defining the 'work area'

[Mr Softy]

good morning all.

here's a question we're currently wrestling with in our office -

how extensively can the 'work area' be defined? where does it end?

the issue at hand is the sprinkler requirements for residential multi-family buildings undergoing Level 2 Alterations as defined by IEBC 2009.

the specific case is this - a three family structure (typical triple-decker, three residential units stacked one on top of each other). these are prime targets of developers looking to do a quick condo conversion.

the owner/contractor applies for a permit for gut rehabs of the kitchen and bathroom on all floors, with one wall being taken down (tripping Level 2). by measuring square footage of these two rooms, they stay below the 50% of the floor area threshold for sprinkles.

but part of the project is installing replacement windows, and doing a sheetrock layover over all the existing walls and ceilings.

is it reasonable to interpret that the the work area has now extended throughout the unit? and the sprinkler requirement is met?

specific code section for sprinker requirements is 2009 IEBC 704.2.2

btw, first post - howdy everyone!

 

[brudgers]

Would you require sprinklers for a straight out window replacement?

Would you require sprinklers for a layer of sheet rock?

If you would in both those cases then you are being consistent.

Otherwise, you're just abusing your power.

 

[Mr Softy]

Would you require sprinklers for a straight out window replacement?Level 1

Would you require sprinklers for a layer of sheet rock?

Level 1

If you would in both those cases then you are being consistent.

Otherwise, you're just abusing your power.

Level 1 work does not bring in the sprinkler requirement.

Level 2 with work on more than 50% of the floor area does. removing a wall is Level 2 (any reconfiguration of space)

the question is - if there is work that is Level 2 , can one parse off the Level 1 work into a different work area and thus avoid the sprinkler requirement?

 

[TimNY]

No, the level 2 work encompasses the entire area in which work is being performed.

 

[mark handler]

IMHO the the work area is everywhere the work is, if it is the entire unit, it is the entire unit.

And they should not be able to "split" the permits over time to skip the requirements.

 

[brudgers]

And they should not be able to "split" the permits over time to skip the requirements.

And why is that?

And have you ever tried to administer such a system across multiple owners?

And multiple editions of the code?

 

[brudgers]

Level 1 work does not bring in the sprinkler requirement.Level 2 with work on more than 50% of the floor area does. removing a wall is Level 2 (any reconfiguration of space)

the question is - if there is work that is Level 2 , can one parse off the Level 1 work into a different work area and thus avoid the sprinkler requirement?

Of course you can.

And why wouldn't you?

 

[mtlogcabin]

You have to meet all 5 requirements before sprinklers are required

704.2.2 Groups A, B, E, F-1, H, I, M, R-1, R-2, R-4, S-1 and S-2.

In buildings with occupancies in Groups A, B, E, F-1, H, I, M, R-1, R-2, R-4, S-1 and S-2, work areas that have exits or corridors shared by more than one tenant or that have exits or corridors serving an occupant load greater than 30 shall be provided with automatic sprinkler protection where all of the following conditions occur:

1 It is an R-2. Yes then Sprinkler

2 Are the exits or corridors shared or have an Occupant load of over 30. No. Sprinklers not required

1. The work area is required to be provided with automatic sprinkler protection in accordance with the International Building Code as applicable to new construction; Yes

2. The work area exceeds 50 percent of the floor area; and



3. The building has sufficient municipal water supply for design of a fire sprinkler system available to the floor without installation of a new fire pump. Is there water available at the floor (existing riser) if not sprinklers not required.

 

[RJJ]

Agree with MT.

 

[mark handler]

And why is that?

If you split the permits to circumvent the code, you might as well remove the all the scoping requirements of the code.

 

[brudgers]

If you split the permits to circumvent the code, you might as well remove the all the scoping requirements of the code.

I can tell you love that theory.

Which explains why you didn't answer the tough questions.

 

[mark handler]

And have you ever tried to administer such a system across multiple owners?

And multiple editions of the code?

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of a building department.

I have "administer(ed)" Many multi-year’d and multi-editions of the code for clients.

The state of California actually has a three year "cost" analysis for the 20 percent accessibility expenses.

This takes into account the past three years of permits on the property, not based on owners.

 

[Mr Softy]

IMHO the the work area is everywhere the work is, if it is the entire unit, it is the entire unit.And they should not be able to "split" the permits over time to skip the requirements.

yup

Of course you can.And why wouldn't you?

yup

If you split the permits to circumvent the code, you might as well remove the all the scoping requirements of the code.

and yup.

it does seem that the loophole is there, big as day. one guy gets the permit for the Level 2 kitchens and bath. another gets a permit for Level 1 windows. neither trips a sprinkler requirement.

anyone know of any official interps or appeal cases that address this?

we're inclined to call it all Level 2, and let them appeal.

 

[ewenme]

I've been dealing with this issue in recent days: Level 2 in three units of a twelve-unit buildings, new roof, new windows, new siding, new interiors, new kitchen remodels, but 'it's really only a Level 1 in the overall weighting of things.' Their quote. If one takes the method of the architect, it's obvious that they aren't required to put in sprinklers. The question from the fire marshal was "if they do this same thing next year in 25% of the units, and the same thing the year after, we'll never get them to be sprinklered. Is that allowable?" Sounds like it's common to piece-meal stuff to be just outside the code requirements. It's the economy; the cost; the time; whatever other excuse, it's the camel putting his nose in the tent and then his shoulder, then... pretty soon the camel owns the tent.

OK. Getting off the soapbox. It is encouraging to see that others are having to deal with the same, and coming to the same conclusions. Thank you! And welcome to the Board, Mr. Softy. I used to love to go the Caravelle {sp} in New Jersey... greatest soft ice cream in the world!

 

[mtlogcabin]

The question from the fire marshal was "if they do this same thing next year in 25% of the units, and the same thing the year after, we'll never get them to be sprinklered. Is that allowable?"

Yes. The IEBC is not a retro code for sprinklers and no where is the amount of work cumulative over a period of time. If the fire marshal wants to get them sprinklered he needs to have a local ordinance that requires it.

 

[mark handler]

Breaking down the project into smaller parts to circumvent the code is like breaking down the project into smaller parts so that a contractor's license is not required. The project should not be split in phases to circumvent the law.

 

[Mr Softy]

well, here's something interesting -

IEBC Commentary. Classification of Work. 404.2 Application for Level 2 Work.

it talks about Lev2 work including the provisions for Lev1 work, then...

"This requirement effectively compounds the requirements for someone planning to alter an existing structure. For example, if during the process of replacing the aluminum siding on a building with vinyl siding, the building owner decides to eliminate one of four windows from a room, then this project would be classified as a Level 2 alteration and would, therefore, be required to meet the provisions of Chap 6 and 7"

 

[brudgers]

And have you ever tried to administer such a system across multiple owners? And multiple editions of the code?

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of a building department.

I have "administer(ed)" Many multi-year’d and multi-editions of the code for clients.

The state of California actually has a three year "cost" analysis for the 20 percent accessibility expenses.

This takes into account the past three years of permits on the property, not based on owners.

Gee, you mean to tell me that multiple permits to avoid scoping requirements is actually codified in California?

I never would have guessed.

I would have guessed that you had never tried to enforce scope requirements across multiple projects however - you're comments pretty much gave it away.

 

[brudgers]

"if they do this same thing next year in 25% of the units, and the same thing the year after, we'll never get them to be sprinklered. Is that allowable?"

In the absence of a law dictating otherwise yes.

And if the fire marshal doesn't like it, he should use the democratic process upon which our freedom relies to change the law.

 

[brudgers]

Breaking down the project into smaller parts to circumvent the code is like breaking down the project into smaller parts so that a contractor's license is not required. The project should not be split in phases to circumvent the law.

There is no law which requires sprinklers.

There is a building code which requires sprinklers when certain thresholds are exceeded.

Structuring a project to avoid crossing those thresholds is perfectly legal and sound design.

Your argument is like saying because the speed limit on the street in front of your house is 25mph, the cop should ticket you as you pull into your driveway at the end of a 200 mile trip because your average speed was 50 mph during the four hours you were gone.

Apply the code as it is written.

Apply the law as it is written.

And live with it.

 

[brudgers]

well, here's something interesting -IEBC Commentary. Classification of Work. 404.2 Application for Level 2 Work.

it talks about Lev2 work including the provisions for Lev1 work, then...

"This requirement effectively compounds the requirements for someone planning to alter an existing structure. For example, if during the process of replacing the aluminum siding on a building with vinyl siding, the building owner decides to eliminate one of four windows from a room, then this project would be classified as a Level 2 alteration and would, therefore, be required to meet the provisions of Chap 6 and 7"

The commentary is not the code.

 

[Mr Softy]

The commentary is not the code.

this is right.

but it can give guidance to intent and enforcement.

 

[mtlogcabin]

"This requirement effectively compounds the requirements for someone planning to alter an existing structure. For example, if during the process of replacing the aluminum siding on a building with vinyl siding, the building owner decides to eliminate one of four windows from a room, then this project would be classified as a Level 2 alteration and would, therefore, be required to meet the provisions of Chap 6 and 7"

It is still one project and covering a window versus eliminating are not the same.

 

[Mr Softy]

It is still one project and covering a window versus eliminating are not the same.

they are exactly the same, in that the elimination or creation of one window classifies as Level 2 Alteration.

and going by the commentary, kicks the entire project into Level 2.