When Existing Buildings Get Renovated, How Much Weight Should We Give the RDP’s Declared Construction Type?

[jar546]

Ok, so a renovation project comes in, and the signed and sealed drawings declare a construction type that doesn’t make sense. The building’s been standing for decades, yet the design professional calls it Type IIB, or worse, a high-rise is declared Type VB, which is flat-out impossible. We rejected that one immediately. That’s not just a clerical error, and it has real implications for fire protection systems, structural elements, MEPs, etc.

In other cases, I’ve seen designs submitted as Type IIB, only to find that NM cable was used for wiring. When it gets flagged as a violation of the NEC, suddenly the RDP comes back and reclassifies the building as Type VA or VB just to make the installation “legal.” Are we rewriting the building’s construction type to backfit code violations?

And then there’s the opposite issue. An architect might guess high, labeling a building as Type I or II without evidence, forcing contractors to use all non-combustible materials, even when that wasn’t necessary or accurate.

One of the more interesting cases I had recently was a building that was clearly Type III. The project involved a Level 3 renovation and a change of use and occupancy. The architect labeled it Type II in an attempt to upgrade it for insurance reasons. Then the contractor ignored the plans and framed all the interior partitions with wood instead of the specified metal studs—essentially reverting it back to Type III without telling anyone.

The common thread in all of these? The declared construction type becomes a tool—sometimes a weapon. Whether it’s being manipulated to allow combustible materials, to bypass certain code provisions, or just to fit into someone’s idea of what “should” be there, it seems like we’re often left holding the bag to sort it all out.

So, how do you handle this in your jurisdiction?

• Do you verify the declared construction type against original records or field inspections?
• Do you push back when the declared type doesn't match the reality?
• How do you deal with mid-project reclassifications that are clearly done to make noncompliant work appear compliant?
• And when the contractor builds something completely different than what was approved, how far do you take enforcement?

Curious to hear how others navigate this gray area.

 

[Joe.B]

This is why plan review is so important. Once we issue a permit those plans are essentially a contract. No, I wouldn't allow willy-nilly changes in the field. Follow the plans or stop and wait for approved, stamped revisions.

 

[rktect 1]

Very little. I always look up the original plans and any subsequent plans that we hold in our digital archives.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The common thread in all of these? The declared construction type becomes a tool—sometimes a weapon. Whether it’s being manipulated to allow combustible materials, to bypass certain code provisions, or just to fit into someone’s idea of what “should” be there, it seems like we’re often left holding the bag to sort it all out.

So, how do you handle this in your jurisdiction?

• Do you verify the declared construction type against original records or field inspections?

As much as possible, yes. But I'm in New England -- we routinely deal with buildings that were constructed a century or more before there was any such thing as a building code. All we can do with those is classify them based on what the current code says they would be if built today.

• Do you push back when the declared type doesn't match the reality?

Absolutely.

• How do you deal with mid-project reclassifications that are clearly done to make noncompliant work appear compliant?

That's one we haven't had to deal with.

• And when the contractor builds something completely different than what was approved, how far do you take enforcement?

The contractor gets to tear it out and replace it with what the approved construction documents call for.

Curious to hear how others navigate this gray area.

I don't view it as a gray area at all.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I’ve seen designs submitted as Type IIB, only to find that NM cable was used for wiring. When it gets flagged as a violation of the NEC, suddenly the RDP comes back and reclassifies the building as Type VA or VB just to make the installation “legal.”

It would be perfectly "Legal" to do this as long as it meets the height and area requirements of a Type V building.

Every big box store I have seen in the last 20 years could easily qualify as a Type II construction but the designers designates them as a Type V construction.

602.5 Type V.
Type V construction is that type of construction in which the structural elements, exterior walls and interior walls are of any materials permitted by this code.

 

[Joe.B]

 

[TheCommish]

I like the statement I got the other day on a set of plans that said this was an existing building, it was a vacant lot.

 

[Joe.B]

I like the statement I got the other day on a set of plans that said this was an existing building, it was a vacant lot.

That would be Type NE.

 

[Yikes]

When I work as an architect on existing buildings, it is totally my responsibility to state its construction type and occupancy type. If it is anything other than Type V-B, it is my responsibility to either (a) research previous city records and get the AHJ to agree on the existing type based on the records, or if no such records available, then (b) review the existing construction materials and posit a construction type, and I always do a pre-submittal meeting whenever possible to get concurrence.

In the case of "a", I state the applicable code and classification at time of original construction, and state what I believe to be the current code equivalent (e.g. "Formerly Type V-1 hr., now known as Type V-A.)

In the case of "b", I create a code analysis on the plans stating the features that make it most closely resemble my conclusion (e.g. masonry exterior walls, unprotected wood framing ~ Type 3B, applicable code at time of construction = 1964 UBC.). I then add a statement that owner shall "Verify or Provide construction that is in conformance with the established construction type".

 

[Joe.B]

When I work as an architect on existing buildings

We need your photo for our new poster:

 

[Mr. Inspector]

This is a major problem here since the codes only started 20 years ago and most commercial existing building do not have a C. O. or any records. I can't imagine tearing out the finish covering in a whole shopping center to see how it was made when one tenant wants a permit for alterations or a change of occupancy. I think I would put my job in jeopardy if I required this.

 

[jar546]

This is a major problem here since the codes only started 20 years ago and most commercial existing building do not have a C. O. or any records. I can't imagine tearing out the finish covering in a whole shopping center to see how it was made when one tenant wants a permit for alterations or a change of occupancy. I think I would put my job in jeopardy if I required this.

First off, it is the design professional’s job to declare the type of construction. Our job is to review it for plausibility, not to rubber stamp it, and not to demand they start tearing walls down. No one said anything about destructive methods, so where is this idea coming from? It sounds like a deflection.

Would you let a contractor build out wood-framed offices in a 14-story high-rise because they “said” it was Type VB? Of course not. But that is the kind of flawed logic being defended here: if there are no existing records, we just go with whatever is convenient. That is not code enforcement; that is willful negligence.

And yet again, the idea is floated that doing your job might put your job at risk. This keeps coming up, and it is getting old. If you truly believe that enforcing the code could cost you your job, you need to ask yourself whether you are in the right line of work. I have lost contracts before because I refused to compromise. I refused to look the other way, even when elected officials pressured me to. I did not care, because I had my integrity. And when my head hit the pillow at night, I could sleep.

This job is not about keeping people happy. It is about doing what is right, fair, and consistent. There is a difference between reasonable flexibility for the greater good and making excuses for inaction. Stop trying to justify doing less than your job requires. If that is where you draw the line, then maybe it is time to step back and let someone else do it.

 

[steveray]

That would be Type NE.

Type NFW…

 

[Sifu]

• Do you verify the declared construction type against original records or field inspections?
• Do you push back when the declared type doesn't match the reality?
• How do you deal with mid-project reclassifications that are clearly done to make noncompliant work appear compliant?
• And when the contractor builds something completely different than what was approved, how far do you take enforcement?

Curious to hear how others navigate this gray area.

I do a little bit of #1, but often can't find much, and when I do I will see several permits, each with differing construction types to suit their needs. Then I go to #2, place all the responsibility on the designer. If a reclassification needs to be done, they must provide justification in an analysis of what it was to what it will be. Very often it doesn't work out trying from a higher classification to a lower one. In those cases where it is an imperative, it takes a lot of work and sometimes involves a code consultant familiar with this type of thing. For #3, it reverts back to my answer for #2. For #4 I say comply with all relevant codes and to the approved documents, but sometimes an approved document violates code, and my approach is to tell them to amend the documents to meet code.

 

[Sifu]

It would be perfectly "Legal" to do this as long as it meets the height and area requirements of a Type V building.

Every big box store I have seen in the last 20 years could easily qualify as a Type II construction but the designers designates them as a Type V construction.

602.5 Type V.
Type V construction is that type of construction in which the structural elements, exterior walls and interior walls are of any materials permitted by this code.

I see plans that are physically constructed as type II, but could be type V. IMHO they should classify them as type V if their current needs fit into the requirements for type V unless they anticipate future need for a type II. Very often it is assumed that if it looks like a type II it must be a type II, then later they want it to be a type V. Better to start of with the least restrictive allowed based on the program needs IMHO. But if it is submitted as a higher construction type than needed that is how I review it, then just wait for the inevitable kerfuffle later on.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

First off, it is the design professional’s job to declare the type of construction. Our job is to review it for plausibility, not to rubber stamp it, and not to demand they start tearing walls down. No one said anything about destructive methods, so where is this idea coming from? It sounds like a deflection.

So how do you review without seeing what it is built with?

 

[mtlogcabin]

The DP should be using the IEBC RESOURCE "A"
GUIDELINES ON FIRE RATINGS OF ARCHAIC MATERIALS AND ASSEMBLIES
to provide the documentation for determining the fire rating of existing structural components.

 

[steveray]

One of the benefits of having some longevity within the municipality....Either in the BD or the FD.....The more familiar you are with your buildings, the more help you can be. As far as RDP and construction type, I give that the same weight as everything else they do...Not much until they prove it...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

One of the benefits of having some longevity within the municipality....Either in the BD or the FD.....The more familiar you are with your buildings, the more help you can be. As far as RDP and construction type, I give that the same weight as everything else they do...Not much until they prove it...

Proving it is important.

A number of years ago I was code consultant to an architecture firm doing an addition to a public high school in one of the larger and more affluent towns in my state. The architects had (they thought) done their due diligence and consulted the original construction drawings for the school, which said it was construction type 1-B (we were under BOCA then, but 1-B was fireproof, and equated to type I-B under the IBC). We arranged a preliminary sit-down with the building official just to confirm that he was in agreement with the direction the design was heading.

He took one look at the plans and told us the building was too big. We countered that we were within the allowable area for construction type 1-B. He said (and I quote), "There isn't a fireproof building anywhere in this town." He told my clients to go back and analyze the structure to prove that it was type 1-B.

So they had the structural engineer review the original construction. Sure enough, the BO was right -- the floor slabs weren't thick enough to be type 1-B construction. We had to modify the design by adding two fire walls, breaking the building into three sections. Part of my role was to generate some creative fire separation lines, in order to preserve as much flexibility as possible in where windows could be placed in exterior walls facing other portions of the building.

As Ronald Reagan said: "Trust, but verify."

 

[Yikes]

Proving it is important.

A number of years ago I was code consultant to an architecture firm doing an addition to a public high school in one of the larger and more affluent towns in my state. The architects had (they thought) done their due diligence and consulted the original construction drawings for the school, which said it was construction type 1-B (we were under BOCA then, but 1-B was fireproof, and equated to type I-B under the IBC). We arranged a preliminary sit-down with the building official just to confirm that he was in agreement with the direction the design was heading.

He took one look at the plans and told us the building was too big. We countered that we were within the allowable area for construction type 1-B. He said (and I quote), "There isn't a fireproof building anywhere in this town." He told my clients to go back and analyze the structure to prove that it was type 1-B.

So they had the structural engineer review the original construction. Sure enough, the BO was right -- the floor slabs weren't thick enough to be type 1-B construction. We had to modify the design by adding two fire walls, breaking the building into three sections. Part of my role was to generate some creative fire separation lines, in order to preserve as much flexibility as possible in where windows could be placed in exterior walls facing other portions of the building.

As Ronald Reagan said: "Trust, but verify."

In that example, when you says the floor slabs were not thick enough to meet the definition of 1B, was that according to the original BOCA requirements? In other words, were the original plans defective in not achieving 1B under BOCA? Or did it meet BOCA for its era, but not the IBC’s prescriptive requirements for 1B?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In that example, when you says the floor slabs were not thick enough to meet the definition of 1B, was that according to the original BOCA requirements? In other words, were the original plans defective in not achieving 1B under BOCA? Or did it meet BOCA for its era, but not the IBC’s prescriptive requirements for 1B?

The addition and alteration project was when we were still under BOCA. The floor slabs weren't thick enough to provide the fire-resistance rating required for Type 1-B construction under BOCA -- which means the building department goofed when they approved the construction of the original building as Type 1-B. And the guy who was the BO at the time of the addition project was smart enough to flag it.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

One of the benefits of having some longevity within the municipality....Either in the BD or the FD.....The more familiar you are with your buildings, the more help you can be. As far as RDP and construction type, I give that the same weight as everything else they do...Not much until they prove it...

That must be nice to be in the same municipality for a while. I have been doing plan reviews and inspections for about 20 years and worked for 5 different 3rd parties and at least 40 different municipality, always more than one at a time.
Right now, I am reviewing what the architect claims is a level 1 alterations on a small tenant space in a large shopping center. The only C. O. they found for this space is 15 years old and was for an empty shell that said a permit is required before any tenant space is built on it. My 3rd party inspection had this township for a year, so I am not familiar with almost any construction in this township, and they have a lot of shopping centers and stores. The designer claims the construction type is VB. I doubt that very much. This is better than normal for me in this township, this was the first existing C. O. I ever saw for this township after doing at least 30 existing commercial (mostly small) plan reviews. Unfortunately, this township is only a little worse than the other townships I work in when it comes to existing C.O's. I asked the township to find the plans for it, so I know the actual construction type. I am not holding my breath for it.

 

[Yikes]

That must be nice to be in the same municipality for a while. I have been doing plan reviews and inspections for about 20 years and worked for 5 different 3rd parties and at least 40 different municipality, always more than one at a time.

I worked on a project that was on a campus that was formerly a private college. The owner of the campus wanted to claim that once upon a time, the current office building was formerly a dormitory and therefore it should be able to be used as residences again, its use and occupancy grandfathered under the old code. They had no historic records to back up this assertion. I said they would first need to get agreement by the Building Official regarding grandfathered uses before commencing drawings to add the bathrooms back in.
Owner meets with the BO, who starts off the meeting with, "I'm so glad you came to me, because decades ago I worked my way through high school as as a janitor on that campus, and I can tell you everything you need to know about the history of that building."
It was a very short meeting.

 

[steveray]

That must be nice to be in the same municipality for a while. I have been doing plan reviews and inspections for about 20 years and worked for 5 different 3rd parties and at least 40 different municipality, always more than one at a time.
Right now, I am reviewing what the architect claims is a level 1 alterations on a small tenant space in a large shopping center. The only C. O. they found for this space is 15 years old and was for an empty shell that said a permit is required before any tenant space is built on it. My 3rd party inspection had this township for a year, so I am not familiar with almost any construction in this township, and they have a lot of shopping centers and stores. The designer claims the construction type is VB. I doubt that very much. This is better than normal for me in this township, this was the first existing C. O. I ever saw for this township after doing at least 30 existing commercial (mostly small) plan reviews. Unfortunately, this township is only a little worse than the other townships I work in when it comes to existing C.O's. I asked the township to find the plans for it, so I know the actual construction type. I am not holding my breath for it.

Longevity and/ or good recordkeeping are great.. If you have neither, it can get real ugly....I might try to go to the site and look as a last resort, but if trusting the designer is the only way to start, then go there and when it blows up in the field, blame the designer...