• 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

Minimum Submittal Requirements

"Physically having a copy of State and Local codes in your possession would have been the professional, prudent thing to do which would, of course been due diligence."

Really?? In our world of technology and environmental friendly movements one is still expected to have a hard copy of a local ordinance when it's available on their website??
 
I'm still trying to figure out how one can physically possess that which does not exist.

Is this like one of those "if a tree falls in the forest" type of things?
 
Codegeek said:
"Physically having a copy of State and Local codes in your possession would have been the professional, prudent thing to do which would, of course been due diligence." Really?? In our world of technology and environmental friendly movements one is still expected to have a hard copy of a local ordinance when it's available on their website??
Click to expand...
Yes. And you should keep that physical code in your office until they wheel you out toes up.

Taking shortcuts can....well, let's just say it can lead to problems of the sort you may be familiar with.
 
"I'm still trying to figure out how one can physically possess that which does not exist."

Easy. You ask for a copy of all interpretations that have not yet been made.
 
permitguy said:
I'm still trying to figure out how one can physically possess that which does not exist.Is this like one of those "if a tree falls in the forest" type of things?
Click to expand...
No. I think it is a "which came first, the chicken, or the egg" type of thing, but may vary based upon region and dialect, or in other words on the AHJ. The more important issue is who is responsible for defining an interpretation of the colloquial euphemism applied to the project? On this issue I tend to side with brudgers, in that a preliminary meeting with all the applicable AHJs (i.e., city, county, state, etc.) is a prudent and valuable way to familiarize oneself with the local traditions of each AHJ. While, I have suffered the comments, which brudgers described, many times as justification for providing incomplete submittals, I do not believe there is enough information regarding codegeeks example to accurately apply fault. It would be my guess, that better communication could have avoided the situation, and it appears that egg, or chicken, is on all parties faces at this juncture, but perhaps that is one of the downfalls of using an expeditor.

I appreciate all of the responses, with exception to the personal character references, and will continue to use the feedback towards improving our department's level of service (by enforcing the minimum building standards) to the community (please note, I did not say contractors, expeditors, and RDPs). Have a great weekend.
 
After all the problems that came of the project I posted about earlier in this string, I could resist posting an update.

Because of the state requirement that essentially requires fire barriers between all tenants in a strip center, the jurisdiction was having problems with tenant spaces going into existing buildings and being able to provide a fire barrier without causing disruption to the adjacent tenant. Our firm was able to provide a UL listed assembly that would allow for a two hour fire barrier to be built with 3 layers of rock on the new tenant side, causing no disruption to the adjacent tenant. As a result of this, the jurisdiction is now using our solution as a guide for others to follow.

:D
 
106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted when approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official.

Commentary: The construction documents are required to be of a quality and detail such that the building official can determine that the work conforms to the code and other applicable laws and regulations. General statements on the documents, such as “all work must comply with the International Building Code,” are not an acceptable substitute for showing the required information. The following subsections and sections in other chapters indicated in the commentary to Section 106.1 specify the detailed information that must be shown on the submitted documents. When specifically allowed by the building official, documents can be submitted in electronic form.

Although not clearly stated in 106.1.1 as was clearly stated in the SBC I think the bold text is what you are looking for.

You need only to reference the Code Section number or numbers that are not in compliance, give it back to the RDP and tell him to resubmit plans. When I was a Building Official I heard from many RDP the following; “I do not have enough fee in the job to show these requirements”, “The owner cannot build the building if he has to meet Code” and “No other jurisdiction requires this” and on and on.
 
Examiner said:
General statements on the documents, such as “all work must comply with the International Building Code,” are not an acceptable substitute for showing the required information.
Click to expand...
That is going into my repertoire of comments for sure! Thanks.

Examiner said:
You need only to reference the Code Section number or numbers that are not in compliance, give it back to the RDP and tell him to resubmit plans. When I was a Building Official I heard from many RDP the following; “I do not have enough fee in the job to show these requirements”, “The owner cannot build the building if he has to meet Code” and “No other jurisdiction requires this” and on and on.
Click to expand...
If only I had a dime for every time I have heard one of those...haven't heard an RDP use all three on the same job yet though. Must be saving that for the day I....
 
I understand the problem with “I do not have enough fee in the job to show these requirements” yet I have heard building officials use lack of enough budget as an excuse to not do things required by the building code.
 
If a RDP told me the client can't afford to build to code, the permit would be denied and I would seriously consider turning the RDP into the state licensing board.
 
TJacobs

What would you do about the building official that used lack of budget as a reason for not doing what he was obligated to do?
 
I know I'm not Jake, but this is an apples and oranges comparison. It can be said that both are doing the best they can with what they have, but the similarities stop there.

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread about due dilligence on the part of designers. We can argue about what due dilligence entails, but few would argue that it isn't necessary. If an architectural firm is bidding a job, they know they are competing with other firms who want the same job. A firm needs to understand the effort that will be required to get through the development and construction process and needs to bid the job according to that effort. The playing field is level for all of them, because they all want the exact same job and all have the same access to perform due dilligence. Obviously someone is going to get the job. If another firm routinely outbids them, they need to find out why and either make adjustments or close their doors.

The building official is obligated to carry out the policies of the agency as directed by the executive and the legislature. The budget is a reflection of those policies. The building official isn't competing with other building officials to do the same job. Instead, the building official is competing for the same public dollars with departments who do very different jobs. The playing field isn't level here because every department has different responsibilities. The legislature and executive determine which of these responsibilities they value the most when they approve the agency's budget. Hopefully the building official is successful at influencing the executive and legislature through education; however, if the legislature wants to adopt a building code and not support enforcement of that code with their budget, there isn't much a building official can do about it.
 
Back to the use of red ink by the permit/inspeciton folks, when I am done with a project, I scan the documents into my computer. Those red ink comments disappear when scanned or copied. I am then w/o any proof that those docs have been seen and approved by the b/o.
 
I've never had that problem when scanning or copying. If you're that concerned about having your own proof, I guess you could keep the jobsite set. The copies in the building department will still exist as well.
 
Mark K said:
TJacobsWhat would you do about the building official that used lack of budget as a reason for not doing what he was obligated to do?
Click to expand...
Nothing, because hopefully that's a different jurisdiction and I have my own problems, like no money for code books, travel, vehicles, etc.
 
fireguy said:
Back to the use of red ink by the permit/inspeciton folks, when I am done with a project, I scan the documents into my computer. Those red ink comments disappear when scanned or copied. I am then w/o any proof that those docs have been seen and approved by the b/o.
Click to expand...
Scan in color...
 
Mark K said:
TJacobsWhat would you do about the building official that used lack of budget as a reason for not doing what he was obligated to do?
Click to expand...
The building official is "obliged to do" only what he can do given his resources, be it time, money, or knowledge.
 
Yankee said:
The building official is "obliged to do" only what he can do given his resources, be it time, money, or knowledge.
Click to expand...
Would you accept that excuse from the project owner or architect or contractor?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fireguy said:
Would you accept that excuse from the project owner or architect or contractor?
Click to expand...
Your mistake is trying to make the two equivalent. they are not. One is a position funded by public moneys and is a "check" on the process that is engaged by the other. It is the project owner who is responsible for meeting the requirements of the LAW. It is not LAW that the citizens fund a department to any extent at all. To the extent that citizens fund an enforcement agency, the department is "obliged" to do what it can with its resources.Your mistake is thinking that both "sides" have equivalent responsibility under the law. Not so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fireguy said:
Would you accept that excuse from the project owner or architect or contractor?
Click to expand...
No, I would not.

Just as I would hope a BO would report an RDP, Contractor or Owner who makes such a claim, I would also hope that an RDP, Contractor or Owner would be equally capable of reporting a BO's actions should they fall short of their prescribed office. An excuse is an excuse regardless of who else or how many others make it, and neither of which will abdicate any party from culpability or responsibility.
 
The laws do not run one way. When the government passes laws they can obligate the government to meet certain standards. In California the courts have required that prisions meet certain conditions and the courts have not accepted the argument that there is not enough money in the budget. What is the governments responsibility if the law requires the building official perform certain inspections before work can proceed but the building department did not have the funds to perform the inspections?

While the citizens have legal obligations they also have rights. Governmental agencies are not allowed to ignore the rights of the citizens because it is inconvienient.
 
There are many unfunded laws on the books on all levels of government from local counties all the way up to the federal behemoth we now have. It is the hallmark of today’s partisan political conundrum.

Sheesh lets not bring the fight to this forum:eek:topic.
 
Mark K said:
While the citizens have legal obligations they also have rights. Governmental agencies are not allowed to ignore the rights of the citizens because it is inconvienient.
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that a citizen has the right to have every aspect of their project inspected and reviewed by a governmental agency, let alone making a claim that a minimal or reduced governmental agency budget is an equivalent to justify the private sector budget model. That is a long and slippery road, and I would prefer this thread stayed on topic.

I can understand you may have some frustrations with governmental agencies, but I assure you, there are other forums or threads in which to make those assertions, or state those claims. To actually delineate the differences between an RDP/Owner's budget-project model, and a governmental agencies budget model, is a bit more off-topic than a simple discussion of common excuses given by RDPs for incomplete plan submittals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top