I see my job as taking reasonable steps, in a reasonable amount of time to identify code compliance issues and do my best to verify code compliance in the planning phase, before it costs time and money for anyone. I try my best to make sure everyone has what they need to be successful in the field. Sometimes I probably go too far but I draw the line somewhere. I don't see my job as designing the deck. In the end this deck will be relatively compliant so the main goal is met, but partially based on the design of the reviewer. This brings potential liability to the AHJ and sets a terrible precedent for what is an acceptable plan. Here is the real issue, I would bet the reviewer is encouraged to do this if for no other reason than to reduce workload for an understaffed department. I think a decision is made to design it for them so it doesn't need to come back, as well as the obvious "customer service" theory (you know, the "never say no" theory?).
There are those in the town where I work who try to push the Building Department to be more "user friendly" (meaning, to them, approve more stuff in less time). Fortunately, the Building Official understands about our liability, and we are quite strict in adhering to the rule that we cannot become the designers. On commercial work, when someone asks what we want, our answer is that we want construction drawings showing that the work will comply with code. If they still have questions, we cite code sections and tell them to talk to their architect. We try to keep red marks on approved plans to an absolute minimum, and we use them only rarely.
For residential work, we're a bit more flexible insofar as offering suggestions, but we always make clear when we do so that we are offering ideas for compliant methods or materials, NOT saying that it must be this way. And we document such conversations with a memo to file, so when (not if) there's a complaint later that the homeowner did "exactly" what we "told" them to do and then later rejected it, we can produce a contemporaneous record of what we actually told them.
A lot of the push to be more "user friendly" in our town comes from the Economic Development Department. They got involved recently after we rejected the plans for a 30+ unit apartment building for the third time. After THREE revisions, the dimensions on the structural drawings still didn't match the dimensions on the architecturals. Somebody arranged a conference call with the developer's project manager, the architect, the structural engineer, the BO, and me (as the plan reviewer). The architect (whom I knew slightly, from many years ago) started off all hot and heavy that he had revised the drawings and he couldn't understand why we still had a problem. So I pointed out three specific places where the architectural dimensions still didn't match the structurals, and one place where the dimensions on the north side didn't add up to the same total as the dimensions on the south side. I pointed out that as plan reviewers and inspectors, we don't know which is correct. I said we could approve the drawings, but if we got to the second or third floor and found that a dimensional error resulted in a non-compliant condition, the developer would have to tear it down and rebuild it -- and that we wished to prevent that from happening.
The architect was very quiet after that. I didn't know it at the time, but the director of Economic Development was also on that conference call. I ran into him later in the corridor and he pretty much apologized to me. He said he had thought we were being too strict, but my comment about not wanting to let the developer build something he might later have to tear down apparently made it clear that by being strict we were also trying to be user friendly and prevent bigger issues later. I told him my philosophy has always been, both as an architect and as a building offial, that it's easier to move lines on paper than it is to tear something down and rebuild it.
codes.iccsafe.org
