Words matter...need internet lawyer keyboard warrior interpretation.

Shawn

Shawn

En-Route
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
4,326
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Shawn
Do I need a permit?

In dealing with idiocracy of County bureaucracy I have learned that every and/or/comma matter to the nuance of applicability of regulations and legal cases have been won and lost on grammar and punctuation regardless of intent....so need help with this one:


"(A) Building Permits. A building permit shall not be required for the following:

(5) Decks at one- and two-family dwelling units not exceeding 200 square feet in area, that are not more than 30 inches above grade at any point, are not attached to a dwelling and do not serve any egress door."



So if I want to build a deck that IS over 200 Sq ft in area, under 30", not attached to a dwelling and does NOT serve any egress door do I need a permit?

The "and do not serve any egress door" wording is what is throwing me off especially with no comma after "dwelling" vs. if it read "or do not serve..." because to me in legal terms the "and" means BOTH conditions before and after the "and" would have to be present to trigger the permit requirement but the lack of comma is making me unsure.

What say you?

Bonus point if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
 
Last edited:
Permit, because of the words in front of the comma after (5). You need read no further in that provision.
 
The missing Oxford comma is throwing you off? You assign too much sophistication to the people who wrote the rule. Until that past 5 years, nobody used an Oxford comma and this is a list of 4 items, all of which must be met to avoid a permit.

greater than 200 ft, you need a permit.
 
Shawn said:
Do I need a permit?

In dealing with idiocracy of County bureaucracy I have learned that every and/or/comma matter to the nuance of applicability of regulations and legal cases have been won and lost on grammar and punctuation regardless of intent....so need help with this one:

What say you?
Click to expand...

I say call the building/zoning inspector's office and ask. That's what I did when I had a similar question.
 
NOT (A and B and C and D) = A or B or C or D. Assuming I did not mess that up pre-caffeine soak.

bflynn said:
The missing Oxford comma is throwing you off?
Click to expand...
As a non-lawyer, I enjoy reading the legal cases around this. Entertaining.

EDIT. Nope. Needed the caffeine.
NOT (A and B and C and D) = NOT A or NOT B or NOT C or NOT D
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
The "and do not serve any egress door" wording is what is throwing me off especially with no comma after "dwelling" vs. if it read "or do not serve..." because to me in legal terms the "and" means BOTH conditions before and after the "and" would have to be present to trigger the permit requirement but the lack of comma is making me unsure.
Click to expand...

It is technically correct to put a comma before an 'and' when it connects two independent clauses.

https://www.scribbr.com/commas/comma-before-or-after-and/
 
1. Would your neighbors be able to see the deck?
2. Are any of your neighbors named Karen?
 
bflynn said:
The missing Oxford comma is throwing you off? You assign too much sophistication to the people who wrote the rule. Until that past 5 years, nobody used an Oxford comma and this is a list of 4 items, all of which must be met to avoid a permit.

greater than 200 ft, you need a permit.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm nobody then... as long as I can remember I have used it. Several decades longer than 5 years. I know it's considered acceptable to leave it out but it just seems wrong to my eye..... I guess that's how some grade school teacher taught me and it stuck
Here's a good book on the topic of punctuation errors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_&_Leaves
(disclaimer: I'm an engineer and not an english major...not even close!)
 
Who would ever know that you didn't get a building permit for a deck? Seriously, such a bunch of government overreach. I could understand if this was some free-standing deck 10' up in the air, or a balcony. However, it being attached to a house should lessen the risk vs a free-standing deck, and it makes no difference if there's a door into the house or not.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Who would ever know that you didn't get a building permit for a deck? Seriously, such a bunch of government overreach.
Click to expand...

I agree and would totally do it underground as it is a rural lot and I only want 240 sq feet but will be doing some projects in then near future that will also likely involve County inspectors coming back and this will be a known property to them as a new development that just went through approval.

kyleb said:
I say call the building/zoning inspector's office and ask. That's what I did when I had a similar question.
Click to expand...

I have learned that common sense does not prevail in my County and all the staff uses the nuance of every reg to stop and hinder projects rather than help them proceed forward within the spirit of the law so the fewer cans of worms I open the better.

Tools said:
Build two freestanding decks right next to each other, smaller than 200 ftsq each.
Click to expand...

Good idea and funny you say this cuz I have a long driveway...but want to use a portion for an ADU but can not use "existing driveway" per there County regs so I have to cut the driveway and make it two separate pads side by side to comply...its bonkers.
 
Last edited:
Brad W said:
disclaimer: I'm an engineer and not an english major...not even close!
Click to expand...
English majors shouldn’t be allowed to write technical documents.

One of my favorites from an AFM Supplement:
POSSIBLE INACCURATE POWER SETTINGS. AVOID FAST THROTTLE MOVEMENT.
IF NO THRUST LEVER RESPONSE, ENGINE OPERATION CAN CONTINUE, IF WITHIN LIMITS. IF AIRCRAFT SITUATION PERMITS, SHUT DOWN ENGINE BY SETTING THRUST LEVER TO SHUTDOWN POSITION.

So…is it a throttle or a thrust lever? And why is the shutdown position labeled OFF?

Granted, this probably wasn’t an English major…I’m pretty sure it was combining terminologies from two different engine manufacturers into one airplane. But English majors like to mix and match words, too.
 
While many communities may require permits for decks and sheds and such, in practice not all of those communities inspect the build unless a neighbor objects and calls the building inspector.

So, are you on good terms with your neighbors?

When I built a shed I did follow all the setback requirements, but I was pretty sure my neighbors wouldn't complain if I had put the shed right on the line. All three abutting neighbors had a shed on the property line (i.e., didn't comply with code).
 
SoonerAviator said:
Who would ever know that you didn't get a building permit for a deck? Seriously, such a bunch of government overreach. I could understand if this was some free-standing deck 10' up in the air, or a balcony. However, it being attached to a house should lessen the risk vs a free-standing deck, and it makes no difference if there's a door into the house or not.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
 
SoonerAviator said:
Who would ever know that you didn't get a building permit for a deck? Seriously, such a bunch of government overreach. I could understand if this was some free-standing deck 10' up in the air, or a balcony. However, it being attached to a house should lessen the risk vs a free-standing deck, and it makes no difference if there's a door into the house or not.
Click to expand...
I was looking to buy an investment property a number of years ago. The deck was not permitted, and the basement was half way through being finished. With the missing insulation, I could see the deck was bolted to the plywood exterior sheath, not to the rim joist or beams.

There usually is a reason the regulations exist. Usually due to blood.... (living in a nanny state, I admit sometimes regulations to go to far)

Tim
 
Brad W said:
I guess I'm nobody then... as long as I can remember I have used it.
Click to expand...

Not what I said. A list without or without an Oxford comma is still a list. Both forms are used in the US and one should not attach significance to the absence of it.
 
tspear said:
I was looking to buy an investment property a number of years ago. The deck was not permitted, and the basement was half way through being finished. With the missing insulation, I could see the deck was bolted to the plywood exterior sheath, not to the rim joist or beams.

There usually is a reason the regulations exist. Usually due to blood.... (living in a nanny state, I admit sometimes regulations to go to far)

Tim
Click to expand...

The permit rules don't exist to protect the homeowner; they exist to protect either guests or the next person that buys the house from shoddy work that wouldn't be obvious to an untrained eye. Somewhat like the FARs, which don't care much if a pilot wants to do something stupid to kill him/herself, but care a whole lot if you're brining passengers into the mix (and even more if those passengers are paying).
 
SoonerAviator said:
Who would ever know that you didn't get a building permit for a deck? Seriously, such a bunch of government overreach. I could understand if this was some free-standing deck 10' up in the air, or a balcony. However, it being attached to a house should lessen the risk vs a free-standing deck, and it makes no difference if there's a door into the house or not.
Click to expand...

Here, they do surveys from Google Earth photos and the like and can see if you stuck an out-building in the back 40 or a bigger deck on your house. I'm sure the software has the ability to notify the tax and zoning people of changes, 'cause that's the only reason to have the software in the first place.
 
So I'm reading this to mean that you have to get 400 square feet of camo netting. I would suggest "solar panel" as the color.
 
Albany Tom said:
So I'm reading this to mean that you have to get 400 square feet of camo netting. I would suggest "solar panel" as the color.
Click to expand...
Of course, they’ll be looking to see if you pulled a permit for the electrical work.
 
tspear said:
I was looking to buy an investment property a number of years ago. The deck was not permitted, and the basement was half way through being finished. With the missing insulation, I could see the deck was bolted to the plywood exterior sheath, not to the rim joist or beams.

There usually is a reason the regulations exist. Usually due to blood.... (living in a nanny state, I admit sometimes regulations to go to far)

Tim
Click to expand...

I understand there is liability they are attempting to mitigate. In this proposed scenario, if you build a deck that attaches to a house that is 200 sqft vs 200sq ft of free standing deck that abuts the house, why does the one that attaches to the house present a problem that requires a building permit? I mean you could literally build two identical decks, but just toss some lag bolts into the house foundation and only the one with lag bolts is subject to needing a permit. Same goes for a free-standing deck that abuts the house (but isn't "attached") needing a permit simply because an exterior door from the home goes out onto it. Some things are written in blood, others are trying to get blood from a turnip.
 
@SoonerAviator

They have to draw the line somewhere. from the outside it likely appears as arbitrary.
In terms of deck size, I know this one, at least according to the regs back in MD when i built a deck there a decade ago.
Below 200 sqr feet and freestanding, the deck is small and simple enough to normally be built with a single set of rim joists or beams, and the four corner posts. The chance for builder mistakes is significantly reduced since there are no complicated joins. It also from a practical standpoint also limits the number of people who can stand on it limiting potential 3rd party injuries.

Decks attached to a house normally have one or two sides supported by the house and do not have posts on the side(s) attached to the home. Considering the poor attachment, I mentioned above, this is just one of the myriad reasons decks attached to a home would need to be inspected.

Your hypothetical example, is actually a bad one.

Tim
 
I live in an over-regulated area. I use "professional" judgement on what i get permits for at home and at work. Work has me involved in 5 states and they all are over-regulated, in my opinion. Since you are planning on additional work that will be permitted, I would simply build the deck you want without permit but, construct according to code. The inspector will likely not bother to look to see if you got a permit for something if you have them there for another permitted project. In the event they do notice the unpermitted deck (which they won't unless its built noticeably out of code). Plead ignorance (i.e. I thought the code said under 300 sqft..) I have had inspectors look squarely at things I didn't permit and not say a thing. If they do say something, a simple statement like "as you can see I take code compliance seriously which is why I made sure to pull a permit on this project. If the deck needs permitting, I will go to the planning office tomorrow and add it to this permit or pull a separate permit." The inspectors are mostly box checkers, with some exceptions.
 
Shawn said:
Do I need a permit?

In dealing with idiocracy of County bureaucracy I have learned that every and/or/comma matter to the nuance of applicability of regulations and legal cases have been won and lost on grammar and punctuation regardless of intent....so need help with this one:


"(A) Building Permits. A building permit shall not be required for the following:

(5) Decks at one- and two-family dwelling units not exceeding 200 square feet in area, that are not more than 30 inches above grade at any point, are not attached to a dwelling and do not serve any egress door."



So if I want to build a deck that IS over 200 Sq ft in area, under 30", not attached to a dwelling and does NOT serve any egress door do I need a permit?

The "and do not serve any egress door" wording is what is throwing me off especially with no comma after "dwelling" vs. if it read "or do not serve..." because to me in legal terms the "and" means BOTH conditions before and after the "and" would have to be present to trigger the permit requirement but the lack of comma is making me unsure.

What say you?

Bonus point if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
Click to expand...
You haven't provided enough of the regulation to answer if you need a permit. But I'm confident your project doesn't fall within the quoted exception.
 
kyleb said:
Here, they do surveys from Google Earth photos and the like and can see if you stuck an out-building in the back 40 or a bigger deck on your house. I'm sure the software has the ability to notify the tax and zoning people of changes, 'cause that's the only reason to have the software in the first place.
Click to expand...

We did some work for a company called Plant Labs...Google actually sold their imaging satellites to them and they are now the backend of Google Maps...they now have enough satellites in orbit to take 3 meter resolution picture of the entire land mass of the earth EVERY SINGLE DAY...but they are really a data company that sells those images to customers like Google Maps and end users like farmers to see crop trends on both a subscription or one time use model.

One of their markets is to Government agencies for things like code compliance. The Sheriff no longer needs to go fly over with a helicopter looking for weed grows...they can buy a monthly subscription and just look at satellite images of their County for new greenhouses and grows as they pop up comparing to previous mapping...it is good enough resolution to make out a car but not as good as to recognize a person on license plate...but they can position those higher res satellites as needed.

It is scary stuff of what they now can do...and see..and sell...

The impressive part is that these things are the size of an average carryon suitcase and the radio antenna is the size of a hacksaw blade! I thought it was just a scale model when I first saw one in person...was blown away.
 
Last edited:
Tools said:
Build two freestanding decks right next to each other, smaller than 200 ftsq each.
Click to expand...

And do it so that they're exactly the same distance apart as the deck boards, but not in any way physically connected to each other.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Who would ever know that you didn't get a building permit for a deck? Seriously, such a bunch of government overreach. I could understand if this was some free-standing deck 10' up in the air, or a balcony. However, it being attached to a house should lessen the risk vs a free-standing deck, and it makes no difference if there's a door into the house or not.
Click to expand...

When you go to sell the property and the home inspector wants to see or pulls the permit records.
 
bflynn said:
I find that a ridiculous ruling since reading it as two separate list makes the grammar of the sentence fall apart. It becomes more difficult to understand and nullifies wording in the law. I suspect something else, like a pro worker Court, was in play.
Click to expand...

Include the comma and there's no ambiguity. Look how many of the CFRs need interpretations because of poorly constructed language.
 
EdFred said:
Include the comma and there's no ambiguity. Look how many of the CFRs need interpretations because of poorly constructed language.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. However, I also don't believe there is ambiguity in doing what American English has done for centuries. I read the judge's decision and it was clear the decision was made first to side with the workers and the justification came later.

Regardless - I would not try this kind of punctuation smithing with the FAA.
 
tspear said:
@SoonerAviator

They have to draw the line somewhere. from the outside it likely appears as arbitrary.
In terms of deck size, I know this one, at least according to the regs back in MD when i built a deck there a decade ago.
Below 200 sqr feet and freestanding, the deck is small and simple enough to normally be built with a single set of rim joists or beams, and the four corner posts. The chance for builder mistakes is significantly reduced since there are no complicated joins. It also from a practical standpoint also limits the number of people who can stand on it limiting potential 3rd party injuries.

Decks attached to a house normally have one or two sides supported by the house and do not have posts on the side(s) attached to the home. Considering the poor attachment, I mentioned above, this is just one of the myriad reasons decks attached to a home would need to be inspected.

Your hypothetical example, is actually a bad one.

Tim
Click to expand...

My hypothetical example was simply showing that having a 200 sq ft deck with a post at each corner, but "attached" to the house is no less safe than a deck with a post at each corner and abutting the house (but not attached). The fact that the regulations only required a permit for the one attached to a house despite structurally being identical. It's just a case of trying to make the policy as broad as possible for simplicity (which also has the effect of increasing permit revenues). I seriously doubt there has been a rash of deaths from 28" high decks not properly constructed.
 
@SoonerAviator

There is a choice:
  • You can make the rules fairly simple such as posited above in which case there are many examples like the poorly designed deck you stipulate violate the regulations.
  • You can make the rules extremely complex and have a few thousand scenarios listed.
  • You can have no rules, in which case the next person could be screwed.
Personally, although not perfectly optimal, I like the simple version.

Tim
 
You are missing the paragraph denoting penalties for not having a permit. If the penalty is less than the cost of the permit, then it could be perceived a permit is not required.

My village penalty is like triple the cost of the permit and dollar fines per day without permit so not a good option for me.
 
masloki said:
You are missing the paragraph denoting penalties for not having a permit. If the penalty is less than the cost of the permit, then it could be perceived a permit is not required.
Click to expand...

No, but that reminds me of when we used to regularly work in a city with delivery trucks that we had to unload and leave parked nearby for the day...a paid lot was $40+ halfway across town and to feed the meter all day was over $50+ taking up 2 spots but we learned that a parking ticket was only $28 so we told our guys to just park, NOT feed the meeter and we only got a $28 ticket no more than 50% of the time and could typically park closer!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top