PCCA Bulletin Board

[homebild]

Ok, Here's the problem.

Acquaintance of mine has an attached deck that is less than 18" above grade. She wants to place a hot tub on the deck.

Code Adminsitrator will not issue a permit unless engineering calculations are performed for the loads.

My friend hires a her neighbor who is a NY State licensed architect who lives in Pa but commutes to work in NY.

Architect submits his calculations and plans.

Code Administrator turns down the permit because the architect is not licensed in Pennsylvania. Code Adminstrator cites "Architecture Licensing Act."

Here's the issue:

Under Act 45 not only are uncovered decks under 30" exempt from permits, Act 92 excludes from the code altogether renovations and repairs except for structural changes or changes to means of egress.

Section 403.62 of Act 45 also specifically EXCLUDES residential plans from needing licensed engineer, architect or deisgn professional approval.

This Code Adminstrator is claiming jurisdiction over the deck despite it being less than 30" high by invoking the 'structural change' exception to Act 92 exclusion for renovations, and is still insisting that the owner have a Pennsylvania licensed engineer do the load calcs for this deck before issuing a permit.

As a BCO I cannot agree that a PA licensed professional is required in this instance. The Code Administrator may have a case for a permit because of the structural change. The owner has fully complied except for not having the PA state licensed architect/engineer confirm the NY state licensed architect's drawings.

How can my acquaintance get around this seemingly obstructive Code Adminstrator apart from an appeal or paying a PA licensed professional to stamp the plans?

The Code Administrator works for a 3rd party and is not a BCO. Code Administrator is 'grandfathered' in.

Just can't get it through her head that residential work does not require licensed professionals from PA under Act 45.

Only other suggestion I could offer was for the owner to locate the hot tub on an adjacent deck on grade or slab on grade and not on the existing deck, because it then would be exempt from permit being less than 30" high and would require no engineering because it will be on grade.

Thoughts?

[docj]

I would look at the project as being excempt from a permit. Since the deck is less than 30 inches from the ground it would not require a permit if built new today. The UCC does not require stamped drawings for residential construction, but as a BCO they can be required. Such as decks that will support hot tubs (weight loads), log homes,buildings that don't fit the code norms, etc. The hot tub could require a permit because of electrical considerations. I would accept the NYS arch. calcs and go on with it.
docj

[yyyme]

I can not agree that a permit is not required for a hottub on a deck, if the deck (normal 40 PSF) was not design originally to carry the weight of a hottub (normal 100 PSF). It is a structural issue not a issue how high the deck is, but safety. I offer the following:

Section 403.42a (c) of Act 45 states “A licensed architect or licensed professional engineer shall prepare the construction documents under the Architects Licensure Law.”

Section 106, Construction Documents, of the 2003 IBC states “Submittal documents. Construction documents, special inspection and structural observation programs, and other data shall be submitted in one or more sets with each application for a permit. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.”

Section 202 Registered Design Professional Definition of the 2003 IBC states “An architect and a professional engineer are individuals who are registered or licensed to practice their respective design professions as defined by the statutory requirements of the professional registration laws of the state where the project is to be constructed.”

Architects have knowledge of building design and Engineers have knowledge of mathematics and the principles of physical science relating to structures and materials. Structural details involving specialized knowledge and calculations to be sealed by a Structural Engineer. Simply put, Structural Engineers design structural details. By not requiring the proper Design Professional to certify drawings, the Municipality/Agency assumes this liability.

Get sued and the cost of a Structural Engineer's seal is a lot cheaper then defending yourself. I've been there and it's not FUN.

[homebild]

Hi yyyme and welcome to the forum.

Unfortunately this deck was for residential, not commercial application.

And while I agree with your sentiments regarding the structural integrity of the deck, uncovered residential decks under 30" are exempt from the UCC code and require no permits at all.

I do agree, that because of the structural issues, architectural or engineering review is required regarding the loads on the deck, but the 'Archutects Licensure Act' you cited from Section 403.42a does NOT apply to residential construction, only commercial construction in Pennsylvania.

The issue with THIS deck was that the owner contracted with an individual who lives in Pennsylvania, and works as a licensed/registered/certified architect in New York state, and the local code official would not accept his load calculations because he was not registered in Pennsylvania.

I think this is an error of the code official's part.

If you check the residential sections of 403.62, you will find that there exist no corresponding architectural licensing requirements for residential work.

Also, Chapter 1 of the IBC was not adopted by Pennsylvania UCC code and references to Chapter 1 are moot in this Pa. See 403.21 Unoform Construction Code (a) (1).

Pennsylvania only recognizes Chapters 2-29 and 31-35 of the IBC 2003.

Likewise, construction documents for the deck were supplied to the BCO, but the BCO ignored them soley on the gorunds that the architect was not licensed in Pa.

Otherwise the documentation was there, correct, and submitted by a professional...

The BCO just wouldn't accept them contrary to the UCC in my opinion.

[bob]

Let me take you down another road:

I would agree that the hot tub required a permit and inspection, but not because of the deck. As far as I can tell from the UCC and the IRC, the deck's load bearing capacity is "off limits" because the deck is less than 30" above grade, and therefore, excluded from permit under both the UCC and the IRC.

However, the UCC requires that all residential swimming pools, spas and HOT TUBS that contain 24" or more of water are regulated by the UCC, and must comply with Chapters 41 and Appendix G of the IRC (plus Section 2406.2 Paragraph 9 of the IBC and Section 3109.4 of the IBC.

Act 92 does NOT exclude swimming pools, spas and hot tubs. In fact, Act 92 language regarding accessory structures specifically states that they are not accessory structures subject to exclusion.

So...the permit should be for the electrical, barrier and enclosure requirements for the hot tub.

Now...regarding sealed plans..... the code administrator is fully within their "privilege" perhaps even "obligation" to require sealed plans from an architect or engineer, when they feel that the work under the proposed permit is of such a nature that a design by a registered design professional is warranted.

There is nothing in the UCC that REQUIRES sealed plans or designs by a registered design professional. There is also nothing that PROHIBITS that requirement.

The PA Architects Licensure Law specifically excludes the design of one and two family dwellings from the practice of architecture, which means that anyone with a pencil and piece of paper can design and build a one or two family dwelling.

Think about this ---- accept as true the above statement....but now, we have a uniform residential code that requires that the dwelling be built to the prescriptive requirements in the code or to a reference standard (which typically requires an engineering background to understand). The arguement that many municipalities (jurisdictions) are using is that houses being built today are not being built within the scope of the IRC's span tables....that they are way beyond those....and using materials that are not specified in the IRC....so....they require an engineered design.

Look at R106.1 of the IRC: ......... "construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in whch the project is to be constructed". "Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional".

Statutes of the jurisdiction - could be adopted by L & I for statewide application (which it did NOT do) or local ordinances (since each municipality must adopt the UCC)....local ordinances are considered statutes of the jurisdiction.

I don't personally agree that load calcs were needed in this particular case (hot tub on existing, excluded deck), but I do support the right of the code official to require architectural and engineering designs for residential projects.

Last point --- the Commonwealth of PA does NOT recognize the right of any architect or engineer to practice their profession in PA unless they are licensed or otherwise regulated under the laws of the Commonwealth. Meaning - if they do not have a PA seal, their designs are invalid within the Commonwealth.

[homebild]

Bob said:

[MCP182]

I agree with homebild...

The code official overstepped their bounds. Those who think the UCC grants them authority because it doesn't say they can't do something are going to find themselves in hot water (no pun intended). There is a federal law which code officials may be sued for three times the cost of unneccessary code requirements. Requiring a design professional for this job shows a lack of understanding of the code on the code officials part. As I look through this post I see references to commercial requirements and unadopted sections of the IBC. I hope these folks are not applying these in their jurisdiction. Covering your butt is one thing.....but I'm willing to bet the manufacturer supplied specifications as to the required support. So, what if the hottub falls through the deck and they didn't have a permit? A little common sense goes a long way...

This is not meant to offend......I am personally lucky if I make it out the door in the morning without making a mistake. At least thats what my wife tells me!

[nemo31]

Ran into this situation last year. The home owner was given a large hot tub. He asked me to build a deck to have it installed on. The deck would have been about 16 " off the ground. I was concerned about the deck load. All that water and 8 people. I found all the manufacturers ID numbers on the bottom of the pool. Went to their web site and was able to copy the manufacturers specifications for the(not recommendations) deck. The code official had no problem accepting them. Of course once I presented the homeowner the cost required for the deck construction he sold the hot tub, had me install a slightly raised concrete pad, bought a above ground pool and had me install a 6' high heavy duty vinyl fence around his backyard.

[bob]

Thanks to nemo31 for a succinct, common-sense approach. Just remember that outdoor hot tubs are regulated by the UCC.