hi all, i'm at the end of a rope here and was hoping for some advice on how to help my mother's church.
here's the scene. 1920's church in PA added a classroom wing in the early '64 by a large greater pittsburgh
architectural firm which has since been dissolved. i have "some" of the original drawings that they
saved and quite a nice level of detail for the age. anyhow, the church has
maintained their building very well considering the age and now they would like to start using a few of the
existing classrooms for a daycare facility run by the church. years ago, a third party ran a daycare out of the
church but left to their own facility. So, it's pretty simple though, PA requires any new daycare facility these days
to provide them with a copy of the existing building's occupancy permit.......... here's where it gets interesting.
the drawings i have are not provided with the cover where typically the Department of Labor and Industry stamped/approved
and issued the occupancy permit number. so, I went to the local archives and found no record, I went to the
state and found no record, I called our congressman to send his hounds to do some research and they found no record
of this building in the plans, on their computer backups, or in the microfilms. Nothing, and i mean not just the 60's
classroom addition, but also the entire church building does not exist in their records. the plot thickens!
the local building official will not accept the original drawings without the original occupancy permit. he's calling the
building an "uncertified structure" and requiring "new" drawings with an architect's seal making it an acceptable submission(per code).
he's provided me copies of the code, in particular, Chapter 13 of 2009 IEBC for "performance compliance" to determine
if the building is up to code (or 3412 IBC). i've read it multiple times. this allows the building to comply per 105 Compliance
method, andby reference(from the CO) 105.3 Performance Compliance section.....links to chapter 13
my reading of Ch 13 brings up this, a conflict between CH13's Change of Occupancy "classification" and reading CH9's definition and distinction
between (Change of Occupancy without a change in occupancy "classification and just plain old change of occupancy classification).....since I am
in the former category, i would stop and determine i'm in compliance determined by sections 1301.2 Applicability(and no further) and 901 through 911
as Chapter 901.2 states, a Change of Occupancy without a change in occupancy "classification?"........this to me makes the performance
of requirements of chapter 1301.2.1 and beyond above and beyond the intent of the IEBC where no change in occupancy "classification" happens.
Chapter 901-911 are, in my opinion, N/A to this project and most of all, extrememly difficult to show on a set of drawings without just
regurgitating line of code text and stating the obvious N/A there(totaly could be done in a letter, tried it, denied). he comes the next wrinkle.....
the Code officer is again requiring a set of drawings as this is still a code submission. "ya know, it's the code," well here i am knowing full well that
the only thing they want is a signed sealed set of drawing that show absolutely nothing is changing and as far as i can tell, nothing is required.
sound familiar? so this is rubbing me the wrong way for some reason so i called the Department of State legal representative to ask if," drawing
and signing and sealing a set of drawings for an existing building that i did not have first hand involvement in the design and production
of the original building..... and where no changes are to be made. I asked, would this be illegal, because it sounds questionable. his response,
"yes according to the licensure law section 12 "Seal of an Architect"..... he continued by making things worse by stating, "your seal on a drawing
represents your responsibility for all the drawing represents," and ," reflects all codes and code issues (at that date of seal/signing)and
assumes thorough and complete review and approval of all aspects of the area of the building being sealed.".............. now that's a doosie!
the head of the legal team at the Department of State is saying that it's illegal under penalty of losing my license for me to draft/sign/seal
a set of existing conditions drawings that shows no changes that i can determine to an existing building that is changing nothing, though i
have a Code Official demanding that i do something according to code that violates this licensure law.
anyone experience'd this? is the term " uncertified structure" creating this even though the CO has walked through the space and
knows and accepts the existing occupancy is E and the new occupancy is E? can the CO accept this in a letter in your opinions?(i feel it's a no brainer),
if the code differentiates between "change of occupancy without change of occupancy classification" and "change of occupancy with change
of classification" and these two are of different levels of importance, am i reading it right that i'm in the lesser of the two?
and if so, can the CO wave the drawing requirement? (if he doesn't, he's gonna get a drawing that everyone hates which states existing
on everything, and no work done, no change and essentially no detail....etc. except i the architect am accepting all responsibility/liability of this existing
building full on knowing i'm breaking the law in doing so)
is the code official being a bit over the top, i see his ability to just issue the occupancy permit since the code copies he has supplied me basically
eliminate my necessity of being involved in this NON-project in the first place....am i so wrong?
but my super big question is.....now that the local CO knows, and the Township knows, and the state knows the following......"this building is being occupied without
a certificate of occupancy, why haven't they shut down the Church all together?" sure sounds like the building officials are willing to wave the law when they want to.
sorry for being so winded, but i feel like a dog chasing his tail.
thanks in advance
ggmarch
here's the scene. 1920's church in PA added a classroom wing in the early '64 by a large greater pittsburgh
architectural firm which has since been dissolved. i have "some" of the original drawings that they
saved and quite a nice level of detail for the age. anyhow, the church has
maintained their building very well considering the age and now they would like to start using a few of the
existing classrooms for a daycare facility run by the church. years ago, a third party ran a daycare out of the
church but left to their own facility. So, it's pretty simple though, PA requires any new daycare facility these days
to provide them with a copy of the existing building's occupancy permit.......... here's where it gets interesting.
the drawings i have are not provided with the cover where typically the Department of Labor and Industry stamped/approved
and issued the occupancy permit number. so, I went to the local archives and found no record, I went to the
state and found no record, I called our congressman to send his hounds to do some research and they found no record
of this building in the plans, on their computer backups, or in the microfilms. Nothing, and i mean not just the 60's
classroom addition, but also the entire church building does not exist in their records. the plot thickens!
the local building official will not accept the original drawings without the original occupancy permit. he's calling the
building an "uncertified structure" and requiring "new" drawings with an architect's seal making it an acceptable submission(per code).
he's provided me copies of the code, in particular, Chapter 13 of 2009 IEBC for "performance compliance" to determine
if the building is up to code (or 3412 IBC). i've read it multiple times. this allows the building to comply per 105 Compliance
method, andby reference(from the CO) 105.3 Performance Compliance section.....links to chapter 13
my reading of Ch 13 brings up this, a conflict between CH13's Change of Occupancy "classification" and reading CH9's definition and distinction
between (Change of Occupancy without a change in occupancy "classification and just plain old change of occupancy classification).....since I am
in the former category, i would stop and determine i'm in compliance determined by sections 1301.2 Applicability(and no further) and 901 through 911
as Chapter 901.2 states, a Change of Occupancy without a change in occupancy "classification?"........this to me makes the performance
of requirements of chapter 1301.2.1 and beyond above and beyond the intent of the IEBC where no change in occupancy "classification" happens.
Chapter 901-911 are, in my opinion, N/A to this project and most of all, extrememly difficult to show on a set of drawings without just
regurgitating line of code text and stating the obvious N/A there(totaly could be done in a letter, tried it, denied). he comes the next wrinkle.....
the Code officer is again requiring a set of drawings as this is still a code submission. "ya know, it's the code," well here i am knowing full well that
the only thing they want is a signed sealed set of drawing that show absolutely nothing is changing and as far as i can tell, nothing is required.
sound familiar? so this is rubbing me the wrong way for some reason so i called the Department of State legal representative to ask if," drawing
and signing and sealing a set of drawings for an existing building that i did not have first hand involvement in the design and production
of the original building..... and where no changes are to be made. I asked, would this be illegal, because it sounds questionable. his response,
"yes according to the licensure law section 12 "Seal of an Architect"..... he continued by making things worse by stating, "your seal on a drawing
represents your responsibility for all the drawing represents," and ," reflects all codes and code issues (at that date of seal/signing)and
assumes thorough and complete review and approval of all aspects of the area of the building being sealed.".............. now that's a doosie!
the head of the legal team at the Department of State is saying that it's illegal under penalty of losing my license for me to draft/sign/seal
a set of existing conditions drawings that shows no changes that i can determine to an existing building that is changing nothing, though i
have a Code Official demanding that i do something according to code that violates this licensure law.
anyone experience'd this? is the term " uncertified structure" creating this even though the CO has walked through the space and
knows and accepts the existing occupancy is E and the new occupancy is E? can the CO accept this in a letter in your opinions?(i feel it's a no brainer),
if the code differentiates between "change of occupancy without change of occupancy classification" and "change of occupancy with change
of classification" and these two are of different levels of importance, am i reading it right that i'm in the lesser of the two?
and if so, can the CO wave the drawing requirement? (if he doesn't, he's gonna get a drawing that everyone hates which states existing
on everything, and no work done, no change and essentially no detail....etc. except i the architect am accepting all responsibility/liability of this existing
building full on knowing i'm breaking the law in doing so)
is the code official being a bit over the top, i see his ability to just issue the occupancy permit since the code copies he has supplied me basically
eliminate my necessity of being involved in this NON-project in the first place....am i so wrong?
but my super big question is.....now that the local CO knows, and the Township knows, and the state knows the following......"this building is being occupied without
a certificate of occupancy, why haven't they shut down the Church all together?" sure sounds like the building officials are willing to wave the law when they want to.
sorry for being so winded, but i feel like a dog chasing his tail.
thanks in advance
ggmarch
