My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Building Code Board of Appeals Minutes 2000
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
>
2000-2019 Building Code Board of Appeals Agendas and Packets
>
2000 Building Code Board of Appeals Agendas and Packets
>
Building Code Board of Appeals Minutes 2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:01:12 PM
Creation date
10/4/2018 10:28:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BCBOAMIN 2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
this would have been a good one to take to court. <br /> Ray Schlott—What time frame are we working on here? In the ordinance there is some wording <br /> that we have reviewed the 1997 code. "The Board of appeals and City staff have reviewed the <br /> 1997 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code as adopted and amended by the State", and we have <br /> not done that yet. The closest I could come would be that I have a copy of the comparison <br /> between the 1997 IPC and the 1997 UPC. By the way,the IPC is more stringent in most critical <br /> areas. The only place it gives more flexibility is m the development and design of systems. <br /> Sam Light—I think that Council direction is to repeal what we have on the books and put in its <br /> place that which will make our plumbing code not an issue of controversy In addition to that I <br /> think they would appreciate your recommendations and your endorsement of what is adopted. <br /> Based on whatever action or position you take on the 1997 UPC. We will then revise the <br /> findings accordingly when we take the ordinance back to Council. <br /> Ray Schlott—I am just trying to determine what kind of time frame we have to work with. <br /> Sam Light—Right now we are on a 90 day stand still in the litigation. That presumes that first <br /> reading of this ordinance would go to City Council on the 5th of September <br /> Thomas Talboom—Did you get a copy of my memo with the time frame? Councils time frame <br /> is to go to first reading September 5th and second reading and public hearing October 3`d <br /> Sam Light—It would seem to me that if this board wanted more time to look at the issue I could <br /> advise Council that you were going to have an additional meeting and may have further input for <br /> the ordinance at second reading, including potentially some revisions or amendments. Or if no <br /> substantive amendments,perhaps some revisions to the recitals of the amendment to clarify your <br /> stance and position. <br /> Greg Cullison—Has the State Plumbing Board adopted the 1997 UPC in its entirety? <br /> Sam Light—They adopted the 1997 UPC in 1999 I do not want to suggest that the State <br /> Plumbing Board,by virtue of the statute,has the right to dictate our plumbing code. Having said <br /> that,I think the non-controversial solution is to adopt what they assert is the controlling <br /> plumbing code within the state. <br /> Greg Cullison—It is too bad we cannot not go back to the 1994 UPC and give ourselves some <br /> more time for review of the 1997 <br /> Sam Light—They adopted the 1997 chapters 2 to 14 Chapter one being the administration stuff, <br /> I think we want to keep that. How do you want to handle fees? <br /> Thomas Talboom—The fees that are in the table are not the same as what we have adopted <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.