• 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

Removing and Replacing Existing Elements for Repair

jar546

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,022
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
If you have a mid or high rise building with balconies that is going to undergo restoration for post tension repair and sealing of the envelope along with spalling that requires the removal of railings on the balconies that are not currently code compliant, will the railing system have to be updated to today's standards once they are removed?
 
As long as what was there is put back in its original configuration, I would say that the code is vague and therefore it is arguable that they do not have to be brought up to current code. From an applicant perspective, I'd state that the railings are not related to the project scope and are being temporarily moved to provide access.

From a BO's perspective, you can just about require anything if you believe it to be "unsafe".

IEBC 302.3 Existing Materials
Materials already in use in a building in compliance with requirements or approvals in effect at the time of their erection or installation shall be permitted to remain in use unless determined by the building official to be unsafe.

UNSAFE. Buildings, structures or equipment that are unsanitary, or that are deficient due to inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or that constitute a fire hazard, or in which the structure or individual structural members meet the definition of "Dangerous," or that are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance shall be deemed unsafe. A vacant structure that is not secured against entry shall be deemed unsafe.​
 
I believe the key here is "unsafe/dangerous", you have not indicated the nature of the noncompliance with current code? Is it picket spacing, height, connection detail or material deterioration? Current code reflects that the original fabrication is lacking in what was deemed to be unsafe due to accidents that may have happened.
 
In addition to what ADAguy posted

2012 IEBC
803.5 Guards.
The requirements of Sections 803.5.1 and 803.5.2 shall apply in all work areas.
803.5.1 Minimum requirement.
Every portion of a floor, such as a balcony or a loading dock, that is more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below and is not provided with guards, or those in which the existing guards are judged to be in danger of collapsing, shall be provided with guards.
803.5.2 Design.
Where there are no guards or where existing guards must be replaced, the guards shall be designed and installed in accordance with the International Building Code.
 
I am in favor of requiring new handrails meeting the new code, but I’m not sure how that could be enforced.

“where guards must be replaced” ... not sure that applies ... the guards are not being removed because they are defective, they are being temporarily removed to allow other maintenance work.
 
mtlogcabin said:
In addition to what ADAguy posted

2012 IEBC
803.5 Guards.
The requirements of Sections 803.5.1 and 803.5.2 shall apply in all work areas.
803.5.1 Minimum requirement.
Every portion of a floor, such as a balcony or a loading dock, that is more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below and is not provided with guards, or those in which the existing guards are judged to be in danger of collapsing, shall be provided with guards.
803.5.2 Design.
Where there are no guards or where existing guards must be replaced, the guards shall be designed and installed in accordance with the International Building Code.
Click to expand...

Isn't that for Level 2 alterations?
 
I disagree with the statement that "you can just about require anything if you believe it to be "unsafe"."

The building official enforces the building code and not his or her belief about what is unsafe. What is unsafe is often very subjective. This then creates a system where the building official can change the code without involving the adopting entity. We have a system of laws not a system ruled by autocrats.
 
No property maintenance code in effect? I'd use that to require the new rails and guards, and wouldn't feel even a little bit bad about it.

2015 IPMC:

307.1 General. Every exterior and interior flight of stairs having more than four risers shall have a handrail on one side of the stair and every open portion of a stair, landing, balcony, porch, deck, ramp or other walking surface that is more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards. Handrails shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) in height or more than 42 inches (1067 mm) in height measured vertically above the nosing of the tread or above the finished floor of the landing or walking surfaces. Guards shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) in height above the floor of the landing, balcony, porch, deck, or ramp or other walking surface.

Exception: Guards shall not be required where exempted by the adopted building code.
 
2018 IBC
[A] 116.1 Conditions.
Structures or existing equipment that are or hereafter become unsafe, insanitary or deficient because of inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or that constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance, shall be deemed an unsafe condition. Unsafe structures shall be taken down and removed or made safe, as the building official deems necessary and as provided for in this section. A vacant structure that is not secured against entry shall be deemed unsafe.

[A] 116.3 Notice.
If an unsafe condition is found, the building official shall serve on the owner, agent or person in control of the structure, a written notice that describes the condition deemed unsafe and specifies the required repairs or improvements to be made to abate the unsafe condition, or that requires the unsafe structure to be demolished within a stipulated time. Such notice shall require the person thus notified to declare immediately to the building official acceptance or rejection of the terms of the order.

2018 IEBC
1201.5 Unsafe conditions.
Conditions determined by the code official to be unsafe shall be remedied. Work shall not be required beyond what is required to remedy the unsafe conditions.
 
Mark K said:
I disagree with the statement that "you can just about require anything if you believe it to be "unsafe"."

The building official enforces the building code and not his or her belief about what is unsafe. What is unsafe is often very subjective. This then creates a system where the building official can change the code without involving the adopting entity. We have a system of laws not a system ruled by autocrats.
Click to expand...

The code defines unsafe, it's right up the page there ^^^ a few posts back. So while I (kind of) agree that we lowly little building inspectors can't "require anything we like", we dang sure can declare something unsafe and/or dangerous. It's an essential responsibility of the job.
 
What makes the current railings "unsafe"? Is it the baulister spacing or the height. Either one can be made code compliant fairly easy. I would use the approach that the guards do not meet today's requirement for this reason and suggest for safety and liability issues they may want to bring them into compliance. Document every thing and you might want to mention your documentation is a matter of public record and you hope they have good insurance if something happens because you documentation will be used by the insurance company for refusing to pay the claim. attach everything to the permit record
 
JCraver said:
The code defines unsafe, it's right up the page there ^^^ a few posts back. So while I (kind of) agree that we lowly little building inspectors can't "require anything we like", we dang sure can declare something unsafe and/or dangerous. It's an essential responsibility of the job.
Click to expand...
This is exactly my point and the reason I also provided the definition of "unsafe".
 
Mark K said:
I disagree with the statement that "you can just about require anything if you believe it to be "unsafe"."

The building official enforces the building code and not his or her belief about what is unsafe. What is unsafe is often very subjective. This then creates a system where the building official can change the code without involving the adopting entity. We have a system of laws not a system ruled by autocrats.
Click to expand...

When in doubt, consult with your jurisdiction attorney for an opinion.
 
I could live with them putting the same guards back in, in the same configuration. If they need to replace them, then they need brought up to code.
 
You don't have as many lawyers in Canada as we do, in your case it may come down to a risk management issue vs what the insurance carrier is willing to underwrite.
 
There might not be a code requirement to update them, but I don't think you will get much sympathy from a jury if if somebody falls and gets injured or killed. The present code requirements are in response to people getting injured or killed doing stupid things, such as wrestling on a balcony while drunk, or leaving toddlers unattended on a high-rise balcony. Courts don't recognize the Darwin principle.
 
Looking at this from a structural perspective I have great difficulty imagining a situation where something that complies with the code is truly unsafe. If you disagree provide specific examples not hypotheticals.

The definitions of unsafe or dangerous are very subjective and can result in multiple interpretations.

Putting aside the definitions of unsafe or dangerous if something does not comply with the code require, that it be made code compliant. I suggest that the truly unsafe conditions can be found not to comply with an objective code provision.

There are undoubtably differences of opinion regarding how safe the code should be but from the building officials perspective those were resolved when the code was adopted.

More fundamentally our system of laws requires that the law be written down so it can be understood what is required and if they are sufficiently vague then the law can be considered void. In this context the fact that the vague requirement was adopted into the building code is irrelevant because the adopting entity did not have the authority to adopt a vague law..

It may be argued that this system allows an "unsafe" condition but the building official cannot impose his own preference. In those situations where the building code does not provide the answer our legal system addresses this by the application of the tort laws which are under the jurisdiction of the courts and not the building official.
 
Old spacing (>4") of pickets does not comply with current codes and was changed because it was unsafe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top