• 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

Periodic Water Barrier Inspections.

Here in California the penalty for polluting a waterway is probably more than an inspection.

I have no experience with seawalls. I have experience with miles of leaning cmu fences. They usually fail in slow motion. That affords time to intervene. I can imagine that a seawall could start slow and accelerate to a mess. Unless an imminent failure would be a life safety concern a relaxed approach might be prudent. Survey on your own and alert the owners of any problems.

Ask the Army Corps of Engineers to inspect… or at least educate you on seawalls. If they balk tell them that the Marines have offered to help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here in California the penalty for polluting a waterway is probably more than an inspection.

I have no experience with seawalls. I have experience with miles of leaning cmu fences. They usually fail in slow motion. That affords time to intervene. I can imagine that a seawall could start slow and accelerate to a mess. Unless an imminent failure would be a life safety concern a relaxed approach might be prudent. Survey on your own and alert the owners of any problems.

Ask the Army Corps of Engineers to inspect… or at least educate you on seawalls. If they balk tell them that the Marines have offered to help.
I appreciate the feedback. Finding qualified people isn't a problem. Having tax payers foot the bill to hire that qualified person to survey miles of private property would be an issue. Same goes for ACE/Marines. This is the property owners responsibility in my opinion and no different(responsibility and pubic safety wise) than a highrise wall or boiler inspection. It's a necessary expense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Should consider a 50/50 match of funds like some city's do with the required city sidewalk in the Right-of-Way that the property owner has to maintain. You make the property owner shovel the sidewalk don't you, that's in the IPMC? You make them fix sidewalk trip hazards don't you? Do you have a sidewalk inspection program?

Does your State have grant or funds available for shoreline infrastructure?

Does the Biden infrastructure bill have funds for shoreline repair, has that been discussed by your state and federal legislature?

Does your city benefit by having the seawall repaired?
 
Should consider a 50/50 match of funds like some city's do with the required city sidewalk in the Right-of-Way that the property owner has to maintain. You make the property owner shovel the sidewalk don't you, that's in the IPMC? You make them fix sidewalk trip hazards don't you? Do you have a sidewalk inspection program?

Does your State have grant or funds available for shoreline infrastructure?

Does the Biden infrastructure bill have funds for shoreline repair, has that been discussed by your state and federal legislature?

Does your city benefit by having the seawall repaired?
Sidewalks are the owners responsibility and we deal with them when we get complaints or see it not shoveled in the winter. Everybody benefits from the repair even though some of it is vacant industrial land. Biden Bucks, 50/50 matches, Grants, etc. are above my pay grade and out of my lane. I just enforce.
 
I do not believe all inspectors are lousy.

The current situation is not ideal and this results in problems. The problems are related to the reality that we are dealing with people

Building inspectors are put in an impossible situation, expected to find all violations in little time. No one person can know all of the things that individual inspectors are often expected to know. But at the same time some individuals are unwilling to admit that the may be imperfect.

Building inspectors do not have the training of engineers and architects and thus may not understand the reasons for code provisions and thus take actions which are problematic. This is made worse when the building department does not have inhouse engineers and architects to support the inspectors. All too often building inspectors operate with little to no supervision. Are we then surprised when some inspectors go rogue.

Some contractors believe that because they have built some buildings that they know better than engineers what is needed. Some building inspectors make the same mistake and believe that because they have seen a lot of things they know what is needed. If we take this attitude to its illogical conclusion there would be no need for engineers since contractors and inspectors know it all. This attitude is mostly seen in contractors who work on small, often residential, buildings. This attitude is not seen in big building contractors.

Building inspectors play a role in building code enforcement but we have problems when they do not understand the limits of their role or the limits of their knowledge..
 
I do not believe all inspectors are lousy.

The current situation is not ideal and this results in problems. The problems are related to the reality that we are dealing with people

Building inspectors are put in an impossible situation, expected to find all violations in little time. No one person can know all of the things that individual inspectors are often expected to know. But at the same time some individuals are unwilling to admit that the may be imperfect.

Building inspectors do not have the training of engineers and architects and thus may not understand the reasons for code provisions and thus take actions which are problematic. This is made worse when the building department does not have inhouse engineers and architects to support the inspectors. All too often building inspectors operate with little to no supervision. Are we then surprised when some inspectors go rogue.

Some contractors believe that because they have built some buildings that they know better than engineers what is needed. Some building inspectors make the same mistake and believe that because they have seen a lot of things they know what is needed. If we take this attitude to its illogical conclusion there would be no need for engineers since contractors and inspectors know it all. This attitude is mostly seen in contractors who work on small, often residential, buildings. This attitude is not seen in big building contractors.

Building inspectors play a role in building code enforcement but we have problems when they do not understand the limits of their role or the limits of their knowledge..
Valid Points.

"A man's GOT to know his limitations"
Dirty-Harry Callahan
 
My jurisdiction is a barrier island with the Atlantic Ocean on one side and the intracoastal waterway on the other. We have a lot of seawalls and they are always being repaired, replaced or newly installed. Almost all of the intracoastal side is a seawall except where there are deep mangroves but we only have a few on the ocean side. All seawalls for us are reviewed by P&Z then get peer reviewed by an engineering firm of our choice before a permit is issued. Pilings are usually the only thing that requires a special inspection, all inspections are performed by the inspectors, not engineer unless it is part of a special inspection or the designing engineer requires it.

When it comes to maintenance, the town takes that very seriously and can even withhold the issuance of a roof permit if you seawall is in disrepair. We will often require a letter from an engineer if they don't agree with our finding. The problem is that is it easy to find an engineer willing to sign off on an older seawall because money talks. That just happened recently. We don't have an inspection program but if there is a complaint from a resident or we see it with our own eyes (code compliance) then a letter is sent out. The seawalls are on private property so we don't regulate them with required periodic inspections.
 
If the seawall was originally permitted by a different entity, such as Corps of Engineers, I do not see how provisions in the IPMC can now give the local building department jurisdiction.

The IBC was never intended to address seawall structures. This is evidenced by the lack of any technical provisions addressing such structures. Unless a building is resting on the seawall or is connected to the seawall, I suggest the scope in the IBC could not be relied upon. But we still have the question of what are the technical standards. If the code contains no criteria, how can you enforce criteria?

The 5-year reinspection frequency appears overly aggressive. What is the age of seawalls in the jurisdiction and other nearby jurisdictions when they tend to show signs of distress? Also, what percentage of the seawalls are perceived as having problems. My guess is that an evidence-based approach would not support a 5-year reinspection frequency.

Why not have a 5 year reinspection program for exterior decks and exterior stairs?

The question should be asked if other jurisdictions that have these seawalls are not imposing an inspection program what makes your jurisdiction antique?

If you do require inspections then what criteria should be used? The inspection provisions in the IBC would be totally inadequate to identify structural distress.

Inspections when they occur should be performed by an engineer who will be better able to evaluate the significance of cracks in the concrete or tilting of the wall. For example, movement of the wall which does not suggest reduction in capacity may be of little concern. Building inspectors or Contractors do not have the training to access these issues.

A building department that takes exception with an inspection report by an engineer should have first reviewed the report by an inhouse engineer or an engineer they retained to review the reports. But again what is the criteria to be used in evaluating the report.

Remember if there is significant distress that impacts neighboring properties the law of public nuisances will likely allow the issue to be resolved without involving the building department.
 
If the seawall was originally permitted by a different entity, such as Corps of Engineers, I do not see how provisions in the IPMC can now give the local building department jurisdiction.

The IBC was never intended to address seawall structures. This is evidenced by the lack of any technical provisions addressing such structures. Unless a building is resting on the seawall or is connected to the seawall, I suggest the scope in the IBC could not be relied upon. But we still have the question of what are the technical standards. If the code contains no criteria, how can you enforce criteria?

The 5-year reinspection frequency appears overly aggressive. What is the age of seawalls in the jurisdiction and other nearby jurisdictions when they tend to show signs of distress? Also, what percentage of the seawalls are perceived as having problems. My guess is that an evidence-based approach would not support a 5-year reinspection frequency.

Why not have a 5 year reinspection program for exterior decks and exterior stairs?

The question should be asked if other jurisdictions that have these seawalls are not imposing an inspection program what makes your jurisdiction antique?

If you do require inspections then what criteria should be used? The inspection provisions in the IBC would be totally inadequate to identify structural distress.

Inspections when they occur should be performed by an engineer who will be better able to evaluate the significance of cracks in the concrete or tilting of the wall. For example, movement of the wall which does not suggest reduction in capacity may be of little concern. Building inspectors or Contractors do not have the training to access these issues.

A building department that takes exception with an inspection report by an engineer should have first reviewed the report by an inhouse engineer or an engineer they retained to review the reports. But again what is the criteria to be used in evaluating the report.

Remember if there is significant distress that impacts neighboring properties the law of public nuisances will likely allow the issue to be resolved without involving the building department.
All seawalls, docks and boatlifts are required to be permitted by ACOE and FDEP before we will look at them. Engineering review on our part is a necessity in order to issue a permit. ACOE does not perform any inspections during construction, the local AHJ does.
 
So if you provide technical review of the seawall what code provisions address seawalls? While I am of the understanding that there are standards for the design of seawalls I am not of the impression that any of them have been referenced by the IBC. I assume we are still a country of laws.

Assuming that you have a report what is your basis for requiring something to be done to the seawalls. You can only do this if there is evidence that the structure is no longer in compliance with the code used in the original permit.

Putting aside the question of authority, any jurisdiction wishing to undertake the proposed inspection program needs to have an expertise that practically no building department has.
 
If the seawall was originally permitted by a different entity, such as Corps of Engineers, I do not see how provisions in the IPMC can now give the local building department jurisdiction.

The IBC was never intended to address seawall structures. This is evidenced by the lack of any technical provisions addressing such structures. Unless a building is resting on the seawall or is connected to the seawall, I suggest the scope in the IBC could not be relied upon. But we still have the question of what are the technical standards. If the code contains no criteria, how can you enforce criteria?

The 5-year reinspection frequency appears overly aggressive. What is the age of seawalls in the jurisdiction and other nearby jurisdictions when they tend to show signs of distress? Also, what percentage of the seawalls are perceived as having problems. My guess is that an evidence-based approach would not support a 5-year reinspection frequency.

Why not have a 5 year reinspection program for exterior decks and exterior stairs?

The question should be asked if other jurisdictions that have these seawalls are not imposing an inspection program what makes your jurisdiction antique?

If you do require inspections then what criteria should be used? The inspection provisions in the IBC would be totally inadequate to identify structural distress.

Inspections when they occur should be performed by an engineer who will be better able to evaluate the significance of cracks in the concrete or tilting of the wall. For example, movement of the wall which does not suggest reduction in capacity may be of little concern. Building inspectors or Contractors do not have the training to access these issues.

A building department that takes exception with an inspection report by an engineer should have first reviewed the report by an inhouse engineer or an engineer they retained to review the reports. But again what is the criteria to be used in evaluating the report.

Remember if there is significant distress that impacts neighboring properties the law of public nuisances will likely allow the issue to be resolved without involving the building department.
You and I agree on a few things: The IBC isn't applicable in this matter and evaluations should be left up to the engineers. Not building inspectors or contractors. In my opinion the engineer should evaluate the water barrier to determine whether or not it is structurally sound and advise of any needed repairs. Regarding the 5 year inspection intervals: Duly noted and that's why I reached out to this group. I'd be open to a letter from I guess we need to agree to disagree on whether or not this falls under the IPMC or similar codes. You can call it a stretch if you want but in my opinion it's clear and very different from a homeowner not taking care of his deck or stairs. Again, we had a collapse, ACE isn't taking responsibility for maintenance inspections(if they aren't and the city doesn't, who should?) AND we don't know the age/condition of miles of water barriers. The are 152 commercial properties that we've asked for an evaluation per our PM code and not one has challenged us on it. Some already have reports that are less than 5 years old and we accept it. Public nuisance actions don't occur without significant investigation/action by the building dept. AND it seems like you are proposing being reactive vs proactive. That sounds like it could lead other BO's into a situation like mine. That's not good.
 
Public nuance actions do not need to involve the building department.

The fact that ACE is not taking responsibility does not allow you to exercise authority. If they have jurisdiction what allows you to usurp their authority.

The fact that there have been no challenges does not mean you are doing it right. They might be ignorant as to what are their rights.

If you believe that repairs need to be made and we agree the IBC does not apply what standards will apply? I do not believe the property maintenance code provides those standards.
 
Public nuance actions do not need to involve the building department.
In my city it does. A lawyer knows how to take a legal action against a property owner. They need a subject matter expert (inspector/building official) to sign an affidavit that something is wrong with the property.
Lawyers know nothing about building or PM codes and they are going to rely(if they are smart) on someone who does it everyday.
The fact that ACE is not taking responsibility does not allow you to exercise authority. If they have jurisdiction what allows you to usurp their authority. Again, ACE is saying they aren't the authority in making sure folks are maintaining their barriers. To recap...the feds, state and county are all saying "Not Me". Who is going to protect the citizens of my city from property owners who don't maintain their water barriers? Any BO with waterfront property would be wise to find out who is the AHJ on this subject or they could be very sorry one day.

The fact that there have been no challenges does not mean you are doing it right. Good point. They might be ignorant as to what are their rights.

If you believe that repairs need to be made and we agree the IBC does not apply what standards will apply? I do not believe the property maintenance code provides those standards. It doesn't and doesn't need to. It gives me as the BO the latitude to require expert evaluation as needed to protect the health safety and welfare of the public. That is where the engineer comes in. There are people who specialize in waterbarriers. They can easily tell what's wrong and how to fix it. We've received at least 35 reports and not one engineer has said "I don't know what standards to use and your PM code isn't telling me anything". This is what they do.
 
What I am hearing is that there is an injustice the building official is empowered to set it right. I thought we were supposed to be a nation of laws.

I am also hearing that there is no need for the legislature or the city council to adopt laws since the building official is autonomous. When is the coronation to take place?
 
What I am hearing is that there is an injustice the building official is empowered to set it right. I thought we were supposed to be a nation of laws.

I am also hearing that there is no need for the legislature or the city council to adopt laws since the building official is autonomous. When is the coronation to take place?
The Building Official can only administer within the confines of the adopted codes, state statutes and local ordinances. I don't believe that anyone would dispute that. To assume that Building Officials are working outside of those confines on a regular basis would be pure ignorance.
 
While in most instances the plan checkers and inspectors do not appear to be operating outside of their authority this does happen. While not the majority, rogue plan checkers and inspectors do exist and such behavior is offensive and can be disruptive to the project.

It is my belief that rogue plan checkers and inspectors have a negative impact on the quality of the designs and the construction. In addition requiring things not required by the adopted laws increases delays the project and increases the cost of construction. I would hope that we all would want a predictable process.

Building officials should exercise some leadership and make it clear that such behavior is not acceptable. Too often I fear that building officials are intentionally blind to this behavior.
 
What I am hearing is that there is an injustice the building official is empowered to set it right. I thought we were supposed to be a nation of laws.

I am also hearing that there is no need for the legislature or the city council to adopt laws since the building official is autonomous. When is the coronation to take place?


Mark, You're not hearing that at all. I don't do anything that I can't point to an Ordinance(and/or state law) adopted by Council giving me authority to do so. I've pointed to our PM code at least 2x's in this thread. I can see we won't agree on this one. I'm done.
 
Top