Once in a while I get a plan checker that essentially tries to tell me how to draw my plans. For example, I show my shear wall (panel and nailing) callouts on the floor plan itself (and not on the roof framing plan as the plan checker wants). This is a personal preference that varies from architect to architect.
My understanding is that, absent a specific Code requirement, the plan checker is not supposed to require the licensed architect to draw the plans according to his own personal preference. And as long as the required information is on the plans, he has no authority to tell me where on the plans to put that required information.
I have often resolved this by explaining to the plan checker that it (his request) is not how I draw my plans, and whether he has a Code reference to back up his request.
if the entire department of plans examiners agrees, you should consider adjusting your methodology as you want them to sign off on your docs as quickly as possible
if it's one lone examiner, i think your approach is about all you can do. Be polite and just say no.
What? I call bull-shit! There is no code requirement for how plans look or are arranged. Whenever I’ve gotten cross-ways with a plan examiner on anything I say – “show me the code”. If they do I change it, if they don’t it stands. Someone needs to start a thread on building permits – guess you just did – I think the whole idea of plans examining is bull-shit.
carrera, i totally get your reaction on the look of drawings...but
for the scale of work i do, i can often get permits same day. being on good terms with the staff at the permit center helps this happen. i do my best to make it easy for them to say yes
re: permit doc review being BS...not so sure i agree tho i understand the sentiment
I have had it happen where a plans examiner wants me to move something from one page to another. i think the point is to make that specific part more clear to the trade responsible for that portion of work. so in your example, you may have put a nailing schedule the roofer needs to see on a floor plan the roofer isn't going to be looking at.
the code specifically grants a pretty good amount of leeway to the AHJ. your plans examiner is the AHJ. i don't know specifically what code your region has adopted, or what region you're in, but there is a pretty good chance the plan reviewer has every right to ask you to do what they asked you to do.
as to how i personally would handle it, i would move the note, and thank them for helping me produce better drawings. then i would hope they would be more lenient in the future when they get some really stupid idea like putting fire sprinklers in an outdoor gazebo or something. in the end, my client gets a certificate of occupancy if i move the note. everyone wins. if i have to sprinkler a gazebo or something really stupid like that, my life gets difficult.
As far as the plan review, it has been likened to a doctor having to get his receptionist's approval on the prescriptions the doctor writes. A bit extreme but you get the point.
From a liability standpoint, I really do not mind another (preferably experienced) pair of eyes on my plans; as long as they don't tell me how to do it!
If they want to tell me how to draw my plans, my thinking is that if they don't like the way I do it, they can stamp and sign it themselves!
Anyways I believe you can be assertive and on good terms with the staff at the same time. Just ask for the code reference with a disarming smile on your face.
I once had a contract plan checker say to me when I questioned her request ("show the headers on the roof framing plan", instead on the floor plan like I always do), "BECAUSE I AM THE PLAN CHECKER!". A call to her supervisor resulted in her being given the boot; apparently there were other complaints against her.
Additionally, here in Southern California I deal with many different public and private plan checking personnel, and it is next to impossible to predict what he/she personally prefers to see on the plans. Please note that I do not ignore the request; I do write an explanatory note on why I did it this way and have not yet had one come back (knock on wood).
Especially when they stamp the plans "not liable for errors and omissions". If you want to take responsibility for making sure that plans meet code, be prepared to take responsibility if they don't. Plenty of instances where plans that didn't meet code blew up later with no consequences for the protectors of public safety and welfare,
I'm from the government and we're here to help you. Pay the fee here.
I understand the need to be cooperative and to apply lubricant to things. I always seemed to have good relations with these guys, and I do appreciate the fact that they catch things – but when I ran into bull-shit, I called bull-shit. I had a new-guy come into my jurisdiction and he kept breaking my balls over little things – that cost me money and time – embarrassing me with correction letters copied to the owner, with the bull-shit. I caught this guy one day at the plan counter and I told him in no uncertain terms that he can do what he must but I better not find out he is treating anybody else differently….because I think he was. He kept it up and to hell with calling his boss I went to a County Commissioner who was a personal friend. Was nice but firm – he was gone in a month. I appreciate a second set of eyes, but don’t fuck with me, because I’m paying the bills!
When the workers are framing the walls, they (at least in my areas) work off the floor plan and the floor plan includes the headers in the walls they are constructing. If they have to flip back and forth between sheets to get it all it can get confusing especially when the headers are of different sizes.
The roof framing plan is that....for the roof itself. The headers are not a part of the roof framing; it is part of the wall framing below. The roof framing is from the top plate and up.
At least that's what I think and been doing the last 30 years....
I'm always happy to make minor changes to keep the building dept happy, but if they want things that they can't support by code I'll argue it. Rarely is it an issue.
Meh... I pick my battles. Some are worth the fight, most are not. For those fighting ones, I typically respond: "I'll need to charge my client additional services for these changes. They'll want to know why. Please give me a rejection letter showing the cause so I can use that as a basis for why these changes are necessary."
The way government works; If they write it, they leave a paper trail. So if they can't cite section and verse, they usually won't write that rejection letter. Which means they can't formally deny the application without cause. Which means they have to approve since all they can do is either reject or approve. They aren't allowed to 'suggest'.
For real nasty ones, I've gone to the Board of Adjustments, or Planning Commission, or whatever they have as the appeal process. I have gone to court over this stuff in real extreme cases. Like approved by planning commission without staff support then being denied being allowed to even check the cd's in for permit review using the "We don't support this project and won't accept this application even with your approvals!" (Head of planning lost his job over that one btw)
when you were in school did anyone say - "hey I plan on becoming an examiner!"...maybe a Commisioner,and that may be where you start, but no one who goes through years of study wakes up and states - god damn, i'm going to go review plans and be happy about it.
yes pick your battles like Mighyaa says, little shit like this is always better than - that ain't to code because we say so (new policy developing in the building dept. and you are the brunt end of the joke)
i put headers calloutson the plans, i put as much as i can on the plans...the guys like to have one nice piece of paper and not constant shuffling...
1. Plan checkers seem meaningless, but they are the first line of defense - albeit a weak line.
2. Plan checkers most often act as governors for the city development pace...obviously there are only so many inspectors capable of inspecting only so many job sites per day.
3. What do you care if the plan checker wants you to adjust the arrangement of information on the plans? What is your actual goal here? acquiring a permit ? or pissing farther than a government official who can obstruct the process and remember you when you come back with another project ? - The idea of "personal preference" sums it up.
4. Fountainhead is not a good book, i suggest you be wary of using Ayn Rand to inform your professional career.
5. How would your client want you to respond?
6. Ironically, Hestia is the goddess of architecture - "Hestia never stood out among the other gods and goddesses in Greek mythology because she chose to stay away from adventures and she was in peace with herself. "
Oct 24, 14 9:11 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Plan checkers
Once in a while I get a plan checker that essentially tries to tell me how to draw my plans. For example, I show my shear wall (panel and nailing) callouts on the floor plan itself (and not on the roof framing plan as the plan checker wants). This is a personal preference that varies from architect to architect.
My understanding is that, absent a specific Code requirement, the plan checker is not supposed to require the licensed architect to draw the plans according to his own personal preference. And as long as the required information is on the plans, he has no authority to tell me where on the plans to put that required information.
I have often resolved this by explaining to the plan checker that it (his request) is not how I draw my plans, and whether he has a Code reference to back up his request.
I'm wondering how others have resolved this.
Thanks!
if the entire department of plans examiners agrees, you should consider adjusting your methodology as you want them to sign off on your docs as quickly as possible
if it's one lone examiner, i think your approach is about all you can do. Be polite and just say no.
What? I call bull-shit! There is no code requirement for how plans look or are arranged. Whenever I’ve gotten cross-ways with a plan examiner on anything I say – “show me the code”. If they do I change it, if they don’t it stands. Someone needs to start a thread on building permits – guess you just did – I think the whole idea of plans examining is bull-shit.
just talk to the supervisor...they love that, next time you go in for permit, they are out for blood..
carrera, i totally get your reaction on the look of drawings...but
for the scale of work i do, i can often get permits same day. being on good terms with the staff at the permit center helps this happen. i do my best to make it easy for them to say yes
re: permit doc review being BS...not so sure i agree tho i understand the sentiment
I have had it happen where a plans examiner wants me to move something from one page to another. i think the point is to make that specific part more clear to the trade responsible for that portion of work. so in your example, you may have put a nailing schedule the roofer needs to see on a floor plan the roofer isn't going to be looking at.
the code specifically grants a pretty good amount of leeway to the AHJ. your plans examiner is the AHJ. i don't know specifically what code your region has adopted, or what region you're in, but there is a pretty good chance the plan reviewer has every right to ask you to do what they asked you to do.
as to how i personally would handle it, i would move the note, and thank them for helping me produce better drawings. then i would hope they would be more lenient in the future when they get some really stupid idea like putting fire sprinklers in an outdoor gazebo or something. in the end, my client gets a certificate of occupancy if i move the note. everyone wins. if i have to sprinkler a gazebo or something really stupid like that, my life gets difficult.
As far as the plan review, it has been likened to a doctor having to get his receptionist's approval on the prescriptions the doctor writes. A bit extreme but you get the point.
From a liability standpoint, I really do not mind another (preferably experienced) pair of eyes on my plans; as long as they don't tell me how to do it!
If they want to tell me how to draw my plans, my thinking is that if they don't like the way I do it, they can stamp and sign it themselves!
Anyways I believe you can be assertive and on good terms with the staff at the same time. Just ask for the code reference with a disarming smile on your face.
I once had a contract plan checker say to me when I questioned her request ("show the headers on the roof framing plan", instead on the floor plan like I always do), "BECAUSE I AM THE PLAN CHECKER!". A call to her supervisor resulted in her being given the boot; apparently there were other complaints against her.
Additionally, here in Southern California I deal with many different public and private plan checking personnel, and it is next to impossible to predict what he/she personally prefers to see on the plans. Please note that I do not ignore the request; I do write an explanatory note on why I did it this way and have not yet had one come back (knock on wood).
the whole idea of plans examining is bull-shit
Especially when they stamp the plans "not liable for errors and omissions". If you want to take responsibility for making sure that plans meet code, be prepared to take responsibility if they don't. Plenty of instances where plans that didn't meet code blew up later with no consequences for the protectors of public safety and welfare,
I'm from the government and we're here to help you. Pay the fee here.
I understand the need to be cooperative and to apply lubricant to things. I always seemed to have good relations with these guys, and I do appreciate the fact that they catch things – but when I ran into bull-shit, I called bull-shit. I had a new-guy come into my jurisdiction and he kept breaking my balls over little things – that cost me money and time – embarrassing me with correction letters copied to the owner, with the bull-shit. I caught this guy one day at the plan counter and I told him in no uncertain terms that he can do what he must but I better not find out he is treating anybody else differently….because I think he was. He kept it up and to hell with calling his boss I went to a County Commissioner who was a personal friend. Was nice but firm – he was gone in a month. I appreciate a second set of eyes, but don’t fuck with me, because I’m paying the bills!
When the workers are framing the walls, they (at least in my areas) work off the floor plan and the floor plan includes the headers in the walls they are constructing. If they have to flip back and forth between sheets to get it all it can get confusing especially when the headers are of different sizes.
The roof framing plan is that....for the roof itself. The headers are not a part of the roof framing; it is part of the wall framing below. The roof framing is from the top plate and up.
At least that's what I think and been doing the last 30 years....
Meh... I pick my battles. Some are worth the fight, most are not. For those fighting ones, I typically respond: "I'll need to charge my client additional services for these changes. They'll want to know why. Please give me a rejection letter showing the cause so I can use that as a basis for why these changes are necessary."
The way government works; If they write it, they leave a paper trail. So if they can't cite section and verse, they usually won't write that rejection letter. Which means they can't formally deny the application without cause. Which means they have to approve since all they can do is either reject or approve. They aren't allowed to 'suggest'.
For real nasty ones, I've gone to the Board of Adjustments, or Planning Commission, or whatever they have as the appeal process. I have gone to court over this stuff in real extreme cases. Like approved by planning commission without staff support then being denied being allowed to even check the cd's in for permit review using the "We don't support this project and won't accept this application even with your approvals!" (Head of planning lost his job over that one btw)
when you were in school did anyone say - "hey I plan on becoming an examiner!"...maybe a Commisioner,and that may be where you start, but no one who goes through years of study wakes up and states - god damn, i'm going to go review plans and be happy about it.
yes pick your battles like Mighyaa says, little shit like this is always better than - that ain't to code because we say so (new policy developing in the building dept. and you are the brunt end of the joke)
i put headers calloutson the plans, i put as much as i can on the plans...the guys like to have one nice piece of paper and not constant shuffling...
josta you need to get better framers
1. Plan checkers seem meaningless, but they are the first line of defense - albeit a weak line.
2. Plan checkers most often act as governors for the city development pace...obviously there are only so many inspectors capable of inspecting only so many job sites per day.
3. What do you care if the plan checker wants you to adjust the arrangement of information on the plans? What is your actual goal here? acquiring a permit ? or pissing farther than a government official who can obstruct the process and remember you when you come back with another project ? - The idea of "personal preference" sums it up.
4. Fountainhead is not a good book, i suggest you be wary of using Ayn Rand to inform your professional career.
5. How would your client want you to respond?
6. Ironically, Hestia is the goddess of architecture - "Hestia never stood out among the other gods and goddesses in Greek mythology because she chose to stay away from adventures and she was in peace with herself. "
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.