• 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

Rails and benches?

Re: Rails and benches?

RJJ.. the only photos you can't really alter are Polaroids.. and the cameras/film are getting harder and harder to find...

Courts have accepted time/date stamped digital photos for years...

unless Tom Hanks is superimposed, I guess..
 
Re: Rails and benches?

There is some cases out there that lawyers had the photos tossed! I use both just to be safe!

Go to photobucket and see how you can enhance a photo! pretty easy!

How is the snow in DC?
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Actually, my understanding is that the 'negative' was the admissable evidence, with the print being 'attested to' by the Code Official as being truly representative of the conditions observed on the date and time in question. Same would hold true for a digital equivalent and its' printed version. An :ugeek: can run a digital image through a computer and determine whether any anomolies exist that would lead to a conclusion of evidence tampering.
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Very shortly, Polaroid film and 35 mm film is going to be absolutely obsolete... there won't be a choice except to accept digital photography..

I see fewer and fewer places that process film...

Yes, you can alter digital photographs... Once you have to go to court to testify that the photos are what you saw, the temptation to alter the photos goes down.. it's called PERJURY!
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Interesting timing on this subject -

I went by a project today that had submitted a sketch of "bench railings" for the decks several months ago. I rejected the design as not being "equal or better" in terms of safety to a 36" guard. Well, the bench railings are built. So I expect what will happen is that they will take my denial decision (or my notice of violation) to the building board of appeals which to my knowledge has never been convened in my town. The ZBA sits as the Building Board of Appeals.

Another aspect of this which I don't think they have considered, is that the original building permit shows traditional guards and the building permit has not been amended/approved for a change in this element. In the meantime, , , the code has changed. So, should they win the appeal, and come in for an amended permit showing the bench guards, I can't approve it per 2009 IRC.

Any thoughts?
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Under the 06 code you don't have chapter and verse! So you loose! under 09 they have added the words for compliance. In the real world is it a fix? NO! But at least it is clear when a bench is included in the design what the rail height shall be.
 
Re: Rails and benches?

RJJ said:
Under the 06 code you don't have chapter and verse! So you loose! under 09 they have added the words for compliance. In the real world is it a fix? NO! But at least it is clear when a bench is included in the design what the rail height shall be.
Click to expand...
My feeling is that under '06 it is an equivalency determination made by the BO. A bench is not a guard, it perhaps can be equivilant to a guard, but it is a bench to start with. The question is, does the bench design provide the same or greater safety features as a traditional vertical guard. A guard (defined in the book) is to minimize the possbility of a fall. The definition of minimize is "to make small or insiginificant". My judgement as BO was that the bench/guard design did not minimize to an equal or greater degree as a verticle guard, the possibility of a fall. There is one book and thousands of situations. That is why there is often room for interpretation, and that is where a BO earns his pay, IMHO.

All that being said, this will probably end up going through the whole appeals procesws, so I would like to hear your thoughts on both the interpretation and on the building permit issues, as the conversation will help me prepare my arguments. Thanks
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Heaven said:
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
The whole, if they amend the permit drawings they have to meet the new code is, in my opinion, indication that the main agenda is not safety.

That sort of bureaucratic denial is all about gotcha'.
 
Re: Rails and benches?

brudgers said:
Heaven said:
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The whole, if they amend the permit drawings they have to meet the new code is, in my opinion, indication that the main agenda is not safety.

That sort of bureaucratic denial is all about gotcha'.

duplicate of below
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Heaven said:
brudgers said:
Heaven said:
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The whole, if they amend the permit drawings they have to meet the new code is, in my opinion, indication that the main agenda is not safety.

That sort of bureaucratic denial is all about gotcha'.
Click to expand...
Do I understand that you are saying that the permit drawings don't need to be (or shouldn't be required to be) ammended to show this change in the railing?

Since I denied the proposed bench/guard originally based on the safety issue, if I then use the (unexpected) permit process in my favor, what do you feel the main agenda might be seen as? Beyond that, if the appeals process doesn't support my original denial and the new design is submitted as an ammendment, can I approve it in conflict with the (new) code? By the way, if the appeals process overturns my original decision I am not adverse to that. That is how the process works.
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Heaven said:
Since I denied the proposed bench/guard originally based on the safety issue, if I then use the (unexpected) permit process in my favor,
Click to expand...
Your "favor?"

"use?"

If you need to use things in your favor, you're constructing an argument for your position not applying code.

If there isn't a clear cut prohibition in the code, then it's a matter of opinion.

If you can actually back that opinion up with facts demonstrating that a bench plus rail is not safe, then it's a professional opinion.

Otherwise, it's just an ordinary one.

While there may be specific issues with the configuration in this case, generally:

railing + standoff > or = safety of railing alone.

The further you keep a person from the edge, the less likely it is the person falls off the edge.
 
Re: Rails and benches?

"Construct an argument" for my position is exactly what happens and is expected when a board of appeals or a judge in court hears a case.

If technically I cannot issue a building permit on an amended application, whatever the judgment of the bench/guard might be, then I can save the owners and the jurisdiction time and money and I consider that pragmatic.

And you are right that it is a professional opinion, and that opinion can be based on the background and experiences of the professional and not only on facts in the numerical sense. This is what I understand interpretation to mean. If there are numerical facts, there is no longer (or, less of) an element of interpretation. I can use my background and experiences in life to interpret that a convenient built-in standing surface that essentially reduces the "guard" height to 24” can be considered an attractive nuisance for anyone under the age of 12, (and perhaps for many over the age of 12).

If the board of appeals has a collective mind from their background and experiences and they overturn my decision, that is fine. I don’t expect to have all of the answers all of the time.
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Heaven said:
"Construct an argument" for my position is exactly what happens and is expected when a board of appeals or a judge in court hears a case. If technically I cannot issue a building permit on an amended application, whatever the judgment of the bench/guard might be, then I can save the owners and the jurisdiction time and money and I consider that pragmatic.

And you are right that it is a professional opinion, and that opinion can be based on the background and experiences of the professional and not only on facts in the numerical sense. This is what I understand interpretation to mean. If there are numerical facts, there is no longer (or, less of) an element of interpretation. I can use my background and experiences in life to interpret that a convenient built-in standing surface that essentially reduces the "guard" height to 24” can be considered an attractive nuisance for anyone under the age of 12, (and perhaps for many over the age of 12).

If the board of appeals has a collective mind from their background and experiences and they overturn my decision, that is fine. I don’t expect to have all of the answers all of the time.
Click to expand...
A private attractive nuisance?

Now there's a bureaucratic leap.
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Sure.

Explian your difficulty with that metaphor?

Also, I am curious, what would NFPA say?
 
Re: Rails and benches?

A 12 year old would never sit on a railing would they?

BTW, this is sort of foolishness is why I recommend getting a lawyer involved when dealing with the building department.

Sure, you rejected it and they did it anyway.

But now it's become a blood feud.
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Heaven said:
Sure.Explian your difficulty with that metaphor?

Also, I am curious, what would NFPA say?
Click to expand...
36" rail, 4" sphere, nothing about benches.

NFPA 101 2003 7.2.2.4 via 24.2.5.1
 
Re: Rails and benches?

brudgers said:
A 12 year old would never sit on a railing would they?BTW, this is sort of foolishness is why I recommend getting a lawyer involved when dealing with the building department.

Sure, you rejected it and they did it anyway.

But now it's become a blood feud.
Click to expand...
Whoa! It isn't a blood feud, they had and have an avenue for relief from my decision through the building board of appeals. If they would like a laywer to do that, then they are welcome to hire one.

You never really answered my question about the ammended plans and the code change? Do you feel an ammended plan is required, If not, why not, if so, how would you suggest I treat the approval of a design that doesn't meet the code under which it was submitted?
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Heaven said:
brudgers said:
A 12 year old would never sit on a railing would they?BTW, this is sort of foolishness is why I recommend getting a lawyer involved when dealing with the building department.

Sure, you rejected it and they did it anyway.

But now it's become a blood feud.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Whoa! It isn't a blood feud, they had and have an avenue for relief from my decision through the building board of appeals. If they would like a laywer to do that, then they are welcome to hire one.

You never really answered my question about the ammended plans and the code change? Do you feel an ammended plan is required, If not, why not, if so, how would you suggest I treat the approval of a design that doesn't meet the code under which it was submitted?

Do you frequently change the code requirements mid project?
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Do you always answer a question with a question?
 
Re: Rails and benches?

Aha! Now I understand, brudgers is a lawyer!
 
Re: Rails and benches?

In RI we have had this we know better amendment since 1977 and the CABO regs

R312 Add new section as follows:

R312.3 Seat or Bench Elements.

Guardrails which incorporate seat or bench elements shall have a guardrail system complying with R312.2 to a height of 36” measured from the seat surface. The guardrail system shall also extend to the floor surface below the bench or seat element.

Exception:

1. Porches, balconies or raised floors 30” or less above the floor or grade below.

2. Freestanding moveable seat and bench elements
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top