jar546
CBO
Who said it was the Building Department's responsibility to determine how the work gets divided up?
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Soils Reports
- Thread starter Keystone
- Start date
jar546
CBO
I don't see where Genduct's posts stated that. The clear majority of Building Departments work within the limitations of their powers. Many are just to lazy to do more than what they have to.
Genduct
REGISTERED
Mark, you really dig in your heels!
It is Sgt Mike , don't let the Gen Duct fool you into believing I am a General Officer.
I think my point is we need to be a bit more Proactive with the smaller jobs.
In fact I asked you if you use a different approach to the bigger vs the smaller projects.
And our responsibility is to make sure the smaller jobs are going to be done SAFELY
I find that I don't have to "Pull Rank" to gently but firmly remind the Permit Applicant that certain info needs to be addressed so we can do our job.
This is usually done by sharing with the Applicant WHY WE BOTH NEED TO KNOW
I never said "because I said so!"
That being said, please understand I also know what is important enough to insist on, vs not essential. I don't insist on Best Practices or make people do things like I
would do them. That is not our job. Our job is to review and Approve their plan to verify they meet the MINIMUM Safety requirements.
Not sure what I said that would lead to believe otherwise.
I understand that many are reluctant to ask because I am sure we both agree we are the Plan Reviewer and NOT the Design Professional.
I appreciate you may think I crossed that double yellow line and are headed for a head-on collusion. You are entitled to your opinion
I really enjoy an honest exchange of views. This forum is a good example of what our Political system should be like
Best, Mike B
jar546
CBO
This thread is really drifting. Hopefully ICE will move his post to where it belongs?
It's just after 4:00 AM here in the great state of California.
Last edited:
jar546
CBO
Yikes
SAWHORSE
A lot of this thread morphed into "how can you require something that the code itself does not require?"
But specific to the original question, all the way back in post #14 the international residential code states the conditions under which a plan checker CAN require a geotechnical report, so the question of authority is already resolved.
Let’s wrap it up and put a bow on it.
But specific to the original question, all the way back in post #14 the international residential code states the conditions under which a plan checker CAN require a geotechnical report, so the question of authority is already resolved.
Let’s wrap it up and put a bow on it.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
Oh, please don't bring up that the code requires an engineer. You're just teeing up Mark K to pull out his old "the code cannot stipulate when engineers are required, it is up to state law" soap box again.
jar546
CBO
107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by Chapter 471, Florida Statutes & 61G15 Florida Administrative Code or Chapter 481, Florida Statutes & 61G1 Florida Administrative Code. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.
Is this thread over yet?
Is this thread over yet?
Did you get a song out of fatboy?