• 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.

Firewall at addition vs. Building area?

steveray

steveray

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
13,686
Location
West of the river CT
Existing building over Area. "Adding on" another building with proper firewall. Anyone reconcile making the existing building "less safe" by reducing the existing open perimeter?

About to tear into the IEBC to see if I can figure this out. I know it is done all of the time, but I have never chased it out in code....

Thanks!
 
Thanks Tim....All of the previous ones I have been involved with have "corrected" the nonconformity.....And maybe this is why....

1101.1 Scope. An addition to a building or structure shall
comply with the International Codes as adopted for new construction
without requiring the existing building or structure
to comply with any requirements of those codes or of these
provisions, except as required by this chapter. Where an addition
impacts the existing building or structure, that portion
shall comply with this code.
1101.2 Creation or extension of nonconformity. An addition
shall not create or extend any nonconformity in the existing
building to which the addition is being made with regard
to accessibility, structural strength, fire safety, means of
egress, or the capacity of mechanical, plumbing, or electrical
systems.
 
I have worked on a couple of State projects under OSBI jurisdiction similar to your situation. The existing building area exceeded what was allowed by code, and a new "addition" was separated from the existing non conforming structure by a fire wall. Because the new structure is separated from the existing by a fire wall, it can be classified as a separate building, not as an addition to the existing. Without an addition in the mix, the existing non-conformity is not being made any worse or unsafe and you get around 1101.1 & 1101.2.
 
Running it through Joe C now....The area does not get worse, but the perimeter of the original building becomes less accessible for FD access..So they would lose some perimeter increase in theory...
 
steveray said:
Running it through Joe C now....The area does not get worse, but the perimeter of the original building becomes less accessible for FD access..So they would lose some perimeter increase in theory...
Click to expand...

On the first project I did with this situation my read was similar to your yours so I filed a code mod with the state to allow it. I few days later I received a phone call from our recently retired foul mouthed friend that use to handle such requests. The amount of F bombs dropped during that phone call for wasting his time when a code mod wasn't needed was truly impressive.
 
As I have told Dan...just send that to me in writing....

I want to make sure as a State we are handling it the same way...Do I think it is a "big deal", no, but ultimately that is not my call...
 
The designer is attempting to prove that the "ratios are remaining the same" therefore it is not less safe..Not sure what that formula even looks like, but we will see what they come up with...Oh...and they want to put the foundation in next week...

Was just a cursory discussion with OSBI to make sure I was not out of line...
 
Fortunately/ unfortunately....If it was built before the adoption of the Statewide code in 1971, a lot of stuff goes away IF the municipality did not have a code of their own...It can't be non-compliant if there was no compliance.
 
I agree with you Ray, you are essentially adding onto an existing nonconforming building, even with a fire wall the reduction in open perimeter makes it worse. The Performance chapter of the IEBC is the place to start, old chapter 34.
 
I stand by my previous post which is based on a code interpretation from OSBI in the past. The key to 1101.2 is the word 'addition'. With the firewall in the mix you are not adding an addition to the existing structure, its a separate building. With no addition, 1101.2 does not apply. Additionally, building area is not one of the categories listed in 1101.2

1101.2 Creation or extension of nonconformity. An addition
shall not create or extend any nonconformity in the existing
building to which the addition is being made with regard
to accessibility, structural strength, fire safety, means of
egress, or the capacity of mechanical, plumbing, or electrical
systems.
 
I have the benefit of being able to talk things over with my municipal fire crews. Half the time the things I think will pose an issue for them are no issue at all. If the provision is for fire fighting access and my fire fighters tell me (in writing) that they don't need it, I'm good to go.
 
Tim Mailloux said:
I stand by my previous post which is based on a code interpretation from OSBI in the past. The key to 1101.2 is the word 'addition'. With the firewall in the mix you are not adding an addition to the existing structure, its a separate building. With no addition, 1101.2 does not apply. Additionally, building area is not one of the categories listed in 1101.2

1101.2 Creation or extension of nonconformity. An addition
shall not create or extend any nonconformity in the existing
building to which the addition is being made with regard
to accessibility, structural strength, fire safety, means of
egress, or the capacity of mechanical, plumbing, or electrical
systems.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree with you Tim and it is not as clean as it should be (in straight code), but.....We can't really allow a condition of a new building to make an existing building "less safe" if you want to look at it that way...Kind of like we have to look at the adjacent buildings now for snow loading/ drifting when we build a new taller building next to a shorter one. New building on the same lot we don't disregard conditions that imposes on the existing building even though it does not fit into addition or alteration nicely...

If the State has a formal interp on it, I'm good, just haven't seen it yet....Which is why I did have a quick discussion with them on it...I just want to make sure we are all heading in the same direction as much as possible...
 
Lets look at this from a different , albeit similar angle.

Chapter 11 in the IEBC regulates additions, the situation you describe isn’t an addition, it’s a separate building meaning all of chapter 11 is off the table. Is there anywhere else in the IEBC that triggers this issue with an extension of nonconformity that does apply to the project at hand?
 
NO...Not really but the IEBC is a young code....In my case it is also an alteration...And likely every case where this could happen.

701.2 Conformance. An existing building or portion thereof shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe than its existing condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top