Connecticut Multifamily Rental: 166 Issues Found

Summary: The stair drawings show an attic access panel and an under-stair access panel located within rated stair enclosures. The 2021 IFC limits openings in interior exit stairways to those required for exit access into the enclosure from normally occupied spaces and for egress from the enclosure, which these access panels are not.

Why it matters: These openings can compromise the required protected exit enclosure and will likely be rejected during plan review/inspection, requiring redesign (relocation of access, removal of panels, or other compliant approach) and rework of rated construction.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the '22X36 Rated Attic panel' and '24'x36' under stair access panel' are located within the interior exit stair enclosure. If yes, revise the design to eliminate these openings from the stair enclosure and relocate access outside the enclosure (or provide a code-compliant protected arrangement approved by the AHJ).

RFI draft: Confirm whether the '22X36 Rated Attic panel' and '24'x36' under stair access panel' are located within the interior exit stair enclosure. If yes, revise the design to eliminate these openings from the stair enclosure and relocate access outside the enclosure (or provide a code-compliant...

Summary: The typical perimeter foundation note differs between the two S-1.1 sheets. One indicates a '10\' REINFORCED CONCRETE STEM WALL' on a '24\'x8\' FOOTING' while the other indicates the same stem wall on a '36\'x8\' FOOTING'.

Why it matters: This is a direct conflict in perimeter footing width that affects excavation, formwork, rebar placement, and concrete quantities. Construction cannot proceed without a single coordinated perimeter footing size.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required typical perimeter footing size for the 10' reinforced concrete stem wall and update the structural foundation plan/notes/details to match.

RFI draft: Confirm the required typical perimeter footing size for the 10' reinforced concrete stem wall and update the structural foundation plan/notes/details to match.

Summary: Sheet A-511 shows two separate floor/ceiling assemblies that are both labeled with the same detail number “F1.” One detail title indicates a 2-hour rated assembly (“2 HR RATED DEMISING FLR/CLG (BLD. L)”), and the other indicates a 1-hour rated assembly (“1 HR RATED DEMISING FLOOR/CEILING”), yet both are tagged “F1.” Because other sheets (e.g.,...

Why it matters: If the incorrect “F1” is used in construction, the installed floor/ceiling fire-resistance rating could be wrong (1 HR vs 2 HR), which can affect code compliance, life-safety performance, inspections, and required corrections/rework.

Suggested next step: Please confirm which assembly is intended to be Detail F1 on A-511 and revise the sheet to eliminate the duplicate “F1” designation (renumber one detail and/or clarify where each assembly applies, including required fire rating and UL system).

RFI draft: Please confirm which assembly is intended to be Detail F1 on A-511 and revise the sheet to eliminate the duplicate “F1” designation (renumber one detail and/or clarify where each assembly applies, including required fire rating and UL system).

Summary: A-113 uses wall-type tags (including “G1”) and directs wall construction assemblies to A-510. However, on A-510 the identifier “G1” is used for two different assemblies: one titled “1-HR RATED PARTITION” and another titled “1 HR RATED DEMISING WALL” (with different STC values). This creates a direct conflict/ambiguity for any “G1” tag shown on...

Why it matters: A duplicate/contradictory detail identifier can cause the wrong rated assembly to be constructed, impacting fire-rating compliance and inspection approval. It also prevents unambiguous interpretation by the contractor and AHJ.

Suggested next step: Clarify which assembly is intended to be referenced by wall tag G1 in the plans. Renumber one of the conflicting A-510 G1 details (or update plan wall tags) so that each wall type/detail identifier maps to only one assembly.

RFI draft: Clarify which assembly is intended to be referenced by wall tag G1 in the plans. Renumber one of the conflicting A-510 G1 details (or update plan wall tags) so that each wall type/detail identifier maps to only one assembly.

Summary: On A-520, the firewall separation roof zone explicitly requires fire-retardant roof sheathing and prohibits penetrations, and it references roof detail 8/A-530. However, on A-530 the referenced roof detail indicates standard plywood roof sheathing, creating a conflict for the same roof area/transition condition.

Why it matters: This discrepancy impacts the fire-resistance requirements at the firewall/roof transition. If the wrong sheathing is installed, the intended rated assembly and related inspection/approval could be compromised, and it can also cause procurement and construction delays due to unclear material requirements.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the roof sheathing within the firewall separation restricted zone must be '5/8\' Fire Retardant plywood sheathing' (and whether this applies to the A-530 referenced condition). Revise A-530 roof detail(s) and/or add a note clearly identifying where fire-retardant sheathing is required versus standard sheathing.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the roof sheathing within the firewall separation restricted zone must be '5/8\' Fire Retardant plywood sheathing' (and whether this applies to the A-530 referenced condition). Revise A-530 roof detail(s) and/or add a note clearly identifying where fire-retardant sheathing is...

Summary: 172 index entries | 44 perfect matches | 121 mismatched | 7 missing Mismatched (121): G-004: Expected: Unit Matrix | Actual: Unit Matrix & Building Info (p5) G-101: Expected: Code Info. & Ground Floor Egress Plan (Bldg. L) | Actual: Code Info & Ground Floor Egress Plan (p6) G-102: Expected: Code Info. & Second Floor Egress...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 2026-1-16 Bulletin #1.pdf - Page 186 Schedule --- 📄 2026-1-16 Bulletin #1.pdf - Page 205 Schedule --- 📄 2026-1-16 Bulletin #1.pdf - Page 2 Schedule

Summary: The drawings state an air leakage requirement that allows “4 ACH50” for smaller buildings/units (“CFM < 850sf”). IECC R402.4.1.3 does not allow a 4 ACH50 threshold; it requires a maximum of 3.0 ACH50 in Climate Zones 3 through 8. As written, the drawing note directly conflicts with the IECC leakage-rate requirement for Climate Zones 3-8 and...

Why it matters: If the project is in a Climate Zone 3-8 jurisdiction, following the note could result in failing the required blower door test and rough-in/final inspections, requiring additional air-sealing labor and retesting (schedule delay and cost overrun).

Suggested next step: Revise the “BUILDING ENVELOPE SEALING” leakage criteria to match IECC R402.4.1.3 for the project’s climate zone (and remove the 4 ACH50 allowance if the project is in CZ 3-8). Confirm the applicable climate zone and the exact test metric to be used for compliance.

RFI draft: Revise the “BUILDING ENVELOPE SEALING” leakage criteria to match IECC R402.4.1.3 for the project’s climate zone (and remove the 4 ACH50 allowance if the project is in CZ 3-8). Confirm the applicable climate zone and the exact test metric to be used for compliance.

Summary: The drawings identify the project as an R-2 residential multiple-family building, but the energy code compliance information shown on this sheet is based on IECC Commercial Chapter C (e.g., Table C402.1 and Table C402.4). Under the 2021 IECC, residential buildings are required to comply with the IECC Residential Provisions, so presenting...

Why it matters: If the project is reviewed/inspected under the wrong IECC compliance path, the permit review can be rejected or delayed, and the team may have to redo energy compliance documentation and potentially revise envelope specifications to match the correct chapter/path.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended IECC compliance path for this R-2 residential building (Residential Provisions vs Commercial Provisions) and revise the code information sheet accordingly (including the correct chapter/table references and required/provided envelope criteria for the applicable path).

RFI draft: Confirm the intended IECC compliance path for this R-2 residential building (Residential Provisions vs Commercial Provisions) and revise the code information sheet accordingly (including the correct chapter/table references and required/provided envelope criteria for the applicable path).

Summary: The drawings identify the project as an R-2 residential building, but the energy/envelope criteria shown on this sheet are explicitly based on IECC Commercial envelope tables/sections (Table C402.1.3 and Table C402.4). IECC Section C101.5 requires residential buildings to comply with the IECC Residential Provisions, not the Commercial Provisions.

Why it matters: If the permit reviewer determines the project must comply under the IECC Residential Provisions, energy documentation organized around IECC Commercial Section C402 could be rejected and require resubmittal/rework of the compliance approach and envelope requirements, creating schedule delays and potential redesign impacts.

Suggested next step: Confirm with the design team/code consultant which IECC compliance path governs this R-2 building (Residential Provisions vs Commercial Provisions). If Residential Provisions apply, revise the energy criteria/documentation accordingly; if Commercial Provisions are intended to apply, provide the code basis/justification acceptable to the AHJ and...

RFI draft: Confirm with the design team/code consultant which IECC compliance path governs this R-2 building (Residential Provisions vs Commercial Provisions). If Residential Provisions apply, revise the energy criteria/documentation accordingly; if Commercial Provisions are intended to apply, provide the...

Summary: On Sheet G-106, the drawings classify the project as “R-2 RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE-FAMILY,” but the BUILDING ENVELOPE criteria are documented using Commercial IECC references, including “Table C402.1.4.” Per IECC C101.5, residential buildings are to meet the IECC—Residential Provisions, and IECC Chapter C is scoped to commercial buildings (C401.1)....

Why it matters: If the AHJ/permit reviewer expects Residential Provisions compliance (or expects explicit documentation of the C401.2.1 / R406 pathway for R-2), the current commercial-table envelope documentation can be rejected or require rework. This can delay permit approval and potentially result in envelope assemblies being designed/procured under an...

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended IECC compliance path for this R-2 building. If using Residential Provisions, revise the envelope documentation accordingly. If relying on the IECC allowance for certain R-2 dwelling/sleeping units to use Chapter C, explicitly document compliance with Section R406 as required by C401.2.1 and clarify/align the C402 table...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended IECC compliance path for this R-2 building. If using Residential Provisions, revise the envelope documentation accordingly. If relying on the IECC allowance for certain R-2 dwelling/sleeping units to use Chapter C, explicitly document compliance with Section R406 as required...

Summary: Electrical Power Notes #7 requires installing electrical outlet plate gaskets at receptacles/switches/boxes in walls separating conditioned and unconditioned space, but it does not state that the electrical/communication outlet boxes installed in the building thermal envelope must be NEMA OS 4 tested/marked air-sealed boxes as required by IECC...

Why it matters: If standard (non-OS 4) boxes are installed and only cover-plate gaskets are provided, the installation may not meet IECC R402.4.6 and could fail energy/code inspection, resulting in significant rework (potentially requiring replacement of installed boxes behind finished surfaces).

Suggested next step: Revise the electrical notes/specification to explicitly require electrical and communication outlet boxes in the building thermal envelope to be tested/marked in accordance with NEMA OS 4 (marked “NEMA OS 4” or “OS 4”) and installed per manufacturer instructions. Clarify whether cover-plate gaskets are also required in addition to OS 4 boxes.

RFI draft: Revise the electrical notes/specification to explicitly require electrical and communication outlet boxes in the building thermal envelope to be tested/marked in accordance with NEMA OS 4 (marked “NEMA OS 4” or “OS 4”) and installed per manufacturer instructions. Clarify whether cover-plate...

Summary: The drawings state the above-grade wall requires “R-15 continuous insulation minimum” but then describe achieving that with “insulated Zip Panels (R-9)” plus “(R-21) ... fiberglass batt insulation” in the stud cavity. IECC R402.1.4 prohibits using cavity insulation R-values to satisfy continuous insulation (ci) requirements; ci must be...

Why it matters: This will create a compliance/documentation problem at permit review and inspection because the wall’s continuous insulation level is unclear/incorrectly stated, which can lead to the wrong insulation being approved, purchased, or installed and then rejected during the framing/rough-in energy inspection.

Suggested next step: Revise the wall thermal envelope note to clearly separate cavity R-value and continuous insulation R-value (ci), and confirm the actual continuous insulation provided (e.g., if only R-9 ci is provided, do not label it as R-15 ci). Provide the corrected assembly (or compliance documentation) showing compliance with applicable continuous...

RFI draft: Revise the wall thermal envelope note to clearly separate cavity R-value and continuous insulation R-value (ci), and confirm the actual continuous insulation provided (e.g., if only R-9 ci is provided, do not label it as R-15 ci). Provide the corrected assembly (or compliance documentation)...

Summary: Electrical Power Note 7 requires installing outlet plate gaskets at receptacles/switches/boxes in walls separating conditioned and unconditioned space. IECC R402.4.6 requires electrical/communication outlet boxes installed in the building thermal envelope to be tested to NEMA OS 4 and marked “NEMA OS 4” or “OS 4.” The drawing note addresses...

Why it matters: If non-OS 4 boxes are installed based on the current note (using only plate gaskets), the project may not satisfy IECC R402.4.6 requirements for tested/marked air-sealed boxes at the thermal envelope, risking failed inspection and rework (e.g., replacement of installed boxes or other corrective measures).

Suggested next step: Revise the electrical power notes (and any applicable specifications) to explicitly require NEMA OS 4 (marked) air-sealed electrical/communication outlet boxes for all boxes installed in the building thermal envelope, and clarify whether plate gaskets are supplemental or not required when OS 4 boxes are used.

RFI draft: Revise the electrical power notes (and any applicable specifications) to explicitly require NEMA OS 4 (marked) air-sealed electrical/communication outlet boxes for all boxes installed in the building thermal envelope, and clarify whether plate gaskets are supplemental or not required when OS 4...

Summary: The General Notes state that common stair treads have a 'maximum' of 11 inches. IFC/IBC means of egress stair requirements require stair tread depth to be 11 inches minimum. The note is therefore incorrect and directly contradicts the code-required minimum, creating a risk that stairs could be constructed with treads less than 11 inches and...

Why it matters: If stairs are built per the incorrect note, the stair geometry can be rejected during inspection, causing rework (stair reconstruction/retrofit), schedule delays, and added cost. Because this is a general note, it can affect multiple stairs across the project.

Suggested next step: Revise the General Notes stair requirement to match code: confirm common stair tread depth is 11 inches minimum (not maximum) and clarify whether any stair types have different permitted dimensions per applicable exceptions.

RFI draft: Revise the General Notes stair requirement to match code: confirm common stair tread depth is 11 inches minimum (not maximum) and clarify whether any stair types have different permitted dimensions per applicable exceptions.

Summary: The signage mounting detail indicates a “FLOOR PROXIMITY EXIT SIGN” with the bottom permitted at '6\' MIN' above the floor. IFC 1013.2 requires the bottom of low-level exit signs (where required for Group R-1) to be 'not less than 10 inches' above the floor. The drawing detail therefore permits an installation height that can be below the IFC...

Why it matters: If installed at 6 inches above the floor as allowed by the detail, the low-level exit signs would not comply with IFC 1013.2 and could fail inspection, requiring field relocation of signs (and associated wiring/conduit) and patch/repair of wall finishes.

Suggested next step: Revise the low-level/floor-proximity EXIT sign mounting height range in the typical signage detail to a minimum of 10 inches and maximum of 18 inches above finished floor when used to meet IFC 1013.2, and confirm which locations (if any) are intended to comply with IFC low-level exit sign requirements.

RFI draft: Revise the low-level/floor-proximity EXIT sign mounting height range in the typical signage detail to a minimum of 10 inches and maximum of 18 inches above finished floor when used to meet IFC 1013.2, and confirm which locations (if any) are intended to comply with IFC low-level exit sign...