Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Josh, start with the local building department in Prince Edward County. They will be able to guide you through applicable regulatory processes for permits and approvals. Thanks for using our discussion forum.
Sean P. Farrell
JD, please do not reference the Statewide Fire Prevention Code (SFPC) for VCC applicability. Please go directly to the International Fire Code (IFC) as the VCC instructs. The SFPC is not the IFC. Long ago, VA extracted all of the operational and maintenance provisions contained in the IFC and created the SFPC; however, we didn’t remove the construction and retrofit provisions even though they were not applicable per chapter 1. Essentially, VA published the entire contents of the IFC as the SFPC, but then in chapter 1 limited applicability to only maintenance and operation provisions. This led to widespread confusion and use of the SFPC for purposes other than operations and maintenance. Therefore, VA recently removed all construction related text from the SFPC because Code Officials were continuing to use it to build and improve properties. The confusion you are having is the reason VA deleted the construction and retrofit provisions from the SFPC. VA does not construct or improve buildings and structures through the SFPC, that path is VCC and then the IFC. VA does not amend the IFC very much, we simply point to it for specific applicability.
Sean P. Farrell
JD, Can you let us know specifically where the VCC deletes this table? I do not see where VA has deleted this table from the VCC or IFC. The IFC provisions for Energy Storage Systems has not been modified at all and VCC section 307.1.1.9 points the user to the IFC for full compliance. Table 1206.2 has been deleted from the Statewide Fire Prevention Code (like all other construction or retrofit provisions) because the SFPC is a maintenance and operations code, not a construction code. The IFC is fully enforceable in VA by reference from the VCC, unless otherwise modified. If there is an existing energy storage system in place that needs to be inspected, the enforcement personnel would use the code in effect when the system was installed for compliance provisions.
Let us know if the process has overlooked something?
Sean P. Farrell
The base document is the VA administrative chapter 1, plus the proposed version of the ICC model code combined with all previously approved state amendments. The 2018 ICC IPMC changes will carry into the 2018 VA Maintenance Code unless specifically modified/deleted. However, I would not characterize them as new in the sense of being applicable. All building and structures must be maintained in accordance with the code under which they were erected…that means every relevant code section in place within the edition under which approved is applicable, not just those that are specifically called out in the VMC. For example, there is no mention of any fuel gas maintenance in the VMC, does that imply these methods and materials are not meant to be maintained? Of course not, there does not need to be a call out for every relevant section. The ICC body simply thought it was important enough to add emphasis to these specific items. Hope this helps…
Sean P. Farrell
Steven: try this website for Virginia Small Business Coronavirus aid
Sean P. Farrell
Detrick: if the building has been deemed a farm structure in accordance with the exemption criteria AND the definition criteria contained within the USBC, it is exempt from code period. That means the code provisions do not apply and there is no legal authority to regulate. If deemed a farm structure by the locality, I would offer the exemption determination to the utiilty company and defer any further debate to the untility company to address with the customer.
Sean P. Farrell
Gary, “building area” is defined in the VCC; since the exemption only applies to single story structures, building area may have been deemed more applicable than floor area for this exemption.
Sean P. Farrell
Gary,
The September 1973 date pertains to when VA as a state moved to a Uniform Statewide Code. Prior to that, each AHJ adopted their own regulations. So you need to check with Fairfax to determine what was in effect prior to September 1973. Further The Public Building Safety Regulations also apply to pre-USBC buildings. serving the public.
Hope this helps.
Sean P. Farrell
If you have a ‘habitable’ space, it must meet the light/ventilation/power requirements/conditions. Further, if habitable and designated as a bed/sleeping room, then emergency escape/rescue, smoke detection, arc fault, etc…trigger. Non-habitable spaces are just that…do not meet the full requirements of habitable. I don’t believe you can have an “unfinished” space that is habitable. But can you have a “finished” (drywall only – which does not require a permit) area that is non-habitable…? is that considered finished…good question.
PWC does not have such a document or guideline.
Sean P. Farrell
My reading of 19.2-8 pertaining to prosecution of violations of 36-106 is that the statute does not commence until the building official approves the work, thus becoming aware of initial use / occupancy or the issuance of a certificate (see USBC 113.8 for use / occupancy and 116.1 for certificates). The two year discovery period is not likely possible for most illegal work and the statute wasn’t enacted to protect those who circumvent applicable regulations.
Sean P. Farrell
There is no specific exemption in the USBC for decks, therefore I would strongly suggest that you ask the building official of the jurisdiction for an interpretation. However, I believe you can apply the accessory structure permit exemption provided that the exception under 403 for footings is met which would also mean the guardrail height trigger has not been exceeded AND the structure does not carry a structural load like a hot tub. Prince William exempts no load bearing decks that are 16.5 inches or below to grade from requiring permits. The technical provisions of the code still apply, they just don’t need to be verified/confirmed by a permit and inspections.
Sean P. Farrell
Ditto. What’s cool about the list is also advises all of the adopted reference documents/standards under each of the USBC editions. What would be even cooler…is if DHCD could link to electronic versions of all editions AND their respective referenced documents dating as far back as possible…never say never!
Sean P. Farrell
jtom, property ownership is confirmed through each localities land information systems/databases (court records, GIS records, real estate/assessment records). permission to build would come from zoning administrator, health official and building official, as well as any potential easement holder. If anyone listed in Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Part I Virginia Construction Code section 108.3 makes an application to the building official for a permit, it shall be considered. Note the broad definition of “owner” in Chapter 2, definitions. Hope this helps…
Sean P. Farrell
Emory Rodgers: chapter 4 special amusement buildings or VADR: mazes for haunted facilities and what are the props/partitions covered or exempt from USBC for listings/fire resistance?
Sean P. Farrell
Emory Rodgers: 2015 USBC VCC 109. 2015 USBC VCC 109.3: clarifies when RDP needs to seal construction documents or shop drawings and special inspections. See 909.18.3 asbestos reports sealed by RDP. See 103.9
Sean P. Farrell
Bill King:
I wanted to forward a specific item in the Administrative section that I think should be considered for the next cycle. It is in section 110.3 Asbestos Inspections and based upon an issue we are seeing quite a bit right now regarding windows. I would propose changing the second paragraph of Section 110.3, to include windows.
To meet the inspection requirements above, except with respect to schools, asbestos inspection of renovation projects consisting only of repair or replacement of roofing, floorcovering, windows, or siding materials may be satisfied by a statement that the materials to be repaired or replaced are assumed to contain friable asbestos and that asbestos installation, removal, or encapsulation will be accomplished by a licensed asbestos contractor.
To support this change, I have attached the two most recent clarifications on window caulk and glazing compound from the EPA. In the 1991 letter, the EPA appears to place caulking compounds in the same Categories as Resilient Floor Covering, Roofing and Siding, which are already included in the section. The 1993 letter appears to indicate similar information, even going so far as state that if in good condition that window putty would not need to be removed prior to the demolition of a building.
http://www2.epa.gov/large-scale-residential-demolition/how-epas-asbestos-regulations-apply-window-caulk-glazing-compound
From the practical side, I fail to see how replacement of windows would create a greater hazard that that associated with roofing, floorcovering and siding. Windows are removed in a much more systematic manner then would occur with any of the existing items.
Sean P. Farrell
Emory Rodgers: EPA uses different % to measure test for occupancy. USBC asbestos report or just certifying building checked prior to permit issuance
Sean P. Farrell
We have addressed similar situations (where not located on a farm and where the equipment is not portable) in that we required permits for the supporting structure and utility connections. Not the piece of equipment itself. However, the equipment specs and installation requirements are necessary to do a proper evaluation on the supporting structure.
Sean P. Farrell
Richard, no debate with regards to your testimony, but read the next sentence…”Any combination of education and experience that would confer equivalent knowledge and ability shall be deemed to satisfy this requirement.” Therefore, if the Permit Technician can demonstrate understanding in terms of facts, information, and conceptual process acquired through experience / education or the theoretical understanding of a subject (knowledge) in a similar field; as well as skill sets necessary to carry out the practical application (ability) of similar duties, then they have met the equivalency requirement and therefore can and should be considered Technical Assistants in accordance with 105.2.1.; which is in tune with the definition. In my opinion, one must draw intent here, and my reading of the intent is demonstrated competence in the field or something equivalent. If you feel the language needs some adjustment, I am Chairing the Administrative Ad-Hoc Committee and we can work with the Permit Tech Committee to propose the necessary adjustments to satisfy your concerns. Let me know.
Sean P. Farrell
In my humble opinion, I DO consider Permit Technicians as Technical Assistants to the Building Official. Please see definition of Technical Assistant in chapter 2 of the VCC. Per the definition…Permit Technicians are “persons employed by a local building department or enforcement agency for enforcing the USBC…”.
Sean P. Farrell
In my humble opinion, the code official MAY invoke 36-105 C only if it is being applied in partnership with 36-105 B where the locality has not taken any action to adopt the VMC. However, if 36-105 B is being used as the catalyst for application of the VMC, i’m not quite sure where you get a refusal of entry…so in practical terms, I don’t see where it is enforceable.
Sean P. Farrell
You can find previous adoptions/editions of the VUSBC, and the referenced codes by that adoption/edition, in the Related Laws Package published by DHCD. If you mouse over the Resources tab above, and then select Codes from the drop down menu, it will take to a page with a link to this document. Once in the document, see pages 61-64. Mr. Bolt is correct that we were under the 1996 VUSBC with the 2000 amendments in August of calendar year 2000, which referenced the 1995 CABO One and Two Dwelling Code.
Sean P. Farrell
I think your observation is accurate. And here is what I attribute it to. The old website had years of development and focus and became something very familiar and reliable for our membership. Since that site went away, we have had a lot of changes with our website and for a lot of folks, change and desire to adapt are slow. I think if we can maintain the same site and establish that tenure of a familiar and reliable forum for our members and everyone else, I believe that use will gradually increase. Word of mouth on its usefulness will also help bridge the gap. So keep using it! Thanks for your comments GMW!
Sean P. Farrell