|
Posted by Warm Worm on October 25, 2007, 7:45 pm
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> I had a "difference of opinion" on a code issue on a recent permit
> application. The plans examiner says I need a 2 hour rating around an exit,
> but it's pretty clear to me that the requirement is the minimum: 45 minutes.
>
> The structure overhead in the one story building is unrated. If the fire
> suppression system fails, this thing will come down in minutes, if a
> hot-enough fire is near a steel column. The code generally does not require
> integrity of any part to exceed that above it or below it, IOW if the roof
> is going to fall on you in 20 minutes, or the floor you're on is going to
> collapse in 45, requiring a 2 hour rating on a corridor is irrational and
> wasteful.
>
> The section of the code stipulating the required separation was pretty
> explicit: match the rating of the floor above (2 hours required), and if
> there is no floor above, then match the floor below (2 hours required), in
> any case, not to be less than 45 minutes. In a one story, slab on grade
> building, it seemed simple: no floor above, nor any floor below, so the
> minimum applies. However, this guy just kept insisting, "this is how we
> interpret it". It was like reasoning with a child.
>
> After a delay, the client says "just give him the 2 hours. I've called
> around, and the other architects all say this is how it's done", perhaps
> implying that I don't quite know what I'm doing. I make the changes (on my
> own dime), and drive down to submit again (on my own dime), but can't resist
> one last attempt to convince him (on my own dime). At one point I say to
> him, "they could say what you say it says in one-quarter of the words they
> used. They wrote all these words for a reason. This is a three-tiered
> conditional statement. If these sentences don't say what I think they say,
> then tell me when you envisage them ever having any effect." He replied that
> he doesn't want to get into it because he's actually on lunch.
>
> An hour later, *I'm* eating lunch in a restaurant and the cell rings. He
> says, "You'll be pleased to know that I've checked with..(the provincial
> authority on the code)...and they agree with your interpretation. I'm going
> to have to check with my superiors because applying it this way would mean a
> significant deviation from the way things have been done around here."
>
> Surprised the hell outta me. The way this guy was hiding behind his
> authority, I never imagined that he'd be *curious* enough to lift the phone,
> let alone *honorable* enough to admit that he and his entire department been
> wrong for who knows how long. For me, I guess this is the sweeter half of
> "You win a few, you lose a few." Unfortunately, the client has already paid
> the larger price in the form of a delay in occupying his new premises,
> whatever they decide to make/allow us build.
>
> There really should be some quick arbitration procedure in this
> jurisdiction. The guy behind the counter has way too much power in Ontario.
Well congrats... I guess. Life's like that.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap