Documentation of the "horse trade"

[Simonsays]

I know from reading the postings over time that you are all by-the-book enforcers.

Sometimes, however, to make a project work, it takes a little creative adaptation of the building code to make the final product safe and acceptable to all.

My question is, am I being unreasonable to request that the design professional include on the project's cover sheet a short description of the conclusion from the preliminary meeting between officials, owner, and designers? I am not always a fan of being creative but I insist on good documentation. A signed letter of agreement becomes too easily lost in a file and if it is on the cover sheet, the lawyers (gulp) will have an easy time finding it. I am getting tremendous pushback on this issue from the designer. Hey, there always is construction type 1A ....

Your thoughts, please.

 

[fatboy]

I don't think we are always "by the book", I actually take pride in myself and my staff at attempting to enforce the code, but be somewhat adaptive.

Summarize the meeting yourself in an email or letter, copy to file, stating from the most recent meeting, this is what my understanding is, and this is how we agreed to proceed.

Had one just the other day, 13 year old expired permit, owner wants to resolve it. I laid it out, what needed to happen, followed up in an email, documented. Move on.

 

[Mark K]

The construction documents are about how the buildig is constructed. Any issues regarding early discussions between the designer and the building official should have been resolved by the time a permit is issued. Thus there is no need to place this letter on the drawings.

As an engineer I find it very irritating when building officials impose similar requirements on us.

 

[FredK]

I never do.

They can take the prelim and document it all to heck, but there could be some other issue that could change that. Could something that doesn't jump out imediately or was "left off the table" through errors.

 

[mtlogcabin]

104.10 Modifications.

Wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, upon application of the owner or owner's representative, provided the building official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of building safety.

You can also attach it to the jobsite copy of the approved plans. With that said I agree with Mark K the details should be in the plans attaching the action to the jobsite copy would be a way to give notice to others who may question the modification that it is approved by the AHJ and did not "slip" through the plan review.

 

[brudgers]

I know from reading the postings over time that you are all by-the-book enforcers.Sometimes, however, to make a project work, it takes a little creative adaptation of the building code to make the final product safe and acceptable to all.

My question is, am I being unreasonable to request that the design professional include on the project's cover sheet a short description of the conclusion from the preliminary meeting between officials, owner, and designers? I am not always a fan of being creative but I insist on good documentation. A signed letter of agreement becomes too easily lost in a file and if it is on the cover sheet, the lawyers (gulp) will have an easy time finding it. I am getting tremendous pushback on this issue from the designer. Hey, there always is construction type 1A ....

Your thoughts, please.

If you can't keep track of it in your file, then what are the odds you won't lose the plans?

Or the zoning regulations?

Or the permit application?

Seriously, the agreement is between the jurisdiction and the Owner, the design professional is not a party to it and should not seal it - may not even be allowed to by law.

You should just let the design professional tattoo it on your *** so you won't lose it.

 

[JBI]

Simonsays, I tend to agree with the others (especially mtlog... used to staple my review comments to the plans after putting copies in the mail to the owner, DPR, GC and one in the file). Paper's cheap compared to lawsuits.

 

[Yikes]

As an architect, if I am granted a modification to the code or some special exception, I always attach a copy to the plans. I don't always put such items on the front sheet; often I create a "code compliance" sheet with any such modifications or understandings reprinted on it.

There are a few exceptions: in the city of LA, they are very strict about documenting any modifications (they turned it into a profit center), so I let their system record the compliance.

What I do NOT want is some attorneys in the future second-guessing our design intent and code compliance.

 

[TJacobs]

I guess what I don't understand is if the designer was a party to the agreement and designs in accordance with said agreement, why would the designer be reticent about spelling it out on the plans for all to see. If they are afraid of that, maybe we should not be so flexible.

If the designer was not involved in the discussion and subsequent agreement I won't be agreeing. Maybe the boss will.

 

[peach]

EVERYTHING in IBC Chapter 4 was at one time or another a code modification that a building official accepted. They aren't called special because they ride the little bus.