How do you handle resubmittals?

[Yankee Chronicler]

Section 104.1 (2021 IRC) The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code.

I am not certain who you or your "boss" is, but one of you may or may not be the building official. If neither of you are, who is? Here, I am the building official and I amend the building codes, make policies and set procedures.

I am an Assistant Building Official. My boss is the Building Official, his boss is the Director of Land Use, and that person's boss is the mayor.

In this state, local BOs are not authorized to interpret the codes. Only the State has that authority. The Building Department can't adopt any regulations at all -- regulations are enacted by the Town Council. We can't adopt any policies without prior approval from the Town Council.

Congratulations on your autonomy.

 

[jar546]

In this state, local BOs are not authorized to interpret the codes. Only the State has that authority. The Building Department can't adopt any regulations at all -- regulations are enacted by the Town Council. We can't adopt any policies without prior approval from the Town Council.

If you lived in CT, that would not be a true statement. Right from the CT amendments.

(Amd) 104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to adopt policies and procedures to clarify the application of its provisions. Such policies and procedures shall comply with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code, nor shall they have the effect of establishing requirements in excess of those set forth in this code.

 

[Mark K]

Section 104.1 (2021 IRC) The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code.

I am not certain who you or your "boss" is, but one of you may or may not be the building official. If neither of you are, who is? Here, I am the building official and I amend the building codes, make policies and set procedures.

In California the building official does not have the unilateral authority to amend the building code. We start with the California Building code which can only be amended if the local modifications can be supported by certain findings. The amendments must be adopted by the local jurisdiction's legislative body and then filed with the California Building Standards Commission.

While the building official plays a role in the process he does not amend the building code. The building official is not god.

 

[jar546]

In California the building official does not have the unilateral authority to amend the building code. We start with the California Building code which can only be amended if the local modifications can be supported by certain findings. The amendments must be adopted by the local jurisdiction's legislative body and then filed with the California Building Standards Commission.

While the building official plays a role in the process he does not amend the building code. The building official is not god.

I thought we were discussing policies and procedures that Building Officials have the right to create and enforce, including in California. No one is suggesting changing the actual codes which is a state issue. Policies and procedures can vary between jurisdictions but they are the responsibility of the Buiding Official. The verbiage from chapter 1 of the IBC is almost exact in California as it is in Florida and most states that have adopted an administrative code based on the IBC.

 

[Mark K]

I thought we were discussing policies and procedures that Building Officials have the right to create and enforce, including in California. No one is suggesting changing the actual codes which is a state issue. Policies and procedures can vary between jurisdictions but they are the responsibility of the Buiding Official. The verbiage from chapter 1 of the IBC is almost exact in California as it is in Florida and most states that have adopted an administrative code based on the IBC.

What one person sees as a policy or procedure another person may consider it a modification of the building code.

A code provision giving powers to the building official may also be questionable if it is in conflict with other state laws or if due process was not followed.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I thought we were discussing policies and procedures that Building Officials have the right to create and enforce, including in California. No one is suggesting changing the actual codes which is a state issue. Policies and procedures can vary between jurisdictions but they are the responsibility of the Buiding Official. The verbiage from chapter 1 of the IBC is almost exact in California as it is in Florida and most states that have adopted an administrative code based on the IBC.

Both you and rktect 1 have cited the ICC language and stated that you have authority to amend the code. That is not the case in this state. Local building officials in this state have NO authority to amend the code, and NO authority to interpret the code, and NO authority to grant modifications even on a case-by-case basis. All that is reserved to the State. As to adopting policies and procedures, while our amended code theoretically leaves the BO the authority to adopt policies and procedures, the political reality is that in our town the mayor and the town council don't allow any municipal department to adopt any policies or procedures without town council approval (which is rarely granted).

As a result, for example we cannot adopt a policy of charging for reinspections. We cannot establish a fee for multiple plan reviews for the same permit application. The code says we can ... the reality is that we can't. The BO has to obtain prior approval from the Town Counsel (not the town council) before posting any stop work order or notice of violation. It's micromanagement to an extreme level and it makes life difficult, but that's the reality.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

What one person sees as a policy or procedure another person may consider it a modification of the building code.

I'm not sure how you make that claim.

Policies - if they are done correctly - usually set guidelines or limits to what is actually done.

Our office requires a code matrix for part 3 buildings and complex part 9 buildings.

Our office will accept images depicting corrections - on a case by case basis.

Our office used to accept staged permits, that is, allow foundation work to begin while above-ground details were being finalized. We no longer have that policy.

Our office used to require inspections of slabs-on-grade only if engineered. Then we required inspections for areas with high uranium content to verify the radon rough-in. Now, because we realize there are issues, we require inspections of all slabs-on-grade.

Not one of those deals with Code, or tries to change Code.

 

[jar546]

What one person sees as a policy or procedure another person may consider it a modification of the building code.

A code provision giving powers to the building official may also be questionable if it is in conflict with other state laws or if due process was not followed.

You don’t have to like it and you can question it, but the reality is that you’re gonna deal with it whether you want to or not unless you retire. The building official has the ability to not only interpret the code, but also to put in place policies and procedures. You can whine about it, you could dislike it, you could continue to complain about it, and you could question it, but it is the reality that you will have to live until the day. You decide you are retired and will no longer be submitting documents to building departments.

 

[tmurray]

I'm not sure how you make that claim.

Policies - if they are done correctly - usually set guidelines or limits to what is actually done.

Our office requires a code matrix for part 3 buildings and complex part 9 buildings.

Our office will accept images depicting corrections - on a case by case basis.

Our office used to accept staged permits, that is, allow foundation work to begin while above-ground details were being finalized. We no longer have that policy.

Our office used to require inspections of slabs-on-grade only if engineered. Then we required inspections for areas with high uranium content to verify the radon rough-in. Now, because we realize there are issues, we require inspections of all slabs-on-grade.

Not one of those deals with Code, or tries to change Code.

The line blurs a little bit more in the US as they include a lot more administrative requirements directly in their code, similar to the Ontario Building Code.

 

[rktect 1]

I want to be honest here, and also I am not trying to be insulting to those who are somehow hamstrung by their states, but if you don't have any authority, what makes you a building official? You can't interpret anything. You can't amend anything. You can't control anything. You can't allow alternate materials and methods. And you can't set a path forward through policy or process.

It sounds like your states do have building officials but somehow other people are using the title Building Official.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

To be honest, most of us are (most of the time) perfectly happy NOT to be allowed to grant modifications and interpretations. Both of those actions carry with them potential liability, if not for the code officials then for the jurisdictions that employ them. Modifications are a good example. A building code modification is supposed to be to allow something that isn't technically allowed by the code but which provides equivalent safety. That's clearly a judgment call, and if the call is wrong, someone could be injured or killed as a result. I've been sued in federal court just for citing items of non-conformity in a plan review. I have no desire to be sued because I granted a modification and the alternate construction I allowed killed someone. Let the state have it. I have several pounds of code books to enforce without needing to venture into the interpretation and modification arena.