UCC required inspections for monolithic

[JerseyJohn]

I posted here before about an issue with a detached garage monolithic foundation that failed final inspection for shape and height after garage was already constructed on top.

My specific code question: The 2018 (work was done in 2021) UCC in NJ (5:23-2.18) says that inspection of one or two family dwellings for which work must cease are:

ii. Foundation and all walls up to grade level prior to backfilling.

Questions:

1. Does this apply to detached garages? If not, is there somewhere else that applies?

2. Our town required that the monolithic be at frost depth (42 inches). Contractor got a footing inspection (passed) but not any other foundation inspection before building garage (unchecked boxes are slab and backfill on town form) Is this a code violation? Was he required to get a backfill inspection or some other foundation inspection by code before proceeding to build?

Most of the code seems to apply to block or stemwall foundations, so any other insight into what inspections or code a monolithic foundation requires would be helpful.

Thanks for any help.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I would ask the inspector that did the footing about what they saw there.

 

[fatboy]

If it was truly a monolithic footing then the "footing" inspection passing will get you to above grade. I don't know why there would need to be another inspection.

Am I missing something?

 

[JerseyJohn]

I would ask the inspector that did the footing about what they saw there.

He says he only checked the footings and didn't inspect anything else. He wasn't asked to. Nothing else is checked off on the inspection form.

If it was truly a monolithic footing then the "footing" inspection passing will get you to above grade. I don't know why there would need to be another inspection.

Am I missing something?

The formwork was incorrect. Thus, the foundation didn't pass.

My question is whether an inspection was supposed to catch this before the building went on top.

My reading of NJ code is that it requires a backfill inspection which says it is to be done before back filling or covering the foundation work. Dirt was piled up against the sides of the pour after the forms were removed. No inspection was done.

 

[mark handler]

From what I understand of the UCC, it covers ALL Buildings (structures), Not just SFD. The garage is a Building (structure).

 

[fatboy]

He says he only checked the footings and didn't inspect anything else. He wasn't asked to. Nothing else is checked off on the inspection form.


The formwork was incorrect. Thus, the foundation didn't pass.

My question is whether an inspection was supposed to catch this before the building went on top.

My reading of NJ code is that it requires a backfill inspection which says it is to be done before back filling or covering the foundation work. Dirt was piled up against the sides of the pour after the forms were removed. No inspection was done.

Sorry, I missread your OP, I see now it did NOT pass.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm confused. In the opening post, you wrote that there was a "footing" inspection that passed, and then no other inspections until the final.

Then in post #4 you wrote that there was a formwork inspection and that the foundation didn't pass. Was this formwork for the footings? You wrote that the footings passed. Was this for the monolithic foundation/slab formwork? If that was inspected and failed -- why did the contractor proceed?

For clarification: what's your understanding of "monolithic"? My understanding of that term is that there aren't separate footings -- everything is poured in one shot. So how could there have been a footing inspection that passed and then a formwork inspection that failed?

 

[JerseyJohn]

I'm confused. In the opening post, you wrote that there was a "footing" inspection that passed, and then no other inspections until the final.

Then in post #4 you wrote that there was a formwork inspection and that the foundation didn't pass. Was this formwork for the footings? You wrote that the footings passed. Was this for the monolithic foundation/slab formwork? If that was inspected and failed -- why did the contractor proceed?

For clarification: what's your understanding of "monolithic"? My understanding of that term is that there aren't separate footings -- everything is poured in one shot. So how could there have been a footing inspection that passed and then a formwork inspection that failed?

The inspector simply checked that the "footings" (i.e turned down portion) were properly reinforced with rebar. The forms were at least partially down when he came (for accessing where they needed to pour concrete).

There was not a formwork or any other foundation inspection (backfill, slab). The contractor got one inspection, the footing, and then did not get another until the final inspection.

The building failed final inspection because profile and height of the foundation were incorrect. (It isn't a small issue as my previous post here details.)The reason for this is that the foundation formwork was incorrect.

I was unaware the foundation was an issue because the contractor pushed dirt around the foundation so I could not see it (to conceal it?) until I realized it was going to fail for height and regraded a small part. When I did so, my shovel slipped and went 5 inches under the building. I then discovered the extent of the problem. But the building had already been placed.

So my question is, I don't see any exemption for monolithic pours in terms of inspections in the UCC, so should the contractor have gotten an inspection before placing the building?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Sounds like they needed a foundation, and slab inspection

 

[Beniah Naylor]

The answer depends on your building department's policy.

R109.1.5 Other inspections.​

In addition to inspections in Sections R109.1.1 through R109.1.4, the building official shall have the authority to make or require any other inspections to ascertain compliance with this code and other laws enforced by the building official.

If they require a slab inspection in addition to the footing inspection, then yes, the contractor should have known that and should have told the inspector to do the slab as well so it would have been inspected. If the contractor didn't tell the building department that he was pouring the slab too, they would have assumed the slab was to be poured later, approved the footings, and moved on.

The building department relies on the contractor to call for the appropriate inspections at the appropriate time. If they don't, it may take a few weeks or months before the building department notices and does something about it (which happened this time when you called for final inspection). At that time, much has been buried or built over, so it becomes a headache. But it is 100% the contractor's fault for not communicating with the building department at the critical times.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The answer depends on your building department's policy.

R109.1.5 Other inspections.​

In addition to inspections in Sections R109.1.1 through R109.1.4, the building official shall have the authority to make or require any other inspections to ascertain compliance with this code and other laws enforced by the building official.

If they require a slab inspection in addition to the footing inspection, then yes, the contractor should have known that and should have told the inspector to do the slab as well so it would have been inspected. If the contractor didn't tell the building department that he was pouring the slab too, they would have assumed the slab was to be poured later, approved the footings, and moved on.

The building department relies on the contractor to call for the appropriate inspections at the appropriate time. If they don't, it may take a few weeks or months before the building department notices and does something about it (which happened this time when you called for final inspection). At that time, much has been buried or built over, so it becomes a headache. But it is 100% the contractor's fault for not communicating with the building department at the critical times.

Wouldn't the construction drawings have shown that it was to be a monolithic pour?

 

[Beniah Naylor]

Wouldn't the construction drawings have shown that it was to be a monolithic pour?

Maybe.

Not how it usually goes in my jurisdiction, but that would definitely put some of the responsibility back on the inspector. We don't require RDPs for one-or-two family houses, so we usually don't get that much detail on our plans. Also, almost no one pours monolithically here. We are a home rule state, and I don't think we would have caught any of this before final either.

Definitely a mess.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Maybe.

Not how it usually goes in my jurisdiction, but that would definitely put some of the responsibility back on the inspector. We don't require RDPs for one-or-two family houses, so we usually don't get that much detail on our plans. Also, almost no one pours monolithically here. We are a home rule state, and I don't think we would have caught any of this before final either.

Definitely a mess.

Most states don't require registered design professionals for single family dwellings and associated outbuildings. But the code still requires construction documents to be of sufficient clarity to show "in detail" that the completed construction will comply with the code. IRC 106.1.1. If you're not getting enough detail to satisfy that requirement, why are you issuing the permits?

 

[Beniah Naylor]

But the code still requires construction documents to be of sufficient clarity to show "in detail" that the completed construction will comply with the code. IRC 106.1.1. If you're not getting enough detail to satisfy that requirement, why are you issuing the permits?

What is "enough detail"?

Plan review is intended to catch expensive problems before they are built. "Enough detail" is when you have sufficient clarity that the contractor's failure rate is at a level that is acceptable in your jurisdiction. IRC footings and foundations are not rocket science. We aren't finding major (expensive) violations in the field, so that indicates that our level of plan review is adequate for our area. The failures we do find would still be there with more detail on the plans because the problems we do have are caused by contractors who don't pay attention. If we find a recurring issue, we will up the plan detail requirements to compensate for it.

It must be kept in mind that plan review is largely a courtesy to save the contractors and owners money on things they should already be aware of. If the inspector shows up when there was no plan review, that can get expensive fast...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

What is "enough detail"?

Plan review is intended to catch expensive problems before they are built. "Enough detail" is when you have sufficient clarity that the contractor's failure rate is at a level that is acceptable in your jurisdiction. IRC footings and foundations are not rocket science. We aren't finding major (expensive) violations in the field, so that indicates that our level of plan review is adequate for our area. The failures we do find would still be there with more detail on the plans because the problems we do have are caused by contractors who don't pay attention. If we find a recurring issue, we will up the plan detail requirements to compensate for it.

It must be kept in mind that plan review is largely a courtesy to save the contractors and owners money on things they should already be aware of. If the inspector shows up when there was no plan review, that can get expensive fast...

In a jurisdiction that has adopted a code requiring a plan review, the plan review is not a "courtesy" -- it is a legal requirement. We are part of a system of checks and balances. Whoever designs the structure and prepares the construction documents is supposed to do so in accordance with the applicable codes. The construction documents are supposed to show "in detail" that the work when completed will conform to code requirements. The purpose of the plan review is for a second, objective set of eyes (the plan reviewer) to verify that (a) the proposed design conforms to code requirements, and (b) that the construction documents are sufficiently clear and complete that a contractor can follow them and produce a structure that complies with code requirements.

That's not a "courtesy." A courtesy is agreeing to meet with an owner and/or designer prior to the formal application to discuss their approach and let them know whether or not we think they are heading in an appropriate direction. We are not required to do that -- when we do it, that's what's called a courtesy.

 

[Beniah Naylor]

In a jurisdiction that has adopted a code requiring a plan review, the plan review is not a "courtesy" -- it is a legal requirement.

We live in different worlds. Kansas is a home rule state that requires almost nothing at the state level. Our office can remove or add any requirement that we can get past the city commission.

The purpose of the plan review is for a second, objective set of eyes (the plan reviewer) to verify that (a) the proposed design conforms to code requirements,

Valid point. I don't think we disagree that plan review is important. And more is better than less.

(b) that the construction documents are sufficiently clear and complete that a contractor can follow them and produce a structure that complies with code requirements.

Sufficiently clear as defined by our office. There is no oversight of that - that determination is ours and ours alone. Which is why it is locally driven by what we see in the field.

This is why I refer to "courtesy".

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

We live in different worlds. Kansas is a home rule state that requires almost nothing at the state level. Our office can remove or add any requirement that we can get past the city commission.

Which is why I specifically wrote, "In a jurisdiction that has adopted a code requiring a plan review, ..."

Sufficiently clear as defined by our office. There is no oversight of that - that determination is ours and ours alone. Which is why it is locally driven by what we see in the field.

This is why I refer to "courtesy".

Regardless of who defines what "sufficiently clear" means, if your jurisdiction didn't delete IBC section 107.2.1, IRC section 106.1.1, IMC section 107.1, IPC section 107.1, and IEBC section 106.2.1, then the respective codes require the construction documents to be of "sufficient clarity." That's a determination that should be made during plan review, not in the field. If it waits for the field, that means you issued a building permit either knowing the drawings were inadequate, or you didn't bother to find out if the drawings were adequate. The whole point is that if the construction documents don't clearly show that the work when completed will conform to code requirements -- you're not supposed to issue a building permit.

 

[tbz]

John,

Sorry to hear of your current situation.

Just to the rest of you here, NJ deletes the entire chapter 1 from the code on adoption of the IRC and has their own replacement, so quoting chapter 1 here does him no good for section number, but the replacement text provides the similar context.

Just a few questions

• 1st who pulled the permit for the construction, you or the contractor?
  • I ask because that will determine who was responsible for calling for the inspections and when to approve the next phase of work to continue.
• The bottom line is depending on the town/AHJ overseeing the application and inspections, most of the NJ towns I worked in for over 25 years provide residential projects like yours with a required inspection to call check list and who ever pulled the permit, more than likely got one and disregarded following it.

Thus, without form and backfill inspections the project should never had progressed to the next phase of work, once they did, the contractor or you, the project became out of compliance.

What you don't want to hear is if it is wrong, it needs to be corrected, what I am trying to Invision is if the footing inspection was passed, and the inspector was there and looked at the form work, though not completed was, I would assume either enough to say your good go ahead or was not enough and said when done call us back to inspect before pouring.

This is the point in the process that needs to be looked at with a fine-tooth comb. Because if the footings were dug right and the form work was done right, then digging around the foundation to prove it was done right should be all you need to get them to sign off, you note about the shovel makes it obviously not correct.

It sounds like the latter happened, and who ever skipped the call back before pouring is where the shoe fell in the gears and created your issue.

The simple answer to your question is, based on the OP, you have an issue with non-compliance and it needs to addressed and corrected.

Work done not to plan that is non-compliant to the minimum code vs work done not to plan that complies, just done differently, are 2 different things.

As to inspection order, as long as all the inspections can be done at some point and they all pass, you can work it out, when they don't well you get the point.

Regards - Tom