Page 1 of 1

Existing Building

PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:42 pm
by johnedberg
Would everyone agree with the definition of an "existing building" in the IRC that a contractor could submit for a permit of a S.F. House under 4500 sq. ft., receive a permit, submit a permit for an addition to the S.F. that would bring it over 4500 and not be required to install fire suppression with out even starting the original permit construction? Thanks.


Re: Existing Building

PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:37 pm
by RDavidson
That is pretty much what it says John. And given the inquiries, a lot of industry folks have picked up on this as well. Kind of like the tax code, when you put lots of loopholes in it, people will figure it out. I've heard that some folks have said that wasn't what was intended when the rule was written. Seems to be an abundance of that problem in the new rules and no one seems interested in fixing any of it.

Even if the definition was changed, at some point you have to allow people to expand their homes. And if plans change during construction, how can you tell somebody they can't have a permit for expansion. What council member would want us to delay a permit to increase the size of someone's home. Now I am sure that some peoples feelings will be hurt. As one advocate said, they would sleep at night till even the wood shed has a sprinkler. That is when the definition will no long be an issue.