Wanting advice from building inspectors

- Forums - Register/Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -

Small Cabin Forum / General Forum / Wanting advice from building inspectors


Author	Message
Aqua Member	# Posted: 20 May 2012 03:39am Reply I know there are current or past inspectors on here or people with related experience. Could any of them email me to listen to some scenarios and tell me which are the best or worst ideas? I know the codes and all vary by location. I think I can explain so any inspectors could get a sense of what my area's rules are, and specific details of my situation. Please help me figure out which of my many plans are best or worst for me to proceed with. Please contact me at cabinwanted at yahoo dot com. I do not want to go into details in public.

Anonymous	# Posted: 6 Jun 2012 10:54am Reply Pass/Fail is all decided by your local building inspector. You really have got to involve them in anything that is questionable around the code. The local building inspector can pretty much over rule anything even if you think it meets code. Usually multiple inspections are required, and if you get off on the wrong foot early, the third inspection might be pretty by the book. Usually these guys are reasonable and are not out to stop your building. The first "inspection" will likely be the building and site plans. So draw some and take them over and start talking with them about what you want to do.

VTweekender Member	# Posted: 6 Jun 2012 05:10pm Reply Aqua, that email bounces back...not a building inspector but would like to offer any help that I can..

Anonymous	# Posted: 2 Dec 2012 12:29pm Reply The simplest thing is to phone your local building office and speak to the building inspector. No one else can give details of a specific area. You may be pleasantly surprised.

MtnDon Member	# Posted: 3 Dec 2012 06:18pm Reply The IRC is the usual code. Some states have their own. WI is still one of those I believe. States are free to modify it as they see fit. Local municipalities and cities within the state are then free to add or make their code version more stringent, but not to exclude items from the official state version. While inspectors may vary in their interpretation and municipalities may vary in the degree of their enforcement it does help a lot if the builder knows what the code states before the inspector comes along. Some inspectors are plain wrong in their interpretation. They do not have the last word without recourse. I know of a couple of instances where an inspector was corrected by appealing to their boss. It did not result in any unreasonable demands from that point on. YMMV. One of the key things when discussing, never argue, code items is to be polite. Another, as said, is to know yourself what the code states. Any professional worthy of the name will know the code or emply someone who does. When you don't know what you're talking about is when inspectors can get frustrated with your mistakes. Inspectors are also not required to suggest the correct method to use to correct a red tagged item. That is not in their job description. However, if the owner0builder is polite an inspector will in many cases suggest how to correct the error. If you have a rapport with the inspector they may also pass you with an understanding that you the builder will correct the deficiency before going forward. My recommendation would be to post the questions here; short of a court order nobody can make the site owner disclose names and ID info. With an easily made up name it would be nigh impossible to figure out who you are and where you are unless you disclose the info. Governments don't have the manpower to seek out individuals building a cabin when there are bigger fish to fry. Anyhow that is just an opinion. Then more can learn from the questions and answers. Any location with a building department and inspections has to make the applicable laws available to anyone. You don't need to ID yourself to get a copy. Many are available online. Mine are. In my case from start to completion there are 5 inspections without counting the electrical, plumbing, gas piping and HVAC components.

groingo Member	# Posted: 4 Dec 2012 12:55pm Reply Around here, unless they absolutely have to be on the property they are either not allowed on the property or run off. Have had too many times where they approve one day and the next they come back and say it's all wrong, do it this way. That's one reason I sold my property to an Indian tribe for one dollar as a life estate (becomes tribal trust land) and I can stay here and live as I see fit as a property manager until I die at which time it is then turned over to the tribe as a wildlife center, don't have to pay property taxes either.

bldginsp	# Posted: 5 Dec 2012 09:48pm Reply I'm an inspector, and agree with most of what Ive read above. First you have to decide if you are going to build with or without a permit. If you don't get one, and get caught later, you may have to rip it down. In some areas the chance of that is slight, in other areas it's higher, depending on how much enforcement the local department is able or willing to do. From an inspector's perspective, I feel sorry for people who build without permits just because I know that they will have the violation hanging over their head as long as the building is there, and when it ends it can get dirty. But, if it's just a little cabin.... If you are going to get a permit and do it all above board, the first thing to do is make a preliminary plan, as detailed as you can, and ask the local department if you can come in for a pre-submittal meeting, meaning you want their input on what they will or not accept before you draw your final plans to submit for a permit. You need to find out what the planning requirements are for your area and specific parcel (zoning laws). Building codes tend to be the same throughout a state, but different counties have different local zoning laws that usually address issues like little buildings that are sort of houses but not quite. The building codes do not address 'temporary' or 'occasional use' buildings such as little cabins because those terms are impossible to define. You need to carefully and politely find out what the attitude of your local jurisdiction is toward this sort of thing, and propose a building within the local laws, and the interpretation of them by the department (which can sometimes be subjective or arbitrary, particularly when dealing with something like this that doesn't fit the standard mold). My experience is that if you are nice and just tell them honestly what you want, most departments will try to help you do what you want if they can, within the rules they have to enforce. Wouldn't you do that if you were the building official? Once you know what they will accept, draw it up with whatever structural they require and submit for the permit. Don't be afraid to politely question the fees, and try to get them reduced if possible. Again, doing something unusual, your project doesn't fit the standard fee structure. They should charge you for an accessory structure, not a full residence (my opinion). Some jurisdictions require an engineer for structural, but some will allow you to design it yourself using the code provisions for light framing, which are cookie cutter engineering designs for standard wood frame buildings. You'll need to do a lot of research to figure it out, but it's really pretty simple. Once you have your permit call for the required inspections, and don't be afraid to question a call by the inspector so long as you have a code provision to back up your assertion. I've been embarassed more than a few times by builders who know a certain area of code better than me, and that's fine with me. The building is more important than my ego. If you are dealing with an inspector who looks at it the other way around, tread lightly and don't be afraid to report abusive or malicious behavior to his boss. The code says an inspector can be fired for maliciousness. He's there to serve you. Your original question was if I would listen to your specific plans, and I must say no. You should contact your local jurisdiction, or a local builder who has worked with them and knows how they work. Not sure why anyone would be concerned about suggesting what they want to do on a site like this. Just don't give your name and address. I doubt code officials spend any time on sites like this. I do just because I'm building a small cabin myself, and I'm intriqued with some of the 'unique' solutions to problems I've seen here, even if they make me wince..... But suggesting what you want to do on this site probably won't help, because what you really need to know are the specific details of the local requirements regarding the initial planning of the building. Will they allow such a building if it doesn't meet all residential requirements? Will they allow it if it's smaller than X square feet? Will they require a septic? A well? How far from the property line must it be? Fire requirements? Structural requirements? All of these are local decisions. On this site you can get good advice about how to deal with the electrical, plumbing and mechanical issues. Hope this helps. Remember that your building can injure or kill people, so please build it safe. -a California building inspector

toyota_mdt_tech Member	# Posted: 6 Dec 2012 01:24pm Reply Nice reply bldginsp. I pulled my first permit in my life for my cabin and the area I pulled the permit, the folks were no nice and kind and the whole process was made so easy and pleasant. The planning and building dept was a pleasure to deal with. Final inspection was just as smooth. Now that I know the procedures, the next one will go much quicker. And my plan is to build my home on the same property where my cabin is. The cabin was my test bed. I feel very confident now in building my home. So dont be fearful. I know there is lots of horror storys out there, its usually from large metropolitan areas who almost like to see a builder squirm and maybe not see any buildings going up. But rural areas who welcome the extra tax revenues from a finished cabin will likely be very helpful and welcome you.

toyota_mdt_tech Member	# Posted: 6 Dec 2012 01:28pm - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech Reply Quoting: groingo That's one reason I sold my property to an Indian tribe for one dollar as a life estate (becomes tribal trust land) and I can stay here and live as I see fit as a property manager until I die at which time it is then turned over to the tribe as a wildlife center, don't have to pay property taxes either. Drawback to that is the fact the land was taken off the markets indefinitly. Its actually what government wants. Lots of it are also being bought up by conservation groups, groups protecting open space etc. Onces its in conservation, its gone forever. This really eliminates lots of small cabin land in the future. I understand your spot. But you may have played right into their hands. Take a look at this website. http://takingliberty.us/ http://takingliberty.us/Narrations/easement/player.html This one regarding conservation etc.

Bldginsp	# Posted: 6 Dec 2012 01:48pm Reply Jurisdictions vary a great deal in terms of the local rules given to them by the voters or council/supervisors, and also in terms of their attitude toward what they are doing. Toyota md tech obviously is where they are cooperative, and the local rules didn't prevent the specific project. But if they are nice, but the rules prevent it, you may have to meet full residential (R-3) rules just to build 400 square feet. If the rules do allow it but the people in the department don't want you to do it, you have to know the local rules well enough to knock them over the head with the rules, politely. If the rules prohibit small cabins and they are not willing to let you stretch the rules a bit, the problem there is that you just let them know your intentions and if you then build without a permit they may be aware of it. I think if you have any reason to suspect that the department, or someone in it, is hard to work with or uncooperative with people like you, best thing to do is research as much as you can before you go into the department. Talking to a local builder or architect/designer who has worked with the department before will probably help a lot. Carefully read the planning rules to find out what's what. One problem is that you can't easily ask a hypothetical question about 'what can I build' because the answer depends a lot on the specifics of the zoning for your parcel. Before anyone can answer questions they need to know exactly what you want to build and where. So it's best to have general idea that what you want to do is allowable before you march into the department and declare your intentions.

MtnDon Member	# Posted: 6 Dec 2012 02:23pm Reply toyota_mdt_tech by which I really mean a to the idea (of things like the wildlands project. That's been around for years and nobody can prove it's not true that I have ever found. I don't believe in conspitacies as a rule, but having lived in the west for over a quarter century I have seen our rights to access our own public lands violated time and time again.

groingo Member	# Posted: 6 Dec 2012 10:02pm - Edited by: groingo Reply Quoting: toyota_mdt_tech Drawback to that is the fact the land was taken off the markets indefinitly. Its actually what government wants. Lots of it are also being bought up by conservation groups, groups protecting open space etc. Onces its in conservation, its gone forever. This really eliminates lots of small cabin land in the future. I understand your spot. But you may have played right into their hands. Not in this case, unless the tribal council decides to sell it, otherwise it is now tribal trust land (Feds and State can't touch it) which means the tribe can do what they want with it once our contract is complete. Our agreement is that it is to be used for a wildlife retreat and Salmonid study area after I am gone which is what it is now.

optimistic Member	# Posted: 6 Dec 2012 11:08pm Reply Groingo... This is one wild story. Where are you located? do you need to follow building codes or anything? amazing thing in this country.

ljohnsaw Member	# Posted: 14 Jan 2013 02:40am Reply Quoting: bldginsp I'm an inspector, and agree with most of what Ive read above. Bldginsp, I appreciate your comments. I'm planning on building a moderate sized cabin (~900 sq-ft) that will be a timber frame (not post and beam) with mortice and tenon joinery. It will be in northern California (Nevada County). Do you think I will I have a challenge in getting the building department to accept such a style with all the calculations to support the chosen sizes of elements? I plan on being off-grid (solar), propane cook stove/hot water, wood stove heat, composting toilet, grey water leach field and a solar powered well system. Thanks,

Moving Pictures Member	# Posted: 14 Jan 2013 07:00am Reply I'd concur on the pre-submission meeting. I discovered that (a) I don't need an engineer to stamp my plans, (b) that I don't need an architect to design 'em, as I'm doing OK by myself, (c) my provisions meet or exceed code and (d) that the road right-of-way encroaches further onto my property than I had thought, which will force re-location of a planned wood shed and the planned garage.

bldginsp	# Posted: 14 Jan 2013 01:26pm Reply Moving Pictures- I too discovered that the road easement wasn't where I thought it was, but luckily it doesn't interfere with my cabin plans. It does interfere with plans to build a garage, though, so I checked with the County and there is a procedure for moving an easement, but it's expensive and a pain in the neck. You can't build in an easement, even if the easement is in the wrong place! My road is outside of the easement in several locations. If you build in an easement and they find out later, you got a problem. ljohnsaw- I don't know what the specific rules are in Nevada County, but I bet this is what you are faced with: 1-Structurally they will probably require an engineer's stamp on a timber frame building, because it is not typical light framing and I bet you are in snow country. Maybe they will let you engineer it, but you will have to show competent engineering. 2-They will probably require you to permit this structure as an R-3, which is a full residence, in which case you must have an approved water source (well), septic system, and fire sprinklers. I doubt they will accept the composting toilet but I don't know. Health depts. in CA are very cautious these days because of the number of septic failures in many parts of the state. They might accept a grey water system but if you have to put in a septic there is no need for one. The solar, propane and wood stove should present no problem, you'll just need permits for their installation. Your big hurdle is whether they will require that this meet full R-3 requirements. Where I am there is a planning ordinance allowing 'camping' for up to 120 days on your property so long as you have a septic system. My cabin permit is for an R-2 dormitory accessory structure, not a full R-3, so I don't have to put in sprinklers or have an approved water source, but I do have to have the septic. Since it falls under the ordinance, I can only use the building 120 days a year. This is how my county deals with the fact that they have a lot of people like me who want to build a small vacation cabin. It's fair of them while also conforming to the laws. You can approach the planning/building dept and tell them what you want to do, but if they won't let you do it you just tipped them off. You can just build and see what happens, but my experience in CA is that the building depts. are not lax about dealing with this kind of thing. My neighbor built a house without permits, lived in it 5 years, then they found out and he had to abandon that house and build another. Up to you. I suggest you find a local architect/engineer/designer who does a lot of work in the county, and pay them for an hour or so to have a talk. This might give you critical info for how to proceed. Also find and carefully read the County Planning Codes, looking for rules about camping, temporary use of property, septic systems, approved water sources, etc. The fire sprinkler rule comes from the CA building code and is state-wide for new residences. Good luck, let us know what happens.

bldginsp	# Posted: 14 Jan 2013 02:00pm Reply ljohnsaw- I just remembered that the California Residential Code now contains provisions for what is called limited density owner built rural dwellings. Basically, if you are in an area designated by the local building department to qualify, you can use less restrictive code requirements for construction of the building. The code section is R301.1.1.1, Alternative provisions for limited-density owner-built rural dwellings. You can call the building dept and just ask one question- does your parcel qualify. If so, you will have far less requirements to meet.

bldginsp	# Posted: 14 Jan 2013 02:05pm Reply Don't know if I'm clogging up the thread with too much stuff, but here's the complete text of the limited density provision. This is from the California Residential Code, and ONLY applies if the local jurisdiction has designated your parcel to qualify: R301.1.1.1 Alternative provisions for limited-density owner-built rural dwellings. The purpose of this subsection is to permit alternatives that provide minimum protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public and the owners and occupants of limited-density owner-built rural dwellings as defined in Chapter 2 of this code. For additional information see Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 8, of Title 25, California Code of Regulations, commencing with Section 74. To meet compliance with the requirements of this code, provisions of Section R301.1.1.1, Items 1 though 5 may be utilized for limited-density owner-built rural dwellings when the materials, methods of construction or appliances are determined appropriate or suitable for their intended purpose by the local enforcing agency. 1.A limited-density owner-built rural dwelling may be of any type of construction which will provide for a sound structural condition. Structural hazards which result in an unsound condition and which may constitute a substandard building are delineated in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code. 2.There shall be no requirements for room dimensions as required in Chapter 3, provided there is adequate light and ventilation and means of egress. 3.There shall be no specified requirements for heating capacity or for temperature maintenance. The use of solid-fuel or solar heating devices shall be deemed as complying with the requirements of Chapter 3. If nonrenewable fuel is used in these dwellings, rooms so heated shall meet current installation standards. 4.Pier foundations, stone masonry footings and foundations, pressure-treated lumber, poles or equivalent foundation materials or designs may be used provided that bearing is sufficient. 5.Owner-produced or used materials and appliances may be utilized unless found not to be of sufficient strength or durability to perform the intended function. Owner-produced or used lumber, or shakes and shingles may be utilized unless found to contain dry rot, excessive splitting or other defects obviously rendering the material unfit in strength or durability for the intended purpose.

ljohnsaw Member	# Posted: 14 Jan 2013 08:32pm Reply Thank you so much for the clues!

toyota_mdt_tech Member	# Posted: 14 Jan 2013 11:42pm Reply Quoting: bldginsp Don't know if I'm clogging up the thread with too much stuff, bldginsp, I appreciate your input and enjoy reading your post. I find them interesting and educational.

bldginsp	# Posted: 15 Jan 2013 01:28pm Reply Thanks Toyota. I have a 98 tacoma 4wd 2.7 liter, incidentally. I'm glad all this stuff I've learned since becoming an inspector can be put to good use for other people.

ljohnsaw Member	# Posted: 18 Jan 2013 10:03am Reply I now have proof (an email from the Planning department) that I fit under R301.1.1.1 but they state that I have to have an engineer's stamp on my drawing and the he is responsible for inspecting/approving the timbers used. Bldginsp, Does that make sense/seem correct?

MtnDon Member	# Posted: 18 Jan 2013 10:31am - Edited by: MtnDon Reply ljohnsaw FYI, the link goes to the Calif code, the book they go by. http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/st/ca/st/b400v10/index.htm The AHJ may be within the rules when stating you need an engineer's stamp... depending on what side of the fence one is on when interpreting what that section says. The phrases "provided that bearing is sufficient" and "be of sufficient strength or durability" are key. How does one define sufficient? Who decides? They are saying an engineer. That follows along with the rules around many other structural parts of the code. For example code supplies details on how to correctly size rafters for various snow loads. Trusses are not listed. But when you buy roof trusses the company supplies you with a paper stamped by an engineer. The paper states the trusses are suitable for the task. That sort of thing, an engineered solution, is common. In many cases of floor and roof trusses the engineered solution is cheaper when all the variables are considered. However, when you run into things like having timbers certified that may get expensive. Is there a sawmill in the area? And does that sawmill have a certified lumber grader? If so, and if the BO will accept their word, that might be cheaper than an engineer. IMO.

bldginsp	# Posted: 18 Jan 2013 01:10pm Reply ljohnsaw- The jurisdiction has the authority to require this, if they choose. But, you might try what I did and see if they will accept it. Where I am they also say, at first, that all buildings must be engineered. That's kind of a rote response, since snow loads require adequate structural. Ultimately the jurisdiction is responsible for determining that your structure meets these requirements, having an engineer on board makes it easy for the jurisdiction cause the engineer is taking responsibility for the design. If you design it, the jurisdiction has to look over your plans carefully to be sure you know what you are doing. As with many things in life, it's about confidence. I am building a small cabin, stick framed, with a vaulted ceiling of site cut timber rafters. They said 'gotta be engineered'. Then I said, well, I've researched it and found a credible source for calculating log rafter diameter. They said, ok, we'll look at what you give us and see if we are willing to accept it. What I found is a little booklet by the International Log Builder's Association, called Log Span Tables for Floor Joists, Beams and Roof Support Systems by Mackie, Read and Hahney, 2005. This has log span tables for rafters, but it also has an excellent article on how to do the engineering calculations for log rafters yourself, for simple roof systems. So, I did those calculations and presented them with a neat, clean, accurate set of structural calculations showing what my minimum rafter diameter must be given the snow load for my area. And, I gave them a well thought out set of plans detailing all aspects of the building. They accepted it no questions asked. In my case, it was really a no brainer, because the rafter span is only 7 feet and all I'm making is a small gable end structure. As well, because I am an experienced building inspector I knew what all the issues were that they might be concerned with and I knew how to address them all in the plans and structural calcs. If you show that you don't know what you are doing with your plans and calculations, that can make them very cautious and reluctant, and they might refuse it, even if the reality is that your jumbled mass of confused design material reflects a compliant design, if properly demonstrated. But if what you present makes a good case for your design, that would stand up in court, they will be far more likely to accept it. Incomprehensible or amateurish plans would be rejected in court, so they dont want to put their 'approved' stamp on such plans. If I were you, I'd research your design, come up with good plans, and ask for a pre-submittal meeting with them. Go in and make your case that you can design your building. But you better know what you are doing. Building timber frame involves a lot more than just simple calcs for small rafters. You have to show that your bracing meets the lateral force requirements (earthquake). I have no idea how to do that. If you can't do the engineering yourself, shop around for an engineer experienced in timber frame. It might cost you less than you think. You might be able to buy a set of plans for a small timber frame structure that is pre-engineered, in which case a local engineer might be willing to stamp it after a quick review and a check from you.

bldginsp	# Posted: 18 Jan 2013 01:30pm Reply ljohnsaw- An engineer will cost you less if you do most of the drawing yourself. If you give a complete set of drawings to an engineer to review and stamp, he/she doesn't have to draw which is time consuming and expensive. I use an inexpensive and good cad program called 'CadStandard' which has what you need for simple plans. Thorough, well thought out plans inspire confidence (until someone looks at the details and finds out they're wrong).

bldginsp	# Posted: 18 Jan 2013 02:10pm Reply ljohnsaw- as far as grading of logs goes, the booklet mentioned above from the Int. Log Blders Ass. has log grading rules in it. Will your jurisdiction allow you to pick the logs? Mine did.

ljohnsaw Member	# Posted: 19 Jan 2013 12:42am Reply I am going to build a timber frame not a log cabin/frame. I have found reliable calculators for sizing (and reporting the stress measurements) on the timbers so I can finish my design and fully, neatly document it. I will cut down the required trees on my property and mill them (with a band mill) into the required timbers. I have a substantial snow load (303 PSF, 116 RSL because I'm going 12:12 pitch with metal). I don't have all the jargon yet but it looks like I will be needing to space the main (principal?) rafters (as part of the bents) at no more than 8' spacing with large purlins between. I fully understand the effects of knots and their placement in structural members. I have sufficient large logs that knots/defects will be minimal to not an issue for the main structure. All the incidental (wall, roof and floor boards) are not structural and I don't anticipate any comments on those, again using local wood. Bldginsp, I do plan on either a preliminary meeting with the planning department (they are 90 min drive away) and/or finding an engineer that has experience with timber framing. Thanks for all your comments!

bldginsp	# Posted: 19 Jan 2013 09:41am Reply Good luck. Try to meet directly with the engineering plan checker in the building department. If you get him on your side he may help you provide the info he wants to see on the plans.

toyota_mdt_tech Member	# Posted: 19 Jan 2013 10:38am - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech Reply Quoting: bldginsp Good luck. Try to meet directly with the engineering plan checker in the building department. If you get him on your side he may help you provide the info he wants to see I always say to be polite, let them know you are wanting to do it safe and right (some people just work so hard to slide through a sub standard design) And oh yeah, bring a large box of nice fresh doughnuts for the planning dept members. (OK not sure on the doughnuts, it may make them suspicious. I had a wonderful experience in the county where I built mine, both planning dept, building dept and inspector. It was such a nice experience. I was worried it was going to be a dog fight after reading some horror stories. I think they enjoy getting out into the countryside instead of in town basic construction anyway. I did buy my plans on line, and they were designed for the toughest areas (HD to cover all regions/snow loads, wind etc) . I just made changes with whiteout, but not to any part of the structure that carried load of anykind, ie a moved a window, widened a door, located crawlspace acces inside (no outside) and used 2X6 walls instead of 2X4 (that was a requirement to get the proper wall insulation in place)