You have made that statement a couple of times, and i still don't understand your point. How are they breaking the law?once you understand that by not restricting their review or inspections to the adopted code, they are already breaking the law.
You have made that statement a couple of times, and i still don't understand your point. How are they breaking the law?once you understand that by not restricting their review or inspections to the adopted code, they are already breaking the law.
As a building official, I can only legally make a contractor do what has been lawfully adopted. If a government official goes beyond this point, they are in violation of that person's rights guaranteed under your constitution and my charter.You have made that statement a couple of times, and i still don't understand your point. How are they breaking the law?
With regards to the above, I do not disagree at all. I do my best to always provide code sections. I think all code officials should.I see the world from the design professionals point of view.
When we have competing world views there are two ways to resolve conflicts, either the one with the most power wins or we use our legal system to resolve the disagreements. I am just asking the building department to comply with the laws. When a plan checker says that he does not need to identify the code basis he is saying that he is the law.
Contemplate what tmurray has said
The design professional is required to show why his design complies with the law, for example by submission of calculations, so why should the plan checker not be required to defend his comments?
Are we a country of laws or are we ruled by autocrats?
Take that to the next level … the DP should be required to add a note to every detail on the page indicating what code he/she used when creating that detail. Some details will require 4 or 5 notes to be properly annotated. The drawings will become cluttered and almost unreadable … or the number of drawing sheets will double.The design professional is required to show why his design complies with the law, for example by submission of calculations, so why should the plan checker not be required to defend his comments?
I have no issue providing code sections where asked. In fact, I have no issue with the law requiring that we must provide one when it is requested.I see the world from the design professionals point of view.
When we have competing world views there are two ways to resolve conflicts, either the one with the most power wins or we use our legal system to resolve the disagreements. I am just asking the building department to comply with the laws. When a plan checker says that he does not need to identify the code basis he is saying that he is the law.
Contemplate what tmurray has said
The design professional is required to show why his design complies with the law, for example by submission of calculations, so why should the plan checker not be required to defend his comments?
Are we a country of laws or are we ruled by autocrats?
I agree with this commentI have no issue providing code sections where asked. In fact, I have no issue with the law requiring that we must provide one when it is requested.
I agree with this commentAs a department manager, I have a responsibility to ensure the efficient use of tax payer money. In this situation, I simply cannot agree that providing everyone a code section for every single violation provides any actual benefit for the additional tax payer money that this initiative would cost. I understand as a designer this would make your life easier, but as a regulator, we have a different world view. I have to take into account the effect of any initiatives on not just the designer community and the owners they serve, but on my entire community.
In that particular case I think it should be rejected and sent back … too many mistakes in the beginning.I know a city that stops the review right there in it's tracks, I don't want to do it that way.
Correct...I was $1 million cash positive this year.....Thus it is the applicants not the general taxpayers that fund the department.
Wasn't this thread about Florida?With regards to the comment about spending taxpayer’s money. In California the building department is funded by permit fees. In fact when averaged over a year or more if the fees are greater than the departments costs they need to adjust the fee structure. Any excess does not go into the general fund. Thus it is the applicants not the general taxpayers that fund the department.
That was where it started...Not really OT yet....Wasn't this thread about Florida?
I don't think anyone has said that... what we have suggested is that you are a broken record and you constantly rail against code officials.I find it interesting that when the plan checker criticizes my design, I am expected to say yes sir and do what the checker says but when I defend my design I am being argumentative.
Why not? It is not imposed; it is someone who may have a different perspective and is trying to help you and the project team find success. Again, sounds like you are the one shut down and being difficult.I do not need another “team member” imposed on me by the jurisdiction.
So does the designer, the contractor and the owner. California has passed a law that prevents jurisdictions from performing plan checking on solar projects. EV charger permits must be permitted immediately upon receipt of the application with no other constraints such as a load calculation. It's about as minimal as it gets....all to build profit. Well they say that it's to enhance the solar industry but the reality is that there is nothing altruistic about the solar industry.The city profits if the building department does a minimal job.
Agreed. Building departments need to be carful at the difference between a fee and a tax. A fee at most pays for the delivery of the service. A tax may exceed the cost of delivery of the service. If the "fee" exceeds the costs to deliver the service, it is a tax. There could be legal implications if taxes must be adopted differently than fees (as is the case in Canada).If the fees are put into the general fund and only a percentage is used to provide the service the fees were intended to pay for then there is a conflict of interest. The city profits if the building department does a minimal job.
Need to stay current with code changes "duh", code is a tool, tools require periodic sharpening.As an example the correction on a PEX repipe reads: “Establish a grounding electrode system for the premises wiring per the CEC.” If asked for a reason why, the obvious answer is that there is a need for one and that there is not one. How many CEC sections are relevant for a grounding electrode system?
How about a bedroom addition with a window that does not meet egress requirements? The correction reads: “Provide an egress window per the CRC.”
It seems to me that the reason for a failure is the correction as it is written. It’s rare that I just say “NO”….although it has happened….followed up with ”NOT YET”
One in a thousand has a code book and that code book is fifteen years old. So what’s the point?