-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
How to pass building inspection?
- Thread starter Mac Moonfire
- Start date
tmurray
SAWHORSE
On the topic of providing code sections, the case law in Canada is that it is not required for simple inspections reports as these are not legal documents. However, when an order is issued, a code section must be included.
The way our courts looked at this, an inspection report is an operational document that a contractor/owner does not legally need to comply with. The contractor/owner are complying with the deficiencies identified in the inspection report out of their own goodwill. An order on the other hand, legally binds someone to action, so it must include the code section to ensure that someone's due cause rights are not violated.
A good comparison is when the police pull someone over for speeding and just give them a warning. They would not be required to give the law dictating that speeding is illegal. However, when giving a ticket, they absolutely need to five the section of the law being breached.
I've had people ask me for code sections, or to simply double check the code to make sure something is actually required. I never get offended, I want to make sure I am right too, and unfortunately, I am human and do make mistakes.
The way our courts looked at this, an inspection report is an operational document that a contractor/owner does not legally need to comply with. The contractor/owner are complying with the deficiencies identified in the inspection report out of their own goodwill. An order on the other hand, legally binds someone to action, so it must include the code section to ensure that someone's due cause rights are not violated.
A good comparison is when the police pull someone over for speeding and just give them a warning. They would not be required to give the law dictating that speeding is illegal. However, when giving a ticket, they absolutely need to five the section of the law being breached.
I've had people ask me for code sections, or to simply double check the code to make sure something is actually required. I never get offended, I want to make sure I am right too, and unfortunately, I am human and do make mistakes.
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
I think it's quite germane, frankly. And it gives me a chance to pound the pulpit on one of my favourite topics: giving code references, always.
Let me divide the inspector-client situation into two groups.
1) Inspectors who don't know what they're doing and a client who may or may not. I'd divide this into two classes:
1a) A person tasked with responsibility who has no idea what the duty entails. In our area, the province has been stupidly slow in requiring that inspectors have any training whatsoever, so a large portion of buildings in municipal areas have been constructed with permits issued by the CAO/public works boss .... despite the fact that those individuals had little to no Code knowledge. In these cases, it's up to the builder/design team to ensure compliance, since the CAO isn't going to be able to hold the construction crew accountable. Here, "passing the inspection" means squat, since the individual doing the inspection (if any are done at all) aren't qualified to actually state that construction meets code. This situation scares the crap out of me, and unfortunately, I've mopped up after this scenario a few too many times. It ain't purty.
1b) An inspector who thinks they know what they are doing, but doesn't. I've sadly seen far too many examples of inspectors who lack the knowledge/experience/Code-reading capacity to actually make meaningful evaluations, but hide behind myth/bluster/ignorance/whatever and in some cases, are telling clients to do things that are expensive, wrong, impossible, or blends of all three. An example that I think I can relate: there was a situation where an inspector *required* a builder to use "No. 2 clear cedar shingles" on a building. In Canada, No. 2 is for western cedar shingles, B Clear is for eastern. Barring genetic manipulation and a 30-year-wait, there ain't no such thing as "No. 2 clear": the inspector had crafted a request that was categorically impossible to comply with. In this case, requesting the Code reference might actually cause the inspector to realize they are asking for something that isn't, in fact, required. (Lumped into this category would be the inspector who mistakenly believes that anything stamped by an engineer is good to go.)
2) Inspectors who know what they are doing and clients who may or might not. Four subclasses.
2a) An inspector who is Code-trained but might be unfamiliar with an element of Code or a standard they are now tasked with enforcing. I had a client who wanted to install a chicken fryer in their convenience store, as part of a renovation under permit. No problem, says I, show me the drawings/design for the NFPA 96-compliant ventilation assembly. Client says the fryer is a self-contained unit that doesn't need ventilation. I promptly delved into what might be NFPA 96 exempt by reading the fine print of NFPA 96 (and also lobbing a query at the OFM who knows more). It didn't take me long to find out what testing/parameters the unit needed to have, and communicate this to the client. After delving into the documents, I gained enough knowledge to ask knowledgably and confidently the right questions and ultimately receive the data I needed to rule the unit was acceptable. Again, the solution is to go to the Code.
2b) An inspector who knows what they are doing, and a client who doesn't, and doesn't give a damn. We've all dealt with this sub-class of contractor: the guy who learned from a guy, and doesn't give a soggy fart for "them newfangled codes." This is the fly-by-night contractor who just doesn't care. Citing Code probably makes us look like stuffed-shirt authoritarians, but it covers our butts. Plus there's the slim chance buddy might actually try to learn.
2c) An inspector who knows what they are doing, and a client who wants to learn. Love this scenario, as it's a collaborative partnership waiting to happen. Citing code gives the contractor the chance to verify, understand and be compliant down the road. Its really funky when the builder asks a question that the inspector can't readily answer: then both learn something.
2d) An inspector who knows what they are doing, and a client/contractor who knows what they are doing. In this case, Code-backed citations for violations are simply the language of intelligent discourse. Example from a few years ago involved a new restaurant build. The GC was a standup character, knew his stuff. He'd hired a local builder to do a simple set of stairs, but the local builder is really good at residential construction ... not at commercial. The rise/run of these stairs was wrong. I didn't have to cite Code - the GC knew it was wrong the moment we discussed the matter. In this case, the Code reference was more a documentation of what we both knew. However, I suspect it gave the GC something to take to the subcon.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
- Get the dam driveway plowed.
This has been one of my problems lately. Snows here locally more than the surrounding area.
This has been one of my problems lately. Snows here locally more than the surrounding area.
I once went on an inspection and the GC was walking around telling guys/gals to do this and that, I had to finally ask is the space ready for inspection? It felt like one of those CSI shows where Vinney Barso was interviewing a guy cutting up fish, the dude wouldn't stop moving and talking, to many red bulls or something else i suspect.
Don't be that guy!
Don't be that guy!
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
One inspection I did today there was a lot of trash and supplies all over the site. A big mess. But not in my way or not too bad in the house. I did the inspection. If it looks dangerous to me, I won't.
I stepped on a few nails over the years while looking up at rafters and once tripped over a skilsaw that was under some shingle wrappers. It's amazing what is left behind on a job site.
A cup of mountain dew on a top plate, at least I think it was mountain dew?
It's a jungle.
A cup of mountain dew on a top plate, at least I think it was mountain dew?
It's a jungle.
Yikes
Gold Member
Back in 1991 there was an earthquake in southern California, and at Santa Anita (horseracing track) there was a 20' long piece of steel angle that fell from the roof structure and killed a woman sitting in the grandstands. They later figured out that the L- metal had been a leftover scrap from when the roof was first built. in 1934 and had just been sitting up there for nearly 6 decades, unconnected, probably resting on the ledge of some I beam flange. I think it got painted over the years, and everybody just assumed it was part of the permanent structure.
The quake happened during a morning workout, so the stands were mostly empty except for a few people, including that woman. Seems like something straight out of the Final Destination film franchise.
Mac Moonfire
SAWHORSE
Thanks everyone for the replies. I didn't expect our community to be so fired up.
A group of real estate investors has made the request. In my words, what they are really looking for is for things to go well at all stages with the AHJ.
Thank you for the input all.
A group of real estate investors has made the request. In my words, what they are really looking for is for things to go well at all stages with the AHJ.
Thank you for the input all.
Yankee Chronicler
Registered User
I assume that by AHJ you mean Authorities (plural) Having Jurisdiction, because (at least in my state) the Zoning Department is a separate function from the Building Department. The Fire Marshal and the Health Department are also separate from the Building Department, as is Inland Wetlands and Engineering.
If that's the case, the answer is to hire qualified professionals for each stage of the project -- land survey, zoning process, construction documents (architects and engineers), and construction (contractors). People think they're saving money by cheaping out on the architect's fees and hiring the cheapest design professionals they can find. BIG mistake. That approach will come back to bite them in the posterior if the design professional screws up and the mistakes delay the permit for months upon months. We have a project on which I reviewed plans for the first time in July of 2021. Three dinky little speculative office buildings on one parcel. We went through SIX plan reviews and rejections before we finally got to a set of construction documents we could approve. These were three copies of the same building, and they were just an unfinished shell. HOW CAN YOU SCREW THAT UP SIX TIMES?
Then the problems with the construction started, because the owner cheaped out on that, too. It's now almost three full years since he first applied. All three shells have been completed, but only one has a tenant as yet. And the tenant fit-out for that one had to go through three revisions, because the owner had agreed to handle the fit-out, and he used the same unqualified "architect."
There's a saying that "Time is money." Investors are looking for return on investment. They aren't earning any return if their plans are sitting on my plan review table being chewed apart for the sixth time.
We like to see the plans on site, this is becoming more and more difficult with everyone wanting to go paperless, so contractor or trade with his I-pad, phone or laptop with plans should be available.
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
It took me a long time to realize this truth - that cheap is costly. Whaddya wanna do - buy a $50 pair of boots every six months, or spent $250 every four years?
ICE
Oh Well
Never seen a dead battery with paper plans. I don't have to find shade to see the print on paper plans. I can maneuver back and forth without scrolling. I don't accidentally touch a wrong spot on paper plans and end up looking at vacation photos. I can't get coffee stains on an I-pad which means there won't be any notes left on the plans either.
Just sent my inspector out to do a foundation wall inspection, told him to take the paper plans incase they don't have the plans on site. He came back and reported that the job wasn't ready and that the contractor is AWOL. Said they left out TWO egress window bucks and the foundation anchors were not pre-set.
Guys/gals this isn't getting any better in the field no matter if your paperless or you have bluebeam or sunbeam software with an I-phone using a Chinese spy balloon!
Guys/gals this isn't getting any better in the field no matter if your paperless or you have bluebeam or sunbeam software with an I-phone using a Chinese spy balloon!
Sifu
SAWHORSE
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,809
When I was in the field, no plans on site resulted in another trip. That doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't walk the job and point out any obvious issues, but it would not result in a passed inspection. My list started with "provide approved plans on site for inspection". When I started my career, this was a no-brainer (along with a permit card). The number of times I showed up and the contractor/owner/applicant couldn't even muster up that level of responsibility was astounding. On the few occasions they showed up with a set of plans on an ipad, they were usually not the plans that had been approved. In my experience, there is a huge disconnect between what has been reviewed and what shows up on site. (That goes for paper or electronic). I think that the rush to move to electronic methods of permitting, submittals, reviews and inspections neglected these logistical issues, and the systems grew to the point where retroactively implementing these controls became too much work. Many times I have followed an inspection, or received phone calls about inspections where I learned that an inspector did not have the approved set of plans, and sometimes weren't even on the correct job site.
Ice hits some of the highpoints concerning inspecting with an ipad. One he missed was the number of times I left my own ipad on site, until I gave up on it. I just don't think it is too much of an ask to provide the plans on site, on paper. That would be my #1 on the list of how to pass an inspection, but AHJ's vary.
Ice hits some of the highpoints concerning inspecting with an ipad. One he missed was the number of times I left my own ipad on site, until I gave up on it. I just don't think it is too much of an ask to provide the plans on site, on paper. That would be my #1 on the list of how to pass an inspection, but AHJ's vary.
Yankee Chronicler
Registered User
I agree.
walker.t
Registered User
I would suggest the contractor pre-inspect their work, preferably by an experienced person in the operation who has not been working on the job, the in-house “inspector” may see things with fresh eyes that have been overlooked.
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
Hmmm.... I used to issue permits with boilerplate that said the construction was not to deviate from approved plans.
I think I should re-inject that into my templates. Thanks for the reminder/thought trigger.
Sifu
SAWHORSE
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,809
Sad that we have to do this.
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
Well, I'm about to go do a framing inspection on a building where the guy was working from a set of plans issued four revisions back, and didn't follow what was in THOSE plans, in any event.
Over-under on how many infractions I find?
walker.t
Registered User
Someone needs to be identified as the person responsible for rounding up outdated plans that are in the hands of those doing the work. I was involved with a project that included the addition of new landscaped islands in an existing parking lot, the parking plan was revised and given to the project owner. He put them in his truck and when he goes to help them mark the new islands he accidentally grabbed an old set of plans he forgot he had in the truck. Fortunately they only started the saw cutting and didn’t tear out the asphalt. It was a stupid mistake, fortunately they caught it before it got really expensive.
Paul Sweet
Sawhorse
We used to issue most changes on letter paper that would be taped to the back of the previous drawing. Recently almost all the changes I've seen were issued as new pdfs of the entire sheet (or multiple sheets), even if the change just took up a couple square inches of the drawing. I don't know how anybody keeps up with the added paperwork (or electrons) anymore.
The vast majority of changes I've seen don't have any code implications, but in theory every time a drawing is reissued it needs to go to the the building department to verify this,or review the change to see if there are any code issues, so that the set in the field has been reviewed. I expect that most building departments would have to double or triple their staffs to be able to do this.
The vast majority of changes I've seen don't have any code implications, but in theory every time a drawing is reissued it needs to go to the the building department to verify this,or review the change to see if there are any code issues, so that the set in the field has been reviewed. I expect that most building departments would have to double or triple their staffs to be able to do this.