11-01-2011 - notice for permit appl.

Home Browse Search

dangerous and did not comply with codes because people could fall through the railing. In response, Dale repaired the upper deck to comply with code, but he did not leave an opening for a stairway because someone could fall through that. The replacement of the lower deck, stairway and repair of the sliding glass door was postponed until this summer. I do not know who applied for permits or how many were obtained. I assume the construction companies and/or contractors did that. But when an inspector was here I specifically asked whether the work on the decks required permits and I was specifically told that the repair of the deck did NOT require a permit. I assume the inspectors know their job, too, so I continue to believe that is the case! Especially since we did immediately fix the "dangerous railing" on the upper deck, I expected that your office would be satisfied if not pleased. However, because I am a lawyer, and because I know permits are required for just about anything, I did call the city last spring to reconfirm that no permit was required and the lady who talked to me on the phone said the same thing the inspector said! Therefore, I still do not believe a permit is necessary because I do not think two of your employees (if not yourself) could have made such an error. I believe there is a misunderstanding of what is happening here on your part. This is NOT a new deck. It has NOT been enlarged or changed except for cosmetic differences. First, there was a railing on the old deck and that has not yet been replaced so it does look different. Second, we had a big bush at the end of the deck originally planted to conceal propane tanks (which sat on the end of the wooden deck but have since been removed). The big bush had grown to the second story and was removed which also changes the appearance. (A similar bush remains and may be removed depending on what it looks like when we are finished.) Otherwise, the deck is the same as it was before including the walkway on the side! The only major change was using treated lumber instead of cedar. In retrospect I can see that the stairway between the two decks may have required a permit. Whether or not that was mentioned to you or your inspectors is unknown. (It was always my desire and was part of my discussions with contractors over a year ago during the first construction projects so it might have been mentioned.) The third cosmetic change involved is the removal of the dirt and build up on top of the end of the deck where the propane tanks were. The cedar boards were entirely covered and the rotted wood had to be removed. (It is still here if you want to see it!) You have asked for pictures but I am not sure I have any. Pictures of my house from the lake would show the railing, not the deck (and the railing was only around one end where the deck was higher than the ground). I would have had no reason to take a picture of the deck and as a practical matter it was seldom used because it was on the east side of the house and blocked from the afternoon sun (so I have no informal pictures that also show the deck). While I agree with you that a permit should have been obtained for the stairway, I see absolutely no reason to get a survey when the stairway is OVER the lower deck and does not protrude further onto the lawn! Moreover, I see no reason for architectural plans or engineering reviews to replace the boards on a deck that had been approved by your office many years ago and verbally