City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

January 11^th  , 2007 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Lee Queen - Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill, Janet Smalter Mike Porter, John Craft
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF  PRESENT:
Guess Present :
Ex-Officio	Adrian Jones

Meeting Called to Order 11:54

Approve minutes from 10-19-06

Porter moved to accept the minutes as written seconded by Stogsdill. Motion passed

5-0.

Discuss flat fee proposal.

Torres wanted the boards to review the proposal and provide input as deemed necessary.  The proposal was forwarded by the Mechanical Board.  It outlined a proposal for a flat permit fee for furnace change out permits. The Mechanical Board contends that the permit fee based on valuation of the project was unfair.  There was no extra processing time nor was the inspection any more complicated to justify a higher permit fee for higher priced equipment. Staff recommended standardized fees for all trades miscellaneous permits.

Craft asked Jones as an inspector is there a difference in the inspection process.

Jones replied some more expensive systems generally meant a higher capacity or a system with a higher efficiency.  The inspection process differed little if any.

Queen asked if these fees applied to change outs only.

Jones replied the flat fee would only apply to single family residential miscellaneous permits such as furnaces, water heaters, electrical services replacements.

Smalter stated that it seemed like a fair policy.

The Board was generally in favor of the policy.

Continue review of IRC draft ordinance

Jones advised the board that he submitted the questions and request for clarifications  to the legal department through Torres.  As of yet there has been no response.  Jones said at the last meeting the Board discussed adopting Appendix G Swimming Pools and Hot Tubs.  It was believed that the zoning ordinance provided language for swimming pools barriers.  Jones said it was his understanding that the new zoning ordinance had little if any pool safety related language.  Appendix G contained mostly safety related items associated with swimming pools and hot tubs.  Electrical safety, vacuum breaks, suction devices and alarms for fences, doors and gates.  It also regulated the size of opening in fences and heights of fences and barriers. Jones said he put it back into the draft for discussion by the board.

Porter asked what it specifically said about fences.

Jones said the minimum height above grade is 48 inches, maximum spacing is 4”, it talks about self closing gates and safety latches.

Porter said the reason he asks is because there was recently an issues in Johnson County where a home owner installed a fence around a pool that conflicted with the building code and homeowners association rules. He can see the same thing happening here.

Queen said that most times when you put in a pool you and you’re in an neighborhood association you have to get it reviewed by the association prior to installation. That usually solves most of those problems.  

Porter said that he had to go through that process.

Queen said he thought the building code would supercede most homeowner regulations.  This appendix says that the fence has to be a minimum of 48”. 

Porter said that most of the standard fences are 6’.

The consensus of the Board was to adopt the appendix as part of the Code.

Queen asked if there was any current pool regulations.

Jones replied that it is his understanding that there are no current regulations. There are no local safety related or standards regarding swimming pools. There are some electrical requirements in the electrical code.

Stogsdill noted that section AG105.2.9 requires that when a dwelling serves as part of the barrier, one of the following conditions shall be met: a powered safety cover, all doors with access to the pool have an alarm or all doors with access to the pool must have approved self closing self latching devices. He asked if that was something that is required now.

Jones replied that is not a current requirement.  

Smalter stated that she thought those type of safety devices were becoming a standard.  It is probably a insurance requirement.

Jones said the obvious reason would be to alert the home owner if a child went into the rear yard unsupervised.

Queen stated that of all the Codes that are enforced this make sense because children do drown in pools.

Porter said that his view is that unless there is a pressing reason to go against it there is no reason to go against a safety code.

Smalter agreed.

Queen said an alarm would not be needed if there was a cover on the pool or a fence around the pool.

Craft asked if the code applied to all pools above ground as well as in ground. Jones said he thought the appendix applied to a certain gallon size.

Queen noted that appendices for radon and swimming pools are new for this meeting, and asked where the Board ended from the last meeting.

Jones replied the Board stopped at section R112.2 Rules and meetings.

Stogsdill said that section R112.2.1 should be changed to “as deemed necessary” or “Meeting of the Board shall be held at the call of the chair” instead of once a month. The consensus was the latter.  

The Board held a discussion on section R112.4 Authority of the Board and determined  to keep the section as is.

The Board discussed section R113.4

Porter said he felt that that section should be removed.

Craft said that he felt that if alterations are made after final inspection the builder should not be responsible.

Queen agreed.  Queen said that if the homeowner changed something such as spring loaded hinges between the house and the garage according to this section the builder could be liable.

Porter said that he thinks that an attorney would bring suit against all parties. He thinks the section should be eliminated.

Smalter said that she thinks cases should be dealt with as they arise. She agreed that this section should be removed. 

Craft asked Jones staff had ever applied this section of the code.

Jones said that it had only come up once that he is aware of.  A home owner called and wanted an item corrected on a deck. The project, a single family home was finaled out for more than 7 months.  He contacted that builder who corrected the problem.  It was an item that had not been caught on the final.

Queen asked what would have happened if this section was eliminated in this instance.

Jones said that he usually does not have problems with builders complying with request to correct code items.  He thinks that the builders see it in their interest to correct issues. They see it as a liability issue.

Queen said any decent builder that had a conscious would fix it but there are some out there that do not.

Jones sated that there was a recent event where during the wind storm of last year where it was determined that faulty the faulty construction from over 30 years ago contributed to the storm damage.  By deleting this section the builder could be held responsible.

Queen asked how long had this section been in the Code.

Jones replied 2 or 3 years.

Porter said that this section does not change the liability, it only confuses the issue.

Queen said it wrongfully punish a builder if a homeowner changes something.

Smalter said there could be two arguments on this easily.  This should be on a per case basis.

The board decided to delete that section.

Smalter asked about building overhangs and setbacks in the 2006 IRC.

Jones replied that those items were covered in the zoning ordinance and the building code as far as fire separation distance which is covered in chapter 3.

The Board discussed fire separation distance and lot splits. Jones said that by splitting a lot that was built with a duplex you in essence place a property line right down the middle of the building. This reduces the fire separation distance to zero and makes the structure non-code compliant.

Queen asks what happens to a duplex that was built two years ago. Queen asks if you can divide than and sell it legally.

Jones replied that if the structure was built with a property line right down the middle then any part of that structure within 3 feet of the property line would have to rated for one hour construction. That protects the property owner from property damage by a fire on the adjacent property.  A duplex is owned by one owner. This has come up recently as an issue.  

Stogsdill said that the Code never talks about ownership.

Craft asked what the issue was.

Jones said that he just wanted to bring the issue up because the Board was discussing Fire separation distance. 

Smalter stated that there are quite a few discussions on line regarding this issue.  There is language that says that if you go back and sell duplexes you have to go in and provide protection.

Queen said I don’t think you can go back in and change a building after 30 years.

Craft said the builders are calling them duplexes up front then going back in immediately after completion and selling them town homes.

Queen said he doesn’t have a problem with saying from this point forward that if you’re going to sell off one side build it to Code.

Craft asked why from this point forward?

Queen said that because it was built to code at the time.

Craft said they built it as a duplex but sell it as a town home.

Queen said that up until now there hasn’t been a two hour wall in the Code.

The Board discussed the definition of a townhouse.

The Board decided to not take any action on the issue.

Stogsdill made a motion to adjourn, Seconded by Craft. Motion passed 5-0

Meeting Adjourned 1:10