# Chapter 33 questions



## righter101 (Oct 31, 2012)

Hey there everyone.  I am getting in to a section of the IBC that I don't visit much (as most of our construction is rural residential).

My reading of table 3306.1 indicates that the required levels of protection are based entirely on "distance from construction to lot line".  This would seem to deal with public sidewalks adjacent to a building under construciton.

I have an instance with an apartment rehabilitation project going on.  They have 5 or 6 apartment buildings, sidewalks between them.  Any true public sidewalks on the edges of the parcel are not near the construction.

There are some open trenches and residing work going on.  The contrator has placed a few stakes in the ground with orange mesh netting around the areas.

Is this sufficient?  Would any of the CH 33 requirements be applicable?  When I look at 3306, it seems there is an intent to protect pedestrians, but it generally refers to the table which is essentially protection for pedestrian traffic near the site, not within the site.

Thoughts??  Feedback??

Thanks.


----------



## Lynn (Oct 31, 2012)

I believe 3302.1 would require the safeguards unless you meet one of the two exception listed.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Oct 31, 2012)

3301.1 scope. Protection of adjacent public and private properties, and construction activites.


----------



## north star (Oct 31, 2012)

*+ +*

OSHA and the insurance company for the property owner and

the contractor [ typically ] considers everyone a pedestrian.

IMO, ...the intent is to prevent anyone from falling in to an

open area [ i.e. - litigation  ] that the contractor has created.

I'm guessing that even pets might be subject to such

protection........You know how litigious this country is!



*+ +*


----------



## righter101 (Oct 31, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback.  I think I didn't explain this quite clearly enough.  I have read and understand the scoping provisions, but my dilema is this.  3306.1 addresses pedestrian protection and states that peds shall be protected.... "as required by this chapter and table 3306.1"  This table provides the only clear if-then when a barrier or covered walkway or railing is required.

The reading of the table appears only to deal with construction distance to the lot line, which in this case, the construction is well away from any lot lines.  There are pathways throughout these apartments and I am trying to determine if I can legally require, through CH 33, that fences or barriers be erected.

Looking at table 3306.1, it doesn't seem to account for work within a single site, rather, focuses on lot line distance.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't want to tell the contrator to do something that we can't support with the code.  A literal reading of the code would indicate that "pedestrian protection" is only required if the activity is close to a lot line.

Does my dilema make sense.

I think they should have barriers or railings but I am not sure if I can get there from Ch 33.


----------



## righter101 (Oct 31, 2012)

Lynn said:
			
		

> I believe 3302.1 would require the safeguards unless you meet one of the two exception listed.


This project is 8 apartment buildings (separate, but all on the same lot).  The work is mainly siding replacement, building by building and some excavation between buildings.

Picture all the buildings being in a single line running north to south.  A sidewalk runs the length of all the buildings.  Each building has a branch off the sidewalk to serve the individual buildings.

All of this is 40-60 feet away from the "lot line".

How can I use Chapter 33 to require pedestrian protection??

I want to, but reading 3306.1 and the subsequent table, it only deals with lot line distance, which would appear to exclude these instances.

Thanks for the input.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 31, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Maybe I am missing something,


  Yep, it's not within your scope. You probably don't inspect cranes either.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 31, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> How can I use Chapter 33 to require pedestrian protection??


  Improperly


----------



## north star (Oct 31, 2012)

*= =*

righter101,

Are the sidewalks used as exits to the Public Way?.....If

so, then, IMO, ...***Lynn*** has listed the applicable code

section to use.

If the openings /trenches are next to the sidewalks, then

either install guardrailing [ the "more than 30 inches above

grade" thingy ], or safety/orange construction railing.

You want to [ attempt ] to prevent the passerby pedestrians

from falling in to the openings.

Is this your scenario?....Do your sidewalks serve as the

"required exits" from the buildings?



*+ +*


----------



## righter101 (Oct 31, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Improperly


If it is close enough to a lot line, then it would be required by CH 33.

I was seeking helpful discussion from others to see if there were historic (UBC) codes that dealt with pedestrian access within construction sites, not just adjacent too.  or similar feedback as to the intent of the code and possibly if anyone had helpful information, as 2 of the posters have offered.

Thanks though, my Christmas wish of cynicism and sarcasm was filled early....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 31, 2012)

3301.1 Scope.

The provisions of this chapter shall govern safety during construction and the protection of adjacent public and private properties.

3306.1 is there to protect people on other properties not the one the work is being performed on.

3310.2 Maintenance of means of egress.

Required means of egress shall be maintained at all times during construction, demolition, remodeling or alterations and additions to any building.

I still don't believe this gives you the authority to require anything but that the egress be maintained not protected.


----------



## righter101 (Oct 31, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 3301.1 Scope.The provisions of this chapter shall govern safety during construction and the protection of adjacent public and private properties.
> 
> 3306.1 is there to protect people on other properties not the one the work is being performed on.
> 
> ...


I agree.  Thanks for the feedback.  Since our jurisdiction is primiarly residential, I was reading this section after a tenant complained about construction activity.  My clear reading of the code indicated this but I wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 1, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> If it is close enough to a lot line, then it would be required by CH 33.  I was seeking helpful discussion from others to see if there were historic (UBC) codes that dealt with pedestrian access within construction sites, not just adjacent too.  or similar feedback as to the intent of the code and possibly if anyone had helpful information, as 2 of the posters have offered.  Thanks though, my Christmas wish of cynicism and sarcasm was filled early....


  Your question seeking ways in which you could use chapter 33 to require protection, was asked in your third post in this thread.   In that post, as in your two previous posts, you had acknowledged understanding that the provisions you wished to enforce were not required by the code.

  In short, you had a solution for which you were trying to create a problem.

  Given your commitment to applying the code improperly, I didn't have stomach for watching a trainwreck of rationalizations unfold.

  So for the sake of efficiency, I just cut to the chase.

  What is cynical in this thread, is not my comment - it is bluntly factual.

  No, what is cynical in this thread is your eagerness to apply the code beyond its scope while being fully aware that you are doing so.

  Furthermore, your brand of cynicism tars the professional reputation of all code officials.

  My hope is that Santa brings you a pair.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 1, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Your question seeking ways in which you could use chapter 33 to require protection, was asked in your third post in this thread.   In that post, as in your two previous posts, you had acknowledged understanding that the provisions you wished to enforce were not required by the code.
> 
> In short, you had a solution for which you were trying to create a problem.
> 
> ...


The only thing exceeding your incorrect assessment of me and this situation is how far out of line you are.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 1, 2012)

> So for the sake of efficiency, I just cut to the chase


Cutting to the chase would have been telling him his gut reaction was correct and he could not use Chapter 33 in the way his heart wanted to. Nobody wants to see anybody injured through neglect or stupidity as the code does not cover every situation and that is all he was asking.

Ecouragement is much more educational and reasurring and that is all he was asking for. "Maybe I am missing something" Like the majority of post on this board he was asking for assistance and confirmation his application of the code was correct.

Brudgers you are a wealth of knowledge when it comes to codes and construction and it did not come about in the first few years of your proffession use use it to help and encourage not discourage.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 1, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Cutting to the chase would have been telling him his gut reaction was correct and he could not use Chapter 33 in the way his heart wanted to. Nobody wants to see anybody injured through neglect or stupidity as the code does not cover every situation and that is all he was asking. Ecouragement is much more educational and reasurring and that is all he was asking for. "Maybe I am missing something" Like the majority of post on this board he was asking for assistance and confirmation his application of the code was correct. Brudgers you are a wealth of knowledge when it comes to codes and construction and it did not come about in the first few years of your proffession use use it to help and encourage not discourage.


  If he had been asking for guidance in applying the code, your comments would accurately describe the situation.   However, his post explicitly requested rationales for misapplying the code with full acknowledgement that he intended to misapply it.

  In other words, what he stated he was missing was not an understanding of the code, but rather a plausible misunderstanding which would allow him to require something which was not required.

  After directly acknowledging in three posts that what he wanted to require was not clearly not required, the suggestion that he didn't understand the code beggars belief.

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/commercial-building-codes/10021-chapter-33-questions.html#post93750


----------



## tmurray (Nov 1, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the feedback.  I think I didn't explain this quite clearly enough.  I have read and understand the scoping provisions, but my dilema is this.  3306.1 addresses pedestrian protection and states that peds shall be protected.... "as required by this chapter and table 3306.1"  This table provides the only clear if-then when a barrier or covered walkway or railing is required.The reading of the table appears only to deal with construction distance to the lot line, which in this case, the construction is well away from any lot lines.  There are pathways throughout these apartments and I am trying to determine if I can legally require, through CH 33, that fences or barriers be erected.
> 
> Looking at table 3306.1, it doesn't seem to account for work within a single site, rather, focuses on lot line distance.
> 
> ...


People moving about a construction site generally do so with more care than the general public exercises when walking down a public sidewalk. The lines are blurred in this situation since the pedestrians are accessing the construction site. The main thing would be making these people aware they are accessing a construction site when they are exiting their building (such as a sign). While it does not appear you can force a contractor to provide any kind of protection, it might do some good to raise your concerns with him and let him know that you'd hate to see the project held up because someone fell into an open trench and new the investigators shut the site down for a couple days while their investigation is ongoing.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 1, 2012)

tmurray said:
			
		

> People moving about a construction site generally do so with more care than the general public exercises when walking down a public sidewalk. The lines are blurred in this situation since the pedestrians are accessing the construction site. The main thing would be making these people aware they are accessing a construction site when they are exiting their building (such as a sign). While it does not appear you can force a contractor to provide any kind of protection, it might do some good to raise your concerns with him and let him know that you'd hate to see the project held up because someone fell into an open trench and new the investigators shut the site down for a couple days while their investigation is ongoing.


Thank you for your feedback.  I was trying to determine whether or not the code addressed this specific situation and it is clear that it doesn't.  The discussion from contributors was very helpful.

I will simply refer this to OSHA if I feel unsafe conditions exist in this workplace, as it appears to fall under their purview.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 1, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> The only thing exceeding your incorrect assessment of me and this situation is how far out of line you are.


I think it would be helpful for brudgers to read the entire post(s).


----------



## brudgers (Nov 1, 2012)

kilitact said:
			
		

> I think it would be helpful for brudgers to read the entire post(s).


  Three times he explained he didn't think guards were required.     Three times he explained that he wanted them, anyway.    The third time, he asked the forum for supporting rationalizations when shoving them down the contractor's throat.    I just pointed out the obvious. No matter what anyone posted, he would be knowingly going beyond the code.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 1, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Thank you for your feedback.  I was trying to determine whether or not the code addressed this specific situation and it is clear that it doesn't.  The discussion from contributors was very helpful.  I will simply refer this to OSHA if I feel unsafe conditions exist in this workplace, as it appears to fall under their purview.


  Sure you still don't want to try to BS your way through with something from the UBC?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 1, 2012)

> The third time, he asked the forum for supporting rationalizations when shoving them down the contractor's throat


No he did not



> but I don't want to tell the contrator to do something that we can't support with the code


He was just wanting assurance that he was applying the code properly.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 2, 2012)

That's only part of the context.



> Maybe I am missing something, but I don't want to tell the contrator to do something that we can't support with the code. A literal reading of the code would indicate that "pedestrian protection" is only required if the activity is close to a lot line.  Does my dilema make sense.  I think they should have barriers or railings but I am not sure if I can get there from Ch 33.


  So let's break it down:   The "missing something" is a rationale for requiring the barriers.

  "Support with code" is a non-literal reading.

  The dilemma is "the code doesn't require it" versus "I want it required."

  He is looking for a way to "should" on the contractor using a non-literal interpretation of the code.

  Thus the direct solicitation for plausible misreadings in the next post.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 2, 2012)

So lets break it down:

Someone called and reported concerns with a jobsite involving permitted work.

I took the complaint and read CH 33.

From a reading of CH 33 it appeared that the IBC would not govern in this instance.

The site was and still is dangerous.

I don't have a callous disregard for human life and safety.

I asked this forum for POV's on this section in the code.

Most posters posted helpful information.  My original reading that the code could not be applied in this situation was confirmed.

That a dangerous situation exists has not changed.

That another agency will be the ones to enforce it is really the matter at hand.

Brugers makes FALSE assumptions and interpretations concerning posters motives, stating them as "facts" that he believes he has uncovered.

Brugers posts in a condescending, bordeline libelous manner.

Nothing new.  Great building code forum.  Same brugers.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 2, 2012)

Division 1 of the specifications often contain requirements for pedestrian barriers and other safety requirements.  You could enforce them if they are more stringent than IBC chapter 33 requirements, and spelled out clearly enough that you don't have to interpret them.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 4, 2012)

A code official enforces the contract between the Owner and Builder at considerable financial peril.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 4, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> The site was and still is dangerous.


  Then cowboy up and condemn it.


----------



## ICE (Nov 4, 2012)

If the objective is to protect pedestrians it helps to have a definition of pedestrian.

Chapter 11 definitions provides this:

PEDESTRIAN is an individual who moves within walking

areas with or without the use of walking-assistive devices such

as crutches, leg braces, wheelchairs, etc.

PEDESTRIAN WAY is a route by which a pedestrian may

pass.

Any person not inside a dwelling could be considered a pedestrian.

Some are more pedestrian than others.

Brudgers is not pedestrian.

In an apartment complex, the entire grounds are a pedestrian way with some exceptions such as swimming pools.

You can't find a code for every situation.

You have to deal with every situation.

Wing it.

I'll get flak here for saying that.

You will get flak there for doing that.

You will feel better than if you do nothing.

Trust me I have experience with this.

Besides that, it is Building/Safety that we work for and the pedestrians of the world count on us to do the right thing.

Then again maybe my way is not for you.

I speak from a unique position in that nobody wants my job.

Oh some want to take it away from me but those people couldn't do my job.

Anybody that can do my job knows better than to want to.

I get away with stuff.

You might not.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 5, 2012)

Doesn't move the sidewalks any closer to the lot lines...unless you are also in charge of replats.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 5, 2012)

"A code official enforces the contract between the Owner and Builder at considerable financial peril."

A code official inspects to what is on the contract documents.  If they call for a greater fire resistance or a larger beam than the code requires the inspector can and should reject lesser construction that meets the code but not the contract documents.  How is this different?


----------



## Yankee (Nov 5, 2012)

Anyone not contracted to work on the project is "the public" and if they have access through a part of the construction, then you may at your desecration apply any and all of chapter 33 and even provide "protection" along the means of egress. Absolutely.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 5, 2012)

I am sure the contractor would much rather have a visit (and possible fines) from OSHA and a visit (and possible fines) from the DOE, than a simple phone call from the building department saying "we have received some complaints about the state of the job site....."

Heck, this is right by a wetland too.  Seems like Department of Fish and Wildlife might want to visit the site too....

I will leave that to the original complainant to contact these OGA's though.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 5, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> I get away with stuff.
> 
> You might not.


I am betting on "under 20 minutes" for the comments to appear regarding "making people dance for your amusement" and similar.....


----------



## brudgers (Nov 5, 2012)

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> "A code official enforces the contract between the Owner and Builder at considerable financial peril."  A code official inspects to what is on the contract documents.  If they call for a greater fire resistance or a larger beam than the code requires the inspector can and should reject lesser construction that meets the code but not the contract documents.  How is this different?


  Really?   You enforce LEED waste disposal requirements?

  You enforce pay request documentation?

  Product substitution request procedures?

  Insurance requirements?

  Section 1 is administrative.

  It's contractual, not construction.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 5, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Anyone not contracted to work on the project is "the public" and if they have access through a part of the construction, then you may at your desecration apply any and all of chapter 33 and even provide "protection" along the means of egress. Absolutely.


  So long as you are willing to do so improperly.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 5, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> So long as you are willing to do so improperly.


 Explain why you believe it is improper?I have had a construction project on a church which "attached" to the second exit of an existing assembly area, and major renovations on a high school while it was in session, and I can guarantee you that I was properly "all over" the contractor to maintain safety devices on all exiting and pedestrian ways. It is part of the approval with the building permit.


----------



## ICE (Nov 5, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Thank you for your feedback.  I was trying to determine whether or not the code addressed this specific situation and it is clear that it doesn't.  The discussion from contributors was very helpful.I will simply refer this to OSHA if I feel unsafe conditions exist in this workplace, as it appears to fall under their purview.


You must go through lots of towels.


----------



## ICE (Nov 5, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> So long as you are willing to do so improperly.


Willing?....I'm damn near eager.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 5, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> You must go through lots of towels.


Huh?? I must be as dense as brugers thinks I am because I missed that one.

Care to elaborate??


----------



## brudgers (Nov 5, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Willing?....I'm damn near eager.


  But you're honest about it.


----------



## ICE (Nov 5, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Huh?? I must be as dense as brudgers thinks I am because I missed that one.Care to elaborate??


Five days later, you tossed in the towel.

There was more here but it was too strong for the reality of what I now know.  Hell, except for a picture, you haven't even seen the site.  This is all based on a tenant complaint.

Mail that tenant a copy of chapter 33 and let her handle it.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 5, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback ICE.  You make a very good point.  This situation is a bit unique, given our jurisdiction.  I was sent a few pictures, as this site is on a different island, so I can't just swing by on a moments notice.  I would have to plan a day trip or send the inspector from that island.

The contractor did put up some orange mesh fencing stuff to delineate the construction area, just not the barriers or guards as described in CH 33. That was my dilema, they put something up during construction but a tenant felt that it wasn't enough.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 6, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> just not the barriers or guards as described in CH 33.


  The description includes the distance from the lot line.   There is no dilemma except insofar one places compliance and make believe upon it's horns.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 6, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The description includes the distance from the lot line.   There is no dilemma except insofar one places compliance and make believe upon it's horns.


Can you simply not reply to postings that I make?  It is clear you are unable to behave in a civil manner and provide anything other than dripping sarcasm.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 6, 2012)

​Brudgers. interesting that you didn't answer my question.

*SECTION 3306 PROTECTION OF PEDESTRIANS *

*3306.1 Protection required. **Pedestrians shall be protected during construction, remodeling and demolition activities as required by this chapter and Table 3306.1.** Signs shall be provided to direct pedestrian traffic *

*Two places to look, Table 3306.1 AND/OR "this Chapter". You are not limited to just the table so continue looking in the chapter.*

*3306.2** Walkways.* *A walkway shall be provided for pedestrian travel in front of every construction and demolition site* *This does not say or mean that the "site" is the "property limits", it means the "construction site" **unless the applicable governing authority authorizes the sidewalk to be fenced or closed. Walkways shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the pedestrian traffic, but in no case shall they be less than 4 feet (1219 mm) in width. Walkways shall be provided with a durable walking surface. Walkways shall be **accessible in accordance with Chapter 11 and shall be designed to support all imposed loads and in no case shall the design live load be less than 150 pounds per square foot (psf) (7.2 kN/m**2**).**3306.4 Construction railings.**Construction railings shall be at least 42 inches (1067 mm) in height and shall be sufficient to **direct pedestrians around construction areas**. **​"Construction areas" are any place that construction is happening, including excavated areas, and the railing is there to "direct pedestrians around" . . . *


----------



## righter101 (Nov 6, 2012)

Thanks Yankee.  I am still (always) learning and when I come across something I am not well versed in, I ask others (staff, this forum, and other resources) for opinions their take on a code section.  The discussion usually gives good insight in to the intent of the code, as well as why others support a certain POV over another.

I appreciate your previous post with a direct link how you reached your conclusion.

Thank you for the time and consideration in this matter.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 6, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Can you simply not reply to postings that I make?  It is clear you are unable to behave in a civil manner and provide anything other than dripping sarcasm.


  I offer a full range of responses.   Including sarcasm of course.

  But also snark, irony, and plain rudeness.

  I've even been known to use pompous self-righteousness.

  Once, I was even helpful.

  I was probably just off form.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 6, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> ​Brudgers. interesting that you didn't answer my question.*  SECTION 3306 PROTECTION OF PEDESTRIANS **  3306.1 Protection required. **Pedestrians shall be protected during construction, remodeling and demolition activities as required by this chapter and Table 3306.1.** Signs shall be provided to direct pedestrian traffic  **Two places to look, Table 3306.1 AND/OR "this Chapter". You are not limited to just the table so continue looking in the chapter.* *3306.2** Walkways.* *A walkway shall be provided for pedestrian travel in front of every construction and demolition site* *This does not say or mean that the "site" is the "property limits", it means the "construction site" **unless the applicable governing authority authorizes the sidewalk to be fenced or closed. Walkways shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the pedestrian traffic, but in no case shall they be less than 4 feet (1219 mm) in width. Walkways shall be provided with a durable walking surface. Walkways shall be **accessible in accordance with Chapter 11 and shall be designed to support all imposed loads and in no case shall the design live load be less than 150 pounds per square foot (psf) (7.2 kN/m**2**).**3306.4 Construction railings.**Construction railings shall be at least 42 inches (1067 mm) in height and shall be sufficient to **direct pedestrians around construction areas**. **​"Construction areas" are any place that construction is happening, including excavated areas, and the railing is there to "direct pedestrians around" . . . *


   I thought you must have been just joking. I mean it didn't occur to me that you could be torturing the code so severely by accident.   See the definition of "site" in the building code.

  Consider writing it down 100 times so that you don't forget it...it's a pretty important concept.

  In the future, when you think the code says what you wish it said, it's probably a sign that you haven't read the whole thing.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 6, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> I appreciate your previous post with a direct link how you reached your conclusion.


  Ahhh... I see that you are a connoisseur of misapplication.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 6, 2012)

*B*loviating

*R*epetitive

*U*nderwhelming

*D*rivel

*G*one

*E*xcessively

*R*ude

*S*ometimes


----------



## Yankee (Nov 7, 2012)

Brudgers, is it your opinion that the building code has no "chapter 33 jurisdiction" around a project area inside of the property lines? And if that is your opinion, who do you believe has jurisdiction for non-contract/general public people who are in that area?


----------



## brudgers (Nov 7, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Brudgers, is it your opinion that the building code has no "chapter 33 jurisdiction" around a project area inside of the property lines? And if that is your opinion, who do you believe has jurisdiction for non-contract/general public people who are in that area?


  Umm...related to the concerns raised in this thread, the Owner is granted discretionary power over the SITE to the extent the chapter does not explicitly make requirements.  This includes those portions of the site over a particular distance from the lot lines.

  The phrase is "in front of", not "at the front of."

  Thus, the phrase "in front of every construction and demolition site" both requires and entitles the owner to modify the public right of way to maintain a "pedestrian walkway." The requirement for pedestrian walkways does not extend the government's jurisdiction so as to require them within the SITE.

  Within the site, chapter 33 allows the government jurisdiction over means of egress.

  If you want the authority to mandate guards withing construction sites, your local development code is the appropriate vehicle.

  Assuming of course that you care to avoid improperly applying the building code.

  An assumption of which I am skeptical.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 7, 2012)

Humor?

Sidewalk closed until further notice! Please use alternate route!

Expect catcalls while walking near this site!

Bubble wrap issued apon request for your saftey!

Job trailer not required to be accessible!

Clean your dam boots before entering my office!

Just a few signs you may see a the local job site.

pc1


----------



## brudgers (Nov 7, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> *B*loviating *R*epetitive *U*nderwhelming *D*rivel *G*one *E*xcessively *R*ude *S*ometimes


  It looks like you'll be failing Righter 101, this semester.   Floral arranging might be a more appropriate vocational choice for you.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 7, 2012)

In thinking about the projects I have been involved with, I will admit that essentially all of the pedestrian ways anticipated to be used during construction were part of one or another means of egress from the buildings out to the public way. Perhaps you have a point; it is unfortunate that one has to pull whatever wisdom you have to offer out of you like a rotten tooth. . . .


----------



## brudgers (Nov 7, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> In thinking about the projects I have been involved with, I will admit that essentially all of the pedestrian ways anticipated to be used during construction were part of one or another means of egress from the buildings out to the public way. Perhaps you have a point; it is unfortunate that one has to pull whatever wisdom you have to offer out of you like a rotten tooth. . . .


  My point is simple.   Don't stop reading the code when you find the answer you want.

  It helps if all you want is the correct answer.

  Rather than wanting what you wish was the answer.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 7, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> It looks like you'll be failing Righter 101, this semester.   Floral arranging might be a more appropriate vocational choice for you.


Perhaps floral arranging may be in order.  Seems as though the slots for "has-been architects with axes to grind & too much time on their hands" are all filled up.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 7, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Perhaps floral arranging may be in order.  Seems as though the slots for "has-been architects with axes to grind & too much time on their hands" are all filled up.


Now that is unfair! Brudgers worked as a governmental employee in the past, for . . . almost a whole year!!!


----------



## ICE (Nov 7, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Now that is unfair! Brudgers worked as a governmental employee in the past, for . . . almost a whole year!!!


He's no dummy huh.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 7, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Perhaps floral arranging may be in order.  Seems as though the slots for "has-been architects with axes to grind & too much time on their hands" are all filled up.


  Actually, there's always room in architecture for another person who doesn't understand the code .   You have options.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 7, 2012)

OK folks.......get it back to on topic, can the sniping and BS comments, keep it on topic.


----------



## ICE (Nov 7, 2012)

You're a real crowd pleaser there Fatboy.  Speaking of crowd pleasers, what became of Mr.Softy?


----------



## fatboy (Nov 7, 2012)

Had a complaint on this threads turn.

Don't know about Softy, sometimes they just move on. Wondering what happened to George Roberts.....been a long time for him also.


----------



## RJJ (Nov 7, 2012)

Agree! Lets be as professional as possible. Bring it back to topic.


----------



## Rider Rick (Nov 7, 2012)

It makes for fun reading.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 8, 2012)

To muddy or not?


----------



## Rider Rick (Nov 8, 2012)

You need to be tough, to be in this business, right?


----------



## kilitact (Nov 8, 2012)

Rider Rick said:
			
		

> You need to be tough, to be in this business, right?


I don't think so. At a minimum you should be able to read and digest what you read.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 8, 2012)

How bout this section of code from Chapter 1 of the IBC???

115.1 Authority. Whenever the building official finds any

work regulated by this code being performed in a manner either

contrary to the provisions of this code or dangerous or unsafe,

the building official is authorized to issue a stop work order.

or this section:

116.1 Conditions. Structures or existing equipment that are or

hereafter become unsafe, insanitary or deficient because of

inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation,

or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous

to human life or the public welfare, or that involve illegal

or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance, shall be

deemed an unsafe condition. Unsafe structures shall be taken

down and removed or made safe, as the building official deems

necessary and as provided for in this section.Avacant structure

that is not secured against entry shall be deemed unsafe.

Hmmmmm......  Seems like if "work regulated by this code" is being performed in an "unsafe or dangerous manner", the BO can step in and take action.

Now we get to debate if overhead construction (residing, painting, etc) over the enterance to a building, without overhead protection is actually "unsafe" or "dangerous".

Wow, code language that supports the idea of a duty to public safety...


----------



## brudgers (Nov 8, 2012)

You can issue a stop work order.

  While waiting for the guards to be installed, work on your resume.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 8, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> How bout this section of code from Chapter 1 of the IBC???115.1 Authority. Whenever the building official finds any
> 
> work regulated by this code being performed in a manner either
> 
> ...


A walkway shall be provided for pedestrian travel in front of every construction and demolition site unless the applicable governing authority authorizes the sidewalk to be fenced or closed. Walkways shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the pedestrian traffic, but in no case shall be less than 4 feet in width. Walkways shall be accessible in accordance with Chapter 11 and shall be designed to support all imposed loads and in no case shall the design live load be less than 150 pounds per square foot. Sec. 3606.2

So, does this only provide protection for the front of the site/building, and what constitutes the front?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 8, 2012)

115.2

 The stop work order shall state the reason for the order, and the conditions under which the cited work will be permitted to resume.

What code section are you going to cite for your reason?

116.1.

Structures or existing equipment that are or hereafter become unsafe, insanitary or deficient

So what part of the _structure _is unsafe?

How is the means of egress become inadequate?


----------



## righter101 (Nov 8, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 115.2 The stop work order shall state the reason for the order, and the conditions under which the cited work will be permitted to resume.
> 
> What code section are you going to cite for your reason?
> 
> ...


I will cite 115.1.

If you have construction going on above the door with people removing siding, windows, roofing....workers 2 or 3 stories up with tools and materials, above an entrance to an apartment building or a school....

To me, that is "work regulated by this code being performed in a manner ....dangerous or unsafe.."

I think I could cite 116.1 as well, "structures....." "otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare....".

If a structure is being partially demolished above the only door to get in or out, and the entrance is not protected against falling tools and building materials, I would consider that "otherwise dangerous to human life or public welfare".....


----------



## brudgers (Nov 8, 2012)

kilitact said:
			
		

> A walkway shall be provided for pedestrian travel in front of every construction and demolition site unless the applicable governing authority authorizes the sidewalk to be fenced or closed. Walkways shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the pedestrian traffic, but in no case shall be less than 4 feet in width. Walkways shall be accessible in accordance with Chapter 11 and shall be designed to support all imposed loads and in no case shall the design live load be less than 150 pounds per square foot. Sec. 3606.2 So, does this only provide protection for the front of the site/building, and what constitutes the front?


  What, dear sir, is the definition of "construction site?"


----------



## kilitact (Nov 8, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> What, dear sir, is the definition of "construction site?"


The site upon which construction activity is taking place.

What is the front of such site?


----------



## brudgers (Nov 8, 2012)

kilitact said:
			
		

> The site upon which construction activity is taking place. What is the front of such site?


  Zounds Bodkins, my good fellow!   Perchance, do you have a copy of the building code?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 8, 2012)

115.1 gives the building official the authority to issue a stop work order if the work being performed is contrary to the code or dangerous or unsafe

As the building official you have to state the reason for the stop work order and under what conditions you will allow it to resume. This is where it gets sticky. You do not have a specific section under the ICC body of codes that you can site. 116.1 is for an unsafe or dangerous _structure. _The structure isn't the problem neither is the work being performed.

116.1 is for structures and equipment that become unsafe or dangerous, this is not what you are describing. It is conditions resulting from the permited construction activity you are trying to regulate.

Sorry but you should probably calling OSHA or some other agency for help on this one.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 8, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Zounds Bodkins, my good fellow!   Perchance, do you have a copy of the building code?


Yes, which year are you looking at


----------



## brudgers (Nov 8, 2012)

kilitact said:
			
		

> Yes, which year are you looking at


  One in which there is a definition of "site," of course!     Praytell! How many of them are you not looking in, stout yeoman?


----------



## kilitact (Nov 8, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> One in which there is a definition of "site," of course!     Praytell! How many of them are you not looking in, stout yeoman?


So, provide the code year and the definition(s) your finding of "site".

Question still pending to you or perhaps your still researching ; what is the front?


----------



## righter101 (Nov 8, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> You do not have a specific section under the ICC body of codes that you can site.   Sorry but you should probably calling OSHA or some other agency for help on this one.


Other than 115.1???

The work being done is regulated by the code.

The structure is what is being worked on.

The public entry to the building is part of the structure.

Having construction above a public door with tools, materials and demolition work going on over the door and no protection for the people using this door is "dangerous" or "unsafe" and it is "work regulated by the provisions of this code"

115.1 Authorizes me to issue a stop work order.  I then have to provide reasons and conditions that allow for resumption.

This seems pretty broad.  I don't feel it is out of line to use this in a situation such as this.

If you saw someone stripping a roof as part of a reroof permit and shoving panels of sheetmetal or sheets of plywood and allowing them to fall 2 or 3 stories, hit the ground above, around, on, or near the enterance to an apartment building or a school, would you honestly, as the building official, overlook that and say "not my job"???

I think failing to use this section, in this or similar instance, could be construed as non-feasance, IMHO.

It is up to me as BO to justify "dangerous or unsafe".  Would a contractor be willing to argue that what they are doing is not dangerous or not unsafe???

I am willing to find out.


----------



## ICE (Nov 8, 2012)

What have you heard from the tenant lately?  Is it still dangerous enough to ignore?  Are you still working off a picture?

I like the comparison to raining plywood.  I watched a unit peel like a deck of cards from a second story roof.  It's surreal to see the sheets getting smaller and smaller as they exit the neighborhood.  I wonder what people thought where they came down.

I made it into a first floor apt.  A foreman followed me and went straight to a window to see the show.  Lap siding was in the air and a two foot piece nailed him.


----------



## ICE (Nov 8, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> I am willing to find out.


Is there a time frame for that or are you speaking hypothetically?


----------



## righter101 (Nov 8, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> What have you heard from the tenant lately?  Is it still dangerous enough to ignore?  Are you still working off a picture?I like the comparison to raining plywood.  I watched a unit peel like a deck of cards from a second story roof.  It's surreal to see the sheets getting smaller and smaller as they exit the neighborhood.  I wonder what people thought where they came down.
> 
> I made it into a first floor apt.  A foreman followed me and went straight to a window to see the show.  Lap siding was in the air and a two foot piece nailed him.


I sent the inspector out yesterday and he is working with the contractor on a solution.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 8, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Is there a time frame for that or are you speaking hypothetically?


Their willingness to make safety improvements has me leaning away from a SWO.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 8, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Sorry but you should probably calling OSHA or some other agency for help on this one.


OSHA only deals with workers on the site, the same issues MAY be part of the worker safety, but may not be. The Insurance Agency/Safety Guy is a good choice. But really, , , they are going to argue if you ask nicely?


----------



## righter101 (Nov 8, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> OSHA only deals with workers on the site, the same issues MAY be part of the worker safety, but may not be. The Insurance Agency/Safety Guy is a good choice. But really, , , they are going to argue if you ask nicely?


Yeah, I called OSHA.  They don't care about tenants on a site.  If you are a worker up 4 stories and want to spend the day dropping hammers and screwdrivers over the door to the building, just make sure you have your harness, eye protection and hard hat, and OSHA is A-OK with it.

Seems like the building department, using 115.1 has justification to require remedy of a dangerous or unsafe condition, when it involves work authorized by the code.


----------



## Rider Rick (Nov 8, 2012)

righter101,

Is this an island contractor or off island contractor?


----------



## righter101 (Nov 8, 2012)

Rider Rick said:
			
		

> righter101,Is this an island contractor or off island contractor?


They are local.


----------



## Rider Rick (Nov 8, 2012)

I would set up a time to meet with the contractor and walk the job site with him.


----------



## ICE (Nov 8, 2012)

Rider Rick said:
			
		

> I would set up a time to meet with the contractor and walk the job site with him.


The tenant seems to be the sharpest player.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 8, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> The tenant seems to be the sharpest player.


Inspector is meeting with both parites today.

Public saftey will be restored/maintained.

Section 115.1 seems like the most applicable section that could be used.  I don't want to resort to a SWO but the option is there and defensible under the IBC.  I think the inspector will be able to hammer it out.  I am trusting his discretion and judgement.  If I need to, I will make a trip over there, but that is why we have good inspectors (or deputies), because we trust them.


----------

