Hello all. i am in a situation with a non cooperating plan examiner. This woman has made every effort to not help with permit issuance. Plans already have been through Building Review committee and were approved. (She was part of it). Does anybody know if plan examiners have a duty to quote the section of the code that they interpret not in compliance. Nobody in the Department will help as she is in a position of power.
Non Sequitur
Aug 25, 22 3:50 pm
Depends, but probably not. It's up to you, the (alleged) professional, to argue why your solution is compliant.
Also, if you're as vague with your drawings as you are with this question, well then, I don't blame the building department for ignoring your requests.
deltar
Aug 25, 22 4:34 pm
Look up both state and local laws outside of the building codes there may be a zoning issue or something along those lines. There is also certainly someone(s) who supervises her and an appeal process for their determination in the municipal codes. If it hasn't been denied, check on state laws regarding the timelines for inspection/examination as well as the reported timelines in their operating plan (if they have one.) Also check on your procedure for errors, I've had plans sitting around for months because someone didn't bring me required documentation, payment, signatures, etc. and the timeline for review didn't ever start because the application wasn't complete.
Lastly and most importantly, check the junk folder in your email. Sometimes important stuff gets filtered out.
b3tadine[sutures]
Aug 25, 22 5:57 pm
Is this a local, or state code official?
Stasis
Aug 25, 22 6:07 pm
Also, I'd like to suggest actually go down to meet with her instead of communicating via emails. These plan checkers don't like to state things on written record and they sound little more reasonable or cooperative if you meet them in person. As others said, it is up to the Architect to defend the design and provide adequate code references (at all levels), but it may be better to talk it out in person and gently state that you are right and she's wrong, without leaving it on the record.
Richard Balkins
Aug 25, 22 9:34 pm
If this is a building permit matter, zoning laws would not be part of plan review. They would be separate, possibly concurrent processes. The plan review is for for determining compliance with building code. On the other hand, the zoning/land use codes and other other development code or ordinance would be a separate process. In any case, it is often required that they identify what is not compliant but not always the case. I will mostly be taking references from Oregon in my examples used in my response. In Oregon, inspectors are required to not just merely cite a code a violation but what code sections that the work is not compliant to. Note later the quote from OAR 918-098-1900.
In general, in the plan review, according to ICC ( https://www.iccsafe.org/buildi... ), the plan reviewer would be required to cite the code violation but also the section number in the code corresponding code books. However, this is not always the case depending on the applicable laws and rules that apply to projects in the jurisdiction where your project is located.
Now, we know ICC isn't the law but if it is in the code as amended and adopted, it would have the effect of law. If not, you should look to the municipal ordinances and associated codes and policies as adopted. You may also look to the state. In a number of states, the state determines the code and also a number of requirements of the duties of inspectors and plan reviewers because they are 'licensed' by the State.
Non-compliance with zoning is entirely a separate matter altogether and would be the authority of the City Planner and associated officials to administer and enforce the City's development / zoning / land-use codes. Land use issues may or may not require explicit citing of the zoning code sections. You can be building code compliant in your design and yet the project is not be zoning code compliant. In my locality, the zoning issues are generally to be addressed first then the building codes are addressed. It makes no sense to get too deep into designing the building until you have the zoning issues addressed. If the property isn't zoned for what the intended project is... then it makes no sense to prepare construction documents / submittal documents for building permits until the land use matters are substantively resolved. If property zoning is not permitted for say.... a commercial office use because it is zoned for residential, then there are steps that may need to be made whether that be a variance, a zoning classification change, or different site selected for the project. Sometimes, issues are related to development code overlays (like they are used in my municipality), but also things like zoning height rules which sometimes can be resolved with variance.
I would think the OP has addressed a lot of that stuff early in the design process. In my state, the building code as amended can be a little bit unclear but under the Oregon Administrative Rules from the Building Code Division of the state - the following clarifies: https://secure.sos.state.or.us...
"In addition to any other requirements set forth in statute and rule, all building officials, inspectors and plans examiners certified under Division 098, OAR 918-225-0540, 918-281-0020, 918-695-0400, and ORS 460.055 must include an exact reference to the applicable specialty code section, Oregon administrative rule, or statute, when issuing corrective notices at construction sites or to buildings or related appurtenances during a plan review while administering or enforcing a building inspection program. The building official, inspector, or plans examiner must include a plain statement of facts upon which the citation for correction action is based." (bold emphasis added by me to highlight).
Now, you may need to check through your state and local laws (statutes, law, ordinance) & rules/code & sometimes in the building code, it may be there...that indicates if they are required to cite the code section in any sort of "corrective notice" (regardless of what they actually call it in your jurisdiction).
Without locality specific information from you, rarebug, I can not provide any sort of jurisdiction-specific information for your project. I am mainly referencing Oregon. So if your project is in Oregon, what I said regarding a quote of OAR 918-098-1900 applies to you. If not, you will need to research what the requirements are to be in a "corrective notice" or equivalent, in your jurisdiction that the plan reviewer is required to do.
As everyone else said, it may or may not be required by the plan reviewer in your state, county, and municipality. It is fairly common for them to cite the code section but that is not always mandatory. This is why it can be frustrating.
ULTIMATELY, regardless of any of the above, as the design professional, YOU should be able to identify anything in your design that is not compliant and correct them. Yes, it would be nice customer service courtesy for them to cite the code and their reason & determination of why the plans do not comply with code. You can make an argument for why it does comply but you can't really do that if you don't know why or what the plan reviewer reason or basis. Maybe it isn't based on code or anything at all. If a plan reviewer doesn't have readily at hand in their records for the permit, why it is not compliant, then it is likely to be dubious and the plan reviewer doesn't want to be challenged. There is some of that. I don't know one way or another on your project's specifics but I believe you should be able to discern any issue that is not code compliant even without that plan reviewer telling you what part of the design is not code compliant. You should be internally within your firm perform a comprehensive plan review for code compliance before submitting them.... but that is an ideal which sometimes you are not afforded the luxury.
b3tadine[sutures]
Aug 25, 22 10:19 pm
If this is a building permit matter, zoning laws would not be part of plan review. They would be separate, possibly concurrent processes. The plan review is for for determining compliance with building code. On the other hand, the zoning/land use codes and other other development code or ordinance would be a separate process. In any case, it is often required that they identify what is not compliant but not always the case.
In general, in the plan review, according to ICC ( https://www.iccsafe.org/buildi... ), the plan reviewer would be required to cite the code violation but also the section number in the code corresponding code books. However, this is not always the case depending on the applicable laws and rules that apply to projects in the jurisdiction where your project is located.
As everyone else said, it may or may not be required by the plan reviewer in your state, county, and municipality. It is fairly common for them to cite the code section but that is not always mandatory. This is why it can be frustrating.
You need an editor. Full stop.
Richard Balkins
Aug 25, 22 11:51 pm
Ok, fair enough. I'll shorten down the points.
1. A number of states do require the plan reviewer to provide with any sort of corrective notice, the code sections the plans do not comply with. This is not always the case and can be a cause of great frustration.
2. Review your plans for compliance with the codes, thoroughly and carefully, then make the corrections to the plans necessary for compliance.
3. If you have time, check with the municipal, county, and state laws and rules / codes / regulations to determine if the plan reviewer is required to provide code sections that the plans are not compliant to.
Everyday Architect
Aug 26, 22 8:05 am
An editor would have cut everything after “Ok, fair enough.”
Non Sequitur
Aug 26, 22 8:56 am
What are the odds that the OP is in the state or Oregon?
Almosthip
Aug 26, 22 11:13 am
......comment regret
deltar
Aug 26, 22 11:32 am
I brought up zoning/planning primarily because OP already stated that it passed building review and often times people will refer to the whole process (in my jurisdiction in Oregon building/planning/engineering are a concurrent singular process) as "plan review" even though my review of building codes concerns happened a week ago. As everyone else is saying jurisdictional requirements and what, if any, codes are applicable are really going to be the key to a resolution.
Richard Balkins
Aug 27, 22 12:52 am
I agree with deltar on this.
poop876
Aug 26, 22 10:06 am
Not sure what jurisdiction or code you are using, however in IBC per 105.3.1 the building official shall give you reasons for rejection in writing which I would think the codes section would help with that.
In local or state adapted IBC codes some sections spell out that they must quote the code section.
Richard Balkins
Aug 27, 22 12:48 am
Indeed and sometimes they don't because they are amended in some manner. In my state, it doesn't exactly state in the code itself what to be included but it is spelled out in an OAR I referenced that gives more clarity on that to some degree. Some other states may have similar or equivalent where its spelled out more, outside the code book itself.
Ideally, with or without spelling out the code section, explaining what is not compliant is good service to the client who may be submitting the documents for permits, the architect/engineer/designer and contractors as well. I think the plan reviewer in this case is kind of being a jerk in my opinion.
proto
Aug 26, 22 12:16 pm
@rarebug
is the problem a zoning or life safety problem? either way, it should have a citable passage of the code.
is the problem a legitimate judgement call that the AHJ gets to decide? or a compliance issue that just needs to be satisfied? Some jurisdictions allow an appeal process to provide alternate methods of compliance if your project situation is compromised regarding satisfying the code
Either way, be a persistent squeaky wheel to get the answer you need. You cannot respond without understanding the issue from the reviewer's perspective (whether you ultimately agree or not). Encourage the reviewer that you want what she wants: an approvable, compliant project.
poop876
Aug 26, 22 1:57 pm
Legally, in order to appeal something it has to be done within 30 days and he would need the code sections in order to appeal it. I do think we need more information from OP as it is very vague.
proto
Aug 26, 22 4:39 pm
not sure I follow on the 30 days detail, but def agree we're missing some details
poop876
Aug 26, 22 4:58 pm
proto, typically a board of appeals is established and when a plans examiner issues an adjudication order, quoting sections of the building code that somebody does not comply with, the applicant has the right to appeal within 30 days if he does not agree with the plans examiner or for any other issues such cost etc.
proto
Aug 26, 22 5:53 pm
ah, i suspect we have competing local jargon...no worries
Richard Balkins
Aug 27, 22 12:55 am
I agree mostly to what poop876 said. I won't 100% agree it has to be done in 30 days because it can be different depending on the jurisdiction. I agree it will most likely be the case but there is the possibility that it can be different. Whatever it is, there is a set deadline.
Richard Balkins
Aug 27, 22 12:58 am
" I do think we need more information from OP as it is very vague."
I agree completely. It's still too vague to provide a more appropriate answer to the OP.
Richard Balkins
Aug 27, 22 1:02 am
If I was plan reviewer, I would reason that I should provide the code sections and the reasoning even if not required. I believe the goal is to help people be compliant with the code and find a path towards the project being approved without compromising HSW and community development standards such as zoning. Not being helpful to project clients (permit applicant), the design team, and the project builders, is just being a douche.
Hello all. i am in a situation with a non cooperating plan examiner. This woman has made every effort to not help with permit issuance. Plans already have been through Building Review committee and were approved. (She was part of it). Does anybody know if plan examiners have a duty to quote the section of the code that they interpret not in compliance. Nobody in the Department will help as she is in a position of power.
Depends, but probably not. It's up to you, the (alleged) professional, to argue why your solution is compliant.
Also, if you're as vague with your drawings as you are with this question, well then, I don't blame the building department for ignoring your requests.
Look up both state and local laws outside of the building codes there may be a zoning issue or something along those lines. There is also certainly someone(s) who supervises her and an appeal process for their determination in the municipal codes. If it hasn't been denied, check on state laws regarding the timelines for inspection/examination as well as the reported timelines in their operating plan (if they have one.) Also check on your procedure for errors, I've had plans sitting around for months because someone didn't bring me required documentation, payment, signatures, etc. and the timeline for review didn't ever start because the application wasn't complete.
Lastly and most importantly, check the junk folder in your email. Sometimes important stuff gets filtered out.
Is this a local, or state code official?
Also, I'd like to suggest actually go down to meet with her instead of communicating via emails. These plan checkers don't like to state things on written record and they sound little more reasonable or cooperative if you meet them in person. As others said, it is up to the Architect to defend the design and provide adequate code references (at all levels), but it may be better to talk it out in person and gently state that you are right and she's wrong, without leaving it on the record.
If this is a building permit matter, zoning laws would not be part of plan review. They would be separate, possibly concurrent processes. The plan review is for for determining compliance with building code. On the other hand, the zoning/land use codes and other other development code or ordinance would be a separate process. In any case, it is often required that they identify what is not compliant but not always the case. I will mostly be taking references from Oregon in my examples used in my response. In Oregon, inspectors are required to not just merely cite a code a violation but what code sections that the work is not compliant to. Note later the quote from OAR 918-098-1900.
In general, in the plan review, according to ICC ( https://www.iccsafe.org/buildi... ), the plan reviewer would be required to cite the code violation but also the section number in the code corresponding code books. However, this is not always the case depending on the applicable laws and rules that apply to projects in the jurisdiction where your project is located.
Now, we know ICC isn't the law but if it is in the code as amended and adopted, it would have the effect of law. If not, you should look to the municipal ordinances and associated codes and policies as adopted. You may also look to the state. In a number of states, the state determines the code and also a number of requirements of the duties of inspectors and plan reviewers because they are 'licensed' by the State.
Non-compliance with zoning is entirely a separate matter altogether and would be the authority of the City Planner and associated officials to administer and enforce the City's development / zoning / land-use codes. Land use issues may or may not require explicit citing of the zoning code sections. You can be building code compliant in your design and yet the project is not be zoning code compliant. In my locality, the zoning issues are generally to be addressed first then the building codes are addressed. It makes no sense to get too deep into designing the building until you have the zoning issues addressed. If the property isn't zoned for what the intended project is... then it makes no sense to prepare construction documents / submittal documents for building permits until the land use matters are substantively resolved. If property zoning is not permitted for say.... a commercial office use because it is zoned for residential, then there are steps that may need to be made whether that be a variance, a zoning classification change, or different site selected for the project. Sometimes, issues are related to development code overlays (like they are used in my municipality), but also things like zoning height rules which sometimes can be resolved with variance.
I would think the OP has addressed a lot of that stuff early in the design process. In my state, the building code as amended can be a little bit unclear but under the Oregon Administrative Rules from the Building Code Division of the state - the following clarifies: https://secure.sos.state.or.us...
"In addition to any other requirements set forth in statute and rule, all building officials, inspectors and plans examiners certified under Division 098, OAR 918-225-0540, 918-281-0020, 918-695-0400, and ORS 460.055 must include an exact reference to the applicable specialty code section, Oregon administrative rule, or statute, when issuing corrective notices at construction sites or to buildings or related appurtenances during a plan review while administering or enforcing a building inspection program. The building official, inspector, or plans examiner must include a plain statement of facts upon which the citation for correction action is based." (bold emphasis added by me to highlight).
Now, you may need to check through your state and local laws (statutes, law, ordinance) & rules/code & sometimes in the building code, it may be there...that indicates if they are required to cite the code section in any sort of "corrective notice" (regardless of what they actually call it in your jurisdiction).
Without locality specific information from you, rarebug, I can not provide any sort of jurisdiction-specific information for your project. I am mainly referencing Oregon. So if your project is in Oregon, what I said regarding a quote of OAR 918-098-1900 applies to you. If not, you will need to research what the requirements are to be in a "corrective notice" or equivalent, in your jurisdiction that the plan reviewer is required to do.
As everyone else said, it may or may not be required by the plan reviewer in your state, county, and municipality. It is fairly common for them to cite the code section but that is not always mandatory. This is why it can be frustrating.
ULTIMATELY, regardless of any of the above, as the design professional, YOU should be able to identify anything in your design that is not compliant and correct them. Yes, it would be nice customer service courtesy for them to cite the code and their reason & determination of why the plans do not comply with code. You can make an argument for why it does comply but you can't really do that if you don't know why or what the plan reviewer reason or basis. Maybe it isn't based on code or anything at all. If a plan reviewer doesn't have readily at hand in their records for the permit, why it is not compliant, then it is likely to be dubious and the plan reviewer doesn't want to be challenged. There is some of that. I don't know one way or another on your project's specifics but I believe you should be able to discern any issue that is not code compliant even without that plan reviewer telling you what part of the design is not code compliant. You should be internally within your firm perform a comprehensive plan review for code compliance before submitting them.... but that is an ideal which sometimes you are not afforded the luxury.
If this is a building permit matter, zoning laws would not be part of plan review. They would be separate, possibly concurrent processes. The plan review is for for determining compliance with building code. On the other hand, the zoning/land use codes and other other development code or ordinance would be a separate process. In any case, it is often required that they identify what is not compliant but not always the case.
In general, in the plan review, according to ICC ( https://www.iccsafe.org/buildi... ), the plan reviewer would be required to cite the code violation but also the section number in the code corresponding code books. However, this is not always the case depending on the applicable laws and rules that apply to projects in the jurisdiction where your project is located.
As everyone else said, it may or may not be required by the plan reviewer in your state, county, and municipality. It is fairly common for them to cite the code section but that is not always mandatory. This is why it can be frustrating.
You need an editor. Full stop.
Ok, fair enough. I'll shorten down the points.
1. A number of states do require the plan reviewer to provide with any sort of corrective notice, the code sections the plans do not comply with. This is not always the case and can be a cause of great frustration.
2. Review your plans for compliance with the codes, thoroughly and carefully, then make the corrections to the plans necessary for compliance.
3. If you have time, check with the municipal, county, and state laws and rules / codes / regulations to determine if the plan reviewer is required to provide code sections that the plans are not compliant to.
An editor would have cut everything after “Ok, fair enough.”
What are the odds that the OP is in the state or Oregon?
......comment regret
I brought up zoning/planning primarily because OP already stated that it passed building review and often times people will refer to the whole process (in my jurisdiction in Oregon building/planning/engineering are a concurrent singular process) as "plan review" even though my review of building codes concerns happened a week ago. As everyone else is saying jurisdictional requirements and what, if any, codes are applicable are really going to be the key to a resolution.
I agree with deltar on this.
Not sure what jurisdiction or code you are using, however in IBC per 105.3.1 the building official shall give you reasons for rejection in writing which I would think the codes section would help with that.
In local or state adapted IBC codes some sections spell out that they must quote the code section.
Indeed and sometimes they don't because they are amended in some manner. In my state, it doesn't exactly state in the code itself what to be included but it is spelled out in an OAR I referenced that gives more clarity on that to some degree. Some other states may have similar or equivalent where its spelled out more, outside the code book itself.
Ideally, with or without spelling out the code section, explaining what is not compliant is good service to the client who may be submitting the documents for permits, the architect/engineer/designer and contractors as well. I think the plan reviewer in this case is kind of being a jerk in my opinion.
@rarebug
is the problem a zoning or life safety problem? either way, it should have a citable passage of the code.
is the problem a legitimate judgement call that the AHJ gets to decide? or a compliance issue that just needs to be satisfied? Some jurisdictions allow an appeal process to provide alternate methods of compliance if your project situation is compromised regarding satisfying the code
Either way, be a persistent squeaky wheel to get the answer you need. You cannot respond without understanding the issue from the reviewer's perspective (whether you ultimately agree or not). Encourage the reviewer that you want what she wants: an approvable, compliant project.
Legally, in order to appeal something it has to be done within 30 days and he would need the code sections in order to appeal it. I do think we need more information from OP as it is very vague.
not sure I follow on the 30 days detail, but def agree we're missing some details
proto, typically a board of appeals is established and when a plans examiner issues an adjudication order, quoting sections of the building code that somebody does not comply with, the applicant has the right to appeal within 30 days if he does not agree with the plans examiner or for any other issues such cost etc.
ah, i suspect we have competing local jargon...no worries
I agree mostly to what poop876 said. I won't 100% agree it has to be done in 30 days because it can be different depending on the jurisdiction. I agree it will most likely be the case but there is the possibility that it can be different. Whatever it is, there is a set deadline.
" I do think we need more information from OP as it is very vague."
I agree completely. It's still too vague to provide a more appropriate answer to the OP.
If I was plan reviewer, I would reason that I should provide the code sections and the reasoning even if not required. I believe the goal is to help people be compliant with the code and find a path towards the project being approved without compromising HSW and community development standards such as zoning. Not being helpful to project clients (permit applicant), the design team, and the project builders, is just being a douche.