# Attention builders!!



## jpollman (Jan 14, 2001)

I'm so PO'd right now that I can hardly stand it.

Some of you know the garbage that I've been dealing with lately trying to pull a permit to build a deck for a client. The darn city is really jerking me around big time. First off, it took me four weeks to get a $610.00 building permit. After getting the permit last Thursday it appeared that my luck was changing. After picking up the permit, I called my supplier and placed the order at about 11:30 a.m. He told me that everything was in stock and he could deliver it on Friday. This was good news. I spent most of the day Saturday moving just shy of seven thousand pounds of material from the front yard to the back. I was exhausted.

I figured that by this afternoon I would be able to have the ledger mounted and the holes dug so that I could call for inspection tomorrow and start construction on Wed. To make a long story short, I had a couple issues with mounting the ledger so I took a few pictures of the problem area and went to city hall to meet with the inspector. I wanted to see how he wanted me to handle it so that I could avoid a re-inspection fee. I walked up to the counter and the inspector came out and I asked the question. *I was promptly told that I could NOT attach a ledger to a brick veneered house! *I said "WHAT?". He said that they just recently had a meeting about this and that they were no longer allowing you to attach a ledger to a brick veneer even if you through bolt it! 

Now I've got to build a second beam which adds at least $350 to the cost of the job. And that's just materials, not to mention a lot more labor. This even though my drawing CLEARLY showed a brick veneer stated that the ledger would be through bolted to the bond. :rant::rant::rant:

This has been the most difficult permit process that I've EVER had to deal with! I hope none of you ever have to deal with the Rochester Hills building department.

John


----------



## Greenbush future (Sep 8, 2005)

John,

What's behind the brick?
Remove it (brick) and bolt to that. 
I always dis-liked the city and any of the folks in that dept. this sounds just silly, but I'm sure you will figure it out.


----------



## Big Reds (Oct 14, 2007)

Wait, wait, wait!

Let me get this straight..... you paid $610.00 for a building permit?! To build a DECK!
This cannot be so, must be some typo or something right?

You clearly stated and showed that the ledger WAS going to be attached through the brick? Sounds like SOMEONE was asleep at their desk! 

Dude, sorry John. Hope you stocked up on high blood pressure pills.


----------



## Illgodownintheswamp (Dec 8, 2008)

around here, if you dont attach it to the house, you dont need a permit. So run your skirt board an inch away from the house, mount it to post in the ground and tell them to stick the $610 in their ........


----------



## Sasquatch Lives (May 23, 2011)

Over $600 just for the permit? That's outrageous, not to mention the delays and jerking you around. Those guys suck. Too bad they don't have to make a living in the private sector.


----------



## jpollman (Jan 14, 2001)

Reds,
you read that right. The total cost to get the permit was $610.00! That includes a $225 bond though so the net cost of the permit will end up being $385. Which is still outrageous IMO. 

It's a wood frame house with a brick veneer. Just like mine and this is exactly the way I did mine right next door. But that was about eleven years ago. They apparently changed the code in the 2009 code. The inspector said that you're not going to find anywhere in it that states this fact. He says that it's basically buried in all of the footnotes and such.

What ticks me off is that it was clearly stated on my plans that were submitted. It showed the brick veneer and it stated that the ledger would be bolted through the bond with 1/2" galvanized bolts. Somebody clearly fell asleep at their desk some time during the four weeks that it took them to review my plan. :rant:

John


----------



## PLUMMER47 (Dec 9, 2006)

See what happens when you don't have nice clear engineered plans. Now your left with no choice, with stamped plans you'd have some backbone to either get a variance or force them to approve what they already approved. Then again an engineered plan might have caught this. I guess thats why they're implementing those code update classes for building. They needed to. Can't believe the inspector didn't have any suggestions for you. They are usually very helpful with ideas to resolve these issues. Sorry to hear about your woes.....Good Luck


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

Did you get the deck plans cleared with the HOA?

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## Magnet (Mar 2, 2001)

This is exactly why more and more people are avoiding the system and doing things on the sly. Especially the do-it-yourselfer. It's a bunch of bull crap.


----------



## jpollman (Jan 14, 2001)

radiohead said:


> Did you get the deck plans cleared with the HOA?
> 
> _OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


NOPE!!! :evil:

This is a replacement deck so I'm not going to worry about it. Besides, I'm pretty sure that they're only concerned with outbuildings and such.

John


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

John I beleive it is against code to attach the ledger board through the brick if it's above the mud sill. I know there are disclaimers but it sure seems that if they are goig to review plans for compliance that they would actualy do so. The reason you arent allowed to attach over the brick veneer is its real hard to do a permanent job of flashing without removing the brick for a couple of courses up.


----------



## Rumajz (Dec 29, 2005)

Somebody needs to get rid of that idiot behind that particular desk fast.


----------



## Big Reds (Oct 14, 2007)

You in fact do have an approved building permit that is signed and approved by the building inspector right?

Sounds like to me that is all you need. If your documentation (description of brick home) is like you stated... it is on him, not you.

Just sayin.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

I find the whole building permit thing to be crazy. In Wayne, you need a permit to lay a little concrete when fixing a sidewalk out your back door, but in Oak Park, you do not need one to pour a driveway of patio. In Dearborn, they eliminated the permit when shingling a new roof, but Wayne and Oak Park require it.


----------



## bigcountrysg (Oct 9, 2006)

It is all down to the fact that the Government wants money.


----------



## jakeo (Sep 14, 2004)

John......if you have plans that were submitted and then approved......you should go over this guys head and call for a State inspector to review.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

jakeo said:


> John......if you have plans that were submitted and then approved......you should go over this guys head and call for a State inspector to review.


 In a review a state inspector would determine if Johns proposal met current code, it obviously does not. The fact that the reviewer missed something does not absolve the contractor from responsibilty. Brick veener is laid with a air gap between the framing and the brick. The brick is not good at resisting the side loads that would be placed on it by the anchor bolts. Brick and mortor does not flex well and the vibrational forces from the deck trafic could also cause damage.


----------



## jakeo (Sep 14, 2004)

plugger said:


> In a review a state inspector would determine if Johns proposal met current code, it obviously does not. The fact that the reviewer missed something does not absolve the contractor from responsibilty. Brick veener is laid with a air gap between the framing and the brick. The brick is not good at resisting the side loads that would be placed on it by the anchor bolts. Brick and mortor does not flex well and the vibrational forces from the deck trafic could also cause damage.


Ok.....TYVM

I agree with the situation now.


----------



## Jimw (Jul 8, 2009)

I didn't think you could attach a ledger to a veneer, its not structural..
_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## Jekart (Apr 27, 2006)

Illgodownintheswamp said:


> around here, if you dont attach it to the house, you dont need a permit. So run your skirt board an inch away from the house, mount it to post in the ground and tell them to stick the $610 in their ........


This is a common mis-conception. This is habitable area and is accessible from the principle building so it is subject to MRC 2009 R105.1 _Permits Required_ , see R105.2 _Work exempt from permits_ if you dont believe me J



jpollman said:


> They apparently changed the code in the 2009 code. The inspector said that you're not going to find anywhere in it that states this fact. He says that it's basically buried in all of the footnotes and such. John


Request a copy of the code section. He had a meeting about it so clearly he should be able to locate it for you. That is what $610 is paying for. By the way $610.00 is steep. If you want, pm me the project cost and I will calculate what the fee would be for my area as well as the state for you based on those fee schedules.



Big Reds said:


> You in fact do have an approved building permit that is signed and approved by the building inspector right?





Big Reds said:


> Sounds like to me that is all you need. If your documentation (description of brick home) is like you stated... it is on him, not you. Just sayin.


Sounds good but isn't so. A violation is a violation regardless of who mistake it was. Just the way it is. MRC 2009 R104.5 Validity of Permit



jakeo said:


> John......if you have plans that were submitted and then approved......you should go over this guys head and call for a State inspector to review.


Won't do anything but waste time. The above code section takes into account oversight during plan review. Field corrections occur, it is just part of the business.


----------



## PLUMMER47 (Dec 9, 2006)

I am surprised he's not more familiar with the code like others have pointed out here. I know its difficult to remember everything. And alot of code sections actually contradict others directly. I know in Madison Hieghts if it ain't stamped they are not looking at it. Alot of this code compliance is to keep the trunk slammers where they belong. Inspectors are necessary to the value of a community. Remember when the macomb inspectors would just hand you your green tag , well look at the condition and quality of some of those builders and the homes they did.......You wont find that in strict communities. I have always had good luck getting things approved and finding easy solutions when you communicate good with your inspector. Bad attitudes don't get you far, and they start laughing as soon as you walk out. Experience and knowledge prevent alot of problems. I think a good talk with the inspector on the job and seeing that you have the best intentions will work out for you.


----------



## jpollman (Jan 14, 2001)

This is the first I've been online today. Busted my butt all day in the 90 degree plus heat and no shade mounting the ledger and digging the post holes and I'm exhausted. I'll try to reply to several at once.

Yes I do have an approved permit. Obviously the reviewer missed the brick veneer on the plan. The inspector that pointed it out said that it is a recent change. The deck I built on my bricked house is built this way. Ledger is bolted through the brick, then the bond, with a 1/2" galvanized carriage bolt, washer, and nut. This the way it was done for a long time. It's technically NOT attached to the brick veneer. The bolt puts the load on the back side of the rim joist in the house and not the brick. I don't see why it would be a problem but apparently someone has decided that it's not safe so they changed it. In fact, the "Wood Deck Construction Guide Book" that Rochester Hills publishes STILL shows that the through bolt is the way to go. That's what I went by. They better change it!

I'm not going to fight with him about it. I'm just going to put in the second beam and be done with it. I did do my continuing education requirement for my license renewal, but there's NO WAY that they can cover EVERY code change. I don't feel that I'm a lousy builder because I wasn't aware of this change. There isn't a single builder in this entire state that knows and can recite EVERY change that comes through when it happens. The mistake was missed in plan review and approval and was caught later. It's a pain but I'll deal with it.

I just put in a twelve hour day and I'm exhausted. It's time for a cool shower and something to eat. 

John


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Good to hear you have moved on. We have all had issues. I think the code update classes are a good thing. Keeping an open line with your inspector is the best way to go. I always tried to clarify any possible issue at rough-in vs the final.


----------



## Rumajz (Dec 29, 2005)

Deck collapses cause more injuries and deaths in the country than all other construction failures in residential construction combined. Dozens were killed and hundreds seriously injured during last 20 years. 
So, the changes are good IMO and attention from the local inspectors and reviewers needed. 
BUT the guy took weeks to review the plans and John payed more than enough money to get a "quality product" without mistakes. It's not like the guy had to review and study a 5,000 SF, atypical, 3 story building blueprint with a helipad and an underground bunker. 
AND, coincidentally, ledger attachment failure is THE leading cause of deck collapses so that should have been one of the first things he should have looked into. 
The inspector must have had more important things to do than review well prepared drawings.
So sorry John you have to deal with crap like this, this type of BS always gets me fired up.


----------



## Big Reds (Oct 14, 2007)

It would have been more easily accepted if it was caught early on. That way John could of had an opportunity to explain this to the homeowner and submit a change order to cover the additional costs.
Should have been noticed very early on.

John.... you weren't the only one out in the heat! lol Last two days out in this and drank TONS of water!

BTW, I'm going down to Alabama tomorrow. Temps in the low to mid 90's every day.:SHOCKED:


----------



## highcaliberconsecrator (Oct 16, 2009)

I have run into this before. Luckily for me, the inspector notified me of the change. I am going to have to check, but I am pretty sure that it was his interpretation that if support posts were to be installed that close to the foundation that the new footings would have to be at the same elevation as the existing structure. I avoided this....I just can't remember how:sad:

I don't know if this applies to your project but thought I should write it.


----------



## jpollman (Jan 14, 2001)

Normally you can't place posts within the first 2-3 feet of a foundation wall unless you go all the way down to the footing. But this deck is 8' high and over a patio area of a walk out basement. I placed the posts only one foot off of the wall but because it's a walkout, this is no problem because of the walk out configuration.

Boy this job had turned into a nightmare. What seemed like a simple solution of just adding a second beam wasn't so. I dug all of the post holes and was waiting for post hole/ledger inspection when another problem smacked me right in the face. With all of the other crap going on it didn't even dawn on me until I was there looking at it while waiting for the inspector to arrive. The beam is only one foot off of the wall and it crossed right in front of a door! 

The inspector was going to be there at any time so I had to kick it into high gear to figure out what to do. The ultimate solution came to me pretty quickly. All I had to do was rotate the beams ninety degrees and make them perpendicular to the house. This gave me four short beams instead of two long ones. The post placement then cleared the door. Actually this was the way I had originally thought about doing the deck when we started talking about it last fall. Doing it this way allows me to run the decking boards perpendicular to the long wall of the house instead of parallel. The deck is 32' long by 10' deep. It fits up against the back wall of the original house structure and the end attaches to an addition that sticks out 10' beyond the back of the house. Now the decking is parallel to the addition instead of the original house. The nice part of this is that I'm using some pretty nice composite decking and going to use hidden fasteners. Doing it this way allows me to avoid having any seams in the decking. 

I'm already behind schedule due to the original design error and the inspector said that I had to submit a set of revised drawings for approval. Great, it took four weeks to get the original permit approved. Well the only drawing that really needed to be changed was the post/beam/joist layout diagram. So I drew a new one and was going to drop it off at the building department and keep my fingers crossed that it wouldn't take forever to get approved. Yesterday morning I headed over to the building department with the revised drawings. Instead of just dropping it at the counter and waiting, I asked if I could talk to the person who did the original plan review. She went and got him and he came up to the counter. I told him what was going on and in about five minutes he saw that the revision fell well within the allowable spans/spacing design specs so he pulled out his little red stamp and signed off on the revision. So by 8:45 a.m. the project was back on track! I came back to the job site and poured the concrete into the holes for the footings. Then loaded up the lumber that was incorrect for the new configuration and headed Wimsatt to exchange it for the correct stuff and buy a little additional that was required. As soon as I can get in touch with a guy to help me get these posts set, I can actually start framing today. 12' 6x6's are a little tough to handle alone. 

I'm hoping to have the bulk of the framing done by then end of the weekend.

John


----------

