Long Island Residential: 52 Issues Found

Summary: The sheet bases plumbing fixture counts on occupants during church service and calculates 3 required male water closets plus 5 required female water closets. Religious functions are Assembly Group A under IBC 303.1, and IBC 1110.2.1 requires an accessible family or assisted-use toilet room where an assembly occupancy requires an aggregate of...

Why it matters: This is an accessibility scoping deficiency that can block permit approval of the restroom/plumbing layout and force redesign or re-designation of at least one toilet room before construction.

Suggested next step: Revise the plumbing analysis and restroom schedule to designate one compliant room as the required accessible family or assisted-use toilet room, or add one if none of rooms A through F is intended to satisfy IBC 1110.2.1.

RFI draft: Revise the plumbing analysis and restroom schedule to designate one compliant room as the required accessible family or assisted-use toilet room, or add one if none of rooms A through F is intended to satisfy IBC 1110.2.1.

Summary: The retaining wall section labels the top barrier as '36\' HIGH RAILING PER CODE' and shows the wall condition as 'VARIES 4'-0\' MAX.' Under IBC Section 1015.2, guards are required where the open side is more than 30 inches above grade, and Section 1015.3 requires those guards to be at least 42 inches high. Because this detail is intended for...

Why it matters: As detailed, fabrication or installation from this section can produce a guard that fails code at retaining-wall locations above 30 inches, resulting in permit comments or field replacement.

Suggested next step: Revise the retaining wall railing detail so any code-required guard at this wall condition is shown at not less than 42 inches above the adjacent walking surface, or clearly limit the detail to conditions where a guard is not required.

RFI draft: Revise the retaining wall railing detail so any code-required guard at this wall condition is shown at not less than 42 inches above the adjacent walking surface, or clearly limit the detail to conditions where a guard is not required.

Summary: The plan shows the entry doors to OFFICE 011, OFFICE 010, and OFFICE 009 dimensioned at 2'-1'. Section 1010.1.1 requires doors in the means of egress to provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches, so these door openings are undersized as drawn.

Why it matters: If these doors are built as shown, they will not pass code review and will require larger doors, frames, and likely partition adjustments, creating redesign and field rework.

Suggested next step: Revise the OFFICE 011, OFFICE 010, and OFFICE 009 door openings to provide not less than a 32-inch clear opening and update the affected door/frame sizes on this plan.

RFI draft: Revise the OFFICE 011, OFFICE 010, and OFFICE 009 door openings to provide not less than a 32-inch clear opening and update the affected door/frame sizes on this plan.

Summary: The stair section note states the required head clearance is measured '6'-8\' ABOVE FINISH FLOOR.' IBC 1011.3 requires stair headroom to be measured vertically from 'a line connecting the nosings,' not from the finish floor. The note therefore establishes the wrong code datum for headroom in this stair.

Why it matters: Using the wrong datum on a stair section can cause the run under slabs or framing to be checked and built from the wrong reference line, resulting in less than the required 80 inches of clearance over the stair path and creating a plan-review or field-correction issue.

Suggested next step: Revise the stair section note and any related headroom layout so required clearance is measured per IBC 1011.3 from a line connecting tread nosings and continued to the landing below.

RFI draft: Revise the stair section note and any related headroom layout so required clearance is measured per IBC 1011.3 from a line connecting tread nosings and continued to the landing below.

Summary: The stair section note states that the required head clearance is '6'-8\' ABOVE FINISH FLOOR.' IBC 1011.3 requires stair headroom to be measured vertically from a line connecting the stair nosings, not from finish floor. This detail therefore identifies the wrong control datum for the required stair headroom line.

Why it matters: If the stair is laid out from finish floor instead of the nosing line, the actual clear height over the flight can end up below code even though the note appears to be satisfied. That can lead to permit comments, failed inspection, and costly rework of stair framing, slab edges, or enclosure construction.

Suggested next step: Please revise the stair section note/detail to define the required headroom per IBC 1011.3, measured vertically from a line connecting the nosings, and confirm the dashed clearance profile maintains 80 inches minimum over the full stairway and landing width.

RFI draft: Please revise the stair section note/detail to define the required headroom per IBC 1011.3, measured vertically from a line connecting the nosings, and confirm the dashed clearance profile maintains 80 inches minimum over the full stairway and landing width.

Summary: The sheet's special inspections material is labeled '2020 NYS BUILDING CODE\nSTATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS' and states 'BCNYS §1704.3 requires that the project Registered Design Professional in responsible charge prepare a\nStatement of Special Inspections.' The same schedule assigns '2. Cold-Formed Steel Deck | 1705.2.2 | X' and '3....

Why it matters: If left uncorrected, this can trigger plan-review comments and misdirect the special inspector, contractor, and owner regarding which inspection requirements govern the steel deck and joist work, causing permit and construction-administration delays.

Suggested next step: Please revise the statement of special inspections and inspection schedule to the governing code references, including correcting the statement citation and the section assignments for cold-formed steel deck and open-web steel joists/joist girders.

RFI draft: Please revise the statement of special inspections and inspection schedule to the governing code references, including correcting the statement citation and the section assignments for cold-formed steel deck and open-web steel joists/joist girders.

Summary: The plan calls for 'PROVIDE 12'x10' MOTORIZED DAMPER. INTERLOCK WITH SMOKE DETECTOR INSTALLED AT TOP OF HOISTWAY' adjacent to the elevator area labeled 'ELEVATOR 120.' IBC 3002.9 states that mechanical systems shall not be located in an elevator hoistway enclosure. A motorized damper at the top of the hoistway is a mechanical system located in...

Why it matters: This hoistway detail is not code-compliant as drawn and will require redesign before installation so the elevator shaft enclosure does not contain the motorized damper.

Suggested next step: Please revise the elevator hoistway design so no motorized damper or other mechanical system is located in the hoistway enclosure, and reissue the corrected detail.

RFI draft: Please revise the elevator hoistway design so no motorized damper or other mechanical system is located in the hoistway enclosure, and reissue the corrected detail.

Summary: The riser shows 'EE-2' with '8x4' at 'ELEVATOR\nSHAFT,' an '8x4' / '100\nCFM' branch at 'ELEVATOR PIT,' and a top-of-shaft note to 'PROVIDE 12\'x10\' MOTORIZED\nDAMPER ON 24\'x18 GOOSENECK' with a smoke detector 'AT\nTOP OF HOISTWAY.' Together, these depict mechanical duct/damper components serving the elevator hoistway and pit. IBC 3002.9...

Why it matters: This is a significant permit and construction issue because the elevator hoistway/pit arrangement cannot remain as drawn if the hoistway enclosure rules are enforced. Resolving it will likely require redesign of the shaft top termination, pit branch, and related controls before installation.

Suggested next step: Revise the elevator hoistway detail to remove the depicted ductwork, dampers, and related mechanical components from the hoistway enclosure, or provide a code-based clarification showing how the shown 'EE-2' / '8x4' shaft-pit arrangement and the hoistway gooseneck comply with IBC 3002.9.

RFI draft: Revise the elevator hoistway detail to remove the depicted ductwork, dampers, and related mechanical components from the hoistway enclosure, or provide a code-based clarification showing how the shown 'EE-2' / '8x4' shaft-pit arrangement and the hoistway gooseneck comply with IBC 3002.9.

Summary: At 'ELEVATOR 120' on the plan, the callout to detail 4 shows the note 'PROVIDE 8' CONCRETE WALL W/2-#6 VERT. @ 12' O.C. & 2-#5 HORIZ. @ 12' O.C.'. Detail 4, 'SECTION THRU ELEVATOR PIT,' instead says 'PROVIDE 8' THICK CONCRETE WALL W/ 2-#5 VERT. @ 12' O.C. 2-#4 HORIZ. @ 12' O.C.'. The referenced elevator pit wall is therefore given two different...

Why it matters: This changes both the vertical bar size and the horizontal bar size for the elevator pit wall. If not resolved, fabrication, placement, and inspection could proceed against different reinforcement requirements for the same structural wall.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the governing reinforcing for the 8-inch concrete wall at ELEVATOR 120 / SECTION THRU ELEVATOR PIT, and revise the plan note or the section so both drawings show one consistent wall schedule.

RFI draft: Please confirm the governing reinforcing for the 8-inch concrete wall at ELEVATOR 120 / SECTION THRU ELEVATOR PIT, and revise the plan note or the section so both drawings show one consistent wall schedule.

Summary: The plumbing note says the fixture count is based on the occupancy chart on sheet G1.3, but it uses '326 CELLAR FLOOR OCCUPANTS + 362 FIRST FLOOR OCCUPANTS + 48 SECOND FLOOR OCCUPANTS = 736 OCCUPANTS.' On the referenced sheet, the occupancy schedule states 'CELLAR FLOOR OCCUPANT LOAD : 321' and 'TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD : 730.' This is a direct...

Why it matters: Because the note says occupancy is used 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF COUNTING PLUMBING FIXTURES,' the mismatch leaves the code basis for required fixtures unclear and can complicate permit review or future revisions.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct occupant-load basis and revise the plumbing analysis or occupancy schedule so the cited values are consistent, including the cellar load ('326' vs '321') and total load ('736' vs '730').

RFI draft: Confirm the correct occupant-load basis and revise the plumbing analysis or occupancy schedule so the cited values are consistent, including the cellar load ('326' vs '321') and total load ('736' vs '730').

Summary: M202 Note 2 directs the user to 'SEE MECHANICAL SCHEDULES ON DWG. M200.00 FOR VRF INDOOR AND OUTDOOR UNITS.' On M200, AH-60/V is scheduled as model 'FXTQ60TAVJUD', while model 'FXMQ72MVJU' is scheduled for AH-72/D. On M202, the AH-60/V riser is labeled 'FXMQ72MVJU'. The referenced riser and schedule therefore do not match for AH-60/V.

Why it matters: This can lead to procurement and coordination of the wrong indoor unit, with incorrect submittals, accessories, and installation requirements for the AH-60/V system.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct model for AH-60/V: 'FXTQ60TAVJUD' per M200 or 'FXMQ72MVJU' per M202, and revise the schedule/riser so the AH-60/V designation is consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct model for AH-60/V: 'FXTQ60TAVJUD' per M200 or 'FXMQ72MVJU' per M202, and revise the schedule/riser so the AH-60/V designation is consistent.

Summary: M202 Note 2 says 'SEE MECHANICAL SCHEDULES ON DWG. M200.00 FOR VRF INDOOR AND OUTDOOR UNITS.' But M200 Note 3 says 'PROVIDE OUTDOOR UNITS W/ CONNECTION PIPING KIT AND ROOF MOUNTED SUPPLEMENTARY STEEL SUPPORTS. REFER TO FLOOR PLANS', while M202 shows outdoor units such as CU-288 and CU-240 'LOCATED ON GROUND LEVEL (OUTSIDE)' on a 'MECHANICAL...

Why it matters: Roof-mounted steel supports versus ground-level pads change structural design, equipment placement, access, and routing of piping and power. Construction cannot proceed reliably until one basis is confirmed.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the VRF outdoor units are to be installed on 'ROOF MOUNTED SUPPLEMENTARY STEEL SUPPORTS' or at 'GROUND LEVEL (OUTSIDE)' on a 'MECHANICAL PAD', and revise M200/M202 to one consistent requirement.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the VRF outdoor units are to be installed on 'ROOF MOUNTED SUPPLEMENTARY STEEL SUPPORTS' or at 'GROUND LEVEL (OUTSIDE)' on a 'MECHANICAL PAD', and revise M200/M202 to one consistent requirement.

Summary: Plan Note 7 is carried on both E100 and E102 as 'ALL CIRCUIT NUMBERS SHALL DERIVE FROM NEW POWER PANEL PPH.' However, E102 also states 'EACH STAIR LIGHTING SHALL BE FED FROM LIGHTING PANEL LP-1 CIRCUIT. (TYPICAL).' and the stair rooms are tagged 'LP1 #1' at STAIR #2, 'LP1 #5' at STAIR #1, and 'LP1 #13' at STAIR #3. The drawings therefore assign...

Why it matters: If this is not resolved, panel schedules, load calculations, homerun coordination, and field terminations can be based on the wrong panel, creating permit and construction confusion.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the E102 lighting circuits are intended to originate from new power panel PPH or from lighting panel LP-1, and revise Plan Note 7, Note 10, or the LP1 circuit tags so the lighting sheets use one consistent panel designation.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the E102 lighting circuits are intended to originate from new power panel PPH or from lighting panel LP-1, and revise Plan Note 7, Note 10, or the LP1 circuit tags so the lighting sheets use one consistent panel designation.

Summary: On S-1, the stair/elevator area is labeled at 'STAIR #1' and 'ELEVATOR 120,' and the adjacent note calls for an 8' concrete wall with '2-#6 VERT. @ 12' O.C. & 2-#5 HORIZ. @ 12' O.C.' On S-2, Detail 6 is titled 'ELEVATOR AND STAIR WALL' but calls for an 8' concrete wall with '2-#5 VERT. @ 12' O.C.' and '2-#4 HORIZ. @ 12' O.C.' These are...

Why it matters: If this is not reconciled, the contractor, rebar fabricator, and inspector could each use a different reinforcement schedule for the stair/elevator core walls, creating fabrication errors, failed inspections, or concrete rework.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required reinforcement for the 8' concrete elevator/stair walls and revise S-1 and S-2 so both sheets show one consistent vertical and horizontal bar schedule.

RFI draft: Please confirm the required reinforcement for the 8' concrete elevator/stair walls and revise S-1 and S-2 so both sheets show one consistent vertical and horizontal bar schedule.

Summary: On the site plan, the exterior ramp callout reads 'CONCRETE CURB HANDICAPPED RAMP SEE 3/SP3.' However, on SP3, detail 3 is 'CONTROL JOINT,' not a ramp detail. The ramp-related detail shown on SP3 is detail 5, 'CURB RAMP.' This makes the SP2 cross-reference inconsistent with the referenced sheet content.

Why it matters: If this is not corrected, the field team could be sent to a concrete joint detail instead of a ramp detail, leaving the exterior accessible ramp condition unresolved during permitting and construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct SP3 reference for the exterior handicapped/accessible ramp and revise the SP2 callout if it should reference 5/SP3 'CURB RAMP' instead of 3/SP3.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct SP3 reference for the exterior handicapped/accessible ramp and revise the SP2 callout if it should reference 5/SP3 'CURB RAMP' instead of 3/SP3.