A History of Code Compliance Abuse : Case in Point - Riverwalk Saloon, Lehighton, PA

[jar546]

Years ago, my third-party agency was given a set of plans to convert an apartment house into a bar and restaurant. The plans involved major structural changes and, of course, change of use, so under the IEBC, this is a Level 3 AND Change of Use and Occupancy. The plans submitted were hand-drawn but signed by an engineer I had previously worked with. There were no MEP drawings, no accessibility, and no Life Safety, just hand-drawn concept drawings. I was completely shocked by the amateur and unprofessional level of drawings, so I contacted the engineer directly. He had nothing to say. I asked him why he would do such a thing and if he drew them himself, and he had no answer for stamping them but stated he did not draw them. I was honest and told him I was disappointed. At this point, we spent a lot of time on the plan review and sent out the very lengthy discrepancy report. We never received a reply, ever.

I drove by this location frequently to go scuba diving at Dutch Springs and watched the construction start and complete over the next few months. When I contacted the BCO about why we did not hear back, he stated that the owner did not like my plan review, so we sent it to another third-party agency that just approved it as submitted. This is the tip of the iceberg in Pennsylvania's poor attempt at a state-wide building code and a BCO with zero integrity.

 

[ICE]

Shirley, they went the wrong way....and apparently they are proud of that.

 

[ICE]

There are reasons for not obtaining a permit. My yard used to slope towards the street. It was grass and rabbit turds. More turds than grass. The city offered to pay me to remove the water hungry turf. So I got a building permit and built a retaining wall. The inspector came for the footing inspection while I was cleaning out the excavation with a ShopVac. He said that he's never seen anyone so meticulous with a footing and therefor he didn't bother to look at anything. He signed the card and away he went.

He returned several days later and crossed his name off the job card. He said that the wall shall be set back two feet. I showed him the approved plan that has the wall right where it is. I had the first few courses of CMUs in place and this inspector is telling me to start over. I called the BO and explained they had a shot at it and missed the target. He said that he would let it stand if I grew Ivy on the face of the wall. As you can see, I declined.

For a few hundred dollars and my time I had a dolt show up and waive the inspection. Since then I have replaced both HVAC systems, french doors with sliders, overhauled two balconies and a repipe without asking the city to be a part of it.

The point of the story is that code compliance abuse works both ways. I have seen the light. Okay I admit that I am not the typical civilian that should rely on a code professional to evaluate the result....but those civilians are just getting screwed...twice.




2024 update: 53 windows and four sliders. Anlin windows. Tan not white. LowE4, tempered for the high fire zone, with half the house tinted. The contractor has done four houses for my extended family. Never mentioned permits.

I compared Anlin windows with several major brands. For nearly the same price, Anlin uses 3/16" thick glass for the inside pane. The difference it made with the sound level is remarkable. I went with LowE4 as opposed to the code required LowE3 mainly for the darker shade from the exterior as the additional energy savings is slim.

Can you see the cougar in the background... upper left...... no, me neither.

 

[jar546]

Without going off-topic, owners have a duty to ensure they have a complete understanding of setbacks and the rules and regulations before they start work. Not everything goes through planning and zoning which, in many cases, is a separate department. All of this information is online and available to the public.

 

[bill1952]

owners have a duty to ensure they have a complete understanding of setbacks and the rules and regulations

Yes its out of context but really? I suspect not 10% of homeowners know these things. If you are required to submit a plan to a building department I don't think it is unreasonable to expect them to review it and note if something doesn't comply. Especially if they approved the footing excavation.

 

[ICE]

Without going off-topic, owners have a duty to ensure they have a complete understanding of setbacks and the rules and regulations before they start work. Not everything goes through planning and zoning which, in many cases, is a separate department. All of this information is online and available to the public.

The contractor did it all by the book….I even paid for his city business license.

 

[ICE]

Compare the devastation that befell the nation of Turkey with the results here in California. Many of the buildings resemble what we build in appearance and design but a lack of code enforcement left them collapsed.

 

[tbz]

Jar,

Yes, it is coming up on 20 years since PA enacted adopting a statewide building code.

However, many of the design professionals that worked those areas for decades never had to deal with any building code or enforcement, that I would say was trained on the model codes, from point a through zz.

What I will call true oversight. To this day, 18 years later, you can still see things like that done because until the state has a group of inspectors that actually go out and re-check what the 3rd party agencies are doing, like with projects like that, and then pulling the lic's of the designers and inspection agencies that allow it to pass, you have to wait 20 to 30 years for the old guard to change over to hopefully a new guard with a sense of pride for what they do, possibly.

"The question is always, what is wrong with doing the way we have done it always before?, we have not had any issues!"

 

[ICE]

the old guard to change over to hopefully a new guard with a sense of pride for what they do

That is the opposite of the shift here in Southern California. The demographic turnover plays a role in the lack of respect for building codes and code officials but the AHJs have become uber political. That along with a woke culture has produced a code enforcement environment that I don't recognize.

I recently met with an official from LACBS. We were at a park and before we left he said that he was going to ask the landscape crew if any of them have ICC certs. Of course he was joking but that is exemplary of the difficulty finding inspectors. And you can forget about the management ranks....they're down to promoting rubes.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Jar, I also did a plan review for the same place also and failed it. The newspaper said the owner threaten to sue the Boro for discrimination. The Boro (600 residents, rated 2nd poorest in the state at the time) said they did not have money for a lawyer. I went there after it was finished as a customer. It's a fire trap and I would never go there again. Food was not good too, more like a biker bar. I did not know it ever got approved. I wonder how many plan reviewers they went though. I reported it to the state, but nothing happened that I know.

The zoning officer also had issues, so the Boro said he could not enforce the zoning code for that building. So he quit.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It's a HUGE issue when the high-ranking political office holders refuse to support their local code officials (both building and fire).

 

[jar546]

Jar, I also did a plan review for the same place also and failed it. The newspaper said the owner threaten to sue the Boro for discrimination. The Boro (600 residents, rated 2nd poorest in the state at the time) said they did not have money for a lawyer. I went there after it was finished as a customer. It's a fire trap and I would never go there again. Food was not good too, more like a biker bar. I did not know it ever got approved. I wonder how many plan reviewers they went though. I reported it to the state, but nothing happened that I know.

The zoning officer also had issues, so the Boro said he could not enforce the zoning code for that building. So he quit.

So there you have it. Two different plans examiners from two different third-party agencies do plan review for a fire-trap, reject the plans and the building official allows it to go to another third party until someone tells them what they want to hear. How awesome is that? I think I found my original plan review letter for this project.

 

[jar546]

Here is my original plan review from way back then:

Code references on page A-2 are for the IRC which do not apply to this project.

Lack of a site plan with boundaries and fire separation distances.

Lack of soil testing for foundation.

HOP status if required.

Building codes have not been specified.

Lack of adequate framing details.

A structural engineer will be required for gusset specs and other load bearing areas.

Building does not comply with any portion of the ANSI-117.1 2003 standard.

Lack of crawlspace details including vapor barrier, height and ventilation.

Submitted drawings are not legible in some areas.

Lack of occupancy calculations.

Lack of egress width calculations.

Lack of stamped electrical specifications.

Lack of stamped plumbing specifications.

Lack of stamped mechanical specifications.

Lack of energy compliance with IECC 2006 and/or CommCheck.

Lack of outside envelope flashing details.

List or declaration of special inspections not provided.

Lack of emergency lighting specs.



The submissions lack entirely too much information to provide a detailed plan review. The amount of items missing is too great to list and a complete resubmission of professional plans is highly recommended. The plans are not compliant with the PA-UCC and are hereby rejected.

 

[ICE]

Here is my original plan review from way back then:

It has been my experience that when I write a long list of corrections and get to the point of telling them that the list is too long and I am not going to continue… well they ignore that. They assume that the long list is all that there is. When I add more to the list they get upset that I stopped at 15 and not 25. Some nerve huh.

When I push it all the way to 25 they complain that I have it out for them. Management has told me to stop at 12. Of course I’m not what anyone would call manageable.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Here is my original plan review from way back then:

You are much more succinct than I am -- other wise, that looks like the plan reviews I write every day.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It has been my experience that when I write a long list of corrections and get to the point of telling them that the list is too long and I am not going to continue… well they ignore that. They assume that the long list is all that there is. When I add more to the list they get upset that I stopped at 15 and not 25. Some nerve huh.

When I push it all the way to 25 they complain that I have it out for them. Management has told me to stop at 12. Of course I’m not what anyone would call manageable.

Years ago, as an architect, I did a project in Baltimore County (not city), Maryland. The county had a hard rule -- when the list reached 25, they stopped. They were, IMHO, correct. It's not the job of the code officials to be the design professionals' quality assurance department. Our role is solely to ensure that the design professionals got it right -- checks and balances.

For that reason, I include at the end of all my plan reviews a boilerplate disclaimer:

While this department makes every effort to review construction documents diligently for conformity to code requirements, we do not represent that the foregoing comments constitute a complete or exhaustive tabulation of all deviations or non-conforming conditions. It is the responsibility of the owner and applicant to provide finished construction that is fully in conformance with code requirements; failure on our part to note any deficiencies does not absolve you of that responsibility. Due to the number of revisions which will need to be made to these construction documents to demonstrate conformity to code requirements, we respectfully suggest that your design professional undertake a thorough review of the design for code compliance before resubmitting.

Please note that a resubmittal of the proposed construction documents is subject to the same time limitations for review as a new application. We will review revised construction documents as expeditiously as possible, but in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes this department is allowed up to thirty (30) days in which to complete its review.

Please also remember that each document submittal you make is a public record, which this office is required by statute to maintain. In order to preserve the integrity of public records, it is essential to keep all documents together. In order to satisfy this requirement, the Building Department has established a policy that if more than three(3) drawings or pages in a set are revised, three entire sets of the documents must be submitted—including all pages or sheets, not just the revised pages or sheets.

Even with that disclaimer, they still regard it as a check list, and "fix" only the items noted in the plan review. And you are correct -- if the next review finds something I missed the first time, you can hear the howling and moaning from Maine to California.

We also get a tremendous amount of pushback about seals and signatures. Our state laws and regulations require architects and engineers to either "wet seal" each sheet, or use digital seals with third-party authentication. What we usually get is prints with what is obviously just a JPEG image of a seal and signature pasted into the title block -- not individually signed, and not backed by third-party authentication. A shorter person could drown in the crocodile tears when we tell them we can't accept that, per orders of the state building inspector.

 

[ICE]

if the next review finds something I missed the first time

A problem that I have is that the corrections come into my mind faster than I can write them down. As long as I see it, I must write it. I take a lot of pictures and tend to review the day… and wouldn’t you know it, I find some corrections that I noticed when I was there but they were lost in the flurry. What would help is a stenographer.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

A problem that I have is that the corrections come into my mind faster than I can write them down. As long as I see it, I must write it. I take a lot of pictures and tend to review the day… and wouldn’t you know it, I find some corrections that I noticed when I was there but they were lost in the flurry. What would help is a stenographer.

One of the inspectors from our state building inspectors office (since retired) used to dictate his notes into a portable recorder. Then he transferred that to the computer program Dragon Naturally Speaking and let Dragon create the rough draft in Word. When he got back to the office, he just had to do a final edit.

 

[TheCommish]

Yankee Chronicler, like your boiler plate, does the customer read it? Mine have trouble reading the list of corrections, comments and concerns.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Yankee Chronicler, like your boiler plate, does the customer read it? Mine have trouble reading the list of corrections, comments and concerns.

I'm sure they read the boilerplate paragraph, and I'm equally sure they glance over it and proceed to ignore it. We don't expect them to do what it suggests -- review the entire project for code compliance. It's there as a CYA for the building department, so that if we are ever sued over finding issues on a second review that we missed on the first review, we can point to that in our defense.

So far it hasn't been needed, and I hope it never will be.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Here is my original plan review from way back then:

i don't remember how long my list was but sprinklers were required and more exits. 3 stories used for A. none were installed.

 

[rktect 1]

I will just say this. One of the reasons that I left my previous office was because I was asked, after I did a plan review, if we sent it out to a third party and they were ok with it, would I be ok with that?

I said no and they did not pursue the matter with the third-party plan review service but once I am asked to compromise my integrity/ethics and put peoples health and safety in jeopardy, the writing is on the wall.

Gone within a few months.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I will just say this. One of the reasons that I left my previous office was because I was asked, after I did a plan review, if we sent it out to a third party and they were ok with it, would I be ok with that?

I said no and they did not pursue the matter with the third-party plan review service but once I am asked to compromise my integrity/ethics and put peoples health and safety in jeopardy, the writing is on the wall.

Gone within a few months.

Good for you.

I left an architecture firm for much the same reason, many years ago. In my case, one of the principals had accepted a project to build a near-duplicate of a building a client had already built in another state. The principal didn't take into account code differences between the ways the respective states had adopted the code, with the result that his design (based on the design for the other state) didn't meet our code. I wrote that up when I was tasked with performing our internal review.

I was asked to rewrite my internal plan review to "make it okay."

 

[tbz]

It's hard to go from basically nothing to something very structured and expect it to take less than 20 to 30 years to get it on track. Heck some places take 12 years to update model code adoptions, yet alone get a smooth-running oversight working.

That area of PA, as those that have worked it know, was the do what you want no one really checks for over a century, then the state says here you go follow this and you can't expect the little towns to jump on board when those that live there, more than likely don't like the new rules being mandated by the state anyway.

Not saying I agree, just that until the old guard is gone, the mind set changes, and the incoming residents agree with the what the state has set in place, you will have these types of problems.

Pulling a permit in many of those jurisdictions comes with a questioner, select from the following list of third-party firms you wish to have review and inspect your project, and oh by the way, once selected, you can't change. So, pick wisely.

Since the back story is the town was not financially strong enough to stand firm, and I will guess the county can't technically step in and help, the state should have built in a problem child division, that small towns could refer back to L&I to enforce and oversee, and it comes with additional fees that accommodated being tacked on for taking over.

Call it a referral program per say. And to the problem child, our local division is not able to provide review and inspections due to the level of complexity with your project, for this reason your plans and project are being transferred to the proper state division in L&I. Call it a carrot and stick division, either work with the locals and follow the rules, or have to deal with more eyes and deeper pockets.

From what I have seen come across my desk, it is simpler and less costly to just rip down and build new, than to try and comply with converting many of the existing structures in that area.