Off-beat Question

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1389 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 10:48 am:    You have to deal with codes and regulations in your work, BUT can a fire official unilaterally withhold approval of a project over one circumstance that is NOT covered in the prevailinhg building or fire codes; i.e., there is no authorization in law, that permits the imposition of safety principles that are perhaps valid but have no legal standing or substaniation? Fire officials can declare any sitaution a fire hazard if they so deem it, but does excess building height qualify under those considerations? There is no commenustrate approval from the buiding official Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 188 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 11:11 am:    In my experience it never pays to fight with the Fire Marshal. Even if you “win” the argument they’ll get you on another item. Worse, if it is a project local to your office some will "remember” you on future projects. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 533 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 11:38 am:    Ellis is right. The key is to "work" with the fire marshal in trying to accommodate their concerns, while explaining to your owner the challenges you are facing. Ask to have a meeting with the fire official and the department captain (usually, the field guy will voluntarily bring the Captain into a situation like this), and try to approach the issue from a negotiation point of view instead of being adamant that the Code doesn't require it, therefore you aren't going to do it. Typically, what the Fire Marshal is asking for does serve a purpose. The real challenge is when your project is cash strapped, and the owner is belligerent, and the fire marshal is obstinate in the extreme. I have experienced several such jobs. Most recently on a 5 story HUD project in the City of LA, I ultimately broke the stalemate with gallows humor, and declared the Fire Marshal's request counterproductive to the society of our community. I said, "Look, at some point Darwin wins, we can't protect every damn fool that might find his way onto this roof!" My clients eyes widened in shock, and the fire marshal actually giggled and quietly acquiesced, while the department Captain just walked away laughing. That was a good day. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 189 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 11:55 am:    Nathan; Ha! In the long run, "Darwin" wins. Always. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 559 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 01:24 pm:    Ralph No the Fire marshal cannot unilaterally impose a requirement not listed in the adopted regulations no matter how well intentioned. This would be in conflict with the due process rights imposed by the 14th amendment of the US Constitutionl In cases like this Owners have obtained a writ of mandamus from the court compelling the Fire Marshall to issue the permit. If you and the Owner decide to fight it I suggest you obtain an admission from the Fire Marshall that there are no other outstanding issues. You should also ask the Fire Marshall to provide you with the code requirement that he is basing his demand on. My understanding it that it can be relatively easy for the Owner to obtain a writ of mandamus if the situation is clear. It has been done before. The focus of the other members of this forum is to roll over and give the Fire Marshall what he wants. I suggest that this is a decision that you should make with the Owner of the project. While there may be instances where the Owner will decide to make the changes I believe that it is your professional obligation to inform him of the implications of the decision. There may be times when the Owner will decide to play hardball but that is his decision. When discussing the issue with the Owner let him know the costs of making the changes. Let the Owner know that you will be expecting additional fees to make the requested changes. You have an obligation to inform your owner of these situations and you should be paid for the additional work that you had not contracted for. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1500 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, April 27, 2013 - 12:00 pm:    I agree that arguing with code and fire officials is generally not a good idea. But often that is about adding some heat detectors, or making a partition rated. Something relatively inexpensive. However, if you are talking about building height, that falls into an entirely different category because it could make a project uneconomical, or seriously affect program. In that case, I would say that this must be confronted with the code official. First, though, make sure you are on solid ground code-wise. It may be possible in your state to appeal to state officials, which is the case in Mass. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, April 29, 2013 - 10:59 am:    I would ask for a written description of the objection as well as the reason for the objection. I have seen instances where the local FM has written up a proposed building because the local ordinance contains some language that states that development can not exceed the fire protection district's ability to access and fight a fire. (CYA requirements that allow a tremendous amount of flexibility to the FM) There was an instance where the culdesac of a residental area (serving 4 single family homes)had to be increased to a 200' diameter. Because: the fire department did not have a truck that could turn around in a smaller culdesac. The general language in the ordinance was all that was required to justify the demand. (the culdesac was built and a year later the FPD got a smaller truck to give them access to more confined areas) If your building is going in an area without fire protection equipement that can accommodate a building of your proposed height you may be running into something similar. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 561 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, April 29, 2013 - 12:08 pm:    These provisions that give the FM or BO broad powers are referred to as "God clauses" by building officials. One might ask what are the limits on what authority the building code can bestow on the building official. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1390 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, April 29, 2013 - 01:06 pm:    Thanks to all. As a former building code official I am familiar with and have seen many of the circumstances you cited. I was trying to see what others have found. I think there is a stature held by the fire official that is not with the building code officical.It is that the public "knows" fire and its results, so any thing based on fire issues is taken as gospel. Not so with building codes which have historically been a "menace" and ill dumped upon the citizens even though the regulations are valid,purposeful and protective. My best rememberance is the fire official requirement for a 7-11 stair to an elevated equipment platform which had no access requirement [on purpose as I wrote it]since it was not manned and only saw sporadic maintence and service personnel. It is tough to overcome the politics, and onorus of the fire officials, with stated authroity or not.