# Attic access?



## jar546 (Apr 28, 2011)

Yep, this qualifies as requiring attic access.  I was asked the "Why?" question and other than because it is required, I really did not know the true reason, only my thoughts.


----------



## RJJ (Apr 28, 2011)

Are you referring to behind the wall with outlets?

How did you get up there?

The attic space behind the wall is greater then 30"!


----------



## Yankee (Apr 28, 2011)

S'not an attic, no access req'd


----------



## GHRoberts (Apr 28, 2011)

Furring strips from the rafters to the studs. About 29" off the floor. No access needed.

So you are going to require access because the guy does not put in a few furring strips? You really need to get a life.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 28, 2011)

again......sigh..........


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Apr 28, 2011)

Required 807.1 Height over 30" and over 30sf.

I'm with you jar, not sure why in this case. Should be an exception if no mech. or elect, tomorrow there will be a flue going thru it most likely?

pc1


----------



## permitguy (Apr 28, 2011)

George, furring strips are not roof framing members.  I'd literally laugh you out of my office with that one.

I can see Yankee's point given the definition of attic.  The picture doesn't show a space between the ceiling assembly and the roof framing members of the top story.  If its not an attic, it at least directly communicates with one.

I don't know the specifics on the "why" in terms of history, but here's some food for thought.  Last Friday afternoon, a couple was at home when they thought they smelled smoke.  The searched the entire house, starting with the basement.  They couldn't find anything after several minutes, and the smoke detectors weren't going off.  The owner finally thought to check the attic (via the access) and found it completely smoke-filled.  They got out and called 911.  Had there not been an attic access, they would have continued to wonder about the smell, would have remained inside, and would have continued to delay in calling us.  BTW, the attic flashed on our crew and put them straight on their a$$es (nobody hurt).  It became a defensive operation within a few minutes, and we lost the roof.  In other words, had the occupants remained inside long enough to go to bed, it could have been a tragic ending for them.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 28, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> Furring strips from the rafters to the studs. About 29" off the floor. No access needed.So you are going to require access because the guy does not put in a few furring strips? *You really need to get a life*.


Once again George, you are getting personal with me and I find your comment unacceptable.  Last warning.


----------



## FredK (Apr 28, 2011)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Required 807.1 Height over 30" and over 30sf...........pc1


Simply divide the space to less than 30 sq ft since to be and attic it requires both height and space.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 28, 2011)

FredK said:
			
		

> Simply divide the space to less than 30 sq ft since to be and attic it requires both height and space.


Simply provide an attic access


----------



## High Desert (Apr 28, 2011)

Being the devil's advocate, once you require an attic access in these types of spaces you just open the door for storage. Let's pack the otherwise empty space with an increased fuel load.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 28, 2011)

High Desert said:
			
		

> Being the devil's advocate, once you require an attic access in these types of spaces you just open the door for storage. Let's pack the otherwise empty space with an increased fuel load.


Would not be a problem with spinklers.......


----------



## permitguy (Apr 28, 2011)

How did I know that would come up?   

Even if mandated, attics wouldn't require them.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 28, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Simply provide an attic access


Just don't block the spinklers


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Apr 28, 2011)

Just my interpretation of the code, did'nt write it but we all can change it or add an exception.

Nice Mark, exactly what can happen with the required access!

pc1


----------



## globe trekker (Apr 28, 2011)

jar,

As it stands right now, IMO, this area _WOULD_ require an approved attic

access. They _COULD_ divide the space by a faux wall, or install the compliant

attic access. I do not believe that we can control how they "might" use

the space, only that it be compliant at the time we inspect it.

Ya'lls results may be different!    

.


----------



## steveray (Apr 28, 2011)

Mark....you always have a great picture for every subject....where do you find them?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 28, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> Mark....you always have a great picture for every subject....where do you find them?


It is his house


----------



## mark handler (Apr 28, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> It is his house


mtlogcabin

Ouch, You spying on me?

Steve, The internet


----------



## steveray (Apr 28, 2011)

Just like Google......or some photo site?


----------



## mark handler (Apr 28, 2011)

Yes........


----------



## jar546 (Apr 28, 2011)

This is a real simple one.  The IRC requires access to this area as it is currently built.  I wanted to know why & how they come up with these minimum requirements.  My opinion as to whether or not it should be provided access is not relevant as the code is the law, not my opinion.  This again is the issue with our industry when the black and white code is manipulated due to an officials opinion.  There is no exception for this situation.


----------



## High Desert (Apr 28, 2011)

That's always been a hard call, but you're right, there is no exception to the provision.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 28, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Yep, this qualifies as requiring attic access.  I was asked the "Why?" question and other than because it is required, I really did not know the true reason, only my thoughts.


It's required so that the grow lights are accessible.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 28, 2011)

ATTIC. The unfinished space between the ceiling assembly of the top story and the roof assembly.

With all due respect, a strict reading of the definition could easily be interpreted to say this isn't an attic.  Assuming you were standing on the 2nd floor when you took the picture, the area is not between the ceiling assembly of the top story and the roof assembly; rather, it is behind a wall.  I agree with you in terms of intent, but I don't think it's as black and white as you're trying to suggest.

This is yet another scenario where the code language is techncially outdated due to architectural features that weren't taken into consideration back in the day.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 28, 2011)

OK then they need access to the crawlspace.  We can split hairs all day!!!


----------



## jar546 (Apr 28, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> It's required so that the grow lights are accessible.


Finally an answer that makes sense.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 28, 2011)

> OK then they need access to the crawlspace. We can split hairs all day!!!


Works for me!


----------



## RJJ (Apr 28, 2011)

Mark Love the photo! Jeff's photo looks like  a great place for storage! So put a little access door in with a little insulation and all are happy!

Permitguy says no sprinklers so we are all in agreement.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 28, 2011)

I agree with yankee and permit guy s'not an attic by definition. The code does not define a crawlspace, however when the word crawlspace is used the preceding lanquage and/or topic is "under floor spaces" which this is not. I would not call out an access requirement for what is shown in the picture.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 28, 2011)

> I was asked the "Why?" question and other than because it is required, I really did not know the true reason, only my thoughts.


and the commentary saaays

"The requirement for an attic access is predicated on the likelihood that during the life of the structure, access to an attic space for repair of piping, electrical and mechanical systems will be required.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 28, 2011)

And if you split it up, you will need to vent each "space".


----------



## High Desert (Apr 28, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> and the commentary saaays"The requirement for an attic access is predicated on the likelihood that during the life of the structure, access to an attic space for repair of piping, electrical and mechanical systems will be required.


Didn't see anything in that space that requires repair. All the receptacles can be reached from the dwelling portion.


----------



## DAYWALKER (Apr 28, 2011)

I have always justified it as required for fire fighters access to a concealed space.


----------



## RJJ (Apr 28, 2011)

Well at least it doesn't need a stairway!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 28, 2011)

Would have made a perfect sleep area for the little ones


----------



## ewenme (Apr 28, 2011)

If you go back to the definition, the story below the one you are standing on to take the picture is the 'top story before the roof assembly' for that small portion of the 'space' in question. Now, what size are you going to make that access?  22" x 30" for 'attic access' or 18" x 24" for 'crawlspace' access?


----------



## GHRoberts (Apr 28, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> George, furring strips are not roof framing members.  I'd literally laugh you out of my office with that one.


"you are getting personal with me and I find your comment unacceptable." I don't have the power to "warn" you.

Furring strips are sufficient to make my point.

---

As for your fire story. It like all stories make for poor codes.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 28, 2011)

Sure, George.  Just like engineers have ignored the lessons from "stories" about the Hyatt skywalk, Kemper Arena, Tacoma Narrows, etc.

Also, it was not I who issued the warning you are referncing.  I believe you confused my quote with jar.


----------



## GHRoberts (Apr 28, 2011)

As others have said it is not an attic

"ATTIC. The unfinished space between the ceiling assembly of the top story and the roof assembly."

This space is adjacent to the top story.

---

Permitguy ---

I was using Jar's comment to indicate that you deserved a warning also.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 28, 2011)

In that area of the dwelling, it is the top story......


----------



## permitguy (Apr 28, 2011)

> I was using Jar's comment to indicate that you deserved a warning also.


My comments were in reference to the topic, detailing my interpretation of the code and how I would handle the situation you presented in my capacity as a code official.  Your comments were unrelated to the topic, telling someone to "get a life" because you didn't agree with them.  Apples and oranges.



> In that area of the dwelling, it is the top story......


I see the point, and agree that is yet another way to support the position that this needs access.  I still say the definition could use some fine-tuning to cover "attics and similar void spaces", eliminating the argument altogether.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Apr 29, 2011)

Some differences with crawl space access; it does not say access required below the lowest under floor space with minimum 16 inches in height between the bottom of the floor joist and surface below. In contrast attic access is required if there is enough clearance above the ceiling of the top floor; nothing about behind a knee wall even though it is an attic space; similarly as above all roofs that project below the top floor. 

Would you require an attic access above an attached garage when its attic space is below the top floor; such as with split level homes?  Is it all attic spaces or just above the top floor?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Apr 29, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I still say the definition could use some fine-tuning to cover "attics and similar void spaces", eliminating the argument altogether.


None other than above the highest or topmost floor!


----------



## permitguy (Apr 29, 2011)

I think the crawl space suggestion was meant to be a joke.  As for above the topmost floor, that's the problem faced in the picture in the OP - precisely why this thread is now on its third page for something that is really pretty simple in terms of intent.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Apr 29, 2011)

Q. What is it then if not an attic?

Q. How would you insulate this area since it's been determined not to be an attic?

Q. Could'nt the framers have left the sheeting out in that area?

pc1


----------



## GHRoberts (Apr 29, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> My comments were ... how I would handle the situation you presented in my capacity as a code official.


Throwing people out of your office is not a legal way to handle this situation. You give them a permit and they leave of their own accord. Throwing people out of your office to get your way makes you a thug.

AHJs like you and Jar (he only plays one) are a lot of the reason that people regard AHJs and inspectors as idiots. (That and Jar's attempt to stalk me by searching for my engineering license. (Good thing I don't use my real name.))

I guess I am gone now. And I will be glad to stay away. Don't get up, I can find my way out.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 29, 2011)

> Throwing people out of your office to get your way makes you a thug.


I didn't say anything about "throwing".  I suppose you think I should waste all day (and the taxpayers money) listening to your brilliant logic about furring strips magically transforming this into something other than what it is?  Sorry, it won't happen.  I've better things to do.



> AHJs like you and Jar (he only plays one) are a lot of the reason that people regard AHJs and inspectors as idiots.


On the contrary, the taxpayers would not expect me to be wasting my time with individuals who would attempt such cute stunts in an effort to circumvent legitimate requirements.  Most are appreciative of our efforts to protect them from the likes of unscrupulous design professionals and contractors who spend more time scheming about how to do it wrong than it would have taken to just do it right.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Apr 29, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I think the crawl space suggestion was meant to be a joke. As for above the topmost floor, that's the problem faced in the picture in the OP - precisely why this thread is now on its third page for something that is really pretty simple in terms of intent.


Thanks keeping me straight.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 29, 2011)

If you are going to call it a  concealed space then you will need to look at  Fireblocking and Draftstopping.

It easier to call it an attic, and provide the access


----------



## Jobsaver (Apr 29, 2011)

Dividing the space does seem like a good idea. Are the maximum square footage and height allowances based on the idea that only a limited oxygen supply would be available to support a fire in case of fire?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 29, 2011)

> Q. How would you insulate this area since it's been determined not to be an attic?


Good question. That is probably a more real problem than ever having to access that area.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 29, 2011)

Pcinspector1

If it is an not an attic, it is a concealed space.

How would you insulate this area since it's been determined not to be an attic, the sloped framing members are still roof rafters, and should be insulated as such.

The framers could have left out the sheathing, but that disrupts the horizontal  diaphragm loads


----------



## FredK (Apr 29, 2011)

Found this pic to help explain my position to allow them to divide the space to less than 30 sq ft.

http://www.houleinsulation.com/finished_attics_in_story_and_a_half_homes.html

It really depends on how they insulate the space.

1. If they elect to place all the insulation in the rafters there's is no attic it's all conditioned space.   I know of no requirement to provide access to any conditioned space.

2. If they elect to insulate the floor, kneewall and top of rafter then it's an attic if it meets all the requirements for height and sq ft.  I would allow them to partition off that space if they desire as long as it's vented in order not to provide access.

I would, if mine, be finishing with insulating the rafters and having lots of storage space and access on both sides of the room behind the walls.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Apr 29, 2011)

The visual handbook of building and remodeling, 3rd edition would require the knee wall to be insulated as well as the floor space. Funny, it list this as an attic floor in the handbook. Hum

pc1


----------



## Inspector 102 (Apr 29, 2011)

I have followed many of the posts on this site and have found that most of the bantering between participants is comical. It lights the spirit of the day to read some very interesting points of view. It is a shame that some members seem to have more of a problem than others getting along. I view each persons responce as thier opinion and certainly would not attack their opinion feeling that mine is superior. I accept it and move on. I hope that the personal attacks can be minimized without stopping the spirit of the discussions. I think the photos and comments found here have helped me view my inspection responcibilities in a much better manner. Just my opinion and thank you to all who participate.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 29, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> Furring strips from the rafters to the studs. About 29" off the floor. No access needed.


Furring strips are not structural - need to use 2x's.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 29, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I didn't say anything about "throwing".  I suppose you think I should waste all day (and the taxpayers money) listening to your brilliant logic about furring strips magically transforming this into something other than what it is?  Sorry, it won't happen.  I've better things to dn the contrary, the taxpayers would not expect me to be wasting my time with individuals who would attempt such cute stunts in an effort to circumvent legitimate requirements.  Most are appreciative of our efforts to protect them from the likes of unscrupulous design professionals and contractors who spend more time scheming about how to do it wrong than it would have taken to just do it right.


What makes 30" legitimate and 29" not legitimate?

The difference is trifling.

Enforcement of trifling violations of the code justify the installation of trifling solutions.

Save your authority for something meaningful.


----------



## Yankee (Apr 29, 2011)

This is the top "story" and if it is a cathedral ceiling, there is no "attic" for "attic access".

If there is a space ABOVE the ceiling in this room meeting 30" x 30sf, it is the "attic".

Move along folks, nothin' here to see . . . .


----------



## High Desert (Apr 29, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> What makes 30" legitimate and 29" not legitimate?The difference is trifling.
> 
> Enforcement of trifling violations of the code justify the installation of trifling solutions.
> 
> Save your authority for something meaningful.


I actually agree based on this subject. The *purpose* of having an attic access is to be able to provide maintenance on piping, mechanical, electrical, ect. If there are none of these in this space, I would simply call it a concealed space and move on.


----------



## globe trekker (Apr 29, 2011)

What about maintenance on the thermal insulation?  Typically, it will not

remain in place indefinitely, or at least the roll / batt type. The "sprayed

in" type will. Just sayin'...

.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 29, 2011)

> What makes 30" legitimate and 29" not legitimate?The difference is trifling.
> 
> Enforcement of trifling violations of the code justify the installation of trifling solutions.
> 
> Save your authority for something meaningful.


The pic shows more than either 29" or 30".  The difference is a larger volume of space, thus a larger fire, which is why I'd be fine with additional compartmentalization as has been suggested (and as the code allows).  I don't pick and choose what I want to enforce.



> The purpose of having an attic access is to be able to provide maintenance on piping, mechanical, electrical, ect. If there are none of these in this space, I would simply call it a concealed space and move on.


Regardless of the commentary, I believe there is more to the intent of this section than just maintenance of systems and equipment.  Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to install any systems or equipment up there if you chose to avoid providing access by effectively draft-stopping the attic into smaller compartments (as allowed).  You have fuel, you have oxygen, you have an ignition source, you have a sufficient volume of space to allow for fire development, and you have sufficient clearance to allow access for the purpose of inspecting the area.  It isn't difficult or costly to install (common arguments against any requirement).  I just don't see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Yankee (Apr 29, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> T  I just don't see what all the fuss is about.


It's not an attic


----------



## brudgers (Apr 29, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> You have fuel, you have oxygen, you have an ignition source, you have a sufficient volume of space to allow for fire development


All of those conditions apply to a space less than 30" high to exactly the same degree.

And once you provide access you generally will increase the fuel load with stored materials and the potential ignition sources with the electrical lighting system (plus whatever might be stored).

In other words, your zealous enforcement almost certainly increases the hazard.

That's the big deal.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 29, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> It's not an attic


there is no stair


----------



## fatboy (Apr 30, 2011)

WOW, I was bummed because I couldn't see the OP picture, and post a response earlier in the week, thought this would be a dead post by the time I got to look at it this weekend....... NOPE, alive and thriving.

So, IMHO, yes this is an attic, access required. I was overruled by a CBO in the past, based on his opinion (as previously mentioned) that access only invited a possibility of storage. NOT MHO.

Hey, it was fun reading through the posts though, had not even tried to keep up with this one, as I had not seen the picture in the OP.


----------



## peach (Apr 30, 2011)

I don't like the attic access requirement unless it's to service a piece of equipment.  Why you ask?  People put crap up there, and although they are "sized" to accommodate a firefighter in bunker gear, the FD guys are going to put a hook in the ceiling and tear the whole darn thing down rather than use the access.

the only purpose they really serve is to allow the insulator a way out when he's done.

I've seen them placed in bathroom ceilings (a really bad idea IMHO) because that's the only area allowing the headroom, even though the attic is > 30 sf.

Homeowners don't know not to just pile crap in these convenient storage spaces we give them.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 30, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> Homeowners don't know not to just pile crap in these convenient storage spaces we give them.


So  Peach,

Tell us what you really think....


----------



## peach (Apr 30, 2011)

Well.. I did... It doesn't matter if the truss bottom chords can handle the loads the homeowner subject them to.. we give them a storage hole.. and they use it..  I don't like the attic access requirement.. at all...


----------



## mark handler (Apr 30, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> Well.. I did... It doesn't matter if the truss bottom chords can handle the loads the homeowner subject them to.. we give them a storage hole.. and they use it..  I don't like the attic access requirement.. at all...


I was joking Peach.....though in this case it appears that the floor system is the same, in the "attic" area, as in the living area....


----------



## peach (Apr 30, 2011)

I knew that Mark..  

Not every body gets it.. I know  you do!

Thanks and best.


----------



## TJacobs (Apr 30, 2011)

I get a kick out of reading some of the outrageous attempts to avoid reality on this board.  Makes me glad not all the posters are code officials.


----------



## peach (Apr 30, 2011)

The problem, TJ, is that some posters are property owners...


----------



## mark handler (Apr 30, 2011)

Jake

I resemble that remark.

I get a kick out of reading some code "officials" remarks, that don't know what the code says.

Not what they want it to say...

We need to keep both sides in line.....

Remember forum is not just for "code officials", that's one of the things that killed the ICC BB


----------



## permitguy (Apr 30, 2011)

> It's not an attic


As described above, it is the attic for the first floor space whose footprint extends beyond the second floor space.  If we disregard that, we could still say it's beyond the scope of what the authors were thinking of when they wrote the definition for a typical post WWII home.  In either case, the intent seems the same to me.



> the FD guys are going to put a hook in the ceiling and tear the whole darn thing down rather than use the access.


All bets are off is there is a fire burning.  If they are doing a smoke/odor investigation, though, they'll use the access.  Tearing the ceiling down before you know there is a problem will cause phone calls to the chief.  Kind of like a Knox box - they'll take the time to get keys if investigating an alarm signal, but if there's a fire, they'll use other means.



> All of those conditions apply to a space less than 30" high to exactly the same degree.


You left a condition off which changes things.  If you can't realistically get far enough in to take a look around, then there is no point in providing an access.



> In other words, your zealous enforcement almost certainly increases the hazard.


I disagree with your position that avoiding installation of access means no storage can be placed in there.  If someone wants to store something, they'll put their own access in.  Better to make sure it's done correctly from the get-go.  I've seen some incidental storage in attics, but not generally to the point that I feel the threat of fire outweighs the benefit of an access.  Based on your logic, we should simply prohibit attic access in all cases.  Maybe we should prohibit doors into homes, too.  After all, I've seen hoarders stack their entire living space to the ceiling with trash which wasn't accounted for in the design of the home.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 30, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> You left a condition off which changes things.  If you can't realistically get far enough in to take a look around, then there is no point in providing an access.


I left off a condition, and you missed the point. No access = much less probability of storage (including combustibles) in a place which was not designed to accommodate it.



			
				permitguy said:
			
		

> I disagree with your position that avoiding installation of access means no storage can be placed in there.  If someone wants to store something, they'll put their own access in.  Better to make sure it's done correctly from the get-go.  I've seen some incidental storage in attics, but not generally to the point that I feel the threat of fire outweighs the benefit of an access.  Based on your logic, we should simply prohibit attic access in all cases.  Maybe we should prohibit doors into homes, too.  After all, I've seen hoarders stack their entire living space to the ceiling with trash which wasn't accounted for in the design of the home.


My logic is that in marginal cases, the risks outweigh the concerns...and if a little lumber can be used to meet the letter of the code to prevent some Building Official/Zoning Official from forcing the designer to increase the risk, then that's a good thing.

BTW, the desk at which I am sitting as I type this abuts a condition exactly like that pictured (48" clear)- and if there was an access, the space would be full of files.


----------



## TJacobs (Apr 30, 2011)

I stand by my comment and will resist all attempts to make it personal, which it was not.  If you think that comment was aimed at anyone specific, I'm not sure I could say anything that would change your mind.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 30, 2011)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> I get a kick out of reading some of the outrageous attempts to avoid reality on this board.  Makes me glad not all the posters are code officials.


After reading the twisted logic behind so many attempts to bully the public on this board, I am saddened that so many posters are code officials.


----------



## fatboy (May 1, 2011)

OK.........I don't know why some threads have to end up "flaming" out. Of course we all don't agree on everything, no need to start zinging folks because their opinion is different than yours. Make a ruling based on your interp of the code. If you don't like what the code says, get involved, submit a code change proposal. Otherwise, enforce the code as it is written, or locally amended.


----------



## brudgers (May 1, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Otherwise, enforce the code as it is written, or locally amended.


or as common sense would dictate.


----------



## Mac (May 2, 2011)

The laws about what codes we (in NY) have to enforce don't mention common sense. Common sense is presumed to have been applied in the capitol, way above my pay grade.

Just saying we don't get to pick & choose.


----------



## north star (May 2, 2011)

*$ $ $ $*



> *Just saying we don't get to pick & choose.*


Actually, IMO, we DO get to pick & choose!

From Section R104.1, 2006 IRC: *General.*

"The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the

provisions of this code........*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 its provisions.*.....Such

interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the

intent and purpose of this code.........Such policies and procedures shall not

have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this

code."

This is one thing in the codes that WAS done right!....It gives each AHJ

the ability to interpret the codes things in a way that is applicable

specifically to that AHJ.......This is "Home Rule!"

*$ $ $ $*


----------



## mark handler (May 2, 2011)

north star said:
			
		

> .......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 its provisions.........Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code.........


*That assumes the building official knows the intent and purpose of this code......... based on some posts,I question that*


----------



## north star (May 2, 2011)

** * * **



> *That assumes the building official knows the intent and purpose of**this code......... based on some posts, I question that.*


Regardless, the BO still has the authority to render their own interpretations.......Mark,I agree with you that some BO's are less than competent and not qualified to be a BO,

however, some AHJ's want it this way. 

** * * **


----------



## mark handler (May 2, 2011)

One of the  * intents* of the Icodes is to have a “uniform”, consistant code..... not to have each BO make up his/her own code.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (May 2, 2011)

I was wondering if the DP or plan reviewer would have picked up on the attic or consealed space access or not at plan review?

pc1


----------



## mark handler (May 2, 2011)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> I was wondering if the DP or plan reviewer would have picked up on the attic or consealed space acces or not at plan review?pc1


Education, Experiance, incompetence

There might have been a missed note on the plans, the contractor may have changed the pitch on the roof, creating the headroom, roof rafter depth may have changed, any number of things...


----------



## brudgers (May 2, 2011)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> I was wondering if the DP or plan reviewer would have picked up on the attic or consealed space access or not at plan review?pc1


DP on an SFR?

Rarely - and even then the contractor changing the roof pitch at the request of the owner, or framer, or in error could create the situation.


----------



## permitguy (May 2, 2011)

Ignoring application of the code because you think it makes you a bully is not the same as rendering an interpretation.  If one doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to require installation of a simple attic access, I shudder to think how one handles corrective action of something that is difficult or costly.

Luckily, those who are ever-yielding to contractors and designers in their enforcement are the extreme minority in this business.

Flame away.  I'm done with this one.


----------



## fatboy (May 2, 2011)

I'll take the  heat with you, I agree.


----------



## globe trekker (May 2, 2011)

C`mon "permitguy", don't throw in the towel so soon. Hang in there for some more

spellbounding, action packed dialogue! It's what we do on here!   

Besides, I'm hoping that Jeff will chime in and give us some more info on what

was the outcome on this.  Ya know, kinda like Paul Harvey used to do in, ..."the

rest of the story!"

.


----------



## brudgers (May 2, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Ignoring application of the code because you think it makes you a bully is not the same as rendering an interpretation.  If one doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to require installation of a simple attic access, I shudder to think how one handles corrective action of something that is difficult or costly.Luckily, those who are ever-yielding to contractors and designers in their enforcement are the extreme minority in this business.
> 
> Flame away.  I'm done with this one.


It's not enforcement of the letter of the code which is bullying.

It is trifling enforcement in marginal cases - i.e. if a person can make the access go away by installing a 2x strong back on the top of the ceiling joist and a 2x purlin on the underside of the rafters you're just making citizens jump through your hoop (see comments to George).


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 2, 2011)

> If one doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to require installation of a simple attic access, I shudder to think how one handles corrective action of something that is difficult or costly.


Is it the attic does not have access or just this small portion of it? It is not a matter of intestinal fortitude for some it is a matter of application of the code. The attic has to have a minimum access size. There is no code requirement that all portions of the attic have to be accessible by a minimum size opening unless there is mechanical equipment located there. I would look at this to determine if some one could access this space through the framing before requiring an access door to this small area. More pictures would be helpfull


----------



## High Desert (May 2, 2011)

I have learned to pick my fights. This isn't one of them. You aren't gaining any added safety feature that makes a difference, IMHO.


----------



## RJJ (May 3, 2011)

I agree with Permitguy and Fatboy, but at the same time agree with High Desert. This may not be a fight to pick. How it will be insulated to create the envelope is a greater concern. On the practical side it provides great space for storage at a cheap price, so I would press for the access. Most often this does not end in some form of fight unless the contractor is a knuckle head.


----------



## Moscow (May 3, 2011)

Well here not only would you have to install the access you would have to have 6 side contact (because we all know that the manufacture of the batt insulation tells us that you need 6 sided contact for the insulation to work they way it was intened to) on the wall insulation. so you would have dry wall on the house side of the wall and some kind of air barrier on the attic/crawl side.


----------



## Fortner (May 3, 2011)

Moscow said:
			
		

> Well here not only would you have to install the access you would have to have 6 side contact (because we all know that the manufacture of the batt insulation tells us that you need 6 sided contact for the insulation to work they way it was intened to) on the wall insulation. so you would have dry wall on the house side of the wall and some kind of air barrier on the attic/crawl side.


That's the way we do it.


----------

