• 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

We've all done this... right?!?

B

Bob Phoenix

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
17
Location
Florida
So, Florida adopts and implements the 2010 Florida Building Code (the 2009 IBC with Florida amendments) and in my infinite wisdom (or lack of common sense) decide to propose a "Local Amendment" to Chapter 1... (beyond just changing phrases like "the local authority") :banghd

Now, mind you, this town has never, ever heard of a local amendment to the Building Code, or, for that matter... had any idea that Chapter 1 could be amended... But, create an amendment I did...

When I proposed it to my Town Manager, he said... "leave it with me and I'll look it over...", and I did... (That was my second mistake... the first one was believing he would actually pick up the 55 pages to look at.) After two weeks I asked him what he thought of the amendment and he replied "Geeze, it's really complicated..." (Um, I think that's why you need a license to drive it...) and... "If you’re going to put this before the commission for their approval you're really going to have to make it simpler..."

I don't mean to berate my commission but... when they were faced with their last major decision... this is how it turned out :beatdhrs

Regardless, my manager thought it would be prudent to run the amendment by our P&Z Board and Board of Adjustment, first, get their comments... and then take all of that to the Commission for a presentation and their approval...

WHAT A COLOSSAL MISTAKE THAT WAS!!!

The reaction from the P&Z Board was... "There's no way in H*ll this is going to be approved..." (are you ready for this... wait for it...) "Not only is this impossible to read... this change makes you the only person who can make the desision about determining was an unsafe building is and condeming it!!!"

After I picked my jaw up off the floor... I thought I just stand there and take the rest of my harpooning like a man...

fourty-five minutes of mis-informed, mis-understood theories about building code administration later... I said "thank you for your comments, I'll be sure to pass them along to the commission..." collected my three months of work and went back to my office... Then... a week later... I was before the Board of Adjustments where the chairman was a contractor... (I thought I might have a chance their because he might have a little better clue...) :eek:ops

The Chairman never made it past 102.6 Existing Structures, because I added 102.6.1 "...Existing structures that are found to be occupied illegally and not in compliance with this code on the date of adoption of this code shall be made to conform to the requirements of this code upon notice to the owner, occupant or agent by the Building Official in accordance with 104.3 Notices and Orders below." (Not half bad, so I thought...) Of course, I never once thought that anyone... especially the chairman, would mis-inturprit the word "occupancy"... Here I'm thinking about "use" and he's thinking "to have possession of...":rolleyes: (silly me...)

So, the point of all this is to ask my peers (whom I respect the opinion of...) what do you all think of the changes that I've made to Chapter 1 of "The Code..."

(Access my version of the code by clicking here...)

Please, if you all would do me the favor of taking a look my amendments and making a comment, I would appeciate it...

I need to have comments that will allow make the changes and still let me to administer "the Code"... And, from people who have a clue!!!

Thanks

Bob
 
The first question is to what extent can the city modify the state building code? What authority has been explicitly assigned by the state to the local governments?
 
In Section 102.2 it suggests that a federal project will be subject to local zoning regulations. Are you planning on suceeding from the United States? Otherwise I do not think this will fly.

The proposed Section 104.12 giving the building official authority to impose any requirement he desires will run into problems. The due process requirements of the federal constitution would prohibit a building official from modifying the code on his own. The changes to the code must be blessed by the body adopting the code.
 
Thanks Mark,

The requirements for buildings that are otherwise exempt from the building code will still need to meet the requirements for setbacks and height, within the limits of the town... and as such, are not exempt from site plan review, permiting and architectural overlay.

For instance, we have a post office building in town that was under the scrutiny of the latest round of post office closings. It is in our "Residential/ Business" district, R/B does not allow for retail. If the Feds closed the P.O. and open a GPO Bookstore (retail) It would need a varience, and need to meet the parking requirements imposed by the terms of the varience.

As far as 104.12... Well, I figure, as the only town official (actually the only person) who is responcible for the public's safety in the built environment I should be able to make judgment calls on obtaining safety... (Oh, and it works for the City of Lynchburg, VA.)
 
Nothing personal, but in my opinion, you don't know what you are doing.

Stick with what you know.
 
Less is better

And generalities will allow more latitude.

There is always that law of un-intended consequences when you try to do what is best at the time.
 
brudgers said:
Nothing personal, but in my opinion, you don't know what you are doing. Stick with what you know.
Click to expand...
No personal offence taken...

(After all, for fifteen years I've been dealing with people who think building codes are mearly a suggestion... and building department administration for seven...)

So, I have to ask... is that a general observation or is there something in particular that brings you to that conclusion...?

And, thanks mt... Unfortunaely, this town has had nothing for years... they're still using the 1985 safe building code. So, while I agree with you that less is better... at this point, I need something. I also feel it is better to have more and not use it, reather than to need what I don't have... at least until I can get this town manageable...
 
Bob

Your job is to enforce the building code not to guarantee public safety. Sure how you enfoce the code can impact public safety but you are limited by what the adopted code allows. You have some flexibility in how you interpret the building code but the interpretations must be consistent with and limited by the adopted regulations.

When the building code was adopted the governmental body adopting the code made the policy decision that the adopted regulations reflected their understanding of the level of safety they wanted, as imperfect as it may be. The building official does not have the authority to override the decision made by the governing body of the town. If you do not like the existing regulations you can propose specific code changes that are legal but the city can not give you the independent authority to do what you want.

With all of the talk about government bureaucrats exceeding their authority why give the members of the Tea Party any more amunition?
 
Bob Phoenix said:
Unfortunaely, this town has had nothing for years... they're still using the 1985 safe building code. So, while I agree with you that less is better... at this point, I need something. I also feel it is better to have more and not use it, reather than to need what I don't have... at least until I can get this town manageable...
Click to expand...
If the town doesn't want to be managed, well surely, that's just the will of the people. And with good reason...

Believe it or not, some people's idea of management is to hit people in the head with a code book.
 
GBrackins said:
would that be classified as an impactful transfer of knowledge?
Click to expand...
I am sure there is a good acronym for it:

accumulated tacit osmosis

blunt code-enforcement trauma

hard intelligence transfer (h.i.t.)

progressive unilateral (k)nowledge coercion hour
 
I also feel it is better to have more and not use it, reather than to need what I don't have...
Click to expand...
When you have more you are required to use it. You can not pick and choose what you will use

Start small. Look at what the priorities are and what direction your council would like to go. 55 pages of ammended documents can be overwhelming to most local elected officials.

Example

You increased the wind load requirements. Explain where the new numbers came from (studies) and how it will benefit the community with less damage after your next hurricane. There are plenty of studies to support how the new codes reduced property loss during natural disasters.
 
mtlogcabin said:
When you have more you are required to use it. You can not pick and choose what you will use Start small. Look at what the priorities are and what direction your council would like to go. 55 pages of ammended documents can be overwhelming to most local elected officials. Example You increased the wind load requirements. Explain where the new numbers came from (studies) and how it will benefit the community with less damage after your next hurricane. There are plenty of studies to support how the new codes reduced property loss during natural disasters.
Click to expand...
It's not so much that he's increased them, it's that he's changed to match new numbers in the new code without understanding what those new numbers mean. The 2010 FBC gives wind speeds as V(ult) and then contains a formula for converting them to the V(nom) values which have been provided in prior versions of the code.

In other words, his changes wrongly treat V(ult) as if it were V(nom).

And do so without reference to whether the values are V(ult) or V(nom).

It's stuff like this which is the basis for my original comment.
 
mtlogcabin said:
Brudgers Thanks for the clarification. They looked pretty high from my days in S Fl under the SBCCI
Click to expand...
SBCCI wind speeds were fastest mile... ...yes, wrap your brain around a mile of wind.

IBC has used nominal 3-second nominal gust (numbers are higher than for a mile of wind).

The new FBC uses 3-second ultimate which is tailored to strength design rather than allowable stress design.
 
Suggest that there a number of places in the 2012 IBC that have not been adjusted to reflect the new wind speed numbers.
 
Well, I would say that the Building Official is responsible for something. Maybe the Building Official has authority.

For comparison, my jurisdiction has a total of 20 pages of amendments to the entire 2009 IBC. The first ten pages relate to Chapter 1 administration. The last ten pages represent decades of "tweaks" by our local gang of builders and a few conservative structural engineers.

It seems as though you were describing a situation with a vagrant living inside an abondoned building. I like to call them "urban campers". It seems reasonable to me that you would require a few commercial-grade updates if you discovered an attorney's office moved into something that your county assessor listed as a single family home. Perhaps a handi-cap parking stall and handi-cap ramp up to the front entry. I've seen that scenario before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top