Understanding and Addressing Perceived "Gray Areas" in Building Codes

Understanding and Addressing Perceived "Gray Areas" in Building Codes​

Introduction​

In the building code industry, professionals frequently encounter discussions about the "gray areas" within the codes—those sections that seem ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations. However, a closer examination often reveals that many of these perceived ambiguities can be resolved by thoroughly referencing the definitions and related sections within the code. This article aims to educate building professionals on how to navigate these perceived gray areas and understand the pivotal role of the building official in code interpretation.

The Nature of "Gray Areas"​

A gray area in building codes refers to any section or requirement that appears to lack clarity or definitive guidance, leading to varying interpretations. Contractors, inspectors, and building officials might each have different views on these sections, often influenced by their perspectives and interests.

Key Reasons for Perceived Gray Areas:

1. Complex Language: Legal and technical jargon can make certain sections difficult to understand.
2. Evolving Standards: Building codes are periodically updated, and newer sections may not yet be widely understood.
3. Subjectivity: Some code requirements inherently allow for professional judgment, leading to subjective interpretations.
4. Context-Specific Applications: Codes might apply differently based on the specific context or type of project, contributing to perceived ambiguity.

Clarifying the Ambiguities​

To address these gray areas, one must employ a systematic approach:

1. Refer to Definitions: Building codes come with a set of definitions that clarify the terminology used. Always refer to these definitions to ensure accurate interpretation.
2. Cross-Reference Sections: Often, one section of the code will be clarified by another. Cross-referencing related sections can provide additional context and eliminate ambiguity.
3. Consult Commentary and Guidelines: Official commentaries, handbooks, and guidelines issued by code bodies provide explanations and interpretations that can clarify complex sections.
4. Seek Expert Opinions: Engaging with experienced professionals or consulting with code experts can offer insights and interpretations based on practical experience.

Role of the Building Official​

Ultimately, the responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the building code falls to the building official. This role is crucial in maintaining consistency and safety in construction practices. The building official’s decision is influenced by:

1. Code Compliance: Ensuring that interpretations align with the overall intent and requirements of the building code.
2. Public Safety: Prioritizing the safety and well-being of the public in all interpretations and decisions.
3. Consistency: Striving for consistency in code enforcement to avoid arbitrary or biased interpretations.

Addressing Contractor Claims​

Contractors may sometimes claim that the code is vague to push for interpretations that favor their projects. To handle such situations:

1. Provide Clear Documentation: Document the interpretation process, referencing relevant code sections and definitions.
2. Engage in Dialogue: Have open discussions with contractors to explain the reasoning behind interpretations.
3. Utilize Appeal Processes: If disagreements persist, refer to the established appeal processes within the jurisdiction.

TBCF Summary​

While building codes may contain sections that appear ambiguous at first glance, a thorough examination often reveals clear guidance. By referencing definitions, cross-referencing sections, consulting expert opinions, and relying on the authoritative role of the building official, these gray areas can be effectively navigated. This approach not only ensures code compliance but also upholds the safety and integrity of construction practices.

 

[steveray]

I can answer that for him based on my experience in Pennsylvania.

Only those permits that declare technical infeasibility. They then have to plead their case to the state.

But again....Depending on the interpretation of this:
306.7 Alterations
A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code,ICC A117.1 and the provisions of Sections 306.7.1 through 306.7.16, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.

Which ICC states is full compliance for the building (sort of):

 

[Yikes]

To me "gray areas" = areas that require subjective interpretation for implementation.
With that in mind, I think the words in bold below are the subjective parts of the definition.

TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a facility that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility.

By the way, doesn't the phrase "existing physical... constraints" already include the structural frame? If so, why break it out as a separate condition?

 

[Genduct]

There is nothing in the IEBC about "technically infeasible." That's ADA language. Under the ADA, it is defined as:



In practice, what we encounter more often than not is that applicants want to claim that making something accessible is "technically infeasible" when what they really mean is they don't want to pay for it.

Beyond that, "technically infeasible" does not appear in the IBC, the IEBC, or A117.1.

Agreed, the term is used in the ADA except, I don't think there are any ADA concerns. I think JAR 546 was using the term in the same spirit as I did
I think what is important is the INTENT of the Code where we hope to improve but never degrade the safety of the occupied space. You are right I should have used my contractor brain and just called it an unnecessary financial cost, perhaps burden for some simple improvements

As to "using" terms from other Standards, I am sure you agree that the code doesn't get into the weeds with a lot of the necessary requirements like the Masonry or Steel or ACI Standards that add meat to our Boney , general, minimum safety, Code requirements.

Thank you for the reminder that we need to be alert to using the correct terms.
Confucius say: "First Step in Wisdom is to Call Things With Same Name!"

Best, Mike

 

[Energystar]

What happens when a jurisdiction fails to publish what they require? For example, in Kansas and Missouri everyone has their own code. Many don't bother to fill out table R301.2(1) CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA. The inspector then tells you your footings are too shallow while the jurisdiction across the street says it's fine. Talk about your gray areas. . .

 

[jar546]

What happens when a jurisdiction fails to publish what they require? For example, in Kansas and Missouri everyone has their own code. Many don't bother to fill out table R301.2(1) CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA. The inspector then tells you your footings are too shallow while the jurisdiction across the street says it's fine. Talk about your gray areas. . .

That's not a gray area; it is a municipality neglecting its duties.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

What happens when a jurisdiction fails to publish what they require? For example, in Kansas and Missouri everyone has their own code. Many don't bother to fill out table R301.2(1) CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA. The inspector then tells you your footings are too shallow while the jurisdiction across the street says it's fine. Talk about your gray areas. . .

Where the adopted code has no requirements, an inspector can't (legally) fail you for not following a requirement that doesn't exist. From a practical perspective, any responsible design professional in such a situation would base their design on nationally-recognized standards such as the model ICC IBC, ASCE7, and perhaps NOAA climate data on frost depth. If the locally-adopted codes don't fill out that table but retain the language requiring that footings extend to or below frost depth, the requirement remains and the only gray area would be if there are conflicts between various sources as to what the frost depth is.

 

[tmurray]

That's not a gray area; it is a municipality neglecting its duties.

Also a violation of procedural fairness. If they ever tried to enforce it in court, it would more than likely be thrown out.

 

[tmurray]

Where the adopted code has no requirements, an inspector can't (legally) fail you for not following a requirement that doesn't exist. From a practical perspective, any responsible design professional in such a situation would base their design on nationally-recognized standards such as the model ICC IBC, ASCE7, and perhaps NOAA climate data on frost depth. If the locally-adopted codes don't fill out that table but retain the language requiring that footings extend to or below frost depth, the requirement remains and the only gray area would be if there are conflicts between various sources as to what the frost depth is.

I ran into an issue lately where a B-O told someone their roofing shingles were in violation of the code. The local B-O cited the section that requires the installation to be compliant with the manufacturers installation instructions. I asked what part of the instructions were not followed. The issue is that neither the code or installation instructions dealt with one specific installation detail. The B-O's position was that since the installation instructions did not address the situation, the installer had to get an architect to tell him how to install it.

I found that the B-O's view was flawed. He was treating the installation instructions as a sort of installation specification. The roofing manufacturer had no issues with how the shingles were installed, they explained that they simply can't provide details for every conceivable detail imaginable. Luckily our discussion let to the B-O being comfortable calling the issue a workmanship issue and outside of their role.

The real crux of the issue: the neighbour did not like the colour of the shingles and called a councilor.

 

[Genduct]

T

Where the adopted code has no requirements, an inspector can't (legally) fail you for not following a requirement that doesn't exist. From a practical perspective, any responsible design professional in such a situation would base their design on nationally-recognized standards such as the model ICC IBC, ASCE7, and perhaps NOAA climate data on frost depth. If the locally-adopted codes don't fill out that table but retain the language requiring that footings extend to or below frost depth, the requirement remains and the only gray area would be if there are conflicts between various sources as to what the frost depth is.

If this issue was recognized while the Plans were being done, Why Not Call the Inspectors and ask OR better Question Why didn't Plan Review point this out in a RFI

 

[BN4537]

Since everyone has their own code, and there is no state oversight, local politics are all that really matters. In some municipalities that is a good thing, in others it is every bit as bad as you might surmise. It all comes down to the integrity (or lack thereof) of the group of inspectors, all their supervisors, and the City Manager's office. The elected officials can have some influence to a lesser extent, but a lot of them don't care enough to get involved much.

I am quite fortunate where I am.

 

[steveray]

The real crux of the issue: the neighbour did not like the colour of the shingles and called a councilor.

Back to the other thread

 

[rktect 1]

I have not really seen any grey areas in the code. I know of different possible paths someone can take, but not grey areas.

 

[Joe.B]

That's not a gray area;

That's a brown area.

You know, the color of BS.

 

[redeyedfly]

I have not really seen any grey areas in the code. I know of different possible paths someone can take, but not grey areas.

Are you new or are you joking?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

The real crux of the issue: the neighbour did not like the colour of the shingles and called a councilor.

Had a building being renovated. Client installed about four different shades of vinyl siding in an interesting pattern. Sorta artsy. Mostly cream, with some red, brown and purple (IIRC).

Phone lit up with complaints about the building being unsightly, demanding I do something about it. Had to explain to several folks that building code doesn't regulate siding colour. I'm not the paint police.

So I had people complain that I should do something about it as a "dangerous or unsightly premises." Kid you not.

 

[steveray]

So I had people complain that I should do something about it as a "dangerous or unsightly premises." Kid you not.

It distracted me when I drove by and crashed my car.....It's dangerous....."No...you are..."

 

[Joe.B]

Are you new or are you joking?

Are you socially unaware or are you just mean?

 

[redeyedfly]

Are you socially unaware or are you just mean?

Clever?

 

[Joe.B]

I have not really seen any grey areas in the code. I know of different possible paths someone can take, but not grey areas.

Are you new or are you joking?

Clever?

 

[Yikes]

I have not really seen any grey areas in the code. I know of different possible paths someone can take, but not grey areas.

Post #1 gave us the definition of “grey area”. That included different possible paths someone take in interpreting the code. I would say that anytime the prescriptive code makes allowance for or requires a subjective interpretation on the part of a code official, that meets the definition of grey area.

 

[rktect 1]

Are you new or are you joking?

Not sure I can answer if only given these two options. Is there some grey area in this I can use?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Post #1 gave us the definition of “grey area”. That included different possible paths someone take in interpreting the code. I would say that anytime the prescriptive code makes allowance for or requires a subjective interpretation on the part of a code official, that meets the definition of grey area.

I don't regard having a choice between two compliant solutions to be a gray area. Pick one and you comply, pick the other and you comply. Make your choice. There's no need to ask the authority having jurisdiction to decide whether or not the chosen path complies -- everyone agrees that both paths are compliant.

A gray area is where the language is such that one person reads it and says "X" complies, and another person reads it and says "X" does not comply. Now we've got a problem.

 

[Yikes]

I don't regard having a choice between two compliant solutions to be a gray area. Pick one and you comply, pick the other and you comply. Make your choice. There's no need to ask the authority having jurisdiction to decide whether or not the chosen path complies -- everyone agrees that both paths are compliant.

A gray area is where the language is such that one person reads it and says "X" complies, and another person reads it and says "X" does not comply. Now we've got a problem.

I'm referring to areas in the code that, in order to utilize them, explicitly require subjective judgement on the part of the AHJ. Example of this kind of "gray area":

1004.5 Areas Without Fixed Seating​

Exception: Where approved by the building official, the actual number of occupants for whom each occupied space, floor or building is designed, although less than those determined by calculation, shall be permitted to be used in the determination of the design occupant load.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm referring to areas in the code that, in order to utilize them, explicitly require subjective judgement on the part of the AHJ. Example of this kind of "gray area":

1004.5 Areas Without Fixed Seating​

Exception: Where approved by the building official, the actual number of occupants for whom each occupied space, floor or building is designed, although less than those determined by calculation, shall be permitted to be used in the determination of the design occupant load.

That's not a gray area, in my opinion. That says the occupant load shall be as determined by the table, unless the applicant specifically requests a lower occupant load and provides to the AHJ a sufficiently cogent reason for approving a lower number. There's nothing gray about that.