Local Amendment to the Code

[iv63]

My friend is adding new, steeper 4½:12, roof over existing roof 2:12 of his small one story house. I have designed this new roof framing using 2x6 rafters @ 24” on center in accordance to IBC. After reviewing plans City Permit Department sent us the following:

A previous Building Official both enacted and enforced, as others subsequently did (including myself), a local amendment to the Code requiring that all wood framing members be a min. of No. 2 grade and no > 16” o.c. -- whereas these drawings note 24” o.c. -- in Commercial & Residential projects; nonetheless, the local amendment is to the IBC Ch. 23 – not the IRC – and this project is governed by the IRC. With that said, I still have yet to completely & comprehensively review the genesis of the local amendment, such as the minutes of all the meetings involving the Building Board of Adjustment and any applicable City Council session(s), in order to come to a determination as to whether the amendment was recorded incorrectly by the previous City Secretary and whether or not the amendment was meant to be to the IBC and/or the IRC. Until I resolve this conundrum, I’ll continue to enforce this provision – as it has been enforced since 2004.

Putting all rafters on 16” O.C. seems too conservative. Since I am not familiar with IRC is there any room for “fight”? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

[BAretired]

There might be. Somebody should. Maybe you or your friend could appeal the ruling and state your case in front of the Appeal Board. I'm talking off the top of my head as I am not familiar with either of the codes mentioned.

BA

 

[mark1234]

I would use #2 or better just because less imperfections and knots.

The spacing requirement I think is a stretch and I would just accomodate the request. Send the code official the calcs at 24 o.c. and ask he send you an update if he determines the amendment does or does not apply to IRC.

MDJ

http://www.windspeedbyzip.com

http://www.groundsnowbyzip.com

 

[Ron]

I have no problem with the No. 2 or better, but the 16"o.c. is a bit much.

I agree with Mark...show the calcs and rely on the fact that the code is not intended to inhibit innovative thinking, backed by sound engineering judgment.

 

[apsix]

A possible argument;
More timber = less insulation = increased global warming.
Appeal to the president.

 

[PT999]

While you say that the IRC governs, I think that you will find if you your review the governing statues specifying the applicable Codes to be used, that if the IRC was specified, then the IBC would also have been cited for all buildings.

Consequently both Codes would be permisable for residential construction. This makes sense because not all residential construction is simple timber frame. There are going to be a few residences (very few) using structural steel or reinforced concrete.

 

[JStructsteel]

tell him you will sit with him and review the amendment and help him figure out what shoud be what instead of blanket enforcement of a rule he is unsure about.