Code Attorney

I recently did an all day training for the Illinois Fire Inspectors Association and I found myself talking about using multiple codes for violations.  Fire inspectors often work with both the IFC and the Life Safety Code and have to decide which one to use.  I find that the IFC has superior administrative provisions and gravitate towards it for enforcement.  The Life Safety Code is a great code to follow when something is being constructed.  Beyond that, I sometimes find that using the IPMC is helpful when dealing with a problem property because it has very specific sections on the condemnation of unsafe buildings, structures and equipment.  In some jurisdictions, the building department writes the violations for the fire department or fire district.  In those cases, I’ve often seen the inspectors use Chapter 7 of the IPMC for fire code violations since it’s fairly comprehensive for common fire safety violations.  Ultimately it doesn’t matter which code you use as long as it’s appropriate to the situation and it meets the local requirements of your jurisdiction and state.  Being flexible is important because you may find that you hit a dead end using one code but the solution lies in another.  When I wrote the guide books for the IBC, IFC and IRC, I included a chapter on using the IPMC when unsafe structures were involved.  The IBC and IFC have some guidance for unsafe buildings but not to the point of condemnation. The IRC has nothing about unsafe structures.  Now that there are many half-built single family structures standing around, this becomes a problem since the IBC doesn’t apply to them.  I usually recommend using the IPMC (if you have adopted it) if the permit has expired.  If you don’t hve the IPMC, you better have a decent public nuisance ordinance.  Otherwise, the only alternative is a demolition lawsuit which in most jurisdictions can be a costly procedure.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Building Codes, Code Enforcement, Fire Prevention, Ordinances, property maintenance Tag(s):

The earthquake tragedy in Haiti is a reminder of what can happen when there are no building codes or the existing ones aren’t enforced, when there are no building inspectors or a lack of oversight. The sight of collapsed schools, government buildings and residences is heartbreaking. I recently had a call from an inspector who said that his local jurisdiction was considering writing its own code instead of following the IBC because contractors were complaining that it cost too much to build following the IBC. Given the economic circumstances, they wanted a “less strict” code. Every time we sacrifice safety for monetary gain we are hoping that disaster doesn’t strike and reveal the dark side of less restrictive enforcement. Poorer countries lack the luxury of regulation and we can understand how things like this happen but we shouldn’t forget our homegrown tragedies like the collapse of the Hyatt walkway in Kansas City. We keep making the same mistakes because we forget what history teaches us. What happened in Hait is not a surprise. Newspapers recounted the collapse of schools in Haiti in 2008 due to poor construction. In 2007 the Department of Sustainable Development of the Organization of American States was approached about working to bring about a national building code in Haiti. You can read more about this problem at http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/12/haiti.earthquake.infrastructure/index.html or watch Earthquake in Haiti.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Building Codes, Fire Prevention Tag(s):

Sometimes a building code official may become a defendant in a mandamus action.  A mandamus action is a lawsuit wherei nthe plaintiff tries to compel a governmental official or entity to perform a duty, such as issuing a building permit that has been wrongfully withheld.  A recent case out of Minnesota, Pigs R Us, LLC v. Compton Township, 770 N.W.2d 212(2009,

describes a mandamus action where a township revoked a building permit that had been properly issued for a swine facility.  The owner filed a second application that was not processed and the township passed an interim zoning ordinance that required the facility to have a special use permit.  The owner filed a mandamus suit to compel the township to issue the building permit.  Mandamus by definition only applies to non-discretionary acts. Issuing a permit is a ministerial act so the Court ordered the Township to issue the permit because the plaintiff complied with the law in effect at the time he filed it.  It also found that the township had acted arbitrarily in passing the new ordinance. The township officials tried to claim that they were immune from the lawsuit but the Court found that the Municipal Tort Claims Act applied only to tort actions and not mandamus actions.  The case was sent back to the lower court to decide if damages should be awarded in this case.  Building code officials must always be aware that if they fail to perform a ministerial duty, a mandamus action is possible.  This case demonstrates that the building code official cannot always rely on qualified immunity to get him or her dismissed from a lawsuit which is what the township board members sadly discovered.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Building Codes, Court cases, Zoning Tag(s):

Mick Vogt, an inspector with Villa Park, IL shared this video with me of “How to Construct a Snowman” from a zoning inspector’s perspective.  It’s delightful. http://www.gontramarchitecture.com/portfolio/Holiday_Video_2009/How_to_Construct_a_Snowman.swf

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Uncategorized Tag(s):

Just when I think I’ve seen everything, an inspector sends me a picture she took after someone complained about a code violation. In keeping with the season, I am sharing it with all of you to see if anyone can think of what the charge would or should be.

Oh, Christmas tree, oh, Christmas tree

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Code Enforcement Tag(s):