Wow...

[steveray]

They probably are for some areas, but where I work (Bay Area - not in a major city), the biggest concern I'm aware of is fire (with is exempt) and earthquakes (which we have no amendments for). SF probably needs some amendment due to it's unique geography and history, sure, but outside of those types of cities (so SF, LA, and the areas immediately surrounding them), I don't know how necessary they are.

I think the far bigger issue is zoning and the power some communities have over projects. I work in a county where the cost of a house is absurd. Like, sell your child and harvest your parent's kidneys absurd. There's a LOT of NIMBY people here. One town has been completely ignoring the Governor's orders for years now, effectively blocking all multi-family developments. Hell, even single-family developments struggle in that town. I'm currently working on a project where we're replacing an exterior door with some NanaWall-type folding door system, and it's being held up because some neighbor doesn't want that alteration to happen (heaven forbid they see and hear construction for a month - not a joke, that's basically their reason).

I'm not usually one to advocate for removing red tape. I think it usually serves a practical purpose and is a result of lessons learned in the past. But some cities take it to an extreme where even I, the red tape, rule-obsessed weirdo, thinks it's a bit much.

And I guess if it can't be a local amendment, can it be a local modification or policy?

R104.1​

The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code, nor shall they have the effect of establishing requirements in excess of those set forth in this code.

R104.10​

Modifications, variations, or exemptions from and approval of equivalent or alternative compliance with the requirements of this code shall be in accordance with the provisions of Sections 104.10.1 to 104.10.4, inclusive.

R104.10.1​

Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 29-254 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the State Building Inspector may grant modifications, variations or exemptions from, or approve equivalent or alternative compliance with, the Connecticut State Building Code where strict compliance with the Connecticut State Building Code would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, or is otherwise adjudged unwarranted, provided the intent of the law shall be observed and public welfare and safety be assured. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the State Building Inspector may appeal to the Codes and Standards Committee not later than 30 days after mailing of the decision.

 

[Joe.B]

Yup, to some degree, 104.10 for modifications, and 104.11 for AM&M, but always on a case-by-case basis.

 

[ICE]

Could this recent activity be a knee-jerk reaction to the plight of the fire victims? Are the politicians doing something in an effort to be doing something without doing anything? The legislators lost their collective mind some years ago. Every new dwelling is required to install solar, prepare for an EV charger, anticipate a natural gas ban and let's not downplay the rain barrels. Protecting the populace from an insidious drip of local amendments is window dressing for a figment of their imagination.

 

[arwat23]

Could this recent activity be a knee-jerk reaction to the plight of the fire victims? Are the politicians doing something in an effort to be doing something without doing anything? The legislators lost their collective mind some years ago. Every new dwelling is required to install solar, prepare for and EV charger, anticipate a natural gas ban and let's not downplay the rain barrels. Protecting the populace from an insidious drip of local amendments is window dressing for a figment of their imagination.

I don't know if the fire has anything to do with this, but "doing something without doing anything" might be spot on. The state has been trying to figure out the cost of living and housing crisis for years now. Imo, they either don't actually understand what's causing it or, more likely, just ignore the real problems while pushing some likely ineffective thing to pretend they're doing something. Addressing the likely real problems would probably be political suicide (regardless of ideology), so best to effectively ignore the issue.

I mean, that's what most politicians, regardless of philosophy, do. Why would this be any different? Talk about how some piece of legislation will solve some issue, pass it, a few years later people realize it didn't solve the issue or created another issue in its place, rinse and repeat.

This just seems like the next step in their attempts to figure out what will actually work or their next "see, we're trying" statements to their constituents.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I'm a 3rd party inspector that works in multiple towns. Local amendments can be a big deal here since the state only requires a permit for 1 & 2 family homes and townhouses, only when something structural is done, an accessary building is over 1,000 sq ft. or when a deck is over 30" high or building a pool or spa. I think less than half the local towns have local amendments. Some locals even adopted the IFC which the state didn't. We have one town that adopted the IFC but refuses to enforce it. In most of the state you can rewire, upgrade the service, put in new HVAC and all new plumbing in a house without a permit but when the locals amend the code, we have a lot more inspections to do.

 

[Joe.B]

It looks like AB 306 was introduced in January, which is when the fires started, so it's possible. My gut says it's just a coincidence.