602 W. Ionia, Lansing, MI 48933 | 517-763-7892 | mjdsmith@miacca.org |www.miacca.org

September 16, 2020

LARA

Bureau of Construction Codes

Via Email: LARA-BCC-Rules@michigan.govemail

Re: Part 5. Residential Code (ORR# 2019-118 LR)

To Whom it May Concern;

The Michigan Air Conditioning Contractors Association (MIACCA), would like to submit the

following public comments in regards to Part 5. Residential Code (ORR# 2019-118 LR) :

MIACCA requests that the Bureau to remove, in its entirety, the Section R105.2(c)(xi)

exemption which states (xi) When changing or relocating a gas meter or regulator, a permit is

not required when installing gas piping which shall be limited to 10 feet (3 005 mm) in length

and not more than 6 fittings.

MIACCA requests that as an alternative to removing Section R105.2(c)(xi) entirely, that the

Bureau considers replacing Section R105.2(c)(xi) with the proposed following language:

(xi) When changing or relocating a gas meter or regulator, a permit is not required when

installing gas piping OUTDOORS which shall be limited to 10 feet (3.005 mm) in length

and not more than 6 fittings.

Therefore, MIACCA respectfully requests that Section R105.2(c)(xi) be either removed in its

entirety and alternatively replaced with the proposed language, suggested in the above paragraph,

and requiring mechanical permits, gas leak testing and mechanical inspections by the third party

authority having jurisdiction when gas meters are relocated in residences that includes gas piping

after the meter being redone and or installed. If mechanical permits are required for other gas

piping done in a residence, then so should the gas piping done when relocating a gas meter.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this and hope that you will strongly consider our

suggestions, as we believe it is to the benefit of the profession and our members. Please contact

me with any questions you might have.

Best Regards,

M.J. D’Smith

Executive Director

Dear Director,

Please accept the following public comment and request being submitted pursuant to the public notice for Part

5. Residential Code (ORR# 2019-118 LR).

The gas utility known as Consumers Energy Company was ordered by the Michigan Public Service Commission in

U-20569 to show cause why Consumers Energy Company should not be found in violation of Public Act 174 of 2013, the

MISS DIG Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act, MCL 460.721 et seq . Therein Consumers Energy

Company basically admitted its failure to mark gas lines as required; as indicated in January 23, 2020 Order issued in

Case No. U-20569 (located at: https://mi-psc.force.com/sfc/servlet.shepherd/version/download/068t0000009SsYcAAK ).

Given such a violation by one of the largest gas utilities in the State of Michigan, it would be inappropriate for

the Director to continue in 2019-118-LR, the promulgating of Administrative Rule R 408.30505(c)(xi) of the Michigan

Residential Code; which states in relevant part:

R105.2. Work exempt from permit. Exemption from the permit requirements of the code shall not be deemed to

grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of the code or any other

laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits are not required for any of the following:

…

(c) Mechanical permits shall not be required for any of the following:

…

(xi) When changing or relocating a gas meter or regulator, a permit is not required when installing gas piping

which shall be limited to 10 feet (3 005 mm) in length and not more than 6 fittings.

Therefore, given U-20569, it is respectfully requested that the Director, for public safety reasons, not adopt

Administrative Rule R 408.30505(c)(xi) as proposed and strike this exemption for utility meter relocations from obtaining

a mechanical permit and subsequent approval. The Director should require a mechanical permit, gas leak test and a

mechanical inspection by the inspection authority having jurisdiction when a gas meter is relocated in a residence that

includes gas piping after the meter. If mechanical permits are required for other gas piping that consists of less than 10

feet of piping and less than 6 fittings that is done in a residence, then so should a mechanical permit be required for the

gas piping done when relocating a gas meter.

Thank you for your consideration and look forward to your positive response to this request to further protect

Michiganders from gas piping that is not inspected.

Thanks,

Phil Forner

AHC

Allendale Heating Company Inc.

11672 60^thAvenue – P.O. Box 296

Allendale, Michigan 49401

Office: (616) 895-4949

Fax: (616) 895-5020

E-mail: phil@allendaleheating.com

2019 Air Conditioning Contractors of America Spirit of Independence Award recipient

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, including attachments, is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s)

and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. Any dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is

prohibited without express written authorization. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and

permanently delete the original message, any attachments, and all copies of the communication.

My name is William Hordyk. I am a registered Building inspector and plans examiner in the State of

Michigan. I also hold 10 national certifications with the International Code Council including Residential

and Commercial Inspector, Residential and Commercial Plans Examiner and Building Code Specialist. I

come to you duly elected by the Metro Building Inspectors Association of Greater of Grand Rapids to

speak on their behalf regarding this mater. The Metro association is a group of over 130 registered

building officials and inspectors performing their duties for over 70 delegated authorities in the state of

Michigan.

In review of the proposed rule changes, I would like to raise an objection to the deletion of substantial

portions of the administrative section (chapter 1) of the Residential Code. These sections identified for

deletion have existing in the model code and MI versions of that code since the promulgation of the

2000 codes. Similar language has also been a part of the MI adopted codes from the formation of PA

230 of 1972 without being modified by administrative rules. Why is it now that the director has

determined to throw out 50 years of precedence and claim that these sections of code are in

contradiction to the Act? I ask the director to respond with reasoning for the deletions, and specific

reasoning for each of the following sections identified for deletion from the 2018 International

Residential Code indicating what specific language of PA 230 is purported to be contradicted.

R 103.1

R 103.2

R 103.3

R 104.2

R 104.3

R 104.5

R 104.6

R 104.7

R 104.8

R 104.8.1

R 104.10

R 105.3

R 105.3.1

R 105.3.2

R 105.6

R 105.9

R 106.2

R 108.1 to R 108.2

R 108.3

R 108.4

R 108.5

R 108.6

R 109.1

R 109.1.5

R 110.1

R 110.2

R 112.2

R 112.3

R 112.4

R113.1 to R 113.3

R 113.4

R 114.1

R 114.2

I also request substantiation for the proposed amending of

R101.3

R102.7

R104.1

R106.5

And to the Deletion of the definition of

“Attic”

“Building Inspector”

“Building”

“Building Official”

and “Registered Design Professional”

Apart from the objection to the proposed rule changes I would raise objection to the stated reasoning

for these administrative changes. In the Bureau’s Rules Impact Statement, they claim twice that the

proposed changes are intended to bring the rules “…in line with actual practices.” I present to you that,

as a representative of over 130 registered building officials, the proposed changes at best indifferent to

actual practices at more likely in direct contradiction to actual practices.

Thank you for your time today.

TO: Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs/Bureau of Construction Codes

FM: Roger Papineau, P O Box 574, Beulah, MI, 49617-0574

RE: Proposed Part 5 rules changes

Date: September 17, 2020

Please consider the following modifications to the proposed rule changes.

Modify proposed change to Rule 501c by deleting the reference to the international property

maintenance code.

Reason: Section R102.4 Referenced codes and standards states:

The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered

part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each

such reference and as further regulated in Sections R102.4.1 and

R102.4.2.

Act 230 of 1972 does not adopt the IMPC. Section R102.7 is the only reference to the

international property maintenance code and contains no specific section reference in this code.

This amounts to a quasi-adoption of the IMPC which is beyond the purview of the Department.

R 408.30501c Existing structures.

Rule 501c. Section 102.7 is amended to read as follows:

R102.7. Existing structures. The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of

adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically

covered in this code, the international property maintenance code or the international fire

code.

Modify proposed change to Rule 505 by deleting the reference to porches.

Rule 505. Section R105.2 of the code is amended to read as follows:

R105.2. Work exempt from permit. Exemption from the permit requirements of the

code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in

violation of the provisions of the code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.

Permits are not required for any of the following:

(a) Building permits shall not be required for any of the following:

(x) Decks, porches, patios, landings, or similar structures not exceeding 200 square feet (18.58

m2) in area, that are not more than

30 inches (762 mm) above grade at any point as prescribed by Section R312.1.1, are not

attached to a dwelling or its accessory structures, are not within 36 inches (914 mm) of a

dwelling or its accessory structures, and do not serve any ingress or egress door of the

dwelling or its accessory structures.

Reason: RB6-07/08 was specific to “decks” and clearly implied that “porches” were not intended to

be included.

Proponent reason statement at ICC

Reason: The proposed amendment will exclude decks from permits only when:

• no part of the deck floor is more than 30 inches above grade

• the deck has no roof (a deck by definition is a floor system)

• the deck is not structurally attached to the dwelling

• the deck does not serve the main exit door

This was thoroughly debated at ICC, being approved by AMPC-3 at the Final Action Hearings.

PC 3 reason:

Proposals to exempt decks from permits have been under consideration for inclusion into the

IRC for two code edition cycles and we believe that all the limitations previously requested by

the IRC committees that have heard those proposals have been met by RB6. Further we

believe that if a detached accessory structure of up to 200 square feet can be exempt from

permit, that this size limit should be considered for detached decks. Please remember that the

whole premise of this section as stated in its second sentence is only to exempt issuance of a

permit. This section specifically does NOT grant authorization for a deck to be in violation of any

requirement (e.g., structural) of this code or other laws (e.g., zoning ordinances) of the

jurisdiction. We ask the membership to support the longstanding and practical desire of many

jurisdictions to exempt small decks from permitting,and allow this code change to finally become

a part of the IRC.

An unattached “Porch” located more than 36” from the dwelling would be more properly be

defined as a “Gazebo”. To include porches in the exemption will only create confusion as

porches are generally attached to the dwelling and often serve as part of the MOE.

R 408.30513 Definitions.

Rule 513.

Modify and retain the definition of REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL as follows:

“Registered design professional” means an individual or firm who is licensed as an architect or

professional engineer under 1980 PA 299, MCL 339.101 to 339.2919.

R 408.30513

Reason:

This term is used multiple times (29 in the MRC) throughout the I-Codes including 12 times in

the ISPSC which is referenced in R326.1 as the requirement for pools not exempted by R

408.30505.

This term occurs at least 168 other times in I-Codes adopted by the State of Michigan, not

including “registered design professional in responsible charge” (6 or more times).

Pulling on this thread could easily result in a big pile of string.

Note: I did not include licensed professional surveyors because I don’t think they qualify to

design buildings. If there is by chance a reference to the siting of buildings or some other task

which would fall within their purview which I’m not aware of, I would gladly modify my

proposed language to include them.

TO: Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs/Bureau of Construction Codes

FM: Lee Schwartz

Executive Vice President for Government Relations

RE: Proposed Part 5 rules changes

Date: September 15, 2020

On February 5, 2018, in a letter to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, the Home Builders

Association of Michigan (HBAM), “respectfully requests the department to amend Chapters 1 (Scope and Administration) and 2

(Definitions) of the 2015 Michigan residential code to align both chapters with the Stille-DeRossett-Hale Single State Construction

Code Act, 1972 PA 230, and the Skilled Trades Regulation Act, 2016 PA 407, to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies between

the code and statutory authority.” This request was made in accordance with MCL 125.1504(7) as well as at the request

of the department.

In its Request For Rulemaking (RFR) the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs described the general

purpose of these rules, including any problem(s) the changes are intended to address as follows: “The rules currently

adopt by reference Chapters 1 & 2 of the International Residential Code. The bureau (of construction codes) is revising the above rules

that are in Part5, Residential Code, to correct (emphasis added) conflicts and inconsistencies between the two chapters of the

Residential Code and the Stille-DeRossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act 230 PA 1972 and the Skilled Trades

Registration Act, 407 PA 2016.”

The current draft of the proposed changes fails to comply with the authorization granted in the RFR. These

proposed changes have the effect of making the Michigan Residential Code more complex, less useful, and create

unnecessary confusion and uncertainty over its requirements and how they are administered.

Unlike Michigan’s other construction codes (Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy and Rehabilitation

of Existing Buildings) which each cover specific areas of construction and must be used in conjunction with each

other, the Michigan Residential Code has always been intended to be a “stand-alone” document; one

containing everything needed to build one- and two-family homes and townhouses including not only

construction requirements but also how the code is to be administered and the duties and powers of the

building official and limitations to those powers and duties.

Residential construction is “code book-centric.” Residential builders and maintenance contractors are required to have a

copy of the latest edition of the Michigan Residential Code as a condition of their license. They are not required to

have a copy of the Single State Construction Code Act or the Skilled Trades Act.

In the field, the Michigan Residential Code is used as the governing document for settling most disputes between

building officials/inspectors. Its utility comes not only from the construction requirements it contains but also the

outlining of specific authority for building officials/inspectors to take certain actions as allowed or required by the

Skilled Trades Act and the Single State Construction Code. It’s easy and convenient for everyone involved to have

this information and these requirements in one place rather than scattered between the code book and two separate

laws.

This is exactly what was in our February 2018 request: Chapters 1 & 2 of the Michigan Residential Code should be

“align(ed)” with the Single State Construction Code Act to resolve any conflicts of inconsistencies. This draft fails

to accomplish that goal and, instead of aligning the code with the law, simply makes wholesale elimination of

valuable portions of the code.

While the Regulatory Impact Statement for these proposed changes states they will “correct conflicts and inconsistencies

between the two chapters and the Stille-DeRossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act, 1972 PA 230, and the Skilled Trades

Regulation Act, 2016 PA 407, as per a request (from HBAM) the proposed changes fall far short of that goal.

The RIS states the desired outcome of these amendments is “eliminate unnecessary requirements in the code and to have an

easier interpretation and classification of the rules” as well as “greater clarity to the code and an increase in health and safety to the

citizens of the state of Michigan and its visitors.” These proposed changes accomplish none of these goals.

The RIS for these proposed changes is also gravely inaccurate when it states, “There are no reasonable alternatives to the

proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals.”

Adherence to the initial request from HBAM to harmonize the code with Michigan law rather than

eliminate convenient and beneficial portions of the code is “a reasonable alternative to the proposed rules

that would achieve the same or similar goals” as was repeatedly pointed out by builders and code officials during

the advisory meeting.

CHAPTER 1 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION

PROPOSED CHANGES

In the proposed revisions to Section R104 Duties and Powers of the Building Official, the draft eradicates,

rather than modifies to be consistent with either the Skilled Trades Act or the Single State Construction Code Act,

many references to the duties and powers of the building official. Among those sections eliminated are:

 R104.2 Applications and permits

Requires the building official to receive review, issues permits and perform inspections.

 R104.3 Notices and orders

Requires the building official to issues necessary notices and orders to ensure code compliance.

 R104.5 Identification

Requires the building official to carry proper identification.

 R104.6 Right of Entry

Allows the building official to enter premises to enforce the code and the act.

 R 104.7 Department Records

Require the retention of official records including applications, permits, certificates, fees, inspections, notices

and orders.

 R104.8 Legal Defense

Not found in the MRC.

 R104.10 Modifications

Provides authority to grant modifications due to practical difficulties for individual cases. Requires any

modifications to meet the intent and purpose of the code and not lessen safety. Details of granting

modification must be recorded and entered into file.

In Section R105 Permits, the draft eradicates, rather than modifies to be consistent with either the Skilled Trades

Act or the Single State Construction Code Act:

 R105.3 Application for permit

Specifies content needed on application for permit.

 R105.3.1 Action on Application

Requires building official to take action on application and to document same in file.

 R105.3.3 Time Limitation of application

Allows building official to extend application time limits if the application has been pursued in good faith ot a

permit has been issued.

 R105.6 Suspension of revocation (of permit)

Allows suspension or revocation of permit if issued in error, on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate

information or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or the code.

 R105.9 Preliminary inspection.

Authorizes the building official to examine or cause to be examined building, structures or sites for which an

application has been filed.

In Section R106 Construction Documents, the draft eradicates, rather than modifies to be consistent with either

the Skilled Trades Act or the Single State Construction Code Act:

R106.2 Site Plan or plot plan

Requires permit application to be accompanied by site or plot plan showing size and location of new and existing

structures on the site and distances from the lot line.

In Section R108 Fees, the draft eradicates, rather than modifies to be consistent with either the Skilled Trades Act

or the Single State Construction Code Act:

 R108.1 Fees

Requires fees to be paid before a permit is issued.

In Section R109 Inspections, the draft eradicates, rather than modifies to be consistent with either the Skilled

Trades Act or the Single State Construction Code Act:



R109.1 Types of Inspections

Requires building official to make inspection and approve ongoing construction.

 R109.1.5 Other Inspections

Allows building official to require other inspections to make sure of compliance with the code.

In R110 Certificate of Occupancy, the draft eradicates, rather than modifies to be consistent with either the

Skilled Trades Act or the Single State Construction Code Act:

 R110.1 Use and Occupancy

Removes requirement a building cannot be used or occupied or its occupancy classification changed until a

certificate of occupancy (C of O) has been issued.

 R110.2 Change in Use

Requires change in the use of an existing structure be done under the Michigan Building Code.

In Section R111 Service Utilities, the draft eradicates, rather than modifies to be consistent with either the Skilled

Trades Act or the Single State Construction Code Act:

 R111.2 Temporary Connections

Removes building official’s authority to allow temporary connection of the building or system to utilities,

source of energy, fuel or power. to take action on application and to document same in file.

In Section R112 Board of Appeals, the draft eradicates, rather than modifies to be consistent with either the

Skilled Trades Act or the Single State Construction Code Act:

 R112.2 Limitation of authority

States the Board of Appeals may allow for an equally good or better form of construction but cannot waive

requirements of the code.



R112.4 Administration

Requires the building official to take immediate action in accordance with the decision of the board.

In Section R113 Violations, the draft eradicates, rather than modifies to be consistent with either the Skilled

Trades Act or the Single State Construction Code Act:



R113.1 Unlawful Acts

States it’s unlawful to do construction work in conflict with or in violation of the code.

R113.2 Notice of Violation

Authorizes the building official to serve notices of violation or orders to discontinue or abate violations of the

code and act to the responsible person.



R113.3 Prosecution of Violation

If the notice of violation is not complied with authorizes the building official to request the legal counsel of the

jurisdiction to take action under the law.

In Section R114 Stop Work Orders, the draft eradicates, rather than modifies to be consistent with either the

Skilled Trades Act or the Single State Construction Code Act:



R114.1 Notice to Owner

Requires a stop work order to be served in accordance with the act and subject person who is served to the

penalty provisions of the act if work continues.

 R114.2 Unlawful Continuance

Subjects any person continuing work after a stop work order has been served to the penalties of law.

Our analysis of the substance of these comprehensive eliminations in Chapter 1 Administration did not reveal any

serious direct conflicts with either act. While they are intentionally repetitive of requirements in those acts, albeit in

slightly different language, if the Bureau of Construction Codes believes there are conflicts, they can be remedied by

rewriting these subsections of the code rather than remove them.

PROPOSED CHANGES

Chapter 2 Definitions

 Eliminates the definition of building

 Removes the definition of structure

 Discards the definition of agricultural or agricultural purposes.

 Removes the definition of building official

 Removes the definition of building inspector

 Eliminates the definition of registered design professional

While removing the definitions of building official, building inspectors and registered design professional is

unnecessary, their elimination would not do great harm to the usefulness of the code. The same cannot be said for

eliminating the definitions of building, structure or agricultural/agricultural purposes. (Oddly enough, the

definitions of dwelling and dwelling units were untouched in this draft.)

These important terms are used extensively throughout the code, and are, in fact, the key to almost every other

requirement in the code. That is the reason they are included in Chapter 2 definitions. While deciding what is a

“building” or a “structure” in the field would seem simple, in practice these terms can become a point of

contention. Is a temporary tent or canopy a building, a structure or something else?

Additionally, the definitions of building and structure each contain an exemption from compliance with the code

for “a building (or structure) incidental to the use for agricultural purposes of the land on which the building is located.” This

agricultural exemption has been in the law since the passage of the Single State Construction Code in 1999 and has

been echoed in every residential code book since.

Disagreements over what is or is not agricultural, and therefore exempt from the code, can be a common source of

contention. Removing, rather than harmonizing, the definition of agricultural or agricultural purposes will create

greater and more frequent disagreements about if a building or structure is exempt from the requirements of the

code; just the opposite of what was intended in our request.

In the end it comes down to this. From the first edition of the Michigan Residential Code through the latest

edition, the residential code book was intended to be (and has been) a complete “one-stop” document for one- and

two-family dwellings and townhouses; one which included everything needed to build without reference to any