2006 IBC 704.2 Projections

[Glennman CBO]

Assumed, type V-B, B occupancy building setting 10' 6" from the property line, with a 60" roof overhang.

From section 704.2, I get that the overhang can only be 46" from the exterior wall to the end of the overhang, or 40" (1/3 of 10') from the assumed vertical plain from where openings would require protection as is determined from table 704.8. Since the openings do not require protection (footnote i and table 602 rating is 0, unlimited unprotected openings are allowed), the overhang still cannot extend beyond the 1/3 distance starting at 10' from the property line.

This was missed by the plans examiner, and now the overhang is 14" too far out. He was thinking that since the openings are unlimited and unprotected, then the overhang could be (I suppose) unlimited as well.

I'm getting from all this that it is not enough to now rate the overhang. It shouldn't extend beyond the 1/3 distance at all, rated or not.

Any thoughts?

 

[globe trekker]

I'm guessing that "tearing it all out" is not an option. What about cutting 14" or more

off of the projection and reframing it as best as can be done. If it isn't required to

be rated, then a variance may need to be applied for. It doesn't make it right, but

at least you will have addressed it through the proper channels.

Sounds like this one may another "hard one" to swallow. Uuuuugggghhh !!

.

 

[Glennman CBO]

If it was my project, they would be cutting it off, or find some other solution. However, some don't have a backbone to inform the builder that there is even a problem. Everyone is hush hush. This builder already hates my "guts" due to recent issues that he's had to take care of in the past (such as rebuilding 2 sets of commercial stairs built to the IRC). One problem is that it's an addition to the existing structure and all they did was continue the same overhang from the existing structure.

This is one of those situations that I've encountered after moving to this jurisdiction. It's like if you find that the regular builders in the area are commiting infractions on common code issues (such as building the wrong stairs), then that tells you that either things have been purposely overlooked, or the other inspectors don't know the codes. I'm not saying that the overhang issue is a common issue that one finds daily, but it's just another one of those issues that I think others in the department would just assume you didn't discover.

I'm staying out of this one. It would be another matter if I were the BO.

 

[globe trekker]

Glennman CBO,

I feel your pain!

The common code violations, ...issues where no one wants to address

them, ...builders hating your / my guts and the part of the

"powers that be not having any backbone" is all too common,

...seemingly everywhere!

To me, it seems to be getting worse too! More and more architects,

engineers, contractors, homeowners and everyone in between is doing

very little to comply with any adopted codes, standards, rules and

ordinances. They are doing just what they want to "get by".

I can certainly understand better of our Uncle Bob' lament, " ...the less

you know, the easier your job is!"

I guess that you could look for another job somewhere else. " jpranch "

seems to be in a good location out in Wyoming. " vegas paul " seems

to be in a good location also [ in Kansas ].

Maybe there are others out there who are in good locations, that have

actual support and not just political lip service. Until you DO find the

AHJ Shangri La, ...fly as low as you can and stay off of the political

radar. FWIW, I constantly walk on the razor's edge too! Hang in

there!

.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I agree with your analysis the overhang is 14" to long. Instead of cutting it off about a "boundry line adjustment" with the neighboring property?

 

[TJacobs]

I wish I had a penny for every time I have heard "...they never used to enforce that before you started..." or "I never knew that was in the code."

 

[Glennman CBO]

I recently required a contractor to remove the 3-M wrap from their newly installed type I hood duct so that I could perform a light test.

That's when I heard the classic "They never required that in the past" (like TJacobs said). They removed it, and we found holes in the welds.

I just returned to my desk from the same kind of inspection with the same contractor. Everything was all ready to go, 100 watt bulb and everything. Inspection went well.

They're learning.

 

[Glennman CBO]

Also, the lot line adjustment is a good idea, except that in this case it would cause the building next door to be in non compliance.

Thanks all.