# Minimum Submittal Requirements



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 25, 2011)

After an interesting conversation with a Co-ordinating RDP yesterday, I am re-examining my comments to see if they are indeed too restrictive, or heavy handed in my expectations for minimum submittal.  I believe I have brought up similar topics before, however, it is an ongoing occurance where plans are submitted with insufficient information to determine full compliance for the MOE.

The original comment was due to an incomplete plan submittal at the time of application, however I maintained one of the intents of the plan review was to ensure adequate information is provided within the issued documents, sufficient for the inspectors to verify construction compliance.  Specifically, we discussed whether existing door (required MOE exit discharge doors) information should be a requirement on a change of occupancy tenant finish project.  In my readings of the existing building codes, I have not seen any exemptions for existing door hardware that is non-compliant on a change of occupancy, and therefore am not sure how I am to devine the existing conditions unless noted on the plans in some way.

I understand that, as the AHJ, we have the right to request whatever information we feel appropriate and within reason, however,what I deem reasonable in my requests, may not be viewed that way by RDPs, and I further understand there are many different philosophies to how much information should be in the construction documents (thank you AIA).  Short of accepting blanket statements for compliance, such as, "This project shall be ADA compliant," or "This project shall comply will all adopted codes of the AHJ," where do I find that fine line between, expecting too much, and not enough.

Where is your line?


----------



## codeworks (Aug 25, 2011)

Get as much as you can for plans review, note deficiencies in your review comments, you can't know what "existing hardware" is any more than i can tell where walls "are going to be later", unless it's on the plans, or in submittal info.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 25, 2011)

*The plan review comments are general in nature and are not intended to be a complete listing of all possible code requirements. Additional code deficiencies and/or requirements may be noted during construction and inspection.*

We put this standard comment on all plan reviews. Some times you have to let it go and catch it in the field


----------



## gbhammer (Aug 25, 2011)

I have found that RDPs are more than happy to give every scrap of door hardware info especially cost, when they are trying to fall into the 20% rule for ADA compliance.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 25, 2011)

And herein, less the essence of what Milton meant by "approve this plan."

  With a red sharpie, write "Existing door hardware shall be upgraded to comply with current code" when you believe this to be the case and doing so allows you to approve the plans.

  Issue the permit and live a little...you don't need to review the damn thing again, a reasonable attempt to inform the contractor has been made, and all that remains is to let the inspector know.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 25, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> And herein, less the essence of what Milton meant by "approve this plan."   With a red sharpie, write "Existing door hardware shall be upgraded to comply with current code" when you believe this to be the case and doing so allows you to approve the plans.
> 
> Issue the permit and live a little...you don't need to review the damn thing again, a reasonable attempt to inform the contractor has been made, and all that remains is to let the inspector know.


Our departmental policy is to not amend an RDP construction document set.  We permit the RDP, or an approved delegate of the RDP to make red-lines, but as there are often many ways to meet code compliance, we prefer not to make those decisions for the RDP.  Obviously with the door, a boiler plate compliance note would be sufficient and reasonable, but notation is required.

In lieu of the red sharpie, I have revised my comments, similar to your suggestion, as notice to the contractor and RDP that compliance will be determined at the time of final inspection.  Off to live a little.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 25, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Our departmental policy is to not amend an RDP construction document set.  We permit the RDP, or an approved delegate of the RDP to make red-lines, but as there are often many ways to meet code compliance, we prefer not to make those decisions for the RDP.  Obviously with the door, a boiler plate compliance note would be sufficient and reasonable, but notation is required.    In lieu of the red sharpie, I have revised my comments, similar to your suggestion, as notice to the contractor and RDP that compliance will be determined at the time of final inspection.  Off to live a little.


   Due you place comment stamps (like those mentioned by mtlogcabin) on the drawings?  What's the difference between that and a sharpie?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 25, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Due you place comment stamps (like those mentioned by mtlogcabin) on the drawings?


No.  We attach a copy of the Plan Review Comments and Inspection Requirements (8.5x11), which contain a similar boiler plate to what mt noted, to each plan set, otherwise we only mark each page with a 'date received/revised' stamp and a 'reviewed for compliance' stamp.  The back of the set is stamped with applicable code stamps (NEC/ICC), and a labeling stamp (permit number, date issued, const. type, occ. group, zone, and address/legal) with limited boiler plate statements:

1. one set of approval plans shall be made availableto inspector...for all inspections.

2. This permit does not grant approval to violate any...laws.

3. A permit may be revoked whenever the permit is issued in error or due to incorrect or incomplete information submitted.

4. This permit shall not prevent the CBO from requiring construction compliant with applicable codes.



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> What's the difference between that and a sharpie?


There is nothing different from a note stamp and a sharpie in my opinion.  We don't mark the RDPs sets because we believe it to be a legal design document, of which design, shall only be altered by the RDP.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 25, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> No.  We attach a copy of the Plan Review Comments and Inspection Requirements (8.5x11), which contain a similar boiler plate to what mt noted, to each plan set, otherwise we only mark each page with a 'date received/revised' stamp and a 'reviewed for compliance' stamp.  The back of the set is stamped with applicable code stamps (NEC/ICC), and a labeling stamp (permit number, date issued, const. type, occ. group, zone, and address/legal) with limited boiler plate statements: 1. one set of approval plans shall be made availableto inspector...for all inspections. 2. This permit does not grant approval to violate any...laws. 3. A permit may be revoked whenever the permit is issued in error or due to incorrect or incomplete information submitted.   4. This permit shall not prevent the CBO from requiring construction compliant with applicable codes.      There is nothing different from a note stamp and a sharpie in my opinion.  We don't mark the RDPs sets because we believe it to be a legal design document, of which design, shall only be altered by the RDP.


   If it's illegal to alter them, then stamping them is illegal...but anyway, you're not altering the design document - You're communicating to the inspector.  And if you can do that with a sharpie, rather than making the applicant come down, pick up the plans, take them back to the office, change them, bring them back, wait, come back, and pick up the permit...you've not only helped them be more efficient, but you have helped your building department to be more efficient as well.

  I love bureaucracy as much as the next guy, but sometimes enough is enough...so long as you are consistent you are covered.


----------



## ewenme (Aug 25, 2011)

It has been our policy to red-line plans to our heart's content [for code compliance issues, not just for fun] and give the RDP the option of supplying replacements 'sheets' as opposed to whole new sets of plans. I do not think that re-reviewing the new set of plans should be required, but how else would you expect to verify any changes?  Some RDPs do not object to a red-lined set of plans for the contractor, and some do. The inspectors appreciate the red-lined info as a heads-up to an issue on inspection. We also attach the plan review document, which the contractor/owner is required to initial to indicate that he is aware of the requirements not shown on the plans. I've never had anyone refuse to acknowledge the requirements. I have had some owners/applicants fail to let that information trickle down to the guy in the field. That's why the inspectors need to cognizant of special situations.  In addition, the inspectors can call in from the field and we can go over plans/changes/comments using the identical sets of plans in the field and the office. Works well for us.


----------



## incognito (Aug 26, 2011)

I prefer plans that are vague or incomplete and then provide plan review comments that are broad and nondefinitive. Not for everyone but has worked quite nicely for our department the last decade or so. Something like "All building elements shall meet required ADA standards". The idea is to keep all comments broad and general and point the RDP in the direction of his error(s).


----------



## Mark K (Aug 26, 2011)

Plan check comments such as "All building elements shall meet required ADA standards" are not helpful to the RDP.  They are also a sign that the plan checker is playing CYA.  I believe the BOCA or Standard code had a provisions that prohibited the applicant from putting a similar statement in the construction documents.  For similar reasons the plan checker needs to be specific.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 26, 2011)

I think there are two issues at play here. The first is whether you place more emphasis on plan review or inspections, and the second is the importance of the issue being discussed.

I have no problem whatsoever redlining drawings; we do it all the time. If it expedites the project, I'm all for it. However, there are situations where the information is so vague, or the documents are so wrong, that we require revisions. I'm also not going to expect an inspector to do a plans examiner's work in the field.

It is worse than just bad PR for a business owner to find out the work that was done has to get redone late in the project, when the issue could have been identified at plan review.

Stamping the plans "safety glazing shall comply with code" isn't much consolation when all of the windows are installed and the inspector is requiring the replacement of 75% of them.


----------



## Codegeek (Aug 26, 2011)

For those jurisdictions that "redline" RDP plans, do you notify the RDP that you have done so?  I had an RDP call me yesterday.  Submitted plans in a jurisdiction and the plans examiner redlined the plans without contacting the RDP then issued the permit.  This particular redline had to do with a structural element, and then in the long run was correct per the RDP's original submittal.  The RDP called me asking what, if any, liability the jurisdiction would have had in this situation had an accident occurred.

As a former plans examiner, I can appreciate some “redlines” on the plans with some notations.  However, when you start getting into areas such as structural elements, then I think the responsibly to modify plans should return to the RDP.

I was also taught that when an RDP puts their seal and signature on a set of plans, those plans are now copyrighted.  Any modifications to those plans without permission of the RDP could be a violation of copyright law.


----------



## Mr Softy (Aug 26, 2011)

i use sticky notes during plan review to accent areas of concern on the drawings, as well as a homemade checklist with notes.  and then review those with the RDP and get a revised set of drawings (the RDP is welcome to get a copy of my notes).  the revised drawings are then reviewed.  the drawings that go into our files are not redlined.

in our office, the inspector who issues the permit and does the inspections also does the plan review.  it's a system that works well for me.  i retain information about a project after doing a plan review that comes in handy later during field inspection.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

Writing something on the plans with a red sharpie is not necessarily redlining the plans in the sense in which the rest of the world uses the term "redline."

  Sure you could correct spelling, change linetypes, coordinate callouts between drawings, sketch details, etc....all the things that redlines ususally entail.

  On the other hand, what I am suggesting is communicating trifling issues directly on the plans and issuing the permit rather than generating a bunch of work for both the general public and the jurisdiction's staff which serves them.

  In all honesty, if the architect submitted the plans under their seal they have no legitimate complaint if a permit is issued based on them, and the building department is not responsible for communicating to them - they are responsible for communicating to the owner or their agent.


----------



## permitguy (Aug 26, 2011)

An RDP signing and sealing a set of plans has nothing to do with copyright law.  The plans are protected either way; however, modifying them is not a violation of copyright law any more than writing notes and hi-lighting in your code book would be.  As for liability, that will be different in every state depending on immunity laws (or lack thereof) and whether the plan reviewers actions can be proven negligent.

I routinely wrote notes on plans if I felt it could get the point accross without a full sheet modification (similar to texasbo).  I would have never actually modified the architectural detail for a structural element as described above.  That would go in the plan review comments for further clarfication and correction if necessary.


----------



## Codegeek (Aug 26, 2011)

If an RDP signing and sealing plans has nothing to do with copyright law, can a jurisdiction legally make copies of those plans in response to a request for information?  According to several states, no.  Per the RDP I spoke with yesterday, their plans are protected under copyright law with their seal and signature.


----------



## permitguy (Aug 26, 2011)

1st - They are protected by copyright law with or without a signature and/or seal.  A signature and/or seal is not necessary for it to meet the definition of an architectural work in the copyright act.  Being a RDP also has no bearing.  Joe Public can create an "architectural work" on a bar napkin and receive the same copyright protection as an RDP.

2nd - The copyright act does not protect the drawings from being altered.  If I vandalize a work of art in a museum, I am not guilty of a copyright infraction.  The copyright act protects the author from having their work used by others for unauthorized commercial gain.  A jurisdiction making copies may or may not make them party to a copyright act violation.  There are several "fair use" exceptions that could come into play.  It's always best for a jurisdiction to have an opinion from their legal counsel on the subject.  This will help with consistency issues.


----------



## NH09 (Aug 26, 2011)

I have always gone under the assumption that the person submitting the plans is doing so with the expectation of having them reveiwed (red lines, sticky notes, etc.). While it is clear that someone altering copyrighted drawings for their own use would clearly be a copyright violation, I do not beleive that marking up a plan set during a plan review would constitute a copyright violation - but I am not a lawyer.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 26, 2011)

The copyright on the documents does not prevent the building department from making copies associated with their governmental function.  It would not be acceptable to make copies so somebody could copy the building.

The building department can markup the plans when making comments.  The building official can place official stamps on the documents.

If the plan examiner makes changes to the content of the documents without the express agreement from the design professional and then issues the permit based on these changes the plans examiner and the building department are practicing architecture or engineering and would be taking liability for any problems that result.  Whoever approved the permit could be reported to the state organization that regulates the practice of engineering or architecture.  This is the sort of situation where the building departments immunity would not apply because the action was clearly outside of their governmental function.

I had a plans examiner make changes to the special inspection requirements without notifying me to be helpful.  At the end of the job the inspections performed did not match those changed.  We had to spend considerable time sorting this out.  This was not helpful.

If you have comments make them and expect the design professional to resubmit a clean copy.


----------



## righter101 (Aug 26, 2011)

Milton's rule

I really really do try to always use Milton's rule.  Generally, on residential construciton, which is 90% of our jurisdiction, I have my red pen and a whole notebook full of code text cutouts that are what we view as the most crucial (smoke alarms, handrail/stair info, co detectors, safety glazing).

I have similar problems that the OP mentioned. We have so little commerical construction, that when one does come across, if it was done by a local architect and is to be built by a local contractor, who are only familiar with SFR construction, we end up with a ton of problems.

I feel it is best to head a lot of that off at the drawing board phase, since the price of change is nominal, versus getting the sawzall out and making field corrections.

You will see from my previous post about 2nd floor accessible showers, I am working with a set of plans, prepared by an RDP that is substantially lacking in a lot of things.  I hesitate to just redline them for some of these issues, because that would, for me, seem like I am designing the project.

THey are required to have a lower floor shower.  I don't think I should just put it on the plans.  The have added some interior stairs that require enclosure with a 1 hour protection.  I don't feel I should just note that.

I have done things in the past, just made certain notes, particularly rated assemblies and accessible elements, that they need to comply with such and such a seciton, and it comes back to bite the (commerically inexperienced) contractor at construciton time.

I have geared my plan review notes to request that this information be provided on the documents, prior to approval, to prevent these costly mistakes.


----------



## incognito (Aug 26, 2011)

As I am not a RDP I am not qualified to question their calculations but I can comment on the plan review"The RDP shall verify that all calculations are correct." I file his response of verification with the original application. If a problem arises I have two documents that the RDP provided indicating that all is/was well. Like someone else mentioned, we do not have staff dedicated to plan review alone. Typically plan reviews are done during many short intervals between actual inspections which is why we use the approach we do. Not unlike RDP including the CYA comment on the plans like "contractor shall identify and report all defects to RDP during construction process" or " contractor shall be responsible for verifying all installations meet minimum code requirements".


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> If an RDP signing and sealing plans has nothing to do with copyright law, can a jurisdiction legally make copies of those plans in response to a request for information?  According to several states, no.  Per the RDP I spoke with yesterday, their plans are protected under copyright law with their seal and signature.


   [ianal] Once the plans are submitted, they become public record and public record laws apply. Copyright would apply outside of their use as public records.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The copyright on the documents does not prevent the building department from making copies associated with their governmental function.  It would not be acceptable to make copies so somebody could copy the building.  The building department can markup the plans when making comments.  The building official can place official stamps on the documents.  If the plan examiner makes changes to the content of the documents without the express agreement from the design professional and then issues the permit based on these changes the plans examiner and the building department are practicing architecture or engineering and would be taking liability for any problems that result.  Whoever approved the permit could be reported to the state organization that regulates the practice of engineering or architecture.  This is the sort of situation where the building departments immunity would not apply because the action was clearly outside of their governmental function.


  Utter nonsense.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 26, 2011)

Brudgers

Please be more specific.  Such comments do not help the dialogue.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 26, 2011)

incognito

Statements such as "The RDP shall verify that all calculations are correct."  are not helpful.  When the RDP signs and seals the submitted calculations he has implicitly stated that he believes they are correct.  If he made a mistake he might not understand what the mistake was thus would not be likely to find it if he looked again.

Requiring the design professional to make a statement that the documents are correct is just CYA on the part of the plans examiner.  I do not believe that the building code gives the building official the right to require the design professional make such a statement nor do I believe it changes the liability of the building department or the individuals working there.


----------



## permitguy (Aug 26, 2011)

> Once the plans are submitted, they become public record and public record laws apply. Copyright would apply outside of their use as public records.


Correct.  However, all three states I have experience in have included language in their public records law allowing said records to be "closed" when protected from disclosure by other laws.  The copyright act is such a law, according to legal counsel licensed to practice in each of those three states.  If subject to copyright protection, plans can be deemed "closed" public records which are not required to be made available for viewing or copying, even upon direct request.  Fair use exceptions would still apply.

This is why I believe every building department should have a drafted policy approved by their legal department on the subject of handling public records requests for building plans.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Brudgers  Please be more specific.  Such comments do not help the dialogue.


  Everything quoted.


----------



## righter101 (Aug 26, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The copyright on the documents does not prevent the building department from making copies associated with their governmental function.  It would not be acceptable to make copies so somebody could copy the building.The building department can markup the plans when making comments.  The building official can place official stamps on the documents.
> 
> If the plan examiner makes changes to the content of the documents without the express agreement from the design professional and then issues the permit based on these changes the plans examiner and the building department are practicing architecture or engineering and would be taking liability for any problems that result.  Whoever approved the permit could be reported to the state organization that regulates the practice of engineering or architecture.  This is the sort of situation where the building departments immunity would not apply because the action was clearly outside of their governmental function.
> 
> ...


So if I, as a plans examiner, have a set of plans from an Architect for a SFR that lists 8.25" rise on the stairs, I cross this out and write 7.75" max per IRC 311, I am somehow guilty of practicing architecture without a license? I could be reported to the State for practicing architecture without a license??

I have an 8 week turnaround time currently, so rather than approve these plans, I should contact the Architect and further delay approval, for something such as this???


----------



## Mark K (Aug 26, 2011)

righter101

You can mark that as a plan check comment but not if you then approve the documents with that comment on it.

The change to the rise could result in there being changes to the number of stairs which could cause other problems.  As noted previously there are some times where the design professional knows things that the plans examiner does not.

If you note the change on the drawings and the design professional does not see it he will not make changes to the CAD files.

Sometimes attempts to be helpful are not.

In Northern California it is common to have to respond to plan check comments.  This is not because the design professionals are doing a bad job but rather because the building departments attempt to do a thorough job.  If you want to be helpful give the Architect a heads up call and have an expidited process for resolving responses to plan check comments.

Rather than thinking about delaying approval think about prossessing the application as quick as possible.  On the other hand do not make a bunch of standard comments that indicate that you had not looked closely at the drawings.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> I have an 8 week turnaround time currently, so rather than approve these plans, I should contact the Architect and further delay approval, for something such as this???


  There is no excuse for an 8 week backlog.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> You can mark that as a plan check comment but not if you then approve the documents with that comment on it.


  Based upon what?


----------



## Mark K (Aug 26, 2011)

Brudgers

If you modify the permit application without the design professionals approval and approve the permit you have two problems.  First you have stepped over the line and are practicing architecture or engineering.  Secondly I believe that there are legal difficulties with modifying the permit application.

It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application and to comply with the code.  The building department can accept the application, respond with comments, or reject the application.  The building department cannot modify the application.  At times there may be a fine line between being helpful and stepping over the line into the dark side.


----------



## righter101 (Aug 26, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> There is no excuse for an 8 week backlog.


Part of that is land use.  We have our entire jurisdiction surrounded by water with shore line regs, archeology buffers, wetlands, geo hazard areas.  This is part of the delay.

Second, we have a large volume of submissions and only 1 plans examiner.  me.

We have 2 inspectors that serve 172 islands.  When one of them goes on vacation, I have to inspect and we don't get much done in the way of plan review.

Its not an excuse, its just how it is.

To that end, we do have an over the counter process for mechanical and stand alone plumbing permits.  Also, for garages, ag buildings, interior remodels, we have a "fast track" process and I have about a 4 week delay on those.

There are currently over 50 projects in for review.

I am totally open for suggestions on how to reduce the turnaround time.

I even put in time on nights and weekends.

When I took the Plans Examiner Job, turnaround was 20 weeks, and I have proudly reduced it to 8 or less.


----------



## righter101 (Aug 26, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> righter101  If you want to be helpful give the Architect a heads up call and have an expidited process for resolving responses to plan check comments.
> 
> Rather than thinking about delaying approval think about prossessing the application as quick as possible.  On the other hand do not make a bunch of standard comments that indicate that you had not looked closely at the drawings.


When i send a correction letter, I process responses to that with in a few days of those coming back in.

I dont make a bunch of standard comments that indicate I haven't looked closely at drawings.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 26, 2011)

You can reduce the impact if you give the applicant the option of having the plan check performed by a third party plan checker selected by the building department.  The applicant pays any additional costs.  This is done by a lot of building departments.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Brudgers  If you modify the permit application without the design professionals approval and approve the permit you have two problems.  First you have stepped over the line and are practicing architecture or engineering.  Secondly I believe that there are legal difficulties with modifying the permit application.  It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application and to comply with the code.  The building department can accept the application, respond with comments, or reject the application.  The building department cannot modify the application.  At times there may be a fine line between being helpful and stepping over the line into the dark side.


   I understood your opinion the first time. It still isn't supported by any relevant facts, rationales or examples.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Part of that is land use.  We have our entire jurisdiction surrounded by water with shore line regs, archeology buffers, wetlands, geo hazard areas.  This is part of the delay.  Second, we have a large volume of submissions and only 1 plans examiner.  me.   We have 2 inspectors that serve 172 islands.  When one of them goes on vacation, I have to inspect and we don't get much done in the way of plan review.  Its not an excuse, its just how it is.  To that end, we do have an over the counter process for mechanical and stand alone plumbing permits.  Also, for garages, ag buildings, interior remodels, we have a "fast track" process and I have about a 4 week delay on those.  There are currently over 50 projects in for review.  I am totally open for suggestions on how to reduce the turnaround time.   I even put in time on nights and weekends. When I took the Plans Examiner Job, turnaround was 20 weeks, and I have proudly reduced it to 8 or less.


  Land use is another beast. But once that beast is slain, it takes x amount of time to review a plan today or two weeks from today (as your ability to more than halve the review time shows).


----------



## incognito (Aug 27, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> incognitoStatements such as "The RDP shall verify that all calculations are correct."  are not helpful.  When the RDP signs and seals the submitted calculations he has implicitly stated that he believes they are correct.  If he made a mistake he might not understand what the mistake was thus would not be likely to find it if he looked again.
> 
> Requiring the design professional to make a statement that the documents are correct is just CYA on the part of the plans examiner.  I do not believe that the building code gives the building official the right to require the design professional make such a statement nor do I believe it changes the liability of the building department or the individuals working there.


I see no mention in the code in regards to comments that I can or can not make as to what I want the RDP to provide. As far as liability I have none, nada, zero unless I knowingly approve something which is not code compliant. Even then I can reasonably argue that as the AHJ that I consider the design to be an acceptable technique. After all, it has been designed by a RDP. I will ALWAYS leave a paper trail that goes directly to the RDP.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 27, 2011)

Incognito

I agree that you have no liability as long as you focus on enforcing the adopted regulations.

The building official should be focused on whether the project complies with the adopted regulations and has no authority to decide who is liable.  By trying to direct responsibility to the RDP you are trying to make him liable.  That is the job of the courts and the state bodies that licenses architects and engineers.

There is nothing in the building code or state laws, in the states that I am aware of, that empowers the building official with the right to determine responsibility.  If the building official believes that the RDP is acting inappropriately or is incompetent he can file a complaint with the state board regulating the practice of architecture or engineering.

If you have no liability then why do you need to play the games of trying to point the finger at the RDP?


----------



## Mark K (Aug 27, 2011)

brudgers

I recently filled out an application for a building permit that required that I make statements under the penalty of perjury.  What is important here is that I am making a decleration of what I believe to be true not what somebody else believes to be true.

If I understand your position you are saying that the building official can modify the appliction, which includes the construction documents, after I signed it thus making me responsible for the truthfullness of of what the building official believes to be true.  Earlier in this thread codegeek pointed to a situation where the plans examiner was ultimately found to be wrong.  If I am to be held responsible I want to be held responsible for my statements not those of the plans examiner.

If you really believe that it is OK for the plans examiner to unilaterally make changes then we really have to really worry about big brother and our constitutional rights.


----------



## peach (Aug 27, 2011)

As a former plan reviewer and inspector (and now PM for a 3rd party inspection team), I'd much rather have clear, correct plans before permit rather than leaving it "for the inspector to catch in the field".  It always makes the inspector the bad guy (who can cause the building owner to spend ALOT of money).

If you have a policy of the plan reviewer redlining plans, keep it to simple things (add a smoke detector or receptacle).. nothing structural.. AND the plan reviewer needs to initial the change.

I recently got called to the principle's office because the builder didn't build to plans.  We pulled the plans from the plan room and there were extensive (structural and historic items) drawn in with blue ink... no plan review stamp or initial.  All the builder needed was a blue pen and he could have made extensive changed on the "approved plans".

The builder did, by the way, build to the approved plans.. what he had neglected to include on the plans was the existing condition (facade and height) of the structure.


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 27, 2011)

I prefer to redline the plans and generate a correction letter sent to the RDP.  When the RDP calls, I suggest a meeting so he/she can make the corrections on the plans and we're off to the races.  However, if the corrections require any kind of redraw, then a redraw it is.  In-person meetings are helpful to eliminate misunderstandings, by both sides.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 27, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> [ianal] Once the plans are submitted, they become public record and public record laws apply. Copyright would apply outside of their use as public records.


Copyright in architectural works is established under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(8).[8] Moreover, protection of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works is established under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5).[9] Thus, architects can receive two levels of protection for their works: one for the design of a building as embodied in buildings, architectural plans, or drawings under § 102(a)(8) and one for diagrams, models, and technical drawings themselves under § 102(a)(5).

Copyright protection can extend to general drawings and blueprints, preliminary plans, sections, elevations, floor plans, construction plans, rough models, models of internal support, models of external appearance, photomontages of the building against backdrops, computer-generated images of a design, and constructed buildings.[17] The designs embodied in any of these types of works need not be capable of construction to be protected.[18]

In order to obtain protection as an "architectural work" under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(8), as opposed to a "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work" under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5), the work must include a design of a building.[19] “Buildings” are defined in the Copyright Office as “humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions.”[20] Specifically prohibited from protection are “structures other than buildings, such as bridges, cloverleafs, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and boats.”[20]

www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf


----------



## righter101 (Aug 27, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Land use is another beast. But once that beast is slain, it takes x amount of time to review a plan today or two weeks from today (as your ability to more than halve the review time shows).


Land use is the majority of that delay.  of the 8 weeks, probably 5 to LU, 3 to me.  I have implemented a few other things, such as taking a cursory look at intake and sending a letter there, for large obivious items (no foundation plan, not prescriptive, needs engineering, etc...) and that has helped as well.

To reply to Mark K. we have provided, in our fee ordinance, the pay extra for 3rd party plan check.

One other item that contributes to the longer turnaround time (or appearance of) is we don't require a septic certificate or H20 availabilty at the time of submission. Often, we get done with everything and are waiting on those, which is beyond our control.  Most other jurisdictions will not even accept an application without H20 and sewer/septic.  That could probably reduce our times further on a fair number of projects, but people like being able to submit, then work on those other items.

That said, if I keep the overall time under 8 weeks (including land use) less in the winter, the pitchforks disappear.


----------



## righter101 (Aug 27, 2011)

incognito said:
			
		

> I see no mention in the code in regards to comments that I can or can not make as to what I want the RDP to provide. As far as liability I have none, nada, zero unless I knowingly approve something which is not code compliant. Even then I can reasonably argue that as the AHJ that I consider the design to be an acceptable technique. After all, it has been designed by a RDP. I will ALWAYS leave a paper trail that goes directly to the RDP.


As far as what you can request they provide or not, I usually fall back on IRC 106.1.1

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction

documents shall be drawn upon suitable material.

Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted

when approved by the building official. Construction documents

shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location,

nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail

that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant

laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined

by the building official.

I am not over picky, and I do proudly use Milton's rule, but sometimes, what I get is bad.

My general speech on really bad plans is this:

The plans should be clear enough that a compentent contractor not familiar with the project should be able to order materials from the plans and built it, with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Should we have a "submission of the month" category on the forum?? With all identifying information redacted??  I trust that most of the RDP's that contribute to this fourm care enough about work product to produce something good.  The fact they are engaged in debate and up to speed on code and legal issues tells me that you guys care to a large degree.  I get things that haven't even had an internal second look from RDP firms.  They use me as the quality control.  Which, I don't mind, but if I was spending these sums of money on professional architecture, I would expect a good work product.

Hope everyone has a good weekend.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 27, 2011)

Engineers and architects should do a better job of checking the documents before submission.

Some of the reasons that poorly checked documents get submitted even from decent firms:

--The owner has an unrealistic date that he must start construction so the consultant makes the submission to keep the Owner happy.

--The turn around time for the paln check is long.  The designers figure that while the plan check is taking place they can complete and coordinate the documents.

--The plan check comments from the jurisdiction are perceived to be arbitrarly and inconsistent.  There is one state agency in California that will bleed red on the drawings no matter how good they are.  Contract plan checkers have reported that they get pressured to make more comments even if they feel the engineer did a good job.  This causes some design professionals to say why make an attempt to get it right just wait for the comments and respond then since they will get the same amount of comments no matter how good a job they do.

These are not presented as excuses but rather to understand the dynamic.


----------



## Mr Softy (Aug 28, 2011)

the MA Building Code , last edition, our last home-grown code, had specific language prohibiting the use of the "all work shall conform' statement.

IBC 2009 has similar language in 107.2.1

i view this practice as lazy design, setting up the field inspector as the bad guy.

there's certain things i want to see on a set of drawings to prevent issues during inspection.  wall type drawings showing fire rating and STC rating, travel distances for egress, door and window sizes, good FA drawings, dimesions (such an obvious thing!), stair details...  if the details are on the drawings (or not) it's much easier and more cost effective to make changes to lines on paper.

if there are issues with a review, that will always be followed by a face-to-face meeting with the RDP to go over the issues. and i will either point out the missing information, or give code sections as to where i may see non-compliance.

i get corrected drawings for the records.  i am in a very contentious city where people who are opposed to projects will research every possible avenue for trying to get a project stopped, including construction complaints and code violations in the drawings.  one goal we have is to issue bullet-proof permits.  permits that will hold up to strutiny.  while this does make a review take longer, the end result is a project that runs smoother, once started.

what really drives me crazy are drawings, or other docs, that come in citing old editions of the code.


----------



## peach (Aug 28, 2011)

Face to face meetings are great; especially in this economy since building departments don't want to lay people off, we're ok with plan review taking longer.. just do a thorough plan review.  On big projects, pre con meetings are invaluable.

The inspector is sometimes still going to be the back guy; a good list of standard plan review comments that the contractor SIGNS for can be helpful.  Lately, the big bug in the ointment is cord/plug condensate pumps above grid ceilings.  For whatever reason, the NEC code writing committee deemed this as prohibited.. and it causes alot of arguements.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 28, 2011)

I as an Architect agree, face to face meetings are great.

On the "compleatness" of plans, right or wrong, Most Architectural offices do their "in house" backchecks at the same time as the first planchecks.


----------



## peach (Aug 28, 2011)

I know some departments who hold on to the plans for 30 days (which is their limit), then reject for something stooopid like " the mechanical code version is not listed on the title sheet" without going any further... then subsequently reject the entire set with 200 items.

Don't necessarily put a time limit on plan review, but at least do something and keep the client posted.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 29, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> brudgersI recently filled out an application for a building permit that required that I make statements under the penalty of perjury.  What is important here is that I am making a decleration of what I believe to be true not what somebody else believes to be true.
> 
> If I understand your position you are saying that the building official can modify the appliction, which includes the construction documents, after I signed it thus making me responsible for the truthfullness of of what the building official believes to be true.  Earlier in this thread codegeek pointed to a situation where the plans examiner was ultimately found to be wrong.  If I am to be held responsible I want to be held responsible for my statements not those of the plans examiner.
> 
> If you really believe that it is OK for the plans examiner to unilaterally make changes then we really have to really worry about big brother and our constitutional rights.


Mark, what I am saying is that your position is based on nothing but your imagination.

...and too much Fox News.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 29, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> The plans should be clear enough that a compentent contractor not familiar with the project should be able to order materials from the plans and built it, with a reasonable degree of accuracy.


There are two issues with this (aside from being outside the scope of the code).

First is that the imaginary contractor should be familiar with the plans.

Second is that ordering materials is irrelevant to life safety.


----------



## Mr Softy (Aug 29, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> My general speech on really bad plans is this:The plans should be clear enough that a compentent contractor not familiar with the project should be able to order materials from the plans and built it, with a reasonable degree of accuracy.


i have a similar speech -

The plans should contain enough information so that i could go and build the project without having to ask questions.


----------



## Mac (Aug 29, 2011)

In NY the rules are set by the state, in an effort to standardize the submittals:

(2) An application for a building permit shall request sufficient information to permit a

determination that the intended work accords with the requirements of the Uniform Code and shall

require submission of the following information and documentation:

(i) a description of the proposed work;

(ii) the tax map number and the street address;

(iii) the occupancy classification of any affected building or structure;

(iv) where applicable, a statement of special inspections prepared in accordance with the

provisions of the Uniform Code; and the State Energy Conservation Code.

(v) at least 2 sets of construction documents (drawings and/or specifications) that define the

scope of the proposed work.

(3) Construction documents shall not be accepted as part of an application for a building permit

unless such documents:

(i) are prepared by a New York State registered architect or licensed professional engineer

where so required by the Education Law;

(ii) indicate with sufficient clarity and detail the nature and extent of the work proposed;

(iii) substantiate that the proposed work will comply with the Uniform Code

Just provide the miinimum required by the state and I will commence the review.


----------



## righter101 (Aug 29, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> There are two issues with this (aside from being outside the scope of the code).First is that the imaginary contractor should be familiar with the plans.
> 
> Second is that ordering materials is irrelevant to life safety.


I disagree, IRC 106.1.1 states, in part....

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction

documents shall be drawn upon suitable material.

Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted

when approved by the building official. Construction documents

shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location,

nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail

that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant

laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined

by the building official.

This places my comments inline with what is required.

Brugers, I think I should send you a copy of some of the documents I receive.  I always use Milton's rule, but sometimes the submissions I get are just horrible.  I make every effort to work with the drawings I am given, but when there are a large number of things missing, I have to draft a letter.  My canned comment isn't something I always throw out there, rather, I save it for occasions when my plan check comments start to involve every aspect of the drawings.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 29, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> I was also taught that when an RDP puts their seal and signature on a set of plans, those plans are now copyrighted.  Any modifications to those plans without permission of the RDP could be a violation of copyright law.


That is essentially what I was taught, and is still the issue to this day.  The State E&A Board still suggests this as best practices, and has encouraged us to report violations directly to them.  However, we usually try to make contact with the RDP before taking that step.  Stamping an RDP signed and sealed construction set with a third party stamp that says "reviewed for code compliance," is not an amendment to the RDP's copyrighted material, and as we are not under the direct supervision of the RDP (i.e., given RDP permission) to amend/redline the drawings, it is then the RDP and thier designated official's responsibility to amend the plans if so required.

That being said, I do not disagree entirely with Plan Check/Review red-lining, as many have said it is helpful to inspectors, however, I make my comments very specific by citing the code section to be addressed for compliance.  I still believe that in some cases, where more than one option for compliance is available, a red-line on my part, would be in principle, making a design decision for the RDP.  I don't believe that is my place.

Thank you everyone for your comments.  They are extremely helpful.  I have already passed on your suggestions and some for changes in our process to the CBO for consideration.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 29, 2011)

Mr Softy said:
			
		

> i have a similar speech -  The plans should contain enough information so that i could go and build the project without having to ask questions.


  That approach doesn't scale. On complex projects, no questions mean the person isn't following them.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 29, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> That approach doesn't scale. On complex projects, no questions mean the person isn't following them.


In part, I agree, that the speech, or IBC 106 comment does not scale for all projects.  My OP is concerned with projects that require an RDP.  I am not asking for plans so that anybody can build them.  I need plans I can review for compliance, otherwise, why am I even here.  Anyone can stamp and issue a drawing for a permit, but that doesn't make the drawing code compliant.  Sometimes it is the RDP, sometimes it is the contractor, sometimes it is the Plan Reviewer, and sometimes it is the inspector who slows down the process and devoids Milton's rule.  In this OP, we are talking about RDPs, and what is the minimum information they feel they should provide to receive a permit.

I have used IBC 106 several times in the last year when I was exasperated by the lack of response to my comments by the RDP (i.e., multiple review cycles without comments being addressed, let alone a phone call returned), or a general lack of information on the original submittals by the RDP.  A plan without notes, dimensions, or schedules is limited in the specificity of which I can make comments.  Either way, IBC 106, or whatever speech I use, doesn't work with those who don't want to work (or aren't getting paid to work).


----------



## permitguy (Aug 30, 2011)

> Stamping an RDP signed and sealed construction set with a third party stamp that says "reviewed for code compliance," is not an amendment to the RDP's copyrighted material, and as we are not under the direct supervision of the RDP (i.e., given RDP permission) to amend/redline the drawings, it is then the RDP and thier designated official's responsibility to amend the plans if so required.


Don't get hung up on the act of modifying the documents being a problem because of copyright protection.  The copyright act does not afford an RDP protection against someone modifying their documents in the context being discussed here.  It protects the RDP from someone else using their documents for commercial gain (i.e. building the same building somewhere else, using the plans as a concept for a separate project, etc.).  Once again, signatures and seals have nothing to do with the work being protected by the copyright act.

It's fine to argue the merits of red-lining plans during review, but the copyright act shouldn't be used as justification for disallowing the practice.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 30, 2011)

Stepping back from the copyright issue.  I will suggest that the various reasons stated are a reflection that most design professionals do not like this practice.  I would suggest that the more contientious design professionals are more likely not to like such practices.

Is it to your advantage to try to work with these design professionals or is it your attitude that since you are the building official you can ddo what you want in spite of what others want?  Maybe these design professionals would rather prefer to modify their documents to resolve any issues related to code compliance.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 30, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Stepping back from the copyright issue.  I will suggest that the various reasons stated are a reflection that most design professionals do not like this practice.  I would suggest that the more contientious design professionals are more likely not to like such practices.Is it to your advantage to try to work with these design professionals or is it your attitude that since you are the building official you can ddo what you want in spite of what others want?  Maybe these design professionals would rather prefer to modify their documents to resolve any issues related to code compliance.


And I think that's a fair assessment Mark. But you have to understand the dilemma we face; we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. I will tell you that in my experience, I've never had a RDP complain about redlined drawings. And I have received appreciation from both RDP's and other permit applicants for our policies.

Here's the deal: as the DP, tell your client you want to review the drawings after the Building Department reviews them. If they are redlined, make the changes to the CD's if you feel uncomfortable with the redlined items. The problem is that our relationship is with the person submitting the permit, and if you're not that person, and you want another swing at it, then just communicate that to the permit applicant.


----------



## permitguy (Aug 30, 2011)

Agreed.  As with so many things, I think avoiding either extreme is to everyone's benefit.  Completely disallowing the practice seems overly restrictive; however, if it is necessary to red-line every page in the drawings, then perhaps the RDP should take another crack at it.  It's up to each BO to define what "red-lining" actually is and to what extent it is acceptable in their department.

I guess you could say that will lead to consistency issues.  To that, I'd say get in line . . .


----------



## brudgers (Aug 30, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Stepping back from the copyright issue.  I will suggest that the various reasons stated are a reflection that most design professionals do not like this practice.  I would suggest that the more contientious design professionals are more likely not to like such practices.  Is it to your advantage to try to work with these design professionals or is it your attitude that since you are the building official you can ddo what you want in spite of what others want?  Maybe these design professionals would rather prefer to modify their documents to resolve any issues related to code compliance.


  The design professional is not the person who is issued the permit.  If they want to revise and resubmit their drawings, then the place to address that is in their contract with the Owner.

  Otherwise, their seal says the drawings are ready for construction.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 31, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Don't get hung up on the act of modifying the documents being a problem because of copyright protection.  The copyright act does not afford an RDP protection against someone modifying their documents in the context being discussed here.  It protects the RDP from someone else using their documents for commercial gain (i.e. building the same building somewhere else, using the plans as a concept for a separate project, etc.).  Once again, signatures and seals have nothing to do with the work being protected by the copyright act.It's fine to argue the merits of red-lining plans during review, but the copyright act shouldn't be used as justification for disallowing the practice.


My contention to not red-line RDP signed and sealed drawings has little to do with whether or not the material is copyrighted.  It is my understanding, that because our state has adopted a regulation act for engineers and architects, and it does not permit anyone but the architect/engineer of record to prepare the drawings (with exception for those under direct supervision of the architect/engineer of record) for construction (and in my opinion, red-lining is a further preparation, and further illustrated when RDPs red-line their own work during in-office plan check).  As an example, our E&A regulation act, mandates an RDP prepare construction documents for projects over 3,000sf and Group B Occupancy.  It does not mandate that an RDP and Plans Examiner prepare construction documents.  Therefore, I do not do anything to the drawings that would amend the work within.  It is not my mandate, nor my responsibility to do the RDPs work for them.  I examine the plans for code compliance (my stamp says, "reviewed for code compliance"), make specific comments to be addressed or acknowledged as the RDP chooses, meet with the RDP to discuss and resolve compliance issues, and then issue the compliant construction documents and building permit in a timely manner.  As I stated in my OP, this process is made more difficult when the RDP does not provide what I deem the minimum information to determine even MOE compliance, let alone accessibility compliance.  I don't use blanket compliance stamps either, because I do not believe they make a construction document compliant or complete when the CDs are either in non-compliance, or incomplete.

I may be wrong, but it is my opinion that few RDPs out there who would be excited about some other RDP, or even a contractor, amending and red-lining their construction documents because they failed to address an issue in compliance with the code.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 31, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Otherwise, their seal says the drawings are ready for construction.


And when the AHJ says they are not ready for construction, then back to the contract between the RDP and Owner to discuss whether or not work was performed in accordance with the contract, and or needs to go beyond that scope?


----------



## texasbo (Aug 31, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> It is my understanding, that because our state has adopted a regulation act for engineers and architects, and it does not permit anyone but the architect/engineer of record to prepare the drawings (with exception for those under direct supervision of the architect/engineer of record) for construction (and in my opinion, red-lining is a further preparation, and further illustrated when RDPs red-line their own work during in-office plan check).


I think the issue is the perception that you are preparing/altering the drawings. You can look at it that way, or you can look at it as you are providing plan review comments. However, instead of sending an email, or attaching an 81/2 x 11 list, you're putting them directly on the drawings. What's the difference in writing comments on the drawings and stapling them on the drawings?

The real issue is: at what point do you require revisions, and when do you let the comments suffice? I think that's purely a judgement call depending on the completeness and/or accuracy of the submittal. And please don't misunderstand; I have seen plenty of situations that warranted revisions. In fact, the majority of our commercial reviews result in a combination of revised drawings and written comments.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> My contention to not red-line RDP signed and sealed drawings has little to do with whether or not the material is copyrighted.  It is my understanding, that because our state has adopted a regulation act for engineers and architects, and it does not permit anyone but the architect/engineer of record to prepare the drawings (with exception for those under direct supervision of the architect/engineer of record) for construction (and in my opinion, red-lining is a further preparation, and further illustrated when RDPs red-line their own work during in-office plan check).  As an example, our E&A regulation act, mandates an RDP prepare construction documents for projects over 3,000sf and Group B Occupancy.  It does not mandate that an RDP and Plans Examiner prepare construction documents.  Therefore, I do not do anything to the drawings that would amend the work within.  It is not my mandate, nor my responsibility to do the RDPs work for them.  I examine the plans for code compliance (my stamp says, "reviewed for code compliance"), make specific comments to be addressed or acknowledged as the RDP chooses, meet with the RDP to discuss and resolve compliance issues, and then issue the compliant construction documents and building permit in a timely manner.  As I stated in my OP, this process is made more difficult when the RDP does not provide what I deem the minimum information to determine even MOE compliance, let alone accessibility compliance.  I don't use blanket compliance stamps either, because I do not believe they make a construction document compliant or complete when the CDs are either in non-compliance, or incomplete.  I may be wrong, but it is my opinion that few RDPs out there who would be excited about some other RDP, or even a contractor, amending and red-lining their construction documents because they failed to address an issue in compliance with the code.


  Marking the plans is not the act of practicing architecture and/or engineering when it is a step in the act of reviewing the plans and issuing a permit -  it is purely ministerial.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> And when the AHJ says they are not ready for construction, then back to the contract between the RDP and Owner to discuss whether or not work was performed in accordance with the contract, and or needs to go beyond that scope?


   The building department doesn't determine if the plans are ready for construction.  It determines if the design complies or doesn't comply with code.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 31, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Marking the plans is not the act of practicing architecture and/or engineering when it is a step in the act of reviewing the plans and issuing a permit -  it is purely ministerial.


You think a Plans Examiner is by default qualified to make ministerial amendments to an RDP's work?  I am not talking about simply making a comment reference mark on a plan or a general compliance note, to which I would agree, that is not the practice of architecture/engineering, and could be deemed ministerial.  I am discussing when a Plans Examiner red-lines an RDPs work and it constitutes a design change.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 31, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The building department doesn't determine if the plans are ready for construction.  It determines if the design complies or doesn't comply with code.


I disagree.  At least here, when and where permits are required, they aren't ready for construction until they are compliant and accompanied by a permit issued by the AHJ.  Then they are ready for construction.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 31, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> The real issue is: at what point do you require revisions, and when do you let the comments suffice? I think that's purely a judgement call depending on the completeness and/or accuracy of the submittal. And please don't misunderstand; I have seen plenty of situations that warranted revisions. In fact, the majority of our commercial reviews result in a combination of revised drawings and written comments.


I require revisions when the information provided is incomplete and insufficient to complete my plan review, or when there is a non-compliant design/specification in the CDs that would create a contradiction by approving the plan review.  If I can make a comment for the RDP to acknowledge and approve pending field inspection I will.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I disagree.  At least here, when and where permits are required, they aren't ready for construction until they are compliant and accompanied by a permit issued by the AHJ.  Then they are ready for construction.


  Just because they got a permit doesn't mean the plans are suitable for construction.  Or that they met code......


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> You think a Plans Examiner is by default qualified to make ministerial amendments to an RDP's work?  I am not talking about simply making a comment reference mark on a plan or a general compliance note, to which I would agree, that is not the practice of architecture/engineering, and could be deemed ministerial.  I am discussing when a Plans Examiner red-lines an RDPs work and it constitutes a design change.


   A plans examiner is qualified to indicate the requirements for code compliance and may do so as part of issuing the permit.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 1, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> A plans examiner is qualified to indicate the requirements for code compliance and may do so as part of issuing the permit.


Yes, I agree with your statement, just not with where and how those requirements may be indicated.  I make compliance indications via my plan review comments, and let the RDP make the revisions they need to meet those requirements, plus any other revisions that might be required due to meeting those requirements.

As an example, on my last review, I did not mark up the non-compliant CPT distance by adding an additional exit, which is what the code requires when the CPT exceeded 75' for this projects conditions.  Rather, I made my comment specifically, indicating which code sections were applicable when the CPT exceeded 75 ft for a single exit space, and allowed the RDP to design their solution and amend their CDs.  We communicated over the phone and internet, as too other compliance issues their alternative solutions may or may not cause, and eventually they were able to submit a complaint design that reduced the CPT to less than 75', thus not requiring an additional exit, but required extensive revisions to the CDs, that could not, in my opinion, be simply red-lined.

I have stated the other reasons why I don't mark-up RDP plans, and that is also our current departmental policy.  Furthermore, I do not have any objections to marking-up an RDP plan that will not be issued as field construction document for the purposes of plan review.  That is not altering the design, or making design decisions, without RDP oversight, but rather assists in the analysis and review for code compliance.  Neither policy is necessarily a better policy, simply different, and we simply and respectfully disagree.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 1, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Just because they got a permit doesn't mean the plans are suitable for construction.  Or that they met code......


In the spirit of prolificating the use of semantics, then, specifically, because they don't have a building permit, it does mean the plans are not suitable for construction.  Catch my drift, or are you discussing the qualitative nature of the plans and their suitable-ness towards the construction of the actual code compliant building?  In that respect, even if the plans were suitable for construction and also met code, there is also no guarantee that the building was actually built to plan, nor code compliant, regardless of how many permits and certificates of occupancy and compliance are issued.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 1, 2011)

Your example of the non-compliant CPT in post #76 would be the way most plans examiners would handle that code issue because the RDP needs to decide the location of the door and all the other issues that would go along with a new door.

However if during a means of egress review an exit sign was not identified on the drawings leading to a verticle exit enclosure (exit stair) we would be just redline it on the drawings and include it in the plan review comments which we send to the DP, owner and GC so everyone is in the communication loop.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 1, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Your example of the non-compliant CPT in post #76 would be the way most plans examiners would handle that code issue because the RDP needs to decide the location of the door and all the other issues that would go along with a new door.However if during a means of egress review an exit sign was not identified on the drawings leading to a verticle exit enclosure (exit stair) we would be just redline it on the drawings and include it in the plan review comments which we send to the DP, owner and GC so everyone is in the communication loop.


Yes, both are excellent examples.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 1, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree with your statement, just not with where and how those requirements may be indicated.  I make compliance indications via my plan review comments, and let the RDP make the revisions they need to meet those requirements, plus any other revisions that might be required due to meeting those requirements.    As an example, on my last review, I did not mark up the non-compliant CPT distance by adding an additional exit, which is what the code requires when the CPT exceeded 75' for this projects conditions.  Rather, I made my comment specifically, indicating which code sections were applicable when the CPT exceeded 75 ft for a single exit space, and allowed the RDP to design their solution and amend their CDs.  We communicated over the phone and internet, as too other compliance issues their alternative solutions may or may not cause, and eventually they were able to submit a complaint design that reduced the CPT to less than 75', thus not requiring an additional exit, but required extensive revisions to the CDs, that could not, in my opinion, be simply red-lined.    I have stated the other reasons why I don't mark-up RDP plans, and that is also our current departmental policy.  Furthermore, I do not have any objections to marking-up an RDP plan that will not be issued as field construction document for the purposes of plan review.  That is not altering the design, or making design decisions, without RDP oversight, but rather assists in the analysis and review for code compliance.  Neither policy is necessarily a better policy, simply different, and we simply and respectfully disagree.


  Adding an exit is a little different from stating "Existing doors shall be provided with accessible hardware" or whatever words to that effect I suggested many posts ago.


----------



## Architect1281 (Sep 1, 2011)

Papio if you were to receive a plan for renovations from me I schedule ALL doors

the existing doors are labeled E or EX with the room number and a,bc, etc if more than 1 per room

the new door are just plain numbered same as the room number same a,b,c, if mor than 1

all existing door sizes aare indicated - and hardware is chart listed.

Long ago I went to my local professioal commercial door company wizard and asked for the format that

door supplies use to schedule a door - thats the format I've been using for 30 years.

nothing reinvented - gets the information to the guy who really needs to know in the format they are familiar with

and lets the building official who has to review and approve my plans do so with the same clarity.

that is the difference between plans of a project and pictures

a picture lacks a thousand words. or pieces of necessary information

Sounds to me like you reasonably expect adequate information to make an un revised decision

proper plans by a Plan development professional should leave little for you to assume.

i have sent many a picture back and requested plans be submitted

PS many a time I am embarassed for the lack of plan information supplied by RDP's

although it is reffered to a Practicing so they do it till they get it right

Copywrite of mis-information is worthy of redlining


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 2, 2011)

Back to my point I made last week about the plans examiner redlining the plans and issuing the permit without letting the RDP know of the comments made on the plans...

We had a project go through a plan review several months ago.  On Wednesday of this week, our office received a set of plan review comments.  The permit was issued several weeks ago, with the plans redlined.  One of the redlines was that a tenant demising wall had to be a two-hour fire barrier.  By the time our office received the plan review comments on Wednesday, the contractor had already begun construction of the tenant demising wall.  Had our office been made aware of the two-hour fire barrier prior to the permit being issued, we could have been more prepared to address the need for the two-hour wall.  Instead we were scrambling to find a UL listed assembly that would allow not only using materials on the job site, but allow for our tenant to build the two-hour wall on their side of the wall without disrupting the adjoining occupied tenant.

My point, if you as a plans examiner redline the plans, the professional and courteous thing to do is to at least contact the RDP to let them know of what you believe needs to be changed.  Most RDP’s will make those changes accordingly and most likely submit new sheets, if necessary.

Not telling the RDP of major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money.


----------



## permitguy (Sep 2, 2011)

> Not telling the RDP of major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money.


Agreed.  Your example takes it beyond what should be red-lined by a plans examiner without having the DP resubmit.


----------



## steveray (Sep 2, 2011)

"The RDP not catching major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money."

I'll pull a Brudgers....There...fixed it for you!

BTW..we redline for areas of concern that need more attn in the field than what is on the plans....any clarification with major code compliance issues is resolved by the DP prior to permit issuance.


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 2, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> "The RDP not catching major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money."I'll pull a Brudgers....There...fixed it for you!
> 
> BTW..we redline for areas of concern that need more attn in the field than what is on the plans....any clarification with major code compliance issues is resolved by the DP prior to permit issuance.


In the case I posted earlier today, the fire barrier is not required by any version of the IBC, but rather by an interpretation at the state level in this particular jurisdiction.  There is absolutely no information on the state's website to indicate this requirement, so it was not an oversight by the RDP.


----------



## steveray (Sep 2, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> In the case I posted earlier today, the fire barrier is not required by any version of the IBC, but rather by an interpretation at the state level in this particular jurisdiction.  There is absolutely no information on the state's website to indicate this requirement, so it was not an oversight by the RDP.


My apologies then....the fire barrier is not required, or not 2 hr? (per IBC)  all of our state amendments and interpretations can be found here:

http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2148&Q=294226&dpsNav_GID=1665&dpsNav=|


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 2, 2011)

Don't worry steveray, it wasn't in your state!  This is a mixed use building that would meet the provisions of nonseparated uses, but this jurisdiction says their state will not recognize nonseparated mixed uses in a shopping center, which is where this project was located.  So, they want everything separated from everything with at least a two-hour fire barrier.  No reduction in the rating for a fully sprinklered building either.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 2, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> Back to my point I made last week about the plans examiner redlining the plans and issuing the permit without letting the RDP know of the comments made on the plans...  We had a project go through a plan review several months ago.  On Wednesday of this week, our office received a set of plan review comments.  The permit was issued several weeks ago, with the plans redlined.  One of the redlines was that a tenant demising wall had to be a two-hour fire barrier.  By the time our office received the plan review comments on Wednesday, the contractor had already begun construction of the tenant demising wall.  Had our office been made aware of the two-hour fire barrier prior to the permit being issued, we could have been more prepared to address the need for the two-hour wall.  Instead we were scrambling to find a UL listed assembly that would allow not only using materials on the job site, but allow for our tenant to build the two-hour wall on their side of the wall without disrupting the adjoining occupied tenant.   My point, if you as a plans examiner redline the plans, the professional and courteous thing to do is to at least contact the RDP to let them know of what you believe needs to be changed.  Most RDP’s will make those changes accordingly and most likely submit new sheets, if necessary.   Not telling the RDP of major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money.


  Speaking of professional behavior...tracking the permit status of one's designs would fall into that category - as would observing construction from time to time on site. If you are not doing either of those things, it is not unsurprising that you find yourself running around with your hair on fire through no fault of the building department. The lack of a professional approach to communications is centered among the Owner, Builder, and Architect...even if it is convenient to cast public servants as scapegoats.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 2, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> Don't worry steveray, it wasn't in your state!  This is a mixed use building that would meet the provisions of nonseparated uses, but this jurisdiction says their state will not recognize nonseparated mixed uses in a shopping center, which is where this project was located.  So, they want everything separated from everything with at least a two-hour fire barrier.  No reduction in the rating for a fully sprinklered building either.


   Sounds like no meeting between the design team an building official prior to submittal either...


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 2, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Speaking of professional behavior...tracking the permit status of one's designs would fall into that category - as would observing construction from time to time on site. If you are not doing either of those things, it is not unsurprising that you find yourself running around with your hair on fire through no fault of the building department. The lack of a professional approach to communications is centered among the Owner, Builder, and Architect...even if it is convenient to cast public servants as scapegoats.


I'm not the RDP, in fact I'm not an RDP period.  I've served in the public sector for nearly twenty years from permit technician to building inspector to plans examiner to building official.  Now I'm in the private sector.  The firm I work for does work all over the US and other countries.  In most cases, we have permit expeditors.  I'm not familiar with the details on this specific project, only that the permit was issued without notifying us, the design firm, that there were comments made on the plans.  I don't disagree that there needs to be communication from all parties.  My point is that the jurisdiction at least needs to make someone aware, either the RDP or the contractor, that they red-lined the drawings about an issue that could have been addressed prior to becoming a problem in the field.

Be careful where you point your finger.  There's at least three pointing back at you.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 2, 2011)

It is a cheap shot trying to blame the problem on the RDP.  How can the RDP be expected to know that he will be receiving plan review comments after the permit has been issued.  In addition it is fairly common for contientious consultants not to hear from a project for two weeks at a time.

It also apprears that the state enforcement agency is enforcing requirements that go beyond reasonable interpretations of the code.  If this is the fact then it would not be reasonable to blame the consultant for not knowing.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 2, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> I'm not the RDP, in fact I'm not an RDP period.  I've served in the public sector for nearly twenty years from permit technician to building inspector to plans examiner to building official.  Now I'm in the private sector.  The firm I work for does work all over the US and other countries.  In most cases, we have permit expeditors.  I'm not familiar with the details on this specific project, only that the permit was issued without notifying us, the design firm, that there were comments made on the plans.  I don't disagree that there needs to be communication from all parties.  My point is that the jurisdiction at least needs to make someone aware, either the RDP or the contractor, that they red-lined the drawings about an issue that could have been addressed prior to becoming a problem in the field.    Be careful where you point your finger.  There's at least three pointing back at you.


  You work for a big company that hires locals to take care of permitting? And it's the building department's fault that your consultants don't communicate with you? And because you don't bother to even meet the staff, there's some sort of obligation? Sorry, but I have little sympathy for plan stampers who rely on the building department to determine the proper rating of fire separations instead of reading the applicable code...I'm just funny in that professional negligence bothers me more than a lack of social grace.   [Edit: not with the finger I'm using]


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 2, 2011)

Brudgers,  I've tried to watch your posts from a neutral stance, but my post earlier today was about a circumstance that was totally out of the hands of our firm, yet you continue to blame our firm for not knowing.  Our firm takes great pride in designing buildings which fully comply with adopted codes, one of many reasons for my position here.

Why is it always the RDP’s fault?  Having worked on both sides of the counter, and now especially on the outside world of a jurisdiction, there are just as many incompetent code officials out there as there are incompetent RDP’s.


----------



## Coug Dad (Sep 2, 2011)

A unfortunate growing trend is the need for expediters.  There are getting to be more cities where plan review is painful without one.  RDP's can leave voice mail after voice mail and not get a response.  A favored expeditor amazingly gets a quick return call and status of the permit.  I have been in AHJ lobbies where no one can get past the front counter without an escort - expect for the favored expeditors who walk right through unescorted.  I'm not saying its good or bad, it is just a reality.    I have also seen expediters move plan sets from one review section to another to keep them moving.  We advise many clients to secure an expediter to get their permit aplication through faster.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 2, 2011)

I have seen a disturbing correlation between jurisdictions where expediters are regularly used and corruption in building departments.

Any jurisdiction who sees expediters regularly used should be asking what are they doing wrong.


----------



## Mr Softy (Sep 2, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> A unfortunate growing trend is the need for expediters.  There are getting to be more cities where plan review is painful without one.  RDP's can leave voice mail after voice mail and not get a response.  A favored expeditor amazingly gets a quick return call and status of the permit.  I have been in AHJ lobbies where no one can get past the front counter without an escort - expect for the favored expeditors who walk right through unescorted.  I'm not saying its good or bad, it is just a reality.    I have also seen expediters move plan sets from one review section to another to keep them moving.  We advise many clients to secure an expediter to get their permit aplication through faster.


that's crap.  we're first come. first served.  nobody jumps the queue.  an expediter doesn't get anything done any faster.  and if i have issues, it's the RDP that gets called.


----------



## permitguy (Sep 2, 2011)

It isn't always about favoritism with an expeditor.  Sometimes they just know the local process better so they're less likely to forget about steps that are unique to one jurisdiction or another.  Bureaucracy can make some of this pretty confusing, no matter how much experience you have as an RDP.


----------



## peach (Sep 3, 2011)

2 things:  It blows my hair back that the state (or jurisdiction) would make essentially a modification/interpretation then keep it to themselves AND regarding expeditors - here almost everyone uses them.  Not prepared to say that "favors" pass hands, but they get paid to be tenacious enough to wait and they do expedite communications between the jurisdiction and the RDP because they understand the process.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 3, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> Back to my point I made last week about the plans examiner redlining the plans and issuing the permit without letting the RDP know of the comments made on the plans...We had a project go through a plan review several months ago.  On Wednesday of this week, our office received a set of plan review comments.  The permit was issued several weeks ago, with the plans redlined.  One of the redlines was that a tenant demising wall had to be a two-hour fire barrier.  By the time our office received the plan review comments on Wednesday, the contractor had already begun construction of the tenant demising wall.  Had our office been made aware of the two-hour fire barrier prior to the permit being issued, we could have been more prepared to address the need for the two-hour wall.  Instead we were scrambling to find a UL listed assembly that would allow not only using materials on the job site, but allow for our tenant to build the two-hour wall on their side of the wall without disrupting the adjoining occupied tenant.
> 
> My point, if you as a plans examiner redline the plans, the professional and courteous thing to do is to at least contact the RDP to let them know of what you believe needs to be changed.  Most RDP’s will make those changes accordingly and most likely submit new sheets, if necessary.
> 
> Not telling the RDP of major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money.


IMHO:

1) The permit should not have been issued until the RDP made the corrections for the demising wall first.  This is a fine example of how trying to get prints out of code review and issuing a permit too quickly can cause problems.

2) I was told that this requirement was outside of the IBC and within the local jurisdictions amendments.   I too would like to know why there was not a pre-design meeting with the jurisdiction to inquire about which codes applied and if there were any amendments or additional local requirements.

I don't think there are enough pre-design meetings or enough quality assurance from the RDP's end of the spectrum.

If the reviewed plans that are on the jobsite were redlined, then why did the contractor proceed?  I think 2/3 of the blame on the contractor and RDP, only 1/3 to the jurisdiction for issuing the permit.


----------



## FM William Burns (Sep 3, 2011)

Excellent points Jar546!

Not saying this is the right way but when we do a plan review and find matters needing attention, they are noted on the plan page with applicable code reference section [**** year, section and numbers].  The plan review correspondence to the design professional includes the comments and plan page numbers.  We will always send one to the RDP, GC and put in the last paragraph..... *"Please provide a copy of this correspondence to all affected parties including but not limited to owner, architect, engineers, consultants and project contractors."*

We also email a copy to all inspectional authorities so they are aware of the FD status on the review process and we track their delivery and reading/opening status on the email and file accordingly in pre-set electronic folders.  Basically, we send it to everyone and our theory is if you don't need it...delete it but you can't come back at us and tell us you didn't know.  IMHO, I agree that communication is the key in everything we do in life.........not just plan review.


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 3, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> IMHO:1) The permit should not have been issued until the RDP made the corrections for the demising wall first.  This is a fine example of how trying to get prints out of code review and issuing a permit too quickly can cause problems.
> 
> 2) I was told that this requirement was outside of the IBC and within the local jurisdictions amendments.   I too would like to know why there was not a pre-design meeting with the jurisdiction to inquire about which codes applied and if there were any amendments or additional local requirements.
> 
> ...


I cannot speak for the actions that took place prior to my involvement this week as this was the first I had heard of the problem, let alone the project.  All I know is that when I was a building official, I would not let plans go out of our office for a building permit unless the permit applicant had been notified of the items needing to be corrected.  It was up to the permit applicant as to how to proceed, either submit new plans with the corrections, have the RDP redline the plans with their initials, or let us redline the plans with their permission.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 5, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> Brudgers,  I've tried to watch your posts from a neutral stance, but my post earlier today was about a circumstance that was totally out of the hands of our firm, yet you continue to blame our firm for not knowing.  Our firm takes great pride in designing buildings which fully comply with adopted codes, one of many reasons for my position here.    Why is it always the RDP’s fault?  Having worked on both sides of the counter, and now especially on the outside world of a jurisdiction, there are just as many incompetent code officials out there as there are incompetent RDP’s.


  Sorry, but code compliance is never "out of the hands" of a design firm...perhaps your firm should be taking less pride and do more due diligence.


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Sorry, but code compliance is never "out of the hands" of a design firm...perhaps your firm should be taking less pride and do more due diligence.


We do our due diligence by contacting each jurisdiction prior to permit submittal to determine local codes and ordinances.  In this particular case, the jurisdiction did not say anything until after the fact about an interpretation by the state's insurance office with regards to fire barriers which are not required by the IBC.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 6, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> A unfortunate growing trend is the need for expediters.  There are getting to be more cities where plan review is painful without one.  RDP's can leave voice mail after voice mail and not get a response.  A favored expeditor amazingly gets a quick return call and status of the permit.  I have been in AHJ lobbies where no one can get past the front counter without an escort - expect for the favored expeditors who walk right through unescorted.  I'm not saying its good or bad, it is just a reality.    I have also seen expediters move plan sets from one review section to another to keep them moving.  We advise many clients to secure an expediter to get their permit aplication through faster.


I have to agree with SoftServe on this one too Coug.  While agree it is an unfortunate requirement in some jurisdictions, it is extremely unprofessional and un-civil.  The last thing a goverment entity should be.  That type of behaviour needs to be challenged, and I could go off on several RDP lobbying groups that idly sit by and do little to nothing about it, but I have a que of plans with no expeditors to attend to.  I made a point of politely informing one expeditor last week, that if he contacted me again, instead of the RDP, as I had requested, he would be effectively slowing the project down instead of expediting the process.   Finally when the project was approved for issuance, I left messages and emails with the expeditor, informing them of the status and permit fee invoice due.  I spent most of the next day responding to various emails from contractors and the RDP about the status because the expeditor did not contact them.  In the end, the expeditor called our inspection line, late in the day to verify the status.  GRRRRR!


----------



## brudgers (Sep 6, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> We do our due diligence by contacting each jurisdiction prior to permit submittal to determine local codes and ordinances.  In this particular case, the jurisdiction did not say anything until after the fact about an interpretation by the state's insurance office with regards to fire barriers which are not required by the IBC.


  In other words, due diligence did not include knowing the state code? Like I said, less pride more research. Half due diligence is not due diligence.


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 6, 2011)

I would tell you the state and have you look on their website to see if you can find the same language that we were given by the plans examiner, but I don't want to embarrass anyone.

We did our due diligence.  They failed to include anything anywhere that mentioned this requirement.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 6, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> I would tell you the state and have you look on their website to see if you can find the same language that we were given by the plans examiner, but I don't want to embarrass anyone.    We did our due diligence.  They failed to include anything anywhere that mentioned this requirement.


  It's not the AHJ's responsibility to inform a design professional of every applicable law because they are expected to be a bit more knowledgeable than a homeowner building a garage addition. Personal responsibility for compliance with all the state laws comes with the license to practice architecture in that state.  [edit: the more you argue that this was anyone else's fault, the more obvious it is that your firm does not do proper due diligence]


----------



## Mark K (Sep 6, 2011)

The design professional is responsible for making sure his design complies with the adopted codes.  This does not mean that any lack of compliance means that the design professional is irresponsible or unprofessional.  It is effectively impossible for a design professional to comply with all of the code provisions all of the time and any one who suggests otherwise is dillusional.

It seems to be suggested that the design professional is responsible if the completed building does not comply in any aspect with the construction documents and the code.  The reality is that the design professional cannot provide a guarantee of total code compliance for work performed by others.


----------



## permitguy (Sep 6, 2011)

> any one who suggests otherwise is dillusional.


Surely you aren't suggesting that brudgers is dillusional.  He's merely self-actualized to a level of code knowledge that every other (and I DO mean EVERY other) contributor here can only dream of achieving.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 6, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The design professional is responsible for making sure his design complies with the adopted codes.  This does not mean that any lack of compliance means that the design professional is irresponsible or unprofessional.  It is effectively impossible for a design professional to comply with all of the code provisions all of the time and any one who suggests otherwise is dillusional.  It seems to be suggested that the design professional is responsible if the completed building does not comply in any aspect with the construction documents and the code.  The reality is that the design professional cannot provide a guarantee of total code compliance for work performed by others.


  I agree with most of what you say. However, this is a case where an unlicensed person working for a design professional is blaming the building department for the failure of a design to comply with State Law. I'm sorry, but architects and engineers are licensed by the state and are responsible for knowing the unique requirements before submitting work for review. To claim that hiring a code expediter constitutes due diligence is horse****, and from the beginning the defense has been "We do work all over the country" - AKA "they don't make us do that in the other town."   In my opinion, due diligence when working in a new state may require calling the state fire marshal's office...I've found that they are always happy to discuss projects and requirements with architects. I'll add that given the number of times I've heard architects and their unlicensed employee's go ballistic over Florida's requirements only to find that they don't own a copy of the Florida Building Codes leads me to give the benefit of the doubt quite sparingly in such cases.

  I have very little sympathy for the view that due diligence consists of doing anything the building official doesn't catch...which all the evidence indicates was the approach here.


----------



## permitguy (Sep 7, 2011)

> However, this is a case where an unlicensed person working for a design professional is blaming the building department for the failure of a design to comply with State Law.


No, it isn't.  You must be tired - as much as I hate to complement you, your reading comprehension is usually better than this.  This is a case where the state has an unpublished and unposted interpretation that is beyond the intent of the code as applied anywhere that anyone here has ever heard of, and no mention was made of said interpretation in pre-application correspondence.  It's easy for you to pretend you would have caught this if you were in Codegeek's position; after all, how could we dispute that since hindsight is 20/20?

For someone that is usually quick to write off all government efforts related to code enforcement as idiotic, you sure seem to be on government's side on this one.  I can only assume you're off your meds.  Get well soon.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 7, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> No, it isn't.  You must be tired - as much as I hate to complement you, your reading comprehension is usually better than this.  This is a case where the state has an unpublished and unposted interpretation that is beyond the intent of the code as applied anywhere that anyone here has ever heard of, and no mention was made of said interpretation in pre-application correspondence.  It's easy for you to pretend you would have caught this if you were in Codegeek's position; after all, how could we dispute that since hindsight is 20/20?  For someone that is usually quick to write off all government efforts related to code enforcement as idiotic, you sure seem to be on government's side on this one.  I can only assume you're off your meds.  Get well soon.


  I don't think all code enforcement is idiotic...even though I think the way in which it is enforced often is.   And given that Codegeek is complaining about the outcome of the exact philosophy of permitting which I advocate (e.g. strive to find a way to approve the plans even if it requires conditions) where I fall on the way in which the permit was issued is hardly surprising or inconsistent.

  However, the bigger issue is the complete incomprehension of due diligence.

  Due diligence requires independent research of the requirements for each project, and when one uses their Iowa seal they are expected to have researched the specific requirements not only of the local jurisdiction but also those of the state.

  More importantly, a failure of due diligence is not the building departments fault, it is the fault of the design professional [as was the case here]...and if they delegated the determination of regulatory requirements to unlicensed employees and contracted expediters then such a failure is again, unsurprising.

  Just to be clear, it is not the missing of a regulatory requirement by a design professional which is so troubling - it is the idea that taking "great pride" or hiring an expediter or doing work "all over the country" means that the AHJ is to blame.

  As for claims about websites and correspondence, I will note that given that Codegeek was passed this ball of fun last week suggests a process where project architects are absent and blaming the building department is rampant.

  Keep in mind that the reason the permit issuing created difficulty for Codegeek is that nobody in his firm was paying attention to the permitting process or tracking it's status.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 7, 2011)

Can we tone these comments of personal nature down please?  Just too specific.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 7, 2011)

> All I know is that when I was a building official, I would not let plans go out of our office for a building permit unless the permit applicant had been notified of the items needing to be corrected.


I do not care who the applicant is the AHJ should have never "red lined a fire barrier requirement" and then issue a permit. They should have had the DP supply a listed wall assembly first. JMHO

Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes no matter how hard we try and being frustrated is understandable but pointing fingers won't change it.


----------



## permitguy (Sep 7, 2011)

> Due diligence requires independent research of the requirements for each project, and when one uses their Iowa seal they are expected to have researched the specific requirements not only of the local jurisdiction but also those of the state.


And in this case, it sounds as if due dilligence would have required the use of a fortune teller to sense the presence of an unpublished interpretation that wasn't mentioned in the pre-application correspondence.  I wonder if ICC has considered developing a cert for that?

Unpublished Interpretation Fortune Teller I - Demonstrates the ability to sense the presence of an unpublished interpretation that will cause difficulty in completing a project after plan review and permit issuance.

Unpublished Interpretation Fortune Teller II - Demonstrates the ability to sense the presence of an unpublished interpretation that will cause difficulty in completing a project after plan review and permit issuance, plus demonstrates the ability to know what the unpublished interpretation actually says.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 7, 2011)

^ I hope at least everyone can agree that is some funny stuff.

The sad part is that in Cow terms, it's not that far of a stretch.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 7, 2011)

Lets all understand that no one is perfect and even after QA at the RDP and review by the AHJ, there are often items that are missed.  The codes are vast and detailed.  We cannot be expected to know everything.  As far as due diligence is concerned, give me a break.  Due diligence is not perfection either.  There are surprises around every corner with construction and code enforcement.  So if anyone here has been able to find a plane ticket to Perfect World, please let me know because I would like to know where you got it so I too can purchase a 1 way ticket.  There is always a horse higher than yours.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 7, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> And in this case, it sounds as if due dilligence would have required the use of a fortune teller to sense the presence of an unpublished interpretation that wasn't mentioned in the pre-application correspondence.  I wonder if ICC has considered developing a cert for that?  Unpublished Interpretation Fortune Teller I - Demonstrates the ability to sense the presence of an unpublished interpretation that will cause difficulty in completing a project after plan review and permit issuance.  Unpublished Interpretation Fortune Teller II - Demonstrates the ability to sense the presence of an unpublished interpretation that will cause difficulty in completing a project after plan review and permit issuance, plus demonstrates the ability to know what the unpublished interpretation actually says.


   Actually, it probably just requires a call to the Fire Marshal's office...or a sit down between an actual architect and the building department in lieu of hiring an expediter.   You know, the usual sort of things one must often do when working in an unfamiliar jurisdiction.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 7, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Lets all understand that no one is perfect and even after QA at the RDP and review by the AHJ, there are often items that are missed.  The codes are vast and detailed.  We cannot be expected to know everything.  As far as due diligence is concerned, give me a break.  Due diligence is not perfection either.  There are surprises around every corner with construction and code enforcement.  So if anyone here has been able to find a plane ticket to Perfect World, please let me know because I would like to know where you got it so I too can purchase a 1 way ticket.  There is always a horse higher than yours.


  I'll come back to the important point, everything codegeek describes was the fault of the licensed professional.   Blaming anyone else is absurd.

  Because it is their seal on the plans.

  And therefore, they are responsible for any error or omission.

  Cowboy up, or find another line of work.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 8, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I'll come back to the important point, everything codegeek describes was the fault of the licensed professional.   Blaming anyone else is absurd.
> 
> Because it is their seal on the plans.
> 
> ...


I agree, but,........ the issue's severity is based on its impact.  In this case, the permit should not have been issued by the AHJ but there is a lot more work to do than check a State's website for information.  Physically having a copy of State and Local codes in your possession would have been the professional, prudent thing to do which would, of course been due diligence.

So if all they had to do was change the design and continue, no big deal.  If it was going to cost money to fix the problem then the contractor and RDP need to pony up the money since the plans were redlined in that area regardless of the fact the permit was issued.  Shame on the contractor for continuing without the reviewed plans.


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 8, 2011)

"Physically having a copy of State and Local codes in your possession would have been the professional, prudent thing to do which would, of course been due diligence."

Really?? In our world of technology and environmental friendly movements one is still expected to have a hard copy of a local ordinance when it's available on their website??


----------



## permitguy (Sep 8, 2011)

I'm still trying to figure out how one can physically possess that which does not exist.

Is this like one of those "if a tree falls in the forest" type of things?


----------



## brudgers (Sep 8, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> "Physically having a copy of State and Local codes in your possession would have been the professional, prudent thing to do which would, of course been due diligence."  Really?? In our world of technology and environmental friendly movements one is still expected to have a hard copy of a local ordinance when it's available on their website??


  Yes.  And you should keep that physical code in your office until they wheel you out toes up.

  Taking shortcuts can....well, let's just say it can lead to problems of the sort you may be familiar with.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 8, 2011)

"I'm still trying to figure out how one can physically possess that which does not exist."

Easy. You ask for a copy of all interpretations that have not yet been made.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 8, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Is this like one of those "if a tree falls in the forest" type of things?


  Only if you wish to make it so:  http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/existence-is-not-a-predicate/


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 8, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to figure out how one can physically possess that which does not exist.Is this like one of those "if a tree falls in the forest" type of things?


No.  I think it is a "which came first, the chicken, or the egg" type of thing, but may vary based upon region and dialect, or in other words on the AHJ.  The more important issue is who is responsible for defining an interpretation of the colloquial euphemism applied to the project?  On this issue I tend to side with brudgers, in that a preliminary meeting with all the applicable AHJs (i.e., city, county, state, etc.) is a prudent and valuable way to familiarize oneself with the local traditions of each AHJ.  While, I have suffered the comments, which brudgers described, many times as justification for providing incomplete submittals, I do not believe there is enough information regarding codegeeks example to accurately apply fault.  It would be my guess, that better communication could have avoided the situation, and it appears that egg, or chicken, is on all parties faces at this juncture, but perhaps that is one of the downfalls of using an expeditor.

I appreciate all of the responses, with exception to the personal character references, and will continue to use the feedback towards improving our department's level of service (by enforcing the minimum building standards) to the community (please note, I did not say contractors, expeditors, and RDPs).  Have a great weekend.


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 4, 2011)

After all the problems that came of the project I posted about earlier in this string, I could resist posting an update.

Because of the state requirement that essentially requires fire barriers between all tenants in a strip center, the jurisdiction was having problems with tenant spaces going into existing buildings and being able to provide a fire barrier without causing disruption to the adjacent tenant.  Our firm was able to provide a UL listed assembly that would allow for a two hour fire barrier to be built with 3 layers of rock on the new tenant side, causing no disruption to the adjacent tenant.  As a result of this, the jurisdiction is now using our solution as a guide for others to follow.


----------



## Examiner (Nov 4, 2011)

106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn upon suitable material.  Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted when approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official.

_Commentary: The construction documents are required to be of a quality and detail such that the building official can determine that the work conforms to the code and other applicable laws and regulations.  __*General statements on the documents, such as “all work must comply with the International Building Code,” are not an acceptable substitute for showing the required information.*__  The following subsections and sections in other chapters indicated in the commentary to Section 106.1 specify the detailed information that must be shown on the submitted documents.  When specifically allowed by the building official, documents can be submitted in electronic form._

Although not clearly stated in 106.1.1 as was clearly stated in the SBC I think the bold text is what you are looking for.

You need only to reference the Code Section number or numbers that are not in compliance, give it back to the RDP and tell him to resubmit plans.  When I was a Building Official I heard from many RDP the following; “I do not have enough fee in the job to show these requirements”, “The owner cannot build the building if he has to meet Code” and “No other jurisdiction requires this” and on and on.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 4, 2011)

Examiner said:
			
		

> *General statements on the documents, such as “all work must comply with the International Building Code,” are not an acceptable substitute for showing the required information.*


That is going into my repertoire of comments for sure!  Thanks.



			
				Examiner said:
			
		

> You need only to reference the Code Section number or numbers that are not in compliance, give it back to the RDP and tell him to resubmit plans.  When I was a Building Official I heard from many RDP the following; “I do not have enough fee in the job to show these requirements”, “The owner cannot build the building if he has to meet Code” and “No other jurisdiction requires this” and on and on.


If only I had a dime for every time I have heard one of those...haven't heard an RDP use all three on the same job yet though.  Must be saving that for the day I....


----------



## Mark K (Nov 5, 2011)

I understand the problem with “I do not have enough fee in the job to show these requirements” yet I have heard building officials use lack of enough budget as an excuse to not do things required by the building code.


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 6, 2011)

If a RDP told me the client can't afford to build to code, the permit would be denied and I would seriously consider turning the RDP into the state licensing board.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 6, 2011)

TJacobs

What would you do about the building official that used lack of budget as a reason for not doing what he was obligated to do?


----------



## permitguy (Nov 6, 2011)

I know I'm not Jake, but this is an apples and oranges comparison.  It can be said that both are doing the best they can with what they have, but the similarities stop there.

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread about due dilligence on the part of designers.  We can argue about what due dilligence entails, but few would argue that it isn't necessary.  If an architectural firm is bidding a job, they know they are competing with other firms who want the same job.  A firm needs to understand the effort that will be required to get through the development and construction process and needs to bid the job according to that effort.  The playing field is level for all of them, because they all want the exact same job and all have the same access to perform due dilligence.  Obviously _someone_ is going to get the job.  If another firm routinely outbids them, they need to find out why and either make adjustments or close their doors.

The building official is obligated to carry out the policies of the agency as directed by the executive and the legislature.  The budget is a reflection of those policies.  The building official isn't competing with other building officials to do the same job.  Instead, the building official is competing for the same public dollars with departments who do very different jobs.  The playing field isn't level here because every department has different responsibilities.  The legislature and executive determine which of these responsibilities they value the most when they approve the agency's budget.  Hopefully the building official is successful at influencing the executive and legislature through education; however, if the legislature wants to adopt a building code and not support enforcement of that code with their budget, there isn't much a building official can do about it.


----------



## fireguy (Nov 6, 2011)

Back to the use of red ink by the permit/inspeciton folks, when I am done with a project, I scan the documents into my computer.  Those red ink comments disappear when scanned or copied.  I am then w/o any proof that those docs have been seen and approved by the b/o.


----------



## permitguy (Nov 6, 2011)

I've never had that problem when scanning or copying.  If you're that concerned about having your own proof, I guess you could keep the jobsite set.  The copies in the building department will still exist as well.


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 6, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> TJacobsWhat would you do about the building official that used lack of budget as a reason for not doing what he was obligated to do?


Nothing, because hopefully that's a different jurisdiction and I have my own problems, like no money for code books, travel, vehicles, etc.


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 6, 2011)

fireguy said:
			
		

> Back to the use of red ink by the permit/inspeciton folks, when I am done with a project, I scan the documents into my computer.  Those red ink comments disappear when scanned or copied.  I am then w/o any proof that those docs have been seen and approved by the b/o.


Scan in color...


----------



## Yankee (Nov 6, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> TJacobsWhat would you do about the building official that used lack of budget as a reason for not doing what he was obligated to do?


The building official is "obliged to do" only what he can do given his resources, be it time, money, or knowledge.


----------



## fireguy (Nov 6, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> The building official is "obliged to do" only what he can do given his resources, be it time, money, or knowledge.


Would you accept  that excuse from the project owner or architect or contractor?


----------



## Yankee (Nov 7, 2011)

fireguy said:
			
		

> Would you accept that excuse from the project owner or architect or contractor?


Your mistake is trying to make the two equivalent. they are not. One is a position funded by public moneys and is a "check" on the process that is engaged by the other. It is the project owner who is responsible for meeting the requirements of the LAW. It is not LAW that the citizens fund a department to any extent at all. To the extent that citizens fund an enforcement agency, the department is "obliged" to do what it can with its resources.Your mistake is thinking that both "sides" have equivalent responsibility under the law. Not so.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 7, 2011)

fireguy said:
			
		

> Would you accept that excuse from the project owner or architect or contractor?


No, I would not.

Just as I would hope a BO would report an RDP, Contractor or Owner who makes such a claim, I would also hope that an RDP, Contractor or Owner would be equally capable of reporting a BO's actions should they fall short of their prescribed office.  An excuse is an excuse regardless of who else or how many others make it, and neither of which will abdicate any party from culpability or responsibility.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 7, 2011)

The laws do not run one way.  When the government passes laws they can obligate the government to meet certain standards.  In California the courts have required that prisions meet certain conditions and the courts have not accepted the argument that there is not enough money in the budget.  What is the governments responsibility if the law requires the building official perform certain inspections before work can proceed but the building department did not have the funds to perform the inspections?

While the citizens have legal obligations they also have rights.  Governmental agencies are not allowed to ignore the rights of the citizens because it is inconvienient.


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 7, 2011)

There are many unfunded laws on the books on all levels of government from local counties all the way up to the federal behemoth we now have. It is the hallmark of today’s partisan political conundrum.

Sheesh lets not bring the fight to this forumtopic.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 7, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> While the citizens have legal obligations they also have rights.  Governmental agencies are not allowed to ignore the rights of the citizens because it is inconvienient.


I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that a citizen has the right to have every aspect of their project inspected and reviewed by a governmental agency, let alone making a claim that a minimal or reduced governmental agency budget is an equivalent to justify the private sector budget model.  That is a long and slippery road, and I would prefer this thread stayed on topic.

I can understand you may have some frustrations with governmental agencies, but I assure you, there are other forums or threads in which to make those assertions, or state those claims.   To actually delineate the differences between an RDP/Owner's budget-project model, and a governmental agencies budget model, is a bit more off-topic than a simple discussion of common excuses given by RDPs for incomplete plan submittals.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 7, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that a citizen has the right to have every aspect of their project inspected and reviewed by a governmental agency, let alone making a claim that a minimal or reduced governmental agency budget is an equivalent to justify the private sector budget model.  That is a long and slippery road, and I would prefer this thread stayed on topic.  I can understand you may have some frustrations with governmental agencies, but I assure you, there are other forums or threads in which to make those assertions, or state those claims.   To actually delineate the differences between an RDP/Owner's budget-project model, and a governmental agencies budget model, is a bit more off-topic than a simple discussion of common excuses given by RDPs for incomplete plan submittals.


I think what he was saying is that if there is legislation for a certain level of service, then that service must be provided. In my jurisdiction we have mandatory inspections on small scale construction at certain levels. It is important to note that the contractor is required to request them and the BO is required to preform them.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 7, 2011)

Do not disagree that the Owner has an obligation to comply with the building code.

I am not expecting that the building department thoroughly inspect everything.  I realize that the courts are generally forgiving of governmental agencies failing to do their job.

I am not talking about budget models.  We are not talking about unfunded mandates

I am simply stating that when regulations are adopted they can give the applicants rights.  Why is this concept pushing buttons?


----------



## Yankee (Nov 7, 2011)

tmurray said:
			
		

> I think what he was saying is that if there is legislation for a certain level of service, then that service must be provided. In my jurisdiction we have mandatory inspections on small scale construction at certain levels. It is important to note that the contractor is required to request them and the BO is required to preform them.


What you describe sounds like a local ordinance for inspections and that is fine, as it is the local citizens that are setting the bar and funding the inspections, both. We are not describing that scenario.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 7, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Do not disagree that the Owner has an obligation to comply with the building code.I am not expecting that the building department thoroughly inspect everything.  I realize that the courts are generally forgiving of governmental agencies failing to do their job.
> 
> I am not talking about budget models.  We are not talking about unfunded mandates
> 
> I am simply stating that when regulations are adopted they can give the applicants rights.  Why is this concept pushing buttons?


Give one example of where an applicant has a right to an inspection or even review that has been upheld by a court.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 7, 2011)

110.3 Required inspections.

The building official , upon notification, shall make the inspections set forth in Sections 110.3.1 through 110.3.10.

On average that is about 6. I think that is well within every departments budget.

The other inspections each AHJ may require need to be evaluated especially as it relates to the limited budgets/revenues. Examples would include, foundation drains, windows flashing, ice & water shield, and dozens of others i read about on this board that I wonder why are they being done.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 7, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Do not disagree that the Owner has an obligation to comply with the building code.I am not expecting that the building department thoroughly inspect everything.  I realize that the courts are generally forgiving of governmental agencies failing to do their job.
> 
> I am not talking about budget models.  We are not talking about unfunded mandates
> 
> I am simply stating that when regulations are adopted they can give the applicants rights.  Why is this concept pushing buttons?


Generally speaking, the adoption of building ordinances don't give applicants "rights". Such ordinances fall under the Public Duty Doctrine, which case law has, time and time again, shown to be an affirmative defense to jurisdictions. The Public Duty Doctrine states that the municipality has an obligation to the public, and not to any specific individual.  Just as the Police cannot be sued for not giving every speeder a ticket, neither is the building department, while acting in good faith, liable for missing items on an inspection.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 7, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 110.3 Required inspections.The building official , upon notification, shall make the inspections set forth in Sections 110.3.1 through 110.3.10.
> 
> On average that is about 6. I think that is well within every departments budget.
> 
> The other inspections each AHJ may require need to be evaluated especially as it relates to the limited budgets/revenues. Examples would include, foundation drains, windows flashing, ice & water shield, and dozens of others i read about on this board that I wonder why are they being done.


You need to separate what is written in the building code from what is (said to be) required under each jurisdiction's LAWS.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 7, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, the adoption of building ordinances don't give applicants "rights". Such ordinances fall under the Public Duty Doctrine, which case law has, time and time again, shown to be an affirmative defense to jurisdictions. The Public Duty Doctrine states that the municipality has an obligation to the public, and not to any specific individual.  Just as the Police cannot be sued for not giving every speeder a ticket, neither is the building department, while acting in good faith, liable for missing items on an inspection.


And the very good reason for that is that jurisdictions would never be able to fund, from tax dollars, the conceivable financial liability that would be ordered if they were "responsible" in a court of law. And it would even become impossible to fund, from tax dollars, liability insurance.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 7, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> I realize that the courts are generally forgiving of governmental agencies failing to do their job.


Granted, it may not be what you said, but how you said it.  Moving back on topic...



			
				Mark K said:
			
		

> I am simply stating that when regulations are adopted they can give the applicants rights.  Why is this concept pushing buttons?


Please forgive me if I misconstrued your statement.  I don't dispute that the local adoption of regulations can give applicants and citizens additional rights, but I am at a loss as to how that pertains to the discussion of plan submittals.  If  there is indeed a correlation between an adopted regulations/applicants rights and minimum plan submittal requirements, I am all ears and no buttons.

Maybe we should start over with a re-wording of your question:

_What is the governments responsibility if the law requires the building official to perform a __*plan review*__ before work can proceed but the building department did not have the funds to perform the __*plan review*__?_

The building official is to perform a plan review as required by the law.  The mandate of that law may vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  How should we continue this discussion in your view? (This is a sincere question)


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 7, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The other inspections each AHJ may require need to be evaluated especially as it relates to the limited budgets/revenues. Examples would include, foundation drains, windows flashing, ice & water shield, and dozens of others i read about on this board that I wonder why are they being done.


I would be willing to bet that most of the inspections like those you mention are simply observations made during one of the required inspections. Just because your out there for a framing doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that there is no foundation drain in a hole that you see being backfilled.


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 7, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Granted, it may not be what you said, but how you said it.  Moving back on topic..._What is the governments responsibility if the law requires the building official to perform a __*plan review*__ before work can proceed but the building department did not have the funds to perform the __*plan review*__?_
> 
> The building official is to perform a plan review as required by the law.  The mandate of that law may vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  How should we continue this discussion in your view? (This is a sincere question)


Subsection 107.3 Examination of documents– ‘The building official shall examine or cause to be examined’ is amended by adding the words ‘at no expense to the jurisdiction’ …


----------



## righter101 (Nov 7, 2011)

Isn't someone going to blame George Bush for all of this?


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 7, 2011)

Senior did puke in japan, and junior did inact no child left behind...

No not their fault that we have a whole lot more gov now than ever before. It is all of our fault for letting it happen.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 7, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Senior did puke in japan, and junior did inact no child left behind...No not their fault that we have a whole lot more gov now than ever before. It is all of our fault for letting it happen.


I am as much to blame as anybody...I voted, hanging chad or not, and am responsible for my part, but not sure why.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 7, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Subsection 107.3 Examination of documents– ‘The building official shall examine or cause to be examined’ is amended by adding the words ‘at no expense to the jurisdiction’ …


Okay...first things first, the sam part of your closing reminds me of quantum leap.

106.1 Submittal documents....Exception: 'The building official is authorized to waive the submission of construction documents...if it is found that the nature of the work appied for is such that review of construction documents is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code.'


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 8, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Okay...first things first, the sam part of your closing reminds me of quantum leap.


Good showopcorn. He should have never went to Enterprise, just didn't work for the guy.

We have in our area a few small incorporated areas that do not have the man power or resources to review a large set of plans. They sub the work out, and let the applicant pay for it.

I guess my point is that a small budget is no reason for an AHJ to just let plans slip through with out review.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 8, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Good showopcorn. He should have never went to Enterprise, just didn't work for the guy.We have in our area a few small incorporated areas that do not have the man power or resources to review a large set of plans. They sub the work out, and let the applicant pay for it.
> 
> I guess my point is that a small budget is no reason for an AHJ to just let plans slip through with out review.


I sure agreee with that and there needs to be the political will to allow the BO to require the applicant pay for a review if that is what's nessesary to get it done. But, this is the real world and often enough the business interests have enough clout to put the BO on the skids. So there is a fine wire to walk, , , always.


----------

