Page 20 RAIN June 1982 adequate construction practices. Codes help avoid causes of liability and lawsuits. They eliminate the need for detailed review of hidden parts of a building at each stage of its life: construction, financing, and resale. Most people never look behind the walls of a home, and benefit from some assurance that the plumbing, wiring and structure are there, will work, and work properly. Most complaints against building codes concern the one percent of the population wanting to be “experimental owner-builders." That experimentation is important, and some of these complaints are valid. My first experiences with the codes, as an owner-builder with little detailed knowledge of the codes, may be typical. I didn't know what was required, was intimidated at having to purchase an expensive, thick and difficult code reference, and had an underlying fear the codes would force me to do something I didn't want to do, couldn't afford, or hadn't made provisions for in my design. I didn't know that a small and readable booklet. One and Two Family Dwelling Code was available which covered the I've seen the side of building that many people don't — the effects of inadequate foundations, roofs ripped off by high winds . . . residential code requirements of all national codes. That would have helped a lot! I had heard a lot of horror stories and was afraid an inspector might accidentally or purposefully hassle me. One did. If I knew then what I know now, I could have more easily gotten him off my back. Looking back, Tm actually glad the codes forced me to do some things I didn't want to take time for in the press of construction. Most of the code restrictions resulting in the excessive building costs mentioned in Edmund Vitale and Ken Kern's books have been eliminated. Sheetrock, plastic plumbing, single top plates, owner-wiring and plumbing, romex wire, etc., are now generally permitted. Owner-builder advocates say codes make no provision for alternative ways of building. This is only partly true. Most codes require approval of alternatives, but (I think rightly) require you to do a competent job of demonstrating that the alternative will perform adequately. In most cases, that merely means doing structural calculations that should have been done anyhow, or getting an architect or engineer to check out the design and approve it. Some structures, such as domes, can't be calculated easily, but should have been tested by the original designer and such information made available. No code can satisfy everyone. If simplified structural tables are given only for douglas fir beams (most of what is sold), people complain that alternatives are not allowed. If tables are included for all strength/stiffness situations, people complain that the code is too complex to use. If inspectors are usually older, experienced builders, they're blamed for being conservative and considered rejects from the construction business. If they are young and technically trained, they're blamed for lack of maturity and practical building experience. One book complains in the same paragraph both that there are more than 2000 different codes in effect in the U.S. and that codes are too standardized and don't take into account local conditions! Almost every code-reform book includes a standard tirade against flush toilets. Having been involved in development of compost toilets, their code approval, and having built and used one for five years. I've found many of the code concerns about materials, operation and health problems quite justified, and have found very few designs and installahons that have performed adequately. After more than ten years, I still see no broadly acceptable alternative to the flush toilet on the market. In this case, the code reformers are the ones who have not measured up to their claims. Codes have generally changed for the better over the last ten years. Oregon, whose code I know best, now has an owner-builder exemption which eliminates a number of code requirements. (It's buried, however, in the appendix, with no reference from the contents or index!) Recycled and ungraded lumber is permitted with visual inspection of the building inspector. Compost toilets and woodstoves are legal. Electricity is not required, and privys are not specifically outlawed. There is a little- known provision for seasonal homes permitting a hand- filled tank of water to qualify for a water supply, a pitcher and washbasin for a sink, a tin tub for a bathtub, and a compost toilet for toilet requirement. The Basic Building Code (BBC) specifically includes mortise and tenon woodframe constiuction. Domes, solar systems, demand water heaters and heat exchangers are now code- approved in many states. More widespread adoption of such changes can go a long ways to providing necessary code flexibility for experimentation and more varied lifestyles. In addition to actual code changes, the way we approach codes and inspectors is an important element in how easy our building process becomes. Some pointers: 1. Have your act together when you go to deal with your inspector. When you don't know where your property lines are, have only a vague sense of what you want to build, or leave out posts or beams in your plans, you make it hard for your inspector to believe much of anything you try to convince them of. 2. Deal one-on-one if at all possible. It's easier for an inspector to bend a rule without others around. Try not to deal with more than one inspector at a time — together they try harder not to miss something that the other inspector might catch. 3. Treat inspector. ; people. Our often-negative attitudes towards them makes their attitudes more negative, and also keeps better people from doing the job. Draw them out, ask for their ideas on how to solve problems. You might find they have some good ideas, and it will certainly improve your relationship. 4. Know your code. Get the One and Two Family
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz