Architect Police visit Owner Builder Consultant

[Garrett In Tahoe]

I recently exhibited in a Home and Garden Show. I've been a General Contractor for 28 years and have started a new program for Owner Builders who want to act as their own contractor. I was going about my business in the Show when two nice ladies came up to me regarding our program. I began by telling them an overview and they seemed interested. I then went into more description of our services and what all we offered. After about 10 minutes one gal asked " how could she get plans". I replied by saying we can direct you to local Architects, Residential Designers, or Plan Companies on the internet. She seemed satisfied by the response so I continued on for another 5 minutes or so. When I was finished she reached for a business card. Now I was thinking I was getting a lead but she stated "We are Investigators from the Board of Arhitecture and we checking to see if your are in compliance with the law!" I was dumbfounded and asked "well am I". She said not really, Owner Builders can not use plans other than those by an Architect of this state. I replyed by saying yes I know they have to be reviewed and stamped by one as well as a Structural Engineere and Soils engineer. No she said, the plans if purchased from a plan company will need to be completely redrawn. Now I was confused, why I asked. She stated there may be errors. I replied that I had never yet had a perfect set of plans from an Architect. She stated that "that was why they would have to be redrawn". Now totally confused I asked to see the law. She gave me the website and I looked it up later. The law in this State says that an Owner may provide his "own" plan or that of a Architect. Now "own" I guess is the key word. I beg to differ but I'm not convinced a plan reviewed and stamped by an Architect of the appropriate State is not ok. I would suggest that anyone purchasing plans do their own due dilligence and make sure they find an Architect who will work with them if they buy plans. I've got nothing against Architects, they provide a valuable service to owners, builders and the community. What I don't like is being blindsided and told that Architects are a must. Not everyone can afford the prices they charge. So again when buying plans do your homework first, or you may get a visit from the Architect Police!

[peternap]

If I get this correctly, the owner can draw or redraw his own plans if he/she wishes. It seems that John's plans are made to order. Just make the changes you would normally mae and reproduce without his information.

Of course everyone knows what my solution would be but for those of us that are less ...uh....independent,  I'd like to hear John's take on it.

[Willy]

Bring them on not the first time I have delt with crap like this. If you are the builder/owner/financer ect there is not much they can do if the plans are right no matter who made them up. That is why you pay for plans review and correct what is nessasary if ther not happy. Mark

[MountainDon]

I think you've got that right Peter. John's plans are the ticket. He gives the purchaser the right to change, redraw, copy, etc. The only fuzzy thing is in leaving his name off.    Don't want to end up in the situation of the plans then migrating to some other people for reuse.

The other solution will work best for those off the beaten path.

It would be interesting to ee the actual statute that supposedly gives the architects this power.


The whole thing smells like the state architects association lobbied the state government for exclusive rights. WTH!, isn't it enough that the building department has to look the plans over and exact their pound of flesh?

Tahoe?  Is that the People's Republic of California? Or Nevada?

[John Raabe]

This is interesting. California is the lead state in a new AIA attempt to close off all options for any plans not specifically produced by a registered state architect. I had not heard it had gone this far.

All guilds such as the AIA attempt to restrict trade to their members alone and then to increase the fees that they can charge - we can't blame them for that as that is the reason they exist in the first place. Guilds are, in fact, the original special interest groups. This goes back at least to the medieval masons. They have been playing politics ever since.

As a counter force to this (in housing - not commercial buildings) there is the (almost constitutional) historic right of the frontier family to build their own shelter, and by implication to plan that building themselves.

It is good to remember that plans are nothing more than a stylized set of drawings and information that make up a story about what you plan to build. That's why they are called "Plans". We all have plans! Until recently, building inspectors didn't worry too much about your plans... they came out to see that what you actually built was solid and safe. Plans were expected to change (and do even when drawn up by an architect. - it just cost$$$$ more!)

In Washington state (and most others) an architect's stamp is only required on commercial structures over 4,000 sf. Builders, designers or owners can produce plans for any sized residence, farm building or small commercial building. Such plans must meet local building department standards, of course, and may require an engineering stamp (determined by inspector) but do not need to be produced by a registered architect.

Empowering owners to evolve their own customized plans from a simple, easy to build structure is what this site is all about. If it is any comfort I'm sure I would stand in violation of the guild police as well. 

I wonder if there are any test cases of this new draconian law before the state supreme court? Certainly, no other state I know of has restricted owners to this extent.

[peternap]

I think you've got that right Peter. John's plans are the ticket. He gives the purchaser the right to change, redraw, copy, etc. The only fuzzy thing is in leaving his name off.    Don't want to end up in the situation of the plans then migrating to some other people for reuse.

I have a theory about that Don. Many of us have purchased Johns Plans and in effect, butchered them . I also digitized them and put them on DVD for ease of storage. It would be quite simple to give or sell them.

I wouldn't consider doing it because I, as most here have a great deal of loyalty to John and each other. In short, we are all friends here. I strongly suspect most of John's plan buyers feel the same kinship.

I'm not nearly naive enough to think no piracy goes on. Of course it does. But the percentage is so small as to be insignificant.

[MountainDon]

Yep, once John  mails them it's all on the honor system anyways.

[Willy]

I think you've got that right Peter. John's plans are the ticket. He gives the purchaser the right to change, redraw, copy, etc. The only fuzzy thing is in leaving his name off.    Don't want to end up in the situation of the plans then migrating to some other people for reuse.

I have a theory about that Don. Many of us have purchased Johns Plans and in effect, butchered them . I also digitized them and put them on DVD for ease of storage. It would be quite simple to give or sell them.

I wouldn't consider doing it because I, as most here have a great deal of loyalty to John and each other. In short, we are all friends here. I strongly suspect most of John's plan buyers feel the same kinship.

I'm not nearly naive enough to think no piracy goes on. Of course it does. But the percentage is so small as to be insignificant.

Besides you have paid for them and got to use them to build with. Now the next guy should pay John also to use them that is only fair. Mark

[Garrett In Tahoe]

Hi guys, I guess I kind of got you scrambling. I have to admit I was scrambling a bit myself while I was being read the Right Act by the Architect Police. Not only that, I was really tee'd off about how they presented themselves incognito, trying to entrap me. So here's the scoop! The state is Nevada, not California, the Investigators told me California has no such legislation. The website for the Board Of Architecture is www.nsbaidrd.state.nv.us. The regulations are as follows. NRS 623.270 1.(d) and NRS 623.330 1.(e). Check it out, you can find this on their site using the menu looking under the law. Generally what happens around here, at least in this county, a 30 day hold is put on plans not drawn by an Architect. I guess the intention is to allow time for anyone making an objection. You know building used to be a lot more fun, but now with all the regulations it has a strangle hold on you. I'm all for regulations to better the industry and the environment but it's far too much around here. Our permit process alone at the Lake can take up to a year! Oh and yes by the way, having your name on the plan won't work, at least not around here.

Garrett in Tahoe

[MountainDon]

Well Garrett all I can say is .... not printable.  SOB!

Oh, and BTW, 

[ScottA]

Engineers have been doing this for years and you don't need an engineering degree to do a load calculation. But try telling that to an inspector. I'm not suprised the architects are doing it now. As a side note I think most architects are lazy and better at making a building pretty than they are at making if functional or easy to build. Some exceptions apply ofcourse (John for one). I have more issues with custom plans drawn by so called architects not allowing space for mechanical systems than any stock plans I've worked from. If they are going to charge a fortune to design a building then they need to by god design it and stop making me do their job for free.

[MountainDon]

But I do see that under 623.330.1.e

      (e) Any person who prepares plans, drawings or specifications for:

             (1) Buildings for his own private residential use;

             (2) Farm or ranch buildings used as such; or

So an owner/builder would be okay. Just not contractors. And that would rule out plans purchased from out of state architects, or even unlicensed architects, even tho' they may be competent. .

Still stinks

[peternap]

Here you go Don:

[MountainDon]

Looks like you've been reading the "thatch" thread, Peter.   

[John Raabe]

Garrett:

Ah, the Nevada side I see. There are similar forces at work in CA as well as other states.

Seems anti-democratic to me and I don't think, if put to a vote of the people, such practices would hold up. That said, there are not enough deep-pocketed businesses to muster an effective counter force. There is no Owner-builder/Small builder Guild to pressure the legislature.

[glenn kangiser]

Maybe there should be.  But - I just want to sit here on the bench and complain.

[MountainDon]

There is no Owner-builder/Small builder Guild to pressure the legislature.

Not enough money available from that/this group to be able to do anything.

We run into the same thing with public land issues. The big green guns have loads of money.

[benevolance]

and by the time the public becomes aware of what rights they are losing out on...It is often too late to stop the process...As Don sais the other side has plenty of money and they are well organized and connected to every level of government... Hard to stop groups like that