The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBuilding Board of Appeals 1991 Minutes RECEIVED DEC 19 1991 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS MAYOR'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF LANSING BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 10, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stuckman at 2:05 p.m. with a roll call showing the following: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman, Chairman ct� N Richard Jones,- Vice—Chairman L--� Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm CC STAFF PRESENT: Jack Nelson, Recording Secretaryrfj - James Ballard, Fire Marshal (Mr. Ballard was excused after therst - case for a fire call) j Al Knot, City Attorney (Case 91-009 only) i Mr. Jones moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, that the November 12, 1991 , minutes be approved with the correction of the December 12, 1991, date to December 10, 1991. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #91 001 112 E. Allegan, Capitol Federal Savings Bank Present for this appeal was Rick D'Alessandro, Freeman Smith Associates. An application for appeal was filed by Richard D'Alessandro of Freeman, Smith and Associates on behalf of Capitol Federal Savings and Loan. The appeal seeks a modification or reversal of Item #15 of a Plan Review letter issued on August 6, 1991 , by the Building Safety Division. More specifically, the owner is requesting authority to omit the standby power generating system in the existing Capitol Federal Savings and Loan building located at 112 E. Allegan Street. This case was tabled at the November 12, 1991 , meeting in order to afford the applicant an opportunity to submit a schedule of compliance for installation of the generator. Mr. Jones moved that the case be removed from the table, motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. D'Alessandro addressed the Board and stated that the Bank had agreed to include the cost of the generator in the 1993 budget. Mr. Kamm moved that the variance be granted upon the condition that the generator be installed during the 1993 calendar year. Second, the Bank shall submit a Building Board of Appeals Minutes 12/10/91 Page 2 letter to the Building Safety Division stating that the generator will be installed in calendar year 1993. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously.• Appeal #91-012 - Edgewood Towne Center - Building Permit Refund An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Joseph Sutschek, Director of Site Acquisition and Pre-Development of Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. The appeal, if granted, will require the Building Safety Division to waive a building permit fee of $4,662 that was never used and apply it to a new permit for the same project. On October 26, 1990, the Building Safety Division issued a building permit to Clark Construction to construct a 37,800 square foot retail addition to the Edgewood Towne Center. On October 23, 1991, Mrs. Mary Kane-Butkovich of Clark Construction requested a refund of Building Permit #1626. The request was based Upon the fact that the building was never constructed. The Department apprised Clark Construction that based upon Schedule "A" building inspection fees adopted by the Lansing City Council, the Department was unable to apply the previous fee to the current building permit request. Schedule "A" states : "Holders of permits, upon which work has not been started, may make written application for a refund of fees paid for such permits , provided such application is made and attested before a notary public by the same person or corporation who originally applied for such permit or by the estate of such person or receiver of such corporation within six (6) months of date of issue. Upon verifying the facts in such cases, the Director shall refund seventy-five (75%) of all fees in excess of five dollars ($5.00) in such manner as may be directed by the City Controller." The contractor did not comply with the policy since he was well over the six month requirement, consequently the previous fee cannot be applied to the new building permit. Mr_ . Nelson addressed the Board stating that the Department has come to an agreement with Mr. Joseph Sutchek, Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. Twenty-five percent of the Building Permit Fee would be paid. The previous permit fee was $4,662.00. The owner has agreed to pay $1,165.00. Mr. Kamm moved the agreement be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried. Appeal #91-009 - 3016 Risdale and 3600 Simkin, Patti Holland Present were Patti Holland and Claude Young. An application for appeal was filed by Ms . Patti Holland, 3600 Simken Street, Lansing, Michigan. The applicant is purporting that the Building Safety Division fails to comply with PA 306 of 1969 and PA 218 of 1979 as it relates to the application of the Building Code, and Barrier Free Design Requirements as it pertains to adult foster care facilities. This case was tabled at the November 12, 1991, meeting in order to obtain a legal opinion from the City Attorney. Building Board of Appeals Minutes 12/10/91 Page 3 Mr. Knot addressed the Board stating that the Barrier Free Design requirements are applicable to group homes, however, the Building Code requirements cannot be applied to -the facility until the City formally adopts the Group R, Division 4 provisions.. . Mr. Knot also stated that a formal written opinion would be forthcoming. Mr. Kamm moved that the Building Safety Division be directed to apply the Group R, Division 3 standards to adult foster care facilities until such time that the Group . R, Division 4 Standards can be formally adopted. Second, that the Department continue to apply applicable barrier free design requirements for said facilities. Motion carried. Appeal#91-013 — 5701 S. Pennsylvania, Spartan Toyota Those present were Rosario Criscuolo, President, Spartan Toyota; William Cristo, Architect; Ken McQuade, Associated Construction Services Corp; Mark Shuert, Controller, Spartan Toyota; and J. Charles Guyselman, Attorney for Spartan Toyota. An Application for appeal was filed by Mr. Rosario Criscuolo, 200122 W. McNichols, Detroit, Michigan. An application for a building permit was filed on September 17, 1991, to construct a 5,250 sq. ft. addition to be utilized for vehicle service. On October 17, 1991, the Department performed a review of the project and determined that the expansion would necessitate the installation of a sprinkler system in the service garage. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a reversal or modification of the fire suppression requirements. Mr. Rosario Criscuolo addressed the Board. Mr. Criscuolo stated that he proposed to expand his service department at Spartan Toyota located at 5701 S. Pennsylvania. The existing building is noncombustible, the service area is separated from the remainder of the building by a two—hour area separation wall, three exits are provided from the service department, the building is within 200 yards of the fire station, and a fire hydrant is within 200' of the facility. Moreover, it is our contention that the service department was incorrectly classified as an "H-4 instead of a B-1. Chairman Stuckman stated that Mr. Nelson has received three interpretations from the International Conference of Building Officials (I.C.B.O. ) . The interpretations generally states that any work performed where fuel might be released requires that the service garage be classified as Group 13 Division 4 (copies of the interpretations shall be made part of the record) . Three alternatives were discussed which could be implemented in lieu of fire suppressing the entire building. The first option consisted of separating a portion of the building which is less than 3000 sq. ft. by an occupancy separation wall. Openings would be permitted in the wall if appropriately protected. All hazardous activities would be performed in this area. The second option is similar except that the area would be sprinkled and no opening protection required. Building Board of Appeals Minutes 12/10/91 Page 4 The third option would be to relegate all H-4 activities to an adjoining building which would be designed for this use. Mr. Stuckman asked the applicant if they would desire to have the case tabled in order to research options with their Architect. The. applicant, Mr. Criscuolo, stated that a postponement would be acceptable. It was the concensus of the Board that any proposal submitted to the Building Safety Division which was in compliance with Building Code provisions would not have to be addressed by the Board. Mr. Kamm moved that the case be tabled pending the applicants further deliberation on resolving the issues. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Nelson stated that the next Board Meeting would be on Tuesday, January 14, 1991, at 12:00 noon at the Radisson Hotel. The Board and Staff will meet for lunch to discuss proposed changes to the 1991 Building Code. If cases are scheduled they will be addressed at the regular meeting time and place. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Wilcox moved that the meeting be adjourned, supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3 :42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J ck A. Nelson cretary JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On: t Octzber 30, 1987 Partn's, 84119 Subject: oxuPwlcy Classificatiml of a nine- Shop Section 701 or section 901 1985 Uniform Buildjrg Code In YOur der 16, 1987 letter you asked whether an autive tAz)e"W 8hP old be citified as a G`rcup H, Division 4 or a GroW E, Division 1 O=Vancy. If the bzy--W cperaticn tt*ails m moze than tkze replammR_rrt of Parts suc}t, as ice► Pates, crxrler�s , distribLttors, Bh for , etc. the cpezatian wmAd be classifiedOMT as a Of Mors or vision I �� . If tx�wecrer, there i-; a rebuildiryg i�lved wt�re Class Y liquid latiatl of fuel filters the to the ati H Div ronP4 '�ures the Y -- �Kuld be classif as Group Please cm'rtact us again if We can be of fury assistarx--.8. Sincerely, T.J. Koyamatsu, P.E. Chief Plan Ch �ck Engitieex TJK:amg DIRECTURCtiFC.SAArJ;UNm 7 �oEYfLOPA1eNT nVPr`r-y..C1awifiMticn of ser a Bays 7G►!,TEXASoectians 901 and 701 ►+aeeTTTJ rI' sxpN,ce.a. 1985 ULiform B ild.ing Code CHICK CLIUDINU OMC1AL FRE1.(Wr.CALIFOANIA )IS FOW, Fl,P.C.,4.LA.,C.B.04 - ;CTOR OF BUILDINGS INSPECTION resPcr ARRENETEXAS 1 15 in se to yctir letter dated a ed ,r 7, y 5),ROJA➢;P.CASTxn"ND.C.D.O, recjay`iMt("-- O=TlancY ClaSS -fic7ation of a g'tt�'�i0�.2� _F?CV1C.e. BSr.PALM-MNNESOTAR s` tiara with sp-. ice bays. 1jr. atiggs Was rrji- available tc H�nmNCTnN,as.a. argmmr yaar X _r as he has been chit of ttmm an busis6ss. HRGCTC?q,❑ppART1.1ENi OR AND BU> ETY EI 0.NIEVAVA YOL'r first QueTfAt On Was if a s--rvi.ce bay .in which ninor rya i r� rich as reJlacing fil 4 DOUGLA-9L i000.c�,o. PuMor fuel filters aixVar fu�1, tlss are eUaOlNaos>Iew_ performed may to c'J_.,�sifi a -OR&DO FINER INOUW TFURE9 � B, Divis,c]n PAftZR,ARMONA ansys - r is hO, it should be classified a Gzr"p H, Division 4 JAPES L YAN30H,c.e.o, y b*ar-itLse of the Passibility cif fuel bei.txg See IREC:Z.DEPAFMJr=NTOF the enciced Ccde �licatia s and Interpretatic�ris redeu flee BUILDM ANp SAF IY . CQU►yQfSP0wIE March/April "87 issue of Buil - 4��w7».a.. SPCWJkW-WASHNG70N QRQp,lW.NUADAp! P1! YOUr semnd quest on Was if Qr.INSTECi bNoEFAFrYtIEtYT may } Classified a � islands and c Tx�pies SAN DIEGO,CAUFORKA , LDiv:Lsico. 4 C=.4arr-y alarxq wit, the SerNM IALL J.HOtTL.,..BA. V1C$ bays. 'I a115U7 is '�i1i LLC3�.Z17 r]O i �'-tJti er' there may,SUIL.DINGOFF1CL#,L be irldivid aal uses where the h ldiryg offiG:i.al does not f]x4 it CREgvJEU-0REGBN T�:,a 1r to require a repaxatim. For emvv carKpy ON PLRKEREY�'IC7..C.B.O. i8 ], 2rlative t0 1 1e I if the IRECTOA OF COMMUNITY and Ll 1 yJr the a--1G7'+rab_ta' atea, a1.L sides are clperl OEvELOPMEW y {n repair wrk releasir= small amc-Tr t-s of f„e, is TT ORCKAAD.WA£�F I!NG3TON Pe-`OY7 A ''+ t d1G SEI�IiC>m t justifi�i in mot, Ys, }xiilriirx3 offi.aial malt' be any n,SMILEVOK o.e.o1 in9 an 00CWancy �as`aticn. Now that if !ra(3( 'E-ryAALZCJNA the di!SVI'Sing islands Were net cOVernrl, they ulmtld not he 4ALO R.TAMBLAY,CS.a. assig' bays Wrluld an M-x--LTency ificatien, a21d a separation frm theBUILCINC OFFICIAL required. A' MA,KANSAS CRT D.mom Px..C.11.0. JFt,,OEPAgTMENT OF BUILONO Mic ld you have any further Q"e+i cns. Please contact us. sinomely, Susan Dmty, P.E. senior Staff Engineer, Plan Review Service--. . SNID:amq F.nclosur>e YrrrER S 8 SUE LTR\09 o1--3.PPPS >I?arrh — April 1987 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE Sections 701 and 901 Q ■ We would like to have a clarificatlon of wfwn a"vtj. ular►epalr garage"is to be classified Group! ,Division 1 versus Croup H,Division 4, A• Section 701 or the oode deftnrs Group g, Division T Occupancies as "gasoline service stations, gmages where no repairwork is done except exchange of parts and mainle- nance requiring no Open flame,welding or use of CIais I,11 or III•A liquids."A Group H, DivisiOm 4 Occupancy is classified as one of the hazardous occupancies. It includes repair garages where re- pairs other than those mentioned In the definition of a Croup g, division I Occupancy are done ort vehicles. Thus, garages In which there Are exchanges of batteries, (an belts, tires, etc,,and where oil changes and chassis lubrication are performed fall into the classification of a Croup B,Division I Occupancy.Repair work wch as body and fender work,work where fuel might be released, wilding, cutting t»etal, etc.. falls into a Group H, Division 4 Occupancy. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 10, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stuckman at 2:05 p.m. with a roll call showing the following: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman, Chairman Richard Jones, Vice-Chairman ri Joe Wilcox ` Randall Kamm c STAFF PRESENT: Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary James Ballard, Fire Marshal (Mr. Ballard was excused after the ors case for a fire call) -� Al Knot, City Attorney (Case 91-009 only) Mr. Jones moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, that the November 12, 1991, minutes be approved with the correction of the December 12, 1991, date to December 10, 1991. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #91-001 - 112 E. Allegan, Capitol Federal Savings Bank Present for this appeal was Rick D'Alessandro, Freeman Smith Associates. An application for appeal was filed by Richard D'Alessandro of Freeman, Smith and Associates on behalf of Capitol Federal Savings and Loan. The appeal seeks a modification or reversal of Item #15 of a Plan Review letter issued on August 6, 1991 , by the Building Safety Division. More specifically, the owner is requesting authority to omit the standby power generating system in the existing Capitol Federal Savings and Loan building located at 112 E. Allegan Street. This case was tabled at the November 12, 1991 , meeting in order to afford the applicant an opportunity to submit a schedule of compliance for installation of the generator. Mr. Jones moved that the case be removed from the table, motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. D'Alessandro addressed the Board and stated that the Bank had agreed to include the cost of' the generator in the 1993 budget. Mr. Kamm moved that the variance be granted upon the condition that the generator be installed during the 1993 calendar year. Second, the Bank shall submit a Building Board of Appeals Minutes 12/10/91 Page 2 letter to the Building Safety Division stating that the generator will be installed in calendar year 1993. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously.• Appeal #91-012 - Edgewood Towne Center - Building Permit Refund An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Joseph Sutschek, Director of Site Acquisition and Pre-Development of Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. The appeal. , if granted, will require the Building Safety Division to waive a building permit fee of $4,662 that was never used and apply it to a new permit for the same project. On October 26, 1990, the Building Safety Division issued a building permit to Clark Construction to construct a 37,800 square foot retail addition to the Edgewood Towne Center. On October 23, 1991, Mrs. Mary Kane-Butkovich of Clark Construction requested a refund of Building Permit #1626. The request was based upon the fact that the building was never constructed. The Department apprised Clark Construction that based upon Schedule "A" building inspection fees adopted by the Lansing City Council, the Department was unable to apply the previous fee to the current building permit request. Schedule "A" states: "Holders of permits, upon which work has not been started, may make written application for a refund of fees paid for such permits, provided such application is made and attested before a notary public by the same person or corporation who originally applied for such permit or by the estate of such person or receiver of such corporation within six (6) months of date of issue. Upon verifying the facts in such cases, the Director shall refund seventy-five (75%) of all fees in excess of five dollars ($5.00) in such manner as may be directed by the City Controller." The contractor did not comply with the policy since he was well over the six month requirement, consequently the previous fee cannot be applied to the new building permit. Mr. Nelson addressed the Board stating that the Department has come to an agreement with Mr. Joseph Sutchek, Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. Twenty-five percent of the Building Permit Fee would be paid. The previous permit fee was $4,662.00. The owner has agreed to pay $1,165.00. Mr. Kamm moved the agreement be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried. Appeal #91-009 - 3016 Risdale and 3600 Simkin, Patti Holland Present were Patti Holland and Claude Young. An application for appeal was filed by Ms. Patti Holland, 3600 Simken Street, Lansing, Michigan. The applicant is purporting that the Building Safety Division fails to comply with PA 306 of 1969 and PA 218 of 1979 as it relates to the application of the Building Code, and Barrier Free Design Requirements as it pertains to adult foster care facilities. This case was tabled at the November 12, 1991, meeting in order to obtain a legal opinion from the City Attorney. Building Board of Appeals Minutes 12/10/91 Page 3 Mr. Knot addressed the Board stating that the Barrier Free Design requirements are applicable to group homes, however, the Building Code requirements cannot be applied to ,the facility until the City formally adopts the Group R, Division 4 provisions. Mr. Knot also stated that a formal written opinion would be forthcoming. Mr. Kamm moved that the Building Safety Division be directed to apply the Group R, Division 3 standards to adult foster care facilities until such time that the Group R, Division 4 Standards can be formally adopted. Second, that the Department continue to apply applicable barrier free design requirements for said facilities. Motion carried. Appeal #91-013 — 5701 S. Pennsylvania, Spartan Toyota Those present were Rosario Criscuolo, President, Spartan Toyota; William Cristo, Architect; Ken McQuade, Associated Construction Services Corp; Mark Shuert, Controller, Spartan Toyota; and J. Charles Guyselman, Attorney for Spartan Toyota. An Application for appeal was filed by Mr. Rosario Criscuolo, 200122 W. McNichols, Detroit, Michigan. An application for a building permit was filed on September 17, 1991, to construct a 5,250 sq. ft. addition to be utilized for vehicle service. On October 17, 1991, the Department performed a review of the project and determined that the expansion would necessitate the installation of a sprinkler system in the service garage. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a reversal or modification of the fire suppression requirements. Mr. Rosario Criscuolo addressed the Board. Mr. Criscuolo stated that he proposed to expand his service department at Spartan Toyota located at 5701 S. Pennsylvania. The existing building is noncombustible, the service area is separated from the remainder of the building by a two—hour area separation wall, three exits are provided from the service department, the building is within 200 yards of the fire station, and a fire hydrant is within 200' of the facility. Moreover, it is our contention that the service department was incorrectly classified as an H-4 instead of a B-1. Chairman Stuckman stated that Mr. Nelson has received three interpretations from the International Conference of Building Officials (I.C.B.O. ) . The interpretations generally states that any work performed where fuel might be released requires that the service garage be classified as Group EI Division 4 (copies of the interpretations shall be made part of the record) . Three alternatives were discussed which could be implemented in lieu of fire suppressing the entire building. The first option consisted of separating a portion of the building which is less than 3000 sq. ft. by an occupancy separation wall. - Openings would be permitted in the wall if appropriately protected. All hazardous activities would be performed in this area. The second option is similar except that the area would be sprinkled and no , opening protection required. Building Board of Appeals Minutes 12/10/91 Page 4 The third option would be to relegate all H-4 activities to an adjoining building which would be designed for this use. Mr. Stuckman asked the applicant if they would desire to have the case tabled in order to research options with their Architect. The applicant, Mr. Criscuolo, stated that a postponement would be acceptable. It was the concensus of the Board that any proposal submitted to the Building Safety Division which was in compliance with Building Code provisions would not have to be addressed by the Board. Mr. Kamm moved that the case be tabled pending the applicants further deliberation on resolving the issues. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Nelson stated that the next Board Meeting would be on Tuesday, January 14, 1991, at 12:00 noon at the Radisson Hotel. The Board and Staff will meet for lunch to discuss proposed changes to the 1991 Building Code. If cases are scheduled they will be addressed at the regular meeting time and place. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Wilcox moved that the meeting be adjourned, supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J ck A� Nelson ecretary JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On: OCtoher 30, 1987 partment 84119 Subject: Ofc� atcr classification Of a pup ShCV motion 701 or Sectim 9ni 1985 Uniform Wilding Ckde Iri Your October 16, 1987 letter You asked Miler an auto►rt,, e tiaro W t4xP should be cl&a-qified as a GOW 8, Divisicn 1 0�,. � H, Division 4 or a If the tz"- � cperat cn entails no awe than the parts such as � Z� rrt�, poj , ers, distributors of d' °z �► ec. the eperaticn �zld be classified as a B, Divisicn 1 �• If hocaever, there is a retx,i 1 of retars or runwal and installation of f,�l filters ') i�lved wham Class I liquid is e tO the a _ the Pur+es the �Y �a ttd be classified H, Division 4. Plead ccr tact us again if tee can be of fuzes ass; tanoE, . Sirrxely, T.J. KDyamatsu, P.E. TJK:airy Chief Plan Check Engineer DI Er TOR C GJ TY J DEVELOPMENT rtTarr _" X Claif_icaticn of sere a Bays RI AJWa'rC*t EXAS i5ectian$ 901 and 701 NaaEAr rFosT�w,ra.a. 1985 Chiiform BUi dirq Ccde ctnaF eurl ANG oF3IcuL FRET.-WL CAUFOAm A 500 POWLER,P.r-A.LA.,C.u.G, 'R$CTOR OF 9UIWING INSPECTION A9n.EW_TNXAs This is in respr-'?'C� tp YaAr letter dated Deter 7, 398,9 J"P.CASTE11ILAND.C.3.0. r gard r7 the occLTar)CY classffsc ation of a gasoZixva S[?Y'V.lOL BUILDING CODE E"TAOPPICER S�ticn wiry,service bays. Pty� e-1 ! ST_PAVL_ILIINNESOTA r V�r Jl�l-4GL c3.S y 199s Wds =Y.St available to PH=P u NW11INGTOO,CZ.a. l Ott of tmm cn bus firms. DIRECTOR.DEPARTT,IENT OF eUILDLMG AND SAFETY YCxTr first V ACNO.NEVADA Wca-ion was if a Service ba j in �4ach minor reVairs DOW.U0F_gOOo,".0. ``''jdl a.8 r.^Mlacjng fuel , fuP-1 filter arxi,/ar fuel. tt � tvJneir cr�lcw_ pw.xforms-d may be C'la`-sified d XO-O�"O RN6R INC AN TT1180 �� $, Division 1 �T�iacy. Zhe i PAAKERARatm answer is m, t he classified a GxtAV H, Divlsiaz7 4 JAMESLUAH3OH,c.H.D. D Tr-y bec7L-"- Of the possibility C)f fuel beh)9 released. e DIRECTQP.DEF'AnMIE►{TOF the ls2'C_ZCC-4nd �� 1Cd�.1CQlS dr7C BUILDLJV4DSAFEfY terpretatlC�i15 fz COUNTYOFSPOKME ��/April 1987 jig of k3i].0 1M Stares. cm the SPC KAW-WASHWGTON G(I►TQ m w.MURDom Pz YrJI?Z r..�'c'GQ°l� E' ,�, OIRil CTOR quS di`sp ticn was if tes ensiM isla7xis atx� zx�al LDING IRSTECTnOt1 DEPA.FTTUtW may be Classified a Coup Hi Division. � SAN DIEGO.CAUFOnNIA aIl_y r3lOt.Y_j wit,, the wxmJ.HOLTI•.C.D.O. b� 12]C�Lv�c �l C2 rc�3�TL�47px' ]S technicallyI]QC �7L7W�ver' thF re my BUILDINO ELl-OREG,' where thebuildingoffici.aZ d nat f'ix4 it cRESV.�LL,oREc��,v T�'t' 'y' 1�o L'�7ui.Z'g a sePaxatiC�ri. tFor 1 DIR CTOMOP"KEHEYPM 1)NrN aarca is 'SM11 rdlative to the ai.lC ,,,rab1P �a1t sides a� DIRECTOR OF COMrAUNrfY � en L>�ELCOMEN'T ard MlY minor repair Wtrk releasing _mall an�kwts of fu l s Cl CRA , AZHN p In servim bays, the �� OW oRcxAaa.wAsrllNorON � of fi.ci.a1 ��. be justified in teat requiring an ancY wparatLon. Nate that if rr�+Ea R ex,alrraa,C.B.O. � ,,,may,,IDIT TTUCWN,ARLzINIS CNUTRATOR t � lIyg is1 arY3S were flat ter@ , they W Ltld not be ONhLD R.T z sick an O=Tpancy cl.assificatic n, ar)d a separation frc m the � O Cf'FVAL LdY,c a.a. services bays uimdd Boat be 2Equi reed. AsukIA,KAHSAg TUR,OEPAATMENT OF BUILDING n=ld you have any further questicm, ply contact us. sirmtely, S isan Dmty, Q.F. Senior staff Enginwa-r, Plan Review services 1"1M 88\UBC MR\09 01--3.PRS Marc$ — April 1987 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE Sections 701 and 901 a We would like to have it clarification of when a"vehic- ular repair garage"is to be classffied Group g,Division i versus Croup H,Division 4, • S"I „ 701 of the code defines Group g, Division t • Occupancies as "gasoline service stations, garages where no repair work is done except exchange of parts and rnainte- nance requiring no open flame,welding or use of Class 1,11 or Ill•A liquids."A Coup H, Division 4 Occupancy Is classified as one of the hazardous OtCupancies. It includes repair garages where re,- Pairs ruler than tt►d5e mentioned in the definition of a Group B, Division 1 Occupancy are done on vehicles. Thus, garages In which theft are exchanges of batteries, fan belts, tires, etc., and where oil change,and chassis lubrication are Performed fall into the classification of a Croup B,Division 1 Occupancy.Repafrwork such as body and fender work,work where fuel might be released, welding, tming metjl, etc., falls into a Group H, Division ! . Occupancy. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS November 12, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stuckman at 2:05 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman, Chairman c� Richard Jones, Vice Chairman c_ Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm J, MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Throop STAFF PRESENT: Gary Carrick, Code Compliance Officer 5 Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary s James Ballard, Fire Marshal OTHERS PRESENT: NOV lA Sr �J��1.A i_.• Rebecca Harris ,ri SI NG Meryle Harris ^••••. •. w. Henry Riley It was moved by Mr. Jones that the minutes of the October 8, 1991, Appeals Board Meeting be approved with the correction of the word "architectural" on page 2. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #91-009 - 3016 Risdale and 3600 Simkin, Patti Holland An application for appeal was filed by Ms. Holland, 3600 Simken Street, Lansing, Michigan. The applicant is purporting that the Building Safety Division fails to comply with PA 306 of 1969 and PA 218 of 1979 as it relates to the application of Building Code and Barrier Free Design Requirements as it pertains to adult foster care facilities. Mr. Nelson explained that the questions raised in the appeal are issues of law, and, consequently, the Department has requested direction from the City Attorney's office prior to addressing the case. Mr. Jones inquired as to how long of a time period would it take to receive the Building Board of Appeals November 12, 1991 Page 2 Attorney' s opinion? Mr. Nelson state that he was unable to determine how long the opinion would take, but anticipated that is should be available for the December 10,• 1991, meeting. Mr. Jones moved that the case be cabled until the December 12, 1991, meeting. Motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #91-010 - 320 Beaver Street, Rebecca Harris An application for appeal was filed by Rebecca Harris, 5124 W. St. Joseph Street, Lansing, Michigan. The appeal seeks a reversal or modification of the enforcing Officers order of April 15, 1991, which -inumerated numerous Housing Code violations pertaining to a rental dwelling which is located at 320 Beaver Street. The Building Safety Division has declared the building unsafe and dangerous and has instituted demolition proceedings against the structure. The Demolition Hearing Officers addressed the case on Thursday, October 24, 1991, at which time it was ordered that the building be made safe for its intended use, or demolished within 14 days of the date of hearing. Should repairs not be consumated within the allotted time the Department would scheduled another public hearing in front of the City Council. The City Council will then allocate a time for repair or demolition. The issue to be addressed by the Board is whether or not the foundation floor system is in violation of the Housing Code. Mr. Carrick, Code Compliance Officer, presented his case. The property in question is a three room single family rental dwelling. The approximate size is 16 x 25. It is one of two houses on a single lot. The SEV of the structure is $1 , 100. The residence is located on a parcel of property which is zoned Industrial, consequently it is a non-conforming use. Since the residence is non- conforming the Zoning Ordinance limits the amount of work which can be performed on the structure. Mr. Carrick further stated that the residence does not have a foundation which extends below the frost line. The residence was constructed on two large beams which are in-turn supported by a stone foundation at each corner. Second, the entire floor system is deflecting in excess of that allowed by the code. Mr. Carrick also stated that the residence is in violation of Section 1460. 16(C) of the Housing Code. Mr. Harry Riley stated that he is in the process of buying the house from Mr. & Mrs. Harris and would like to repair the structure for occupancy. Mr. Nelson stated that the dwelling is currently going through the demolition process, and is scheduled to be in front of City Council November 18, 1991. Mr. Wilcox moved to authorize the existing foundation if a center beam was installed to support the floor system. The center beam shall be supported on a foundation which extends below the frost line. The motion was supported by Mr. Jones. There was discussion pertaining to the advisability of mixing foundation types Building Board of Appeals November 12, 1991 Page 3 and the potential of exterior wall movement separate from the center beam. Mr. Stuckman voiced concerns on whether the solution is permanent, and how long the building could be used -for residential purposes. After discussion the motion was carried. Appeal #91-001 — 112 E. Allegan, Capitol Federal Savings Bank An application for appeal was filed by Richard D'Alessandro of Freeman, Smith and Associates on behalf of Capitol Federal Savings and Loan. The appeal seeks a modification or reversal of Item #15 of a Plan Review letter issued on August 6, 1991, by the Building Safety Division. More specifical ly, the owner is requesting authority to omit the standby power generating system in the existing Capitol Federal Savings and Loan building located at 112 E. Allegan Street. Mr. Ballard, Fire Marshal, stated that the generator is necessary to operate an elevator under emergency conditions to evacuate the handicapped, and to get fire equipment to the fire floor. Mr. Stuckman stated that we are in a gray area as it pertains to code requirements in existing buildings. The Building Code requires that the floor which is altered must comply with code requirements, but is silent on other ancillary provisions of Section 1807 of the Code. Mr. Jones asked if a generator was proposed in the future. Mr. D'Alessandro stated that a generator is not in current plans for renovation. Mr. D'Alessandro addressed the Board and requested that the case be tabled until the Demember 10, 1991, meeting. The purpose of the request was to meet with the owner to determine if a compliance schedule for the installation of the fire pump could be devised. Mr. Jones moved that the case be tabled for one month. Motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. Being no further business before the Board Mr. Kamm moved that the meeting be adjourned, supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i ,; J k A. Nelson S cretary JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS November 12, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stuckman at 2:05 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman, Chairman Richard Jones, Vice Chairman Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Throop STAFF PRESENT: Gary Carrick, Code Compliance Officer I Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary �— James Ballard, Fire Marshal OTHERS PRESENT: Rebecca Harris Meryle Harris _J Henry Riley ; It was moved by Mr. Jones that the minutes of the October 8, 1991, Appfeal1� Board Meeting be approved with the correction of the word "architectural" on page 2. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #91-009 — 3016 Risdale and 3600 Simkin, Patti Holland An application for appeal was filed by Ms. Holland, 3600 Simken Street, Lansing, Michigan. The applicant is purporting that the Building Safety Division fails to comply with PA 306 of 1969 and PA 218 of 1979 as it relates to the application of Building Code and Barrier Free Design Requirements as it pertains to adult foster care facilities. Mr. Nelson explained that the questions raised in the appeal are issues of law, and, consequently, the Department has requested direction from the City Attorney's office prior to addressing the case. Mr. Jones inquired as to how long of a time period would it take to receive the Building Board of Appeals November 12, 1991 Page 2 Attorney' s opinion? Mr. Nelson state that he was unable to determine how long the opinion would take, but anticipated that is should be available for the December 10, � 1991, meeting. Mr. Jones moved that the case be tabled until the December 12, 1991, meeting. Motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #91-010 — 320 Beaver Street, Rebecca Harris An application for appeal was filed by Rebecca Harris , 5124 W. St. Joseph Street, Lansing, Michigan. The appeal seeks a reversal or modification of the enforcing Officers order of April 15, 1991, which inumerated numerous Housing Code violations pertaining to a rental dwelling which is located at 320 Beaver Street. The Building Safety Division has declared the building unsafe and dangerous and has instituted demolition proceedings against the structure. The Demolition Hearing Officers addressed the case on Thursday, October 24, 1991 , at which time it was ordered that the building be made safe for its intended use, or demolished within 14 days of the date of hearing. Should repairs not be consumated within the allotted time the Department would scheduled another public hearing in front of the City Council. The City Council will then allocate a time for repair or demolition. The issue to be addressed by the Board is whether or not the foundation floor system is in violation of the Housing Code. Mr. Carrick, Code Compliance Officer, presented his case. The property in question is a three room single family rental dwelling. The approximate size is 16 x 25. It is one of two houses on a single lot. The SEV of the structure is $1; 100. The residence is located on a parcel of property which is zoned Industrial, consequently it is a non—conforming use. Since the residence is non— conforming the Zoning Ordinance limits the amount of work which can be performed on the structure. Mr. Carrick further stated that the residence does not have a foundation which extends below the frost line. The residence was constructed on two large beams which are in—turn supported by a stone foundation at each corner. Second, the entire floor- system is deflecting in excess of that allowed by the code. Mr. Carrick also stated that the residence is in violation of Section 1460. 16(C) of the Housing Code. Mr. Harry Riley stated that he is in the process of buying the house from Mr. & Mrs. Harris and would like to repair the structure for occupancy. Mr. Nelson stated that the dwelling is currently going through the demolition process, and is scheduled to be in front of City Council November 18, 1991 . Mr. Wilcox moved to authorize the existing foundation if a center beam was installed to support the floor system. The center beam shall be supported on a foundation which extends below the frost line. The motion was supported by Mr. Jones . There was discussion pertaining to the advisability of mixing foundation types Building Board of Appeals November 12, 1991 Page 3 and the potential of exterior wall movement separate from the center beam. Mr. Stuckman voiced concerns on whether the solution is permanent, and how long the building could be used for residential purposes. After discussion the motion was carried. Appeal #91-001 — 112 E. Allegan, Capitol Federal Savings Bank An application for appeal was filed by Richard D'Alessandro of Freeman, Smith and Associates on behalf of Capitol Federal Savings and Loan. The appeal seeks a modification or reversal of Item #15 of a Plan Review letter issued on August 6, 1991, by the Building Safety Division. More specifically, the owner is requesting authority to omit the standby power generating system in the existing Capitol Federal Savings and Loan building located at 112 E. Allegan Street. Mr. Ballard, Fire Marshal, stated that the generator is necessary to operate an elevator under emergency conditions to evacuate the handicapped, and to get fire equipment to the fire floor. Mr. Stuckman stated that we are in a gray area as it pertains to code requirements in existing buildings. The Building Code requires that the floor which is altered must comply with code requirements, but is silent on other ancillary provisions of Section 1807 of the Code. Mr. Jones asked if a generator was proposed in the future. Mr. D'Alessandro stated that a generator is not in current plans for renovation. Mr. D'Alessandro addressed the Board and requested that the case be tabled until the Demember 10, 1991 , meeting. The purpose of the request was to meet with the owner to determine if a compliance schedule for the installation of the fire pump could be devised. Mr. Jones moved that the case be tabled for one month. Motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. Being no further business before the Board Mr. Kamm moved that the meeting be adjourned, supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J k A. Nelson S cretary JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On: 'd T OCTR, `> OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OFFICE CITof the Y OF f A BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS October 8, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stuckman at 2:00 p.m. with a roll call showing the following Members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman Richard Jones cfl -t Joe Wilcox 1� Randall Kamm c-D r MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Throop :n F--; G-3 STAFF PRESENT: p Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary, Chief Plan Review Analyst tr James Ballard, Fire Marshal OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Case 91-007 JoAnne Heard, LASER Inc. Jim VanderGalien, Avance Construction Todd VanderGailen, ,Avance Construction Case 91-008 - Ted Foster, Signal Building Co. Mike Mathews, Church Mutual Insurance Co. Rev. Jesse Mendoza, Pastor of Maranatha Church Carl Steffen The August 13, 1991, minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Kamm. Chairman Stuckman introduced members of the Board and Staff and addressed rules of procedure. Appeal #91-007 - 1100 S. Washington Ave. An application for appeal has- been filed by Mr. Todd VanderGalien of Advance Construction Company. The application is filed on behalf of the owner of the building Mr. Aron Hoffman. The applicant seeks relief from Section 1002(b) of Building Board of Appeals Minutes October 8, 1991 Page 2 the Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition, as amended. The applicant proposed to convert the first floor of the building, which is currently utilized as an antique store, to a Group 1 Division 3 Occupancy for a half-way house for 40 inmates. Section 1002(b) of the Uniform Building Code states that Division 3 occupancies may be housed in Type III one-hour buildings provided the floor area does not exceed 3,900 square feet between separation walls of two-hour fire-resistive construction, and the building does not exceed one story. The building in question is two stories in height and is a Type III-N construction. In like manner, Section 3802 of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition, requires that the building be sprinkled. The applicant only proposes to sprinkle the basement and the first floor. The applicant has proposed to upgrade the Construction Type in the affected areas as well as installing necessary separation walls. Mr. VanderGalien addressed the Board and stated they propose to sprinkle the entire building, consequently the appeal should be amended accordingly. Second, Mr. VanderGalien stated that new non-combustible stairshafts will be installed. An architectual floor plan was submitted which showed a conceptual floor plan and a proposed separation between basement and first floor, and first and second floor (UL A511) . JoAnne Heard, Director of LASER, addressed the Board and gave the following background on LASER. LASER Inc. is a non-profit corporation funded by the Michigan State Office of Community Corrections. The 21 member Board of Directors is comprised of individuals representing various sectors of the community i.e. criminal justice, business, education, etc. The Board sets the organizations policies and standards to be implemented by the Executive Director and a nine member staff. The organization operates three programs, a Probation Residential Program, Community Service Program, and Volunteers in Probation. The Probation Residential Program is geared toward male felony probationers who have been sentenced to the program in lieu of jail. The typical profile of probationers referred is male, average age is 19, who have committed non-violent offenses (felons with a history of violent offenses are ineligible for the program) , primarily property offenses, and who exhibit a desire to redirect their lives away from crime. All referrals are carefully screened by the Case Manager in order to determine their eligibility for the Program. The men reside at the facility and their activities are closely monitored by security staff 24 hours a day. There is also an electronic monitoring device to assist the security staff in keeping track of residents as they move about in the facility. When residents leave the facility, destinations are verified by staff. Residents are randomly searched and routinely administered breathalyzer tests upon their return to the center. Residents participate in programming both in and ouside the facility. We rely Building Board of Appeals Minutes October 8, 1991 Page 3 on community resources such as the Lansing School District Adult and Continuing Education, Harry Hill Vocational Training Center, Cristo Rey, Community Mental Health, Michigan State University Counselling Center, etc. Residents are also required to participate in in—house programming that consists of Substance Abuse Education and Treatment, Life/Employability Skills Training, Self—Enhancement Group Counselling sessions, and performing community service work in and around the facility. All of this is done under the careful scrutiny of trained staff. Since its inception in 1987 the LASER Residential Program has not had one incident wherein a resident has committed a crime in the community. Mr. Jones moved that the appeal be granted subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The facility be limited to a 40 bed occupancy. 2. All other requirements of the Group I, Division 3 Occupancy be complied with. 3. Sheet P-1 and the typical wall sections be made part of the record and adhered to. The appeal was supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion approved unanimously. Appeal #91-008 — 927 E. North Street An application for appeal has been filed by Rev. Jesse Mendoza, Pastor, Maranatha Spanish Assembly of God, located at 927 E. North Street. The application seeks relief from a plan review letter issued on September 4, 1991, which required that the basement of the church be spinkled. According to the Division' s information, a fire occurred in the basement of the church during the summer of 1991 . The fire did extensive damage to the basement which was utilized for classrooms. A moderate amount of smoke damage occurred on the first floor. According to the buildings contractor, approximately $190,000.00 worth of damage occurred. The Building Safety Division and the Fire Prevention Bureau, in reviewing the plans, cited Section 3802(c)(2) of the Uniform Building Code. This section of the code states that Group A occupancies which are located in a basement shall be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system if the basement exceeds 2,500 square feet. The rationale for requiring the system in an existing building is based upon Section 104(5) which states in part ". . . . additions, alterations, or repairs may be made to any building or structure without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with all requirements of the code, provided the addition, alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new building." The applicant is aggrieved and seeks a modification of reversal of this decision because the church is a non—profit organization and the insurance company will not pay for the sprinkler system. Mr. Steffen addressed the Board stating that actual structural damage to the church only amounted to $40,000.00. Consequently, the building should not apply Building Board of Appeals Minutes October 8, 1991 Page 4 new code standards to the basement. Second, Mr. Steffens contended that the basement was improperly classified and should have been a Group B, Division 2 Occu.pancy. Mr. Foster of Signal Building Company stated that he would like to reconstruct the basement exactly as it was prior to the fire. There was general discussion concerning the case. Mr. Jones moved that in lieu of a sprinkler system the Board would allow the installation of hard—wired monitored smoke detection system in the basement. This motion does not affect other code requirements stated in the Departments plan review letter of September 4, 1991. Motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion approved unanimously. Being no further business before the Board Mr. Kamm moved that the meeting be adjourned, motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i / 1 n� 6,r Nelson y JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS October 8, 1991 - The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stuckman at 2:00 p.m. with a roll call showing the following Members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman Richard Jones C�7 Joe Wilcox cry < Randall Kamm F� a MEMBERS ABSENT: rr Frank Throop V STAFF PRESENT: 3 i G3 Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary, Chief Plan Review Analyst C.7 James Ballard, Fire Marshal OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Case 91-007 JoAnne Heard, LASER Inc. Jim VanderGalien, Avance Construction Todd VanderGailen, Avance Construction Case 91-008 Ted Foster, Signal Building Co. Mike Mathews, Church Mutual Insurance Co. Rev. Jesse Mendoza, Pastor of Maranatha Church Carl Steffen The August 13, 1991, minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Kamm. Chairman Stuckman introduced members of the Board and Staff and addressed rules of procedure. Appeal #91-007 — 1100 S. Washington Ave. An application for appeal has- been filed by Mr. Todd VanderGalien of Advance he Construction Company. The application is seeks filed on behalf of the owner of relief from Section 1002(b)tof building Mr. Aron Hoffman. The applicant Building Board of Appeals Minutes October 8, 1991 Page 2 the Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition, as amended. The applicant proposed to convert the first floor of the building, which is currently utilized as an antique store, to a Group 1 Division 3 Occupancy for a half—way house for 40 inmates. Section 1002(b) of the Uniform Building Code states that Division 3 occupancies may be housed in Type III one—hour buildings provided the floor area does not exceed 3,900 square feet between separation walls of two—hour fire—resistive construction, and the building does not exceed one story. The building in question is two stories in height and is a Type III-N construction. In like manner, Section 3802 of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition, requires that the building be sprinkled. The applicant only proposes to sprinkle the basement and the first floor. The applicant has proposed to upgrade the Construction Type in the affected areas as well as installing necessary separation walls. Mr. VanderGalien addressed the Board and stated they propose to sprinkle the entire building, consequently the appeal should be amended accordingly. Second, Mr. VanderGalien stated that new non—combustible stairshafts will be installed. An architectual floor plan was submitted which showed a conceptual floor plan and a proposed separation between basement and first floor, and first and second floor (UL #L511) . JoAnne Heard, Director of LASER, addressed the Board and gave the following background on LASER. LASER Inc. is a non—profit corporation funded by the Michigan State Office of Community Corrections. The 21 member Board of Directors is comprised of individuals representing various sectors of the community i.e. criminal justice, business, education, etc. The Board sets the organizations policies and standards to be implemented by the Executive Director and a nine member staff. The organization operates three programs, a Probation Residential Program, Community Service Program, and Volunteers in Probation. The Probation Residential Program is geared toward male felony probationers who have been sentenced to the program in lieu of jail. The typical profile of probationers referred is male, average age is 19, who have committed non—violent offenses (felons with a history of violent offenses are ineligible for the program) , primarily property offenses, and who exhibit a desire to redirect their lives away from crime. All referrals are carefully screened by the Case Manager in order to determine their eligibility for the Program. The men reside at the facility and their activities are closely monitored by security staff 24 hours a day. There is also an electronic monitoring device to assist the security staff in keeping track of residents as they move about in the facility. When residents leave the facility, destinations are verified by staff. Residents are randomly searched and routinely administered breathalyzer tests upon their return to the center. Residents participate in programming both in and ouside the facility. We rely Building Board of Appeals Minutes October 8, 1991 Page 3 on community resources such as the Lansing School District Adult and Continuing Education, Harry Hill Vocational Training Center, Cristo Rey, Community Mental Health, Michigan State University Counselling Center, etc. Residents are also required to participate in in—house programming that consists of Substance Abuse Education and Treatment, Life/Employability Skills Training, Self—Enhancement Group Counselling sessions, and performing community service work in and around the facility. All of this is done under the careful scrutiny of trained staff. Since its inception in 1987 the LASER Residential Program has not had one incident wherein a resident has committed a crime in the community. Mr. Jones moved that the appeal be granted subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The facility be limited to a 40 bed occupancy. 2. All other requirements of the Group I, Division 3 Occupancy be complied with. 3. Sheet P-1 and the typical wall sections be made part of the record and adhered to. The appeal was supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion approved unanimously. Appeal #91-008 — 927 E. North Street An application for appeal has been filed by Rev. Jesse Mendoza, Pastor, Maranatha Spanish Assembly of God, located at 927 E. North Street. The application seeks relief from a plan review letter issued on September 4, 1991, which required that the basement of the church be spinkled. According to the Division' s information, a fire occurred in the basement of the church during the summer of 1991. The fire did extensive damage to the basement which was utilized for classrooms. A moderate amount of smoke damage occurred on the first floor. According to the buildings contractor, approximately $190,000.00 worth of damage occurred. The Building Safety Division and the Fire Prevention Bureau, in reviewing the plans, cited Section 3802(c)(2) of the Uniform Building Code. This section of the code states that Group A occupancies which are located in a basement shall be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system if the basement exceeds 2,500 square feet. The rationale for requiring the system in an existing building is based upon Section 104(5) which states in part ". . . . additions, alterations, or repairs may be made to any building or structure without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with all requirements of the code, provided the addition, alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new building." The applicant is aggrieved and seeks a modification of reversal of this decision because the church is a non—profit organization and the insurance company will not pay for the sprinkler system. Mr. Steffen addressed the Board stating that actual structural damage to the church only amounted to $40,000.00. Consequently, the building should not apply Building Board of Appeals . Minutes October 8, 1991 Page 4 new code standards to the basement. Second, Mr. Steffens contended that the basement was improperly classified and should have been a Group B, Division 2 Occupancy. Mr. Foster of Signal Building Company stated that he would like to reconstruct the basement exactly as it was prior to the fire. There was general discussion concerning the case. Mr. Jones moved that in lieu of a sprinkler system the Board would allow the installation of hard—wired monitored smoke detection system in the basement. This motion does not affect other code requirements stated in the Departments plan review letter of September 4, 1991. Motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion approved unanimously. Being no further business before the Board Mr. Kamm moved that the meeting be adjourned, motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ark A. Nelson tary JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On l - Il RECEIVED '91 riJG 28 PM 12 21 AUG �� iG9i -OFFICIAL PP.00EEDIT;GS MAYOR'S OFFICE of the CITY OF LANSIIVG BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS August 13, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 13, 1991, at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Building Safety Division, 119 N. Washington Square Annex, Lower Level. The meeting was. called to..order by Chairman Stuckman at 2:03 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman Richard Jones Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Throop STAFF PRESENT: Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary Janes Ballard, Fire Marshal Delores Fuller, Code Compliance Officer The April 9, 1991, minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #91-006 — 209 W. Kilborn; 931 N. Capitol; 933 N. Capitol Chairman Stuckman explained the case stating that the property is a three unit apartment which is also the applicants home. The property consists of three townhouse units located on a corner lot with separate addresses as follows: 209 W. Kilborn; 931 N. Capitol; and 933 N. Capitol. The specific items contained in the appeal request are as follows: 1. 209 Kilborn: A. Remove copper gas line to owner' s apartment and install approved material (mechanical permit required) . B. Replace gas shut off valve at copper with approved valve with handle. The above items were cited under 146O.2O(a)(6) Hazardous Mechanical Equipment. ;uil: .n c -oLrd of Aoueal ! inutes August 13 , 1991 Page 2 2. 931 N. Capitol A. Install handrail for upper section of stairs to second floor. The above item was cited under 1460. 20(a)(2) . 3. 933 N. Capitol Garage --- Owner's Section A. Replace rotted roof boards (tar paper shows) . . B. Secure sagging roof joist, front dropped 4-6 inches. The above items were cited under 1460.20(a)(2) . The applicant stated that the only issue to be addressed is Item #3 pertaininC to the garage, all of the other violations have been corrected. Chairman Stuckman read Attachment ,#2 "Request for Appeal" which was submitted by the applicant. The arguments in support of the appeal are as follows: ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPEAL: 1. "CORRECTION NOTICE" fails to mention the area where rolled roofing is showing is VERY small and that the garage floor is dry with no moisture or standing water. 2. Roof joist does not sag 4-6 inches. (Inspector did not mention this during the inspection--only on the report. ) 3. Garage is used for storage of my lawn furniture and lawn equipment. It is not used for parking of my vehicle or anyone else's vehicle. 4. Garage is padlocked at all times for security reasons. 5. Garage is in very good -repair and contiguous to three (3) other garages also of brick and block construction. The other two (2) garages also of brick and block construction. The other two (2) garages are utilized by Fly tenants. The third garage (although contiguous) belongs to my neighbor. All of the garages share a common wall with the adjacent garage. 6. New rolled roofing was placed on all three (3) garages in 1990. 7. Mr. Hernandez inspected my garage subsequent to Inspector Fuller and stated he would NOT have written a "CORRECTION ORDER" on this particular item. 8. The garage does not have a deteriorated or inadequate foundation pursuant to Section 1460.20(a)(2)(A). 9. Members of walls, partitions or other vertical supports are not split and do not lean, list, nor are they buckled due to defective materials or deterioration pusuant to Section 1460.20(a)(2)(D) . Buiding Board of Appeals Minutes August 13, 1991 Page 3 10. Members of walls, partitions or other vertical supports are sufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety pursuant to Section 1460.20(a)(2)(E) . 11. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members do not sag, are not split and do not buckle due to defective material or deterioration pursuant to Section 1460.20(a)(2)(F) . 12. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members are of sufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety pursuant to 1460.20(a)(2)(G) . Based upon the above cited reasons, it is felt the "CORRECTION NOTICE" dated January 14, 1991, is without foundation and, therefore, I respectfully request it be withdrawn and a "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE" be issued for property located at 931-933 N. Capitol and 209 W. Kilborn, Lansing, Michigan. Chairman Stuckman asked Delores Fuller to present the City' s case. Ms. Fuller stated that she took exception to Items 2, 11 and 12 of the arguments in support of the case. The second rafter from the wall has failed in that it has dropped 4-611. The rafters appear to be 2 x 8's, 24" on—center; the maximum span exceeds 161 . Consequently, the roof system does not comply with current code requirements. The Board reviewed photographs of the garage exterior and interior. The photographs indicated water stains on the rafters and roof boards. The degree of damage could not be determined from the photographs. Ms. Tullock stated that a new roof was installed on the garage in 1990. The roofers were instructed to replace any deteriorated roof board at that time. Mr. Wilcox asked Mr. Nelson if a building permit would have been required for re— roofing. Mr. Nelson stated that if the entire roof was stripped or roof boards were replaced a permit would have been required. Mr. Jones stated that the situation does not appear to be life—threatening and is minor in nature. Mr. Stuckman stated that construction loads, which occurred during re—roofing probably exceeded the live load requirements of the Code, and consequently, the roof is probably not subject to incipient collapse. Mr. Nelson stated that if the roof rafter has dropped 4-6" it is adding additional load to the rafter on either side. This situation, coupled with the over—spanned rafter condition could cause a structural roof problem. Mr. Jones moved that the appeal be granted. The motion was ssupported by Mr. Wilcox. Ms. Fuller asked if the motion included repair of the roof rafter. The motion was clarified to include no corrective measure. Luildin Boaru of A.rpeals Minutes August 13, 1991 Page 4 Those voting in favor of the motion were: Mr. StuClumon; 'ir. `t'l1COx; Llr. Jones Those voting against the notion: tir. Kanu.1 Motion carried. In support of this decision the Board nakes the following findings of fact: 1. The g arage is in excess of 100 years old and the roof system has been adequate for the intended use. 2. Tar paper showing between roof boards is not, in itself, a violation of code requirements. The spacing of roof boards was common practice to allow ventilation androof board expansion. 3. The condition is not life threatening and the garage is not subject to incipient collapse. The Board, however, recommended that the applicant hire a compentent carpenter to inspect the roof. It was suggested that the rafter be supported and a 2 x 12 be installed perpendicular to the rafters at mid—span to reduce the span. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Jones moved that the meeting be adjourned, motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. )`lotion carried. Meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, recretack . Nelson ary JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS August 13, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 13, 1991, at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Building Safety Division, 119 N. Washington Square Annex, Lower Level . The meeting was called t.a order by Chairman Stuckman at 2:03 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members. present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman Richard Jones Joe Wilcox Randall Kamm G C. MEMBERS ABSENT: t� co Frank Throop , STAFF PRESENT: i Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary C James Ballard, Fire Marshal Delores Fuller, Code Compliance Officer The April 9, 1991, minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal -f#91-006 — 209 W. Kilborn; 931 N. Capitol; 933 N Capitol Chairman Stuckman explained the case stating that the property is a three unit apartment which is also the applicants home. The property consists of three townhouse units located on a corner lot with separate addresses as follows: 209 W. Kilborn; 931 N. Capitol; and 933 N. Capitol. The specific items contained in the appeal request are as follows: 1. 209 Kilborn: A. Remove copper gas line to owner' s apartment and install approved material (mechanical permit required) . B. Replace gas shut off valve at copper with approved valve with handle. The above items were cited under 1460.20(a)(6) Hazardous Mechanical Equipment. oar6 o�F Appeals i• inu�=s Autgust 13, 1991 Page 2 2. 931 t1. Capitol A. Install handrail for upper section of stairs to second floor. The above item was cited under 1460.20(a)(2) . 3. 933 N. Capitol Garage --- Owner' s Section A. Replace rotted roof boards (tar paper shows). . B. Secure sagging roof joist; front dropped 4-6 inches. The above items were cited under 1460.20(a)(2) . The applicant stated that the only issue to be addressed is Item pertaining to the garage, all of the other violations have been corrected. Chairman Stucknan read Attachrient #2 "Request for Appeal" which was submitted by the applicant. The arguments in support of the appeal are as follows: ARGUIIENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPEAL: 1. "CORRECTION NOTICE" fails to mention the area where rolled roofing is showing is VERY small and that the garage floor is dry with no moisture or standing water. 2. Roof joist does not sag 4-6 inches. (Inspector did not mention this during the inspection--only on the report. ) 3. Garage is used for storage of my lawn furniture and lawn equipment. It is not used for parking of my vehicle or anyone else's vehicle. 4. Garage is padlocked at all times for security reasons. 5. Garage is in very good repair and contiguous to three (3) other garages also of brick and block construction. The other two (2) garages also of brick and block construction. The other two (2) garages are utilized by my tenants. The third garage (although contiguous) belongs to my neighbor. All of the garages share a common wall with the adjacent garage. 6. New rolled roofing was placed on all three (3) garages in 1990. 7. Mr. Hernandez inspected my garage subsequent to Inspector Fuller and stated he would NOT have written a "CORRECTION ORDER" on this particular item. S. The garage does not have a deteriorated or inadequate foundation pursuant to Section 1460.20(a)(2)(A) . 9. Members of walls, partitions or other vertical supports are not split and do not lean, list, nor are they buckled due to defective materials or deterioration pusuant to Section 1460.20(a)(2)(D). Buiding Board of Appeals Minutes August 13 , 1991 Page 3 10. Members of walls, partitions or other vertical supports are sufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety pursuant to Section 1460.20(a)(2)(E) . 11 . Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members do not sao, are not split and do not buckle due to defective material or deterioration pursuant to Section 1460.20(a)(2)(F) . 12. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members are of sufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety pursuant to 1460.20(a)(2)(G) . Based upon the above cited reasons, it is felt the "CORRECTION NOTICE" dated January 14, 1991, is without foundation and, therefore, I respectfully request it be withdrawn and a "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE" be issued for property located at 931-933 N. Capitol and 209 W. Kilborn, Lansing, Michigan. Chairman Stuckman asked Delores Fuller to present the City' s case. Ms. Fuller stated that she took exception to Items 2, 11 and 12 of the arguments in support of the case. The second rafter from the wall has failed in that it has dropped 4-611. The rafters appear to be 2 x S' s, 24" on-center; the maximum span exceeds 161 . Consequently, the roof system does not comply with current code requirements. The Board reviewed photographs of the garage exterior and interior. The photographs indicated water stains on the rafters and roof boards. The degree of damage could not be determined from the photographs. Ms. Tullock stated that a new roof was installed on the garage in 1990. The roofers were instructed to replace any deteriorated roof board at that time. Mr. Wilcox asked Mr. Nelson if a building permit would have been required for re- roofing. Mr. Nelson stated that if the entire roof was stripped or roof boards were replaced a permit would have been required. Mr. Jones stated that the situation does not appear to be life-threatening and is minor in nature. Mr. Stuckman stated that construction loads, which occurred during re-roofing probably exceeded the live load requirements of the Code, and consequently, the roof is probably not subject to incipient collapse. Mr. Nelson stated that if the roof rafter has dropped 4-6" it is adding additional load to the rafter on either side. This situation, coupled with the over-spanned rafter condition could cause a structural roof problem. Mr. Jones moved that the appeal be granted. The motion was ssupported by Mr. Wilcox. Ms. Fuller asked if the motion included repair of the roof rafter. The motion was clarified to include no corrective measure. Building. Board of Appe<:ls Minutes Foust 13, 1991 Pa ;e 4 Those Voting in favor of the motio,i were: 1';r. Stuckman; fir. 1 ilcox; 11r. Jones Those, voting a(-ainst the notion: :ir. Karam Motion carries:. In support of this decision the Board nakes the following findings of fact: 1. The g arage is in excess of 100 years old and the roof system has been adequate for the intended use. 2. Tar paper showing between roof boards is not, in itself, a violation of code requirements. The spacing of roof boards was common practice to allow -ventlation and roof board expansion. 3. The condition is not life threatening and the garage is not subject to incipient collapse. The Board, however, recommended that the applicant hire a conlpentent carpenter to inspect the roof. It was suggested. that the rafter be supported and a 2 x 12 be installed perpendicular to the rafters at mid—span to reduce the span. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Jones moved that the meeting be adjourned, motion supported by 1ir'. Wilcox. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, recreackA. Nelson tary J AN/mmr Minutes Approved On: OFFICLAL PROCEEDINGS 1 of the I �t�'_ L`J BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS �!'•_� l ��•'•- .- " April 9, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 9, 1991, at 2:00 p.m. in the Human Resources Conference Room, 119 N. Washington Square, Third Floor, Lansing, Michigan. In the absence of Chairman Stuckman, the meeting was called to order by Vice—Chairman Richard Jones. The roll call showed the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Jones Joseph Wilcox Randall Kamm MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Stuckman Frank Throop STAFF PRESENT: Jack Nelson, Secretary James Ballard, Acting Fire Marshal James Rodabaugh, Code Compliance Officer The March 5, 1991, minutes were approved on a motion from Mr. Kann, supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Appeal 191-005 — 701 Isbell Street An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Lester Morgan regarding 701 Isbell Street. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing officer' s violation notice. dated March 8, 1991, which alleges numerous violations of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Second, Mr. Morgan is representing that the format of the standard violation notice, specifically the last three paragraphs , are a violation of his rights. The March 8, 1991 violation notice issued by Mr. Rodabaugh was entered into the record. The text of the notice is hereby made apart of the hearing record by reference (see file) . \rice—Chairman Jones requested Mr. Morgan to present his case. Mr. Jones stated that the issues would be addressed in seratum. 1. "Section 1460. 20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring" Building Board of A ils Minutes April 9, 1991 Page 2 "The items noted do not make hazardous wiring. This basement has been sealed from use by the tenants for about eight years without problems. It was sealed to stop tenants from using it as a place to store unwanted items and garbage. There was a problem of tenants turning off electricity to others in the building. It adds to my ability to find and repair or have removed cords and appliances that have problems. I ask that this matter be approved as it is." 2. "Section 1460.20(a)(2) Structural Hazards" "Item 2. Unclear as to what part of U.B.C. is referred to, what amount of storage is possible under this rule and what this basement and others of this type may be used for." "I ask that the City rewrite and clearly state all laws and rules they believe to be misused or broken or this matter be approved as is." 3. "Section 1640.20(a)(5) Hazardous Plumbing" "This was used by only one tenant over six years ago. It was removed because it was impossible to keep working with the type of tenant in this part of town. There was chicken bones driven through the side of two disposals. I ask that this matter be approved as is." 4. "Section 1460.20(a)(4). Hazardous Electrical Wiring" "Item 1. This building was rewired and approved by the City about twelve years ago. This leaves the building to code as per the grandfather clause. This item is included tree times in this inspection report. Please use this to cover all three. I ask that the matter be approved as is. 5. "Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring" "Item 1. This was a light bulb removed by the tenant to be used in a different light and so stated by the tenant to the inspector. I ask that this matter be approved as is." 6. "Section 1640.20(a)(1) Inadequate Sanitation" "I am advised Fumigation is. not possible as these chemicals are not allowed to be used. This problem has addressed as close to once a month as possible for the last two years. The problem stems from a neighborhood that is infested. The roaches are seen coming from the house directly behind this building and infesting the rear lower unit of this building. The address directly behind this building has large amounts of trash in the yard, paint has about 50% pealed off, places in the siding covered with inside paneling and the list goes on. This house has been shown to the inspectors for over the last three years with no meaningful action yet to be taken." "I ask that this matter be rephrased to a lawful statement and all houses in this area be inspected and required to be within code. This does include all owner occupied houses." Building Board of ! !als Minutes April 9, 1991 Page 3 "Page Three of Inspection Report" "This page has several statements unlawful. This report holds my building hostage to a unproven list of statements made by the inspector. The statement that I can not rent the empty apartment leaves The City of Lansing is responsible for all rents if all items on this list are not proven in a court where it first becomes fact." "The statement that they know this inspection is incomplete and there fore not guaranteed is a display of there inability to perform a job in a worthwhile manner. Would you buy a car with the understanding you will have to repair any thing the dealer wants done for the life of this car with on guarantee this car will ever be able to perform in a safe and reliable manner. I don't think you would but landlords are required to do just that because of our inspectors inability to perform in a professional manner. I ask that both of the above statements be removed from all reports." (NOTE: Due to the fact that the above items have been directly quoted, misspelled words, unclear statements, or unfinished sentences are quoted just as the applicant submitted them in his appeal. ) At the conclusion of Mr. Morgan's presentation Mr. Nelson disseminated a response to Mr. Morgan' s appeal which was drafted by Mr. John Salmons, Chief Code Compliance Officer for the Building Safety Division. The response is as follows: 1. Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring Section 230-91(c) of the National Electrical Code requires occupants to have access to over-current protection devices, i.e. service panels. This is true at least as far back as 1965. Contrary to what Mr. Morgan says, the identified condition is hazardous. If a circuit breaker or fuse malfunctions, and an overload causes a fire to begin, the tenant cannot get to the service panel to kill the main power. If a fuse or circuit breaker blows because of an overload, as it is designed to do, the tenants would be at least partially powerless until such time as Mr. Morgan can, or will get to the structure. If Mr. Morgan is out of town, and the refrigerator curcuit blows, the tenant could not only be inconvenienced, but also financially affected. 2. Section 1460.20(a)(2) Structural Hazards Section 1703 of the Uniform Building Code requires the separation. jdhat Mr. Morgan has created by storing his appliances for his rentals in this basement is a B2 use. A B2 use must be separated from an R3 use by a minimum of one hour fire separation. The storage of the applicances in this basement would also be a violation of the Lansing Zoning Ordinance. 3. Section 1460.20(a)(5) Hazardous Plumbing Mr. Morgan doesn' t want to comply with the law because the tenants are likely to destroy it. This conclusion, based on one tenant six years ago, is not a proper justification to waive the law. Building Board of Al is Minutes April 9, 1991 Page 4 4. Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring There were two previous electrical permits taken out at this address; one was for a new service, and the other to repair fire damage. The electrical inspector inspects the work being done under the permit and not the complete wiring system in the house. Outlets are required in bathrooms. If one is installed now, it will be a G.F.C.I. by ordinance. 5. Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring The Board of Water and Light is quite generous with the number of light bulbs it gives to people who pay their electric bills for a specific address. Either Mr. Morgan or the tenant could get more than enough bulbs to put in all of the sockets. 6. Section 1460.20(a)(1) Inadequate Sanitation Many owners of other rental properties have their structures professionally fumigated with no problem. There is evidence of infestation and it must be taken care of. 7. Page Three of Inspection Report The items listed in the report could easily be taken care of in a week, probably the minimum amount of time that would be taken to clean and prepare the unit for reoccupancy. What we are saying is that we want to ensure the structure meets minimum health safety standards prior to reoccupancy. The disclaimer is on the letter because we cannot see the condition of the wiring, plumbing, or heat runs inside the walls of the structure. If there are problems that are not obvious, we can' t be expected to know they exist. If we miss an unvented water heater, and someone is injured, all the disclaimers in the world will not remove our liability. Vice—Chairman Jones asked Mr. Rodabaugh if he had any comments concerning Mr. Morgan' s response. Mr. Rodabaugh addressed items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. 1. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that the N.E.C. requires access to the electrical panel by all tenants. 2. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that the basement of this facility is being utilized as a storage facility for numerous appliances not associated with the use of this building. Section 1703 of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition requires that the usable space shall be protected from the first floor as required for one—hour fire—resistive construction. Mr. Morgan stated that he has requested a copy of this code section. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that copies are available in the Building Safety Division. 4. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that bathrooms are required to have a general outlet and since bathrooms contain an environment which has a potential for electrical shock, the outlet must be protected by a G.F.C.I. Building Board of Al.i* _als Minutes April 9, 1991 Page 5 5• Mr. Rodabaugh stated that the entrance light fixture was inoperable. Mr. Morgan stated that the fixture is operable, but the light bulb is missing. According to the violation notice all electrical repairs are to be done by a licensed electrical contractor. Consequently, the bulb must be changed by a licensed electrical contractor. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that electrical repairs as defined by the N.E.C. requires that a permit be required and work be performed by a licensed electrical contractor. Replacing a light bulb is maintenance and does not require a permit and may be accomplished by the tenant or landlord. 6. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that the purpose of Item 76 is to spray for infestation of roaches. 7. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that the Housing Code is very clear on what is defined as substandard. Mr. Morgan stated that this Section violated his rights in that the dwelling is cited as substandard without proving that it is in deed substandard. Mr. Morgan also stated that the Housing Code is contrary to State law in regards to the statements (last three paragraphs) in the violation notice. Mr. Jones requested staff to clarify the requested issues. Mr. Nelson stated that two issues are requested, the first consists of numerous variances pertaining to substanative requirements of the code. These items are 1-6. The second issue pertains to allegations that the code violates Mr. Morgans rights and is contrary to State law. The Housing Code allows the Board to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the code. If applicants plan on appealing to Circuit Court, they must first exhaust their administrative remedies before the Appeals Board. It was moved by Mr. Wilcox that the appeal be denied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. It was the consensus of the Board that the Building Safety Division should review standard terminology to ensure that the hiring of an electrical contractor is not a prerequisite for doing maintenance work such as changing a light bulb. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. In the Boards opinion we have no authority to waive requirements of the code. 2. No testimony was given which would substantiate any administrative irregularities in enforcement practices. Building Board of Apr sls Minutes April 9, 1991 Page 6 3. The City Attorney' s office drafted the clause utilized in all violation notices, consequently, we assume that it does not run contrary to state law and does not violate individual rights. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kamm moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously; meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. Sincerely, vxl�'t ck A. Nelson S cretary JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS April 9, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 9, 1991, at 2:00 p.m. in the Human Resources Conference Room, 119 N. Washington Square, Third Floor, Lansing, Michigan. In the absence of Chairman Stuckman, the meeting was called to order by Vice—Chairman Richard Jones. The roll call showed the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Jones Joseph Wilcox Randall Kamm MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Stuckman cfl --< Frank Throop STAFF PRESENT: Jack Nelson, Secretary James Ballard, Acting Fire Marshal James Rodabaugh, Code Compliance Officer J- C;J The March 5, 1991, minutes were approved on a motion from Mr. FKamm, supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. ~ I--• NEW BUSINESS Appeal ##91-005 — 701 Isbell Street An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Lester Morgan regarding 701 Isbell Street. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing officer' s violation notice dated March 8, 1991, which alleges numerous violations of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Second, Mr. Morgan is representing that the format of the standard violation notice, specifically the last three paragraphs, are a violation of his rights. The March 8, 1991 violation notice issued by Mr. Rodabaugh was entered into the record. The text of the notice is hereby made apart of the hearing record by reference (see file) . Vice—Chairman Jones requested Mr. Morgan to present his case. Mr. Jones stated that the issues would be addressed in seratum. 1. "Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring" Building Board of ! als Minutes April 9, 1991 Page 2 "The items noted do not make hazardous wiring. This basement has been sealed from use by the tenants for about eight years without problems. It was sealed to stop tenants from using it as a place to store unwanted items and garbage. There was a problem of tenants turning off electricity to others in the building. It adds to my ability to find and repair or have removed cords and appliances that have problems. I ask that this matter be approved as it is." 2. "Section 1460.20(a)(2) Structural Hazards" "Item 2. Unclear as to what part of U.B.C. is referred to, what amount of storage is possible under this rule and what this basement and others of this type may be used for." "I ask that the City rewrite and clearly state all laws and rules they believe to be misused or broken or this matter be approved as is." 3. "Section 1640.20(a)(5) Hazardous Plumbing" "This was used by only one tenant over six years ago. It was removed because it was impossible to keep working with the type of tenant in this part of town. There was chicken bones driven through the side of two disposals. I ask that this matter be approved as is." 4. "Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring" "Item 1. This building was rewired and approved by the City about twelve years ago. This leaves the building to code as per the grandfather clause. This item is included tree times in this inspection report. Please use this to cover all three. I ask that the matter be approved as is. 5. "Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring" "Item 1. This was a light bulb removed by the tenant to be used in a different light and so stated by the tenant to the inspector. I ask that this matter be approved as is." 6. "Section 1640.20(a)(1) Inadequate Sanitation" "I am advised Fumigation is not possible as these chemicals are not allowed to be used. This problem has addressed as close to once a month as possible for the last two years. The problem stems from a neighborhood that is infested. The roaches are seen coming from the house directly behind this building and infesting the rear lower unit of this building. The address directly behind this building has large amounts of trash in the yard, paint has about 50% pealed off, places in the siding covered with inside paneling and the list goes on. This house has been shown to the inspectors for over the last three years with no meaningful action yet to be taken." "I ask that this matter be rephrased to a lawful statement and all houses in this area be inspected and required to be within code. This does include all owner occupied houses." Building Board of gals Minutes April 9, 1991 Page 3 "Page Three of Inspection Report" "This page has several statements unlawful. This report holds my building hostage to a unproven list of statements made by the inspector. The statement that I can not rent the empty apartment leaves The City of Lansing is responsible for all rents if all items on this list are not proven in a court where it first becomes fact." "The statement that they know this inspection is incomplete and there fore not guaranteed is a display of there inability to perform a job in a worthwhile manner. Would you buy a car with the understanding you will have to repair any thing the dealer wants done for the life of this car with on guarantee this car will ever be able to perform in a safe and reliable manner. I don't think you would but landlords are required to do just that because of our inspectors inability to perform in a professional manner. I ask that both of the above statements be removed from all reports." (NOTE: Due to the fact that the above items have been directly quoted, misspelled words, unclear statements, or unfinished sentences are quoted just as the applicant submitted them in his appeal. ) At the conclusion of Mr. Morgan's presentation Mr. Nelson disseminated a response, to Mr. Morgan's appeal which was drafted by Mr. John Salmons, Chief Code Compliance Officer for the Building Safety Division. The response is as follows: 1. Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring Section 230-91(c) of the National Electrical Code requires occupants to have access to over-current protection devices, i.e. service panels. This is true at least as far back as 1965. Contrary to what Mr. Morgan says, the identified condition is hazardous. If a circuit breaker or fuse malfunctions, and an overload causes a fire to begin, the tenant cannot get to the service panel to kill the main power. If a fuse or circuit breaker blows because of an overload, as it is designed to do, the tenants would be at least partially powerless until such time as Mr. Morgan can, or will get to the structure. If Mr. Morgan is out of town, and the refrigerator curcuit blows, the tenant could not only be inconvenienced, but also financially affected. 2. Section 1460.20(a)(2) Structural Hazards Section 1703 of the Uniform Building Code requires the separation. What Mr. Morgan has created by storing his appliances for his rentals in this basement is a B2 use. A B2 use must be separated from an R3 use by a minimum of one hour fire separation. The storage of the applicances in this basement would also be a violation of the Lansing Zoning Ordinance. 3. Section 1460.20(a)(5) Hazardous Plumbing Mr. Morgan doesn' t want to comply with the law because the tenants are likely to destroy it. This conclusion, based on one tenant six years ago, is not a proper justification to waive the law. Building Board of A alS Minutes April 9, 1991 Page 4 4. Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring There were two previous electrical permits taken out at this address; one was for a new service, and the other to repair fire damage. The electrical inspector inspects the work being done under the permit and not the complete wiring system in the house. Outlets are required in bathrooms. If one is installed now, it will be a G.F.C.I. by ordinance. 5. Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring The Board of Water and Light is quite generous with the number of light bulbs it gives to people who pay their electric bills for a specific address. Either Mr. Morgan or the tenant could get more than enough bulbs to put in all of the sockets. 6. Section 1460.20(a)(1) Inadequate Sanitation Many owners of other rental properties have their structures professionally fumigated with no problem. There is evidence of infestation and it must be taken care of. 7, Page Three of Inspection Report The items listed in the report could easily be taken care of in a week, probably the minimum amount of time that would be taken to clean and prepare the unit for reoccupancy. What we are saying is that we want to ensure the structure meets minimum health safety standards prior to reoccupancy. The disclaimer is on the letter because we cannot see the condition of the wiring, plumbing, or heat runs inside the walls of the structure. If there are problems that are not obvious, we can't be expected to know they exist. If we miss an unvented water heater, and someone is injured, all the disclaimers in the world will not remove our liability. Vice—Chairman Jones asked Mr. Rodabaugh if he had any comments concerning Mr. Morgan' s response. Mr. Rodabaugh addressed items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. 1. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that the N.E.C. requires access to the electrical panel by all tenants. 2. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that the basement of this facility is being utilized as a storage facility for numerous appliances not associated with the use of this building. Section 1703 of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition requires that the usable space shall be protected from the first floor as required for one—hour fire—resistive construction. Mr. Morgan stated that he has requested a copy of this code section. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that copies are available in the Building Safety Division. 4. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that bathrooms are required to have a general outlet and since bathrooms contain an environment which has a potential for electrical shock, the outlet must be protected by a G.F.C.I. Building Board of A1_ als Minutes April 9, 1991 Page 5 5. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that the entrance light fixture was inoperable. Mr. Morgan stated that the fixture is operable, but the light bulb is missing. According to the violation notice all electrical repairs are to be done by a licensed electrical contractor. Consequently, the bulb must be changed by a licensed electrical contractor. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that electrical repairs as defined by the N.E.C. requires that a permit be required and work be performed by a licensed electrical contractor. Replacing a light bulb is maintenance and does not require a permit and may be accomplished by the tenant or landlord. 6. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that the purpose of Item #6 is to spray for infestation of roaches. 7. Mr. Rodabaugh stated that the Housing Code is very clear on what is defined as substandard. Mr. Morgan stated that this Section violated his rights in that the dwelling is cited as substandard without proving that it is in deed substandard. Mr. Morgan also stated that the Housing Code is contrary to State law in regards to the statements (last three paragraphs) in the violation notice. Mr. Jones requested staff to clarify the requested issues. Mr. Nelson stated that two issues are requested, the first consists of numerous variances pertaining to substanative requirements of the code. These items are 1-6. The second issue pertains to allegations that the code violates Mr. Morgans rights and is contrary to State law. The Housing Code allows the Board to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the code. If applicants plan on appealing to Circuit Court, they must first exhaust their administrative remedies before the Appeals Board. It was moved by Mr. Wilcox that the appeal be denied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. It was the consensus of the Board that the Building Safety Division should review standard terminology to ensure that the hiring of an electrical contractor is not a prerequisite for doing maintenance work such as changing a light bulb. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . In the Boards opinion we have no authority to waive requirements of the code. 2. No testimony was given which would substantiate any administrative irregularities in enforcement practices. Building Board of A-�_ _als Minutes April 9, 1991 Page 6 3. The City Attorney' s office drafted the clause utilized in all violation notices, consequently, we assume that it does not run contrary to state law and does not violate individual rights. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kamm moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously; meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. Sincerely, Jcck A. Nelson retary JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On: N, s:is-^i_• 'L.;=I 1 1\ OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGEo1 �11! 29 of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS March 5, 1991 A special meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, February 5, 1991, at 2:00 p.m. in the Building Safety Division Conference Room, 119 N. Washington Square, Lower Level, Lansing. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:04 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman Richard Jones Randall Kamm Joe Wilcox MEMBERS ABSENT: MAr) `•' r 1�u1 Frank Throop �• , MAY�ti J OFT11C.r_ STAFF PRESENT: rI �� Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary Gary Biddinger, Mechanical Inspector Clay McMillen, Code Compliance Officer John Salmons, Chief Code Compliance Officer James Ballard, Acting Fire Marshal On a motion made by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox, the minutes of February 12, 1991, were approved with the following corrections: Page #2 (a) "conditioned" was misspelled. Page #2 last paragraph "insulation" was misspelled. Page ##4 3rd paragraph, change 11550" Aurelius to 115500" OLD BUSINESS: Appeal ##91-001 — 5500 Aurelius Road, DeRose Distributing This case was tabled at the February 12, 1991, meeting. It was moved by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to remove the case from the table. Motion carried unanimously. The subject of the appeal, filed by Sam DeRose, President, DeRose Distributors, is a request for relief of the Building Inspector's decision to require the Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 2 installation of a fire suppression system in the offices of DeRose Distributors, Inc. The appeal was precipitated by an inspection which was required by the City of Lansing for a new wholesale vendor of beer and/or wine license. Upon inspection, numerous violations of the Building Code were in evidence. The owner has corrected all deficiencies except for the installation of a sprinkler system in the office portion of the building. Chairman Stuckman introduced the Board Members and Staff. Mr. DeRose presented background information on the history of the building. It was represented that the office addition was constructed in 1981. The entire facility is sprinkled except for the 1,400 square feet office addition. Mr. DeRose requested authorization to install a monitored smoke detection system in lieu of the sprinkler system. The smoke detection system would include the following: Heat/smoke detectors would be installed in the following areas: East Large Office Area 2 Smoke Detectors Mr. Dan Henry's Office 1 Smoke Detector Vestibule 1 Smoke Detector Center Hallway 1 Smoke Detector Ladies Restroom 1 Smoke Detector West Office 1 Smoke Detector S.W. Store Room 1 Smoke Detector Plenum Area above Suspended 3 Smoke Detectors Ceiling The system will be connected to a central station for 24 hour monitoring. A fire control/communicator will be installed. An annunciator will be installed. Chairman Stuckman requested input from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Ballard stated that fire suppression would be preferable, but the smoke detection system would be acceptable. It was moved by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Kamm, to grant Appeal 91-001 which will authorize the installation of a monitored smoke detection in the 1,400 sq. ft. office at 5500 Aurelius in lieu of a sprinkler system which is required by 3802 of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #90-009 — 221 N. Washington, Michigan Bell Telephone Company This appeal was approved by the Building Board of Appeals in August 1990, with the stipulation that an implementation time schedule for compliance with the Boards directive of the August 1990 meeting be submitted prior to February 14, 1991. The implementation schedule was developed by Goodreau/Wakely Inc. , Architectes and Engineers of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. It was moved by Mr. Kamm, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to approve the implementation Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 3 schedule identified under Part V of the Lansing Central Office High—Rise Evaluation per 1988 U.B.C. Appendix Chapter I, Division 2. The work identified in this plan shall be completed by May 28, 1993. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal ##91-003 — 3529 Bergman An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Lester Morgan, owner of a rental property which is located at 3529 Bergman. The subject of the appeal is a request for relief of a violation notice issued by Clay McMillen, Code Compliance Officer, in accordance with the City of Lansing Housing Code Ordinance. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing Officer's violation notice. The applicant seeks relief from the following sections of the City of Lansing Housing Code, Chapter 1460, Title Six. 1. Section 1460.20(a)(6) Hazardous Mechanical Equipment 2• Section 1460.20(a)(2) Structural Hazards 3. Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring 4. Section 1460.20(a)(5) Hazardous Plumbing 5. Section 1460.29 Smoke Detectors Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Morgan to present his case pertaining to Item Number 1 — mechanical, of Mr. McMillen's January 29, 1991 notice. Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. Biddinger did not perform a proper inspection. The meter which was utilized to monitor the air was improper. The meter was also used improperly. Second, Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. Biddinger did not attempt to look for any other reason for the problem. The furnace was, in fact, full of styrofoam placed there by the tenant. Chairman Stuckman requested Gary Biddinger, Mechanical Inspector, to respond to Item Number 1. Mr. Biddinger showed the Board a copy of the TIF specifications and ability to detect combustible products as minute as 50-100 PPM. Mr. Biddinger also stated that he had used the TIF for four years on a daily basis and is fully aware of its capabilities. Because of these capabilities he has been able to accurately find problems with heat exchangers and to locate potentially hazardous gas leaks. Mr. Biddinger stated that he performed a test on the unit with the equipment available to him through the City of Lansing for testing. Mr. Biddinger also stated that his first inspection was on January 22, 1991, at the request of the Mr. McMillen because the tenants were experiencing headaches. At that time the furnace was inspected, it was somewhat dirty and the TIF reading showed minor leakage of flue products from around the top plug area and from the northwest bottom corner, however, these were not extreme amounts. There was no evidence at that time of any styrofoam type products in or around the furnace. Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 4 At the request of Mr. Morgan a subsequent inspection was made on February 4, 1991. During this inspection it was noted that styrofoam type products were present on top and inside of the unit. The furnace was off at that time, however, Mr. Biddinger did not shut the furnace off, nor did he order it shut off. Mr. McMillen, Code Compliance Officer, stated that he witnessed the combustion products reading by the TIF tester during Mr. Biddinger's inspection of the unit on January 22, 1991. Mr. Morgan showed pictures of the furnace. He stated that he was currently evicting the tenants and they were trying to get "even" with him by destroying the property. Mr. Morgan also stated that he felt that there was a conspiracy between the City and the tenant. Mr. Biddinger stated that he was not aware of an eviction process. The Building Safety Division responded because the tenants were complaining of headaches. John Salmons, Chief Code Compliance Officer, stated that one year ago the house met minimum standards of the Housing Code. It is the responsibility of the Building Safety Division to address the violations, but not to ascertain who caused the violations. Mr. Salmons stated that if the tenant caused the damage, the landlord has legal recourse against the tenant. Mr. Morgan stated that the furnace has been cleaned of debris and is now functioning properly and does not believe that he should bear the expense of hiring a contractor to test it. Chairman Stuckman asked if the City would reinspect the furnace. Mr. Biddinger stated that he would reinspect the furnace to verify the spilling of combustion products. However, should the test still show that it was, an independent mechanical contractor would have to be consulted. Chairman Stuckman requested that Mr. Morgan present arguments for Item Number 2, structural defects. Mr. Morgan stated that no code section was cited for the structural violations in Mr. McMillen' s January 29, 1991, notice. Mr. McMillen stated that the following items must be repaired. 1 Finish the interior trim of the newly installed door which should include insulation at the northside of the door. Mr. Morgan stated that this room has no interior finish, consequently, it would not be practical to install trim. 2. Install approved—type non—absorbant floor covering to the bathroom floor. There is no existing floor covering. Mr. Morgan stated that the floor was new 14 months ago and was destroyed by the Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 5 tenants. 3. Repair kitchen window so it will close. Mr. Morgan stated that the window was operable. The window was held open by a tooth brush. The kitchen window is now repaired. Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Morgan to present his arguments on issue Number 3, electrical. Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. McMillen has said that the bathroom light fixture was malfunctioning. In fact, there was no bulb in the fixture. Mr. McMillen stated that a bulb was in the fixture and the fixture was malfunctioning. Mr. Morgan stated that no Housing Code section was cited in Mr. McMillen's January 29, 1991, notice. Mr. Morgan stated that the bathroom light fixture is now operational. Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Morgan to present his case pertaining to Item Number 4, plumbing. According to Mr. McMillen's notice the lavatory was loose and should be secured. In fact, the lavatory was lifted and the wall bracket was filled with trash. Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Morgan to present his case concerning Item Number 5, inadequate fire protection, or fire fighting equipment. Mr. Morgan stated that Section 1460.20(a)(12) is an improper citation. The Code does not require a smoke detector in the basement as the basement opens into the storage area, not the living area. Mr. Salmons stated that smoke detection is required by Section 1460.29 of Title Six, Chapter 1460 of the Housing Code. The Code states: "(c) Detectors shall be mounted on the ceiling or wall at a point centrally located on the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. Where sleeping areas are on an upper level, the smoke detector shall be placed at the center of the ceiling directly above the stairway. Detectors shall also be installed in the basement of dwelling units which have a stairway which opens from the basement into the dwelling. Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the dwelling in which they are located." Mr. Morgan reiterated that the basement does not open into living area. Mr. Salmons stated that the Code states that detection is required if the stairway from the basement opens into the dwelling. Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 6 After hearing all the testimony Chairman Stuckman stated that it appeared that there had been agreement on the three of the five issues. The remaining two which have not been complied with pertain to the installation of smoke detectors and the condition of the furnace. Second, it appears that the issues could have been solved by other means rather than seeking a variance. Mr. Morgan stated that the inspectors are not following proper procedures. The inspectors should have condemned the house, due to the trash creating a safety and fire hazard. It was moved by Mr. Wilcox that this appeal be denied with the exception of item number one under structural. The motion was supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board made the following findings of fact: 1 . The applicant did not show that the enforcement of the Housing Code would result in exceptional practical difficulty to the applicant. 2. The variance, if granted, especially as it pertains to the installation of smoke detection and repair of the furnace, would substantially deviate from peformance required by the Code. 3. The Board does not have authority to over—ride provisions of the Code unless alternatives are provided which equate with the provisions of the Code. The violation notice of the Housing Code Officer is hereby affirmed. Appeal #91-004 — 2209 N. East Street at Thomas An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Russ Hinkle, A.I.A. , Stein, Hinkle, Dawe, Wood and Johnson on behalf of the business owner Mr. Rico Fang. The applicant seeks relief from Section 3802(b) of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition. The building is located on North Larch and Thomas Street, and was formerly utilized by Michigan National Bank. The owner is proposing to convert the building to a restaurant. The existing basement exceeds 1,500 sq. ft. Section 3802(b) of the U.B.C. requires that basements which exceed 1,500 sq. ft. and do not have fire department access are required to be sprinkled. The applicant has proposed to install smoke detectors in the basement in lieu of a spinkler system. Mr. Hinkle could not be in attendance to present the case, however, he submitted a letter which explained the request. The letter is dated February 13, 1991, and is hereby incorporated into the minutes (see March 1991 Appeals Board File) . Chairman Stuckman requested an opinion from the Fire Prevention Bureau. Mr. Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 7 Ballard stated that in his opinion the space should be sprinkled, but would not oppose the case if reasonable safegards were imposed to protect the occupants. It was moved by Richard Jones and supported by Mr. Kamm that the appeal be approved conditioned upon the stipulation that the basement not be utilized for storage, and a monitored smoke detection system be installed. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The basement will not be used or occupied for any use in connection with the restaurant. 2. Basement partitions are concrete block construction with hollow metal doors and frames. 3. The basement to first floor construction is pre—cast concrete 10" to 12" thick. 4. A fire rated door will be added at the bottom of the exit stair to separate basement from first floor. 5. Since the basement will not be used for any purpose, there is a high degree of fire separation between first floor and basement. Most of the materials which exist in the basement are non—combustible. We do not feel there will be a high degree of fire hazard in the basement. The installation of smoke detectors would be a reasonable protection and warning system for basement protection. OTHER BUSINESS: The Building Safety Division submitted Schedule "A" to the Board for review and approval. Schedule "A" is the fee schedule for new construction, additions, and structural alterations. The schedule also addresses fees charged for applications to the Board of Appeals. It was the consensus of the Board to recommend approval of the fee schedule with the exception that the fee for Building Board of Appeals be reduced to $50.00. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kamm moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, k A. Nelson cretarq r•. JAN/mmr Minutes Approved On OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS 1 i ` of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS March 5, 1991 A special meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, February 5, 1991, at 2:00 p.m. in the Building Safety Division Conference Room, 119 N. Washington Square, Lower Level, Lansing. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:04 p.m. with a roll call showing the following members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman Richard Jones Randall Kamm Joe Wilcox MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Throop STAFF PRESENT: Jack Nelson, Recording Secretary Gary Biddinger, Mechanical Inspector Clay McMillen, Code Compliance Officer John Salmons, Chief Code Compliance Officer James Ballard, Acting Fire Marshal On a motion made by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox, the minutes of February 12, 1991, were approved with the following corrections: Page #2 (a) "conditioned" was misspelled. Page #2 last paragraph "insulation" was misspelled. Page #4 3rd paragraph, change 11550" Aurelius to 115500" OLD BUSINESS: Appeal #91-001 — 5500 Aurelius Road, DeRose Distributing This case was tabled at the February 12, 1991, meeting. It was moved by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to remove the case from the table. Motion carried unanimously. The subject of the appeal, filed by Sam DeRose, President, DeRose Distributors, is a request for relief of the Building Inspector's decision to require the Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 2 installation of a fire suppression system in the offices of DeRose Distributors, Inc. The appeal was precipitated by an inspection which was required by the City of Lansing for a new wholesale vendor of beer and/or wine license. Upon inspection, numerous violations of the Building Code were in evidence. The owner has corrected all deficiencies except for the installation of a sprinkler system in the office portion of the building. Chairman Stuckman introduced the Board Members and Staff. Mr. DeRose presented background information on the history of the building. It was represented that the office addition was constructed in 1981. The entire facility is sprinkled except for the 1,400 square feet office addition. Mr. DeRose requested authorization to install a monitored smoke detection system in lieu of the sprinkler system. The smoke detection system would include the following: Heat/smoke detectors would be installed in the following areas: East Large Office Area 2 Smoke Detectors Mr. Dan Henry's Office 1 Smoke Detector Vestibule 1 Smoke Detector Center Hallway 1 Smoke Detector Ladies Restroom 1 Smoke Detector West Office 1 Smoke Detector S.W. Store Room 1 Smoke Detector Plenum Area above Suspended 3 Smoke Detectors Ceiling The system will be connected to a central station for 24 hour monitoring. A fire control/communicator will be installed. An annunciator will be installed. Chairman Stuckman requested input from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Ballard stated that fire suppression would be preferable, but the smoke detection system would be acceptable. It was moved by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Kamm, to grant Appeal 91-001 which will authorize the installation of a monitored smoke detection in the 1,400 sq. ft. office at 5500 Aurelius in lieu of a sprinkler system which is required by 3802 of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #90-009 — 221 N. Washington, Michigan Bell Telephone Company This appeal was approved by the Building Board of Appeals in August 1990, with the stipulation that an implementation time schedule for compliance with the Boards directive of the August 1990 meeting be submitted prior to February 14, 1991 . The implementation schedule was developed by Goodreau/Wakely Inc. , Architectes and Engineers of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. It was moved by Mr. Kamm, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to approve the implementation Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 3 schedule identified under Part V of the Lansing Central Office High—Rise Evaluation per 1988 U.B.C. Appendix Chapter I, Division 2. The work identified in this plan shall be completed by May 28, 1993. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal ##91-003 — 3529 Bergman An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Lester Morgan, owner of a rental property which is located at 3529 Bergman. The subject of the appeal is a request for relief of a violation notice issued by Clay McMillen, Code Compliance Officer, in accordance with the City of Lansing Housing Code Ordinance. The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing Officer' s violation notice. The applicant seeks relief from the following sections of the City of Lansing Housing Code, Chapter 1460, Title Six. 1• Section 1460.20(a)(6) Hazardous Mechanical Equipment 2. Section 1460.20(a)(2) Structural Hazards 3. Section 1460.20(a)(4) Hazardous Electrical Wiring 4. Section 1460.20(a)(5) Hazardous Plumbing 5• Section 1460.29 Smoke Detectors Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Morgan to present his case pertaining to Item Number 1 — mechanical, of Mr. McMillen' s January 29, 1991 notice. Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. Biddinger did not perform a proper inspection. The meter which was utilized to monitor the air was improper. The meter was also used improperly. Second, Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. Biddinger did not attempt to look for any other reason for the problem. The furnace was, in fact, full of styrofoam placed there by the tenant. Chairman Stuckman requested Gary Biddinger, Mechanical Inspector, to respond to Item Number 1. Mr. Biddinger showed the Board a copy of the TIF specifications and ability to detect combustible products as minute as 50-100 PPM. Mr. Biddinger also stated that he had used the TIF for four years on a daily basis and is fully aware of its capabilities. Because of these capabilities he has been able to accurately find problems with heat exchangers and to locate potentially hazardous gas leaks. Mr. Biddinger stated that he performed a test on the unit with the equipment available to him through the City of Lansing for testing. Mr. Biddinger also stated that his first inspection was on January 22, 1991, at the request of the Mr. McMillen because the tenants were experiencing headaches. At that time the furnace was inspected, it was somewhat dirty and the TIF reading showed minor leakage of flue products from around the top plug area and from the northwest bottom corner, however, these were not extreme amounts. There was no evidence at that time of any styrofoam type products in or around the furnace. Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 4 At the request of Mr. Morgan a subsequent inspection was made on February 4, 1991. During this inspection it was noted that styrofoam type products were present on top and inside of the unit. The furnace was off at that time, however, Mr. Biddinger did not shut the furnace off, nor did he order it shut off. Mr. McMillen, Code Compliance Officer, stated that he witnessed the combustion products reading by the TIF tester during Mr. Biddinger's inspection of the unit on January 22, 1991. Mr. Morgan showed pictures of the furnace. He stated that he was currently evicting the tenants and they were trying to get "even" with him by destroying the property. Mr. Morgan also stated that he felt that there was a conspiracy between the City and the tenant. Mr. Biddinger stated that he was not aware of an eviction process. The Building Safety Division responded because the tenants were complaining of headaches. John Salmons, Chief Code Compliance Officer, stated that one year ago the house met minimum standards of the Housing Code. It is the responsibility of the Building Safety Division to address the violations, but not to ascertain who caused the violations. Mr. Salmons stated that if the tenant caused the damage, the landlord has legal recourse against the tenant. Mr. Morgan stated that the furnace has been cleaned of debris and is now functioning properly and does not believe that he should bear the expense of hiring a contractor to test it. Chairman Stuckman asked if the City would reinspect the furnace. Mr. Biddinger stated that he would reinspect the furnace to verify the spilling of combustion products. However, should the test still show that it was, an independent mechanical contractor would have to be consulted. Chairman Stuckman requested that Mr. Morgan present arguments for Item Number 2, structural defects. Mr. Morgan stated that no code section was cited for the structural violations in Mr. McMillen' s January 29, 1991, notice. Mr. McMillen stated that the following items must be repaired. 1 Finish the interior trim of the newly installed door which should include insulation at the northside of the door. Mr. Morgan stated that this room has no interior finish, consequently, it would not be practical to install trim. 2. Install approved—type non—absorbant floor covering to the bathroom floor. There is no existing floor covering. Mr. Morgan stated that the floor was new 14 months ago and was destroyed by the Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 5 tenants. 3. Repair kitchen window so it will close. Mr. Morgan stated that the window was operable. The window was held open by a tooth brush. The kitchen window is now repaired. Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Morgan to present his arguments on issue Number 3, electrical. Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. McMillen has said that the bathroom light fixture was malfunctioning. In fact, there was no bulb in the fixture. Mr. McMillen stated that a bulb was in the fixture and the fixture was malfunctioning. Mr. Morgan stated that no Housing Code section was cited in Mr. McMillen's January 29, 1991, notice. Mr. Morgan stated that the bathroom light fixture is now operational. Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Morgan to present his case pertaining to Item Number 4, plumbing. According to Mr. McMillen' s notice the lavatory was loose and should be secured. In fact, the lavatory was lifted and the wall bracket was filled with trash. Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Morgan to present his case concerning Item Number 5, inadequate fire protection, or fire fighting equipment. Mr. Morgan stated that Section 1460.20(a)(12) is an improper citation. The Code does not require a- smoke detector in the basement as the basement opens into the storage area, not the living area. Mr. Salmons stated that smoke detection is required by Section 1460.29 of Title Six, Chapter 1460 of the Housing Code. The Code states: "(c) Detectors shall be mounted on the ceiling or wall at a point centrally located on the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. Where sleeping areas are on an upper level, the smoke detector shall be placed at the center of the ceiling directly above the stairway. Detectors shall also be installed in the basement of dwelling units which have a stairway which opens from the basement into the dwelling. Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the dwelling in which they are located." Mr. Morgan reiterated that the basement does not open into living area. Mr. Salmons stated that the Code states that detection is required if the stairway from the basement opens into the dwelling. Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 6 After hearing all the testimony Chairman Stuckman stated that it appeared that there had been agreement on the three of the five issues. The remaining two which have not been complied with pertain to the installation of smoke detectors and the condition of the furnace. Second, it appears that the issues could have been solved by other means rather than seeking a variance. Mr. Morgan stated that the inspectors are not following proper procedures. The inspectors should have condemned the house, due to the trash creating a safety and fire hazard. It was moved by Mr. Wilcox that this appeal be denied with the exception of item number one under structural. The motion was supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant did not show that the enforcement of the Housing Code would result in exceptional practical difficulty to the applicant. 2. The variance, if granted, especially as it pertains to the installation of smoke detection and repair of the furnace, would substantially deviate from peformance required by the Code. 3. The Board does not have authority to over—ride provisions of the Code unless alternatives are provided which equate with the provisions of the Code. The violation notice of the Housing Code Officer is hereby affirmed. Appeal #91-004 — 2209 N. East Street at Thomas An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Russ Hinkle, A.I.A. , Stein, Hinkle, Dawe, Wood and Johnson on behalf of the business owner Mr. Rico Fang. The applicant seeks relief from Section 3802(b) of the U.B.C. 1988 Edition. The building is located on North Larch and Thomas Street, and was formerly utilized by Michigan National Bank. The owner is proposing to convert the building to a restaurant. The existing basement exceeds 1,500 sq. ft. Section 3802(b) of the U.B.C. requires that basements which exceed 1,500 sq. ft. and do not have fire department access are required to be sprinkled. The applicant has proposed to install smoke detectors in the basement in lieu of . a spinkler system. Mr. Hinkle could not be in attendance to present the case, however, he submitted a letter which explained the request. The letter is dated February 13, 1991, and is hereby incorporated into the minutes (see March 1991 Appeals Board File). Chairman Stuckman requested an opinion from the Fire Prevention Bureau. Mr. Building Board of Appeals Minutes March 5, 1991 Page 7 Ballard stated that in his opinion the space should be sprinkled, but would not oppose the case if reasonable safegards were imposed to protect the occupants. It was moved by Richard Jones and supported by Mr. Kamm that the appeal be approved conditioned upon the stipulation that the basement not be utilized for storage, and a monitored smoke detection system be installed. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The basement will not be used or occupied for any use in connection with the restaurant. 2. Basement partitions are concrete block construction with hollow metal doors and frames. 3. The basement to first floor construction is pre—cast concrete 10" to 12" thick. 4. A fire rated door will be added at the bottom of the exit stair to separate basement from first floor. 5. Since the basement will not be used for any purpose, there is a high degree of fire separation between first floor and basement. Most of the materials which exist in the basement are non—combustible. We do not feel there will be a high degree of fire hazard in the basement. The installation of smoke detectors would be a reasonable protection and warning system for basement protection. OTHER BUSINESS: The Building Safety Division submitted Schedule "A" to the Board for review and approval. Schedule "A" is the fee schedule for new construction, additions, and structural alterations. The schedule also addresses fees charged for applications to the Board of Appeals. It was the consensus of the Board to recommend approval of the fee schedule with the exception that the fee for Building Board of Appeals be reduced to $50.00. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kamm moved, supported by Mr. Wilcox, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �?k . Nelson JAN/mmrary Minutes Approved On r L BY: '91 (�fl 25 PM 12 02 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS February 12, 1991 The regular meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, February 12, 1991 , at 2:00 p.m. in the Building Safety Division Conference Room, 119 N. Washington Square, Lower Level, Lansing, Michigan. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:03 p.m. with a roll call showing the following Members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman Richard Jones Randall Kamm Joe Wilcox MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Throop STAFF PRESENT: Jack A. Nelson, Recording Secretary Ralph W. Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector Jim Ballard, Acting Fire Marshal On a motion by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox, the minutes of August 14, 1990, were approved. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #91-002 — 525 N. Pennsylvania, Salvation Army An Application for appeal was filed by Mr. Richard D'Alessandro of Freeman, Smith Associates, 3850 Capital City Blvd. , on behalf of the Salvation Army. The subject of the appeal is a request for relief of the Mechanical Inspector' s order to install insulation on the return air duct work at the Salvation Army building which is currenty being renovated. - ---- - Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. D"Alessandro to present his case. The applicant stated the following three arguments in support of his appeal: Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 12, 1991 Page 2 Argument #1 : U.B.C. Table 10-D(3) States: "Insulation may be omitted on that portion of a duct which is located within a wall or a floor-ceiling space where:" "a. Both sides of the space are exposed to conditoned air." In most cases the rooms adjacent are conditoned. "b. The space is not ventilated." We comply. "c. The space is not used as a return plenum." We comply. "d. The space is not exposed to unconditioned air." Our ceiling spaces have walls and/or roofs with insulation enclosing space. Argument #2: From a practical standpoint we have never insulated return air duct work within the enclosed "thermodynamic zone" used in calculating the heating or cooling load of the area. The heating or cooling load must be transferred to the machine either by direct air flow or radiant temperature pickup in the return duct. (See drawing entitled "Typical Unit Arrangement for Salvation Army". ) Indeed, ceiling plenum returns are often preferred to provide a higher return air temperature to the H.V.A.C. unit to increase unit efficiency. Return duct work is only used to reduce sound transmissions and/or provide fire and smoke barriers, not to save energy. Therefore, providing thermal insulation on duct work which is not necessary for operation is a waste of money. Argument #3: The BOCA Mechanical Code, which is the State of Michigan Code, and used as the Code in the vast majority of the State makes it very clear in paragraph M- 304.3 that insulation "is not required" if the difference in temPerature between the air in the duct (t ) and outside the duct (t ) is less than 25 deg. F. (Attached is a copy of BOCA page 30. ) . Our calculations (copy attached) indicates ceiling space temperature differentials of: Heating 68 deg. F - 62.8 deg. F. - 5.2 deg. F. Cooling - 78 deg. F - 81.7 deg. F. - 3.7 deg. F. Clearly these temperatures are well with the 25 deg. F. differential allowed by BOCA. Mr. D'Alessandro in his closing arguments drew the following conclusions: According to Mr. Goff' s literal interpretation of the requirements of U.B.0 Table 10-D and notes, return air duct work insultation is required on subject project. Per our interpretation of U.B.C. Table 10-D and Notes, return air duct work need not be insulated. Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 12, 1991 Page 3 Further, it has never been common practice to insulate return ducts since thermodynamic analysis indicates no energy savings will be realized with insulation. Further, the other common code (BOCA) used in Michigan clearly indicated that return air duct insulation is not required. Chairman Stuckman asked Mr. Goff to present his rational for the violation. Mr. Goff stated: Section 1005, U.M.C. reads "every supply and return air duct and plenum of a heating or cooling system shall be insulated with not less than the amount of insulation set forth in Table 10—D, except for ducts 'and plenums used exclusively for evaporative cooling systems. Table 10—D, Duct Location, "In walls,3 within floor—ceiling spaces3l'; Insulation Types Mechanically Cooled, A and V2; footnote (2) "Vapor barriers shall be installed on supply ducts in spaces vented to the outside in georgarphic areas where the average July, August and September mean dew point temperature exceeds 60 deg. F. Footnote (3) "Insulation may be omitted on that portion of a duct which is located within a wall— or a floor—ceiling space where: a. Both sides of the space are exposed to conditioned air. b. The space is not ventilated. C. The space is not used as a return plenum. d. The space is not exposed to undconditioned air. Ceilings which form plenums need not be insulated." In order for footnote (3) to apply all four conditions must be met. In this case condition "a" and "d" does not comply. After Mr. Goff presented his arguments, the Architect provided engineering data that would indicate that the insulation on the roof exceeds an R-24 value which Mr. Goff felt would provide enough protection and the additional insulation on the duct would not be necessary to keep the ducts from condensing or reaching the dew point. Chairman Stuckman stated that the duct work in question is within the Thermo— dynamic boundary which consists of the building envelope. The entire heating or cooling load within this area is tranferred to the unit, including the ceiling space loads. Therefore, insulating the return air duct serves no practical purpose since it is necessary and desirable that air above and below the set room temperature be transferred to the H.V.A.C. unit for modification. Moreover, with engineering analysis they are substantiating that the system, as designed, complies with the performance requrements of the Code. Mr. Jones moved, and supported by Mr. Wilcox, that the appeal be granted conditioned upon the assurance that if condensation occurs the duct will have to be insulated. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 12, 1991 Page 4 1 . An engineering analysis was submitted which substantiates that the system complies with the performance criteria established by the code. 2. The unprotected duct work is located within the building envelope. Consequently, there will not be a significant variation in temperature in the area which the duct is not insulated. Appeal #91-001 — 550 Aurelius, DeRose Distributing An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Sam DeRose, President, DeRose Distributors. The subject of the appeal is a request for relief of the Building Inspector' s decision to require the installation of a fire suppression system in the offices of DeRose Distributors, Inc. The appeal was precipitated by an inspection which was required by the City of Lansing for a new wholesale vendor of beer and/or wine license. Upon inspection, numerous violations of the Building Code were in evidence. The owner has corrected all deficiencies except for the installation of a spinkler system in the office portion of the building. Mr. Kamm moved to table the appeal since no one was in attendance to present the case to the Board. The motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal #90-009 — 221 N. Washington Avenue, Michigan Bell Telephone Company This appeal was approved by the Building Board of Appeals in August 1990, with the stipulation that an implementation time table for compliance with the Boards directive of the August meeting be submitted prior to February 14, 1991. The implementation schedule was developed by Goudreau/Wakely, Inc. , Architects and Engineers, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. The schedule will be reviewed by Board Members and an approval/denial will be made at the next Board Meeting. COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal #90-018 — 2140 Mint, AIRCO Company, Inc On August 14, 1990, the Building Board of Appeals granted AIRCO Company, Inc. , a variance from several provisions of the Building Code which pertained to a hydrogen filling operation. On February 7, 1991, the Board received communication from AIRCO stating that the Company was evaluating the possibility of a cylinder filling operation of reduced scope, utilizing an existing structure on—site. Also, due to the limited scope of the operation NFPA 50 is proposed to be utilized in lieu of NFPA 68. It was the concensus of the Board that the reduction of the scope of the project Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 12, 1991 Page 5 is acceptable under the terms of the previous appeal . The Board directed the Building Safety Division to monitor the project and require all applicable permits. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kamm moved that the meeting be adjourned, motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3 :04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J k A. Nelson S retary JANmmr Minutes Approved On --n,. '91 fllflfl 1 PM 3 05 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS of the BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS February 12, 1991 The regular meeting of the City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was held on .Tuesday, February 12, 1991 , at 2:00 p.m. in the Building Safety Division Conference Room, 119 N. Washington Square, Lower Level, Lansing, Michigan. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Stuckman at 2:03 p.m. with a roll call showing the following Members present: MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Stuckman Richard Jones Randall Kamm Joe Wilcox MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Throop STAFF PRESENT: Jack A. Nelson, Recording Secretary Ralph W. Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector Jim Ballard, Acting Fire Marshal On a motion by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox, the minutes of August 14, 1990, were approved. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #91-002 — 525 N. Pennsylvania, Salvation Army An Application for appeal was filed by Mr. Richard D'Alessandro of Freeman, Smith Associates, 3850 Capital City Blvd. , on behalf of the Salvation Army. The subject of the appeal is a request for relief of the Mechanical Inspector' s order to install insulation on the return air duct work at the Salvation Army building which is currenty being renovated. Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. D"Alessandro to present his case. The applicant stated the following three arguments in support of his appeal: Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 12, 1991 Page 2 Argument #1: U.B.C. Table 10—D(3) States: "Insulation may be omitted on that portion of a duct which is located within a wall or a floor—ceiling space where:" "a. Both sides of the space are exposed to conditoned air." In most cases the rooms adjacent are conditoned. "b. The space is not ventilated." We comply. "c. The space is not used as a return plenum." We comply. "d. The space is not exposed to unconditioned air." Our ceiling spaces have walls and/or roofs with insulation enclosing space. Argument #2: From a practical standpoint we have never insulated return air duct work within the enclosed "thermodynamic zone" used in calculating the heating or cooling load of the area. The heating or cooling load must be transferred to the machine either by direct air flow or radiant temperature pickup in the return duct. (See drawing entitled "Typical Unit Arrangement for Salvation Army". ) Indeed, ceiling plenum returns are often preferred to provide a higher return air temperature to the H.V.A.C. unit to increase unit efficiency. Return duct work is only used to reduce sound transmissions and/or provide fire and smoke barriers, not to save energy. Therefore, providing thermal insulation on duct work which is not necessary for operation is a waste of money. Argument #3: The BOCA Mechanical Code, which is the State of Michigan Code, and used as the Code in the vast majority of the State makes it very clear in paragraph M- 304.3 that insulation "is not required" if the difference in temperature between the air in the duct (t ) and outside the duct (t ) is less than 25 deg. F. (Attached is a copy of BOCA page 30. ) . Our calculations (copy attached) indicates ceiling space temperature differentials of: Heating = 68 deg. F — 62.8 deg. F. = 5.2 deg. F. Cooling — 78 deg. F — 81.7 deg. F. = 3.7 deg. F. Clearly these temperatures are well with the 25 deg. F. differential allowed by BOCA. Mr. D'Alessandro in his closing arguments drew the following conclusions: According to Mr. Goff's literal interpretation of the requirements of U.B.0 Table 10—D and notes, return air duct work insultation is required on subject project. Per our interpretation of U.B.C. Table 10—D and Notes, return air duct work need not be insulated. Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 12, 1991 Page 3 Further, it has never been common practice to insulate return ducts since thermodynamic analysis indicates no energy savings will be realized with insulation. Further, the other common code (BOCA) used in Michigan clearly indicated that return air duct insulation is not required. Chairman Stuckman asked Mr. Goff to present his rational for the violation. Mr. Goff stated: Section 1005, U.M.C. reads "every supply and return air duct and plenum of a heating or cooling system shall be insulated with not less than the amount of insulation set forth in Table 10—D, except for ducts and plenums used exclusively for evaporative cooling systems. Table 10—D, Duct Location, "In walls,3 within floor—ceiling spaces3,,; Insulation Types Mechanically Cooled, A and V2; footnote (2) "Vapor barriers shall be installed on supply ducts in spaces vented to the outside in georgarphic areas where the average July, August and September mean dew point temperature exceeds 60 deg. F. Footnote (3) "Insulation may be omitted on that portion of a duct which is located within a wall— or a floor—ceiling space where: a. Both sides of the space are exposed to conditioned air. b. The space is not ventilated. C. The space is not used as a return plenum. d. The space is not exposed to undconditioned air. Ceilings which form plenums need not be insulated." In order for footnote (3) to apply all four conditions must be met. In this case condition "a" and "d" does not comply. After Mr. Goff presented his arguments, the Architect provided engineering data that would indicate that the insulation on the roof exceeds an R-24 value which Mr. Goff felt would provide enough protection and the additional insulation on the duct would not be necessary to keep the ducts from condensing or reaching the dew point. Chairman Stuckman stated that the duct work in question is within the Thermo— dynamic boundary which consists of the building envelope. The entire heating or cooling load within this area is tranferred to the unit, including the ceiling space loads. Therefore, insulating the return air duct serves no practical purpose since it is necessary and desirable that air above and below the set room temperature be transferred to the H.V.A.C. unit for modification. Moreover, with engineering analysis they are substantiating that the system, as designed, complies with the performance requrements of the Code. Mr. Jones moved, and supported by Mr. Wilcox, that the appeal be granted conditioned upon the assurance that if condensation occurs the duct will have to be insulated. Motion carried unanimously. In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact: Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 12, 1991 Page 4 1 . An engineering analysis was submitted which substantiates that the system complies with the performance criteria established by the code. 2. The unprotected duct work is located within the building envelope. Consequently, there will not be a significant variation in temperature in the area which the duct is not insulated. Appeal #91-001 — 550 Aurelius, DeRose Distributing An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Sam DeRose, President, DeRose Distributors. The subject of the appeal is a request for relief of the Building Inspector' s decision to require the installation of a fire suppression system in the offices of DeRose Distributors, Inc. The appeal was precipitated by an inspection which was required by the City of Lansing for a new wholesale vendor of beer and/or wine license. Upon inspection, numerous violations of the Building Code were in evidence. The owner has corrected all deficiencies except for the installation of a spinkler system in the office portion of the building. Mr. Kamm moved to table the appeal since no one was in attendance to present the case to the Board. The motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal #90-009 — 221 N. Washington Avenue, Michigan Bell Telephone Company This appeal was approved by the Building Board of Appeals in August 1990, with the stipulation that an implementation time table for compliance with the Boards directive of the August meeting be submitted prior to February 14, 1991. The implementation schedule was developed by Goudreau/Wakely, Inc. , Architects and Engineers, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. The schedule will be reviewed by Board Members and an approval/denial will be made at the next Board Meeting. COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal #90-018 — 2140 Mint, AIRCO Company, Inc On August 14, 1990, the Building Board of Appeals granted AIRCO Company, Inc. , a variance from several provisions of the Building Code which pertained to a hydrogen filling operation. On February 7, 1991, the Board received communication from AIRCO stating that the --- -- - - Company was evaluating the possibility of a cylinder filling operation of reduced scope, utilizing an existing structure on—site. Also, due to the limited scopg of the operation NFPA 50 is proposed to be utilized in lieu of NFPA 68. It was the concensus of the Board that the reduction of the scope of the project Building Board of Appeals Minutes February 12, 1991 Page 5 is acceptable under the terms of the previous appeal. The Board directed the Building Safety Division to monitor the project and require all applicable permits. Being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kamm moved that the meeting be adjourned, motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jr k A. Nelson S retary JANmmr Minutes Approved On