• 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

How Far Back?

bnolen

bnolen

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
8
Location
Haines City Florida
The first IPMC came out in 1998 and I believe the first ICC building code editions came out in 2000. So is it the intent of the IPMC so provide enforcability of the ICC codes since 2000? Is the intent to use the 2009 IPMC for enforcement of homes built prior to ICC dating? Our code enforcement inspectors are writing violations on homes built in the 50s and 60s, but using the 2009 IPMC as reference, which is creating some confusion here in the building department. I am not sure that is the intent of the IPMC. Thanks all.
 
Ditto what mjesse and fatboy said. And, (granted I haven't read the 2009 IPMC) 2006 and before and the old legacy code PMC were not that hard to conform with. It was mostly thou shall have running hot and cold water, a toilet that flushes, safe electric, a safe way to exit the building and don't make messes on the property. Not a super high bar to clear. The IPMC is probably as close to a common sense code as the ICC publishes.

Read the book, unless the 09 is differenet you can read the IPMC cover to cover in about an hour or less.
 
Yeah, very much bare minimums to maintain a structure for occupancy. And, due to it's size, and simplicity, one of my favorites! :cool:
 
Of course none of that is relevant in Haines City.

It's all under the Florida Codes.
 
Well, unfortuanately is is relevant as we have adopted through ordinance the 2009 IMPC. Example violation: Stair with 4 risers require a handrail. Today, true enough, but the house was built in 1962. Unless they know the codes of that time frame, these don't sound like legitimate violations. I understand the book applies to all existing structures, but I believe you need to take in account the date of original construction.
 
304.10 Stairways, decks, porches and balconies. Every exterior stairway, deck, porch and balcony, and all appurtenances attached thereto, shall be maintained structurally sound, in good repair, with proper anchorage and capable of supporting the imposed loads. 304.12 Handrails and guards. Every handrail and guard shall be firmly fastened and capable of supporting normally imposed loads and shall be maintained in good condition.
Click to expand...
I don't read any of this to mean they must install something that didn't already exist.
 
bnolen: The IPMC is intended to address the minimum standards for the health and safety of the occupants of the structure and pertains to all existing structures. If the IPMC is adopted by the jurisdiction, the date of construction is irrelevant.

permtiguy: 09 IPMC - "SECTION 307 HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS 307.1 General. Every exterior and interior flight of stairs having more than four risers shall have a handrail on one side of the stair and every open portion of a stair, landing, balcony, porch, deck, ramp or other walking surface which is more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards. Handrails shall not be less than 30 inches (762 mm) high or more than 42 inches (1067 mm) high measured vertically above the nosing of the tread or above the finished floor of the landing or walking surfaces. Guards shall not be less than 30 inches (762 mm) high above the floor of the landing, balcony, porch, deck, or ramp or other walking surface."

Exception: Guards shall not be required where exempted by the adopted building code."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks! I don't work with this code, and I stopped reading when I thought I had the answer. Talk about poor layout . . .

An important distinction from the given example is that this requirement applies with "more than four" risers. If that is the situation, then I guess you'd have to apply it regardless of the original date of construction.

bnolen - are your inspectors proactively writing violations, or are they only reacting to public complaints? Just curious.
 
FYI, we only use it when responding to complaints. I've never written up a handrail, knew it was in there though.
 
Only cited handrails on rental properties, and only while investigating a complaint. If it's a private residence and the handrail was never there I don't write it up.
 
I imagine the political fallout from proactively enforcing something like that would be pretty steep. I'd just want to make sure the elected representatives were aware of the situation before they started getting phone calls from angry constituents.
 
cboboggs....

If you write them up for that code section on guards, does that mean they can construct a 30" guard that does not meet the building code?....Or just that if there is a 30" guard it is OK? Kinda worded poorly...no distinction between IRC and IBC buildings?
 
bnolen said:
Well, unfortuanately is is relevant as we have adopted through ordinance the 2009 IMPC. Example violation: Stair with 4 risers require a handrail. Today, true enough, but the house was built in 1962. Unless they know the codes of that time frame, these don't sound like legitimate violations. I understand the book applies to all existing structures, but I believe you need to take in account the date of original construction.
Click to expand...
I am not an attorney, however I suspect that IMPC is in conflict with the Florida Fire Prevention Code and the Florida Building Code and the statutes and rules which underlay them.
 
I believe that to also be correct Brudgers. Florida is very specific with driving legislation. We have the PMC adopted here and on the fire side we use NFPA (old habits from Florida) and just use PMC when the vagueness is necessary.
 
I only used the PMC when performing occupancy inspections or when we had a complaint. I was never a big fan of proactive enforcement, it does present problems.

steveray - I agree that the section is poorly worded, but to answer your question, the guard would have to be constructed to the current adopted code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top