by squalle » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:16 pm
I think that I would argue that this is not the intent of either MN Statute 16B.61, which states "The commissioner shall develop rules addressing the plan review fee assessed to similar buildings without significant modifications including provisions for use of building systems as specified in the industrial/modular program specified in section 16B.75. Additional plan review fees associated with similar plans must be based on costs commensurate with the direct and indirect costs of the service.", or 1300.0160 subpart 6, which presumes that you are building a residential structure AND an accessory structure.
Using this same logic, someone could submit a permit for any size deck and then build any other deck configuration from that master plan. This rule was written outside of the traditional UBC/IBC rules section, presumably as a result of a complaint to the legislature (thus 16B.61). I think it is a creative approach, but I would charge the 65% and let them appeal my decision (or send them back to Ramsey).