# Clearance to chimneys



## beach

A few code cycles ago, the Fire Code was very clear requiring a minimum 10' between a tree (branches, etc.) and the outlet of a chimney....now I can't find it anywhere, my enforcement letters need to be updated and the closest I can find is Sec. 304.1.2 (2006 IFC/2007 CFC) which is kind of a stretch...... What happened???? :?:


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: Clearance to chimneys

This might work to get there

2006 IFC

304.1.2 Vegetation.

Weeds, grass, vines or other growth that is capable of being ignited and endangering property, shall be cut down and removed by the owner or occupant of the premises. Vegetation clearance requirements in urban-wildland interface areas shall be in accordance with the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code.

2006 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code

604.4 Trees.

Tree crowns extending to within 10 feet (3048 mm) of any structure shall be pruned to maintain a minimum horizontal clearance of 10 feet (3048 mm). Tree crowns within the defensible space shall be pruned to remove limbs located less than 6 feet (1829 mm) above the ground surface adjacent to the trees.

Portions of tree crowns that extend within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the outlet of a chimney shall be pruned to maintain a minimum horizontal clearance of 10 feet (3048 mm).

Deadwood and litter shall be regularly removed from trees.


----------



## beach

Re: Clearance to chimneys

Thanks, but I believe that is only for WUI designated areas. The fire code used to reference all chimneys.....


----------



## cda

Re: Clearance to chimneys

beach

OK what section, code, and edtion did it use to be in?????


----------



## beach

Re: Clearance to chimneys

Cda,

That's a good question! I can't even find it in the '94 UFC.....I could have sworn it was in the fire code somewhere...

So the question begs:

What do you do if you receive a complaint about a fireplace chimney with tree branches growing over it (within 12") at a residense that is NOT in a special fire protection area, WUI, etc.?

1. What code section do you use?

2. How far away does the tree, branches, etc. have to be away from the outlet of the chimney?

3. How would you explain the requirement to a judge?

I can always fake it, quote our Municipal code, and hope nobody actually checks, but I don't do things that way:

"Section 318.3.5 Roofs. All roofs of structures in designated wildland fire hazard areas shall comply with the following guidelines:

B. Any portion of any tree, bush, or shrub, which is located within ten feet of the outlet of a chimney, shall be removed."


----------



## cda

Re: Clearance to chimneys

are we talking all chimmneys or houses, apartments, ???

any property mantence code you all use???

how about if they never use the fireplace does it still apply???

any nfpa standard you can run to???


----------



## beach

Re: Clearance to chimneys



> are we talking all chimmneys or houses, apartments, ???any property mantence code you all use???
> 
> how about if they never use the fireplace does it still apply???
> 
> any nfpa standard you can run to???


Houses, apartments, whatever.....

A fireplace is a fireplace regardless if they use it or not....unless it's permanently blocked off.

I can't find anything to back me up.......so what is everybody else doing? There's got to be trees growing too close to chimneys across America.....municipal code?


----------



## JBI

Re: Clearance to chimneys

Most folks round heah don't want to burn their houses down so, no we don't see that problem often.


----------



## cheyer

Re: Clearance to chimneys

Beach,

I believe it was located in the 2001 CFC (don't remember what section though     ......I remember citing it a few times.....


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: Clearance to chimneys

Beach,

Don’t use IFC but I would use NFPA 1 (10.14.10.1) pretty much the same.  Regarding the use of IFC.......

1) I would use 304.1.2

2-3) I would use the guidance for the WUI as *MT* provided as explanatory information for any potential litigation.

If it came down to litigation or having to explain the logic to the customer or judge; I would explain that the discretion provided by the applicable code section permits the code official to make the determination of the hazard documented and photographed. Since the WUI provisional guidance is intended to keep a fire’s ignition from occurring in combustible vegetation in proximity to a chimney’s opening; the same theory should be applicable in non WUI designated environments to prevent exterior fire spread and development potentials to neighboring properties.

I would also submit a code change proposal to include correlation with the WUI guidance provision for chimneys and exterior heating/furnace appliances.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Clearance to chimneys



			
				beach said:
			
		

> A few code cycles ago, the Fire Code was very clear requiring a minimum 10' between a tree (branches, etc.) and the outlet of a chimney....now I can't find it anywhere, my enforcement letters need to be updated and the closest I can find is Sec. 304.1.2 (2006 IFC/2007 CFC) which is kind of a stretch...... What happened???? :?:


A professional ought to be able to let their "the way it should be" go.

If you find yourself having to contort the generalized code sections beyond what is explicit to construct a narrow technical interpretation, well...

If it's not in the code, despite whatever it is you're actually doing, you aren't _enforcing_ anything.


----------



## beach

Re: Clearance to chimneys

And you quoted me for what reason?

Beach wrote:



> I can always fake it, quote our Municipal code, and hope nobody actually checks, but I don't do things that way:


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: Clearance to chimneys

Ok..........I’ll bite (I don't believe this situation is anyone's attempt to enforce will)



> A professional ought to be able to let their "the way it should be" go. If you find yourself having to contort the generalized code sections beyond what is explicit to construct a narrow technical interpretation, well... If it's not in the code, despite whatever it is you're actually doing, you aren't enforcing anything.


In the event or situation where there is obvious *“gray matter”* for one to make the interpretation based on exact specific language or lack thereof; the official is permitted to make the call on the hazard provided the hazard exists.  This particular situation appears to be justified by the hazard present and the “specific” section of the code gives the official the enforcement capability hence...........



> the discretion provided by the applicable code section permits the code official to make the determination of the hazard


If the fire hazard exists the fire official is obligated to address the hazard and make necessary determinations on how to enforce and mitigate the hazard and in this particular type of situation there appears to be a hazard.  As a "professional" and charged with being the fire code official, I tend to use a commen sense approach when dealing with "gray matter" and the enforcement avenue used in my response addresses that "gray matter" and sure beats the alternative potentials in litigation (aftermath) if I knew a hazard existed and chose to let it slide just because the code didn't say "chminey". The fire code is different from the design code (in terms for maintenance) whereas the fire code is intended to mitigate a discovered hazard to prevent fires based on the ability of the fire official to use their determination of a hazard present and envoke the authority permitted by the code and since the original reference was to IFC...... (IFC 102.7; 102.8; 104.1; 104.3; 104.3.1 if necessary; 301.1 and 304.1.2).

Edit: Beach, I didn't want to jump in again but they had me at "professional"  :lol:


----------



## beach

Re: Clearance to chimneys

Thanks FM! I couldn't find the appropriate words to reply to those statements while searching for a ladder to help someone off of a very tall equine.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: Clearance to chimneys

  and be safe out there!


----------



## brudgers

Re: Clearance to chimneys

FMB, under NFPA the authority of the AHJ is very clear.

I don't see similar discretion being allowed by "The Ick" codes, and this is intentional.

The whole justifying rational for "The Ick" was consistency across jurisdictions.

Not code consistency - since NFPA already provided that - but enforcement consistency.

Twisting "The Ick" to allow similar discretion to the NFPA isn't needed if that's your goal.

Just twist the specific section.


----------



## pwood

Re: Clearance to chimneys

beach,

   check out section 4291 of the california public resources code


----------



## beach

Re: Clearance to chimneys

Thanks Pwood, that's consistant with the WUI code.

Funny thing is, does a chimney in relation to a tree know if it's in a WUI or not? or, is it ok for the chimney to cause the tree and house to burn only in areas that are NOT in a special fire protection area?

Would I be "professional" in my duties to require a tree closer than 10' to a chimney to be trimmed if it's in a WUI area....but ignore it if it's not?

Should "common sense" trump a persons definition of "professional" ?


----------



## Mule

Re: Clearance to chimneys

Common sense has no business in the construction world!


----------



## beach

Re: Clearance to chimneys

Thanks Mule! Sometimes I forget...... :lol:


----------



## brudgers

Re: Clearance to chimneys



			
				beach said:
			
		

> Thanks Pwood, that's consistant with the WUI code.Funny thing is, does a chimney in relation to a tree know if it's in a WUI or not? or, is it ok for the chimney to cause the tree and house to burn only in areas that are NOT in a special fire protection area?
> 
> Would I be "professional" in my duties to require a tree closer than 10' to a chimney to be trimmed if it's in a WUI area....but ignore it if it's not?
> 
> Should "common sense" trump a persons definition of "professional" ?


There's a difference between best practice and what is required by law.

Writing a citation without a basis in law, is in my opinion, always unprofessional.

If you want a law, then make your case to your elected representatives as a citizen.


----------



## pwood

Re: Clearance to chimneys

curmudgers,

 i quoted an enforcible law?


----------



## brudgers

Re: Clearance to chimneys



			
				pwood said:
			
		

> curmudgers, i quoted an enforcible law?


Must have been in another thread.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: Clearance to chimneys



> Not code consistency - since NFPA already provided that - but enforcement consistency.Twisting "The Ick" to allow similar discretion to the NFPA isn't needed if that's your goal.
> 
> Just twist the specific section.


I have no desire for “twisting” “The Ick” ....... The discretion is already established in the interpretation of the “code official” and it doesn’t matter if one uses NFPA or ICC the discretion still exists.  Therefore, the uniformity of interpretations/enforcement (as "Ick" or designers desired) will remain as always, inconsistent across the street, regardless of the intentions and the code consolidations aftermath existing today.

I don’t see the need to “twist the specific section” either since:



> 304.1.2 Vegetation – “other growth that is capable of being ignited and endangering property, shall be cut down and removed by the owner or occupant of the premises.”


  This seems pretty straight forward in this fire code official’s interpretation as permitted. And I’m quoting the law if it’s adopted by a jurisdiction wanting to enforce this section for this specific type of hazard.

*Beach,*

You’re a pro in my “professional” opinion


----------

