New Member, 10 years serious, 10 years prior learning

[socaldano]

I am an engineer in another discipline from construction, and I project manage my own properties/projects.
All my properties are residential.
We work hard to make sure all my work is to code.
Most contractors in the area avoid getting permits because the local building departments can be difficult to impossible.
And if the City get a burr in their saddle, they just refuse to pass your work.

I am hoping to learn more about the codes. As the more I read the codes, the more I realize local building inspectors here rarely follow the code.

Most of my houses precede modern building codes. I thought I read in several of the "existing building code" codes, that only what you are trying to fix is in scope for the permit. With few exceptions. Almost everything else is out of scope, except for those things that are clearly dangerous.
For instance, we know unreinforced masony is dangerous. But they city cannot force you to reinforce it to 2020 codes merely because you want to install a like roof, or replace existing windows with windows of the same size.

 

[fatboy]

Is this just a rant? Or do you have a specific question?

 

[TheCommish]

As a only if I can cite it from the code inspector, I find a lot of contractors who do not want to get permits, do not want to take the time to properly submit permit applications, sufficient drawings, plan for sufficient time for application processing and do not want to follow the code requirements for various reasons.

I have problems with inspectors who make up codes or "Because I say so" enforcement.

 

[Beniah Naylor]

As the more I read the codes, the more I realize local building inspectors here rarely follow the code.

The first time I read that, I thought he meant building inspectors on this forum rarely follow the code. On second reading, I think he means building inspectors in St Louis rarely follow the code.

While I can't speak as to how things are run in St. Louis (I don't know any of their inspectors), I appreciate someone on the other side of the desk like yourself who will study and attempt to do things right.

Almost everything else is out of scope, except for those things that are clearly dangerous.

The exception to this is the ADA - if you are going to remodel an area of a building subject to the ADA, you have to spend 20% of your budget fixing existing ADA issues in the other areas of the building.

Most contractors in the area avoid getting permits because the local building departments can be difficult to impossible.
And if the City get a burr in their saddle, they just refuse to pass your work.

For instance, we know unreinforced masony is dangerous. But they city cannot force you to reinforce it to 2020 codes merely because you want to install a like roof, or replace existing windows with windows of the same size.

Again, I don't know the guys in St. Louis, but I encourage you to do the best you can to work with them and provide code sections when you discuss with them. Most inspectors I have talked to in other jurisdictions are easy enough to get along with when you know where they are coming from.

Any questions you have, please don't hesitate to post them - this is a good forum and there is a massive amount of expertise and experience here.

 

[ICE]

inspectors here rarely follow the code

I have worked in close to a dozen building departments. I spent twenty-five years in one and then did short stints while employed by a third party agency. I thought that the County was bad until I worked in cities. At the county there were scattered individuals that were competent... not so much at the cities. The County has hundreds of inspectors so the odds of finding competence were greater than a city with five or six inspectors.

Inspectors do not ignore the code because of a malicious intent... they simply don't have the ability to follow the code. They are people trying to earn a paycheck... wanting to get through another day with as little strife as possible... There is a desire to fit in and not stand out. Billy Nelson said it best, "The County rewards the ordinary... stop being extraordinary."

 

[socaldano]

The first time I read that, I thought he meant building inspectors on this forum rarely follow the code. On second reading, I think he means building inspectors in St Louis rarely follow the code.

While I can't speak as to how things are run in St. Louis (I don't know any of their inspectors), I appreciate someone on the other side of the desk like yourself who will study and attempt to do things right.



The exception to this is the ADA - if you are going to remodel an area of a building subject to the ADA, you have to spend 20% of your budget fixing existing ADA issues in the other areas of the building.



Again, I don't know the guys in St. Louis, but I encourage you to do the best you can to work with them and provide code sections when you discuss with them. Most inspectors I have talked to in other jurisdictions are easy enough to get along with when you know where they are coming from.

Any questions you have, please don't hesitate to post them - this is a good forum and there is a massive amount of expertise and experience here.

Some of the old guys were great... they actually gave suggestions on how to do it better. on the small stuff, like painters calk on the baseboards they would say "next time you ask for an inspection... I need that done".

I try to work with them. Even when their demands are "outside of code"... But sometimes its the "special inspection" where they got a burr in thier saddle and they are not going to pass the house, and they are just being rediculous. Condemning the house for thinks like: bushes along the fenceline, outbuilding trim needs painting, double pane window slightly foggy on inside...

note: These homes are 1906 to 1954. Long before modern building codes. I actually upgrade a lot of systems, as I don't like coming back and doing repairs when someone is living there.. so new toilets, faucets, shower head, replace crappy wiring with modern romex... stuff like that.

 

[socaldano]

d

I am familiar with ADA... being single family, I have not had that issue... if the property has steps, the ADA people don't want to live there.

 

[socaldano]

Some of the old guys were great... they actually gave suggestions on how to do it better. on the small stuff, like painters calk on the baseboards they would say "next time you ask for an inspection... I need that done".

I try to work with them. Even when their demands are "outside of code"... But sometimes its the "special inspection" where they got a burr in thier saddle and they are not going to pass the house, and they are just being rediculous. Condemning the house for thinks like: bushes along the fenceline, outbuilding trim needs painting, double pane window slightly foggy on inside...

note: These homes are 1906 to 1954. Long before modern building codes. I actually upgrade a lot of systems, as I don't like coming back and doing repairs when someone is living there.. so new toilets, faucets, shower head, replace crappy wiring with modern romex... stuff like that.

I have worked in close to a dozen building departments. I spent twenty-five years in one and then did short stints while employed by a third party agency. I thought that the County was bad until I worked in cities. At the county there were scattered individuals that were competent... not so much at the cities. The County has hundreds of inspectors so the odds of finding competence were greater than a city with five or six inspectors.

Inspectors do not ignore the code because of a malicious intent... they simply don't have the ability to follow the code. They are people trying to earn a paycheck... wanting to get through another day with as little strife as possible... There is a desire to fit in and not stand out. Billy Nelson said it best, "The County rewards the ordinary... stop being extraordinary."

For most of the nonsense it is lack of quality supervision.

For this one, it is vindictive.

 

[socaldano]

Is this just a rant? Or do you have a specific question?

The question is:
When they city is being vindictive, and won't issue a building permit. And the city is refusing to give you a hearing to challenge it.
1. I thought I read in the Existing building building code that ONLY the portion of the system being fixed is in scope for the permit. The City cannot expand the scope beyond that. Where is that in the code? I couldn't find it when I went back to look.

2. What do you do when the city maliciously refuses to issue a building permit or give me the city hearings? Do I file an action in the Circuit court? Is that a writ of mandamus?

3. When replacing the roof trusses, the OSB, and such. The rest of the house is out of scope for the permit correct? Other than the hurricane clips to attach it to the house?

 

[socaldano]

As a only if I can cite it from the code inspector, I find a lot of contractors who do not want to get permits, do not want to take the time to properly submit permit applications, sufficient drawings, plan for sufficient time for application processing and do not want to follow the code requirements for various reasons.

I have problems with inspectors who make up codes or "Because I say so" enforcement

 

[ICE]

For most of the nonsense it is lack of quality supervision.

Supervisors seldom know code. Especially electrical code. I have explained the code for AFCI a hundred times... 98 times for 30 supervisors. And then, after an exhaustive explanation, the supervisor thinks there's an option to disallow the correction.

 

[ICE]

For this one, it is vindictive.

Are you sure about that? What did you do to upset the building department? Over the years I have been accused of being vindictive and or racist. It's all about the corrections and when there's no escaping the corrections some people resort to slinging shlt against the wall, hoping that some of it will stick.

 

[socaldano]

As a only if I can cite it from the code inspector, I find a lot of contractors who do not want to get permits, do not want to take the time to properly submit permit applications, sufficient drawings, plan for sufficient time for application processing and do not want to follow the code requirements for various reasons.

I have problems with inspectors who make up codes or "Because I say so" enforcement.

Are you sure about that? What did you do to upset the building department? Over the years I have been accused of being vindictive and or racist. It's all about the corrections and when there's no escaping the corrections some people resort to slinging shlt against the wall, hoping that some of it will sti

I have worked in close to a dozen building departments. I spent twenty-five years in one and then did short stints while employed by a third party agency. I thought that the County was bad until I worked in cities. At the county there were scattered individuals that were competent... not so much at the cities. The County has hundreds of inspectors so the odds of finding competence were greater than a city with five or six inspectors.

Inspectors do not ignore the code because of a malicious intent... they simply don't have the ability to follow the code. They are people trying to earn a paycheck... wanting to get through another day with as little strife as possible... There is a desire to fit in and not stand out. Billy Nelson said it best, "The County rewards the ordinary... stop being extraordinary."

This city is being vengful. I have dealth with 10 different cities and code enforcement/building departments. They even told me this was a "special inspection" special enforcement.

And the root of the problem is overzealous inspectors. Who think they are doing the right thing, but are condemning houses for frivolous reasons... Here you have to pass inspection before anyone other than a baby can move in. And this city has gone vengeful because I did something and wouldn't accept the punishment that I had to sell my house when the law says I have to pay a $200 fine.

 

[socaldano]

This city is being vengful. I have dealth with 10 different cities and code enforcement/building departments. They even told me this was a "special inspection" special enforcement.

And the root of the problem is overzealous inspectors. Who think they are doing the right thing, but are condemning houses for frivolous reasons... Here you have to pass inspection before anyone other than a baby can move in. And this city has gone vengeful because I did something and wouldn't accept the punishment that I had to sell my house when the law says I have to pay a $200 fine.

Let me restate that... I have houses in more than 10 cities... due to occupancy inspections and occupancy permits (about 35 by now), I know who and what and where...being an engineer, I have read the relevant codes and ordinances and state laws. Some of the cities are good, some are bad and a couple have reputations that precede them (Contractors will not do work in those cities because they can work in cities nearby where the city is fair and just). I am past trying to get any semblance of fair from this city. I just want to be able to replace my roof that was damaged in a storm. (trusses, osb, underlayment and shingles)

 

[ICE]

And this city has gone vengeful because I did something and wouldn't accept the punishment that I had to sell my house when the law says I have to pay a $200 fine.

Alrighty then, you did something that garnered punishment.... I've never seen a code that sanctions or mandates punishment. Sure there's the ding for refusing to correct a violation but even that isn't a literal punishment... it is an inducement to change behavior.

Then it appears that you refused to accept the "punishment".

 

[ICE]

I just want to be able to replace my roof that was damaged in a storm.

Not many jurisdictions will delay a re-roof project out of a concern for protecting the structure. Whatever you did to upset them certainly caused a stir.

 

[socaldano]

Alrighty then, you did something that garnered punishment.... I've never seen a code that sanctions or mandates punishment. Sure there's the ding for refusing to correct a violation but even that isn't a literal punishment... it is an inducement to change behavior.

Then it appears that you refused to accept the "punishment".

The penalty has to match the "crime".. permanently condemning a house for not getting the occupancy permit, when a judge would just make you get it inspected is a bit extreme don't you think? The maximum fine if they obeyed the law is $400.

I asked for the inspection. They said no, the commissioner has ordered a special inspection. And the city attorney informed me they were never going to let me use the house again... and are following through. This was 5 years ago, now they won't give me a building permit to put a new roof on. Isn't that a bit extreme?

 

[socaldano]

The first time I read that, I thought he meant building inspectors on this forum rarely follow the code. On second reading, I think he means building inspectors in St Louis rarely follow the code.

While I can't speak as to how things are run in St. Louis (I don't know any of their inspectors), I appreciate someone on the other side of the desk like yourself who will study and attempt to do things right.



The exception to this is the ADA - if you are going to remodel an area of a building subject to the ADA, you have to spend 20% of your budget fixing existing ADA issues in the other areas of the building.



Again, I don't know the guys in St. Louis, but I encourage you to do the best you can to work with them and provide code sections when you discuss with them. Most inspectors I have talked to in other jurisdictions are easy enough to get along with when you know where they are coming from.

Any questions you have, please don't hesitate to post them - this is a good forum and there is a massive amount of expertise and experience here.

Let me clarify... there is St. Louis City, whom the Courts did whatever corrections needed doing, and are easy to get along with now.
Then there is the wealthy areas where Building Inspectors are a joy to work with. if you do good work, they leave you alone.
Then you have the "mixed areas". you may have heard of Ferguson. In 2016 the justice department, the state legislature and the Missouri Supreme Court came down on the 21 cities within 5 miles of the southern tip of Ferguson. Because of the abusive policing and abusive code enforcement. The Justice Dept, the state legislature and the Missouri Supreme Court all came to that conclusion on their own...

It got a lot better, but they still make it up as they go along.

But this gets off topic. I'm stuck, they are refusing to issue the building permit to remove the existing roof and install new trusses (OSB, underlayment and shingles). And since they won't give me a hearing, I was wondering what the next steps are?
I have already assured them, they can inspect the whole house, and I'll make my tenant get an occupancy permit before I try and move anyone in. But they have no intention of ever letting me use this house.

 

[ICE]

wondering what the next steps are?

You might want to start with a new roof. Winter is coming and you should protect your investment.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The exception to this is the ADA - if you are going to remodel an area of a building subject to the ADA, you have to spend 20% of your budget fixing existing ADA issues in the other areas of the building.

Technically, you will not find that 20% in the ADA. You will find it in the International Existing Building Code, though. And it got there because, over the years, federal courts saw a loy of cases involving the ADA language that the cost of providing accessibility improvement should not in volve "unreasonable" expense -- without providing any standard for where the line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" should be drawn.

So, over the years, the courts generally settled on 20% of the project cost as being a "reasonable" limit. The ICC then incorporated that into the codes to make it enforceable. In 2003 the 20% exception was found in Chapter 34 of the IBC. In 2006 it was found in both Chapter 34 of the IBC and Chapter 6 of the IEBC. Ditto for 2009. In 2012 it was in Chapter 34 of the IBC and Chapter 7 of the IEBC. In 2012 it was gone from the IBC but it was in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 of the IEBC. By 2021 it had migrated to Chapter 3 of the IEBC. Wherever it was found, it has remained at 20% since it first appeared in the ICC codes. But it's not in the ADA. The ADA just says the cost or providing accessibility in existing building shall not be "unreasonable."

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I have already assured them, they can inspect the whole house, and I'll make my tenant get an occupancy permit before I try and move anyone in. But they have no intention of ever letting me use this house.

Tenants don't get certificates of occupancy. Owners get certificates of occupancy. If a tenant in a commercial space applies for the permit, or the tenant's contractor, they are doing so as an agent of the owner.

 

[Beniah Naylor]

Technically, you will not find that 20% in the ADA. You will find it in the International Existing Building Code, though. And it got there because, over the years, federal courts saw a loy of cases involving the ADA language that the cost of providing accessibility improvement should not in volve "unreasonable" expense -- without providing any standard for where the line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" should be drawn.

Wherever it was found, it has remained at 20% since it first appeared in the ICC codes. But it's not in the ADA. The ADA just says the cost or providing accessibility in existing building shall not be "unreasonable."

You are correct, technically it is not in the ADA proper, it is in the advisory to section 202.4 of the ADA:

An area of a building or facility containing a major activity for which the building or facility is intended is a primary function area. Department of Justice ADA regulations state, “Alterations made to provide an accessible path of travel to the altered area will be deemed disproportionate to the overall alteration when the cost exceeds 20% of the cost of the alteration to the primary function area.” (28 CFR 36.403 (f)(1)). See also Department of Transportation ADA regulations, which use similar concepts in the context of public sector transportation facilities (49 CFR 37.43 (e)(1)).

There can be multiple areas containing a primary function in a single building. Primary function areas are not limited to public use areas. For example, both a bank lobby and the bank’s employee areas such as the teller areas and walk-in safe are primary function areas.

Also, mixed use facilities may include numerous primary function areas for each use. Areas containing a primary function do not include: mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors, or restrooms.

2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design

The 2010 Standards set minimum requirements – both scoping and technical – for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

www.ada.gov

 

[socaldano]

You might want to start with a new roof. Winter is coming and you should protect your investment.

Yes, that was why I posted... The City is making sure that they will NOT allow me to get a building permit. Continuing the punitive enforcement from 2017. How do I get a permit when the city belligerently refuses?

 

[fatboy]

Go straight to the Board of Appeals, next City/Town Council, then your state legislators. Then go to the media news. If you have a a justified situation.