• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Not so light reading

After a controversy arose the list of violations went from four to thirty-three. I find that to be problematic.
 
ICE said:
After a controversy arose the list of violations went from four to thirty-three. I find that to be problematic.
Click to expand...

Not quite.
The builder completely changed the framing so a detailed inspection was not necessary because 1) the framing was not finished and he had to 2) provide new drawings, 3) provide documentation from the engineered wood manufacturers (LVL cut sheets), 4) Provide documentation with a layout from the engineered I-Joist manufacturer and of course re-submit to await approval. It was not until under threat of litigation from his attorney that surprise attacked us at a jobsite meeting, he demanded that we provide a detailed inspection of the existing structure. He then got what he asked for.
 
Very interesting legal theory, creating a "class of one" to bring a Federal discrimination action without alleging a "suspect class" member, I guess to get into Federal Court, I also guess the plaintiff thinks the state courts are part of the "old boy network". These cases are usually brought to financially drain the other side, is there going to be a motion for attorneys' fees?
 
jar546 said:
Not quite.
The builder completely changed the framing so a detailed inspection was not necessary because 1) the framing was not finished and he had to 2) provide new drawings, 3) provide documentation from the engineered wood manufacturers (LVL cut sheets), 4) Provide documentation with a layout from the engineered I-Joist manufacturer and of course re-submit to await approval. It was not until under threat of litigation from his attorney that surprise attacked us at a jobsite meeting, he demanded that we provide a detailed inspection of the existing structure. He then got what he asked for.
Click to expand...

As an inspector I understand why there was not a complete inspection early on. The work substantially deviates from the plans.....the framing is not completed....I have stopped inspections for those reasons. However some (or many) of the new twenty-nine added corrections could be other than plans related. Perhaps not even framing related. Whatever they were, they were still there when the inspector went back.

As Tommy, the oldest Henderson boy said, "Here's the thing about that". To a civilian It looks bad. I will stop a framing inspection because there are no plans on site but I will write all of the obvious correction that I don't need plans to identify. Windows too small or too high for eero....maybe they're not tempered next to a stair landing...... purlins braced from ceiling joists ....corners not nailed together....top plate penetrations not sealed.....etc. And then there's all of the other trades.

If I stop and there are a bundle of corrections waiting to be written, the contractors get real testy. Rightly so
 
All of the deficiencies we were forced to write up were specific to framing. We can't inspect to plans if the job is not to the plans.........until forced to do so under litigation.
 
conarb said:
Very interesting legal theory, creating a "class of one" to bring a Federal discrimination action without alleging a "suspect class" member, I guess to get into Federal Court, I also guess the plaintiff thinks the state courts are part of the "old boy network". These cases are usually brought to financially drain the other side, is there going to be a motion for attorneys' fees?
Click to expand...

No, I just let this go. It was too draining at the end.
 
Good read, thank you for posting. Good to read the suit was tossed despite what was undoubtedly a PITA for years.

So Pittston Zoning Board could not rightfully hear complaints, I assume Pittston as with most municipalities back when this occurred did not have a building board of appeals per UCC?

Throughout the entirety of the process, did the insurance company ever attempt to settle?

What was the complainant seeking as a monetary judgement?

Have you been able to maintain the municipality as its Third Party?

This is a prime example of why we as code professionals need to stick to the job, side bar conversations are okay but can be used against you when words are manipulated.
Depositions can be friendly or onerous depending on the attorneys but in any scenario they suck to go through.
 
Kapish may not have been a "class of one" ..... but he is certainly in a class all by himself.
 
ICE said:
After a controversy arose the list of violations went from four to thirty-three. I find that to be problematic.
Click to expand...
We have done this. The occupancy of the building changed from a one family with attached garage to a two family (guess what that garage turned into). It passed framing, but the conversion happened between then and final. The first final inspection had a single violation: "construction not to approved plans". The contractor asked us just to go through and give him a list, otherwise we would have to take him to court. We did it and had around 20 violations, which were all corrected at the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top