# Exception to IBC106.1 -Submittal documents



## Code Neophyte (Dec 29, 2010)

I know this will elicit a wide range of responses, based on location and size of jurisdiction, political support, etc.

The exception to 106.1 allows the building official to waive the submission of construction documents "if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of the construction documents is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code"

Under what circumstances would you be inclined to waive the submission of documents requirements?

In a shell space build-out with an OL < 30 and no changes to egress doors - only a few partition walls (no corridors, etc.)?

My understanding of our state's licensing statute is that _if_ drawings are prepared, they must be prepared by a RDP.  But if no drawings are required by the AHJ under the exception to 106.1, then it is not required that an RDP prepare plans?

Any input from the Land of Lincoln would be especially appreciated!

Happy New Year, fellow code wonks!!!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 29, 2010)

Just had one where a 1200 sq ft strip store tenant space changed tenants. Cell phone sale to vitamins. Exiting, restrooms, emergency illumination, storage rooms all remained the same, Slat wall and some counters where installed. He had a floor plan showing his merchandising pad layout, Issued permit did a final CO inspection. Pretty simple.


----------



## High Desert (Dec 29, 2010)

Fire repair for 1&2 family dwelling.


----------



## High Desert (Dec 29, 2010)

Sorry, I meant to add only if you regulate 1&2 from the IBC.


----------



## khsmith55 (Dec 29, 2010)

I can’t understand why you would even want to put yourself in a position not to require construction documents to “circumvent” registration statutes. Who will be “designing” the space to comply with the codes, you will by virtue of the additional questions that will be asked of you. Will you be designing all the accessibility elements of the building and taking responsibility for any design work. How is your successor or the attorneys going to know what was built if there are no prepared/reviewed documents in your files? What will be your answer as to why you did not require submittals......oh, I just wanted to “circumvent” registration statutes. I would think REQUIRING construction documents would save your office time and liability. Check with your legal council for further direction.


----------



## khsmith55 (Dec 29, 2010)

I can’t understand why you would even want to put yourself in a position not to require construction documents to “circumvent” registration statutes. Who will be “designing” the space to comply with the codes, you will by virtue of the additional questions that will be asked of you. Will you be designing all the accessibility elements of the building and taking responsibility for any design work. How is your successor or the attorneys going to know what was built if there are no prepared/reviewed documents in your files? What will be your answer as to why you did not require submittals......oh, I just wanted to “circumvent” registration statutes. I would think REQUIRING construction documents would save your office time and liability. Check with your legal council for further direction.


----------



## khsmith55 (Dec 29, 2010)

Oops, I apologize to the board, I didn’t mean to post my reply twice. Sorry.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Dec 30, 2010)

Khsmith,

I appreciate your position on this, and by and large, don't disagree.  To play devil's advocate (sort of):

   1.  I am not "circumventing" registration statutes, I am operating within my latitude as an AHJ under the exceptions to the statute, which identify only "structural" and "life safety" changes in renovation as being requirements for design by an RDP.

   2.  Accessibility is not included in the statute's definition of "non-exempt".

   3.  If the permit application contains a statement that the applicant assumes responsibility for compliance with the applicable codes, then they are "taking responsibility for any design work" - not me.

   4.  I explain that, absent plans, there is the very real possibility - or even probability - that in the course of our inspections we will identify work that is not in compliance, and those elements will have to be removed or modified in such a way as to be compliant.  In other words, "the hard way".

But under the exceptions in the IBC, as well as in the statute, in these smaller projects, I would tend to give the applicant the option of paying now (for design) or paying later (correction orders, delays, etc.).

In my example above, the tenant remodel (around 2,700 s.f.) is a change of occupancy without a change of use (B to B).  No changes to exits, no corridors, OL<30, no modification to fire-resistive separation, no structural changes, etc.  They are adding one, accessible restroom, and of course there will be other accessibility concerns (door widths, approaches, maneuvering, counter, etc.).  So am I way beyond the intent of the "exception" in not requiring plans?


----------



## Frank (Dec 30, 2010)

Reroofing

Window replacements

Nonstructural fire/water damage repair


----------



## TJacobs (Dec 30, 2010)

The accessibility concerns are why I require plans for just the kind of job you are talking about, especially when adding toilet rooms.

I also do what mtlogcabin said when they are "doing nothing."


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 30, 2010)

khsmith55 said:
			
		

> I can’t understand why you would even want to put yourself in a position not to require construction documents to “circumvent” registration statutes. Who will be “designing” the space to comply with the codes, you will by virtue of the additional questions that will be asked of you. Will you be designing all the accessibility elements of the building and taking responsibility for any design work. How is your successor or the attorneys going to know what was built if there are no prepared/reviewed documents in your files? What will be your answer as to why you did not require submittals......oh, I just wanted to “circumvent” registration statutes. I would think REQUIRING construction documents would save your office time and liability. Check with your legal council for further direction.


"if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of the construction documents is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code"

To avoid unneccesary bureaucracy, and to allow a competent individual to design their own project to save time and money. And yes, this generally requires us to answer building code questions (serve the public).

We do not require anything pertaining to the structure beyond a floorplan for one and two-family. Any commercial project exceeding $75,000 requires a stamp.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 2, 2011)

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> I am not "circumventing" registration statutes, I am operating within my latitude as an AHJ under the exceptions to the statute, which identify only "structural" and "life safety" changes in renovation as being requirements for design by an RDP.


Partition changes affect egress and therefore life safety.


----------



## steveray (Jan 3, 2011)

Exactly Brudgers.....and once they have those plans and code data...it makes the next (and maybe more complicated project) that much easier!  Unless you get a RDP that will stamp a ****tail napkin and a BO who will approve it...then everyones time just got wasted...


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 4, 2011)

I would not require stamps on the project described. I tend to look for any means possible to NOT require stamps.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 4, 2011)

It would depend on the exact plan you are looking at. Partition walls might effect fire supression elements, egress elements as noted, interior finish elements, accessible elements etc etc.

I HAVE  used that section and approve very minor projects, very carefully.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jan 4, 2011)

Seattle has a defined process known as STFI (Subject to Field Inspection (Stiffies)) which establishes the amount of work that can be performed without plan review and is subject to field inspection only.

http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/cam316.pdf


----------



## Code Neophyte (Jan 4, 2011)

Immensely helpful link!  Thanks, Coug Dad.  I'll have to see how that squares with our state laws, but that describes the distinction very well!!


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 4, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Seattle has a defined process known as STFI (Subject to Field Inspection (Stiffies)) which establishes the amount of work that can be performed without plan review and is subject to field inspection only.http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/cam316.pdf


Great idea. Thanks for providing the link.


----------



## peach (Jan 4, 2011)

cabinet and countertop replacement, adding 2 receptacles (to come up to code)..  moving one non bearing wall... relocating shelving, etc.. can all be handled effectively (more effectively) by the field inspector.  IMHO


----------



## mn joe (Jan 4, 2011)

Peach (and others)

Do you require a permit for cabinet and countertop replacement and relocating shelving as mentioned in your reply?

If so, why?

Joe


----------



## Yankee (Jan 4, 2011)

mn joe said:
			
		

> Peach (and others)Do you require a permit for cabinet and countertop replacement and relocating shelving as mentioned in your reply?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> Joe


I have had one bookstore relocate shelving and void the travel distance to an exit. Moving one non-bearing partition wall can have the same effect. My state requires changes in egress to be submitted by a licensed professional.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 4, 2011)

Min&Max said:
			
		

> I would not require stamps on the project described. I tend to look for any means possible to NOT require stamps.


State laws vary. So long as you are in compliance with yours when issuing permits, that's fine.


----------



## incognito (Jan 5, 2011)

I have found myself gravitating towards Min&Max approach. Like brudgers commented you have to stay within your state guidelines but minimizing the contractors need to get stamps is resulting in a much better working relationship with them. If a plan needs corrections it is much easier and faster to get the contractor to fix it than argue with some DA design professional who's main interest is adding cost to the project in order to bump his salary.


----------



## peach (Jan 5, 2011)

Shelving is furnishings.. that's why the field inspector should make the call.. for countertops, cabinets, etc.. its generally exempted from permits.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 5, 2011)

incognito said:
			
		

> I have found myself gravitating towards Min&Max approach. Like brudgers commented you have to stay within your state guidelines but minimizing the contractors need to get stamps is resulting in a much better working relationship with them. If a plan needs corrections it is much easier and faster to get the contractor to fix it than argue with some DA design professional who's main interest is adding cost to the project in order to bump his salary.


Architects are licensed to protect the public as are Engineers.

For a code official, having poor relations with them indicates a lack of professionalism.


----------



## incognito (Jan 6, 2011)

Brudgers,

You would think their main concern would be to protect the public since what they are licensed to do. So I would have to whole-heartedly agree that the vast majority do lack any semblance of professionalism since it appears their main goal is to fatten their bank accounts by inflating project costs with unnecessary "fluff" and promoting the passing of laws that make their services required for projects that are insignificant in scope.

The most frustrating thing is that architects are the most difficult to deal with and they are little more than glorified interior designers. It is the engineers that are carrying the majority of the "weight".


----------



## brudgers (Jan 6, 2011)

incognito said:
			
		

> Brudgers,You would think their main concern would be to protect the public since what they are licensed to do. So I would have to whole-heartedly agree that the vast majority do lack any semblance of professionalism since it appears their main goal is to fatten their bank accounts by inflating project costs with unnecessary "fluff" and promoting the passing of laws that make their services required for projects that are insignificant in scope.
> 
> The most frustrating thing is that architects are the most difficult to deal with and they are little more than glorified interior designers. It is the engineers that are carrying the majority of the "weight".


Yeah just like code officials all solicit bribes.


----------



## incognito (Jan 7, 2011)

I do not know of any code official that has ever solicited a bribe. Can't imagine that an owner/contractor/architect would actually pay enough of a bribe to make it worthwhile to the code official. I have had contractors and architects jokingly ask how much it would take if they could build as designed. My response has always been "at least 1.5 million since it will be difficult to find a job once we all get out of jail".


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Architects are licensed to protect the public as are Engineers.For a code official, having poor relations with them indicates a lack of professionalism.


Having poor relationships with any "sector" indicates a lack of professionalism. The few architects I have known have a underlying passion for the lines of a building, followed by a good business sense to may their profession pay, followed by varying degrees of tolerance for construction budgeting and gravity.


----------



## peach (Jan 8, 2011)

incognito said:
			
		

> I do not know of any code official that has ever solicited a bribe. Can't imagine that an owner/contractor/architect would actually pay enough of a bribe to make it worthwhile to the code official. I have had contractors and architects jokingly ask how much it would take if they could build as designed. My response has always been "at least 1.5 million since it will be difficult to find a job once we all get out of jail".


for me it would have to be steamer *trunks* full of unmarked, old $50's (just kidding... my opinion is not for sale).  The jurisdiction where I work has a long history of bribe taking.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jan 8, 2011)

I think most who do use the "Building Official's Options" to lessen or ease code requirements, come under the following;

1. Lazy (it's easier)

2. Incompetent (Have little or no code knowledge)

3. Political pressure (AHJ Council/Administrator requirement to retain employment)

4. Greed (bribery)

I did an internet search; and was going to post links of Building Officials and/or Inspectors found guilty of taking bribes; but, they were too numerous. When considering bribery, you might keep in mind that only a small number are actually caught and found guilty.

In some specific, large cities like Chicago and New York; taking bribes is a job requirement; not an option.

I think of all the above; that incompetence and political pressure are most prevalent.

ps. The word incompetent is not an insult; it describes a persons lack of knowledge, experience and/or qualifications.

Uncle Bob


----------



## peach (Jan 8, 2011)

I agree UB... incompetent doesn't mean we are stupid.. it means we don't know what we don't know..  (which is where experience really comes in.. I can read code books all day and pass tests all day.. doesn't mean I'm necessary competent).


----------



## brudgers (Jan 8, 2011)

Just for the record, I was just offering an equally ridiculous characterization of code officials to the one made about architects.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 8, 2011)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> I think most who do use the "Building Official's Options" to lessen or ease code requirements, come under the following;1. Lazy (it's easier)
> 
> 2. Incompetent (Have little or no code knowledge)
> 
> ...


There is no "Building Official's Options" to lessen or ease requirements.

There is the option of approving an equivalent method of compliance and I can tell you that coming to that decision takes a hell of a lot more knowledge and performance than approving something written verbatim in the code, and those situations aren't decided lightly.


----------



## peach (Jan 9, 2011)

Oh, Dear Yankee,

You haven't had the political pressures applied yet, have you?

Approving an alternate method is always tough.. pretty much everything in IBC chapter 4 was originally an "alternate method", because there were no code provisions to approve things like atria.

my 2 cents


----------



## Yankee (Jan 9, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> Oh, Dear Yankee,You haven't had the political pressures applied yet, have you?
> 
> Approving an alternate method is always tough.. pretty much everything in IBC chapter 4 was originally an "alternate method", because there were no code provisions to approve things like atria.
> 
> my 2 cents


I have. Like UB, decline to sign an app. Haven't gotten fired yet though (probably a matter of time). As I said, my Board of Selectmen consider building codes "guidelines", so there is pressure , , , always, and every customer that walks into my office is a potential time-bomb.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jan 9, 2011)

Yankee,

Sorry my statement was not more clear.

You stated; " There is no "Building Official's Options" to lessen or ease requirements. "

After reading this sentence; it looks like I meant that Building Officials were given the authority to lessen or ease code requirements.

However, what I stated was;

" I think most who do use the "Building Official's Options" to lessen or ease requirements, come under the following "

Obviously my statement was poorly written; which enabled you to rewrite it and give the sentence a different meaning than what I intended.

So I'll break it down;and explain just what I meant to convey:

First, there are "Building official's Options"; Code Neophite's example:

" The exception to 106.1 allows the building official to waive the submission of construction documents "if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of the construction documents is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code "

Many Building Officials use this to waive the requirement for submitting plans; where the State does not require plans prepared by a Registered Design Professional. Unfortunately they completely ignore;

" if it is found that that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of construction documents is no neccessary to obtain compliance with this code. "

Many Building Officials use their authority to envoke this "Option" to not require plans; for some of the reasons I have already listed; lazy, incompetent, etc..

My statement was not meant to imply that the codes give Building Officials the option (authority) to lessen the code requirements; but, that many Building Officials use the "authorized options afforded them by the codes" to lessen the code requirements; and they are wrong when doing this.

Hope this helps,

Uncle Bob


----------

