Demolition and compaction

[Code Neophyte]

Do any of you have ordinances or amendments which require full compaction of a demolition site? We currently only require that the proper grade be established, seeding be done, foreign material removed, but there is no standard for compaction of fill. We're now experiencing problems as some of these former demolition sites are being redeveloped, in that they are requiring very expensive helical pier footings, etc.

Just curious to see where you "draw the line", in terms of responsibility, between today's demolition project and tomorrow's redevelopment.

Thanks as always for any and all input!

 

[jar546]

None here. The next guy who wants to build on the lot gets the headache

 

[Mule]

We don't require anything other than what you do now. We leave it up to the new developer owner to perform a soil test to verify what will be required.

 

[TJacobs]

Buyer beware!

 

[cboboggs]

Same as everyone else.

 

[Code Neophyte]

I'm beginning to see a consensus forming.....

 

[texas transplant]

I'm with everyone else, buyer beware. As long as they bring it up to grade and clean it up that's it.

 

[Alias]

Caveat Emptor.........let the buyer beware.

Developer/builder is responsible for any tests that are required.

Sue, on the frontier

 

[fatboy]

Agree with all the above, what you see, is what you get.

 

[peach]

I have to agree, too, Neo... it's the buyer's problem.

 

[ewenme]

Idaho is a Buyer Beware state, however, the seller has to dislcose any 'defects' or known problems. I would include undocumented fill as one of those 'problems'. Caveat Emptor seems to be universal.

 

[RJJ]

Same as above,unless they plan to build on the same site and location.

 

[brudgers]

Idaho is a Buyer Beware state, however, the seller has to dislcose any 'defects' or known problems. I would include undocumented fill as one of those 'problems'. Caveat Emptor seems to be universal.

The only true caveat emptor state for real estate is Alabama.

There is no seller disclosure requirement, at all.

 

[Mark K]

Unless you know what the future building be like generic comaction requirements are tyically a waste of money

 

[Yankee]

I believe this issue is addressed under the IBC but not the IRC (compaction of site after demolition).

 

[fatboy]

Don't have the code in front of me, but in the footings section I'm pretty sure the language is still there regarding placement on undisturbed soil..........or?

 

[Mark K]

Once the building has been demolished you have a bare site and the building code no longer applies. In this case I would suggest that the Grading Code, if you have adopted one, would apply.

 

[Yankee]

Appendix J IBC

Speaking of which, there is a typo . . . 2010 Inspections J105 refers back to section 109 (which has changed to section 110 for 2010)

 

[Code Neophyte]

Thanks, Yankee! We haven't adopted any of the appendices, so I often forget what they contain. That would be an easy fix if we were to simply adopt (and amend) Appendix J.

 

[Daddy-0-]

Do you have erosion and sediment laws and inspections there? We require compaction only to a level that will stabilize the soil so that it will not erode after the seeding and strawing, but that is an erosion requirement not building code. We also have them punch holes in the basement so that it doesn't float!! I agree with Fatboy about new construction footings must be on undisturbed ground. This makes it harder for the new owner but not impossible.