[QUOTE=Rico]
Answers to questions:
Yes, we’re in St. George - within city limits.
A permit is required if you’re fixing the roof of a dwelling. As far as I am aware, and have found in my searches, it’s not required for a carport as long as the carport complies with setback standards.
The inspector says otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
We live off of 2160 East. It dumped last February. It snows in St. George.
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
I’ll grant you the oddity of the snow load, but what’s your issue with the rest of the requests and requirements?
[/QUOTE]
It sounds like Rico is doing this DIY. In which case a $1500.00 series of reports and permissions seems to me to be very likely to add significantly to the costs, perhaps as much as 100%.
And there’s paranoid [del]little[/del] me wondering just what the relationship between the licensed contractors and the city inspectors might be.
[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
I sympathize, Rico, code enforcement can really seem like a racket sometimes, and it’s even more expensive for homeowners when it’s honest. The rules were enacted partly out of consideration for people who buy homes and would like some assurance that they won’t be suddenly buried in the rubble as they sleep, but also at the behest of contractors who may not be able to match the do-it-yourselfer in skill, and lose badly in labor and materials costs, but can still buy the red-tape concession on your block. So first, play the game and call a couple of contractors and ask them to quote you a price for the job. Just for fun, see if the inspector will suggest a name – if he does, you know all you need to know about him, and may be able to negotiate with him directly.
[/QUOTE]
In my experience this is not true.
The average contractor has skills and [building code] knowledge that is far superior to the above average homeowner. That’s not to say that there aren’t some gifted homeowners (and I’ve seen many), or incompetent contractors (and I’ve seen them too), but that across the board, contractors have the superior skills and knowledge.
It is also a fallacy to suggest that the contractor needs the building codes to compete with the homeowner. The contractor is “competing” with the homeowner in the same way that the restaurant is competing with your kitchen.
In both cases the homeowner can do it cheaper, whether it’s cooking a meal or building a deck. Whether it’s convenience, use of time, skills, or cost, the homeowner may choose to hire out either the meal or the deck. For a variety of reasons—not the least of which is the desire to save money or tough economic times—the homeowner may cook at home or lay his own tile in the bathroom.
In any event, the contracting industry does not lobby the building departments for codes to keep the homeowner from improving his property.
The single industry that has the greatest influence in the development of the building codes is The Insurance Industry—the same people who will be expected to write checks to Rico when his carport collapses and destroys the carport, siding and car underneath.
The National Electrical Code (NEC) is a good example. It is actually Article 70 of the National Fire Protection Assoc. (NFPA) Many of these groups were founded, or funded, or both, by the Insurance Industry. Many of them are 100 years old and older.
The code that is giving Rico heartburn is [more often than not] part of a national building code written by some structural engineer (as part of some national association) who doesn’t know or care about the contractor/homeowner issue, and has zero allegiance to the building trades.
Elaborate, please. I don’t know what I could tell from an inspector giving me a name. Does that mean he’s crooked? Are they not allowed to give names? Does “negotiate with him directly” mean bribe him?
I remember from the Big Book of Hoaxers (don’t have it here at work) that one career hoaxer was in the army and assigned to desk duty, and couldn’t believe the amount of paperwork he had to fill out for trivial things. So he started typing up flypaper reports and sending them to the Pentagon. Each report contained info about the number of flies caught per roll of flypaper, length of time between strip changes, etc. The Pentagon supposedly started wondering why more army bases weren’t sending them this information, so they started requiring all of them to do it.
I’m wondering if this is some kind of bureaucratic shortsightedness that was written up in a northern state where snow was common, and the bean counters never considered that there’d be areas of the US that rarely had snow. So they made it the universal standard that inspectors on a state and city level blithely accepted because they didn’t want to risk losing their jobs.
[QUOTE=tds1273]
I know it wouldn’t be the smartest thing to do, but fight my ignorance, what exactly would happen if you just said “Fuck yo’ snow load!”, and just finished the car port anyway?
[/QUOTE]
In my experience, the City would hit you with a DAILY fine of around $50 - $100 until all the required papers were filed and the new car port passed inspection. This could take a month or more, meaning a total fine of around $1500 to $3000.
If I’ve learn anything about construction, it’s to always get permission first.
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
If I’ve learn anything about construction, it’s to always get permission first.
[/QUOTE]
It suddenly occurred to me that this may be the real issue. You didn’t go to the town first, so the inspector is going to be King Anal Retentive about your case and require every i dotted and t crossed with hyperprecision.
Your best bet may be to pucker up and kiss a little ass.
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
In my experience, the City would hit you with a DAILY fine of around $50 - $100 until all the required papers were filed and the new car port passed inspection. This could take a month or more, meaning a total fine of around $1500 to $3000.
If I’ve learn anything about construction, it’s to always get permission first.
[/QUOTE]
In 20 years I’ve never seen a building department do this. (and this probably involves 20 or more building departments)
[IME] As Rico experienced, the most common response is a Stop Work Order. Building departments are not the gestapo and they have little interest in fining people. What they want is compliance.
I have seen people fined, but never near the numbers cited above, and it is inconceivable that they would play “beat the clock”; where fines accumulate until an inspection is done. Things don’t work that way. (and the only people I’ve ever seen fined (other than a token traffic ticket like fine at the outset for starting work without a permit) are people who openly thumb their nose at the building official.)
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
It suddenly occurred to me that this may be the real issue. You didn’t go to the town first, so the inspector is going to be King Anal Retentive about your case and require every i dotted and t crossed with hyperprecision.
Your best bet may be to pucker up and kiss a little ass.
[/QUOTE]
Some inspectors are very difficult and some are on power trips. (like health department officials and cops; people who have authority and like it)
I’ve had inspectors stand and talk about their golf games and approve a rough inspection without looking at much of anything. I’ve had them measure to see if things were at the letter of the code.
The type of inspector you’re describing is like that in dealing with wayward contractors, not homeowners. [generally]
Contractors routinely don’t pull permits on small jobs that they believe will go on unnoticed. (furnace/WH changeouts, small remodels, car port renovations 
)
The contractor knows better, and so does the inspector. It sometimes pisses off the inspector that the contractor did a job without a permit, and so he will hold the line on the work if he finds out the job. I have a good friend who did $20K worth of electrical work last year with no permit. This year more remodeling is being done, with a permit. The inspector noticed the recent work and noted that it didn’t meet code, so he requiring that all the work be redone—tearing down walls etc. it’s probably going to cost $40K to re-do the work that was done last year without a permit.
There is an understanding that the homeowner is not knowledgeable about the building code, or even that a permit is required. The inspector is much more lenient with a homeowner that he stumbles upon doing work without a permit than a contractor who knows better.
Still ignorance is no defense, and **Rico **may get some small token fine. For him to see a larger fine he will have to be a Class 1 Jerk.
[QUOTE=Sprockets]
[Quote=Vinyl Turnip]
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip
I shot him in the face with a shotgun and dragged the headless body to the end of our driveway.
[/Quote]
Excellent. That not only dealt with the problem head on…
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it dealt with the problem head OFF.
Rico -
I empathize. The whole system punishes those who wish to improve their property and rewards those who keep the old structures and let them decay. My advise is similar to Hakuna Matata’s. Bypass the inspector and go directly to the planner’s office. Explain to someone that you’re not changing the design of the structure (e.g., roof slope, trusses…): you’re simply replacing an old roof with a new one. Perhaps a reasonable discussion and negotiation will ensue.
Option 2: If your primary concern is replacing the old roof (as opposed to specifically wanting the tar roof), then make it a repair job instead of a remodel. Just replace one metal roof panel at a time with an equivalent new one. Replacing one single panel doesn’t require permits. When you’re done, you’ll still have a metal roof, but it will be a new one.
[QUOTE=Rico]
Encinitas, thank you - now where do I send your fee?
I went and got a copy of City ordinances. Here’s the relevant section (bolding mine):
[/QUOTE]
Perfect. I retract the advice in the prior two paragraphs. You can comply with the letter of the law easily: I don’t think there’s a roof on the planet that can’t support 15 pounds of snow. If the law said 15 pounds per square foot (or per square meter, or square inch, or square yard…) then you’d have to do some calculations, but 15 pounds on a roof? Heck, my old carport had 15 pounds of leaves on its roof! An idiot wrote your city’s code. See if you can take advantage of it.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
And yet, ironically, Antarctica receives very little snowfall:
[/QUOTE]
That’s because (as the post you’re replying to pointed out) it’s a desert. My ranch in Montana, which gets snow every single year, is in a desert. The word “desert” does not imply “hot,” nor (interestingly) does it imply “dry.” Oceans can be deserts. A desert is simply a place that doesn’t get much precipitation.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
…**Rico **may get some small token fine. For him to see a larger fine he will have to be a Class 1 Jerk.
[/QUOTE]
I’m a Mod.
You figure it out.
Oh yes, and who the hell sent this in to Threadspotting?
Smiley: even bigger
[QUOTE=Sprockets]
Excellent. That not only dealt with the problem head on, but no doubt the decomposing body also served as an effective warning to other inspectors.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but in some states it is a petty misdemeanor to kill a building inspector. Check your local laws!
[QUOTE=Rick]
No he’s only about twice as tall as I am. While I am short, I am not that short.
He could change his name to Giant Freaking Mod and it would fit.
[/QUOTE]
For the record, Rico is bigger than me. I believe that the two of us should play catch with the inspector.
Rico, consider this an offer of my experience and shiny (almost new) engineering degree. I will look into the building codes there tomorrow and make some calls and see just how realistic this inspector is being, if you wish. Or we can just play catch with him, and let Rick call fouls when we drop him, your call.
GFM, thanks for the offer. Let me do a little negotiating over the next few days, if I can’t work out any settlement or compromise, I may be calling on you.
Thanks for the offer. I love this place.