• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Amending the Building Codes

rktect 1

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,109
Location
Illinois
Trying to get some thoughts on this topic as to the best approach.

We will be adopting either the 2018 or 2021 Building codes from the 2015 cycle most likely in the next six months. The 2015 amendments were most likely done by a fire department person. (Not judging). Its clear that the changes made were never fully thought out and on top of this I am in Illinois. So, for those of you who do not know what that means, Illinois has there own Illinois Plumbing Code as well as their own Accessibility Code. No really, not copies of say the International Plumbing Code but their very own poorly written and developed codes. So, I can amend out every occurance of "Internatioanl Plumbing Code and replace with "most current Illinois Plumbing Code" but this still leave specific references to say P2904 of the IRC or similar, which are many. But replace with what, simply "Illinois Plumbing Code" or should I try and dig out the Illinois Plumbing Code section "Section 890.1040 of the Illinois Plumbing Code" ??????? It also makes it interesting that in the IRC amendments we have amended chapters 25 through 43 out completely. Including everything fire sprinkler and some other information not found in the Illinois Plumbing Code as well as all electrical because we adopt the NEC.

Just looking for thoughts.
 
This is a problem that many jurisdictions deal with. This forum can only offer you bandaids to the problem. I presume they will be either incomplete or a lot of work (changing every reference). The real solution lies in working with the state authority that creates this problem in the first place by not understanding the complex relationship that the various trade codes have with each other.

In my work assisting local governments with code adoption and amendment in Colorado (home rule), it is a amazing how disconnected so many decision makers really are from each other and from the idea of a "family of codes".

I think you've got your work cut out for you to correct what your state representatives have established.
 
California managed to remove the electrical, plumbing and mechanical portions from the IRC. Other states might have done that. Having seen references at this forum to the trade codes found in the IRC, I suspect that it was a good idea to remove the MEP code from the IRC.

Sometimes it is better to focus on one thing rather than trying to be a printer, scanner, fax machine and coffee maker all rolled into one. Oh I forgot shredder, where I was last stationed, that copier could also shred...or was it mangle.

Speaking of a mangle. If you remember these you really are mature.

american-heated-mangle-about-1945-MB9D00.jpg
 
Last edited:
Like ICE I am also in CA and some of our codes are ICC based, others IAPMO, NEC, or custom. We don't get a choice, the BSC tells us what the code is and we have to adopt it, and if we want to make local amendments there's a specific process to get them approved. So I don't have first hand experience with what you're describing, but I wonder if you can simply add a statement at the beginning that says "Illinois Plumbing Code to replace all ICC plumbing code references." Obviously it would be more detailed and eloquent and approved by legal, but it should save you a lot of headache if allowed.
 
Here is the language the state uses when adopting the IBC and there is similar language in the IMC, IFGC.

(2) Subsection 101.4, Referenced Codes, is modified by adding the following: "Any reference to a separate specialty code, by title, either in this subsection or elsewhere in this code, shall be considered deleted and replaced with the title of the model code adopted and in effect at the time, as applicable."

(3) Subsection 101.4.3, Plumbing, is modified by:

(a) Deleting "International Plumbing Code" and replacing with "Uniform Plumbing Code."

In the IRC they just delete the chapter

(3) Chapters 11 through 14, inclusive, are deleted in their entirety and chapters 16 through 43, inclusive, are deleted in their entirety. Chapter 15, Exhaust Systems, is adopted as an alternative to the International Mechanical Code for exhaust systems only. All other requirements for mechanical systems in detached one- or two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories above grade in height, and their accessory structures, shall be found in the latest adopted edition of the International Mechanical Code.
 
Like ICE I am also in CA and some of our codes are ICC based, others IAPMO, NEC, or custom. We don't get a choice, the BSC tells us what the code is and we have to adopt it, and if we want to make local amendments there's a specific process to get them approved. So I don't have first hand experience with what you're describing, but I wonder if you can simply add a statement at the beginning that says "Illinois Plumbing Code to replace all ICC plumbing code references." Obviously it would be more detailed and eloquent and approved by legal, but it should save you a lot of headache if allowed.
Strictly speaking in California you don't adopt the building code since the state codes are in effect even if the local jurisdiction does nothing. Local jurisdictions can modify the state codes as they apply to the local jurisdiction but there are limits on such modifications.
 
Trying to get some thoughts on this topic as to the best approach.

We will be adopting either the 2018 or 2021 Building codes from the 2015 cycle most likely in the next six months. The 2015 amendments were most likely done by a fire department person. (Not judging). Its clear that the changes made were never fully thought out and on top of this I am in Illinois. So, for those of you who do not know what that means, Illinois has there own Illinois Plumbing Code as well as their own Accessibility Code. No really, not copies of say the International Plumbing Code but their very own poorly written and developed codes. So, I can amend out every occurance of "Internatioanl Plumbing Code and replace with "most current Illinois Plumbing Code" but this still leave specific references to say P2904 of the IRC or similar, which are many. But replace with what, simply "Illinois Plumbing Code" or should I try and dig out the Illinois Plumbing Code section "Section 890.1040 of the Illinois Plumbing Code" ??????? It also makes it interesting that in the IRC amendments we have amended chapters 25 through 43 out completely. Including everything fire sprinkler and some other information not found in the Illinois Plumbing Code as well as all electrical because we adopt the NEC.

Just looking for thoughts.
Can we start a petition to remove all instances of the word "shall" from the building code?

It could read something like this:

"Everyone across the world who wants to do any kind of construction project to their home or business needs to read this document. And in order to understand it you actually have to be able to READ it, not decipher some ancient Egyptian lexicon.

"Shall" the outmoded word of a bygone age that used to mean "will" is in the IRC at least once per sentence (I just read one that had 3). No one uses shall anymore, except for maybe actors on the stage of Downton Abbey which is blissfully set in the appropriate era for the word. In this context, it just sounds like the document and its writers are being condescending.

An example: "Where the lateral load connections are provided in accordance with Figure R507.9.2(2), the hold-down tension devices [SHALL] be installed in not less than four locations per deck, and each device [SHALL] have an allowable stress design capacity of not less than 750 pounds (3336 N)." (IRC 2018 Chapter 5: R507.9.2 Lateral Connection)

Now try reading the entire IRC start to finish with the word "shall," with its obnoxiously long opening consonant and longer vowel, pinging around in your brain every 10 seconds. It's absurd.

And another thing; they use "shall be no less than [20lbs/sqft]" or something like it several times a paragraph. How is the average non-trades professional supposed to read this?

They could re-write that entire sentence so easily like this:

"Where the lateral load connections are provided in accordance with Figure R507.9.2(2), the hold-down tension devices will be installed in at least four locations per deck, and each device will have an allowable stress design capacity of at least 750 pounds (3336 N)."

Do you still need some understanding of how to build a deck in order to read this sentence? Yes. Will you be to put the pieces together a lot more easily because the wording is current? Yes!

I understand they are trying to be clear that the deck MUST be built according to certain standards, yet there are other words in the English language that will get the job done; even if they MUST!"

Actually wrote this a while back while studying the building codes. I'll be real with you. I made it as a bit of a gimmick. Still, if doge coin can make a few millionaires, maybe a few sentences supporting legibility can make a difference.

Am I alone in the annoyance with this kind verbiage? Will changing "shall" to "will" or "must" cause confusion?
 
Strictly speaking in California you don't adopt the building code since the state codes are in effect even if the local jurisdiction does nothing. Local jurisdictions can modify the state codes as they apply to the local jurisdiction but there are limits on such modifications.
You're correct, however when a local jurisdiction has historically adopted current code in to their local municipal code every three years then not adopting an update would place your local muni code in conflict with state requirements. So, strictly speaking, our jurisdiction does adopt the new code in order to be in compliance with state regulations. If it were my decision I would probably change the muni code to read "most current version of CA Building Standards Code" and be done with it, but not my call.
 
& * &

Mustache Joe,

I agree with ICE on the word "shall".......It is supposed
to be a word that requires mandatory compliance, and
is not open for interpretation and negotiation.

Also, ...the attorneys like the word, because is provides
legal consistency throughout the document.


& * &
 
Last edited:
You're correct, however when a local jurisdiction has historically adopted current code in to their local municipal code every three years then not adopting an update would place your local muni code in conflict with state requirements. So, strictly speaking, our jurisdiction does adopt the new code in order to be in compliance with state regulations. If it were my decision I would probably change the muni code to read "most current version of CA Building Standards Code" and be done with it, but not my call.
When there is a conflict between municipal codes and the California state statutes on building codes the municipal code is irrelevant. If a local jurisdiction wants to "adopt" the state building code it would be appropriate to adopt the "California Building Standards Code". No need to talk about the most recent version since that is addressed in state law.
 
When there is a conflict between municipal codes and the California state statutes on building codes the municipal code is irrelevant.
Irrelevant to you. Not irrelevant to the rest of the population until such time as someone invests in a legal challenge. Looking at it from a practical position one sees how overturning municipal codes has a cost to benefit ratio. Although I am sure that you know of a few, there's few municipal codes worth the expense required to undo them.
 
& * &

Mustache Joe,

I agree with ICE on the word "shall".......It is supposed
to be a word that requires mandatory compliance, and
is not open for interpretation and negotiation.

Also, ...the attorneys like the word, because is provides
legal consistency throughout the document.


& * &
It appears I am alone in this. I will suffer in silence.
 
Top