• 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

Res. Bldg. Code Administration

G

globe trekker

Registered User
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,739
Greetings to you all!

I have been asked for my opinion on the aspect of Res. Bldg. Code Administration.

SCENARIO: AHJ has adopted an edition of the I-codes (2003, or 2006 or 2009 or

2012), and is administering them as best as they can / know how to. In between

what has been adopted and the next code edition to be adopted, the AHJ decides

to start requiring different aspects of what they have adopted. Whether that "new"

aspect is soil conditions of sites, validity of termite spraying, minimum required

amounts of thermal insulation installation, nailing patterns, verification of wood

grades or anything else in what they have adopted. The AHJ has not been previously

requiring or inspecting for any of the "new" aspects, but decides that they want to

start requiring and inspecting for the (minimum) requirements.

FWIW, everything that the AHJ is "now" requiring is in the their adopted edition

of the I-codes, and not an amendment of any kind.

QUESTION # 1: Do any of you have this scenario? If so, how do you handle it?

QUESTION # 2: Is there any kind of legal "overstepping" of the AHJ authority in

a situation like this?

Thanks for your input!

.
 
FWIW, everything that the AHJ is "now" requiring is in the their adopted editionof the I-codes, and not an amendment of any kind.
Click to expand...
If it is in the adopted code they can require an inspection.

R109.1.5 Other inspections.

In addition to the called inspections above, the building official may make or require any other inspections to ascertain compliance with this code and other laws enforced by the building official .
 
If I'm understanding you correctly, the AHJ has adopted standards that they haven't been fully enforcing.

Now they want to start enforcing something that been on the books for some time.

My interpretation is that they have every legal right to enforce the adopted Codes.

However....if they have expressly "allowed", with documentation, some variations in the past; they may have inadvertently created legal basis for these "amendments" to continue.

AHJ should contact their Council

mj
 
I think mjesse got it pretty good......we are all allowed to learn and correct our ways......if something has been specifically allowed it might be a little harder to turn that ship around.....
 
"Much Thanks" for the input!

2 different views so far.. I have mixed thoughts as well on what say to the party that asked me.

Any other views / thoughts / opinions ?

.
 
steveray said:
I think mjesse got it pretty good......we are all allowed to learn and correct our ways......if something has been specifically allowed it might be a little harder to turn that ship around.....
Click to expand...
All you have to do is provide some kind of notification to contractors in the area. We did this when the old CBO left and we starting enforcing more than just foundation provisions.

Most of the contractors were all for it because we cut the legs out of the sketchy ones.
 
Just to expand on what I said earlier. This is a fairly time intensive process; we preformed inspections that we couldn't enforce (most contractors were happy to correct any problems regardless of our ability to force them to or not) for months to see what level all our contractors were at and what the problems were across the board. once we had this data we held a meeting that all the contractors were invited to and did a mail-out. In doing it this way we had buy in from our local contractors, who were then more than happy to comply voluntarily, rather than having to fight with each of them. We still had to fight with a couple of them, but it was easy with the majority complying voluntarily. We are lucky here to have contractors that understand that if they build better buildings the customers are happier and they sell bore buildings. Unfortunately I can see that I am in the minority on this board since some people on here have to fight for every inch.
 
R105.8 Responsibility.

It shall be the duty of every person who performs work for the installation or repair of building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems, for which this code is applicable, to comply with this code.

I don't see any "legal" issues unless the AHJ had some written policy or handouts that contributed to a failure somewhere.

Start like it is a code change and follow tmurray's example to educated the contractors.
 
If the code official wasn't enforcing parts of the code then started

This code section should take care of any legal issue.

Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code or statewide code interpretation. R104.1
 
If it is adopted, then it is enforceable. As to when they start dropping the hammer on it does not matter. Myself, I would probably give a a hall pass to each till the contractors understand this is the new normal.
 
If it were only that simple "fatboy", ..if only it were that simple!

The good `ol boy network is alive & well in that particular AHJ, legally adopted

codes or not.

.
 
tmurray said:
All you have to do is provide some kind of notification to contractors in the area. We did this when the old CBO left and we starting enforcing more than just foundation provisions. Most of the contractors were all for it because we cut the legs out of the sketchy ones.
Click to expand...
tmurray said:
All you have to do is provide some kind of notification to contractors in the area. We did this when the old CBO left and we starting enforcing more than just foundation provisions. Most of the contractors were all for it because we cut the legs out of the sketchy ones.
Click to expand...
Agree with this approach, may give one free be depending on what the item is.

After the first, if given, you shall comply.

Which pointed out already they are suppose to anyway.

Kind of like some seminar instructors say, if you have learned you have been missing something from this class, please to not jump on the contractors with both feet at first.
 
You have to start somewhere...ease into it...educate your contractors and the public.
 
If what you were previously enforcing/accepting was not in compliance with the adopted code you have an obligation to correct your practices. Depending on cost of correction and impact on health and life safety the owner may have a vested right not to have to make changes to completed construction. This is where you’re attorney should be consulted. The cost of correction vs benefit ratio would have to be high before vesting is likely to be a concern. If the work is in process vesting should not be a concern.

If somebody is doing something that is in compliance with a reasonable interpretation of the code but not one you prefer he gets to do it his way. You are obligated to interpret the code and it is understand that your interpretation can evolve. The previous two statements may be in tension with each other and the correct interpretation will depend on the circumstances.

There needs to be clarification what was meant by “…inspections that we couldn’t enforce.” Was the word “couldn’t referring to legal, staffing constraints, or political constraints? If the constraint was legal you were probably overstepping in even commenting on the perceived problem.
 
globe trekker said:
If it were only that simple "fatboy", ..if only it were that simple!The good `ol boy network is alive & well in that particular AHJ, legally adopted

codes or not.

.
Click to expand...
Then I'd ask the head of the good ol' boy network (your boss) how they want you to handle it .....
 
In Massachusetts when we change codes we have 6 month concurency period where you can use either code until the new code comes into full force and effect.
 
Enforcement of code requirements in a jurisdiction evolves over time as staff knowlege base improves and as issues are encountered.

One of our examples is many years ago we accepted flushing certificates for underground fireline flushing, after a couple sprinkler systems got filled with rocks due to inadequate flushing, we started witnessing all UG flushing as a separate inspection.
 
if it is in the code, then it is AHJ-enforceable and the regulated community is required to be in compliance - whether the AHJ is inspecting for it or not.

an AHJ cannot enforce the next edition of the code, only the current one.

and if the AHJ is springing new stuff on you that is in the code, well, that's code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top