# To drywall or not?



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 18, 2010)

Existing residential home with garage below bedrooms built in the 70's without drywall attached to the underside of the floor joist. Home had a water leak and the cold wall between the garage was removed and electrical violations exposed, requiring a permit. Other issues requiring a permit due to walls upstairs being removed in the bathroom requiring the hardwired smoke detectors to be installed as well.

Q. Not sure if the garage ceiling would be required to be drywalled? AJ601.2

2006IRC with Appendix J adopted.

Any comments would be great.

pc1


----------



## Mac (Nov 18, 2010)

If the garage isn't in the "work area", I don't think the drywall separation needs to be installed.


----------



## DanB (Nov 18, 2010)

I would look to the last line of R102.7 and push for the drywall installation for the "general safety and welfare of the occupants".  Hard to ignore a hazardous condition once you've seen it.


----------



## steveray (Nov 18, 2010)

CT has amended that 102.7... saying basically it can exist "as is"...we have nothing unless there is eminent danger or something about not being able to make it "less safe" on a remodel


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 18, 2010)

Show this picture of garage burnout.Maybe you can appeal to their common sense.

View attachment 259


View attachment 259


/monthly_2010_11/Colnwood.jpg.8f60920fe85b35430362c87c46fb2093.jpg


----------



## globe trekker (Nov 18, 2010)

Pcinspector1,

I concur with Jobsaver and DanB!   In the interest of providing ' some '  more time

before a ( potential ) fire burns through the structural / framed elements and

engulfs the occupants sleeping in that area, ...yeah,  gyp. board SHOULD be

installed.   Plead your case all the way up the chain-of-command!

.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 18, 2010)

Sounds like a "good recommendation" but without a clear code provision backing you up, I would tread lightly on requiring it.


----------



## globe trekker (Nov 18, 2010)

Pcinspector1,

Besides the occupants being at risk, ...what about the AHJ's fire fighting troops?

Is the Fire Official willing to send his troops in to a condition like this knowing

full well that he could be sending people in to die? or would the fire fighting

resources choose to let it burn because they know the condition of a "light

framed" structure and that they do not have sufficient time available.

Sometimes, the practical aspects [ the intent ] has to outweigh the actual

' letter of the code '. Safety to all IS the big picture isn't it? Homeowners,

as well as, ...the people who might be responding to a fire in that location.

I still say, bring your concerns to fire official! Get them onboard with

your application.

.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 18, 2010)

Section AJ601.2 only refers you to the section for flame spread and smoke developed rating, not fire separation. Plus it has to be in a work area.


----------



## north star (Nov 18, 2010)

** * * **

Until the Building Code side of the equation has their "skin in the game",

there is going to be a disconnected view of fire protection by the code

officials.

Have the Building Officials and inspectors actually perform some

fire fighter response calls.

** * * **


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 18, 2010)

As a contractor I would suggest that the ceiling be brought up to code. I would even listen to comments made by the AHJ along those lines.

But if the AHJ demanded it, I would have him in court. And out of a job.


----------



## Fritz (Nov 18, 2010)

Don't forget about insurance.  A lot of homeowners insurance requires the repairs and associated work be brought up to code.  From their perspective, it gets them a safer building to insure in the future.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 18, 2010)

north star, there is no disconnection here. Either it's a code requirement or it isn't. It's a good recommendation, but not a requirement.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 18, 2010)

Floor cavity had no insulation and duct work had a cage frame fur down around it but owner claims the garage has never been rocked. At this point I can only make the HO rock the cold wall back that was removed because of the water leak in the wall where they removed rock. Looking for a code to hang my hat on to require the garage ceiling to be rocked?

I have not found the magic section yet.

pc1


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Nov 18, 2010)

"A lot of homeowners insurance requires the repairs and associated work be brought up to code."

 Not so.  SOME policies provide coverage (money) for code upgrades that are required as a condition of repair.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 18, 2010)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Floor cavity had no insulation and duct work had a cage frame fur down around it but owner claims the garage has never been rocked. At this point I can only make the HO rock the cold wall back that was removed because of the water leak in the wall where they removed rock. Looking for a code to hang my hat on to require the garage ceiling to be rocked? I have not found the magic section yet.
> 
> pc1


There is no magic section. You can lead the horse to water, but can't make 'em drink.

It is the same as inspecting a water heater replacement in a home where all the bedroom windows do not meet today's egress requirements. You have to disconnect.


----------



## north star (Nov 19, 2010)

** * * **

Pcinspector1,

DanB has provided you the "magic section", ...R102.7 [ from the `06 IRC ]: "*Existing structures.*

The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be

permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the

_International Property Maintenance_ _Code,_ or the _International Fire Code_, or as is deemed

necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and

the public."

If the BO does not, ...cannot or will not see the hazard in this application, ...simply ask

them to accompany the fire fighters on some fire response calls where the BO will have

to enter a burning , "light framed" built house and see what their response is, ...when

the BO or staff inspectors have to place fellow inspectors, ...infants / children and

in others in body bags because a few extra dollars weren't spent to protect to install

a layer of gyp. board, then see what their response is. What if it were their house?

Would they want their family exposed to this condition?

Pcinspector1,

You can legally apply Section R102.7. It's that simple!

** * * **


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 19, 2010)

north star said:
			
		

> You can legally apply Section R102.7. It's that simple![/color][/size][/font]


It is not that simple. At some point, on every visit to an older structure, an inspector has to draw lines concerning R102.7.

It is easy to point out things in an older structure that are not safe, and easy to require correction of all the things one sees on somebody else's dime.

Every circumstance is unique, and in many instances decisions concerning R102.7 do hinge on the personal economics of the resident/owner.

I do not think there would exist a need for this thread if it is "that simple".


----------



## High Desert (Nov 19, 2010)

DanB said:
			
		

> I would look to the last line of R102.7 and push for the drywall installation for the "general safety and welfare of the occupants".  Hard to ignore a hazardous condition once you've seen it.


So there are literally millions of homes that have this same hazardous condition and no one is doing anything about it? I hardly think that the absence of drywall in itself is a hazardous condition unless there were other hazards present that warranted separation.


----------



## north star (Nov 19, 2010)

** * * **

Jobsaver,

You are correct about performing a "cost / benefit" analysis of every situation.

But, let's look at the bigger picture here. Besides the occupants [ of the

structure in the OP ], the AHJ also has a risk to its fire fighting personnel

and equipment in these types of applications. Is the "cost" of not installing

gyp. board on the ceiling of this garage, worth the "risk" of possibly placing

[ the AHJ ] human resources in a life threatening situation? Equipment can

be replaced readily. It takes years to have a firefighter [ effectively ]

trained.

Realistically, in a fire, if fire fighters have to go upstairs to check for

occupants, how long do they have before the floor collapses? Either them,

or them and the occupants?

Would you as a fire official; who is ACTUALLY responding on the scene,

ask / require your personnel to go in to a developed fire event, ...knowing

that this condition exists? Forget the BO & the Bldg. Inspectors in this

application.  They [ typically ] do not respond to fires or go in to fires to

perform rescues. Does the cost of that firefighters life [ and permanently

lost resources to his family ] match the cost of a "new" gyp. board ceiling?

Or, are the firefighters just supposed to be the "sacrificial lambs" because

of insufficient codes, ...or insufficiently worded codes, ...where [ if ] the

fire official knows about Section R102.7, this scenario can be avoided.

IMO, the Building Code officials and the Fire Code officials have failed

to work together as a team in helping to create a safer living / built

environment. I include myself in this "failure!" I am from the building

code side of this equation. I would not want to go into a "light framed"

built anything fire event, nor would I want my family to have such risk

/ exposure. Why then; as active code officials who are supposed to

be on the same team, ...with the same goal, not working together to this

end?

Current rant paused...

** * * **


----------



## north star (Nov 19, 2010)

** * * **

Rant continued...

Code wording or not, a potentially life threatening "AVOIDABLE"

situation is in front of you........To all of the Building Officials and

associated inspectors who genuinely believe that no gyp. board should

be installed in this application, please go down to the local fire dept.

and volunteer to actively participate in response calls to fire events,

and be readily willing to go in to a "light framed" built structure in

a fire event.

** * * **


----------



## Mac (Nov 19, 2010)

I'll bet we all share NStar's concern for firefighter safety.

If my version of the code doesn't include R102.7, and it is not clearly required, should I demand the installation of the drywall separation anyway?


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 19, 2010)

Northstar:

I understand the valid point you are making from a Fire Official's perspective. I am coming from a different perspective as someone who does "have skin in the game" and who responds daily to my own reality.

I have a big family . . . never enough money to live in the safest homes or for my sons and daughters to drive the safest cars. The point I am making is that there does often exist a cost/benefit analysis, but it does not follow that it is ours, "government", to make. To bring home the point, most firefighters can afford "a few extra dollars" for sheetrock, and most I know can hang it. How deep are your concerns? What are you doing this weekend?

My overriding concern is that we (government) should not use the permitting process as a tool to get into people's homes to pay undue attention to those areas of the home not affected by the permit applied for. Still, immediate life safety violations are a concern. I apply R102.7 to situations involving raw sewage leaks, exposure to live electrical conductors, immediate fire hazards involving over-fusing, clearances, etc, etc. It really is very difficult to know where to draw the line sometimes.

In my tenure at my current ahj, I have been attacked personally at a funeral because of occupant removal decisions that may have resulted in the death of the occupant.

I have brought old men, having severe dementia, to my own home upon governmental eviction due to life safety concerns, until family could be found and notified. What do you do with an occupant that has nowhere else to go?

I mean this literally. What do you do when you evict an impoverished individual that literally has nowhere else to go? What do you do when you decide whether or not to demolish another man’s property? I know that it is technically “the city” and “the city council” that makes the decisions. But in my small ahj, there is nowhere to hide from the fact that I am the person on the front line, grossly influencing the outcomes.

Bill May’s boy called me out at his daddy’s funeral.

I have skin in the game.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 19, 2010)

Mac,

Yes, but maybe not as fervently.

And no, demanding that without a clear requirement is bullying...and we all know bullying is not right, even if for a good reason.

If someone wants to use that section of the code as a way to require what they deem is a hazardous condition, then that's their call.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 19, 2010)

You bring up some very emotional points, but reality is that drywall might give an extra 10 or 15 minutes of protection, remember it is not a listed assembly, and a firefighter entering that structure has no idea how long a fire has been burning when the call comes in. I agree it should be suggested and pushed for the ceiling and supporting construction to be drywalled but to be a requirement as a result of unrelated work I would agree with jobsaver's last post.

There is no "risk" to anyone if there is no fire


----------



## brudgers (Nov 19, 2010)

[ deleted ]


----------



## brudgers (Nov 19, 2010)

High Desert said:
			
		

> So there are literally millions of homes that have this same hazardous condition and no one is doing anything about it? I hardly think that the absence of drywall in itself is a hazardous condition unless there were other hazards present that warranted separation.


The reason nobody is doing anything about it is because  it is a tiny hazard statistically (number of fatalities due to dwelling fires starting in garage < number of fatalities due to collapse of Twin Towers).


----------



## georgia plans exam (Nov 19, 2010)

The Codes are not retroactive.

GPE


----------



## Fritz (Nov 19, 2010)

All good points.  Been there done that, don't want to do it again.  And thats why we all do what we do for a living.  If we didn't care, we wouldn't have these great discussions. And they think our jobs are easy.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 19, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The reason nobody is doing anything about it is because  it is a tiny hazard statistically (number of fatalities due to dwelling fires starting in garage < number of fatalities due to collapse of Twin Towers).


I was being a little facetious with that remark.


----------



## north star (Nov 19, 2010)

** * * **

Jobsaver,

My heart and prayers go out to you. It sounds like you were in a "no win"

situation no matter what direction you took. One of the characteristics

' NOT ' listed on the code officials "must haves" is a very large amount

of compassion.

If the adopted codes in one's AHJ do not cover each applicable situation,

then I truly believe that we as code officials DO have a responsibility to

go the extra mile to help our fellow citizens out. I will venture to say

we bldg. code officials AND fire code officials know of companies [ both

large & small ] that would be willing to donate the materials, and that

maybe in "OUR" AHJ's, we all know of some contractor who would be

willing to help out with tools and possibly labor. If not, then we should

' ALL 'be lobbying hard at the local churches, or leading the way and

doing it ourselves. It is NOT about us or our perceived "turfs", or

how much P.R. we can get out of it. Go back and re-read Section

R102.7... "or as is deemed necessary by the building official *for*

*the **general safety and welfare of the occupants*

*and the public*."

And I didn't even get onto my soapbox about our duties as followers

of Christ, ...to help our fellow man.

My perception of the "current disconnected mindset" is that we

code officials should be working togther to ensure a safer, better built

environment, rather than continuing to worry about self image, ...fighting

with each other, ...allowing shoddy "feel good, look good" materials &

components to be the norm rather that the exception, ...arguing about

RFS and on and on and on. Face it people, RFS are here to stay!

If you do not want to have / allow RFS in your AHJ, an option would

be to have all of the structurally framed components designed to have

a longer time before a catastrophic failure "under fire conditions"

[ i.e. - heavy timber type construction ] installed. By adding increased

fire protection in your residences, your insurance rates will decrease,

and your community insurance ratings will improve. We "code officials"

simply have to do a better job to improve our communities.

Mac,

Does your AHJ adopted codes / ordinances have any language similar

to R102.7?

brudgers asked:

"The reason that nobody is doing anything about it is because it is a

tiny hazard statistically (number of fatalities due to dwelling fires starting

in garage < number of Fatalities due to collapse of Twin Towers)."

This statement may be true in your location, ...it is not true in all locations

and AHJ's. BTW, how many dead bodies / catastrophic injuries will it

take [ to both the occupants or the fire fighting personnel or both ] to

change a code section in your community, AND what are you doing to

make this code change happen?

This topic is a good example of a situation that is just not acceptable. If

Pcinspector1' AHJ has adopted R102.7, there is a cheap, workable, legal

compliant fix available. Have the fire official make the ruling in conjunction

with the building official and get the gyp. board installed. If the code

officials cannot or will not make a ruling, then go outside the governmental

avenues and seek involvement from the community, ...even if the code

officials have to step up and "do the right thing" outside of regular

working hours. Respectfully offered, but ever hear of volunteering to

help a citizen out?

** * * **


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 19, 2010)

Mac,

You must watch Bill O'Rielly, Your such a "sesquipedalian"

I'm leaning toward telling em "Just fix the darn cold wall"!

pc1


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 19, 2010)

north star,

Your points are truly appreciated! Thanks for your insight in this matter.

pc1


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 19, 2010)

North Star ---

There are a lot of structures that have serious life safety issues. That is, they were built before certain code issues were written and are not code compliant.

I am sure you can out and preach to lots of people that they have life safety issues that need addressing.

But if you do it on the job, I suspect the government will come after you.

---

Bathrooms have slippery wet surfaces. I think we should not allow water in bathrooms. Lets get the code changed. Why wait for code changes. Evict everyone.


----------



## peach (Nov 20, 2010)

sounds like the garage is in the work area if they exposed the wall between the house and garage.. bring it up to minimum code.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 20, 2010)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Existing residential home with garage below bedrooms built in the 70's without drywall attached to the underside of the floor joist. Home had a water leak and the cold wall between the garage was removed and electrical violations exposed, requiring a permit. Other issues requiring a permit due to walls upstairs being removed in the bathroom requiring the hardwired smoke detectors to be installed as well. Q. Not sure if the garage ceiling would be required to be drywalled? AJ601.2
> 
> 2006IRC with Appendix J adopted.
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity, were the electrical violations violations of the 1970's codes under which the home was constructed, or violations of the current code, or both? And, under what code provision were the hardwired smokes required. Is the process by which you became involved that the electrician pulled a permit to perform the work above and you were performing an electrical inspection?

I would recommended the rock, but I would not require it. Already, you have an owner that is spending some dollars to upgrade electrical issues, because they had a water leak.

Make them perform even more upgrades . . . this is exactly why so many people avoid obtaining permits resulting in inspections in the first place.

The real result of "over-inspecting" is to develop a resistance to having work performed in a manner that includes permitting and inspecting.


----------



## peach (Nov 20, 2010)

Can't re-write what's in the code... the public had plenty of opportunity to comment... "we" were so interested in getting sprinklers INTO the code, we didn't pay attention to other provisions...


----------

