Stumped - Hopefully I am not overstepping my bounds in this forum. But I have contacted the Regional Manager of NFSA for your Region and he may be able to help. Honestly, I am surprised he responded to my e-mail as quickly as he did. He has some questions to be able to look in to this further. Could you e-mail me so I can try and help? If you would rather not that is ok as well.... as I said, this may be overstepping the boundaries (I haven't ever been part of this forum, or many others before, so am unsure of protocol). I researched as much as I could with the info I had and was able to locate some contacts that might be of assistance. So I summarized what you stated to the best of my ability and e-mailed him. Please e-mail if you would like to pursue this. I can be reached at sbeyerle@hellwigproducts.com. To anyone else reading this, please don’t send me any junk =) ok?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ShayniB,

The code infocement has a superviser, he has a supperviser ... mayor and councelmen you may have to get in touch with them to get answers. nobody likes getting feedback from higher ups asking questions

Contact the BIA, maybe(now everyone take a deep breath)the ACLU also.This person works for YOU. Their professional record should relect any history of personal agenda issues. Your's may be the first, maybe not.We need to weed-out these "building inspector today, supreme ruler tomorrow" types.Intimidation should not be tolerated, but must be documented. Good luck.And make CERTAIN that every thing else you do is to-or-above any codes. Kill'em with compliance, and fight the inspector's ego in a seperate ring with all the support you can muster in your corner. IF this would have the potential to be precident-setting, you MAY be able to recruit a building-industry atty to take it pro-bono.

I forgot to mention...
Do you have any idea how much governmental lobbying is being done to try to mandate a blanket requirement for sprinkler systems? I'm not questioning the benefit, just the methodology, and the billions of **** used to coerce our elected officials to approve legislation that would ensure an inflated pricing structure for the taxpayers forced to comply.

Have you gone to a local building supply store or lumber yard and asked if they had a current Uniform Building Code book? That would be a good place to find out where to start looking for references and applicability. If they have one they may or may not let you borrow it, but surely they would let you read it in the store. They might also know of others in the local area that have had similar issues with local building inspectors. I had issues once with a builing inspector who didn't know what constituted a window opening and wanted me to replace some very old almost antique windows. Needless to say, after 3 visits by building inspectors including the top guy in town, and after they got educated they backed down. They still tried to intimidate me, but it didn't work. I also think they hated being educated by a woman. You might also want to see if you can generate local media interest. After all, many potential new residents in town deserve to know what might face them if they decided to build there. Best of luck

Heck, you can BUY your very OWN code book for about eighty bucks. Then you'll have it to place respectfully under their noses.

Richard,

I only wish it was that simple. I bought a 2006 IRC book but that doesn't completely ansewr the question. There is some language in the front of it that says it's a "stand alone code". I also spent 2-3 hours reading and trying to understand 2005 IFC book and how the two "work together" or Don't. To further complicate things my plans have a reff. from Build. Dept. stating that they are going with 2003 IBC. Since IRC is like a subset of IBC can I simply argue that IFC & IBC don't apply? (Like they would listen to my opinion about that!) Can the BO simply just say TS "I'm saying it falls under IBC because I can use that against you to try and require more stuff than IRC would?"
Since no one on a state level will help define for me which book or several books applies to my project I'm left trying to figure it all out for myself. If the guy has a personal bent towards sprinklers then he's going to trick me any way he can with whatever info he can. I can only surmise that he is in trouble with fire dept. because of intermittant enforcement by the guy B4 him and he wants to start correcting that problem starting with me.
I'd love to rub their noses in any or all the books but they won't tell me the right book(s) to use.

The International Residential Code stands on its own for everything that is covered by it. Once any part of what is proposed moves past what is contained in the IRC, then the project gets bounced to the International Building Code, which is made up of five or six separate codes, one for each phase.

Looking at the 2003 IRC, there is not a word in it that refers to residential sprinkler systems. If they are being required, there must be something that has bumped you out of the IRC and into the IBC series. Many inspectors are under the false impression that, for example, any structural loads above and beyond those in the IRC tables will bounce the project into the IRC. They overlook the clause that allows an engineered solution if there are loads which are not covered by the tables.

There has to be a way to get your project into the IBC codes, because otherwise the IRC gives no grounds under which sprinklers can be required. Something like an extra story beyond the number permitted by the IRC will bounce a project into the IBC series. If a project is entirely within the prescriptive boundaries of the IRC, I can't see how sprinklers can be required. That said, I certainly don't know about local politics, but an inspector cannot take it upon himself to require something more than the code requires just because he likes the idea. A municipality can adopt local legislation which requires aspects which go beyond the code, but that's what it takes. Executive fiat by an inspector isn't the way.

If I were you, I would start looking into whatever appeals procedures there might be, and bypass this guy.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard Hetzel,

You know stumped, it may help if you provided a fairly detailed description of your project, including what it is going to be used for and what the property is zoned as, also what the CO thinks it's going to be used for. People can be much more informative with their advise if they knew exactly what your project entailed. Like Richard said, if there is something that caused your project to fall under the IBC rather than the IRC, then that is something totally different.
BTW, the state can tell you what code is currently adopted right now, they make the laws and every juristiction in the state has to abide by the same code. The state can however, change the IRC as they see fit. It's called ammending - basically if the state doesn't agree with part of the IRC they will change the wording to suit that state, but it only applies in the state which it was ammended. Now I've never heard of a state ammending the code to include sprinklers in residential applications but I guess stranger things have happened.

OK I agree - its just a lot of info but here goes.
Const. type:VN, occupancy R3/U. 87x150 rectangular lot RS7200. Project is to demo 800 Sq Ft of 1,500 Sq Ft "L" shaped single story wood frame house.
That 800 Sq Ft area is between existing "carport" that was converted to enclosed garage and part of existing house that I want to save is on other side. I want to re-build the 22x38' footprint into TWO Stories and also make it deeper 28x38 to make room for stairs etc.
The only "problem" is the garage encroachment into side setback. That triggers a 50% renovation clause that says you can't increase a "nonconforming building" by more than 50% in dollars in a three year period. If you do then they want the "non-conformance" part fixed (torn back or down) AS WELL as make EVERYTHING on the property to current code.
Obviously unless your only goal is to throw money away those things are not cost effective especially when you take into account all the new foundation requirements. You might as well just tear down the entire property at that point.
There is NO other issue. The entire living space IF I can proceed would only be 2,600Sq Ft
so its not like I asked to build an appt. house. Its still just a single family residence.
The only reason for fire issues is that the hydrant can only supply about 900 GAL per minute
and the fire cheif wants 1,500 Gal/ per minute.
I can find a reff. to that in 2005 IFC but it seems to say 1,000 GPM is the requirement. AND - it says nothing about what would trigger this
to make it apply to a remodel. I would argue that ANY permit for ANYTHING no matter how minor should require sprinklers if that is the code they want to apply. I gaureantee that someone pulling a permit for a new front porch isn't being asked to "sprinkler up". So what is the threshold? I don't see any reff. to any 50%
renovation in the IRC (except in a NOT adopted appendix) So I don't know what they are basing the 50% comment on about sprinklers.
There are no seperate state ammendmants on either subject.
Anyway - to get around the 50% crap on building
I submitted (3) const. bids from licensed contractors showing I could have this built for
less than $125,000 which was the figure I could NOT exceed.
You can laugh, question, whatever you want to say about that but I got it done, turned it in, and they had no choice but to agree (very reluctantly I'm sure) to that figure. Is it totally honest? **** no. Is it totally dishonest? **** No - how would I know what it really costs until I build it?
A lawyer could argue that just based on the fact that I told them up front that I am building this myself (had to sign the owner/builder affidavit) makes these bids illigitemat because I don't intend to hire either one of the 3. So I was forced to "lie" due to their stupid zoning clause.
Another lawyer could argue some BS about inherint rights of a person allowed to improve their "private" property and allowed to do the work themselves.
I just want to remodel my stupid house for the least ammount. I want it to be well insulated & I don't want it to fall down so I have no problem complying with that stuff. I just don't
see that its to anyones benefit to throw away a perfectly good garage/workshop that impacts NO-ONE (No person has ever complained about it)
Its 11' tall and very unobtrusive small structure. I am NOT making any changes to it at all except the one wall that it shares with the house.
Hope that makes sense.