Mr Softy
Silver Member
do you mean the cubic volume is 1000 ft 3 ?jar546 said:
-
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
defining the 'work area'
- Thread starter Mr Softy
- Start date
- Status
Mr Softy
Silver Member
i agree with your examples of incedental work.mtlogcabin said:
and you definition of work area
Papio Bldg Dept
Platinum Member
That is an interesting, albeit a bit off topic, point. I recently had an application for a trampoline dodge-ball facility. The application and construction documents noted it was to be a 'B' occupancy. I don't believe I was wrong in not accepting it as a 'B' occupancy by also keeping in mind that spaces may be defined incorrectly, by both the construction documents or the building department.brudgers said:
Mr Softy
Silver Member
hi peach.peach said:
in both instances i am citing, the 'work area' had expanded wildly during construction. after review,and after the permit had been issued.
both expansions of scope were uncovered during a field inspection for something else.
we look for a minimum of three essential documents - an existing condition plan, a proposed plan, and a scoping plan.
welcome back, you softy you!
The work area frequently expands after construction starts.. sometimes existing conditions are uncovered... yadayada...
that's what stop work orders are for.
Sounds like your jurisdiction has a pretty good plan, but the scope can change in a hurry (PARTICULARLY in existing buildings).. one of those OH CRAP moments!
We recently had one.. a Tenant fitout in an existing building... NOT ONLY was the old temporary wiring from the base building still in place, it was individual conductors (what the NEC calls "festoon wiring"), but it was HOT.. needless to say, my inspector said pull it out on the entire floor (out of scope).
The work area frequently expands after construction starts.. sometimes existing conditions are uncovered... yadayada...
that's what stop work orders are for.
Sounds like your jurisdiction has a pretty good plan, but the scope can change in a hurry (PARTICULARLY in existing buildings).. one of those OH CRAP moments!
We recently had one.. a Tenant fitout in an existing building... NOT ONLY was the old temporary wiring from the base building still in place, it was individual conductors (what the NEC calls "festoon wiring"), but it was HOT.. needless to say, my inspector said pull it out on the entire floor (out of scope).
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Softy
Silver Member
uncovering existing conditions is one thing...peach said:
our MO (so to speak) is to use Stop Work Orders only when absolutely necessary. the preferred method is to work out a solution, and give the GC/DP a the opportunity to make things right. Stop Work Orders just put lots of people out of work. our way generally works out well.
working out solutions doesn't always work.. need to get their attention... particularly after construction starts; catch it at plan review if you can (which means the plan reviewer needs to ask some thougthful questions.. which they rarely do.. or visit the site (which they never do)... a SWO gets the attention (and the word travels faster than a fire in a matchbook.. don't over use it, of course, or the contractor will start writing the cost into their bid)..
Once a project is out of control, you need to rein it in at any cost (to them, of course).. sooner rather than later..
Once a project is out of control, you need to rein it in at any cost (to them, of course).. sooner rather than later..
Mr Softy
Silver Member
no, it doesn't unfortunately. and trust me, we do know how to get their attention when we need to.peach said:
The code may be poorly written, but the work area determination is found on the construction documents.texasbo said:
Short of having an alternative set of construction documents, there is no authority in the IEBC for a code official to determine the work area.
Unless of course, said code official takes it upon themselves to create those construction documents.
You are wrong. The work area is NOT determined on the CD's. Read your code. It is INDICATED on the CD's. The DETERMINATION is made by the Building Department, hence the point of this thread. If the DP was in charge of DETERMINING things, submittal would not be required to the Building Department. You can INDICATE a 15 story building as type V construction, but it will be DETERMINED as something else.brudgers said:
What the work area is or isn't in this PARTICULAR case is certainly up for debate, but DETERMINATION certainly is not.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatboy
Administrator
Yup, have to agree with TXBO, the DP can submit whatever they desire, but yes, the building department's Plans Examiners job is to determine if the DP's plans are in compliance with the code. Call it whatever you want, holding the permit hostage, making applicants do the dance, jump through hoops, but that is the Plans Examiners job, to review the submitted plan for compliance. And yes, it is their interpretation, cold hard fact, if it doesn't work out for the DP, then there are appeals processes to address that.
Last edited by a moderator:
jar546
Forum Coordinator
Yeah, what he said.fatboy said:
DPs consistently submit plans that are not compliant and the plans examiner is there to verify compliance. Case in point: DP submits plans for a chinese restaurant with a total of 2,000 sq'. 1,000 for the kitchen and then shows a net area in the dining room of 750 sq' with mixed tables & chairs. What occupant load do they show us? 14 in order to eliminate a bathroom. They showed tables and 9 chairs on the plans. Nice try.
Am I suppose to be forced to accept that because it was submitted by a DP? Absolutely not. Could they have asked for the exception by the BCO under Ch 10 of the IBC and explained why but no, they just provide what they think it should be.
Mr Softy
Silver Member
yup.
the contractor indicated work in the kitchen and bath. only. fine.
i determined, upon inspection, that the work was over the whole building. my call.
if the GC doesn't want the BI making field determinations, don't venture off the CDs.
the contractor indicated work in the kitchen and bath. only. fine.
i determined, upon inspection, that the work was over the whole building. my call.
if the GC doesn't want the BI making field determinations, don't venture off the CDs.
Papio Bldg Dept
Platinum Member
106.3 of the 2006 IEBC: Examination of documentsbrudgers said:
The code official shall examine or cause to be examined the construction documents and shall ascertain (determine) by such examinations whether the construction or occupancy indicated (not determined) and described is in accordance with the requirements of this code and other pertinent law or ordinances.
I believe that is called authority brudgers, whether you want to admit it or not. And like all authority, it too can be abused. :beatdhrs
I find it is best to take each project on a case by case basis, and although I do not like take projects hostage, however, that is a tool the codes give us in order to ascertain compliance, and I am more than happy to use it, especially when the last six RDP submitted Tenant Finishes didn't provide even a door schedule (granted in two cases the GC had submitted prelims without authorization by the RDP).
Last edited by a moderator:
jar546
Forum Coordinator
OK, this is going to be an interesting post/reply coming up from our resident PITA.Papio Bldg Dept said:
opcornThe code is quite clear. The work area is by definition what is indicated on the plans.Papio Bldg Dept said:
I will also point out, that the work area appears to be neither an occupancy nor construction and therefore does not fall within the purview of the code official under 106.3.
I'm not saying that the code is well written.
But that's what it says, and the reason one goes and talks to the city attorney rather than dealing with the products of a DQ.
I think you are missing the difference.jar546 said:
Work area is defined solely by what is indicated on the construction documents.
The code provides no other way of determining it.
And, therefore, using any other method to determine the work area besides looking at the construction documents to see what is indicated is not in compliance with the code, and therefore absent a modification to the model code by local ordinance, making a determination of the work area which is different from what is indicated on the plans is not within the building official's purview.
TimNY
Platinum Member
If you are going to babble about attorneys, you better become familiar with the reasonable person doctrine. I find that the people who threaten legal action are the ones that know the least about it. Good for you if you were able to successfully threaten a green city attorney in a city fearful of all litigation, no matter how baseless.
An appeal of the inspector's interpretation is not handled through the city attorney, and I expect any competent attorney to tell you that. And who do you think they're going to call to figure out the truth (hint, it's not you).
If you should have the conviction to actually file a suit, most cities are insured for such incidents. Council is provided by the insurer. At which time the Judge will dismiss because you failed to follow the established procedure for appealing a decision.
And to be clear "design professional" does not appear anywhere in the definition of "work area". It does say "reconfigured spaces as indicated on the plans". I see a wall moved, it indicates the spaces have been reconfigured and defines the work area. I don't see where the code gives the designer exclusive rights to determining the work area.
An appeal of the inspector's interpretation is not handled through the city attorney, and I expect any competent attorney to tell you that. And who do you think they're going to call to figure out the truth (hint, it's not you).
If you should have the conviction to actually file a suit, most cities are insured for such incidents. Council is provided by the insurer. At which time the Judge will dismiss because you failed to follow the established procedure for appealing a decision.
And to be clear "design professional" does not appear anywhere in the definition of "work area". It does say "reconfigured spaces as indicated on the plans". I see a wall moved, it indicates the spaces have been reconfigured and defines the work area. I don't see where the code gives the designer exclusive rights to determining the work area.
- Status