I think it might be different for every state, but Majority of job postings I see say you need an international code council plans examiner certificate or you are able to obtain one within an amount of time on the job and knowledge of building codes, structures maybe even electrical and HVAC knowledge. once again this is just postings I have seen it can range greatly , I think most people who were in construction or have had some construction/engineering school training move into these positions.

It varies from city to city. I was told that over 200 people applied for the plans examiner position I applied for. They came from all walks of life from roofers, home inspectors, brick layers, draftsmen so on and so forth. Turned out they went with the one licensed architect. Me. I was told I had to be able to get certified through ICC for both the IRC and IBC within one year. Now they want me certified for plans examiner for Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical. In the past 1.5 years I have done over 120 hours of ceu's through online training, seminars and classes and spend the bulk of my time in this downturn reading and re-reading code books or other related material for either older construction methods I am unfamiliar with or newer construction methods, products, materials and/or specifications. It is ever ongoing and everyday I learn something new.

If you are wondering why your building officials seem like they don't know everything, it's because we don't know everything. Yet. As for the building codes evolving too fast, I do not think that is it. I came to this village and they were still using the 1996 BOCA and 1995 CABO. I didn't spend too much time reading those though because the village was changing to the 2006 IRC and IBC. This is probably where the bulk of the problem is coming from. Everyone is still trying to transition to ICC and haven't yet had all the training yet for all the changes between these and their older codes. JMHO.

The plus side for you is that if you think the plans examiner is wrong, ask them to idnetify the code section or provide him/her with the code section you believe allows you to do what they say you can not. Knowledge is power.

What were some of these non-nonsensical comments they make?

My biggest complaint isn't the plans examiners but the inspectors. Seems that an inspector can come out to the site with his own interpretation of the code and hold up construction even if everything was built per the already approved plans. Many times I've been scrambling last minute to get changes completed just to satisify the inspector and get a CO. At that point there simply isn't time to involve the building official/examiner.

Ahhh, but you have to understand that just because an intern drew up some plans, an architect signed and sealed them, a plans examiner reviewed them, that they are always going to meet code. There is still one more person in this chain to help insure that it is being built to the minimum standards. The inspectors.

Section 105.4 of both the IRC and IBC states that "The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or any other ordinace of the juridiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data."

Architects need to stop looking at code officials as the enemy. Just as the architect looks over the plans being drawn up by the intern/drafstmen, so does the plans examiner look over the architects set. For some reason, it is acceptable for the architect to "critique" the interns work but not for the plan reviewer to "critique" the architect. We are part of the chain and really the last line of defense when it comes to the health, safety and wellfare of those people who come into contact with the built environment. After us is the CofO. Better to be issued later and correctly then early and not. You can always call the plans examiner during the course of your design with questions to see how they interpret something.

on the fence - my complaint about inspectors isn't when they catch an error that the plans examiner and architect didn't. My complaint is when an inspector requests something that is a personal preference regardless of the code. I've seen this happen on several occasions, most typically with mechanical and electrical items. If during the middle of construction we've had time to fight back to the building official and get these types of requests over-turned. If it's a couple days before turnover and we need a CO we usually end up making the change and charging the owner. I've even been on-site and witness to an inspector saying "I don't care what the code says, this is how I want to see it." It's literally impossible to control costs and schedules when you have to deal with an unknown like that.

Most of this I chalk up to old timers that either liked an old code better or want to see things done how they did them in their past. Granted, this is more common in smaller and more rural cities from my experience, but it does happen.

To answer this question -- "Does anybody know what local building departments require in the way of training / qualifications for people they hire as plans examiners?"

PE, Architect or ... get ready for this ... license by ITT Tech or a correspondence course!

I dislike the title "plans examiner" mostly because it has the word "plan" in it. I understand why it is valid but there are several kinds of plans requiring the overview of several kind of people-- planners, civil engineers et cetera.

Like a site plan has to be approved by a planner... if it goes above and beyond requirements or size, it has to go to a landscape architect and then to a civil engineer for various things like onsite storm water, geotechnical concerns and the like.

But typically, the only thing you really need to be a "plans examiner" or my preferred term "code enforcement / building inspector" is a license that costs almost nothing. This license can be had from an actual institution or self-administered.

In Florida, I would gamble that they probably went downhill very fast because many jurisdictions and the state itself allow the use of privatized enforcement. That and that state can't do anything "right" if life and limb depended on it.

In fact, Florida doesn't really have a "real" economy as the state for the last two decades has subsidized itself on a constant almost unimaginable influx of new residents. Since Florida is in a "terror zone" and seems to be emitting some kind of energy that neutralizes common sense, nonsensical is the common language.

Money talks. And in Florida, "talking" is the equivalent of a cloud of jealousy washing over a chimpanzee exhibit at a zoo hours before feeding time-- nothing but flinging feces, compulsive masturbation, blowjobs and howling.

I don't know what they are doing in florida orochi, but I wasn't able to buy a license. I had to study my ass off for more exams and pay for them as well. The village paid for a lot of training though. People who fill the position of plans examiner are PE's, architects, general contractors, or anybody else a village deams to have met their criteria. In most cases though they are not architects or engineers.

I always got the feeling that plan reviewers were failed architects & engineers with chips on their shoulders looking for payback...

Nice attitude.

If you are receiving copious amounts of plan review comments, blame it on the plan reviewer, right? We all know it wasn't the architects or interns lack of attention to detail.

Seriously, if you guys keep getting large laundry lists from your plan reviews, over and over, something is wrong. It's easy to fix as well, learn what is and is not in the codes. Read the review comment, look up the code section, research the problem area and move foreward with new knowledge.

Of course you could just cut and paste the plan review comment onto some obscure sheet in the set, move past or around the problem area, go onto the next submittal and then complain about it again once it comes up for the third time, and finally blame the reviewer as a failed architect/engineer. Maybe that works for some people.

You can't buy a license. Someone with an architectural background, preferably with a stamp, or a professional engineer can review plans without any extra education or licensure.

However, anyone with 500-5000 dollars who takes a building inspectors course... can become a "plans inspector" or "plan reviewer" without a professional education, at least on the government/fake private government side.

But I was simply point out that I know of a few cities who hire architects in their planning departments because they are more than legally capable of reviewing plans and they also get "free" architectural services out of it.

I know of planners who review plans-- I don't know how technical they are-- who reject and write all over "plans" because they simply don't like the project. Once this becomes too expensive and time consuming, the person writing the checks will try to find a way to expedite the project. Then the planner/reviewer tells them they will get 100% approval immediately if they make drastic changes to the project.

Though this is something that happens with things like Applebee's and Drive-thrus.

i'm glad we have plans reviewers and inspectors. i want another pair of eyes and experience looking at what we do so that i can check myself in the process.

always helps to develop a working relationship with the local authorities, understand how they operate and work with them. though some are more anal than other's, i find it works to simply respond to their queries and requests however appropriate.

always helps to plan time (include in your scheduling) for this and manage the owners expectations. if time is an issue, invite the owner to meet with the city, get them involved.

florida, new york and california seem to be the tough places to work a permit. a local expeditor would be helpful in these instances (for me atleast).

architects still carry a huge liability regardless of whether the city catches an issue or not. be sure you know what you're doing and continue to practice reasonable care.

On the fence,

in LA a lot has to do with plan checker preference. We were doing 7 residential small-lot subdivision projects over the course of 3 years. For the first three we had the same plan checker. By the third one we had almost no corrections since we had set up the information to her prefs. On the following ones we got different plan checkers and the plans came back covered in red ink.

I also had a long phone call with a really cool plan checker. He asked me what code interpretation book we use. I told him "Patterson." He said he liked that one but not everyone at his department agreed with it.

We had this great plan checker on one project. He was a real hardass about everything. He told us we couldn't have our exit pass through the elevator lobby. But, there is a code exception in case the exit serves 50% or less. It was right in the code! But he told us to get a modification from the fire department. So we went to FD. They said, hey, it's in the code, we're not giving you a modification because you don't need one. Back to the plan checker, he wouldn't accept it without a modification.

In the end the project went down the drain for other reasons. And that plan checker now is a supervisor.

Some things are just wrong and people don't want to see the light. Preference has nothing to do with good plans examination.

If you can't make someone see reason and the code, verse for verse, take it to a higher level (politely of course) such as the deputy building commissioner, building comissioner, village manager. They can only enforce the code or their ordinances. After that, I'd tell them my lawyer will be in contact with the the villages lawyer.

California is its own country when it comes to codes. Are you allowed to use different code interpretations? That doesn't make any sense.

On the fence: the code is the code and LADBS is a big department. And there are differing opinions on how to interpret it. You can use whatever code interpretation book you want, but your plan checker may disagree with it. We obviously work with the LABC with is a heavily amended version of the IBC.

Obviously the situation I described above should not have been open to interpretation.