It would have to be a pretty big building before an engineer is required. I’ve seen houses and parts of houses being temporarily supported with just what a bunch of workmen came up with. Done it myself.
You may find that language in the IBC but when the courts are involved you will find that there are limits on the building official.
Says the high and mighty, all-powerful, never wrong engineer who knows better than anyone.
Building Officials are limited by the State Statutes that they live in. Many of those states did adopt or amend the IBC with little to no language change. You've always looked down your snoot at building departments, plans examiners, and officials because you can't stand the fact that someone that is not as high and mighty as you as an engineer has the authority to require more documentation than you "think" is necessary. Here is the reality. It is not up to you and if you want your permit, you must bow down to the lowly BCO and give them what they want. You can always file an appeal to the BCO decision but you'll never do that.
Fixed it for you....
The personal attacks keep on coming.
I would appreciate it if my statements were not distorted.
The title of this thread is making better sense the more you weigh in.
I bet that you have a stamp that says exactly that.
If I knew that was the response and attitude of one of my inspectors or plan reviewers, he would be apologizing to you.
There is a saying I have not heard for a while, that I would like to hear come back.
I saw the irony.
His point is that all of government is subservient to the lofty engineers….there is no support for his point. His veiled disdain is found everywhere in what he writes….especially with the statement that he will not utilize the appeal process because of the delay that causes. And then he demeans the government employee by saying that they then think that they are correct. The truth is that he finds us not worthy of his focused attention that an appeal requires.
Ice, I agree with your psych profile and assessment. It just seems to me we are giving him what he wants. I made the mistake of trying to be reasonable. Didn't work. Part of me doesn't like to give in, or give up
An answer to the I-beam, LVL, and any other such product: yes, they are not in the scope of "prescriptive" so an engineer would be required because it is now bouncing back to a building code design. Residential is specifically, prescriptive. My 2.5 cents worth
The issue with your hypothesis is that the agencies adopting the requirements regulating engineers and those adopting the codes are the same level from a legal standpoint. Here, the responsibility for regulating the practice of engineering is delegated as you mention. However, the adoption of the code is completed through amendments to provincial law. This places the requirements for engineers held by the code above those that were delegated. If there is a conflict between the code and the agency regulating engineers, the code would prevail. This is typical in most provinces in Canada.
Thanks Ed. The part of the thread that keeps me reading it.
There is a basic principle in American law that only the legislative bodies can adopt laws. This applies to all states.
Thank You for your excellent explanation
If there are problems with the adoption of model codes the building officials can only blame themselves.
From a legal perspective we are only concerned about the intent if the written code provisions are not clear. While intent can be used to help interpret the code provisions it is not appropriate to enforce the intent. You enforce the written code provisions. Furthermore, when dealing with reference standards the commentary of the standard should be used to interpret what was the intent.
You said The standards for building officials and engineers are different.