defining the 'work area'

[TimNY]

I think you are missing the difference.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.

"reconfigured spaces as indicated on the plans"

Work area is not indicated on the plans. Reconfigured spaces are. It does not say who determines what the reconfigured spaces are.

 

[brudgers]

"reconfigured spaces as indicated on the plans"Work area is not indicated on the plans. Reconfigured spaces are. It does not say who determines what the reconfigured spaces are.

It's not a person, it is the construction documents.

By definition.

If the code official authors the construction documents then they get to determine the work area.

Otherwise they do not.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Work area is defined solely by what is indicated on the construction documents.

I agree with the statement. Remember a work area is a reconfiguration of a space and just that word alone will lead to different applications

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.

It is within the building officials purview to review the indicated work area and work in other areas of a project that may not have been included in the indicated work area to see if that work is incidental or required by code for the indicated work area If the building official believes the work is not incidental work or work required by code he can ask the DP for more info or clarification.

 

[brudgers]

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.

Where did I threaten legal action?

I merely suggested communicating with the city attorney.

You can read my full description and rationales earlier in this thread.

The TL;DR is that the way to combat the code officials raising the stakes by holding the permit hostage is to leverage the weight of bureaucracy of under which they operate in a way that brings effective pressure to bear upon them and thereby bring them to the light.

It is only a green attorney whose cost benefit analysis or lack thereof will conclude that the code official's position is worth fighting for.

Just the administrative overhead for an quasi-judicial appeal can easily run a couple of grand...and for what?

Lest you assume that the press of bureaucracy would be brought after the permit was denied, nay, the process starts right at the friendly prelim meeting to allow the sense of dread to build over time in an atmosphere of uncertainty and constant barrage of paperwork.

And it is all the better when the code official uses terms like "loophole" or claims that the commentary is part of the code, or uses some method other than what is indicated on the construction documents to determine the work area.

 

[brudgers]

I agree with the statement. Remember a work area is a reconfiguration of a space and just that word alone will lead to different applications It is within the building officials purview to review the indicated work area and work in other areas of a project that may not have been included in the indicated work area to see if that work is incidental or required by code for the indicated work area If the building official believes the work is not incidental work or work required by code he can ask the DP work more info or clarification.

On the other hand, if the construction documents delineate an area which encompasses all the altered spaces, the building official has no leeway to say "the work area must be too the far side of the room" because looking at what is indicated on the construction documents is the sole code compliant method of determining the work area.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

The code is quite clear. The work area is by definition what is indicated on the plans. 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.

I can actually see the logic behind that. Something I need to think more about. Thanks Brudgers. I apologize if I assumed a broader scope than the OP discussion.

 

[brudgers]

I can actually see the logic behind that. Something I need to think more about. Thanks Brudgers. I apologize if I assumed a broader scope than the OP discussion.

There's no need to apologize.

The code is a complex document and unpacking it is difficult, and made only more so by the pressure underwhich code officials operate.

As I've said before, an inspector can't say, "I'm not sure. Give me a week to think about it. Then I'll tell you if you have to tear it out."

Throw in everyone's natural confirmation bias, the poor organization of the icodes, and the ICC's love affair with with adding prescriptive provisions in every code cycle, and there is a reason to call on attorneys for interpretation.

But why does it make sense to have the construction documents indicate the work area?

Consider two cases where the alteration is to open up a of the kitchen to create a bar and pass-through to the adjacent space.

In one case the adjacent room is a traditional 10x14 dining room.

In the other the adjacent room is an open 28x14 open living/dining area.

Experience would tell us that the reconfiguration is no more extensive in one case than the other.

But if you allow the code official to determine the work area, there are plenty of people here in this very thread who have advocated a non-compliant means of determining the work area which would make one work area more than twice as large as the other.

Not only does that make no sense, it does little to facilitate a perception of code officials as professionals.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Consider two cases where the alteration is to open up a of the kitchen to create a bar and pass-through to the adjacent space.In one case the adjacent room is a traditional 10x14 dining room.

In the other the adjacent room is an open 28x14 open living/dining area.

Experience would tell us that the reconfiguration is no more extensive in one case than the other.

I apologized because I made an assumption of your comment out of context with the discussion and I should be more careful to keep in mind what is actually being said (and not spoken for all you Heidegger fans).

True, I am in agreement that they should not be considered differently, and perhaps I need to re-read the OP conversation again now that it is trimmed down.

The issue I was discussing is when the plan shows the scope of the work area as you described in the two reconfiguration cases, however the inspector discovers the scope is much larger or the plan examiner determines the reconfiguration will require modifications that will increase the work area and scope of the reconfiguration for code compliance (i.e. means of egress system).

To use your example again for a 400sf conference room:

In one case the adjacent room is a traditional 10x25 conference room.

In the other the adjacent room is an open concept 25x15 conference room moveable partitions to split the conference room.

In the second case, doors outside the work area would now need to open in the direction of egress. I was suggesting the plans may not accurately indicate the entire work area and may need to be adjusted by the RDP.

 

[mtlogcabin]

In the second case, doors outside the work area would now need to open in the direction of egress

They change of the swing of the doors would be work required by the code and should not be included in the work area

Just MHO

and portions of the building where work not initially intended by the owner is specifically required by this code. A meeting room was reconfigured and the occupant load went from 40 to 55. Panic hardware is now required on all doors along the egress path. This work is not included in the work area.

 

[Mr Softy]

They change of the swing of the doors would be work required by the code and should not be included in the work area Just MHO

and portions of the building where work not initially intended by the owner is specifically required by this code. A meeting room was reconfigured and the occupant load went from 40 to 55. Panic hardware is now required on all doors along the egress path. This work is not included in the work area.

Ok - i agree with that

how about this -

A meeting room was reconfigured and the occupant load went from 40 to 55. Panic hardware is now required on all doors along the egress path. This work is not included in the work area. An adjacent kitchen and two bathrooms were added after permitting. Those spaces have become part of the work area. They are not incidental to the original work and are not required by code due to the original work.

 

[brudgers]

The issue I was discussing is when the plan shows the scope of the work area as you described in the two reconfiguration cases, however the inspector discovers the scope is much larger or the plan examiner determines the reconfiguration will require modifications that will increase the work area and scope of the reconfiguration for code compliance (i.e. means of egress system).

By definition, incidental work and work required by code are not part of the work area.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Ok - i agree with thathow about this -

A meeting room was reconfigured and the occupant load went from 40 to 55. Panic hardware is now required on all doors along the egress path. This work is not included in the work area. An adjacent kitchen and two bathrooms were added after permitting. Those spaces have become part of the work area. They are not incidental to the original work and are not required by code due to the original work.

No they do not automatically become part of the work area

106.4 Amended construction documents.

Work shall be installed in accordance with the reviewed construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.

Adding bathrooms could be done completely under the IBC or Chapter 3 of the IEBC or it could be another work area, it would be the designers choice. As a jurisdiction you could ammend the permit or require a new one.

 

[RickAstoria]

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.

In addition, determine is a function of interpretation. Ultimately, the interpretation of code is that of the B.O. as outlined in Section 104 (104.1 in particular). The Designer (Architector or anyone else) can draw and write whatever they want. The determination of compliance is that of the B.O. and up to the B.O.'s interpretation of the code. It is ultimately his call not the Designer.

The Designer should strive to be correct with the interpretation and prepare plans accordingly for expediency of Plan Review. That is a different issue.

 

[RickAstoria]

It's not a person, it is the construction documents.By definition.

If the code official authors the construction documents then they get to determine the work area.

Otherwise they do not.

As an Architect or Building Designer, you can define the intended use of the space reconfigured as you develop that from the project program between you and the client. When you prepare the plans, you define this room is a Bedroom and this room is the kitchen and this room is the bathroom. From there the B.O. or designated plan reviewer will interpret your plans according to how they are prepared and ascertain what code requirements applies to that space (or work area) When there is a change in space, we are then talking about a change of use and requirements in those areas. It is a Designer/B.O. hand in hand operation.

The B.O. determines what the applicable code requirements to be met are from interpretation of the plans and the interpretation of the adopted building codes.

The effected area is determined from the information you provide of before & after changes and the code requirements that are to be applied and then ascertain whether it is compliant. As is said, the B.O. doesn't design the work. They determine code compliance from the work that is designed and then whether to issue permit or not.

 

[Daddy-0-]

I agree with Mtlogcabin. If the work does not match the plans they should resubmit an amended version to plan review. Plans written and work installed must match or resubmit. IMO.

 

[brudgers]

The B.O. determines what the applicable code requirements to be met are from interpretation of the plans and the interpretation of the adopted building codes.

In the case of a lay person without a license, that may be the case.

Licensed design professionals are expected to be capable of determining the code requirements on their own - such as those found in Chapter 5 of the IBC.

This is done by reading the code - and reading the code for each and every project is a good practice - and far better than just going from memory.

 

[fatboy]

"In the case of a lay person without a license, that may be the case.

Licensed design professionals are expected to be capable of determining the code requirements on their own - such as those found in Chapter 5 of the IBC.

This is done by reading the code - and reading the code for each and every project is a good practice - and far better than just going from memory."

That may be the expectation, but it is certainly not what happens in real life. Not saying all the time, or all DP's, just saying that there is a reason there are plan reviewers. I've had DP's admit to me they tried to slip something by. There are plenty that have no clue, or could care less, what the code says. To the ones that do care, and read/research the code, my hat is off to you.

 

[brudgers]

Just so you are aware, the reference to chapter 5 of the IBC is related to an ongoing discussion on another internet.

In that discussion, an unlicensed person offered an interpretation of table 506 which indicated a fundamental misunderstanding of the information contained in the table.

It was suggested to that person that they actually read chapter 5 and figure out why their answer was off base.

However, that suggestion was not followed through, and an opportunity was taken here to suggest that the ability to do basic code research would be helpful in fulfilling their career plans.

 

[mark handler]

... related to an ongoing discussion on another internet....

Is there another internet?

Is that the one Al Gore created?

 

[RickAstoria]

In the case of a lay person without a license, that may be the case.Licensed design professionals are expected to be capable of determining the code requirements on their own - such as those found in Chapter 5 of the IBC.

This is done by reading the code - and reading the code for each and every project is a good practice - and far better than just going from memory.

Not true. Not really. Ok, it is presumed that any building designer or licensed architect or engineer would be able to understand the code. However, it would also be expected that every person is intelligent enough to understand the code. However, it is not expected of an RDP to be an expert of the code and is not expected to properly interpret the code otherwise ALL architects would A) Have to pass the Plan Reviewer exams as part of the architectural licensing exam in addition to the ARE and then have the ability to submit without plan review. If it was really and truly expected by law, then why would you have to have your plans reviewed. It is customarily expected by clients that you have a better grasp of the code then the client. Otherwise, why did they hire you? If you want to be qualified then you need to not only pass plan reviewer exams for BOTH residential and commercial level plan review, you need to also maintain continuing education like a certified plan reviewer in addition to the exams and continuing education required for architectural. If you want that status than maybe the state law should require all architects to pass the Plan Reviewer exams for both Residential and Commercial level (whatever they want to call it), but also ARE & state exam(s) and also maintain continuing education in code updates as well as normal continuing education (no double dipping).

Are you up for that?

 

[RickAstoria]

In the case of a lay person without a license, that may be the case.Licensed design professionals are expected to be capable of determining the code requirements on their own - such as those found in Chapter 5 of the IBC.

This is done by reading the code - and reading the code for each and every project is a good practice - and far better than just going from memory.

Not if any projects recently have been mostly IRC related stuff which didn't involve Chapter 5 of IBC.

 

[RickAstoria]

Is there another internet?Is that the one Al Gore created?

He meant another internet site not another internet. Note the-> ....

 

[RickAstoria]

It was suggested to that person that they actually read chapter 5 and figure out why their answer was off base.However, that suggestion was not followed through, and an opportunity was taken here to suggest that the ability to do basic code research would be helpful in fulfilling their career plans.

I think the unlicensed person already agreed and didn't want to pursue an ongoing debate and accepted it. Why an ongoing discussion. BTW: It was Table 503 not Table 506.

http://www.korel.com/construction-type.asp - Obviously This is partly wrong. I would not argue "protected" or "not protected" but it has some point to it and gives a sense of what kind of building fits the categories. It is not really matter of protected or not protected. I say that it is a matter of levels of fire-protection. Essentially, there is 5 types of construction and 2 levels of fire protection rating standard.

I would argue that in each Construction Type Category I, II, III, IV or V - there is two levels of construction ratings. Level A and Level B. In essence, Type I or II is always fire-rated construction. But it is the level of rating as I study it.

 

[KZQuixote]

Just so you are aware, the reference to chapter 5 of the IBC is related to an ongoing discussion on another internet.In that discussion, an unlicensed person offered an interpretation of table 506 which indicated a fundamental misunderstanding of the information contained in the table.

It was suggested to that person that they actually read chapter 5 and figure out why their answer was off base.

However, that suggestion was not followed through, and an opportunity was taken here to suggest that the ability to do basic code research would be helpful in fulfilling their career plans.

Hey Ben,

Did they use a three corner rule on your fingers in school?

What possible connection could this thread have to another internet?

If the poster on this alternate internet missed some fundamental point, why wasn't it pointed out to him/her? Oh I get it! In this alternate Internet as may be the case in alternate Universes, the same rules don't apply to each.

That being the case, I'm glad to be part of this one!

Bill

Given that you mistyped and were referring to another site on this internet. What possible relevance could that have here? This discussion is totally and thoroughly contained in this thread. How else could the membership keep up?