Getting carried away

[e hilton]

Power trip. I have a project in for permit review, a bank branch, about 3,600 sf. It’s in Maryland, construction type vb, occupancy B business. IBC 2018. After many weeks of nothing, the reviewer has come back with a laundry list of comments, a couple of which are a bit much to accept. The word from the AoR is that this reviewer has a really terrible reputation, and if you push back he finds even more issues. Here’s three that are bothersome.

We have an awning over the exterior atm and called out Sunbrella fabric. His comment is that the fabric has to flame spread rating (no problem there) and we have to provide proof that it is rated. Manufacturers spec sheets are not an acceptable form of documentation. Provide trst data from a NRTL.

Second item is occupancy load calculation. He wants to use 15 sf per person for conference room, break room, lunch room and other assembly areas, and 100 sf for the rest of the branch. That’s going to probably change the total occupancy and change the restroom requirements.

We provide small lockers in the breakroom for employees to secure thier purses and such. He says that’s a dressing/fitting/locker room and we need to provide a bench. No room for a bench, and no need.

 

[bill1952]

Is the reviewer a municipal employee - in the building department - or is this an outside, independent contractor review? Just curious.

 

[ICE]

I was able to approve fabric for tents, canopies and awnings if there was a State Fire Marshall tag.

 

[Mark K]

Agencies and jurisdictions having jurisdiction are very unlikely to deal with their bad actors.

One agency that outsourced plan checking when reviewing the plan checker comments has been known to regularly require more red marks on the drawings. This implies that no matter how good of job the designers did that they will be presented with a lot of comments and likely requirements not justified by the code. Since the designers will have the same amount of comments no matter how good of a job they do it rewards the designers that submit an "incomplete" submittal.

 

[e hilton]

County employee. The county as a whole is difficult to deal with, this particular reviewer apparently is legendary.

 

[ICE]

Agencies and jurisdictions having jurisdiction are very unlikely to deal with their bad actors.

That is true in all classifications. The larger the AHJ the worse it is. The rules are civil service and union driven. The response to wrongdoing lacks flexibility and that provides for extreme measures .... either too lax or too stiff and always too late.

 

[BN4537]

County employee. The county as a whole is difficult to deal with, this particular reviewer apparently is legendary.

The elected officials of a county are sometimes more accessible than the building department higher-ups.

 

[tbz]

There were 2 towns that I used to pull a good bit of permits in, each had someone like you are dealing with currently.

We found we had to start talking the code section they were calling out, re-typing it on a new separate page, listing the flow chart and attaching to the prints and then sending it back,

For the awning, we would have put something like awning manufacture TBD, unit must comply with.......

For the occupancy load, we highlight the different areas, and insert the code sections right on the plans spelling out with flow chart style and then the calculations. Not sure if it would work for you, it worked for us.

The old locker vs shelf unit debate. Pull the lockers from the drawings, note the opening area, as open, and drop them in after they move in.

To the point one of them would mail back Christmas Cards when sent to them.

 

[ADAguy]

County employee. The county as a whole is difficult to deal with, this particular reviewer apparently is legendary.

He is not alone, many departments have one. The trick here is to know this in advance. Even following their checklist doesn't always work.

 

[bill1952]

I was curious because in my experience as a designer, reviews by indepentent contractors to the jurisdiction usually were more rigorous and just plain longer than those by the building department.

 

[e hilton]

This county still has a statement on the department website, under faq, that they offer walk-in permit reviews with a couple of reasonable restrictions. No structural, etc. But when you show up at the intake desk,they say it’s not being offered due to staffing issues.
Sidebar: what purpose do permit expediters provide today? Used to be you could pay their service fee and they “had connections” that usually shortened the review time. But now with so much done digitally, what value do they add?

 

[steveray]

Sidebar: what purpose do permit expediters provide today? Used to be you could pay their service fee and they “had connections” that usually shortened the review time. But now with so much done digitally, what value do they add?

For the most part....None IMO....I had someone from Target corporate call me up complaining that they "paid extra" for an expedited permit and I informed them that we do not offer that service, but I would be happy to help. They got their permit the next day and hopefully that expediter never got work from them again....I've thought about offering the service my self, but I would do it the right way with my own plan review and then a sit down with the AHJ to see how to really speed the process...

Back on track......I think Tom has a pretty solid approach, I also don't think the reviewer is really that far out of bounds....I would Shirley be more reasonable that that, but....He has valid questions that should be able to be answered fairly easily....

When suspect, I have asked for testing on flame spread and several times it has taken months to get it and the test date was after I asked for the testing.....Do you want to hold their permit or CO?

As long as egress is good, I have no problem flexing OL for fixtures.....But....

Lockers do not a "locker room" make.....argue that the benches are for full changing in a typical LR and there would be mens and womens if that were the case? Call them lockable storage cubbies? Sometimes it is just the way the info is presented that make a reviewer uncomfortable...

 

[Sifu]

This county still has a statement on the department website, under faq, that they offer walk-in permit reviews with a couple of reasonable restrictions. No structural, etc. But when you show up at the intake desk,they say it’s not being offered due to staffing issues.
Sidebar: what purpose do permit expediters provide today? Used to be you could pay their service fee and they “had connections” that usually shortened the review time. But now with so much done digitally, what value do they add?

Sidebar:

As a contractor I paid for a few expedited reviews, because the owner demanded it and the AHJ offered it. As a plan reviewer I have never worked anywhere that had that option. In both cases I find them a little concerning. IMHO, everyone should pay the same price. I always wondered what would happen if everybody paid the "expedited" fee. Would we then need an "expedited, expedited fee"? Not sure I like the idea that I get bumped back because the next guy in line offered more money. Seems a little "suspicious" to me. We should do the best we can for everybody, at all times.

My view is skewed because I have never worked for an AHJ that had some of the long review times I hear about. I guess if I worked somewhere with an 8 week or so time frame I might feel differently.

(Sore-spot alert) Electronic review should make things move faster, and when submittals are complete I think it does. The problem is that in the move to everything digital, we lost an important human interface. In the past, permit techs stood across from the applicant, thumbed through the documents, conducted an intake review and could tell them on the spot that the submittal was incomplete. They could turn them around right there and tell them to come back when ready. Now, the applicant can apply at midnight, with whatever they feel like uploading and there is a stunning lack of intake oversight, nobody is even opening the files until the plan reviewer gets to them (I once received some "colorful" photos for review. I explained that I wasn't that kind of doctor). The result is an incomplete submittal, that may not be recognized as such until the plans examiner gets to it. We are then forced to kick it back, or spend extra time trying to get the info we need, contorting ourselves because the poor applicant had waited a week or so just to find out the project couldn't even be reviewed. Now we have a very frustrated applicant that waited a week or more only to be rejected without review. I have tried very hard to bring back that interface, even if it is the next day and done via a phone call. Everyone agrees, but as of yet has anybody done anything about it. I have said many times that the permit tech is arguably the most important part of the process, but their role is being diminished more and more every day. The are not trained, or expected to perform at the same level anymore. The electronic process was supposed to bring about a better customer service experience. I don't see it that way in many cases.

End rant.

 

[Sifu]

Power trip. I have a project in for permit review, a bank branch, about 3,600 sf. It’s in Maryland, construction type vb, occupancy B business. IBC 2018. After many weeks of nothing, the reviewer has come back with a laundry list of comments, a couple of which are a bit much to accept. The word from the AoR is that this reviewer has a really terrible reputation, and if you push back he finds even more issues. Here’s three that are bothersome.

We have an awning over the exterior atm and called out Sunbrella fabric. His comment is that the fabric has to flame spread rating (no problem there) and we have to provide proof that it is rated. Manufacturers spec sheets are not an acceptable form of documentation. Provide trst data from a NRTL.

Second item is occupancy load calculation. He wants to use 15 sf per person for conference room, break room, lunch room and other assembly areas, and 100 sf for the rest of the branch. That’s going to probably change the total occupancy and change the restroom requirements.

We provide small lockers in the breakroom for employees to secure thier purses and such. He says that’s a dressing/fitting/locker room and we need to provide a bench. No room for a bench, and no need.

Now for the main topic in the OP.

Awning: I accept MFR documentation unless there is a reason not to. I have asked many times for that documentation, it is like pulling teeth a lot of the time, but I usually get it, and accept it.

Occupancy: In general, I think the plans examiner is following the code, and I do as well. However, I try to be reasonable for lunch/break rooms, acknowledging that most are small, and are only accessed by employees that have already been counted. (there is a code change proposal for small conference rooms in the 2021 IBC I think). I rarely find one that crosses the threshold for enhanced MOE or fixtures, but when I do I spend a lot of time critically thinking about the impact.

Bench: Where is the code requirement for the bench? IBC requires equity (2018 IBC 1109.9 & 1109.12), so if a bench is provided, 5% of it must be accessible. If there is a scoping section that requires it in all cases I have missed it.

Power trip: Not much to say to help. I see power trips in all facets, including AHJ's, owners and contractors. I try not to be that guy, but it is an unfortunate reality that some are. In my experience, if I were that guy, I would not have lasted long in any of my AHJ's. My job is to try and determine code compliance, within reason and within the times allotted. I entertain all options in trying to do that job, but I also expect the applicants to do the same.