Naylor (Aug 31, 2022)

steveray said:


> That does not solve the problem....


I was being facetious - however my guess is that someone the OP has spoken to in the city thinks that is a legitimate option...

Now, for a helpful answer - pass it and move on. You are a new B.O., and you cannot be held responsible for the work of your predecessors. Save your willingness to stand firm for a situation that happened during your employment. The homeowner did not know anything about that requirement, and it wasn't called out by anybody ahead of time.

The time to act was before, now is too late. Clearly document who dropped the ball, clearly inform everyone involved that a violation exists and that you will not pursue it from an enforcement standpoint because it was caused by the failures of a previous administration, and call it a day.

Edit: I re-read the OP, and if the architect was notified in writing, I think you should stand strong. Please disregard the previous answer, I had assumed no one had been informed at all.


----------



## TheCommish (Aug 31, 2022)

Seems to me that the architect failed to do their job and produce a code compliant project. If 2.5 years had not passed and the finial inspection was 2 or more years ago the sprinkler issue would have been a failure point at that time with the appropriate remediation required.

Write the violation, require the installation of the sprinkler system, system is installed sign off on the project.
Write the violation, require the installation of the sprinkler system,  advise the owner to appeal the order, go to the appeals authority let them make a decision.


----------



## ICE (Aug 31, 2022)

So the architect gets a letter from the Fire Dept stating that sprinklers are required and the architect not only ignored the letter, but he/she didn’t bother to inform the owner.

It has been my experience that a Fire Dep. approved set of plans is required just to get into Building Dept. plan check.

“The cheapest and simplest option is to punish the inspector.”————The inspector is the last line of defense.  The reason behind the requirement might shed light on the inspector’s role as well as shade a decision on the final outcome.

The part about the owner being completely unaware needs to be taken with a block of salt.

Any bets on whether the local sprinkler contractor has a record of a bid proposal?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 1, 2022)

rktect 1 said:


> about a required fire sprinkler. 2.5 years ago an addition and home remodel triggered the fire sprinkler requirement.


I would actually want to read the ordinance that requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system as there may be exceptions or specific requirements that the project did not meet and therefore sprinklers would not be applicable.


rktect 1 said:


> This village has a form that gets filled out for "determination". The FIre Chief reviewed this determination form then sent the architect the letter that states the fire sprinkler is required and he needs to apply for the permit..


That there is a "determination" form that the fire chief reviews in order to "require" the installation of a fire sprinkler system in and of itself sounds as if the process is arbitrary. 

You and the current fire chief should re-review the original "determination" form and what was the reason for the determination that a system was required to be installed. If there is no written reason from the previous Fire Chief's requirement for the installation of a fire sprinkler system then you should be starting from square one.  A current review may yield a different determination. 

Option B. The permit is over 2 years old. Expire it and move on.


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 1, 2022)

TheCommish said:


> Write the violation, require the installation of the sprinkler system,  advise the owner to appeal the order, go to the appeals authority let them make a decision.


Too funny.  They amended out section 112 of the 2015 IRC prior to my arrival.  There is no ability to appeal a decision here.


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 1, 2022)

So, the village adopted the 2018 Life Safety code which includes several sections for when to require to sprinkler system.  Amended Section 43.8.1.1 "Whenever a residential dwelling undergoes construction resulting in an addition that is 50% or greater than the size of the original structure, the entire structure shall be subject to the fire protection requirements in accordance with the adopted codes applicable to new construction for the occupancy."

For perspective, this village has been without a Building Official or plan reviewer for about 5 or more years.  Plan reviews were sent out of house.  This left the Fire department in charge.  Looking through the amendments, you can tell the fire departments hand has been all over the various codes.  I have been re-writing them and fixing all the mistakes and missed areas and correcting things that should never have been amended such as when they removed columns in table 504.3 and 504.4 for type IV and type V buildings.  Or when they removed F-2 in section 306.3 and corrected it to be F-1.  Its been a lot of fun.


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 1, 2022)

Nobody is going to blame the inspector.  Well, ok one staff kind of did.  I corrected that with the higher ups.  The fact that the inspector happened to know what the trigger was for fire sprinklers does not make it his fault.  He inspects what is on the approved plans.  The approved plans do not indicate sprinklers.


----------



## Ed Cooke (Sep 1, 2022)

rktect 1 said:


> Well, I took this job as building official about 7 months ago and have inherited a few issues.  Today I have to meet with a few other people to discuss what we can do about a required fire sprinkler.  2.5 years ago an addition and home remodel triggered the fire sprinkler requirement.  This village has a form that gets filled out for "determination".  The FIre Chief reviewed this determination form then sent the architect the letter that states the fire sprinkler is required and he needs to apply for the permit..  No owner was informed of this.  The fire chief retired.  The next fire chief also retired like a month ago.  Nobody in Community development knew and this department has gone through people during that time like a child through a bag of skittles.  So 2.5 years later, due to covid, the owner calls for final inspections and my inspector realizes that this home would have triggered the fire sprinkler requirement.  No sprinklers installed  No permit ever applied for.  No emails contacting the homeowner.  So he writes it on the report and fails the finals.
> 
> Thoughts?


Sorry you get to complete this task. Safety is our biggest part of our job. If the sprinkler has been and still is required, I would contact the architect and be clear that this needs to be included in the job. Of course there are several methods and I would certainly try to work with all the parties to have this accomplished. Alternate Means and Methods come to mind. Best of continued success.


----------



## my250r11 (Sep 1, 2022)

Our State removed the sprinkler requirements for SFD here. As AHJ we can adopt more restrictive but that does always mean it not against some other law. The attorneys' should be involved with all of this. JMHO.


----------



## my250r11 (Sep 1, 2022)

Where's the EDIT button, Meant= doesn't always mean


----------



## Msradell (Sep 1, 2022)

my250r11 said:


> Where's the EDIT button, Meant= doesn't always mean


I'm always looking for the edit button, it's the one thing this forum doesn't have that I wish it did have!


----------



## TheCommish (Sep 1, 2022)

Sawhorse member shoud have the edit button, shows up after you post the in the lower left next to Report


----------



## TheCommish (Sep 1, 2022)

Rktect1, if you are fixing the amendments why are you in the 2006  family of ICC codes? I thought Massachusetts was bad being on the 2015, working to get to the 2021.

Another thought, if the permit has expired which it seems to have,  what happens if they have to reapply under the current rules?


----------



## Mark K (Sep 2, 2022)

The building departments responsibility is not to punish people although under civil service you may be able to punish your employees.  It is to enforce the properly adopted code.  Notify the building owner of the noncompliance.

It is likely that the local modification is not valid.   Check if it was filed with the Building Standard Commission and they recognize it was filed.  It is also likely that the local modifications do not satisfy the limited conditions where California allows local modifications.  Remember in California you are enforcing the state codes with limited local modifications.  Read the state statutes.  Local modifications must be re-adopted and filed for each code cycle.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 2, 2022)

Mark K said:


> The building departments responsibility is not to punish people although under civil service you may be able to punish your employees.  It is to enforce the properly adopted code.  Notify the building owner of the noncompliance.
> 
> It is likely that the local modification is not valid.   Check if it was filed with the Building Standard Commission and they recognize it was filed.  It is also likely that the local modifications do not satisfy the limited conditions where California allows local modifications.  Remember in California you are enforcing the state codes with limited local modifications.  Read the state statutes.  Local modifications must be re-adopted and filed for each code cycle.


I don't see where the OP indicates this is in California.


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 2, 2022)

TheCommish said:


> Rktect1, if you are fixing the amendments why are you in the 2006  family of ICC codes? I thought Massachusetts was bad being on the 2015, working to get to the 2021.
> 
> Another thought, if the permit has expired which it seems to have,  what happens if they have to reapply under the current rules?


I have to pay more money to be a sawhorse to fix that.  So........., I left my old position as plans examiner at one village and have been the BO for a new village who adopted the 2015 ICC codes plus the 2018 Life Safety Code


----------



## Msradell (Sep 2, 2022)

TheCommish said:


> Sawhorse member shoud have the edit button, shows up after you post the in the lower left next to Report


I don't see an edit button even though I'm a sawhorse.


----------



## Msradell (Sep 2, 2022)

Okay, I just created the post above and didn't see the edit command, here's a screenshot of it: Screen capturer


----------



## bill1952 (Sep 3, 2022)

Msradell said:


> Okay, I just created the post above and didn't see the edit command, here's a screenshot of it: Screen capturer


Just a test if I have edit button.

And I do. Option under the three dots next to "Report"


----------



## TheCommish (Sep 3, 2022)




----------



## ICE (Sep 3, 2022)

TheCommish said:


> View attachment 9432


How long does it stay active?


----------



## TheCommish (Sep 3, 2022)

ICE said:


> How long does it stay active?


Thursday was active, Wednesday was not


----------



## Msradell (Sep 3, 2022)

TheCommish said:


> View attachment 9432


I'm definitely not seen one anytime!  Guess I need some help.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 5, 2022)

Plenty of BLAME to go around  BUT At the end of the day,  DOES THIS ADDITION REALLY MAKE THIS HOME UNSAFE?

Most likely the original Structure was Sawn Lumber and not I Joist with a 3/8 OSB Web
Was the Addition Sawn Lumber?  Personally, I feel the "NEW" Lumber options and how quickly the structure could be compromised is the main reason for the sprinklers

I understand where recent thinking is that anything that gives the occupants more time to Get Out is a Good Thing
But perhaps some extra smoke alarms would be just as effective as an Early Warning Method

I believe that Fire Alarms SAVE LIVES   and Sprinklers Save Property

The idea of creating a financial Hardship for this oversight seems unreasonable   IMHO


----------



## ICE (Sep 5, 2022)

Genduct said:


> Plenty of BLAME to go around  BUT At the end of the day,  DOES THIS ADDITION REALLY MAKE THIS HOME UNSAFE?
> 
> Most likely the original Structure was Sawn Lumber and not I Joist with a 3/8 OSB Web
> Was the Addition Sawn Lumber?  Personally, I feel the "NEW" Lumber options and how quickly the structure could be compromised is the main reason for the sprinklers
> ...


The Fire Department has set criteria that everybody has to abide by.  It is generally not difficult to arrive at a conclusion regarding sprinkler requirements.  The decision in this case is clearly the purview of the Fire Department. 

As to creating a hardship….an architect designed it, a contractor built it, an owner sat on it….so who created what?


----------



## Genduct (Sep 6, 2022)

ICE said:


> The Fire Department has set criteria that everybody has to abide by.  It is generally not difficult to arrive at a conclusion regarding sprinkler requirements.  The decision in this case is clearly the purview of the Fire Department.
> 
> As to creating a hardship….an architect designed it, a contractor built it, an owner sat on it….so who created what?


Ice,   Point Taken!  The Legality of the situation and the RIGHT of the AHJ to Insist that they can ignore their part in this situation is clear.

The financial hardship I was referring to is the idea of insisting on the sprinklers AFTER all the work has been done!

This is a good example of having more than one entity in charge.  Things can get missed, We are all busy

If we are to have the respect of the Communities we SERVE, then we need to APPLY the Code and Not INFLICT the Rules

So I think, given the unfortunate sequence of events, we really need to do our job,  look at the Intent of the Code and ask ourselves,  Does this Addition make the home UNSAFE,  Not just, it would have been SAFER

To do otherwise would stretch the boundaries of Governmental Immunity  and Not Acknowledge the part the AHJ played in this Situation

The Horse is Out of the Barn,  NOW,   WHAT DO WE DO?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 6, 2022)

Was there a rough-in inspection approved? at what point does the sprinkler system get inspected? Are water connections to a sprinkler system done by a plumber or the sprinkler installer? Where's the GC on this project?


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 6, 2022)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Was there a rough-in inspection approved? at what point does the sprinkler system get inspected? Are water connections to a sprinkler system done by a plumber or the sprinkler installer? Where's the GC on this project?


These are separate permit types.  Sprinklers are never a part of the building permit.  So that sure is helpful.


----------



## Plumb-bob (Sep 6, 2022)

I have walked into a similar situation: took over as (only) building inspector of a small town, and as I learned my job I realized many things have been systematically overlooked or ignored over the last many years. I have taken on some large changes within the community, and taken my lumps along the way.

When it comes to these situations where there is plenty of blame to pass around, and certainly potential for conflict, I tend to try to distill the problem to safety, and focus less on administrative requirements. So...I tend to agree with Genduct... how can the home be made safe? As the AHJ you will often need to balance cost vs safety and make many tough decisions.

As an aside, I have enjoyed reading through this forum just to get an idea on how other inspectors think. 

Mo


----------



## my250r11 (Sep 6, 2022)

TheCommish said:


> Sawhorse member shoud have the edit button, shows up after you post the in the lower left next to Report





Msradell said:


> I'm definitely not seen one anytime!  Guess I need some help.


Me & Msradell are in the say boat. I remember the edit but do not see it. I renew in Oct.  I'll see if it returns. Sorry for hi-jacking the thread.


----------



## dancinbear (Sep 6, 2022)

Beniah Naylor said:


> I was being facetious - however my guess is that someone the OP has spoken to in the city thinks that is a legitimate option...
> 
> Now, for a helpful answer - pass it and move on. You are a new B.O., and you cannot be held responsible for the work of your predecessors. Save your willingness to stand firm for a situation that happened during your employment. The homeowner did not know anything about that requirement, and it wasn't called out by anybody ahead of time.
> 
> ...


Scenario: Sprinks are required. This forum has documented in writing you know this. You "pass it and move on". An unfortunate fire occurs and people are seriously injured or die. Everyone is sued. The judge asks you if you passed something you knew was a code violation. You say yes but "it was caused by the failures of a previous administration". 
IMO that is not anywhere near enough to create plausible deniability. You would have responsibility due to misfeasance, malfeasance, or non-feasance.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 6, 2022)

ICE said:


> The Fire Department has set criteria that everybody has to abide by.  It is generally not difficult to arrive at a conclusion regarding sprinkler requirements.  The decision in this case is clearly the purview of the Fire Department.
> 
> As to creating a hardship….an architect designed it, a contractor built it, an owner sat on it….so who created what?


ICE,  Point Taken,  there was a Mistake,  Like someone once pointed out to me:

ANYBODY CAN DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME,  IT IS WHEN YOU SCREW UP AND FIX IT THAT REALLY DETERMINES WHO THE "MECHANICS" ARE

The word Mechanic ( not Journeymen) was used in our area when I began as an Apprentice in '67
There were Mechanics and Laborers.  I believe the Laborers I worked with were 75% Mechanic because they too, took Pride in What They Did

So what is the Answer?  What will happen to your reputation if you admit "There was a mistake made on this project"  God Help Us , in the Political Climate we live in today,  How could anyone bring themselves to tell the TRUTH


----------



## north star (Sep 7, 2022)

*@ ~ @ ~ @

** my250r11 ** & others, ...if you are a "paid subscription member"*
*[ i.e. - a Sawhorse  ] and you are having problems with your account,
or are not seeing various features that should be available to you,
then please send ** jar546 ** a Private Message ( a PM ) to request
assistance.......He is always willing to help !

@ ~ @ ~ @*


----------



## ICE (Sep 7, 2022)

north star said:


> north star said:
> 
> 
> > He is always willing to help !
> ...


And he needs something to do.


----------



## ICE (Sep 7, 2022)

rktect 1 said:


> So 2.5 years later, due to covid, the owner calls for final inspections and my inspector realizes that this home would have triggered the fire sprinkler requirement.


It is not a matter of "would have triggered"....it was triggered at inception.  The current situation has not changed that.  The responsibility rests with the owner. What the owner does about it is not the problem of the building department.  The building department can't cause the owner to install a sprinkler system and the owner can't cause the building department to issue a C/O.  

Some make the argument that the building department missed several opportunities to get the sprinklers installed during construction.  While that is true, the other players had the same shot at it and missed.  I have heard it said, "You miss 100% of the shots that you don't take." 

Passing on this problem because of misplaced guilt opens the door to all manner of violations.  At a final inspection I have found missing AFCI protection that has resulted in a service upgrade, missing egress windows, missing tempered glazing, missing counter/island receptacles, missing smoke and CO alarms, missing attic ventilation, missing handrail, and yes....missing sprinkler systems. That is not all of it either.

Each present a hardship.  The degree of hardship is relative to the pocketbook of the owner.  What seems like a smallish mistake can be a real dilemma for some.  Letting things go because it was missed by another inspector opens a door to a dark place.


----------

