# IRC Adoption



## retire09 (Aug 2, 2013)

If the IRC is not specifically adopted by a jurisdiction is it enforcable just the same by reference in the adopted IBC section101.2 Exception?

If not, are single family homes to be inspected in accordance with the provisions of the IBC?


----------



## jar546 (Aug 2, 2013)

IRC Adoption

I would want to see the adopted ordinance itself first

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gregg Harris (Aug 2, 2013)

retire09 said:
			
		

> If the IRC is not specifically adopted by a jurisdiction is it enforcable just the same by reference in the adopted IBC section101.2 Exception?If not, are single family homes to be inspected in accordance with the provisions of the IBC?


 question #1 No

and #2 No


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 2, 2013)

retire99 - it would depend upon how the ordinance was written......back in the stone ages, we did not adopt CABO and houses were inspected to the Standard Building Code in our jurisdiction.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 2, 2013)

Question #1 No

Question # 2 Yes

Buildings that do not contain more than two dwellings units are an R-3 under the IBC. That would include a SFR

The question I have is if the IRC is not part of the AHJ's adoptive code can a BO accept a SFR designed under the IRC using the IBC 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment in lieu of requiring the IBC be met.


----------



## retire09 (Aug 2, 2013)

Here in Alaska, houses are required to be constructed in accordance with the state adopted codes.

The state does not adopt the IRC, only the IBC and specifically exempts all 1 - 3 family buildings from plan review and inspections by the state.

My question is; eventhough the state does not perform plan review or inspections, what is the code standard for contractors and private inspectors?


----------



## tmurray (Aug 2, 2013)

It would likely by up to the owner.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 2, 2013)

Exemption from plan review and inspections does not exempt the contractor or designer from code compliance. Montana is similar in that the state does not inspect 1 & 2 family dwellings within their jurisdiction.


----------



## retire09 (Aug 2, 2013)

I agree, but legally, what is the code standard?

IRC or IBC?


----------



## Mark K (Aug 2, 2013)

Section 104.11 cannot be used to make general modifications to the building code.  If you are dealing with an one off exemption the use of Section 104.11 may be appropriate.  On the other hand if you apply the same rule to 50 projects the use of Section 104.11 is not appropriate.  If you wanted a cutoff number between 1 and 50 I would suggest the low single digits.

If the building official applied the same special rule to all projects based on Section 104.11 he would have effectively modified the building code with out having the modification adopted by the legislative body.  This would be in conflict with the due process provisions of the US Constitution.  The ICC publication "Legal Aspects of Code Administration" effectively makes this point.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 2, 2013)

IRC Adoption

IBC would apply since the state did not adopt the IRC.  I would guess in court over construction defects they would argue that no codes apply

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mark K (Aug 2, 2013)

If the state adopted the IBC and exempted certain residential properties from plan review and inspections but did not exempt these occupancies from compliance then the Owner still has an obligation to comply with the code.  Obligation to comply is not contingent on enforcement by the building department.

While I am sympathetic to the view that the IRC would not apply unless the state had formally adopted the IRC I would be hard pressed to support that view based on the exception to Section 101.2.  Would this mean that we must formally adopt each of the reference standards in the IBC for them to be applicable.

ICC has in effect said that there is no difference between a reference standard and a stand along code.

I have problems with the way that ICC introduced this exception.  My impression that this change was in support of ICC's decision to promote the use of the IRC, and if one was cynical to sell more manuals.

To be fair the IRC references compliance with the IBC as an option which would cause similar problems for those locations that had adopted the IRC but not the IBC.


----------



## retire09 (Aug 3, 2013)

In the amendments to the adopted IBC, the state of Alaska deleted all references to the International Residential Code.

My best guess is that the legal state code is the IBC for single family and that presents problems concerning structural requirements and design.

With our design criteria, every house woud require an engineered design.

Currently very few house plans involve a design professional and about half are owner drawn and built.


----------



## lpiburn (Aug 3, 2013)

If there is no local or state regulation adopted then enforcement lies solely with standards mentioned in the construction contract. If there was nothing in the contract, then you are out of luck and there is not much that can legally bind the contractor to a standard of quality.

This happens fairly regularly on Indian reservations. The construction contract specifically states "contractor shall comply with ____ edition of ____ code." In some cases the specified code even conflicts with those adopted by the state since they have no jurisdiction over the project.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 3, 2013)

> the state of Alaska deleted all references to the International Residential Code


 I don't have a code book at home but if memory serves me right all of the tables in the IRC for snow loads are limited to 70 lbs ground snow. So there might be some wisdom in not adopting the IRC prescriptive code for the state of Alaska.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 3, 2013)

Irregardless of what is in the construction contract the Owner is responsible for compliance with the building code.  This could be important if there was a law suit or if the building official later became aware of a non-compliance and decided to exercise his tools to require that the problem be fixed.  This is no different from what would happen if the building official later became aware of a lack of compliance in a building that had been plan checked and inspected.

It is not the building departments role to make  sure the contractor built it right, but it is their role to make sure that the building complies with the code.  The relationship between the owner and the contractor is not the building officials concern.


----------



## lpiburn (Aug 4, 2013)

I disagree. The building code is no more applicable than a graphic standards manual until it is adopted into law by the local jurisdiction. That's why at the beginning of many state codes there is a paragraph incorporating the code "by reference".

Actually, if there was a problem the best course of legal action would probably be to refer to construction standards like ASHRAE, ASCE, etc. It could be argued that those should be standard practice regardless of the building code or lack thereof.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 4, 2013)

The IBC adopts the IRC by reference.  Reference IBC Sections 101.2.1 and 102.4.  The IRC is treated as any other reference standard.

Standard practice cannot be enforced by the building official.  The status of standard practice in the event of Civil law suits is subject to the particular circumstances.


----------



## lpiburn (Aug 4, 2013)

Civil action is actually what I was referring to. Sorry it wasn't more clear.

Whether or not the IRC is still applicable is entirely dependent on the adopting ordinance. For example, the new Mexico building code strikes out the reference to the IPC and IMC and instead references the Uniform M and P codes. (Don't get me started)  In that case you can't argue that the IPC still applies just because it is referenced by the IBC.

Back to the question in the OP, they already said that the state is not involved so the IRC can't apply unless the owner specifically mentions it in the contract. For that matter IBC chapter 1 doesn't apply in the first place since the state specifically exempts these kind of projects from plan review.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 5, 2013)

Chapter 1 is not just about plan review.  Unless clearly stated in the state law exempting plan review the owner is not exempted from the need to comply with the technical provisions of the building code.  Does the state not require that a permit be obtained even if there is no plan review or inspections?  Does the state prohibit the building official from taking action if he latter on becomes aware that the residential building becomes unsafe?  All these issues are addressed in Chapter 1.


----------



## lpiburn (Aug 5, 2013)

You make a good point, and under other circumstances I would probably agree with you, but in this case it doesn't add up.



			
				retire09 said:
			
		

> In the amendments to the adopted IBC, the state of Alaska deleted all references to the International Residential Code.


I would say that deleting all references to the code does qualify as "clearly stated" in the state law that adopts the code in the first place. By deleting the references, the lawmakers are giving up the legal right to regulate residential construction. To your point on permitting, how would the state require a permit without also having a requirement for review? What then would the permit even mean? In most cases a permit indicates that the plan has been reviewed for compliance with the adopted standards. Of course, this does not relieve the builder of their obligation to comply with those same standards even if the AHJ missed something, but there has to BE a standard first.

Perhaps retire09 could comment on the permitting process. Does the owner or builder even have to submit documents for record keeping purposes? Are fees assessed at that point? If so, does the wording of the permit include any direction that the IRC still applies even if a review is not done?  I admit that could possibly be the case but I would find that extremely strange.


----------



## retire09 (Aug 5, 2013)

The state requires no plan, issues no permit and conducts no inspections on any building less than 3 dwellings. The state claims to have no code standard that applies to these homes.

The state of Alaska has 9 locations that have adopted residential codes. I am the AHJ in one of those locations and the problem does not exist in my jurisdiction.

I am trying to determine what the code standard is in the majority of the state that is not within one of those 9 locations.

I beleive the IBC standards for single family would apply.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 5, 2013)

I am confused.  Reference the link to this official New Mexico web site 14.7.3 NMAC

This link contains in part:

14.7.3.8                 ADOPTION OF THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE:

                A.            This rule adopts by reference the 2009 international residential code, as amended by this rule.

                B.            In this rule, each provision is numbered to correspond with the numbering of the 2009 international residential code.

[14.7.3.8 NMAC - Rp, 14.7.3.8 NMAC, 1-28-11]


----------



## retire09 (Aug 5, 2013)

I am in Alaska.


----------



## lpiburn (Aug 5, 2013)

LOL.  Sorry Mark, I probably confused you with my NM example since that's the one I'm familiar with.


----------

