Empowering Building Officials: Clarifying the Authority to Adopt Policies and Procedures

In the intricate landscape of building codes and construction regulation, a pivotal yet often misunderstood provision stands out: Section [A] 104.2, Determination of Compliance. Adopted across numerous states, this clause bestows upon building officials the critical authority to ensure compliance with codes, render interpretations, and crucially, adopt policies and procedures to make clear the application of code stipulations. Despite its explicit intentions, this authority sometimes faces skepticism, where the adoption of policies and procedures is erroneously perceived as equal to amending the codes themselves. This article attempts to demystify this misunderstanding, articulating the legal distinction between these practices while advocating for the building officials' prerogative to implement policies and procedures as a mechanism to enforce and administer building codes effectively.

The Legal Foundation of [A] 104.2​

At its essence, [A] 104.2 endows building officials with the formidable task of upholding compliance with the building code. This encompasses not merely the interpretation of the code but also the formulation of policies and procedures that facilitate its application. It's pivotal to note that these policies and procedures must not only align with the code's intent and purpose but also ensure they do not override or negate specific code mandates. This legal groundwork furnishes building officials with the essential tools for code enforcement while safeguarding the code's integrity and the overarching safety of the public.
An integral aspect of [A] 104.2 is its underlying intent to prevent building officials from overstepping their boundaries by diluting the codes' effectiveness or straying from the spirit and intent of the code. This safeguard ensures that the discretion granted to building officials is exercised within a framework that upholds the strength and efficacy of the building codes, thereby ensuring that their decisions and policies enhance, rather than undermine, compliance and safety standards.

Misconceptions and Clarifications​

A prevalent misconception conflates the development of policies and procedures with the alteration of the building code itself. This comparison is fundamentally inaccurate. Policies and procedures are intended as administrative and operational guidelines to aid in the consistent and equitable application of the code. They do not modify the technical stipulations of the code but ensure its effective enforcement. For instance, establishing a policy for the submittal and resubmittal of construction documents fosters transparency and efficiency without compromising the code's standards.

The Importance of Policies and Procedures​

Policies and procedures are indispensable in the routine administration of building codes. They offer a blueprint for addressing common issues, streamlining processes, and ensuring that all stakeholders have a clear comprehension of expectations. This administrative guidance is crucial for upholding high standards of safety, efficiency, and compliance in the building sector.

Legal Precedents and State Approval​

The adoption of building codes, including any policies and procedures, often involves a state-level review process to ensure that local practices are in alignment with state laws and the adopted codes. Legal precedents reinforce the building officials' authority to implement policies and procedures, provided these do not diminish the code's requirements. This legal support underscores the legitimacy of building officials' roles in safeguarding public safety through effective code enforcement.

Building Official Authority vs. Code Changes​

It's crucial to differentiate between the authority to adopt policies and procedures and the process required for official code amendments. Code changes involve a formal procedure of review, public input, and approval at various governmental levels. Conversely, policies and procedures are administrative tools developed within the purview of the building official's authority. They are crafted to be more restrictive to ensure safety but never less restrictive than the state or local codes necessitate.

Case Studies and Examples​

Numerous instances across the nation exemplify building officials utilizing policies and procedures to ***** compliance and streamline enforcement. These range from digital submission procedures that minimize paper waste and expedite review times to specific procedural guidelines for complex projects, ensuring comprehensive safety considerations.

Conclusion​

Grasping the legal and practical distinctions between code changes and the adoption of policies and procedures is vital for all participants in the building industry. Building officials wield the authority to adopt policies and procedures as a means to enforce the code effectively, not to alter its requisites. This authority is anchored in a commitment to public safety and the efficient administration of building codes.

Call to Action​

As professionals in the building industry, we must support the building officials' authority to adopt policies and procedures. Engaging with local building officials, comprehending the rationale behind these policies, and advocating for their enactment can significantly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of code enforcement. Let us champion the crucial role of building officials in ensuring our built environment is safe, compliant, and sustainable.

This article, tailored for my fellow professionals and the broader public, emphasizes the vital distinction between policy/procedure development and code amendments. It advocates for a nuanced understanding and support of the building officials' role, recognizing their essential contribution to maintaining the integrity and safety of our buildings and infrastructure.

 

[Mark K]

In attempting to differentiate policies and procedures from regulations/codes it appears that much emphasis is placed on the perceived intent of building regulations. While the intent of a regulation may help in interpreting the regulation it cannot serve as a basis for the building official to impose new requirements. I am reminded of the classic statement that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Yes policies and procedures must be consistent with the adopted regulations, but we still find requirements that were not properly adopted as regulations, that appear to be indistinguishable from regulations,

A related issue has to do with policies of local jurisdictions that require certain submissions be by an engineer or architect. Such requirements are an attempt to regulate architects and or engineers which neither the building code nor the building official has been given the authority to regulate. The legislatures of the states have exercised their right to restrain trade by licensing engineers and architects, but such right has not been delegated to local jurisdictions let alone individuals such as building officials. A provision in the building code does not have the authority to act in the name of the Legislature.

Whether a submission needs to be by an engineer or architect, is to be determined by state statutes not by the policies of the building official. If the building official believes that state statutes require such document be created by an engineer or architect, the reference should be to the state statutes and not to local policies and procedures. otherwise, the local jurisdiction would be usurping. the authority of the Legislature.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

A related issue has to do with policies of local jurisdictions that require certain submissions be by an engineer or architect. Such requirements are an attempt to regulate architects and or engineers which neither the building code nor the building official has been given the authority to regulate. The legislatures of the states have exercised their right to restrain trade by licensing engineers and architects, but such right has not been delegated to local jurisdictions let alone individuals such as building officials. A provision in the building code does not have the authority to act in the name of the Legislature.

Whether a submission needs to be by an engineer or architect, is to be determined by state statutes not by the policies of the building official. If the building official believes that state statutes require such document be created by an engineer or architect, the reference should be to the state statutes and not to local policies and procedures. otherwise, the local jurisdiction would be usurping. the authority of the Legislature.

I respectfully submit that the above is incorrect in several regards.

First: While state statutes regulate who is allowed to engage in the practice of engineering or architecture and this does "restrain" unlicensed individuals from performing regulated activities (except that in practice it doesn't work -- ask me how I know), the reason the states license engineers and architects isn't for the purpose of restraining trade, it's for the purpose of promoting safety by attempting to ensure that individuals practicing engineering or architecture have achieved some minimum level of competence.

Second, the building code -- which is adopted as regulation pursuant to statute (at least in this state) does grant the building official the authority to require certain things to be performed ly licensed design professionals, over and above the basic requirements established in the codes themselves:

IBC 107.1:

[A] 107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of
construction documents, statement of special inspections,
geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or
more sets, or in a digital format where allowed by the building
official, with each permit application. The construction documents
shall be prepared by a registered design professional
where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the
project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the
building official is authorized to require additional construction
documents to be prepared by a registered design
professional.

IRC R106.1:

R106.1 Submittal documents. Submittal documents consisting
of construction documents, and other data shall be
submitted in two or more sets, or in a digital format where
allowed by the building official, with each application for a
permit. The construction documents shall be prepared by a
registered design professional where required by the statutes
of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed.
Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized
to require additional construction documents to be
prepared by a registered design professional.

Obviously, with 50 states plus the District of Columbia we have enough different laws and regulations to go around. In this state, buildings under 5,000 square feet in total floor area (except for certain critical occupancy classifications) are exempt from requiring an architect -- as long as the design is basically prescriptive. Single-family houses of any size are also exempt from requiring an architect. However, we do NOT have any 5,000 square foot exemption on engineering. By statute, in this state ANYTHING requiring engineering must be performed by a professional engineer licensed in this state. No exceptions.

So, if Bill Gates wants to construct a 150,000 square foot mega mansion that he designed himself, he can do so -- as long as we can verify all the parameters in tables in the code or in manufacturers' published technical literature. If the structure has some hinckey, avante garde, super-dooper feature that's not covered by any published literature -- the BO can require that the design be either performed by or reviewed and blessed by a licensed PE.

 

[jar546]

In attempting to differentiate policies and procedures from regulations/codes it appears that much emphasis is placed on the perceived intent of building regulations. While the intent of a regulation may help in interpreting the regulation it cannot serve as a basis for the building official to impose new requirements. I am reminded of the classic statement that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Yes policies and procedures must be consistent with the adopted regulations, but we still find requirements that were not properly adopted as regulations, that appear to be indistinguishable from regulations,

A related issue has to do with policies of local jurisdictions that require certain submissions be by an engineer or architect. Such requirements are an attempt to regulate architects and or engineers which neither the building code nor the building official has been given the authority to regulate. The legislatures of the states have exercised their right to restrain trade by licensing engineers and architects, but such right has not been delegated to local jurisdictions let alone individuals such as building officials. A provision in the building code does not have the authority to act in the name of the Legislature.

Whether a submission needs to be by an engineer or architect, is to be determined by state statutes not by the policies of the building official. If the building official believes that state statutes require such document be created by an engineer or architect, the reference should be to the state statutes and not to local policies and procedures. otherwise, the local jurisdiction would be usurping. the authority of the Legislature.

Although your perspective is necessary to engage in constructive discussions about the roles and powers of building officials within the regulatory framework, it appears there may be a misunderstanding of the code's provisions and the intent of my original article that requires clarification.

My article emphasizes the legal foundation provided by Section [A] 104.2, which explicitly grants building officials the authority to adopt policies and procedures to clarify the application of code provisions. This authority is designed to ensure compliance and facilitate the enforcement of building codes, not to extend or overstep the jurisdiction of building officials into areas governed by state statutes, such as the licensing of professionals.

It's important to recognize that the authority to implement policies and procedures is a necessary tool for building officials to effectively administer and enforce the building codes. These policies and procedures are developed within the confines of the existing legal framework and are intended to support, not supersede the code's requirements. They are meant to enhance the clarity and consistency of code enforcement, ensuring that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of what is expected for compliance.

Regarding the regulation of professional practices, such as the requirements for submissions to be made by licensed engineers or architects, our article does not advocate for building officials to overstep their bounds into the regulation of professional licensure. Instead, when building codes or local ordinances reference the need for professional involvement, it is typically grounded in the broader context of ensuring public safety and compliance with technical standards. These references are in alignment with state statutes that govern professional licensure and are not an attempt by building officials to regulate the professions independently.

Your concern about the potential for policies and procedures to be indistinguishable from regulations highlights the importance of transparency and clarity in the development and implementation of these policies. It is a valid point that underscores the need for building officials to ensure that their policies and procedures are clearly communicated and understood as administrative tools, rather than new regulatory requirements.

However, it is also critical to understand that building officials are granted a level of discretion within their roles to interpret and apply the codes in a manner that ensures public safety and welfare. This discretion is bounded by the codes themselves and the legislative framework within which they operate. The assertion that building officials possess more power than realized is not a call for unchecked authority but a recognition of the responsibility and discretion afforded to them by law to administer and enforce building codes effectively.

While your concerns are noted and appreciated, it is essential to base our discussions on the accurate interpretation of the legal framework governing building officials' roles and powers. The intent of my original article is to advocate for a balanced understanding of this framework, recognizing the legitimate authority of building officials to adopt policies and procedures as tools for effective code enforcement.

 

[ICE]

Jeff, your articles are thoughtful, well written presentations of how things should be.

The application of Section 104.2 occurs ubiquitously, all day, every day. Building Officials, Building Inspectors, Plan Check Engineers and Permit Technicians rely on an individual interpretation of not only the adopted codes, but also the policies and procedures. This is not unique to the Building Code as it is pervasive with every code.

When you hear, “They don’t make me do that in Long Beach” … That’s Section 104.2 in play. I have contacted the beach cities, valley cities, SoCal Counties and asked the question ... guess what... all too often, they don’t make them do it in Long Beach, Fullerton, San Bernardino County, Etc.

If another AHJ is a bridge too far for you, check the cubicles on either side of yours. The answers are a patchwork of interpretations… some of which, make sense.

Of course Section 104.2 is supposed to be invoked with a careful consideration of a single aspect of code. The end result is supposed to be written down for application elsewhere. What is supposed to happen and what does happen … well let’s just say that the one would not recognize the other.

Generally, when there is a careful consideration it comes about during a search for a way to justify what is presented. This takes place almost exclusively, in the minds of Building Officials … not that many Building Inspectors are capable of careful consideration.

Getting wound up over a policy respecting a plan submission is but one shovelful of sand against an incoming tide.

 

[jar546]

Let us not forget something:

A building official can't just waive a code requirement. Not legally anyway. This section is very clear about that. If a BCO in another jurisdiction chooses not to enforce something obvious and specifically provided by the code, they are breaking the law. Yes, they do it but it is their choice to be lazy and put themselves at risk along with being detrimental to the industry.

[A] 104.2 Determination of compliance.​

The building official shall have the authority to determine compliance with this code, to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures:

1. 1.Shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code.
2. 2.Shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.

 

[ICE]

Let us not forget something:

A building official can't just waive a code requirement. Not legally anyway. This section is very clear about that. If a BCO in another jurisdiction chooses not to enforce something obvious and specifically provided by the code, they are breaking the law. Yes, they do it but it is their choice to be lazy and put themselves at risk along with being detrimental to the industry.

Alrighty then, you tell them how is should be and I’ll tell them how it is. It’s not like everything’s upside down but there’s plenty of room for improvement. The more technical the code, the more it is abused. The worst distortions occur with the electrical code.

When you say that a BO can’t legally waive a code requirement you should acknowledge that it is legal by default. The outright waiving code is the purview of the BO….. In my experience that is, while not unheard of, not common. The everyday, run of the mill bastardization of the code falls to the inspectors. Mostly due to not knowing any better. There’s a lot of them that are just as happy as if they had good sense.

 

[jar546]

Alrighty then, you tell them how is should be and I’ll tell them how it is. It’s not like everything’s upside down but there’s plenty of room for improvement. The more technical the code, the more it is abused. The worst distortions occur with the electrical code.

When you say that a BO can’t legally waive a code requirement you should acknowledge that it is legal by default. The outright waiving code is the purview of the BO….. In my experience that is, while not unheard of, not common. The everyday, run of the mill bastardization of the code falls to the inspectors. Mostly due to not knowing any better. There’s a lot of them that are just as happy as if they had good sense.

Two words: Consistency & Professionalism.

You can continue to live in the world you experienced and your perception which may not match reality. You are inherently negative and full of stories consisting of doom and gloom. The reality in many other parts of the world is of professionalism and consistency. I am sorry that you did not experience it during your career. Since that ship has sailed, it might be time for you to turn over a new leaf and find a way to fix things rather than whine with doom and gloom. I am a fan of those that do. I am a fan of those who try to set an example and attempt to fix things. It is the lazy man who simply complains without any attempt to fix what is wrong. No one gives a **** what happened in the 1990's in LA County. People care about what is happening today and what can be done to fix the system.

 

[ICE]

You can continue to live in the world you experienced and your perception which may not match reality. You are inherently negative and full of stories consisting of doom and gloom

I’m not delusional…yet. Inherently negative? Spot on you are. I’ve posted thousands of examples of a violation and I can’t remember posting what it looks like done right. Doom and gloom you say… An inspector searches for what is wrong… I found it.

Since that ship has sailed, it might be time for you to turn over a new leaf and find a way to fix things rather than whine with doom and gloom.No one gives a **** what happened in the 1990's in LA County.

There you go again with the “doom and gloom”. For you it’s turning over a leaf…. For me it’s a tiger changing his stripes. When you said whine I went for whiskey …. I’m watching the ship disappear over the horizon.

You got it wrong… the 1990’s were pretty good… what I bring you is what today has for Southern California. I will agree with you in that nobody gives a **** what I have to say… there’s nothing new about that …. I’m not sure that I appreciate being reminded.

Before I depart I will educate you a touch more. What I have done here that you find abhorrent pales in the face of the truth. Thefts and embezzlements in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, huge bribes…. Neighborhoods built with no permits or inspections. Little bribes for the little people and even death. A workforce that is laughably ill suited for the job. A workforce replete with megalomaniacs to limp noodles.

You and most of the people looking in have no clue and have no interest in knowing. I’m okay with that and have held back. It’s one thing to knock a few apples out of the cart but quite another to tip it over.

While I’m doing this I find a need to show you behind the curtain.. sorta steal the Emperor’s clothes as it were. I have been privy to the inner workings of the largest building department in the country. I have been intimately involved with creating UL Standards. There’s little that’s clean or righteous about any of it. I found it to be startling and a disappointment in how unsophisticated the industry is. I would feel better if that was the finding of a negative nature however, that is not the case.

Jeff, you are positioned in a cozy jurisdiction with an idyllic existence. The reality that shapes my perception is so completely different that I shouldn’t be conversing with you at all.

 

[jar546]

you are positioned in a cozy jurisdiction with an idyllic existence. The reality that shapes my perception is so completely different that I shouldn’t be conversing with you at all.

I took over a town that was run the way you describe and slowly fixed the situation, making it better. Making it a fair and equal playing field for the contractors and a more protected area for the property owners. It has not been easy. I am mopping up and doing, just like my immediate predecessor attempted. I put myself in a position that allowed me to fix what was broken. It is by no means an idyllic existence, but it is much improved with rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes that are strictly adhered to. The word has spread and now I am doing the same for another jurisdiction under an interlocal agreement.

We all whine and complain, that is a fact. It is how you respond to your own cries that makes the difference. Continue to complain or try to fix it.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

The outright waiving code is the purview of the BO….. In my experience that is, while not unheard of, not common. The everyday, run of the mill bastardization of the code falls to the inspectors. Mostly due to not knowing any better. There’s a lot of them that are just as happy as if they had good sense.

Two words: Consistency & Professionalism.

You can continue to live in the world you experienced and your perception which may not match reality.

My two cents - well, a nickel, since we don't have pennies in the Great White North....

What ICE is describing is a reality of this. very. moment. right. now. And we should be heeding his words.

I ought not to go into considerable details, but I will tell you this: there are inspectors in my part of the world, right now, who are telling people that "you have to do X in Y way," and the reason is "because I told you so" even though there's no code to back up their request.

Examples:
You HAVE to have a horizontal element under a lintel
You HAVE to have fire-rated drywall in a garage serving a single-family home (under our Codes, you don't)
You CAN'T have the body of a birch sapling as a handrail (even though its dimensions, height, affixation and surface characteristics met all the prescriptive requirements of Code).

There are also inspectors who are saying "nah, you don't have to do that," even though Code says you have to.

Examples:
You don't need rain screen under shingles (when code says you do)
You can use C grade shingles if you're adding onto a building that already has C-grade shingles
It has an engineer's stamp so I don't have to do a plans review
It has an engineer's stamp, so I don't have to inspections
You need hurricane ties on trusses (even though the build was not in one of the six places in Canada where such is required by Code)
And examples of totally ignored fire-rated systems, fire stops, etc., etc.

We all whine and complain, that is a fact. It is how you respond to your own cries that makes the difference. Continue to complain or try to fix it.

I think you're being too harsh. ICE is consistently pointing out inconsistencies in our profession, and his views are ones that must hold weight. Heck, here I am, a few months shy of the seventh anniversary of putting out my shingle in the backwoods of Atlantic Canada, and I've already seen a lot of evidence of inconsistency, half-assed, made-up "rules" that have no foundation in Code, and misunderstanding (or no understanding) of basic life-safety stuff.

I spent 23 years officiating contact sports, from what you'd call Pop Warner football to international competition and university-level stuff. The one thing that drives coaches, players, media and fans absolutely NUTS is inconsistency. If some inspectors are "making up rules" or enforcing non-existent rules, or NOT enforcing existing rules, it makes everyone look bad.

And in this lack of consistency and professionalism within our industry puts lives at risk.

I've seen a fire escape in a neighbouring province that runs right by an unprotected window of another fire compartment, then terminates on the slightly-sloped roof that shelters a door to a second fire compartment, with the apparent requirement to leap four feet to the ground below. This on one of the main roads in a small community. It was either allowed to be built incorrectly, under a permit, or was allowed to be built in a visible location, without a permit, and either outcome is a failure of the inspector/inspection department.
I'm not in ICE's shoes, but from the point of view of an old geezer who is new to the industry, he's calling it like it is. And we should listen to what he says.

 

[tmurray]

In looking at variance in judgements, we talk a lot about system error, the difference between one professional's judgement and another, however, there is still pattern error. Pattern error exists where a professional makes a different judgement on the same facts in different occasions. Studies on error have frequently delineated the amount of system error to be approximately 2/3s of the error and pattern error to be about 1/3.

The good news is that we disagree with ourselves less than we disagree with others, but a 33% error attribution is still very high.

It might be important to point out that pattern error would not differentiate where a decision was wrong and later decisions were correct. It simply detects where decisions are different.

Pattern error can be from anything like reading a news article that causes us to consciously or subconsciously look at an issue differently, or on the other end of the spectrum, the temperature, weather, time of day.

No industry has been found immune from system or pattern error. Pattern error has even been detected in federal judges in sentencing criminals to prison sentences. If you are a criminal, you usually want to be sentenced on a sunny Friday, right after lunch. Warm, but not too warm. It can cut 2.8 years off your sentence.

 

[Mark K]

There is agreement that there are problems.

The answer is not to give the building official and inspectors the unilateral authority to impose their preferences. Rember, we operate within a system of laws where the laws must be formally adopted.

People have a right to be able to know what the laws are so that they can act to be in compliance with the laws.

While one of the intents of building regulations is to protect the occupants of buildings, this intent cannot be used to justify additional regulations to supposedly protect the public. The reality is that the building code reflects a lot of compromises based on the realization they cannot protect against all problems. Thus if the building official was able to impose additional requirements that supposedly makes things safer we would be bypassing the judgement of the Legislature.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The post below is a perfect example of when and why a policy should be created. The code does not address every situation.

Egress Near Stairs

Hello All, New to the forum. I'm a handyman and have a couple questions about a project that I have not encountered before. I have done stairs before, but this customer would like new stairs coming off an existing deck (71" above grade. There were no stairs before on this end of deck). House is...

www.thebuildingcodeforum.com

Does the code allow a wood burning stove in garage? The code is silent but that does not mean it is allowed. A policy would clarify what the code does not.

 

[Mark K]

The post below is a perfect example of when and why a policy should be created. The code does not address every situation.

Egress Near Stairs

Hello All, New to the forum. I'm a handyman and have a couple questions about a project that I have not encountered before. I have done stairs before, but this customer would like new stairs coming off an existing deck (71" above grade. There were no stairs before on this end of deck). House is...

www.thebuildingcodeforum.com

Does the code allow a wood burning stove in garage? The code is silent but that does not mean it is allowed. A policy would clarify what the code does not.

If the codes do not compel or prohibit it is left to the applicant.

What law gives the building official the right to impose his own preferences? The building code cannot be used to bestow on the building official the right to unilaterally impose additional requirements.

In California such a local modification would not satisfy one of the conditions for a local modification

 

[mtlogcabin]

If the codes do not compel or prohibit it is left to the applicant.

IMC
901.3 Hazardous locations.
Fireplaces and solid fuel-burning appliances shall not be installed in hazardous locations.

Who determines if a location is hazardous? The applicant as you suggest.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

IMC
901.3 Hazardous locations.
Fireplaces and solid fuel-burning appliances shall not be installed in hazardous locations.

Who determines if a location is hazardous? The applicant as you suggest.

Isn't "hazardous" defined in your codes, or through references to WHMIS and (pauses to do quick research) NFPA 30 and/or NFPA 497?

That's how the NBC and NFC (national fire code) approach things, in general. Also, processes that produce dusts and fibres are also treated as hazardous.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Yes it is
[MP] HAZARDOUS LOCATION. Any location considered to be a fire hazard for flammable vapors, dust, combustible fibers or other highly combustible substances.

Who considers the location to be a fire hazard? The applicant as suggested above? Some locations would be very obvious and others not so.

Can I put a wood stove in a residential garage? That is always the question here?

 

[Mark K]

Yes it is
[MP] HAZARDOUS LOCATION. Any location considered to be a fire hazard for flammable vapors, dust, combustible fibers or other highly combustible substances.

Who considers the location to be a fire hazard? The applicant as suggested above? Some locations would be very obvious and others not so.

Can I put a wood stove in a residential garage? That is always the question here?

We have made progress since we are now concerned with what the regulations say instead of policies and procedures.

Keep in mind that there is a legal doctrine that says a law is void if it is vague and subject to arbitrary interpretations.

There are risks in life. The commentaries to building standards recognize this reality which leads us ask what is the authority of the building official when the laws are vague. The answer is that it is not the building officials' job to decide what is right.

With regards to a wood stove in a residential garage the risk is highly dependent on the situations and possibly not easily regulated. In such situations we may find that the civil concept of negligence or the constraints of fire insurance policies may have more impact.

 

[mtlogcabin]

That would be one of the reason to have written policies so as to avoid arbitrary interpretations and provide consistency.

Wood stoves are prohibited in garages by NFPA

Trouble is you have to go through the listing and manufactures installation instructions to get there since NFPA 211 is not a referenced standard for solid fuel equipment installations.

I agree that a policy should not require more than the code or eliminate a code requirement. Right or wrong a written policy should provide a code path or logical reason for the determination made such as the question "Egress Near Stairs" which every response was code related with the same dimension given as to what it should be.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Should the pool alarm be on the storm door or the wood door? Should they be on a window 3 stories high? Can pool or spa be right outside of a Emergency Escape Window. I can think of many more. Who decides?

 

[Mark K]

Should the pool alarm be on the storm door or the wood door? Should they be on a window 3 stories high? Can pool or spa be right outside of a Emergency Escape Window. I can think of many more. Who decides?

If not compelled or prohibited by law the decision is to be made by the applicant.

 

[rktect 1]

Yes it is
[MP] HAZARDOUS LOCATION. Any location considered to be a fire hazard for flammable vapors, dust, combustible fibers or other highly combustible substances.

Who considers the location to be a fire hazard? The applicant as suggested above? Some locations would be very obvious and others not so.

Can I put a wood stove in a residential garage? That is always the question here?

It depends, doesn't it? The BO would need more information on this garage and what it is used for and what is stored inside of it.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Yes it is
[MP] HAZARDOUS LOCATION. Any location considered to be a fire hazard for flammable vapors, dust, combustible fibers or other highly combustible substances.

Who considers the location to be a fire hazard? The applicant as suggested above? Some locations would be very obvious and others not so.

Can I put a wood stove in a residential garage? That is always the question here?

So. Residential garage... is there sufficient quantity of flammable vapours present? *highly* combustible substances? Probably not processing grains or wools, so combustible fiber isn't a problem.

I guess what I'm saying is that based on what you've provided, your Codes provide you a path to actually answer the question.... no need for a policy.