• 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

When does a building cease to exist?

Mark K said:
If you were building a new building would an existing foundation that happens to be compliant with the current code be allowed to be used to support the new building?
Click to expand...
Only if an engineer signs off on it for a commercial building.

OR

If the foundation was verified to meet the code prescriptively without any signs of damage. Unbalanced backfill support, for example, would have to be verified
 
jar546 said:
Only if an engineer signs off on it for a commercial building.

OR

If the foundation was verified to meet the code prescriptively without any signs of damage. Unbalanced backfill support, for example, would have to be verified
Click to expand...
Note that I said the "existing foundation that happens to be compliant with the current code "

Why does the fact that it is a commercial building mean that an engineer is required as opposed to a residential building. Whether an engineer is required is a function of state licensing laws. Since when does the entity adopting the building code have the authority to regulate engineering?
 
Mark K said:
Note that I said the "existing foundation that happens to be compliant with the current code "

Why does the fact that it is a commercial building mean that an engineer is required as opposed to a residential building. Whether an engineer is required is a function of state licensing laws. Since when does the entity adopting the building code have the authority to regulate engineering?
Click to expand...
Most states require commercial buildings to be designed by a licensed design professional whereas a single family residence does not in most instances.
 
jar546 said:
Most states require commercial buildings to be designed by a licensed design professional whereas a single family residence does not in most instances.
Click to expand...
Thus it would not be a building code requirement but rather a state licensing requirement.
 
Mark K said:
Thus it would not be a building code requirement but rather a state licensing requirement.
Click to expand...
I think we've been down this road before. It is a building code requirement in many states and many state statutes, including administrative codes taken from state statutes. In addition, in other areas of the country that you aren't familiar with, state statute requires the building official to ensure compliance with licensing laws such as for contractors, architect and engineers. Discipline is by the licensing board but the building official is charged with enforcement and reporting violations to the licensing boards.
Your state licensing laws and statutes may not be the same as many, if not most others. I hope you take this an an opportunity to expand your horizons.
 
The whole argument about the superiority of state licensing boards is a tired one.

Lets be frank. We (I specifically) have asked for caselaw supporting this position. None has been provided.
To my knowledge (and please correct me if I am wrong) very few of us have any formal legal training, let alone enough to actually possess the skill to perform any type of legal interpretation. Ultimately, our opinions on this are flimsy at best. Opinions of people with no formal training in the discipline or evidence to support our positions.

Ultimately, building officials across the country are still going to require engineering based on the building code, and Mark K is still going to think it is illegal.
 
As guidance, in my jurisdiction, a legal non-conforming building is considered to be no longer conforming and in need of a variance to repair/reconstruct if it has suffered damage that exceeds 50 per cent of its totality.


I'd argue you no longer have an existing building, based partly on the above.
 
Ok, this is sort of in line with my problem. The house is unoccupied (condemned due to roof damage)
I am replacing the 80 year old stick frame roofing with a comparable pitch professionally built trusses with sealed engineering plans.
A large tree branch fell on the house and broke some of the 2x4 stick frame trusses (I want to replace all the stick frame roof with professional trusses)
City is "slow walking" the permit. They are waiting 6 weeks to answer me each iteration (6 months).
There are no architectural drawings as the City failed to ask for them from the county when they became a city. So the county destroyed them.

Again, Due to storm damage, I want to replace the roof trusses, connect them with hurricane clips (local requirement), 1/2 OSB, architectural shingles 5:12 pitch. Installed by professional roofers. But the City will not issue the permit.

The City is ordering me to get complete architectural drawings of the house from a licensed professional before they will issue the permit. But city law does not require that. (nor does the code correct?)
They are requiring other things that are unrelated to the roof before they will issue a permit to fix roof (such as licensed certification there is no mold in this unoccupied house... did I mention they are getting even with me?)

What section of the Existing building code restricts the scope to what I am planning to replace. I read it last month, but cannot find it.


Thanks
 
Sounds pretty complicated and we don't know what codes you use, but I would start here in the IEBC and yes...this should be in a new or different thread:

401.2 Compliance​


The work shall not make the building less complying than it was before the repair was undertaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top