• 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

The difference

Re: The difference

Section 102.1 is clear in what is appliable. The most restrictive shall govern, or the specific shall be appliable. No ifs ands or buts. When there's options, pass them on to the DP, owner or applicant. They choose what to use and their design. Code officials review and inspect.
 
Re: The difference

Brudgers,

You just had to go there and bring in the City Attorney! :eek:

City Attorneys - Generally graduated from Law School and Passed the Bar. They Practice Law!

I just wish I could spend my entire career "Practicing", But I actually have to Apply the Law, Enforce the Law, Prosecute the Law, Pursue Corrections, etc. And in all that I have to Educate, Inform, Render Interpretations, Enter Areas with Physical Hazards, Approach Hostile Individuals (who by the way are never impressed when you mention the City Attorney), and then after all that try to get the City Attorney to understand the fundamentals of Code Language. When I can get through the City Attorney file paperwork with the Court and get in front of a Judge... (another former City Attorney in a black robe), the Judge wants to ensure the offender has had due process and multiple opportunities to correct before issuing an order to correct the very problem that started the process. Or the Judge issues a fine and does not order the correction and the process begins all over again.

Ge Whiz Brugers Why did you have to bring up City Attorneys.

Oh By the Way, my future Son in Law wants to be a City Attorney like his Dad.... :roll:
 
Re: The difference

GPE

I some times fall back to,

"What you think you heard is not necessarily what I meant to say."
 
Re: The difference

FyrBldgGuy said:
Brudgers,You just had to go there and bring in the City Attorney! :eek:

City Attorneys - Generally graduated from Law School and Passed the Bar. They Practice Law!

I just wish I could spend my entire career "Practicing", But I actually have to Apply the Law, Enforce the Law, Prosecute the Law, Pursue Corrections, etc. And in all that I have to Educate, Inform, Render Interpretations, Enter Areas with Physical Hazards, Approach Hostile Individuals (who by the way are never impressed when you mention the City Attorney), and then after all that try to get the City Attorney to understand the fundamentals of Code Language. When I can get through the City Attorney file paperwork with the Court and get in front of a Judge... (another former City Attorney in a black robe), the Judge wants to ensure the offender has had due process and multiple opportunities to correct before issuing an order to correct the very problem that started the process. Or the Judge issues a fine and does not order the correction and the process begins all over again.

Ge Whiz Brugers Why did you have to bring up City Attorneys.

Oh By the Way, my future Son in Law wants to be a City Attorney like his Dad.... :roll:
You may have hit on something.

Perhaps too many codes officials no longer feel the need to practice.
 
Re: The difference

pyrguy,

how about; “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

credit: Robert McCloskey

GPE
 
Re: The difference

I had a code official tell me, "When it comes to interpretations, everybody's got one," (which reminds me of a line in a movie talking about 'excuses' concluding, "and they all stink," but this BO's finished) "but mine's the one that counts." This is true, and is what I believe the OP was driving at.

My experience includes authorities who concur with my interpretation, authorities who render more strict interpretations, and others who seek lesser protection (based on my interpretation of their interpretation). I also claim responsibility for creation of an interim City code amendment: after being presented with my interpretation, the City code was subsequently modified (incidentally, the amendment is not retained with the 2009 code language).

Similar to FredK's statement, I've sat across the table from an official who told me that the code is black and white, an interpretation with which I disagree.

I am convinced there is gray matter, and I thrive on it - both what is between the ears of all the stakeholders to facilitate a professional and intellectual discussion and the shades of gray present in the code that promote such conversation.

To respond to FredK's request for examples of a part of the code that is not clear cut, consider:

  • Exit width measurement for swinging door that does not open 90º[/*:m:d84mj77o]
  • A 1-hour fire command center per 403.8 in a high-rise with fire alarm survivability per 403.6[/*:m:d84mj77o]
  • Is separation of a story from an atrium in accordance with Exception 1 to 404.5 sufficient to consider it not connected for the purposes of applying the Exception to 404.4? Does the answer differ if it is Type I-A construction or depending on the number of separated floors?[/*:m:d84mj77o]
  • Given a 1,800 square-foot banquet hall (1,800/15=120) where the BO has identified a fire area with a reduced occupant load of less than 100 in accordance with the Exception to IBC Section 1004.1.1, are sprinklers required per IFC 903.2.1.2 by the FCO?[/*:m:d84mj77o]
  • Given a 96-hour run time per 2702.1, should the fire pump per 403.10.2 be automatically shut-off after running for 2 hours or must it be capable of running for 96 hours (requiring a larger generator fuel tank)?[/*:m:d84mj77o]
  • In a 3-story dwelling unit with NFPA 13 sprinkler protection, how do you reconcile Exception 3 to IBC 1020.1 with NFPA 13-8.14.4.5?[/*:m:d84mj77o]
Now I realize that some may have a black-and-white response to each of these, but I would offer that there is also room for interpretation.
 
Re: The difference

In a 3-story dwelling unit with NFPA 13 sprinkler protection, how do you reconcile Exception 3 to IBC 1020.1 with NFPA 13-8.14.4.5?

IBC 1020.1 deals with stairs that are a part of the means of egress not being enclosed.

NFPA 13, Section 8.14.4.5 addresses convenience openings, which by definition are not a part of the means of egress.
 
Re: The difference

Too little, too late perhaps, but back on the subject of interpreting code to an attorney, this is my personal favorite.

I was having one of those 8 month battles with some property owners, (married couple) on specific project requirements: building permit, engineering, occupancy classifacation, fire resistiveness, etc.

They finally had enough of my obstinacy and hired an attorney to fight me in their stead. I get a call from the attorney requesting a meeting in his office. I cheerfully agreed and arrived at his office with code book in hand.

We discussed different subjects (all code related), I presented the appropriate code sections regarding each subject. After about twenty minutes in his office, he closed my code book and said, "There is nothing I love more than to argue points of law in court, but I can't find anything here to argue about. I'll call my clients and recommend that they comply."

Needless to say, I was all warm and fuzzy for the rest of the day.
 
Re: The difference

The type of code analysis a typical homeowner is going to do, is a bit different from that of a typical design professional.

The idea that a design professional's opinion of the code doesn't count is non-sense.

A design professional's opinion counts, and probably carries more weight than a building official's in a court of law.

There's a difference between, "I don't need no stinking permit," and "The code does not prohibit an exit sign in that location."
 
Re: The difference

GPE, I personally would use "You misremember what I said." :)

Brudgers, of course the design professional's opinion counts), but in the end, the only interpretation that matters is the BO's until it is overturned or reinterpreted by a Board of Appeals, Mayor, or some other authority figure.
 
Re: The difference

cboboggs said:
GPE, I personally would use "You misremember what I said." :) Brudgers, of course the design professional's opinion counts), but in the end, the only interpretation that matters is the BO's until it is overturned or reinterpreted by a Board of Appeals, Mayor, or some other authority figure.
A design professional is obligated to exercise independent judgment regardless of what the building official says.

He or she cannot allow an unsafe condition just because the BO says something meets code.

Code officials who believe that only their interpretation counts are the reason a design professional should bring the city attorney into the conversation.
 
Re: The difference

A design professional is obligated to exercise independent judgment regardless of what the building official says. AgreeHe or she cannot allow an unsafe condition just because the BO says something meets code. Agree

Code officials who believe that only their interpretation counts are the reason a design professional should bring the city attorney into the conversation.
Disagree Jurisdictions that have adopted Chapter 1 the next step would be the Board of Appeals112.1 General.

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals.

112.3 Qualifications.

The board of appeals shall consist of members who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and are not employees of the jurisdiction.

This should be a board of diverse membership, engineers, architects, contractors, and others who would have far more combined codes/construction experience than any city attorney who may base his/her decision on any number of non-code related reasons

The procedure in Chapter 1 is there to allow a due process procedure to resolve problems.

A city attorney's job is to represent the city and its interest in the day to day operations, advice staff of legal matters when asked. They are not there to arbitrate code decisions between the code official and contractors and designers.
 
Re: The difference

Let's all try to remember that not all Code Officials are incompetent, not all Design Professionals know the Code very well, and most Attorneys worth their law degree will ask the 'expert' first.

If it is a pure Code question, that is without a doubt the local Code Official. It is not a matter of whose opinion 'counts more'. The best Engineers I know, same for Architects, will talk to Code Officials regarding Code specific questions.

Now, if you want an in depth analysis of a structural system, different story. I know a few Code Officials that can actually prepare one, a very few. For that I will always defer to a qualified DP. I know a larger group of Code Officials that can understand that analysis, a much larger group. As a CO, I am not required to have a degree. OTJT. On the job training. I know more today than yesterday and less than I will tomorrow.

We all know guys/gals on 'the other side of the counter' who should re-evaluate their career goals. It's easy to make broad statements, especially in cyberland where there is no personal contact. But some of the threads lately are just becoming verbal sparring matches that degrade into trash talk. It's a waste of time. Nobody wins, but everybody loses.

No need top remind me that I am also guilty of it myself, but in my defense I am bipartisan with who I pi$$ off. ;) I'll stop preaching now...
 
Re: The difference

From Coug Dad:

IBC 1020.1 deals with stairs that are a part of the means of egress not being enclosed.NFPA 13, Section 8.14.4.5 addresses convenience openings, which by definition are not a part of the means of egress.
Perhaps then we should also consider Exception 1 to IBC 707.2.

If the standard is considered to trump the code, then we would have additional separation for a convenience opening, but not a required means of egress, which pierce the same floors - is this really what the code would intend?

I think one conflict could be where NFPA 13 anticipates construction based on NFPA 101, which in this regard may be more restrictive than that permitted by Exception 3 of IBC 1020.1 or Exception 1 of IBC Section 707.2.

Incidentally, the commentary to NFPA 13 8.14.4.5 offers a stair in an apartment as an example, so maybe there is a discrepancy in definitions also.
 
Re: The difference

mtlogcabin said:
Disagree Jurisdictions that have adopted Chapter 1 the next step would be the Board of Appeals
The reason to bring the attorney in early is to avoid having to appeal.

Go back and read my comments.

This is no more about due process than "my way or the highway is."

It's about moving projects through the process and around the obstacles.

The first best step is a preliminary meeting and a memo to the code official containing the desired interpretation, and inviting a response to clarify any misunderstandings.

A good long paper trail is handy if you meet with the attorney, particularly when it's one sided.
 
Re: The difference

The first best step is a preliminary meeting and a memo to the code official containing the desired interpretation, and inviting a response to clarify any misunderstandings
Agree and the BO's reasons should be backed up with code sections. Personally I have accepted 3rd party code consultants analysis and I have been very pleased with the outcome. We all walked away learning something and there was a very detailed analysis I could agree with and sign off on and stick in the file that years later would be able to answers any questions as to why that was allowed.

This is no more about due process than "my way or the highway is."
The appeals board works both ways it will put a "my way or the highway" BO in his place. To many of those and he should be out the door. I can understand where you have probably run into this attitude a number of times just because of where you are located. I think everyone on this board would agree that an attitude like that is unproffessional and that person would not be working for us long
 
Re: The difference

Uncle Bob said:
Brudgers,"when there are two or more possible code interpretations the most restrictive code interpretation does not necessarily apply."

You bring up an important and often misunderstood subject.

Both 104.1 of the IBC and IRC;

"The Building Official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of it's provisions."

Many people think that to interpret; you give your opinion, or view. That is not true.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Definition of Interpret.

"1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms."

Merriam-Webster Thesaurus; Synonym of Interpret.

"Meaning: to make plain or understandable." Explain

There is only one authoritative "Interpretation" of the codes according to the code book; and that is the Building Official's.

The purpose of interpretation is to explain a code requirement to someone who does not understand.

As an inspector; if a contractor asked me about a code requirement; I would tell them what I knew and if they didn't understand that; I pulled out my code book (always have a copy in the truck) and showed him/her the code section. If they did not understand the words; then they could ask the Building Official to explain it to them. And, yes, sometimes when we read the code section together; I found out that I was dead wrong. :oops:

(By the way; when I first started doing the above; they were surprised; but, as time went on and they saw that I was willing to share; not only what I knew; but, also show them the code section; they were much more trusting in me and often asked to see code sections that had nothing to do with the inspection.)

The codes are not theories that are subject to differences of opinions. They are factual statements.

ps. My favorite word in the code books is "shall". :)

Uncle Bob
UB: Every written and spoken word is subjective to perspective. Your take is not always the same. Look at my battle with Kil. A battle of interpretation. Perspective that is. However, certain things may overrule a person like the state building code division. This is why there is an appeals process. However, there is also state law. So, the B.O. may have interpretive latitude but he isn't God either.

The appeals board is to contest interpretation not the code text. Sometimes the interpretation of the B.O. (subjective to the B.O. individual perspective but not limited to.)

So, here is a simple diversity of definition of a simple word like interpretation:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... d=0CAcQkAE

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/interpretation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/interpretation

http://www.yourdictionary.com/interpretation

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpretation

http://www.answers.com/topic/interpretation

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... rpretation

(LEGAL Dictionary - the primary context that matters in court as words like interpretation has legal case ruling and meanings - ie. explanations / opinion).

Another point: Original Intent

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... nal+Intent

But some more sources of the meaning of the word - interpretation.

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/interpretation/en-en/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation

Other reference sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

Wikipedia -

Interpretation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is not about the concept of interpretation used in mathematical logic. For other uses of "interpretation", see the disambiguation page.

Interpretation is the process establishing, either simultaneously (known as simultaneous interpretation) or consecutively (known as consecutive interpretation), oral or gestural communications between two or more speakers who are not able to use the same set of symbols (see interpreting). By definition it is available as a method only in those cases where there is a need for interpretation - if an object (of art, of speech, etc.) is obvious to begin with, it cannot draw an interpretation. In any case the term interpretation is ambiguous, as it may refer to both an ongoing process and a result.

Interpretation is a term used in informal education settings to describe any communication process designed to reveal meanings and relationships of cultural and natural heritage through first hand involvement with an object, artifact, landscape or site. This is primarily known as heritage interpretation.

An interpretation can be the part of a presentation or portrayal of information altered in order to conform to a specific set of symbols. This may be a spoken, written, pictorial, mathematical, sculptural, cinematic, geometric or any other form of language. Complex meanings may be evoked where the reader consciously or unconsciously cross-references the text by situating it within broader frames of experience and knowledge.

There are three things that allow interpretation to occur, and these are all interlinked and interdependable: the writer, the text and the reader. Through the act of interpretation the reader is the one creating meaning; the meaning of the text intended by the writer is potentially overlooked or ignored. The reader produces meaning by participating in a complex of socially defined and enforced practices. Interpretation is an active process of producing values and meanings, a process that always occurs within specific cultural and political contexts, directly linked to the world in which the reader lives.

The purpose of interpretation would normally be to increase the possibility of understanding, but sometimes, as in propaganda or brainwashing, the purpose may be to evade understanding and increase confusion.

Consecutive interpretation (interpreting) - a type of conference interpretation when the translator waits for the speaker to finish and then translates the latter's utterance consecutively - it could be of any length - within a reasonable limit so that not to distract the listener (s).

C. i. can be of a dialogue type - when the statement is short enough (without taking notes) or with using interpreters' notes - when the utterances are long enough for the memory to absorb the information and provide adequate result.

The main difficulty in C. i. Is that the information is dematerialised (that is not available on a carrier - paper, display, screen etc.) but exists only in the form of sound wave. Books: "Applied Theory of Interpretation and Note-Taking" Andrei Chuzhakin, Mir Perevoda 1-7 (same author). Also: [1].

References

* "Applied Theory of Interpretation and Note-Taking" Andrei Chuzhakin, "Mir Perevoda 1-7" (same author), [2].

* Barry, P 2002, Beginning theory: an introduction to literary and cultural theory, 2nd ed., Manchester University, Manchester and New York.

* Bedford Books, 1998, ‘Critical approaches’, viewed 2 May 2006, [3].

* Blazer, A 2005, ‘Interpretive theory: the new criticism to the present’, viewed April 24, 2006, from [4].

* Constable, J 2000, ‘I. A. Richards’, viewed 2 May 2006, [5].

* Cox, S 2005, ‘Foundations study guide: literary theory’, viewed 2 May 2006, [6].

* Eagleton, T 1996, Literary theory: an introduction, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.

* Fuery, P & Mansfield, N 2000, Cultural studies and critical theory, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

* Hancher, M 1970, ‘The science of interpretation, the art of interpretation’, MLN, vol.85, no.6, pp.791-802, (online JSTOR).

* Mailloux, S 1982, ‘Interpretation’, in F. Lentricchia & T McLaughlin (eds), Critical terms for literary study, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, London.

* McFly Encyclopedia, 2006, ‘Hermeneutics’, viewed April 12, 2006, from http://en.mcfly.org/hermeneutics.

* Objectivist Center, 2005, ‘Literary theory’, viewed 2 May 2006, [7].

* Scheppele, K L 1994, ‘Legal theory and social theory’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol.20, pp.383-406.

* WIT - World of Interpretation and Translation (Mir Perevoda), a series of ten manuals and textbooks on the practice and theory of oral translation Mir Perevoda.

See also

* Hermeneutics

* Pragmatics

* Semantics

* Semeiotic

* Semiosis

* Semiotics

* Sign

* Sign relation

External links

* Babels - an international network of volunteer interpreters for the Social Forums.

* The Hyperbole of Interpretation- A brief article on perspective associated with interpretation

* WIT - World of Interpretation and Translation (Mir Perevoda) - a personal site of Andrei Chuzhakin, a Russian expert on interpretation.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Interpretation.html"

Categories: Art school culture | Hermeneutics | Linguistics

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer) . Donate to wikipedia.

License : Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
 
Re: The difference

I have known code officials who have habitually enforced "phantom codes", and made interpretations not on what the code said, but because it was what "they wanted". Very few, but some. These people are the ones that give our profession a bad name.

However, when the code official makes a decision that can be shown to be consistent with the code/ordinance/law, that decision will be upheld more times than not, despite how unpopular it may be with the architect, permit applicant, etc.

The DP's who participate on this board are generally very code knowledgable, but that is not always the case in real life. I deal with architects on a daily basis, and many are severely lacking when it comes to understanding codes. When they submit plans that are patently in violation of the code, they will be denied. They can grumble, be bitter, and make empty threats of legal action, but I just chuckle inside, confident in my decision. That "devil in a tie" (actually, in my case, a very large team of devils) is no devil to me at all; he is MY advocate, not yours. However, in 22 years as a code professional, I have never once had to go to court based on a construction code decision. I think that speaks to the sound decisions that are made. In a jurisdiction that permits hundreds of millions of dollars of work every single year, there would be plenty of opportunities to challenge my decisions if they were out of line.

I don't know how many of you subscribe to the publication "Building Permits Law Bulletin", but you should take a look at it if you get a chance; it's eye opening. Courts around the country routinely support cities in cases where the building official is challenged on a decision. In fact two words describe it best: summary judgement...

With that said, I have an excellent relationship with the design community. Rarely is the answer "no"; more often than not common ground can be found, where everyone is happy with the outcome. As I've said before, if two decisions can be made, and I can be comfortable with both, I'm going to make the one that helps my customer get what they want. In fact, the relationship is so cordial, that architects and engineers often call me for advice when dealing with other jurisdictions, and I take great pride in that.
 
Re: The difference

tbo - Excellent post. I also have dealt with DPs without a clue.

Actually had an engineer once try to convince me that the required fire seperation in a duplex could stop at the ceiling (without upgrading the ceilings' rating) because fire burns up ("Everybody knows that!") and by the time it burns across the roof and down ("And fire never burns down...") it would be at least the 45 minutes required. To which I suggested he provide me with the generally accepted standard he was basing that on.

Do I need to tell you the end result?
 
Re: The difference

One can not interpret the code without first considering how the code came into being.

A group of people came up with an idea :idea: , it was then discussed and written :arrow: .

To improve the document a committee was formed by well meaning people without pre-driven conceptions or political connections :twisted: .

The committee then discussed the document and made improvements :ugeek: .

To ensure that everyone was happy a hearing was conducted and everyone had a chance to make additional improvements thereby providing the best possible method of ensuring the safety of everyone. ;)

Everyone then had a chance to be educated in the use of the code. :?

To ensure the code remains current it is updated every year and the improvements are made based on sound engineering principles, economic factors, energy efficiency, political correctness and popular political judgement.

Local communities adopt the codes and no amendments are every made because the code is perfect. :mrgreen:

That is why the need for interpretations has never existed.

Therefore, on page 1687 of the New Health Care Bill there will be a refund to everyone due to the lack of physical injuires that occur as a result of building hazards, fires, collapses, carbon monoxide, contaminiated water supplies, etc.

Opps, I'm sorry I thought I was responding to a Monty Python topic.
 
Re: The difference

tbo - Nope. :mrgreen:

Devils in ties are the first resort of those who know they are wrong.
 
Re: The difference

mtlogcabin said:
The appeals board works both ways it will put a "my way or the highway" BO in his place. To many of those and he should be out the door. I can understand where you have probably run into this attitude a number of times just because of where you are located. I think everyone on this board would agree that an attitude like that is unproffessional and that person would not be working for us long
I doubt everyone on the board would agree.

I've seen too much "my opinion is the only one that counts," here and in the real world.

I point again to the idea that calling in the attorney is a way of avoiding the delay of the appeals board (and avoiding making the path of least Resistance to a permit complying with a code official's misinterpretation).

The goal of bringing the attorney in is to make the code official's path of least Resistance issuing the permit.

Of course filing for an appeal can also do that...the cost to a jurisdiction of preparing for an appeal can easily run a couple of thousand dollars in preparation time.
 
Top