Authority of Plan Checkers

[Architect1281]

CA my trouble with compters is they do EXACTLY what I tell them to do instead of what I want them to do.

a Plan examiner has the responsibility to review the adequacy of the design for compliance with the standards.

In RI we have Wind / Snow etc and then the Importance factors and review to see if properly applied.

rather than make recommendations for increasing factors / constants or whatever the ASCE's are looking for

we ask for

1. Justification then if we disagree; (sometimes happens)

we then require

2. Peer Review as allowed by RI Law.

Peer review depending on scope of project would likely be a more costly option

as opposed to bumping a few factors.

 

[Mark K]

Conarb

Steel construction has a full chapter in the IBC. Chapter 22 references several reference standards that define how the steel members are designed. Chapter 16 defines the loads and some system factors that apply to different types of structures.

My statement about the plan checker needing to reference a code section or regulatory basis still stands. The plan checkers are constrained by the regulations not by what they believe should be required. If the plan checker believes that what is being proposed is not addressed in the code the checker needs to make that statement thus giving the design engineer an opportunity to show how the design complies with the code.

 

[Mark K]

The building official has the authority to interpret the building code provisions. This gives him a fair amount of flexibility but there are limits on what he can require.

When there are differences of opinion the IBC makes provisions for a Board of Appeals in IBC Section 113. The Board of Appeals does not have the authority to ask for more or waive the requirements of the code. I would suggest that the "peer review" mentioned by Architect1281 would act in a similar manner. The peer review should focus on interpretation of the code and not on imposing new requirements.

The observation by Architect1281 that the differences of opinion are often resolved by the designer providing more than what he believes is required reflects reality. The delays and costs associated with the review could be more expensive than making the changes. The problem with this practice is that some plan checkers come to believe that they can require whatever they want which has resulted in the abuse of the plan checker's authority and in turn some designers have come to believe the plan checker can ask for whatever he wants.

 

[conarb]

Mark:

She made a total of 15 comments, not once did she reference a code section, but verbally requested a sit down meeting. Not knowing what the proposed changes would entail I accepted the changes, when they ended up costing $44,000 more I accepted that. Now she challenged removing 1¼" more termite infested wood plates, and at the same time I encountered rock requiring a foundation re-design, if she accepts my engineer's re-design I'll move forward, if she continues to throw objections to everything we do I was considering alleging that she exceeded her authority at appeal, but this appears so complex that I think I better forget it and concentrate on the foundation re-design. My engineer is Polish and the perspective from another culture is always interesting so I asked him why he thought she was throwing all of this at us, he said that they are making the building of single family as expensive as possible to keep the middle class out of expensive neighborhoods, moving them to transit oriented mixed use developments.

 

[Mark K]

I think you are on risky ground implying why she was requiring something and except for very unusual circumstances it is irrelevant to the solution. There is apparently a move by several jurisdictions in the SF Bay Area to favor transit oriented mixed use developments. It is my understanding that this is being encouraged by legally adopted zoning regulations.

Just because the plan checker did not provide code references does not necessarily mean that she was asking for something not in the code. Even when I believe the checker is being unreasonable I have found that some of the comments are appropriate and need to be responded to.

If you find something being required that your engineer does not believe is required by the code you should ask for a code reference. This will allow you to respond and if the checker is being unreasonable the building departments resonse will be an important consideration.

 

[brudgers]

The building official has the authority to interpret the building code provisions. This gives him a fair amount of flexibility but there are limits on what he can require. When there are differences of opinion the IBC makes provisions for a Board of Appeals in IBC Section 113. The Board of Appeals does not have the authority to ask for more or waive the requirements of the code. I would suggest that the "peer review" mentioned by Architect1281 would act in a similar manner. The peer review should focus on interpretation of the code and not on imposing new requirements. The observation by Architect1281 that the differences of opinion are often resolved by the designer providing more than what he believes is required reflects reality. The delays and costs associated with the review could be more expensive than making the changes. The problem with this practice is that some plan checkers come to believe that they can require whatever they want which has resulted in the abuse of the plan checker's authority and in turn some designers have come to believe the plan checker can ask for whatever he wants.

The way a city attorney explained it to me when I was behind the counter: "So long as you are consistent, you are on pretty firm legal footing."

 

[Mark K]

Consistency is important and it will protect against certain types of claims but the building official must be prepared to reference the code section or other statute or regulation to justify the comment.

The courts are extremely reluctant to second guess the building officials interpretation so they will accept almost any rational that ties back to the appropriate statute or regulation. If you cannot provide a statute or regulation reference the courts will support the plaintif.

 

[conarb]

Mark:

But back to my original question, where does it say in the code that the plan checker has to reference code sections? Where is the Building Official authorized to interpret code? What prevents a plan checker or Building Official from making arbitrary interpretations of code sections? Does it all boil down to government employees making decisions, sometimes arbitrary decisions, leaving the courts to determine whether their determinations are consistent and/or arbitrary?

When I look at appeals it says:

SECTION 112BOARD OF APPEALS

112.1 General. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders,decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation ofthis code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall be appointed by the governing body and shall hold office at its pleasure. The board shall adopt rules ofprocedure for conducting its business.

112.2 Limitations on authority. An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code.

112.3 Qualifications. The board of appeals shall consist of members who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and are not employees of the jurisdiction.

Appendix B also has provisions, but it says: The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance.

My research shows that in published appeals they are heard by a three member committee of the Board of Supervisors, that appears in conflict with code provisions so maybe they just don't publish appeal hearings.

 

[mtlogcabin]

where does it say in the code that the plan checker has to reference code sections

I don't think it does in the code, however is has been the policy of this city that when different departments accept or reject a design they have to reference there reason. A code section, adopted design standard, ordinance or resolution in other words something that would be defensible. Perhaps you may want to look at that cities policies. Over the years some policies get lost because staff get lazy.

 

[Mark K]

The IBC doesn’t require that the building official reference code sections but I believe that you will find it well established in our legal system that the applicant has the right to know the legal basis for the requirements. The building official does not have any authority to impose requirements that have not been formally adopted. My understanding is that this right derives from the US Constitution.

IBC Section 104.1 states that the building official has the authority to render interpretations of the code. We might find that the authority to interpret the regulations being enforced derives from common law associated with administrative law.

Building officials and plan checkers on occasion do make arbitrary interpretations of code sections. It has to be pretty bad before a court will overrule a code interpretation. More often the extreme interpretations are moderated by the appeal process or complaints to the building official or elected officials. Often the opinion by a third party can help to resolve the differences. I believe that ICC provides such services. In some situations professional organizations have offered their insights.

What is an arbitrary interpretation is often a judgment call. When deciding whether it is an arbitrary interpretation it is useful to look at what other jurisdictions do and positions statements by professional or standards writing organizations.

If the building official requires something but will not provide a code reference I would expect a short discussion with the city attorney would resolve things. I would expect that the building official would be told to either provide a code reference or let it pass.

Prior to filing a formal appeal I would meet with the building official. It would help to have an opinion of an other engineer to support your claims.

You are looking at the 2007 CBC in the 2010 CBC Board of Appeals is in Section 113.

I believe that different jurisdictions handle appeals differently. Appendix B is one approach but the failure to adopt it does not mean that there is no appeal process.

If the project is a residential project I believe that there are provisions in the California Codes for appeals directly to HCD.

 

[gbhammer]

What is an arbitrary interpretation is often a judgment call. When deciding whether it is an arbitrary interpretation it is useful to look at what other jurisdictions do and positions statements by professional or standards writing organizations.

If the building official requires something but will not provide a code reference I would expect a short discussion with the city attorney would resolve things. I would expect that the building official would be told to either provide a code reference or let it pass.

This sums up hpw we do it for the most part.

 

[righter101]

Mark:But back to my original question, where does it say in the code that the plan checker has to reference code sections? Where is the Building Official authorized to interpret code? What prevents a plan checker or Building Official from making arbitrary interpretations of code sections? Does it all boil down to government employees making decisions, sometimes arbitrary decisions, leaving the courts to determine whether their determinations are consistent and/or arbitrary?

107.3 Examination of documents. The building official shall

examine or cause to be examined the accompanying submittal

documents and shall ascertain by such examinations whether

the construction indicated and described is in accordance with

the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws or ordinances.

I am a plan checker and believe this section in the IBC allows people to ask me the reason for my correction. If I write a correction letter with a sepcific item, it is because I deem that item to be out of compliance with the code. You need to justify that the item you are noting does not meet the code. The only way to do this is to cite a specific seciton of the code.

You don't just get a ticket from a police officer that says "you were breaking the law", you get a citation with the applicable statue in violation.

If the design meets the IBC criteria, even if it is the minimums, it should be allowed.

 

[righter101]

The way a city attorney explained it to me when I was behind the counter: "So long as you are consistent, you are on pretty firm legal footing."

What if you have been consistenly wrong?

 

[Architect1281]

As Designer; Been there; had that done to my clients; won the appeal

As CBO; Hand them my interpretation in writing:

if they dissagree I assist in the filling in of the appeal form. and encourage its use.

 

[brudgers]

What if you have been consistenly wrong?

That was the point the city attorney was making...that's not the big concern. The big concern is one set of rules for one group, another you.

 

[righter101]

That was the point the city attorney was making...that's not the big concern. The big concern is one set of rules for one group, another you.

I know, I was just joking around with ya.