On Saturday, July 12, 2014 10:26:28 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
A friend of mine had a neighbor here that put up a deck without a permit.
The inspector happened to be going by (or maybe somebody ratted him out)
and he got caught. He wound up having to rip it out and redo it. Not sure
the exact reason. Usually as long as it's conforming and done to code,
or can be brought up to code, they let you continue. I suspect he had
some issues, eg incorrect footings, header board attachement.
Doesn't sound too smart compared to paying a $50 permit fee. And
again, your probability of getting away with it depends on how visible
it is, if your neighbors are pissed off, etc.
A lot of that creative stuff goes on here on the water at the shore.
To All, regarding the permit discussion etc:
The OP (Leza) didn't mention anything about getting or not getting a permit,
and I suspect that she would just get one if needed depending on what she
decides to do. For example, she recently had an entire new roof put on her
house, from the rafters up -- meaning all new plywood decking and then a new
roof on top of that. She either did or did not get a permit for that, but
my guess is that she did since a contractor did the job. (And, just as an
aside, I wonder if she or the contractor thought to include adding
insulation and venting between the rafters since it is a sloped roof where
the sheetrock on the bottom side of the rafters about 2/3 of the way up is
the ceiling for the upstairs rooms. That would have been a good opportunity
to do that if no existing insulation was already there.).
What the OP did mention is that she doesn't want to rebuild a new garage
because she cannot afford the cost of doing that right now. (Again, permits
were not a question that came up, but even just a tear-down -- a
demolition -- often requires a permit in many locations.)
The OP also talked about the "center wood bar that goes horizontally to hold
the roof" being broken. My guess is that, depending on exactly what is
there (a few photos would help), she may be able to just "sister" one or two
new joists along the sides of the existing broken joist to keep the existing
roof up, and then repair or replace the flat roof that is on top. I think
that may even cost less than the cost of tearing down and removing the whole
building. And, if she did that, she wouldn't have to worry about building a
new fence or about doing a tear-down and later losing the opportunity to put
up a replacement garage (either her or a new owner).
So, my vote is see if a repair to the existing garage can be done and skip
the tear-down and new fence idea.
I'm probably not going to get a permit for projects where the permit costs
more than the repair. :) Fixing sinks, replacing toilets or water heaters,
adding an electrical outlet, etc.
I did reshingle our roof last summer without a permit. I wasn't aware one
was needed at the time. Oops, my bad. In any case, I completely tore off
the old roof and went way above and beyond what basic code requires. I was
doing it to fix a leak and wanted to be darn sure it wasn't going to leak
Generally though, I try to get permits for any major work. But, I'm really
hoping I won't be doing major projects like that any time soon.
Maybe it's not so hard to repair as the OP thinks. First the center
beam needs to be "sistered", at leat until it is replaced. Without
knowing more, I don't know if sistering is enough, or if it has to be
replaced. Sistering is temporairly jacking up (with jacks made for this
purpose) the two pieces of the broken beam until they are in line with
each other and the origiinal height, and using machine bolts (I assume)
to attach a similar beam right next to it that spans the break, so that
when the jacks are removed, the structure is sound again. Then patch
the holes in the roof, And the OP wouldn't need a fence and the
run-off water situation would remain as it is, and the OP would have a
garage too. I wish I had space for a garage.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.