Homeowner pays for County Error (Maryland)

[gto65goat]

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/vault/cgi-bin/gazette/view/2008G/03/26-27.HTM

Hello All,
Some of you have been following my story concerning the "Denial" of my garage structure that is presently under Appeal. The case was heard by the Appeal Panel on Feb 14th, and I should have the decision mailed to me by April 14th.

If you care to read the story that was printed yesterday on the Front Page of the local newspaper...please click onto the above.

Presently, I am 3'-8" taller then what I am suppose to be.
However, the plans were approved, and my contractor built to the approved plans. Eleven days AFTER completing 90% of the build, a Planning & Permits Inspector arrived on site, giving my contractor a stop work order for the structure being too tall. (3 neighbors have complained out of 19)

Perhaps if you get a chance to read the article...you may have some questions or comments.

I would welcome them.
Thanks for reading.

John

 

[348guy]

Can you give us the cliff notes version?

 

[Uncle Buck]

Can you give us the cliff notes version?

The article is short and to the point, if you don't have time to read it you probably do not have time for the cliff notes either!

(no offense intended, that was how it struck me though!)

 

[T56 Impala]

Sounds like an interesting case. I look forward to an upate. I hope for your sake they let the building stand. On the other hand, wouldn't it be possible to modify the plans and structure to conform to current standards without tearing it down? I understand that 3'+ is a lot of lost space.

I do think it is wrong for the county or any goverment office to deny you the building for a mistake that we pay them not to make. People make mistakes. Period. For you to absorb the cost is out of line. It sure seems like it would have saved them a black eye just to let it go.

 

[V-10 Killer]

How did the newspapers get ahold of it? I hope it doesn't bias the boards decisions against you now that the paper is putting them in the spotlight.

 

[Uncle Buck]

How did the newspapers get ahold of it? I hope it doesn't bias the boards decisions against you now that the paper is putting them in the spotlight.

I think if anything it would really turn up the heat on them. I cannot imagine this selling well in the public opinion court, can you?

 

[Junkman]

If you loose, then file suit against the person or persons that approved the permit, as well as the town itself. Then keep pushing forward until you case makes it to the State Supreme Court. My guess is that you will win in the end. I would also keep an eye out for any city buildings that might also be in violation of the law. Keep this information in your back pocket until it is timed best to release it. Nothing like seeing a town government squirm for violating one of its own ordinances.

 

[RichardNorman]

I've followed your story here on the forum. All I can say is that I wish you the best of luck with your situation. I can not imagine how much it must **** to see the 90% finished garage just sitting there.

 

[jay50]

I hope you have a daym mean lawyer ready to sue the $hit out of them if they don't rule in your favor.

 

[rodnok1]

I bet if they deny it to the end he could rip it down with his bare hands...
Sorry to hear about all the **** you've been dealing with and I really hope it works out, you did nothing wrong and are being punished for following the rules.

 

[cw_racefan]

Yeah, I saw that in the paper last night. Hopefully things will work out with your appeal. I love how the county says it's the builders fault for filing revised plans. Hmmm, shouldn't they have read them??? Good ole AA county for ya!! I won't repeat my soapbox rant I wrote when this all started!

Sounds like if nothing else, the proposed legislation may help protect others from them doing the same thing.

Keep us posted....

Craig

 

[HoosierBuddy]

Typical Government bureaucracy. If a citizen makes a mistake, well the citizen has to suffer. If the bureaucracy makes a mistake, well the citizen has to suffer. Where else in our civilization would the agrieved party have no recourse in the law?

The head of zoning that issues permits saying they only had to revoke 50 permits last year out of 40,000? BIG DEAL...if 50 errors were brought to their attention, the number of mistakes issued that were not brought to their attention is likely 10 or 100 times as high. In this instant case, the non-conformance would not have come to light except for the neighbor's complaints.

Then the whole "let's blame the builder, because he didn't tell us it would be taller when he made it larger." I guess they skipped that day in school where they discussed triangles. What a bunch of morons.

I see no way for the appeals board to fix this. If they side with the builder, they are infringing upon the rights of the neighbors to not have a non-conforming building built in their midst. If they side with the zoning board, they put the expense of the county's mistake on the homeowner. What a mess! I see no good coming from any of this.

Isn't there any way to fix the roof so it is conforming? A gambrel roof? Just grasping at straws here.

Phil

 

[MXtras]

Keep us up to date and I wish you the best. What a crock.

Scott

 

[Rickochet]

Just get the chain saw out and slice the top down to meet the requirements.... Pretty simple, huh?

I can not imagine having to go thru the pain and expense of building this project and then they tell you to demolish it.... Keep us posted on this!

Praying for you too! It helps--- REALLY!!!

 

[Junkman]

Put a 5 foot cupola on the top of the existing home. I wonder if that would work???

 

[Ign]

Good for you for arguing your case w the county, and continuing to do so.

I hate my cnty bldg dept, but like most citizens (I suspect) in the end I usually lie down rather than fight. On one hand you gotta pick your battles, OTOH it gets old feeling like the county knows they can push you around, even if they are in the wrong.

Kudos! I know it can't be easy.

 

[gto65goat]

Really appreciate all the replys.
Here is the latest:

Yesterday a Press Release was released by our County Executive here in Anne Arudel County, Maryland, Mr. John Leopold, as follows:


County Executive John R. Leopold Creates Task Force to Study Erroneous
Permit Approvals

Annapolis, MD (March 27, 2008)---County Executive John R. Leopold
announced today that he has signed an Executive Order, that, effective
tomorrow, will create a nine-person task force to study erroneous permit
approvals to reduce the inconvenience and expense to permit applicants
who proceed with construction activity based on wrongly-issued permits.

“I am frustrated that the current county law precludes me from
providing equity to citizens who incur expenses based on the
unintentional, but erroneous actions of the Department of Inspections
and Permits,” said County Executive Leopold. “The purpose of the
task force is to provide other legal remedies that would be helpful to
citizens in these instances.”

Currently citizens have the right to seek variances from the
Administrative Hearing Officer Steve LeGendre if they are unhappy with
an inspection or permit application decision, and can appeal to the
Board of Appeals if dissatisfied with the ruling of the Hearing
Officer.

According to Executive Order 27, the Task Force for the Study of
Erroneous Permit Approvals will serve as an advisory body to the County
Executive and will consist of nine individuals appointed by the County
Executive including the Director of the Inspection and Permits, who will
serve as the Chair of the Task Force, a representative of the Anne
Arundel County Chapter of the Homebuilders Association of Maryland, and
three citizen representatives.

Within 90 days of the issuance of the order, the Task Force will be
responsible for studying the problem of erroneously-issued permits and
the effects on applicants, recommending a means of reducing the adverse
impacts on applicants, and suggesting any legislative change that be
necessary in order to reduce inconvenience and expense to applicants.

###

I am very sceptical.
This could push my project back even further.
Here I am waiting on the Board of Appeals hearing decision April 14th, and I can only think its going to get worse for me.

Thanks for reading,
John

 

[tdkkart]

to reduce the inconvenience and expense to permit applicants who proceed with construction activity based on wrongly-issued permits.

“I am frustrated that the current county law precludes me from
providing equity to citizens who incur expenses based on the
unintentional, but erroneous actions of the Department of Inspections
and Permits,” said County Executive Leopold. “The purpose of the
task force is to provide other legal remedies that would be helpful to
citizens in these instances.”

It does at least sound as though this guy wants to help, without placing the burden on the homeowner.
Unfortunately what will happen is that the permitting process will take twice as long because twice as many people will have to look at each one.

 

[IHI]

As a contractor this is very hard to relate too i guess since we have a stand up zoning board, a few thiiick books regarding code for various zoning's etc...we pushed the envelope on a garage last year, he wanted big and tall, and our zoning states detached buildings cannot exceed 15' to the mid point of the roof...meaning draw a line horizontally from the bottom of the eave troughs and draw a line horizontally across the roof peak...the exact center between those two lines cannot exceed 15'...well we pushed it and got to exactly 15', same with square footage and such....there should be set rules on books in the planning and zoning department those guys can quick reference, but shold at least know most off the top of thier head from just doing their job daily.

THIS is the part i find interesting-Mr. Getz applied for a permit for a two-story residential garage in September 2006. The plans were revised last April to make the garage 25 feet wide by 28 feet wide.

Total cost of the work was $29,621, according to the county Web site.

Ms. Reynolds blamed the error in part on Mr. James. She said the builder submitted several different versions of the garage plans and neglected to tell the department that he'd revised the height of the structure.

now that is negligence on the builders behalf, the zoning department is no different than a computer....junk in-junk out...if they do not know all the details, which if using a competant builder the builder should've know what to tell them, but there should've been a spot on the request asking basic building sizes, width, length, heigth, where on lot, detacched/attached, etc...along with the site plan. I find it hard to believe after reading about builder submitting multiple rendorings and weather the guy brain farted or thought it not relevant, did'nt mention the height or ask questions....to me based on my experience, ALL the blame lies on teh builder period!!! It's up to us to lay all the nitty gritty details on the table if there's any question..just how it is, so that's what makes me wonder if this builder is a hack/new/or just plain dumb since this should not have even been an issue from the get go...the county issued based on the info they recieved from the builder.

Think of it this way, HO want a 24x24 garage, so that's what i tell zoning, they approve it sicne it falls under the 30% land coverage rule, they give the okay, i get the permit and go at it...well before we start HO now wants a 28x30, and i just say, okay and do it...then neighbors complain-which they ALL do no matter what since i guess everybody is bored and likes sticking their nose into other's business-but inspector comes out, notes the size, calls zoning and they tell him the garage exceeds the allowable sqft based on the 30% land coverage rule...so now inspector red tags and stop orders the project until it's made smaller to original size....now tell me, is the zoning department responsible for this oversight-HECK NO, is the homeowner responsible for this....well fellas, ultimately yes since it's your property..if you have a hack contractor, they'll walk and leave you to deal with it, and then you will have to track'em down and sue, but in the mean time, the problem is your baby...but ultimately the contractors fault for not having his head out of his **** and knowing the rules.

I fail to see the problem here, and i fail to see why the contractor himself is not held liable since county was given X info and then Y type of work was performed

 

[john56h]

Article makes it sound as though you'll have to tear down 100% of what was built. Isn't it a height issue? Can't the building be altered to comply with the height restriction?

I know it still *****....but the newspaper kind of "sensationalizes" when they report that the whole building will need to be torn down.

I still say, keep good documentation of all efforts required to get the building into compliance. Offer to have the inspectors on-site to witness and verify that effort and then submit a claim when you are finished. If the claim cannot be processed through the permitting agency's insurance...then file a law suit.

Good luck!

 

[mtwaterguy]

IHI is way off base on this. Since when do you just tell the zoning dept what you're doing. Nothing legal is done verbally. As long as the builder submitted the new plans, he's done his job. If when he submits a plan for a 40x60 shop, he is asked what size he's planning on building and he says "oh just a small 20x20" and without reading the plans the zoning officer signs off on it, that's not the builders mistake. Only written documents are legal. A builder with one project should know this process. The zoning dept clearly errored in this matter.

 

[elvee]

Actually IHI, the problem is that the county issued the permit with all the revised sizes. If AA county is like my area, there is no master form that calls out the dimensions, the builder simply says what he is building (garage), square feet, and shows them lot placement on plat and building plans. It is up to the permit department to actually look at the drawings, as there are often other items which must be looked at for approval - perhaps fire walls, tie in of floor drains, etc.

Also, most area's building codes aren't that clear cut. In my case, Dekalb county GA allows detached buildings to be 20 feet tall OR match the height of the existing structure. But, building height is measured differently for primary buildings versus secondary buildings.

So, in short, the builder may be completely in the right, as is the homeowner. The permit departments are supposed to give thumbs up or thumbs down on the plan, and they are the ones who are supposed to know the rules, not the other way around.

 

[gto65goat]

Johnson,
You are correct. It is a height issue.
The building, if the Appeal goes against me, will have to be torn down 3'-8" from the peak height that it presently is.


IHI
You made some good observations, but to clarify:

I designed the Garage using Auto Cad...so who better to request a Permit?
I, not the builder applied for the permit. Was approved very same day.
I, not the builder revised the plans to change the footprint. Was approved very same day.
I, not the builder revised plans a last time to increase the height of the structure by 4 feet, and adding conventional stairs versus "pull-down." I explained in detail, and it took 8 days before the plans were approved.

You note Ms Reynolds quote, about Mr. James submitting revised versions without explanation. Like I mentioned earlier...I was the one to make the parmit application, and the two revised plans.

As you well know, whenever you make a design change, the owner or builder is required to provide full documentation of what is changing to the Planning & Permit folks. I did this with full explanation everytime I made an appearance at Planning & Permits...no matter if for Initial Permit, or the (2) revised changes to the plans. I paid all fees accordingly to do so.

One more note: Had I had the Contractor apply for the Permit...he would be liable to take down 3'-8" of garage height, at his expense. As it is right now, I will be the one responsible for costs associated if the Appeal does not go my way.

Appreciate your cooments.
John

 

[bluesman2a]

As you well know, whenever you make a design change, the owner or builder is required to provide full documentation of what is changing to the Planning & Permit folks. I did this with full explanation everytime I made an appearance at Planning & Permits...no matter if for Initial Permit, or the (2) revised changes to the plans. I paid all fees accordingly to do so.

I think THIS says it all. You submitted the plans. You PAID the fees for the changes, by taking your money, the state/county agency entered into a contract with you. It behooves them to do their job for the compensation rendered. They have failed in their portion of that contract.

 

[tdkkart]

I, not the builder revised plans a last time to increase the height of the structure by 4 feet, and adding conventional stairs versus "pull-down." I explained in detail, and it took 8 days before the plans were approved.

If the finished heighth of the building was clearly documented on the plans you submitted it's their problem if they didn't catch it.
If all you submitted was building width and roof pitch they might be able to claim they made a math error, but even that would be a lame excuse in front of a court.

Did you ever(pre-construction) apply for a variance to the code, or did you simply draw a plan that was against the code and submit it??

 

[gto65goat]

tdkkart -
I originally appied for the permit in September of 2006...way before any construction took place. The footers were dug, June 2007 after my first design change of increasing the footprint...which of course was approved by the Planning & Permit folks

When we were notified to "stop work" because a neighbor complained of the structure being too tall...I HAD to file for a Variance per Planning & Permits...in order to continue on with the project.

That Variance was DENIED, which led me to the Court of Appeals...which is where I am today...waiting for their decision from a Feb 14th hearing (due April 14th.).

All dimensional changes were clearly documented, and explained thuroughly...I remember notes being taken down during the explanation by the reviewer. Questions were asked about the conventional stairs that I wanted to add, and was that the reason for height change. "Yes" was my reply, and I even pointed to the dimension showing the difference in height.

John

 

[Dustoff 35]

I agree with what bluesman2a said. A set of prints with an approval stamp from building & zoning and a paid for & issued permit should be considered a contract. I've never seen a set of (approved) prints that didn't clearly indicate the height of the structure.

If there is a local requirement/code for outbuildings to not exceed a certain height, wouldn't you think that it is the responsibility of the local building & zoning to catch that before the permit is issued?

 

[rsanter]

well, lets see
you drew the plans. I assume you are not an arcitect and do not know the codes back and forth.
it is my understanding that a homeowner is allowed to do that and as I know autocad and some basics of construction I would likly do the same.
the person who draws the plans are responsable to do them in such a way that they are legal and safe.

now is the point everything hinges on...
it is my understanding that it is the county plans people that are to VERIFY that your plans are in compliance with the code and have the proper details included so that a builder can build the structure to code.
accept and permit if the plans meet the code...
rejects if the plans do not meet the code or do not have enough detail to determine if it will meet the code.

just seems to me that is we were talking about something that was a construction detail not included in the plans or something that was done wrong, then the builder/owner is on the hook to correct it.
when it comes to something like footprint or height then its the countys fault for not properly reviewing the plans. if they say that the plans lacked the details to determine it that they should not have approved it....

seems simple untill you insert the word 'goverment' into the equation

bob

 

[Hatman52]

Hi John:

Sorry to hear about your issues. I do a lot of my own work, and in the past decade have pulled permits in two different cities for two garages, a house addition/kitchen remodel, an electric service upgrade to my house, a new electric service/drop to a garage, an outbuilding (shed), and a fence, among others that I've probably forgotten. Thankfully, all went very smoothly, and in each instance I found the building officials and the inspectors to be professional, courteous, and in some cases extremely helpful. I know that's not everyone's experience, but only the horror stories tend to get shared, so I thought I'd throw some positive experiences out there.

I also sit on an architectural review commission for the historic district in our town, which is the downtown retail/residential area, so I get to see some of these things "from the other side" as well.

A few questions come up as I've read through your thread:

1) Were your plans required to have an engineer or architect's stamp/signature? I can't imagine any municipality that would allow a building larger than a shed to be built without one, but I don't see that mentioned anywhere in your posts.

2) Are you listed on the permit as the general contractor? The permits I'm familiar with require a general contractor or an architect pull the permit for new buildings. Most municipalities require the GC be registered in their muncipality as well. Does your area not have these requirements?

3) You mentioned you submitted the original plans, then two revisions. In the areas with which I'm familiar, you must clearly call out any and all revisions when you submit them. It's noted that if you do not call out any and all revisions, the approval is void. It's much like redlining a contract -- the idea is you only have to focus on what is clearly marked as changed or altered, and not have to review the entire contract (or in this case, plans) again. Was that done in this instance? Was the change to the height on the structure clearly noted?

4) Not to be too direct about it, but as you're acting as architect and general contractor with this project, I assume you were familiar with what would be very basic zoning code such as height, size, etc. How did you unknowingly make revisions that resulted in the building height now exceeding code by nearly four feet?

5) You mentioned three of the neighbors complained. Are they your closest neighbors? Have you discussed this with them? Does the increased height cause problems for them as far as blocking a view, sunlight, etc.? Is there any way you could satisfy their issues without lowering the height? Not having the three neighbors registering a complaint would help tremedously in recieving a variance.

6) Have you enlisted the services of a good zoning attorney? At this point, I think it would be money well spent.

 

[IHI]

Well said Matt.

I cant believe the municiple allowed the HO to pull a HO permit and then "sub" it out....that is seriously against the law here locally, and they will shut a job down yesterday soon as they catch wind of it...HO permit means HO does the work, not hire somebody else....it's all about not listing accurate job value, and bucking the system...but that's their deal not mine.

Either way, good luck i guess, but i sont see a good outcome for you, and not to be a hard azz, based on seeing this happen before it does'nt suprise me either, HO's with day jobs trying to act like GC's...i run the other way, it never works and the jobs are always plauged with problems...just how it is...think they're saving a buck, and costing themselves more...point in case.

 

[russlaferrera]

My take on this. You need a permit to do most anything. Should the Municipality make a bad call, it is the responsibility of the homeowner (or builder) to correct the problem. If you do not wish to comply, you may appeal their decision.

If you win the appeal, your good to go. If you loose, end of story. Want to go to court? Why? Their a Municipality (EMINENT DOMAIN) can't. So you are SKRUED .

 

[6768rogues]

I have been a builder and a code enforcer. The code enforcer has the authority to ask for any additional information necessary to make sure the submittal complies with codes. Either you gave them the information and they ignored it, or you did not give it to them and they were negligent for not asking for it.
As the laws are in our area, they are right and you are still at fault. Even with a permit issued in error it is still the permit applicant's responsibility to ensure code compliance. A design professional can be held responsible for such an error by our state professional standards office, but you were your own designer. That is why design professionals carry errors and omissions insurance, kind of like malpractice insurance for doctors.
That said, their error cost you money. You can sue to try to recover that money. I don't know if you would be successful. If there are precedents, you might win, but without some the court might not want to set one.
As for eminent domain, that gives a municipality the constitutional right to seize (with equitable payment) private land for the public good, like building a school or a road. It has nothing to do with this situation.
I hope it works out for you. If it were me, I would be redesigning to minimize cost and gain compliance.

 

[john56h]

I work in New York State as a Code Enforcement Officer and Town Building Inspector. I'm kind of new to the business, but New York has a pretty comprehensive training program that educates us building officials fairly well. A lot of time in the training is focussed on the legal and administration aspects of the job. Of course each state is a bit different, but most are now adopting very similar versions of the International Code.

In New York, homeowners are allowed to submit drawings prepared by themselves if the estimated cost of construction does not exceed $20,000. If the project cost is above that, a "design professional" is required. A licensed architect or professional engineer must design and stamp the drawings. When a project is professionally designed, there is an expectation that the professional is familiar with the codes and has created a design in conformance.

It is the Building Department officials' job to "review" the plans...not design them. The review process should be as complete as possible, but the action of approving the plans really just means that the officials' review has made the reviewer comfortable that the plans are "subsatantially in compliance". What that means is that what was checked and verified has actually proven to be in compliance. Rarely are all details of a design checked...but if some that are checked are found to not comply, then a red flag goes up and a much more in depth review usually results.

Also during construction....the inspector is expected to make "spot inspections" that satisfy him that the building is constructed in "substantial conformity" with the approved plans and the codes. Again, rarely are all details of construction 100% checked. When checking framing that is supposed to be 16" on center, a few random spots are checked and if they are checking out okay the inspector is usually satisfied....but if he finds a few of the spots are 18" or 20" instead of 16", then he's probably going to check the measurements at all locations.

The final acceptance of the construction and the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and/or Compliance doesn't necessarily mean that the building is in complete conformance with the codes. Instead, it means that the review of the design and the inspection of the construction has satisfied the officials enough that they have confidence that the building is in "substantial compliance".

Any oversight by the officials...or failure to recognize a mistake, omission or error is not an automatic statement of condoning such conditions. Just because something was missed does not mean that it is not in violation of the code. If it comes to the attention of the Building Officials at a later date it may need to be rectified. As long as the officials are ignorant of the existence of the violation, they are not obligated to require it to be corrected.

Again, this is relative to New York State and it is my interpretation of information presented to me by State agencies charged with the training and certification of Code Enforcement Officers.

 

[jay50]

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/vault/cgi-bin/gazette/view/2008G/03/26-27.HTM

Hello All,
Some of you have been following my story concerning the "Denial" of my garage structure that is presently under Appeal. The case was heard by the Appeal Panel on Feb 14th, and I should have the decision mailed to me by April 14th.

If you care to read the story that was printed yesterday on the Front Page of the local newspaper...please click onto the above.

Presently, I am 3'-8" taller then what I am suppose to be.
However, the plans were approved, and my contractor built to the approved plans. Eleven days AFTER completing 90% of the build, a Planning & Permits Inspector arrived on site, giving my contractor a stop work order for the structure being too tall. (3 neighbors have complained out of 19)

Perhaps if you get a chance to read the article...you may have some questions or comments.

I would welcome them.
Thanks for reading.

John

John,
May I also suggest you contact a local TV station about this so they can do a report. Most stations have a reporter and part of their broadcast where they look into matters where people get screwed and ask the tough questions. It would be great to see a reporter go to the code bastards and show a mic into their face and put them on the spot. Gun1:

 

[Kevin54]

The main problem with ANY agency is that there are too many people getting involved but do not correspond with their coworkers. You have a secretary behind a desk that will make a decision, or tell you to leave it and she will give it to someone else to handle. By the time the head person gets back to work he has a plate full in front of him and starts signing stuff off without really LOOKING into anything. I think it is called laziness. So he takes an hour, signs off 50 things and now has some asswipe running around to see if everything he signed is being done right. And that guy probably has a pretty full plate too. Oops!!! Now we have a mistake on our hands so let the finger pointing begin. And to bail their asses, put all the blame on the homeowner for not knowing better. Money is not the issue and they don't give a rats *** as to how much an individual has spent or what they have done. They can just sit back and blame someone else. Bottom line...they should be held totally responsible for NOT doing their job in the first place. How in the hell is a homeowner supposed to know the law when they have never been subjected to anything remotely close to what the dealings are with building inspectors etc, If a homeowner is SUPPOSED to know the law, and a homeowner is SUPPOSED to be responsible for for knowing all the building codes, and a homeowner is now SUPPOSED to be held accountable...then they had better start teaching this **** in high school. Based on what we have around here it is pathetic as to what gets approved and what happens afterward. I have a guy doing some drywall work for me now. He was telling my wife about the other job he is on in a housing development just over from us. The wife and I has been thru most of these houses when they are being built. Totally appaling. One we went in to had a 1x6" for a ridge beam. Some has finger jointed 2x4 studs. For those that don't know what a finger jointed stud is, the next time you are in Lowes, Home Depot, look at some of the preprimed trim as to how it is put together. The pieces are a couple of feet long with fingers that interlock, glued together, then milled as one piece. You will get the argument that this is stronger because you have more surface area holding the piece of wood together. Yea, thats fine for furniture but imagine every stud in the house put together out of 1-2 foot scraps, fingerjointed. And this stuff passes by the building inspector. Anyways, this house he is working in now, people bought it from out of town, like the house but wanted to open up a wall for more light. Most every house in that development has trusses with the outside wall being the load bearing walls. all except a handful that the lots were sold off and another developer built on. These are the one with the 1x6 rige beams, jointed studs, etc. The wall they thought was just a wall turned out to be an interior load bearing wall. NOW they have to get a permit, structural engineer, jump thru hoops, kiss some ***, blah, blah, blah. Come to find out the walls aren't built right, so what turned into a one week project has turned into a 4 month nightmare at cost well exceeding what they ever expected. But the guy that will inspect it and finally sign off on it, is the same guy that initially inspected it and signed off on it in the first place. Go figure!!!

Goat....I'm rootin' for ya man!!!
I hope that you take them to their knees. But if per chance that it does not go in your favor, at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that you were the key figure in getting some bureaucratic ******** changed so that others in the future will not have to go through what you have went through this past year

 

[67 455 Bird ragtop]

Well said Matt.

I cant believe the municiple allowed the HO to pull a HO permit and then "sub" it out....that is seriously against the law here locally, and they will shut a job down yesterday soon as they catch wind of it...HO permit means HO does the work, not hire somebody else....it's all about not listing accurate job value, and bucking the system...but that's their deal not mine.

Actually this is very common place where I live. In fact this is how my garage is being built at this very moment. I am listed on the permit as owner builder. I had plans drawn up and engineered by a local firm. The permit does require that some subs, mason, plumbing, electrical fill out a sub contactor form to be filed with my permits. Actually I ran all my electrical under the supervision of a local electrical company. I had a friend who works there check my work and give advice several times before the county inspected it.

This type of thing is the norm in my area. Saves me a ton of $$ by doing much of the work myself and at my own pace.

 

[john56h]

You have to remember that the home owners who choose to try to save money by designing and drawing their own plans...rather than hireing an architect/engineer...are assuming a lot of risk. The professional designers are trained and certified in the type of work that they produce, plus they are held accountable for mistakes, errors, omissions, etc... When an applicant decides to by-pass the professional design people, he should not expect that the Permit officials are going to "design" the project for him. The purpose of plan review is just that. Reveiw, not re-design.

I'm not saying that I don't feel for John, or anybody else in a similar situation, because I do. But it also isn't fair to classify all Building/Permit Officials as bumbling idiots. There is a lot more to it than most people would ever realize. It is easy to say in hindsight, "why didn't he check this or verify that?" But, the picture becomes very clear when all of the criticism is focussed on the one element that was missed. Sometimes identifying that one element before hand is like finding a needle in a haystack. In this case, the height sure sounds like something that could have and should have been checked easily at every step of the process.

And as far as the comments about the code "bastards" and "asswipes"...I personally take offense because I have met plenty of guys employed in the business that are very consciensous and quite professional. And it is not true that code/permit enforcers don't care about the costs to the applicant. I can say that the costs of any decision I make are always considered seriously before I order any work. Cost is usually the second thing I consider, with safety being number one.

All that being said, mistakes do happen. Lapses of good judgement do happen. Things come up that were never anticipated...etc...and of course nobody likes to look foolish or incompetent. That is when the finger pointing begins. The Permit people of course don't want to take blame (they usually have a Town Attorney advising them how to respond to criticism in order to minimize liability as well as not set any bad precedents), nor do the contractors, builders, homeowners, etc....

Bottom line is there is a cost involved (fact) and there was a mistake made (fact), so it would be reasonable to make a realistic claim for restitution. Either it will be paid, or it will be fought. Often it is less expensive for a claim to be settled than it is to fight it, because legal fees add up very quickly. It is pretty likely that if the claim is for a reasonable amount, the attorneys would advise the Town/County/Whatever to just pay the claim and avoid the legal expenses of fighting it....especially if the insurance company will cover a good portion of it.

 

[CharlieBrown]

man

it's nice to be outta city limits..in a rural state

my 36x44..aint ask anybody permission for nothing

 

[carguy123]

You have to remember that the home owners who choose to try to save money by designing and drawing their own plans...rather than hireing an architect/engineer...are assuming a lot of risk. The professional designers are trained and certified in the type of work that they produce, plus they are held accountable for mistakes, errors, omissions, etc... When an applicant decides to by-pass the professional design people, he should not expect that the Permit officials are going to "design" the project for him. The purpose of plan review is just that. Reveiw, not re-design.

And this is the step that I have so many problems with. I end up being the one that has to correct the professionals every time.

I've found that Professional doesn't mean they know more or take extra pains, it only means they work in the field.

The last 3 homes I built had major problems with the architect screwing up. All 3 had the same type of screw ups and yet they were done by 3 different architects. It's like they teach this in their school.

I have since bought the software to do it myself.

 

[Worsedog]

My two cents..........I realize the the permitting departments have a lot to do and look at when approving plans, and that they are not a design service. HOWEVER, basic dimensions are not the minute details. Its not like they missed the placement of an outlet or other fixture box. This issue is the heigth of the structure. From reading the details all the permitting steps were followed without deception.

There are only two "proper" solutions. The county pays for the extra cost to bring the building into compliance or the grant the exemption.

I have never had any issues with my building department other than the lenght of time for permitting, but so far I haven't heard of them stopping work on a permitted structure because of their errors.