Understanding and Addressing Perceived "Gray Areas" in Building Codes

Understanding and Addressing Perceived "Gray Areas" in Building Codes​

Introduction​

In the building code industry, professionals frequently encounter discussions about the "gray areas" within the codes—those sections that seem ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations. However, a closer examination often reveals that many of these perceived ambiguities can be resolved by thoroughly referencing the definitions and related sections within the code. This article aims to educate building professionals on how to navigate these perceived gray areas and understand the pivotal role of the building official in code interpretation.

The Nature of "Gray Areas"​

A gray area in building codes refers to any section or requirement that appears to lack clarity or definitive guidance, leading to varying interpretations. Contractors, inspectors, and building officials might each have different views on these sections, often influenced by their perspectives and interests.

Key Reasons for Perceived Gray Areas:

1. Complex Language: Legal and technical jargon can make certain sections difficult to understand.
2. Evolving Standards: Building codes are periodically updated, and newer sections may not yet be widely understood.
3. Subjectivity: Some code requirements inherently allow for professional judgment, leading to subjective interpretations.
4. Context-Specific Applications: Codes might apply differently based on the specific context or type of project, contributing to perceived ambiguity.

Clarifying the Ambiguities​

To address these gray areas, one must employ a systematic approach:

1. Refer to Definitions: Building codes come with a set of definitions that clarify the terminology used. Always refer to these definitions to ensure accurate interpretation.
2. Cross-Reference Sections: Often, one section of the code will be clarified by another. Cross-referencing related sections can provide additional context and eliminate ambiguity.
3. Consult Commentary and Guidelines: Official commentaries, handbooks, and guidelines issued by code bodies provide explanations and interpretations that can clarify complex sections.
4. Seek Expert Opinions: Engaging with experienced professionals or consulting with code experts can offer insights and interpretations based on practical experience.

Role of the Building Official​

Ultimately, the responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the building code falls to the building official. This role is crucial in maintaining consistency and safety in construction practices. The building official’s decision is influenced by:

1. Code Compliance: Ensuring that interpretations align with the overall intent and requirements of the building code.
2. Public Safety: Prioritizing the safety and well-being of the public in all interpretations and decisions.
3. Consistency: Striving for consistency in code enforcement to avoid arbitrary or biased interpretations.

Addressing Contractor Claims​

Contractors may sometimes claim that the code is vague to push for interpretations that favor their projects. To handle such situations:

1. Provide Clear Documentation: Document the interpretation process, referencing relevant code sections and definitions.
2. Engage in Dialogue: Have open discussions with contractors to explain the reasoning behind interpretations.
3. Utilize Appeal Processes: If disagreements persist, refer to the established appeal processes within the jurisdiction.

TBCF Summary​

While building codes may contain sections that appear ambiguous at first glance, a thorough examination often reveals clear guidance. By referencing definitions, cross-referencing sections, consulting expert opinions, and relying on the authoritative role of the building official, these gray areas can be effectively navigated. This approach not only ensures code compliance but also upholds the safety and integrity of construction practices.

 

[Yikes]

That's not a gray area, in my opinion. That says the occupant load shall be as determined by the table, unless the applicant specifically requests a lower occupant load and provides to the AHJ a sufficiently cogent reason for approving a lower number. There's nothing gray about that.

I understand that is your opinion. And not to get too "meta" but it appears we have a gray area regarding gray areas.

Utilizing Jar 546's reason #3 from his original post #1 (excerpt below), if it requires subjective professional judgement, it's a perceived "gray area".

 

[jar546]

Utilizing Jar 546's reason #3 from his original post #1 (excerpt below), if it requires subjective professional judgement, it's a perceived "gray area".

So that is the million-dollar question. Is a clearly defined subjective area of the code considered a gray area? If an occupant load code has an exception that the Building Official can grant, there is a clear path. The outcome is undecided until there is a meeting with the BO, but there is a clear path.

So, I am going with the word I used until you folks figure this out. Perceived.

 

[Yikes]

So that is the million-dollar question. Is a clearly defined subjective area of the code considered a gray area? If an occupant load code has an exception that the Building Official can grant, there is a clear path. The outcome is undecided until there is a meeting with the BO, but there is a clear path.

So, I am going with the word I used until you folks figure this out. Perceived.

IF the outcome is undecided until a building official makes a final determination, then for the purposes of property development, it is a gray area:
- You can't be certain your design will work without getting additional external judgements from the BO.
- Therefore it doesn't make sense to proceed with construction documents, issue background to MEP consultants, etc., without getting the BO's opinion in a preliminary consultation.
- Therefore the BO has to expend time and effort well prior to the applicant submitting for plan check and paying fees.
- If at time of formal plan check submittal the plans get routed to an outside 3rd party plans examiner, that person will likely bounce it back as a correction that once again involves the BO to tell them "yes I approved it months ago".
The whole purpose of having prescriptive codes is that they provide a "bright line" rule to make code compliance simpler and more efficient. I think that the extra effort described above is evidence that a subjective determination functions as a gray area in the code.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The whole purpose of having prescriptive codes is that they provide a "bright line" rule to make code compliance simpler and more efficient. I think that the extra effort described above is evidence that a subjective determination functions as a gray area in the code.

Using the example, the codes DO provide a bright line -- calculate the occupant load in accordance with IBC Table 1004.5. The provision allowing the applicant to request an alternative occupant load no more creates a gray area than does section 104.10, which grants the AHJ the authority to issue modifications -- essentially for anything as long as in the Building Official's judgment the alternative fulfills the intent and purpose of the code.

[A] 104.10 Modifications. Where there are practical difficulties
involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the
building official shall have the authority to grant modifications
for individual cases, upon application of the owner or the
owner’s authorized agent, provided that the building official
shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict
letter of this code impractical, the modification is in compliance
with the intent and purpose of this code and that such
modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire
safety or structural requirements. The details of action granting
modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the
department of building safety.

Since section 104.10 puts the entire code into play, subject to the interpretation of the Building Official, I guess the discussion is over and I lose. The entire code is a gray area, thanks to section 104.10.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Since section 104.10 puts the entire code into play, subject to the interpretation of the Building Official, I guess the discussion is over and I lose. The entire code is a gray area, thanks to section 104.10.

I read that section like I read our Alternative Solutions proposals. "We can't meet the prescriptive line of Code, but we meet the intent."

I'm dealing with that now for a hot roof request.

 

[steveray]

Talk about gray:

230.70 General.
Means shall be provided to disconnect all ungrounded conductors in a building or other structure from the service conductors.
(A) Location.
The service disconnecting means shall be installed in accordance with 230.70(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3).
(1) Readily Accessible Location.
The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors.

As "approved" is used 625 times in the 2024 IRC and 771 times in the 2024 IBC, BO "opinion" or judgement is not going away......Get to know the BO where you work or schedule a conversation about "How do you feel about or interpret "X"".... We can, and have to, work together....

 

[Yikes]

Talk about gray:

230.70 General.
Means shall be provided to disconnect all ungrounded conductors in a building or other structure from the service conductors.
(A) Location.
The service disconnecting means shall be installed in accordance with 230.70(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3).
(1) Readily Accessible Location.
The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors.

As "approved" is used 625 times in the 2024 IRC and 771 times in the 2024 IBC, BO "opinion" or judgement is not going away......Get to know the BO where you work or schedule a conversation about "How do you feel about or interpret "X"".... We can, and have to, work together....

Yes, and there’s a lot of code sections that don’t even use the word “approved” but still imply subjective opinion on the part of the BO.

Another gray area similar to your “nearest the point of entrance”: who gets to determine what is the “shortest accessible route”? Is it the shortest route provided by the DPOR given other site design factors? Or could a route be made even shorter if the civil engineer lowered the building pad finish elevation to make a shorter ramp to the entrance? If they lower the building pad, what does that do to other issues such as drainage swales, infiltration systems, etc.? Would installing a wheelchair lift instead of a ramp shorten the total horizontal travel distance? I’ve had a plan checker challenge a site design with this question.

 

[Joe.B]

Perceived.

Those of us sitting in the chair are tasked with making determinations. To us, it's often clear, and we try to be consistent. But the AHJ in the next town over sees it differently. To people working in the private sector, the city boundaries don't mean the same thing as it does to us. So, in this town, they have to do it this way, and in the other town they do it that way. I'm sure to them that could be perceived as a gray area. Some might even perceive it is as a grey area.

 

[Joe.B]

Talk about gray:

Or this one:

(B) Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage.
Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its enclosure shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it is carried. Grounding electrode conductors shall be permitted to be installed on or through framing members.
1. Not Exposed to Physical Damage. A 6 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor not exposed to physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection.
2. Exposed to Physical Damage. A 6 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor exposed to physical damage shall be protected in rigid metal conduit (RMC), intermediate metal conduit (IMC), Schedule 80 rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting resin conduit Type XW (RTRC-XW), electrical metallic tubing (EMT), or cable armor

Who decides when something is "exposed to physical damage"?

 

[Joe.B]

DUTIES AND POWERS OF BUILDING OFFICIAL
[A] 104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.

 

[Yikes]

We have a city here in So Cal where the local fire chief disagrees with the official published interpretation from the state fire marshal regarding firefighter access ladder ground space at EEROs. So his workaround is that anytime there is a housing project that requires a conditional use permit (which is often!), he writes his own subjective requirement as a condition of approval.
So what appears to be a bright-line rule from the SFM during conceptual design becomes a different rule during entitlements, often enlarging the minimum required yards around a building. Those unfamiliar with this tactic get stuck doing a redesign, sometimes losing dwelling units in the process. But hey, at least it’s caught before plan check.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Those of us sitting in the chair are tasked with making determinations. To us, it's often clear, and we try to be consistent. But the AHJ in the next town over sees it differently. To people working in the private sector, the city boundaries don't mean the same thing as it does to us. So, in this town, they have to do it this way, and in the other town they do it that way. I'm sure to them that could be perceived as a gray area. Some might even perceive it is as a grey area.

This is why, when Connecticut (with 169 municipalities and a few boroughs within muncipalities that have their own building officials) first adopted a uniform, statewide building code in 1971 (BOCA) they amended chapter 1 to say that only the State Building Inspector can issue interpretations or grant modifications. With essentially about 175 jurisdictions within a small geographic area, if each building official were allowed to make his/her own interpretations and issue his/her own modifications, it would be chaos.

Even though every edition of the code adopted since 1971 has reserved interpretations and modifications to the State Building Inspector, we still frequently get the standard "They don't make me do that in [_____]" complaint. Sometimes we check with the BO in [_____] and find that, yes, they DO make them do that in [_____]. In other cases, we know they don't make them do that (or much of anything) in [_____], because that municipality is a rubber stamp jurisdiction. "That" is still in the code, and we enforce the code even if [_____] doesn't.

 

[Yikes]

I'm sure to them that could be perceived as a gray area. Some might even perceive it is as a grey area.

Well played, sir.

 

[steveray]

Yes, and there’s a lot of code sections that don’t even use the word “approved” but still imply subjective opinion on the part of the BO.

Another gray area similar to your “nearest the point of entrance”: who gets to determine what is the “shortest accessible route”? Is it the shortest route provided by the DPOR given other site design factors? Or could a route be made even shorter if the civil engineer lowered the building pad finish elevation to make a shorter ramp to the entrance? If they lower the building pad, what does that do to other issues such as drainage swales, infiltration systems, etc.? Would installing a wheelchair lift instead of a ramp shorten the total horizontal travel distance? I’ve had a plan checker challenge a site design with this question.

View attachment 14131

Some things need to be gray....and it will only be detrimental to try to solve every possible situation with code....We just need to figure out how to be reasonable....

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Some things need to be gray....and it will only be detrimental to try to solve every possible situation with code....We just need to figure out how to be reasonable....

"Be reasonable -- just do it my way."

 

[Joe.B]

if each building official were allowed to make his/her own interpretations and issue his/her own modifications, it would be chaos.

Suddenly everything makes sense!! @ICE This explains it!! No wonder we feel like it's madness and mayhem, that's because it is!!

Unfortunately, I don't think a state level oversite would work. "California is divided into 58 counties and contains 483 municipalities." Thats spread out over a large area. Imagining oversite over all those BO's is challenging. But you're right, it is basically chaos.

 

[Joe.B]

Well played, sir.

I'm glad somebody got it.

 

[mtlogcabin]

So his workaround is that anytime there is a housing project that requires a conditional use permit (which is often!), he writes his own subjective requirement as a condition of approval.

Using a CUP to modify a building/fire code is a misuse of his authority and probably open to a lawsuit the city will most likely loose.

MALFEASANCE is wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official.

 

[jar546]

Isn't conditional use a zoning issue?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Yes, that is why he does not have the authority to ask for a condition like that in order to approve the use.
Does he have the authority to condition all new CUP projects be sprinkled or limited to 3 stories because his ladder truck can't reach higher than that.
Another example of a Fire Official imposing his personal thoughts and ideas of what should be required.

 

[jar546]

Yes, that is why he does not have the authority to ask for a condition like that in order to approve the use.
Does he have the authority to condition all new CUP projects be sprinkled or limited to 3 stories because his ladder truck can't reach higher than that.
Another example of a Fire Official imposing his personal thoughts and ideas of what should be required.

Rules, regulations, and codes may not always be well written, but they must be adopted at the state and local levels. This includes fire codes, which can be statewide, like in Florida, or local, sometimes with local amendments to the state code. No one should impose codes and rules not legally adopted by the governing body. In the absence of adopted rules, regulations, codes or statutes, there is nothing to enforce legally.

 

[tmurray]

Suddenly everything makes sense!! @ICE This explains it!! No wonder we feel like it's madness and mayhem, that's because it is!!

Unfortunately, I don't think a state level oversite would work. "California is divided into 58 counties and contains 483 municipalities." Thats spread out over a large area. Imagining oversite over all those BO's is challenging. But you're right, it is basically chaos.

Being one of those oversight people, I would agree with this statement. Building officials need some discretion on how to deal with unique situations. I cannot create requirements resilient enough to address every conceivable scenario throughout my entire province.

Consistent requirements is an admirable goal and something we pursue where possible. However, I feel there needs to be a grey area, because that is the only place that compassion can be found for people who would otherwise be held to potentially unreasonable requirements given their individual circumstances. Expecting state/provincial level officials to deal with something like this with the same degree that someone with local expertise can is not necessarily possible.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Consistent requirements is an admirable goal and something we pursue where possible. However, I feel there needs to be a grey area, because that is the only place that compassion can be found for people who would otherwise be held to potentially unreasonable requirements given their individual circumstances. Expecting state/provincial level officials to deal with something like this with the same degree that someone with local expertise can is not necessarily possible.

In PA only a state board can decide when an accessibly issue is technically unfeasible.

 

[Yikes]

Isn't conditional use a zoning issue?

Yes, and in this particular city, every department gets the opportunity to write any condition they want, and (until recent state law) nearly every apartment project required a CUP due to tight zoning regulations (form based codes).
Of course the planning commission is free to vote down those conditions, but what planning commissioner is going to vote down a requirement from the fire department/
Worse, the Conditions of Approval often aren’t provided prior to publishing the meeting agenda + staff report just a couple of days before the hearing. Too late to argue it at the staff level: if you don’t want your project to get voted down or bounced to a meeting months later, you have to accept it as written.