• 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

I never, ever saw anything like this before

Remember the applicant has a right to be able to know the rules prior to submitting the application.

What you call rules, we call codes. The codes are not hidden from them. Applicants that don't know the code as it applies to their proposed work are engaged in a folly of their own making. We as the AHJ are along for the ride.

The AHJ has the right to expect applicants to know the code. It is not my lot in life to teach the code to any and all. As a matter of fact, it is damned aggravating when contractors haven't a clue.
 
I would assume Mark K is stating that the applicant has the right to be able to access the requirements and not that it is the jurisdiction's responsibility to educate the applicant on the requirements before they submit an application.
 
I would assume Mark K is stating that the applicant has the right to be able to access the requirements and not that it is the jurisdiction's responsibility to educate the applicant on the requirements before they submit an application.

Yes and no, "we" are servants of the public and as such will deal with "all" comers, patience is critical to our success in spite of our opinions as to "who" should know "what" about what when they submit. Ours is not to "do or die" but to assist and "direct".
 
Yes and no, "we" are servants of the public and as such will deal with "all" comers, patience is critical to our success in spite of our opinions as to "who" should know "what" about what when they submit. Ours is not to "do or die" but to assist and "direct".

I used to be a one man show in a city. At that gig I issued permits as well as inspected the work. It has been so long ago that I can't tell you the exact years....but it was years. Many came through that had scant knowledge of the undertaking. Some struck me as incapable. When I got to the point of inspecting the work I felt like the permit technician let me down.....and the plan checker.....Shirley he knew that the other side will be falling off a cliff.

These days I am not called upon to provide applicant education. There's all of the forms and agencies for them to get through. That's not the code. I do not expect applicants to know much of anything. Unless of course the applicant is the builder. Even with that, the stuff about agencies is not something many would know.....but the code....if they are codeless....they think that I adopted them.....and they just got their first bicycle.
 
Last edited:
Why should tax payers be responsible to subsidize builders/contractors/developers who do not want to spend the time and money on education or qualified professionals?
 
We are a country of laws.

The point is that the individual must be available to know the laws before they can be applied to him or her. The fact that an applicant is ignorant of the law is not relevant.

All I hear are rationalizations for why inspectors do not need to comply with the law. Legally these rationalizations have no standing.

I also hear inspectors who try to make themselves feel superior because others fail at something. This does not reflect well on those individuals who are trying to make themselves feel superior. The reality is that engineers also find numerous examples where the inspector or the plan checker does not know what he is talking about. The difference is that the engineer usually does not make the inspector aware of his or her shortcoming thus allowing the inspector to have an inflated sense of his or her competence.

Why should the applicant suffer and have to pay more and delay the job because a building inspector plan checker is ignorant?

I have learned not to assume that the plan checker or building inspector is competent. I would appreciate it if the inspector and plan checker recognized that they were constrained by the laws. It does happen sometimes but there are too many who do not believe in the rule of law.
 
"Balanced" response Mark, "patience" is a gift not easily present in many but to be "shared" by those that do.
 
We are a country of laws.

The point is that the individual must be available to know the laws before they can be applied to him or her. The fact that an applicant is ignorant of the law is not relevant.

All I hear are rationalizations for why inspectors do not need to comply with the law. Legally these rationalizations have no standing.

I also hear inspectors who try to make themselves feel superior because others fail at something. This does not reflect well on those individuals who are trying to make themselves feel superior. The reality is that engineers also find numerous examples where the inspector or the plan checker does not know what he is talking about. The difference is that the engineer usually does not make the inspector aware of his or her shortcoming thus allowing the inspector to have an inflated sense of his or her competence.

Why should the applicant suffer and have to pay more and delay the job because a building inspector plan checker is ignorant?

I have learned not to assume that the plan checker or building inspector is competent. I would appreciate it if the inspector and plan checker recognized that they were constrained by the laws. It does happen sometimes but there are too many who do not believe in the rule of law.
It sounds like you are advocating for building officials to be responsible to teach others how to comply with the law. I have some concerns about this position as it violates third party regulatory concepts. If I am teaching someone how to comply with the code, I should not be permitted to then assess whether that construction now complies with the code. I am no longer a regulatory agent, I am a designer.

I'm not advocating to not help anyone at all, obviously making regulations as accessible and user friendly as possible is the goal, but when you work for a jurisdiction like mine, where everyone can pull a permit, the number of people I would have to teach is never ending. We have to draw the line somewhere. Ultimately, it is our superiors who decide what the standard of care we exercise in the delivery of our duties are. Either directly through a level of service commitment, or indirectly through staffing levels and budget.
 
I am not advocating that the building official has a responsibility to teach the law. I am saying that it must be possible for the applicant to know the requirements in advance. If the requirements have been formally adopted it is assumed that an individual could know what the requirement is. The individual may have to exercise some initiative but that is his problem unless the requirement is hidden. Also if the applicant does not have the training to be able to understand the regulations that is his problem if he is unwilling to hire a consultant with the necessary training.

On the other hand if the plan checker or inspector imposes a requirement that has not been properly adopted then we have a problem. In such situations I would suggest that the plan checker or inspector is guilty of extortion.

I would suggest that if you were to step over the line and imposing your preferences rather than pointing out the code violations then you and your jurisdiction could be liable for any problems that occur
 
I am not advocating that the building official has a responsibility to teach the law. I am saying that it must be possible for the applicant to know the requirements in advance. If the requirements have been formally adopted it is assumed that an individual could know what the requirement is. The individual may have to exercise some initiative but that is his problem unless the requirement is hidden. Also if the applicant does not have the training to be able to understand the regulations that is his problem if he is unwilling to hire a consultant with the necessary training.

On the other hand if the plan checker or inspector imposes a requirement that has not been properly adopted then we have a problem. In such situations I would suggest that the plan checker or inspector is guilty of extortion.

I would suggest that if you were to step over the line and imposing your preferences rather than pointing out the code violations then you and your jurisdiction could be liable for any problems that occur

I'm not sure that it meets the requirement of extortion, typically the person is getting something (usually money). It is conceivable if the official owned a testing facility and arbitrarily required something to be tested in that facility, then it would meet the test.

Regardless, I agree it is not in keeping with the integrity required of that position and would certainly be looked on unfavorably. There is no better way to undermine your professional image in the eyes of the court than to overstep your authority as a government official.
 
Not as many barristers in your neck of the woods as ours, eh?

We have plenty and do not enjoy your statutory immunity. Our courts have recognized that we cannot inspect work if we are directing it.

Again, I am not advocating for hiding requirements. We have all of our by-laws freely available on our website. If you want to build a shed in your back yard, I have a permit application specifically for that. It includes all the requirements from the zoning by-law re-written in plain English so you don't even need to go look them up. When someone calls to ask what the requirements are, I tell them outright. My problem is I have recently seen a large increase in the do-it-yourself community who look to us to teach them how to build something. I'm not talking about the people who need a little help here and there. I am talking about people who have unconscious incompetence.

I have an ethical problem with charging our residents more tax dollars because their neighbor decided to save money by not hiring a general contractor, while also damaging our local contractor businesses at the same time.
 
Why should tax payers be responsible to subsidize builders/contractors/developers who do not want to spend the time and money on education or qualified professionals?

Permit fees should cover construction/ permit related costs....We supplement the general fund pretty well here.....
 
We have plenty and do not enjoy your statutory immunity. Our courts have recognized that we cannot inspect work if we are directing it.

Again, I am not advocating for hiding requirements. We have all of our by-laws freely available on our website. If you want to build a shed in your back yard, I have a permit application specifically for that. It includes all the requirements from the zoning by-law re-written in plain English so you don't even need to go look them up. When someone calls to ask what the requirements are, I tell them outright. My problem is I have recently seen a large increase in the do-it-yourself community who look to us to teach them how to build something. I'm not talking about the people who need a little help here and there. I am talking about people who have unconscious incompetence.

I have an ethical problem with charging our residents more tax dollars because their neighbor decided to save money by not hiring a general contractor, while also damaging our local contractor businesses at the same time.

Thank the DIY network for the rash of DIY'rs
 
Permit fees should cover construction/ permit related costs....We supplement the general fund pretty well here.....
I don't know if there is any jurisdiction here that would cover their costs. It is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recoup more in fees than the costs of delivering the service.
 
In California building department fees cannot exceed the cost of providing services but this can be based on total department fees averaged over several years. This does not prevent a situation where an individual project happens to pay more fees than the cost of servicing that project. Any excess fees cannot be transferred to the General Fund of the jurisdiction.
 
In California building department fees cannot exceed the cost of providing services but this can be based on total department fees averaged over several years. This does not prevent a situation where an individual project happens to pay more fees than the cost of servicing that project. Any excess fees cannot be transferred to the General Fund of the jurisdiction.
I believe that to be true in every state and every jurisdiction. From my understanding that may be an example of taxation without representation. Unfortunately, many municipalities love to take from the building department and put the money in the general fund but no one ever pushes back on that although I did have one situation in Pennsylvania where the hospital did push back and won in the courts and should have.
 
In PA too. There doesn't seem to be anything about how much a private inspection company can charge. They exist to make money. But all of the private inspection company's kick back money back to the jurisdiction per their contract with the jurisdiction, sometimes up to 40% of the permit fee even though the jurisdiction itself doesn't do anything at all.
 
"Kick" you say or required by the departments in order to be placed on an "approved" vendors list?
 
Top