# The difference



## brudgers

We all know that when there are two or more applicable *code sections *the most restrictive code section applies.

However, when there are two or more possible code interpretations the most restrictive *code interpretation *does not necessarily apply.


----------



## jar546

Re: The difference

black and white is black and white

interpretations are subjective

I agree.  Don't know why the thought was posted but I agree.  There is truth to the OP's statement.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: The difference

Brudgers,

"when there are two or more possible code interpretations the most restrictive code interpretation does not necessarily apply."

You bring up an important and often misunderstood subject.

Both 104.1 of the IBC and IRC;

"The Building Official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of it's provisions."

Many people think that to interpret; you give your opinion, or view.  That is not true.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Definition of Interpret.

"1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms."

Merriam-Webster Thesaurus; Synonym of Interpret.

"Meaning: to make plain or understandable."  *Explain *

There is only one authoritative "Interpretation" of the codes according to the code book; and that is the Building Official's.

The purpose of interpretation is to explain a code requirement to someone who does not understand.

As an inspector; if a contractor asked me about a code requirement; I would tell them what I knew and if they didn't understand that; I pulled out my code book (always have a copy in the truck) and showed him/her the code section.  If they did not understand the words; then they could ask the Building Official to explain it to them.  And, yes, sometimes when we read the code section together; I found out that I was dead wrong.   

(By the way; when I first started doing the above; they were surprised; but, as time went on and they saw that I was willing to share; not only what I knew; but, also show them the code section; they were much more trusting in me and often asked to see code sections that had nothing to do with the inspection.)

The codes are not theories that are subject to differences of opinions.  They are factual statements.

ps.  My favorite word in the code books is "shall".   

Uncle Bob


----------



## incognito

Re: The difference

I view the code, actually all codes, as a minimum standard. Therefore when there is a conflict I enforce the minimum, as based on my interpretation.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: The difference

Well said UB. My 2 cents. It is not always an interpretation but sometimes it is the application of a code that is misunderstood. I took a 4 day course on building code hermenutics and it was a real eye opener about how we as code offcials or designers can get off track when applying specific code sections


----------



## texasbo

Re: The difference

What an excellent string of posts, from top to bottom. Personally, if I can interpret a code section 2 different ways, and feel comfortable with both, I typically apply the least restrictive one.


----------



## jim baird

Re: The difference

"...However, when there are two or more possible code interpretations the most restrictive code interpretation does not necessarily apply..."

The one who stands where the buck stops is granted the authority to make the decision.  If he is conflicted internally he can post here for a shower of slings and arrows, or for a round of applause.

The permit holder, in most jursdictions, can appeal if he doesn't like a ruling.


----------



## Mac

Re: The difference

When the interp concerns a life safety system, I always opt for the more effective or protective choice.

It's not win or lose. Having the conversation, comparing information and learning something new helps people feel like they have been involved, given a fair shot,  and treated fairly. Next time the outcome might be different.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy

Re: The difference

When there are two or more interpretations the Fire Code Officials interpretation applies!


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: The difference

FBG, That is too funny but applicable in some areas  

The official who can see the issue encountered with ethical objectivism taking into account the necessity to resolve conflict through sound judgment based on their interpretations and understanding of the intentions of the regulation and while having an ability to be receptive to the exploration to alternative compliant solutions typically prevails in conflict resolution in accordance with Chapter 1 of any code they are obligated to enforce.

I like the word “shall” also but must always be reminded to use it with sugar when dealing with someone in order to keep the political suites of my back and potentially issuing a variance for something they have no clue on but want to remain in control over.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: The difference

Now this is a great topic with great posts, so far!

I echo the posts of Uncle Bob, Jim Baird and Mac.  My own spin is that it pays to read the scope of the chapter and the definitions repeatedly, because many misinterpretations can be traced back to a failure to read the scope or definition.  In my opinion there is far too much interpretation going on and far too little reading going on.  Remember what the following section says:

101.3 Intent.

The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

The purpose of the code is to establish the baseline of safety, not the pinnacle.  You can't design below the code, but many try.  Most of the time I only see the minimum code requirements or less being presented for permit.  The concern is never safety but "what will this cost me."  The code is not up for negotiation, but there can be alternatives.  This board helps me see how others "interpret" the code so I can see other informed sides of the issue and alternatives I had not thought about, without ignoring a requirement or waiving a requirement and calling that an interpretation.

I feel it comes down to reading the entire code, re-reading it because it's not how you thought you remembered it 3, 4, 5 code cycles ago, comprehending what you read plus years of experience.  It doesn't hurt to have experience in the trades and the fire service either.  I'm still going to seminars and taking tests at 53; I will never know it all but I learn at least 1 new thing every day.


----------



## texas transplant

Re: The difference

I always felt that I was hired as the Code Official because of my technical knowledge and good judgement.

You have to have the ability to read the code, understand and interpet the code.   When the code requires an interpetation you read it carefully and use your good judgement to come up with the proper interpetation.  (And that means using every resource available to you including this board)

Like Uncle Bob stated I am a big fan of getting the code book out, making sure the builder, developer, design professional or whoever knows where I am coming from and invite them to respond, discuss it, and disagree if they feel I am wrong.  Lord knows I am not right 100% of the time and am more than willing to accept that I was wrong when they show me that I am.  For me eating crow isn't fun, but it ain't bad after you get past the feathers and the beak.    

If you need a good example of why interpetations are subject to each person that reads it just look at how many versions of the Bible there are.

For me its all about doing the best job I possibly can and being able to sleep well at night knowing I have done everything thing I can to insure the public's safety.


----------



## Mule

Re: The difference

Sometimes I have to stop and say to myself, "Now what is this section actually saying?" I'll read it several times stopping at different parts of the sentence, reread...think about it...reread again...and then determine I don't know what the heck I just read! :?


----------



## brudgers

Re: The difference



			
				FyrBldgGuy said:
			
		

> When there are two or more interpretations the Fire Code Officials interpretation applies!


Until you ask the city attorney to sit in on the meeting.


----------



## texas transplant

Re: The difference

Brudgers,

Please don't use dirty words in the thread like "City Attorney".  Every time I think I have something under control and we have it limited to one interpetation, the attorney informs us that the "legal" construction of the sentence means there are 15 more interpetations that no one even dreamed the section could mean!        :shock:  :roll:  :lol:


----------



## brudgers

Re: The difference



			
				texas transplant said:
			
		

> Brudgers,Please don't use dirty words in the thread like "City Attorney".  Every time I think I have something under control and we have it limited to one interpetation, the attorney informs us that the "legal" construction of the sentence means there are 15 more interpetations that no one even dreamed the section could mean!        :shock:  :roll:  :lol:


That's why I copy like to copy them when there's a misinterpretation by the building department.

When a building department uses "You won't get your permit" to enforce their personal "my way or the highway" misconceptions of the code, make the path of least resistence approving the plans.

Just use the bureaucracy to get staff to attend meetings and write letters rather than doing something productive.

A BO can out wait many applicants, but it's easy to create enough administrative friction that they will decide not to.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: The difference



> the attorney informs us that the "legal" construction of the sentence means there are 15 more interpetations that no one even dreamed the section could mean


I was having a go round with a county attorney which was getting heated and he asked why my interpretation was more correct than his. I informed him my certificate on the wall stated I am a Building Official his cerificate on the wall said he was still praticing his trade. The county admistrator busted out laughing as the attorney just got red. I was dismissed from the meeting and later the County Administrator stopped by and told me to proceed with my interpretation, I asked why the attorney changed his mind? He said he didn't but he did agree that he could defend me and the county if challenged and probably win. The admininstartor reminded him that was  part of his job.

Most goverment attorney's base their decisions on 3 things

Who's it going to hurt.

Who's going to complain.

Who will sue over the decision.

Very little does it have to do with the right or wrong application of the code


----------



## georgia plans exam

Re: The difference

I don't remember where I read this or who wrote it but, I think it's pretty cool.

I have it hanging on our office wall.

BASIC RULE OF CODE INTERPRETATION

It doesn’t say what you think it says, nor what you remember it to have said, nor what you were told that it says, and certainly not what you want it to say, and if by chance you are its author, it doesn’t say what you intended it to say. Then what does it say? It says what it says. So if you want to know what it says, stop trying to remember what it says, and don’t ask anyone else. Go back and read it, and pay attention as though you were reading it for the first time.

GPE


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: The difference

Well said MT!

GPE, that's a great one!


----------



## ewenme

Re: The difference

I've had lots of opportunities to discuss code interpretation with my inspectors and with the City Attorney. When we have differences, we gather round the table and read the Code books. When someone argues after reading only the first part of a sentence, I always say, 'and read the rest of the sentence.' or 'read the exception.' The City Attorney always replies: "I hate it when she says that, because that means she has you."

I also insist that the Code is read as written, not as how we want it to read. As an English major I highly value the sentence structure and punctuation, probably more than the Code authors do.  :mrgreen:

GPE: I might put that on my wall. Great quote.


----------



## FredK

Re: The difference



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> We all know that when there are two or more applicable *code sections *the most restrictive code section applies.However, when there are two or more possible code interpretations the most restrictive *code interpretation *does not necessarily apply.


Well I was always taught the most restrictive applies.  Depending how one reads the section (and trust me I read some wrong) but most are really clear cut.  If you got some examples post them and maybe we can work them out.

And no the Fire dudes aren't first in this jurisdiction since they are listed after the building code.   However if there's a  call they want to make we usually discuss it first before telling the applicant on what required.

IMHO there should be some english majors brought in to clean up the code language.


----------



## texas transplant

Re: The difference

Brudgers,

You and I would probably get along all right on permit apps, plan review etc. (hope that doesn't lose me points with the rest of you out there  :lol: )  I don't have a my way or the highway set of rules.  If the code allows it I allow it.   If you are dealing with me though and send the first round of letters where you and I disagree to the Attorney, its you not me slowing down the process.  Yes I admit we have had some meetings over the years with the City Attorney(s) to make projects progress, but I would much rather have you into my office, shut the door and have the discussion, sort it out and get down the road.  I have been on this side of the table(code enforcement) for a while, but haven't forgotten being on both the construction side and the design side.

The one thing I beat into my staff's heads on a regular basis is we are here to provide a service not further our personal likes, dislikes or agendas.  That doesn't mean you don't do your job, it means you work with the folks wanting to build in your town.   Unless you are one of those Citys that people are fighting to get into your market, you better treat the people that show an interest in your community the right way.  I want to provide the service I am paid to provide and make everyones experience as good as I can.  You don't need the headaches of dragging City Managers and City Attorneys into meeting to force me to do my job and I would much rather do my job right and not deal with them either.

MT,

I agree.   Been there done that.  The thing that has made a couple of city attorneys and me butt heads is that all they were worried about the City getting sued (yes I mean just sued, losing was not a factor at that time).   What I was worried about was if we were right and would win a suit if filed.  Someone threatening to sue never bothers me, if you let the person that is wrong win with that threat just to avoid a lawsuit, you are done and your enforcement takes the beating.

GPE,

I have seen that before and yes good statement for the topic we are on.


----------



## texasbo

Re: The difference



			
				texas transplant said:
			
		

> Brudgers,You and I would probably get along all right on permit apps, plan review etc. (hope that doesn't lose me points with the rest of you out there  :lol: )  I don't have a my way or the highway set of rules.  If the code allows it I allow it.   If you are dealing with me though and send the first round of letters where you and I disagree to the Attorney, its you not me slowing down the process.  Yes I admit we have had some meetings over the years with the City Attorney(s) to make projects progress, but I would much rather have you into my office, shut the door and have the discussion, sort it out and get down the road.  I have been on this side of the table(code enforcement) for a while, but haven't forgotten being on both the construction side and the design side.
> 
> The one thing I beat into my staff's heads on a regular basis is we are here to provide a service not further our personal likes, dislikes or agendas.  That doesn't mean you don't do your job, it means you work with the folks wanting to build in your town.   Unless you are one of those Citys that people are fighting to get into your market, you better treat the people that show an interest in your community the right way.  I want to provide the service I am paid to provide and make everyones experience as good as I can.  You don't need the headaches of dragging City Managers and City Attorneys into meeting to force me to do my job and I would much rather do my job right and not deal with them either.
> 
> MT,
> 
> I agree.   Been there done that.  The thing that has made a couple of city attorneys and me butt heads is that all they were worried about the City getting sued (yes I mean just sued, losing was not a factor at that time).   What I was worried about was if we were right and would win a suit if filed.  Someone threatening to sue never bothers me, if you let the person that is wrong win with that threat just to avoid a lawsuit, you are done and your enforcement takes the beating.
> 
> GPE,
> 
> I have seen that before and yes good statement for the topic we are on.


Very nice post.



> hope that doesn't lose me points with the rest of you out there  :lol:


Not me; he just "friended" me.


----------



## JBI

Re: The difference

Take a day off and brudgers comes up with an awesome post! (just kidding brudgers...)

I always enjoy 'interpretation' discussions, largely because NYS takes that part out of the Administrative sections. ALL interpretaions are made by the Secretary of State through the Department of State, Codes Division, if any portion of the Code (here) requires 'interpretation'. Code Officials in NYS administer and enforce the code as written.

That said, there are some really good points in the replies so far, and some to save for a later date (or maybe a new wall decoration?). Using the administrative sections of the unadulterated I-codes, the only interpretation that counts is the Code Officials. Architects, Engineers, Builders/Developers and (GASP!) Attorneys have no authority to interpret the code. They are entitled to have opinions about the code, and can opine until the cows come home, but that is all they will ever be able to do... OPINE.

I absolutely LOVE IT when a DP or an Attorney _try_ to tell me what the code means, or what my authority and jurisdiction are. Usually a rude awakening for them.


----------



## kilitact

Re: The difference

Section 102.1 is clear in what is appliable. The most restrictive shall govern, or the specific shall be appliable. No ifs ands or buts. When there's options, pass them on to the DP, owner or applicant. They choose what to use and their design. Code officials review and inspect.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy

Re: The difference

Brudgers,

You just had to go there and bring in the City Attorney!   

City Attorneys - Generally graduated from Law School and Passed the Bar.  They *Practice Law*!

I just wish I could spend my entire career "Practicing",  But I actually have to Apply the Law, Enforce the Law, Prosecute the Law, Pursue Corrections, etc.  And in all that I have to Educate, Inform, Render Interpretations, Enter Areas with Physical Hazards, Approach Hostile Individuals (who by the way are never impressed when you mention the City Attorney), and then after all that try to get the City Attorney to understand the fundamentals of Code Language.  When I can get through the City Attorney file paperwork with the Court and get in front of a Judge... (another former City Attorney in a black robe), the Judge wants to ensure the offender has had due process and multiple opportunities to correct before issuing an order to correct the very problem that started the process.  Or the Judge issues a fine and does not order the correction and the process begins all over again.

Ge Whiz Brugers Why did you have to bring up City Attorneys.

Oh By the Way, my future Son in Law wants to be a City Attorney like his Dad....   :roll:


----------



## pyrguy

Re: The difference

GPE

I some times fall back to,

"What you think you heard is not necessarily what I meant to say."


----------



## brudgers

Re: The difference



			
				FyrBldgGuy said:
			
		

> Brudgers,You just had to go there and bring in the City Attorney!
> 
> City Attorneys - Generally graduated from Law School and Passed the Bar.  They *Practice Law*!
> 
> I just wish I could spend my entire career "Practicing",  But I actually have to Apply the Law, Enforce the Law, Prosecute the Law, Pursue Corrections, etc.  And in all that I have to Educate, Inform, Render Interpretations, Enter Areas with Physical Hazards, Approach Hostile Individuals (who by the way are never impressed when you mention the City Attorney), and then after all that try to get the City Attorney to understand the fundamentals of Code Language.  When I can get through the City Attorney file paperwork with the Court and get in front of a Judge... (another former City Attorney in a black robe), the Judge wants to ensure the offender has had due process and multiple opportunities to correct before issuing an order to correct the very problem that started the process.  Or the Judge issues a fine and does not order the correction and the process begins all over again.
> 
> Ge Whiz Brugers Why did you have to bring up City Attorneys.
> 
> Oh By the Way, my future Son in Law wants to be a City Attorney like his Dad....   :roll:


You may have hit on something.

Perhaps too many codes officials no longer feel the need to practice.


----------



## georgia plans exam

Re: The difference

pyrguy,

how about;  “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

credit: Robert McCloskey

GPE


----------



## AegisFPE

Re: The difference

I had a code official tell me, "When it comes to interpretations, everybody's got one," (which reminds me of a line in a movie talking about 'excuses' concluding, "and they all stink," but this BO's finished) "but mine's the one that counts."  This is true, and is what I believe the OP was driving at.

My experience includes authorities who concur with my interpretation, authorities who render more strict interpretations, and others who seek lesser protection (based on my interpretation of their interpretation).  I also claim responsibility for creation of an interim City code amendment: after being presented with my interpretation, the City code was subsequently modified (incidentally, the amendment is not retained with the 2009 code language).

Similar to FredK's statement, I've sat across the table from an official who told me that the code is black and white, an interpretation with which I disagree.

I am convinced there is gray matter, and I thrive on it - both what is between the ears of all the stakeholders to facilitate a professional and intellectual discussion and the shades of gray present in the code that promote such conversation.

To respond to FredK's request for examples of a part of the code that is not clear cut, consider:


Exit width measurement for swinging door that does not open 90º[/*:m:d84mj77o]
A 1-hour fire command center per 403.8 in a high-rise with fire alarm survivability per 403.6[/*:m:d84mj77o]
Is separation of a story from an atrium in accordance with Exception 1 to 404.5 sufficient to consider it not connected for the purposes of applying the Exception to 404.4?  Does the answer differ if it is Type I-A construction or depending on the number of separated floors?[/*:m:d84mj77o]
Given a 1,800 square-foot banquet hall (1,800/15=120) where the BO has identified a fire area with a reduced occupant load of less than 100 in accordance with the Exception to IBC Section 1004.1.1, are sprinklers required per IFC 903.2.1.2 by the FCO?[/*:m:d84mj77o]
Given a 96-hour run time per 2702.1, should the fire pump per 403.10.2 be automatically shut-off after running for 2 hours or must it be capable of running for 96 hours (requiring a larger generator fuel tank)?[/*:m:d84mj77o]
In a 3-story dwelling unit with NFPA 13 sprinkler protection, how do you reconcile Exception 3 to IBC 1020.1 with NFPA 13-8.14.4.5?[/*:m:d84mj77o]
  Now I realize that some may have a black-and-white response to each of these, but I would offer that there is also room for interpretation.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: The difference

Indeed :!:


----------



## Coug Dad

Re: The difference

In a 3-story dwelling unit with NFPA 13 sprinkler protection, how do you reconcile Exception 3 to IBC 1020.1 with NFPA 13-8.14.4.5?

IBC 1020.1 deals with stairs that are a part of the means of egress not being enclosed.

NFPA 13, Section 8.14.4.5 addresses convenience openings, which by definition are not a part of the means of egress.


----------



## peesncues

Re: The difference

Too little, too late perhaps, but back on the subject of interpreting code to an attorney, this is my personal favorite.

I was having one of those 8 month battles with some property owners, (married couple) on specific project requirements: building permit, engineering, occupancy classifacation, fire resistiveness, etc.

They finally had enough of my obstinacy and hired an attorney to fight me in their stead. I get a call from the attorney requesting a meeting in his office. I cheerfully agreed and arrived at his office with code book in hand.

We discussed different subjects (all code related), I presented the appropriate code sections regarding each subject. After about twenty minutes in his office, he closed my code book and said, "There is nothing I love more than to argue points of law in court, but I can't find anything here to argue about. I'll call my clients and recommend that they comply."

Needless to say, I was all warm and fuzzy for the rest of the day.


----------



## brudgers

Re: The difference

The type of code analysis a typical homeowner is going to do, is a bit different from that of a typical design professional.

The idea that a design professional's opinion of the code doesn't count is non-sense.

A design professional's opinion counts, and probably carries more weight than a building official's in a court of law.

There's a difference between, "I don't need no stinking permit," and "The code does not prohibit an exit sign in that location."


----------



## cboboggs

Re: The difference

GPE, I personally would use  "You misremember what I said."   

Brudgers, of course the design professional's opinion counts), but in the end, the only interpretation that matters is the BO's until it is overturned or reinterpreted by a Board of Appeals, Mayor, or some other authority figure.


----------



## brudgers

Re: The difference



			
				cboboggs said:
			
		

> GPE, I personally would use  "You misremember what I said."    Brudgers, of course the design professional's opinion counts), but in the end, the only interpretation that matters is the BO's until it is overturned or reinterpreted by a Board of Appeals, Mayor, or some other authority figure.


A design professional is obligated to exercise independent judgment regardless of what the building official says.

He or she cannot allow an unsafe condition just because the BO says something meets code.

Code officials who believe that only their interpretation counts are the reason a design professional should bring the city attorney into the conversation.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: The difference



> A design professional is obligated to exercise independent judgment regardless of what the building official says. AgreeHe or she cannot allow an unsafe condition just because the BO says something meets code. Agree
> 
> Code officials who believe that only their interpretation counts are the reason a design professional should bring the city attorney into the conversation.


 Disagree Jurisdictions that have adopted Chapter 1 the next step would be the Board of Appeals112.1 General.

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals.

112.3 Qualifications.

The board of appeals shall consist of members who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and are not employees of the jurisdiction.

This should be a board of diverse membership, engineers, architects, contractors, and others who would have far more combined codes/construction experience than any city attorney who may base his/her decision on any number of non-code related reasons

The procedure in Chapter 1 is there to allow a due process procedure to resolve problems.

A city attorney's job is to represent the city and its interest in the day to day operations, advice staff of legal matters when asked. They are not there to arbitrate code decisions between the code official and contractors and designers.


----------



## JBI

Re: The difference

Let's all try to remember that not all Code Officials are incompetent, not all Design Professionals know the Code very well, and most Attorneys worth their law degree will ask the 'expert' first.

If it is a pure Code question, that is without a doubt the local Code Official. It is not a matter of whose opinion 'counts more'. The best Engineers I know, same for Architects, will talk to Code Officials regarding Code specific questions.

Now, if you want an in depth analysis of a structural system, different story. I know a few Code Officials that can actually prepare one, a very few. For that I will always defer to a qualified DP. I know a larger group of Code Officials that can understand that analysis, a much larger group. As a CO, I am not required to have a degree. OTJT. On the job training. I know more today than yesterday and less than I will tomorrow.

We all know guys/gals on 'the other side of the counter' who should re-evaluate their career goals. It's easy to make broad statements, especially in cyberland where there is no personal contact. But some of the threads lately are just becoming verbal sparring matches that degrade into trash talk. It's a waste of time. Nobody wins, but everybody loses.

No need top remind me that I am also guilty of it myself, but in my defense I am bipartisan with who I pi$$ off.      I'll stop preaching now...


----------



## AegisFPE

Re: The difference

From Coug Dad:



> IBC 1020.1 deals with stairs that are a part of the means of egress not being enclosed.NFPA 13, Section 8.14.4.5 addresses convenience openings, which by definition are not a part of the means of egress.


Perhaps then we should also consider Exception 1 to IBC 707.2.

If the standard is considered to trump the code, then we would have additional separation for a convenience opening, but not a required means of egress, which pierce the same floors - is this really what the code would intend?

I think one conflict could be where NFPA 13 anticipates construction based on NFPA 101, which in this regard may be more restrictive than that permitted by Exception 3 of IBC 1020.1 or Exception 1 of IBC Section 707.2.

Incidentally, the commentary to NFPA 13 8.14.4.5 offers a stair in an apartment as an example, so maybe there is a discrepancy in definitions also.


----------



## brudgers

Re: The difference



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Disagree Jurisdictions that have adopted Chapter 1 the next step would be the Board of Appeals


The reason to bring the attorney in early is to avoid having to appeal.

Go back and read my comments.

This is no more about due process than "my way or the highway is."

It's about moving projects through the process and around the obstacles.

The first best step is a preliminary meeting and a memo to the code official containing the desired interpretation, and inviting a response to clarify any misunderstandings.

A good long paper trail is handy if you meet with the attorney, particularly when it's one sided.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: The difference



> The first best step is a preliminary meeting and a memo to the code official containing the desired interpretation, and inviting a response to clarify any misunderstandings


Agree and the BO's reasons should be backed up with code sections. Personally I have accepted 3rd party code consultants analysis and I have been very pleased with the outcome. We all walked away learning something and there was a very detailed analysis I could agree with and sign off on and stick in the file that years later would be able to answers any questions as to why that was allowed.



> This is no more about due process than "my way or the highway is."


The appeals board works both ways it will put a "my way or the highway" BO in his place. To many of those and he should be out the door. I can understand where you have probably run into this attitude a number of times just because of where you are located. I think everyone on this board would agree that an attitude like that is unproffessional and that person would not be working for us long


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: The difference



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Brudgers,"when there are two or more possible code interpretations the most restrictive code interpretation does not necessarily apply."
> 
> You bring up an important and often misunderstood subject.
> 
> Both 104.1 of the IBC and IRC;
> 
> "The Building Official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of it's provisions."
> 
> Many people think that to interpret; you give your opinion, or view.  That is not true.
> 
> Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Definition of Interpret.
> 
> "1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms."
> 
> Merriam-Webster Thesaurus; Synonym of Interpret.
> 
> "Meaning: to make plain or understandable."  *Explain *
> 
> There is only one authoritative "Interpretation" of the codes according to the code book; and that is the Building Official's.
> 
> The purpose of interpretation is to explain a code requirement to someone who does not understand.
> 
> As an inspector; if a contractor asked me about a code requirement; I would tell them what I knew and if they didn't understand that; I pulled out my code book (always have a copy in the truck) and showed him/her the code section.  If they did not understand the words; then they could ask the Building Official to explain it to them.  And, yes, sometimes when we read the code section together; I found out that I was dead wrong.
> 
> (By the way; when I first started doing the above; they were surprised; but, as time went on and they saw that I was willing to share; not only what I knew; but, also show them the code section; they were much more trusting in me and often asked to see code sections that had nothing to do with the inspection.)
> 
> The codes are not theories that are subject to differences of opinions.  They are factual statements.
> 
> ps.  My favorite word in the code books is "shall".
> 
> Uncle Bob


UB: Every written and spoken word is subjective to perspective. Your take is not always the same. Look at my battle with Kil. A battle of interpretation. Perspective that is. However, certain things may overrule a person like the state building code division. This is why there is an appeals process.  However, there is also state law. So, the B.O. may have interpretive latitude but he isn't God either.

The appeals board is to contest interpretation not the code text. Sometimes the interpretation of the B.O. (subjective to the B.O. individual perspective but not limited to.)

So, here is a simple diversity of definition of a simple word like interpretation:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... d=0CAcQkAE

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/interpretation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/interpretation

http://www.yourdictionary.com/interpretation

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpretation

http://www.answers.com/topic/interpretation

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... rpretation

(LEGAL Dictionary - the primary context that matters in court as words like interpretation has legal case ruling and meanings - ie. explanations / opinion).

Another point: Original Intent

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... nal+Intent

But some more sources of the meaning of the word - interpretation.

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/interpretation/en-en/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation

Other reference sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

Wikipedia -

Interpretation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This article is not about the concept of interpretation used in mathematical logic. For other uses of "interpretation", see the disambiguation page.

Interpretation is the process establishing, either simultaneously (known as simultaneous interpretation) or consecutively (known as consecutive interpretation), oral or gestural communications between two or more speakers who are not able to use the same set of symbols (see interpreting). By definition it is available as a method only in those cases where there is a need for interpretation - if an object (of art, of speech, etc.) is obvious to begin with, it cannot draw an interpretation. In any case the term interpretation is ambiguous, as it may refer to both an ongoing process and a result.

Interpretation is a term used in informal education settings to describe any communication process designed to reveal meanings and relationships of cultural and natural heritage through first hand involvement with an object, artifact, landscape or site. This is primarily known as heritage interpretation.

An interpretation can be the part of a presentation or portrayal of information altered in order to conform to a specific set of symbols. This may be a spoken, written, pictorial, mathematical, sculptural, cinematic, geometric or any other form of language. Complex meanings may be evoked where the reader consciously or unconsciously cross-references the text by situating it within broader frames of experience and knowledge.

There are three things that allow interpretation to occur, and these are all interlinked and interdependable: the writer, the text and the reader. Through the act of interpretation the reader is the one creating meaning; the meaning of the text intended by the writer is potentially overlooked or ignored. The reader produces meaning by participating in a complex of socially defined and enforced practices. Interpretation is an active process of producing values and meanings, a process that always occurs within specific cultural and political contexts, directly linked to the world in which the reader lives.

The purpose of interpretation would normally be to increase the possibility of understanding, but sometimes, as in propaganda or brainwashing, the purpose may be to evade understanding and increase confusion.

Consecutive interpretation (interpreting) - a type of conference interpretation when the translator waits for the speaker to finish and then translates the latter's utterance consecutively - it could be of any length - within a reasonable limit so that not to distract the listener (s).

C. i. can be of a dialogue type - when the statement is short enough (without taking notes) or with using interpreters' notes - when the utterances are long enough for the memory to absorb the information and provide adequate result.

The main difficulty in C. i. Is that the information is dematerialised (that is not available on a carrier - paper, display, screen etc.) but exists only in the form of sound wave. Books: "Applied Theory of Interpretation and Note-Taking" Andrei Chuzhakin, Mir Perevoda 1-7 (same author). Also: [1].

References

    * "Applied Theory of Interpretation and Note-Taking" Andrei Chuzhakin, "Mir Perevoda 1-7" (same author), [2].

    * Barry, P 2002, Beginning theory: an introduction to literary and cultural theory, 2nd ed., Manchester University, Manchester and New York.

    * Bedford Books, 1998, ‘Critical approaches’, viewed 2 May 2006, [3].

    * Blazer, A 2005, ‘Interpretive theory: the new criticism to the present’, viewed April 24, 2006, from [4].

    * Constable, J 2000, ‘I. A. Richards’, viewed 2 May 2006, [5].

    * Cox, S 2005, ‘Foundations study guide: literary theory’, viewed 2 May 2006, [6].

    * Eagleton, T 1996, Literary theory: an introduction, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.

    * Fuery, P & Mansfield, N 2000, Cultural studies and critical theory, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

    * Hancher, M 1970, ‘The science of interpretation, the art of interpretation’, MLN, vol.85, no.6, pp.791-802, (online JSTOR).

    * Mailloux, S 1982, ‘Interpretation’, in F. Lentricchia & T McLaughlin (eds), Critical terms for literary study, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, London.

    * McFly Encyclopedia, 2006, ‘Hermeneutics’, viewed April 12, 2006, from http://en.mcfly.org/hermeneutics.

    * Objectivist Center, 2005, ‘Literary theory’, viewed 2 May 2006, [7].

    * Scheppele, K L 1994, ‘Legal theory and social theory’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol.20, pp.383-406.

    * WIT - World of Interpretation and Translation (Mir Perevoda), a series of ten manuals and textbooks on the practice and theory of oral translation Mir Perevoda.

See also

    * Hermeneutics

    * Pragmatics

    * Semantics

    * Semeiotic

    * Semiosis

    * Semiotics

    * Sign

    * Sign relation

External links

    * Babels - an international network of volunteer interpreters for the Social Forums.

    * The Hyperbole of Interpretation- A brief article on perspective associated with interpretation

    * WIT - World of Interpretation and Translation (Mir Perevoda) - a personal site of Andrei Chuzhakin, a Russian expert on interpretation.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Interpretation.html"

Categories: Art school culture | Hermeneutics | Linguistics

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer) . Donate to wikipedia.

License : Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.


----------



## texasbo

Re: The difference

I have known code officials who have habitually enforced "phantom codes", and made interpretations not on what the code said, but because it was what "they wanted". Very few, but some. These people are the ones that give our profession a bad name.

However, when the code official makes a decision that can be shown to be consistent with the code/ordinance/law, that decision will be upheld more times than not, despite how unpopular it may be with the architect, permit applicant, etc.

The DP's who participate on this board are generally very code knowledgable, but that is not always the case in real life. I deal with architects on a daily basis, and many are severely lacking when it comes to understanding codes. When they submit plans that are patently in violation of the code, they will be denied. They can grumble, be bitter, and make empty threats of legal action, but I just chuckle inside, confident in my decision. That "devil in a tie" (actually, in my case, a very large team of devils) is no devil to me at all; he is MY advocate, not yours. However, in 22 years as a code professional, I have never once had to go to court based on a construction code decision. I think that speaks to the sound decisions that are made. In a jurisdiction that permits hundreds of millions of dollars of work every single year, there would be plenty of opportunities to challenge my decisions if they were out of line.

I don't know how many of you subscribe to the publication "Building Permits Law Bulletin", but you should take a look at it if you get a chance; it's eye opening. Courts around the country routinely support cities in cases where the building official is challenged on a decision. In fact two words describe it best: summary judgement...

With that said, I have an excellent relationship with the design community. Rarely is the answer "no"; more often than not common ground can be found, where everyone is happy with the outcome. As I've said before, if two decisions can be made, and I can be comfortable with both, I'm going to make the one that helps my customer get what they want. In fact, the relationship is so cordial, that architects and engineers often call me for advice when dealing with other jurisdictions, and I take great pride in that.


----------



## JBI

Re: The difference

tbo - Excellent post. I also have dealt with DPs without a clue.

Actually had an engineer once try to convince me that the required fire seperation in a duplex could stop at the ceiling (without upgrading the ceilings' rating) because fire burns up ("Everybody knows that!") and by the time it burns across the roof and down ("And fire never burns down...") it would be at least the 45 minutes required. To which I suggested he provide me with the generally accepted standard he was basing that on.

Do I need to tell you the end result?


----------



## texasbo

Re: The difference

Bet it didn't involve a devil in a tie...


----------



## FyrBldgGuy

Re: The difference

One can not interpret the code without first considering how the code came into being.

A group of people came up with an idea  :idea: , it was then discussed and written  :arrow: .

To improve the document a committee was formed by well meaning people without pre-driven conceptions or political connections  :twisted: .

The committee then discussed the document and made improvements  :ugeek: .

To ensure that everyone was happy a hearing was conducted and everyone had a chance to make additional improvements thereby providing the best possible method of ensuring the safety of everyone.   

Everyone then had a chance to be educated in the use of the code.   :?

To ensure the code remains current it is updated every year and the improvements are made based on sound engineering principles, economic factors, energy efficiency, political correctness and popular political judgement.

Local communities adopt the codes and no amendments are every made because the code is perfect. :mrgreen:

That is why the need for interpretations has never existed.

Therefore, on page 1687 of the New Health Care Bill there will be a refund to everyone due to the lack of physical injuires that occur as a result of building hazards, fires, collapses, carbon monoxide, contaminiated water supplies, etc.

Opps, I'm sorry I thought I was responding to a Monty Python topic.


----------



## JBI

Re: The difference

tbo - Nope. :mrgreen:

Devils in ties are the first resort of those who know they are wrong.


----------



## brudgers

Re: The difference



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The appeals board works both ways it will put a "my way or the highway" BO in his place. To many of those and he should be out the door. I can understand where you have probably run into this attitude a number of times just because of where you are located. I think everyone on this board would agree that an attitude like that is unproffessional and that person would not be working for us long


I doubt everyone on the board would agree.

I've seen too much "my opinion is the only one that counts," here and in the real world.

I point again to the idea that calling in the attorney is a way of avoiding the delay of the appeals board (and avoiding making the path of least Resistance to a permit complying with a code official's misinterpretation).

The goal of bringing the attorney in is to make the code official's path of least Resistance issuing the permit.

Of course filing for an appeal can also do that...the cost to a jurisdiction of preparing for an appeal can easily run a couple of thousand dollars in preparation time.


----------



## JBI

Re: The difference

"...the cost to a jurisdiction of preparing for an appeal can easily run a couple of thousand dollars in preparation time."

Not if the CO knows his code...


----------



## brudgers

Re: The difference



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> I have known code officials who have habitually enforced "phantom codes", and made interpretations not on what the code said, but because it was what "they wanted". Very few, but some. These people are the ones that give our profession a bad name.However, when the code official makes a decision that can be shown to be consistent with the code/ordinance/law, that decision will be upheld more times than not, despite how unpopular it may be with the architect, permit applicant, etc.
> 
> The DP's who participate on this board are generally very code knowledgable, but that is not always the case in real life. I deal with architects on a daily basis, and many are severely lacking when it comes to understanding codes. When they submit plans that are patently in violation of the code, they will be denied. They can grumble, be bitter, and make empty threats of legal action, but I just chuckle inside, confident in my decision. That "devil in a tie" (actually, in my case, a very large team of devils) is no devil to me at all; he is MY advocate, not yours. However, in 22 years as a code professional, I have never once had to go to court based on a construction code decision. I think that speaks to the sound decisions that are made. In a jurisdiction that permits hundreds of millions of dollars of work every single year, there would be plenty of opportunities to challenge my decisions if they were out of line.
> 
> I don't know how many of you subscribe to the publication "Building Permits Law Bulletin", but you should take a look at it if you get a chance; it's eye opening. Courts around the country routinely support cities in cases where the building official is challenged on a decision. In fact two words describe it best: summary judgement...
> 
> With that said, I have an excellent relationship with the design community. Rarely is the answer "no"; more often than not common ground can be found, where everyone is happy with the outcome. As I've said before, if two decisions can be made, and I can be comfortable with both, I'm going to make the one that helps my customer get what they want. In fact, the relationship is so cordial, that architects and engineers often call me for advice when dealing with other jurisdictions, and I take great pride in that.


The incentive for a code official to stick to an interpretation like "you can't put an exit sign there" regardless of what the code actually says (or rather doesn't say), is that appealing costs the applicant time, money and energy.

Bringing the city attorney, adminstrators, and managers into the equation disincentivizes this course of action.

That's the purpose, not winning in a court of law.


----------



## brudgers

Re: The difference



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> "...the cost to a jurisdiction of preparing for an appeal can easily run a couple of thousand dollars in preparation time."Not if the CO knows his code...


Doesn't matter if the applicant knows how to make it cost more.

The proper method of attacking a bureaucrat is with paper.


----------



## JBI

Re: The difference

brudgers - That seems to be your problem... You're more interested in 'attacking' than 'working with'. Personally, when I feel I'm being attacked I get defensive... _really_ defensive. Not pretty, and not conducive to a good working relationship.


----------



## texasbo

Re: The difference



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> mtlogcabin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The appeals board works both ways it will put a "my way or the highway" BO in his place. To many of those and he should be out the door. I can understand where you have probably run into this attitude a number of times just because of where you are located. I think everyone on this board would agree that an attitude like that is unproffessional and that person would not be working for us long
Click to expand...

I doubt everyone on the board would agree.

I've seen too much "my opinion is the only one that counts," here and in the real world.

I point again to the idea that calling in the devil with a tie is a way of avoiding the delay of the appeals board (and avoiding making the path of least Resistance to a permit complying with a code official's misinterpretation).

The goal of bringing the devil with a tie in is to make the code official's path of least Resistance issuing the permit.

Of course filing for an appeal can also do that...the cost to a jurisdiction of preparing for an appeal can easily run a couple of thousand dollars in preparation time.

I suppose your tactic of adding unnecessary bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic process, however ill advised it may be, might work on a lazy and/or apathetic building official.

However, with a code official who cares and is acting within the boundaries of his authority and the code, you are going to be spinning your wheels, and costing yourself and your client time and money, because neither he nor the jurisdiction is going to roll over for you. Time and money you could have saved if you had designed to code in the first place. Because you see, if you think it complies with the code, and he doesn't, and he was acting under the authority referenced above, he is most likely to prevail.

That whole concept seems to make you very bitter and hostile, and that's unfortunate. There's no reason for your petulent and sullen behavior. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a My Way or the Highway mentality, and it just isn't so. In virtually every thread in this forum, there are intelligent, experienced, and thoughtful people on both sides. Why do you think your particular interpretation has any more merit than anyone else's? In fact, in many, many threads, the topic is very much a matter of interpretation (or it wouldn't be a topic in the first place), so there really is no right or wrong, regardless of which side you're on.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: The difference



> Personally, when I feel I'm being attacked I get defensive... really defensive.


That may be an understatement     :lol:


----------



## texasbo

Re: The difference



> The incentive for a code official to stick to an interpretation like "you can't put an exit sign there" regardless of what the code actually says (or rather doesn't say), is that appealing costs the applicant time, money and energy.


HA! I knew this whole pity party was due to that thread. Here's the message again: The side you're on isn't right just because you're on it. You know, if someone was all alone on one side of an argument, and you and 15 other code officials were on the other, that one person might want to look long and hard at their view. Even THEN they might be right. Seriously brudgers, get over yourself. Most of us enjoy talking about the codes and helping people. There's no need to be the forums second troll.


----------



## JBI

Re: The difference

A good friend participiated in a debate in High School (History Class). The class was divided in half by the teacher and the project for the week was to win the debate.

By Wednesday afternoon, my friend sat alone on one side of the room.

By Friday afternoon, the other side of the room was empty.

A larger number of opinions that are shared are not necessarily correct.

mtlog -       :mrgreen:  :twisted:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: (But I don't lose too many of those battles either, now do I?)


----------



## Frank

Re: The difference

It has been our experieince that involving attorneys in the plans review process or the change of use process generally bogs things down and causes delay due to miscommunications and delays in relaying information.  It certainly increases the cost of doing business for the applicant and the county.  The applicant is paying for a middleman that typically does not understand design, construction, or the codes and ihas been trained in adversarial rather than cooperative processes.  The county is having to go over things multiple times trying to teach the attorney and correct their miscommunications.

It also seems that those who come in with attorneys are more likely to end up as appeals cases and are more likely to lose those appeals cases--especially if it is an attorney owner bringing his own case to the appeals board.


----------



## kilitact

Re: The difference

brudgers wrote:



> The incentive for a code official to stick to an interpretation like "you can't put an exit sign there" regardless of what the code actually says (or rather doesn't say), is that appealing costs the applicant time, money and energy.Bringing the city devil with a tie, adminstrators, and managers into the equation disincentivizes this course of action.
> 
> That's the purpose, not winning in a court of law.


I would agree,


----------



## texas transplant

Re: The difference

Texasbo and JD good posts above.

Brudgers,

As I stated in a previous post, when you drag the attorney or manager into it before you and I talk you are the one slowing down the process.

You must work in an area full of phantom codes and "my way or the highway" folks.  I am glad I don't and feel sorry for you.

When you run into those guys that don't know the code and butt heads, take them to the Appeals Board.  A public butt whipping will usually straighten that type out and makes them do better next time because its not fun to eat crow in front of an audiance.  And if they don't get better the City is going to notice sooner or later.

Don't know about all other cities but we here we have to have you in front of the appeals board within 5 business days of you making the request.  Fee to go there is $100.00, we found if you didn't make it cost a little bit the appeals board was overwhelmed all those "My way or the Highway" Design Professionals and building owners    :lol:  who were worried about money only and would gamble a little time to see if they could go around a requirement they didn't like.

I guess you can "fight" or "attack" any way you like, but there are more code officials out there that can be had for a little honey (calm discussion about the code) as opposed to vinegar (dragging the code official into meeting with the bosses) everytime you disagree.

Another thing,  here in our little community, I attend as many of the design professionals group meetings, home builders meeting, etc. as I can so we know each other at permit time and both parties feel a line of communitcation is already open so we can talk out our differences.  We also bring our appeals and trade boards together once a quarter, feed them a cup of coffee and a cookie, and open up the floor for discussions about inspections and permitting etc.  they give us feed back, ask their questions, tell us what problems they have with the way we are doing business  and we have discussions with them about what we are thinking as far as code updates, common mistakes we are finding during inspections and plan review, and things that we have found we are not doing the best or right and how we intend to fix them.

We try to give our folks (design professionals, builders, contractors etc.) ownership in the process.  You probably won't believe after getting this process started how the plans improved that we were seeing, the percentage drop in violations at inspection time etc.

Maybe before you have to call the  City Manager or the City Attorney to set up yet again another meeting to straighten out the dumb code official, you could call him up and suggest a meeting to fix the process.  When we all pull together on the rope and pull in the same direction, we actually get some work done and "god forbid" even get along.

Again, if the process is broken where you are, fix it, become a part of the solution not a continuing part of the problem.

You may think what I said sounds a little childish, simple or naive but it has served me for almost 30 years now in the code official business and I still have all my hair, no ulcers, and actually have contractors and design professional greet me in public as a friend not as a leper.

Good lord, this post is as long as some of Rick A's      :shock:  :roll:    :lol:   

No offense meant Rick just couldn't resist.


----------



## Min&Max

Re: The difference

Appeal to a board for property maintenance or building code issue = $500.00 fee. If you win you get it back. No appeals filed in last 4 years. No more rolling the dice on the taxpayers dime.


----------



## kilitact

Re: The difference

Texas Transplant, For the most part I would agree with what you have posted. If more “code official” would read (listen) to what they have posted (stated) there wouldn’t be a need for third party intervention. Just read the posts above and look at some of the other posts by those posters and I think you can see where the problem is. Be part of the solution.


----------



## texas transplant

Re: The difference

Kil,

AMEN!


----------



## texas transplant

Re: The difference

Min and Max,

Thanks for the idea.  Hadn't thought about raising the fee and kicking it back if they win. Really haven't had but 2 or 3 trips to the appeals board per year, and haven't lost one.

But that would discourage the ones that think that $100 is a cheap roll of the dice.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: The difference



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> John Drobysh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the cost to a jurisdiction of preparing for an appeal can easily run a couple of thousand dollars in preparation time."Not if the CO knows his code...
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if the applicant knows how to make it cost more.

The proper method of attacking a bureaucrat is with paper.

I've learned from an architect with 40+ years experience and it is far easier to work with code officials FIRST. It will cost less 95% of the time then what it wall cost when the devil in tie with their $15 to $50 per minute of their time is in play. Considering they are not cheap. Imagine for a moment: The being code compliant according to the B.O.'s interpretation is going to only cost $10,000 more over the whole project of maybe $500,000 worth. Once you got that devil in the mix - it cost you more then $10,000 (and ultimately your client) and the city can draw it out as long as they want because they can just tax the people (including your client). So, in the end of the day - you gets drawn out and delayed for a year or two and cost of project goes up 8% to 10%. So even if you won, the project cost increased $50,000 and you probably now have to comply with the B.O. and that $10,000 - now costs $11,000. So, project is now $561,000 instead of maybe $510,000. What did you win the client? Even if you win in the interpretation battle, the project is $550,000. Wow, good one. Real winner. Not to mentioned the devils in tie's fees.

If you can work with the B.O., you might just get your way or at worse, it cost only $10,000 more in the project. Think about how much the cost is. The B.O.s have learned to call your bluff as if often can come out of special government funding. Governments can pull whatever they need. There is always a special account with money and special funds set aside at state level to help local governments if needed.

At worse, they'll layoff a student office assistant and a few extra staff and raise the water bill maybe 1-5%.


----------

