"Marshall Caudle" wrote in message
news:D8516B58D0A0F325F4B343B6FA12A863@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I've seen this happen several times in the last year or so - building
> inspectors demanding a professional seal on house plans. When you think
> about it I guess it makes sense from their viewpoint. They require a seal
> on a $100,000 commercial project but unlicensed designers are typically
> drawing million dollar homes and nothing is required in the way of a
> licensed professional architect or engineer to be involved. That puts a
lot
> of the "design" liability for code compliance on the inspector should
> something go wrong.
The law specifically says (as I understand it, not a lawyer, yada yada yada)
that on residential work (within limits), an Architect's seal is not
required. If the structure does not follow UBC requirements, or is deemed
"complex" by the building official, a Structural Engineer may need to stamp
and sign the then required structural design drawings. Sure, a building
inspector can pawn off responsibility for their own work, and a home owner
can complain to city council. The plan checker's job is to check the plans,
not check the stamp and nothing more. The fact is, you don't need a licence
to do a house. The home owner can even do their own design & drawings, as
long as those drawings meet the requirements of the city for submittal, and
the design meets code requirements, then you should get a permit.
As for purchasing one set of drawings and building 20 houses, I believe the
law reads that the builder can then be found liable for the cost of
construction. Thus, builder pays Architect/Designer $10,000 for plans for
one house, builder builds 20 houses at $100,000. Builder can be found liable
to Architect/Designer for $1,900,000 (19 illegally built houses at $100,000
each).
And an Architect who signs someone elses drawings is also breaking the law,
and can loose their licence (at least in California). Not sure on the
specifics, but the requirement is that the Architect can only sign drawings
they have had direct control over the production of, either by themselves or
their staff. When an Architect takes a plan book set and modifies it to meet
local requirements, they take responsility for everything and are expected
to review it. If they just take someone elses drawings and stamp them, they
are in deep do do! And someone has to have payed for the design and the
right to modify it. If the homeowner brings a page from a plan book and says
'Draw me a permit set of that', the design has been stolen. Again, deep do
do.
Last but not least, commercial work requires an Architect's stamp because it
is a public building. We still have the freedom/responsibility in this
country (for the moment) to design, draw and even build our own homes. More
hoops to jump thru, yes (and rightly so), but it is not yet illegal.
Woah, too much for a Sunday evening. Must go drink nice warm tea and get
some rest 😉
Gordon