• 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.

Opinion: Trying their best

* * & * *



lpiburn,

FWIW, does the AHJ know about the Variance Process & the Technical Advisory Committee.

Just seems like a workable compromise could be reached, so that both parties could be

at least partially satisfied.



* * & * *
 
The question is whether this is a mandatory upgrade or a voluntary upgrade. If it is voluntary and you are not making it worse it is the Owner's choice not the building official's.
 
Mark K said:
The question is whether this is a mandatory upgrade or a voluntary upgrade. If it is voluntary and you are not making it worse it is the Owner's choice not the building official's.
Click to expand...
I like that approach. You might also take the approach you are doing this to comply with ADA for the stadium and designate them as ADA wheelchair and ambulatory facilities and leave the old facility untouched.
 
north star said:
( * | * )Could you provide a clear, code compliant path to arrive at an

acceptable number ?.................Just sayin"... :grin:



( * | * )
Click to expand...
SECTION 710 PLUMBING

710.1 Minimum fixtures. Where the occupant load of the story is increased by more than 20 percent, plumbing fixtures for the story shall be provided in quantities specified in the International Plumbing Code based on the increased occupant load.

OL not increased, fixture count not necessary to be increased...

104.10 Modifications. Wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the code official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases upon application of the owner or owner's representative, provided the code official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code, and that such modification***** does not lessen***** health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the Department of Building Safety.

Doesn't lessen, actually increases.....
 
We got a response but it was about as clear as a brick wall. First there was some confusion about the occupant load. The supervisor passed the issue off to an underling who added my calculations for "west side" and "both" together, and came up with a total occ load of 5200! :shock:

Then - after a phone call to clarify - I got another response which was cryptic at best. I am actually quoting the email, "the UPC you are referring to is unfortunately been deleted by our new mexico code and refers back to the 2009 IBC code , so the fixture count will have to go by that standard ." :shock:...:lol:... :| ...:cry:...

I already know which standard is in effect. That's why I'm asking questions about alternate means of compliance. Sigh... I guess I'll have to meet up with them again next week and try to straighten this mess out.
 
lpiburn

It appears "alternate means of compliance" is not a clear concept at the AHJ. Keep us posted on what happens, always interesting to see how processes wind through at different locations.
 
There is a gym nearby whose restrooms are about 400' away in actual travel distance from the furthest seat.
Click to expand...
Are there enough fixtures to satisfy the gym occupant load? If so, build a new set of restrooms for the gymnasium, 400 feet away, which happens to be right next to the stadium.
 
Divide the bleacher seating at 24" lengths paint and assign seat and row numbers. This would reduce the OL by 33% if the AHJ will accept "assigned" seating.

18" for bleachers is a very old number when we where a skinny nation.

Importance More than one-third of adults and 17% of youth in the United States are obese, although the prevalence remained stable between 2003-2004 and 2009-2010.



  • Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest age-adjusted rates of obesity (47.8%) followed by Hispanics (42.5%), non-Hispanic whites (32.6%), and non-Hispanic Asians (10.8%)
  • Obesity is higher among middle age adults, 40-59 years old (39.5%) than among younger adults, age 20-39 (30.3%) or adults over 60 or above (35.4%) adults.
  • http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
 
The alternate means of compliance provisions are often invoked without appreciating what they actually say. A partial copy of the Uniform Plumbing Code provisions reads.

"301.2 Alternate Materials and lMethods of Construction Equivalency. Nothing in this code is intended to prevent the use of systems, methods, or devices of equivalent or superior quality, strength, fire resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety over those prescribed by this code."

If the issue is the number of fixtures required how does providing fewer fixtures provide equivalent effectiveness or safety? Thus it seems the agency has several options: 1) treat it as a voluntary upgrade, 2) require full compliance with the code which may mean the project is not built, or 3) ignore the code and do whatever they want.
 
There have been several posts so far about voluntary upgrades and that it would be up to the owner, but so far that s the opposite of what I'm hearing from the AHJ. In their view, any new work must conform to the code, which includes fixture count. Now obviously I'm trying to have a discussion with them on exactly that point, as is the purpose of the OP on this thread. Isn't some upgrade better than none at all?

I'm beginning to develop a theory. I think the problem may be in the lack of charging language specifically within Chapter 29 which allows for an exception under similar circumstances. It's already been posted here that the AHJ is allowed (even encouraged really) to make adjustments in the requirements based on the real-life situation on each specific project. Unfortunately that language is very very general, and not specifically to the issue at hand. Again this is on purpose so that it covers the whole code, but in my case it seems to be scaring them off. They don't want any possibility that something goes wrong in the future and it comes back to them where they approved something "sub standard". Logical? No. but we're only human I guess...
 
There appear to be a number of disturbing aspects about this project. First it appears that the building department is not familiar with the code provisions for additions. Second in their attempt to play CYA they could kill the new project thus perpetuating an obviously substandard condition.

Contrary to what was suggested the building official is not allowed to make up new requirements. He must enforce the adopted code and he cannot ignore provisions that are advantageous to the applicant.

So what is it, is the AHJ incompetent or are they abusing their position.

This project should be considered an addition (Chapter 34) where the new work must comply with the code but the rest of the project is not required to be upgraded. Please note that in the context of structural safety Chapter 34 of the IBC explicitly recognizes voluntary upgrades.

If the local jurisdiction does not recognize the concept of an addition or alteration then every time you make any change to the building you would have to bring all systems into full compliance with the code for new buildings. You might start by identifying existing remodeling projects where they have not required all systems be upgraded to comply with the provisions for new buildings and then suggesting that they be consistent. If the AHJ is still not responsive bring the issue to the attention of the City Council.
 
Mark K said:
So what is it, is the AHJ incompetent or are they abusing their position.
Click to expand...
I don't believe they are incompetent or abusive in this case. I am obviously frustrated by the situation but I wouldn't take it that far.

Mark K said:
This project should be considered an addition (Chapter 34) where the new work must comply with the code but the rest of the project is not required to be upgraded.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point here. A fully compliant addition would still require some 50-60 plumbing fixtures because the existing facilities are so small. The question is if we can purposefully provide less than the required number regardless if it is a renovation or addition.
 
& ~ & ~ &



lpiburn,

If they want to enforce their own adopted codes,

then request that they compose a letter to you

to that effect, ...so you can proceed with the design.

Have them tell you in writing how they are interpreting

what they have adopted......If they do not respond

with something in writing back to you, ...what are

your options for payment for your services to this

point ?......It may be that you will want to get paid

and then walk away.

If \ when they figure out which path they want to

go in the future, ...then you will be happy to offer

your services again.

& ~ & ~ &
 
You need to look at this differently. You have an existing facility that does not have as many fixtures as required by the current code. There is nothing in the code that says that for a new project that all of the plumbing fixtures would need to be in one building.

If you do an addition there is nothing that says that you would have to provide all of the fixtures for the whole facility in the addition. If you disagree provide the code reference.

There is a principle in law that says that if the regulations can reasonably interpreted in multiple ways the individual who must comply with the regulations gets to chose the interpretation. In my experience the interpretation that I am proposing has been accepted by all other jurisdictions that I know of. I am suggesting that if you look at the projects previously permitted by this jurisdiction you will find that they have not been consistent with this extreme interpretation.

Just to be clear there are several triggers that would require a building or facility be brought into full code compliance but I do not see how that applies to your case. If they did it might require that the bleachers be upgraded also.
 
I'm with Mark as already stated above...is is not crystal clear, but there is a path to compliance.....The existing baths are part and accessory to the bleachers. By expanding them you are not really increasing OL, if you were expanding the bleachers, I could see where they might have an issue. Stay out of the IBC. IEBC should be what it is, they cannot have it both ways, either the bath building drives OL (then it will be a low number) or the bleachers do. I know every remodel plan I see, I do not get a fixture count for the building if they are not reducing the number of fixtures or increasing OL, and I am betting most people here and there fell the same way....
 
The building code(s) clearly state that new work shall comply with current code which includes Chapter 34. If they are gutting the existing restroom, they will need to comply with current codes for fixture counts etc.
 
Kilitact

You are reading the code contrary to the way it is typically interpreted.

The new building must comply with the code. This means that the new building (addition) and any new fixture units must comply with the requirements for new construction, not that the new building must provide the total number of fixture units that would be required if the facility was being constructed now.

Think through the implications of applying your logic to all building systems. There would be no alterations or additions that did not bring all systems of the building into full compliance with the requirements for new buildings. This obviously has not been the practice and if that policy were to be implemented the world would not be the way we know it.
 
:surr Nope. Done. Finished. :surr

I met with the AHJ again today and I expressed in no uncertain terms that the school wants to improve their facilities but that no improvements can be made if the full fixture count is enforced. We went around in circles for a while talking about all manner of possible ways around the issue but no luck.

No, they don't care if it is a voluntary improvement, it still needs to meet the code, which includes the full fixture count.

No, it doesn't matter if we consider it an addition to an existing building. The new part still needs to meet the code, which includes fixture count.

No, we cannot consider just the one side of the stadium. If you want to eliminate one side then you have to physically tear them down.

No, the occupant load of the stadium cannot be adjusted. It must be calculated per the code.

No, we cannot substitute the UPC for fixture count because our NM code uses the IBC, period.

At one point the discussion got strangely argumentative which I really was not expecting. They said "I'm warning you, I might just want to include the occ load from those tennis courts over there too." :shock: That one really threw me for a loop. The courts are on the other side of the Gym so I didn't even consider them part of the equation, but apparently they could be used as a threat since I wasn't just rolling over and saying OK-you-win-I'll-go-away-now.

They did make one very minor concession. We could propose a single family/assisted toilet room as an addition to the existing facilities. In that case the existing restrooms would not need to be touched. Otherwise any renovations to the restrooms would trigger the full requirement. I might have been happy about this except the reason they gave is, "The ADA guys would kill us if we didn't try to work with you on that part". Ok, as long as you HAVE to throw me a bone so YOU don't get in trouble then i guess its just peachy. :roll:

So the end result is that no improvements will be made at all. :( The project is dead. :pitty I'm usually a proponent of codes in general but in this case I think the system has failed in a big way. I even got a "hey, you're welcome to submit a variance, but they're just gonna shoot it down, so go right ahead."

Ok... Rant over. Thanks for sticking with me this far.

-LP
 
Go for the variance...what do they have to lose? This really is too bad...By that logic, how do you get to add on the one bathroom without going to full compliance..?
 
lpiburn said:
So the end result is that no improvements will be made at all. :( The project is dead. :pitty I'm usually a proponent of codes in general but in this case I think the system has failed in a big way. I even got a "hey, you're welcome to submit a variance, but they're just gonna shoot it down, so go right ahead."
Click to expand...
Another building department failing to see the big picture.

I'm shocked their threats didn't win you over :-?
 
: ? : ? :

lpiburn,

Well at least you now know where the AHJ stands on the issue.

You finally obtained some clarity. :cheers

: ? : ? :
 
Don't go for the variance since that is not a code option. Go to the board of appeals

SECTION 113

BOARD OF APPEALS

113.1 General.

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall be appointed by the applicable governing authority and shall hold office at its pleasure. The board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business.

113.2 Limitations on authority.

An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code.

113.3 Qualifications.

The board of appeals shall consist of members who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and are not employees of the jurisdiction.

Base it on the fact that the new restrooms are an improvement, will meet ADA and the proposed fixture count is based on historical attendance figures. Don't forget to point out the UPC numbers and there is no scientific data on the number of fixtures required by the code. in other words they are arbitrary numbers. Oh and since it is a public meeting don't forget to invite the local press along for a story about how government is killing a project to provide newer sanitary restrooms "for the children",
 
Just another thought.

What code where you under when the original bleachers where installed?

What was the fixture count then?

It is an existing facility

Call the bathrooms an alteration

3403.1 General.

Additions to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of this code for new construction. Alterations to the existing building or structure shall be made to ensure that the existing building or structure together with the addition are no less conforming with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the addition . An existing building together with its additions shall comply with the height and area provisions of Chapter 5.

You should not have to provide more fixtures then what was required by the adopted code at the time the stadium was built.

Hopefully it was under the UPC code
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top