• 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

IBC vs. IRC

Mark K said:
Under which code provision can you say that the IRC can be used when you recognize that the IRC was not intended to address that condition? If there is no code basis you are likely practicing architecture or engineering without a license.
Click to expand...
I am on the enforcement side, and I have a duty to protect the rights of the people I serve. In my world, it's not so much about what the code says you can do, it's about what is says you can't do.

If the code says you can't do something, you can't. If it doesn't say you can't, that means you can whether there is "a code that says you can" or not.

I made a somewhat unmotivated attempt to find a code section that says you can't, and I was unable to do so... not that it isn't there somewhere... I just have no motivation to find it today since this isn't my jurisdiction...
 
From a code standpoint, if the 3 single family residences are on their own lot, are they not technically townhouses, if the only structure on each lot is a single-family home and under 3 stories?

If zoning allows both to be there, then why not?

Fire walls / separation what else they need?

IF the fire separation requirements are met between the last home and the bakery next door, is it really the same building, or is it not each building is their own, just sharing firewalls on the lot line?

As to the sprinkler systems, I haven't a clue, but I would assume each LOT & Building has to be a separate self-contained system.

I could be wrong, but can sprinkler systems cross property lines?

And in TN, are IRC built structures required to have sprinklers?

But, the design professional should have spelled all this out on the drawings, as I would assume, each property needs its own set of drawings for the permit application.

Then again I could be totally off base here.

Tom
 
Beniah Naylor said:
I am on the enforcement side, and I have a duty to protect the rights of the people I serve. In my world, it's not so much about what the code says you can do, it's about what is says you can't do.

If the code says you can't do something, you can't. If it doesn't say you can't, that means you can whether there is "a code that says you can" or not.

I made a somewhat unmotivated attempt to find a code section that says you can't, and I was unable to do so... not that it isn't there somewhere... I just have no motivation to find it today since this isn't my jurisdiction...
Click to expand...
Enforcement has to do with enforcing the limited rules that society has adopted to constrain the rights of the members of society. Being on the enforcement side does not empower an individual to require what he believes should be. Only a properly empowered legislative body can adopt laws, which include building regulations. A state can delegate an admirative body the ability to adopt regulations, such as building codes, but only if the legislature has properly constraint the authority of that administrative body. In all cases the legislative body or an administrative agency must follow certain rules in adopting regulations. This is due process.

In our system of laws there is NO place for an individual unilaterally empowered to impose requirements on individuals. To do so would bypass the legislative process and would empower an autocrat.

In many parts of the country the immunity that building officials have is based on the "public duty doctrine" which states that their duty is to the public as a whole and not to individual members of the public. This means that they can only enforce the adopted laws. Building officials are not there to protect individuals from their stupidity.

Building officials are empowered to enforce the properly adopted building regulations. If you cannot quote a building regulation the property owner can do what he or she wishes. Yes some individuals will do dumb things but that is their right.
 
Mark K said:
Enforcement has to do with enforcing the limited rules that society has adopted to constrain the rights of the members of society. Being on the enforcement side does not empower an individual to require what he believes should be. Only a properly empowered legislative body can adopt laws, which include building regulations. A state can delegate an admirative body the ability to adopt regulations, such as building codes, but only if the legislature has properly constraint the authority of that administrative body. In all cases the legislative body or an administrative agency must follow certain rules in adopting regulations. This is due process.

In our system of laws there is NO place for an individual unilaterally empowered to impose requirements on individuals. To do so would bypass the legislative process and would empower an autocrat.

In many parts of the country the immunity that building officials have is based on the "public duty doctrine" which states that their duty is to the public as a whole and not to individual members of the public. This means that they can only enforce the adopted laws. Building officials are not there to protect individuals from their stupidity.

Building officials are empowered to enforce the properly adopted building regulations. If you cannot quote a building regulation the property owner can do what he or she wishes. Yes some individuals will do dumb things but that is their right.
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody would dispute your statement. I think what rubs everybody the wrong way is you implication that all us code officials are just doing whatever we think is right. You may have had some negative experiences with specific individuals in your own life, but please keep in mind that we are not all automatically bad people just because of our profession. Your comments and how you speak to a community like this is really off-putting and it's unfortunate because you share some good information and it's a good perspective for us to hear. It's really hard to actually "hear" you though because all of your comments are colored with such negativity and resentment. Honestly I usually just tune you out.
 
I recognize that probably most building department personnel understand the limits on what they can do, but I do not hear building department individuals push back on those individuals who abuse their position. When I hear no push back is it wrong for me to assume that these abuses are tolerated? Does this lack of pushback embolden those individuals who are inclined to abuse their position?
 
Mark K said:
"license bugaboo" is an interesting term to be used by an individual employed to enforce the laws.
Click to expand...
Well then Mark K now that I am interesting and we are friends, I have posted a reply at the thread Average Day.....I figured that we are way too far off track here and lee1079 deserves better.
 
Last edited:
Mark K said:
I recognize that probably most building department personnel understand the limits on what they can do, but I do not hear building department individuals push back on those individuals who abuse their position. When I hear no push back is it wrong for me to assume that these abuses are tolerated? Does this lack of pushback embolden those individuals who are inclined to abuse their position?
Click to expand...
Personally I just choose to ignore bad apples when I can. I am fortunate enough to be in a very small jurisdiction so I have the opportunity to make sure that anybody I work with stays well within their authority. What happens in the next town over is not under my authority and none of my business. When I hear the stories that contractors tell me I shake my head and share my condolences, but I'm not going to stick my neck out and go beyond my jurisdiction to try to affect change. On a forum like this it's really none of my business so I just ignore a lot, and I'll chime in if I feel like there's something productive I can add. That's the only reason I even addressed you directly, I appreciate your knowledge and experience and I'm hoping that maybe you would be willing to hear some constructive criticism to help better the discourse.
 
Design professionals do not have the luxury of ignoring a bad apple when the bad apple is plan checking or inspecting their project.

The need to deal with constructive criticism goes both ways.
 
Mark K said:
"license bugaboo" is an interesting term to be used by an individual employed to enforce the laws.
Click to expand...
In ICE's defense, I don't think he is employed to do anything anymore....

BOT....I think I could allow IBC, but it would likely be way cheaper to build it IRC....At least in Connecticut....
 
Mark K said:
Design professionals do not have the luxury of ignoring a bad apple when the bad apple is plan checking or inspecting their project.

The need to deal with constructive criticism goes both ways.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting you change anything you do in your business dealings, obviously you have a vested interest in your interactions with clients and officials. Totally get that, and none of my business. I was suggesting that you leave it at the door when you come here. If you have some constructive criticism for me, I'm happy to hear it.
 
tbz said:
From a code standpoint, if the 3 single family residences are on their own lot, are they not technically townhouses, if the only structure on each lot is a single-family home and under 3 stories?
Click to expand...

No. Townhouses are typically on their own lot. Part of the definition of a townhouse is that there are no vertical offsets at the property line so that each unit can be on its own lot, with an offset they would be condos (or apartments). The main difference between a condo and a townhouse is that you can describe a townhouse plot with lines on the ground, in a condo you can define an area above ground.
 
redeyedfly said:
No. Townhouses are typically on their own lot. Part of the definition of a townhouse is that there are no vertical offsets at the property line so that each unit can be on its own lot, with an offset they would be condos (or apartments). The main difference between a condo and a townhouse is that you can describe a townhouse plot with lines on the ground, in a condo you can define an area above ground.
Click to expand...
Redeyedfly,

Each of the single family homes are on their own lot, not overlapping, just sharing the common lot line attached at that point.

Is that not a townhouse?

From my understanding of the OP, each is on its own lot, thus a townhome and IRC could be used.

Not sure what I am missing, but could be a lot....
 
tbz said:
Redeyedfly,

Each of the single family homes are on their own lot, not overlapping, just sharing the common lot line attached at that point.

Is that not a townhouse?

From my understanding of the OP, each is on its own lot, thus a townhome and IRC could be used.

Not sure what I am missing, but could be a lot....
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm misreading your post. Townhouses are technically single family attached. So I would say they are a subset of single family with their own specific rules because of zero FSD. We might be saying the same thing other than they are technically townhouses each on their own lot.
 
Thanks redeye, steve, and tbz for getting this back on track.

In any case we will most likely meet the requirements for both the IRC and IBC because of the peculiarities of this project. The question is, is it just semantics whether these are townhomes or R3 at that point? The confusion comes because I've never worked on or seen townhomes located next to a restaurant in what visually appears like the same building, even though by the language of the code they are separate.
 
Walk down any street in Manhattan, not avenue, a street and you will find it everywhere.

As noted, the design professional needs to see what the best fit is, and specify which code to follow.

Each has their plus's and minus's, without fully looking at the entire plan, unless there is something big and glaring that for that specific reason you want to use the IRC over the IBC, it might be simpler to just do it all under the IBC and as you said semantics.

But there are reasons for the IRC that benefit the home builder, and that type of construction. IF the benefits aren't there, then does it matter no.
 
tbz said:
Each has their plus's and minus's, without fully looking at the entire plan, unless there is something big and glaring that for that specific reason you want to use the IRC over the IBC, it might be simpler to just do it all under the IBC and as you said semantics.
Click to expand...
Depending on the local code amendments, sprinklers would be a big reason to not go IBC. Far less prescriptive paths and more reliance on engineering and RDPs is another.
 
Whether the two adjacent buildings visually appear to be the same building is not a building code issue. What matters is whether they are physically separate and individually comply with the building code.

If the building complies with the IBC what the IRC says is irrelevant. If the IRC applies to the particular building and the building does comply with the IRC, you do not need to determine that the building complies with the IBC. If the IRC applies to a building but part of the building does not comply with the IRC the non-compliance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top