• 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

Thoughts on "leave one wall standing" in order to avoid variances, other issues etc...

N

No Soup for you

Registered User
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
114
Location
New York
I did a search but couldn't find

Looking for some input as to what you guys do.

I have had a bunch of these lately. Mostly they are trying to avoid the variance process which I really cant blame them.

The other Building Inspector here says its ok to leave one wall and I want them to remove and replace one wall (and footings if needed etc.) at a time.
Technically they are "making repairs" to the existing non conforming structure. (as long as it is same footprint)

A couple of times the one wall they were supposed to leave, we go out and its gone.
Then we get the contractor saying.... well... it fell down, it was too damaged to leave etc... blah blah blah

Just asking for some thoughts on what you guys do/allow.
 
That's not a repair.

General rule is that if you've got more than 50 per cent alteration/change on a legal non-conforming, it has to undergo a new variance process.
 
[BS] SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE. Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.

[BS] SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT. Any repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, addition or other improvement of a building or structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the improvement or repair is started. If the structure has sustained substantial damage, any repairs are considered substantial improvement regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either:

1. Any project for improvement of a building required to correct existing health, sanitary or safety code violations identified by the building official and that are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions.

2. Any alteration of a historic structure provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a historic structure.
 
Personal experience. Tried that for a gut & remodel in the Miami area. Really old one story building, full compliance would have required making the building 4 ft narrower for side street setback (it was on a corner) and a couple of other things. Worked with the city, they agreed if we left the slab and the back wall, it could be a reno. So we did. Demo’d everything, shored up the wall with braces like you see for tilt-up concrete buildings.

Before we got to the rebuild stage, a hurricane hit south florida. Knocked the wall down. We pleaded to the city it was an act of God, they rejected that, and we had to redesign it to meet current standards.
 
"Variance" is for the planning code. Unless your local zoning code refers to the building code for the definition of repair vs. new, I don't know how you can hang your hat on building code definitions to determine whether a variance will be triggered.
 
As shown, it is Not a Repair; a repair is for replacement or retrofitting of damage, not remolding. They shall be permitted to be restored to their pre-damage condition.

The Big issue for many, is the Sprinkler requirement in CA
In CA; An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be provided for new dwellings.
An automatic residential fire sprinkler system is not be required for additions or alterations to existing buildings that are not already provided with an automatic residential sprinkler system.
In CA
CAEBC [BS] 405.2.1 Repairs for Less Than Substantial Structural Damage
Unless otherwise required by this section, for damage less than substantial structural damage, the damaged elements shall be permitted to be restored to their pre-damage condition.
CAEBC [BS] 503.11 Substantial Structural Alteration
Where the work area exceeds 50 percent of the building area and where work involves a substantial structural alteration, ......

CAEBC [BS] SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT. For the purpose of determining compliance with the flood provisions of this code, any repair, alteration, addition, or improvement of a building or structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure, before the improvement or repair is started. If the structure has sustained substantial damage, any repairs are considered substantial improvement regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either of the following:
Any project for improvement of a building required to correct existing health, sanitary, or safety code violations identified by the code official and that is the minimum necessary to ensure safe living conditions.
Any alteration of a historic structure, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure.

CAEBC [BS] SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL ALTERATION. An alteration in which the gravity load-carrying structural elements altered within a 5-year period support more than 30 percent of the total floor and roof area of the building or structure. The areas to be counted toward the 30 percent shall include mezzanines, penthouses, and in-filled courts and shafts tributary to the altered structural elements.
 
IN CT you can tear the whole structure down and rebuild and not require a variance, provided you are in the same footprint, location and volume of the previous structure.
 
Ah, the elusive game of walls—each one vying for its place in the construction dance. Your quandary, my friend, strikes me as an issue of commitment and accountability. If these walls are vanishing like ghosts, a simple solution is a binding agreement. Define the rules: either keep one wall standing as a testament to the original structure, or replace them one at a time, ensuring everything is up to code. Stray from the plan, face the consequences. What's your next move?
 
Save one wall and call it anything other than what it is. That one saved wall is reduced to framing. It gets new everything except for studs and plates….that includes anchor bolts, windows, wiring and perhaps plumbing, insulation, sheathing, drywall, stucco and maybe HDs. That new wall is included in the engineering and that bit of framing gets them a pass on all the requirements that a neighbor has to meet when he builds a new house.

Do you not see that for what it is?…not what they want it to be?

I recall a time when a house could be destroyed by fire and the owner could build it back the way it was with Type-5 sheets as long as it looked just like the house that burned. That made sense. If someone came to the counter with a plan to save a wall I wouldn’t refuse to allow that…I would wonder why. Why have an old wall in a new house? Who is that sentimental? Oh you are actually trying to get around Planning Dept. approval, fire sprinklers, mandated solar, etc. why didn’t you just say that going into it? Ya know, you put the “mental” in sentimental.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top