Building Permit Dilema

[peppy]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Control and money grab...

absolutely!

[Gogar]

Ask first,

If he says "no,"

Move the dirt.

[ckelly78z]

Regrade by adding dirt....done ! Just make sure you add enough fill to appease the most discriminating zoning inspector, and don't mention this work to him/her, just present it business as usual.

[A930Rocket]

Add the dirt.

Are you deck posts on spot piers or a continuous footer? Is it adequate for the additional weight?

[Baz]

Photos first.....and then I will be able to provide a sufficient answer.

[island911]

Whose property are you building on?

er... I mean, for an absurd consulting fee (and zero liability on my part) I will give you permission, as long as I like what you are doing.

That's how this works, right?

[drcoastline]

Regrade. It is not only the path of least resistance it is the cheapest. Do it before you apply for the permit. Likely no permit required to landscape/grade so long as you are not altering "drainage".

[drcoastline]

Originally Posted by peppy

I know its not relevant, but why do we regulate someone's property!

Safety for the next owner, neighbors, community.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by drcoastline

Safety for the next owner, neighbors, community.

Right, too many complete morons that do really ridiculous stuff that could end up dangerous.

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by A930Rocket

Add the dirt.

Are you deck posts on spot piers or a continuous footer? Is it adequate for the additional weight?

I am going to regrade and get a permit, therefore I need plans, but I'm not there yet. The existing deck is on 4x4 piers, I expect to pulling those out and going to 6x6 in sono-tubes.

To everyone who says forget the permit, that is my preferred route, but my neighbor is a dick, and if he calls the city I will have a big problem.

Additionally, the back part of my lot faces a busy street/walkway. It will be very obvious I'm doing 'something', and eventually someone will see there is no permit posted.

[URY914]

Also when you go to sell your house the buyer may ask or the finance company if the work was permitted. I had this happen with the last house we sold it it was only a fence I put it. Luckily I had permitted it.

It's all about liability. Everyone wants their butts covered.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by peppy

I know its not relevant, but why do we regulate someone's property!

Because people can do some really dumb things.
One corner of the building in the foreground and almost all of the building in the background was constructed on my neighbor's property. At the time there was no requirement that you file a site plan when you build a structure.

[island911]

Originally Posted by URY914

Also when you go to sell your house the buyer may ask or the finance company if the work was permitted. I had this happen with the last house we sold it it was only a fence I put it. Luckily I had permitted it.

It's all about liability. Everyone wants their butts covered.

Funny thing is, the people doing the permitting have zero liability. They are simply collecting "fees" (getting paid) to tell owners whether they like something or not.

A process that may have started out as a means to have some standards has gotten ridiculous.

Example - When I owned a business I was told that if I wanted to replace lights in an EXIT sign with LEDs I needed a permit.
Some places require a permit to take down a tree more than 4' tall. - again begging the question; whose property is it?

Ultimately the owner has liability, the permitting (fee collecting) have none.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by island911

Funny thing is, the people doing the permitting have zero liability. They are simply collecting "fees" (getting paid) to tell owners whether they like something or not.

A process that may have started out as a means to have some standards has gotten ridiculous.

Example - When I owned a business I was told that if I wanted to replace lights in an EXIT sign with LEDs I needed a permit.
Some places require a permit to take down a tree more than 4' tall. - again begging the question; whose property is it?

Ultimately the owner has liability, the permitting (fee collecting) have none.

Ridiculous, yes, but I can see the point. There's probably a regulation around exit signs since they are essentially a safety feature. If you let every numbnut out there make whatever changes they want to an exit sign, there's a good possibility that eventually you'll have a bunch of fubar exit signs. What YOU wanted to do with the exit sign should have been a non-issue, but what some other guy wanted to do could have been an actual issue. Should the regulations try to cover every possible permutation available to the imagination (and end up like tax code) or should it say something closer to "modifications to exit signs require a permit." Eventually, there will probably be something that says "incandescent, cfl and LED bulbs meeting criteria X, Y, Z are allowable under code." But as LEDs are still (relatively) new, when you consider the speed of bureaucracy, I'm sure the code probably has not yet caught up.

[VINMAN]

Last year I had to demo a $25,000, 3yo deck for a home seller, because it was built without a permit. It was not built up to the current code, so couldn't even get a retroactive permit for it. Building dept dept didnt wanna hear a thing. Was probably one of the most solidly built , safest decks I've ever seen.

.

[island911]

Steve - And what liability do these lighting permitting geniuses have? (zero)

Just because they work for some municipality are they experts?... did the power stay on in the most energy rich State in the union this winter?

But back to liability... If the light on an exit sign goes out, or someone's deck is too far off the ground, and that leads to a twisted ankle or some such, does the permitting entity get sued?

I have to work with UL, NSF, CE ... all of these standards organizations make big bucks selling permission. If you want to know what their standards are, you have to pay them. One would think that a public standards organization would have exceedingly clear standards for builds.... I suppose that they do, actually. Like the commercial sector, they say 'give us money and we will tell you how we feel about your project.' -nice standard. meh.

[URY914]

The local building dept. just wants to a policy, a listed standard, or something to reference so they can avoid liability. The first thing they look for on the drawings is the list of codes the A/E is following to see if it matches their current codes and if the guy signed and stamped it. Liability avoided....

[Zeke]

Many years ago CA passed a law that inspectors were liable for defects that ultimately cause harm. Of course the jurisdiction they worked for covered the insurance. I wonder what the status of that law is today?

[island911]

State inspectors were liable for defects that ultimately cause harm? Or independent contractor type inspectors?

[john70t]

Originally Posted by sage

I know its not relevant, but why do we regulate someone's property!

Because the city will naturally pay for any differences in sale price,...and become liable for all non-code legal liability issues?

(edit : just read the above)