I had to match what was there!

[Yankee]

The code only requires engineering. There is no obligation for a builder to employ an engineer. He can simply do the engineering himself. (He cannot do engineering for a third party unless he is licensed, but he can do it for himself.)

Well no, actually in my State he can't (do engineering for himself outside of the prescriptive).

 

[NH09]

Don't worry, we got plenty of bureaucrats down here who are just as skilled as you in denying permits to keep their workload down. They are able to do so with similar rationalizations and the same smug self-satisfaction, too.A code official playing "Gotcha" with permits and counting down the days until retirement is hardly unique.

On a project such as this I doubt the inspector had a complete set of plans, in most cases the contractor comes in with a rough sketch and frames the project as they go along - so a permit would not be denied. If we required the contractor to submit a complete set of plans for every small project they'd go under. In most cases we issue the permit and inspect along the way, if we happen to catch the contractor before they have done something wrong everybody wins, but if they have to make a correction (which may be the case with these rafters) then so be it, it's their responsibility to know the code. You should also notice on my previous reply that I stated "taking action..within the scope of the code", which means I do not require a contractor to exceed the code requirements, I only recommend changes based on problems I have seen; most contractors appreciate this, no one wants to go back to fix a leaky roof.

 

[brudgers]

On a project such as this I doubt the inspector had a complete set of plans, in most cases the contractor comes in with a rough sketch and frames the project as they go along - so a permit would not be denied. If we required the contractor to submit a complete set of plans for every small project they'd go under. In most cases we issue the permit and inspect along the way, if we happen to catch the contractor before they have done something wrong everybody wins, but if they have to make a correction (which may be the case with these rafters) then so be it, it's their responsibility to know the code. You should also notice on my previous reply that I stated "taking action..within the scope of the code", which means I do not require a contractor to exceed the code requirements, I only recommend changes based on problems I have seen; most contractors appreciate this, no one wants to go back to fix a leaky roof.

I take back what I said.

What with your issuing permits without documents and then forcing changes to in place construction, you are a true champion of "gotcha."

But please, stop pretending that your method winds up saving people money.

 

[NH09]

I take back what I said.What with your issuing permits without documents and then forcing changes to in place construction, you are a true champion of "gotcha."

But please, stop pretending that your method winds up saving people money.

Fair enough, and I hate having to force an expensive fix on a contractor who's on a tight enough budget as it is, but with renovations it's difficult to know what's going to be behind the wall before starting the project. If I start requiring detailed plan sets from contractors prior to starting work it will mean they have to do some demolition prior to getting the permit. I don't mind, but most homeowners would probably object. Sometimes it's easier to demo everything at once and plan from there. Maybe a possible solution is to hold a "post demolition meeting" in those situations so a plan can be developed prior to framing and prevent costly changes.

 

[JBI]

"Engineered design', one must be a design professional in NYS to provide an engineered design...

 

[Daddy-0-]

Very interesting discussions......do go on

 

[Rio]

Regarding the possibility of the rafters splitting we had a project where the engineer notched the end of a series of joists to achieve a slope for a deck; when the plan checker saw it (another engineer) he said while it was legal to do so it was also asking for the joists to split there and suggested we laminate plywood to the sides of the joists, in effect tying the joist back together above and below the notch. I think something similar could be done in this situation and it would likely reduce or eliminate the splitting concern.