maybe you guys can point me in the right direction or the sections where it states that a plans examiner can't keep adding items to the correction letter if he initially missed some items?
In another words, I know, and perhaps its different in other jurisdictions, that if you get a correction letter for plans and you address all those items, the plans examiner can't come up with new items that he/she should have addressed the first time and issue another correction letter, unless they are related to the items in the first correction letter.
I never had to use this, but we've discussed it numerous times before. In one of the projects we are doing, the city has issued 3 different correction letters and they all have different items, and I want to point it out to them that they can't do that.
typically, the correction letter is there to point out what doesn't meet the plan reviewer's interpretation of the code. you're not supposed to design or build things that don't meet code. so if they're finding more things that don't meet code, you should fix them, right?
technically, you shouldn't have designed anything that doesn't meet code to start with. there should be no correction letters.
They can do that. Although it is frustrating, the city can add more corrections for as long as they want, even after the permit is issued. As the designer, you are ultimately the one that is responsible for code compliance.
It's not unknown in construction to run up against an inspector who fails you for one thing, then finds another reason to fail you upon re-inspection, which I suspect is a not-so-subtle attempt to secure a payoff. I've even heard of an inspector who failed a contractor on a previously passed inspection.
I've never seen or heard of a plan getting bounced for construction - zoning yes, but not code violations. They just collect the fee and put a big red "BUILDING DEPT. NOT LIABLE FOR ..." stamp on it.
Well, I can say that just in the last week we had a inspector indicate that after all but final inspection he was requiring us to go back to plan check for an item which is not a matter of code or code interpretation, but rather the just a concern on the part of the fire department. It happens all the time, and there isn't much to do but shrug and make the changes...
Its not the inspector, I understand inspectors doing that, but this is the plans examiner or checker.
I know there is a language somewhere, because the city can rack up fees from correction letters. I know here, the city does first correction letter free, after that if more items are needed it would be additional fees. So can you imagine if the plans examiner just marks 2 items on one correction letter, then 2 different items on next and so on and so the cities try to limit and control what the plans examiner can and can not do.
When I find it I will post the language but it could just be that we have this here.
I'd be interested to read it, poop876. I understand your concerns over a never-ending process. At the same time, typically, the building department's permission to build something still leaves the onus on the architect to meet all codes / regs, and the department never assumes a liability for it. In other words, the definitive line in the sand that you'd like to see just doesn't exist.
That said, if you feel your project is being singled out in some way, you can always have a friendly chat -- sometimes a calm conversation is all is takes.
Mainly, at the city and state levels, early involvement typically will take you a long way toward a good relationship and a lot less problems down the road.
But difficulties with building departments / plan reviewers happen all the time at the city and state level. Curtkram's post ---- technically, you shouldn't have designed anything that doesn't meet code to start with. there should be no correction letters. ---- doesn't address this reality. "Perfect" plans in one jurisdiction may require a lot of "correction" in another.
107.4.2 Resubmitted documents. If construction documents are resubmitted in response to an adjudication order, the review for compliance shall be limited to determining that the item of non-compliance, and any work affected, has been corrected and shall not be deemed to authorize another review of unmodified construction documents previously determined to comply.
This is what I found in the Ohio Building Code and its probably not in the IBC. Granted, this is assuming we are complying with other items where life safety is not questioned. If information was omitted during the initial submittal, then I understand, but if information was always present, they should not question it. I'm not saying I was wrong and missed item, but even addressing items that I know are correct is time consuming and will increase fees to the client.
I don't think I will be using this to approach the city since I do have few more projects in and would not want to shoot myself in the foot.
Correction letter items
Hey all,
maybe you guys can point me in the right direction or the sections where it states that a plans examiner can't keep adding items to the correction letter if he initially missed some items?
In another words, I know, and perhaps its different in other jurisdictions, that if you get a correction letter for plans and you address all those items, the plans examiner can't come up with new items that he/she should have addressed the first time and issue another correction letter, unless they are related to the items in the first correction letter.
I never had to use this, but we've discussed it numerous times before. In one of the projects we are doing, the city has issued 3 different correction letters and they all have different items, and I want to point it out to them that they can't do that.
Does anybody know what I'm talking about?
Any helps is appreciated!
well, it sucks that is happening
typically, the correction letter is there to point out what doesn't meet the plan reviewer's interpretation of the code. you're not supposed to design or build things that don't meet code. so if they're finding more things that don't meet code, you should fix them, right?
technically, you shouldn't have designed anything that doesn't meet code to start with. there should be no correction letters.
They can do that. Although it is frustrating, the city can add more corrections for as long as they want, even after the permit is issued. As the designer, you are ultimately the one that is responsible for code compliance.
or more succinctly: they did not miss the items, you all did.
It's not unknown in construction to run up against an inspector who fails you for one thing, then finds another reason to fail you upon re-inspection, which I suspect is a not-so-subtle attempt to secure a payoff. I've even heard of an inspector who failed a contractor on a previously passed inspection.
I've never seen or heard of a plan getting bounced for construction - zoning yes, but not code violations. They just collect the fee and put a big red "BUILDING DEPT. NOT LIABLE FOR ..." stamp on it.
Well, I can say that just in the last week we had a inspector indicate that after all but final inspection he was requiring us to go back to plan check for an item which is not a matter of code or code interpretation, but rather the just a concern on the part of the fire department. It happens all the time, and there isn't much to do but shrug and make the changes...
Its not the inspector, I understand inspectors doing that, but this is the plans examiner or checker.
I know there is a language somewhere, because the city can rack up fees from correction letters. I know here, the city does first correction letter free, after that if more items are needed it would be additional fees. So can you imagine if the plans examiner just marks 2 items on one correction letter, then 2 different items on next and so on and so the cities try to limit and control what the plans examiner can and can not do.
When I find it I will post the language but it could just be that we have this here.
I'd be interested to read it, poop876. I understand your concerns over a never-ending process. At the same time, typically, the building department's permission to build something still leaves the onus on the architect to meet all codes / regs, and the department never assumes a liability for it. In other words, the definitive line in the sand that you'd like to see just doesn't exist.
That said, if you feel your project is being singled out in some way, you can always have a friendly chat -- sometimes a calm conversation is all is takes.
Mainly, at the city and state levels, early involvement typically will take you a long way toward a good relationship and a lot less problems down the road.
But difficulties with building departments / plan reviewers happen all the time at the city and state level. Curtkram's post ---- technically, you shouldn't have designed anything that doesn't meet code to start with. there should be no correction letters. ---- doesn't address this reality. "Perfect" plans in one jurisdiction may require a lot of "correction" in another.
107.4.2 Resubmitted documents. If construction documents are resubmitted in response to an adjudication order, the review for compliance shall be limited to determining that the item of non-compliance, and any work affected, has been corrected and shall not be deemed to authorize another review of unmodified construction documents previously determined to comply.
This is what I found in the Ohio Building Code and its probably not in the IBC. Granted, this is assuming we are complying with other items where life safety is not questioned. If information was omitted during the initial submittal, then I understand, but if information was always present, they should not question it. I'm not saying I was wrong and missed item, but even addressing items that I know are correct is time consuming and will increase fees to the client.
I don't think I will be using this to approach the city since I do have few more projects in and would not want to shoot myself in the foot.
Uh, is this a city-level AHJ or state? You were talking city, now you're quoting the state code...?
its city and the city is using the state code!
Which is not uncommon. What kind of project is it?
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.