Building Department Performing Compliance Inspections

[permitguy]

3401.2 Maintenance. Buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. Devices or safeguards which are required by this code shall be maintained in conformance with the code edition under which installed. The owner or the owner's designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of buildings and structures. To determine compliance with this subsection, the building official shall have the authority to require a building or structure to be reinspected. The requirements of this chapter shall not provide the basis for removal or abrogation of fire protection and safety systems and devices in existing buildings and structures.

Has anyone ever seen the above language used to justify a routine building inspection program where the building department verifies continuing compliance beyond the CO? I'm not talking about the building department doing fire inspections or exterior code enforcement, but a separate and distinct inpsection program inside commercial buildings.

The scope of Ch. 34 indicates that it applies to alterations, repairs, additions, and change of occupancy. Would that not supercede the above language, making an interior inspection program outside the scope of Ch. 34 when no changes have been made?

Looking forward to your input . . .

 

[FM William Burns]

Would that not supercede the above language, making an interior inspection program outside the scope of Ch. 34 when no changes have been made?

Don't have the commentary.........it's at the building department I interpret it that way since I believe the "maintenance" is associated to intended existing features in areas not undergoing alteration, repairs or use changes as they related to the newly altered area.

Hope that makes sense cuz I totally understood it.

Besides...they would have to amend state legislation here for maintenance inspections in the building code.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Has anyone ever seen the above language used to justify a routine building inspection program where the building department verifies continuing compliance beyond the CO?

Routine no but have used it to go beyond a "normal" fire inspection.

 

[FM William Burns]

I can see how MT used it for say........... a roof leak where unless it was in proximity to energized equipment or pathways to energized equipment, the fire inspector has no course unless PMC was adopted.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Or replace a section of B vent that is old and rusty, fix handrails or steps that are loose. Primarily life safety items that the majority of "fire inspectors" have little or no knowledge of because it is not on their checklist.

I would NEVER encourage the adoption of a proactive program to conduct inspections of commercial building on a regular basis to see if a building is being maintained under the code it was built under. The point of that language is it is there if an AHJ needs to act. In my case and others there is no adopted PMC so that is the tool I would use.

 

[permitguy]

Thanks for the input so far.

Would it be your opinion that 3401.2 gives a building official the authority to begin such a program (IF they wanted to), even though 3401.1 says the chapter applies to alterations, repairs, additions, and change of occupancy?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Yes..... if the inspections are limited to health and safety provisions that are incorporated as a part of the building . Other items would need the adoption of a PMC.