your welcome, Peter do think sometimes when a BI knows your a HI it then becomes like a test?
Definatelly, I try to not let on about that
Peter, I can’t believe that either and what I could find, does not correspond to the statement you made unless this Town is in the Dark Ages.
First page of this link talks about the IRC and IBC and also adoption by Municipalities.
http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/orders/2004/2004-521nor.pdf
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/ros/lom/LOM121st/13Pub551-600/Pub551-600-29.htm
http://www.cement.org/codes/stats.asp?stateid=20
As far as I can tell, if any Local is going to adopt a Building Code, it has to be IRC or IBC.
Which Town was that Peter?
Just curious.
I have worked in towns from York Maine to Madawaska near the Canadian Border.
Marcel 
</IMG></IMG>
Marcel, it’s North Berwick and get this, permit is going to be denied due to set backs, they only have 92 feet from the house to the road, need 100.
We’ll have to apply for a variance, keep in mind this is a second story addition, not changing the foundation foot print at all.
With the way things are going, I’ll be bald by next week.
PS thanks for the post.
Here is the application, if you look at the right hand side under the inspectors section you will see BOCA code and he confirmed it today
Hi. Peter;
Your right, it does say BOCA on this link to their Code System also.
http://www.townofnorthberwick.org/Pages/Information%20PDF/Ordinances/2006%20Zoning%20Ordinance.pdf
This one may help you in other locals, but they are not all listed.
http://www.generalcode.com/webcode2.html#main
Sometimes fighting City Hall on Commen Sense, is futile. ha. ha.
Marcel 
</IMG></IMG>
Yeah, now I’m understanding where Nick got that phrase from! wasn’t he a contractor in another life?
I think he was, but he did mention in one of his post that he walked away from an inspection of the first house he built. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
I am hoping that some Members are reading this and realize the importance to check Local Codes when Inspecting Houses in their own Towns and realize how different and confusing things may become.
What flies in one Town may not soar in another, and citing Codes could get you in trouble.
I believe one should talk softly, educate, and write hard. Let it be what it is as long as it has been addressed and noted.
Good luck.
Marcel 
</IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG>
Marcel, don’t go anywhere I think I found something and need your advice.
Be right back.
OK, Marcel, thanks for the zoning for N. Berwick, this is what I found what do you think?
Page 9, section 1.4.4 Non conforming uses
Paragraph C, internal expansion.
A non conforming use or part of a building or structure shall not be extended throughout other parts of the building or structure unless those parts of the building or structure were manifestly arranged or designed for such use before the adoptions became the ordinance.
So my contention is the house was designed to carry a second floor live load due to the framing of the first and second floors and is exempt from the new ordinance.
What do you think.
Marcel, sorry I forgot this.
The first floor or basement is framed with a center beam in the middle with 2x8 joists 16 OC which shake hands over the center beam. Steel lally columns X on center. Second floor framed the same.
Peter, it sounds like conforming-use and non-conforming use is up to interpretation of the written Code and might need an interpretation by the Planning Board of the area.
The way I read it may or maynot apply to your circumstances and would recommend you persue the Planning Board decision.
Wish you luck and keep me posted.
Wish I could help you more.
Marcel
</IMG></IMG>
Marcel, I should have also noted that this house has been in the family since his grandfather built it in the 50s. He had planned on putting a second floor on it and never did.
My thoughts are it’s exempt as i quoted in there zoning laws.
I’m going to try, got a call into the inspector, should hear from him tomorrow. I’ll keep you posted.
Peter, I am interpeting this the same way you are since the house has be conforming and has not been vacant for more than 12 months as their Code reads.
I am with you in waiting to see what the Code Enforcements interpetation is and if not in your favor, it could also be defered to a higher level of interpetation by the Planning Board of Appeals.
Marcel
Thanks Marcel, I feel I’m right but that doesn’t mean much as you know.
I’ll keep you posted, OH, by the way, what do you think about them using the BOCA code. I just don’t get it!
Peter;
Approximately 15% of Maine’s municipalities (representing more than 50% of Maine’s citizens) have voluntarily adopted and enforce building codes. These municipalities have generally adopted BOCA codes and generally enforce the codes with local or shared building code enforcement officers that perform post-construction inspections. However, municipalities generally do *not *enforce the energy component of their adopted family of codes, but focus on health and safety codes. Thus, it is likely that there is minimal municipal infrastructure addressing energy standards and their enforcement.
[FONT=Arial]Earlier Versions of Codes. Finally, nationally accepted codes exist that are being superceded by IECC or NFPA, but that were adopted years ago by various states and municipalities. These include the widely used Model Energy Code or MEC (produced by the Council of American Building Officials, or CABO), the Southern Building Codes (SBC), the National Building Codes (codes produced by the Building Officials and Code Administrators International or BOCA), and the Uniform Building Codes (UBC). In turn, BOCA (which is the code adopted by most Maine communities that have adopted codes) incorporates the MEC. All these codes are described as being similar to, or consistent with, the more recently-emerging I-Codes. BOCA, SBC and UBC have merged to become the ICC. The MEC, which is still the adopted energy code in approximately 16 states, may be considered simply an earlier version of the IECC energy code.
[/FONT]
addition, codes generally are living documents, with a process whereby stakeholders can recommend changes and all interested persons comment before incorporation into the codes. The Model Energy Codes (MEC) and now the I-Codes are on a three-year revision cycle, whereby the adopting organization amends the codes and states in turn decide whether to adopt the newest version. MEC has 1995 and 1998 versions. The I-Codes have 2000 and 2003 versions.
[FONT=Arial]
Local Building Inspector
State Agency
Privatization
Self-certification to homeowner
Self-certification to state agency
Civil penalties
Local inspectors responsible for other codes and know what is happening in their towns
Significant government infrastructure must be established
State-supported certification process must be established
No administration required
Some government infrastructure must be established.
Court involvement required
Significant cost, borne by town (local taxes)
Significant cost, borne by State (state taxes)
Cost, borne by builder/owner
No cost unless homeowner wants to verify
Lower cost than other state-supported methods
Significant effort required by owner
Inspection quality varies
Consistent inspection quality
Consistent inspection quality
Requires knowledgeable builders
Requires knowledgeable builders
Requires knowledgeable owners
High likelihood of compliance: procedures already in place
Likelihood of compliance
Likelihood of compliance
Risk of intentional non-compliance if homeowner does not desire efficient building and no oversite
Some risk of intentional non-compliance
Risk of consumer difficulty in bringing and winning suit
Responsibility borne by town
Responsibility borne by State
Responsibility borne by State
Responsibility borne by builder
Responsibility borne primarily by builder
Responsibility borne by building owner
Hope this helps or confuses you more. Ha. Ha.
Hey, I have heard of tread drift, but I think we just put the frosting on the cake. ha. ha.
Marcel:) 
[/FONT]
Thanks Marcel, yeah I’m confused but I’ll use it to my advantage!!!
I’ll let you know what happens tomorrow.
Thanks again.
Marcel, got shot down today, the section I referred to was for change of use not change of structure.
Back to the 133 page zoning ordanance to see if I can find an exemption.
Figured that much with them using 133 pages to choose from.
If the change of use is what they are basing this thing on, I wish you luck.
I am afraid as I said before, fighting City Hall is futile.
I have always said when one fails at something, try and try again. ha. ha.
Marcel
Well, no luck. Your right Marcel, they have their bases covered.
I guess I have to go for the varience.