• 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

Plans Review: Submit Two Similar/Identical Buildings together?

E

ETThompson

Registered User
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
186
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Hi

We have a situation where we have two nearly identical buildings (mirror image, slight variations due to site) on adjacent (but separate) parcels. We'd submitted them to the Building Dept. as one project, based on having done that successfully on other projects before (we're trying to track down that documentation). We assessed the permit fees based on the square footage of *both* buildings (ie, we were not trying to pay only for one building review). Our goal was not only efficiency but we've had problems in the past where we get different plans examiners who come up with different responses for the same building design.

Is there anything in the code or otherwise either supporting or against our position? (prefer the former, obviously).

Thanks, Eric
 
We've had a few situations like this. The most recent was one project for 12 lots. We allowed the submittal to come in under one "umbrella" permit with one plan-set that included the entire project, with the appropriate valuation. Once this got through plan review we issued separate permits for each building since they were each on their own legal parcel, but we assessed the fees under the "umbrella" permit. This has several advantages, it allowed us to treat this for what it is, one big project, but each building has it's own permit number (and APN) and it's own inspection record card which helps me out in the field. In the long run having separate permits will help if they sell an individual lot.
 
If they are on separate parcels, they most likely have to process them separately. That said, if I was to review, I would review one and copy my comments over to the other to save some work effort and time.

Basically, thanks for letting me know they are the same. But that's about all the customer gets from it.
 
Different parcels = different permits = separate plan review and inspections.
Same exact project, same building, same everything with different plan review comments = problem but not unexpected if different people are looking at the plans. If the same person then it is a problem but not surprising. We often see more when we look at the same thing twice.
 
classicT said:
If they are on separate parcels, they most likely have to process them separately. That said, if I was to review, I would review one and copy my comments over to the other to save some work effort and time.

Basically, thanks for letting me know they are the same. But that's about all the customer gets from it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is pretty much why we are doing it this way. We've had problems in the past where submitted literally identical buildings as separate permits (in that case because they were being phased/built at different times) and gotten inconsistent rulings from the different plans examiners. We're essentially paying the permit fee for the sf of both (there is a cap, so I suppose we would save the owner a little if they OK'd our approach).
 
We do this all the time when all buildings are submitted together. Example 2-24 unit 2 story apartments and 3-36 unit 3 story apartments. Each building gets its own permit and inspections per address. Plan review fees are collected when the first building permit is issued for each building of a different size. If they are submitted in phase and months apart each one is assed a plan review fee
 
It is possible that a code change could happen before a building gets started. Then what?
 
Thanks all. The building dept has clarified that all they want is (2) application forms - not pulled apart drawing sets. Whew! Sounds like they're approaching it in a similar to way to what several of you have described. Thanks for the intel!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cda
I have one right now, 4 R2 buildings, 2 of each with very slight differences due to site. I suggested they submit one of each, then pickup comments for them when submitting the other two. I did the reviews and made comments, they resubmitted and got through both in just a few hours. Now that they have a "blueprint" for the (not blue)prints, they will submit the other two buildings. So far, this has worked great. Using Bluebeam to compare and overlay is a god-send! Fees don't care one bit...they are the same, but that is outside of my purview. IMHO, if there are two plans examiners they should be collaborating and sending consistent and coherent comments. But using two PE's is inefficient. Even with my two different buildings, 50% of the comments were the same, and the second building took half the time as the first. If you want two sets of eyes, do a peer review, it will be more efficient. Again, electronic review allowing me to save, copy and paste comments is a game changer.

If we have 4 or more identical we will master them, So we have several R2's with buildings that get reviewed once, then tracted for each site. This type of thing used to be a super time saver, but with electronic review I think their value has diminished.
 
Pcinspector1 said:
It is possible that a code change could happen before a building gets started. Then what?
Click to expand...
We use the code it was submitted under and then follow the timeframe allowed in the code except we use the date when the permit is ready to issue not the date submitted.

[A] 105.3.2 Time limitation of application.
An application for a permit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been abandoned 180 days after the date of filing, unless such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued; except that the building official is authorized to grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 90 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated.
 
We do an initial plan review, then if it is basically the same building from a life/safety perspective, we allow a "rewrite" permit, up to five years, baring any interim code updates. If a new code is adopted, then a full plan review is required.
 
If there are significant different comments for two identical buildings then it suggests that there are problems with the plan check process.

In California the code that applies is the code in effect when the application was submitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top