• 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

Cutting codes to cut costs of construction

We exempt the envelope:

(Amd) N1102.1 (R402.1) General (Prescriptive). The building thermal envelope shall meet the
requirements of Sections N1102.1.1 through N1102.1.5.
Exception: The following low energy buildings, or portions thereof, separated from the
remainder of the building by building thermal envelope assemblies complying with this section
shall be exempt from the building thermal envelope provisions of Section N1102.
1. Those with a peak design rate of energy usage less than 3.4 Btu/h · ft2 (10.7 W/m2) or 1.0
watt/ft2 of floor area for space conditioning purposes.
2. Those that do not contain conditioned space.
3. Buildings and structures for which heating and cooling is supplied solely by utilization of
nonpurchased renewable energy sources including but not limited to, on-site wind, on-site
water or on-site solar power, or wood-burning heating appliances that do not rely on
backup heat from other purchased, nonrenewable sources.
JCraver said:
Talk about drinking the kool-aid... You guys drank the whole gallon!


Let me ask you a question: Is there an exception in any energy-related law or in any energy code in either of your states/jurisdictions that exempts an off-grid property owner from said energy regulations? In other words, can I buy a piece of land in your town, pay the taxes on it, and then take care of my own well and my own power generation and not have to follow your energy code? "No", you say? Well then, there's your answer.

The energy codes have f*^%-all to do with energy.
Click to expand...
 
Well Coder we've determined that you can save some dollars not adopting any newer IECC's, how bout rolling back your permit fees? Do you use a fee like Appendix-L, try adjusting the figures a bit or suggest giving the permit fee away and only charge the essentials, water and sewer hook ups and EDU fees.

Try offering 10 free permits with City Council approval, minimum of two per applicant or some kind of gimmick like that. That would be your city trying to help the little builder out? you'll be a hero. Could you imagine Conarb getting a free permit in CA, he'd probably give some government employee a big "ol" sloppy kiss, with tongue! :eek:
 
How about free permits and no energy codes for a summer? I guarantee the contractors would happier than pigs in mud and still build to a level of acceptable energy efficiency/insulation/air sealing and space conditioning.
 
tmurray said:
no one I know of can breath carbon monoxide
Click to expand...
No you can't breathe it but you need it to produce oxygen that you do breathe and to promote plant and crop growth. Remember it is called Photosynthesis

Schematic of photosynthesis in plants. The carbohydrates produced are stored in or used by the plant.
 
Love it when someone calls and say's my combination smoke and CO2 alarm is going off. duh
 
Energy conservation is the effort made to reduce the consumption of energy by using less of an energy service
Energy conservation reduces the need for energy services and can result in increased environmental quality,
 
Underwriters probably have more requirements that will drive up the cost of construction than the codes do.
Codes do not require floor covering you can have OSB
Codes do not require you trim a house out
Codes do not require you install interior doors
Codes do not require expensive counter tops
Building codes do not require paved driveways, landscaping or that a garage or carport be provided

However try to sell a home with none of that and you will not be able to get financing.
 
mtlogcabin said:
No you can't breathe it but you need it to produce oxygen that you do breathe and to promote plant and crop growth. Remember it is called Photosynthesis

Schematic of photosynthesis in plants. The carbohydrates produced are stored in or used by the plant.
Click to expand...
Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are not the same thing.
 
Rick18071 said:
I don't know why you think 3rd party inspectors are cheaper. I'm 3rd party and I make more than the inspectors make in a city near by plus the company I work for makes a profit. The local government is not allowed to make a profit on permits. Also get to use the company car for anything I want but the city guys don't. And they have to pay to park there own cars. We charge about 2% of the cost of construction.

Land cost more around here than construction cost of a ordinary house. Especially where they have strict zoning laws that require a house to be on so much land and try to "zone out" townhouses, trailer parks and apartments. Also I forget what it is called but they have a scheme where if a property owner promises to keep a area "open" by not developing it, they get a big break on real estate taxes. Farmers take advantage of this. So if someone buys the land later and wants to develop it they have to pay back all the back taxes that the previous owner saved. All these things just makes land more expensive for the whole area.

Energy codes are not just to save the home owner money but when they need to build more electrical plants everyone pays more.

Years ago the local utility needed more power and said if they built a nuclear power plant it would save money for the utility and it's customers. Before that I would only got an electric bill every other month. Right after they built it i started getting bills every month for the same amount as the every other month bills.
Click to expand...

I'm basing this on my lawyer's experience in Nevada, $2.7 million retirement home, $3,000 permit fee, architect was allowed to do all inspections which he charged very little for.

Land costs are more here too, that's because fo zoning regulations.

Building more electrical plants is a function of overpopulation, cut the population. look at books like Ehrlich's Population Bomb¹, Meadows Limits to Growth², and Ehrlich's and Holdren's Ecoscience.³ BTW, John Holdren was Obama's Science and technology Tsar all eight years.



¹ https://www.amazon.com/Population-B...id=1547745156&sr=1-2&keywords=population+bomb

² https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growt...PKVFRAV2PDM&psc=1&refRID=WZG35WN91PKVFRAV2PDM

³ https://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-P...e=UTF8&qid=1547745562&sr=1-1&keywords=holdren
 
conarb said:
Building more electrical plants is a function of overpopulation, cut the population. look at books like Ehrlich's Population Bomb¹, Meadows Limits to Growth², and Ehrlich's and Holdren's Ecoscience.³ BTW, John Holdren was Obama's Science and technology Tsar all eight years.
Click to expand...

I would not agree. Building more electrical plants is a sign of needing more power. Hot tubs are installed, Walmarts and water parks are built even without any rise of population rise. PA population has gone down but they didn't shut off any power plants but have built new ones.
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Well Coder we've determined that you can save some dollars not adopting any newer IECC's, how bout rolling back your permit fees? Do you use a fee like Appendix-L, try adjusting the figures a bit or suggest giving the permit fee away and only charge the essentials, water and sewer hook ups and EDU fees.

Try offering 10 free permits with City Council approval, minimum of two per applicant or some kind of gimmick like that. That would be your city trying to help the little builder out? you'll be a hero. Could you imagine Conarb getting a free permit in CA, he'd probably give some government employee a big "ol" sloppy kiss, with tongue! :eek:
Click to expand...

Would not work here. 3rd party inspectors won't work for free
 
Rick18071 said:
Would not work here. 3rd party inspectors won't work for free
Click to expand...
He said that the permit cost $3,000, he paid for it. He also said that the choice fo municipal inspection or private, he chose private and the architect handled it, I asked twice how much the inspections cost and he said it was so little he didn't even remember.
 
conarb said:
He said that the permit cost $3,000, he paid for it. He also said that the choice fo municipal inspection or private, he chose private and the architect handled it, I asked twice how much the inspections cost and he said it was so little he didn't even remember.
Click to expand...

Not sure how it works there but there the $3,000 for the building permit would include all inspections by a 3rd party and the home owner would not pay anything more. Also here I never herd of an architect that has the certifications do a code inspection.

Different strokes for different states
 
Coder, I'm curious, do you charge for a plan review fee, and if you do, is there a charge again for the same house plan even if it's flipped?
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Coder, I'm curious, do you charge for a plan review fee, and if you do, is there a charge again for the same house plan even if it's flipped?
Click to expand...
Yes there is a plan review fee. 30% of permit fee residential 65% commercial. If the same set of plans (flipped/mirrored/etc.) gets turned in for the same project more than once then the plan review fee is $100. I can also waive the plan review fee altogether depending on what it is.
 
Plan review fee could be looked at to reduce construction cost. I do the plan review here but don't charge the fee.

You could do a flat fee for the review?
 
Rick18071 said:
Not sure how it works there but there the $3,000 for the building permit would include all inspections by a 3rd party and the home owner would not pay anything more. Also here I never herd of an architect that has the certifications do a code inspection.

Different strokes for different states
Click to expand...

Rick:

I'm comparing that to the Bay Area, the last comparable I built I paid around $100,000 plus another $50,000 in Special Inspection fees, and to get it through in a little over two years I left up a part of the old house incorporating into what looked like a new home.

Red tape is a major problem, I could permit a home over the counter in the 50s and 60s, now its' several years unless you play games like calling it a remodel, in today's paper:

East Bay Times said:
Recent California reforms designed to make it easier to build granny flats — one fix to ease the housing crisis — have not gone far enough to overcome local bureaucracy and neighborhood opposition, housing advocates say.

But supporters of the small, relatively cheap rentals known as accessory dwelling units are aiming to bolster state law and nudge cities toward more permissive building codes.

“When you’re in a crisis, you have to do something,” said State Sen. Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, author of the original ADU law, which cut construction costs by lowering water and sewer hookup fees. “The bottom line is, we’re still in a crisis.”

Despite easing local restrictions on construction of granny flats, homeowners and city planners report still being flummoxed by the rules.

Steve Vallejos, CEO of Valley Home Development in Fairfield, said after an initial surge of fast-moving ADU permits in 2017, some Bay Area cities have started to slow down the process and add costs with additional environmental and design requirements. “There’s plenty of room for improvement,” Vallejos said.

Wieckowski said he plans to re-introduce legislation to simplify the process and further reduce local fees and restrictions. A reform measure last year failed to pass. “The cities are dragging their feet,” he said.

Some cities are pushing back on more changes to the law, saying they need time to adjust.

“It takes time to develop the ordinances and to update the ordinances,” said Jason Rhine, assistant legislative director for the League of California Cities. The group wants to protect impact fees that support services that would be used by ADU renters.

Many more residents are requesting applications for ADUs than actually getting construction permits to build, Garcia said. Homeowners often still find the process daunting and filled with unexpected costs. They report getting conflicting guidance from local planners and being hit with high fees for local services and schools.

Stacy UyBico and her husband bought a 1950s home in Corte Madera four years ago and planned to fix it up. A new roof, foundation and other improvements would help transform their house into a new home.

While they waited for permits, state law loosened requirements for adding accessory dwelling units to properties. The couple, seeking short-term help on their mortgage and a long-term home for older family members, applied to build a 1,200 square foot unit.

Although Wieckowski envisioned the process as an “over-the-counter” transaction with minimal input from a town or city planners, UyBico said it has taken much longer.

“We thought, this is something we want to pursue,” UyBico said. But after about 18 months of applications,public hearings and appeals, she said, “we were not expecting all the complexities.”¹
Click to expand...



¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/01/17/building-a-bay-area-granny-flat-still-challenging/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top