# Residential service pit



## Sifu (Apr 27, 2021)

I can't find any guidance of vehicle service pits in residential garages, but I feel like the hazards need to be addressed in some way.  The IBC has a general provision for guards then exempts service pits where not open to the public.  Makes perfect sense.  There is no exemption in the IRC.  Obviously you can't guard these, but they do present a fall hazard to occupants, and specifically children.  MOE out of the 6' deep pit is also not addressed in the IRC, but is in the IBC.  Fume accumulation is addressed by the IMC, but not the IRC.  They are considered a hazardous location by the NEC if a "commercial" garage.  The IPC has provisions for oil collection and separation but that is not applicable to the IRC.  I stipulate that the residential "hobby" pit wouldn't need the kind of protections for some of these issues that a commercial pit would based solely on volume but some of the hazards may be even more real as a person could be stuck in one, overcome by fumes and nobody is around.  Children and guests could also be at risk of falling while the adults are not around.  Is there some common sense provisions to be applied for this?  A cover when not in use, ventilation?  Steps or ladder?  Wiring methods?  I hate to beat on a homeowner but seems like there should be some safeguards here.  Anybody dealt with this before?


----------



## cda (Apr 27, 2021)

Have seen some fancy garages 

Non with a lub pit

Have seen one with storm shelter, built into the garage floor


----------



## classicT (Apr 27, 2021)

If it is not addressed by the IRC, then follow the IBC.

Fall hazard can be mitigated by a net (this is commonly done at commercial lube stations).
MOE could be via stairs or a ships ladder.
Fume control should be addressed under the IMC.


----------



## cda (Apr 27, 2021)




----------



## cda (Apr 27, 2021)

Guess a question

With a pit,,,, How do they meet this


*406.3.3 Garage Floor Surfaces*

Garage floor surfaces shall be of _approved _noncombustible material. The area of floor used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to facilitate the movement of liquids to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway


----------



## Sifu (Apr 27, 2021)

classicT said:


> If it is not addressed by the IRC, then follow the IBC.
> 
> Fall hazard can be mitigated by a net (this is commonly done at commercial lube stations).
> MOE could be via stairs or a ships ladder.
> Fume control should be addressed under the IMC.


Yep, made all those comments but appreciate the validation.


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 28, 2021)

If we can use the IBC for this as a commercial repair garage we should be able to use the IBC for a AirBud house.

So you will require  a sprinkler system in the house per IBC 406.8.6 required for repair garages and all the requirements in the NEC? I  think you need to use all the sections required for a repair garage not just certain ones.


----------



## e hilton (Apr 28, 2021)

Calling it a repair garage implies doing work for others, for money.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 28, 2021)

I know using the IBC is selective but I look at it this way:  The IRC is prescriptive, and if there are elements in the design of a house that are not covered by the prescriptive code I can go to the IBC for guidance.  Service pits are not covered by the IRC so I am going to the IBC to provide a reasonable, minimum level of safety.  Our FD is also looking at it the same way, with provisions from the IFC that apply to all occupancies.  This is a case where I believe there is a risk to the health and safety of the occupants not accounted for in the IRC and am applying IBC restrictions to mitigate them.  I am not classifying it as a repair garage with all of the IBC requirements, I am applying the codes specific to pits that I think will provide a basic protection.  I have noted that the wiring needs to comply with NEC 511 even though it may not be a "commercial garage", I confirmed that with the electrical supervisor.  If the owner/designer do not agree they will tell me why and it can bump up to the next level.

As far as whether it is a repair garage for fee, that is a zoning issue that they should be looking into as well.  However, my belief is that the owner would deny it and call it personal use.


----------



## JCraver (Apr 28, 2021)

There is no reason to require anything other than a guard for a residential pit.  The danger is minimal, and the occasion when they are installed is so rare that any regulations for them don't warrant inclusion in the code(s).  We shouldn't/don't have to get involved in everything.  Require a guard via 312.1.1 if the pit is 30" or deeper, but that's it.

Seriously - his wife is going to make him either cover it with a sheet of steel or put up a guard of some type anyway.

Leave it alone, and let the guy work on his cars.


----------



## e hilton (Apr 28, 2021)

JCraver said:


> Leave it alone, and let the guy work on his cars.


Nope ... too much risk to leave it alone.  I think sifu has the right strategy in post #9.


----------



## cda (Apr 28, 2021)

How does a hole in the garage floor comply with this:::



406.3.3 Garage Floor Surfaces

Garage floor surfaces shall be of _approved _noncombustible material. The area of floor used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to facilitate the movement of liquids to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway


----------



## JCraver (Apr 28, 2021)

e hilton said:


> Nope ... too much risk to leave it alone.  I think sifu has the right strategy in post #9.



The guard, which is within the code to require, eliminates any actual risk the pit creates.  Require the guard, sign off that it's there at the final, and roll on.

There are many multitudes of things that are not in the code that people do to and/or in their houses that are risky.  We don't have any business trying to regulate them all.


----------



## JCraver (Apr 28, 2021)

cda said:


> How does a hole in the garage floor comply with this:::
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every maintenance pit I've ever seen is poured into the floor - concrete walls and a concrete bottom.  There's either a sump pit poured into the pit floor or, more often, a dedicated cheap sump pump hooked to a garden hose that lives close to the pit - if/when there's water, garden hose goes out garage door, pump is lowered into hole, and plugged in until the water is gone.


----------



## No Soup for you (Apr 28, 2021)

JCraver said:


> The guard, which is within the code to require, eliminates any actual risk the pit creates.  Require the guard, sign off that it's there at the final, and roll on.
> 
> There are many multitudes of things that are not in the code that people do to and/or in their houses that are risky.  We don't have any business trying to regulate them all.


I think i agree with this. A metal grate over the pit would be all I would require of the "homeowner" (I think)


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 28, 2021)

The pit would be defined as a under-floor space per IRC and need to comply with R408.


----------



## No Soup for you (Apr 28, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> The pit would be defined as a under-floor space per IRC and need to comply with R408.


Seriously? 

I dont see that at all


----------



## JCraver (Apr 28, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> The pit would be defined as a under-floor space per IRC and need to comply with R408.



Disagree.  An open pit is* IN* the floor, not under-floor.  Cover it or put a rail up and it's IRC compliant.


----------



## cda (Apr 28, 2021)

How about the elephant in the room:::

How does a hole in the garage floor comply with this:::



406.3.3 Garage Floor Surfaces

Garage floor surfaces shall be of _approved _noncombustible material. The area of floor used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to facilitate the movement of liquids to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway


----------



## classicT (Apr 28, 2021)

cda said:


> How about the elephant in the room:::
> 
> How does a hole in the garage floor comply with this:::
> 
> ...


You've asked several times...

How doesn't it?

You slope the main floor to the door. The pit you add a drain (most likely with a sump pump). What's the issue?


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 28, 2021)

and the "unique" questions keep coming.


----------



## cda (Apr 28, 2021)

classicT said:


> You've asked several times...
> 
> How doesn't it?
> 
> You slope the main floor to the door. The pit you add a drain (most likely with a sump pump). What's the issue?



Just seeing what the consensus is


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 28, 2021)

cda said:


> Just seeing what the consensus is


I don't think anyone else sees how the pit would have any bearing on this.

Slope the slab, drain the pit.  Next...


----------



## Sifu (Apr 28, 2021)

I have considered the drain issue in the pit itself.  A sump would be the best path but think it less of a problem than getting in and out of the 6' deep pit,  becoming overwhelmed by fumes, explosion and a fall hazard.  I am still waiting on the fire department to weigh in.  The remainder of the floor is sloped in this 4 bay garage.

I can't live with the idea that a completely unaware hobbyist may be putting himself or others in danger in this 6' deep pit.  I don't know if they have considered the risk of fumes, explosion or falling.  That's is kind of what they pay us for isn't it?


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 28, 2021)

Sifu said:


> I have considered the drain issue in the pit itself.  A sump would be the best path but think it less of a problem than getting in and out of the 6' deep pit,  becoming overwhelmed by fumes, explosion and a fall hazard.  I am still waiting on the fire department to weigh in.  The remainder of the floor is sloped in this 4 bay garage.
> 
> I can't live with the idea that a completely unaware hobbyist may be putting himself or others in danger in this 6' deep pit.  I don't know if they have considered the risk of fumes, explosion or falling.  That's is kind of what they pay us for isn't it?


Floor drain. 

I think you're overthinking this.  If you can't live with a design that's used in thousands of OSHA regulated businesses maybe your client needs a different designer who isn't trying to sabotage the intent.  If you're a plan reviewer you are stepping outside your lane, you enforce the code as written; there's nothing in the IRC that prohibits the pit.


----------



## cda (Apr 28, 2021)

Sifu said:


> I have considered the drain issue in the pit itself.  A sump would be the best path but think it less of a problem than getting in and out of the 6' deep pit,  becoming overwhelmed by fumes, explosion and a fall hazard.  I am still waiting on the fire department to weigh in.  The remainder of the floor is sloped in this 4 bay garage.
> 
> I can't live with the idea that a completely unaware hobbyist may be putting himself or others in danger in this 6' deep pit.  I don't know if they have considered the risk of fumes, explosion or falling.  That's is kind of what they pay us for isn't it?



If you can find a code section that applies

Thought the slope requirement might be it


----------



## Sifu (Apr 28, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> Floor drain.
> 
> I think you're overthinking this.  If you can't live with a design that's used in thousands of OSHA regulated businesses maybe your client needs a different designer who isn't trying to sabotage the intent.  If you're a plan reviewer you are stepping outside your lane, you enforce the code as written; *there's nothing in the IRC that prohibits the pit.*


I'm not prohibiting anything.  The IRC doesn't have roller coasters in it either, but if someone wanted to build one in their house I wouldn't turn my head and tell them it's ok to do whatever they want and *I'll* *put my stamp on it* because they aren't in the code.  If they are installing an element covered by the IBC and not the IRC, I will use the IBC to the extent it provides the intended safeguards.  The pit is outside the scope of the code, that doesn't mean it gets a free pass.  I guess I could tell him that the entire project needs to be designed in accordance with the IBC, but I don't think that is reasonable.  I think it is reasonable to ask for this particular element to be designed in accordance with the IBC and ask for a little safety.  It should be no big deal to provide a grate, a few extra dollars of electrical , a ladder and possibly a sump pit of some sort.  The most intrusive issue would be ventilation, but I don't think that would be so bad either.  

Not really sure what you mean by me not living with a design used in thousands of OSHA regulated businesses.  Pretty sure the thousands of OSHA regulated businesses would be similar to the IBC in requiring class I, division 1 wiring, an approved means of egress, exhaust ventilation and would prohibit the public from accessing the pit area.  This isn't a business, and provides none of that, which is why I am concerned.  

I won't stamp a plan I think poses a risk if I have code telling me it has problems.  Which I think I do in the IBC.  The designer you speak of is the homeowner, so I guess I could tell him to fire himself but I'm not sure that is productive.


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 28, 2021)

According to the IRC you have an elevation change of greater than 30", require a guardrail.  The floor needs a drain and must be non-combustible.  

You don't have any other code that supports what you _want_ to require. You don't get to go to IBC and see if you can require more. The single family house is not under IBC and is not required to be unless the _designer_ chooses to design under IBC. 

You don't get to make up code, that's the whole point of having codes in the first place.  You're not deciding what's safe unless it's an alternate compliance, the code decides what's safe.  I see no code provisions that needs an alternate.


----------



## No Soup for you (Apr 29, 2021)

Sifu said:


> I'm not prohibiting anything.  The IRC doesn't have roller coasters in it either, but if someone wanted to build one in their house I wouldn't turn my head and tell them it's ok to do whatever they want and *I'll* *put my stamp on it* because they aren't in the code.  If they are installing an element covered by the IBC and not the IRC, I will use the IBC to the extent it provides the intended safeguards.  The pit is outside the scope of the code, that doesn't mean it gets a free pass.  I guess I could tell him that the entire project needs to be designed in accordance with the IBC, but I don't think that is reasonable.  I think it is reasonable to ask for this particular element to be designed in accordance with the IBC and ask for a little safety.  It should be no big deal to provide a grate, a few extra dollars of electrical , a ladder and possibly a sump pit of some sort.  The most intrusive issue would be ventilation, but I don't think that would be so bad either.
> 
> Not really sure what you mean by me not living with a design used in thousands of OSHA regulated businesses.  Pretty sure the thousands of OSHA regulated businesses would be similar to the IBC in requiring class I, division 1 wiring, an approved means of egress, exhaust ventilation and would prohibit the public from accessing the pit area.  This isn't a business, and provides none of that, which is why I am concerned.
> 
> I won't stamp a plan I think poses a risk if I have code telling me it has problems.  Which I think I do in the IBC.  The designer you speak of is the homeowner, so I guess I could tell him to fire himself but I'm not sure that is productive.


I understand your concerns.

A single family residential homeowner should be able to manage their own affairs.

I would like to see a removable metal grate cover, steps into the pit as opposed to a ladder, and a drain w/sump. 

That's about it. I would feel comfortable with those requirements and let them work on their vehicles and have fun.


----------



## Sifu (May 3, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> According to the IRC you have an elevation change of greater than 30", require a guardrail.  The floor needs a drain and must be non-combustible.
> 
> You don't have any other code that supports what you _want_ to require. You don't get to go to IBC and see if you can require more. The single family house is not under IBC and is not required to be unless the _designer_ chooses to design under IBC.
> 
> You don't get to make up code, that's the whole point of having codes in the first place.  You're not deciding what's safe unless it's an alternate compliance, the code decides what's safe.  I see no code provisions that needs an alternate.


We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## klarenbeek (May 3, 2021)

Lack of ventilation in the pit is a bigger problem than most here seem to think.  Potential accumulation of fumes (highly likely in a residential garage where someone is working on vehicles to the point they are willing to put in a service pit) is a time bomb waiting to happen.  Its the very reason any mechanical equipment that can spark needs to be 18" above the floor in a garage.  And you do have a leg to stand on in the IRC, although a few may see it as a stretch:

*M1301.1 Scope. *The provisions of this chapter shall govern the installation of mechanical systems not specifically covered in other chapters applicable to mechanical systems.  Installations of mechanical appliances, equipment and systems not addressed by this code shall comply with the applicable provisions of the International Mechanical Code and the International Fuel Gas Code.

It specifically give you a fallback to address these once in a blue moon situations that you normally don't see in a residence.


----------



## redeyedfly (May 3, 2021)

Sifu said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree.


I hope I never have a project in your jurisdiction.  

You're unfit.


----------



## classicT (May 3, 2021)

Sifu, I agree and think you are on the right path forward.

Redeyedfly, you seem to like confrontation. Not the first time you have picked a fight on here. Declaring someone "unfit" because you disagree is a bit much.


----------



## redeyedfly (May 3, 2021)

classicT said:


> Sifu, I agree and think you are on the right path forward.
> 
> Redeyedfly, you seem to like confrontation. Not the first time you have picked a fight on here. Declaring someone "unfit" because you disagree is a bit much.


Notice they all have the same theme: BOs who think they get to make up code as they go along because they don't agree with the code.  I spend far too much time explaining the basics of code to BOs like this.  

It doesn't matter if Sifu thinks the pit is unsafe, the code does not prohibit it.  He does not have the authority to demand beyond the code.  Again, that is the whole reason we have codes.  If he doesn't like the code he can get involved writing or adopting code.  As a BO he must follow the code.


----------



## classicT (May 3, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> Notice they all have the same theme: BOs who think they get to make up code as they go along because they don't agree with the code.  I spend far too much time explaining the basics of code to BOs like this.
> 
> It doesn't matter if Sifu thinks the pit is unsafe, the code does not prohibit it.  He does not have the authority to demand beyond the code.  Again, that is the whole reason we have codes.  If he doesn't like the code he can get involved writing or adopting code.  As a BO he must follow the code.


He has explained how he is following the code. I for one, agree with his interpretation of the code. Where the IRC does not address a specific situation, particularly when something is not typical to residential, it is the directive of the codes to follow the IBC/IMC/etc.

For someone who says that they "...spend far too much time explaining the basics of code to BOs..." you seem to struggle with this common application of the code provisions.


----------



## e hilton (May 3, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> I spend far too much time explaining the basics of code to BOs like this.


Sorry ... I don’t remember ... what is your job?  

_He does not have the authority to demand beyond the code_

Code is minimum.  It’s unreasonable to expect the code to cover every possible situation.  If the code officer recognizes a risk not covered by the code, he/she has the obligation to raise it for discussion and resolution.


----------



## redeyedfly (May 3, 2021)

What am I struggling with?  

I missed the part in the IRC where it says BOs can pick and choose IBC provisions whenever they feel like it.  Where exactly is that?


----------



## redeyedfly (May 3, 2021)

e hilton said:


> Sorry ... I don’t remember ... what is your job?
> 
> _He does not have the authority to demand beyond the code_
> 
> Code is minimum.  It’s unreasonable to expect the code to cover every possible situation.  If the code officer recognizes a risk not covered by the code, he/she has the obligation to raise it for discussion and resolution.


Yup, code is minimum and it is the minimum standard BOs are authorized to enforce.  You don't get to enforce your feelings.


----------



## classicT (May 3, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> What am I struggling with?
> 
> I missed the part in the IRC where it says BOs can pick and choose IBC provisions whenever they feel like it.  Where exactly is that?


How about each of the following IRC sections.

For structural....
*R301.1.3 Engineered Design*​Where a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code.​
For mechanical....
*M1301.1 Scope. *The provisions of this chapter shall govern the installation of mechanical systems not specifically covered in other chapters applicable to mechanical systems. Installations of mechanical appliances, equipment and systems not addressed by this code shall comply with the applicable provisions of the International Mechanical Code and the International Fuel Gas Code.​
For electrical....
*E3401.2 Scope*​Chapters 34 through 43 shall cover the installation of electrical systems, equipment and components indoors and outdoors that are within the scope of this code, including services, power distribution systems, fixtures, appliances, devices and appurtenances. Services within the scope of this code shall be limited to 120/240-volt, 0- to 400-ampere, single-phase systems. These chapters specifically cover the equipment, fixtures, appliances, wiring methods and materials that are most commonly used in the construction or alteration of one- and two-family dwellings and accessory structures regulated by this code. The omission from these chapters of any material or method of construction provided for in the referenced standard NFPA 70 shall not be construed as prohibiting the use of such material or method of construction. Electrical systems, equipment or components not specifically covered in these chapters shall comply with the applicable provisions of NFPA 70.​
Now, given that we are presenting actual code sections, and you (Redeyedfly) are not, would you care to admit that perhaps we are grounded in the code and you are the one who is picking and choosing? Damn sure seems to be the case, doesn't it?!


----------



## redeyedfly (May 3, 2021)

You're quoting sections where designs don't follow code prescriptive design and require engineering.  

I'm not quoting sections of code because there are no sections of code that allow you to make up requirements.  This is basic rule of law.  Code is law adopted by the AHJ in their legislature, council or other governmental body. You're suggesting the police get to arrest you for laws they make up on the spot.  
We have codes so everyone plays by the same rules.  Architects and engineers can rely on the code adopted as LAW for design and expect to get approval when they meet the requirements of the LAW.


----------



## classicT (May 3, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> You're quoting sections where designs don't follow code prescriptive design and require engineering.
> 
> I'm not quoting sections of code because there are no sections of code that allow you to make up requirements.  This is basic rule of law.  Code is law adopted by the AHJ in their legislature, council or other governmental body. You're suggesting the police get to arrest you for laws they make up on the spot.
> We have codes so everyone plays by the same rules.  Architects and engineers can rely on the code adopted as LAW for design and expect to get approval when they meet the requirements of the LAW.


I am quoting sections that tell BOs to follow the proper code when the IRC doesn't fit.

You don't want to cite code, because to don't understand it and are inept.

I have said nothing about police, so again, you are inciting the discussion by making up flagrant examples that have no merit. Remember the other thread where we broke down your logical fallacies?

Take your loss, and if you cant, get off the forum.


----------



## redeyedfly (May 3, 2021)

classicT said:


> I am quoting sections that tell BOs to follow the proper code when the IRC doesn't fit.
> 
> You don't want to cite code, because to don't understand it and are inept.
> 
> ...


The police are in the same situation, they enforce the law, they don't make it up as they go along.  I'm not inciting anything.  
Code is law, you have to follow the law.  Your opinion of the law is not relevant.  I'm not why that is so difficult for some of you to grasp.


----------



## classicT (May 3, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> The police are in the same situation, they enforce the law, they don't make it up as they go along.  I'm not inciting anything.
> Code is law, you have to follow the law.  Your opinion of the law is not relevant.  I'm not why that is so difficult for some of you to grasp.


My opinion of the law does matter in this case. See R104.1. The code specifically leaves it up to the BO to render interpretation. 

*R104.1 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 compliance 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.​


----------



## e hilton (May 3, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> Yup, code is minimum and it is the minimum standard BOs are authorized to enforce.  You don't get to enforce your feelings.


I still don’t know what you do for a living.  Or if you are a retired code official.  Hiding something?


----------



## redeyedfly (May 3, 2021)

classicT said:


> My opinion of the law does matter in this case. See R104.1. The code specifically leaves it up to the BO to render interpretation.
> 
> *R104.1 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 compliance 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.​


Still nothing about making up your own code.


----------



## redeyedfly (May 3, 2021)

e hilton said:


> I still don’t know what you do for a living.  Or if you are a retired code official.  Hiding something?


I'm not sure why my job is relevant.  I am not a retired code official.  
I have no idea what you think I might be hiding.


----------



## classicT (May 3, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> Still nothing about making up your own code.


What code have I made up?

You make all these accusations, but you never back them up. Please, quote my post where I made up my own code!


----------



## Paul Sweet (May 3, 2021)

I don't know about state amendments in the states that Sifu or classicT are in, but Virginia defines Residential Group R-5 as:
"Residential occupancies in detached single- and two-family dwellings, townhouses and accessory structures within the scope of the IRC."
then adds
"310.8.1 Additional Requirements.
Methods of construction, materials, systems, equipment or components for Group R-5 structures not addressed by prescriptive or performance provisions of the IRC shall comply with applicable IBC requirements."


----------



## e hilton (May 3, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> I'm not sure why my job is relevant.  I am not a retired code official.
> I have no idea what you think I might be hiding.


I am on the project management side, i’m here to learn.  I offer opinions, but i don’t know the code nearly as much as most everyone else, and i sure don’t know it well enough to preach about it.  You seem to think you know more than everyone else, I’m just curious about your credentials.


----------



## Joe.B (May 3, 2021)

e hilton said:


> I am on the project management side, i’m here to learn.  I offer opinions, but i don’t know the code nearly as much as most everyone else, and i sure don’t know it well enough to preach about it.  You seem to think you know more than everyone else, I’m just curious about your credentials.


My money is on contractor/developer. He's obviously got a chip on his shoulder and is here to vent his frustrations with whatever BO's he's had to deal with. I don't engage with these kind of attitudes, just let them vent and save your energy for productive conversations.


----------



## Sifu (May 3, 2021)

All feelings aside, I got a call from the contractor today.  He said he and the owner knew it was sketchy, and didn't realize some of the hazards.  There was a general feeling of understanding and acceptance.  

Redeyedfly, I get your position.  I was a contractor for many years before this position.  I am one who tries to live and die by the written code.  Any who know me understand that, and I often argue the points based on available code...whether its for enforcement or against it.  But, with experience I have realized the code, as gargantuan as it is, can't cover everything.  It is my belief that the IRC was written for a defined class of structure, and that there will be times when there are elements within that defined class that are not covered by the prescriptions of that code.  I believe then that it is acceptable to turn to the other codes for guidance, as others have presented.  You are in opposition to that, and you are entitled to that opinion.  I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am obviously not making a good enough case for that anyway.  I do appreciate your position, it's just not one I agree with in this instance.  I often excoriate other building officials for selective enforcement, or "creative" enforcement.  If I am guilty of that here I will take my lumps because I think the hazards are real and warrant attention.  But I don't think I am.  The codes exist, just not in the book you want to see them in.

Nowhere have I seen you argue that the hazards aren't real, just that you don't think they apply to homes.  Again, we can just disagree and move on.  I made the calls, the applicant accepts them.  And, BTW, the fire department also reviewed this and concurred on separate permits and plans.  You keep up the fight, keep us honest, I really do appreciate it, we just have different opinions in this case.


----------



## ADAguy (May 4, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> What am I struggling with?
> 
> I missed the part in the IRC where it says BOs can pick and choose IBC provisions whenever they feel like it.  Where exactly is that?


That is why Chapter 1 of Administration allows the AHJ to be the ultimate determiner as to what he considers to be the safest resolution.


----------

