On Mar 26, 7:25 am, "Michael Bulatovich" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 24, 11:44 am, 3D Peruna wrote:
RicodJour wrote: Not misleading, but illegal in most states. "Plan
Stamping" or the
reviewing of plans prepared by others is not legal in any of the states
I'm registered in...

Really? I thought a arch/eng could stamp plans under 2 circumstances:
either the plans were designed under the arch/eng's supervision or as
long as the arch/eng reviewed the plans to ensure that they met code,
were structurally sufficient, etc. Granted, that might take nearly as
long as the design but I thought it was okay as long as an actual
review was made (i.e. they just don't stamp them without checking
code). I mean, it is possible/likely that you find a set of plans on
the internet for $500 and pay $5000 to have them reviewed. But it
would be legal cause the stamper reviewed EVERYTHING and therefore
could ensure code complaince.

Only the first 'circumstance' is legal in Ontario. Review for code
compliance is not the only type of responsibility that the stamp signifies.
It is also for "responsible control" of the design. There are all kinds of
aspects of a design which are not necessarily EXPLICITLY cited in drawings
but which can make or break a project. The designer is responsible for them,
but someone reviewing for code compliance may not appreciate them because
the documents do not describe them. By putting the stamp on the drawings
I'm taking responsibility for the whole show, and my association wants me to
be sure that I've thought about all of it.

(There is a new condition here after recent legislation that permits me to
stamp drawings for code compliance if another ***architect*** takes
responsibility for the rest. I can't stamp the drawings of non-architects at
all, although I'm asked to again and again because I'm a 'little guy' who
presumably would throw away 26 years of work for a G-note.)
--

MichaelBwww.michaelbulatovich.ca

I deal with funding all day and therefore whenever I see a regulation
I like to push and probe it a little and see what it really
encompasses. So let me pose a hypothetical. I am not trying to be a
PITA, I'm just curious about that reg because I believe it is an
unobtainable prohibition.

Let's say you are putting an addition on a older building -- all
concrete, steel, asbestos, etc. etc. You have the As Builts but the
original architect is dead and buried. But he did a good job and gave
you great drawings with incredible details.

So you figure you want to punch a few holes through the building,
bring in some mechanicals and a couple of doorways. So you need to be
concerned with the structural elements of the exisiting building -- is
it structurally sound, etc. etc. Plus you'll be doing some rehab over
there so you need to bring portions of that building up to code -- say
new interior walls, new HVAC, new electrical, ADA, and maybe a new
elevator.

Now there's now way your new work is done "stand along" because you're
tying in to an existing building. You need to show certain elements
of that building. So what you are saying is that the law says you
cannot rely at all on the old drawings and then confirm the details,
and check for code compliance as part of stamping plans for the new
building and the reno. Instead, you must go out, take your own
measurements, make your own determinations as to what the materials
are, somehow find buried pipes, etc. so that you can show them on your
plans? That may be the law, but that doesn't make sense. In this
case, relying on the old dead guy will probably give you much better
info than you could find without his plans. Seems like there has be
some discretion there. No? I mean, you have control of your new
design, but you have no control of the design of the building that is
already built but you have to show parts of it on your plans.

Just wondering.