Do Code Section #s matter?

The question has come up many times scattered in threads that were drifted into a ditch. It just happened again so I brought my reply here.

Since 2006, OREGON requires all jurisdictions to cite the code sections for each violation. "Cite-it Write-it" And yes, we provide the code section(s). To the credit of the State, every inspector, plans examiner and Building Official has to be certified by the State of Oregon. (It can be such a pain looking up the codes sections!)

There are practical benefits to including a code section.

1. For example, office managers are seldom versed in code so when a constituent questions a violation, there is a roadmap for the manager. Of course that leaves that manager in the weeds with no understanding of the code that he had at his fingertips, but that's another issue.
2. A plus to providing code sections is the likelihood that the imbecile inspectors would be curtailed with their bogus corrections. But then, stupid goes all the way to the bone so perhaps that wouldn't work as well as I imagine.
3. The Yankee has mentioned respect for court proceedings. I have written north of 200K corrections and been in court twice. On both occasions it was two people suing each other. The one time where I came close to a court case, I fabricated the entire code without a section# in sight. I've probably already told that story, it was a doozy. (p.s. I did tell that story on 2/11/2025)

Having exhausted the obvious advantages. There are disadvantages.

1. The time taken looking up each correction can be significant. I suppose that over the long haul, there would be muscle memory. (the brain is a muscle) Cheat sheets are available. I have a stack of the Code Check aids. However, the time is wasted.
2. The one in 400 hundred contractors that demand a code section will have deflated sails. So I'm going on the offensive to thwart that single malcontent that comes around on the third Thursday of every month.
3. Here in SoCal the level of expertise with building inspectors is low. Like in in a basement toilet low. They do not write many corrections because they don't recognize violations. If they were required to include sections...well the inspection was for naught.

I can say with certainty that the condition holds true with contractors as well as inspectors. So we have the blind leading the blind and between the two of them they can't understand a code section. Be honest and see the truth found here in this forum. A question about the dimensions of a stair landing produced fifty replies. An exit sign might be required ...or maybe not... could be a good idea ...or wait a minute, does it create a hazard? Ah! But a code section clears the smoke???

Some would say that sounds harsh. Well they are the exception rather than the rule. It all depends on where and with whom you practice your craft. I had jobs with Oltmans Construction that generated discussions to the point that they gave me a NEC Code Manual so we could keep it going. I've had far more experience where I was the only English speaker for a two block radius.
4. There's probably a 4,5,&6 but I have tired with this for now. I can come back later if I think of 4,5&6.

The following citations were written by a Senior Inspector. The individual has in excess of twenty ICC certifications. Picture a code section with each violation. Know that several are whole cloth out of thin air.

There is no code section for this and there is no Planning Dept requirement. This would be suppressed in Oregon.



What was said here is tech. correct and factually flawed. A section # would lend authority and since they don't bother to look, it will not matter. It could be an improvement if nothing were written other than the code section number.



This was an inspection for a water heater located in a garage. It was on a day devoted to 1hr. fire rating.




There was almost a code section...almost because the muscle didn't have the dimensions memorized.



With these pictures I have demonstrated the potential efficacy behind giving every Tom, Dick and Harry a section#. Up to a point. Beyond that I hope to also drive home the fact that the Tiger has left the building.

 

[Sifu]

It's too bad that attitude hasn't expanded to include architects, engineers, and unlicensed building designers. They're never shy about challenging me when I say there's something wrong (or, probably more often, missing) in their construction documents. Many of them get downright nasty about it, and they don't hesitate to complain to town hall about it if their initial round of insults doesn't erase the citation. In more than one case, I've seen building designers waste more time arguing that they're right (even when I've cited the exact code section that says they're wrong) than it would have taken them to just make the correction(s). They never seem to mind that their refusal to admit they messed up is delaying their client's permit. They tell the client that the building department is being obstructionist.

A-friggin'-MEN. And you are a design professional (I would hope that garners some minimum level of respect), imagine the reaction us non-DP schlubs get.

 

[Yikes]

It was in the code.

I said AFAIK, as far as I know. If it was in the code, then this would be a great time for you to provide a code section #, as per the thread title, so I can be smarter.

 

[Yikes]

I understand the contractor not wanting to piss off the inspector. But as an architect of record, I bear the responsibility for code compliance.
I tell our contractors that if they get a correction notice about something that wasn’t already an abundantly clear requirement on the plans (for example, they failed to follow the nailing schedule already on the plans), they must bring it to my attention ASAP. Make me the “bad guy”, not the superintendent.

Sometimes if the inspector is particularly ornery, I’ll then make the investor the bad guy for the inspector: “Look, what you’re asking for will be a change order, and the investor will only approve change orders that are a code necessity - - they require a written correction with a code citation for their records, then they ask me to write a cover letter commenting on your citation. Help us by giving us a specific citation reference.”

Anecdotally, I’d say about 30% of corrections will go away when I do this. Another 30% go away by explaining our code approach, for example the inspector may have overlooked an allowable exception in the code.

 

[Sifu]

I will search sometimes for hours to find a code section to support a comment. I will search sometimes for hours to find a code section so I don't have to make a comment. These searches often turn up new lines of thought on unrelated stuff that I revisit later. All of it makes me better at what I do.

I wish applicants/DP's/owners/building officials/plans examiners would do just a little more of that. (present company excluded obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion).