• 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

To drywall or not?

SCBO1

SCBO1

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
4,356
Location
MID WEST
Existing residential home with garage below bedrooms built in the 70's without drywall attached to the underside of the floor joist. Home had a water leak and the cold wall between the garage was removed and electrical violations exposed, requiring a permit. Other issues requiring a permit due to walls upstairs being removed in the bathroom requiring the hardwired smoke detectors to be installed as well.

Q. Not sure if the garage ceiling would be required to be drywalled? AJ601.2

2006IRC with Appendix J adopted.

Any comments would be great.

pc1
 
If the garage isn't in the "work area", I don't think the drywall separation needs to be installed.
 
I would look to the last line of R102.7 and push for the drywall installation for the "general safety and welfare of the occupants". Hard to ignore a hazardous condition once you've seen it.
 
CT has amended that 102.7... saying basically it can exist "as is"...we have nothing unless there is eminent danger or something about not being able to make it "less safe" on a remodel
 
Pcinspector1,

I concur with Jobsaver and DanB! In the interest of providing ' some ' more time

before a ( potential ) fire burns through the structural / framed elements and

engulfs the occupants sleeping in that area, ...yeah, gyp. board SHOULD be

installed. Plead your case all the way up the chain-of-command!

.
 
Sounds like a "good recommendation" but without a clear code provision backing you up, I would tread lightly on requiring it.
 
Pcinspector1,

Besides the occupants being at risk, ...what about the AHJ's fire fighting troops?

Is the Fire Official willing to send his troops in to a condition like this knowing

full well that he could be sending people in to die? or would the fire fighting

resources choose to let it burn because they know the condition of a "light

framed" structure and that they do not have sufficient time available.

Sometimes, the practical aspects [ the intent ] has to outweigh the actual

' letter of the code '. Safety to all IS the big picture isn't it? Homeowners,

as well as, ...the people who might be responding to a fire in that location.

I still say, bring your concerns to fire official! Get them onboard with

your application.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Section AJ601.2 only refers you to the section for flame spread and smoke developed rating, not fire separation. Plus it has to be in a work area.
 
* * * *

Until the Building Code side of the equation has their "skin in the game",

there is going to be a disconnected view of fire protection by the code

officials.

Have the Building Officials and inspectors actually perform some

fire fighter response calls.

* * * *
 
As a contractor I would suggest that the ceiling be brought up to code. I would even listen to comments made by the AHJ along those lines.

But if the AHJ demanded it, I would have him in court. And out of a job.
 
Don't forget about insurance. A lot of homeowners insurance requires the repairs and associated work be brought up to code. From their perspective, it gets them a safer building to insure in the future.
 
north star, there is no disconnection here. Either it's a code requirement or it isn't. It's a good recommendation, but not a requirement.
 
Floor cavity had no insulation and duct work had a cage frame fur down around it but owner claims the garage has never been rocked. At this point I can only make the HO rock the cold wall back that was removed because of the water leak in the wall where they removed rock. Looking for a code to hang my hat on to require the garage ceiling to be rocked?

I have not found the magic section yet.

pc1
 
"A lot of homeowners insurance requires the repairs and associated work be brought up to code."

Not so. SOME policies provide coverage (money) for code upgrades that are required as a condition of repair.
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Floor cavity had no insulation and duct work had a cage frame fur down around it but owner claims the garage has never been rocked. At this point I can only make the HO rock the cold wall back that was removed because of the water leak in the wall where they removed rock. Looking for a code to hang my hat on to require the garage ceiling to be rocked? I have not found the magic section yet.

pc1
Click to expand...
There is no magic section. You can lead the horse to water, but can't make 'em drink.

It is the same as inspecting a water heater replacement in a home where all the bedroom windows do not meet today's egress requirements. You have to disconnect.
 
* * * *

Pcinspector1,

DanB has provided you the "magic section", ...R102.7 [ from the `06 IRC ]: "Existing structures.

The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be

permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the

International Property Maintenance Code, or the International Fire Code, or as is deemed

necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and

the public."

If the BO does not, ...cannot or will not see the hazard in this application, ...simply ask

them to accompany the fire fighters on some fire response calls where the BO will have

to enter a burning , "light framed" built house and see what their response is, ...when

the BO or staff inspectors have to place fellow inspectors, ...infants / children and

in others in body bags because a few extra dollars weren't spent to protect to install

a layer of gyp. board, then see what their response is. What if it were their house?

Would they want their family exposed to this condition?

Pcinspector1,

You can legally apply Section R102.7. It's that simple!

* * * *
 
north star said:
You can legally apply Section R102.7. It's that simple![/color][/size][/font]
Click to expand...
It is not that simple. At some point, on every visit to an older structure, an inspector has to draw lines concerning R102.7.

It is easy to point out things in an older structure that are not safe, and easy to require correction of all the things one sees on somebody else's dime.

Every circumstance is unique, and in many instances decisions concerning R102.7 do hinge on the personal economics of the resident/owner.

I do not think there would exist a need for this thread if it is "that simple".
 
DanB said:
I would look to the last line of R102.7 and push for the drywall installation for the "general safety and welfare of the occupants". Hard to ignore a hazardous condition once you've seen it.
Click to expand...
So there are literally millions of homes that have this same hazardous condition and no one is doing anything about it? I hardly think that the absence of drywall in itself is a hazardous condition unless there were other hazards present that warranted separation.
 
* * * *

Jobsaver,

You are correct about performing a "cost / benefit" analysis of every situation.

But, let's look at the bigger picture here. Besides the occupants [ of the

structure in the OP ], the AHJ also has a risk to its fire fighting personnel

and equipment in these types of applications. Is the "cost" of not installing

gyp. board on the ceiling of this garage, worth the "risk" of possibly placing

[ the AHJ ] human resources in a life threatening situation? Equipment can

be replaced readily. It takes years to have a firefighter [ effectively ]

trained.

Realistically, in a fire, if fire fighters have to go upstairs to check for

occupants, how long do they have before the floor collapses? Either them,

or them and the occupants?

Would you as a fire official; who is ACTUALLY responding on the scene,

ask / require your personnel to go in to a developed fire event, ...knowing

that this condition exists? Forget the BO & the Bldg. Inspectors in this

application. They [ typically ] do not respond to fires or go in to fires to

perform rescues. Does the cost of that firefighters life [ and permanently

lost resources to his family ] match the cost of a "new" gyp. board ceiling?

Or, are the firefighters just supposed to be the "sacrificial lambs" because

of insufficient codes, ...or insufficiently worded codes, ...where [ if ] the

fire official knows about Section R102.7, this scenario can be avoided.

IMO, the Building Code officials and the Fire Code officials have failed

to work together as a team in helping to create a safer living / built

environment. I include myself in this "failure!" I am from the building

code side of this equation. I would not want to go into a "light framed"

built anything fire event, nor would I want my family to have such risk

/ exposure. Why then; as active code officials who are supposed to

be on the same team, ...with the same goal, not working together to this

end?

Current rant paused...

* * * *
 
Last edited by a moderator:
* * * *

Rant continued...

Code wording or not, a potentially life threatening "AVOIDABLE"

situation is in front of you........To all of the Building Officials and

associated inspectors who genuinely believe that no gyp. board should

be installed in this application, please go down to the local fire dept.

and volunteer to actively participate in response calls to fire events,

and be readily willing to go in to a "light framed" built structure in

a fire event.

* * * *
 
I'll bet we all share NStar's concern for firefighter safety.

If my version of the code doesn't include R102.7, and it is not clearly required, should I demand the installation of the drywall separation anyway?
 
Northstar:

I understand the valid point you are making from a Fire Official's perspective. I am coming from a different perspective as someone who does "have skin in the game" and who responds daily to my own reality.

I have a big family . . . never enough money to live in the safest homes or for my sons and daughters to drive the safest cars. The point I am making is that there does often exist a cost/benefit analysis, but it does not follow that it is ours, "government", to make. To bring home the point, most firefighters can afford "a few extra dollars" for sheetrock, and most I know can hang it. How deep are your concerns? What are you doing this weekend?

My overriding concern is that we (government) should not use the permitting process as a tool to get into people's homes to pay undue attention to those areas of the home not affected by the permit applied for. Still, immediate life safety violations are a concern. I apply R102.7 to situations involving raw sewage leaks, exposure to live electrical conductors, immediate fire hazards involving over-fusing, clearances, etc, etc. It really is very difficult to know where to draw the line sometimes.

In my tenure at my current ahj, I have been attacked personally at a funeral because of occupant removal decisions that may have resulted in the death of the occupant.

I have brought old men, having severe dementia, to my own home upon governmental eviction due to life safety concerns, until family could be found and notified. What do you do with an occupant that has nowhere else to go?

I mean this literally. What do you do when you evict an impoverished individual that literally has nowhere else to go? What do you do when you decide whether or not to demolish another man’s property? I know that it is technically “the city” and “the city council” that makes the decisions. But in my small ahj, there is nowhere to hide from the fact that I am the person on the front line, grossly influencing the outcomes.

Bill May’s boy called me out at his daddy’s funeral.

I have skin in the game.
 
Mac,

Yes, but maybe not as fervently.

And no, demanding that without a clear requirement is bullying...and we all know bullying is not right, even if for a good reason.

If someone wants to use that section of the code as a way to require what they deem is a hazardous condition, then that's their call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top