• 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

Chapter 33 questions

mtlogcabin said:
115.2 The stop work order shall state the reason for the order, and the conditions under which the cited work will be permitted to resume.

What code section are you going to cite for your reason?

116.1.

Structures or existing equipment that are or hereafter become unsafe, insanitary or deficient

So what part of the structure is unsafe?

How is the means of egress become inadequate?
Click to expand...
I will cite 115.1.

If you have construction going on above the door with people removing siding, windows, roofing....workers 2 or 3 stories up with tools and materials, above an entrance to an apartment building or a school....

To me, that is "work regulated by this code being performed in a manner ....dangerous or unsafe.."

I think I could cite 116.1 as well, "structures....." "otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare....".

If a structure is being partially demolished above the only door to get in or out, and the entrance is not protected against falling tools and building materials, I would consider that "otherwise dangerous to human life or public welfare".....
 
kilitact said:
A walkway shall be provided for pedestrian travel in front of every construction and demolition site unless the applicable governing authority authorizes the sidewalk to be fenced or closed. Walkways shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the pedestrian traffic, but in no case shall be less than 4 feet in width. Walkways shall be accessible in accordance with Chapter 11 and shall be designed to support all imposed loads and in no case shall the design live load be less than 150 pounds per square foot. Sec. 3606.2 So, does this only provide protection for the front of the site/building, and what constitutes the front?
Click to expand...
What, dear sir, is the definition of "construction site?"
 
brudgers said:
What, dear sir, is the definition of "construction site?"
Click to expand...
The site upon which construction activity is taking place.

What is the front of such site?
 
kilitact said:
The site upon which construction activity is taking place. What is the front of such site?
Click to expand...
Zounds Bodkins, my good fellow! Perchance, do you have a copy of the building code?
 
115.1 gives the building official the authority to issue a stop work order if the work being performed is contrary to the code or dangerous or unsafe

As the building official you have to state the reason for the stop work order and under what conditions you will allow it to resume. This is where it gets sticky. You do not have a specific section under the ICC body of codes that you can site. 116.1 is for an unsafe or dangerous structure. The structure isn't the problem neither is the work being performed.

116.1 is for structures and equipment that become unsafe or dangerous, this is not what you are describing. It is conditions resulting from the permited construction activity you are trying to regulate.

Sorry but you should probably calling OSHA or some other agency for help on this one.
 
kilitact said:
Yes, which year are you looking at
Click to expand...
One in which there is a definition of "site," of course! Praytell! How many of them are you not looking in, stout yeoman?
 
brudgers said:
One in which there is a definition of "site," of course! Praytell! How many of them are you not looking in, stout yeoman?
Click to expand...
So, provide the code year and the definition(s) your finding of "site".

Question still pending to you or perhaps your still researching ; what is the front?
 
mtlogcabin said:
You do not have a specific section under the ICC body of codes that you can site. Sorry but you should probably calling OSHA or some other agency for help on this one.
Click to expand...
Other than 115.1???

The work being done is regulated by the code.

The structure is what is being worked on.

The public entry to the building is part of the structure.

Having construction above a public door with tools, materials and demolition work going on over the door and no protection for the people using this door is "dangerous" or "unsafe" and it is "work regulated by the provisions of this code"

115.1 Authorizes me to issue a stop work order. I then have to provide reasons and conditions that allow for resumption.

This seems pretty broad. I don't feel it is out of line to use this in a situation such as this.

If you saw someone stripping a roof as part of a reroof permit and shoving panels of sheetmetal or sheets of plywood and allowing them to fall 2 or 3 stories, hit the ground above, around, on, or near the enterance to an apartment building or a school, would you honestly, as the building official, overlook that and say "not my job"???

I think failing to use this section, in this or similar instance, could be construed as non-feasance, IMHO.

It is up to me as BO to justify "dangerous or unsafe". Would a contractor be willing to argue that what they are doing is not dangerous or not unsafe???

I am willing to find out.
 
What have you heard from the tenant lately? Is it still dangerous enough to ignore? Are you still working off a picture?

I like the comparison to raining plywood. I watched a unit peel like a deck of cards from a second story roof. It's surreal to see the sheets getting smaller and smaller as they exit the neighborhood. I wonder what people thought where they came down.

I made it into a first floor apt. A foreman followed me and went straight to a window to see the show. Lap siding was in the air and a two foot piece nailed him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE said:
What have you heard from the tenant lately? Is it still dangerous enough to ignore? Are you still working off a picture?I like the comparison to raining plywood. I watched a unit peel like a deck of cards from a second story roof. It's surreal to see the sheets getting smaller and smaller as they exit the neighborhood. I wonder what people thought where they came down.

I made it into a first floor apt. A foreman followed me and went straight to a window to see the show. Lap siding was in the air and a two foot piece nailed him.
Click to expand...
I sent the inspector out yesterday and he is working with the contractor on a solution.
 
ICE said:
Is there a time frame for that or are you speaking hypothetically?
Click to expand...
Their willingness to make safety improvements has me leaning away from a SWO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mtlogcabin said:
Sorry but you should probably calling OSHA or some other agency for help on this one.
Click to expand...
OSHA only deals with workers on the site, the same issues MAY be part of the worker safety, but may not be. The Insurance Agency/Safety Guy is a good choice. But really, , , they are going to argue if you ask nicely?
 
Yankee said:
OSHA only deals with workers on the site, the same issues MAY be part of the worker safety, but may not be. The Insurance Agency/Safety Guy is a good choice. But really, , , they are going to argue if you ask nicely?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I called OSHA. They don't care about tenants on a site. If you are a worker up 4 stories and want to spend the day dropping hammers and screwdrivers over the door to the building, just make sure you have your harness, eye protection and hard hat, and OSHA is A-OK with it.

Seems like the building department, using 115.1 has justification to require remedy of a dangerous or unsafe condition, when it involves work authorized by the code.
 
I would set up a time to meet with the contractor and walk the job site with him.
 
ICE said:
The tenant seems to be the sharpest player.
Click to expand...
Inspector is meeting with both parites today.

Public saftey will be restored/maintained.

Section 115.1 seems like the most applicable section that could be used. I don't want to resort to a SWO but the option is there and defensible under the IBC. I think the inspector will be able to hammer it out. I am trusting his discretion and judgement. If I need to, I will make a trip over there, but that is why we have good inspectors (or deputies), because we trust them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top