CAI CT - Common Interest Articles Building codes

This column appears in each edition and is intended to touch on technical topics of general interest to common interest associations. Topics will be of a general nature, but I will also accept and respond to questions from readers. On occasion, it will be guest authored when topics can best be addressed by experts in other fields.

By Timothy Wentzell, P.E.

A local condominium association had a small fire in one of their units, and they recently contacted me with a series of questions that their insurance carrier had raised. Although the fire was relatively minor, it had been decided to remove the drywall in numerous areas as well as the carpeting to prevent mildew damage. The condominium association had insurance coverage which required code updates, and their contractor had raised the issue of including numerous code updates to this unit as part of the repairs. Specifically, the contractor suggested making all of the load-bearing walls in the unit to a two-hour fire rating. This would include several of the separating walls within the unit as well as the external walls, the dividing wall between this unit and the adjacent unit, and the ceilings, as these were patio-style units and a unit existed above the fire-damaged unit. The Association's insurance carrier was questioning whether this work was required.

The crux of this issue lies in some ambiguity that exists with regard to the newly adopted international building code and how it is being applied by local municipalities. The new international building code, which was recently adopted by the State of Connecticut, is divided into two code manuals. One is called simply, "International Building Code," whereas the second is called, "International Existing Building Code." The distinction between the two is intended, in my opinion, to differentiate between buildings that are in existence that need renovation and/or repair versus a major rebuilding of a structure and for entirely new structures. The new International Existing Building Code states as follows, "Level 1 alterations include the removal and replacement or the covering of existing materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures using new materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures that serve the same purpose," which would appear to apply in this case as only the drywall and carpeting were to be removed. The International Existing Building Code further goes on to state that for this level of repair, "Alterations shall be done in a manner that maintains the level of fire protection provided." This would imply that, as no structural elements were removed from the building, the existing type and thickness of drywall could simply be reinstalled and the building put back into functional use. I would question, if there are any code issues related to the initial construction, whether prudent judgment would dictate that these be rectified. The new International Building Code would require load-bearing walls that are supporting a separate dwelling unit above to be of fire-rated construction, as well as the ceilings in this instance, and dividing walls are required to have appropriate fire resistant construction in any new structure or structures that are significantly rebuilt or modified.

This, however, brings us to the brunt of the question, which is whether or not the local municipal building authorities will interpret these requirements in a similar manner. This, by the way, has always been an issue in a state like Connecticut where the building officials are the code enforcement agents for their municipality. In many cases, we have found very significant differences between the approaches taken on these types of issues. Local code officials seem to have considerable latitude in determining the applicability of different codes in different circumstances, especially when it comes to fire safety issues.

Therefore, I did not have a clear answer to respond to this question. It certainly would appear to me that the International Existing Building Code would apply in this case. However, if your local building authorities decide otherwise, you may be caught between the opinion of your local building officials and the opinion of your insurance carrier. While your local building officials may require these code updates, the insurance carrier may certainly have issues, possibly correctly, with regard to whether or not they should be held responsible for payment of these repairs.

Please address any questions or areas of interest that you would like answered in future columns to Timothy Wentzell, P.E., Connecticut Property Engineering, 630 Governor's Highway, South Windsor, CT 06074 (860-289-8121) (e-mail: ConnPropEng@cox.net).