Carrollton Texas Fire Damage Rebuild

[Texas HOA President]

Hello forum, I'm seeking some assistance with a project that as my HOA President that I've been involved with. Briefly, one of the buildings in our condominium complex experienced a fire last year.

The HOA was required to rebuild four of seven units. The master insurance policy for the property contains a provision whereby some funding remains for spend that resulted during the rebuild for the purpose of building code upgrades.

The building was constructed back in 1983. The city of Carrollton Texas used the 1979 Uniform Building Code at that time. In order to collect on the insurance funds, we need to be able to cite the code upgrades that were required in 2023 when the damage was restored. Is there someone here willing to assist with this?

The Association is only interested in the most major code differences.

As an example, we were required to use insulation in the new construction with a higher R value. If I can provide the insurance adjuster the code section, we are eligible to collect the difference in price between insulation that was originally R15 but is now R30.

Ideally, I could provide the insurance adjuster citations from the 1979 UBC and contrast those with the 2021 IBC currently being used.

Thank you in advance.

 

[ICE]

Does the insurance company expect to get it done with the cost of construction in 1983? They are aware that the 1979 codes will not apply.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

How badly were the units damaged? Are you rebuilding from the ground up, or only partial structural repairs/replacements and interior restoration?

In my view, there is a significant disconnect between the code (IBC and IEBC) definition of "Repair" and what the Commentary says about that definition.

Code definition:

[A] REPAIR. The reconstruction, replacement or renewal of
any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance
or to correct damage.

In my opinion, "reconstruction" allows an existing building damaged by fire to be "reconstructed" exactly as it was before the fire -- to the code in effect at the time of original construction, according to the original plans (if they are available). But then the Commentary throws in a curve ball:

As indicated in Section 105.1, permits are required for
repairs. However, per Section 105.2.1, the emergency
repair of an item typically does not require a permit
before work can start. This definition makes it clear that
repair is limited to work on the item for maintenance or
to correct damage, and does not include complete or
substantial replacement or other new work.

Whoever wrote the Commentary may think this section of the code "makes it clear" that repair does not include complete or substantial replacement, but as an author and editor I have to disagree. I would allow the damaged units to be rebuilt exactly as they were. (Unless my state building inspector weighed in and said something different.)

 

[ICE]

I would allow the damaged units to be rebuilt exactly as they were.

That was common many years ago. Improvements in the code, especially MEP, have forced a thoughtful approach. It was never a clean way to do things when you are taking someone’s word for what was there prior to the fire. With the exception of dreaded energy code, there’s a good reason for code changes.

There used to be a statement in a code book that declared that the application of the code shall not benefit any one person or entity. Without a code that allows building back exactly as it was, the practice can’t be justified.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

That was common many years ago. Improvements in the code, especially MEP, have forced a thoughtful approach. It was never a clean way to do things when you are taking someone’s word for what was there prior to the fire. With the exception of dreaded energy code, there’s a good reason for code changes.

There used to be a statement in a code book that declared that the application of the code shall not benefit any one person or entity. Without a code that allows building back exactly as it was, the practice can’t be justified.

Sure, there is good reason (except when the reasons are political or financial) for changes in the codes, but the definition is the same in both the IBC and the IEBC. I'm just applying the [current] code as written.

[A] REPAIR. The reconstruction, replacement or renewal of
any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance
or to correct damage.

If rebuilding after a fire isn't "reconstruction" "to correct damage" -- what is it?

 

[ICE]

If rebuilding after a fire isn't "reconstruction" "to correct damage" -- what is it?

If a flood, mudslide, tornado or fire wipes the foundation clean you call that a repair???

Water damage and a car in the kitchen ... that's reconstruction..

Furnaces and water heaters get replaced.

Dry-rot and termite damage require maintenance.

There will be damage associated with all three.

Burning down the house is way beyond a repair.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

If a flood, mudslide, tornado or fire wipes the foundation clean you call that a repair???

And what if a fire DOESN'T wipe out the foundation?

Burning down the house is way beyond a repair.

But is it beyond a "reconstruction"? What is rebuilding a fire-damaged dwelling unit if not "reconstruction"?

The IEBC definition of "Existing Building":

[A] EXISTING BUILDING. A building erected prior to the
date of adoption of the appropriate code, or one for which a
legal building permit has been issued.

So far, so good. Can we assume that a seven-unit condo probably had a building permit? So it's an existing building. It suffered a fire. It needs to be "reconstructed." Back to the definition of "Repair."

Next, let's look at Chapter 4 of the IEBC, which governs repairs to existing buildings:

[BS] 405.2.3 Substantial structural damage to vertical
elements of the lateral force-resisting system. A building
that has sustained substantial structural damage to
the vertical elements of its lateral force-resisting system
shall be evaluated in accordance with Section 405.2.3.1,
and either repaired in accordance with Section 405.2.3.2
or repaired and retrofitted in accordance with Section
405.2.3.3, depending on the results of the evaluation.
Exceptions:
1. Buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category
A, B or C whose substantial structural damage
was not caused by earthquake need not be evaluated
or retrofitted for load combinations that
include earthquake effects.
2. One- and two-family dwellings need not be
evaluated or retrofitted for load combinations
that include earthquake effects.
[BS] 405.2.3.1 Evaluation. The building shall be evaluated
by a registered design professional, and the
evaluation findings shall be submitted to the code official.
The evaluation shall establish whether the
damaged building, if repaired to its predamage state,
would comply with the provisions of the International
Building Code for load combinations that include wind
or earthquake effects, except that the seismic forces
shall be the reduced seismic forces.

[BS] 405.2.4 Substantial structural damage to gravity
load-carrying components. Gravity load-carrying
components that have sustained substantial structural
damage shall be rehabilitated to comply with the applicable
provisions for dead, live and snow loads in the
International Building Code. Undamaged gravity loadcarrying
components that receive dead, live or snow loads
from rehabilitated components shall also be rehabilitated
if required to comply with the design loads of the rehabilitation
design.

So the load-carrying components must be reconstructed in compliance with the current IBC. Unless it's a very old structure, the original design probably complies. The loads haven't changed much, if any, for residential occupancies.

[BS] 405.2.5 Substantial structural damage to snow
load-carrying components. Where substantial structural
damage to any snow load-carrying components is caused
by or related to snow load effects, any components
required to carry snow loads on roof framing of similar
construction shall be repaired, replaced or retrofitted to
satisfy the requirements of Section 1608 of the International
Building Code.

If the damage wasn't caused by snow, then reconstruction does NOT have to meet current snow load requirements even if they are more restrictive than the code under which the building was originally built.

Electrical:

406.1 Material. Existing electrical wiring and equipment
undergoing repair shall be allowed to be repaired or replaced
with like material.
406.1.1 Receptacles. Replacement of electrical receptacles
shall comply with the applicable requirements of
Section 406.4(D) of NFPA 70.

Mechanical:

407.1 General. Existing mechanical systems undergoing
repair shall not make the building less complying than it was
before the damaged occurred.

I'm just not seeing a big deal here. The intent of the IEBC is clearly (IMHO) to allow damage repairs to be -- for the most part -- to the pre-existing condition, using like materials, with a few specific things such as receptacles and water closets.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The Association is only interested in the most major code differences.

As an example, we were required to use insulation in the new construction with a higher R value. If I can provide the insurance adjuster the code section, we are eligible to collect the difference in price between insulation that was originally R15 but is now R30.

A local architect should be able to provide you with the comparable code citations, if you provide him/her a list of what the building department required you to upgrade. However, if the building department required you to upgrade -- to use your example -- the insulation (wall, or roof?) from R-15 to R-30, in my opinion the building department exceeded their authority and required you to make upgrades that are not required by the code.

 

[ICE]

And what if a fire DOESN'T wipe out the foundation?

I didn't say wipe it out... I said wipe it clean. Why would it matter whether or not the foundation survived? It's just another component. If everything else can disappear, the foundation shouldn't hold them back.

The main point of contention is not what constitutes a repair but rather what will trigger current codes. You are willing to turn back the hands of time for a perceived repair which by your determination, covers a lot. I suppose Uncle Bob could be brought out of retirement to perform the inspections.

What about the next owner? Who would disclose that the house built in the year 2024 met the code standards of 1967? California took a different path and what happens in your jurisdiction is ... well whatever you folks have adopted. If it works for you, who am I to criticize?

 

[steveray]

I think repair should be limited to a component more than a system.....that would help clarify....

 

[Texas HOA President]

Does the insurance company expect to get it done with the cost of construction in 1983? They are aware that the 1979 codes will not apply.

We already built back with the settlement allocation. We are just trying to tap into the provision in our policy related specifically to code mandated upgrades at this point. Thank you for replying.

 

[Texas HOA President]

Thank you all who replied. I've been exchanging emails with one of the city inspectors for the past few days. Initially he was also providing answers to my questions while viewing the situation as a repair rather than new construction but has since confirmed:

"The building is governed by the 2021 International Existing Building Code, which regulates repairs, alterations, and additions for existing buildings."

I apologize for not making that clearer. The fire took the roof, and most of the interior partition walls on three of four units. Two of the units shared a floor/ceiling trusses that experienced some damage. The perimeter structural walls remained mainly intact.

I'm a master electrician so most of the electrical code upgrades I'm able to cite. It's the IEBC that I'm not familiar with. There are upgrades like the R values required for the replacement wall and attic insulation, likely the roof load ratings, the fireplaces required an auxiliary vent duct, etc. There was also a window set in one of the perimeter outside walls that had to be changed because it wouldn't serve adequately as a means of egress in the event of another fire?

Something one of the responders pointed out is that it may be worth the cost to hire a consultant to assist with this. The company that drew up the CAD drawings for the plans we submitted to the city, wasn't much help. The structural engineer we used didn't cite the code changes and is not accessible to me directly. He was a subcontractor of the company who did our drawing.

 

[Jay Smith]

…There was also a window set in one of the perimeter outside walls that had to be changed because it wouldn't serve adequately as a means of egress in the event of another fire?

1979 UBC Sec. 1204 had a very similar requirement to 2021 IBC. I’m attaching a screenshot from that page in the code.

 

[ICE]

1979 UBC Sec. 1204 had a very similar requirement to 2021 IBC. I’m attaching a screenshot from that page in the code.

That you were able to produce that is interesting. What version of what code was adopted in Carrollton, Texas in 1979?

 

[Texas HOA President]

That you were able to produce that is interesting. What version of what code was adopted in Carrollton, Texas in 1979?

Regarding the code from 1979, the city inspector wrote simply, "Carrollton was under the 1979 Uniform Building Code in 1983".

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Regarding the code from 1979, the city inspector wrote simply, "Carrollton was under the 1979 Uniform Building Code in 1983".

Here's a link to the 1979 UBC: https://archive.org/details/uniformbuildingc0000vari_l1f7