[RPPTL-constructionlaw] Expert: Fire codes

Tue Mar 22 11:10:03 PDT 2011

Thanks, Robert.

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of FineR at gtlaw.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:47 PM
To: constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Expert: Fire codes

[This, of course not being legal advice...]

The issue is more likely, the codes today, not the code from 69-70.  when the building was built.   There is no grandfathering from the fire code  (Florida Fire Prevention Code) in Florida. The fire marshal/inspector can almost always compel enforcement with the fire code in effect-- except that it would be for compliance with the "existing" building requirements for the particular use. In the FLFPC, there is a new [use] and existing [use] chapter for each use type. For example, there is a new apartment building chapter and an existing apartment building chapter. A non-printable version of the FLFPC can be found on the State Fire Marshal's website.  If it it turns out that this is where your problem is (and I suspect it is), there may be alternatives in the code itself .  Also, there are also some statutory provisions that deal with hardship in complying with the fire code as well.

Hope this helps.  Regards,

Robert S. Fine, Esq., AIA
Shareholder
Environmental, Land Development, Accessibility,
Building and Life Safety Codes Law
Board Certified in Construction Law

Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | 333 Avenue of the Americas| Miami, FL 33131
Tel 305.579.0826 | Fax 305.961.5826
finer at gtlaw.com<mailto:finer at gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>

[Image removed by sender. Greenberg Traurig]

________________________________
     Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

     The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to postmaster at gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com>.

________________________________

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Joseph G. Thresher
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:24 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Expert: Fire codes
Some thoughts---
There are cases that have held that testimony about interpretation of codes is not admissible when offered by a design expert experienced in applying code;  the argument being that interpretation of code is a matter of law not fact and testimony on issue of law is not competent evidence. On the other hand there is a FDOT rule case involving outdoor advertizing which held that evidence of past practice of agency (FDOT) responsible for interpretation and enforcement,  may be offered as evidence of proper meaning to be given to code.
Because you have period of actual application of code by then competent agency, and no change to code language ( I assume ) then that prior interpretation may be a basis for interpreting code as applied to your specific facts. The interpretation and enforcement of safety codes include judgment, consistently exercised, for period of time may be a basis to preclude the inquiry itself (absent a new and permissibly retroactive safety code requirement).
Good Luck
Joseph G. Thresher
813-229-7744
From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Richard A. Burt
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:26 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Expert: Fire codes

Everyone,

I have a client who has owned an apartment building which has housed college students for over 20 years.  Up to this year, the state conducted an annual inspection of the building and its units; each year the building and units passed inspection.  Recently, the inspection function was transferred to the local fire department.  The local fire inspector has cited the client for inadequate egress, stating that a door leading into a bedroom of a number of units must remain unlocked at all times.  This would render these apartments non-rentable costing the client hundreds of thousands of dollars in income and drastically reducing the building’s value.  Despite pleas by the client and his architects and engineers, who have suggested a number of options to achieve the objective of the egress requirement, the fire department inspector will not budge.

Can anyone identify an expert in the area of fire codes in effect in 1969-1970 and currently?

Thanks.

Richard A. Burt, Esq.

Richard A. Burt, Esq.
BURT & BURT
220 So. Ridgewood Avenue
Suite 200
Daytona Beach, Florida 32114
(386) 252-2090 (office)
(866) 240-7043 (facsimile)
dick at burt-burt.com<mailto:dick at burt-burt.com>
www.burt-burt.com<http://www.burt-burt.com/>

________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20110322/0ec93a8e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD212.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: ~WRD212.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20110322/0ec93a8e/WRD212.jpg>