HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Board of Appeals 1993 Minutes i
12-_ ,
MBDS, INC. ARCHITECTS
December 15, 1993
Mayor-Elect David Hollister
and City Council
City of Lansing
City Hall
Lansing, MI 48933
Re: 1993 Evaluation
Building Board of Appeals
Dear Mayor and Council Members :
During 1993 the Building Board of Appeals, with the broad knowledge and
wide experience of its members, has continued to provide the City of
Lansing and its citizens, wherever possible, with acceptable alternatives
in adapting the Building and Fire Code requirements to the specific
building conditions, without adversely affecting public safety.
During 1993 we reviewed 33 Appeals during 12 meetings.
Of the Appeals brought to the Board, we were able to find acceptable
solutions to many of them to allow the projects to proceed, usually
with minor modifications.
We feel that the Board by its actions has allowed a reduction in the
cost of some projects and provided a needed flexibility that can continue
to encourage renovations and new construct-ion within our City.
The Board continued to receive excellent administrative and technical
assistance from the Building Safety Division and the Fire Marshal's office.
We would like to particularly recognize Jack Nelson, former Chief Plan
Review Analyst and now Manager of Building Safety Office, who serves as
Secretary to the Board and Jim Ballard, Fire Marshal, for their assistance
to the Board and their service to the City.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Stuckman, Chairperson
RS:sd
6005 W. St.Joseph, Suite 300 • Lansing, MI 48917 9 (517) 323-0577 • FAX(517)323-0570
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
of the
12-21 -93A0OU : 44 RCVD
CITY OF LANSING
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, December 14, 1993
The City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman
Stuckman at 2:10 p.m. The following members were in attendance:
Richard Stuckman, Chair
Richard Jones, Vice Chair
Christine D'Alecy
Randy Kamm
The following members were absent:
Joe Wilcox
Staff members present:
James Ballard, Fire Marshall
Jack A. Nelson, Recording Secretary
It was moved by Dick Jones and seconded by Christine D'Alecy to approve the
minutes of the November 9, 1993 Appeals Board Meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
Case AB-028-93, 109 W. Michigan Avenue, Locking System for Elevator Lobbies
On August 26, 1993, Mr. Adam Fitzgerald, Architect of Victor Design, requested
authorization to install a door unlocking system on the Elevator Lobbies on certain
floors at 109 W. Michigan Avenue.
The current configuration of the Washington Square Elevator Lobbies is such that
there is currently access to only one (1) exit stair from the Elevator Lobby. This
is due to the fact that those floors are single tenant floors and they need a locked
security door at the stairwell, according to the applicant.
This scenario, of course, does not comply with current Building Code requirements
since access must be afforded to both exits. The current situation is untenable since
the doors are locked. Should a fire occur, which renders the stair-shaft at the
lobby unusable, individuals would be trapped in a locked Elevator Lobby.
Building Board of Appeals December 14 , 1993 , Page 2
On August 30, 1993, I issued an Administrative Modification to authorize the
installation of the system on the Lobby Doors. The Modification was predicated upon
compliance with seven (7) conditions, one of which required the applicable floor to
be sprinkled. The Building is an unsprinkled high-rise building which is currently
undergoing renovations. The Building Department has developed a five year
compliance schedule which, when completed, would bring the building into
substantial compliance with the 1807 high-rise requirements.
On October 14, 1993, the Board of Appeals granted the appeal which will allow the
installation of the locking doors on certain floors of the building. The appeal was
granted subject to the submission of an accelerated time schedule for the installation
of the fire suppression system on the Court of Appeals Floors, and compliance with
Administrative Modification AM-13-93, issued on August 30, 1993. It was further
stipulated'that additional signage to acknowledge secondary exits beyond the suite
door was required as well as a deadline of December 31, 1993 for installation of the
door locking mechanisms.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the fire suppression system installation
schedule and review the status of the installation of the unlocking devices.
The installation as submitted states:
"We are currently in the process of obtaining bids for the required
upgrading of elevator lobbies on all floors for compliance with Section
1807 of the current Uniform Building Code. This work is required to
be performed in conjunction with the installation of the locking system
for the Court of Appeals. Upon receipt of bids, we intend to initiate
construction upgrading and locking system installations beginning with
the Court of Appeals' floors as soon as the selected contractor can have
crews available for this work. We anticipate completion for the Court
of Appeals' floors by December 31, 1993, depending on contractor
availability and scheduling. The completion of the upgrading of the
elevator lobbies for the remaining floors will continue immediately
following completion of the Court of Appeals work.
Installation of the fire suppression system stand-pipe and activation of floors
1 and 7 will be tentatively scheduled to begin January 21, 1994. This work
requires upgrading of the fire suppression main supply feed from 4" dia. to
6" dia. service. We are presently in the process of scheduling this portion of
the work with the Board of Water and Light.
We are currently negotiating potential renovations of floors 3 and 9 with the
Court of Appeals. Upon completion of these negotiations, we anticipate
installation of the fire suppression systems for these floors to begin in late
spring or early summer of 1994.
Building Board of Appeals December 14 , 1993, Page 3
Following completion of floors 3 and 9, installation for the remaining Court of
Appeals' floors are anticipated to proceed as follows: 2nd floor, Wednesday,
January 18, 1995; 4th floor, Wednesday, June 14, 1995; 5th floor, Wednesday,
January 17, 1996; 6th floor, Wednesday, June 19, 1996, completing the floors
presently occupied by the Court of Appeals."
After review of the case, Dick Jones moved to approve the schedule. The motion was
seconded by Christine D'Alecy.
Record of Vote Yea Nay
Richard Stuckman, Chair (abstained)
Richard Sones, Vice Chair X
Joe Wilcox (absent)
Christine D'Alecy X
Randy Kamm X
*Motion Carried Unanimously.
Jack Nelson requested that Bob Edgar update the Board on the status of the door
unlocking system on the Court of Appeals floors.
Mr. Edgar stated that they are currently in the process of obtaining bids for the
required upgrading of the elevator lobbies on all floors. We would like this work to
be performed in conjunction with the installation of the locking system for the Court
of Appeals. Upon receipt of bids, we intend to initiate construction upgrading and
locking system installations beginning with the Court of Appeals floors as soon as the
selected contractors have crews available.
There was general concern from the Board that the applicant has not complied with
the conditional approval of October 1993.
Chairman Stuckman stated that it may be prudent to require the applicant to advise
the Board not only as to the status of the installation of the unlocking devices but
also compliance with the remainder of the compliance schedule. Mr. Stuckman
questioned the credibility of assurances of the completion of the work in the light of
past performance.
Jim Ballard asked what jurisdiction the Board has pertaining to his ability to rectify
the situation. Mr. Ballard stated that this is a very serious situation and he may not
be able to wait.
Mr. Stuckman stated that he hopes that the board can receive a favorable report in
January.
Building Board of Appeals December 14 , 1993, Page 4
Dick Jones made a motion that the applicant be responsible for the submission of
progress reports which correspond to the due dates established in the November
Compliance Schedule; second, that the applicant provide a report of compliance for
the January 11, 1993, Board meeting as to the status of the installation of the door
unlocking mechanisms; and in conclusion, the Board retain jurisdiction to monitor
this case. The motion was seconded by Christine D'Alecy.
Record of Vote Yea Nay
Richard Stuckman, Chair (abstained)
Richard Jones, Vice Chair x
Joe Wilcox (absent)
Christine D'Alecy X
Randy Kamm X
*Motion Carried Unanimously.
Dick Stuckman stated that it is not necessary that the applicant attend the January
meeting, as long as the report is submitted to the Fire Marshall and the Building
Official.
CASE AB-032-93, 618 LATHROP STREET
An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. James Hood, 814 Lapeer. Street,
Lansing Michigan.
The applicant seeks a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision
which disallows the use of the second floor for bedroom purposes. The citation was
issued since the ceiling height does not comply with the minimum requirements of the
Lansing Uniform Housing Code.
The case was referred to the Building Office Manager to determine if the request met
the requirements of the Policy Statement for Ceiling Height Variances. After
deliberation, it has been determined that the ceiling height achieves less than 83 0
of the required area as determined by the Policy
The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing
officers decision.
Chairman Stuckman asked the audience if anyone was in attendance to address the
case. Hearing none, Dick Jones moved to table the case to the January 11, 1993,
meeting. The motion was seconded by Christine D'Alecy. Motion carried. It was
noted that the applicant, Mr. Hood, has not been in attendance for the last two
hearings.
Buildinq Board of Appeals December 14 , 1993, Page 5
Mr. Nelson stated that he would research legal avenues to vacate the Building
pending disposition of the case.
Being no further business, Randy Kamm made a motion to adjourn. The motion was
seconded by Christine D'Alecy. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
J ck A. Nelson, Secretary
uilding Board of Appeals
JAN/rbm
Board Minutes approved on
12-03-93A08 : 31 RCVD
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
of the
CITY OF LANSING
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, November 9, 1993
The City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman
Stuckman at 1:56 p.m. The following members were in attendance:
Richard Stuckman, Chair
Richard Jones, Vice Chair
Joe Wilcox
Christine D'Alecy
The following members were absent:
Randy Kamm
Staff members present:
James Ballard, Fire Marshall
Jack A. Nelson, Recording Secretary
Case AB-033-93, 2700 Montego Drive
An application for appeal has been filed by Diane Smolen and Charles Bettinson, 2700
Montego Drive, Lansing.
The application, if approved, would authorize the use of an addition without
providing an adequate heating plant as required by Section 1212 of the Uniform
Building Code, 1991 edition. The Code Section states:
Dwelling units, guest rooms, and congregate residences shall be
provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining a room
temperature of 70' f. , at a point 3' above the floor in ALL habitable
rooms.
The building inspector has cited the contractor and is requiring that the room be
heated in accordance with code requirements.
The applicant states that the room is a SUN room or three season room, and serves
as a transition room between the house and the hot tub on the deck. A fireplace has
been installed in order to provide supplemental heat. The Mechanical Department
has purported that a fireplace may not be used as a heating appliance to comply with
Section 1212.
Building Board of Appeals November 9 , 1993 , Page 2
The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing
officers decision.
Chuck Bettinson, the homeowner, and Joyce Wiesinger, a representative of Grove
Builders, were in attendance.
Mr. Bettinson addressed the Board and stated:
"In June of this year, we signed a contract with Grove Builders, Inc. to add
a three season/sunroom to our home. The purpose of this room is for leisure
purposes only and casual entertaining. It will serve as a transition room from
the hot tub on the deck to our home. The fireplace was added for additional
heat if desired, but primarily for aesthetic purposes.
Blueprints of the room were submitted to the Building Office at the time of
application for the building permit. If the room required a heating system to
meet specification, that information should have been communicated and we
may have decided against the construction. The basement of our home is
finished. There is no way to add heat runs from our current furnace, which
was a determining factor in our decision to just make the room a three season
porch. In the event that we should sell the home in the future, electric heat
could be added through the conduit installed by the electricians to supply the
lights and the relocated air conditioning condenser if the future owners
desired.
We would appreciate the recommended heating being waived until such time as
an owner of this home would choose to add it.
Mr. Nelson stated that the Building Office had no objection to the variance.
Joyce Wiesinger stated that conduit has been run to the addition so as to permit ease
of installation of electric heat, should it be desired in the future.
Joe Wilcox moved that the variance be granted. The motion was seconded by
Christine D'Alecy.
Record of Vote Yea Na
Richard Stuckman, Chair (abstained)
Richard Jones, Vice Chair X
Joe Wilcox X
Christine D'Alecy X
Randy Kamm (absent)
*Motion Carried.
In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact:
Building Board of Appeals November 9 , 1993 , Page 3
Though considered as a habitable room, the owners use the area as a
transitional room between the house and a hot tub. A fireplace has been
added which will afford supplemental heat to the room. In like manner,
electrical conduit has been added which would allow electric heat, if desired,
in the future.
CASE AB-031-93, 2800 N. GRAND RIVER AVENUE
An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Paul Barbour, Architect, on behalf
of Mr. Dan Gorman of Gormans Market. The application seeks relief from Section
3305(e) and/or Section 3305(h) of the Lansing Uniform Building Code.
The case, If approved, would authorize the installation of supervised smoke
detection in lieu of a fire rated corridor.
This case was addressed by the Board in August of 1990. The final disposition of
the case was denial with the stipulation that the Board would review alternative
proposals.
The applicant states that a smoke detector would provide the safety required for the
occupants of the store, since and alarm would notify them that the exit is unsafe.
Second, the code allows exiting through one adjoining room. This 19'x 5' corridor
is safe because it is sprinkled and smoke detectors are installed.
Paul Barbour, Architect, and Dan Gorman, Building Owner, were in attendance.
Dick Stuckman addressed the Board and stated that this case was previously heard
on August 14, 1990. The case was denied and the applicant was requested to comply
with the enforcing officers decision.
Christine D'Alecy questioned why the approved plans were not followed in the field.
Mr. Barbour stated that the equipment supplier dimensioned the equipment
incorrectly.
Mr. Gorman explained how deliveries were made and how fire doors would impede
delivery of products.
Paul Barbour explained two proposals to the Board:
1. Add 5/8" fire code gypsum board (screw and glue) , to cooler.
2. Either:
A. Install smoke detector in hallway connected to building alarm
system and monitoring service
or
B . Reinstall south set of flex doors to South side of jamb and install
20 minute fire rated rolling fire door on hallway side of opening.
(Note: "A" requires a variance from the City of Lansing Building Board
of Appeals) .
Building Board of Appeals November 9 , 1993, Page 4
Joe Wilcox stated that an additional option could be the installation of 20 minute doors
which are recessed in back of the existing flex doors which lead to the corridor.
Paul Barbour stated that this option would be less expensive than the installation of
a room fire door.
Joe Wilcox moved to grant approval of the request subject to the installation of 5/8X
gypsum board to the corridor side of the cooler and install 20 minute doors between
the corridor and the storage area. The architect is to submit a plan to the Building
Office for review and approval based upon this motion. The motion was seconded by
Christine D'Alecy.
Record of Vote Yea Na
Richard Stuckman, Chair (abstained)
Richard Jones, Vice Chair X
Joe Wilcox X
Christine D'Alecy X
Randy Kamm (absent)
*Motion Carried.
In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact:
The approved variance will equate to that of strict compliance of the code,
because a fire resistive separation is being constructed between the corridor
and the storage area. This coupled with the fact that the corridor is only
15'8" long and sprinkled will not adversely affect the exiting from the
building.
CASE AB-032-93, 618 LATHROP STREET
An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. James Hood, 814 Lapeer Street,
Lansing Michigan.
The applicant seeks a modification or reversal of the enforcing officers decision
which disallows the use of the second floor for bedroom purposes. The citation was
issued since the ceiling height does not comply with the minimum requirements of the
Lansing Uniform Housing Code.
The case was referred to the Building Office Manager to determine if the request met
the requirements of the Policy Statement for Ceiling Height Variances. After
deliberation, it has been determined that the ceiling height achieves less than 83 0
of the required area as determined by the Policy
Building Board of Appeals November 9 , 1993, Page 5
The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the enforcing
officers decision.
Mr. Nelson stated that Mr. Hood represented that he could not attend the meeting
and requests that the case be postponed until the December meeting.
Dick Jones moved to table the case. Motion seconded by Christine D'Alecy.
Record of Vote Yea Na
Richard Stuckman, Chair X
Richard Jones, Vice Chair X
Joe Wilcox. X
Christine D'Alecy X
Randy Kamm (absent)
*Motion to table Case AB-032-93 carried.
Mr. Nelson stated that an Appeals Board luncheon has been scheduled for December
14, 1993, at 1:00 p.m. at the Radisson Hotel. The December Board meeting will
follow the luncheon.
Being no further business, Dick Jones made a motion to adjourn. The motion was
seconded by Christine D'Alecy. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
� A
J c A. Nelson, Secretary
B i ing Board of Appeals
JAN/rbm
Board Minutes approved on
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
of the
BUILDING BOARD of APPEALS
Tuesday, September 14, 1993
The City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by
Vice Chairman Jones at 2 : 30 p.m. The following members were present :
Richard Jones, Vice Chairman
Joe Wilcox
Randall Kamm CC
Ci
The following members were absent:
Richard Stuckman, Chairman
Christine D'Alecy
U
Staff Members present:
James Ballard, Fire Marshall
Gary Brydges, Acting Secretary N
It was noted by Vice Chairman Jones that a quorum was present. Due to
the late start, Vice Chairman Jones stated that approval of the minutes
of the August 10, 1993, meeting would be done at the October meeting.
New Business :
An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Brad Clemens for the property
at 700-702 W. Saginaw. The building at this address houses four ( 4 )
dwelling units in two identical halves of the building. Each second
story unit has access to the third story in their respective half of the
building.
The stairs serving the third story rooms have headroom clearance at the
edge of the landing of approximately 53" . The Building Code requires
stair headroom to be 6 ' 8" . The third story room would typically be used
as a bedroom by the tenants . Ceiling height in the third story is not
a code problem.
The applicant seeks relief from the headroom requirement to allow use of
the two third story areas . Mr. Clemens explained that one of the third
story areas existed this way and was in use when he bought the building
a few years ago. He recently completed the other side in exactly the
same way.
Board members discussed the matter and reviewed several drawings and
photographs . The possibilities of lowering the landing and/or raising
the ceiling were considered but dismissed as not practical and too
costly. Mr. Jones suggested that a handrail or grab-bar installed on
the existing solid guardrail would be helpful to anyone making the
Building Board of Appeals
Page 2
September 16 , 1993
transition from stairs to floor, or vice-versa, without using the
landing.
Mr. Wilcox moved that the appeal be granted with the conditions that a
grab-bar type handrail be installed at the top and end of the existing
guardrail and that two ( 2 ) hard-wired smoke detectors with battery back-
up be interconnected and installed, one at the third story ceiling and
one on the second floor in a location to be approved by the Code
Compliance officer. These conditions apply to both second story
dwelling units and their respective third story rooms . The motion was
seconded by Mr. Kamm. Vice Chairman Jones called for a vote which was
unanimous . Motion passed. Appeal was granted. Mr. Clemens stated that
the work would be done in less than 30 days .
There was no old business to be discussed. Mr. Kamm moved to adjourn,
seconded by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
(9v 611, 4 C�_
Gary Brydges
Acting Secretary
GRB/rbm
�,•; OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
193 fluu 26 Hn 1143 of the
BUILDING BOARD of APPEALS
Tuesday August 10, 1993
The City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman
Stuckman at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance.
Richard Stuckman, Chairman
Richard Jones, Vice Chairman
Joe Wilcox
Christine D'Alecy
Members Absent:
Randall Kamm, Member
Staff Members Present:
Jack A. Nelson, Recording Secretary
James Ballard, Fire Marshal
A motion was made by Mr. Jones to approve the Minutes of the July 13, 1993
meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried.
New Business:
An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Dale Goodrich for the property at 200
S. Eighth Street. The applicant seeks a reversal or modification of the Plumbing
Inspector's order to install a laundry tray or an automatic washer standpipe in
accordance with Appendix "C", in a building which was recently remodeled. The
applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the Plumbing
Inspector's order.
The applicant argues in support of his appeal that the tenants do not have access
to the basement. The basement would be the logical location for the facility.
The applicant further contends that this was not a requirement for two previous
jobs located at 328 Lapeer and 130 S. Eighth.
Mr. Goodrich addressed the Board and stated that laundry facilities are provided
for his tenants at a larger apartment approximately two (2) blocks away.
Mr. Nelson stated that the use of the basement for laundry purposes would envoke,
barrier free design requirements, which would require access.
Mr. Stuckman asked if the Building Office had any objection to granting a
variance to the Plumbing code.
Mr. Nelson stated that he consulted with Mr. Delaney the Chief Plumbing
inspector. Mr. Delaney represented that he had no objection to the variance.
-2-
Mr. Wilcox moved to grant the appeal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jones.
Motion carried.
In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The variance is adequate for the intended use and does not
substantially deviate from performance required by the code
since laundry facilities are provided in close proximity to this
building.
The specific condition justifying the variance is not so general
or recurrent in nature as to make an amendment to the code.
The variance does not adversely effect the health, safety or welfare
of the occupants of the building.
Being no further business, Mr. Wilcox moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion'
supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 2:25.
Respectfully submitted,
J a ', N
lson,
Re o ing Secretary
JN/dar
Filed
Appeal No.
Hearing Date
City of Lansing
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
Lower Level, Washington Square Annex
119 North Washington Square
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Telephone: (517) 483-4355
(Please type or print clearly)
The Building Board of Appeals meets the second Tuesday of each month at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the
Building Safety Division.Appeals,accompanied by a non-refundable fee of$50.00, must be on file with the Building Safety
Division 20 days before the meeting date. Make checks payable to the City of Lansing.
Address of Property for Appeal_.__.
Owner's Name
Applicant's Name_ Telephone
Telephone
Applicant's Address__
----
MEMENEEMEMEM
(Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Request is hereby made to
This is contrary to Section of the Lansing Uniform Building Code.
Arguments in support of this appeal:
v.
Signed 1 .. ,
Date
ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD
Hr. Wilcox moved to grant Cit: Oy Juices. :,lotion carried.
In support of this decision, the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The variance is adequate for the intended use and does not substantially deviate from
performance required by the code since laundry facilities are provided in close proximity
to this building. The specific condition justifyin,; the variance is not so general 'or
recurrent in nature as to r-ake an amendment to the code. The variance does not acverseiy
effect the health, safety or welfare of the occupan�s of txie building.
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
of the
Building Board of Appeals
Tuesday, July 13, 1993
The City of Lansing, Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman
Stuckman at 2:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Richard Stuckman, Chairman
Richard Jones, Vice Chairman
Randall Kamm, Member
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Joe Wilcox
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jack A. Nelson, Secretary
Les Hunter, Fire Prevention Bureau
A motion was made by Mr. Jones to approve the minutes of the June 8, 1993,
meeting subject to the following corrections.
1. Correct the spelling of the word "proprietary" on page 2.
2. Correct the spelling of Mr. Donaldson' s name on page 1.
3. Add the word "of" between the words "use (and) the" on page 2.
Motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
An emergency request was made to the Board by Gary Brydges, Chief Building
Inspector, to give an opinion on an issue requiring a decision prior to the
August meeting.
A dwelling at 5223 Starr Avenue had suffered fire damage to the second floor
area. The dwelling was owner—occupied and the family is currently being housed
at a motel by the insurance company.
Ceiling height in the second floor area does not meet minimum requirements of the
Uniform Building Code. The cross—sectional area of the second floor does,
however, fall within the parameters established in the Department's Residential
Ceiling Height Policy, and continued use of the area could, therefore, be
approved by Administrative Modification.
Following discussion, none of the Board Members had an objection to the
Administrative Modification being utilized. All of the "normal" requirements
Building Board of App '.s Minutes
July 13, 1993
Page 2
would be met: egress windows and hard—wired smoke detectors as well as
corrections for fire damaged and over—spanned rafters and floor joists. Stairs
to the second floor will also require correction. Other deficiencies in the
house which were not caused by the fire will not require correction as a part of
this Administrative Modification or as a condition of the required building
permit.
Appeal #93-022, 4233 N. Grand River Avenue, Fairlane Apartments
An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Allen Stebbins on behalf of Fairlane
Apartments. The applicant seeks a reversal or modification of the enforcing
officer's decision which requires the replacement of copper gas lines with black
iron when replacing existing furnaces in the lower level. Second, the Department
is requiring the introduction of combustion air into laundry rooms for the dryers
and hot water heaters.
The appeal is based upon Section 1460.20(a)(5) and Appendix (b) Section 2212 of
the Lansing Uniform Mechanical Code as amended.
Section 2212 of the Uniform Mechanical Code does not allow the use of copper gas
lines. The B.O.C.A. National Mechanical Code, as well as the National Fuel Gas
Code, allows the use of copper tubing.
The U.M.C. 's prohibition is based upon the fact that the sulphur dioxide
contained in gas reacts with the copper and causes corrosion of the line. The
corrosion cloggs the gas valve causing the plunger to seat incorrectly. Under
this circumstance the flame does not turn off. This situation is extremely
criticial in water heaters which could overheat and pose an explosion hazard.
The Department has reviewed the file and concludes that the building was approved
with the copper lines when it was constructed in 1964. However, we contend that
the gas lines should be replaced when the furnaces are replaced.
Mr. Stebbins addressed the Board and stated that the apartment is 28 years old
and was constructed in accordance with the code at that time. The dwelling has
been inspected numerous times and no mention of the gas line was included in the
inspection notices.
Mr. Stebbins also stated that replacement would be difficult since the gas line
is located under the concrete. New lines would be surface mounted and would be
unsightly.
Chairman Stuckman stated that the use of copper lines for gas is predicated upon
the amount of hydrogen sulfide in the gas.
Mr. Hunter stated that one of the reasons that copper is not used for gas lines
is that the soldered joint would fail under fire conditions. Since only one
soldered joint was made in the connection to the furnace it does not appear that
the existence of the line is a hazard. The Fire Prevention Bureau has more of
a problem with the meter being located inside the building.
Chairman Stuckman stated that since the appeal asked for relief on two separate
issues, two separate Board actions are necessary.
Building Board of App, ' s Minutes
July 13, 1993
Page 3
Mr. Jones moved to grant the appeal. Motion supported by Mr. Kamm. Motion
carried.
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. Copper gas piping is used by Consumers Power Company outside the
jurisdictional limits of the City of Lansing, apparently without incident.
Copper gas line is authorized by Section 2.6 of the National Fuel Gas Code
and Table M-801.2 of the B.O.C.A. Mechanical Code.
2. The apartment complex is an existing building which was approved
previously with copper gas line.
The second issue pertains to the necessity to provide combustion air to the
laundry rooms.
Mr. Stebbens stated that the door between and furnace room and the stairway is
normally proped open and consequently provides sufficient combustion air.
Mr. Nelson stated that the furnace room is fire rated, consequently the door must
remain closed.
Chairman Stuckman stated that louvers in the exterior door appear to be an
option.
Mr. Stebbins indicated that any outside air brought in during the winter would
make the laundry room uncomfortable.
Mr. Kamm stated that without combustion air the appliances would back draft.
Mr. Kamm moved to deny the appeal and direct the Building Safety Division to
require code compliance on this issue. Motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion
carried
Appeal #93-024, 1316 Jerome Street, Michael Cabin
An application for appeal has been filed by Michael Gabin. The application seeks
reversal or modification of the enforcing officer's decision of November 3, 1992,
which required the installation of an interior or exterior exit that meets
Housing Code requirements for exiting from two third floor bedrooms. Section
1460.18 of the Housing Code states that exits shall comply with Chapter 33 of the
Uniform Building Code. The required width of the stairway would be regulated by
the Building Code in effect at the time of construction. The current Building
Code requires that the exit stairway be 36" in width. Previous building codes
have required a minimum of 3011. The exit stairway in question is 22" in width.
Chairman Stuckman explained criteria for the Board's action stressing that only
three members were present. Board policy requires that all three members would
have to agree to overturn the enforcing officer' s decision. An opportunity was
given to the applicant to postpone the case until there was a full Board.
Mr. Cabin elected to go with the decision of the Board Members present.
Mr. Stuckman asked if all other violations contained in the code enforcement
Building Board of App ,s Minutes
July 13, 1993
Page 4
notice had been completed. Mr. Cabin stated they had.
Mr. Stuckman asked if the building was in compliance with Zoning requirements for
the intended use. Mr. Nelson stated that the building is a registered rental.
It was moved by Mr. Kamm, supported by Mr. Jones to grant the appeal subject to
the following conditions.
1• A handrail shall be installed in accordance with Section, 3306(i) of the
Building Code.
2. Additional receptacles shall be installed on the third floor in accordance
with N.E.C. requirements.
3• Hard—wired smoke detection shall be installed in the third floor bedrooms
and one detector shall be installed on the second floor. The second floor
detector shall be installed in a strategic location per the directive of
the Code Compliance Officer. All detectors shall be interconnected.
Motion carried.
Being no further business Mr. Kamm moved to adjourn the meeting, motion supported
by Mr. Jones. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
try
��W�Ne l son
JAN/mmr
till ^J1.L.f1{1
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
of the ,
J3 JU
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, June 8, 1993
The City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman
Stuckman at 2:00 p.m. The following Members were in attendance:
Richard Stuckman, Chairman
Richard Jones, Vice Chairman
Joe Wilcox, Member
Roger Donaldson, Member
Those members absent:
Randall Kamm
Staff Members present:
Jack Nelson, Secretary
James Ballard, Fire Marshal
A motion was made by Mr. Jones to approve the minutes of May 11, 1993, subject
to the correction of the word "motion" located on page 3, last line. Motion
supported by Mr. Donalds . Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Appeal #93-018, 200 Boston Blvd, Spadfore Distributing
An application for appeal was filed by Spadfore Distributing Company which seeks
authority to continue the use of an efficiency apartment. The apartment does not
comply with the minimum square footage requirement contained in Section
1460.13(c) of the Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Second, the unit lacks
sufficient clear working space in front of the cooking appliances.
The Housing Code requires that the minimum area of an efficiency apartment is 220
square feet. The unit has only 204 square feet. The net clear measurement in
front of the appliances must be 30", the actual measurement is 222".
The applicant is aggrieved and requests a modification or reversal of the
enforcing officers violation notice of March 19, 1993.
Mr. Charles Spadafore presented his case and stated that the unit has been rented
for 20 years. The unit is occupied by a single tenant. There are two code
violations associated with the tenant space. The area of the apartment is less
than that required by the Housing Code. Second, the net clear measurement in
front of the appliances is less than required in the Housing Code.
Building Board of Apr is Minutes
June 8, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Jones stated that the violations do not pose a danger to the occupant and the
dimensional requirements are arbitrary.
Mr. Jones moved to approve the appeal with the stipulation that the unit be
limited to occupancy by one individual only. The motion was supported by Mr.
Wilcox. Motion carried.
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The variance, as approved, does not affect the health, safety and welfare
of the occupant of the apartment. The building as well as the unit itself
is well maintained and does not pose a threat to adjoining tenants.
2. The situation is pre—existing, consequently the violation was not created
through any action of the owner. The unit, according to the testimony,
has been rented in its present state for 20 years.
3. Since the unit does not meet the minimum area requirements, the Board is
limiting the occupancy to one individual.
Appeal #93-019, 6041 S. Cedar St. , Engineering Applications, Inc
An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Brian Knox, Engineering
Applications, Inc. , on behalf of Mr. Chris Haddad. The applicant seeks relief
from Section 2003 of the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Mechanical Code. More
specifically the appeal seeks approval to relocate the hood provided for the
donut fryer from 24" above the cooking surface to 72" above the finished floor.
Second, the applicant seeks approval to delete the hood over the new convection
ovens which do not produce any grease vapors.
The applicant has represented that the hood was raised to facilitate the
operation and use the donut fryers. The hood was balanced and complies with all
other applicable sections of Chapter 20 of the U.M.C.
Mr. Nelson read Mr. Goff's analysis of the appeal for the record.
"The hood over the donut fryer is a propietary system approved by the Michigan
Department of Health to be installed 24 inches above the cooking surface. This
made the lower edge of the hood below eye level. Mr. Haddad wanted to have the
hood raised to 72 inches above the finished floor leaving about 36 inches of
Space from the bottom of the hood to the cooking surface. The system was able
to be adjusted to capture the quantity of air required by Chapter 20 Section 2003
and would comply with code except for the technical height requirement.
The Health Department has a policy that allows electric convection ovens to be
installed outside of a hood as long as they have other exhausting equipment in
the area. If the variance is granted it should state that at any time in the
future should the convection ovens cause any problems then a hood would need to
be installed."
Mr. Nelson stated that the variance meets the purpose and intent of the
Mechanical Code provisions. The hood does not comply with a technical height
requirement, but the system has been adjusted to capture the quantity of air
required by Section 2003 of the code.
Building Board of Appe. � Minutes
June 8, 1993
Page 3
Mr. Jones moved to grant the appeal based upon Mr. Goff's' findings. Motion
supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried.
A motion was made by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Donaldson, to adjourn the
meeting. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
%LU
JSJ c A. Nelson
cr tary
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
of the
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
May 11, 1993
The City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman
Stuckman at 1:59 p.m. The following members were present:
MEMBERS PRESENT
Richard Stuckman, Chairman
Richard Jones, Vice Chairman
Joe Wilcox, Member
Roger Donaldson, Member
Randall Kamm, Member
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Ballard, Fire Marshal
Gary Brydges, Acting Secretary
A motion was made by Mr. Donaldson, supported by Mr. Jones to approve the minutes
of the April 13, 1993, as distributed. Motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
Appeal #93-003, 725-737-729 N. Seymour Avenue, Lucy Mazurek
This appeal had come before the Board at the March 9, 1993, meeting. The matter
was tabled while additional information was gathered in regard to the zoning
status of the property.
In a letter from Jim Ruff to Jack Nelson, Mr. Ruff states that the use of the
structure, as proposed by Ms. Mazurek, would not be in compliance with the Zoning
Code. This letter is hereby made a part of this proceeding, copy attached.
Ms. Mazurek spoke to the Board Members and used color—coded floor plans to show
the building's current use and occupancy. She stated that the 3rd floor had
always been used as a sleeping area. She further indicated that a rear stairway
built several years ago was built from grade to the second floor, not to the
third floor as erroneously shown on the plans. The stairway was subsequently
enclosed.
Mr. Wilcox pointed out that the appeal before the Board was for continued use of
the attic as a sleeping area and that electric forced air heaters be allowed to
heat the area. The issue of the stairwell was not part of the appeal. Mr.
Wilcox suggested that a Zoning variance should first be obtained before this
Board renders a decision on the use of the attic.
Further discussion took place between the Board Members and Ms. Mazurek. It was
agreed that the issue was confusing and somewhat complicated. Different answers
Building Board of Appe ; Minutes
May 11, 1993
Page 2
for different parts of the issue have come from different people.
Mr. Stuckman explained to Ms. Mazurek that the Zoning issue should be dealt with
first. An appeal can be made in regard to the findings stated in Mr. Ruff's
letter. Mr. Stuckman pointed out that it would be senseless for the Board to
approve or disapprove the use of an area in the building which would not likewise
be approved under the Zoning Code.
A motion was made by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox, to table the appeal
indefinitely pending a final resolution of the Zoning issue, probably through the
Board of Zoning Appeals. There was no further discussion. Motion carried
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
A2peal #93-017 — 1924 John St. , Mr. & Mrs Yanke
An application for appeal was filed by Mr. & Mrs. Yanke who are seeking relief
from the Code Compliance Officer's order that the second floor of the structure
at 1924 John Street must be vacated due to inadequate ceiling height.
The Board Members reviewed a sectional drawing of the second floor area as well
as a photograph of the structure. Mr. Donaldson noted that the front window did
not meet the minimum size for egress. The owners pointed out that the front
portion of the second floor was used as a sleeping area while the rear portion
provided stairway access and an open room. A wall separated the two areas but
no door had ever been installed in the opening from back to front.
A motion was made by Mr. Donaldson, supported by Mr. Kamm, to grant the variance
requested subject to the installation of an approved egress window in the front
second floor sleeping area and the installation of three hardwired smoke
detectors with battery back—up and inter—connected. Location of the detectors
is to be in the first floor bedroom, hallway or other common area on the first
floor, and at the ceiling of the second floor. There was no discussion on the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Proposed Administrative Modification for Ceiling Heights
The Board reviewed a proposed amendment to the existing Division Policy Statement
on residential ceiling heights. The amendment would add a provision allowing the
Building Official to grant an Administrative variance when certain minimum
requirements exist.
The Board suggested items 1, 2 and 3 under Paragraph B of the proposed policy be
revised to read as follows:
1. The ceiling height and room width shall achieve at least 83% of the
required area as determined by calculations following procedures defined
in Appendix A.
2. Each bedroom shall have at least one window which has a minimum five
square feet of rough opening and provides a minimum clear opening not less
Building Board of Appea Minutes
May 11, 1993
Page 3
than 24 inches high and 20 inches in width. If the window must be replaced
it must meet current Building Code requirements for opening size and
minimum dimensions.
3• Smoke detectors shall be installed in each bedroom of the dwelling in
conformance with Section 1210 of the Building Code. Each detector shall
receive power from the building wiring and shall be equipped with a
battery back—up. The detectors shall be interconnected.
This amendment and the suggested revisions are to be reviewed at the next meeting
of the Board.
A motion was made by Mr. Kamm, supported by Mr. Jones, to adjourn the meeting.
Motin carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
pBrydges
Cary
Acting Secretary
i t •' r•
!--R K
OFFICIAL 'PROCEEDINGS
"Jc F1r
of the �" ( pri 2 26
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 13, 1993
The City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman
Stuckman at 1:56 p.m. Roll call showed the following Members present:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Richard Stuckman, Chairman
Richard Jones, Vice Chairman
Joe Wilcox, Member
Roger Donaldson, Member
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Randall Kamm
STAFF PRESENT:
Jack Nelson, Secretary
A motion was made by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Donaldson, that the minutes of
March 9, 1993 be approved as printed. Motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
Appeal #93-006, 2300 N. Grand River Ave. , Fred White Engineering
This case was tabled at the March 9, 1993, meeting in order to afford the
applicant an opportunity to research costs to be incurred for technical
compliance with the Code.
The applicant is seeking authority to replace a furnace and utilize existing duct
work without installing fire dampers between the first and second floors of a
mixed use group.
Mr. Jack White presented his case to the Board. He stated that five dampers are
required which would cost between $1,500 — $2,000. He further stated that code
compliance would double the cost of the job.
Mr. Wilcox moved to grant the appeal subject to installation of a smoke detection
system in the duct system. Second, hardwired smoke detectors shall be installed
on both floors, and the system shall be interconnected to alert both floors.
Detector location and spacing shall be subject to review by the Building Safety
Division. Motion was supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously.
Building Board of AppeF` Minutes
April 13, 1993
Page 2
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The second floor apartment is separated from the first floor office by a
concrete floor which will afford a fire separation. Second, two exits are
provided from the apartment which will provide a safe means of egress.
These features coupled with the requirements for the installation of smoke
detectors will equate to the protection required by technical compliance
with the code.
NEW BUSINESS:
Appeal #93-008 — 333 E. Michigan, Lansing Center Expansion
An application for appeal has been filed by Hobbs and Black, Architects, on
behalf of the Lansing Center.
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 3207 of the Uniform Building Code
which requires that all roof sumps have overflow drains which are independent
from the roof drains. In like manner, a modification or reversal of a 1985 Board
of Appeals ruling which requires an emergency generator for the Center is also
being appealed.
Mr. Robert Smith represented the Lansing Center. Mr. Smith stated that there are
a total of 20 new roof sumps plus 20 overflow drains serving an area of 71,150
s.f. There are also nine existing sumps with no overflows serving an existing
roof area of 63,500 s.f.
Mr. Smith stated that the applicant seeks authority to allow roof sumps and
overflow drains to use common roof conductors. The variance is requested since
the roof is on a high bay, thus the roof sumps are not subject to blockage by
debris from vegetation. In like manner, H.V.A.C. equipment is located on the
roof which will ensure constant maintenance of the equipment and the drains.
Third, the sumps and overflows have a cast grating system and a gravel stop which
will prevent clogging of the system with gravel. In conclusion, Mr. Smith stated
that typical roof stoppage is attributed to clogged sumps and not the conductor.
Mr. Brady, Chairman of the Plumbing Board, voiced concern as to the safety of the
roof if separate drain lines are not provided. Consideration must be given to
the size of the conductor as it pertains to storm intensity and frequency. Also,
the code is specific as to the requirement for separate drain lines.
Mr. Paul Rafus, Mechanical Engineer, stated that the lines are adequate to
provide discharge for storm water. Second, Mr. Rafus stated that even if an
overflow and sump were plugged the depth of water would not exceed 4" before
flowing to adjoining roof sumps.
Mr. Brady voiced concern over compliance with the code and if the Department' s
enforcement policy would change based upon Appeals Board action.
Mr. Nelson stated that the Board' s action will be case specific. The position
of the Department will not change. All code deviations will be sent to the
Appeals Board for disposition.
Building Board of Appea' Minutes
April 13, 1993
Page 3
Mr. Jones moved that Part 1 of the appeal be granted. The motion was supported
by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried.
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Board concludes that the necessity for roof drains is predicated
upon environmental as well as practical factors. It is the
consensus of the Board that the following factors led the Board to
its decision.
2. The building consists of a high-bay which limits debris from getting
into the roof sumps. There is no nearby vegetation which could blow
on the roof and clog the drains, as what could be apparent on lower
roofs.
3. Mechanical equipment is located on the roof. This situation causes
continued maintenance, however, should a problem arise with the
sumps it would be noticeable during routine maintenance checks of
equipment.
4. Storm intensity and duration is an additional reason for overflow
sumps with separate drain lines. In this case the lines are
designed for storm intensity and duration for this area. Other
areas of the country where storm intesity is greater, such as
hurricane belts, would require independent systems.
5. Clogs normally occur at the sump itself and not in the lines. The
Board is still requiring overflows, but the drains are combined.
Appeal #93-008 - Part II
This part of the appeal seeks a reversal or modification of a 1985 Appeals Board
ruling which required the installation of an on-site generator at the Lansing
Center if an expansion occurred. The Building Safety Division has issued a
building permit for the expansion predicated upon compliance with the order.
Mr. Nelson explained the appeal and stated that the Building Safety Division
questioned the necessity of the generator in terms of Building Code compliance.
The citation on the original application cited Section 1807 as the non-complying
Code Section, this Section only applied to Group B, Division 2, and Group R,
Division 1, High-Rise Buildings.
It appears that the appeal was based upon the definition of what uninterruptive
power was. The final determination was with the authority having jurisdiction.
Apparently it was the opinion of the Building Safety Division in 1985 that a
double ended electrical service was not dependable.
Mr. Nelson stated that he has consulted with Mr. Ballard, Fire Marshal, and they
have no objection to accepting the double ended service as dependable.
It was moved by Mr. Donaldson, supported by Mr. Jones, that Part II of the appeal
be granted.
Building Board of Appea' Minutes
April 13, 1993
Page 4
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The original section cited in the appeal was not applicable.
2. In the Board's opinion a double ended service by the City of Lansing,
Board of Water and Light is considered as dependable.
3. Exit illumination and signage is on a battery back—up system.
Appeal -#9-009 — 707 N. Sycamore, Mike and Jeanne Admundson
An application for appeal was filed by Mr. & Mrs. Amundson who are seeking relief
from the Code Compliance Officer's order dated June 17, 1992, which stated that
the ceiling height of the second floor of this rental dwelling did not meet
minimum requirements of the Housing Code.
Technical Information
Bedroom Window Clear Opening 25" x 26" (4.5 sq. ft. ) total glazing
9 sq. ft.
Living Room (10 x 15) 150 sq. ft. Ceiling Height 6'2" (knee wall 3'8")
Bedroom (1016" x 121 ) 127 sq. ft. Ceiling Height 6' 5" (flat ceiling)
Kitchen (11' x 121 ) 132 sq. ft. Ceiling Height 6'5" (knee wall 3'8")
Stairway 26" wide — 6" rise, 9.5" run
No handrail
Mr. Donaldson moved to grant the variance subject to the installation of an
egress window which complies with Chapter 12 of the 1991 Edition of U.B.C.
Second, a hardwired smoke detector shall be installed at the head of the stairs
and interconnected with the bedroom detector. Motion supported by Mr. Jones.
Motion carried unanimously.
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The appeal complies with the criteria established by the Board for the
issuance of ceiling height variances.
2. The installation of hardwired smoke detection coupled with an adequate
egress window will afford adequate exiting for the tenant space.
Appeal '93-010 — 341 E. Hillsdale St. , D.J. Osborn
An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Osborn who is seeking relief from the
Code Compliance officer' s order of February 3, 1993, which requires the
installation of smoke detection and discontinued use of the second floor sleeping
area which does not meet minimum requirements of the Housing Code.
Technical Information
Bedroom =`l
Room Dimension 11 ' 9" x 15'0"
Ceiling Height 617"
Knee Wall Height 318"
Building Board of AppeF Minutes
April 13, 1993
Page 5
Bedroom #2
Room Dimension 11 '9" x 1510"
Ceiling Height 617"
Knee Wall Height 318"
Bedroom Window 210" x 416" (gross) 9.2 sq. ft.
Bedroom Window 210" x 212" (net openable) 4.5 sq. ft.
It was moved by Mr. Wilcox to grant the appeal subject to the installation of a
hardwired smoke detector at the top of the stairway, and one in each bedroom.
The detectors shall be interconnected with the detectors in the downstairs
bedroom. Motion supported by Mr. Jones.
Mr. Donaldson moved to amend the motion by requiring that the front window comply
with egress requirements of the U.B.C. Section 1204. Mr. Wilcox accepted the
amendment. Motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried on the amendment.
Motion carried on the main motion.
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The appeal complies with the criteria established by the Board for the
issuance of ceiling height variances.
2. The installation of hardwired smoke detection coupled with an adequate
exiting from the tenant space.
Appeal #93-011 - 413 Regent St. , George Dush
An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Dush who is seeking relief from the
Code Compliance Officer' s order regarding the discontinued use of a sleeping room
on the second level which does not meet minimum requirements of the Housing Code.
Technical Information
Bedroom Dimension 21 '4" x 10'2"
Ceiling Height 612" measured at 3'6" width
Window Size 41" x 272" (7.8 sq. ft. )
Net Clear Opening 272" x 182" (3.5 sq. ft. )
Mr. Wilcox moved to grant the appeal subject to the installation of a hardwired
smoke detector in the bedroom on the first floor interconnected with the detector
in the second floor bedroom. Motion supported by Mr. Jones. Motion carried.
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The case complies with the criteria established by the Board for the
issuance of ceiling height variances.
2. The installation of hardwired smoke detection coupled with an adequate
egress widow will afford adequate exiting from the tenant space.
Building Board of Appe� Minutes
April 13, 1993
Page 6
Appeal #93-012 - 1409 Victor, Donald R. Pierce
An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Pierce who is seeking relief from
a Code Compliance letter of February 15, 1993, noting discontinued use of a
second floor bedroom in this rental dwelling which does not meet minimum
requirements of the Housing Code.
Technical Information
Room Dimension 32' x 1012"
Ceiling Height 6182"
West Window 50" x 32" 11.1 sq. ft.
East Window (mull) 23" x 40" 6.3 sq. ft.
Mr. Jones moved to grant the variance subject to the installation of a hardwired
smoke detector in the second floor bedroom, motion supported by Mr. Donaldson.
Mr. Wilcox moved to amend the main motion to require a hardwired smoke detector
in the first floor bedroom, interconnected with the second floor bedroom. Mr.
Jones accepted the amendment. Motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. The existing
windows have a removable sash, consequently the windows do not need replacement.
Motion carried on the amended motion.
Motion carried on the main motion.
In support of the decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The case complies with the criteria established by the Board for the
issuance of ceiling height variances.
2. The installation of hardwired smoke detection coupled with an adequate
egress window will afford adequate exiting from the tenant space.
Appeal #93-014 - 1024 Porter St. , Richard Raines
An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Raines who is seeking relief from
a determination by the Code Compliance Officer that the second floor ceiling
height is not adequate to be used as sleeping quarters in accordance with the
Housing Code.
Technical Information
Bedroom #1 1217" x 910"
Ceiling Height 617"
Gross Window Area 57 ' x 27" (10.50 sq. ft. )
Net Window Opening 28" x 27" (5.25 sq. ft. )
Bedroom #2 9' 2" x 813"
Ceiling Height 617"
Gross Window Area 44" x 21" (6.42 sq. ft. )
Net Window Opening 21" x 22"
Mr. Donaldson moved to grant the variance subject to the installation of
hardwired smoke detectors on the top of the stairway and in each bedroom. All
Building Board of Appe; Minutes
April 13, 1993
Page 7
detectors must be interconnected. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion
carried unanimously. The existing window complies with code requirements,
consequently no alteration is required.
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The case complies with the criteria established by the Board for the
issuance of ceiling height variances.
2. The installation of hardwired smoke detection coupled with an adequate
egress window will afford adequate exiting from the tenant space.
Appeal #93-015 - 3201 Andrew, Kyle Stanforth
An application for appeal has been filed by Mr. Stanforth who is seeking relief
from a determination by the Code Compliance Officer that the ceiling heights are
not adequate to be used as sleeping quarters in accordance with the Housing Code.
Technical Information
Bedroom #1
Ceiling Height 6'5"
Room Dimension 1316" x 816" (114.75 sq. ft. )
Gross Window Area 63" x 36" (15.75 sq. ft. )
Net Openable Area 30" x 36"
Bedroom #2
Ceiling Height 615"
Room Dimension 1316" x 816"
Gross Window Area 48" x 36" (12.0 sq. ft. )
Net Openable Area 48" x 19" (6.34 sq. ft. )
Mr. Jones moved to approve the variance subject to the installation of a
hardwired smoke detector in all of the bedroom areas. Motion supported by Mr.
Wilcox.
Mr. Donaldson moved to amend the motion to require a smoke detector in the
hallway. Motion accepted by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried
on amendment.
Motion carried on main motion.
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The case complies with the criteria established by the Board for the
issuance of ceiling height variances.
2. The installation of hardwired smoke detection coupled with an adequate
egress window will afford adequate exiting from the tenant space.
Building Board of Appea Minutes
April 13, 1993
Page 8
Appeal #93-016 — 414 W. Paulson, Laura V. Lopez
An application for appeal has been filed by Ms. Laura Lopez who is seeking relief
from a determination by the Code Compliance Officer that the ceiling height in
the second floor sleeping area is not adequate in accordance with the Housing
Code.
Technical Information
Room Dimension 1610" x 231611
Ceiling Height 6110"
Window Dimension 36" x 38"
Gross Window Area 9.58 sq. ft.
Net Clear Opening 4.50 sq. ft.
Mr. Donaldson moved to grant the variance subject to the installation of a
hardwired smoke detector in all bedrooms. The detectors must be interconnected.
Second, the open attic play area shall not be used for sleeping purposes. Third,
the window in the bedroom shall comply with egress requirements of the Building
Code. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Chairman Stuckman requested Mr. Nelson to draft an Administrative Review Policy
to approve ceiling height variances. The policy should be predicated upon the
precident which has been established by the Board during the last six months.
Mr. Nelson stated that he would review the past cases and make a recommendation
at the May Board meeting.
Mr. Donaldson moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:55 p.m. Motion supported by Mr.
Wilcox. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted, /
raAlsoSecretary
Minutes Approved On:
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
of the
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
March 9, 1993
The City of Lansing Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman
Stuckman at 2:05 p.m. Roll call showed the following Members present.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Richard Stuckman, Chairman
Richard Jones , Vice Chairman
Joe Wilcox, Member
Roger Donaldson, Member
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Randall Kamm
STAFF PRESENT:
Jack Nelson, Secretary
James Ballard, Fire Marshal
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
A motion was made by Mr. Jones, supported by Mr. Donaldson, that the minutes of
February 9, 1993, be approved with one correction:
Correct the spelling of the word "arguments" on page 2.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Appeal #93-003 - 725-727-729 N. Seymour Ave. , Lucy Mazurek
The application seeks a reversal or modification of Section 1460.20 of the
Lansing Uniform Housing Code. More specifically the Applicant seeks
authorization to utilize portable electric forced air heaters and a conduction
heater to heat two sleeping rooms on the third floor of an R-3 congregate
residence.
The Department contends that the portable heaters are not capable of maintaining
a room temperature of 70 degrees F at a point of 3 ' above the floor.
The Applicant also contends that the building was converted to 3 units in the
1920' s. The Code Compliance Officer has notified the applicant that the building
has only been registered as a 2 hgit aR rtment, consequently third floor usage
is not authorized at this time. 1 j��l I.,��
Building Board of Appeals Minutes
March 9, 1993
Page 2
The second issue, concerning the use of the third floor, is a zoning issue which
has to be addressed by the Planning Board. In the Department ' s opinion the case
should be postponed until such time as the Planning Board addresses the issue of
expansion of a non-conforming use.
It was moved by Mr. Donaldson, supported by Mr. Jones, to postpone action on this
case since no one was in attendance to present findings.
Chairman Stuckman stated that the case would be addressed at today' s meeting if
a representative attended later.
Appeal #93-004 - 718 E. Harris, Billy Matrey
The applicant seeks relief from Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing
Code. The variance, if granted, would allow the continued use of a second floor
sleeping room in a rental house, which'does not comply with minimum requirements
for ceiling height.
Chairman Stuckman explained the Board' s Rules of Procedure.
Mr. Matrey stated that all corrections stated in the January 14, 1993, Correction
Notice have been complied with. Mr. Matrey submitted a certification letter from
the Department which substantiates that all violations had been corrected.
Mr. Matrey stated that the second story of the dwelling consists of one large
room which is used for a sleeping area. The ceiling height of the room is 6 ' 6",
windows are located at each end of the room and in the stairshaft. The window
in the sleeping area is 33" x 35" and is a double hung unit. The openable area
of the window is approximately 4 sq. ft.
Mr. Nelson stated that the window does not comply with egress requirements.
Mr. Donaldson explained the Board' s policy concerning ceiling height variances
and the Board' s reasoning for requiring measures which will ensure that the
bedrooms meet minimum fire safety requirements.
Mr. Wilcox moved to grant the variance conditioned upon the installation of one
hard wired smoke detector in the sleeping area and the installation of a window
in the bedroom which complies with egress requirements of Section 1204 of the
U.B.C. Motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Motion carried unanimously.
In support of the decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The bedroom complies with the Board' s policy pertaining
to ceiling height variances. The volume of the room is
sufficient to collect smoke at the ceiling level which
will allow adequate time for exiting.
2. Hard wired smoke detection will be required which will
provide an early warning system in case of fire. This
coupled with the installation of an egress window will
afford a reasonable degree of safety.
Building Board of Appe Minutes
March 9, 1993
Page 3
appeal #93-003 — 725-729 N. Seymour
The case was postponed at the beginning of the meeting since the applicant was
not in attendance.
Mr. Donaldson moved to remove the case from the table. The motion was supported
by Mr. Jones. Motion carried.
Mr. Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator for the City of Lansing, stated that the
property is non—conforming. Non—conforming uses cannot be increased in
intensity. The addition of sleeping rooms would be considered as an intensity
of use, and approval from the Planning Board is necessary. The Building Code
issue is secondary and may be moot if Planning Board approval is not obtained.
Mr. Stuckman asked Ms. Mazurek if it would be a significant inconvenience if the
Building Board of Appeals postponed the case pending zoning disposition.
Ms . Mazurek stated that she had no problem with the delay, but asked if
additional fees would be required. Mr. Ruff stated that there would be no charge
for administrative review, but action of the Planning Board would require
additional fees.
Mr. Donaldson moved to postpone the case until the zoning issues have been
resolved. The motion was supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion carried.
Appeal #93-005 — 2506 N.Grand River, Kenneth Mier
The application seeks relief from Section 1460.20 of the Lansing Uniform Housing
Code. The variance, if granted, would allow the continued use of an upstairs
bedroom in a rental dwelling which has inadequate ceiling height.
Technical Information
Room size: (Bedroom) 919" x 9'3"
(Living Room) 913" x 9'9"
Window Size:
4 windows in bank 28" x 30" (3.75 sq. ft. per
window)
Total Glazing 15 sq. ft.
Knee Wall Height: 4' 11"
Ceiling Height: 61711
Chairman Stuckman explained the rules of procedure to Mr. Meir.
Mr. Meir stated that the apartment on the second floor did not comply with
Housing Code requirements since the height of the ceiling did not meet minimum
Building and Housing Code requirements.
Mr. Jones stated that the Board, as a condition for issuing variances on ceiling
heights, applies conditions which will equate to strict compliance with the
Building Code requirements. The Board feels that an early warning system coupled
with an adequate egress window will equate to code compliance.
Building Board of Ap 1s Minutes
March 9, 1993
Page 4
Mr. Jones moved to approve the appeal subject to the installation of a hard wired
smoke detector in the bedroom and at the head of the stairwell. The window(s)
are adequate and no change is necessary. Motion supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion
carried unanimously.
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The bedroom complies with the Board' s policy pertaining to ceiling
height variances. The volume of the room is sufficient to collect
smoke at the ceiling level, thus affording sufficient time for
exiting.
2. Hard wired smoke detection will be required which will provide an
early warning system in case of fire. This coupled with adequate
egress will afford a reasonable degree of safety.
Appeal #93-006 — 2300 N. Grand River, Jack White
The application seeks authorization to replace a defective furnace and utilize
existing duct work without installing fire dampers between the first and second
floors.
The appeal was apparently precipitated by the Department' s refusual to issue a
mechanical permit for furnace replacement unless fire dampers were installed in
the floor/ceiling assembly separating a B-2 office from an R-3 apartment. Table
#5—A of the 1991 edition of the U.B.C. requires that a one hour occupancy
separation be provided between office and residential uses. Occupancy
separations require that openings in the assembly be protected. In this case
numerous duct openings penetrate the assembly between the two uses. The applicant
is aggrieved and seeks a reversal or modification of the Mechanical Inspector' s
decision to require the fire dampers in the duct.
Mr. Stuckman explained the Rules of Procedure to the applicant.
Mr. Thomas White addressed the Board and stated that a two bedroom apartment is
located on the second floor of the Fred White Engineering building which is
located at 2300 N. Grand River. The apartment is approximately 1000 square feet
in area. Their proposal was to replace the furnace but were denied a permit
unless fire dampers were installed in the fire assembly between the first and
second floors. In like manner, a separate duct system is required for each
occupancy.
Mr. Nelson stated that the Department has authorized the use of smoke detection
in the duct system which when activated will shut the mechanical system down.
The option may be considered by the Board in lieu of a separate duct system.
Mr. White stated that the cost of improvements prohibit him from replacing the
furnace.
Mr. Donaldson asked Mr. White what the cost of the fire dampers would be?
Mr. White stated that he has not received bids, but contractors have indicated
that the dampers are expensive.
Building Board of App 1s Minutes
March 9, 1993
Page 5
Mr. Donaldson stated that action on the case should be postponed until a
determinaton can be made as to the cost of fire dampers.
Mr. White stated that he would get bids on the cost of the requested
improvements.
Mr. Donaldson moved that the case be tabled until the April meeting, or until
additional information is submitted as requested. Motion supported by Mr.
Wilcox. Motion carried.
Appeal #93-007 - 642 S. Fairview, Kenneth Weaver
The application seeks relief from Section 1460.20, Lansing Uniform Housing Code
to continue use of a second floor bedroom in a rental dwelling.
Technical Information
Room Size: (Bedroom) 9'8" x 10' 5" (102 sq. ft. )
(Living Room) 1116" x 1015"
Ceiling Height: 61811
Window Size: 44" x 28''
Total Glazing Area 8.'5 sq. ft.
Net Clear Opening 4.2 sq. ft.
Knee Wall Height: 410"
Mr. Stuckman explained the Board' s Rules of Procedure to Mr. Weaver.
Mr. Weaver stated that this room has been utilized for a bedroom since
construction in the mid-1940' s. The house was designed for a bedroom on the
second floor. There are 11 identical houses in a block and one-half area and all
are designed for that purpose. These dwellings include rentals as well as owner
occupied properties. To change the use of these houses are completely unjust.
A bedroom on the upper floor should be maintained.
Mr. Jones stated that the Board predicated approval of these requests upon the
installation of hard wired smoke detectors and adequate egress when it has been
determined that the ceiling area affords sufficient area to collect smoke.
Mr. Wilcox moved to grant the appeal conditioned upon the installation of a hard
wired smoke detector and a window which complies with the egress requirements of
Section 1204 of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code. Motion supported
by Mr. Jones. Motion carried unanimously.
In support of this decision the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The bedroom complies with the Board' s policy pertaining to ceiling
height variances. The volume of the room is sufficient to collect
smoke at the ceiling level, thus affording sufficient time for
exiting.
2. Hard wired smoke detection will be required which will provide an
early warning system in case of fire. This coupled with adequate
egress will afford a reasonable degree of safety.
Building Board of Ap- 31s Minutes
March 9, 1993
Page 6
Mr. Donaldson moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:05 p.m. Motion supported by Mr.
Wilcox. Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
a A. Nelson
Se retary
Minutes Approved On:
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
of the
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
February 9, 1993
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Stuckman. Roll call
showed the following members present:
MEMBERS PRESENT
Richard Stuckman, Chairman
Richard Jones, Vice Chairman
Randall Kamm Uri
Joe Wilcox W
Roger Donaldson
r-n
STAFF PRESENT
Gary Brydges, Acting Secretary -
rTA `=
James Ballard, Fire Marshal ZE3 u
N c.
OLD BUSINESS:
F-+
N
A motion was made by Richard Jones that the minutes of December 8, 1992, be
approved as written. Motion supported by Mr. Donaldson. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Jones moved that the January 12, 1993, minutes be approved with the following
corrections:
Mr. Jones is called Vice "Chairman" of the Board, not Vice
"President" as stated under the heading "Members Present" on page
one.
Change the word "some" to "same" on page two, second line of second
paragraph following heading in mid-page.
Mr. Donaldson supported the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Appeal #93-002 - 620 S. Capitol Ave. , Shaw-Winkler, Inc.
Shaw-Winkler, Inc. , is appealing Section 3207 of the U.B.C. which requires roof
overflow drains to be connected to independent drain lines rather than sharing
the same lines as the roof drains. Lynn Morgan and Joe Kain of Shaw-Winkler, and
Scott Potter of the Christman Company were in attendance.
Chairman Stuckman addressed the guests and discussed make-up and function of the
Board as well as general details of this appeal.
- Building Board of App ' s Minutes
February 9, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Morgan referred to an article in the publication "Engineered Plumbing" which
included a drawing labeled Figure No. 3. He also referred to the written
"Arguements in Support of Appeal" previously submitted.
Mr. Morgan stated that most roof drain clogs are caused by tree leaves, seed pods
and related materials. The proposed building subject to this appeal is a three—
story building and has no trees immediately next to it. Therefore, roof drains
would not be subject to blockages by tree matter on the roof. Mr. Morgan
commented further that slope of lines, adequate pipe sizes and depth of sewers
played a large part in preventing blockages. He felt that the increased cost of
installing independent conductors to meet the Code requirement would not be
warranted by the end result.
Mr.. Jones asked what the worst case scenario would be following a roof drain
blockage.
Mr. Morgan responded by saying he didn' t feel the stacks would leak and that
water would therefore simply accumulate on the roof. Ultimately the roof
structure could possibly fail from the weight.
Mr. Potter pointed out that a build—up of water exceeding approximately 6"-8"
would likely cause a leak over the curb of the roof hatch and thus would alert
building occupants to a problem.
Mr. Morgan stated that most building owners now routinely inspect roofs as a
preventative maintenance procedure and sources of roof drain clogs are
eliminated. He further stated that this particular building will have several
HVAC units on the roof requiring routine maintenance and filter changes which
would also bring people onto the roof.
It was pointed out that the drainage system as designed exceeded the minimum
requirements for capacity. The design included four roof drains and four
overflow drains. There would be three separate vertical stacks: one 6" and two
4". The roof surface was designed to be a single membrane roof without ballast.
Mr. Morgan stated that scuppers in the parapet walls were considered as
overflows, but would not be aesthetically acceptable since the entire building
exterior is glass facade.
Mr. Jones moved to grant the appeal as .requested by Shaw—Winkler. Mr. Wilcox
supported the motion. There was no discussion. The motion was approved
unanimously.
A brief discussion followed on the subject of roof drains and the new Code
interpretation. There was concern that the Board will face an influx of appeal
requests for every proposed new flat roof building. Mention was made that relief
could possibly be granted through the use of Section 105 of the Code. It was
also suggested that amending the 1994 edition of the U.B.C. prior to its adoption
would be a future possibility. The Board made no recommendation at this time.
Mr. Donaldson moved to adjourn the meeting, supported by Mr. Wilcox. Motion
carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
�spectf4Bry
s fitted
Gary
Minutes Passed On: Acting Secretary
Filed �Jf Appeal No.
Hearing Date - l'" RE G 'i'"N v 1 N nj
,_ r7pv
E y: -
City
BUILDS C B ARp P E S
Lower Le'G I, V1AMngto��Tu e Vex
119 North Washington Square
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Telephone: (517) 483-4355
(Please type or print clearly)
The Building Board of Appeals meets the second Tuesday of each month at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the,,-,-'
Building Safety Division.Appeals,accompanied by a non-refundable fee of$50.00,must be on file with the Building Safety
Division 20 days before the meeting date. Make checks payable to the City of Lansing.
Address of Property for Appeal_ 620 S . Capitol Ave .
Owner's Name Michigan Manufacturing Telephone 372-5900
Applicant's Name_ SHA_W-WI NKLER, INC . ---- Telephone 351-5720
Applicant's Address_4910 Dawn Avenue East Lansing MI 48823
(Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Request is hereby made to connect overflow roof sump drain 1 i n G to common r3i n
conductor serving standard rQQf SUMPS . (See attarbe sketch)
This is contrary to Section 3207 of the Lansing Uniform Building Code.
Arguments in support of this appeal: See attached sheet
Signed Date 1/8/93
Joseph�LKain
ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD
2/9/93: Appeal Granted.
SHAw-AVUN-EMER, INC. TELEPHONE
PIA-MBING - HEATING 35 1-5720
VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING
4 9 1 0 D A W N A V E N U E
EAST I.A.NSING� MICHIGAN 48823
Arguements in Support of Appeal
1 . Section 3207 Par. C states that "overflow drains shall be con-
nected to drain lines independent from the roof drains" . A roof
drain is defined as "a drain installed to receive water collect-
ing on the surface of a roof and to discharge it into a leader
or a conductor" . A conductor is defined as "a pipe inside the
building which conveys storm water from the roof to a storm or
combined building drain" . It is our feeling that if roof sumps
and overflow sumps are piped independently to the main roof con-
ductor we are meeting the intent of the code. (See attached
sketch. )
Furthermore we feel that if the intent of the code is to prevent
standing water from overloading the roof due to debris clogging
the grates on the roof sumps, that piping the regular roof sumps
and the overflow sumps independently to the roof conductors
would meet the intent of the code and protect the roof from
overloading.
2 . U.B.C. 1988 has been in effect for a few years now. During
this time period numerous buildings similar to M.M.A. have been
constructed. Capitol Commons Center, Victor Office Center, and
Grand Tower are three examples we are very familiar with. All
three projects required overflow sumps. These overflow sumps
were tied directly into drain lines also servicing standard
sumps.
Furthermore, no incident has ever been recorded in the city of
Lansing, or anywhere else to our knowledge, involving the op-
erational failure of an overflow drain system installed as we
are proposing.
3 . we are proposing to install (4) 411 R.S. in this building.
According to uniform plumbing code Appendix D Table D-2 the
above roof sumps will drain a roof area of 30 , 664 square feet.
The actual roof area is 11 , 079 square feet. This means we are
providing 276% more available drainage capacity than uniform
plumbing code requires. This conservative coverage in combina-
tion with the 4 additional overflow sumps, in our opinion, is
above and beyond minimum requirements of the code.
i I
i •
I I •
I 1
i
i I
i 1
Q fl(7
i I i
i
� I ,
Maw
Ygnn �
I S�N
� � ,, N,(►7r!�Fnn
i
� I
1 i
� 1 I
i
I
i
i
Nv� .L-a 2 rvrv(7 d. nS Pt '7zl T! £'nQ, U z sn d v?!d
i I
i
j Building Safety Division
Department of Planning and Municipal Development
— — Lower Level.Washington Square Annex
♦c Y _ — t_� * 119 North Washington Square
Lansing, Michican 48933
(517)483-4355
Terry J McKane. Mayor February 3, 1993
Chairman and Members
Building Board of Appeals
RE: Building Board of Appeals Meeting - February 9, 1993
Dear Chairman and Members:
This letter is to serve as official notice that the Building Safety
Division has scheduled a Building Board of Appeals meeting for Tuesday, February
9, 1993, at 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Building Safety Conference
Room. The following appeal has been scheduled for disposition.
Appeal #93-002 - 620 S. Capitol Avenue, Michigan Manufacturing Co.
An application for appeal has been filed by Joseph Kane, of Shaw-Winkler Co. ,
Inc. The applicant seeks approval to connect overflow sump drain lines to common
rain conductors serving standard roof sumps. Section 3207 of the Uniform
Building Code states that overflow drains shall be connected to drain lines
independent from the roof drain lines.
On Tuesday, December 29, 1992, I issued a plan review letter to the architect.
Item #7 of the Building Plan Review required that the overflows be independent
from the roof drains be installed. After review of the letter the applicant
filed an appeal which requests a reversal or modification of the Department' s
order to install independent overflow lines.
The applicant, in citing his arguments, purports that the Department has
allowed common drain lines to be installed prior to this project. The Department
acknowledges that previous buildings were allowed to install common drain lines..
The Departments policy was changed which determined that an incorrect
interpretation of the code section was being enforced.
The Departments position is based upon a conversation with Mr. William
Wall, P.E. , of the International Conference of Building Officials, and the text
entitled Handbook to the Uniform Building Code, by Vincent Bush. Mr. Bush
States:
To secure the intent of the Code, the U.B.C. requires that overflow
drains be connected to drain lines which are independent from the
roof drains. If the two drains are connected to a common drain
line, it becomes easily apparent that a blockage of the common drain
line would affect both the roof drain and the overflow, and defeat
the purpose of the overflow.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincere y�
� ; "rA4
�,7ner
" A. Nelson
JAN/mmr im Building Safety Manager
Enclosures "Equal Opportunity Eer
is * BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION
Department of Planning and Municipal Development
��Cut6f►� Lower Level, Washington Square Annex
119 North Washington Square
Terry J.McKane.Mayor Lansing, MI 48933
(517)483-4355
Tuesday December 29, 1992
Mr. Dan Johnson Architect
Hobbs And Black Associates, Inc.
215 S. Washington. Suite 220
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Re: Plan Review P.R.-100-92
620 South Capitol Ave.
Michigan Manufactures Association
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The preliminary planning documents for the above referenced project have been
reviewed by this department for compliance with the Lansing Building Code, which
consists of the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code as amended by Ordinance
Number 851.
This project is subject to the 1991 editions of the Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and the 1990 edition of the
National Electric code, all as amended by the City of Lansing. Separate
plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits, where applicable, shall be acquired
from this department prior to initiation of the respective work.
The project consists of the construction of a three stcrv, 33,000 square foot
office building for Michigan Manufacturing. The project is located at 620 S.
Capitol Avenue
The Department has determined that the total permit feE! for the project will be
$14,940.80 based upon a projected construction cost of 52,308,000.00. The total
fee consists of a building permit fee of $10,304.00 and a plan review fee of
$4,636.80.
The attached are code deficiencies or statements. Upon receipt of a letter or
revised construction documents addressing each review item, your construction
permit will be released subject to approval from other applicable city agencies.
This plan review does not address sign height or location. Separate permits are
required for the installation of any on-premise signs. Please contact the Zoning
Division at 483-4069 for information.
This plan review does not guarantee discovery cr reporting of all code
violations, manifest or latent, which exist in the building undergoing
Tuesday December 22, 1992
Page 2
Michigan Manufactures Assoc.
construction or alteration. The City of Lansing, its officers, and its employees
shall not be liable for any injury or damage, including incidental or
consequential damages claimed to be a result of any failure to discover or report
code violations in this review.
The approval of the construction documents does not permit the violation of any
provisions of the Lansing Building Code, other city ordinances, or state or
federal statutes.
I am looking forward to assisting you in bringing this project to fruition in the
City of Lansing. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Jack A. Nelson
Chief Plan Review Analyst
cc: The Christman Company
408 Kalamazoo Plaza
lansing, Michigan 48933
Tuesday December 22, 1992
Page 3
Michigan Manufactures Assoc.
PLAN CORRECTION LIST
Plan Check Number: P.R.-100-92
Job Address: 620 S. Capitol Ave
Owner: Michigan Manufacturing Phone: -:72-5900
Occupancy Classification: Group B Division 2
Type of Construction: II-N
Floor Area: 33,000 Sq. Ft.
Number of Stories: 3
Valuation: 2,308,000.00
The following comments based on the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code
should be resolved before a permit is issued. This correction list is not a
building permit. The approval of plans and specifications does not permit the
violation of any section of the Uniform Building Code or any federal, state or
local regulations.
BUILDING CODE REVIEW-JACK NELSON-BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION
1. This project was the subject of a Lansing Building Board Of Appeals meeting
on Tuesday May 12, 1992. An application for appeal was filed by Mr. Dan Johnson,
Architect of Hobbs and Black, on behalf of Michigan Manufacturing Association.
The appeal requested authorization to construct a three story building with an
atrium of type II-N unrated construction, in lieu of one hour construction.
Table 5-D of the Uniform Building Code requires that buildings over two stories
in height be rated construction.
At the time of the appeal section 508 fire resistive substitution was not
applicable since the building contained an atrium. The atrium has since been
removed. Consequently, since the fire suppression system was not required to
achieve the area of the building, section 1716(a) of the building code can be
utilized.
The department is assuming that you are not constructing the building based
upon the relief granted the appeals board but rather ara using fire resistive
substitution as authorized by the building code.
2. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:
In addition to the inspections required by section 305 of the U.B.C. , the
owner shall employ a special inspector during cons---ruction on the following
types of work:
Concrete: During the taking of test specimens and placing of all
reinforced concrete and pneumatically places concrete.
Tuesday December 22, 1992
Page 4
Michigan Manufactures Assoc.
Welding: All structural welding, including welding of reinforcing
steel.
High-strength Bolting: During all bolt installations and tightening
operations, provided the inspector has inspected the surfaces and bolt
type for conformance to plans and specifications prior to the start
of bolting and will, upon completion of all bolting, verify the
minimum specified bolt tension for 10% cf the bolts for each
connection with a minimum of two bolts per connection.
Structural Masonry: During preparation of masonry wall prisms,
sampling and placing of all masonry units, placement of reinforcement,
inspection of grout space, immediately prior to closing of cleanouts,
and during all grouting operations.
3. Submit substantiation that the building complies with the requirements of
the Michigan Energy Code.
4. Exit illumination and signage shall be in accordance with Sections 3313 and
3314. The location of exit lights is subject to field approval.
5. All reinforcement shall be supported and fastened together to prevent
displacement by construction loads or the placing of concrete beyond the
tolerances established by the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code and in
accordance with A.C.I. 301.
6. Individual building permits shall be required as each tenant space is
developed.
7. Overflow drains having the same size as roof drains shall be installed with
the inlet flow line located 2 inches above the low point of the roof. Overflow
drains shall be connected to drain lines which are independen-z from the roof
drain lines. 3207(C)U.B.C. 1988
8. It appears that the only exit from the M.M.A. print shop is through the
receiving area. Provide a direct exit to the lobby or to the exterior. Section
3303(e) Uniform Building Code 1991 edition.
9. There shall be a clear floor space which is not less than 60 inches by 60
inches immediately in front of the door outside of the water closet stall. The
toilet room plans do not reflect this dimension in the mans toile's room on the
second and third floors. Section 512.11.4 Part 4 Building Code Rules.
10. The toilet paper dispensers shall be located 36 inches from the rear wall
to the leading edge of the dispenser, and 5 inches above the grab bar. The
departments position on this issue is based upon the November 6, 1992 Michigan
Barrier Free Code update and the Americans With Disabilities Act Conflict
Resolution issued by the Construction Code Commission.
11. Refer to the atrium stair detail, sheet A-501. Tne height of the handrail
is 30 inches. Section 3306(i) of the building code req•,;ires a minimum height of
34 inches and a maximum height of 38 inches.
Tuesday December 22, 1992
Page 5
Michigan Manufactures Assoc.
12. The industry has experienced problems with the r:.etal stud, brick veneer
system. The problem is attributed to the corrosion of the anchorage system
between the brick and the studs as well as the strength of the stud itself. The
department will not authorize this system unless information is submitted which
will address these concerns.
13. Submit design loading of the floor system. Has consideration been given
to the potential of the development of corridors on the floors which would
require the floor to comply with a heavier design load for exiting. Table # 23-
A.
14. The proposed construction documents do not delineate provisions for the
development of tenant spaces. A separate building permit will be required for
the development of tenant spaces which are not shown on the original submission.
The development of tenant spaces will trigger additional code requirements which
are not included within this review.
15. The Building Safety Division has no authority over the federal standards
contained in the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12204. The
construction documents as submitted may not comply with these requirements.
ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW - James White, Chief Electrical Inspector
1. An electrical permit shall be acquired by a State-licensed electrical
contractor registered with the City of Lansing.
2. All electrical work shall be installed in compliance with the National
Electric Code.
3. All electrical work is subject to field review.
4. Provide proper working clearances in electrical room. Article 110-16A
5. Section 410-71-E of the National Electric Code, 11387 edition., requires that
all ballast lighting fixtures be fused.
PLUMBING CODE REVIEW - Joseph Delaney, Chief Plumbing Inspector
1. A plumbing permit shall be acquired by a State-licensed plumbing contractor
registered with the City of Lansing.
2. All plumbing shall be installed in compliance with the Uniform Plumbing
Code as amended.
3. All plumbing work is subject to field review.
4. Toilet rooms shall comply with Part 4 Building Code Rules pertaining to
Barrier Free Design.
5. No P.V.C. is authorized in this building above grade.
MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEW - Ralph Goff, Chief Mechanical Inspector
Tuesday December 22, 1992
Page 6
Michigan Manufactures Assoc.
1. A mechanical permit shall be acquired by a State-licensed mechanical
contractor registered with the City of Lansing.
2. All mechanical work shall be done in compliance with the 1928 edition of
the Uniform Mechanical Code.
3. All mechanical work is subject to field review.
4. An automatic shutoff is required on the H.V.A.C. system if in excess of
2,000 cubic feet per minute. The automatic shutoffs shall shut down the air
moving equipment when smoke is detected in a circulating air stream. The smoke
detector shall be installed in the main circulating air duct ahead of any fresh
air inlet. 1009(a) U.M.C.
5. Toilet rooms shall be provided with mechanical ventilation which is capable
of providing a complete change of air every 15 minutes or a iuliy openable,
exterior window at least 3 sq.ft. in area. 705 U.B.C.
6. Materials exposed within ducts or plenums shall have a flame-spread index
of not more than 25 and a smoke-developed rating of nct mo-e than 50.
1002 U.M.C.
7. All enclosed portions of the building customarily occupied by human beings,
shall be provided with natural light and ventilation in accordance with section
705 of the Building Code. In lieu of this, mechanically operated ventilation
shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 5 cii.ft. per minute cf outside air
with a total circulated air of not less than 15 cu.ft. per minute per occupant
in all occupied portions of the building (occupant load is based upon a
calculated load based upon the appropriate occupant load factor) .
8. Corridors shall not be used to convey air to or from rooms if the corridor
is required to be of fire-resistive construction by Section 3305 of the Building
Code. 1002(a)
FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW-JIM RALLARD-FIRE MARSHAL
1. Six inch minimum address numbers clear and visible from the street.
10.208, pg. 42
2. Provide a "Knox Box" key box for Fire Departr_.ent entry after hours.
Application to be picked up at 815 Marshall, Fire Prevention Bureau.
10.209, pg 42
3. Provide fire extinguishers as required by N.F.?.A. Pamphlet #10, 1985
Edition. (Minimum of one 2-A:10-B:C rated fire extinguisher) .
10.30=, pg. 42
TEL : C"173930901 Feb 02 q3 14 :47 hAo . 003 r .01
FUNCTIONS
A DIVISION OF GRANGER
8267 AUREuus
P.0.e0x 22187
UW$ING,MICHKM AI&M
(517)393.1670
FAX TRANSMITTAL
COVER PAGE
DATE: February 2, 1993
TO: *JACK NELSON CITY OF LANSING" 517 *483-4393
FROM: Roger L Donaldson AIA
Direct Dial (517) 887-4125 67
NO, OF PAGES: �f (INCLUDING COVER PAGE)
OUR FAX #(517)393.1382
ANY PROBLEMS , PLEASE CALL(517) 887-4125
RE: *UPCOMING APPEALS MEETING;
Jack,
This information maybe of use to the other board members prior to
the appeal.
Also, has the City received any written formal interpretation
concerning roof drain lines (section 3207c). I would like to read
those prior to next Tuesday.
PLEASE Feel free to contact myself should you have any questions.
THANKS • �' AN
CC: none
FAX-COM DOC
T r;73930901 Fob 01 '13 14 47 No . 003 P . 02
ENGINEERED PLUM. JG
r our Codes Treat
aRoof Drainagse
a
a Building codes address the design of storm and overflow drainage systems,
but they leave a lot of room for varying interpretations
o design a plumbing system properly, one must Uvcrlluw drains shall be connected w drain lines independent from
have the understanding and ability to apply the the roof drains.
various related codes to a specific project. Often,
' however,the codes do not tell the whole story. It is also The overflow roof drainage requirement has been in
important to discuss specific interpretations and re• terpreted and enforced in matey different ways by dif
:3. quircinents with the various jurisdictional authorities ferent.jurisdictions.All seem trti agree on the first.para-
to establish specific project requirements. graph; the second paragraph, however, is where the:
The design of rainwater systems is addressed in the ambiguities arise.
model codes,but the specific rainfall intensities to use A common interpretation is illustrated in Fig. 1.The
in various areas are often not indicated. Similarly, the primary storm drain rung independently to the site
requirements for overflow drains are addressed, but storm drain. The overflow drain line terminates at a
the application of these requirements is often not %risible location at the face of the building so that if the,
clearly stated. main drain is blocked,spill from the overflow drain is
evident.
Rainfall intensity
Different jurisdictions require that rainwater pipe
sizing he determined by differing rainfall intensities. I Overflow drain
recently designed two buildings in neighboring com-
munities, one of which specified a 2 in. per hr rainfall Roo.drain 2in. Roof
intensity and the other a 6 in, per hr rainfall intensity,
For a typical 20,000 sq ft building,the former requires
I a single 6 in.storm drain line while the latter requires a
single 12 in.line or two b in.lines!
Overflow drainage Second floor
The 19&5 Uniform Building Code, Section 3207(c)
reads as follows: } '
Outside
Overt lnw•]rains and.14Cupperc.Where roof drains are rcquirod, �
overflow drains having the name size as the roof drains shell be in- g
stalled with the inlet flow line located 2 in.above the low point of the
roor, or owrf7ow scuppers having three times the size of the roof r
drains ter;be installt-d in adjacent porapei walls with the inlet flow Ground floor t '
line loctdt-d 2 in,akin-c the low point or the adjacent roof end having
a minimum opening heightof4 in. _ I
- I
By DAVID J.FRUCHTMAN,PE,
President,Fruchiman&Associates, 1 Common treatment of overflow drain calls for termination al a
Consulting Mechanical Engineers, point in the building wall where flow is readily noticeable,Indicating
Marina Del Ray,Calif, clogging of the roof drain.
81
Heatinq!Piping/Alr Conditioning.March 1990
Storm and overflow drains; Roo!drain Overflow drain Root
i
I recently encountered a sitnilar but.more radical ap-
proach, illustrated in Fig_ 2. Here the building official
requested that the overflow drain terminate at. a Io-
Cation where, should the overflow drain ftl.lction, it Second floor
t; would spill in an arcade where pedestrinns regularly
walk. The. philosophy was that if the overflow drain
spilled at a conspicuous location, the primary drain
f blockage would he repaired quickly. 1
Another municipality allowed its to connoct the 1
main drain with the overflow drain as illustrated in
Fie. 3. Here, the roof and overflow drains were allowed Ground floor
Lo be connected at the vertical drop of the primary roof
,overtiow drain 3 Another municipality considrired the requirement inr indt4pan-
Roof drain Roof dent roof and overflow drains to be met if the overflow drain lied Into
the roof drain w-low the lattor's first horizontal branch. Standing
I water on roof was viewed as anequato Indication of roof drain
Wockago.
Uverllow
Second floor dreir drain Roof
a o ovrrtlow drain Roof
Water flow switch
y..:> (typical)
i
i
i Outside
Second Ilool
Ground floor LLL111JJJ
Annunciator
panel
2 CHrryino notioeawllity to tno extreme, one building official re- Ground floor
quested overflow drain termination above a podestrian walkway.
drainage line.The logic here was that most.line Nock-
ages occur at the drain or at the first horizontal
branch. If such a blockage were to occur, the overflow
drain would continue to operate, In addition, the re- 4 Root and overttnw orain Interconnection similar to That In Pig. 3
was Allowed in anolhor case,but the building official required water
stritant�utnding at the drain location would advise the flan switches.in the overflow linos.lied into an annunciator panel to
building engineer of a blockage. alert operating l>.rsonnol to roof drain blockage.
A similnr approach is shown in Fig, 4. Here, the
building official requested that we combine the main
drain and overflow drain at the first vertical drop. In countered. Should these decisions be left to building
addition, however, he required that a paddle type wa• official::". Should there be uniformity in the industry?
f ter flow switch be placed in each overflow drain line, t
just downstream frorn the drain. If the main drain Theory vs.reality
were blocked, the overflow drain would send an alarm Yig. r5 shows a typical roof drainage sy terr. for a
to the annunciator panel, which would indicate the multistory building. We',,,e disCussed the theory of pri-
specific overflow drain causing the alarm and thus mary and overflow drainnt;<t, but.will the overflow sys• �
provide thr building engineer with a quick and easy tem nperat.t=as designed in the event of a blockage? f
t� way to locate.the blockage.. The answer is maybe. Let's assume that the block-
These are a few of the many interpretations; of pri- age occurs at the lowest point.of the primary drain, as
i mary and pvr_.rflow drain requirements we have en- illustrated. To achieve overflnw drainage operation,
84 Heating/Piping f AIr Conditioning*March 100
ft Ir
i �.
TEL : r T=9,50y01 Feb 02 `5 14 : 4& lvo . 007) P
Roof
oreir Overflow drain Root
15 It
the ent.irt' primary drain line must fill with water from
1I,c It,c:jt.ion of'theblockage to'2 in. above the:drnin 10- 1 turd f!uur
("Ilion. In our exalnp)e, the tease of the system will
t.hereforc:he subject.to 45 ft.of head, or nearh' 20 psi of
llressure. 15 it
'11'pically, cast iron piping; with stainless steel bane]
c:lmnps ai-e used for these applications. These Coll- Second floor
plirtffr;, however,ore designed for gravity flow and tJ'>;i-
cal f• can withstand only about 10 ft, of head. There-
fore, there is a good possibility that a Coupling will fail, 15 it
ca1j,jig the rainwat.cr to run into the building.
])ov1' do we protect against, this? One way is re- Gronndfloor
quiring that t.hc primary drain line and couplings be
Llesil;nt'd to withstand the static head of a water-filled
pike. f3lochage�~
l
Stt to mary Basement
);ifoi collyl-,se,;have been all Lon common in the last
few years. Proper roof drainage. alld overflow,' drainage
y�Le,u design is essential to reduce the likelihood of scnlGol�19 A�jaicls anti head thal canedeveilop iUGS nhoVid
cv nt of a low-lie e!
this oc(-urring in the future. blockage.
WhE+n dt:signinf, it root' drainage syst.ein, the engi-
neer MWZ1: fully understand the codes and specific ju
risdictional requirernenLF for these Syst.erils. I'}te engi- dition, we should re-evaluate the plpinq rrlatcrlal5 v
necr should also ensure that overflow drain operation arc usirik to e1iF1?re that. syst.err;s will function in t1S�
is rr.adi)y ldrt7l.il'1aI71c to encourage rapid repair. In ad_mannor they were intended to.
Md
• Expands GTrres . No-olnts
S�yyrr ,t r 5 Feet Expandr.to 30 Fool • Fug Labor£iav!ngs
`a L� • No Storage Damage • Tighter panning Racllus
f No Tran,spnnaiwo DTmago UL Li�l1
No WaSle In Cutting • AvailR41B in&to 90'Length;:
i +
,
:•a
Lightweight
3.
contender
1 '
1 .• ,, ,ri„ho�,1 tar harrllo'eNr=r' =--� ';. �
Ainor's U.rlomeier Jr."..-the c:,r Sol+f r,y 100 SIOGk,nc;
compact, lightweighl, low- e."
cost alternativc for r,ir volume S1.1iC,.;ul;t:n ac-a lC•C,tis' �'I•
111eDSuremenls fil C.rf t:W.Icior 51:IV'CC:f1Jf11�+: i _i'
., i,:`prr1:- �+-ben=etc, I:_,' 6�r delft]_ '°l•' ;� -
,;•r�'c1:ly
1:71'.n'v'•n'r J :d'^: :iLi:C,i+ 'i,:', 1'nonnC+Wr11g(0lLlleri,I(,fe
n :Ic;:;l::ilr• nut:;19;f__v^u;ll:. W A I ' 79i'S Dunbr(pk Rd.,SUIte G
:ii i,ri l'�l1'J l-;r!��, �ji;la,:i.91 I 1\(rc" TAFLEV ;nor,076g0.CA92125
,G90
• 'yj,�f+C V\ ^ r'hona�f6t9)!�9.0909
Alnor instrument Company, 7C,5.', N L-u,(1e.' Nvc i 840-453-4531LXCEP7INCAL!F. $Do-N6-144G-CALIF.
Il. bUU77 (MM 6/1 �:,;'G. FAX(70b)R77-a`:111_•
Circle 345 on Cmd;sor-MPAG Iola-doz,p.A143.
(;ifcte]56 on Render service Card 83
Iieatinq/Piping/Air Conditioning•March 1990
TEL '.73930901 Feb 02' ,3 14 : 49 N0 . 003 P .0-1
hid"tir 4' 3 ^ )S r ,�✓ r44
'i
�•�.� i r '�1 " ', I, 1. .i:tf � �{'� �. p��. ,f�.n. .f iY`�1, Llrti'Zfi flty l�id�%
��)s���F.•� ;k � y 1 �;- , "Sy hn �\iiV y9 r� "i�� `r t,�r.; ) �+r FI, ., i1R�)��.�jy � '^� �h�
t r�ri�.i.�` "�t1.,I., •rt ; ri F.-- �?. )'f"•c- � ��;. , •�1`�YM1 ).7...,i ` �, , 1.',�'S� i" ly
t 1,.. � Y� 1 nY 2 Z��1 ) 7 / INh r�a)bra•, Y� k 4. R�p {� Yl Y)�V )-� it
. . }n,`•7.. k: .Baer?h1.9"_,..;<I_u:s:f.'}.V•lct4rr, i-�. dC�"!$a tr .
DEFINITIONS 103--104 {
(o) Building Drain —The building; drain is that part of the: lowest i r
1pin
of a drainage system which receives the discharge from soil, waste and (•,..,. `'
other drainage pipes inside the walls of the building and conveys it to
the building;sewer beginning two 2 feet 6m outside the building wall. J!
z,
(p) Building Sewer — 'Flie building; sewer is that part of the horizontal
piping; of a drainage system which extends from the end of the building
drain and
which receives the discharge of the building drain and
convoys it to a public sewer, private sewer, individual sewage disposal �r}`
system, or other point of disposal. ly P
Building
(r1) S Su FPIY - The building supply is the pipe carrying potable
water from the water meter or other source of water supply to a building I1
or other point of use or distribution on the lot. Buildingsupply shall also
PP Y
mean water service. �1 � �
Section 104 _ _ r.l
(a) Certified Backfiow Assembly Tester - A certified backflow
ass-1nbly tester is a person who has shown competence to test and
maintain backflow assemblies to the satisfaction of the Administrative
Authority having jurisdiction,
(b) Cesspool — A cesspool is a lined excavation in the ground which
receives the discharge of a drainage system or part thereof, so designed
,s to retain the organic matter and solids discharging therein, but
Perm
ittin the liquids t
g q p through the bottom and sides. ii '''
o seep thr ,
; ) Clarifier
c --See Interceptor. _ffi.'
(d) Code — I'lie word "Code" or "this Code," when used alone, shall
mean these regulations, subsequent amendments thereto or any
emergency rule or regulation which the Administrative Authority having;
jurisdiction may lawfully adopt
(e) Combination Waste and Vent System — A combination waste and
vent system is a specially designed system of waste embodying
piping Y g
the horizontal wet venting of one or more sinks or floor drains by means
of a common waste and vent pipe, adequately sized to provide free :
movement of air above the flo%,v ling_ of the drain. '
(f) Combustible Construction — For the purpose of this Code,
combustible construction is a structure in which any member of its
structural framework will ignite and burn at a temperature of 1392" F or
less.
'a,
(9) Common — Common means that part of a plumbing system which is .Y
so designed and installed as to serve more than one (1) appliance,
fixture, building, or system.
TEL7 73930901 Feb 02 3 14 :50 No .003 P .06
104-105 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE '
DEFiNIT101`
(i) Contamination - An impairment of the quality of the potable water mains of a t
which creates an actual hazard to the public health through poisoning or plant,
through the Spread of disease by sewage, industrial fluids or waste. Also (g) Durhan
defined as High Hazard.
waste systel
(j) Continuous Vent - A continuous vent is a vertical vent that is a rigid constr
continuation of the drain to which it connects. types of pip
(k) Continuous Waste — A continuous waste is a drain connecting the Section 101
compartments of a set of fixtures to a trap or connecting other permitted (a) Effecti,
fixtures to a common trap.
sectional a
(1) Critical Level -The critical level C-L or C/L marking on a backflow expressed i
prevention device or vacuum breaker is a point conforming; to approved circular, the
standards and established by the testing laboratory (usually stamped on is applicabl
the device by the manufacturer) which determines the minimum (b) Existin
elevation above the flood level rim of the fixture or receptacle served at thereof whi
which the device may be installed. When a backflow prevention device Section 10
does not bear a critical level marking, the bottom of the vacuum breaker,
combination valve, or the bottom of any such approved device shall (a) Fixture
constitute the critical level. fixture supl
(m) Cross-Connection - A cross-connection is any connection or (b) Fixture
arrangement, physical or otherwise, between a potable water supply to the junct
system and any plumbing fixture or any tank, receptacle, equipment or (c) Fixture
device, through which it may be possible for non-potable., used, unclean, the fixture
polluted and contaminated water, or ether substances, to enter into any (d) Fixturt
part of such potable water system under any condition. producing
Section 105 - D - fixtures arE
( ) Department Having jurisdiction - The Department having
(e) Flood
jurisdiction means the Administrative Authority and includes any other ; (f) Flood
law enforcement agency affected by any provision of this Code, whether from whid
such agency is specifically named or not. (g) Flood(
al ) Developed Length - The developed length of a pipe is its length flood level
along the center line of the: pipE.- and fittings.
(h) Flush
(c) Diameter - Unless specifically stated, the term "diameter" is the urinals, or
nominal diameter as designated commercially. of the fixh:
(d) Domestic Sewage - iomestic sewage means the liquid and water- (i) Flush
borne wastes derived from the ordinary living processes, free from tank for th
industrial %,,,astes, and of such character as to permit satisfactory
disposal, Vvithout Sp)CCial trUatment, into the public sewer or by means of (j) Flush
a private se",age disposal system. within an
(e) Drain - A drain is any pipe w;iic.h carries waste or water-borne prcdeterm
wastes in a building drainage ;system. (k) Flush
(f) Drainage System - A drainage systein (drainage pipHig) includes all discharge
the piping, within public or private premises, which conveys sewage or
purposes
other liquid wastes to a legal point of disposal, but does not include the