• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Today's fun

TheCommish said:
Follow up on the access needed to reach electrical equipment, #11. Looks like a swing and a miss.
Click to expand...
Seems the contractor has owner ship stock in a "Unistrut" manufacture.

My question is why the owner of the project would even think of accepting such a obvious "Jerry-rigged" layout, especially for a project that obviously was not a weekend project.

Swing and a miss, they forgot to come to the ball park.
 
steveray said:
I mean.....really that is your fault for asking electricians to build stuff..... :p
Click to expand...
The electrical inspector told them they needed to address the over 6 foot height to the operating handles, not to build something. There was some discussion about fill. On the reinspection it seems the electricians question is this ok?
 
tbz said:
My question is why the owner of the project would even think of accepting such a obvious "Jerry-rigged" layout, especially for a project that obviously was not a weekend project.

Swing and a miss, they forgot to come to the ball park.
Click to expand...
Owners, they probably haven't ever been to the site, this is a commercial solar farm, probably owned by investors through a company or LLC.
 
TheCommish said:
I recommend reviewing the 3/4/5 triangle
Click to expand...
No good deed...This was an inspection I squeezed in that was initially scheduled for today but the contractor "needed" it Monday...I cautioned him to be ready as I was pushing the limits to get it in before noon on a short staffed Monday. Not only did they not have the top bar in place, but this was the situation around the back. "It's only a one story addition" and "It'll be monolithic like a sonotube with a bigfoot" were the claims.....
 
A buddy of mine bought a real fixer-upper, main house is okay and he's been doing a lot to re-hab it. Is has a funky outbuilding that's somewhere between a shop and a garage that he was super excited about. I took one look at it and could tell without a doubt it was not built to any kind of code or standard. But, it's still standing (SDC E) and has a new roof, so I suggested that he just enjoy it for what it is.

He had grand visions of turning the "loft" into a second unit to rent out and making the downstairs a music studio. It was hard not to completely burst his bubble, but frankly it would be easier to tear it down and start fresh. Yesterday he asked me about replacing a damaged header over one of the garage doors and I pointed him to the span tables in the res code and gave him a quick rundown. He's a smart guy and has lots of construction experience, so I gave him what he needed and stepped away.

Today he texted me:
1758150443711.jpeg
Oh buddy....
 
arwat23 said:
That's a regular occurrence? Well now I feel even worse for you guys...
Click to expand...

Oh, it gets worse. That sketch looks like maybe a homeowner wants to enclose a porch. I've received multiple sketches that were that bad (or worse) for tenant fitouts for restaurants and other commercial facilities. Here's one -- and this is (IIRC) the THIRD try:

1758816406052.png

That was it. No sections or details. No site plan. Even after we pointed out that the entrance door isn't accessible, all the applicant did was send us an e-mail saying that there's an existing ramp. Yes -- there is. And the existing ramp in no way complies -- or EVER complied -- with the ADA or A117.1 or Chapter 11 of the IBC.

1758816850027.png

The ramp starts roughly in front of the left front wheel of the Audi on the left. The cross-slope exceeds the running slope, and the ramp doesn't start anywhere near the access aisle portion of the accessible parking space.

"But it's existing!"

The SECOND plan review for this disaster had 24 citations -- and that was without any M/E/P drawings to review. (There weren't any -- the applicant/tenant thought he was just going to have some buddies take out the M/E/P permits and install "whatever they think they need.")
 
Last edited:
Yankee Chronicler said:
That was it. No sections or details. No site plan. Even after we pointed out that the entrance door isn't accessible, all the applicant did was send us an e-mail saying that there's an existing ramp. Yes -- there is. And the existing ramp in no way complies -- or EVER complied -- with the ADA or A117.1 or Chapter 11 of the IBC.
Click to expand...
Well... at least they know how to use a ruler...

Was that project ever issued a permit or is that slow-motion disaster still ongoing?
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Oh, it gets worse. That sketch looks like maybe a homeowner wants to enclose a porch. I've received multiple sketches that were that bad (or worse) for tenant fitouts for restaurants and other commercial facilities. Here's one -- and this is (IIRC) the THIRD try:

View attachment 16663

That was it. No sections or details. No site plan. Even after we pointed out that the entrance door isn't accessible, all the applicant did was send us an e-mail saying that there's an existing ramp. Yes -- there is. And the existing ramp in no way complies -- or EVER complied -- with the ADA or A117.1 or Chapter 11 of the IBC.

View attachment 16664

The ramp starts roughly in front of the left front wheel of the Audi on the left. The cross-slope exceeds the running slope, and the ramp doesn't start anywhere near the access aisle portion of the accessible parking space.

"But it's existing!"

The SECOND plan review for this disaster had 24 citations -- and that was without any M/E/P drawings to review. (There weren't any -- the applicant/tenant thought he was just going to have some buddies take out the M/E/P permits and install "whatever they think they need.")
Click to expand...
At least they knew they needed a hood permite
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
That was it. No sections or details. No site plan. Even after we pointed out that the entrance door isn't accessible, all the applicant did was send us an e-mail saying that there's an existing ramp. Yes -- there is. And the existing ramp in no way complies -- or EVER complied -- with the ADA or A117.1 or Chapter 11 of the IBC.

1758816850027.png


The ramp starts roughly in front of the left front wheel of the Audi on the left. The cross-slope exceeds the running slope, and the ramp doesn't start anywhere near the access aisle portion of the accessible parking space.

"But it's existing!"
Click to expand...
Do they need to fix the ramp because it will be a change of occupancy per IEBC?
 
Mr. Inspector said:
Do they need to fix the ramp because it will be a change of occupancy per IEBC?
Click to expand...
Not specifically but.....Depends on how strictly you interpret 306.7

306.7 Alterations​

A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code, ICC A117.1 and the provisions of Sections 306.7.1 through 306.7.16, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.
 
steveray said:
Not specifically but.....Depends on how strictly you interpret 306.7

306.7 Alterations​

A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code, ICC A117.1 and the provisions of Sections 306.7.1 through 306.7.16, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.
Click to expand...
So they could spend 20% on something else besides the ramp?
I always wondered if any inspector failed the plan review because the plan reviewer thinks they are lying about the costs. If they have the costs on paper, I never questioned it. They could say they are paying $10,000 to add a grab bar, I won't question it.
 
I really question that front "existing storage area". Are you really going to have your customers walking into a storage area? I'm very suspicious that the storage area will become a seating area after the inspector walks out the door in order to limit washroom fixture count.

...but I con only make a guess based on the plans, so maybe it is legit.
 
Mr. Inspector said:
So they could spend 20% on something else besides the ramp?
I always wondered if any inspector failed the plan review because the plan reviewer thinks they are lying about the costs. If they have the costs on paper, I never questioned it. They could say they are paying $10,000 to add a grab bar, I won't question it.
Click to expand...
I guess based on what I see, but we ask for some basic backup....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top