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.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

We're flirting with one of my favourite soap-box topics: consistency.

A few weeks ago, folks might remember I raised a question in the Canadian forum about how to interpret the requirement for dryer vents to lead "directly" to the exterior. Directly is not defined. We have since adopted a local policy where we will use American code as a guideline for how our office will define directly. (If it ain't gonna work under U.S. calculations, it ain't "directly" enough.)

I reached out to ensure that our office, at least, was internally consistent. I will soon reach out to building officials in adjacent AHJs to see if we can all reach a consensus.

Last year, I raised the matter of closed-cell foam in unvented cathedral ceilings - area inspectors agreed to conditions under when it will be accepted. The code section begins with a statement that attics will be vented unless "it can be shown to be unnecessary." I have some new data that should be raised at the next inter-regional meeting.

The point: yes, there are places where Code does not lend well to a black-and-white interpretation. When these grey/gray areas exist, I think its incumbent on all of us to reach three levels of consistency:

1) Internal consistency - each member of a given AHJ will interpret and apply a "grey/gray" area of Code the same way. So if each of our inspectors is asked a question on a "hot roof" design, we should each provide the client the same answer.

2) local consistency - AHJs in the same area interpret and apply Codes similarly.

3) Broad consistency - AHJs sharing the same Code, regardless of location, interpret and apply Codes the same way.

In Canada, three bodies have established systems where questions about interpretation/application of Code are sent to a body that makes a public decision. One of those jurisdictions - BC - even has a broad bank of Code interpretation rulings.

In terms of how this applies, in general, to this topic:

3) Are there readily available resources for rendering decisions on ICC/IBC codes?
2) Does your shop readily interact with neighbouring AHJs to discuss interpretations/approaches are consistent regionally?
1) Is someone at your shop ensuring that all your inspectors/plans reviewers are on the same page?

 

[Joe.B]

2) Does your shop readily interact with neighbouring AHJs to discuss interpretations/approaches are consistent regionally?

Here's the problem with that. I have to make a determination, and I need to be consistent with my decisions. What if my neighbor doesn't agree with my decision? He's not going to want to call me out and say "you're doing it wrong" because he doesn't want to make bad blood. Who arbitrates? We are charter cities, home rule something or other. There's no oversite on building departments at a state or county level. If we don't agree on a policy or procedure, who decides?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Here's the problem with that. I have to make a determination, and I need to be consistent with my decisions. What if my neighbor doesn't agree with my decision? He's not going to want to call me out and say "you're doing it wrong" because he doesn't want to make bad blood. Who arbitrates? We are charter cities, home rule something or other. There's no oversite on building departments at a state or county level. If we don't agree on a policy or procedure, who decides?

Hmm.

That saddens me. Aren't there associations that can meet at the state level and haggle over these sorts of things?

(FYI I *just* sent an email to a bunch of provincial folks requesting a bulletin on exit shaft penetrations, as it's an issue that seems to be fraught with different interpretations....)

 

[Joe.B]

Aren't there associations that can meet at the state level and haggle over these sorts of things?

It's California, of course there are, but they don't have the authority to dictate. There's the BSC, DSA, HCD, SFM, CEC, HCAI, and probably others I'm forgetting. They make the rules, establish the standards, stuff like that, but no state level agency has authority over local BO's.

The courts are really the only power that could arbitrate, if someone takes it to that level. If you're making trouble, you get fired, so that is a check and balance too. Of course, there's an appeal process, if a BO makes a bad call, they can take it to an appeal board. But none of this constitutes oversite and we are each essentially on an island making our own calls.

The best any agency can do is training, and there is a lot of good training available. My favorite is Calbo, California Building Officials.

California Building Officials

We promote public health and safety in building construction

www.calbo.org

 

[Paul Sweet]

If the ICC was specific enough to give an exact requirement for every possible situation it would probably be 20 or more volumes the same size as the current ICC, and nobody could find where anything is located in it.

 

[Joe.B]

Okay, here's one a co-worker and I were just discussing. The scenario is a small deck that is less than 30" above grade, so guards are not required. But they do show guards, so do they have to be compliant?

One argument is that if they're not even required at all, then they can put anything they want as "decoration".

The other argument is that if they do install a guard, required or not, it must comply.

Where do you land on this one?

 

[BN4537]

Okay, here's one a co-worker and I were just discussing. The scenario is a small deck that is less than 30" above grade, so guards are not required. But they do show guards, so do they have to be compliant?

One argument is that if they're not even required at all, then they can put anything they want as "decoration".

The other argument is that if they do install a guard, required or not, it must comply.

Where do you land on this one?

Generally, if something is installed that is not required to be there, I would still require everything to meet code as if it was required. However, 2021 IRC R312.1.2 and R312.1.3 say that the height and opening requirements only apply to "required guards".

 

[steveray]

Okay, here's one a co-worker and I were just discussing. The scenario is a small deck that is less than 30" above grade, so guards are not required. But they do show guards, so do they have to be compliant?

One argument is that if they're not even required at all, then they can put anything they want as "decoration".

The other argument is that if they do install a guard, required or not, it must comply.

Where do you land on this one?

As BN posted, they are trying to deal with this...Whether they need to or not....The problem will come in when someone puts up a shade or privacy structure and the inspector wants to call it a guard

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Okay, here's one a co-worker and I were just discussing. The scenario is a small deck that is less than 30" above grade, so guards are not required. But they do show guards, so do they have to be compliant?

One argument is that if they're not even required at all, then they can put anything they want as "decoration".

The other argument is that if they do install a guard, required or not, it must comply.

Where do you land on this one?

Let's do a little reductio ad absurdem on this one.
I come along and see a buncha 24" guards.
"Those aren't to code," I say.
"Oh yeah," says the client. "This is less than 2' from the ground, so I don't have to have them. I could rip them out, and could you tell me to put them back?"
"Nope."
"So if they don't have to be there, how can you tell me that what I have chosen to put there isn't good enough?"

 

[tmurray]

Okay, here's one a co-worker and I were just discussing. The scenario is a small deck that is less than 30" above grade, so guards are not required. But they do show guards, so do they have to be compliant?

One argument is that if they're not even required at all, then they can put anything they want as "decoration".

The other argument is that if they do install a guard, required or not, it must comply.

Where do you land on this one?

The answer is usually in the code. The words "where provided", which means that anytime it is installed, even if it is not required, it has to comply with the code. If it is lacking those two words, people are free to do what they want.

ex.
3.2.4.5. Installation and Verification of Fire Alarm Systems
1) Fire alarm systems, including the voice communication capability where
provided, shall be installed in conformance with CAN/ULC-S524, “Standard for
Installation of Fire Alarm Systems.”

If the voice communication system is part of the fire alarm system, it must conform to CAN/ULC-S524, even if it is not required to be installed by the code.

 

[Sifu]

I look at it this way; If it is relied on and is a safety issue, I try to require compliance. Never had the pushback, so not sure how it would work out. Guards are not required for a 29" deck height above the ground, but if it looks like a guard, and invites someone to treat it like a guard, then it should act like a guard. If it were not there, nobody could lean on it and expect it to keep them upright. If it is there, and it is held on by roofing nails, down they go. I am loathe to try for more than the code permits me to, just as I am loathe for people to try for less than the code permits them to do. This is one of those times when I cross that line. If I received stiff opposition I would likely just redline the plans with the scenario so the lawyers knew where I stood (or fell).

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I look at it this way; If it is relied on and is a safety issue, I try to require compliance. Never had the pushback, so not sure how it would work out. Guards are not required for a 29" deck height above the ground, but if it looks like a guard, and invites someone to treat it like a guard, then it should act like a guard. If it were not there, nobody could lean on it and expect it to keep them upright. If it is there, and it is held on by roofing nails, down they go. I am loathe to try for more than the code permits me to, just as I am loathe for people to try for less than the code permits them to do. This is one of those times when I cross that line. If I received stiff opposition I would likely just redline the plans with the scenario so the lawyers knew where I stood (or fell).

I think it makes a difference if the guards on the plans or not. If they are on the plans they need to be built to the plans only. If they are not on the plans and are not required, I am not inspecting the guards

 

[bill1952]

I lable them something other than guards. Rails between ticket windows all on same elevation for instance shouldn't have to meet the 4" sphere rule.

 

[Joe.B]

I think it makes a difference if the guards on the plans or not. If they are on the plans they need to be built to the plans only. If they are not on the plans and are not required, I am not inspecting the guards

The specific question came up in regard to a plan review. The plan does show a guard rail with balusters, but the overall height does not comply. We are having a healthy discussion on whether that should be noted as a correction or not.

 

[Fire for Effect]

I think most of these Grey" questions come about when applying the IEBC not the IBC or IRC. That is where Technically Feasible or Technically Infeasible comes into consideration and that is where "we" ( both Contractors and (I Hope) Ex-Contractors) / Bldg Code Officials, have an Honest conversation about meeting the INTENT of a Code

W know the "Code" is designed to be the MINIMUM Safety Requirements for a Building. We also know that the Code didn't evolve with A Handbook of Good Construction since we acknowledge there are at least 50 ways to skin that Cat and we are Not delivering Best Practices or even that subjective "Good Job" ( whatever that means)

Code Development is a series of problems and reasonable (non-coordinated) Solutions, Non Coordinated because we often can't "Normalize" or coordinated related Code areas, when solving these Individual problems or questions So IMHO that is where the Grey comes into play.

In conclusion I think it would be helpful to ask 2 fundamental questions:
!. With New Construction, did we meet the INTENT of the Code even with the Light or Dark Grey and
2. With the IEBC, Have we delivered LEvel 2 Alterations that make a clear improvement in the Safety of the Building. That is what we are all about, PUBLIC Safety. Not Aesthetics, or we are going to be part of a project that is going to win some Architectural Award

Anything in this Stream of Consciences Rant sound helpful?

Best, Mike Bergen

 

[Fire for Effect]

Indiana 2020 IRC (2018 model code): https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/INRC2020P1/part-iii-building-planning-and-construction

My current “Gray Area” challenge is finding language to support not allowing a basement to be remodeled and build an additional bedroom labeled as a home office.

One bedroom meets the emergency escape and rescue requirements the office does not: Basement Plan.

This contractor has had several stop work orders and construction without permit fines issued over the past 10 years; does anything and everything to not follow the rules.

I’m sure this space will be utilized as a bedroom sooner or later.

Any advice on how to enforce the standards for a bedroom that is labeled as a home office?

Just need a hook to hang my hat on!

 

[Sifu]

Some AHJ's have amended their codes to define a room as a sleeping room by it's characteristics (size, closet....). When I see that, I follow the properly amended code, so if it meets their definition of a sleeping room, I administer the codes for a sleeping room. Absent that, If the plans call it a study, it is a study, just as a closet is a closet, or a living room is a living room. I have received many plans where they either forgot to label the rooms, or are artfully obfuscating their use. I send that back. The most I would do is highlight the word "study" or redline it as not approved for use as a sleeping room. Neither will prevent the use as a sleeping room, but might help with CYA. I always wanted to be the fly on the wall when it came back to bite them as they market their basement bedroom....but that would require that somebody gives a @#$%.

 

[steveray]

Indiana 2020 IRC (2018 model code): https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/INRC2020P1/part-iii-building-planning-and-construction

My current “Gray Area” challenge is finding language to support not allowing a basement to be remodeled and build an additional bedroom labeled as a home office.

One bedroom meets the emergency escape and rescue requirements the office does not: Basement Plan.

This contractor has had several stop work orders and construction without permit fines issued over the past 10 years; does anything and everything to not follow the rules.

I’m sure this space will be utilized as a bedroom sooner or later.

Any advice on how to enforce the standards for a bedroom that is labeled as a home office?

Just need a hook to hang my hat on!

Just note the CO with" NOT TO BE USED AS A SLEEPING ROOM!"

 

[BN4537]

Indiana 2020 IRC (2018 model code): https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/INRC2020P1/part-iii-building-planning-and-construction

My current “Gray Area” challenge is finding language to support not allowing a basement to be remodeled and build an additional bedroom labeled as a home office.

One bedroom meets the emergency escape and rescue requirements the office does not: Basement Plan.

This contractor has had several stop work orders and construction without permit fines issued over the past 10 years; does anything and everything to not follow the rules.

I’m sure this space will be utilized as a bedroom sooner or later.

Any advice on how to enforce the standards for a bedroom that is labeled as a home office?

Just need a hook to hang my hat on!

Tell them no, it's clearly a bedroom. Because you are the inspector/plan reviewer (or whatever) and you say so. Stick to your guns until they do the right thing or make a supervisor overrule you. If they are going to do something that dangerous, make 'em fight for it. You would be surprised how often that works.

Ammo for argument - any realtor will see that and call it a bedroom. Any future owner will call that a bedroom. A child dying because first responders could not get to them and they could not get out is not happening on my watch. It sure looks like a bedroom... none of that is code, but I don't feel bad about fighting baloney with baloney. Especially if they changed it from bedroom to office due to a plan check comment or a violation in the field.

I had one, existing unfinished basement, they added a bedroom but the existing window was too high off the ground. I caught it on the rough inspection. The contractor called me and said that they would change the room to be an office. I said "Well... it sure looks like a bedroom to me...". That was all it took. The contractor agreed way easier than I thought he would and lowered the window.

 

[steveray]

Tell them no, it's clearly a bedroom. Because you are the inspector/plan reviewer (or whatever) and you say so. Stick to your guns until they do the right thing or make a supervisor overrule you. If they are going to do something that dangerous, make 'em fight for it. You would be surprised how often that works.

Ammo for argument - any realtor will see that and call it a bedroom. Any future owner will call that a bedroom. A child dying because first responders could not get to them and they could not get out is not happening on my watch. It sure looks like a bedroom... none of that is code, but I don't feel bad about fighting baloney with baloney. Especially if they changed it from bedroom to office due to a plan check comment or a violation in the field.

I had one, existing unfinished basement, they added a bedroom but the existing window was too high off the ground. I caught it on the rough inspection. The contractor called me and said that they would change the room to be an office. I said "Well... it sure looks like a bedroom to me...". That was all it took. The contractor agreed way easier than I thought he would and lowered the window.

And did you suggest they build stairs and a platform to the window to make it comply? Or you just said no.....

 

[Joe.B]

I don't know... While I applaud the intent, IMHO we can't (or at least shouldn't) enforce on "what if's".

 

[klarenbeek]

I don't know... While I applaud the intent, IMHO we can't (or at least shouldn't) enforce on "what if's".

100% agree. You can't control how a space is used after it's completed and people move in. How do you stop someone from putting a sofa bed (or two) in the family room because there's more people living in the house than it has bedrooms? Suddenly the family room is now a sleeping room. If the plans call it a bedroom, treat it as such. if the plans call it an office, then its an office.. Of course, that doesn't mean you should suggest that out to them.....

 

[BN4537]

And did you suggest they build stairs and a platform to the window to make it comply? Or you just said no.....

If you are creating a violation of EERO requirements with new construction, longstanding policy here is not to allow temporary stairs that will be torn out the first time someone stubs their toe in the middle of the night. If we are doing a rental inspection with the IPMC, we could be persuaded to go that route. If it helps, they did not have to cut concrete or anything, just a little wood framing.

I didn't actually have to say no... the contractor was a good guy, he immediately felt bad for suggesting labeling it as an office.

 

[BN4537]

I don't know... While I applaud the intent, IMHO we can't (or at least shouldn't) enforce on "what if's".

I agree, but I don't think we should put up with blatant falsehoods. I literally have a set of plans where a room was labeled "Bedroom". When we called it out, they took the same page, crossed out "Bedroom" with one pencil line and wrote in "Study" above it.

You will get what you put up with.