-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Gas logs
- Thread starter ICE
- Start date
High Desert
Gold Member
Obviously you're enforcing the International Ice Code on this. I'm sure either your jurisdiction or the State of California has language that can put the liability directly on you for requiring someone to do something that is not a code requirement. Even though you think you're doing a good turn and think it right and common sense, inspectors have been sued for a lot less than this.
High Desert
Gold Member
They're probably afraid of retribution.gbhammer said:
ICE
Oh Well
Bit of a sour puss aren't you? Considering getting sued over such a trifling thing as this isHigh Desert said:
Last edited by a moderator:
High desert, you have got to admit that after seeing all of the pictures that ICE has posted that he has saved lives. The people in his area should be criminally prosecuted for the absolutely horribly unsafe work that they perform on a regular basis. It is no wonder he interprets the code in the strictest of manners. I for one see his point in requiring the opening hardware since they have provided the connection for the appliance the fact that they have not yet installed just means they should use the highest figure applicable from table G2453.1. Everyone knows full well that they will not get a permit when the appliance goes in. Until such a time as he is called on it by the contractor or property owner why stop.
conarb
Registered User
Hammer:
If the Green Rater requires blower door tests and he can't seal glass doors, how is he going to get the test to work if the damper is propped open?
If the Green Rater requires blower door tests and he can't seal glass doors, how is he going to get the test to work if the damper is propped open?
gb, I simply can't agree with this statement. Look at what you wrote. You are stating that because some inspector comes up against some bad contractors, he should take the law into his own hands with OTHER contractors. Seriously?gbhammer said:
I don't disagree that if you encounter violations you should take appropriate action. How in the world does that justify excessive action taken on everyone else? There are many public servants who have gone to jail for such blatant disregard for the law. And they probably had an even better excuse than "I do it my way because I can"....
If this is such an important issue, the ordinance needs to be changed. We don't need inspectors out there flying by the seat of their pants.
Last edited by a moderator:
tmurray
SAWHORSE
You tape that sucker closed the same way you tape over all the other intentional building envelope penetrations. Then, after the test, you just remove the tape.conarb said:
You've seen what goes on in his area; do you honestly believe that the people there are trying to have LEED certified homes? If Green Rater goes there at all it will be for a home that has been done right from start to finish, not one of these crazy projects ICE has to ride rough shod over. Then again he could be like others that just let this stuff go saying not my problem. The way I see it he is a true servant to his community and there is no doubt in my mind that he goes above and beyond in an honest attempt to help people.conarb said:
Believe it or not I’m not a preacher and there’s no bromance going on, but sheesh the guy is one of the good guys.
Where is the taking the law into your own hands part? Read the legal aspects of code enforcement, he has some latitude here his policy has been set and he is consistent in his enforcement. If the pipe is installed then it counts as a part of the appliance, wahlah no issue, opening required.texasbo said:
righter101
Gold Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 604
The gas pipe has been stubbed out. Something is installed.fatboy said:
Would you then, allow a toilet rough-in to be installed in a compartment that is way to narrow to accomodate the required side clearances? since it's only a rough in.
If someone wants to rough in for a toilet, sink, and shower for a "future" bathroom, we would require them to also rough in the exhaust fan. Am I wrong to do this?
Very similar to what is being discussed.
righter101
Gold Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 604
Daddy-0- said:
Last edited by a moderator:
righter101
Gold Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 604
Lets use a future bathroom room arguement.
I am building a house and may or may not some day put a 2nd bathroom in.
I indicate on my plans a "rough in" for the toilet, shower and sink.
The plans examiner tells me that i need to install an exhaust fan. He cites a section in the code that requires it in a bathroom.
I try to argue that "its not a bathroom". You don't know what I may or may not do with that rough in sink drain and toilet flange and 36x36 area for a shower pan with a rough in drain.
Do they need an exhaust fan at least roughed in, or is that over reaching??
I am building a house and may or may not some day put a 2nd bathroom in.
I indicate on my plans a "rough in" for the toilet, shower and sink.
The plans examiner tells me that i need to install an exhaust fan. He cites a section in the code that requires it in a bathroom.
I try to argue that "its not a bathroom". You don't know what I may or may not do with that rough in sink drain and toilet flange and 36x36 area for a shower pan with a rough in drain.
Do they need an exhaust fan at least roughed in, or is that over reaching??
High Desert
Gold Member
Come on. There is no proof whatsoever that ICE is the great savior of human life. That's complete conjecture. If you require something that is not required, that's bullying, plain and simple. You can't make up your own rules.gbhammer said:
ICE, I was trying to be polite in telling you I thought you were going above the code. Since you pressed the issue, I will be blunt and tell you you are.
fatboy
Administrator
"The gas pipe has been stubbed out. Something is installed.
Would you then, allow a toilet rough-in to be installed in a compartment that is way to narrow to accomodate the required side clearances? since it's only a rough in.
If someone wants to rough in for a toilet, sink, and shower for a "future" bathroom, we would require them to also rough in the exhaust fan. Am I wrong to do this?
Very similar to what is being discussed."
Nothing is installed other than a gas stub that may or may not ever be used.
Rough-ins are just that, for a POSSIBLE future installation. We have almost always full basements in this part of the country, there are always bath rough-ins included. No, I don't try to figure out how it will be arranged, because most likely it will get moved before it is all said and done. And no, we don't require a fan be roughed in.
We see sometimes see A/C linesets roughed in for future use. Should we require the coil be installed, the electrical stubbed out outside, the base set? No, not here. Rough-ins are a convienient option for possible future use.
Heck if I used that theory, I would have to have them finish the basement immediately when it was installed, because if its there, I must assume they will use it in some fashion, and not get a permit to do it correctly. NOT.
JMHO
Would you then, allow a toilet rough-in to be installed in a compartment that is way to narrow to accomodate the required side clearances? since it's only a rough in.
If someone wants to rough in for a toilet, sink, and shower for a "future" bathroom, we would require them to also rough in the exhaust fan. Am I wrong to do this?
Very similar to what is being discussed."
Nothing is installed other than a gas stub that may or may not ever be used.
Rough-ins are just that, for a POSSIBLE future installation. We have almost always full basements in this part of the country, there are always bath rough-ins included. No, I don't try to figure out how it will be arranged, because most likely it will get moved before it is all said and done. And no, we don't require a fan be roughed in.
We see sometimes see A/C linesets roughed in for future use. Should we require the coil be installed, the electrical stubbed out outside, the base set? No, not here. Rough-ins are a convienient option for possible future use.
Heck if I used that theory, I would have to have them finish the basement immediately when it was installed, because if its there, I must assume they will use it in some fashion, and not get a permit to do it correctly. NOT.
JMHO
We all have the pipes for an unlisted gas appliance and should probably have an opening for ventilation that follows us around. Just like that pipe that all of us has, we all have opinions on how to apply the code. The fact is that ICE is consistent in his enforcement he believes he is right, and he is protected by the law.
On the contrary, he could do what his community requires by simply enforcing the code.brudgers said:
However, it doesn't surprise me that you are in the "just because I found some other violations across town, I now have the right to start pulling code requirements out of my azz" camp.
Last edited by a moderator: