You gave arch plans to GC which included demolishing shed. It's your fault.

The plan I got from the architect did not have the writing on it. The original plan we don’t get until the GC picks up permit from county.

It's not an issue until the lady inspector holds up your Certificate of Occupancy until you demolish the shed. It may never come to that, so I wouldn't worry about this yet.

It may also be possible to amend the plan to eliminate the need to demolish the shed. As long as the shed does not have to be demolished to meet a specific requirement, you may be able to file a simple amendment that says “we decided to keep the shed - it will not be demolished”. Depending on what is already on file/applicable requirements you might not even have to dummy up a new plan with the shed still on it.

Joseph - when you say ‘It may never come to that...’ Do you mean we might get another inspector and it might not be enforced?

shivece - the original plan only have someone’s writing in red ‘shed to be demolished’. I’m thinking it’s the plan evaluator or whatever their title is??!! Other than that, there is nothing else in term of the back area where the shed is. I will push to have an amendment if it comes to that. I’m relief to hear it’s an option. We would have to cough up at least 10-15K to do the retainer wall if we take out the shed. And we’re not even sure what we will do with the area at this point, (pool house, exercise area, or guest house.).

Let me see if I got this right:

Your architect produced plans and gave you and builder each a copy. Your copy does not show shed demolition.

Your builder filed for permit with his copy of the plans. While the permit office was reviewing, the builder, WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL, amended the plans and communicated the changes to the permit dept, and a permit was granted with these changes.

Is this correct?

Strategery - no. My architect email me our final approved plan while the original remains at the office, until whoever gets the permit picks up the original. And none of this shed demolition thing was on the file we got. Only on the original.

I was told by my architect that despite what is written on the original by the office, if the builder said no, we are contracted to do x, y, z and not A. Then that wouldn’t go on this permit. To my knowledge, the permit‘s paperwork was pulled by the office manager. And someone else in his office came to pick up the permit and original plan without looking at the details.

Ah. You approved the architect's "final" plans, received a copy, all good. Architect later amended the plans without your knowledge or approval. Drama ensued, details are irrelevant, such as who, what, or why. Fact is, you did not directly request the changes in writing. True?

Correct. Our focus has always been inside first and they all know. None of our contract with the architect, engineer, or the builder have the shed part in it!

"Joseph - when you say ‘It may never come to that...’ Do you mean we might get another inspector and it might not be enforced?"

Correct. Inspectors are human; they may miss this fine print.

Why not find out why someone, presumably the architect, noted that the shed would be demolished? Perhaps it doesn't meet setback requirements?

^ Excellent suggestion. Someone didn't just wake up one morning and say "Hey, I wonder how I can throw a wrench into this project?" Someone was trying to make inspection happy with the shed demolition offer.

Jmm1837 - I’ll see if I can find out more next time I have the inspection.

While we were in the planning stage, it was taking quite a long time (almost 2 years) to get city approve the plan. So I called in, lady at the front was really nice, she mentioned having the architect comes in and talk to the evaluator might help nudge thing along. So I told him and he did. After all this unfolds about the shed having to be demolished, my architect said it was that meeting when the plan evaluator asked him what’s going on with thing (the structure shows up on line), what is it and why isn’t it drawn in? So he said, oh, it’s a storage shed, they will demolish it at some point. And that person wrote that in.

There is no way for the person who do the paperwork to pull the permit to defense herself as she‘s gone from the company. But our architect eluded to it that she should have spoke out and only pull permit on what is in the contract, and nothing else.

Architect made changes after plans were final without client's knowledge. Ask them why, then fire them (which is likely not do-able).

Strategery - I agree in that our architect made changes without consulting us. Unfortunately, by the time we see it, we were in the final stage so we kept going. I’m telling you, we’re paying for it now. And I’m not even counting this time.

I don't know about your AHJ, but the most common issue we have with a large shed is related to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the lot. A shed built within city guidelines (IIRC, 120 sq ft max and a non-permanent foundation) does not count against the FAR. However, if it has a slab/foundation, or is too big, you need a new FAR calculation and approval. Calculating FAR is also kind of quirky, since low-ceiling basements and attics don't count, but a deck with a full cover does count, etc. Maybe your architect gave up one thing (the shed) to get a concession for something else.

Bruce

Sounds like the municipality REQUIRED the demo of the shed in order to grant the permit. Which is common when you have limits on impervious surface and FAR. Sounds like your architect forgot to mention that requirement. Sounds like the city didn’t forget at all. Sounds like your shed is going away. Or you won’t get a final CO.

I infer from your question "Error with permit pulled by GC. Who pays?" that you blame the GC for the error.

If you contracted separately with your architect for design services--a frequent recommendation here on houzz.com--then you warrant the plans you provided to the contractor to be free of errors and omissions. I don't think you'll be able to reach into the GC's pocket on this one. I suggest you check with your architect.

There is no error. It was a fair trade.

I just checked on our FAR, we’re cap at 4800 and with everything we‘re adding, it’s 3154. So FAR couldn’t have been the problem.

I honestly don’t know who is at fault or partial fault, hence my reason for asking on here. I wouldn’t expect anyone to foot the total bill of the demolition but as far as I know, we seemed to be in the middle because these two trade men toss the responsibility at each other.

We don’t remodel often. So when I did it and obtained the permit myself, I was always told by the county clerk to only pull permit on what you’re working on. And in this case, we hired a professional trade person to do the work so I do expect them to stop and ask me if it’s not in our contract.

Our contractor initial respond were, oh your architect put it in the plan, he pays for it. Then once the architect‘s responses came in, we are now told...’Don’t worry about it, we might not have to deal with it.’

@Neospecies, you're being a drama queen. You are not "in the middle", YOU are IN CHARGE. You're writing the cheques, that makes you the big boss.

Phone your architect, get the answer, and then ream him a new one for making changes after the fact without your approval. Your passiveness does not bode well for the rest of the build, in my opinion.

I fail to see how I’m being a drama queen by asking from possibly more knowledgeable people? Afterall, this is not my field of knowledge. Rest assure I will act accordingly once I’ve done my research and find out the reason and who is/are at fault.

FWIW, because of his lack of communication with us, we have make him correct the plan and pay for some. I will say, our GC is amazing. But the people who work with them in the office I can’t no longer trust.

I'm picking up a permit next week. In my contract, I will write the checks ($75-80K) to be reimbursed and will have to build per the plans; however, that may (will) vary from our contract as client and designer has been changing without keeping me informed. From the builder's perspective, you and the architect are one and this is a change. If the shed demo isn't included in the contract but added to the plans, it will have to be done and you and builder need to figure out if you want to pay him to do it or someone else, but check your contract.

" You are not "in the middle", YOU are IN CHARGE. You're writing the cheques, that makes you the big boss."

You may be writing the checks, but you're writing them on MY job. If I don't like how something's being done, keep your check and here's your down payment back. My name's off this thing.

Plenty of customers, one reputation, and it's not for sale at any price.

Looks like Joseph got up on the wrong side of bed this morning. If you can be fired, you're not the boss.

Customers can be fired. If you pick ‘em right, you never have to do it.

There is such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face. There is always someone with no skin in the game arguing for some costly action. Firing a builder or architect mid build is a good way of burning through a large chunk of change, which might be necessary but should be near the bottom of options.

From my understanding (although limited, still the same facts other people here are working with) this is a tough sell as a material breach. Firing the contractor or architect in this situation could mean paying their fees even when they aren't doing any more work.

Even were this a material breach firing an architect and trying to still use his plans is not easy. Nor is finding a replacement builder to jump into someone else's mess.

Here is the sad reality. You may be S.O.L. If the person at the permitting office was in fact the one who wrote in the change, an architect being at fault is a tough sell.

Your contractor getting a permit that includes work he was not doing may also just be what the permitting office issued the permit for, regardless of what he wanted.

Regulatory agencies are a little bit of a fiefdom. There is little available recourse against a permitting official abusing their power. Unless you are going to make a Constitutional case out of it, there is just little you can do in most instances.

Your best bet, in my opinion, is to go to the permitting office and as nicely as you can speak to them. In my experience permitting offices are tougher on builders than homeowners.

I'm still unclear as to whether this was a mistake made by someone (architect, builder) working for the OP, or a condition for the permit imposed by the permit office. Perhaps the best move would be for the OP to go to the permit office to find out. And if it was a simple error, ask for the permit to be amended.

@jmm1837 - yes, I’m hoping to talk to the inspector next week when she’s here to find out more. If not, def the permit office next. If it’s something we could get amended, the architect will have to do it. He really should have immediately let me know once he finds out. I had one of my local architect friend to look at the shed for us and he himself can’t see why they would want It demolished.

Unless you're in a really small jurisdiction, it's unlikely that an inspector had any input with regard to approval of your permit application. They only know what's indicated on the approved plans and permit. If you want the facts, go talk to the building official.

What's written on paper can be meaningless to inspection, even when they write it. I've had friends that got a red tag for undersized joists that their office had approved in writing. The code is what the inspector says it is on the day she says it.

Mistakes happen in builds, it is just their nature. When mistakes happen it is very tempting to assign responsibility. Often, that is not the best course of action, your best bet is to work the problem collaboratively to find a solution, rather than looking for someone to blame.

The major problem here is asymmetric information. Your builder knows a lot more about building houses than you do, and there is no reasonable way for you to level that playing field. Your only real choice for success is to keep your builder's goals aligned with your goals. When you move to an adversarial relationship, it is likely your builder will do the same and then even if you win, you end up losing.

This is just one of several reasons that treating this like a traditional consumer relationship is dangerous, it is very hard to find a pathway to success when you start threatening to withhold payments or demanding resolutions.

Good luck

So true @bry911. Thank you for the reminder.

@Joseph Corlett, LLC,

I don't agree that the code varies depending on the inspector. It doesn't. The building code in a particular jurisdiction is the building code. To be sure, it is subject to interpretation by the designer/architect, plans reviewer, code official, builder, engineer, and code compliance inspector. As designers and builders we don't always get it right. Neither do the inspectors in the field. In the municipalities in which we build, we have the option to appeal a questionable interpretation by a plans reviewer or a field inspector to the code official and ultimately to the state's building code technical review board.

Yeah, good luck with that appeal.

@Joseph Corlett, LLC,

I know you're a sink repair guy. I don't imagine you deal with many gray areas in the code.
I design, build, and remodel homes for a living. I deal with a variety of code issues on a regular basis. I've had plenty of occasions to appeal an inspector's or a code official's opinion. Like one last week, which I won on appeal. The code is not what the inspector wills it to be. It represents the best judgement of the folks on the committee who produced the code. It's subjective and as such subject to appeal.

I'm glad that's been your experience. I just want readers to know that a deal isn't always a deal when it comes to inspection.

The building code in a particular jurisdiction is the building code. [...]

I design, build, and remodel homes for a living. I deal with a variety of code issues on a regular basis. I've had plenty of occasions to appeal an inspector's or a code official's opinion. Like one last week, which I won on appeal. The code is not what the inspector wills it to be.

Can you run on over to TerryLove.com or Electriciantalk.com and post that? While I appreciate that you have anecdotal evidence of code enforcement working well in your area, my experiences run counter to yours. I am not alone in my experiences either, which is why I asked you to add this comment to those forums. Every plumber and electrician has had to redo work that was absolutely to code because a code official said it was not.

Or if you prefer run on over to JSTOR and look for one of the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles on the problems with code enforcement.

The code is whatever they say it is. I am sure most states have some form of administrative review, but administrative review doesn't have the efficacy that other reviews have, and review boards have a clearly demonstrated bias to inspectors. Nor is there a viable appeals process for codes, in most areas there is no judicial appeal for mis-application of the code by the review boards.

@bry911

I've not suggested that my experience is a substitute for some peer-reviewed, scientific study, but it does span a couple of decades in a single geographic area and it's certainly not unique to our company.

Virginia is a "Dillon Rule" state: All municipalities are supposed to review for, inspect for, and enforce the conformance to the uniform statewide building code. The intent is that they not create nor impose local or regional variants of the statewide code. To this end, code officials in the various regions of our state meet regularly (I think it's quarterly, but it might be only 3X/yr) to ensure consistency.

The work of various trades doesn't always conform to code; when it falls short, it needs to be corrected. By the same token, code compliance inspectors aren't infallible. In my experience, they sometimes impose a requirement that's not in the statewide building code or over reach with regard to the scope of an inspection. When they do, builders and trade contractors should push back lest we endorse an alternative code.

We are fortunate in our area to have plan reviewers and inspectors who are thorough and code officials who are tough, but fair in their application of the building code. Together their efforts serve the best interests of homeowners and builders alike.

@Charles Ross Homes - Most states are Dillon's rule states, I think there are only 10 home rule states, so Virginia is similar to most other states. Your assertion is the existence of an appeals process and a review board means that the code isn't whatever code officials say it is. You are substituting the review board for the inspector, as proof there is no discretionary power but that just moves the discretionary power and is largely semantics. Have you ever lost an appeal that you should have won? If the answer is yes, then code officials have discretionary power.

The problem is that a series of cases in the late 60's and early 70's determined that permits were issued for the benefit of the municipality rather than the homeowners. There is no recourse for administrative action or inaction against officials for exercising their broad discretionary power.

---

The question becomes, does correct typically win and incorrect typically lose? What several studies found was that wins and losses had little to do with correct and incorrect application of building codes. There are many examples of losing on appeal even when the appeal mirrors situations that previously won on appeal. This is one of those construction law topics that gets revisited in journals every 5 years and the results are always the same... public agency is pretty terrible.

My godfather, who I spent a significant amount of time with, was the plumbing inspector (he was previously one of my father's employees). You are going to struggle to convince me that the process isn't biased and discretionary, because I have heard those "I just don't like them conversations."

According to OP's story, architect made unsolicited changes after final sign-off. We have advised OP what to do but OP is insisting on doing something different. I'm done with this thread.

@strategery

According to OP's story, architect made unsolicited changes after final sign-off.

That is not what the OP's story says. The OP says, "when the plan evaluator asked him what’s going on with thing (the structure shows up on line), what is it and why isn’t it drawn in? So he said, oh, it’s a storage shed, they will demolish it at some point. And that person wrote that in."

"That person" refers to the official at the planning office, not the architect. So the official at the planning office made unsolicited changes after the final sign-off and not the architect. Should the architect have included the structure in the plans? That is possible, but that is a completely different can of worms.

Here is my rather unhelpful set of assumptions on what happened...

The architect didn't draw in the shed and he probably should have. However, he didn't want to start the process all over as it was already almost 2 years to get approval so he said, "that will be torn down at some point in the future."

The building inspector wrote that on the plans and the architect let him, again probably not wanting to start the process over. The architect expected the builder to pull permits only for the job he was contracted to do, which doesn't include demolishing the shed. Which is reasonable. However, when the permit was issued it included demolishing the shed.

So now the OP is asking about who to hold responsible, since you can't hold the building department official responsible and I don't think any other party is a slam dunk for being responsible, I think that is a fools errand. We can talk about the building department all day long, but let's be real the plans took two years to get approved so I am struggling to believe the best option is going to be any type of appeals process or argument with the building department regardless of who is right. I am gathering that Charles Ross Homes has apparently had some success with that, but I am unsure whether he typically spends multiple years in that process.

Nor are suggestions of holding the architect responsible or the builder responsible slam dunks.

It seems to me that what the OP wants is to keep the shed. So really, the issue should be the best way to achieve that. If the presence of the shed does not violate any setback rules, etc, what would he/she need to do to get the permit amended? I don't see that identifying who, if anyone, is at fault will address that point. Talking to the permit office might.

Yes it was the plan reviewer who wrote it. The inspector was fairly adamant in making sure I will have someone demolish it before she gives me the CO. So I want to talk to her before I head over the office. I’m not even sure she is coming this week as the inspection part is the rate limiting factor for us in lieu of Covid-19.

If there is no apparent reason, we will amend the permit to keep it and the architect will have to help us get this done!!

If there is a valid reason, correct me if I’m wrong, it’s a mute point to blame anyone. The shed will have to go and we will just do a wood fence to cover the part. I was told by the architect friend who has been working in this area for a long time (?15 years) that he could certainly help us appeal this. But I don’t think it’s worth it really...his time and our time.