PART 3
In the last two weeks, the Advance has documented Lister resident Lori Eyben’s frustrations with a covered deck project gone wrong. In this third and final installment, we ask RDCK Area A Director Garry Jackman, who has a civil engineering and construction background, to comment. The RDCK response to questions about the construction process concludes the story and the series.
“The BC Building Code itself is quite lengthy, now at over 1200 pages, and can only be viewed online if a fee is paid,” Jackman said. “I think I paid around $600 the last time I updated my hard copy, so you will find not many individuals actually have the code on hand for reference. Individuals involved in residential construction would not need to reference every clause within the code but would need to know how to determine which clauses do apply. The BC code also relies on other codes and standards which are referenced, and as such is not a stand-alone document. It is not an easy task to outline how to use the code.”
For general information, Jackman refers readers to the RDCK building bylaw at http://www.rdck.ca/EN/main/services/building-inspection.html.
The response from the RDCK notes that its responsibility does not extend into the Town of Creston, which has its own regulations:
While we cannot respond specifically about Ms. Eyben’s circumstances, we can help to clarify the roles and responsibilities of various participants in the typical permit process.
Local government building permitting authorities are enabled and regulated through building bylaws. Relative to other local government bylaws, building bylaws tend to be very detailed and prescriptive. In this way they are procedural. That is, they very much guide building inspection processes. Building bylaws also clarify the responsibilities of the participants and the extent of local government’s involvement in permitting processes.
RDCK Building Bylaw 2200 section 3.0 (which can be found on the RDCK website here: http://www.rdck.ca/assets/Government/Bylaws/Building/Building-Consol.pdf) specifies the “Purpose of the Bylaw” and the limits of the responsibility that local government is willing to accept. Clause 3.2.1 states that:
“It is not contemplated nor intended, nor does the purpose of this Bylaw extend to
3.2.1 the protection of owners, owner/builders or constructors from economic loss;”
However, these clauses do not limit the ability of “owners, owner/ builders or constructors to challenge the actual application of the bylaw processes in court.” Since each case and court process is unique, we cannot further generalize our response to this question.
While the owner as defined by the bylaw is not necessarily the expert, they are the person who has a responsibility to retain and vet the designers and contractors for the scope of work the owner seeks to have constructed. Local governments will not recommend one contractor or designer over another, as doing so would only attract liability. The Building Official has no control over the ability or experience of designers and contractors who are chosen by the owner to design and construct the work. The Building Official receives the design assuming the owner has thoroughly vetted the designer, and likewise, the Building Official inspects the work of the contractor assuming that the owner has thoroughly vetted the contractor.
As per Section 3.2 of the bylaw, the Building Official’s role in both permit issuance and inspection is intended to be limited to:
“the sole purpose of providing a limited and interim spot checking function for reason of health, safety and the protection of persons and property”.
There may be a misperception on the public’s part about the role of the Building Official. We have often encountered the belief that the Building Official can be relied upon to act in the interest of the owner, or the interests of contractors and designers, versus acting in the general public interest as per section 3.2 of the bylaw. This may be more prevalent in small towns and rural areas than in large centres; with fewer experts available, local government personnel may be pressured into providing expertise beyond their responsibility as allowed by the bylaws governing their activities.
Further, the Building Official has a responsibility to ensure only that the minimum standard of the code is constructed. The Building Official has no responsibility to ensure a “warranty of design or workmanship” is established (as per section 3.2.3 of the bylaw). Some owners might not deem the minimum standard of the code acceptable in terms of quality, but these considerations are not for the Building Official to make or manage. This is solely the responsibility of the owner, who has the responsibility to vet designers and contractors by fact-checking the work history of these persons.
Re: your second question: “What precautions should any recipient of a building permit reasonably take to remain compliant with all regulations?”
To put it in context, tens of millions of dollars of construction occurs within the RDCK annually. The vast majority of that work is built satisfactorily to the standards of the code and without dispute in which local government building inspection is involved. We cannot be specifically prescriptive in response to this question, but I can offer the following suggestions:
• Understand your role and your responsibilities. As discussed above, it is the owner’s responsibility to vet the work history and experience of designers and contractors.
• Keep in mind that design and construction are two distinct specialties. Owners should retain designers to design, and contractors to construct. The designer should be the owner’s ally as they work to gain building-permit approval. Once permitted the responsibility shifts to the contractor to build what was designed and permitted.
• Obtain three quotes for the work proposed. This is always prudent considering the costs involved in most projects. The lowest price quote may not necessarily be the best quote. It is the owner’s responsibility to review the quotes and to determine the best.
• Consider enlisting the help of a project manager, if your budget allows. When the owner chooses to appoint a third party to act as their representative in relation to their building permit application and construction they—the owner—are accepting that the Building Official will not include them in subsequent communications processes, such as inspection results. Project managers may represent the owner’s interest better than a designer or contractor.
• Ensure that the payment milestones in construction contracts include reference to the inspection process milestones. For instance, if a contract states that a percentage of payment is due after foundation completion, ensure that completion includes successful approval of the building inspection siting and footing as substantiated by submission of the Building Official’s report.
• Finally, be proactive. Reach out and communicate with the Building Official. In a typical year, we have more than 2,000 active building permit files and a few hundred more inactive ones that have expired or gone dormant. Building inspection staff cannot reach out to owners in all of those cases, but they will respond when replies are requested. For informal discussions, use the phone. When more definitive communications are required, use email—but be aware that replies to these kinds of communications will take longer and be more formal in tone.
Note: The Small Claims Court mediation process, twice postponed (neither at Lori Eyben’s request) is now scheduled for later this month. The Advance will endeavor to update readers as we receive more information.
