This one takes the cake IMO. We submitted a set of plans for a gut remodel recently. Got kicked back, for among other things not having arrows on the wall section labels. Our draftsman did have a cross section of a wall. Right next to it a list: 1/2″ drywall, 6 mil poly, stud, 3/4″ board sheathing, building paper, siding (or maybe it was reversed,but it did follow convention). The plan reviewer stated that the drawings need to make it clear what component goes where.
Heaven forbid, without that info, I might’ve had the guys put the drywall on the outside and the siding on the inside!
This is worth our time to redraw and resubmit? Good grief!
Replies
Next time you're in his office, drop some candy INTO the candy jar on his desk, instead of taking some out.
Must've been having a bad day. Heaven help the guy that submits plans scribbled on the back of a napkin....
Senior year High School I got a drafting job through the Vo-Tech related to my class. The first set of house drawings were returned form the city because I left arrows off my dimensions. I couldn't believe I made such a dumb mistake but surprised they rejected it.
Next set of drawings I did came back approved, no problems I had made sure I had arrows this time. The builder called me asking where the electricle layout and door schedule was. They never were part of the approved se,t seems I forgot them and still I passed. Never know sometimes I guess.
I can see their point, being certain that there is not a lack of clarity.
and, fwiw, drywall can and does go on the exterior of the wall assemblies sometimes.
I refuse to accept that there are limitations to what we can accomplish. Pete Draganic
You can lead a moderator to a computer, but you can't make him think. cussin2
Pete, pete, pete...Have you went over to the dark side? The section view probably had brick on the exeterior. That guy is just on a power trip.
I had to wash my hands after I typed that... but I can also say that anyone leaving anything to assumption anymore is a bad idea.
<!----><!----><!---->
I refuse to accept that there are limitations to what we can accomplish. Pete Draganic
You can lead a moderator to a computer, but you can't make him think. cussin2
You are forgiven.
Say what? I guess you could call gyp sheathing drywall MAYBE, but I have yet to see steel lap siding on an interior. No, it was perfectly clear on this residential remodel. The guy is a picky jerk.
but you could still transpose the sheathings, technically. gyp out and ply in.
<!----><!----><!---->
I refuse to accept that there are limitations to what we can accomplish. Pete Draganic
You can lead a moderator to a computer, but you can't make him think. cussin2
Well, I suppose that is in the realm of possibility. But in these parts no carpenter looks at the wall section on residential. Especially a remodel. They are provided for the plan reviewer. He's just playing a game with us.
Lets just say, for fun, that they did transpose the materials. Is it legal?
I don't know. I am sure it can be but perhaps there would be certain requirements in addition to the standard plan if that were the case.
<!----><!----><!---->
I refuse to accept that there are limitations to what we can accomplish. Pete Draganic
You can lead a moderator to a computer, but you can't make him think. cussin2
the building dept has nothing to do these days. I see that here in ct a lot. it took 3 weeks to review the last set of plans I submitted even though I knew they had nothing to do. finally got to the point where I asked for a chair, I was'nt going anywhere until i got my review
all about keeping up appearances
I had a clients plans recently rejected because my signature and date wasn't entirely within my architects stamp.
Runnerguy
had a clients plans recently rejected because my signature and date wasn't entirely within my architects stamp.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is that a requirement? Or just being a jerk?
Yes!! In Prince William County, Virginia.
Fortunatly it didn't mean revising and reprinting but it did mean the hassle of me going down there with my stamp and restamping and resigning (yes, WITHIN the stamp) every sheet. So each sheet of the permit set now has two stamps, one with a normal sig and one immediatly adjacent with a tiny sig.
Runnerguy
Hi guys,
I know we all like to beat up on Plans Examiners and now that I am on the other side of the counter, I get frustrated too. But in my former life as one, I caught alot of flak but in essence you are just doing your job.
Though small details seem petty like notes, signatures, etc., these plans become public record and if something goes wrong down the road, the plans examiner can find himself in trouble for something he or she let go or missed. So just to CYA they will usually require all the small details to be addresses. If your state is like mine (Florida) these documents are permanent public records and will live on forever with your name and approval on them. Possibly even on the Internet?! Nothing like having a blatant error or omission around for years for all the world to see especially if you ever find yourself looking for another job.
In addition when folks used to complain to me, I used to tell them its easier to change something on paper than for me to let it go and then they hear it from the inspector that something needs changed when its already been built.
Obviously, most of you guys know how to read plans and adjust accordingly but MANY homes in Florida are built by guys who yesterday were doing something completely different so they do NO interpretation but literally follow whatever is written down or what the super who is reading the plans tells them.
Just my .02 cents of course.
Mike
Drafting with clear arrows that designate specific material locations = Drafting 101. Learned to do that always in my first week of my first job back in 1979.
Jeff
tried to get a "fast track" permit for a porch, hoping they'd let a couple of zoning issues slide an inch or 3. Especially as said porch already built. Nope. No can do - had to submit for review and then told to expect to have to go to Committee of Adjustment to get approval.
Just got back a letter from the Plan Review that says that the porch - which absolutely doesn't meet local zoning - says that it does - Woo hoo ! Heading down to grab that permit ASAP !
Win some - lose some...
Overall was big loss though: to meet local code the porch / balcony roof is engineered to hold the weight of about 3 times more people than it could possibly fit, in their cars, during a snow storm...
Gavin Pitchford
"Sail fast - live slow" (build even slower)
Edited 10/11/2009 12:03 am ET by Accelar
Yeah, the BI's office here insisted that my deck be designed to hold both a max people load and a max snow load simultaneously.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
I was considering getting a crane to pop the Suburban, and a pickup truck and a whack of people in and on the vehicles, and get a photo shoot for the local paper as a means of publicizing the BS. truly crazy.The 10x32 roof is engineered to support 40,000 lbs. Thats 200 people at 200 lbs each. Cuz thats what we're gonna do ! Have a party for 200 on the balcony.Gavin Pitchford
"Sail fast - live slow" (build even slower)
Reminds me of the story of the Johnson Wax building by FLW. In the open office area he had 9" diameter concrete columns in a "mushroom" configuration. Local building department said nope, they had to be something like 36" in diameter. Of course that would completley destroy the room.
He got a test column made up and started loading it with sandbags. It finally collapsed when it had something like three times the required design loading. The building officials there for the test had long since left at that point.
Runnerguy
Did you have to allow for the extra weight of long johns, overcoats and snow boots as all those people stood on the deck on top of 6 feet of snow?
BruceT
No, since they would have all been in swimsuits, waiting to get into the hot tub.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
Man, you Minnesotans ARE tough! :)BruceT
"Man, you Minnesotans ARE tough! :)"
Probably overdressed with the bathing suits on ;)
"
Overall was big loss though: to meet local code the porch / balcony roof is engineered to hold the weight of about 3 times more people than it could possibly fit, in their cars, during a snow storm..."
Big government at its best....
The real b#### was having to pull the 12.5" piers and replace them with 14" piers. The tow truck got em out in minutes - but it took a serious effort to get 4 x 6' piers 12.5" in diameter up a ramp and into a trailer for disposal. 12.5" piers rendered the structure only capable fo holding 16 tons and it needed to be 20... City of course also made money on the disposal !Gavin Pitchford
"Sail fast - live slow" (build even slower)
A balcony is a special case, since there have been many instances of people in parties getting out on them and dancing (or at least jumping up in down) with the music, resulting in the collapse of the balcony. People have been killed. So a little over-building is a good thing.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
I figured 16 tons - 160 x 200 pound people on a 10x32 deck was overbuilt.
320 square feet - 160 people = 2 square feet each, at 200 # average weight. Even with the hot tub and the chev suburban...125#psf a bit much.Gavin Pitchford
"Sail fast - live slow" (build even slower)
There really is a problem with people jumping around on your typical apartment-style deck. Effectively increases the load something like 5-10x.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
But surely to be jumping on the deck they must have come outside from where they were jumping in a room. Shouldn't they have the same live load?
Lets not let a common sense question like that get in the way of big government eh?
You are always there to protect big government. I'm begginning to suspect that you are employed by it.
No, but I know the inspectors catch hell if something like a balcony collapses and kills people, even when the people were doing something stupid, and the balcony was poorly maintained. So they're naturally kinda sensitive about such things.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
I thought we were talking about a deck on piers...not a balconey. People get killed in radioactive fallout when nuclear reactors explode...should we enact strict codes and regulations in every aspect of our life just because of that? Common sense has sustained us for millions of years....maybe we should give that a little thought.
The people who complain about collapsed decks don't look at statistics. The ability of humans to compare risks is woefully defective in most cases. When you have two or three decks collapse within a given metro area in the matter of a few months, it gets people's attention, and they start yelling for blood.In this case you may be right (I don't have an image of the platform in question in my mind) that it's more of a "deck" than a "balcony", and thereby less subject to balcony-like failure. But you and I both know that the code guys don't split hairs like that.I'm not saying that the code guys are right. (In fact, it's axiomatic that they're wrong.) I'm just trying to explain some of their motivation.
As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place. --Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
"But you and I both know that the code guys don't split hairs like that."That might be a correct statement but there is only one of us who know that the code guys should be run out of town.
Yeah, I pity the homeowner who has to get a set of plans through this guy. Now they're making us engineer any attached porch over 120 sf. We had to get an engineer in to replace just the footings with helical piers. I guess maybe we should count ourselves lucky that we didn't have to get a soils engineer. Mind you, there was no inspection of the installation of the pier which might make sense. No, we had to get an engineer to stamp the plans, even though hundreds of piers are going in around town, they have much more bearing capacity than a traditional pier foundation, the porch is a simple 8 x 20 porch that has sat there for a hundred years, etc.Now, I live in a town with an aging housing stock. I think the goal of building safety and city government should be to fix up as many of these wrecks as possible. Keep the blight at bay. I'm all for inspections during construction, but there needs to be a little common sense injected into the process. In the long run, more people are going to be doing work on sly so they don't have to deal with plan review. Or they simply won't do it. And neither of those things are desirable. DW tells me that St. Benedict said "all things in moderation" and I think that applies to plan review down at building safety as well.
100%All this did was ensure I do my best to avoid a permit in future. The prior porch was way way under this spec, and parts had lasted 110 years before the city contractor did a bad repair job on a railing 10 years ago (railing was damaged by a city tree in a lightning incident) and that let moisture in that led to rot that led to safety hazzard and the need to replace the 100 year porch with the 200 year porch.By the time the review, the delay, the replaced piers, the rebuilding all into account, the cost virtually doubled. Thanks goodness they missed the zoning issue !
Gavin Pitchford
"Sail fast - live slow" (build even slower)