• 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

Question for members about the purpose of this website

Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Nononsense posted:I have a new type II-B building with a type V-B existing building 18 feet away on the same property, both building are “E” occupancy.

Am I interpreting the ICC (2006) table 602 correctly in that I don’t need to rate the exterior wall of the new building? If not what am I missing.
Click to expand...
Since this thread is becoming circular or vortex-like. I decided to make a scoreboard of the responses to the original post, using acceptable and questionable answers rather than right or wrong because that couldn't apply. So what follows is done in humor (mine, may not be yours).

Scoreboard for Building Separation thread:

Acceptable:

1. Draw a line - if FSD less than 10' - 1 hour

2. if total building areas are within VB allowed - 1 building

3. get an architect, dp, etc.

4. if total building areas are within VB allowed and greater than 20,000 sf - sprinklers

5. suggested lubricant

Questionable:

1. Fire areas defined by exterior walls

2. everybody in Oregon is qualified to design buildings

3. How about those Jets?

4. building separation or thread lock - see No. 5 above

As long as we seem to guessing the idenity of Nononsense, the original poster. Either, he was the builder who expanded the building at the insistance of the building committee of the (possibly private) school and got caught by the building department; or, a representative of that building committee (or their attorney) that made the decision and now doesn't want to pay for the extra.

Since he thanked us in advance, I don't think he'll return with a final thank you after reading his thread.

End of my humor. :roll:
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Plans Approver wrote;

Since this thread is becoming circular or vortex-like. I decided to make a scoreboard of the responses to the original post, using acceptable and questionable answers rather than right or wrong because that couldn't apply. So what follows is done in humor (mine, may not be yours).Scoreboard for Building Separation thread:

Acceptable:

1. Draw a line - if FSD less than 10' - 1 hour

2. if total building areas are within VB allowed - 1 building

3. get an architect, dp, etc.

4. if total building areas are within VB allowed and greater than 20,000 sf - sprinklers

5. suggested lubricant

Questionable:

1. Fire areas defined by exterior walls

2. everybody in Oregon is qualified to design buildings

3. How about those Jets?

4. building separation or thread lock - see No. 5 above

As long as we seem to guessing the idenity of Nononsense, the original poster. Either, he was the builder who expanded the building at the insistance of the building committee of the (possibly private) school and got caught by the building department; or, a representative of that building committee (or their attorney) that made the decision and now doesn't want to pay for the extra.

Since he thanked us in advance, I don't think he'll return with a final thank you after reading his thread.

End of my humor. :roll:
Click to expand...
If they gave prizes for overall best post of both treads, you should win. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Thanks to TBO for tossing out a bone to chew with some meat on it.

Primary value for this forum for me is to get other opinions when I hit those stumps in the road, those invisible snags under the water's surface that we always hit when trying to apply code rules to real life.

No matter how well written a code section is there will always be pegs encountered that you can't fit in the hole, whether round or square.

Some answers I have gotten here and from the old BB actually opened my eyes to views I had not known. Many answers left me chastened or embarassed by my ignorance, but I have always learned from them.

As far as the broader public, I don't respond as well or as often to DIYers, but I don't care if they fish in this pond.

Info and opinions are for sharing.

One of my frequent lectures to John Q Citizen about codes holds that the codes are a set of legal documents written by engineers, so that understanding them takes the penetration of two different veils of arcana, passage into two zones of protected and/or hidden knowledge. Understanding and interpreting them, then applying them to daily situations may be difficult.
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Well said JB. I particularly like the reference to snags under the water.

What we should agree on is to share our knowledge with all that come here to fish our pond. Our direction should always be tempered to the level of understanding that is relevant to the one asking the question. If it be a home owner, an inspector or a design professional.

There are many times I don't agree with another view of a situation, but even then I try to see the positive in that position. On a day to day bases, we all live with the same basic codes. We inspect and deal with similar problems. From Texas to NY, from Pa to LA we share a commen bond of life and safety. Our front counters may differ in size and shape, while our ahj's both large and small vary and are different. The commen thread is that we all come here for improvement, so in the end we can do a better job.
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Pcinspector1 said:
This board is a valuble tool that I use every day while doing my duties as a building offical. I don't have all the answers and don't claim that I do, but the board's post or questions make me crack open the books and test my brain for what knowledge I have accumulated.Thank's to the moderators time and to all that make this the best board it can be. :)
Click to expand...
I wish I had written this. I also wish that the know-it-alls (they don't) who belittle others with their posts would go use the ICC board instead.
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Plans Approver said:
Nononsense posted:I have a new type II-B building with a type V-B existing building 18 feet away on the same property, both building are “E” occupancy.

Am I interpreting the ICC (2006) table 602 correctly in that I don’t need to rate the exterior wall of the new building? If not what am I missing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Since this thread is becoming circular or vortex-like. I decided to make a scoreboard of the responses to the original post, using acceptable and questionable answers rather than right or wrong because that couldn't apply. So what follows is done in humor (mine, may not be yours).

Scoreboard for Building Separation thread:

Acceptable:

1. Draw a line - if FSD less than 10' - 1 hour

2. if total building areas are within VB allowed - 1 building

3. get an architect, dp, etc.

4. if total building areas are within VB allowed and greater than 20,000 sf - sprinklers

5. suggested lubricant

Questionable:

1. Fire areas defined by exterior walls

2. everybody in Oregon is qualified to design buildings

3. How about those Jets?

4. building separation or thread lock - see No. 5 above

As long as we seem to guessing the idenity of Nononsense, the original poster. Either, he was the builder who expanded the building at the insistance of the building committee of the (possibly private) school and got caught by the building department; or, a representative of that building committee (or their attorney) that made the decision and now doesn't want to pay for the extra.

Since he thanked us in advance, I don't think he'll return with a final thank you after reading his thread.

End of my humor. :roll:

Is this post in the right topic?
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Y'all do realize that the 'Hey, how about those Jets?' post was just to get things out of the 'danger zone', right?
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

JD, the Jets will be in the "danger zone" with the Colts next Sunday. :) ;)
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Time will tell my friend. Time will tell. I stepped in a few piles of dog 'stuff' on Sunday morning just in case, since it seemed to work I'll be dirtying my shoes again next Sunday. :lol:
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Stepped ina pile of what???

Behind who's barn???

I didn't even know they had a cow!!! :D
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Pcinspector1 said:
This board is a valuble tool that I use every day while doing my duties as a building offical. I don't have all the answers and don't claim that I do, but the board's post or questions make me crack open the books and test my brain for what knowledge I have accumulated.Thank's to the moderators time and to all that make this the best board it can be. :)
Click to expand...
+1

Sometimes I am surprised (again just now, reason for posting here) at the incredible knowledge and talent represented by some members of this board.

I am a "newbie" inspector, therefor I do far more reading than posting. But I truly appreciate the participation and input I read from everyone.

Thanks for being here, and thanks again to JAR

mj
 
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website

Well years ago I went back to school for these classes to become an inspector. Sat in with all sorts of people with experience ranging from zip to years from retirement. It was amazing the sound of the slap of the forehead when the instructors gave resons for this or that meaning to the code. (Slap was oh---that's why to I didn't do it that way, etc...)

Fast forward to the UBC boards where the same forehead slap comes up now and again.

I figure the reason I'm here is to impart my take on the code and take some of the mystery out of the reasons for some section(that and it's real slow out here). Everyone can come up with a section that says you can't do this and sure enough dozens of photos show up that work. We take measurements as gospel because it says 3, 5 ,10, 20 ft and spit it out to John Q. Public all the time except he doesn't understand the why. We need to explain the why IMHO if asked and not because the book says so. And we going to have different takes depending on how we are brought into the code areas.

There are people way smarter than me in certain areas and others just starting in the business and a still smaller group including DPs and homeowers that never got all the reasons for this or that section but just want help. I say let's treat them the same as if they showed up on your counter and asked the same question. Some times the answer is no or get a design professional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top