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.

 

[trainguy]

Tell the guy that if the tree falls, no one will hear it...

tg

 

[jike]

Our government running wild..........(protecting us from ourselves????)!

 

[woodman88]

Does he require a permit for a growing tree or tree trimming? Both can cause major structural changes in the load path.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[CANPRO]

as stated, this guy obviously has some personal issues here.

as ridiculous as this is, lets get back to a real solution. You said you already proved the increase is less than 2%. Considering all of the natural forces encountered by the tree I would suspect that the increase in load on the trunk due to the light would be a small small fraction of a percent. Maybe if you show that to him it may put things in perspective. As he knows this is ridiculous, that may do nothing...but at least you have another bit of evidence to show you're trying to be reasonable with his unreasonable request.

As for his argument that this is a "building"...are you to go back and check this tree every time it grows a new leaf? Is he proposing the tree be surveyed and periodically checked for growth to ensure it hasn't maxed out its capacity? It looks like this is in a park...is there a danger to the public if this tree blows down in a storm? Is "occupant" safety a consideration? If he wants to stick to the books and be an ass I would put it back to him and have him specify all of this crap...otherwise you're reaching in the dark trying to find a solution that satisfies him.

As funny as it is to read the comments on this, I feel your pain, I think we've all been in this situation dealing with an unreasonable building official (although I doubt anyone has had anyone this unreasonable). Best of luck sorting this out.

 

[manstrom]

Can you take the light down. Shut him up, then put it up in a week?

This is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard come out of an inspector

 

[ztengguy]

Going way back to the beginning, why do you need his blessing? Just ignore him and let him look like an idiot persuing your client.

What jurisdiction is this? we can all spam his phone with calls about "we want to put a light on a tree, but not sure what code reference to follow, can you help me?"

 

[manstrom]

A few more thoughts:

Does a lightpole fall under IBC? It is not a building.

You could consider the tree an "existing structure". You can increase the load by 5% with no repairs.

I assume his silly sticking point is that the support for a light should be a designed structure. I think he is looking for a real pole rather than calcs on a tree.

If you need a light, stick a 4x4 in the ground and mount the light. If you don't need a light, take it down. Once he signs off, do whatever you want.

 

[Brad805]

We have had the building debate with BI in Canada on signs. If you are governed by the IBC, the definition of a building is below. I wonder what type of assembly he thinks this exterior light fixture is sheltering? Has he suggested what type of proof he might be looking for or is this just his way to say no to anything attached to a living tree? If your owner is principled it seems the appeal process is the only option.

BUILDING. Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. [A]

 

[jike]

This issue has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. It has become an issue of "pride" or "losing face" for the building inspector.

 

[BAretired]

jwilson33,

If it is worth the effort, I would appeal the ruling. Hopefully, members of the appeal board will have more sense than the inspector.

How did it come to light in the first place? Did your client apply for a building permit? Or was the inspector just making a courtesy call?

BA

 

[JStephen]

Well, not a good situation.
If you leave the lights up and don't do anything, what happens? Do you get a fine or citation or what? That might be the simplest way to handle it, by letting him try to assert that it is a structure, rather than you having to defend that it is not.

Is the guy a PE? If so, do you have grounds for an ethics complaint?

I remember years ago, hearing about a certain inspector in Plano, Texas, that cost the city millions and millions of dollars on stuff that was just absolutely stupid like this (a chain link fence rejected because the squares weren't square enough comes to mind). There is not always a good solution.

 

[cvg]

call Channel 5 on your side

 

[jwilson33]

I don't know the exact sequence of events, but a total of eight or so lights are installed around a parking lot serving a small business. The business is in a heavily wooded area where mounting lights on trees is the obvious best way to do it. This is holding up issuance of a C.O. for a building that has already been otherwise approved for use.

The appeal will likely happen, there is no choice at this point. It is just a matter of collecting enough convincing evidence to help that part of the process.

Manstrom- The inspector has already seen my calculations demonstrating well less than 5% effect. He has denied that approach since the trees would need to be re-classified as structures in accordance with the Code, whereas before they were only trees. Yup...

Temporarily mounting on wood poles, then putting them on trees later would be a big issue. Wires are already run and I believe the lights are operational as is, just rejected for concerns that they will cause the trees to blow over.

 

[hawkaz]

Regarding the inspector's response about would you design a pole- If we were replacing an existing fixture with a new one on an existing pole, and the load is not increased by more than 5% for gravity or 10% for lateral- no, we would not re-design the pole. Reference the IBC Existing Building Code- section 707.4

 

[jwilson33]

hawkaz- This was the logical approach that I took but was denied on. He is claiming that the trees is being reclassified as a structure if lights are added and therefore it needs to meet current Codes and ASCE wind loads for this. If left without lights, then no issue because it is not being reclassified. That is his argument, not mine.

 

[jwilson33]

I have to believe that this is also setting a dangerous precedent and creating a potential liability for the township. What if someone installs a ropes course (either officially, or just as a backyard play structure) as suggested by Archie264 and a tree falls over and injures someone or worse? A good attorney would find that the township banned lights in trees for structural reasons, but allowed far worse to take place. I would think the township could be held culpable for not enforcing their own ban, unless they enforce this requirement universally. Perhaps they should even issue citations to current property owners who have anything substantial hanging from trees for fear of pending collapse?

 

[cvg]

demand to see the permit on the existing structure, maybe it was never permitted in the first place.

 

[LittleInch]

The question the BI asks is "why do you believe the trees does not" have to be engineered. The answer is that nature has done this job far better than we can ever do. Surely there is somewhere in the code about use of "structures" which have stood the test of time - several billion years would seem a long enough time to me....

This definitely reminds me of the "damn beaver dam" letter - I'm sure you know it and maybe there's some choice phrases in there you could use....

The picture you have on the front cover of the appeal file should do the trick though.

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

 

[ztengguy]

It makes you wonder why everyone hates people with positions of authority. This guy should absolutely loose his job over this. Waste of everyones time.

 

[PicoStruc]

demand to see the permit on the existing structure, maybe it was never permitted in the first place.

Priceless !