• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Does Anyone Read & Comprehend Anymore?

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,789
Location
Not where I really want to be
Raise your hand if you are a bit burned out with the responses you get back from the plan review deficiency comments you send out. It use to be that the original submission was the worst of what you would see, but now we are seeing resubmissions after comments that are just as bad, if not worse. How much more specific do we need to be? When you make a very clear and succinct comment and reference a code (required here) and get an email or phone call asking you to explain it boggles my mind. But wait, there's more.

How about stating that the plans are not digitally signed & sealed, have been reduced in size from the original 24x36 to 8.5x11 and are not legible, only to get a resubmission of the exact same thing, but with comments made in marker.

Is it getting worse or is it me?
 
SO MUCH WORSE! I have one today that took 4 reviews to get approved, now 1 week later I have my first revision......and they reverted to one of the older sets which they had corrected in order to get approved. Now I get to make the comment again. PLUS, 90% of the changes were already made and approved on the last set. I find more and more that people just can't get out of their own way.
 
I just saw one. I had a simple four note plan review. On resubmittal I could only tell that one of them was addressed. No letter attached explaining what they did for each of my comments. Denied once more.
 
I sympathize with all here, as I have had the same experiences.

My favorite part though is when the project owner then calls into City Manager, Council, Dept. Director, etc. and inquires why the permit is taking so long to receive. Their design team gives the owner some story about the building department taking a long time to review, that there are discussions regarding ways to comply with the code requirements, yada yada B.S.

The thing is, you've written the same comment 3 times with code sections and an explanation of the required correction, tried to call and discuss but they never call you back, get your review done in a couple weeks and yet it takes them 2 months to resubmit the same plans with only partial fixes accomplished, and we're lucky to get a letter responding to the correction letter that just says "Acknowledged".

Same story I think all-around...
 
So....not exactly the same vein but...Here is the email I get at 230 from a licensed architect:

Good afternoon,
I have attached the current floor plans for your use. The specific concerns I would like to review and confirm are:

ELEVATOR? It is my understanding if the building is less than 3 or 4 stories an elevator is not required per section 1009.2.1

SPRINKLERS? What does the IEBC require? Second floor is considered a change in use because there is no documentation for previous (legal) use as residential. Does change in use drive the requirement for sprinklers? Is a 13R system acceptable?

SECOND EXIT REQUIRED? TABLE 1006.2.1 allows one exit in an R-2 use with 20 or fewer occupants (when the building is sprinklered). Is this acceptable to you?

ARE EXISTING STAIRS ACCEPTABLE? 1011.5.2 Riser Height and Tread Depth
The riser height and tread depth of existing stairways in buildings undergoing addition, alteration, repair, relocation or change of occupancy that involve the existing stairways shall be permitted to remain, provided the greatest riser height within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) and the greatest tread depth within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). Is this acceptable to you?

OCCUPANCY SEPARATIONS? Assuming future A, B or M occupancies on the first floor and sprinklers, a 1-hour separation will be required per TABLE 508.4.
What about the basement? Unoccupied?
 
And my response about 90 minutes later:

Can’t do a proper review in an afternoon/ half hour, but here goes:
  1. Not sure where you are getting 1009 from, in IBC that would be means of egress and 2021 IEBC that would be plumbing for change of use. Accessibility was moved to Ch. 3 if that is what you are looking for. You may want to look at IBC 1108.6.2.3 for some general R2 exceptions.
  2. It depends on what compliance method you use. IEBC 301.3
  3. Yes, but as I believe you are talking apartments, you are going to want to look at T1006.3.4(1) for R2 occupancies. (also based on sprinklers)
  4. Maybe is the best I can do there…Generally we don’t make you tear the building apart for rise and run, but as I have never seen said stairs and have not done a full review, you are on the right track. Exceptions:
Existing and replacement stairways in existing structures shall not be required to comply with the requirements of Section 1011.5 of the International Building Code, where such pitch or slope cannot be reduced because of existing construction.

  1. The basement will have to be called out as some use, either storage or whatever is on the first floor, or something…..And might not need to be separated if it works as mixed use…The R uses always have to be separated as people sleep there….

Not my finest work, but also not what I think a BO should have to do for a designer other than that is what the job takes these days....This is in preparation for a jobsite meeting for a project that a permit has not been applied for yet...
 
My favorite was when the plans are reduced size and illegible and you ask for legible plans. Explain that they reduced the size on the PDF and you can PDF the to whatever size you want because they are not being printed...and I get the same set of plans. Not like they re-PDFed them the same. Like the exact same. The PDF was created the same date and time that the other set was.
 
classicT said:
I sympathize with all here, as I have had the same experiences.

My favorite part though is when the project owner then calls into City Manager, Council, Dept. Director, etc. and inquires why the permit is taking so long to receive. Their design team gives the owner some story about the building department taking a long time to review, that there are discussions regarding ways to comply with the code requirements, yada yada B.S.

The thing is, you've written the same comment 3 times with code sections and an explanation of the required correction, tried to call and discuss but they never call you back, get your review done in a couple weeks and yet it takes them 2 months to resubmit the same plans with only partial fixes accomplished, and we're lucky to get a letter responding to the correction letter that just says "Acknowledged".

Same story I think all-around...
Click to expand...
When I was running a building inspection department, our software did a breakdown on how long reviewers are waiting on the designer and vice-versa. Includes all the notes, so we would keep them all numbered consistently throughout.

These discussions became my favorite thing. I get a call or email about a complaint and two minutes later I walk into their office with a printout showing exactly how long we were waiting in the designer and how long the designer was waiting on us. Our notes showed that they were the ones who were not adequately addressing issues. I only had to do this once or twice before the whole tone of these conversations changed to higher ups wanting to know what the holdup is and if there was anything we could do to lead them in the right direction.
 
tmurray said:
When I was running a building inspection department, our software did a breakdown on how long reviewers are waiting on the designer and vice-versa. Includes all the notes, so we would keep them all numbered consistently throughout.

These discussions became my favorite thing. I get a call or email about a complaint and two minutes later I walk into their office with a printout showing exactly how long we were waiting in the designer and how long the designer was waiting on us. Our notes showed that they were the ones who were not adequately addressing issues. I only had to do this once or twice before the whole tone of these conversations changed to higher ups wanting to know what the holdup is and if there was anything we could do to lead them in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Like a chess timer...always wanted to do that...
 
I think about half of the "design professionals" read the plan review comments but don't understand them, and the rest don't even try.

Regarding the comment about a chess timer, I started doing that internally as a way of shooting down complaints that we take too long. It's a clumsy way of doing that tmuuary's software apparently does for him. I created a spreadsheet in Excel, with a cover sheet that shows the projects and their status, and a detail sheet for each project that tracks the progress and processing time. Initially I began with just the cover sheet, as my way of keeping track on which project was next in line to be reviewed. I later expanded it to add the detail sheets.
 

Attachments

  • Status_Spreadsheet_Master.jpg
    Status_Spreadsheet_Master.jpg
    465.1 KB · Views: 8
  • Status_Spreadsheet_Detail.jpg
    Status_Spreadsheet_Detail.jpg
    314.3 KB · Views: 8
Our office implemented a "triage" process, where a building inspector and development officer look at a file before it's accepted. I can't tell you how many times very simple instructions are completely ignored.

Due to provincial regulations, I can't show you the plan for a house addition I received yesterday. However, the following is a reasonable fascimile. I've painstakingly replicated details on the footings, frost wall, wall composition, insulation details, roofing, etc., exactly as they were presented.
 

Attachments

  • plan.jpeg
    plan.jpeg
    537.2 KB · Views: 17
So that deck is an observation platform in the middle of a field?
Builder probably said to the customer: we let the computer draw the plans.
 
Agree on all counts, and yes it's getting worse. The one that drives me crazy is the "statement of special inspections" form that we provide to the EOR and/or the applicant. The instructions at the top say:

"This editable electronic form is intended to be modified (delete anything that does not apply) by the design professionals to reflect the specific tests and inspection requirements for this project."

I can only remember one time that they actually modified the form. Most of the time we get the names and signatures, but they leave every single special inspection on there. I have to call them each time and explain that they're supposed to tell us what requires special inspection, not the other way around. The ensuing conversation usually goes something like this:

I say "This form tells me that I have to require the contractor to give me a report for every single thing on this list."
The response I usually get is "Well, that's stupid, why would you think that?"
"I'm sorry, could you please tell me what special inspections are required?"
"Where do I find that?"
"Sir, you are the Engineer of Record for this project, it's your responsibility to identify these requirements."
"That's not in my scope of work."
I close my eyes, breathe, relax, and say. "Please review Chapter 17 of the Building Code, discuss this with your team, the owner, and the contractor, and get back to us once you have this all figured out. Until then I have to place your plan review on hold."

I've suggested several times that we delete all the items and make them list what's required from scratch. So far my suggestion has been dismissed...
 
I just went through a third party inspection process for a small reno in PG county maryland. The package the county sends out is 72 pages of instructions and blank forms. The part we submitted was about 12 pages of names of inspectors etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top