That's pretty good. It took us about 8 years. Didn't worry us too much as the Chief Building Inspector at the time didn't have one after 9 years. The local Building Act does not require a Final (a.k.a. occupancy permit) for a single private dwelling to be lawfully occupied, only that a permit exists. Also, a permit cannot be lapsed if the dwelling has substantial commencement. Bit of a bane to regulators :-) but imho very wise.
Very odd phenomenon, this 'stink pipe through the roof' shibboleth. Occurs in a lot of places. My (long) association with buildings has led me to avoid breaching roof planes in any climate zone unless it is unavoidable.
I should be a performance-based criterion. The Codes should provide for performance-based solutions as an alternative to prescription or 'deemed-to-satisfy'. My (again long) association with prescription is that it invariably ends up producing a dumb result in one area or another. No one is capable of playing God (even if they think otherwise). Prescription blocks innovation and makes codes difficult to adapt to change. They can always add a requirement for "peer review" or similar if they get nervous ...
Amish building practices ... I encountered something similar with households of Melanesian and Polynesian descent who have a problem with certain domestic functions all being grouped under one roof. The solution was to point out that nowhere in the building codes was there a requirement for "one dwelling - one contiguous roof".