• 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.

Basic Assumption

M

Mark K

REGISTERED
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
2,621
This should be obvious.

The building official's role is to interpolate and enforce the formally adopted building code. The building official interprets the building code but is limited in his interpretations. Interpolations must be consistent with the adopted code,

The building official does not have the authority to adopt or modify the building code.

The building official’s interpretations cannot have the effect of imposing new requirements not in the building code adopted by the legislative body.
 
I agree with all of that. I would add there are limited portions of the adopted that do grant the building official the option to make subjective decisions regarding exceptions.

Example: in IBC 1004.5 the exception for occupant load calcs in areas without fixed seating begins with the phrase "where approved by the building official...".
 
Mark K said:
The building official does not have the authority to adopt or modify the building code.
Click to expand...
Building officials usurp authority. As inclusive and relevant as building codes are, conditions may need an avant-garde application. Like a doctor prescribing a medication off label, sometimes you just have to step up to the plate.

Too assume otherwise can lead to frustration and inadequate outcomes.
 
Mark K said:
This should be obvious.

The building official's role is to interpolate and enforce the formally adopted building code. The building official interprets the building code but is limited in his interpretations. Interpolations must be consistent with the adopted code,

The building official does not have the authority to adopt or modify the building code.

The building official’s interpretations cannot have the effect of imposing new requirements not in the building code adopted by the legislative body.
Click to expand...

My code and the enabling statute says nothing about granting authority to "interpolate" the code(s). Some tables within some of the codes stipulate that interpolation is allowed but, aside from that, I don't even know what "interpolate and enforce the formally adopted building code" even means.
 
ICE said:
I can help with that. Massage, bastardize, expand, diminish, remake, and the ever popular "toss out"
Click to expand...

We have limited flexibility to do any of the above. Our state legislature, in a rare moment of sanity, realized that if they allowed local building officials to "interpret" the codes, we would have as many codes as we have municipalities, so they give municipal building officials the authority to enforce the codes, but only the State Building Inspector can interpret the codes. The result is that we walk a fine line, trying to establish where the limits of "enforce" lie while trying (for the most part) not to stray over the line into "interpret" territory.

I have the State Building Inspector's personal cell phone number in my contacts directory. My view is that if a question is controversial, it protects me and the town I work for to allow the State Building Inspector to make the call. I don't always agree, but that's what makes horse racing.
 
Interpolate means to insert or alter. For instance, there is limited ability in the codes to interpolate values to determine the proper value at a different level. Interpolation of codes is an area being explored in performance based codes.

Interpret means to explain the meaning of something.
 
As most jurisdictions interpolate the crap out of chapter 1 Mark, that is a tough statement to make....It may be mostly correct and I do not really believe there is a "limit" on interpretation by those authorized to do so...Oddly I don't think "interpretation" is in our code (but statute), and it goes to OSBI...


104.10.1 State Building Code​


Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 29-254 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the State Building Inspector may grant modifications, variations or exemptions from, or approve equivalent or alternative compliance with, the Connecticut State Building Code where strict compliance with the Connecticut State Building Code would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, or is otherwise adjudged unwarranted, provided the intent of the law shall be observed and public welfare and safety be assured. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the State Building Inspector may appeal to the Codes and Standards Committee not later than 30 days after mailing of the decision.
 
We do not use chapter 1 at all here. What the state made instead does not use the word "interpret" or anything like it anywhere. But it seems like every inspector interpret some code sections different.
 
ICE said:
Building officials usurp authority. As inclusive and relevant as building codes are, conditions may need an avant-garde application. Like a doctor prescribing a medication off label, sometimes you just have to step up to the plate.

Too assume otherwise can lead to frustration and inadequate outcomes.
Click to expand...
It is not the role of the building official to prevent inadequate outcomes. It is the responsibility of the designer to prevent/mitigate undesired outcomes.

If the code is not adequate AND the designer proposes an alternate Section 104.11 allows the building official to accept an alternate. But this does not give the building official permission to modify the code when the designer has not proposed an alternate.
 
The point is that there are limits on what the building official can require.
 
Mark K said:
The point is that there are limits on what the building official can require.
Click to expand...

As one of our former State Building Officials (now deceased) used to state in virtually every live class he gave, "The code is the most you can require and the least you can accept."

That sounds like establishing an impossibly thin line to walk, until you realize that nothing prevents a designer from exceeding the code requirements. A simple example is exit access travel distance. Sure, those numbers are arbitrary numbers, but they were chosen by consensus and they are the code. So suppose a particular occupancy classification is allowed 150 feet in an unsprinklered building. You are reviewing a plan for that occupancy in an unsprinklered building.

How likely is it that you'll find the exit access travel distance is exactly 150 feet? The chances are nearly zero. If they are 150 feet -- it meets code, so it can be approved. If it's 151 feet, it doesn't meet code and it can't be approved. More than likely, it will be some distance less than 150 feet, so not only can it be approved, it's actually better than the absolute limit of what the code requires.
 
Mark K said:
It is not the role of the building official to prevent inadequate outcomes.
Click to expand...
That's a simplistic assessment of a BO's role. An inadequate outcome is quantified how? In my estimation, guarding against inadequate outcomes is the daily task of a BO.

Mark K said:
The point is that there are limits on what the building official can require.
Click to expand...
True enough. When I was a new inspector I made the comment to a supervisor that I witness things that are wrong. Things that will be a future problem but things that have no code that would prevent that wrong thing. I was told that being intelligent and experienced in construction, I should write the correction as that will benefit the owners whom we represent. He went on to say that few people know what is in the code so I will seldom be challenged.

Tiger Code was revealed on that day. That's a tongue in cheek remark.
You Mark, want BOs in a neat box that can be taken off the shelf when needed and put back on the shelf to wait for the next time. You see us a a fly in the ointment. If we have a brain you expect us to turn it off.

Granted, I have taken a nearly perverted pleasure in poking holes in the box that you try to put me in. A further concession is that I have an outsized passion for the work of a building inspector. Where should inspectors be on the scale? Well I suppose that's somewhere between you and me however, your placement of the BO in that box results in a eunuch.
 
When the building official goes beyond the code it suggests that the building official should be personally liable if there are problems.

I doubt your city attorney will support going beyond the code.
 
Mark K said:
When the building official goes beyond the code it suggests that the building official should be personally liable if there are problems.

I doubt your city attorney will support going beyond the code.
Click to expand...

In actuality, whenever a code official goes beyond the code, he or she IS liable-- and so is the municipality or agency that employs them.

Back to our late former State Building Inspector and the statement he made in so many classes. When our in-service classes were live (pre-COVID and before that State Building Inspector retired), each class was presented three or four times, in different corners of the state so as to allow as many building officials as possible to attend without having to travel too far. Due to geography, I often found myself attending the same session as a building official from a small but wealthy town where he was famous/infamous/notorious for making up requirements. And the State Building Inspector, immediately after making his statement about the code being the least you can accept and the most you can require, would generally follow up with, "That's why we only have one building code for the entire state. Except for [__Municipality__], where [__Name__] makes up his own code. You do what you want, [__Name__], but when you get sued, just understand that my office can't back you up."

To nobody's great surprise, that building official (and the town he worked for) was sued, the Office of State Building Inspector didn't back him up (because they couldn't), and he was subsequently terminated.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
a career ender.
Click to expand...
I haven't had any of those and never been sued. The collateral damage to the things you present is that people become gun shy. The potential for blow-back outweighs the value of what they walked away from. What's wrong with doing the right thing and facing the consequences?

You often refer to a state inspector that says that we can only enforce the adopted code and nothing more ... than what is the bare minimum of acceptable construction. That's an appalling lack of initiative. That state inspector is convinced that the only pertinent qualification for a BO is the ability to read. There is no room for independent thinking as it just leads to trouble.
 
ICE said:
I haven't had any of those and never been sued. The collateral damage to the things you present is that people become gun shy. The potential for blow-back outweighs the value of what they walked away from. What's wrong with doing the right thing and facing the consequences?
Click to expand...

Difference of opinion. I regard doing the right thing as enforcing the code. You apparently regard doing the right thing as exceeding your statutory authority. Ultimately, you gotta do you, and I gotta do me.

Suppose some BO's "do the right thing" extra-code requirement costs more than "just" meeting the code. Building codes are intended to establish the optimum balance between public safety and reasonable cost. When you tell an owner that he/she/they have to do more than what the code requires, you are making them spend more money than what the law requires.

I don't know how you can justify doing that, but I guess it's okay in your mind.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
the optimum balance between public safety and reasonable cost.
Click to expand...
There is a kernel of truth in that statement. On the balance beam is not safety and cost but actually consumer and provider. While consumers are cognizant of costs they will land on safety. Providers are focused on their own expense and will ignore safety until they can't.

Yankee Chronicler said:
Suppose some BO's "do the right thing" extra-code requirement costs more than "just" meeting the code
Click to expand...
Your argument brings up the opposite of the usual BOs intervention, Ninety-nine of a hundred BO code interpretations water down a code rather than add some extraneous requirement. I guess that I am saying that you are tilting at windmills.

Yankee Chronicler said:
When you tell an owner that he/she/they have to do more than what the code requires, you are making them spend more money than what the law requires.
Click to expand...
You deal with owners? I deal with contractors and developers. I make the argument that what I am requiring is code.... perhaps not the code as they understand it, but code none the less.
Here is an example of me attempting to enforce what is not expressly delineated in written code.

A 25,000 square foot dwelling foundation was built without removing the form boards until days after placing the concrete. At the raised floor framing inspection I found that the forms had not been removed below the adjacent grade. The footings were three to four feet in depth. Well then, at each footing inspection I write a correction notice instructing the contractor to make sure that all of the wood form work is removed. I wrote a correction to remove the form boards on both sides of the foundation to the full depth. I was challenged. I provided the following code reference:

R408.5 Removal of debris. The under-floor grade shall be cleaned of all vegetation and organic material. Wood forms used for placing concrete shall be removed before a building is occupied or used for any purpose. Construction materials shall be removed before a building is occupied or used for any purpose.

I was overruled by an assistant office manager. He pointed out that code section R408 is restricted to the underfloor area so form boards on the exterior of the foundation can remain. I pointed out that the Pasadena California area has a significant problem with subterranean termites. I was, and still am, convinced that although section R408 is Under-Floor Space, it can be correctly applied to form boards on the exterior of the building. Naive I was.

That ruling against my correction did not alleviate the contractor's problem with the form boards on the inside of the foundation. The contractor estimated that it would cost $250k to remove the form boards. The BO decided that because the code is silent on the form boards on the exterior of the foundation, there is obviously not a problem with form boards left underground on the inside of the foundation. He determined that "Wood forms used for placing concrete shall be removed" refers to form boards that were stripped from the concrete and not removed from the area of the underfloor.

Worth noting is that the manager contacted the property owner who happened to be in Europe at the time. The manager explained the potential expense and delay if the correction stands. The manager downplayed the potential termite infestation. I figure he was giving the owner a heads-up to get a termite exterminator on retainer.

I was instructed that hence forth I was not allowed to require form boards to be removed unless they were "debris." and then i was replaced as the inspector. Getting replaced never bothered me. I still haven't learned to gleefully accept asinine rulings and I've experienced plenty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top