For some experienced folks who've filed before in NYC, I received one objection that reads :
"Provide proposed scope of work and notes referring to appropriate codes are on the plans per AC 28-104.7."
Are they usually this vague?
curtkram
Nov 21, 22 9:42 am
looks like they're saying your drawings are too vague. presumably you've ready 28-104.7? They go into detail for what they're looking for. the plans examiners shouldn't have to repeat that, right?
Non Sequitur
Nov 21, 22 11:12 am
I have zero experience in NY but I just read the section and understand what they mean. Hopefully the OP's client did not pay much for their "design professional's" services.
natematt
Nov 21, 22 12:38 pm
Many plancheckers also like to throw the book at people on their first review rather than actually checking the drawings/documents. Looks like there is a lot of supplemental paperwork involved and some pretty specific drawing stuff like report numbers for materials. Good chance the OP will need to speak with the planchecker to straighten it out weather they did everything or not. Obviously they should look to make sure they are checking all the boxes first, but this seems like pretty typical planchecker behavior IMHO.
deltar
Nov 21, 22 1:08 pm
I know that I will throw the book at anyone who does the bare minimum. If the plans are missing things like R-Values or span dimensions it shows me that you either don't care or don't know so I tend to be harsher with those ones. I rarely kick them back though I just add a ton of notes that must be satisfied upon inspection.
natematt
Nov 21, 22 2:28 pm
@deltar
I think what you’re pointing out is a different kind of throwing the book (I’d call that bleeding all over the drawings). I’m talking about just pointing at a big ole code section for everything and saying “do that” regardless of if it was actually done or not. Basically asking the designer if they did the local requirements without checking.
To be fair, this isn’t even a criticism really. It can be hard to find where people are addressing requirements on drawings, especially the more that is required and the larger the set. If I were OP, I’d probably look at all the sub sections, write a response pointing to where each requirement is generally located, obviously add anything that wasn’t there, and then set up a call with the reviewer to discuss (or however they communicate in their jurisdiction). If there was a lot missing, I’d probably resubmit first, if there was not I’d probably set up the call prior to resubmitting.
As far as the responsibility of the reviewer, I think there is a threshold of what I think is reasonable vague response and not. I prefer if they are a little more specific, like maybe if they pointed out which subsection under this was deficient. To just point to the whole thing seems needlessly vague. If the OP just clearly didn’t do a bunch of stuff in this section, then sure this is a pretty fair criticism. If they just forgot to reference engineering reports with the materials or something… point to that section. We’ll never know what the situation is though. As the person on the other side of this, I do get a bit annoyed when something simple seems to be obviously addressed on the drawings, but at least that’s usually pretty easy to clarify and resolve.
My main point is that I don't think OPs circumstance is atypical.
Continuum
Nov 21, 22 12:20 pm
Interesting. Drawings have all those info, perhaps they need it in a specific format in NYC for permitting sets. Either way I am happy this is the only objection!
Continuum
Nov 22, 22 9:08 am
Hi all, thank you for the thoughts and comments.
It turns out the only objection was actually that I was missing a waiver form for something. So it is indeed, vague sometimes. The department reviewer made a clarification note later on.
bennyc
Nov 22, 22 10:25 am
That means you are missing something, a required item or a document in order for the project to be reviewed. Also sometimes when the drawings submitted are vague, confusing and the plan examiner is not clear about scope or which code you are asking review under, they issue same comment. good luck
Chad Miller
Nov 22, 22 11:38 am
I'd look at the comment just above this.
jcarch
Nov 22, 22 11:20 am
Been filing in nyc for 25 years (yikes!). Yes, they are that vague. I love it when you get a comment saying "comply with accessibility requirements," or "comply with zoning requirements." Those are really helpful. Often the initial comments you get are cut and pasted from a master list of comments that all the plan examiners have...stuff that applicants frequently forget to include on the drawings. Some examiners put more effort into their initial review than others, and actually check this list against what's been filed. Others just CTRL-V that list into the comments and will let you figure it out. Some examiners are idiots while others are thoughtful professionals, it varies greatly. I've found that in responding to examiner comments you can't be too specific. So don't just say "it's on the drawings." Say "note no. 2 in the upper left hand column of sheet A-101 lists the project's scope of work." The real fun starts when an examiner reviews your responses, and keep that objection open, w/ no explanation, and then refuses to schedule an appointment so that you can talk to them to get clarity.
bennyc
Nov 22, 22 3:45 pm
I just received same comment on a project filing. "Provide proposed scope of work and notes referring to appropriate codes are on the plans per AC 28-104.7." This is 3 weeks after filing the project and waiting for this initial vague comment.
Now I am forced to schedule an appointment with the examiner, that's at least a week out, and go over the issue. While owners and clients are waiting to pour foundations before the cold hits, and blaming you for being the slow architect, and not recommending you to others. And this is just DOB. To get to the filing, had to go through DEP and DOT for the other pre required items before you can even file, and that took about 8 months. Life of a small architect in NYC, doing residential new buildings, additions etc. Horrible
Chad Miller
Nov 22, 22 6:35 pm
3 weeks for comments - seems normal
1 week to meet with a plans examiner - seems normal
8 months for various approval and permits - that's crazy long but typical of mountain towns around me
atelier nobody
Nov 23, 22 4:06 pm
8 months from first submittal to ready-to-issue would be about right for most commercial projects in Los Angeles unless it needed a CUP, a bit long for a residential or small commercial unless it were in a Hillside or other special overlay zone.
Jovan Millet
Nov 26, 22 8:31 pm
So I know this thread is about NYC in particular, but in my part of the country, our municipalities expect a written scope of work on the drawing set (often times because we're also dealing with the Florida DEP), so we usually have a "description" box that we put on our cover sheets, which
1. Says something like "Two-story elevated motel containing (20) sleeping units, all built to VE Zone requirements"...
2. Walks through the basic structural & cladding systems from foundation to roof, and then...
3. Breaks down the programmatic elements of each story, including habitable and non-habitable elements.
Haven't really had much experience in the recent past working in NYC, but perhaps this is analogous?
Hello,
For some experienced folks who've filed before in NYC, I received one objection that reads :
"Provide proposed scope of work and notes referring to appropriate codes are on the plans per AC 28-104.7."
Are they usually this vague?
looks like they're saying your drawings are too vague. presumably you've ready 28-104.7? They go into detail for what they're looking for. the plans examiners shouldn't have to repeat that, right?
I have zero experience in NY but I just read the section and understand what they mean. Hopefully the OP's client did not pay much for their "design professional's" services.
Many plancheckers also like to throw the book at people on their first review rather than actually checking the drawings/documents. Looks like there is a lot of supplemental paperwork involved and some pretty specific drawing stuff like report numbers for materials. Good chance the OP will need to speak with the planchecker to straighten it out weather they did everything or not. Obviously they should look to make sure they are checking all the boxes first, but this seems like pretty typical planchecker behavior IMHO.
I know that I will throw the book at anyone who does the bare minimum. If the plans are missing things like R-Values or span dimensions it shows me that you either don't care or don't know so I tend to be harsher with those ones. I rarely kick them back though I just add a ton of notes that must be satisfied upon inspection.
@deltar I think what you’re pointing out is a different kind of throwing the book (I’d call that bleeding all over the drawings). I’m talking about just pointing at a big ole code section for everything and saying “do that” regardless of if it was actually done or not. Basically asking the designer if they did the local requirements without checking.
To be fair, this isn’t even a criticism really. It can be hard to find where people are addressing requirements on drawings, especially the more that is required and the larger the set. If I were OP, I’d probably look at all the sub sections, write a response pointing to where each requirement is generally located, obviously add anything that wasn’t there, and then set up a call with the reviewer to discuss (or however they communicate in their jurisdiction). If there was a lot missing, I’d probably resubmit first, if there was not I’d probably set up the call prior to resubmitting.
As far as the responsibility of the reviewer, I think there is a threshold of what I think is reasonable vague response and not. I prefer if they are a little more specific, like maybe if they pointed out which subsection under this was deficient. To just point to the whole thing seems needlessly vague. If the OP just clearly didn’t do a bunch of stuff in this section, then sure this is a pretty fair criticism. If they just forgot to reference engineering reports with the materials or something… point to that section. We’ll never know what the situation is though. As the person on the other side of this, I do get a bit annoyed when something simple seems to be obviously addressed on the drawings, but at least that’s usually pretty easy to clarify and resolve.
My main point is that I don't think OPs circumstance is atypical.
Interesting. Drawings have all those info, perhaps they need it in a specific format in NYC for permitting sets. Either way I am happy this is the only objection!
Hi all, thank you for the thoughts and comments.
It turns out the only objection was actually that I was missing a waiver form for something. So it is indeed, vague sometimes. The department reviewer made a clarification note later on.
That means you are missing something, a required item or a document in order for the project to be reviewed. Also sometimes when the drawings submitted are vague, confusing and the plan examiner is not clear about scope or which code you are asking review under, they issue same comment. good luck
I'd look at the comment just above this.
Been filing in nyc for 25 years (yikes!). Yes, they are that vague. I love it when you get a comment saying "comply with accessibility requirements," or "comply with zoning requirements." Those are really helpful. Often the initial comments you get are cut and pasted from a master list of comments that all the plan examiners have...stuff that applicants frequently forget to include on the drawings. Some examiners put more effort into their initial review than others, and actually check this list against what's been filed. Others just CTRL-V that list into the comments and will let you figure it out. Some examiners are idiots while others are thoughtful professionals, it varies greatly. I've found that in responding to examiner comments you can't be too specific. So don't just say "it's on the drawings." Say "note no. 2 in the upper left hand column of sheet A-101 lists the project's scope of work." The real fun starts when an examiner reviews your responses, and keep that objection open, w/ no explanation, and then refuses to schedule an appointment so that you can talk to them to get clarity.
I just received same comment on a project filing. "Provide proposed scope of work and notes referring to appropriate codes are on the plans per AC 28-104.7." This is 3 weeks after filing the project and waiting for this initial vague comment.
Now I am forced to schedule an appointment with the examiner, that's at least a week out, and go over the issue. While owners and clients are waiting to pour foundations before the cold hits, and blaming you for being the slow architect, and not recommending you to others. And this is just DOB. To get to the filing, had to go through DEP and DOT for the other pre required items before you can even file, and that took about 8 months. Life of a small architect in NYC, doing residential new buildings, additions etc. Horrible
3 weeks for comments - seems normal
1 week to meet with a plans examiner - seems normal
8 months for various approval and permits - that's crazy long but typical of mountain towns around me
8 months from first submittal to ready-to-issue would be about right for most commercial projects in Los Angeles unless it needed a CUP, a bit long for a residential or small commercial unless it were in a Hillside or other special overlay zone.
So I know this thread is about NYC in particular, but in my part of the country, our municipalities expect a written scope of work on the drawing set (often times because we're also dealing with the Florida DEP), so we usually have a "description" box that we put on our cover sheets, which
1. Says something like "Two-story elevated motel containing (20) sleeping units, all built to VE Zone requirements"...
2. Walks through the basic structural & cladding systems from foundation to roof, and then...
3. Breaks down the programmatic elements of each story, including habitable and non-habitable elements.
Haven't really had much experience in the recent past working in NYC, but perhaps this is analogous?