Fence built in frontage area after C. O.

[Mr. Inspector]

The plans specify a frontage increase so the building could comply with the allowable area of the building. Apparently, the site engineer did not commutate with the building engineer because he had a 6' fence 10' from the building. The fence was taken off the table, plans were approved, and the building was built and got a C. O. last year. Now I was driving by about a year later and I noticed the fence was built. No permit required because the fence was under 7'. We don't have the IFC.

What would you do about this?

 

[steveray]

If the FD does not care, neither do I......

 

[Joe.B]

Probably not worth making a stink about, but if someone decides it is a problem then you send a letter citing this:

[A] 105.2 Work Exempt From Permit
Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.

 

[Inspector Gift]

If it were in my jurisdiction, I would have the choice to ignore it, or make it into a code enforcement item.

I would ignore it. When the plumber needs access, then the owner or plumber will remove the fence.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The plans specify a frontage increase so the building could comply with the allowable area of the building. Apparently, the site engineer did not commutate with the building engineer because he had a 6' fence 10' from the building. The fence was taken off the table, plans were approved, and the building was built and got a C. O. last year. Now I was driving by about a year later and I noticed the fence was built. No permit required because the fence was under 7'. We don't have the IFC.

What would you do about this?

The IBC requires that buildings built in compliance with the code be maintained in compliance with the code. It's rarely invoked, but it's a way for the building official to have some measure of control after the CofO.

IBC 2021:

101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the
construction, alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement,
repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance,
removal and demolition of every building or structure or any
appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or
structures.

104.6 Right of entry. Where it is necessary to make an
inspection to enforce the provisions of this code, or where the
building official has reasonable cause to believe that there
exists in a structure or on a premises a condition that is
contrary to or in violation of this code that makes the structure
or premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the building official
is authorized to enter the structure or premises at
reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed
by this code, provided that if such structure or premises be
occupied that credentials be presented to the occupant and
entry requested. If such structure or premises is unoccupied,
the building official shall first make a reasonable effort to
locate the owner or other person having charge or control of
the structure or premises and request entry. If entry is refused,
the building official shall have recourse to the remedies
provided by law to secure entry.

114.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person,
firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair,
move, remove, demolish or occupy any building, structure or
equipment regulated by this code, or cause same to be done, in
conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this
code.

The building code is the minimum standard for public safety, health and welfare. In order to build the subject building and have it considered safe enough for human occupancy, the design relied on a provision of the code that requires open space -- accessible for fire fighting operations -- around certain portions of the perimeter. By erecting a fence that blocks access to part of the perimeter that was supposed to be kept open, the owner has now by definition made his building unsafe.

I would first notify the owner that the fence is not allowed because the space where it was erected is required to be open. If that doesn't get the fence removed, I would escalate to a notice that, since the certificate of occupancy was issued on the basis of that portion of the perimeter being open, if the fence is not removed you will have to revoke the certificate of occupancy.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

We don't use chapter 1 in this state, and I don't think we have anything like the sections above or a way to revoke a C. O.
Fire company is all volunteers and don't know anything about codes or have any legal power to enforce codes.
Just seems odd that they could not build the fence when new and then no permit needed or Enforcment on it later.

 

[Paul Sweet]

It's probably a zoning or fire department issue.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

We don't use chapter 1 in this state, and I don't think we have anything like the sections above or a way to revoke a C. O.
Fire company is all volunteers and don't know anything about codes or have any legal power to enforce codes.
Just seems odd that they could not build the fence when new and then no permit needed or Enforcment on it later.

Does your state still have the sections pertaining to required "open" area in order to qualify for the allowable area increase? Putting up the fence removes a portion (or all?) of the open area that the design relied upon to gain approval of the permit. What does your state use for administrative provisions? How can there be NO way to cite an owner who blatantly removes something that was clearly required in order to get the permit and the C of O?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Yes we have sections pertaining to required "open" area in order to qualify for the allowable area increase.

Putting up the fence removes a portion (or all?) of the open area that the design relied upon to gain approval of the permit.

Yes i know. That is why I stared this.

What does your state use for administrative provisions

PA UCC. You can google this.

How can there be NO way to cite an owner who blatantly removes something that was clearly required in order to get the permit and the C of O?

I think we could if we had the IFC. We have nothing to stop turning off fire sprinklers too.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Unbelievable. Pennsylvania apparently deleted the entire contents of Chapter 1 of the IBC. Without Chapter 1, any half-capable lawyer could make a reasonable argument that NONE of the IBC applies, because there are no scoping provisions that say it applies.

That said, I see that Pennsylvania did NOT delete Chapter 1 of the IEBC (my state did just the opposite -- go figure). Once the certificate of occupancy has been issued it becomes an existing building, so anything done to it after that is subject to the IEBC. Perhaps you can use this provision to get you back into citing the obstruction of the required open space as a violation:

[A] 101.4.2 Buildings Previously Occupied
The legal occupancy of any building 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 Fire Code, or the International Property Maintenance Code, or as is deemed necessary by the code official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Even though the law says it just deletes chapter 1 in the IBC it actually deletes all the ICC Chapter 1's and replaced it with Act 45 which takes over for Chapter 1 and which does adopt most parts of the ICC codes with many changes. PA should make its own code like NJ and CA. Most contractors and many inspectors are not aware of the changes PA made because they are not printed, and they are very hard to find in the PA UCC web site. Inspectors can inspect ignoring the changes because contractors will never know.

 

[TheCommish]

Mr. Inspector, ignoring the known law and inserting ICC language is a breach of an inspectors ethnical responsibly, it is equal to because I say so for code reference.

 

[mtlogcabin]

What would you do about this?

Nothing, as long as that fence does not negatively affect the egress requirements then I don't have an issue with it.
Unless the lot line moved the yard/open space is still there.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

So, what if the fence does negatively affect the egress requirements. There is nothing about maintaining anything in our state law that took the place of Chapter 1.

I just found out that one of the other townships my 3rd party company works for did adopt the IFC but did not ever hire or contract my or any other 3rd party to enforce it.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Even though the law says it just deletes chapter 1 in the IBC it actually deletes all the ICC Chapter 1's and replaced it with Act 45 which takes over for Chapter 1 and which does adopt most parts of the ICC codes with many changes. PA should make its own code like NJ and CA. Most contractors and many inspectors are not aware of the changes PA made because they are not printed, and they are very hard to find in the PA UCC web site. Inspectors can inspect ignoring the changes because contractors will never know.

Yeah. I read Act 45, and I couldn't find ANY scoping in it. It says the [board? agency? Don't remember) "shall adopt regulations" to incorporate the ___ code (the original Act 45 adopted the BOCA Basic Building Code, and has since been updated to various ICC editions), but nowhere in Act 45 does it actually state the actual intent: that the building code shall regulate the design and construction of buildings.

This is a bigger problem than you might think. I started working in an architect's office in 1972. A year or three after I started, the state adopted the first edition of ANSI A117.1 for accessibility. It was adopted by act of the legislature, using language similar to Pennsylvania's Act 45. Quoting loosely from memory, the public act in our state said something like,"The State Building Inspector shall revise the State Building Code to incorporate as minimum standards for accessibility the requirements of ANSI A117.1." Our then-State Building Inspector was a nice guy, but he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, he had just one assistant building inspector and I think his clerical staff was whoever the Department of Public Works could spare for an hour here and there, so he did what you might expect: he sent out a letter to all the building officials in the state (but NOT to the architects, or to the AIA chapter) that said, "Pursuant to Public Act xx-yyyy, from now on you shall enforce ANSI A117.1 for accessibility."

So building officials around the state started enforcing A117.1, and building started getting more accessible. Until a large developer in the eastern end of the state had a permit for a large multi-family building rejected because the design didn't comply with A117.1 for accessibility. The developer had a lawyer, and the lawyer did what lawyers do -- he asked why the plans were rejected, the building official sent him a copy of the State Building Inspector's letter and the lawyer then looked up Public Act xx-yyyy. Oops! The act clearly said "The State Building Inspector shall amend the State Building Code ..."

So it went to court, and the judge (correctly) ruled that the State Building Inspector had not revised the State Building Code, so ANSI A117.1 did not apply to the plaintiff's project.

In adopting the I-codes, my state heavily edits chapter 1, but they don't delete it. Without chapter 1 to establish scoping, unless the scoping is included in the enabling legislation (and I can't find it in PA Act 45), you can adopt whatever you want as a building code and make whatever amendments you want - but it won't apply to anything if a good lawyer bothers to read the law.

That said -- PA left the scoping in the IEBC, so that may be your ace up the sleeve.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Nothing, as long as that fence does not negatively affect the egress requirements then I don't have an issue with it.
Unless the lot line moved the yard/open space is still there.

But with the fence there the open space is no longer open for fire fighting access, and that's the entire basis for allowing larger buildings based on excess frontage.

 

[mtlogcabin]

It is not there for fire department access to fight a fire. It is there to help protect other properties/ buildings from a fire in the larger building.

The fence could be in conflict with the IFC
504.1 Required access.
Exterior doors and openings required by this code or the International Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided where required by the fire code official.

 

[Penguin87]

mtlogcabin is right - the frontage increase is for separation between buildings to prevent fire from spreading, not access by firefighters which is covered under the IFC Appendix D.

In any case, what does a fence have to do with a building permit? Those are usually covered by planning and the zoning code.

If a firefighter needs access and there is a fence in the way, that fence will not be with the world for long.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

mtlogcabin is right - the frontage increase is for separation between buildings to prevent fire from spreading, not access by firefighters which is covered under the IFC Appendix D.

That's not what the OP said.

The plans specify a frontage increase so the building could comply with the allowable area of the building.

If you read the commentaries and know anything about the history of the tabular area increases based on "excess" frontage -- it's not just about fire separation (which criteria are in play regardless of area increases), it's about better access to more sides of the building for fire fighting operations.

 

[steveray]

But with the fence there the open space is no longer open for fire fighting access, and that's the entire basis for allowing larger buildings based on excess frontage.

IMO....the FD can make that determination....what if it was a row of rose bushes?...if the purpose is FD access, let them say what they need...does not "solve" this problem, but we don't really know that it is a "real" problem...

 

[TheCommish]

I think FD access is mislabeled, I think it a more of a defensible space, it is not fire separation distance

506.3.2 Minimum Frontage Distance
To qualify for an area factor increase based on frontage, the public way or open space adjacent to the building perimeter shall have a minimum distance (W) of 20 feet (6096 mm) measured at right angles from the building face to any of the following:

1. The closest interior lot line.
2. The entire width of a street, alley or public way.
3. The exterior face of an adjacent building on the same property.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

It is not there for fire department access to fight a fire. It is there to help protect other properties/ buildings from a fire in the larger building.

The fence could be in conflict with the IFC
504.1 Required access.
Exterior doors and openings required by this code or the International Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided where required by the fire code official.

Like I said we don't have the IFC here

 

[mtlogcabin]

[BG] YARD. An open space, other than a court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where specifically provided by this code, on the lot on which a building is situated.

The 60 ft open space requirement does not address the topography that may be onsite that would hinder the fire department's ability to respond to a fire.
That FD requirement is usually much less than 60 feet.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

[BG] YARD. An open space, other than a court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where specifically provided by this code, on the lot on which a building is situated.

The 60 ft open space requirement does not address the topography that may be onsite that would hinder the fire department's ability to respond to a fire.
That FD requirement is usually much less than 60 feet.

I can't find the word "Yard" in the Frontage Increase section. But I only have the 2018 IBC and it might be in other versions. There is no definition of "Frontage" or "Open Space" in the 2018 too. So, I guess it up to everyone's interpretation.