Do you not want your builder accountable to the city for any problems? You'd rather it be you on the hook for all of the problems?

Holly, I take it that's your standard snarky way of saying that I shouldn't do this because I then have a direct contract with the city instead of the builder...? Makes sense, thank you.

If your architect has completed all proposed plans for your home and land according to the county (soil conservation, engineering, plans review, health dept, etc), then I don't see why not. I think what Holly is trying to say is generally codes can be helpful in mandating builders to build homes to a certain level of safety and livability so that the builder is liable to anything not done properly and to make sure you're not stuck with a fire/flood trap. Sometimes those codes are constraining and costly, but other times they help the consumer....such as Fire Sprinkler Systems and 2x6 construction vs 2x4, wind safety for tornado prone zones, etc. Not sure if that helps, but just my take on it.

This post was edited by jaysgrl99 on Mon, Nov 10, 14 at 13:25

We did. It made zero difference since we owned the property. We had to get the permits in our name regardless of having a builder or not. Our loan couldn't close without the permits and a builder. Our permits took 3 months to come in complete so we interviewed and contracted our GC during the down time.

Great feedback - we own the lot and since we're trying to beat this mandate it just might make sense to do it this way!

You need to ask what procedures are in place for a building permit that goes beyond the given time limit. If you get the permit, and you're not ready to start, it may expire in mid build. Some municipalities allow you to renew with a small fee, some a large fee. Some permits have longer time limits than others and are OK with leaving them open for a while. Some are OK with the home meeting the codes under the original permit while others want the build brought up to the current code of the second permit. There are a wide number of approaches. Find out what applies to your situation before you find out in the middle of the build.

Also, some municipalities will not issue permits to anyone but the contractor of record. Some will issue it to the homeowner, but the homeowner has to be the one on site for all of the inspections. Lots of different approaches there as well. It's best not to assume anything from someone else's experiences even just down the road in another jurisdiction.

"Does anyone know if its feasible to pull permit with the architect before we go out to bid and select our builder?"

Check your state and/or other building codes. Some states require the GC pull the permits, others let homeowner do it.

Also doublecheck the "grandfathering" ... it may require construction to have started on or before a certain date, not just permit pulling. Sometimes "breaking ground" is enough.

And check the new requirements to see if they can be triggered by delays in the build. EXAMPLE: If the drywall isn't done by ____, can they require the sprinklers?

This post was edited by lazygardens on Tue, Nov 11, 14 at 12:12

Whether or not you can pull your own permits is a legal question that can only be answered by the laws in your home state or province.

Get your attorney's advice before you decide.

Most jurisdictions will not issue permits without all the contractors' names, addresses, telephone numbers, licenses and insurances in place.

Permit applications are not usually considered 'completed' until all this information is presented to the building department and signed by each contractor for his respective discipline.

This is how the building department keeps legal tabs on the builder and the subs in order to prosecute them if necessary.

That said, it is not impossible for you to pull your own permits provided you also take full legal responsibility for all the work and provide the building department with your liability insurance etc.

While possible, it is not always advisable, since if things do go wrong as the owner contractor, the building department is only going to come after you and no one else...even if your subs created the harm.

If the builder and the subs are named on each respective permit, the building department becomes your advocate against them if they violate the law.

Having the builders named on the permits does not completely exclude you from prosecution by the building department if required.

As the owner you can be held liable for contractor code violations if they abandon the job and cannot be found because ultimately you own the property and must any violations right.

The main advantage to having the contractors name on the permit is that the building department usually initiates actions against them in criminal court where fines can be steep and imprisonment called for in serious cases. Costs of prosecution are bourne by the jurisdiction.

If you are the 'contractor', it is up to you alone to sue subs who work for you in civil court where you will bear all the costs and burdens of seeking relief....even if the municipality is coming after you criminally for code violations your subs may have created.

Generally speaking, you stand a somewhat better chance of being protected legally against unscrupulous contractors if you do not pull the permits.
----------------
That said, you need to talk to your building department regarding just how your laws deal with 'grandfathering' when it comes to new Codes being implemented.

In my state, all it takes is a contract signed with an architect or designer, or a contract signed with a contractor dated prior to the date a new Code comes into effect for you to be exempt from compliance with the new change(s).

I think this also depends on where you live. When we pulled out permits, they wanted/needed the GC's license info on the permit. If not, then the HO was the responsible party (and had to arrange for all the inspections, etc).

So, check with your permit office.