mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
So one designer knows how to use the code for the benefit of his/her client and the other doesn't? How is that getting around the IEBC limits/options?peach 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 Work Area
- Thread starter jar546
- Start date
Mr Softy
Silver Member
oy.
Code Committee gets back to work in a few weeks, and 'reconfigured space' is item one on the agenda.
the key question is still - why have thresholds to FP upgrades (based on % of work area) if the code is written (or applied) in a way that those thresholds never get met?
RLGA's warehouse example is an extreme, but valid, example.
the front line in the argument has been, and still is, 3-family triple decker apartment buildings being converted to condos with extensive alterations, and reconfiguration of partition walls.
Code Committee gets back to work in a few weeks, and 'reconfigured space' is item one on the agenda.
the key question is still - why have thresholds to FP upgrades (based on % of work area) if the code is written (or applied) in a way that those thresholds never get met?
RLGA's warehouse example is an extreme, but valid, example.
the front line in the argument has been, and still is, 3-family triple decker apartment buildings being converted to condos with extensive alterations, and reconfiguration of partition walls.
jar546
Forum Coordinator
They will have to clarify the intent.
Was it written the way it was on purpose to give leeway?
What is the general consensus of the membership?
Is it a problem at all?
Was it written the way it was on purpose to give leeway?
What is the general consensus of the membership?
Is it a problem at all?
Mr Softy
Silver Member
if one asks the ICC, they feel that Level 1 and Level 2 work can co-exist on the same project. a moved wall could be Level 2, but the sheetrock that butts up to it is Level 1. with this interpretation, one could parse off all reconfiguration into a tiny percentage of the overall project, and never come close to the thresholds that they themselves put in the code. IIRC, the original document (HUD) that broke work up into levels did this specifically to capture upgrades as the scope of work increased.jar546 said:
the example i have used (repeatedly) is a three unit building, completely gutted, with partition changes. Level 3 - 50% work area of building. but if i take out the level 1 work (as ICC feels is possible) i won't be at 50% anymore.
it is a problem in MA as we have had, for 15+ years, in the code and its intent, FP upgrades based on substantial work.