Question of the Day - #26 Ice Barrier Now Required!

General discussion area relating to building and construction codes. To post a topic for discussion you must register. Everyone is welcome to register. Registration is necessary to fight off spam. Under no circumstance is any part of this forum to be used for advertising or spam purposes. Welcome to our Minnesota community forum!

Question of the Day - #26 Ice Barrier Now Required!

Postby RDavidson » Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:38 pm

2015 MN Rules Section 1309.0301, subpart 2. Table R301.2(1) now requires an ice barrier underlayment. This may be a surprise to some who thought it was already in the code but it was not.

Anyway, the SONAR explains the issue as follows: “This table was previously amended by deleting certain information with the 2006 IRC adoption. However, that amended table failed to include the column titled “Ice Barrier Underlayment Required.” This omission created a code tracking problem for the ice barrier installation being required. Most code enforcement personnel understood that, historically, Minnesota had the potential for ice damming issues and enforced it accordingly. Nevertheless, some industry personnel failed to enforce the requirements for ice barriers because of the tracking problem.”

Do you believe the lack of a rule created a “code tracking problem”? What exactly is a “code tracking problem”? Does it mean we went looking for a rule and it didn’t exist? The SONAR suggests that some folks were enforcing a non-existent rule and DLI was ok with it (Most code enforcement personnel understood that, historically, Minnesota had the potential for ice damming issues and enforced it accordingly). Is it appropriate that code enforcement personnel determine on their own what rules should be enforced? Is it appropriate that such conduct be officially sanctioned? What would have happened if someone had tried to prosecute a contractor for a violation or if a homeowner had tried to sue a contractor for failing to follow the building code and found that no rule existed?

The last sentence contains a phrase (some industry personnel failed to enforce the requirements) that is puzzling and troubling. Government isn’t typically considered an industry. Typically industry is thought of as those engaged in construction in our circles. So the implication is that construction folks were supposed to enforce ice barrier requirements and they weren’t doing it(?). This makes no sense. Was it intended that the industry should have voluntarily complied but they didn’t? Do you think it is appropriate to enforce a non-existent rule? If a supposed violator tells you to write a correction notice and cite the code section for failure to install an ice and water barrier, as you are supposed to do, what code section do you cite? Or do you make something up?
RDavidson
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:36 pm

Return to 10K Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron