• 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.

Existing Gates - Renovated Pool

BN4537 said:
While this is absolutely the wrong way to think as a government employee whose job is to promote public safety, this is an entirely legitimate position for a third-party inspection company to take.
Click to expand...
Not even close. The contract inspector was supposed to be me in every sense of the word. He has identical authority and responsibility. The company owner and his bean counters have a drive to make a profit and that is wholesome up to the point of purposeful dereliction.

I doubt that there is an enormous pool of certified inspectors to choose from in PA. Rock the boat just short of sinking it. Be a force for change. If that falls flat, find another place to work. In the meantime you might consider keeping the failures to yourself.
 
ICE said:
Who's the 'we' in this? You represent the AHJ so it woukld be the AHJ that hires a lawyer and hauls them to court.

If you lose most cases, you are barking up the wrong tree so just not good at it.

Your company doesn't collect the fine because the infraction was not against you. Your company gets paid for each hour that you work whether you are testifying in court or washing a school bus.

A third party inspection company will not find windfall profits. The contract sets the rate that is paid for the inspector. Remuneration is based on hours work not work product.
Click to expand...
Is there a \popcorn emoji on this forum?
There needs to be a popcorn emoji.

This thread is turning into a spectacular argument for Canadian systems.
 
steveray said:
Alternative means and methods, engineered design, modification are all way to meet code when you don’t meet code…
Click to expand...
My question was more if at final inspection the inspector approves something, it's unlikely if it was 20 years ago that there would be a paper record of that variance. So 20 years after, all new building department personnel, it somehow wasn't a violation before, but now it is? I am dismissing the idea that code officials never accept things that are not code compliant as a fairy tale, regardless of what the code "explicitly states".
 
bill1952 said:
My question was more if at final inspection the inspector approves something, it's unlikely if it was 20 years ago that there would be a paper record of that variance. So 20 years after, all new building department personnel, it somehow wasn't a violation before, but now it is? I am dismissing the idea that code officials never accept things that are not code compliant as a fairy tale, regardless of what the code "explicitly states".
Click to expand...
This goes back to best practices. I'm not responsible for the previous individual's incompetence. I am responsible for my own. So if I wander onto a building that's complete, and been "signed off" 10 years ago, but the violations I am seeing would never have been allowed, I have some responsibility to do something. That something may be alerting the Office of The Fire Marshal, or sending a registered letter stating "your building ain't to Code, we have no capacity to make you do anything, but now you have a letter that the Insurance folks can enter into evidence if/when something goes wrong and you haven't fixed the issues ...."
 
I have never seen and don't know the contract my 3rd party company has with the local jurisdictions. I am not the building code official of any the jurisdictions, I just do inspections and plan reviews. I think my boss knows what the contract says. I do what my boss tells me to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Hum I have a question, how do you know the gates are the original gates installed at the time of the original permit and inspection? And that the Inspector missed the non-compliant gates at that time?

I only ask, because I have been asked by many a client to change out the pool gates after a client had all their inspections done.

I have never done it, but I am not sure how anyone can say a gate that was clearly non-compliant at the time of the permit is approved or was approved, for as far as I can remember, no one has that authority without a lot of paperwork being on file.

We can play ping pong all day for who has what authority, or not, but the code is pretty clear that no one has the authority to just say approved for a clear violation without a big and specific paper trail explaining it. So I would say without the property owner producing such a set of traceable documents, it was a violation then and still is now, fix it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICE
tbz said:
Hum I have a question, how do you know the gates are the original gates installed at the time of the original permit and inspection? And that the Inspector missed the non-compliant gates at that time?

I only ask, because I have been asked by many a client to change out the pool gates after a client had all their inspections done.

I have never done it, but I am not sure how anyone can say a gate that was clearly non-compliant at the time of the permit is approved or was approved, for as far as I can remember, no one has that authority without a lot of paperwork being on file.

We can play ping pong all day for who has what authority, or not, but the code is pretty clear that no one has the authority to just say approved for a clear violation without a big and specific paper trail explaining it. So I would say without the property owner producing such a set of traceable documents, it was a violation then and still is now, fix it!
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the building department would be responsible to keep those documents if there were actually required to exist…
 
bill1952 said:
My question was more if at final inspection the inspector approves something, it's unlikely if it was 20 years ago that there would be a paper record of that variance. So 20 years after, all new building department personnel, it somehow wasn't a violation before, but now it is? I am dismissing the idea that code officials never accept things that are not code compliant as a fairy tale, regardless of what the code "explicitly states".
Click to expand...

Something "approved" at a final inspection probably isn't a valid modification. Modifications have to be requested in writing, reviewed and evaluated, and then entered into the record. That's not likely to occur in the course of a final inspection.

[A] 104.10 Modifications. Where 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 the
owner’s authorized agent, provided that the building official
shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict
letter of this code impractical, 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.
Click to expand...

As I've already commented, the code specifically states that any purported approval of a non-compliant condition is invalid.

[A] 105.4 Validity of permit. The issuance or granting of a
permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval
of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any
other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give
authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or
other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance
of a permit based on construction documents and other
data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the
correction of errors in the construction documents and other
data. The building official is authorized to prevent occupancy
or use of a structure where in violation of this code or of any
other ordinances of this jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Failure to notice a non-compliant condition does not constitute "approval." It constitutes an error on the part of the inspector.

Do some inspectors let things slide in the field even when they know they're wrong, but maybe they (the inspector) just doesn't want the hassle of failing something and dealing with the fall-out? I'm certain that happens. BUT -- that creates a land mine for the owner because (as our former State Building Inspector repeatedly reminded us) "A violation is always a violation." A non-compliant condition (i.e. violation) can be cited at any time any inspector has a valid reason to be in the building where he/she can see the non-compliant condition.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Something "approved" at a final inspection probably isn't a valid modification. Modifications have to be requested in writing, reviewed and evaluated, and then entered into the record. That's not likely to occur in the course of a final inspection.



As I've already commented, the code specifically states that any purported approval of a non-compliant condition is invalid.



Failure to notice a non-compliant condition does not constitute "approval." It constitutes an error on the part of the inspector.

Do some inspectors let things slide in the field even when they know they're wrong, but maybe they (the inspector) just doesn't want the hassle of failing something and dealing with the fall-out? I'm certain that happens. BUT -- that creates a land mine for the owner because (as our former State Building Inspector repeatedly reminded us) "A violation is always a violation." A non-compliant condition (i.e. violation) can be cited at any time any inspector has a valid reason to be in the building where he/she can see the non-compliant condition.
Click to expand...
I think you are looking for 110.1 for approving a violation and 111.4 is your remedy by pulling the CO….I don’t believe that power lies in 105.4
 
steveray said:
Pretty sure the building department would be responsible to keep those documents if there were actually required to exist…
Click to expand...
My point exactly, as mentioned by C.C. multiple times, just because a permitted property received a C/O, does not mean that its grandfathered for non-compliant work missed at inspection, intentionally or not. And who is to say that is the gate or gates that were in place at the time of the inspection for the previous C/O.

The fact of the matter is simple, per the code in effect at the time in the file its clear that the gate or gates there now are non-compliant. Thus, there is no information in the previous permits file for an application and approval of what I call a waiver from doing the right thing. Thus, as of the new permit that is open, a violation exist, since the code at that time required a compliant barrier (gate), and this gate in place does not meet that requirement, the new inspector can only conclude that someone either changed the gate after the original inspection was done without a permit, or the first inspector missed it, which as we all know is not an approval of compliance.

I will repeat, fix it!
 
tbz said:
My point exactly, as mentioned by C.C. multiple times, just because a permitted property received a C/O, does not mean that its grandfathered for non-compliant work missed at inspection, intentionally or not. And who is to say that is the gate or gates that were in place at the time of the inspection for the previous C/O.

The fact of the matter is simple, per the code in effect at the time in the file its clear that the gate or gates there now are non-compliant. Thus, there is no information in the previous permits file for an application and approval of what I call a waiver from doing the right thing. Thus, as of the new permit that is open, a violation exist, since the code at that time required a compliant barrier (gate), and this gate in place does not meet that requirement, the new inspector can only conclude that someone either changed the gate after the original inspection was done without a permit, or the first inspector missed it, which as we all know is not an approval of compliance.

I will repeat, fix it!
Click to expand...
And I am just saying that the BD needs to step up and take credit for their part in it (if any)..Go through your records and see what was proposed and/ or approved or if there was WWOP. If it was missed apologize and help them correct or BS them with "new pool, new barrier" for all I care...Don't just shoot from the hip in the field without looking at all the evidence, not that I think that is what happened here...
 
This might be a little off topic, but I believe it may apply.

It took me years to understand how important some information was to have. My father from day one in the early 50's kept index cards on every job they worked on by the properties address, with basic notes of what they fabricated and installed.

In the late 90's we coded all that information to a database. He started it on the cards because he wanted to know if he did any work on that location before for warranty reasons for the contractors he worked for.

In 1999 we started stamping every fabricated guard, handrail or gate with the project number, pc# & date.

I can't tell you how many times we got call's from people that called claiming they had an issue at their home or business where the contractor claimed we did the work, but our files showed otherwise.

In fact the best one was in 2007 when a homeowner emailed our office with a picture of our logo with the stamped information. When we crossed referenced it, it was a pair of handrails that were made 5 years earlier for a home 2 towns over for another contractor. It seems their contractor built an addition for the other home and kept the handrails to use in the future.

Simply sometimes what you are looking at, found it's why to that location at a later date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top