Potential Code Adoption in 2027

[redbird11]

Hello,
I’m starting the design and documentation for a project that will submit for permit in 2027. The current adopted codes are 2018 but a committee plans to adopt 2024 in 2027.

How would you handle this scenario? Do I design to 2018? 2024? How can I follow local amendments if they are not done yet?

 

[tmurray]

The way we handled this recently was that if a project was able to get a phased permit for a foundation, they were able to "lock in" the edition of the code for subsequent phases even if those phases happened after the code was changed. We wanted to ensure that larger multi-year design cycle projects did not have to go back for major re-designs or get rushed into permitted (resulting in a greater chance of errors and code violations).

We also encouraged local building departments to accept designs to the version of the code we were adopting ahead of adoption. That way if someone had done their design, thinking that they would be under the next version, but somehow got finished early, they could get started right away.

This is probably one of the more challenging aspects of building code administration in allowing some reasonable exceptions without creating an enormous loophole. It might be also good to talk to the local AHJ and see how they are administering the code change process.

 

[steveray]

In CT if it is substantially designed before code adoption the State gives a modification....Or you can apply for the permit before the code change and that locks in the date... But you will have to know or find the rules and regs where you are...

 

[Sifu]

In my experience with this issue a few times they were permitted to design the project to the code at the time, but in those cases the AHJ's were able to start the permit process before the next code was adopted. I think one or two got approval to extend the application process. Typically everything goes by application date so it wasn't a stretch to let them apply a little early and extend them.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The last I knew, Massachusetts used a 6-month overlap when adopting a new code cycle. For six months following the adoption of a new code, plans based on the previous code were accepted. I don't know if that's still the modus operandi.

As steveray wrote, you will have to find out what the rules are in the jurisdiction where the project will be constructed.

 

[Paul Sweet]

It depends on state regulations. Virginia allows buildings to be designed under the previous code edition to be submitted for a building permit for one year after a new edition is adopted.

 

[tbz]

How would you handle this scenario? Do I design to 2018? 2024? How can I follow local amendments if they are not done yet?

As a designer IMO you should be keeping up with all future codes changes that the model codes are debating now, not just what is in the currently adopted code in the jurisdiction for your project. Lets face it, building codes and changes to them are more glacier like than a dragstrip in their changes.

As thus, keeping a project inline with the most restrictive by doing the research of what's ahead is valuable to your clients in preventing change orders later. As to a less restrictive change, revisit it as you get closer to permitting then, and only then, make a change if the plans warrant the less restrictive requirement with it being in the latest adoption by the AHJ. The bottom line is the adopted code being enforced is a minimum.

Compare the currently adopted 2018 with modifications, with the model 2021 & 2024 editions for the changes. As noted above, design for the most restrictive with a list of optional changes that might be able to be made depending on the future adoption just prior to permit submittal.

There are designers, and I believe by your post that you are trying not be one of them, that will design for the lesser restriction and push hard to submit it in before the buzzer of the new adoption. I understand the dollars and cents part sometimes, but knowingly designing something to a lesser requirement you know is coming for a published reason, depending on the reason can be sticky later on.

In my little world, which is misc. metals fabrication, we stay abreast of currently enforced through all later model codes, plus what is being debated in the most current cycles of not only the ICC and the NFPA, but any other codes and standards and other conflicts that might affect what we work on. It is part of the job and what the clients I work with expect to be delivered.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

There are designers, and I believe by your post that you are trying not be one of them, that will design for the lesser restriction and push hard to submit it in before the buzzer of the new adoption. I understand the dollars and cents part sometimes, but knowingly designing something to a lesser requirement you know is coming for a published reason, depending on the reason can be sticky later on.

Please explain how designing to the code in effect in the jurisdiction can become sticky later?

I was an architect long before I also became a building official. As a design professional, our responsibility -- our duty -- is to design to the codes that are in effect in the jurisdiction where the project will be constructed. We have no legal, moral, or ethical duty to exceed code requirements unless our client requests it. We are deciding how the client's money will be spent. It can be argued that we have a fiduciary responsibility to our client to NOT design to anything more than what the code requires.

Early in my career as an architect, the firm I worked for designed an 80,000 square foot factory. The structural engineer included diagonal cross-bracing in the plane of the roof. The owner's representative -- who was himself an engineer -- question the need for it. He pointed out that the company had recently constructed essentially the same building in another state, farther north with a heavier snow load, and the roof deck itself was sufficient to provide the level of wracking resistance required by the code. Our structural engineer (who was a consultant to our firm -- we were just architects) said he knew the roof deck provided all the bracing required by code but he just felt it was "better" to add separate cross-bracing.

The client read him the riot act. Fortunately the client wasn't mad at us, but he told us in no uncertain terms that he wasn't paying for a design that included anything more than what the code required. The engineer was given a choice -- design to the code, or be replaced.

Always looking at the next edition of the model codes is not always a good idea. For example, In 2005 Connecticut adopted the 2003 ICC codes. Connecticut then skipped right over the 2006 and 2009 model codes, finally adopting the 2012 ICC codes -- but not until October of 2016. Connecticut design professionals were told that the state would adopt the 2024 I-codes in 2025. I hope they didn't start designing to the 2024 codes, because now the State is saying the 2024 codes won't be adopted until some time in 2026. Design professionals can't run a business based on vaporware code adoptions.

The sticky wicket is when a design professional is in the design stage (or the construction documents stage) and they know a new code is coming. As has been discussed, some states anticipate this by administratively building into the adoption process an overlap period. Connecticut doesn't do this by statute or regulation, but the State Building Inspector may grant modifications on a case-by-case basis to use the previous code when it can be shown that adoption of a new code occurred during the design process. Likewise, as an architect I have successfully petitioned the State Building Inspector to use a future edition of the codes -- but this only works when adoption is fairly certain and fairly near, and the State has pretty much decided which sections of the next code are going to be amended.

 

[tbz]

CC, I spent the better part of 20 plus years of my career on correcting architectural designs that were designed for the code that was in place when they started drawing, when the project was likely not to be permitted for 2 - 3 years out and if they had simply looked at the possible changes down the road could have been avoided. The amount of change orders that could have been avoided on the vast majority of those projects by the design firm simply educating themselves and looking ahead at what is coming down the path and may or may not be required makes more sense and seems prudent to providing your client with good foresight and is being fiscally prudent.

I worked in many jurisdictions over my career, and NJ was on a mix of 3-year and 6-year cycles of adoption for most of it, and NYC was a whole other program. Your statement about CT code adoptions is the norm and vastly common across the entire USA and other countries. Understanding that and seeing what is in the pipeline and designing for a major change that may or may not come into play is a coin flip.

The OP asked a simple question should they design for the current code in adoption or the possible code that might be required. Designing ahead for something that might hit the books in my opinion is good practice.

Your view of designing for the least the project has to do, the current code, rather than looking ahead at the model codes and making the choice to design for the future, is hedging a bet, the question is do you just do it, or do you have the discussion with the client and form a common bond to show them your professionalism.

There is a widely known meme out there with 2 boats, the little boat says contract & the yacht says change order. By taking the path of looking ahead and having the talk with the client of the options, is totally different than your point on the engineering firm you noted in post #8. I do see that as your design firms failure to communicate to the engineering firm to design for the minimum needed, rather than design something they believed should be built. Dropping the blame on the engineer who is over designing with the future in mind over simply something they know will work, rather than just the minimum, what a thought making something better and more safe.

Here is a thought for you, how does someone with a high school education only, end up being contacted to correct projects that multi-million dollar design teams have put together that if they had done the homework of looking forward rather than not, the high school educated nobody would still be sitting behind a welder fabricating.

The sticky you ask, is watching the Designer explain to "Their Client" how the lonely high school welder just explained why the change order is required and needed because the So called "Design Team" did not do their homework on the future, and they are now spending 3 times as much because the designers client already paid for the first part to be done wrong, that now has to be ripped out and be re-done right.

Call it what you want - I use the term Sticky......