|
Mixing up One Code with Another Many years ago, when I had only been in business for myself for a few years, I had a great opportunity to design and build a fairly large addition/remodel project. The existing home was quite small and what we had planned was for all intents and purposes, a completely new home. I was very excited about it. We got the plans together, obtained the initial Planning Permit, and then moved on to submitting to the Building Department. When the plans came back with a list of needed corrections, one of the corrections was the requirement to install fire sprinklers. No reason for this, no code was actually cited. Now, from my experience at the time, it was my understanding that in that jurisdiction your project had to be larger than 4000 sq.ft. in living space to have fire sprinklers be a requirement. At the time, to install a fire sprinkler system would have cost about $5000-6000 , and as with nearly every project, the clients were trying to keep costs down as much as possible. So, I took the plans into the Building Department and questioned the Plans Examiner why the fire sprinkles were being required. He confirmed my understanding of the 4000 sq.ft. threshold and said it was the Fire Department that had made the fire sprinkler determination. As it turned out, the Fire Official responsible for that determination was a good friend of my clients and so they asked him about the requirement. He confirmed to them that the sprinklers were absolutely required for their project, though I was still not given the reasons, or the particular code that was being cited for this. So I called the Fire Official myself and explained that it was important that I know exactly why this was being required to justify the cost to my clients. I asked him to please fax me the particular code he was referring to (this was before e-mail caught on big). When I looked at the fax I was still very confused. He had cited a local Ordinance that required fire sprinklers for all new construction in the R-3 (multi-family buildings like apartments and condos) zones of the City. Now I knew my plans clearly indicated that the project was in an R-1 zone (Single Family Detached Homes on Individual Lots). So, I called him again and tried to explain this to him. While we were on the phone, we both had in hand the same copy of my plans to refer to. He kept insisting that the project was R-3, as was indicated on the plans. As I reviewed the plans again myself, I saw that it was the Occupancy Group that was R-3, not the zone where the project was located. Occupancy Group is a building code determination that is what all single family homes fall under. The Fire Official had mixed up the Zoning Designation with the Occupancy Group. So in fact, fire sprinklers were not required. He gave me a cursory apology but then later called my clients, his friends, and said they really should install fire sprinklers anyway. The moral of the story is- always insist that you get to the bottom of all requirements, especially if you suspect something is amiss. Always insist on specific text of ordinances and codes. Don’t just take for granted that Public Officials are giving you the correct information, especially when it is conveyed verbally. I am not saying I never make mistakes myself, but my primary job is to be on the side of my client’s interests and fight for those interests. Public Officials are often working in under-staffed and under-funded conditions and have entire cities or counties full of people’s projects to contend with. They don’t necessarily have your best interests in mind. Be your own advocate, or hire someone with experience who can do it for you. To help avoid pitfalls like this, I offer a low-cost introductory feasibility service for projects of any size where I can flesh out most of the major factors that will effect the design and construction of your project
|