Plans from the Excited States

[Inspector Gadget]

So ... reaching out to folks who do residential plans reviews and stuff.
I don't know if it's common in your area, but lately in our world, about one in 10 submitted plans comes from one of those American plans warehouse outfits. The plans look purty and all, but are often feature issues with compliance to NBC.

Frequent issues:
- Insufficient footing depth
- insufficient insulation
- rafters specified to insufficient snowload.

What we often end up with, after rejecting the plans, is a scribbled set of alterations that often look like garbage.

For that reason, I am considering rejecting plans designed/built to U.S. Code outright. Am I being a *&@*(&#? Thoughts?

FYI, SOME of the stuff bought from south of the border are Code-compliant out of the box (usually from outfits in New York, which has both cold and snow.)

If plans are being purchased from someone else, that someone else is now the designer...



And it is the designer's job to design to NBC. Not ICC, etc.

 

[Joe.B]

For that reason, I am considering rejecting plans designed/built to U.S. Code outright. Am I being a *&@*(&#? Thoughts?

Is the NBC part of your legal framework? Or is it more of a recommendation? If it's the law to follow your NBC, it seems like it would be illegal to accept something that wasn't designed to that standard...

 

[BN4537]

For that reason, I am considering rejecting plans designed/built to U.S. Code outright. Am I being a *&@*(&#? Thoughts?

I'm cool with it...

Functionally, I think the decision should be based on your judgment on whether it is faster (long term) to mark up American plans or to reject them initially.

If you reject them, will they just scribble NBC of the current year on the plans, submit them with all of the same items wrong, and then you reject them again, and then they scribble a few more corrections on? So will you actually be taking more time?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Is the NBC part of your legal framework? Or is it more of a recommendation? If it's the law to follow your NBC, it seems like it would be illegal to accept something that wasn't designed to that standard...

It's empowered under law. But the requirement is that construction has to meet NBC. We can reject a permit if there is insufficient information to determine compliance.

This is kinda the little niggle in my noggin: a plan originating from northern New York might have a 4' frost wall, R17 effective wall insulation, R50 in the attic, etc, and be perfectly compliant with NBC 2015, even if designed to the requirements of an American Code.

 

[tmurray]

From a legal perspective, the issue as I see it is that the building designer likely would not provide the required review of the roof truss system. TPIC indicates that the building designer is responsible for all permanent roof truss bracing to ensure it works as a system. Even in Part 9.

I have no issue with a building department rejecting plans drawn to the wrong code. It is not their responsibility to go through the drawings drawn to a different code with a fine tooth comb, ensuring that the requirements are all met.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So ... reaching out to folks who do residential plans reviews and stuff.
I don't know if it's common in your area, but lately in our world, about one in 10 submitted plans comes from one of those American plans warehouse outfits. The plans look purty and all, but are often feature issues with compliance to NBC.

Frequent issues:
- Insufficient footing depth
- insufficient insulation
- rafters specified to insufficient snowload.

What we often end up with, after rejecting the plans, is a scribbled set of alterations that often look like garbage.

For that reason, I am considering rejecting plans designed/built to U.S. Code outright. Am I being a *&@*(&#? Thoughts?

FYI, SOME of the stuff bought from south of the border are Code-compliant out of the box (usually from outfits in New York, which has both cold and snow.)

If plans are being purchased from someone else, that someone else is now the designer...

View attachment 14044

And it is the designer's job to design to NBC. Not ICC, etc.

I don't know what your Canadian (or Provincial) code requires. Except for a few states that either delete or hopeless muck up Chapter 1 of the IBC and the IRC, the requirement throughout most of the U.S. is

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents.
Construction documents shall be drawn upon suitable material.
Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted
where 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.

The first paragraph of the Commentary for that passage then says:

The emphasis of this section is on the clarity, completeness
and accuracy of the construction documents.
A wide variety of individuals will be using the
construction documents to perform their specific tasks.
Therefore, it is critical that there be no confusion about
the intent of the designer based on the information in
the plans and other documents.

In other words, a pretty rendering of a house that doesn't tell the builder exactly what to build is not a complete set of construction documents. If they start off using the wrong code, and then don't clearly and explicitly include compliant information regarding footing depth for frost protection and rafter sizes or roof loads for truss design purposes -- IMHO you would be derelict for approving the plans.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

In other words, a pretty rendering of a house that doesn't tell the builder exactly what to build is not a complete set of construction documents. If they start off using the wrong code, and then don't clearly and explicitly include compliant information regarding footing depth for frost protection and rafter sizes or roof loads for truss design purposes -- IMHO you would be derelict for approving the plans.

Exactly. So what we end up doing is a back-and-forth with various emails/revisions/scribbles drawn over .pdfs to "bring the plans up to Code." And this introduces extra work for us, and a number of weak points for deviation, plus liability potholes.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Exactly. So what we end up doing is a back-and-forth with various emails/revisions/scribbles drawn over .pdfs to "bring the plans up to Code." And this introduces extra work for us, and a number of weak points for deviation, plus liability potholes.

At some point you may have to put on the brakes and outright reject the plans as too unclear -- if your code allows that. Ours does:

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents.
Construction documents shall be drawn upon suitable
material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be
submitted where 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.
When the quality or arrangement of materials is
essential for conformity to this code, specific information
shall be given to establish such quality or arrangement,
and this code shall not be cited, or terms such as “legal,”
“per code” or their equivalent used as a substitute for
specific information.

In the three years I've been in my current position, we have only invoked this once. It wasn't a house, it was an office fitout under the IBC but the corresponding IBC section reads pretty much the same. The plans were drawn by a civil engineer playing architect, and they were a hot steamin' mess. They were, without a shadow of a doubt, the worst set of construction documents I have seen in over 50 years as an architect and 30 years as a building official. He went through two rounds of revisions, and each revision made them worse instead of better because he's the type of person who would rather spend three hours arguing about why he's right when he could make the changes in 15 minutes. (And, of course, he billed the client for all the "extra" time the mean building department made him spend making "unnecessary" revisions to the plans.)

Those plans were never resolved. The owner finally fired that engineer, hired someone else, and the plans sailed through on the first try.

If your code has any sort of language requiring construction documents to be clear and complete -- hang your hat on that. Drawings with incorrect information overwritten with PDF annotations are difficult to read and (IMHO) should be regarded with extreme caution.

 

[jar546]

So ... reaching out to folks who do residential plans reviews and stuff.
I don't know if it's common in your area, but lately in our world, about one in 10 submitted plans comes from one of those American plans warehouse outfits. The plans look purty and all, but are often feature issues with compliance to NBC.

Frequent issues:
- Insufficient footing depth
- insufficient insulation
- rafters specified to insufficient snowload.

What we often end up with, after rejecting the plans, is a scribbled set of alterations that often look like garbage.

For that reason, I am considering rejecting plans designed/built to U.S. Code outright. Am I being a *&@*(&#? Thoughts?

FYI, SOME of the stuff bought from south of the border are Code-compliant out of the box (usually from outfits in New York, which has both cold and snow.)

If plans are being purchased from someone else, that someone else is now the designer...

View attachment 14044

And it is the designer's job to design to NBC. Not ICC, etc.

They need to be correct and not scribbled garbage. Reject them all day long until they are clean and compliant.

 

[tmurray]

I mean, if you do reject them, who are they going to complain to?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

FYI, we have now taken the official position that plans clearly crafted for U.S. Codes will be rejected at the application stage.

 

[tmurray]

FYI, we have now taken the official position that plans clearly crafted for U.S. Codes will be rejected at the application stage.

100% support this.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

FYI, we have now taken the official position that plans clearly crafted for U.S. Codes will be rejected at the application stage.

I think that's appropriate.

Here in the U.S., I work in a state that has adopted most of the 2021 I-Codes. We still get plans that list the applicable codes as the 2018 or 2015 IBC, IPC, and IMC. I actually had one come in a week or two ago that cited the 2012 I-Codes. I reject them. If the design "professional" either doesn't know what code they're supposed to be using or (more likely) is simply too lazy to have updated their standard code reference block to indicate the current requirements -- what else is going to be in their plans that's just a carryover from ten or fifteen years ago?

 

[Sifu]

Routinely, and by that I mean probably once a day, I get plans with the wrong referenced codes. Rarely is that the only issue. A lot of times they reference the wrong AHJ (when they reference one).

It is understandable to some extent since I work in a state where each AHJ adopts it's own code, but a 30-second visit to a website should clear it up. There is an additional conundrum where the "state" has mandated certain codes, but may or may not come with the legal authority to do so, and some AHJ's know this, and some don't, some codes apply to certain occupancies, and sometimes the applicant can choose whether they want the local AHJ or the "state" to provide compliance oversight. It is a mess. But, under normal circumstances the codes as adopted by the local AHJ are easy to find, and inexcusable to mess up. It still happens every day.