• 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

Your Opinion vs What the Code Reads / Intent

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
10,975
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
I continue to see and hear of situations where inspectors and building officials have personal opinions that conflict with the codes as written and enforce their opinion vs the written code which conflicts with their opinion. Some will point to the statement code section below:

Screen Shot 2021-03-20 at 07.10.45.png
The biggest abuse of these personal opinions is hanging their hats on the "...authority to render interpretations..." and ignore the part where it says "...not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provide for in this code." That makes a big difference.

We are suppose to be facilitators of the code and to a degree educators. Our work is not suppose to be a social visit and always be the good guy. I believe that many out there just don't like being perceived as the bad guy/girl and as a result of the lax enforcement, make it harder for everyone else by confusing contractors as to what is actually required. How many times did you hear the phrase similar to this? "I just did the same thing in another jurisdiction and it passed."

If you haven't noticed, I bring this up every few years to discuss. In addition to the happy go lucky, complacent enforcement officials we have the opposite which is just as bad. I am talking about the "Do as I say, I don't care what the code says." attitude where officials make contractors do things that are not required. This creates a lot of animosity in the industry from the RDPs to the contractors and homeowners.

Yes, we all make mistakes and none of us are perfect. We are going to miss things but that is not what I a talking about. I am really talking about intentional ignorance to the code by either coming up with excuses why you don't have to enforce the code or making up your own requirements that are not in the code.

Thoughts?
 
I try very hard to stick to the black and white.

If it is not in the book I do not enforce it.

I have no problem people asking me for the code section and giving it to them,,,, especially when I have worked out of U Codes, ICBO, and now ICC, plus three ahjs, Sometimes I think it is in the current code, but it was in a prior book.

There is the real world where something was missed in design/ plan review and the building is built. So do you tear the building down, or get as close to intent as possible and document it???

There are calls in the field , yes sometimes they need to revise a sheet for review, prior to approval.

Than there is use of common sense, when making calls.

I have no problem with saying NO, it does not meet code, or stop work order.

The other problem on the ahj side is from an inspector I worked with;; He said “””If you do not know the code,, Yiu cannot enforce it!!!”
 
Part of my interviewing and training of new inspectors...."If you can show it to me in the book, I will go to the mat for you. If you go off course, go rogue, we are having problems!"
 
To try and stay balanced we have a group of inspectors/plan reviewers, some from third parties, AHJ’s and a state inspector in an open thread group text. As situations, brain farts and questions rise we can bounce the item off of one another.
 
To try and stay balanced we have a group of inspectors/plan reviewers, some from third parties, AHJ’s and a state inspector in an open thread group text. As situations, brain farts and questions rise we can bounce the item off of one another.
I do appreciate a good team effort. It finds common ground and exposes those on the fringe in either direction.
 
Enforce what is written in the code, do not make things up, and be able to back up the requirement with chapter and verse. Be willing to have a professional discussion if there is other information that the aggrieved party wants to present. Be a student of the codes so you may offer a reason for the code requirement and be able to offer alternatives compliance methods.

Chapter 1 is the most import chapter of the book, it lays the ground rules.

When presented with a dilemma consider:

101.3 Intent. The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

Contrary to what the contractor believes the code is not gray and only subject to interpretation if the words are not there.

Uncovered issues in the current edition of the code or forward thinking alternative such as those found in the next edition of the code are allowed under:

104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the reasons why the alternative was not approved. See 104.11.1, 11.2

The manufactures instruction in many cases have the information need to answer the how to install/do/apply question.
 
To try and stay balanced we have a group of inspectors/plan reviewers, some from third parties, AHJ’s and a state inspector in an open thread group text. As situations, brain farts and questions rise we can bounce the item off of one another.
I have brought many questions to this forum. I have been correct and corrected and whichever is the case it is pleasant to obtain an answer.
 
To try and stay balanced we have a group of inspectors/plan reviewers, some from third parties, AHJ’s and a state inspector in an open thread group text. As situations, brain farts and questions rise we can bounce the item off of one another.
This is what I would like to do for my State...Or to just get them all to come here..... ;)
 
I have a little bit of latitude from the state with regards to your question
Montana Administrative rule
24.301.146 (29) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person.

The key IMHO, is the violation minor and is it imminent.

imminent​

(ˈɪmɪnənt)
adj
1. liable to happen soon; impending
 
I have a little bit of latitude from the state with regards to your question
Montana Administrative rule
24.301.146 (29) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person.

The key IMHO, is the violation minor and is it imminent.

imminent​

(ˈɪmɪnənt)
adj
1. liable to happen soon; impending


And anyone asking for almost same situation,,,, gets the same treatment?

That is the problem I have seen with other inspectors,,, they pick and choose who they waive at!
 
I have always tried to be flexible I will enforce the black and white of the code, but if there is a problem with it on that particular project then I am more than willing to have a conversation with them and try to work out a way to meet the intent of the code. Also if I call something they disagree with I ask them to show me were it is that they can do it that way, I'm always willing to learn.
 
I default to black and white. Always. I provide a code reference to all my comments or inspection failures. Many times I have written a comment only to delete it when I can't find the code reference to support it. I encourage architects, engineers, homeowners and contractors to ask for a code reference any time somebody provides a correction without one. When I don't understand something on a plan I ask the applicant rather than try to guess what they are doing and writing comments that aren't relevant. When the black and white doesn't fit I will try very hard to find an alternate path to compliance within the code, something we never thought of, something I come here and ask questions about, something I read RLGA's book and website for, commentaries, code essentials, Building Code College, interpretations, other model codes and state codes, etc. I look hard and ask them to look hard for equivalents that can be justified. I ask experts if my understanding of something is wrong, or seek alternates to that understanding in case my assumptions are wrong. Very seldom do I ever run up against a code that can't be complied with if people try hard enough.

On the other hand, we are not robots and I believe we need to use judgment in our understanding and administration of the code. If we don't then BIM and software based compliance will take over someday. Our judgment, critical thinking and desire to find alternate paths are what set us apart from any software or logarithm that can't think for itself. And, as much as I would like to believe otherwise, there are codes that aren't always black and white. Some are confusing, some are inconsistent with other codes, some are just baffling, and some are performance based and we are forced to make judgment calls. I do believe it is ok to render well thought out, justifiable interpretations on occasion, but I have a hard time with make believe codes or making believe they don't exist.

I know a lot of very smart people that disagree with the code and pick and choose what they believe over the black and white, sometimes I agree with them, but still believe it is a dis-service to arbitrarily and inconsistently enforce what we believe, on any given day, in any given AHJ. Even worse, some of them teach those inconsistencies. When they do this they are simply asking someone to believe their version over what is legally adopted and published. If I am going to use some alternate understanding, it needs to be my own (either by original thought or adopted), not a regurgitated opinion that I may not understand.

The biggest knock against any building official is lack of consistency. The absolute best way to achieve consistency is to follow what is written in black and white because if we all have the same book, how an we be telling different stories?
 
We actually have a supreme court ruling here that stipulates that we are expected to use our judgment based on the likelihood of harm, the gravity of harm, and the cost of repair.

I usually don't need to use my discretion. The only time I do is when I look at a violation, knowing the intent of the code, and find the correction to the code violation does not achieve the intent of the code.
 
When used correctly and judiciously, 104.11 is a great tool for CBO's, but IMHO it shouldn't be the primary pathway to gaining approval. BTW, the 2021 IBC seems to have beefed that section up a little with a little more specific guidance.
 
Reviving this thread because of a disagreement involving section 101.3 and its interpretation that seems to run right along with the conversation here. My CBO is saying that because the intent of the code is to enforce minimum standards, we don't have the authority to require corrections on items that are not required by code. He gave a couple examples, one of which I agree with and the other I do not:

1. A bank wants to build a room for document storage with a one-hour rating. The room is not required to be rated by the IBC. We can advise, but not require corrections pertaining to the fire resistivity of the wall. This is the one we are in agreement on.

2. A commercial kitchen, where a Type I hood is installed for whatever reason (repurposing, got it free/cheap) where a type II hood or even no hood would be sufficient, say over electric ovens or a dishwasher. Because only a type II is required, the duct and exhaust outlet only have to meet type II requirements--light gage duct, no shaft, completely different fan requirements, etc. If no hood is required, the IMC does not apply to the hood system at all.

His position is that I can't write up any corrections on the system with regard to Type I requirements. This in spite of the fact that IMC 507.1 states "... Where a Type I hood is installed, the installation of the entire system, including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509."

My argument is that because it is specifically addressed in the section on commercial kitchen hoods, all the components must meet the requirements of a type I hood. Also, this is a UL listed piece of equipment that has installation requirements based on that listing.
My fear is that if a contractor that wants nothing to do with inspections/codes went that route, it could be applied to all sorts of items that aren't required by code: Heaters in parking garages, boilers for ice melt systems, redundant heating systems, gas or solid fuel fireplaces in any occupancy (by code they can't be the primary heat source), air conditioning systems (in spite of what some people think, they are not a requirement in the code, you can build a house with no AC).

Thoughts???
 
Reviving this thread because of a disagreement involving section 101.3 and its interpretation that seems to run right along with the conversation here. My CBO is saying that because the intent of the code is to enforce minimum standards, we don't have the authority to require corrections on items that are not required by code. He gave a couple examples, one of which I agree with and the other I do not:

1. A bank wants to build a room for document storage with a one-hour rating. The room is not required to be rated by the IBC. We can advise, but not require corrections pertaining to the fire resistivity of the wall. This is the one we are in agreement on.

2. A commercial kitchen, where a Type I hood is installed for whatever reason (repurposing, got it free/cheap) where a type II hood or even no hood would be sufficient, say over electric ovens or a dishwasher. Because only a type II is required, the duct and exhaust outlet only have to meet type II requirements--light gage duct, no shaft, completely different fan requirements, etc. If no hood is required, the IMC does not apply to the hood system at all.

His position is that I can't write up any corrections on the system with regard to Type I requirements. This in spite of the fact that IMC 507.1 states "... Where a Type I hood is installed, the installation of the entire system, including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509."

My argument is that because it is specifically addressed in the section on commercial kitchen hoods, all the components must meet the requirements of a type I hood. Also, this is a UL listed piece of equipment that has installation requirements based on that listing.
My fear is that if a contractor that wants nothing to do with inspections/codes went that route, it could be applied to all sorts of items that aren't required by code: Heaters in parking garages, boilers for ice melt systems, redundant heating systems, gas or solid fuel fireplaces in any occupancy (by code they can't be the primary heat source), air conditioning systems (in spite of what some people think, they are not a requirement in the code, you can build a house with no AC).

Thoughts???

if type II hood is all that is required

Than only needs to meet Type II requirements
 
Reviving this thread because of a disagreement involving section 101.3 and its interpretation that seems to run right along with the conversation here. My CBO is saying that because the intent of the code is to enforce minimum standards, we don't have the authority to require corrections on items that are not required by code. He gave a couple examples, one of which I agree with and the other I do not:

1. A bank wants to build a room for document storage with a one-hour rating. The room is not required to be rated by the IBC. We can advise, but not require corrections pertaining to the fire resistivity of the wall. This is the one we are in agreement on.

2. A commercial kitchen, where a Type I hood is installed for whatever reason (repurposing, got it free/cheap) where a type II hood or even no hood would be sufficient, say over electric ovens or a dishwasher. Because only a type II is required, the duct and exhaust outlet only have to meet type II requirements--light gage duct, no shaft, completely different fan requirements, etc. If no hood is required, the IMC does not apply to the hood system at all.

His position is that I can't write up any corrections on the system with regard to Type I requirements. This in spite of the fact that IMC 507.1 states "... Where a Type I hood is installed, the installation of the entire system, including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509."

My argument is that because it is specifically addressed in the section on commercial kitchen hoods, all the components must meet the requirements of a type I hood. Also, this is a UL listed piece of equipment that has installation requirements based on that listing.
My fear is that if a contractor that wants nothing to do with inspections/codes went that route, it could be applied to all sorts of items that aren't required by code: Heaters in parking garages, boilers for ice melt systems, redundant heating systems, gas or solid fuel fireplaces in any occupancy (by code they can't be the primary heat source), air conditioning systems (in spite of what some people think, they are not a requirement in the code, you can build a house with no AC).

Thoughts???

I disagree on #1

If say a one hour wall is shown on the plans,,, it shall be built to plans/ one hour wall….

You are putting your name on it,,,, saying it is one hour and meets code.

Or do you list all the stuff not required, and does not meet code???
 
This is a problem that lawyers deal with all the time and as a result they have rules on how to interpret statutes. The building code is a law and thus we should follow these same rules. Your city attorney should be able to clarify what the rules are

As I understand it they first look to what the letter of the code says and if this resolves the question you are done. On the other hand if the code language is unclear then any interpretation needs to be consistent with the intent. You cannot enforce the intent but you can use the intent to find an interpretation.

The intent may be clear when the code specifically states what the intent is but in other cases what you think the intent is may not be what was the intent of those adopting the code.
 
1. Did they use a code term? Fire barrier or fire partition? If not, I could let that go or I have had the discussion of putting "built similar to U419" or something like that to document for posterity...
2. Similar, if they call it type 1 then it is.....If not, it's not......As long as it does not actually void the listing....
 
2. Similar, if they call it type 1 then it is.....If not, it's not......As long as it does not actually void the listing....
Unlike the wall that shows up on the jobsite as unassembled studs and drywall, The problem here is it is already called a type I by the manufacturer and UL before the plans were even drawn. Then 507.1 says if a type I hood is installed the entire system has to meet type I requirements.
As far as voiding the listing, as soon as light gage duct or any other component does not meet the requirements of a Type I hood system it can't be used as a type I hood. Does that void the listing of the hood?
 
I guess the bigger question is interpretation of 101.3. If the intent of the codes is to provide minimum standards, is anything installed that is not required by code then considered above and beyond and therefor not subject to the code?

Fireplaces are a good example also. They are only a supplementary heat source and in most cases just decorative and so are never required by code. There are definitely those out there who would make that stretch.....
 
Regarding the hood, I agree that it is all or nothing. A complete Type I or a complete Type II, not an amalgamation.

As for the first example, so long as it is just called a 1-hr wall, I do not care. Call it a 1-hr fire barrier, and I will look at it as if it were a 1-hr fire barrier.

While the code is a minimum standard, designers have the ability to do better than the minimum. Therefore, when something that is better than the minimum does not meet the code requirements, I will typically indicate how it is deficient, but will also note that it is not required. The designer can then choose to either do it 100% correct, or remove it.
 
Top