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 Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
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
CBO
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.