Client/Owner tells you upfront he intends to build without a permit 9

[gte447f]

A prospective new client was referred to me by an architect. The prospective client is a home owner that is planning to build an addition on the back of his home. He also apparently holds a residential/light commercial general contractor license in my state, but he says he doesn't work as a general contractor (he is a banker turned real estate investor/developer). He has a set of conceptual plans (Not For Construction) from his architect neighbor. The addition is 2 stories and about 2,000 sf and is to be built on wood columns about 10 feet above grade (because it's in a flood plain apparently, see below). Part of the addition also involves taking in and enclosing an existing, covered wood deck. The conceptual plan looks pretty sketchy from a structural perspective. One particularly sketchy part of the plan is that the client/owner has already built a foundation himself, without an engineered design as far as I know, which consists of 2'x2'x12" concrete footings, each on a single helical pile, at the planned locations of the wood columns. I have asked for documentation of the foundation design and the helical pile installations, but I doubt that there is any.

So, I have a lot of reservations about the architect's and the owner's conceptual plan, and then to top it off, the owner straight up tells me that he intends to build without applying for a permit. The reason given is that he thinks the addition is located in a flood plain, and the city may reject his plan for that reason. His stated budget for the construction is $200,000, which I think is on the light side, but if he is GCing it himself and cutting corners he might be able pull it off for that amount of money..

I am leaning toward declining the project, because I think the conceptual plan is going to be a nightmare to design structurally, and I probably won't be able to get a reasonable fee to deal with the headaches, plus I get the vibe that the owner is going to be a hassle to deal with because he already has his mind made up on everything and just wants someone to rubber stamp his ideas.

On ethical grounds though, my question is whether it is acceptable to move forward knowing that the owner intends to intentionally subvert the building permitting process? My instinct is telling me that this alone should be a deal breaker. Thoughts?

 

[gte447f]

CWB1, I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you, but what I said is not nonsense. I live here and work here in the residential and commercial AEC building construction industry, so I know the local regulations. I perhaps shouldn't have generalized by saying "most" jurisdictions work this way, but what I said is dead on accurate for this jurisdiction and most others around here where I practice, so I will say it again, essentially all residential construction needs a permit, but only stuff that doesn't conform to the IRC cookbook needs a licensed design professional. That's the way it is here. After 20 years, I ought to know. This guy needs a permit. That's a fact. Now, I don't give a $#!+ if he gets one or not, but I don't have to work for a crook either.

Edited to tone it down a bit... we're all learning and having fun here, right?

 

[EnergyProfessional]

If a place in incorporated or not doesn't matter. This only changes who the JHA is (might be the County for an unincorporated town unlike a City). Most States have adopted a code. Some cities or counties may ADD some requirements to what the State requires.

JHA or what you call "local muni engineer" will not provide a design. They may point the applicant to the code, but they won't provide a design or "resolve engineering issues". Design is responsibility of the designer (code defines requirements for who can be designer) and JHA only reviews. JHA will answer specific questions, but not design.

Adding an outlet is NOT maintenance. Maintenance would be replacing an existing broken outlet, not ADDING one.

 

[JStructsteel]

As for the reasonable fee, quote him 2x what you would normally, and tell him you require 50% up front. Hopefully that sends him down the road looking for someone else. If you get it, then hopefully you get your second payment. Maybe people will learn that structural engineers are not a commodity that can be had any corner store.

But, I would walk away, I cant imagine this will be your retirement project!

 

[ctopher]

Go by your instinct, walk away.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '19
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[gte447f]

Just to put this topic to bed in my mind, I did a little leg work to satisfy my curiosity. The proposed building site for the addition to the existing building is indeed located in a FEMA flood hazard area. Here are a couple of excerpts from the AHJ online:

General statement about development in floodplain and permitting:

"New development in the floodplain is illegal. Non-compliant redevelopment within the floodplain can result in the City’s probation or possible suspension from the NFIP. This can result in substantially higher rates within the city for purchasers of flood insurance. Therefore, all work proposed within a designated flood hazard area requires a permit to ensure compliance with floodplain regulations."

Excerpt from municipal code rules about elevating and flood protecting structures in floodplain areas:

"Designs for complying with the requirements of this article shall be certified by either a professional engineer or architect;"

So, it is pretty obvious why the prospective client doesn't want to apply for a permit (he most likely won't be allowed to build the addition, or if he is allowed to build it, he will have to follow a lot more strict regulatory procedures than non-flood prone construction). I guess that should be no surprise, since that is basically exactly what he told me upfront (that he wasn't going to permit the project because it is in a floodplain and the city wouldn't let him build it).

Needless to say, I have decided not to be a part of his plan. Thanks everyone for participating in this discussion. I suppose I could have a conversation with the prospective client about the floodplain regulations to try to convince him to go through the permitting process the right way, but I don't think anything will come of it, so I will probably just say "no thanks".

 

[dik]

Thanks for the added info...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[TheTick]

There are some bids that you want your competition to win.

 

[JStructsteel]

@ TheTick, I would not want to have that attitude. Hopefully it results in 1 more person being educated on the structural engineering profession, and that we are not a plan stamping commodity.

 

[phamENG]

and that we are not a plan stamping commodity.

One can hope. Sadly I know a couple of engineers who are exactly this.

 

[IRstuff]

At the end of the day, if you are doing something for pay, and you are fungible, then you are a commodity. The population of people that are non-fungible is relatively small, say, 10% of any demographic. We'd all like to think that we are irreplaceable, and we are, under certain circumstances, but the rest of time, we're engineers doing something that someone else could likely also do, so that makes us fungible and therefore, a commodity.

Family doctors used to be less fungible, but the insurance companies realized that even a nurse, with a teensy amount of extra education and training could replace 80% of a family doctor, and doctors are now commodities as well.

This is, of course, coupled with supply and demand; I submit that most engineering disciplines are in an over-supply condition with less demand than desirable, which is why payscales for most engineers aren't that great, as contrasted with software engineers, with starting salaries close to, or more than, double that of some starting engineers in other disciplines.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[phamENG]

IRstuff - true, but in this case I think the emphasis was on the "plan stamping" part of it. A lot of people expect PEs to just smile, nod, slap their stamp on whatever crazy idea the person has come up with, accept a couple hundred bucks, and walk away happy. And some do this, unfortunately, without any actual engineering or consideration of minimum requirements for a building.

I also think it's a relative thing. The relative fungibility of a sack of corn and a licensed engineer are pretty different. Are they both fungible? Yes. But in most cases (current international food crisis not withstanding), it's probably easier to find a replacement bag of corn that it is to find another qualified engineer in many markets. So while we can boil all economic activity to the same basic fundamentals, a more nuanced consideration reveals enough gray to make the chafing at comparison to a sack of corn justifiable.

The supply/demand problem is slowly starting to correct salaries in my area for structural engineers. Of course, the firms need to push higher fees, which some of us are doing with some success, to pay the higher salaries. Everyone is getting used to the idea of everything costing more, so that helps.

 

[geotechguy1]

We used to refer projects like this to competitor firms we didn't like lol

 

[Ron]

In the words of Monty Python....run away run away...

 

[Andrew ONeill]

I'm in a different part of the the world, but have a "code of ethics" that I must abide by as a registered engineer.

A couple of them come to mind;

- Bring evidence of poor public and private decision-making to light to authorities or the public more generally when compelled by poor practice, instruction or negligence.
- Report unlawful/unethical behaviour and conflicts of interest.
- Promote ethical behaviour

In short, like others have said I wouldn't touch that job.
For reference if it helps

https://www.rpeng.org.au/RPENG/Content/Apply/ER_Commitment.aspx

https://bpeq.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/211124_Code-of-Practice_Web.pdf

Andrew O'Neill
Specialist Mechanical Engineer
Rio Tinto
Australia