ICE
Oh Well
Per the plans, the sign was to be 8' higher than this. The legs were too short for that. They wanted to pour and I said not unless you can get the CEO of 7-Eleven on the phone.
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Blame the fabricator
- Thread starter ICE
- Start date
The CEO of 7-11 is irrelevant. What needs to happen is the permit needs to be revised or the work needs to be installed in accordance with the permit..
If the contractor would use his mind he would hold the pour. It is obvious that the Owner wants the sign higher so more people to see it. If they install it short they will spend more money lengthening the legs in place as opposed to lengthening them on the ground. But it is not the job of the building inspector to protect people from their stupidity just to enforce the regulations.
If the contractor would use his mind he would hold the pour. It is obvious that the Owner wants the sign higher so more people to see it. If they install it short they will spend more money lengthening the legs in place as opposed to lengthening them on the ground. But it is not the job of the building inspector to protect people from their stupidity just to enforce the regulations.
RJJ
Co-Founder
Simple plan revision.
Architect1281
Gold Member
Agree with ICE he makes the point well, the contractor could easily ammend the permit plan and continue ~
however by referencing the CEO it makes the point even if somewhat stretched (I like it BTW) the the decision is clearly out of the contractors hands
at least needs to be kicked to the DP and if the PE is smart whom ever they answer too.
the one element of construction activity that is most dificult to ingrain in inspetors is that it just dosen't have to meet code;
(the worst possible job)
IF the documents exceed the code that is the standard of inspection and approval.............
however by referencing the CEO it makes the point even if somewhat stretched (I like it BTW) the the decision is clearly out of the contractors hands
at least needs to be kicked to the DP and if the PE is smart whom ever they answer too.
the one element of construction activity that is most dificult to ingrain in inspetors is that it just dosen't have to meet code;
(the worst possible job)
IF the documents exceed the code that is the standard of inspection and approval.............
Because it is in danger of being crushed by a dwarf? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlf5ucFanpYRJJ said:
ICE
Oh Well
DELETEDMark K said:
I decided to make the reply a thread in off topic posts.
http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5934-What-to-do-about-stupidity&goto=newpost
Last edited by a moderator:
MtnArch
Sawhorse
I'm glad ICE didn't allow it either - my guess would be that the DP had no idea that it was being shorted, and would get the "But who's going to pay for it now that it's already poured and set?" from the GC. Working with a (national) chain, the DP probably doesn't have any CA on the job and would just let it go - if they ever found out about it (not right, but more than likely the scenario).