I’m still working on my own house, very long job. completed the framing on the kitchen addition, but had to also do the electrical, hvac and plumbing and have them inspected before the framing inspection.(standard stuff).
I designed my house, then had a technical architect do the drawings for the permit. There were a lot of beams, lintel, etc and had to have an engineering firm sign of on that stuff. city made no changes, approved all the drawings. I built the second floor addition, inspections passed, then built the rear addition.
So, I call for the framing inspection, and the inspector fails the work ( a ridge beam is not big enough for the span, even though it is exactly as drawn and wants me to triple it,) and some other things he wants changed. The whole thing is built as per the drawings.
I am complying with all of his changes, but it has set me back months because I had other jobs to do when I should have been at the drywall stage in my house.
Some people I talk to about it say I should have fought it out with the inspector. I did disagree with him, but he said get an engineer to redo all the span calculations and he would accept it, but that was too costly for me. They say that he is not an engineer and can’t recommend changes, only check that the work was done as per the permitted drawings.
As I said, I am not fighting him and am doing the changes,( want to stay in his good books for my future work ) just wonder what other peoples opinions might be on this.
stemreno
Replies
"want to stay in his good books for my future work "
You are making the mistake of trying to be in his "good books". You dont' have to cater to him. YOu only have to build a good house and if you are following the engineers details, you've complied.
We've had our runins with inspectors and we've even had them threaten us with "we'll nitpick your house on the next inspection" which we instantly reply "good, that's your job and you're supposed to do it every time! Please feel free to nitpick the job because we also do that ourselves and we want to deliver the highest quality product!".
The last guy that threatened us with that did in fact nitpick our job. We had to send in a guy for a one hour service call on our work and the other mechanical trades had to tidy up some of their stuff. That tells me the inspector finally did his job!
Don't let them run over you and try to scare you. If they are overstepping their authority, you will have the upper hand when you are in the office making your formal protest. Your engineered drawings are very powerful tools in these types of protests. Additionally, the local authorities face civil liabilities if they overstep their power. I know a firm in MI that won about 40 million from a city that thought they could overstep their authority.
Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
An inspector is not an engineer. If you had the beams calced by an engineer then a simple phone call to him/her explaining the situation and asking them to revue there calcs for a mistake and fax you a letter stating that they are correct should take care of the problem (this should not cost anything), and the inspector should accept it.
Ive never had the inspector question anything that was engineered, in my limited building career everything is OVER engineered to begin with, I know 1 inspector who laughs everytime he comes and looks at my nailing schedules before cover up.
Thanks Simpson
You already had an engineering firm sign off on the drawings.
a engineering report is a whole lot less costly than replacing a ridge beam, but the original engineer should write a letter for free.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
An engineer can create the documents for the inspector while you do other jobs, not go backwards.
It's not fighting the inspector but more of a discussion of fact. unless it's a blatant mistake on the ridge beam sizing, he probably can't tell you for sure whether it's strength is sufficient for the purpose. Push forward with your original plan with addl docs from the engineer.
One thing I noticed is that our inspectors are a lot tougher if they don't know you. We had a new lead in our company and he got spanked for covering up the rim joist insulation, even though I had done the exact same detail just a few months ago. It's like they figure out if you know what you are doing, and then leave you alone, pretty much.If you had plans engineered and put through plan review, there is no way he should make you change things. Either he is a jerk or you're not telling us the whole story.
If the AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdicton) that issued the permit did a plan review and approved your plans and you built them as the plans said, the inspector does not really have the authority to make you change the engineered aspects just as others have said before me.
I would place a call to your engineer and then the inspectors boss to keep from having to rebuild what you have already done.
If the ridge beam was really too small or just needed calculations and this was the only correction, a smart and nice Inspector could have given you an OK to drywall and just leave the beam open.
I don't agree. Adding drywall weight to an undersized beam could lead to disaster. I wouldn't allow progress to continue if I was an inspector. Your thought process works in many other examples but this isn't one that fits. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
...There were a lot of beams, lintel, etc and had to have an engineering firm sign off on that stuff...
...[the inspector] said get an engineer to redo all the span calculations ...
That was already done when the engineering firm signed off on it, wasn't it?
So, I call for the framing inspection, and the inspector fails the work ( a ridge beam is not big enough for the span, even though it is exactly as drawn and wants me to triple it,) and some other things he wants changed. The whole thing is built as per the drawings.
I did disagree with him, but he said get an engineer to redo all the span calculations and he would accept it, but that was too costly for me. They say that he is not an engineer and can't recommend changes, only check that the work was done as per the permitted drawings.
There were a lot of beams, lintel, etc and had to have an engineering firm sign of on that stuff. city made no changes, approved all the drawings.
Read the highlighted sentences.
You state that he is NOT an engineer and cannot recommend changes, but in another paragraph you state that he wants the ridge triple instaed of what the drawings show that according to another statement the city already signed off on.
Too many contradictions going on here. It is the inspectors job to ensure that the work is being done according to the specs that the city signed off on. That's it. Period.
[email protected]
If you have drawings that were approved by the city how can he make you build beyond what they have already approved?
Dont bend over for this guy. Be respectful but dont tear your house apart and rework cause he says so. Alot of these guys come in and expect you to build the way they saw it in their dream the night before.
If its in the code book fine, but dont expect me to build to meet your little idiosyncrasies.
Yeah I agree with MSA1 and also keep in mind if the same guy doesn't come back to look at your job, the next guy may want totally different things!
Be respectful but stand your ground as well and debate it via the code and not his personal likes and dislikes keeping in mind many parts of the code are ALWAYS debated and its never just black and white.
I say this as a CBO and previous building department employee.
I been over our county ex walmart inspector head so many time, My footprint is tatoo on his scalp
It seems the overwhelming majority say I should have argued the point with the inspector.
This inspector is new to this area and I have only two other jobs inspected by him for me with no problems,, just a "I wish more guys would do it like you are". The previous inspector for my own job had no issues at all.
I did point out the engineering firm's letter regarding the "beams and lintels" to the inspector, but he said he didn't think it applied to the ridge beam, as it is wood and most of the other beams are LVL's., but to me it covered all the beams,, as there are others that are regular wood. I felt that it would cost me to get the engineering firm to do another approval, as the first one was already accepted. (I didn't look into it, I should have).
It was always inferred that "the inspector is always right, don't argue or he'll give you a hard time in the future." If this comes up again, I will have to take a stronger stance, as I feel I was right, and all the response to my post show me that I can "fight" back.
stemreno
(funny, a buddy I work with said he thinks the BI is just pushing me around a bit, I said nah...., but I wonder now that I've seen some of the other experiences from you guys)
the average human being inspector is not god so is open to argument. Even I, myself. Free to argue with. The book is law. if it ever goes to court the book wins on all cases. so let him or I prove it in the book. if its in writing from anybody, county, engineer, testing lab, that what holds up in court. County approved it, tell the inspector to pound sand
Your inspector has every right to point out or question what he believes to be deficiencies. Whether the plans have been reviewed,signed off and approved or not isn't an issue with that. They have that right until the job is done and all inspections passed. Now, that said, he has ZERO right or qualifications to tell you how to design the project or make specifications and changes unless he wants to assume liability for the design. He is an inspector, not the designer.
His duty is to raise the issue and ask that you have your engineer provide documentation for his calculations and design.
If your engineer wants to try to charge you for checking his own work to prove his calcs to the inspector I would find another engineer for my next project. Your work isn't being challenged, his is, you paid him to do it right.
Call your engineer, or better yet write him or e-mail him and explain the issue. It is his problem not yours. You are just the messenger boy in this situation. Let the man with the license prove his stuff to the man who inspects it. Engineers have been known to make mistakes and sharp inspectors have been known to catch them, saving everybody future headaches.
You however should not be changing the engineers specifications or design because when you do you assume total responsibility for the work that has been altered without his approval just like the inspector is if he insists it be done his way over the engineers way.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
hmmm, a different point of view, makes one think...
I defineatly will have to go back to the archi or engineer if this happens again.
stemreno
I defineatly will have to go back to the archi or engineer if this happens again.
It sounds like this issue has already been resolved? What happened? i cant tell if that is the case or not.
My earlier post i said something like the engineer has final say on all- and the inspector can not make you change something that has been engineered without the engineers approval.
But an inspector can certainly override the plan checkers at the city/county-happens often.
What dovetail said.If you read the cities disclaimers in the approved plans, they will tell you that their approval of the plans does not mean that they can't change their mind later if a defeciency that they missed becomes known to them later. So, the inspector may very well be doing the right thing by challenging the beam size but he certainly can't tell you to triple it and make that decision stick. Sometimes they do make a suggestion such as "double that joist and I'll be happy" or "add a couple studs under that beam". These types of suggestions are usually very cheap and easy to do and it's often easier to just do them even if you could prove that it's overkill.In this case, the tripling of a roof beam sounds expensive and costly and the call to the engineer will usually produce a faxed letter verifying the existing size. This letter will normally (almost always) satisfy even the pickiest inspectors. I agree, if the engineer was the one who specced the job, this fax will usually be free. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
His duty is to raise the issue and ask that you have your engineer provide documentation for his calculations and design.
The engineers drawing that were based on his calcs have been approved by the building dept.
It is not the inspectors responsibility to bring into question the validity of these calculations after the work has been completed as per approved plans.
No way in the world would that fly here or with me. No way![email protected]
What can I say , it flies here. Causes a fight every time, but it does happen and I have seen the engineers be proved wrong and have to admit it. I have also seen the BI proved wrong and have to admit it. Just had one happen. Engineer missed the elevation of the job and failed to take in to account the recently changed (increased) snow load, BI caught it and refused to sign off until the calcs were redone. Engineer's mistake was in his basic premise, not his calcs or the spec based on his calc. If at any point during construction they discover something that they want verification or they dispute the the engineers spec on they can and do ask for verification and proof of the analysis according to what they see .
In this case it seems to be roof loads, BI can and does ask to see the calcs to see that all the factors they are considering are included.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Right, but the inspector will have pointed out the specific reason he brings it into question vs. "I don't like the way that looks, you'll have to change it". If he spots something suspect, he will go back and check the engineering parameters and if they are per construction, then the inspector hasn't a leg to stand on and should let it go.
IMHO you were wrong not to stand your ground.
An arguement of fact is not a fight. It should be a conversation about the facts.
First of all, if the beam is wrong, whether the municipal review noted it or not, it is still your responsibility to build to the code and it is the inspectors responsibility to ensure you build to the plans and code.
You needed to go back to your engineer and pay to deterine what needed to be done. If the inspector claimed that the ridge needed to be tripled because he read it in his span table of his code book ( I honestly dont even know if structural ridges are called out in a span table of the IRC cause I never looked for one), then the only way you can usurp the code is with a PE sign off for structural items in most jurisdictions.
I have disagreed with most every inspector I have ever been involved with. Sometimes I found him to be correct, and sometimes they found me to be correct.
Regardless, of the situation, of the dozens of inspectors I have delt with in the last 20 years in both PA and NJ, I only had one ever that I had problems with. The rest respected me because I took interest in the code, understood stuff, and questioned them if I thought they were mistaken.
Always push back if you think you are right. It is the inspectors job to cite where in the code they get the info.
Respectfully disagree with him. You had engineered drawings approved. If it is wrong, the engineer pays to fix it, not you. That is why you pay them the big bucks. You could go back to your engineer or have the BO contact him. The BO can't force you to do other than what the engineer spec'd unless he can identify something on site that is different than the engineered design (e.g. you decided a span could be 2 feet longer and still use the same beam).
You can respectfully request a hearing or review from the head of the building dept. If you have engineered drawings, they should be good. If the engineer made an error, that should be his problem.
BTW ... likely a technical DRAFTSMAN ... not an architect ... architects are licensed, draftsmen are not. It is not legal to say you are an architect if you aren't fully licensed by the board of architecture.
He is a technical architect, which means he is fully qualified aerchitect plus able to do some engineering calculations both residential and comercial. (at least in this neck of the woods)
stemreno.
I'm a little confused. Do you have an engineer's stamp on the plans and a copy of his beam schedule? It should specify all the beams, not just engineered or steel. Why didn't you call the engineer when this came up? That's what you hired him for.What, exactly is the ridge beam that he wants to beef up?Some times new inspectors want to mark their territory. If all your ducks are in a row, I would politely point that out. If he still won't agree, you need to start with the next link in his chain of command. Now you see this one-eyed midget
Shouting the word "NOW"
And you say, "For what reason?"
And he says, "How?"
And you say, "What does this mean?"
And he screams back, "You're a cow
Give me some milk
Or else go home"
You say you had a "technical architect" do the drawings. Not sure what "technical" means in relation to an architect means. If the architect is acrredited and licensed in your state, then go back to him for span calculations. This should not be an added charge.
Now if the person who drew up your plans is a draftsmen and not an architect, then you will have to pay an engineer or architect for span calculations.The architects seal is on each drawing if he is licensed.
mike
The architect is a member of the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario. The engineering is a member of Registered Profesional Enginner, Province of Ontario. They were both on my cities preferred list. My question is about what I should have done when the inspector questioned something that was built as per the drawing. He just said that isn't good enough, make it this way. I have gone through lots of inspections for every aspect of renovating and building, but never had something turned down that was as drawn.
I see from most of the post to my question, that I should have gone back to my architect or engineer to clarify the situation. Instead, I just blindly said OK and did the rework. I do understand that if there actually was a structural issue, he couldn't let it go,, nor would I have.
Just a note here regarding my opinion, am not looking for comments on this part.The addition has been standing for two years and gone through two winters with no problems. The ridge beam in question is on an interior cathedral ceiling and supports the rafters for the interior finish. there is still a roof above this with its own ridge, a double 2 x 12 lvl.. I interpret the design making the ceiling ridge beam as non structural, but the BI interpets it as a structural ridge. I have to agree it is not big enough in his interpration of the design. I am not a engineer, but get the concept of structure, loading etc. and really strive to make things better than rquired for the long term.
Thanks for all the responses, if this issue ever arises again, I will have a much better idea how to respond.
stemreno
He just said that isn't good enough, make it this way. and if there an engingeer stamp on the drawing, that inspector be looking for another job before sundown
I would ask an engineer to review what you have proposed on your plans.
The inspector should not make structural design decisions or implementation.
If I have a question about a questionable detail or practice, I ask for documentation from a registered design professional befofe I approve a project.
I have told people to correct existing non compliant conditions, by hiring a design professional and submit their plans or calculations to me. I am qualified to tell the builder or owner how to fix or correct what I may or may not see as a problem. That would be a conflict of interest, I can't wear two hats.