You may see properties that have three fairly large but separate buildings, this is often someone skirting building codes in such a way that they stay within the letter of the law.
(Note: there are other things that are suboptimal about my garage, namely that it was built 100 years ago right on the property line and when it was rebuilt sometime later, it was allowed to stay there despite normally having a 5 foot setback requirement. As a result, this concrete block structure itself actually serves as part of the retaining wall and has moisture seepage issues from the uphill side. I actually think having the neighbor’s outbuilding covering that patch of land and managing the rainwater via my downspout helps the matter, because the ground between them gets no rainfall at all.)
It’s not so much that you shouldn’t be able to do it as that there’s no way we can do it without a permit.
In the original post, he's sloped the new roof back towards the house - huge issue where I live (Atlanta - we got a lot of heavy rain) since that's going to cause water entry in the basement or erosion on the foundation.
It can also be a fire hazard in many situations. Ex - in my area there's a mandated 10ft gap between the property line and any structure. It's there to prevent people from building right up to the property line, essentially creating townhomes, but with none of the fire/safety planning those require.
All that said - I agree with you, this code is likely there to discourage people trying to skirt around inspections (and because it's easy to spot).
Previously lived on clay soil above the freeze line: everything needed substantial gutters and routing away from home.
Now live in sandy soil below the freeze line: most people don't even have gutters.
So for new construction or reno, absolutely follow code! Why not?
But for old construction that doesn't have obvious dangers and has served its purpose across decades? Why fix what ain't broke? It's entirely possibly it's a perfectly viable alternative solution.
Also, as mentioned, sheds don’t usually need inspected. Sheds with power that act as extensions to the home should be (should = good idea) but might not be required, depending on location. Basically, some of these rules are to prevent uninspected/unpermitted extensions to the main dwelling.
You could try chatting up your electrician on a simpler house call, or you might be able to chum around on a Habitat for Humanity project and get a hook-up.
Most people try to avoid electrical wiring or plumbing repairs (other than faucets), because the blast radius is so high. The bravest I've gotten is rewiring a light fixture, and I went extra slow to make sure I didn't end up flying off the ladder. I taped a cup over the light switches so nobody could help, and it still felt like when you're trying to fish something out of the garbage disposal and keeping one eye on the switch to make sure nobody even looks at it.
I would argue that if inspections for safety reasons are why this is in code then code needs to remove this restriction and other rules should be put in place and inspections should become less expensive, easier to get done etc. Basically make it easier and less of a problem for people to get inspected. You will still get people that won't do one of course. Make it possible to inspect them anyway. Of course I understand that there are conflicting priorities at work here too. Meaning funding. The optimal way for everyone would be quite expensive. So we get suboptimal solutions that are sometimes "OK" to circumvent and sometimes not.
Here the bylaws for example allow one main structure, a shed and a detached garage (even if you have an attached one already). No need for roof overhang code stuff. The intent of the bylaw is also much more clear.
The guy in the article arguably is creating such a detached building. He is also in violation of rules about how far structures have to be from the property line assuming the rules in his place are like here and that fence is towards the neighbors.
Totally agreed, and this post is the perfect example of why: people should want to be inspected! The whole point of a city building code is to have rules to keep people safe in situations that aren't obvious to, e.g., the DIY shed-builder.
If I'm building a shed in the backyard, and I have the opportunity to call an employed expert to make sure I'm not gonna fuckin' kill somebody? Yes! Give me that!
Some elements are for safety. Some elements are aesthetic: give the town a coherent look and feel. Some elements are economic: promote property value, ban what could be seen as ugly or low class. Some elements regulate interactions between neighboring lots: setbacks, placement of windows, rules for fences and trees, limits on combining adjoining properties. Some elements serve redistributive or consumer protection goals: minimum dwelling sizes and features, standards for light and air. Some elements seek to curate the community's demographics. Obviously we regulate plumbing for safety and sanitation reasons. We also regulate plumbing to prevent illegal second kitchens, which could bring renters or multigenerational (immigrant) households into homes meant for affluent (white) nuclear families.
It is multifaceted, overlapping (safety at all costs? or find a way to price out the dirty poors and blame it on safety?), and different people at different times may be intentionally lying or genuinely confused about the intentions behind and effects of different rules. And that's just in theory. In practice there are whole other layers regarding what goes on at the permit counter, in variance/discretionary review hearings, and in day to day enforcement operations.
Instead, permits are a way to find ways to raise assessments and therefore property taxes. Given the recurring costs, it’s no surprise at all that a lot of work is done without inspections.
So unless you have some disagreement with tax in general or property tax specifically, I’ll argue that the permitting and inspection process in most cities is a good thing for society despite the personal hassle. It ensures that buildings are safe and helps the city assess the changing value of homes.
Quick edit: I will acknowledge that your point is correct that inspections and taxes cause a lot of work to be done without notifying the city and hoping they don’t notice.
Elsewhere in this thread someone mentioned that nails and screws are not interchangeable, but there are situations like decks where nails also aren't sufficient. You need carriage bolts.
