Wouldn't the setback situation be something which should be disclosed to any prospective buyers?
Please help me heat and cool my upgraded makeshift studio -- PROJECT CANCELLED
- Thread starter Mike Buckley
- Start date
Not at all. The setback regulations are publicly available information. I would be selling the house as is, which means all conditions that are not hidden by me apply to the sale of the house including the local regulations. It's not possible to hide publicly available information.
Moreover, if I sell the house five years from now, I wouldn't be aware of the setback regulations in force at the time because I'm not a professional expected to know those things. It's not as if I would be legally responsible to disclose that I knew of the setback regulations five years ago but that I have no idea what they are at the time of the sale.
Similarly, I don't have a responsibility to tell anyone buying the house that wants to drive down the street at 40 MPH that the speed limit is only 25 MPH. Even though there are no signs indicating the speed limit, the speed limit is publicly available information. If I don't tell a prospective buyer about the speed limit, I'm not hiding it because that information is publicly available.
Last edited:
In all jurisdictions the homeowner can do the work without a permit but I seriously doubt they can do it legally. Indeed, a lot of work gets done that way because it's easier, cheaper and perhaps because the homeowner doesn't take the time to determine if a permit is required for the project being done. A contractor is at risk of losing its business license if it does work without a required permit so contractors will usually pull them.
The primary purpose of a permit is to help ensure that the structure is safe to people inside it and near it; the permitting process allows the jurisdiction to determine whether the project's design is compliant with all of the regulations that ensure that safety. The jurisdiction doesn't care who completes the project so long as it is designed and built in a manner that ensures safety. So, I seriously doubt that permits in most jurisdictions are required only for contractors.
The county I live in has a web page that very clearly explains when a permit is required and when it is not required. Whether or not a contractor is being used is not one of the criteria.
Last edited:
I wonder if you got the same email I just now received advertising a set of heated clothing. Gloves, gloves liners, shirt, jacket, pants and socks. "Only" USD $810.
Sounds good to me. Now you just need to track down the suits astronauts have with cooling water running down tubes inside the clothes.
Don't get me started on permits .... or really, inspectors.
What a crock as far as "ensuring safety."
But that's a topic for another thread.
What a crock as far as "ensuring safety."
But that's a topic for another thread.
That would require a permit and the permit wouldn't be approved because of the setback issue.
When we bought the home we currently live in we had a home warranty.
The hot water tank went out.
This was my first initiation to permits.
The homeowner warranty would cover the cost of the hot water tank but I was responsible for the installation by a licensed plumber.
A permit was needed by the licensed plumber.
By the time I paid for the plumber and the permit I could have had a very qualified handy man buy and install it for less money.
BTW, the city never came out once to verify the work was done to code. And in fact it wasn't.
About seven years later that tank went out. This time I used a qualified handyman. When the previous plumber ran the emergency drain line that goes to outside of the house he used a copper flex pipe from the tank to the inside of my garage wall. The handyman informed me that was not to code and used solid copper soldered pipe to make the connection. Go figure.
The hot water tank went out.
This was my first initiation to permits.
The homeowner warranty would cover the cost of the hot water tank but I was responsible for the installation by a licensed plumber.
A permit was needed by the licensed plumber.
By the time I paid for the plumber and the permit I could have had a very qualified handy man buy and install it for less money.
BTW, the city never came out once to verify the work was done to code. And in fact it wasn't.
About seven years later that tank went out. This time I used a qualified handyman. When the previous plumber ran the emergency drain line that goes to outside of the house he used a copper flex pipe from the tank to the inside of my garage wall. The handyman informed me that was not to code and used solid copper soldered pipe to make the connection. Go figure.
Inspectors never come to inspect installation of appliances in our area. If they did, the cost of the permit would probably be higher to help pay for the cost of the inspection.
When my boiler broke down a couple years ago, the repairman told me that the unit hadn't been installed according to code. I sure did enjoy telling him that it was his company that installed it.
On the other hand, when I had my addition built in 1993, the inspector caught a mistake that the rafters in the roof were the wrong kind of wood. The contractor admitted to me that the inspector was right, that the wood was either ordered incorrectly or delivered incorrectly. Rather than go to the expense of taking out the old rafters, he added a second set of rafters, so the supports of my roof in that area of the house are unbelievably strong.
That permit was $250.
To me that warrants at least one inspection.
I agree. In my county, the permit fee for a hot water tank regardless of how it's powered is only $60.
When we re-roofed some 15 years ago, the permit was $40, and the inspector came out twice. Replacing all the windows, same deal. Both were done by licensed contractors. New water heater, no fee. Bathroom remodel 2 years ago, $60, 3 visits (plumbing, electric, and ventilation). When we did our own attic and basement insulation in the early 1990s, (plus new sheetrock) no permit. The county has no say, it's a city permit.
No permit is required in my county for that. Maybe I should figure out a way to do my tabletop photography on the roof.
Are you absolutely sure about this? I can see a problem if you were changing the footprint of the structure, but it's already there and grandfathered i.e. allowed even though it's non-compliant with current regulations.
An anecdote:
I realize that different locations have different rules and interpretations thereof, but a few years ago a friend of mine wanted to tear down his garage and build new. He could not get a permit for new construction for precisely the same reason—setbacks had been amended. He could however get permits to re-roof, rewire and install new siding. Basically he could do anything that did not change the footprint of the building.
Remodeling garages into fancy studios, offices, etc., is big business and an art unto itself.
If the authorities do their job in accordance with the regulations, I have every reason to believe the permit wouldn't be approved unless I first get the Board of Zoning Appeals to change my particular setback requirement. I would have to spend over $1000 to apply for the change and if they decide not to change it, I still lose the $1000. That $1000 would buy a lot of wine.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
The All-Inclusive Mirrorless Picture Thread - Part III- Latest: kilofoxtrott
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiCopyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
