defining the 'work area'

[mark handler]

Apply the code as it is written. Apply the law as it is written. And live with it.

Live with it, are you saying that with a straight face

When codes and or laws are wrong you change them; you don’t, Live with it.

Live with it, is that what you said durring the civil right movement?

"Our country, right or wrong." When right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right. ~Carl Schurz

 

[Yankee]

Set a time window for grouping projects as building department policy. It isn't only what is in the code book, it is also polices set by the building department in order to administrate the code. Aggrieved parties can go to the Building Code Board of Appeals as a method of keeping the building department from getting too big of a head. That's the way it works, , ,

 

[mtlogcabin]

Live with it, are you saying that with a straight faceWhen codes and or laws are wrong you change them; you don’t, Live with it.

Agree we can always work to change them but as a designer, builder or code official what is adopted is what we have to "live with" at the time a project is being designed and built.

 

[Mr Softy]

Set a time window for grouping projects as building department policy.

that's creating code through policy. definitely not allowed. i wouldn't want to pitch that to an appeals board.

i'm not happy about brudgers' loophole, but i can see that it exists, and i don't see a way around it if one is going by the book.

 

[Yankee]

that's creating code through policy. definitely not allowed. i wouldn't want to pitch that to an appeals board.i'm not happy about brudgers' loophole, but i can see that it exists, and i don't see a way around it if one is going by the book.

I believe it to be defensible. It is not creating code.

 

[brudgers]

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.

But in your project they are replacing windows - not making new ones or deleting existing ones.

I'll put it another way, plenty of jurisdictions don't even require a permit for size for size replacement and here you are talking about requiring an NFPA13r system, along with the flow and tamper hardwired to continuous monitoring.

Seriously, that's not the intent of the code.

 

[brudgers]

Live with it, are you saying that with a straight faceWhen codes and or laws are wrong you change them; you don’t, Live with it.

Live with it, is that what you said durring the civil right movement?

"Our country, right or wrong." When right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right. ~Carl Schurz

I'm inspired.

 

[brudgers]

Set a time window for grouping projects as building department policy. It isn't only what is in the code book, it is also polices set by the building department in order to administrate the code. Aggrieved parties can go to the Building Code Board of Appeals as a method of keeping the building department from getting too big of a head. That's the way it works, , ,

If I walked into a building department and they told me this was policy, my next stop would be the jurisdiction's legal department to ask if they had reviewed this policy.

 

[TimNY]

They are replacing the windows, but the trigger for level 2 is the removal of a wall. If they replace all the windows, the work area is the entire building.

If they are sheetrocking all of the walls, the work area is the entire building.

Use discretion, BUT, the level 2 trigger doesn't seem so far fetched when they are replacing all windows, sheetrocking all walls, rehabbing all kitchens and baths.. Yes, it seems counter-intuitive that removing a single wall someplace would trigger a level 2 throughout.. but I believe that is where the code leads us.

 

[Mr Softy]

But in your project they are replacing windows - not making new ones or deleting existing ones.I'll put it another way, plenty of jurisdictions don't even require a permit for size for size replacement and here you are talking about requiring an NFPA13r system, along with the flow and tamper hardwired to continuous monitoring.

Seriously, that's not the intent of the code.

if you are referring to my OP, window replacement is part of a larger renovation project involving the removal of walls.

the example given in the commentary would not trigger sprinklers. the 'work area' has to be 50% of the floor area.

replacing windows alone, even if over the entire building, is still only Level 1 work. no sprinkles.

i think the commentary's example is showing that any Level 2 work in a project escalates the entire project to Level 2. i can work with that.

and...Massachusetts has required a building permit of replacement windows for over 10 years. their effeciency has been regulated by our energy conservation codes for that long.

 

[Mr Softy]

If I walked into a building department and they told me this was policy, my next stop would be the jurisdiction's legal department to ask if they had reviewed this policy.

i agree with you on this.

 

[brudgers]

They are replacing the windows, but the trigger for level 2 is the removal of a wall. If they replace all the windows, the work area is the entire building.If they are sheetrocking all of the walls, the work area is the entire building.

Use discretion, BUT, the level 2 trigger doesn't seem so far fetched when they are replacing all windows, sheetrocking all walls, rehabbing all kitchens and baths.. Yes, it seems counter-intuitive that removing a single wall someplace would trigger a level 2 throughout.. but I believe that is where the code leads us.

You can interpret it that way - or you can interpret it in a way which meets the intent of the code which is major changes to the configuration or use of a space trigger significant life-safety upgrade requirements and minor renovations do not.

The basic question is, because it is perfectly legal and eminently reasonable for the person to phase the work across multiple permits so as to avoid a huge increase in project scope, why are you trying to screw them with a questionable code interpretation?

Or to put it another way, why are you inclined to interpret the code as if the public is your enemy?

 

[Mr Softy]

it's not so much that the regulated community is the enemy. the public is not my enemy, but i'm not their friend, either. yes, my interp may be contrary to your interests, but i am the one who will have to answer for my decisions.

on borderline cases, no-one is going to be interested in my 'friendly' interpretation of the codes intent.

i agree with your statement about major changes triggering life safety upgrades.

my overall intent with this thread is to findout how others are interpreting 'work area' when it's getting real close to the 50% threshold.

.

 

[brudgers]

it's not so much that the regulated community is the enemy. the public is not my enemy, but i'm not their friend, either. yes, my interp may be contrary to your interests, but i am the one who will have to answer for my decisions.

We used to call this "Inspector's Remorse."

At one time in the distant past the inspector convinced themselves that they missed something.

Now they decide to make up for it by over interpreting the code in what is often the most absurd way possible.

The main reason for this is that it is far easier than studying the code deeply and rendering tough decisions.

And by "tough decisions" I mean decisions which the inspector doesn't like but are correct and reasonable.

To put it another way, if it's close to the 50% work area but under it - the tough decision is to forgo finding excuses for judging it to be over 50%.

Rationalizing a different interpretation is really easy - which is why so many people do it.

 

[Mr Softy]

i know from personal experience that i do not 'over-interpret the code in what is often the most absurd way possible'.

that's insulting to me, and most of the inspectors i know.

'The main reason for this is that it is far easier than studying the code deeply and rendering tough decisions.'

and this is even more insulting.

i'm all for debating this issue, and i don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but please stop with the condescension.

i will admit to being conservative in my interpretations, especially as regards fire safety. as are most inspectors, i think. we're the ones who have to defend our actions.

To put it another way, if it's close to the 50% work area but under it - the tough decision is to forgo finding excuses for judging it to be over 50%.

yup, if it's under, it's under. but when it's close, is there a defined way to determine where the line is?

ICC - in the commentary - has taken the position that any work performed in conjunction with Level 2 work, is also classified as Level 2.

and when the thresholds are met, the thresholds are met.

i have not seen any part of IEBC 704.2.2 which states 'at the inspectors discretion'.

the sharp contractor/owner/architect should recognize the loophole that's already been called out.

but if there is simultaneous Level 1 and Level 2 work, as a way of skirting fire protection requirements, i would be comfortable presenting a reasonable case that the work is conjoined as Level 2.

 

[Mr Softy]

so the debate stays focused, here's the example i am making -

R-2 multi family, in this case, a triple decker. like this -

egress stairs shared by more than one tenant.

developer is gut renovating kitchens and baths throughout (with removal of non-bearing partitions), approximately 35% of the floor area, per floor. so far so good. 704.2.2 has not been met.

but the scope of work is going to include ceiling cans throughout the units, layover of sheetrock walls and ceilings, siding, insulation, and let's throw in replacement windows throughout.

work is Level 2

R-2 requires sprinkles at 0 sq ft.

work is over 50% of floor

there is water available.

 

[mtlogcabin]

It is not the code officials job to determine the method used. From what you described Chapter 3 would be the wise choice and no one is circumventing anything in the code. If windows are replaced they meet todays code, if a wall is removed it can't create a negative impact in the structure or egress.

It is the designers/applicants choice as to what path they choose to be compliant. An inspectors job is to assure compliance with that method.

The hard part with the IEBC is a DP should be involved and they need to read and understand the code, most won't.

101.5 Compliance methods.

The repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of all existing buildings shall comply with one of the methods listed in Sections 101.5.1 through 101.5.3 as selected by the applicant. Application of a method shall be the sole basis for assessing the compliance of work performed under a single permit unless otherwise approved by the code official. Sections 101.5.1 through 101.5.3 shall not be applied in combination with each other. Where this code requires consideration of the seismic-force-resisting system of an existing building subject to repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of existing buildings, the seismic evaluation and design shall be based on Section 101.5.4 regardless of which compliance method is used.

Exception: Subject to the approval of the code official, alterations complying with the laws in existence at the time the building or the affected portion of the building was built shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code unless the building is undergoing more than a limited structural alteration as defined in Section 807.4.3. New structural members added as part of the alteration shall comply with the International Building Code. Alterations of existing buildings in flood hazard areas shall comply with Section 601.3.

101.5.1 Prescriptive compliance method.

Repairs, alterations, additions and changes of occupancy complying with Chapter 3 of this code in buildings complying with the International Fire Code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

101.5.2 Work area compliance method.

Repairs , alterations , additions , changes in occupancy and relocated buildings complying with the applicable requirements of Chapters 4 through 12 of this code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

101.5.3 Performance compliance method.

Repairs, alterations, additions, changes in occupancy and relocated buildings complying with Chapter 13 of this code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

 

[Mr Softy]

101.5.1 Prescriptive compliance method.

Repairs, alterations, additions and changes of occupancy complying with Chapter 3 of this code in buildings complying with the International Fire Code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

The Fire Code makes a number of presumptions about the required level of fire protection in existing buildings.

In my example, the Fire Code requires the building have standpipes. (IFC Table 4603.1, which requires standpipes in all occupancies except R3)

There are sprinkler requirements for Use Groups A & M.

So now the prescriptive method cannot be used.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Chapter 3

I doubt the 3rd floor is over 50 feet above the level of fire department access so no standpipes are required

4603.5 Standpipes.

Existing structures with occupied floors located more than 50 feet (15 240 mm) above or below the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be equipped with standpipes installed in accordance with Section 905.

 

[TimNY]

You can interpret it that way - or you can interpret it in a way which meets the intent of the code which is major changes to the configuration or use of a space trigger significant life-safety upgrade requirements and minor renovations do not.The basic question is, because it is perfectly legal and eminently reasonable for the person to phase the work across multiple permits so as to avoid a huge increase in project scope, why are you trying to screw them with a questionable code interpretation?

Or to put it another way, why are you inclined to interpret the code as if the public is your enemy?

I'm sorry, I missed the part where I had a problem with phasing permits.

You submit a permit wanting to do a level 2, it's reviewed as level 2. You want to complete part now, get a C.O and remove a wall later, go for it.

I said it before, I can't predict what an applicant will do in the future, and I don't inspect today based on what I think might happen tomorrow.

Not to say there is anything unlawful about a municipality creating a lookback period. I don't think you could do it via policy, but via local law... NFIP encourages this.

 

[brudgers]

i know from personal experience that i do not 'over-interpret the code in what is often the most absurd way possible'.that's insulting to me, and most of the inspectors i know.

'The main reason for this is that it is far easier than studying the code deeply and rendering tough decisions.'

and this is even more insulting.

i'm all for debating this issue, and i don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but please stop with the condescension.

i will admit to being conservative in my interpretations, especially as regards fire safety. as are most inspectors, i think. we're the ones who have to defend our actions.

yup, if it's under, it's under. but when it's close, is there a defined way to determine where the line is?

ICC - in the commentary - has taken the position that any work performed in conjunction with Level 2 work, is also classified as Level 2.

and when the thresholds are met, the thresholds are met.

i have not seen any part of IEBC 704.2.2 which states 'at the inspectors discretion'.

the sharp contractor/owner/architect should recognize the loophole that's already been called out.

but if there is simultaneous Level 1 and Level 2 work, as a way of skirting fire protection requirements, i would be comfortable presenting a reasonable case that the work is conjoined as Level 2.

They're meeting the code, not skirting requirements.

You read the code and didn't like what it said.

Hence, you're still digging for a way to make it over.

Which is why however insulted you feel, my analysis is still accurate.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Mr Softy

Going back to our original post

"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".

Did the owner state on his application which level of compliance he choose or did the building department?

My question is who determined it was a Level I to begin with? If it is the building department then they are wrong. You can remodel 100% of the floor area under Option 1 and sprinklers are not required.

This code provides three main options for a designer in dealing with rehabilitation of existing buildings. These are laid out in Section 101.5 of this code:

OPTION 1: Work for alteration, repair, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Prescriptive Compliance Method given in Chapter 3. It should be noted that this same method is provided in Chapter 34 of the International Building Code .

OPTION 2: Work for alteration, repair, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Work Area Compliance Method given in Chapters 4 through 12.

OPTION 3: Work for alteration, repair, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Performance Compliance Method given in Chapter 13. It should be noted that this option is also provided in Chapter 34 of the International Building Code .

 

[TimNY]

101.5.1 Prescriptive compliance method. Repairs, alterations, additions and changes of occupancy complying with Chapter 3 of this code in buildings complying with the International Fire Code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

Option 1 isn't an option for all buildings.

However, point taken about who chose the route for compliance. I am guilty doing the same thing. I have never had a designer state what route they are using, I just get a set of plans. I automatically review them based on the work classification method.

I should mark them "Designer to specify compliance route" and see what happens.

 

[Mr Softy]

They're meeting the code, not skirting requirements.i never said they were skirting requirements.

You read the code and didn't like what it said.

i am ambivalent about what the code says. it says what it says. i merely enforce it.

Hence, you're still digging for a way to make it over.

i am not digging for anything. if the work is throughout the floor, it follows that the work area is throughout the floor.

Which is why however insulted you feel, my analysis is still accurate.

your 'analysis' is faulty.

you don't agree with my interpretation. that's fine.

but sheesh, stop making ridiculous assumptions.