Building Codes Act Regulations Public Consultation Comments
As part of the development of regulations for the Building Code Act, Islanders are invited to provide comments regarding the draft regulations. All on-line comments that are received on the draft regulations before the closing date (September 6, 2019) will be posted on this page. The names of people making these on-line submissions will not be disclosed. You can submit comments at the main Building Code Act Regulations Consultation web page.
September 6, 2019
I would ask that any rules respecting artificial lighting be held to or exceed standards allowing the Island to achieve Dark Sky Park/Preserve status internationally. This would promote the health ( this is of course not just my opinion but supported by reputable and readily accessible sources: light affects us) of our residents and wildlife, particularly birds, and be a solid tourism attraction.
I would also ask that any rules respecting design and placement of windows be held to internationally recognized standards that minimize bird strike. The current threat to birds is bad on all fronts: loss of habitat, pesticides, migration through areas even worse than our own but added to this are countless thousands of bird deaths from hitting windows. See FLAP. It is my understanding that reasonably priced mitigations to windows are readily available to drastically reduce bird-strike.
Dark sky protection and bird-strike reduction strategies and regulations would support the health of islanders, wildlife, and support Eco-tourism.
September 6, 2019
This is the same flawed, 'pass the buck' model of building code administration that has smeared across the country for the last decade or two. The Province of PEI (Authority) should be the ones tasked with enforcing the codes and standards they enact. This proposed (plagiarized) model simply pushes the liability and responsibility for code compliance onto individual professional engineers and architects with the assumption that engineers and architects are competent and will always adhere to their respective Acts and Code of Ethics to ensure buildings and respective building systems are designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes and standards. The reality couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Typically, the front end Prime Consultants (usually architects) fiercely compete with each other for projects and are forced to hire generic engineers who simply and vaguely specify the work and push the engineering to respective contractors under design-build project model. The front end engineer then passes the buck again and requires respective contractors to hire additional engineers to take on the roles and responsibilities dictated by the professional involvement certificates, from design to final sign-offs. This pushes the engineering costs to the contractor, hidden from the architects tender bid. This despite the fact the forms are clearly worded that this is responsibility of the engineer retained by the OWNER or OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE.
The obvious conflict of interest is astounding but the biggest losers in this model are the building owners and occupants who think that they are paying for and occupying buildings built in conformance with applicable codes and standards when in fact that is rarely the case. As contractors have to also fiercely compete with each other and most don’t have engineers inhouse, they are forced to shop for the engineer with cheapest ‘stamp’ that is willing to stamp not only the design documents they produce in-house (or via freelance) but also the professional involvement forms. Typically, these engineers have little competence and experience in the design documents they stamp and rarely satisfy appropriate site inspection of the work, mostly because they have to give a cheap price to said contractor or they walk. In the industry these engineers are known as “Joe Stampers’ and sadly they are shockingly prevalent throughout Canada.
Code compliance responsibility just becomes just a game of who wants to take responsibility and slap their stamp on some drawings and a form for a few dollars. The Authority must be responsible for enforcing code compliance and have appropriate resources in place for proper plan review and site inspections. If you push this onto engineers and architects with the flawed professional responsibility model, you are guaranteed to be constructing buildings that very likely do not meet applicable codes and standards and puts the life safety of occupants at significant risk.
August 27, 2019
I attended the public meeting on Aug.8,2019 at the Farm Centre.In conversation with others who also attended a few common issues emerged.It would be a good time to get Stratford,Cornwall and Charlottetown together to fine tune a few items so there is commonality between the three jurisdictions.I have seen these items on a daily basis for the past 10 to 20 years.They are confusing to our Contractors and also their clients.
The comments from the Aug.6th posting mention "....any plans that are being prepared to submit for a building permit,..."could be done by a "Designer".
I agree.The problem is that each of the jurisdictions looks at/reviews the plans and the Code differently.
This is nothing new.In my years of presenting the Building Code to Builders in PEI,NS, and NFLD these Builders gave me examples of similar problems when they built/moved to a different county.
Everyone is so busy these days.
It is hard for Contractors to take the time to deal with these issues!Lots of other resources available:Allan from Home Builders Association,I heard Ira Birt just retired again,myself,inspectors from Warranty programs,......and lots of others who would be willing to volunteer some time!
Now is the time to do this!
August 5, 2019
Under the definitions, it would be good to include the definition for Technicians, Technologists, Applies Science Technologist, and have a reference to the Engineering Technology Act (in final drafts), That is being prepared in consultation Province, the Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors.
Will there be any thoughts and considerations taken into the preparation of the construction documents for rfamily homes/duplexs, Residential buildings, decks and structures. So that any plans that are being prepared to submit for a building permit, that they have been prepared, and/or reviewed by someone with knowledge of the local, provincial, and national building codes, who is registered with the Province, and local Municipalities, as someone who can perform a review prior to submission?, IE, Technicians, Technologists, Engineers, Architect, whether they be certified/licenced by local associations, or approved by the province as a professional/consultant.
30./31. Design / Review by Professional. In the case of a residential building, that doesn't fall into part 3 or part 4, or 600 sq meters. Could there be reference to a design/review that could be performed by a "Designer" , IE, Technicians and Technologists, who with the adoption of the Engineering Technology Act, be recognized as professionals, in their discipline.
An example, Hair Dressers have an act, and are required to be registered in order to have a permit to provide their services. Another example, dental assistants have to be licensed and certified to assist dentists, when performing treatment on patients, and to perform certain procedures on patients.
Another example, could be, motor vehicle inspection locations, that are registered with the province, to perform motor vehicle inspections. When you go to register a utility trailer at the DMV, that companies/person selling them, must be listed as registered vendors, who are eligible to sell trailers. With the Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologist of PEI, preparing their draft legislation of the Engineering Technology Act, this would ensure owners/clients, that the plans being submitted, have been reviewed by a professional, who works with the code on a regular basis, and who is registered with the province, and has provided sufficient certification and/or documents to support their "vendor" status. This would also provide a database for the province, or any and all people who are actively working with he code, and provide a way for the province to communicate effectively with any updates, requirements and so forth.
One comment we hear from clients/owners, is about permit fees, that they should be collected when the permit is approved, and available for pick up. That only pay a non-refundable deposit when the application is made(Permit Application Fee), and then the Permit Fee be collected when the permit is ready to pick up.
Will the same building permit application be used province wide? But Charlottetown, Summerside, Stratford Cornwall will issue on behalf of the province?