Childcare Adaptive Reuse: 86 Issues Including Wrong Jurisdiction Codes

The project

A multi-building childcare facility adaptive reuse project at 6709-6711 Old Branch Avenue in Temple Hills, Maryland, converting existing structures for educational use. The project required coordination across architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, and civil disciplines with strict compliance requirements for childcare occupancy including life safety, ventilation, and accessibility standards.

Project type

Childcare · Adaptive reuse · Maryland

Codes referenced: Maryland State Fire Prevention Code · 2018 International Plumbing Code · 2018 International Mechanical Code · 2021 International Building Code · 2021 International Fire Code · NEC 2020/2023

Critical findings (10)

1. Ventilation rate calculation table formulas use different areas than the areas listed in the same rows

   Mechanical

   Critical

   Within the ventilation calculation table, the listed room areas do not match the areas used in the calculation notes for the same rows (e.g., Classroom area shown as 1729 sqft but calculation uses 750 sqft; Kitchenette area 56 sqft but calculation uses 200 sqft; Restrooms area 43 sqft but calculation uses 120 sqft).

2. Outside air requirement conflicts across notes, OA calc table, ventilation calc, and RTU schedule

   Mechanical

   Critical

   The drawings state multiple different total required outside air values and required RTU minimum OA settings: 400 CFM total required OA, 902 CFM total calculated OA (with 950 CFM scheduled min OA), and 1,991 CFM total required OA (with OA damper set to ≥2,000 CFM). These values directly conflict and cannot all be correct for the same project/system.

3. Sprinkler notes reference Florida City Building Code for a Maryland project

   Fire Protection · Code: Maryland State Fire Prevention Code

   Critical

   Maryland State Sprinkler Note 30 on F-01 states sprinkler system compliance with 'NFPA 13, 2002 AS MODIFIED BY THE FLORIDA CITY BUILDING CODE, APPENDIX Q SECTION BC Q102.' However, the Project Information clearly identifies the project location as Temple Hills, MD under Prince George's County Fire/EMS Department jurisdiction, with applicable codes including Maryland State Fire Prevention Code.

4. Door types/sizes for D1/D2/D3 conflict between door schedule and door/window schedule (and D3 conflicts internally)

   Architectural

   Critical

   On the Schedules/Finishes sheet, D1 is shown as a 72"x80" double storefront; D2 is 36"x80"; and D3 is 36"x80". On the Door/Window schedule sheet, D1 is shown as 3' wide x 6'-10" tall and labeled "TYPE D1 - SINGLE"; D2 is shown as 6' wide x 6'-8" tall and labeled "TYPE D2 - DOUBLE". D3 is shown twice with different widths (8' and 4') while both are labeled "TYPE D3 - DOUBLE".

5. Outside air (OA) requirement conflicts: 400 CFM vs 902 CFM vs 1,991 CFM and OA damper setpoints 400/950/2,000

   Mechanical

   Critical

   Multiple sheets state different total required OA and different minimum OA provisions for the RTUs. One note states total required OA is 400 CFM and that RTU-1 & RTU-2 provide minimum OA = 400 CFM or greater. Another schedule shows total calculated OA is 902 CFM with scheduled minimum OA (RTU-1) = 950 CFM. Another OA calculation table states required OA is 1,991 CFM and directs setting the RTU OA damper to ≥ 2,000 CFM minimum. The RTU schedule lists Min. OA (CFM) = 950 for both RTU-1 and RTU-2.

6. Panel schedule breaker position conflict - RTU-1 and RTU-2 both require position 31

   Electrical

   Critical

   The panel schedule shows ROOF TOP UNIT RTU-1 as an 80A, 3-pole breaker starting at position 27, which would occupy positions 27, 29, and 31. ROOF TOP UNIT RTU-2 is shown as an 80A, 3-pole breaker starting at position 31, which would occupy positions 31, 33, and 35. Position 31 is assigned to both loads.

7. Two different "Proposed" first floor plans are included for 6709 (A101 vs A102) with conflicting layouts/scales

   Architectural

   Critical

   The set includes a "PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 'A' 6709" on sheet A101 (scale 1/4" = 1'-0") that is programmed with items like a large "RECEPTION COUNTER" and multiple offices with room numbers/areas, while a separate "PROPOSED 6709 FIRST FLOOR PLAN "A"" on sheet A102 (scale 3/16" = 1'-0") shows a different layout/program including "MEETING ROOM", "ELEVATOR", and "SHOP AREA 1". These cannot both be the same proposed first floor plan "A".

8. ADA van-accessible parking aisle width conflict (5' in notes vs 8' in detail)

   Civil · Code: ADA Standards

   Critical

   General Notes Note 32 specifies '06 ADA VAN-ACCESSIBLE @ 8.5' X 20' WITH 5' AISLE' for all ADA spaces. However, the Typical Handicap Parking Space detail on page 11 explicitly states '8' AISLE FOR VAN-ACCESSIBLE SPACE' and '5' AISLE FOR CAR SPACE', indicating van-accessible spaces require 8-foot aisles, not 5-foot aisles.

9. Scope says no building expansion/GFA increase, but GFA table includes an "ADDITION" and garage bay area

   Architectural

   Critical

   One part of the notes states adaptive reuse only with "NO building expansion" and also states "NO INCREASE IN GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA) OR BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS PROPOSED." However, the GFA breakdown explicitly lists an "ADDITION: 1,156 SF" and a "GARAGE STORAGE BAY: 1,378 SF," which indicates additional area beyond the existing buildings.

10. Incorrect jurisdictional standards and codes referenced for Maryland project

    Civil

    Critical

    The project is located in Temple Hills, Maryland (Prince George's County), but the General Construction Notes on Sheet 11 specify adherence to Texas standards and jurisdictions.

Sample high priority findings (15 total)

1. RTU-2 referenced in general notes but not scheduled or shown on plans

   Mechanical

   High

   M-02 General Note 12 states 'RTU-1 & RTU-2 PROVIDE MINIMUM OA = 400 CFM OR GREATER' indicating two rooftop units are part of the system. However, the Rooftop Unit Schedule on M-03 only includes RTU-1 (1200 CFM total, 950 CFM min OA). RTU-2 does not appear in the schedule. The Mechanical Layout Plan on M-04 also only shows RTU-1.

2. One toilet room dimension differs between water supply and sanitary layout plans on same sheet

   Plumbing

   High

   The Water Supply Layout Plan labels both toilet rooms as 7'-6" x 5'-8". The Sanitary Layout Plan labels the upper toilet room as 7'-6" x 4'-8" (1'-0" narrower), while the lower toilet room is labeled 7'-6" x 5'-8". This indicates a dimension conflict for the upper toilet room between the two plan views.

3. Sanitary connection size conflict: plan notes existing 4" sanitary line, riser notes 6" sewer connection

   Plumbing

   High

   The sanitary plan labels an "EXISTING 4" SANITARY LINE" while the sanitary riser diagram calls out a "6" SEWER LINE CONNECTION".

4. Conflicting governing codes: 2006 UPC/IBC/IECC vs 2018 IPC (and IECC 2021 referenced elsewhere)

   Code Compliance

   High

   The General Notes state the installation must comply with 2006 code editions and the Uniform Plumbing Code, while another note lists IPC 2018 as the applicable plumbing code. A separate water heater schedule template references IECC 2021, creating a second conflicting energy code edition within the same sheet set.

5. Water heater requirements conflict (80-gallon/12 GPM/18–24 kW vs 50-gallon/40 GPM recovery)

   Plumbing

   High

   General Note 29 requires an electric storage water heater with 80-gallon minimum storage and minimum 12 GPM peak hot water demand (18–24 kW input). A separate water heater schedule template lists 50-gallon minimum capacity and a recovery rate of 40 GPM @ 100°F rise.

6. Conflict regarding allowable use of PVC piping for above-slab sanitary lines

   Plumbing

   High

   The Plumbing Specifications on P-01 state that 'SANITARY DRAINAGE PIPING ABOVE FLOOR SHALL BE CO-EXTRUDED PVC DWV (SCHEDULE 40) PIPE.' However, Detail 12 on P-04 (Cast Iron to PVC Transition) includes a critical note stating 'THERE IS TO BE NO EXPOSED PVC ABOVE SLAB' and illustrates cast iron pipe for the portion of the riser above the floor.

7. Water service pipe sizing discrepancy between calculations and layout

   Plumbing

   High

   The Water Supply Pipe Sizing Calculator on P-01 specifies a 1-1/4" minimum service size, which is echoed in the Backflow Prevention Schedule. However, the Water Supply & Sanitary Layout Plan on P-02 and the Water Supply Riser Diagram on P-03 both specify a Ø2" C.W. connection to the city water main.

8. Air terminal sizes/CFM in layout plan conflict with Air Terminal Schedule for SD-A and RG-1

   Mechanical

   High

   On the layout plan, SD-A and RG-1 are called out as 10X8 with 200/50 CFM (SD-A) and 150 CFM (RG-1). In the Air Terminal Schedule, SD-A and RG-1 are listed as 8"x6" neck with 300 CFM. The same designations have different sizes and airflow values between plan and schedule.

9. Toilet exhaust fans: notes/calc indicate 4 toilet rooms and TEF-1 through TEF-4, but schedule shows only TEF-1 and TEF-2 and plan repeats TEF-1

   Mechanical

   High

   The documents explicitly state four bathroom exhaust-only spaces and identify TEF-1 through TEF-4 as typical of 4, but the exhaust fan schedule only lists TEF-1 and TEF-2. In addition, the layout plan tags two separate toilet locations as TEF-1.

10. Overall building dimension discrepancy: 67'-8" vs 68'-8" between plans on F-03

    Fire Protection

    High

    The Life Safety Layout Plan (Plan 3) on F-03 shows an overall dimension of 67'-8", while the Egress Layout Plan (Plan 4) on the same sheet shows 68'-8" for what appears to be the same overall building length. This is a 12-inch discrepancy.

Issue categories

Fire Protection

Fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, standpipe requirements, and fire code compliance

Architectural

Door schedules, floor plans, occupancy loads, egress, and building code compliance

Mechanical

HVAC systems, ventilation rates, outside air requirements, RTU schedules, and mechanical code compliance

Plumbing

Water supply, sanitary drainage, water heaters, fixture counts, and plumbing code compliance

Electrical

Panel schedules, load calculations, service sizing, grounding, and electrical code compliance

Civil

Site plans, parking, ADA compliance, floodplains, utility services, and civil engineering

Code Compliance

Jurisdictional code references, building code editions, and code compliance requirements

Document Coordination

Drawing conflicts, schedule mismatches, sheet numbering errors, and document coordination issues

Value delivered

• 86 issues surfaced before permit submission
• 10 critical permit-blocking issues identified
• Wrong jurisdiction codes caught before permit rejection
• Cross-document coordination conflicts resolved pre-construction