• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

What happens if a city approves a deck that seems to violate fire codes

I watched the video....well not all of it. The attorneys presented well enough even if the city attorney was strident. I would agree that you should have known the scope and scale of the project early on. Not so much as to the height but certianly the square footage.

I don't see any advantage to winning the timeline battle. The war is about the illegality of the structure. This should be before a court of law. The facts of what happened are easy to discern and lead to an overwhelming conclusion that city staff committed fraud.

The "one lot" defense came out with such legitimacy and the official seal of the City yet there was no opportunity to contest that. The entire proceeding was one sided. It's a hoot that they recorded it to be presented in a court.

Were I the one to decide who's right or wrong I would listen intently to both sides. I would mull it over. then I would come to understand that the city staff devised a heretofore unheard of way of applying planning regulations. A method not founds In the annuls of planning lore. A set of rules that do not treat people equally. Patently unworkable. ........You have a renowned expert that says all of that.

Although the world is getting morally weak at the knees, I can't envision illegal construction allowed to continue because nobody complained on time.
 
Last edited:
!. I agree totally - also, there is the question about if someone arrives home and a new structure has been completed within the 14 day window...can they still appeal?

2. We had submitted a timeline to the BOA and my attorney never got to use it. It was clear that two out of the three on the board had not read any documents at all regarding the appeal.


Well it sounds like case law

you can appeal and win

but if built, the owner might not have to do anything



Make a large display and have it next to the attorney, on a tripod or something.
 
I watched the video....well not all of it. The attorneys presented well enough even if the city attorney was strident. I would agree that you should have known the scope and scale of the project early on. Not so much as to the height but certianly the square footage.

I don't see any advantage to winning the timeline battle. The war is about the illegality of the structure. This should be before a court of law. The facts of what happened are easy to discern and lead to an overwhelming conclusion that city staff committed fraud.

The "one lot" defense came out with such legitimacy and the official seal of the City yet there was no opportunity to contest that. The entire proceeding was one sided. It's a hoot that they recorded it to be presented in a court.

Were I the one to decide who's right or wrong I would listen intently to both sides. I would mull it over. then I would come to understand that the city staff devised a heretofore unheard of way of applying planning regulations. A method not founds In the annuls of planning lore. A set of rules that do not treat people equally. Patently unworkable. ........You have a renowned expert that says all of that.

Although the world is getting morally weak at the knees, I can't envision illegal construction allowed to continue because nobody complained on time.

I wish you could be my judge! For some reason timeliness is a big deal when you're complaining about a new structure but I can file a zoning complaint against my neighbors 3 doors along for their crazy structure and they would have to be made to comply with zoning...and it wouldn't cost me a penny!!

I don't know if you noticed the slide projection screen at the beginning where they claimed it was one lot surrounded by a green line and they very confidently said that there was a 30 foot setback on all the houses....that was a complete joke. Some of the houses are only about 10 feet from their green line.

When the city attorney came to shake my hand to say "sorry you lost" my husband jumped between him and I and gave him a piece of his mind. He asked what kind of a jerk of an attorney could threaten his wife and our entire community with the demolition of our homes. I wish that had been recorded.
 
Well it sounds like case law

you can appeal and win

but if built, the owner might not have to do anything



Make a large display and have it next to the attorney, on a tripod or something.

I have found a case law report where I can sue my neighbor for a "nuisance per se" to force the removal of the monstrosity next door. The fact that it is illegal and my neighbor pulled the permit bolsters my case. Fingers crossed that justice prevails.
 
Having added up my costs I realize it could get really bad if I don't get creative with how I approach this next phase, so I was wondering if you could all help me come up with (legal :) ) creative ways to get rid of the deck. I realize I still have to go to court but I want it over fast! I think the higher courts will come down in my favor on timeliness but I'm pretty sure that will be appealed by the city so I'm trying to think of ways where timeliness is not a factor.

What we know:
1. Flake deviated from the permitted structure. The current building permit expires on Dec 28th, 2019. The deviated structure requires an amended set of plans.
2. The city did not know its own zoning for my development (they admitted this in an email on July 22nd) so it's a mystery how the permit was ever issued.
3. The deck has had no inspections and was not built by the licensed contractor named on the permit.
4. As far as I'm aware he needs a certificate of completion before he can use it and I don't think it's been issued.
5. The city violated 11 of its own ordinances in the issuance of this permit.
6. Flake can not put the hot tub on the deck so it is currently stored underneath the deck, along with his air conditioning unit.
7. This is an investment home so different (stricter) rules apply.
8. He does not qualify for a variance.

I think that's all I've got :)
 
Continue to "believe" "that might makes right", Also consider that were a BBQ fire to spread from this raised deck to your residence you can bet your insurance company would "deal" with the illegality of its construction.
 
I know you do not want to hear it,,

But until the owner decides he wants to get rid of it, I think the deck is staying.
 
“”So, after the crazy meeting tonight there was one city official who came up to me and gave me a hug. As he was hugging me he said that I should email him and ask him questions since his email was not being monitored by the jerky assistant attorney now“””


Is this a city council person??
 
I would say if a civil attorney thinks he can get rid of the deck,,,

I would say civil court might be your best shot,
 
A deck that size lends itself to gatherings. You'll be able to join in.....pass a tray back and forth with hors d’oeuvres.

All things being relative your efforts must involve a significant investment. The city is the opponent but Mr. Flake owns the offense. Sue him and prove that the deck is illegal. Suggest that he has participated in a fraud without openly stating such. His money is as good as the city's.
 
Last edited:
A deck that size lends itself to gatherings. You'll be able to join in.....pass a tray back and forth with hors d’oeuvres.

All things being relative your efforts must involve a significant investment. The city is the opponent but Mr. Flake owns the offense. Sue him and prove that the deck is illegal. Suggest that he has participated in a fraud without openly stating such. His money is as good as the city's.

I just read the second part of your statement and since I have invested a lot of money in this I am interested. How do I suggest that he participated in fraud? I did text him and tell him that his deck violated zoning and he basically said "tough".

I've also been looking at setback violations - there don't seem to be the same time restraints on those as on appealing a building permit. His deck has clear setback violations so would you suggest moving that way forward too?
 
Some times a "flanking" offense is better than a "direct" assault.

Does that mean coming at him from different angles? So far I've registered a couple of zoning violations against his property, I'm waiting to see if he files for an amended permit/certificate of completion... and we have to file suit before Dec 21st. What are your thoughts?
 
Setback, permit, zoning, no contractor's license, denial of your property rights, threat to your property by fire spreading from his deck?
Your attorney should be able to come up with an end around to catch them off balance. Sue him directly vs the city. Make him spend as much as you have to defend himself. Doesn't your HOA have an E&O policy for their directors mistakes? What approvals do your CC&Rs require for onsite alterations?
 
Setback, permit, zoning, no contractor's license, denial of your property rights, threat to your property by fire spreading from his deck?
Your attorney should be able to come up with an end around to catch them off balance. Sue him directly vs the city. Make him spend as much as you have to defend himself. Doesn't your HOA have an E&O policy for their directors mistakes? What approvals do your CC&Rs require for onsite alterations?

Great ideas. I'm thinking Flake probably has lawsuit insurance so if I sue him he will just use his insurance to bankrupt me! It does seem that suing him directly is the best bang for the buck.

Our HOA does have insurance but they went rogue on Flake's deck. It turns out it's almost impossible to sue the HOA and they will say they relied on the city permit even though they denied other people building a deck.
 
Great ideas. I'm thinking Flake probably has lawsuit insurance so if I sue him he will just use his insurance to bankrupt me! It does seem that suing him directly is the best bang for the buck.

Our HOA does have insurance but they went rogue on Flake's deck. It turns out it's almost impossible to sue the HOA and they will say they relied on the city permit even though they denied other people building a deck.
This is a government official who probably does not his name associated with anything illegal, given that he has desires for greater political offices.

Long game with media attention is probably your best bet.
 
This is a government official who probably does not his name associated with anything illegal, given that he has desires for greater political offices.

Long game with media attention is probably your best bet.

That is true - I just don't want to get too attached to Flake's deck :)
 
Happy New Year All!! The deck saga continues and I am trying to take the advice of those of you on the forum who have advised me to flank Jeff Flake on both sides. Currently, my appeal has been filed with the district court and if the judge comes issues a timeliness verdict then I believe I can move forward with the appeal. In addition, my neighbor's permit is officially invalid as in accordance with Section 105.5 of the 2015 IRC, which the State of Utah has adopted, all permits are considered expired after 180 days from issuance or from the last known inspection.
Since the deck has never had an inspection (and wasn't built in accordance with the permit) the permit is now expired. My question is, can the city (legally) extend an expired permit where the permit was not legal in the first place?
 
The permit is not illegal just because you claim that it is illegal. It will take a court of law to deem the permit illegal. Now that may not be the case everywhere but you are up against a recalcitrant building department.

I can tell you that from my experience a permit can be old and moldy but not expired as long as the system shows it as not expired. Okay I get that time has run out but if nobody went into the computer and expired the permit and nobody has written "EXPIRED" with a date and signature on the permit.....well then an inspector can keep it alive with an inspection. I have done exactly that.

There's reasons for doing that. Maybe we dropped the ball. Perhaps a contractor bailed. Jobs will get every inspection except the last inspection. The owner is oblivious. Should we then make the owner pay a load for a final inspection. I've had jobs that stalled because of a catastrophic health issue.

I tell you these things to illustrate that we can do pretty much whatever we want when it comes to expiring permits.
 
Last edited:
Happy New Year All!! The deck saga continues and I am trying to take the advice of those of you on the forum who have advised me to flank Jeff Flake on both sides. Currently, my appeal has been filed with the district court and if the judge comes issues a timeliness verdict then I believe I can move forward with the appeal. In addition, my neighbor's permit is officially invalid as in accordance with Section 105.5 of the 2015 IRC, which the State of Utah has adopted, all permits are considered expired after 180 days from issuance or from the last known inspection.
Since the deck has never had an inspection (and wasn't built in accordance with the permit) the permit is now expired. My question is, can the city (legally) extend an expired permit where the permit was not legal in the first place?


It’s a new decade. So fight on.

No help from city elected officials ?
 
Top