|
jdemaris
11-22-2006 06:58:06
|
The International Building Code is used as a background basis by many states - but those states usually custom tailor it, and vary on what year IBC they use. E.g., New York State building code, at present, is based on 2001 IBC. When we get to year 2007, New York will adopt the 2003 IBC code, etc. So, depending on what state you're in, you need to find out exactly what they are using, not what the newest IBC code is. In regard to any of the codes making things safer - they create the potential for safety - that's all. I have seen many circumstances where the code required was totally inadequate. In fact, a newly erected horse-stable fell down here two years ago when the first big snow storm hit. It was built exactly to code, which was not adequate for the snow load. I've built many buildings with an 80 lb. snow load rating, even when code only called for 40 lbs. To the converse, much of the required code is so overboard it is absolutely ridiculous. E.g., I'm trying to build a seasonal-use cabin in the Adirondack Mountains in New York. It is up to the local code enforcement officer to render his personal interpretation of the code. He has - and I believe he is wrong. But, it will cost me money to prove my point. #1 he claims that - there no longer any such thing as a "season use cabin", ergo, any structure, built anywhere, must meet the same requirements as a large full-time residence. So, he insists I have - plans drawn and stamped by a structural engineer, plans also drawn by an architect to demonstrate proper ingress, egress, lighting, insulation, etc. Also must have means of full-time automatic heating, pressurized water system, etc. And, electrical code? I have a small solar-electric DC system - no hookup to the grid. Regardless, the inspector told me I must have hard-wired, AC powered smoke alarms. He told me that he finds it as ridiculous as I do, but it is still required. I contacted the New York State Code department, and was told both the local inspectors are in error - and I CAN do it different. Problem is - I have to prove my point - the State guys don't call the local guys to straighten things out. So, now I have to pay for a "professional code interpretation", and if that is not accepted, then court is next. The main issue here, on a local level, is a lot of discretion is given to the code enforcement officer. This can be good, and this can be bad. It is intended to allow him to custom tailor requirements on an ad hoc basis - but it also allows him to give someone a hard time - even if NOT based on law.
|
|
|
|
