Design of a tree as a structure / inspectors gone wild 15

[jwilson33]

A client of mine installed small light fixtures (12" arm, small single bulb light with about .5ft^2 of projected area. The trees are 40ft+ tall oak trees with 12"-18" trunks. The inspector is claiming that the trees become structures as defined by the IBC Code 2009 because of the addition of a fixture. He now wants full calculations to demonstrate the tree will not blow over in a 90mph wind event.
We have gone back and forth, but he has dug his heels in and told the client they have to file for an appeal through the zoning board of appeals. I have demonstrated by calculation that the load added to the tree is less than 2% of the current load on the trunk alone and therefore the added load does not warrant a structural upgrade. But he rejected that argument because this is a change of use and the tree must now fully meet the current Code.
I am looking for something in the Code that might demonstrate that the tree does not become a structure by addition of a light fixture, or some other slam dunk wording. I am sure he knows his argument is foolish, and the reasons for this probably have nothing to do with the lights on the trees.
A picture of the installed fixture is attached.

 

[BAretired]

If the tree blows over in a strong wind, it would not be the first to do so. Why is that a concern?

BA

 

[bridgebuster]

What if the tree grows another limb; will the inspector demand that it be removed?

 

[EngineeringEric]

I would contact his boss. More often than not i have had rough times with the inspectors and even the main BCO but the head of the department is reasonable. Or contact BCOM. Discuss with them and see what they can do to over rule.

Do not state that the tree won't fall over, just argue that it isn't a structure. It is a tree. And tell your client to use flood lights next time, one's without arms.

 

[Archie264]

This might be the most ridiculous thing I've read on this site and that's saying something.

I agree with Eric: see if you can go around this fool. The sooner he's reined in the better for people in your area.

That said, out of curiosity I searched for standards for ropes courses, which are often attached to trees. I found this, in case there's something in there that you could use to placate the Building Official Gone Wild.

http://www.prcainfo.org/ansi standards/ansi-prca-american-national-standard-glossary-free/view

 

[1gibson]

I was expecting to see a comic strip.

 

[jwilson33]

Good reference, Archie264, thank you. As for going to higher ups, that is easier said than done. Third party inspection agencies are given a lot of latitude and no one really wants to take them on. Something concrete is needed if anyone is going to get involved. This is one of those situations where there is probably more to the evolution of this story behind the scenes, but the debate has become about light fixtures and their perceived ability to cause trees to fall over.

 

[Brad805]

Why is it that the Building official job attracts this type of individual and where has practicality gone? It always amazes me that none of these characters ever appreciate the cost of engineering for an oddball item such as this. Maybe a wire rope attached to the tree would suffice. If the tree falls over I suspect the owner appreciates he has bigger problems than a 25lb elec fixture.

 

[3DDave]

Is that tree attached to a planet? I've seen the movies over and over where Krypton just up and explodes, leaving all its trees unsupported. In fact, in our own solar system most planets aren't solid enough to have trees stand on them, and on two of the eight (used to be nine, but planets aren't as permanent as they used to be) trees would explode into flames in seconds.

 

[Archie264]

 

[CANPRO]

Load test the tree. Maybe the building inspector can serve as dead weight for the test.

 

[steellion]

Tell them that since the tree is an existing structure, you need the plans to be able to properly analyze the tree, but so far God has not provided them.

 

[Triangled]

OMG! I just realized I need to provide a full set of calcs for my Christmas lights in the trees and bushes this year!

 

[dhengr]

Ya, EngineeringEric..., but if you use flood lights, then you’ll have the Corps. of Engineers, FEMA, Flood plane studies involved, just adding to the mess. I’d use LEDS, and call it green, and if you leave the light on 24 hours per day you’ll be saving even more money, and everyone will love it and nail a silver plaque to the tree which will cause it die and fall over on the bldg. inspector, killing him. And, your community’s problems will be solved.

 

[ztengguy]

Dont go to his boss, goto the town council, news papers, tv news, embarrass the shit out of this guy.

 

[FishTheStructure]

Sorry, but you missed April fools by 196 days...

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Albert Einstein

 

[JStephen]

I have noticed that a Structure is defined as "that which is built", which is irritatingly vague, but seems like it should be sufficiently clear to eliminate a tree from the definition, if not much else.

Go look around City Hall, see if they have any light fixtures, birdhouses or anything else attached to trees.

Unrelated to this, the current leading candidate for governor apparently was paralyzed when a tree fell on him sometime back, and he successfully sued the landowner for ten million dollars. So there is some liability involved.

Have you tried asking the person in question what the design wind load is for a tree?

 

[hawkaz]

Sounds like someone ticked off the inspector, so he is getting his pound of flesh.

Run a calc showing that you have not increased the load to the tree by more than 5%- so the tree is acceptable under the existing building code provisions

 

[SteelPE]

Isn't there some guy on TV that builds tree houses (He is on the Discover Channel or Animal Planet or something). I wonder if they have ever experienced a similar problems?

 

[jwilson33]

hawkaz, JStephen, others - these avenues have been pursued but with no luck.

This is the body of the inspector's rejection letter, written verbatim:

"While I admire your try to say that the trees are existing structures, I disagree and your letter is rejected for the following reasons:
1. The trees are existing as a tree.
2. By mounting the lights to the tree you are making them a structure; therefore they are not existing structures.
When you mount a light fixture to a pole, doesn't the pole have to be engineered? Yes it does. Then why do you believe the trees does not?
If you disagree with my decision you are welcome to go to the Building code board of appeals. You have 30 days to do so."

The inspector already hung up on me once when I asked him if he required a calculation to put a light fixture on a 100-year old barn. Unfortunately, reason is not an option at this point.