Tag Archives: Uniform Construction Code Review and Advisory Council
Posted in Building Systems | Codes & Regulations | Energy Conservation
Don’t buy your 2012 International Code Council (ICC) books just yet. It seems that the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code Review and Advisory Council recommended that the state not adopt the 2012 I-Codes according to Engineering News-Record’s (ENR) January 30, 2012 edition. You may remember all the uproar concerning the automatic passage of the 2009 code with its residential sprinkler mandate caused some big changes in Pennsylvania. House Bill 377 of 2011 was passed, which requires a 2/3’s vote from the Review and Advisory Council in order to update the statewide building code during each code cycle.
> Read the rest of this article
Posted in Architecture | Building Systems | Codes & Regulations | Housing
Photo: © Jason Nelson
At the end of 2008, I responded to a call for volunteers. The assignment: serve the Commonwealth of PA as an engineering representative on the yet-to-be-formed Uniform Construction Code Review and Advisory Council. The primary focus of the group would be to consider the International Code Council’s 2009 edition, providing recommendations for exclusion of any new provisions introduced. At the time, I had no idea what I would be getting into.
Soon after the council was formed, I began to hear about “the big issue” – residential fire sprinklers. Being a structural engineer, this was not something I was particularly concerned with. It seems that I was not the only one; more than once when talking about “residential sprinklers” the person with whom I was speaking thought that I meant lawn sprinklers, not fire sprinklers. I’ll admit, when it was explained to me that one of the new provisions in the 2009 International Residential Code required fire sprinklers in every one- and two-family home, I thought it was ridiculous. It sure seemed like a lot of effort and expense. Was this really necessary? What’s wrong with how we’ve been building homes for decades? Well, I figured, this is a no-brainer. I can’t support a provision that doesn’t make any sense. This must be so narrow an issue that we’ll breeze through it during our review meeting…
> Read the rest of this article
