• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Yep, it's always our fault

Inspector Gadget

REGISTERED
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
1,277
Location
New Brunswick
This is a vent.
I'm dealing with a client who has been told by multiple officials in our office that they need to get permits before building in years past. They don't like that because "we just make things difficult."

So this year they built something without a permit, and were shut down with an Order.

Turns out they built in a protected wetland. I have no clue how the wetlands folks permitted it after the fact, but they did.
Then it turns out the use required a "terms and conditions" from planning. They got that.
Now it turns out their use doesn't meet Code - and can't.

But it's "our fault" for causing a three-month delay.

Not theirs for circumventing the law. Again.
 
This is a vent.
I'm dealing with a client who has been told by multiple officials in our office that they need to get permits before building in years past. They don't like that because "we just make things difficult."

So this year they built something without a permit, and were shut down with an Order.

Turns out they built in a protected wetland. I have no clue how the wetlands folks permitted it after the fact, but they did.
Then it turns out the use required a "terms and conditions" from planning. They got that.
Now it turns out their use doesn't meet Code - and can't.

But it's "our fault" for causing a three-month delay.

Not theirs for circumventing the law. Again.
Zoning laws in the US are very strong and that would be required to be torn down. Many of these orders have stood the test of time and courts.
 
This is a vent.
I'm dealing with a client who has been told by multiple officials in our office that they need to get permits before building in years past. They don't like that because "we just make things difficult."

So this year they built something without a permit, and were shut down with an Order.

Turns out they built in a protected wetland. I have no clue how the wetlands folks permitted it after the fact, but they did.
Then it turns out the use required a "terms and conditions" from planning. They got that.
Now it turns out their use doesn't meet Code - and can't.

But it's "our fault" for causing a three-month delay.

Not theirs for circumventing the law. Again.

See? You are beginning to understand. It's ALWAYS the Building Official's (or the Building Department's) fault.

It's NEVER the property owner's fault, and it's NEVER the fault of other departments that didn't do their jobs.
 
People will blame anyone but themselves. It makes it easier for them to cope.

(Minor rant from me now) I'm currently working with a client who decided to do some pretty substantial repairs to their property that was damaged in a fire. The city is trying their best to make this as simple as possible for the guy. They wanted really basic documentation and they'll get a permit, something the owner is more than capable of producing themselves. Owner decided that's too much for them and proceeded with the repairs without a permit. Now the city is coming in and will probably slap him with some fines and order him to stop work and are now asking for more documentation (which is where I come in). Owner blames city for causing a huge delay when they could have just pushed work back a week and got those documents to the city.
 
Some of the issues is that when there is an issue where you have multiple government agencies that are needed to permit a structure, and the structure is constructed without a permit, the government agencies should confirm that it is actually possible for the structure to remain in each department's requirements before actually doing any work on it.

I've seen a few instances over the years where one department puts a lot of work into something, where it was a complete no-go for another department. Complete waste of everyone's time.
 
Some of the issues is that when there is an issue where you have multiple government agencies that are needed to permit a structure, and the structure is constructed without a permit, the government agencies should confirm that it is actually possible for the structure to remain in each department's requirements before actually doing any work on it.

I've seen a few instances over the years where one department puts a lot of work into something, where it was a complete no-go for another department. Complete waste of everyone's time.

What you speak of is a function of the inherent silo-ism in New Brunswick. Each department holds onto its little castle and resists change with every ounce of their being, and successive governments have bought into the mantra of centralizing-is-efficiency which is total bunkum.

The most efficient solution would be regionalized oversight for everything, working with a streamlined (ie: less dead waste government officials) oversight from the province.

People should be able to wander into my office and
- speak to a plumbing official and/or obtain a plumbing permit
- speak to an electrical official and/or obtain an electrical permit
- speak to a development officer
- speak to someone who could approve/deny driveway access/setbacks
- speak to a building official
- speak to someone about whether those bullrushes in the back yard are a wetland and, if required, obtain a wetlands alteration permit.


Instead, we send people all over hell and creation to six different offices. It's time consuming, and yet to successive governments who bleat talking points about "reducing government red tape," the obvious inefficiencies are ... not obvious.

The fact that we are bound by law to be the gatekeepers for other permits puts an undue stress on our office and our staff. It's our customer-facing folks who have to explain "no, sir, you need a WAWA, and you can apply online here, and you also need a setback, their office is over on Church Street, and if you have questions about the septic, you gotta get a contractor who applies through an office in Fredericton."

It doesn't help when government departments have a chronic and acute case of "not-my-problemism." We had a client who wanted to build a garage. They applied to the local Department of Transport office for setback certificate. When after a two month wait they called to find out the whereabouts of the application, they learned it had been rejected because the client had filed the application with the wrong office of DOT - filing with the western one when they were in the eastern zone. Nobody at DOTI told the client of the problem. Nobody at the office forwarded the application to the correct office. Nobody cared enough to help the client. (NotMYproblem).

One of my guys found a restaurant being built in the guts of a museum. Our office is facing that mess right now, and we're already running into issues with the lack of a designer, and the fact that the land isn't suitably zoned for the intended use. Nobody at the Office of the Fire Marshal could be bothered to tell the client they needed a building permit, or to check with zoning. (NotMYproblem). The client has invested some serious cash and now .... well, there may be some issues.

This sort of pissy customer service drives people bonkers. Heck, it drives *me* bonkers.

/rant
 
Ya sometimes it is our fault. Read the story of Eduardo. He is gone now.


In my twenty-first year as an inspector I met Eduardo. A tall soft spoken man living the good life. His hacienda is ten acres with a vintage mansion, swimming pool and hundreds of fruit trees.
The project was an addition of a wine tasting room. Eduardo’s favorite alcohol is tequila but his doctors have him on a wine diet.

Well I wrote a few corrections and in the course of friendly conversation I asked him what occupation he held before he retired. Truck driver he replied. Like I said, the man is quiet. I found out later that he was a cotton picking truck driver.

Eduardo's story began in Mexico. He grew up on a ranch in a dirt floored shack with no electricity, running water or plumbing. He came to Texas to pick cotton and never looked back. With hard work and determination Eduardo built a business dealing with specialized hazardous waste remediation. Several hundred employees and enough machinery to need a half dozen mechanics.

Somewhere along the line we started meeting for lunches and swapping stories. Then there was a day that he asked for names of contractors that I trust. He wanted to add an 800 sq.ft. entry to the front of the house. He chose Tito.

I have known Tito for decades. Many months later I got a call from Tito. He wanted my help getting a permit. The bureaucratic delays came from several departments with the most onerous being Reuse And Recycle. No department would even accept the plans for review until the Fire Dept approved the project but the fire department wanted the house torn apart to install sprinklers due to a failed flow test. I suggested that they test it again at 1:00AM and it passed.

I made phone calls. The office manager made phone calls. Everyone was eager to not help....some don't accept phone calls and I'm not convinced that they all have computers. Eduardo is seemingly the only person that is aware of the time he had left. Eduardo was then 87 years old and had cancer. I propose a rule that anyone over the age of eighty-five goes to the front of the line with expedited reviews.

I waited another month and when there was no progress, I told Tito to start building. I did the inspections. The project is a technical achievement with a stained glass dome. It took less time to build it than it did to get a permit. The entry was done and we were at lunch when Eduardo showed me a permit. It had been issued a week earlier. A few months after that I signed the final inspection on the permit. I made the turkey list and once a month we get together at Eduardo's patio to enjoy gourmet meals and swap stories.

Eduardo is fond of serving lamb. As a young man the family was too poor to taste the lamb that they raised. I suspect that there wasn't much fruit on the table either.

There were many things that I did over the course of my career that could get me chewed out ... that's okay as I've been chewed out before.... but this.,well this is another level of chewed out. I tell this story but you must understand that doing such a thing as this could get you fired.
 
Last edited:
I broke the rules countless times over my municipal career. Always times where the rules made no sense. Most of the time when following the rules would result in negative impacts to public safety.

One time, an application for a building permit sat with the planning department for 2 months without getting forwarded to our department. There was no reason it sat with them. They should have sent it right along, but on someone's desk it sat. The woman who applied called looking for an update and I had nothing in my system, so I went looking. I found the permit that day, issued it that day, and waived the fees (which I wasn't really allowed to do). The woman was very surprised when I called back, said I had found it, there was no good reason for the delay and because of that, I was waiving the fees, and she could come pick up the permit anytime.

Every time that my boss found out my "creative" adherence to rules, we would have a discussion about how I should follow the rules. It wasn't a real chewing out, more of a "you know you're supposed to follow the rules". Typically in the month following, the rules got changed to allow what I had done.

The reason "why" rules exist are more important than the rules themselves. It is more important to follow the "why" of the rule, than the rule itself.
 
(NotMYproblem)
Your correct it is Not My Problem If another department wants me to hold up the CO and not let people move into their home, apartment or operate their business because some landscaping is incomplete or PW hasn't received the easement they need for the lift station that they built and was completed 3 months earlier.
I can provide many examples over my 30 years where I did not follow the rules of the jurisdiction to in order to provide good customer service to the public.
 
I’ve told this story elsewhere on TBCF - - my brother’s father-in-law was a POW twice over, in WW2 and later in the Korean War. He survived the Bataan death march. Lived out the rest of his life in the Idaho panhandle, under the “live free or die” ethos. Had PTSD but they didn’t diagnose it back then. My SIL tells me about the time decades ago when he added a bedroom onto their rural home, self-built. The county inspector drove by and saw the construction activity from a distance, pulled over and asked if he had a building permit.
“Sure, I’ll be happy to show ya, c’mon in, it’s in the living room.”
He brings the inspector inside, to the shotgun over the fireplace, and says something along the lines of “this is America young whippersnapper, and that’s (pointing to the gun) all the permit I need.”

The inspector thanked him for showing him what he needed to see, and backed out of the house. No follow-up citations were issued.

He’s long since passed away. My brother works with a utility company in the same region, and was told by other employees that if someone has placed their home more than 500’ away from pavement and it doesn’t look like a wealthy ranch, there’s a reason they want to be left alone - - approach with extreme caution. This Idaho panhandle + Montana region was where the Unabomber had his cabin, and where Aryan Nations once had their compound. Unfortunately, with the scourge of illegal drugs and meth labs in rural areas, being any kind of public inspector in sparsely populated areas carries extra risk.
I can’t imagine being a game warden up there, it must take b*lls of steel.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top