On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 8:11:57 PM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I know of a case here where a guy built a deck in his backyard.
The inspector was driving by and saw it. He wound up having to
tear it down and start over. IDK for sure the root cause
was that it could not be properly inspected now that it was
built, eg footers, but suspect that was probably
it. Either that or there was some other fatal visible flaw,
that could not be corrected by redoing just a minor part of it.
I also know of a whole condo complex that was built with just
a shovel of concrete thrown under supporting posts for deck footers.
And that was inspected...... Some years later, the FBI arrested
the mayor and found $50K in his attic, which gives you an idea
of what was going on.....
That's just sad. In San Jose, CA downtown area is a 'short' bank building,
near Taylor and 1st Street. Architecture is just NOT right. The story
behind it is that a well-known builder/developer, who shall remain
nameless, just started building it! Got the first story done and FINALLY
someone in the city permit department stopped the building process. The
builder wanted six stories, but only got one, so the building has a
strange look to it.
Same builder on a VERY large building did not have proper drains in his
planning, so he told one of the workers to just chop a hole between
parking floors to let the water drain down through !! , several floors.
Even that employee knew better.
I once went to City Council meeting whhere this builder was obtaining huge
residential building construction, six buildings of four stories each. The
plans of each 'residence' he presented to the Council showed really nice
floor plans, with even a 'Den' for the resident's home office. And of
course a pool to service the large complex. Being an Engineer, I started
scaling the drawings to see what each 'home' would look like and found the
Den was approximately 7 ft by 7 ft !!! I have walk-in closets bigger than
that. EVERYTHING was scaled to be tiny!
Oh, well, the complex was built, but of course no pool, the pool was in
the plans to get the site approved. No intention of building it there
because there was a municipal swimming pool soon to be built two blocks
away, so why bother? The residence can WALK to the city's public pool, the
exercise will be good for them, eh?
I always get permits for major projects, like building our garage, building
our house, and remodeling projects at my in-laws house. I also get permits
if there are major electrical changes, like running a new service to a
building, primarily because the power company won't connect without one.
And I get permits for things like a woodstove installation where there are
safety concerns and/or could affect my homeowner insurance. On big projects
it's nice to have the inspectors second opinion to make sure I didn't
overlook anything. Codes change and I can't keep up on everything.
However, I don't bother with most small projects. Adding an electrical
outlet, rewiring a heating circuit, running a subpanel to a shed, building
a small shed, constructing a small retaining wall, replacing a water
heater, etc. Many of these don't need permits anyway, but I do my best to
follow or exceed the codes for each project, even if I am not getting a
There were a couple of projects like replacing the windows at my in-laws or
replacing the roof on our house that I didn't realize I was even supposed
to get a permit for. To me those were just basic maintenance items like
painting, or replacing a broken faucet or something. I didn't learn I
should have gotten a permit for those till long after the projects were
finished. My bad for not checking I guess, but I still performed the work
well above the code minimums.
I don't know if it would matter to the building department, but we always
document repairs and improvements with lots of photographs. We do it mostly
for our own reference and memories, but I would be able to show how each
step was done if they questioned the work.
On Wed, 27 May 2015 14:51:20 +0000 (UTC), HerHusband
There is no reason people should have to get a permit for replacing
windows or a roof, or changing a water heater, or anything like that.
All it amounts to is government finding a way to steal more money from
us. And for that matter, if we didn't do these repairs, they would cite
us for violations or condemn our home, even on our own land. As long as
people keep paying for senseless permits, and kissing ass to local and
federal politicians, the less freedoms we will have. People no longer
have the balls to stand up against these crooks, who think they can do
anything they want to screw people. I own my land, and what I do on my
land is MY BUSINESS, not theirs.
Most permits make sense from the standpoint of safety or impact to the
neighborhood, but I admit I don't understand the reasoning behind those
permits. It's a good idea for contractors doing work for others, a
secondary eye to make sure the job is done right. But I can't imagine a
homeowner doing their own work even thinking about a permit for something
like replacing a water heater.
Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out for you... :)
It may not be just the fee that is charged: if the municipality knows
that the property has been upgraded, doesn't that give them an excuse to
up the taxable value and therefore the taxes as well?
On Wed, 27 May 2015 21:06:00 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
Perhaps if it had no roof to start with?? Maintenance should NEVER
trigger a tax increase. Added features like finishing a basement -
yes. Like paving a gravel driveway? yes. Like adding a pool? yes.
Replacing windows? no. Adding a patio door inplace of a window? Sure -
I can see that.
As for permits - anything involving possible structural integrety -
sure. Anything changing the basic footprint of the house - sure.
Major pluming or electrical ALTERATIONS, yes.
On Wed, 27 May 2015 23:34:47 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
There was one municipality around here (SW Fla) that thought simply
replacing a bad snap switch or receptacle should trigger a permit.
I laughed at the AHJ until I figured out he was serious.
Government run amok.
Believe it or not, the local municipal government requires a permit for ethernet and/or telephone jacks.
The permit fee is $50 and inspection fee is $120 (for up to 10 jacks) so adding a jack or two would cost the homeowner $170 just for the permit.
And since these clowns only inspect from 9am to 4pm, I'd have to take vacation time from work to get the actual inspection.
Can you say scofflaw?
On 5/27/2015 11:34 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
The problem is, where do you draw the line? Is adding a receptacle
something you need a permit for?
I'd guess that for anyone here, the answer is no. We know what wire to
use for a 15A or 20A circuit.
Many years ago I was installing a storm door on a new house in a big
development. Homeowners typically added a lot of things like that as
well as finished basements into family rooms. I was installing the door
on a walkout basement. The new homeowner was finishing the room with
studs and paneling. He added four receptacles and had them wired up.
He used #18 lamp cord.
Had I not been there, the wall would have been closed up and who knows
what would have happened. Maybe they would use a space heater and start
a fire. So, is inspection needed?
33 years ago when househunting prior to buying our current home, we
saw SEVERAL homes with the basements wired with inappropriate wiring -
including 3 wire extention cords, and outdoor telephone wire (2 copper
coated steel conductors arranged like the old twinlead television
So yes, inspection is a GOOD thing - even though it's a royal pain for
those of us who know what to do and how.
Sounds like the people who get permits are the ones
most likely to be doing a good quality job?
One time, I saw extension cord wire used to supply
power to condensing units in a refrigeration system.
Got to wonder. Musta been out of Romex or BX
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
On Fri, 29 May 2015 09:12:28 -0400, Stormin Mormon
Nobody said requiring permits and inspections would stop people from
doing stupid things like that. I just said inspections were a good
idea. IF the guy called for the required inspection, it woud be
On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:49:37 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
That is certainly the optimistic view but when your typical municipal
inspector leaves the shop in the morning with 30 inspection tickets
spread out over the whole county, there is a limit to what they
actually "inspect". A lot is taken on faith. It is one reason why I
was not a municipal inspector. When I was working for the state, I had
no real time constraints and I could poke around a lot more.
Personally I think "owner/builders" should be paying double for their
permits and get more scrutiny/assistance from the inspector.
Most homeowners would not agree and they seem to enjoy "getting over"
on the inspector, even if their safety is at stake.
On 5/29/2015 12:28 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I recently had an electrical panel replaced and solar panels put on the
roof. The city inspector came out three times. Once to check the
electrical before the stucco was replaced. Once to check the water
barrier and wire before the stucco was put in. Once to check the stucco
repair. He was very thorough though I had to explain a couple of things
to him. 1. that it was a 200A panel with a 150A main breaker so the
wires from the pole were actually sufficient for 150A. 2. That the
secondary panel for the solar could be connected directly to the bus bar
because it was within sight of the main panel.
I did find one thing that the idiots replacing the panel screwed up and
I need to get them to come back out.
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.